|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 26 2015 07:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 07:11 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2015 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 26 2015 03:51 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public. The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. I've seen progress too in the rotting on a peach. Undermining what were advances in personal liberty is the quicker trip to your scarcity society. Mediocrity is praised and wealth decried. You mix in quite a bit of nonsense to attempt to justify attacks on a free and honest economic system. We aren't trashing working condition legislation or the rule of law in general. I also can see no more dishonest way to segregate society than to push the poor onto endless welfare assistance and tell them they couldn't get ahead even if they tried (and Jonny went into depth much earlier in the thread about the costs associated with job promotions in losing benefits and program assistance). I've seen a lot of noble societal goals masquerading as rights in the modern age. It's truly childlike to declare some things rights, then identify oppressors of rights, rather than seek goals and discuss how they might be achieved. The right to a job obviates thoughts of how to grow an economy and create jobs. Right to housing, right to whatever radicals identify as "dignified living" these days ... it's vacuous justification for a host of activities that themselves oppress and enslave. Better still to have an alert populace that signed onto something called the German constitution, than impose somebody else's social contract by fiat with invented authority and justifications. I swear every time Danglars posts he sounds more and more like an ideologue. Say little of substance, but preach it loud and hard. See an ideologue, talk about the ideology. Did you spot in the quoted post the following? The choice is between individual liberties and an improving society Blind belief in a post-labour utopia Blind acceptance of an existing derth of "meaningful" (lol) jobs The future necessarily will never remedy this problem (under capitalistic means, understood) Restructuring society, really a radical restructuring, is the only fix My ends are, of course, scarcity, decimation, and segregation My side advocates lawlessness Social Contract + Government Enforcement + Accountability ... unexplained. (And we've seen an increase in government unaccountability as its powers to enforce its views on equitability increases) So honestly, it takes a blind person to ignore your own side's ideological arguments and criticize the others. Does it get any more solipsistic to assume you own pragmatism and responsible governance? Yeah, so basically what I meant by ideologue. Reduction of your "opposition" into extremes, strawmanning, buzzwords about utopia, blindness, etc. Reduction of the entire argument into sides. Reduction of complex issues into dichotomies. I could basically sum up your entire post with "You're all sheep wilfully following a blind shepherd, here my word and be enlightened by the truth!" It's pure content-less preaching. If you wish to post something not characterized by the philosophy of governance and maybe more concrete, feel free. I responded to the post of another, and responded in like form. You can read what he put down again. Otherwise, if you have a point, share.
|
On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply.
So why do you feel "real measures" have to be taken against the rich, what have they done to you? You are basically saying you don't want them, at the same time saying you don't want them to leave. I think better policy is to create wealthy people or have them immigrate to you that way you have a bigger tax base, instead of destroying the wealthy for a smaller tax base. You could also just throw up a wall and keep them from escaping if they disagree with your execution of policy.
|
On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens.
I don't think the region suffered a "huge brain drain" because a lot of the sophisticated people "did not like Jim Crow laws." The Reconstruction Era south was just a rough place to make money for most people. It suddenly lost a huge number of slaves that were providing free labor and were considered substantial capital assets. It was materially devastated by the war and aid from the north was slow and minimal, for obvious reasons. Its main cash crop, cotton, dropped in value from the beginning of the war to the end, as England and the rest of the rapidly industrializing world had to develop other cotton sources (i.e. India) because the Confederates were blockaded for years. You will have to provide some evidence that there was a brain drain because of "Jim Crow laws." Although the whole premise here is questionable because I don't see much of a link between Jim Crow and social safety net policies in terms of attracting capital to your jurisdiction.
@ Danglars
You didn't tell us when and where the Golden Age was.
