A Resource Based Economy

[deisik]

Trite cliches used out of unthinking habit

I like how you criticize my arguments but never provide an explanation or a valid counterargument.

Einstein's equations are not evil because they resulted in the invention of nukes.

Just as economic theory of free markets are not evil because they result in bad products that the stupid humans demanded.

Any economic concept has an (allegedly) rational individual at its basis, and the whole science of economics studies human behavior, namely, the part which involves interactions about limited resources. As I said, the notion of free market is no more than a convenient generalization of a particular form of such interactions...

Just like thermodynamics is a useful "generalization" of separate particles (molecules and atoms) movement

[1713506449]

1713506449

[1713506449]

1713506449

[1713506449]

1713506449

[1713506449]

1713506449

[1713506449]

1713506449

[1713506449]

1713506449

[RealBitcoin]

Any economic concept has an (allegedly) rational individual at its basis, and the whole science of economics studies human behavior, namely, the part involving interactions about limited resources

It has greed and fear at it's core which is not irrational, they are survival instincts that humans depended on for hundreds of thousands of years.

The market only organizes it in a quantifiable manner, it doesn't add nor subtract anything.

I think you are confusing the 'market' with the 'consumer' ?

[deisik]

Any economic concept has an (allegedly) rational individual at its basis, and the whole science of economics studies human behavior, namely, the part involving interactions about limited resources

It has greed and fear at it's core which is not irrational, they are survival instincts that humans depended on for hundreds of thousands of years.

The market only organizes it in a quantifiable manner, it doesn't add nor subtract anything.

I think you are confusing the 'market' with the 'consumer' ?

Free market is a well defined concept which I stick to here

In a free-market economy, prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand and are allowed to reach their point of equilibrium without intervention by government policy, and it typically entails support for highly competitive markets and private ownership of productive enterprises

[ngupowered]

Actually, the correct definition of a "free market" is a market where the price of commodities isn't controlled by some entity, where free competition on equal terms is possible, but does NOT mean that any transaction is possible, such as a person wanting to sell a nuclear bomb to some terrorist.

RealBitcoin, we're saying that bad behaviour is amplified by people willing to "cut corners" to remain competitive or for profit - and in some instances even creates such behaviour where none previously existed - like placing a pedophile in a kindergarden, or a rapist in the women's shower, but 10 times worse as someone comes along saying "I'll give you 10k for raping that woman" - metaphorically speaking of course.

[deisik]

Actually, the correct definition of a "free market" is a market where the price of commodities isn't controlled by some entity, where free competition on equal terms is possible, but does NOT mean that any transaction is possible, such as a person wanting to sell a nuclear bomb to some terrorist

This still doesn't prove (what RB tries to claim) that the concept of free market is atomic, that it can't be further reduced to distinct interactions of individuals (with all their whimsies and fancies) by way of deduction, on the one hand, or that it can't be arranged from the same interactions by way of induction, on the other...

As I've said, free market is a particular form of individual economic interactions taken integrally, as a whole

[RealBitcoin]

This still doesn't prove (what RB tries to claim) that the concept of free market is atomic, that it can't be further reduced to distinct interactions of individuals (with all their whimsies and fancies) by way of deduction, on the one hand, or that it can't be arranged from the same interactions by way of induction, on the other...

As I've said, free market is a particular form of individual economic interactions taken integrally, as a whole

What can and cant be sold is determined by society (or more like the government to be specific).

In a free market scenario where the government would not be involved, the rules would still apply. Most people have morality ,not because of some laws that politicians issue, but because they have conscience.

That aside, the market is just an organized way for humans to interact and pass value around.

It's not an atomic, because the market is a collection of individuals, the market is focused on the individual, it's not a collectivist system.

And as I said earlier it's fundamentally based on 2 instincts: greed & fear.

Until humans have those traits,markets will always exist.

[deisik]

This still doesn't prove (what RB tries to claim) that the concept of free market is atomic, that it can't be further reduced to distinct interactions of individuals (with all their whimsies and fancies) by way of deduction, on the one hand, or that it can't be arranged from the same interactions by way of induction, on the other...

As I've said, free market is a particular form of individual economic interactions taken integrally, as a whole

What can and cant be sold is determined by society (or more like the government to be specific).

In a free market scenario where the government would not be involved, the rules would still apply. Most people have morality ,not because of some laws that politicians issue, but because they have conscience.

That aside, the market is just an organized way for humans to interact and pass value around.

But just a page ago you were claiming that free market exists separately and independently from people (to justify that it was not free market's fault that people harmed themselves). How come that you changed your mind?

Lol, you are talking about free market as something existing separately and in isolation from all those people, when, in fact, it is no more than a handy generalization of the way people transact between themselves...

Either directly or through intermediaries like companies and corporations

Because it does

[RealBitcoin]

But just a page ago you were claiming that free market exists separately and independently from people (to justify that it was not free market's fault that people harmed themselves). How come that you changed your mind?

You are taking my words out of context.

The free market does what it does, and if people dont agree to it, they always have the option to not consume X product or refuse to work for the company that makes X.

It's that simple to vote with your money in a free market enviroment.

[deisik]

But just a page ago you were claiming that free market exists separately and independently from people (to justify that it was not free market's fault that people harmed themselves). How come that you changed your mind?

You are taking my words out of context.

The free market does what it does, and if people dont agree to it, they always have the option to not consume X product or refuse to work for the company that makes X.

