Capitalism.

[NewLiberty]

There's scant evidence that two heads are better than one, and absolutely none that a billion heads are better still.  A mob's intelligence does not grow with its numbers, quality is not a function of quantity, though a shrewd Georgian once pointed out that "quantity is a quality all of its own."  Everyone gets to be a wit.

Auctions

  explain.

To discover the right price of something, an auction with only two people attending will not do as well as one with a great many.  The mob does a better job of price discovery.

When prices are set by a central authority and there are limited choices you get an arbitrarily price rather then letting folks decide what they want to exchange for what and how much at what quality.
Generally, a market is going to do a better job of price discovery than a central planner. 
Perversely, we have central authorities deciding on the price of money itself.

[1715482731]

1715482731

[1715482731]

1715482731

[1715482731]

1715482731

[1715482731]

1715482731

[NewLiberty]

Pointless tangent is pointless. You picked on the word 'stable' and used it as an excuse to ignore the rest of my post:

From a false premise, one can derive anything.

Then WTF was MoonShadow talking about with the 'right' economy, describing it as not growing exponentially and basically being stable, but then doing a big song and dance about not calling it stable?

I couldn't say what he was talking about with the 'right' economy.  Just was noticing how you had changed what he said to something specifically different and then attacked that difference.  He said "right", you said "stable" then further defined that as =0 change and mocked that.

The subsequent post with specific growth targets and such seemed more like monetarism rather than keynesianism. 
I'm not convinced that either are laudable, so I'd have to let Moonshadow speak for himself on those. 

My premise was correct in the first place

We might disagree on that, what was it?

[crumbs]

An economy is much better compared to a machine in operation than a static construction such as a bridge.

Or compare it to the marchers who have to adjust to the changing terrain in that scenario.
Economies are affected by all sorts of obstacles: droughts, fertility cycles, disease, weather and more.  
It must adjust, or face a worse fate than if it had.  
The best decision makers for these adjustments are the myriad folks with their boots on the ground.  
When central command is from afar, marchers may not adjust as adroitly.
This marching community may sing the same song and walk in cadence when times are easy,
and move to a different tune when it is not.

Perhaps, though in my army breaking ranks over a bridge analogy, neither the bridge nor the army represent the economy.  Economy is the interaction between the two.  The army does not act on economy, it is a part of it.

If we choose your analogy, tossing out the bridge & picking up obstacles & terrain, we can no longe address MoonShadow's "oscillations," but since they flopped as a Libertarian illustration, i guess it's time to march off to greener pastures, over hill, over dale & other nasty terrain.

In your model, were the "central command" represents [Booo!  Statist!] oversight, think it through.  The generals don't tell enlisted men how to march -- they lay out the grand plans for troop movement, so that the army doesn't march off in five different directions to fight 5 enemies of their choosing.  At some lower level of decision making, another bureaucrat looks at terrain maps & aerial photos, making sure soldiers don't need to march through oceans, or lava pits with no health packs in sight if we're playing *that*.  When it comes to picking up your feet to step over dead bodies, have no fear -- you'll still get to do that on your own

[Zarathustra]

The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy.

I don't want a progressively increasing economy.  I want the right economy.  The best way to have that is to take a 'hands off' approach, because politicos really don't know as much as they think they do.

They deny that stateless communities beyond the state (rain forest) don't increase production. They produce the same amount as they did thousands of years ago, because they are not enforced to produce ever increasing surpluses. That's enforced and needed in collectivist societies exclusively.

I don't deny this either.  I don't know anyone who has besides your claims that someone has.  I just don't find such a society to be ideal.  If you do, why are you still here?  There certainly are groups within the US and elsewhere that prefer the kind of "natural" lifestyle you think is appropriate, and some of them will even accept you.  You just have to find them.  Or create your own.