"It is not enough that the conditions of labour are concentrated in a mass, in the shape of capital, at the one pole of society, while at the other are grouped masses of men, who have nothing to sell but their labour-power. Neither is it enough that they are compelled to sell it voluntarily. The advance of capitalist production develops a working class, which by education, tradition, habit, looks upon the conditions of that mode of production as self-evident laws of Nature. The organisation of the capitalist process of production, once fully developed, breaks down all resistance. The constant generation of a relative surplus-population keeps the law of supply and demand of labour, and therefore keeps wages, in a rut that corresponds with the wants of capital. The dull compulsion of economic relations completes the subjection of the labourer to the capitalist. Direct force, outside economic conditions, is of course still used, but only exceptionally. In the ordinary run of things, the labourer can be left to the 'natural laws of production,' i.e., to his dependence on capital, a dependence springing from, and guaranteed in perpetuity by, the conditions of production themselves."
|
On May 26 2015 08:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. I don't think the region suffered a "huge brain drain" because a lot of the sophisticated people "did not like Jim Crow laws." The Reconstruction Era south was just a rough place to make money for most people. It suddenly lost a huge number of slaves that were providing free labor and were considered substantial capital assets. It was materially devastated by the war and aid from the north was slow and minimal, for obvious reasons. Its main cash crop, cotton, dropped in value from the beginning of the war to the end, as England and the rest of the rapidly industrializing world had to develop other cotton sources (i.e. India) because the Confederates were blockaded for years. You will have to provide some evidence that there was a brain drain because of "Jim Crow laws." Although the whole premise here is questionable because I don't see much of a link between Jim Crow and social safety net policies in terms of attracting capital to your jurisdiction.
Just to clarify, the connection is that policies (if there is freedom of movement) can cause people to migrate to environments they prefer. I never argued that social safety nets would attract capital, I expect the opposite may be true because of the increased burden of government.
Also, I agree with those reasons for the poor business climate, but add that because of segregation laws it caused increased capital expenses. For instance, bus and train companies opposed Jim Crow for this reason.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2121814?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
In Augusta, Savannah, Atlanta, Mobile, and Jacksonville, streetcar companies responded by refusing to enforce segregation laws for as long as fifteen years after their passage.
Blacks fled the south in great numbers in the early 1900s: This is fairly well established.
In American history, the most important example of this phenomenon was the migration of numerous Southern blacks to the North during the era of Jim Crow segregation. Between 1880 and 1920, some 1 million southern blacks migrated to the North, eventually accounting for more than 10 percent of the black population of the United States
Missouri Journal of Law
|
Normally when you say "brain drain" you are referring to skilled labor, not ex-slaves. I don't think anyone would dispute that blacks fled the plantations they were held in bondage on.
|
On May 26 2015 03:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public. The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. I've seen progress too in the rotting on a peach. Undermining what were advances in personal liberty is the quicker trip to your scarcity society. Mediocrity is praised and wealth decried. You mix in quite a bit of nonsense to attempt to justify attacks on a free and honest economic system. We aren't trashing working condition legislation or the rule of law in general. I also can see no more dishonest way to segregate society than to push the poor onto endless welfare assistance and tell them they couldn't get ahead even if they tried (and Jonny went into depth much earlier in the thread about the costs associated with job promotions in losing benefits and program assistance). I've seen a lot of noble societal goals masquerading as rights in the modern age. It's truly childlike to declare some things rights, then identify oppressors of rights, rather than seek goals and discuss how they might be achieved. The right to a job obviates thoughts of how to grow an economy and create jobs. Right to housing, right to whatever radicals identify as "dignified living" these days ... it's vacuous justification for a host of activities that themselves oppress and enslave. Better still to have an alert populace that signed onto something called the German constitution, than impose somebody else's social contract by fiat with invented authority and justifications.
Who the fuck cares about theoretical personal liberty, when he has no social, cultural and economical resources to make use of that liberty? You claim a system with no rules (except some bare minimums of police and military under governmental control) will tend to an equilibrium of equality. Everyone can be rich if they were just forced by scarcity to improve themselfs, because there will suddenly be an ceo position for everyone and nobody ever has to do cleaning jobs, dangerous work, low skill maintenance, really demanding but low barrier of entry medical care (nursing and related things) again. Those highly important jobs are paid shitty because of their low barrier of entry and the urge of people to do everything just to survive. Instituting a guaranteed income would decrease incentives for those jobs to be taken, that they would have to be paid more to be performed, and get closer to their human value to society.
You argue that prices determined by market interactions are the only value systems humans should care about. Not only do i see huge flaws in the price mechanism + Show Spoiler +
- the initial distribution of wealth exists and is highly uneven
- knowledge and skill are no simple commodity, so not every market actor can make informed decisions, and even further can not make informed decisions about which "market product" would really improve his information access and parsing ability
- human sustainance is a fact of life and non negotiable, a worker can not use the negotiation position: i will not eat for 6 months till i find work that matches my skills, he has to take whatever pays the bills right now, or die.
