By poor I mean the general standard of living.
I have heard before that Africa is 'the most mineral rich continent in the world'. While I find proving this seems to be exceedingly difficult (if even possible), I would at least concede that, in terms of mineral wealth, the African continent is probably no worse off than any of the others ...
So what gives? Why do I see TV personalities selling the plight of these starving people? Are Africans really unable to develop any sort of infrastructure to provide basic necessities like food, clothing, shelter, and medicine?
Southern:The point of this whole side discussion is that wealth can be generated without people being free. Slave labor be it under direction of the soviets, southern planters, european serfts can produce wealth. It has since the dawn of time. These economic systems have a proven themselves poor generators of wealth but they did none the less.
In this context, there is no system that makes wealth! What does this "system" look like? Are we talking about a fictional matrix? A stream of energy lines? What?
It is the individuals that are making the wealth, even in slave labor. It is by the very human action, or in other words, by work that the wealth is being accumulated. It doesn't matter if it is under threat of aggression, ie. slave labors, or if nobody is forcing the individuals. It is still a preferred A to B with B having subsets of B1 and B2. A being work; B being rebellion with the subset of B being B1 rid the coercion; B2 die. These are all preferred values made empirical by the very actions of individuals.
wilderness:In this context, there is no system that makes wealth! What does this "system" look like? Are we talking about a fictional matrix? A stream of energy lines? What?
What context? I'm sorry you have lost me.
wilderness:It is the individuals that are making the wealth, even in slave labor. It is by the very human action, or in other words, by work that the wealth is being accumulated. It doesn't matter if it is under threat of aggression, ie. slave labors, or if nobody is forcing the individuals.
Yes, of course it is individuals that make wealth. And this is my point.
wilderness:It is still a preferred A to B with B having subsets of B1 and B2. A being work; B being rebellion with the subset of B being B1 rid the coercion; B2 die. These are all preferred values made empirical by the very actions of individuals.
So you are saying that people choose to work or rebel with the chance of successfully rebelling or dieing. Sure. I agree. But in your context we are all free and have always been free. Because at any point in history the oppressed chose oppression. That slaves are really not slaves. Which in a sense is true. However, this philosophical point is not relavant to the discussion. I think we are using laymans terms where slaves are not considered "free". (if I have misinterpreted your point, please tell me)
I am being told that individuals without liberty (aka slaves, serfs, etc.) produce nothing. And this is why botswana is wealthier than the other nations in africa. This assumes that some are free and some are not. So my arguement is based on that assumption.
I am simply trying to illistrate people can and do produce wealth when they are not "free". People in a capitalist system are motivated by profit. People in other systems are motivated by the whip.
Southern: wilderness:In this context, there is no system that makes wealth! What does this "system" look like? Are we talking about a fictional matrix? A stream of energy lines? What? What context? I'm sorry you have lost me.
The context of your post.
Southern: wilderness:It is still a preferred A to B with B having subsets of B1 and B2. A being work; B being rebellion with the subset of B being B1 rid the coercion; B2 die. These are all preferred values made empirical by the very actions of individuals. So you are saying that people choose to work or rebel with the chance of successfully rebelling or dieing. Sure. I agree. But in your context we are all free and have always been free.
So you are saying that people choose to work or rebel with the chance of successfully rebelling or dieing. Sure. I agree. But in your context we are all free and have always been free.
yes. Human action is axiomatic.
Southern:Because at any point in history the oppressed chose oppression.
That's all we can say. We can read their writings or guess that they didn't like it, assuming, that their writings and our assumptions are not lying and incorrect. But also seeing that human action is about making choices, aggression being a counter-force to choice, would therefore make it appear that aggression is a perversion of human nature.
Southern:That slaves are really not slaves.
They are slaves. It's to know what the definition of slaves means. Just because human action steps into the picture doesn't necessarily mean a whole subversion of meanings have to happen. Why do you think some people say under any current gov't now on this earth, such individuals say they are slaves to them?
Southern:Which in a sense is true.
In a sense, yes. But a sense that doesn't contradict what I said above.
Southern:However, this philosophical point is not relavant to the discussion. I think we are using laymans terms where slaves are not considered "free". (if I have misinterpreted your point, please tell me)
Yes. You just misrepresented my point by saying my philosophical point is "not relevant". Cause if I'm basically agreeing with you after a brief discussion, and yet it's irrelevant, then wouldn't that mean your point is irrelevant so you undercut yourself when you say that.
Also, I'm not simply being of the mind if that's what you think philosophy is, but I'm being completely practical.