1) Too late for me, but not for all. In my former life I believed in Science Fiction (Anarchocapitalism, technological progress etc.)
2) Self-sufficient communities are forbidden in my native land; brainwashing of the children is compulsory (compulsory admission)
3) I would never resettle to the ultrafascist USA. If I would resettle, then to the southern part of the Planet (no nuclear reactors there, yet)
4) there is no possibility to relocate with my relatives that are rooted here
5) The human race won't be saved, if some people relocate
6) The human race will be saved as soon as the state and the citizen will be history. This will be the case, as soon as the citizen realise, that citizenship is inhuman and that a citizen is not a human.

[crumbs]

There's scant evidence that two heads are better than one, and absolutely none that a billion heads are better still.  A mob's intelligence does not grow with its numbers, quality is not a function of quantity, though a shrewd Georgian once pointed out that "quantity is a quality all of its own."  Everyone gets to be a wit.

Auctions

 explain.

To discover the right price of something, an auction with only two people attending will not do as well as one with a great many.  The mob does a better job of price discovery.
When prices are set by a central authority and there are limited choices you get an arbitrarily price rather then letting folks decide what they want to exchange for what and how much at what quality.
Generally, a market is going to do a better job of price discovery than a central planner.  
Perversely, we have central authorities deciding on the price of money itself.

Looo!  There is no universal "right price" which needs to be "discovered."  

There is a price that the seller wants to get (everything, all your monyz!)...
and the price that the buyer wishes to pay (nothing).  
The price is arrived at through the dialectic more commonly known as "haggling."  

This dialectic takes a different form in auctions.  Consider an auction with a Luger Parabellum on the block.  

The buyers are as follows:  
A Texan homemaker, who came to the auction to bid on the awesome trimetal cookware set,
a gun collector who loves them Lugers to pieces
& a professional mugger, who plans to turn the luger on the folks in the crowd, thereby robbing them of their monyz.  
Question:  What's the "right price"?  

Edit:  format

[Zarathustra]

The problem which the Anarchocapitalists is that they want two systems which mutually exclude each other: Anarchy and a progressively increasing economy.

I don't want a progressively increasing economy.  I want the right economy.

OK, let's have a quick look at what that might entail. Say you want a 'stable' economy, it would probably need:
population headcount change = 0
people's changing 'needs' = 0
land or industry encroachment on other economies = 0
net non-renewable resource depletion = 0
net inflation = 0

Therefore, (unless I've missed some other factors for stability) any profit is probably either inaccurate accounting or a transfer of wealth from the loser to the winner. One example of a profitable activity might be to innovate a new machine that produces widgets more efficiently than the machines all the other widget-makers use. Despite rejecting "intellectual property" (I guess that's off-topic and maybe a good candidate for another thread) you guys seem strongly in favour of doing these innovations for the sake of competition (no arguments there).

However, the reward for innovation seems to be the same as the reward for resource depletion, inflation, banning contraceptives, and all that other stuff. I.e.: because profit. With all those other opportunities, why choose innovation?

Without intelligent oversight, to me it seems you'll eventually get your stable economy, but only after numerous resources have been depleted, and various bubbles (including population bubbles) have burst. It's a doomsday scenario.

Secondly, even if things manage to stabilise, there's still a big question mark over how the current (or a future) level of technology would be sustained without all that extra energy being pumped in. The whole world's basically running on oil, gas, coal, nuclear fission, and cheap labour.

+1

"Essentially, the economy is an engine that transforms resources into waste." (Ugo Bardi)

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5528

[crumbs]

[...]
I know it's possible to disagree with something and still not interfere. However, to me it seems like he's preaching:
"hands-off policy" -- the car is designed to drive itself so you should never touch the steering wheel.
while really practising:
"hands-off approach" -- if you want a stretched spring to recoil back, stop stretching it and let go for now.

^^^Too subtle.  You're arguing against a guy who doesn't understand springs.

[Vandroiy]

What my earlier post was getting at was looking at profit as an incentive that could promote instability. E.g.: -population booms -- higher church membership, need for extra housing and other infrastructure... who wouldn't want a piece of the action?
-depletion of non-renewable resources. Population, consumerism, fads/fashion -- increase demand for oil and oil-based products for profit.
-why innovate when you've got all those other options?

