Juan: Then you brought time preference into the picture : You claim that a conservative society is characterized by low time preference but at the same time, you say, the majority of people prefer to rent...because they want a house NOW....that is, they have high time preference...Which contradicts the initial claim that a conservative society has...you get it no ? Of course not.
Forgive me for intruding onto the conversation but why conservative society neccesary have low-time preference. You guys seem to implies that a liberal society have the opposite time preference.
To me, it seem that time-preference have NOTHING to do with your cultural leaning.
A liberal person, for example, could denounces the ownership of expensive cars that the conservative masses like to buy and opt instead for a bike that is aquedute enough for transportation. But in addition to that, he also hold a nice programming job, a profession that traditionally doesn't give a damn about how you look, what degrees what you have, but only care about your results. He just happen to be real good at his job oo he got a nice salary!
Since he denounces the materalism of the current society...He have no uses for the money for now and just save it in some bank account....
By the end of his life...he became richer than his conservative nieghbors only because he is thiftier than they are.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Forgive me for intruding onto the conversation but why conservative society neccesary have low-time preference.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
kiba:To me, it seem that time-preference have NOTHING to do with your cultural leaning.
I think that it almost goes without saying that time-preference has alot to do with culture.
A heroin junkie has a higher time preference than someone who abstains from drug use. He engages in capital consumption of his body. He is unable to delay the gratification of his next fix in light of the longer term benefits of good health.
A producer has a lower time preference than a criminal. He recognizes the longer-run higher productivity of division of labour and capital accumulation brought about by peaceful relations. The criminal is unwilling to make the immediate sacrifice of not taking what he pleases or conforming to social standards necessary to engage in peaceful relations with his neighbours.
I think overall, people who are farsighted will try to promote farsightedness in others. This will encourage others to increase participation in division of labour which is in everyone's long-run interest. And this encouragement tends to take the form of trading more and including those that demonstrate culturally conservative social traits (low time-preference behaviour) and trading less (boycotting) and excluding (ostracizing) those who demonstrate child-like social traits (high time-preference behaviour).
kiba: A liberal person, for example, could denounces the ownership of expensive cars that the conservative masses like to buy and opt instead for a bike that is aquedute enough for transportation. But in addition to that, he also hold a nice programming job, a profession that traditionally doesn't give a damn about how you look, what degrees what you have, but only care about your results. He just happen to be real good at his job oo he got a nice salary! Since he denounces the materalism of the current society...He have no uses for the money for now and just save it in some bank account.... By the end of his life...he became richer than his conservative nieghbors only because he is thiftier than they are.
Well, this is possible it would not be the general tendency. Besides, saving and using a bike instead of an expensive flashy car, would generally be a conservative trait.
Stephen Forde: I think that it almost goes without saying that time-preference has alot to do with culture. A heroin junkie has a higher time preference than someone who abstains from drug use. He engages in capital consumption of his body. He is unable to delay the gratification of his next fix in light of the longer term benefits of good health.
Careful; heroin reacts chemically with the biology of the individual (the brain, body, etc.), which influences the psychology of the individual (neurotransmitters, dopamine, etc.), eventually influencing time preference. The individual does not automatically have a higher time preference because they do drugs, nor does an individual require a higher time preference in order to do drugs. Imo, it would be interesting to observe the progress of cognitive science closely in an effort to draw time preference towards a more scientific basis (if it hasn't been done already, I simply remark this since cognitive science, compared to psychology which has a head start, is still rather new & emerging as a science). There is also the exception that depending on the drug, the individual, despite said addiction, can very easily function with or without a higher time preference (i.e. the consumption of caffiene, even in moderate doses, poses addiction to some extent).
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict:Imo, it would be interesting to observe the progress of cognitive science closely in an effort to draw time preference towards a more scientific basis (if it hasn't been done already, I simply remark this since cognitive science, compared to psychology which has a head start, is still rather new & emerging as a science).
That would be very interesting, especially given some of the overlap that has been emerging between cognitive science and the philosophy of mind.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Nitroadict: Stephen Forde: I think that it almost goes without saying that time-preference has alot to do with culture. A heroin junkie has a higher time preference than someone who abstains from drug use. He engages in capital consumption of his body. He is unable to delay the gratification of his next fix in light of the longer term benefits of good health. Careful; heroin reacts chemically with the biology of the individual (the brain, body, etc.), which influences the psychology of the individual (neurotransmitters, dopamine, etc.), eventually influencing time preference. The individual does not automatically have a higher time preference because they do drugs, nor does an individual require a higher time preference in order to do drugs. Imo, it would be interesting to observe the progress of cognitive science closely in an effort to draw time preference towards a more scientific basis (if it hasn't been done already, I simply remark this since cognitive science, compared to psychology which has a head start, is still rather new & emerging as a science). There is also the exception that depending on the drug, the individual, despite said addiction, can very easily function with or without a higher time preference (i.e. the consumption of caffiene, even in moderate doses, poses addiction to some extent).