Southern:I am being told that individuals without liberty (aka slaves, serfs, etc.) produce nothing.
Who is doing the work? That doesn't make sense.
Southern:I am simply trying to illistrate people can and do produce wealth when they are not "free".
They do produce wealth. The individuals are working and making things.
Southern:People in a capitalist system are motivated by profit.
Economically speaking, yes with numerous other unintended consequences, that can be very good, that happens when property rights are maintained.
Southern:People in other systems are motivated by the whip.
true.
wilderness: Southern: wilderness:In this context, there is no system that makes wealth! What does this "system" look like? Are we talking about a fictional matrix? A stream of energy lines? What? What context? I'm sorry you have lost me. The context of your post. Southern: wilderness:It is still a preferred A to B with B having subsets of B1 and B2. A being work; B being rebellion with the subset of B being B1 rid the coercion; B2 die. These are all preferred values made empirical by the very actions of individuals. So you are saying that people choose to work or rebel with the chance of successfully rebelling or dieing. Sure. I agree. But in your context we are all free and have always been free. yes. Human action is axiomatic. Southern:Because at any point in history the oppressed chose oppression. That's all we can say. We can read their writings or guess that they didn't like it, assuming, that their writings and our assumptions are not lying and incorrect. But also seeing that human action is about making choices, aggression being a counter-force to choice, would therefore make it appear that aggression is a perversion of human nature. Southern:That slaves are really not slaves. They are slaves. It's to know what the definition of slaves means. Just because human action steps into the picture doesn't necessarily mean a whole subversion of meanings have to happen. Why do you think some people say under any current gov't now on this earth, such individuals say they are slaves to them? Southern:Which in a sense is true. In a sense, yes. But a sense that doesn't contradict what I said above. Southern:However, this philosophical point is not relavant to the discussion. I think we are using laymans terms where slaves are not considered "free". (if I have misinterpreted your point, please tell me) Yes. You just misrepresented my point by saying my philosophical point is "not relevant". Cause if I'm basically agreeing with you after a brief discussion, and yet it's irrelevant, then wouldn't that mean your point is irrelevant so you undercut yourself when you say that. Also, I'm not simply being of the mind if that's what you think philosophy is, but I'm being completely practical. Southern:I am being told that individuals without liberty (aka slaves, serfs, etc.) produce nothing. Who is doing the work? That doesn't make sense. Southern:I am simply trying to illistrate people can and do produce wealth when they are not "free". They do produce wealth. The individuals are working and making things. Southern:People in a capitalist system are motivated by profit. Economically speaking, yes with numerous other unintended consequences, that can be very good, that happens when property rights are maintained. Southern:People in other systems are motivated by the whip. true.
I appologize. I was a bit confused, I assumed you were in dissagreement. I agree with everything that you have said here.
Southern:I appologize. I was a bit confused, I assumed you were in dissagreement. I agree with everything that you have said here.
There was an initial disagreement when you said this:
Southern:These economic systems have a proven themselves poor generators of wealth but they did none the less.
If you agree with what I had said, then socialism has not proven itself as a generator of wealth. You said poor generator, but generator none the less. It's not the socialist system that is doing anything. It is the individuals that are working that are actually generating wealth, though, under the whip. The only thing the socialist is adding to the market is - the whip. Not production. Not wealth.
edit: Even the whip being made out of leather is a product of the market come to think of it. The only thing the socialist contributes is a special pleading fantasy of their own mind.
wilderness: Southern:I appologize. I was a bit confused, I assumed you were in dissagreement. I agree with everything that you have said here. There was an initial disagreement when you said this: Southern:These economic systems have a proven themselves poor generators of wealth but they did none the less. If you agree with what I had said, then socialism has not proven itself as a generator of wealth. You said poor generator, but generator none the less. It's not the socialist system that is doing anything. It is the individuals that are working that are actually generating wealth, though, under the whip. The only thing the socialist is adding to the market is - the whip. Not production. Not wealth.
Ok, so in a nutshell. The market always exists. The "systems" (or differing levels and types of coersion or motivation) that I am talking about would be nothing more than interference or alterations to the market? If that is what you are saying. I agree.
Is this related to the arguement that africa is poor primarially because it is less free. Which is the arguement on one side. And africa is poor for a number of reasons (lack of capital, lack of human resources, global politics, etc.) which was my arguement.
Southern:Slave labor be it under direction of the soviets, southern planters, european aristocrats can produce wealth
Slave labor under a plantation owner or under a soviet commissar are different.
The plantation owner is able to calculate, he can tell when the worth of his plantation has increased or decreased, the commissar is not.