What does this even compare to? Only China comes to mind when I think of control over population and they don't seem to have their methods refined very well. I'd note that if we want direct governmental action to solve this, we're talking about a fictional government Earth has not yet seen.

People innovate because other market niches already hold competition. It has always been this way; only a few government activities such as military research have contributed significantly to innovation.

More anarchic systems control population through starvation and its side-effects; I agree this is a problem. Current systems count toward these though, as we all let people around the world starve for their lack of productivity, just like any less-controlled system does.

[Zarathustra]

To myself, and in this context, 'stable' would mean that the natural 'forces' that result in the business cycle be left alone, so that the magnitude of those oscillations don't have the chance to compound.

And that is what I mean by the 'right' economy.  

You will find 'natural forces' beyond the state in stateless communities in the rain forest, but you'll find no business cycle there, because there is no state. Business cycles are artificial, unnatural forces in an unnatural environment (civilization/domestication/citizenship).

[MoonShadow]

[...]
I know it's possible to disagree with something and still not interfere. However, to me it seems like he's preaching:
"hands-off policy" -- the car is designed to drive itself so you should never touch the steering wheel.
while really practising:
"hands-off approach" -- if you want a stretched spring to recoil back, stop stretching it and let go for now.

^^^Too subtle.  You're arguing against a guy who doesn't understand springs.

Just because you say it, or read it somewhere on the Internet, or listen to some guy who said it in some cute way, doesn't make it so.

I'm finished arguing with idiots about this.  I'm just wasting my time.

[crumbs]

[...]
I know it's possible to disagree with something and still not interfere. However, to me it seems like he's preaching:
"hands-off policy" -- the car is designed to drive itself so you should never touch the steering wheel.
while really practising:
"hands-off approach" -- if you want a stretched spring to recoil back, stop stretching it and let go for now.

^^^Too subtle.  You're arguing against a guy who doesn't understand springs.

Just because you say it, or read it somewhere on the Internet, or listen to some guy who said it in some cute way, doesn't make it so.

I'm finished arguing with idiots about this.  I'm just wasting my time.

You simply can't admit that you're wrong.  You really do not understand basic stuff, like springs & resonant circuits.  I'll happily quote you & explain your errors, but you're a mod & have access to much more effective debating techniques -- deletion & ban hammer

[NewLiberty]

An economy is much better compared to a machine in operation than a static construction such as a bridge.

Or compare it to the marchers who have to adjust to the changing terrain in that scenario.
Economies are affected by all sorts of obstacles: droughts, fertility cycles, disease, weather and more.  
It must adjust, or face a worse fate than if it had.  
The best decision makers for these adjustments are the myriad folks with their boots on the ground.  
When central command is from afar, marchers may not adjust as adroitly.
This marching community may sing the same song and walk in cadence when times are easy,
and move to a different tune when it is not.

Perhaps, though in my army breaking ranks over a bridge analogy, neither the bridge nor the army represent the economy.  Economy is the interaction between the two.  The army does not act on economy, it is a part of it.

If we choose your analogy, tossing out the bridge & picking up obstacles & terrain, we can no longe address MoonShadow's "oscillations," but since they flopped as a Libertarian illustration, i guess it's time to march off to greener pastures, over hill, over dale & other nasty terrain.

In your model, were the "central command" represents [Booo!  Statist!] oversight, think it through.  The generals don't tell enlisted men how to march -- they lay out the grand plans for troop movement, so that the army doesn't march off in five different directions to fight 5 enemies of their choosing.  At some lower level of decision making, another bureaucrat looks at terrain maps & aerial photos, making sure soldiers don't need to march through oceans, or lava pits with no health packs in sight if we're playing *that*.  When it comes to picking up your feet to step over dead bodies, have no fear -- you'll still get to do that on your own

We agree, the best government is the most local.  The anarchists go to the extreme in this respect and only the government within each person is sovereign.

[NewLiberty]

Looo!  There is no universal "right price" which needs to be "discovered."  

There is a price that the seller wants to get (everything, all your monyz!)...
and the price that the buyer wishes to pay (nothing).  
The price is arrived at through the dialectic more commonly known as "haggling."  