- lack of trust (for instance prisoner dilemma) can force individual actors in a system to chose the nonoptimal solution
in sum: the price mechanism works for some simple gadgets in isolation, and sort of works for the whole society in approximation, but fails in some important details
it is a useful concept that can pragmatically used for economic wellbeing, but it is not the ultimate infalible holy grail you make it out to be
Especially revealing is your position that i praise mediocrity and encourage people to fail. That could not be further from the truth. The reality is that wealth is unevenly distributed, and through market forces alone will only further accumulate. A look over oecd countries shows that the wealth gap grows faster the less redistribution there is. A society with a huge and growing wealth gap will mean that there inevitable are people you consider as failed as a statistic reality. On an individual basis everyone can move up or down, but that does not change in the slightest the overall distribution and its dynamic. One individual improving his employability improves his own outlook but also reduces the overall pay in the sector he joins.+ Show Spoiler +this makes the contribution zero in first order, but there are some second order effects that can be positive on society, as we discussed earlier with Jonny
I am so repulsed by your attitude, because you consider me a drain on society that deserves nothing but to die from starvation and an aggressor ruining the lifes of those that have benefited from the society the most.
I myself want a society that enables successful economic interactions, but via the social contract enforces a fair share of this success to be redistributed, because not everyone can be successful. I am telling no single individual "you can not be successful" i am telling: "there will always be differences in outcomes, if they become too big society destabilizes, because of game theoretic considerations individual actions are not leading to an equitable equilibrium, therefore we need institutions stabilizing society and balancing outcomes".
You see redistributionist societies as failures, when their only failure appears when compared by reductionist values to an unachivable utopia.
|
On May 26 2015 09:01 IgnE wrote:
Normally when you say "brain drain" you are referring to skilled labor, not ex-slaves. I don't think anyone would dispute that blacks fled the plantations they were held in bondage on.
Fair, but I don't think there are reliable demographic studies on education levels connected to relocation from that time. Its also worth noting that, at that time, the majority of labor would have been of the unskilled variety and the war torn South certainly needed labor of all kinds. Lastly, I think the capital disincentives from Jim Crow are similar in effect to a brain drain as investments are incentivized to go elsewhere.
|
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished.
|
"The invisible hand" is a term used from the very birth of economic thought. Its as credible an idea as Laissez-faire is today. It makes sense on a fundamental level but I wouldn't put any more stock into it meaning something as much as calling the higgs bosin the "god particle".
|
On May 26 2015 10:44 Sermokala wrote:
"The invisible hand" is a term used from the very birth of economic thought. Its as credible an idea as Laissez-faire is today. It makes sense on a fundamental level but I wouldn't put any more stock into it meaning something as much as calling the higgs bosin the "god particle".
Considering the context within which each were originated, I don't think they are remotely comparable in the way you are suggesting.
I think the notion that the invisible hand is actually God is a reasonable interpretation of Smith's work. As for Higgs he is an open Atheist, so it's not a nickname he's a fan of.
I think it's fair to say it's not necessarily referencing a "Christian God" but it is clearly an appeal to some sort of natural order that is mostly a fabrication of imagination and not an observation of reality (or is a half blind one).
|
On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished.
You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much.
