Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes)

[FinShaggy]

No it's not. Living condition is a physical thing, like "homeless" or "living in a house". Living Standard is how comfortable, fed, etc. you are in that place. That ones all about mentality.

My apologies. "Standard of living" is the phrase that should have been used.

I think this is the first time we have come to a peaceful conclusion, lol

[1714845417]

1714845417

[myrkul]

No it's not. Living condition is a physical thing, like "homeless" or "living in a house". Living Standard is how comfortable, fed, etc. you are in that place. That ones all about mentality.

My apologies. "Standard of living" is the phrase that should have been used.

I think this is the first time we have come to a peaceful conclusion, lol

It helps when the person sure of how right he is is actually right.

[FinShaggy]

No it's not. Living condition is a physical thing, like "homeless" or "living in a house". Living Standard is how comfortable, fed, etc. you are in that place. That ones all about mentality.

My apologies. "Standard of living" is the phrase that should have been used.

I think this is the first time we have come to a peaceful conclusion, lol

It helps when the person sure of how right he is is actually right.

Just because we argue about politics usually, doesn't make me wrong... It just means that your political philosophy does not fit with mine...

No one is ever "right" when it comes to politics... At least not so far (in the history of the world), lol.

[crumbcake]

Monopoly is great for a consumer if it's created to help the consumer (in socialism/utopia/pipedream)

You know why it's a pipedream?

First off, because nobody can understand and anticipate the needs of all the consumers. This is known as the economic calculation problem. Secondly, let's assume you manage to find an omniscient person to do the dictating. Is there any guarantee he would be benevolent? Finally, let's assume you had a benevolent, all-knowing dictator to run things. He'd have to be immortal, too, because there's even less chance that his successor would be either all-knowing, or benevolent.

You've given me a laundry list of potential problems with monopoly, none of them a fundamental flaw with monopoly itself.  No one can predict how many people travel at the same time, this doesn't mean we need multiple towers & multiple teams of air traffic controllers to keep the planes from bumping into each other, does it?

You've shot yourself in the foot with this one. There are multiple towers, and multiple teams of traffic controllers... at least one per airport, and most have separate teams for ground control, local air control, and the actual air traffic control. And each individual controller is responsible for a relatively small section of space. You can't expect one person to coordinate all the flights in the air at any one time.

Please.  Let's not try to grasp at straws & technicalities, the meaning was clear:  Two independent teams of air controllers, in competition rather than cooperation with one another.
You don't honestly believe that a monopoly is just one guy?  Or that two corporate divisions, in a cooperative rather than competitive relationship, are anything but a monopoly?  

As to your "efficiency":

No wasted money/energy for advertising
No redundant tooling costs for identical products
No redundant/identical products
Streamlined planning/transport/delivery

1.Unless you count propaganda. Monopolies have traditionally spent a great deal of energy and resources trying to convince people how awesome their shitty product is.

That's because they're not true monopolies.  If you have cornered the market on food, why would you spend $$$ on PR?  
to the alternative:  Would you spend as much on PR as when you *didn't* own the market?  Let's stop grasping at straws.

2/3. Good point. Making 100 left shoes, size 10, is much more efficient than making 50 pairs of assorted sizes.

So you're saying that the only thing society needs is 100 left shoes in size 10?  Or that the monopoly is intrinsically run by idiots? (see my definition of socialist monopoly in one of the above posts, and if you have a problem with the definition, argue why it is faulty, but don't change the rules in mid-flight)

4. Planning again . Please read up on the economic calculation problem.

You're looking for problems intrinsic to monopolies, not problems often associated with monopolies.  If i made a claim that monopolies, no matter how flawed, are the best thing since sliced bread, you'd have an argument.  All i have claimed is that it is possible for monopolies to be beneficial to society, a much narrower claim.  Don't make me defend statements i've never made.

[myrkul]

No one is ever "right" when it comes to politics...

I donno, I'd say this guy got it right:


Click the picture for a learnin'

[crumbcake]

Though "standard of living" is fairly loosely defined, it's focused on measurable wealth, not converting wealth that's in your pocket into wealth in your gas tank.  Everything you've listed doesn't improve your standard of living (unless you're stealing the gas, sandwiches & robbing your pot dealer).

You're mistaken. Marijuana has been legalized in Colorado BECAUSE IT INCREASES STANDARD OF LIVING for terminal and chronically in pain patients. It has nothing to do with wealth, it is about outlook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living
The idea of a 'standard' may be contrasted with the quality of life, which takes into account not only the material standard of living, but also other more intangible aspects that make up human life, such as leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues, etc.
Now stop being goofy

[FinShaggy]

No one is ever "right" when it comes to politics...

