Hi I've just been watching a clip on youtube concerning how devaluation is bad, how it is something we don't want.
At first this seems obvious but I think devaluation also has good points.
in a economy where money retains identical value if a man gives 1million units of exchange to his son and that son doubles his money and gives two million to his son etc untill the great grandson has 10million then the great grandson has 10million pounds.
in an economy where the money loses value via whatever means say by 1000% per generation then the final 10million is worth nothing.
sorry for any logic errors in my maths here but you get the idea.
so the great grandson has done nothing to earn the money and has nothing to show for it. if he wants ten million he must use the value within himself and that value will be a representation of his realative value to society.
this alows a natural cycle that resets itself in a way that money is continuously flowwing back to the sea, before being picked up and returned to represent the value of new individuals. I think it is a very dynamic and flexible system that may at first seem flawed but is infact the interferance that is needed for a complex society. And I think devaluation cycles lead to a fairer meritocracy.
Please argue.
How is having less to spend good? I trust by devaluation you mean the loss of purchasing power due to inflation? This only harms savers, and individuals whose earnings do not keep pace with inflation. If the devaluation is achieved via credit expansion, the market distortions are even more horrific. As far as I can tell, all inflation does is make individuals poorer, and displaces incentives to be future-oriented in the use of one's wealth.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
To be precise, devaluation (aka inflation) is good for some people in society and bad for other people in society. It is bad for people who are long in money, that is to say people who have savings accounts, bonds, or long-term money-denominated contracts. It is good for people who are on the other side of those deals.
You can be sure that very rich people are not long in money.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Or if you look at devaluation as deflationary, as losing value. Over time if money is saved, vast amounts of capital accumulated, allowing for such expensive things as space travel.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
You're making a lot of assumptions that are just plain wrong. First of all, you assume that saving is bad. Saving and investment are the catalysts for economic growth. If it weren't for centuries of saving we'd be living in caves right now. The countries with the highest inflation and with the most consumer and government spending are the countries that are the poorest. Look at Zimbabwe or Chile before it was turned around.
Secondly, you're assuming that children inheriting wealth is somehow wrong. Why? How?
Lastly, you act as if high inflation doesn't screw up economic calculation. We all know that's wrong.
Political Atheists Blog
You assume nobody within those three generations is smart enough to put the money in stocks, or gold, or an interest bearing account.
NASA
I don’t think space travel is really a big priority right now:)
LESS MONEY = :):):)
Less to spend can be good because this is a society. Not about me and you. Society involves compromise. Taxes may not aid the individual but they’re necessary for society. As I’m explaining more below I believe inflation/devaluation prevents money pooling which can (I believe) increase the natural values of people artificially and de-stabilize society.
SPADE S
I did not assume saving was bad. Saving is keeping something that may be of use later. This can be a bad thing and a good thing. Saving a spade for next time you need to dig up potatoes may be a good thing. Saving 100 spades may be a bad thing. If I have 100 spades that’s 99 people that don’t have spades. If there is a limited amount of spades and they wear out ever ten years then it is more likely the spades will be evenly distributed and everyone will have potato wedges for tea.
HYPER INFLATION:(
I’m not arguing for high or hyper inflation, I’m arguing for balance, a cycle that sees wealth redistributed gradually and not pooled. I believe this balance includes intentional devaluation. I don’t think I or anyone would use Zimbabwe as a model for a successful economy.
PEOPLE VALUE PASSING ON VALUE AND POOLING
Some people are always going to have more assets that other people because they are considered more valuable to society. I accept this as fair because it is true and they will usually float to the top regardless of the context. These people are likely to form a group of similarly valuable people, which has some degree of discrimination towards lower groups. Again this is acceptable to a degree. What I don’t think should happen is them artificially increasing that value from their starting point. Say person A has a value of 11; person B has a value of 10. person A is 10% more valuable than person B. Whatever the scenario is within that society person A gets 10% more than person B in general terms averaged out that is: money, items, popularity, women. In a `free` society that is `reset` to zero generationally then this percentage will remain the same. Intense interference from societies rule makers can interfere with this percent and the passing on of culture and assets can interfere with the percent. A good example of this would be a man that goes back in time a thousand years. His knowledge could potential see him become a god vastly more valuable relative to his context...but in fact his genetic value remains relatively the same. This would be an example of knowledge pooling via cultural hand-me-downs and a kind of relative poverty for his worshipers. His true value is obscured and he can manipulate society from the point of view of one man. I feel society should be manipulated by many voices and a degree of bureaucracy. Slow is safe.
