Free-Market Regulation

[Oddball]

Whatever.

Referring to employment as a form of theft was a dead giveaway.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

 

[Oddball]

Oh look, agnapostate came back again.

Yeah...I just made the connection.

Say buh-bye, Agnes.

 

[Oddball]

Oh look, agnapostate came back again.

You always know it's him when market socialism is being contrasted to Marxism in a post, with a passing mention of Austrian.

He never passes up on an opportunity to call out oft-cited comparisons made by people between Marxism and market socialism.

No, it's not Agnes.

I ran into "scucca" over at the now defunct Hardcore Politics forum.

He's as stupid and insidious a commie as Agnes, without the pedophilia.

BTW...Ban lifted.

 

[namaan]

You can't have the market without the arithmetic, even if you call it "barter." Quantity involves arithmetic. A market model requires arithmetic. The usual arithmetic used is on a currency, and that is in the income scale.

@mascale, since you were consistent across both your posts, I guess you do have a fairly solid understanding about the contents of your post. Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, I actually get rather interested in differing ways of interpreting the same idea. But man, I thought I had a habit of writing abstractly.

If I understand the quote above, most of it is just self-evident (aside from the income scale part, you mean economic stratification? Not that it would make anymore sense...). Anyway, as per your following quote, could you explain how you make a connection between national currencies and market freedom? And what exactly your definition of freedom is (since I went over in previous posts how this definition isn't something to be stated lightly).

No Market is free, especially with national currencies involved!

 

[Paulie]

Oh look, agnapostate came back again.

You always know it's him when market socialism is being contrasted to Marxism in a post, with a passing mention of Austrian.

He never passes up on an opportunity to call out oft-cited comparisons made by people between Marxism and market socialism.

No, it's not Agnes.

I ran into "scucca" over at the now defunct Hardcore Politics forum.

He's as stupid and insidious a commie as Agnes, without the pedophilia.

BTW...Ban lifted.

There goes my 1.000 batting average on that one

I bet they know each other though. Only THAT specific group talks like that.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah...Mine too.

 

[mascale]

Markets are about economic survival, and mostly get manipulated to one or another advantage. Clearly, a high income can purchase more than a low income. The market is instantly in a manipulated state.

That has nothing to do with advertising, deception, duplicity, or other manipulation forms. The poor couldn't afford the mortgages. The rich houses all came tumbling down. The market had failed completely.

"Free Market" tends to be associated with "laizzez faire" types of concepts--keeping additional regulators out of the market place. The "Leave It Be" concept of a "free," "democratic," market of "choice-makers," voting with their feet or whatever: Is basis-free.

In fact, it doesn't even work. Regulation is more or less required to make the whole thing work. That is because of the arithmetic, completely.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, not Stirred!"
(Anyone would say that arithmetic has been around a lot longer than the Scottish Presbyterian Church, if we read our Julius Ceasar commentaries correctly(?), (or maybe not--like I know from Latin, Aramaic, or other common language)!)

 

[Oddball]

"Free Market" tends to be associated with "laizzez faire" types of concepts--keeping additional regulators out of the market place. The "Leave It Be" concept of a "free," "democratic," market of "choice-makers," voting with their feet or whatever: Is basis-free.

Riiiight...That's why the cocaine trade is as brisk today as ever, because hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to "regulate" it out of existence.

Here, you really need one of these:

 

[mascale]

Given events on-going in Afghanistan, the Party-of-Lincoln caused increase of poppy production would be said to have countered any other regulation. Just somehow, it was easy to keep it out-of-public-sight.

Secondly, many drug-users tend to be high-end income at any rate: Which is about the difficulty of regulation in the first place.

Anyone notices that the credit markets are more and more at issue in the current crisis, public discussion, unlike in past crises. Ben Bernanke started tinkering with the credit market, way before the Bush Stimulus, the Paulson TARP. TARP was all about the credit market. Even like Karl Marx originally suggested in the Manifesto, The Credit Market is entirely regulated, and even relatively centralized.

The concept that credit winds up in the income scale is only starting to surface. in 2010, the U. S. federal income tax will have a refundable credit. A large chunk--maybe even a majority--will be getting refunds, even if they owe nothing.

Income scale regulation, which started with the 1986 tax reform, will advance a step further within days.

Likely even Mendocino County, California, understand this!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Even in Venice, CA, they understand. Los Angeles City Parks and Recs even re-planted the lawn, after the medical marijuana dispensaries opened--discussing regulation in the marketplace!)

