Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.
Define a distortion in the market without giving an example. A market distortion is any event in which a market reaches a market clearing price for an item that is substantially different from the price that a market would achieve while operating under conditions of perfect competition and enforcement of legal contracts and the ownership of private property. If the owner of private property suddenly decides the resources on his property are no longer available to the market which were available up until now, has a market distortion occurred? No. Market distortions require outside agency. A market participant cannot introduce a distortion, because he is part of the market, not outside it. Incorrect. An outside agency which is not influencing the market is not part of the market. But upon influencing the market, then that outside agency is part of the market. And don't come back and say that the agency must be a buyer or seller. An event, caused by an outside agency XYZ, which renders property owner Smith's goods no longer fit for sale, has influenced the market. Is XYZ a market participant? Has the market been distorted? So, when a government passes a law that makes the sale of, say, a plant, illegal, thus distorting the price of that plant, they become part of the market? You are free to draw your own conclusions. I asked you a question though. Is XYZ a market participant? Has the market been distorted? This conversation is not about pot. |
|
|
|
Except it's so wrong. It has been shown that the government will fund things that corporations won't. Corporations typically will only engage in R & D that has a payoff within a certain amount of time, typically much less than government funded research might yield. This is known, and examples abound. And here we have new motors, the result of government funded research. Are you saying the motors don't now exist? |
|
|
|
Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.
Define a distortion in the market without giving an example. A market distortion is any event in which a market reaches a market clearing price for an item that is substantially different from the price that a market would achieve while operating under conditions of perfect competition and enforcement of legal contracts and the ownership of private property. If the owner of private property suddenly decides the resources on his property are no longer available to the market which were available up until now, has a market distortion occurred? No. Market distortions require outside agency. A market participant cannot introduce a distortion, because he is part of the market, not outside it. Incorrect. An outside agency which is not influencing the market is not part of the market. But upon influencing the market, then that outside agency is part of the market. And don't come back and say that the agency must be a buyer or seller. An event, caused by an outside agency XYZ, which renders property owner Smith's goods no longer fit for sale, has influenced the market. Is XYZ a market participant? Has the market been distorted? |
|
|
|
Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.
Define a distortion in the market without giving an example. A market distortion is any event in which a market reaches a market clearing price for an item that is substantially different from the price that a market would achieve while operating under conditions of perfect competition and enforcement of legal contracts and the ownership of private property. If the owner of private property suddenly decides the resources on his property are no longer available to the market which were available up until now, has a market distortion occurred? |
|
|
|
Of course, I'm of the opinion that mucking about in the market in any way is bad, because it introduces distortions, and distortions introduce inefficiencies, which waste resources, which, of course, is bad.
Define a distortion in the market without giving an example. |
|
|
|
I made one example to demonstrate that human psychology plays a role. There are other factors too. Like smiles on the employees' faces.
A service provided to the customer, which may increase sales if it's a service desired by those customers, and which also follows strict economic rules? (Notice how underpaid employees often refuse to provide that service) The incentive for employers to create jobs with value.
You'll have to be more specific Are you familiar with David Seigel (douchebag of the year).
Yes. Is he "the economy" or a significant part of it? And what does a small attempt to affect a political situation have to do with economics, or minimum wage? (ther than just his specific company now having possible issues of employees wanting to gtfo) Will this now change the way Hilton, Sheraton, Sandals, Disney Resorts, Best Western, Wyndham, DoubleTree, Royal Plaza, Holliday Inn, Hyatt, Ritz-Carlton, Atlantis, or any other resort companies do business, and change the resorts market in any way? If not, why bring it up? I think his response after the election was rather telling. |
|
|
|
Rassah, are you familiar with old growth forests vs secondary growth forests? Perhaps you've heard of the spotted owl controversy? Do you understand what that was all about?