So there are two things that I can see at the moment that interfere with the true relative value of a man in his context. Society interference and the transference of non biological value, be it money or knowledge etc. You could say it was part of mans nature to pool resources into individuals and groups but I personally want society rather mans nature. I don’t see man’s nature working out too well for me ;)
Money can be used as power and if one group pools enough money they can manipulate the rest of society. Business will be more powerful than politicians and I believe it will be an alternative route to unregulated extreme regimes. I think we can see this happening to a certain extent already today. We have monopoly regulations for these reasons I believe. To protect an environment of competition. Man will seek any way he can to dominate other men. It is in his animal nature, and that’s why we have society.
So people of greater value should be allowed the freedom to be more valuable without being able to dominate other men and become more powerful than the society itself. This would mean striking a balance between non biological transference and the rules that regulate it.
Saving is not bad....but saving too much might be. I think the best way to manage the economy and things in general effectively is to have a tool box of strategies to prevent extremes. I believe intentional devaluation can be bad and it can also be good, what is important is that it is never too good or too bad.
martinglake:I think the best way to manage the economy and things in general effectively is to have a tool box of strategies to prevent extremes.
For all intents and purposes, the market does this.
martinglake:I believe intentional devaluation can be bad and it can also be good, what is important is that it is never too good or too bad.
The market can achieve this.
good point. got me there:)
that was a reply to harksaw. Libety student...I guess what I'm saying is that yes the current system does this and that I think the current system isn't so bad. its argumentative and imperfect but generally it seems to have balance to it.
What current system? We don't have a free market.
LESS MONEY = :):):) Less to spend can be good because this is a society. Not about me and you. Society involves compromise. Taxes may not aid the individual but they’re necessary for society. As I’m explaining more below I believe inflation/devaluation prevents money pooling which can (I believe) increase the natural values of people artificially and de-stabilize society.
No, they're not necessary for it. You'll find ample material on this site demonstrating this. What is "money pooling" BTW?
SPADE S I did not assume saving was bad. Saving is keeping something that may be of use later. This can be a bad thing and a good thing. Saving a spade for next time you need to dig up potatoes may be a good thing. Saving 100 spades may be a bad thing. If I have 100 spades that’s 99 people that don’t have spades. If there is a limited amount of spades and they wear out ever ten years then it is more likely the spades will be evenly distributed and everyone will have potato wedges for tea.
That isn't how saving works. That is more akin to hoarding, which is usually set in motion by, guess what - inflation.
Competition in free markets does this. Inflationary CB's are what cause actual money "pooling", transferring wealth straight into the hands of the nonproductive. Inflation is non-neutral - it transfers wealth into the hands of those who get to spend it first, i.e. well-connected elites. I have no idea why you think it's a tool to aid the poor. That'd be deflation.
Whatever the scenario is within that society person A gets 10% more than person B in general terms averaged out that is: money, items, popularity, women.
Yeah, because women are objects, just like doormats! I keep mine locked up in a big shiny vault.
did I say we have a free market? I don't think I did. I didn't mean to anyway. I would say we have a free-ish market. a free market would be an extreme. An extreme would (I think)lead to a non free market. therefor we are better to have a non free market that focuses on allowing as much freedom as possible without allowing the freedom it creates to supperseed the market it exists within. I belive a free-ish market is the the best we can do.
martinglake:Man will seek any way he can to dominate other men. It is in his animal nature, and that’s why we have society.
So is your stealing my hard earned money your way of dominating me? Theft is theft. The sadistic thing about inflation is that all too many people are uninformed about how you are systematically destroying their wealth. And who will you and your beauracracy give the wealth to? Will you reward the "have-nots", those who were unable to contribute enough to society on a voluntary basis to reach what you feel they are entitled to? Or perhaps people who look like you, or think like you. You can do that with your money, I won't complain. But if you do it with mine, I will call you what you are: an armed robber, using the threat of violence to steal real wealth from everyone in society and use it for your own purposes.