 

[2Parties]

I agree? Hence why I'm confused about what your point is. In fact the semantics of what a state is isn't too relevant to the point of this piece.

You need to expand a definition of what "rights" mean to you for me to clarify what I'm talking about. Do you believe negative rights or positive rights?

You're basically saying that everyone should have a right to do whatever (s)he pleases.

Not exactly. You are assuming that is what I'm saying but it's not.

Not to be rude, but while that may work in a fairy tail, in the real world, not every citizen of a nation is informed enough or even cares enough to impart authority for the good of all.

Why do you believe that authority is imparted for the good of all to begin with? I do not believe that.

This isn't a pessimistic view; it's only reality that some centralized institution has to be given authority over the state. The degree of authority is up for debate of course, but there's no credible nation without such an institution.

What is a "credible nation" and why do we need one?

Again, as far as the point of the piece is concerned, I don't understand how this is relevant (also read: what's your point? ). That sentence you quoted was only meant to point out the existence of collectivism, not its quality (good or bad).

I don't agree with your definition of "collectivism".

Anyway, whether or not you decide to enter into or agree to this contract doesn't matter and isn't an excuse.

You seem kind of stubborn for someone looking to learn. Why doesn't it matter and why isn't it an excuse? If you are forced into a marriage contract by your parents does your lack of decision and opposition not a valid excuse "just because"?

Consider the (simplified) story about Socrates; he was jailed and his friends offered to help him escape. But he decided against it. He understood that by the mere fact that he had lived in the city state all those years, he implicitly agreed with the social contract binding him to his state.

What justifies some individuals creating a contract that you implicitly agree with?

After all, it's the state that had been providing him with security & stability, infrastructure, institutions, access to knowledge and resources, etc.

How is that any different (in principal) than the mob forcing you to buy protection from them?

For example, if a person had to physically agree to some written form of the social contract, than, strictly speaking, what's to stop someone from not signing it and saying that they didn't know they were obligated in anyway to serve their nation in a time of war?

A draft is slavery. Why should or would anyone voluntarily become a slave or dupe?

On what basis would you implement a draft?

I wouldn't.

Well, that's it for now, thanks for your feedback.

No problem.

 

[Paulie]

"Free Market" tends to be associated with "laizzez faire" types of concepts--keeping additional regulators out of the market place. The "Leave It Be" concept of a "free," "democratic," market of "choice-makers," voting with their feet or whatever: Is basis-free.

Riiiight...That's why the cocaine trade is as brisk today as ever, because hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to "regulate" it out of existence.

Here, you really need one of these:

that's priceless!

 

[Toro]

Actually, "pure" capitalism, if there was such a thing, would work in spite of human "failings" ...

Ther e isn't. People confuse the economic spectrum (from command to laissez faire) with political economy. Capitalism is prone to crisis. This is encouraged by human failings that generate market concentration problems. Government regulations then becomes a vital aspect of the reproduction of profit. The US, for example, has been largely reliant on her military sector to maintain stability: from the generation of innovation (describing basic market failure in technological progress) to demand managment.

There's no such thing as demand management.

If the "war" on (some) drugs doesn't prove that, nothing does.

I have no idea what that bolded sentence means.

 

[2Parties]

I have no idea what that bolded sentence means.

What I took from it is "The government needs to create wars (thereby creating military funding/technology) to advance technology because without wars and taxation people would not voluntarily advance technology for their own benefit"

 

[Toro]

There goes my 1.000 batting average on that one

I bet they know each other though. Only THAT specific group talks like that.

It can't be Agna.

Not once did he mention anarcho-syndicalism communism.

 

[Oddball]

I have no idea what that bolded sentence means.

What I took from it is "The government needs to create wars (thereby creating military funding/technology) to advance technology because without wars and taxation people would not voluntarily advance technology for their own benefit"

Perzactly.

Words to the wise...Limey is a hard core Soviet communist.
I've dealt with him before.

 

[Toro]

I have no idea what that bolded sentence means.

What I took from it is "The government needs to create wars (thereby creating military funding/technology) to advance technology because without wars and taxation people would not voluntarily advance technology for their own benefit"

That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard then.

The creation of all human wealth and economic progress is dependent upon technological innovation to lower cost curves. Currently, about 2% of the US economy is for spending on military stuff, less than the value all the goods sold at Wal-Mart. If true, that 2% is responsible for all the technological innovation in America as productivity grows at a rate of about 2% a year. Thus all military procurement spending would account for all technological progress in the country.