Yep. I'm aware. It doesn't matter though. It does matter. Please explain your understanding of it. I know what it is. You know what it is. It doesn't matter to the OP topic, and doesn't matter to anyone else reading this, and it doesn't matter to me what you think about it. Just as anything I say regarding ownership and stewardship of private property apparently doesn't matter to you. Is this an admission that you don't really know? I think a few sentences with the same word count as your response would have been sufficient. Instead, you posted what you did - which is a huge red flag that you don't know, which basically invalidates a lot of your previous statements. |
|
|
|
Myrkul is the last person on Earth who should be posting supply demand curves. He has demonstrated a total lack of understanding of their context and how to apply them. I don't think he ever advanced beyond Econ 101 theory. He doesn't understand how to apply human psychology to their interpretation.
...
In the case of wages, he again fails to understand the elements of human psychology. He doesn't understand how low wage earners might have hopes and dreams (no matter how small) which will affect how they interpret misleading comments from employers who might lead the employee to believe that if they work hard, and do well, there might be a raise in the near future.
There's really not all that much psychology in economics. You are referring to behavioral economics here, specifically market inefficiencies due to asymmetric information. The boss has all the information - he won't be giving them a raise, and the employee doesn't have all the information - he falsely believes there may be a raise when that's not true. I don't know where you picked that up, but if it was in an actual econ (or securities&investment) class, they would have told you that market inefficiencies are just mere blips in economics, having some short-term effect, but generally not having any long term ones. The employee would believe his boss the first time. After a few month, he will be skeptical the second time. The third time, both employee and employer will have the same information, which is that the boss is full of shit, and the market inefficiency will be gone, as will be the employee, and anyone else he may have shared this with. The most an employer can do is distort the market a bit for a short while, and likely not more than once or twice before getting a reputation for being dishonest. I made one example to demonstrate that human psychology plays a role. There are other factors too. Like smiles on the employees' faces. The incentive for employers to create jobs with value. Are you familiar with David Seigel (douchebag of the year). |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be nice if the real [world] worked like it does on a chalkboard?
I see. Economics only works if it agrees with your preconceptions, huh? Sorry, princess, that's not science. That's fantasy. On the contrary, your Econ 101 charts are over simplified mathematical relations which simply don't apply universally. Thus, your insistence that they do is a fantasy you cling to. Get your nose out of the books preaching libertarian dogma with its preselected examples to make you feel good, and start reading texts whose audience does not show a higher than normal correlation to libertarian readers, and you'll be on your way to a more honest and less biased understanding of the world around you. Oh look, now Wikipedia has libertarian bias.  Are you referring to the definition of a supply demand curve? If so, it's supposed to say exactly what you would learn in Econ 101. It's a chart and a mathematical relation. Duh. I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to deviate from the mathematics. Nor should it. And I wouldn't expect your favorite libertarian texts to expound upon it when the cold hard theory of it supports the values of libertarians. But out in the real world, where other factors apply that the supply demand curve function does not have inputs for, it can (and does) breakdown. Therefore, only an individual (that would be you) who doesn't understand those other factors and real world scenarios where the curve breaks down would cling to the function for any scenario that he believes fits his desired outcome. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be nice if the real [world] worked like it does on a chalkboard?
I see. Economics only works if it agrees with your preconceptions, huh? Sorry, princess, that's not science. That's fantasy. On the contrary, your Econ 101 charts are over simplified mathematical relations which simply don't apply universally. Thus, your insistence that they do is a fantasy you cling to. Get your nose out of the books preaching libertarian dogma with its preselected examples to make you feel good, and start reading texts whose audience does not show a higher than normal correlation to libertarian readers, and you'll be on your way to a more honest and less biased understanding of the world around you. |
|
|
|
Rassah, are you familiar with old growth forests vs secondary growth forests? Perhaps you've heard of the spotted owl controversy? Do you understand what that was all about?
Yep. I'm aware. It doesn't matter though. It does matter. Please explain your understanding of it. |
|
|
|
You are splitting hairs. We are talking about sets of populations, not individual cases. The population of today's minimum wage workers suffers much the same choices as enslaved peoples. It's funny that most (if not all) civilized people get this and you don't. I hate pull the ad populum card, but this is a moral issue.