The point is some individuals sacrifice their health (future consumption) for a high. And this is not independent of social influences. It is also dependent on biological and psychological factors, technological knowledge and capital stock. But some people are more civilized and some people are more childish.
I'm at a loss to figure out how TP relates to rental. Ownership of a piece of property is not more risky than rental of it. At best one can say it is more difficult than renting, but this does not deter consumers even now.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus:I'm at a loss to figure out how TP relates to rental. Ownership of a piece of property is not more risky than rental of it. At best one can say it is more difficult than renting,
People need to save considerably more to buy a piece of land than they do to pay the monthly rent. As for ownership currently, the government does a lot to deter the renting of land, and it promotes land ownership.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Juan:The thing is, Giles claims that a conservative society has low time preference. I'm just saying that IF that's the case, THEN he can't also claim that people would prefer renting over buying. But Giles just plays dumb and refuses to acknowledge his contradiction.
Only, I said that there are numerous other incentives for people to rent. Yes, people would have low time preference, but this doesn't mean that they'd wish to own land anyway.
Yes, it does. Drug use, rudeness, etc. are all indicative of high time preference, and these are also frowned upon by cultural conservatism.
kiba:Since he denounces the materalism of the current society...He have no uses for the money for now and just save it in some bank account....
What do you mean? Most conservatives aren't too fond of materialism, so I don't know what you're talking about.
Juan:You wrongly claim that land in a free society will be way more expensive than it is now.
Funny, when I asked you to provide me pictures of land that the US government holds and can't be homesteaded, you changed subject.
Juan:Using that false premise you claimed that people will prefer to rent, not realizing that rent will be more expensive as well canceling your alleged incentive.
Yes, it will be, but this is where TP comes into the picture.
No, it would only be a contradiction if I claimed that time preference was the only incentive for people to rent, if you'd actually read what I'd written you'd know that's not the case.
Juan:Now, grasping at straws, you say that renting instead of buying is an instance of division of labor ? What ? Buying/building a house is a so complex endeavor that only Intel engineers can do it ? The unwashed masses are so stupid that they can't 'build a community'...
No, it's just a different aspect of the idea that owners of a store need the skills of the manager of the mall. It's the same principle, just this time it's owners of houses and the owners of communities.
GilesStratton:Funny, when I asked you to provide me pictures of land that the US government holds and can't be homesteaded, you changed subject.
GilesStratton: Juan: Using that false premise you claimed that people will prefer to rent, not realizing that rent will be more expensive as well canceling your alleged incentive. Yes, it will be, but this is where TP comes into the picture.
Juan: Using that false premise you claimed that people will prefer to rent, not realizing that rent will be more expensive as well canceling your alleged incentive.
No, it would only be a contradiction if I claimed that time preference was the only incentive for people to rent,
It's the same principle, just this time it's owners of houses and the owners of communities.
Juan:We're talking about a hypothetical free society, not about the current tyranny. You fail. Again.
Are you completely unable to debate properly, or have you just realized that you'r wrong so you resort to these silly little games? Once again, you're avoiding the question. Show me, on a map, these large amounts of land that the US government holds that will bring land prices down.
Juan:That is, according to your 'theory', today the majority of people should rent but that's not the case. And please don't be as silly as to claim that the reason why people buy houses is that government subsidizes home ownership.
Because we all know government has never done anything to subsidize home ownership . Now then, go to my second post on this topic and you'll see why people don't rent today. By the way, what I missed there was that govenment doesn't allow us to be selective in who we admit to our communities, which would do a lot to make such a venture unviable.
Juan:Your 'argument' is still contradictory. Whether there are other incentives or not is irrelevant. You're claiming that people will have both low time preference, i.e. be 'conservative', but will prefer to rent, that is, have high time preference.
I only mentioned time prefence because you stated that as land prices went up so would the price for renting. Yes, you're correct in that. But it doesn't matter because of time preference. That was my point, you've been putting words in my mouth ever since. The other incentives for renting (higher property values, access to public places, less uncertainty) will also be taken into account.
Juan:rying to apply principles to situations in which those principles don't apply is a sign of confusion...or worse.
But they do apply (you're going to have to prove that they don't if you want to argue that).
GS:Show me, on a map, these large amounts of land that the US government holds that will bring land prices down.
Because we all know government has never done anything to subsidize home ownership Hmm.
I only mentioned time prefence because you stated that as land prices went up so would the price for renting. Yes, you're correct in that. But it doesn't matter because of time preference.
