Economics Questions

Re: Socialist principles

TelfordUS — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:57:36 GMT

MatthewF:

TelfordUS:
In a dog-eat-dog environment, it would be nearly impossible to desire such satisfaction.

I might disagree. In an environment where many people were in need and few were willing to help, wouldn't the marginal utility of any amount of help offered be valued higher both by the giver and the reciever? If so this would seem to only encourage more help to be given the more that people are in need.

It's possible, but that is a system that would be rather difficult to start. If the environment is especially cutthroat, your first priority wouldn't be to help others, but to help yourself. Why help someone when you need that energy to help yourself, when the rest of the population will most likely not help you?

Imagine, if you will, a middle school dance where the boys and girls have a severe case of Wallflower Syndrome. If you were one of these boys or girls, it would be nerve wracking to ask someone to dance since nobody else is doing it. To ask someone to dance would be to stretch your neck under a guillotine, as you would lay yourself out completely vulnerable to rejection. However, if you see one couple dancing it would be easier to ask someone, thus starting a chain reaction until everyone is dancing.

Re: Socialist principles

nirgrahamUK — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:37:14 GMT

TelfordUS:
But what if helping others is not valuable to you?

if helping yourself to material wealth that you could not acheive on your own, Autarkically is important to you, you must make it your business to help others.

Re: Socialist principles

MatthewF — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:20:40 GMT

TelfordUS:
In a dog-eat-dog environment, it would be nearly impossible to desire such satisfaction.

I might disagree. In an environment where many people were in need and few were willing to help, wouldn't the marginal utility of any amount of help offered be valued higher both by the giver and the reciever? If so this would seem to only encourage more help to be given the more that people are in need.

Re: Socialist principles

TelfordUS — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:14:20 GMT

MatthewF:

It seems like you may have misunderstood what Nir was trying to say. If I may...

When someone expends a means (say time or money etc..) in order to achieve a desired end (in this case helping someone else) it follows that they valued the means less than the ends. Therefore, by exchanging something they valued less for something they valued more, they made a "profit."

Your reply seemed to ask but what if there was no monetary gain? It looks like you are confusing profit with monetary gain.

If I misunderstood, please ignore...

Well yes, I'm aware of the equation: Revenue - Cost = Profit, and that this equation does not only cover monetary wealth. In this case, the effort used to help someone is the cost, and the satisfaction that's felt afterward is the profit. (I apologize if thats not completely correct but I think I got the gist of it)

But I'm saying that some people may not wish to recieve this satisfaction as "profit". In a capitalist point of view, it would not make sense to make the effort (cost) to help someone if you do not feel satisfied (profit) afterward. In a dog-eat-dog environment, it would be nearly impossible to desire such satisfaction.

Re: Socialist principles

MatthewF — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:37:56 GMT

TelfordUS:

nirgrahamUK:

TelfordUS:
Then can it be concluded that individualist ambitions squander humanity, as helping others cuts into personal profits?
no. if individuals place helping others high on their value scales, they receive profits when they expend their means to achieve this just as when they have luxury condo's on their value scales and they profit from expending less valued means to achieve that end.

But what if helping others is not valuable to you? It's easy to ignore the needs of society when is much easier looking out for yourself. It wouldn't make economic sense to help others without that profit.

It seems like you may have misunderstood what Nir was trying to say. If I may...

When someone expends a means (say time or money etc..) in order to achieve a desired end (in this case helping someone else) it follows that they valued the means less than the ends. Therefore, by exchanging something they valued less for something they valued more, they made a "profit."

Your reply seemed to ask but what if there was no monetary gain? It looks like you are confusing profit with monetary gain.

If I misunderstood, please ignore...

Re: Socialist principles

TelfordUS — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:39:12 GMT

Laughing Man:

TelfordUS:
But if you choose to engage, then you have the choice to engage or not. That's liberty, not compulsory. As soon as actions become compulsory, free choice becomes squandered.

Yea but people can choose to go into a socialist system. It's rather bizarre but possible.

Would that be considered anarcho-socialism? Then I guess it's possible.

Re: Socialist principles

TelfordUS — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:36:05 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

TelfordUS:
Then can it be concluded that individualist ambitions squander humanity, as helping others cuts into personal profits?
no. if individuals place helping others high on their value scales, they receive profits when they expend their means to achieve this just as when they have luxury condo's on their value scales and they profit from expending less valued means to achieve that end.

But what if helping others is not valuable to you? It's easy to ignore the needs of society when is much easier looking out for yourself. It wouldn't make economic sense to help others without that profit.

Re: Socialist principles

Andrew Cain — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:23:58 GMT

TelfordUS:
But if you choose to engage, then you have the choice to engage or not. That's liberty, not compulsory. As soon as actions become compulsory, free choice becomes squandered.

Yea but people can choose to go into a socialist system. It's rather bizarre but possible.

Re: Socialist principles

TelfordUS — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 18:19:53 GMT

Laughing Man:

TelfordUS:
Then can it be concluded that individualist ambitions squander humanity, as helping others cuts into personal profits?

Not at all. Profits are not simply monetary numbers.

TelfordUS:
Then can it be concluded that societal principles lead to compulsory action for every citizen, therefore killing liberty?

People can engage in voluntary socialism.

But if you choose to engage, then you have the choice to engage or not. That's liberty, not compulsory. As soon as actions become compulsory, free choice becomes squandered.

Re: Socialist principles

Andrew Cain — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:00:16 GMT

Marko:
Socialism has few ideals of its own. Most of its claimed ideals have been lifted from liberalism.

Murray Rothbard explains why this is in his first article of Left and Right.

Re: Socialist principles

Marko — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:41:12 GMT

TelfordUS:

Socialist principles: humanity, fraternity, etc. Non-individualistic ambition

Socialism has few ideals of its own. Most of its claimed ideals have been lifted from liberalism.

Re: Socialist principles

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:43:22 GMT

TelfordUS:

Can it be agreed upon that anarcho-capitalism promotes personal gain? Then can it be concluded that anarcho-capitalism promotes individualist principles? Then can it be concluded that individualist ambitions squander humanity, as helping others cuts into personal profits?

Sometimes, for an individual to gain the most, it is necessary to work with others. And, when a person makes a trade with another person, both people do it because they are profiting. In these senses, capitalism promotes the very principles you are ascribing to socialist philosophy.

Can it be agreed upon that socialism promotes societal gain?

No, because they have to come at the expense of certain individuals. You can preach that socialism promotes the "commune", but you have to come to the realization that what this really means is that some people will be benefited, while others pay for it. It's all a façade.

Re: Socialist principles

Caley McKibbin — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:58:52 GMT

I'd like a reference to a socialist saying anything positive about humanity.

Re: Socialist principles

Andrew Cain — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 04:20:35 GMT

nirgrahamUK:
you can tell i woke up in a bad mood today.

This is for you my agitated friend