Minimum wage laws create the problem you are railing against. Minimum wage laws are a price floor. Price floors, when they do anything, create a surplus in the controlled commodity.  A historical (and current) example of a price floor are minimum wage laws; in this case, employees are the suppliers of labor and the company is the consumer. When the minimum wage is set higher than the equilibrium market price for unskilled labor, unemployment is created (more people are looking for jobs than there are jobs available). A minimum wage above the equilibrium wage would induce employers to hire fewer workers as well as allow more people to enter the labor market, the result is a surplus in the amount of labor available. The equilibrium wage for a worker would be dependent upon the worker's skill sets along with market conditions. Wouldn't it be nice if the real worked like it does on a chalkboard? As smart as Newton was, even his theories don't hold up in every situation. Computer modelling gets us a little closer, but nothing in you chart speaks of laws. Laws are real world applications of theory overseen by judges and juries because simple statistics and theory don't apply in every situation. Theories about economics are surely interesting, but to be a real science they must pass experimental muster and peer review. So while you have an interesting mathematical model it is no more science than any other math. It is simply math theory, no more, no less. Math is a very important tool, but when all you have is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail. Your error is in confirmation bias. Myrkul is the last person on Earth who should be posting supply demand curves. He has demonstrated a total lack of understanding of their context and how to apply them. I don't think he ever advanced beyond Econ 101 theory. He doesn't understand how to apply human psychology to their interpretation. In the case of diminishing resources, he completely fails to understand how standard analysis of a supply demand curve actually produces the opposite result of what usually happens when human psychology is added into the mix. In the case of wages, he again fails to understand the elements of human psychology. He doesn't understand how low wage earners might have hopes and dreams (no matter how small) which will affect how they interpret misleading comments from employers who might lead the employee to believe that if they work hard, and do well, there might be a raise in the near future. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah, are you familiar with old growth forests vs secondary growth forests? Perhaps you've heard of the spotted owl controversy? Do you understand what that was all about?
|
|
|
|
^^ Good luck! If it works for you, then it works for you. We just haven't had a very good run of it up here in the states. If things start to go bad, though, take a look to the west of you, in Chile, where the most vibrant forest is owned, maintained, and regrown by Empresas CMPC, the largest paper pulp company in Latin America
Why do use the word 'regrown'? That word isn't really associated with forest conservation. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah,
First of all, you need to stop getting hung up on your insistence that biodiversity is not wealth. To argue in such a way only implies that less biodiversity has equal value to more biodiversity.
Now, regarding corporations, governments and property ownership: What the government actually does is the result of different government organizations and processes, comprised of politicians, the EPA, the National Parks system, law making, bills, voting, lobbying, etc. There are successes and failures. You are making the mistake of arguing that government is the problem, rather than arguing that some processes and components are not working as effectively as others. This is not an argument for no government - it's an argument for more strength and power within certain divisions, and less vulnerability to greed, and a more and better understanding of natural processes.
With regard to property ownership, you seem to think it's the solution. You aren't factoring in the ignorance of the property owners, and how they apply what they know to solve their personal goals, completely independent of larger and more holistic solutions. Please don't be so naive.
|
|
|
|
I've noticed that a few of you continue responding to cbeast.
Why?
It's pretty obvious that he doesn't know how to actually have an argument. Guy's as intellectually dishonest as they come. You can palpate it here.
Observe his behavior. If you advance an argument, he refuses to respond to the argument. If you refute something he says, he ignores the refutation and proceeds to advance another flawed hypothesis, which he never backs up or substantiates with any evidence-based argument whatsoever. He's playing whack-a-mole with increasingly crazy Goddidit-style hypotheses and fallacies like arguments from emotion, just so he doesn't have to accept the observably true statement that minimum wages hurt poor people. From what I could tell from the brief quotes in others' responses, he's still doing this -- throwing words your way to busy you up and provoke you.