True, and in the absence of a price control forcing interest rates down, home ownership will for a while become rarer. However, if a lower TP does predominate in a freed market, renting will gradually go out of fashion, as more accumulate wealth in the form of savings to purchase land (or at any rate, some permanent form of residence.)
Jon Irenicus:True, and in the absence of a price control forcing interest rates down, home ownership will for a while become rarer.
Yep, and with no financial intervention to prop up house prices, they might drop, alongside the expansion of land available to homesteading.
Jon Irenicus: Yep, and with no financial intervention to prop up house prices, they might drop, alongside the expansion of land available to homesteading.
Yes, however, with less restrictions regarding land use and less uncertainty as a result of better security and lack of eminent domain it could also go the other way around.
GilesStratton: kiba:To me, it seem that time-preference have NOTHING to do with your cultural leaning. Yes, it does. Drug use, rudeness, etc. are all indicative of high time preference, and these are also frowned upon by cultural conservatism. kiba:Since he denounces the materalism of the current society...He have no uses for the money for now and just save it in some bank account.... What do you mean? Most conservatives aren't too fond of materialism, so I don't know what you're talking about.
As if all cultrually liberals use drugs and don't know how to save.
I have a permissive attitude toward sex and other devious behaviors as long as they don't interfere with my life. I don't do drugs and get high.
I also highly approves of the fact that my generation have no qualm about "stealing" musics even if they don't want to admit it themsleves.
I don't own iphones and other expensive gadetery because I felt the companies behind are just jackass and pussy for not giving out the source code. I run an alternative operating system because I felt it is superior to other software and that the people behind them actually respect me.
I also think shoping for clothes is a waste of money and possess a great hatred toward cars. I hate debt and I like to save money even if I am not successful at restraining myself.(Mostly spent it on food)
I felt that I am culturally liberal even though I possess low time preferance. Therefore I concludes that conservative values do not neccessary monopolizes the values of thift and hatred of materalism. One can be a liberal and be even more thifty.
GilesStratton: Jon Irenicus:I'm at a loss to figure out how TP relates to rental. Ownership of a piece of property is not more risky than rental of it. At best one can say it is more difficult than renting, People need to save considerably more to buy a piece of land than they do to pay the monthly rent. As for ownership currently, the government does a lot to deter the renting of land, and it promotes land ownership.
Your repeated claim that the government "promotes land ownership" is mystifying to me, given that the government inherently constitutes and puts up massive barriers to entry due to its own claims on land. The government has a dejure legal claim on all the land, and if you want to own land you must appeal to this alleged prior owner (the government). If you get to the point where you do own it, you still do not technically have full owership due to things like property taxation, which presumes ownership on the part of the government. If you want to homestead land, it's essentially impossible for you to do so without infringing on the state's own territorial claims. The state lays claim to vast swaths of land that we are not allowed to make use of or homestead. So you appear to have this almost entirely backwards. The state essentially makes it harder for most individuals to become land owners, while entrenching the ownership of a handful of people in patronage with it.
Juan: "The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States." So...you...fail ? Maybe even more land is 'owned' by state and city governments ? (I'm asking - I don't really know)
And how much of that land would be economically viable to hold if the government couldn't tax?
Juan:Yes, since the stone age, the fed's been subsidizing home ownership. And contrariwise, feudal land arrangements were not created by the state, no sir. There's never been such things as warlords, militarism, and serfdom. In medieval times feudal land arrangements were so convenient that peasants 'voluntary' submitted to their lords.
Well by definition feudal land arrangements were created by the state, so perhaps it's a poor choice of words by me. The correct term is manoralism.
But other than that I don't see what your point is, other than distracting from the fact that the fed does bring land prices up.
Juan: I've dealt with your misconceptions and fallacious use of time preference 5 or 6 times already. I'm not wasting any more time. Have a good day.
No, you've been putting words in my mouth.
Brainpolice:Your repeated claim that the government "promotes land ownership" is mystifying to me, given that the government inherently constitutes and puts up massive barriers to entry due to its own claims on land. The government has a dejure legal claim on all the land, and if you want to own land you must appeal to this alleged prior owner (the government)
Yes and? The government has been making easy money available to anybody who wants to buy a house (and in this case, the land it's on).
Brainpolice: If you get to the point where you do own it, you still do not technically have full owership due to things like property taxation, which presumes ownership on the part of the government
Yes and what do you think that does to the price of land?
Brainpolice: If you want to homestead land, it's essentially impossible for you to do so without infringing on the state's own territorial claims. The state lays claim to vast swaths of land that we are not allowed to make use of or homestead. So you appear to have this almost entirely backwards. The state essentially makes it harder for most individuals to become land owners, while entrenching the ownership of a handful of people in patronage with it.