I donno, I'd say this guy got it right:


Click the picture for a learnin'

I believe this too. If each city had a public court, police, etc. But it was privately funded by the citizens, we would have much more freedom.

[FinShaggy]

Though "standard of living" is fairly loosely defined, it's focused on measurable wealth, not converting wealth that's in your pocket into wealth in your gas tank.  Everything you've listed doesn't improve your standard of living (unless you're stealing the gas, sandwiches & robbing your pot dealer).

You're mistaken. Marijuana has been legalized in Colorado BECAUSE IT INCREASES STANDARD OF LIVING for terminal and chronically in pain patients. It has nothing to do with wealth, it is about outlook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living
The idea of a 'standard' may be contrasted with the quality of life, which takes into account not only the material standard of living, but also other more intangible aspects that make up human life, such as leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues, etc.
Now stop being goofy

None of these things are "Wealth"
 "leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues"

Not to say wealthy people can't afford more of them or better versions.

[crumbcake]

Though "standard of living" is fairly loosely defined, it's focused on measurable wealth, not converting wealth that's in your pocket into wealth in your gas tank.  Everything you've listed doesn't improve your standard of living (unless you're stealing the gas, sandwiches & robbing your pot dealer).

You're mistaken. Marijuana has been legalized in Colorado BECAUSE IT INCREASES STANDARD OF LIVING for terminal and chronically in pain patients. It has nothing to do with wealth, it is about outlook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living
The idea of a 'standard' may be contrasted with the quality of life, which takes into account not only the material standard of living, but also other more intangible aspects that make up human life, such as leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues, etc.
Now stop being goofy

None of these things are "Wealth"
 "leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues"

FFS learn to English!  read the quote again, and tell me if those things are "Standard of living" or "quality of life"
edit:  You say:  BECAUSE IT INCREASES STANDARD OF LIVING, i say quality of life

[FinShaggy]

Though "standard of living" is fairly loosely defined, it's focused on measurable wealth, not converting wealth that's in your pocket into wealth in your gas tank.  Everything you've listed doesn't improve your standard of living (unless you're stealing the gas, sandwiches & robbing your pot dealer).

You're mistaken. Marijuana has been legalized in Colorado BECAUSE IT INCREASES STANDARD OF LIVING for terminal and chronically in pain patients. It has nothing to do with wealth, it is about outlook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living
The idea of a 'standard' may be contrasted with the quality of life, which takes into account not only the material standard of living, but also other more intangible aspects that make up human life, such as leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues, etc.
Now stop being goofy

None of these things are "Wealth"
 "leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues"

Not to say wealthy people can't afford more of them or better versions.

Wait a minute. The words "Standard of Living" and "Quality of Life" are used interchangeably in Colorado legal documents I'm pretty sure. That's why I'm thinking what I am.

Turns out I'm the one that's mistaken, and maybe law writers here too, lol.

[crumbcake]

Though "standard of living" is fairly loosely defined, it's focused on measurable wealth, not converting wealth that's in your pocket into wealth in your gas tank.  Everything you've listed doesn't improve your standard of living (unless you're stealing the gas, sandwiches & robbing your pot dealer).

You're mistaken. Marijuana has been legalized in Colorado BECAUSE IT INCREASES STANDARD OF LIVING for terminal and chronically in pain patients. It has nothing to do with wealth, it is about outlook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living
The idea of a 'standard' may be contrasted with the quality of life, which takes into account not only the material standard of living, but also other more intangible aspects that make up human life, such as leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues, etc.
Now stop being goofy

None of these things are "Wealth"
 "leisure, safety, cultural resources, social life, physical health, environmental quality issues"

Not to say wealthy people can't afford more of them or better versions.

Wait a minute. The words "Standard of Living" and "Quality of Life" are used interchangeably in Colorado legal documents.

Turns out I'm the one that's mistaken, and maybe law writers here too, lol.

No biggie - i make huge blunders all the time -- it's the interwebz

[myrkul]

Please.  Let's not try to grasp at straws & technicalities, the meaning was clear:  Two independent teams of air controllers, in competition rather than cooperation with one another.
You don't honestly believe that a monopoly is just one guy?

The air traffic controllers are in competition with each other. Not quite in the same way as in other industries, but pilots do have some latitude in planning their flights. They would avoid the airspace of bad controllers. And they're also in direct competition with the people managing the railways, and the highways. If air travel were the only way to travel, and air traffic controllers were all centrally located for the entire country, then that would be a monopoly.