I think that a much more logical and "fair" methodology to implement your master plan would just be to use government power to sieze the successful man's money. Don't apologize for it. Don't try to hid the fact that you are robbing him by fun words like "intentional devaluation". If you want to steal the rich man's money, just point your gun at his face and take it, saying "Sir, this is what is best for society. You can sleep better at night knowing that you have helped society." Your plan is to steal from everyone.
I don't want to dominate you. I want to prevent you from dominating me.
And what is the "taxes are necessary for society" line? More armed robbery.
By the way, society doesn't have a nature, or rights. Only individuals do.
Monopoly regulations do not protect consumers in a free market. They are a tool used to attack successful businesses. Likewise, there are other uses of government power sponsored by big businesses to limit competition from upstarts. The power pooled in the government is what allows this to occur.
One hundred trillion Zimbabwe dollar note
martinglake:did I say we have a free market? I don't think I did. I didn't mean to anyway.
No, you spoke nebulously about a current system. I'd like to know exactly what system you are talking about. Socialism? Fascism?
martinglake:I would say we have a free-ish market.
It's either a free market or it is not. Again, it would help if you defined what you are talking about.
An extreme would (I think)lead to a non free market.
But that is just an assertion. And I still argue that your entire argument is unfounded, even if I were to grant this new assertion. Inflation does nothing but harm the poor and the middle class, as well as a lot of honest businesses.
the system we are currently in I would say is a mixture of socialism capitalism liberalism fascism ...etc. it is a `free-ish` system where by many differnt political ideas are discussed and a compromised outcome is reached. it can not be labled truthfully although it can be given names. To say we live in a democracy is less accurate that to say we live in a system that does a bit of this and a bit of that. not catchy enough to sell books me thinks.
that's right, its not a free market and neither is it not a free market. its a free-ish market. its like saying `nice` when you are giving a critique on a painting. kind of non informative with an element of chaos:)
It should be perfectly clear by now that I have no idea of what I am talking about, and am trying to wade through the whole concept will little more than common sense. Its very interesting though.
To Jon:
Fair one...`modern society` then, needs taxes. It is a tool of society. It empowers the government. It is part of the team ethic that we can do more together than individually. Wouldn’t you say?
Money pooling or should I say value/resource pooling in the way I mean it is ultimately an unnatural amount of power in a very small space.
Hording is just an extreme form of saving. A degree of saving is ok as is a degree of inflation.
Inflation, as well as causing hording (no doubt of things like real wealth like gold mentioned above), also prevents hording because what you are hording is potentially worthless the longer you leave it. And this area of argument seems to be trying to reveal some kind of answer...but I'm not sure what it is. It’s no doubt why the gold standard was removed in the first place...because it’s impossible to manipulate an exchange medium within a context of other exchange mediums. As soon as you alter one the users switch to another so they can escape the manipulation. hmmmm you would need a global currency perhaps.....and it would have to have an attribute which meant it could not be superseded by another exchange medium such as gold...no how anyone would go about that seems impossible to me. Apart from having gold in the first place and excepting that you can’t fiddle with it.
What’s a CB?
Ok due to the paragraph above I'm turning to your side here. Got to thank Harksaw for the revelation though. Very efficiently put a spanner in everything.
I'm just going to run this buy you to see how it goes. Say you give everyone in the country 100billion pounds. This makes all current money worthless and you have effectively levelled the plane field because give or take a million (equivalent of a few pennies in the new environment) everyone has the same money in theory. however....the decision makers and those in the know all have/buy real wealth like gold/property before this happens...so in effect they have immunity to the devaluation. The vast proportion of the middle and working class or say 90%+ of the population would level. Leaving ten percent to hold unreasonable power. Property and home owners would benefit. Anyone with real wealth. Poor people don't have real wealth and we don't live in a culture that thinks of real wealth very much. The wealth would then begin to filter down again only ending up at the poorest at the last when it is of least value.
ARGUMEMENT FOR HAVING REAL WEALTH EXCHANGE
If you had the real wealth inbuilt into the exchange medium then it retains its value and this makes the assets of the poor remain stable while it makes no difference to the assets of the rich. This changes nothing directly but the prolonged period of stability would prevent the wealth gap increasing vastly. Of course no exchange medium is entirely invincible because society might change; gold might go out of fashion or become more common etc. You can’t tax the rich (relatively greater that they would be taxed elsewhere because that will reduce investment. everything you do they are libel to find a loophole for and thereby only increate the relative gap in wealth...yes this is clicking together. So it’s not a matter of solving the problem...it’s a matter of not making it worse.