The state also destroys the incentives to rent. People (Juan and BP) seem to be focusing on the more minor points of my argument whilst ignoring the bigger picture.
GilesStratton:And how much of that land would be economically viable to hold if the government couldn't tax?
Juan: Yes, the fed does bring land prices up. You probably meant down...? Never mind, thanks to that typo, at least this time you got it right.
Yes, you're correct. The fed does bring housing prices up, so what? It also allows people to own land they never would have otherwise. Moreover, there's a number of other factors pushing land prices down. The bottom line is that I was wrong in saying that land prices will go up, that doesn't mean they will go down, just, we can't know.
The fact of the matter is that you're nit picking on whatever you can to take the argument off on a tangent ignoring the main point. So far you're been unable to provide a single incentive for people to own land that can stand criticism. I have, on the other, listed numerous factors that would incentivise people to rent land.
Juan:Go back and read previous posts -- I already addressed all your fallacies. Stop lying (to yourself).
Then it won't be a problem for you to do it again. Now, what are the incentives for people to own land?
Juan:There's no point in re-writing what I already wrote.
Find then stop boldly proclaiming victory.
GilesStratton: Juan:Go back and read previous posts -- I already addressed all your fallacies. Stop lying (to yourself). Then it won't be a problem for you to do it again. Now, what are the incentives for people to own land?
Simple, Freedom. It ALWAYS goes back to this simple concept.
As a renter, I must sign a binding agreement. This implies that I agree and submit to said contract willingly and arguably happily. If instead I am the owner of said property, I have no one to contract with other than myself. Therefore the incentive, is to not have to agree to anyone elses rules - however lenient they may be.
Even if it was the best contract in the world, I personally and I think most others would rather OWN the land because at some time in the near or far future I may want to do something which, prior to signing the agreement I may have not wanted to do which was prohibited - as a random example: building a shooting range (which may interefere with contractual noise mitigation).
The entire idea of owning rather than renting is the idea of autonomy and independence. That is the incentive. That is what we are debating and writing about and fighting for. That is my incentive for life.
Juan:Why ? You are wrong and already showed it.
No, I haven't.
The centralization of ownership characteristic of feudalism is only sustainable with primogeniture, entail, and mortmain laws which are inherently antithetical to Lockean property rights, which are held by the individual and the living: not by the collective and the dead.
Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle in 9 steps (Soliciting comments)
Daniel J. Sanchez: The centralization of ownership characteristic of feudalism is only sustainable with primogeniture, entail, and mortmain laws which are inherently antithetical to Lockean property rights, which are held by the individual and the living: not by the collective and the dead.
Wonderful, now, prove it. Juan seems to be unable to do so, perhaps you might?
Juan:Here's an interesting note. It comes from Hoppe's Socialism & Capitalism : Regarding large-scale ownership, in particular of land, Mises observes that it is normally only brought about and upheld by nonmarket forces: by coercive violence and a state-enforced legal system outlawing or hampering the selling of land. “Nowhere and at no time has the large scale ownership of land come into being through the working of economic forces in the market. Founded by violence, it has been upheld by violence and that alone. As soon as the latifundia are drawn into the sphere of market transactions they begin to crumble, until at last they disappear completely . . . . That in a market economy it is difficult even now to uphold the latifundia, is shown by the endeavors to create legislation institutions like the ‘Fideikommiss’ and related legal institutions such as the English ‘entail’ . . . . Never was the ownership of the means of production more closely concentrated than at the time of Pliny, when half the province of Africa was owned by six people, or in the day of the Merovingian, when the church possessed the greater part of all French soil. And in no part of the world is there less large-scale land ownership than in capitalist North America,” Socialism, Indianapolis, 1981, pp.325326.
So what? Previously it has been enforced by violence, so what? Malls manage to thrive without violence, there's no reason that communities wouldn't be able to do the same.
Large-scale ownership without homesteading? It's not compatible with libertarianism, and as Hoppe and Mises note, is currently facilitated by the state and is not what they'd support in its absence.
Jon Irenicus: Large-scale ownership without homesteading? It's not compatible with libertarianism, and as Hoppe and Mises note, is currently facilitated by the state and is not what they'd support in its absence.
Indirectly homesteaded in the sense of voluntary exchange. Is it that difficult to imagine corporations suited to this type of enterprise?
No, but that isn't what the quote was referring to anyway.
Jon Irenicus: No, but that isn't what the quote was referring to anyway.
But that's what I'm referring to, in which case the quote was off topic and not relevant anyway.
Jon Irenicus:No, but that isn't what the quote was referring to anyway.