Pretty silly and pretty clueless for anyone who has any inkling of what occurs in the real world.

 

[Oddball]

I have no idea what that bolded sentence means.

What I took from it is "The government needs to create wars (thereby creating military funding/technology) to advance technology because without wars and taxation people would not voluntarily advance technology for their own benefit"

That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard then.

The creation of all human wealth and economic progress is dependent upon technological innovation to lower cost curves. Currently, about 2% of the US economy is for spending on military stuff, less than the value all the goods sold at Wal-Mart. If true, that 2% is responsible for all the technological innovation in America as productivity grows at a rate of about 2% a year. Thus all military procurement spending would account for all technological progress in the country.

Pretty silly and pretty clueless for anyone who has any inkling of what occurs in the real world.

That's Limey for ya.

Toldja he's off his rocker.

 

[Paulie]

There goes my 1.000 batting average on that one

I bet they know each other though. Only THAT specific group talks like that.

It can't be Agna.

Not once did he mention anarcho-syndicalism communism.

Not specifically, but the poster sure did seem to be tip toeing up to it as though that's where he was going to take the discussion.

Agna loves it when people link Marxism with his version of a communal marketplace. It sets him off.

 

[namaan]

Oh COMEOOOOOON! Did you (2Parties) just disagree with every single point I made on my previous post? Doesn't sound like the makings of a good dialogue if you ask me. In fact, that seems rather impossible if it weren't for someone deliberately looking for faults. And no, I didn't take issue with every single part of your post. Rationalizing one's logic can be a dangerous, never-ending game, let me tell ya.

I'm not going to go through every single point, partly for the sake of damage control, and partly because I just don't have the time.

You need to expand a definition of what "rights" mean to you for me to clarify what I'm talking about. Do you believe negative rights or positive rights?

Like I keep saying: it doesn't matter. This isn't me being uninquisitive, I just happen to be talking about rights, all rights, so the type of rights isn't relevant.

Not to be rude, but while that may work in a fairy tail, in the real world, not every citizen of a nation is informed enough or even cares enough to impart authority for the good of all.

Why do you believe that authority is imparted for the good of all to begin with? I do not believe that.

This isn't a pessimistic view; it's only reality that some centralized institution has to be given authority over the state. The degree of authority is up for debate of course, but there's no credible nation without such an institution.

What is a "credible nation" and why do we need one?

Again, as far as the point of the piece is concerned, I don't understand how this is relevant (also read: what's your point? ). That sentence you quoted was only meant to point out the existence of collectivism, not its quality (good or bad).

I don't agree with your definition of "collectivism".

I don't want to have to discredit completely someone's thought process, but in this case, I should say it would do you some good to more carefully consider what you are saying here. It's childish. I mean a credible nation, based on the context, what could I mean except essentially every nation on the planet? And I doubt it's possible for you to not agree with my definition of collectivism.

I can tell that your reasoning seems to stem from your hatred for the status quo, so a natural response for most people who do so is to question the legitimacy of every aspect of the status quo. This simply isn't a realistic approach. You have to take the good with the bad. Sure, I'm no fan of the status quo either, but no one's going to change anything by lashing out against any and everything good that can be said about it.

Anyway, whether or not you decide to enter into or agree to this contract doesn't matter and isn't an excuse.

You seem kind of stubborn for someone looking to learn. Why doesn't it matter and why isn't it an excuse? If you are forced into a marriage contract by your parents does your lack of decision and opposition not a valid excuse "just because"?

Again, it doesn't matter because, in this case, it just so happens to not matter; it isn't because I don't have an inquisitive mind, I can assure you. It simply isn't a realistic proposition if every single person born had to voluntarily decide at some point to enter or not enter the social contract.

Do you even understand what it would entail to not enter it? It means you would have to at the very least leave your country immediately. You would in fact be hypocritical to live in a country that provides you with benefits of civilization while not holding yourself obligated to the social contract. And don't bother looking for a nation that would allow you live in such hypocritical terms; again, no credible nation (read every nation) would allow it. In fact the only truly non-hypocritical way of removing yourself from the contract is if you wanted to live completely off the grid like the uni-bomber. Yes, he could say he removed himself from the social contract.

I seriously doubt you want to live like that. Just food for thought taken with a grain of salt

 

[namaan]

Not specifically, but the poster sure did seem to be tip toeing up to it as though that's where he was going to take the discussion.

LOL, no. I was just curious what he had to say. It was brain-teasing.