WOMEN
Women are objects in an economics sense:) never mind gold, that's the real exchange unit:) `first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women`
I'm just kidding.
I love and respect all women as equ....well
I do what I'm told;)
martinglake:It should be perfectly clear by now that I have no idea of what I am talking about, and am trying to wade through the whole concept will little more than common sense. Its very interesting though.
It takes a big man to admit that. If you are going to hang out here (and I hope you will) there is no shortage of people who will try to expand your knowledge on money and economy.
To jason:
I'm not actually in charge of the exchange system.
stealing is something most of us do when we get our music. if there is anyone left in the world that doesnt do this and loves music then I think they should be in charge.
my point was to redistribule wealth, I have no quarms about stealing from people that don't `need` the item I am stealing. other than getting caught of course.
but this is society. we give and accept that we lose some of our freedom in resurn for security. taxes are not theft and as long as we have more than we would if we lived in a hut on the hill then society has a big payoff.
If `I` took the rich mans mone. the rich man would move to china and invest his money there. there would be no rich men here and I think society would suffer for that. its a tricky balance you see. you can't hit anyone too hard. its got to be subtle and the way you do it a sell it matters so much. people are pritty simple the react...they don't think...oh yes, this will be great for the economy in 200 years....but 200 years is how long it might take...who can say, everyones so eger to be famous in their lifetime, thats probably why we have these cycles in the first place.....ego economics cycles?
we both want to dominate each other, lets be fair...we'd eat each other if we could. that's why the system has to be a good one.
well society does have a nature, the nature of individuals in groups and groups of individuals, you have to throw in the fact that society and individuals also create phenomenon that almost appear to be organisms in there own right and this leads to what I would call artificial society but is still really natural society . I mean everything that happens is natural. if it happens it was ment to happen. if we prevent it from happening then we were ment to prevent it from happening.
some power has to be pooled and thats why we need a constitution to govern it. this power must never forget it is a servant. perhaps this is impossible.
PS. i would give all the money to people that looked like me though. that would be so much fun:)
thanks there liberty student. There's not much to be learned from being right or agreeing with folk;)
No, I wouldn't.
That's for consumers to decide, not you. Inflation generally has adverse negative effects, so few will voluntarily accept it. By saving, individuals demonstrably prefer non-consuming, saving their money for a later time. It is up to them how much to save or not. This money is available for borrowing. Money that is hoarded is not.
Inflation, as well as causing hording (no doubt of things like real wealth like gold mentioned above), also prevents hording because what you are hording is potentially worthless the longer you leave it.
Yeah, except in its absence there isn't really much of a reason to hoard...
Central bank.
well we'll just have to agree to dissagree on that. I don't see how you could have a society like we have today without taxes.
if all the responsibility falls at the feet of the consumer then when they make bad choices they should, become homeless, and starve. or should they compromise, hand some of the responsibility to a governing body that insures they wont starve?
there is always a reason to hoard. there may be no inflation but there is still competition.
...interesting aside....I wonder what charitable aid injected into poor nations does to their economy. (I'll start a new topic for that I think)
Why would the state have a monopoly on providing welfare? Historically, this has come from other sources. If people don't trust themselves enough, they can ask others to govern their lives for them. That doesn't mean they must include everyone else who isn't so inclined.
Regarding hoarding, reasons such as...?
martinglake:so the great grandson has done nothing to earn the money
Forgetting psychic values are we? The great grandson, like his father, and his father's father, have indeed "done something" to earn the money. They have provided a service to their respective parents, who paid them for it. The service may be simply existing, but, regardless, an understanding of human action demands that we recognize that the givers gained from giving, or else they would not have done it. So, it cannot be said that the great grandson, or any of the heirs, "has done nothing to earn the money." That may be your subjective opinion, but it was clearly not the opinion of the givers.
Morty: martinglake:so the great grandson has done nothing to earn the money Forgetting psychic values are we? The great grandson, like his father, and his father's father, have indeed "done something" to earn the money. They have provided a service to their respective parents, who paid them for it. The service may be simply existing, but, regardless, an understanding of human action demands that we recognize that the givers gained from giving, or else they would not have done it. So, it cannot be said that the great grandson, or any of the heirs, "has done nothing to earn the money." That may be your subjective opinion, but it was clearly not the opinion of the givers.