Southern:that the productive capacity of the soviets was greater in 1991 than it was 1922.
Russia was the single largest grain exporter prior to becoming the USSR, it was a grain importer when it collapsed.
Peace
Southern:Ok, so in a nutshell. The market always exists. The "systems" (or differing levels and types of coersion or motivation) that I am talking about would be nothing more than interference or alterations to the market? If that is what you are saying. I agree.
Exactly! That's what I am saying.
Southern:Is this related to the arguement that africa is poor primarially because it is less free. Which is the arguement on one side. And africa is poor for a number of reasons (lack of capital, lack of human resources, global politics, etc.) which was my arguement.
I don't know how those two sides can be separated. They go hand in hand.
JonBostwick: Southern:Slave labor be it under direction of the soviets, southern planters, european aristocrats can produce wealth Slave labor under a plantation owner or under a soviet commissar are different. The plantation owner is able to calculate, he can tell when the worth of his plantation has increased or decreased, the commissar is not.
Maybe but even the commissar can motivate people to create things of value.
JonBostwick: Southern:that the productive capacity of the soviets was greater in 1991 than it was 1922. Russia was the single largest grain exporter prior to becoming the USSR, it was a grain importer when it collapsed.
Can you make the case for ALL production? The soviets made a huge effort to expand the production of heavy industry. Did the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union fall?
No.
In 1860 the southern united states produced more cotton than any other region of the world. Today both india and egypt produce more. So obviously the US economy is smaller than it was.... Obivously Not.
Come on. Honest debate here.
wilderness: Southern:Is this related to the arguement that africa is poor primarially because it is less free. Which is the arguement on one side. And africa is poor for a number of reasons (lack of capital, lack of human resources, global politics, etc.) which was my arguement. I don't know how those two sides can be separated. They go hand in hand.
Its not a matter of separating the two. They are indeed. One is part of the other. I just advocated a broad view of the problem, others a narrower view.
Southern: In 1860 the southern united states produced more cotton than any other region of the world. Today both india and egypt produce more. So obviously the US economy is smaller than it was.... Obivously Not. Come on. Honest debate here.
But the US economy is in decline.
Southern: wilderness: Southern:Is this related to the arguement that africa is poor primarially because it is less free. Which is the arguement on one side. And africa is poor for a number of reasons (lack of capital, lack of human resources, global politics, etc.) which was my arguement. I don't know how those two sides can be separated. They go hand in hand. Its not a matter of separating the two. They are indeed. One is part of the other. I just advocated a broad view of the problem, others a narrower view.
Yours is not a broader argument, you are just denying the casual link. Those factors are not equal "causes." There is one cause and many symptoms.
JonBostwick:Yours is not a broader argument, you are just denying the casual link. Those factors are not equal "causes." There is one cause and many symptoms.
If you mean that generation or degeneration of liberty is a cause, then I agree, noting that liberty is a principle by definition. Due to social interactions by individuals who enact the principle of liberty, then capital accumulation or depletion and all else in the historical data are unintended consequences of said individuals socially interacting.
JonBostwick: Southern: wilderness: Southern:Is this related to the arguement that africa is poor primarially because it is less free. Which is the arguement on one side. And africa is poor for a number of reasons (lack of capital, lack of human resources, global politics, etc.) which was my arguement. I don't know how those two sides can be separated. They go hand in hand. Its not a matter of separating the two. They are indeed. One is part of the other. I just advocated a broad view of the problem, others a narrower view. Yours is not a broader argument, you are just denying the casual link. Those factors are not equal "causes." There is one cause and many symptoms.
I have not denied any link. There is a link between liberty and wealth. However, I can put you on a rock in the middle of the atlantic. There you will have all the freedom in the world. You will not be coerced or threatened you will own the entire island and all of the fruits of your labor. However if there is nothing eatible, no fresh water, nothing that can be used for shelter (aka resources) you will die; if there are things to eat, there is fresh water, and material for shelter but you lack the know how and/or tools to access these things (aka human capital, capital goods) you will die. Dead people dont produce anything, much less become wealthy.
I have never denied that freedom is an important part of a wealthy, successfull society. However, you have claimed that all wealth springs from liberty. And that all the other things that I have listed (resources, technology, knowhow) are all dependant on liberty. THey are not. They all exist whether people are slaves or free.
JonBostwick: Southern: In 1860 the southern united states produced more cotton than any other region of the world. Today both india and egypt produce more. So obviously the US economy is smaller than it was.... Obivously Not. Come on. Honest debate here. But the US economy is in decline.
Yea and.