It's that simple to vote with your money in a free market enviroment.

This is called tautology, A = A, and anyone who disagrees can kiss my ass. Free market doesn't do anything, it is an abstraction of a particular way people interact economically

[RealBitcoin]

it is an abstraction of a particular way people interact economically

It is not a particular way, it is the natural way people act.

In the absence of top-down control, people voluntarly choose the parties they trade with.

Hopefully projects like Openbazaar can show a real world example how the free market will work.

[deisik]

it is an abstraction of a particular way people interact economically

It is not a particular way, it is the natural way people act

You mean fear and greed, as you said, the 2 basic instincts? Okay, but what about "most people have morality [...] they have conscience"? Did I take your words out of context and you meant to say something other than what you actually said?

[RealBitcoin]

it is an abstraction of a particular way people interact economically

It is not a particular way, it is the natural way people act

You mean fear and greed, as you said, the 2 basic instincts? Okay, but what about "most people have morality [...] they have conscience"? Did I take your words out of context and you meant to say something other than what you actually said?

I dont see a contradiction here.

Greed doesnt mean that people will do bad things to get stuff, it just means that they want to get stuff, but will go only as far as their morality tells them to.

[deisik]

it is an abstraction of a particular way people interact economically

It is not a particular way, it is the natural way people act

You mean fear and greed, as you said, the 2 basic instincts? Okay, but what about "most people have morality [...] they have conscience"? Did I take your words out of context and you meant to say something other than what you actually said?

I dont see a contradiction here.

Greed doesnt mean that people will do bad things to get stuff, it just means that they want to get stuff, but will go only as far as their morality tells them to

People are different, some are more greedy than others (read have less moral) and can go really far beyond other people limits (where even demons fear to tread). And you think that anything has changed since 1800s when "nobody gave a shit [...] [and] it was society's fault not the market"...

In short, did fear and greed level change?

[RealBitcoin]

In short, did fear and greed level change?

Yes, I would say that people have became less agressive overall and more friendly to eachother over the longterm.

Slavery was abolished, racism is diminishing, and humans have just a better social intereaction. Also couple that with social media and a reputation system, you can pretty much find the bad apples very fast.

People cannot become too greedy without a societal backlash.


Corporations on the other hand are protected by the government, and are given taxpayer bailouts.

It doesnt mean that the population doesn't want to hold them accountable, its the government that doesnt want that.

[deisik]

In short, did fear and greed level change?

Yes, I would say that people have became less agressive overall and more friendly to eachother over the longterm.

Slavery was abolished, racism is diminishing, and humans have just a better social intereaction. Also couple that with social media and a reputation system, you can pretty much find the bad apples very fast.

People cannot become too greedy without a societal backlash

And what does it have to do with free market? Further, if greed and fear levels diminished, it should negatively affect free market, as I see it. Greed makes people strive for more, fear prevents them from losing what they already have...

I don't see your point, provided you have any

[bitcoinisfurture]

Every on has a different ability  and thier capability is also different. Some people with little desire but strong ability might be happy with a little resource due to their extremely efficient spending, while some people with lot's of desire and little ability might suffer a lot with same amount of resource.

[RealBitcoin]

And what does it have to do with free market? Further, if greed and fear levels diminished, it should negatively affect free market, as I see it. Greed makes people strive for more, fear prevents them from losing what they already have...

I don't see your point, provided you have any

What do you mean what it has to do with the free market? Havent you read what I wrote.

It means that humans can choose what to buy or sell, and humans can infuence and punish bad companies, bad products.

But when the government gives them legal shield and tax payer bailouts, its no longer a fair game, and that is not a free market anymore.

Free market also implies fairness, like fair-play in sports, no cheating is considered moral, not even if you are in a highly competing position.

[deisik]

And what does it have to do with free market? Further, if greed and fear levels diminished, it should negatively affect free market, as I see it. Greed makes people strive for more, fear prevents them from losing what they already have...

I don't see your point, provided you have any

What do you mean what it has to do with the free market? Havent you read what I wrote.

I can't make sense of what you write. For example,

Free market also implies fairness, like fair-play in sports, no cheating is considered moral, not even if you are in a highly competing position.

I don't get how free market can possibly imply fairness if its essentials are based on fear and greed as you yourself argued. That is, on something which is intrinsically in direct opposition to fairness. Since we seem to have agreed that free market is the way people interact economically (i.e. exchange something which they value less for something which they value higher)...

Am I the only one who smells socialism here?

[RealBitcoin]

Am I the only one who smells socialism here?

There is just no point in arguing with you, you take my words out of context.

How can 'fair play' as it is used in sports equal socialism? That is the biggest nonsense I ever heard.

What I implied was: honor, respect, and professionalism between market participants. The word 'fair' doesn't always invoke leftism.

In fact the left has hijacked the word 'fair' and is using it to push their totalitarian agenda.

[deisik]

Am I the only one who smells socialism here?

There is just no point in arguing with you, you take my words out of context.

How can 'fair play' as it is used in sports equal socialism? That is the biggest nonsense I ever heard.

There is no "fair play" (let alone in sports), it is just a handy euphemism that winners use in respect to losers. Since we are talking about markets and free market in particular, it is a given that there is no fair-play either. Why? Because if there were, there wouldn't be what is conveniently called "free" market...

Since free exchange of goods is based on a deceit of sorts. It is fair only in respect to both parties deceiving each other