Economics Questions

Re: A problem with the free-market?

G8R HED — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:10:29 GMT

I am still interested to resolve why physical manipulation is a species of persuasion rather than a species of coercion.

The way I see it (and I am willing to be persuaded otherwise - but not the coercive species, please) persuasion is a cooperative effort and coercion is the initiation of force.

Persuasion from the standpoint of physical manipulation would be a mis-use of the word as it implies the moral acceptance of the initiation of force. According to such mis-use of the word 'persuasion' what degree of physical manipulation would be morally acceptable?

Is it morally acceptable for the mob-boss to teminally 'persuade' a competitor with a tommy-gun? Or would it make a differnce if he used a wooden baseball bat?

OK, so sure, the moral perspective is subjective - socialism is subjectively equal to captialism. What then is the basis for the initiation of force? That it WORKS?

Re: Drace's comment that derailed a thread

Bostwick — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:08:18 GMT

I'm suprised this has gone on so long. Drace's statement is plain wrong. The "world" does not produce enough food to feed everyone. Some places produce enough food, while other places do not. The reason for this difference is political.

Obviously, it is not the places that produce enough that have the failed politics, so any effort to change them (like redistribution to the famine areas) is a non-solution. Its the places that produce too little that require the reform.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

nirgrahamUK — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:51:42 GMT

>>Wrong. You mean manatees.

you passed the test....

Re: A problem with the free-market?

wilderness — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:17:05 GMT

lol and I was going to ask nirgrahamUK for a youtube as a joke, but he might have actually found one!

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Nitroadict — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:43:04 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

you argue like dolphins construct family guy gags

Wrong. You mean manatees.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

nirgrahamUK — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 03:16:04 GMT

you argue like dolphins construct family guy gags

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Vichy Army — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:22:45 GMT

so, you don't disagree with the philosophy on Mises.org you just prefer to use different words and phrases.

Wrong.
1) The limits and delegations of what is tortious is, essentially, arbitrary. There is nothing, therefor, that is inherently 'coercion'.
2) Not all torts are 'coercion'. Some don't involve other people's will at all (i.e., 'theft' and physically overpowering someone and stuffing him into your trunk)
3) This difference is psychological and sociological, not praxeological.
4) The relevance for catallactics has as much to do with economic calculation which private property makes possible as it does with human incentive arrangments.
5) Torts are not 'immoral'. They're torts. Justice is not about good and evil.

The reason you have difficulties in assaying this is because you have no experience with the forms and conventions as stated above, although historically these have far more to do with reality than some imaginary 'argumentation ethics' or 'natural law' or whatever gibberish you prefer.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

MMMark — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:36:01 GMT

Sat. 10/04/24 17:34 EDT
.post #73

hayekianxyz:
Surely you've heard stories of young kids being persuaded into doing things they otherwise wouldn't.

I think you could have found a more interesting challenge. For example, you could have invoked the case of blackmail, then pointed out that, by my criterion, blackmail is "coercive."

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Justin Spahr-Summers — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:39:59 GMT

Is this always true? Surely you've heard stories of young kids being persuaded into doing things they otherwise wouldn't.

But it still includes the option of rejecting whatever the offer may be.

Rejecting either coercion or persuasion may have negative consequences, it's true - but whereas the negative consequence of resisting coercion is a direct physical attack from the coercer, the negative consequences of rejecting an attempt at persuasion are anything from starving to death to someone changing their opinion of you, none of which are external attacks on your person.

The starving man offered a job at less than a dollar per hour is still very much presented with a voluntary choice. He can work for the employer, eventually earning enough to buy food and improve his lot in life; he can choose to starve to death; or he can work for someone else who offers better conditions, better pay, etc. (or provide value to others in some other way). It's not the fault of capitalism that hunger and poor working conditions exist, but capitalism provides the most effective means for alleviating such circumstances.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

MMMark — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:38:24 GMT

Sat. 10/04/24 12:37 EDT
.post #68

hayekianxyz:
Is this always true?

Only if it's tautological.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

hayekianxyz — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:18:08 GMT

Persuasion includes the option to reject what is being offered,

Is this always true? Surely you've heard stories of young kids being persuaded into doing things they otherwise wouldn't.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

wilderness — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:38:53 GMT

excellent post MMMark

Re: A problem with the free-market?

MMMark — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:36:05 GMT

Sat. 10/04/24 11:34 EDT
.post #67

Liberté:
Coercion is a species of persuasion.

Rudolph Giuliani:
Freedom is about authority.

Rape is a species of sex.
Robbery is a species of business.
Murder is a species of medical surgery.
Physical force is a species of reason.

You're just playing Orwellian word games.

Persuasion includes the option to reject what is being offered, whereas coercion does not.

Failing to discriminate between fundamentally different things, and intentionally misusing language, is not serious discussion.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:11:47 GMT

>>No, I think that coercion is tortious persuasion.

so, you don't disagree with the philosophy on Mises.org you just prefer to use different words and phrases.

Re: A problem with the free-market?

Justin Spahr-Summers — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 04:48:01 GMT

The hypothetical example created was that if a worker put a year of labor onto creating a $5500 train that takes 5 years to create, he is not entitled to 1/5 of it, but instead merely the present value of the goods he produced. He goes on to say that if he did nothing but gather scraps of metal for the project, he deserves perhaps about $900.

Going by this argument, if the worker did nothing but draw the blue prints, he is not entitled to any of the share, as the present value of a piece of paper with instructions is worthless. It ignores the mechanics of value, and doesn't attribute market factors for the phenomenon of value either, but rather just assumes that prices are governed by the concept of present vs future goods without any evidence and merely an unimaginable example to show the point. Its not a very scientific argument.

(Please excuse the horrible quoting behavior. Getting used to this new editor and stuff.)

Esuric's very comprehensive reply addressed most of the fallacies here, but I want to address this point specifically, because it seems like nobody has yet.

The "present value" of a good isn't its value if it were to be consumed immediately. The present value of a good refers to the sum of all its future value discounted by time (based on the subjective time preference of the individual). A "piece of paper with instructions" is not worthless in the present as long as someone has a desire to, at some point in time, follow the instructions to achieve the end results. A worker drawing blueprints would earn money based on how much those blueprints are valued by others.