You think that matters to someone who is willing to commit armed robbery against "the rich" so long as in his subjective opinion they don't need the money that is being stolen?
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Morty:Forgetting psychic values are we? The great grandson, like his father, and his father's father, have indeed "done something" to earn the money. They have provided a service to their respective parents, who paid them for it. The service may be simply existing, but, regardless, an understanding of human action demands that we recognize that the givers gained from giving, or else they would not have done it. So, it cannot be said that the great grandson, or any of the heirs, "has done nothing to earn the money." That may be your subjective opinion, but it was clearly not the opinion of the givers.
I wonder how many people who think that the heirs "did nothing" to earn the money still give their friends and relatives presents on birthdays. After all: existing for another year isn't "doing anything" according to them, and thus they're hypocrites for giving the presents.
Every time I point that out, the whiner to whom I have pointed it out goes ballistic.
MacFall:You think that matters to someone who is willing to commit armed robbery against "the rich" so long as in his subjective opinion they don't need the money that is being stolen?
Not really the point I was making. All I was getting at was that the heirs are not just given inheritance for no reason nor did they randomly come upon wealth, but rather that they provided a service just like anyone in the market and were paid for it. I imagine he has no problem with barbers or movie stars being paid, so therefore it would be inconsistent for him to say that inheritance is illegitimate.
martinglake:stealing is something most of us do when we get our music. if there is anyone left in the world that doesnt do this and loves music then I think they should be in charge.
Umm, no.
But that's a completely different matter that has nothing to do with the current discussion.
martinglake:my point was to redistribule wealth, I have no quarms about stealing from people that don't `need` the item I am stealing. other than getting caught of course.
If someone transfered the ownership claim over one good in exchange for the ownership claim of another good to the person who doesn't 'need' it according to your opinion then how is 'society' hurt in this situation? The two parties are better off than before the exchange so presumably they both needed the goods and there is no net loss to either person so who doesn't benefit from this where you can justify appropriating someone else's property through force to 'benefit society'?
You also make the false assumption, like pretty much every other statist, that the person who is 'hoarding' is keeping their money in a big vault in the basement like Scrooge McDuck and doesn't invest it in the market. Unless you can prove that investment is bad for the society then you can't show that that these 'hoarders' are bad for the society.
I think I'm just going to start calling this the Scrooge McDuck Fallacy...
martinglake:but this is society. we give and accept that we lose some of our freedom in resurn for security. taxes are not theft and as long as we have more than we would if we lived in a hut on the hill then society has a big payoff.
Yes but we would have even more if there wasn't a parasitical class living off the labor and free exchanges of the productive class. You must give up your freedoms so you aren't legally able to ban the Tax Man from appropriating your property or the agents of the State from infringing on your rights to ensure their survival.
You seem to think it is a mutually beneficial relationship like a cow and the bacteria in their stomach and not like a tick on a dog sucking their blood.
If it is a mutually beneficial relationship then why do they need to use force to secure their funding instead of having a consensual relationship like every other mutually beneficial relationship known to mankind?
Oh, because the people aren't smart enough to know what is beneficial to them and must be told by some external entity. Yeah, almost forgot that one.
martinglake:If `I` took the rich mans mone. the rich man would move to china and invest his money there. there would be no rich men here and I think society would suffer for that. its a tricky balance you see. you can't hit anyone too hard. its got to be subtle and the way you do it a sell it matters so much. people are pritty simple the react...they don't think...oh yes, this will be great for the economy in 200 years....but 200 years is how long it might take...who can say, everyones so eger to be famous in their lifetime, thats probably why we have these cycles in the first place.....ego economics cycles?
Dude, spellchecker?
'Tricky balance' is just an euphemism for saying a parasite can't survive if it kills off the host.
We have economic cycles because people want to be famous?
martinglake:some power has to be pooled and thats why we need a constitution to govern it. this power must never forget it is a servant. perhaps this is impossible.