And no, a monopoly is not one guy. It is, however, a central control structure. Which cannot see the whole picture. Economic calculation problem.

As to your "efficiency":

No wasted money/energy for advertising
No redundant tooling costs for identical products
No redundant/identical products
Streamlined planning/transport/delivery

1.Unless you count propaganda. Monopolies have traditionally spent a great deal of energy and resources trying to convince people how awesome their shitty product is.

That's because they're not true monopolies.  If you have cornered the market on food, why would you spend $$$ on PR?  
to the alternative:  Would you spend as much on PR as when you *didn't* own the market?  Let's stop grasping at straws.

Possibly even more. If people got fed up enough with my product, they would end my monopoly, and possibly my life. This has happened before, even with propaganda.

2/3. Good point. Making 100 left shoes, size 10, is much more efficient than making 50 pairs of assorted sizes.

So you're saying that the only thing society needs is 100 left shoes in size 10?  Or that the monopoly is intrinsically run by idiots?

Well, how would you incentiveise a factory to provide the shoes that people need in a monopoly setting? For that matter, how would you know what shoes people need? Economic calculation problem.

4. Planning again . Please read up on the economic calculation problem.

You're looking for problems intrinsic to monopolies, not problems often associated with monopolies.  

The economic calculation problem is intrinsic to monopolies. As are the reversed incentives leading to poor service and high prices.

[myrkul]

I believe this too.

Including removing the monopoly?

[FinShaggy]

I believe this too.

Including removing the monopoly?

I don't remember what that quote goes to.

[myrkul]

I believe this too.

Including removing the monopoly?

I don't remember what that quote goes to.

Then click on it.

[FinShaggy]

I believe this too.

Including removing the monopoly?

Eventually yes, but the government must first put programs in place and offer tons of social welfare, so that the people can survive without them once they are gone. Because if we just took away the government monopoly all at once, there would be no justice groups, or anything. And in order for a philosophy like the one in the link to work, you need to make sure that there are things in place before the government version is gone.

Ex: You don't just burn down the city because it failed. You have to pace it out, and only burn buildings that the people will come together to burn, and only buildings that can be burned because society has a solution/alternative to the building.

Fire is cleansing. But destroying everything at once is just destruction. Sure an ecosystem may be created from the destruction, but the city would be gone.

[myrkul]

I believe this too.

Including removing the monopoly?

Eventually yes, but the government must first put programs in place and offer tons of social welfare, so that the people can survive without them once they are gone. Because if we just took away the government monopoly all at once, there would be no justice groups, or anything.

I don't think you understand what I mean by "remove the monopoly." I mean "allow market competition in those services."

[FinShaggy]

I believe this too.

Including removing the monopoly?

Eventually yes, but the government must first put programs in place and offer tons of social welfare, so that the people can survive without them once they are gone. Because if we just took away the government monopoly all at once, there would be no justice groups, or anything.

I don't think you understand what I mean by "remove the monopoly." I mean "allow market competition in those services."

Oh, then yes. That would be the perfect way to do it. Allow them to compete for the spots until eventually the government is just out of programs and the people take care of it. Maybe make the government nothing more than parks and rec.

[myrkul]

I believe this too.

Including removing the monopoly?

Eventually yes, but the government must first put programs in place and offer tons of social welfare, so that the people can survive without them once they are gone. Because if we just took away the government monopoly all at once, there would be no justice groups, or anything.

I don't think you understand what I mean by "remove the monopoly." I mean "allow market competition in those services."

Oh, then yes. That would be the perfect way to do it. Allow them to compete for the spots until eventually the government is just out of programs and the people take care of it. Maybe make the government nothing more than parks and rec.

No, I think you still don't get it. Coke is in market competition with Pepsi. Can I prevent you from drinking Pepsi if I prefer Coke?
Government services should be like that.

[FinShaggy]

I believe this too.

Including removing the monopoly?

Eventually yes, but the government must first put programs in place and offer tons of social welfare, so that the people can survive without them once they are gone. Because if we just took away the government monopoly all at once, there would be no justice groups, or anything.

I don't think you understand what I mean by "remove the monopoly." I mean "allow market competition in those services."

Oh, then yes. That would be the perfect way to do it. Allow them to compete for the spots until eventually the government is just out of programs and the people take care of it. Maybe make the government nothing more than parks and rec.

No, I think you still don't get it. Coke is in market competition with Pepsi. Can I prevent you from drinking Pepsi if I prefer Coke?
Government services should be like that.

Oh, yeah. That's a republic.