Here you add the word "universal" to make the statement false, then right call it so, in that form.
Then provide an example of how it is true as stated originally.

This dialectic takes a different form in auctions.  Consider an auction with a Luger Parabellum on the block.  

The buyers are as follows:  
A Texan homemaker, who came to the auction to bid on the awesome trimetal cookware set,
a gun collector who loves them Lugers to pieces
& a professional mugger, who plans to turn the luger on the folks in the crowd, thereby robbing them of their monyz.  
Question:  What's the "right price"?  

And then you show how the price discovery is (slightly) improved by the addition of more (weirdly fictional) bargainers.

Nothing to disagree with here, but not much to see either.

[ktttn]

The only economic philosophy that respects the right of people to transact bitcoins without interference is capitalism.

Capitalism is an invenion of the state. Without bureaucracy and state sanctioning, capitalism is not possble.
The very idea of a free capitalism is oxymoronic, because it relies on protection of claims on private property.

[NewLiberty]

The only economic philosophy that respects the right of people to transact bitcoins without interference is capitalism.

Capitalism is an invenion of the state. Without bureaucracy and state sanctioning, capitalism is not possble.
The very idea of a free capitalism is oxymoronic, because it relies on protection of claims on private property.

Maybe... if you assume that all protection must be only from state, and that more people are wicked than not.
But these assumptions seem extreme, and depressingly pessimistic.

[Vandroiy]

The only economic philosophy that respects the right of people to transact bitcoins without interference is capitalism.

Capitalism is an invenion of the state. Without bureaucracy and state sanctioning, capitalism is not possble.
The very idea of a free capitalism is oxymoronic, because it relies on protection of claims on private property.

Maybe... if you assume that all protection must be only from state, and that more people are wicked than not.
But these assumptions seem extreme, and depressingly pessimistic.

I don't see where he made such assumptions.

The implication was that private property rights do not converge to a desired form on their own, e.g. without anyone enforcing them. I'm quite certain this is correct.

One can now split hairs and reformulate the entity protecting property such that it is no longer called government. I don't think this is very useful; some entity holds the most weapons and thus has the largest power to set rules. It effectively becomes a government. Think central Africa: they call a government whoever has a lot of weapons and control, even if not the majority. Additional warlords rarely improve the situation and the overall result isn't very impressive.

[crumbs]

Looo!  There is no universal "right price" which needs to be "discovered."  

There is a price that the seller wants to get (everything, all your monyz!)...
and the price that the buyer wishes to pay (nothing).  
The price is arrived at through the dialectic more commonly known as "haggling."  

Add the word "universal" to make the statement false, then call it so.
Then provide an example of how it is true as stated originally.

If we take away "universal," then *any* price becomes the "right price."  We get a tautology.  If you're bothered by the word "universal," feel free to drop it, substitute "unique" for "universal" -- my example works just as well.  In hindsight, i can see my choice of words was atrocious.  Go with "singular" or "unique" -- distinct from other prices, which would be "wrong price[ s]."  That's a bit tighter.

This dialectic takes a different form in auctions.  Consider an auction with a Luger Parabellum on the block.  

The buyers are as follows:  
A Texan homemaker, who came to the auction to bid on the awesome trimetal cookware set,
a gun collector who loves them Lugers to pieces
& a professional mugger, who plans to turn the luger on the folks in the crowd, thereby robbing them of their monyz.  
Question:  What's the "right price"?  

And then show how the price discovery is (slightly) improved by the addition of more (weirdly fictional) bargainers.

Nothing to disagree with here, but not much to see either.

Fine.  Why don't you present me with a bland & pedestrian example of an auction discovering the "right price."  I'm ready to be bored.  Or are you going to post wikip links to Keynesian Beauty Contest & Greater Fool Theory?

[crumbs]

An economy is much better compared to a machine in operation than a static construction such as a bridge.