Exactly the reason that power shouldn't be pooled, it is impossible to govern it effectively.
martinglake:PS. i would give all the money to people that looked like me though. that would be so much fun:)
Do internet trolls look different than mythical trolls, just so I know where all my hard earned tax money is going mind you.
martinglake: well we'll just have to agree to dissagree on that. I don't see how you could have a society like we have today without taxes. if all the responsibility falls at the feet of the consumer then when they make bad choices they should, become homeless, and starve. or should they compromise, hand some of the responsibility to a governing body that insures they wont starve? there is always a reason to hoard. there may be no inflation but there is still competition.
When consumers make bad choices, they should not have the option of forcing others to bear the costs. We are, in essence, subsidizing them in their taking of stupid or unwarranted risks. Whenever you subsidize something, you get more of it. Do we really want more reckless stupidity? Subsidizing failure has the additional consequence of making sound interpersonal relationships less valuable, and therefore less likely to be maintained. One of the functions of those relationships is for aid in times of hardship. When government steps in to perform that function, it necessarily diminishes the marginal value of those relationships, and thus undermines a large part of the basis of civil society.
The only rational reason for hoarding something is if one believes it will have greater value in the future than whatever other goods he could have instead. If someone hoards spades rather than exchanging some of them for, say, apple pies, it's because he believes the future value of spades will be greater than the present and future value of apple pies. Or dollars. If the dollar is constantly decreasing in value, the incentive to unload dollars as quickly as possible for goods that will retain their value or appreciate in value is increased. Inflation encourages hoarding.
Jon Irenicus:Why would the state have a monopoly on providing welfare? Historically, this has come from other sources. If people don't trust themselves enough, they can ask others to govern their lives for them. That doesn't mean they must include everyone else who isn't so inclined.
historically there was lots of poverty, desease...I think things are better now.
poverty creates desperate people. a society that aims to maximise happines is not aided by having any desperate people.
in existence is the choice to either be governed or govern yourself. but you still have to pay for both regardless if you need the first one otherwise I suppose no one would pay for it. So it has to seem fair I guess.
I fully believe everyone, myself included to be ignorant and lible to make the `wrong` choices. Some people are less ignorant than others true and feel patronised by governance that needs to communicate with everyone. If we could all think with hindsite then that would be quite a boon. and would way of describing a sucessful society I suppose would be hindsite.
the way I see it, Society is abstract in a way to humanity it seeks (or should seek) to amplyfie the `positive` aspects of man and diminish the negative aspects. people can not do this by themselves. both you and I have been educated and socialised into `positive behaviour. I did not chose to be me, I simply followed the path of least resistance that was set out in front of me by society.
Jon Irenicus:Regarding hoarding, reasons such as...?
HORDING - this was in relation to saving and my ideas about wealth pooling I believe.
a person is going to aquire in order to become more powerful...and get the prementioned mating rights etc. Any form of wealth could be considered hording including intelectual. So its all about the individual being able to extend their advantage over other individuals exponetially. that is something everyon would do if they could surely?
To morty:
Morty: Forgetting psychic values are we? The great grandson, like his father, and his father's father, have indeed "done something" to earn the money. They have provided a service to their respective parents, who paid them for it. The service may be simply existing, but, regardless, an understanding of human action demands that we recognize that the givers gained from giving, or else they would not have done it. So, it cannot be said that the great grandson, or any of the heirs, "has done nothing to earn the money." That may be your subjective opinion, but it was clearly not the opinion of the givers.
Ok yes....`done nothing to earn the money` was a bit emotive but really I'm trying to be cold and calculating. I'm not conserned with there deserving it or not. I'm conserned with its destabalising effects on society. Rather than fair I'm talking about function. I suppose there is a bracket of acceptable fairness within the function...the amount people are willing to see something as fair. but when someone inherits something they know they don't really deserve it (unless they really hated their family) and thats why this is probably? the best opportunity for the state to take from them.
To Macfall.
I am not armed, nor stealing. your metaphors are out of control. I am (when I put my hat on) a philanthropic tyrant system trying to stabalise society.
yes through beaurocracy, inflation (that one's up in the air) law, socialisation and manipulation of human behaviour.
taxes are paying for a product.
and I can only function within a bracket of social acceptability. I will not exist if I am not seen to be needed.