If he's obviously not having a conversation with you, why, then, do you give him your attention? To contaminate the thread with more stupidity from him? Cos that's what engaging him accomplishes: it fills the thread with more and more stupidity that he happily makes up to cling to his beliefs.
There's nothing you can do to change this sad man's mind. Nothing. He's married to the idea that organized violence (in this example, against employers) can make the world better. That kind of person cannot be persuaded. Just add him to your ignore list, and note that he's in your ignore list whenever he intervenes in threads you're commenting (this is only so new forum members won't waste their time with him either).
Talking to a man in denial doesn't work. Ostracism does, if you actually ostracize idiots.
Start a blog: People I Ignore on the Bitcoin Forums: Essays on People I Disagree With. |
|
|
|
Wtf? O.o Did I miss something on another thread? I'm still just wondering why trophic cascades, ecosystem services, and island biogeography are considered wealth, as opposed to natural resources or theories that can be used to generate wealth. And also wondering wtf any of this nature stuff has to do with FY,GM. If it like, "Fuck you, dolphin. I got my fish"  FirstAsshat considers the position that private ownership of all resources will act to preserve them to be false. He advocates, therefore, the existence of a State to preserve and hold in reserve for future generations, all natural resources. Trophic cascades and island biogeography, he sees as consequences of private mismanagement of land resources, and ecosystem services to be the true "wealth" of the land. He has yet to explain what ecosystem services mineral resources such as oil and copper provide in the land, however. Murkylogic is almost nearly correct here. He just seems to think that biodiversity include oil and copper and there was a claim that ecosystem services are derived from oil and copper. Furthermore, he can't really put together two and two and figure out that the act of harvesting oil, and then burning it, do have damaging effects on ecosystems, and thus ecosystem services. Rassah, I never claimed that island biogepgraphy is wealth. I pointed out those terms to you so that you could gain some knowledge by engaging in research. That's very clear in my post where the terms appeared. Would you like me to recommend some books for you to help you better understand the ramifications of what you argue for? |
|
|
|
I don't recall any referral identifiers in the URLs I posted. What a suspicious and paranoid individual you are. And for about the tenth time, I told you that it is not my responsibility to write whole treatises on the subject, especially when there are well written books by PhDs far more versed in the subject matter. I have introduced the concepts. The interested reader should then proactively seek to educate themselves, rather than make demands on others for their education. Frankly, you have a very strange attitude.
Imagine this: You visit a bar, and meet a lovely young lady. You agree to head back to your place to finish the night off in style. Just as you're about to get going, she starts putting her clothes back on, and tells you that you should finish things yourself. She even suggests that you put on the Penthouse channel to help. Would you not be a little upset with her? You got me all exited that I was going to finally learn the secret to why you view the little fuzzy animals as more important than your fellow humans... A normal person can follow the logic about the little fuzzy animals. I really don't know why you cannot. A normal person can parse the meaning of trophic cascades, island biogeography and ecosystem services and figure it all out. I really don't know why you cannot. I understand perfectly. What I continue to not get is why you consider those concepts acceptable justifications for slavery and (mass, even near-genocidal) murder. I assume that explanation was slated for later in the thread, but you got bored. Now I understand why you continued to badger me for the past six months! You made false assumptions about my motives. It's best if you don't do that when engaging in discussion or debate. I hope you've learned your lesson. Now we can move on. |
|
|
|
|
NAP isn't a law. It's a guiding principle to draw inspiration from while designing an AnCap society. It actually has zero effect with regard to what happens in a NAP inspired AnCap society though. In the end, the people within an AnCap society will still murder, rape, rob, deceive, and fight others over lovers, property, race, and ideas. In arbitration, someone will lose, perhaps unjustly. People will be inundated with contracts, subscriptions, tolls, fees, and bills. Lawyers will abound. Lawsuits will be the order of the day. Money will reign supreme.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