Or compare it to the marchers who have to adjust to the changing terrain in that scenario.
Economies are affected by all sorts of obstacles: droughts, fertility cycles, disease, weather and more.  
It must adjust, or face a worse fate than if it had.  
The best decision makers for these adjustments are the myriad folks with their boots on the ground.  
When central command is from afar, marchers may not adjust as adroitly.
This marching community may sing the same song and walk in cadence when times are easy,
and move to a different tune when it is not.

Perhaps, though in my army breaking ranks over a bridge analogy, neither the bridge nor the army represent the economy.  Economy is the interaction between the two.  The army does not act on economy, it is a part of it.

If we choose your analogy, tossing out the bridge & picking up obstacles & terrain, we can no longe address MoonShadow's "oscillations," but since they flopped as a Libertarian illustration, i guess it's time to march off to greener pastures, over hill, over dale & other nasty terrain.

In your model, were the "central command" represents [Booo!  Statist!] oversight, think it through.  The generals don't tell enlisted men how to march -- they lay out the grand plans for troop movement, so that the army doesn't march off in five different directions to fight 5 enemies of their choosing.  At some lower level of decision making, another bureaucrat looks at terrain maps & aerial photos, making sure soldiers don't need to march through oceans, or lava pits with no health packs in sight if we're playing *that*.  When it comes to picking up your feet to step over dead bodies, have no fear -- you'll still get to do that on your own

We agree, the best government is the most local.  The anarchists go to the extreme in this respect and only the government within each person is sovereign.

Sorry, but you've missed the point.  In this example the generals, who are nowhere near the marching cannon fodder, are "the government."  The presence of generals is what makes an army different from a mob.  It's a new way of doing things -- you should check it out.  All the cool kids are doin' it.

[Vandroiy]

(... snip ...)

In your model, were the "central command" represents [Booo!  Statist!] oversight, think it through.  The generals don't tell enlisted men how to march -- they lay out the grand plans for troop movement, so that the army doesn't march off in five different directions to fight 5 enemies of their choosing.  At some lower level of decision making, another bureaucrat looks at terrain maps & aerial photos, making sure soldiers don't need to march through oceans, or lava pits with no health packs in sight if we're playing *that*.  When it comes to picking up your feet to step over dead bodies, have no fear -- you'll still get to do that on your own

We agree, the best government is the most local.  The anarchists go to the extreme in this respect and only the government within each person is sovereign.

Sorry, but you've missed the point.  In this example the generals, who are nowhere near the marching cannon fodder, are "the government."  

I'll take this analogy and drag it to reality -- as in why it displays the opposite of Capitalism and does not work.

In reality, the bureaucrat in between can optimize any given order for his own goals, while the original goal need only be fulfilled as far as his superior understands it and cares to react. This happens on all layers of the top-down structure including supreme command unless the population restrains it. And remember: any organizer changing goals affects all layers below it in addition to their own problems.

What is worse, a bureaucrat in any real-world system has diminishing incentive to optimize for risk-reward in large systems. Why innovate when the risk is on you but the reward is not? It is worth it only where a superior actively plans for it. Generally: whenever the optimization target of an individual diverges from the globally desired one -- which it pretty much always does -- the overall result is horribly inefficient.

Trivial analogies are useless exactly because they are trivial. In reality, the problematic decision is not to avoid a lava pit. It is the analysis of some gradient in some material in some device for use on an unknown time-frame over multiple usage scenarios -- and millions more of such decisions. We have no human who is able to organize such complexity from above, nor can we expect a subordinate to do it locally without proper compensation.

The market is a great tool to both determine and execute said compensation. Any attempt to mimic it will roughly simulate a market; why not use it in the first place?

[Zarathustra]

The only economic philosophy that respects the right of people to transact bitcoins without interference is capitalism.

Capitalism is an invenion of the state. Without bureaucracy and state sanctioning, capitalism is not possble.
The very idea of a free capitalism is oxymoronic, because it relies on protection of claims on private property.

Maybe... if you assume that all protection must be only from state, and that more people are wicked than not.
But these assumptions seem extreme, and depressingly pessimistic.

It's not extreme. It's empiric history instead of science fiction, plain and simple.