Martin, your economics is way off but you seem an idealistic kind of guy and for this you should be commended; I was the same not too long ago, and like me, I’m sure you’ll come around to the Austrian way in time. But in the mean time, could you do three things:
1) Stop reading The Guardian;
2) Elaborate on your 100 spade analogy – if I have 100 spades and am using just one, why would that mean that 99 people don’t have any spades? Are you suggesting that there is some finite limit of the inferred ‘wealth’ of society, i.e. 100 spades? Or are you suggesting that a ‘fixed’ supply of money, i.e. spades, would see all spades eventually pass to the most productive in society? Only a crack-head Marxist would seriously argue the former, while if the latter were true surely as society got richer, then society’s lowly men would pass from freemen to serfs and eventually slaves – as has been the opposite. Aren’t both claims utterly ridiculous?
3) Re. your last post, “a person is going to aquire in order to become more powerful...and get the prementioned mating rights etc. a person is going to aquire in order to become more powerful...and get the prementioned mating rights etc.”.
Again, please stop reading The Guardian.
hypocracy is unavoidable. I am a human being and I'm trying to make an abstract phenomenon to exist alongside me.
I might write down in my to do list to wake up at 6am every morning and go jogging....I'm not necessarily going to do it.
but it exists and ultimately I will probably jog more than if I had not wrote it down.
it is a strage concept but humans seem to have to ability to replicate in other ways than purely biological. culture, society, exists beyond individuals lifetimes and if you can imagin it we are becomming in some ways a single organism in the same way that perhaps red and white blood cells were once autonomous.
really I don't think there is any seperation to anything at all.
this is why there will always be duality and hypocracy. and why politicians like to sleep with prostitutes.
:)
Lee. :)
its getting all a bit much now. feels like the charge of the light brigade, but I havent got a horse and I only went out to buy some milk.
I miss a lot from being located in China, everyone posts all day and I have to read a whole day at a time.
Martinglake - I feel that I need to delve your understanding of some issues. First, the basic premise of Austrian economic theory is that "Humans act". Mises traces this to also determine that humans will act in a manner that they perceive will lead to their long term well being. Most humans (vast majority) will respect real personal property and pursue trade for the following reasons 1)respect for the property of others tends to make them respect yours 2) the mutually voluntary trades that occur in a free market benefit both(all) participants 3) trade allows specialization, which allows increased efficiency 4) increased efficiency raises the level of real wealth for all in society. Very quickly a reasonably intelligent individual will realize that trade benefits them, by allowing them to specialize in what they are best at (highest marginal productivity). Even if they aren't good at anything, everyone who is good at something will get more efficient, putting more goods into the market and thereby lowering the price in real terms for everyone. Everyone's marginal wealth goes up.
The reason that we have all the great things that we have today is NOT due to government. It is due to the indomitable power of the market and trade (read also profit and competition) to drive people to innovation and efficiency. Massive improvement in society took place during the period of gold standard money and low government interference in the market. Even the poorest people in the country (USA) started to acheive a standard of living out of the reach of the kings of previous centuries. The engines that drove the revolutionary changes in society were voluntary trade and entrepreneurship - and the resulting accumulation of capital in the hands of those who could use it. Some (lots?) of the capital was earned as business profit directly. Other was loaned out of real savings, either directly in bonds or as shares of ownership of a corporation (stock). All that government did was stay out of the way. When they didn't stay out of the way, massive destruction of real wealth resulted. Not just the wealth of the rich people. The wealth of everyone.
Were there some pretty horrible things going on? Sure. One common example would be slavery. If you examine history, however, you will find that government interfered to maintain slavery. I don't recall which book documented multiple examples of laws that violated the rights of "free" men to enforce the enslavement of others, but it cited laws preventing manumission, mandating participation in search parties, etc. But you won't find too many people on this site who support involuntary slavery. (Aside: The book was Murphy's listed below, Chapter 5, page 41)
The point is that progress of society is not at all dependent on the "beneficial" influence of government. In fact, society grew and improved in spite of government. Saying that we benefit from government is exactly like saying that the market owners "benefit" from paying Don Corleone "protection money". If the crime didn't exist (either mobsters or government) everyone except the crooks would be better off and have more real wealth.
Just a couple of points from other of your responses:
The positive aspects of (wo)man are self-ownership and personal responsibility. Taxation, inflation, and welfare rob (wo)man of these attributes. Seflessness, charity, etc., which I assume you meant by the "positve aspects" are only meaningful in a voluntary context. If I force to you sacrifice your life to save a child that is in front of a train, neither I nor you have performed a selfless, charitable act. If the mob or government steals my wealth to give it to the needy, neither I nor they have performed a charitable act.
I enjoy some of your humor (the light brigade, and the milk), but you have to realize what you are saying. You are saying that taxation is the same as a voluntary exchange. It is not. You are saying that you (as a member of society) have the right to steal an individual's wealth. I don't understand what moral or ethical basis you have for this premise. Can I come into your house and steal your furniture? If I don't have any furniture, then you are "hoarding" furniture, and I have a duty to take yours, by your logic. Can I mug you at an ATM and steal the cash you just took out? By your position, if I don't have any money, I haven't done anything wrong. I have just done my part to stablize the economy by redistributing the wealth from the rich to the poor. I even did it more efficiently than the government, because I didn't tax you or reduce the value of your money.
Desperation is only created when the individual is prevented from working. This is most often the result of government interference in the labor market. If someone has no useful skills, the value of their time to an employer is low. (S)He will only pay a low wage for their time. This is prevented if the utility to the employer is less than the minimum wage. The minimum wage prevents the unskilled worker from being employed. This can also happen to a worker whom the employer feels is a risk - no experience, race, what have you. The employer might hire them for less than the minimum wage to gain experience with them, but can't because of the minimum wage. Government has also interfered on behalf of unions to prevent employment of "new" workers.
I know that too many people recommend that new guys read books, but I am going to suggest two that are very approachable and couch the issues relevant to this thread in plain language. In Hazelitt's book "Ecomonics in One Lesson" page 145 of the Mises edition he discusses "The Mirage of Inflation". The whole book is good, and as I have distributed it to my friends it has really opened their eyes. Murphy's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism" also contains a general treatment of the principles of freedom and the market, and the destructive influence government has on us all.
I look forward to further exchange. (and after review, sorry for the huge post, but now that I have written it I am not going to delete it)
martinglake: To Macfall. I am not armed, nor stealing. your metaphors are out of control. I am (when I put my hat on) a philanthropic tyrant system trying to stabalise society.
There are only two means to "stabilise society". The market means, in which everybody keeps the product of their labor and disposes of it as they want; and the political means, which, no matter what you call it or how you try to obfuscate it, boils down to armed robbery. I merely skipped the intermediate steps which tyrants take to try to "legitimize" their theft.
Taxes are an extortion fee for something which is not desired by the "purchaser". The mob says "pay us to protect your house from arsonists or we'll burn your house down." The government says "pay us to protect you from robbers, kidnappers and murderers, or we'll steal your property, throw you in a jail cell, and if you resist - kill you."
There's nothing productive about that. They do not offer a product or service. If they did, the offer would be "pay us to protect you, or don't." And then you could decide whether you liked their service, or that offered by a different organization, or none at all if you prefer to be a rugged individualist type.
Copying a song is not stealing. Intellectual property is not a legitimate form of property. Current laws on copyrights, patents, and trademarks are illegitimate.
Inflation is theft. When Ben Bernanke prints more money and gives/loans it to the financial industry for a bailout, he's stealing from me.
The only way to defend yourself from theft via inflation is to invest in sound money (gold/silver) or other tangible assets.
Some people say that the immoral agent is not the Federal Reserve, but rather State violence that prevents me from boycotting the Federal Reserve and using sound money instead. There are a lot of taxes and regulations that prevent people from using gold or silver as money.
Inflation is "beneficial" because it allows politically connected insiders to loot and pillage everyone else.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
Yeah, thanks to free markets. But that wasn't my point. Rather, what I did say was that you do not need the government to attend to the welfare of the indingent. No, rather, it is what creates them. Historically, in spite of governments mucking things up all the time, private welfare has existed, such as mutual aid societies.
Which has, what, to do with anything? This does not even justify the State commanding others to act in the way it thinks they should. This is more overdriven arrogance on the part of planners and those who back them. So no, no thanks, I do not want a bunch of morons telling me what I REALLY want. I'd rather learn by myself, from my own mistakes. If you want idiot insurance, go take it out, and leave me to opt out of it. Maybe you'll end up needing idiot insurance insurance...
That's the intention - who said it's going to work? All one does by removing money from the economy is to increase its value for all others. Not exactly going to make them poorer, now is it?
I'm conserned with its destabalising effects on society.
You mean like inflation has?