|
On May 26 2015 09:06 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 03:51 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public. The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. I've seen progress too in the rotting on a peach. Undermining what were advances in personal liberty is the quicker trip to your scarcity society. Mediocrity is praised and wealth decried. You mix in quite a bit of nonsense to attempt to justify attacks on a free and honest economic system. We aren't trashing working condition legislation or the rule of law in general. I also can see no more dishonest way to segregate society than to push the poor onto endless welfare assistance and tell them they couldn't get ahead even if they tried (and Jonny went into depth much earlier in the thread about the costs associated with job promotions in losing benefits and program assistance). I've seen a lot of noble societal goals masquerading as rights in the modern age. It's truly childlike to declare some things rights, then identify oppressors of rights, rather than seek goals and discuss how they might be achieved. The right to a job obviates thoughts of how to grow an economy and create jobs. Right to housing, right to whatever radicals identify as "dignified living" these days ... it's vacuous justification for a host of activities that themselves oppress and enslave. Better still to have an alert populace that signed onto something called the German constitution, than impose somebody else's social contract by fiat with invented authority and justifications. Who the fuck cares about theoretical personal liberty, when he has no social, cultural and economical resources to make use of that liberty? You claim a system with no rules (except some bare minimums of police and military under governmental control) will tend to an equilibrium of equality. Everyone can be rich if they were just forced by scarcity to improve themselfs, because there will suddenly be an ceo position for everyone and nobody ever has to do cleaning jobs, dangerous work, low skill maintenance, really demanding but low barrier of entry medical care (nursing and related things) again. Those highly important jobs are paid shitty because of their low barrier of entry and the urge of people to do everything just to survive. Instituting a guaranteed income would decrease incentives for those jobs to be taken, that they would have to be paid more to be performed, and get closer to their human value to society. You argue that prices determined by market interactions are the only value systems humans should care about. Not only do i see huge flaws in the price mechanism + Show Spoiler +
- the initial distribution of wealth exists and is highly uneven
- knowledge and skill are no simple commodity, so not every market actor can make informed decisions, and even further can not make informed decisions about which "market product" would really improve his information access and parsing ability
- human sustainance is a fact of life and non negotiable, a worker can not use the negotiation position: i will not eat for 6 months till i find work that matches my skills, he has to take whatever pays the bills right now, or die.
- lack of trust (for instance prisoner dilemma) can force individual actors in a system to chose the nonoptimal solution
in sum: the price mechanism works for some simple gadgets in isolation, and sort of works for the whole society in approximation, but fails in some important details
it is a useful concept that can pragmatically used for economic wellbeing, but it is not the ultimate infalible holy grail you make it out to be
, i also see much non monetary value in human interactions and life in general. Especially revealing is your position that i praise mediocrity and encourage people to fail. That could not be further from the truth. The reality is that wealth is unevenly distributed, and through market forces alone will only further accumulate. A look over oecd countries shows that the wealth gap grows faster the less redistribution there is. A society with a huge and growing wealth gap will mean that there inevitable are people you consider as failed as a statistic reality. On an individual basis everyone can move up or down, but that does not change in the slightest the overall distribution and its dynamic. One individual improving his employability improves his own outlook but also reduces the overall pay in the sector he joins. + Show Spoiler +this makes the contribution zero in first order, but there are some second order effects that can be positive on society, as we discussed earlier with Jonny Religious reverence of personal responsiblity will not change those market dynamics. I am so repulsed by your attitude, because you consider me a drain on society that deserves nothing but to die from starvation and an aggressor ruining the lifes of those that have benefited from the society the most. I myself want a society that enables successful economic interactions, but via the social contract enforces a fair share of this success to be redistributed, because not everyone can be successful. I am telling no single individual "you can not be successful" i am telling: "there will always be differences in outcomes, if they become too big society destabilizes, because of game theoretic considerations individual actions are not leading to an equitable equilibrium, therefore we need institutions stabilizing society and balancing outcomes". You see redistributionist societies as failures, when their only failure appears when compared by reductionist values to an unachivable utopia. I made no claim to an "equilibrium of equality" as one of my goals. I want a society as close to equilibrium of moderate to high opportunity. Liberty is bound to produce inequalities. Wealth gap, if you like the fashionable term for it. If individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish. That's why I desire a very high level of it, even as those individuals finding inventions and innovations that nobody ever thought of create businesses that hire the starter jobs you so loathe. The movement of individuals between jobs and the existence of part time jobs while individuals train in higher ed/trade schools is exactly that force that lets social mobility continue. It's present opposition is case in point of what happens with a culture and political climate bent on destruction.
Markets and prices are a flawed mechanism for resources, for the movement of labor, but frankly it's the best we have. You might say the capitalistic mechanism is worst system around, had it not been for the garbage heap of every other challenger around. We have a rich history to draw from, anywhere from price controls in the USSR to rent controls in New York.
Since you reject any individual's efforts to increase their social standing, their economic stability, their revolt against the culture, you assume an ivory tower mentality towards effort, which is exactly why I identify your policies as aimed at mediocrity and failure of the current poor. He can't get ahead. His personal employability improvements come at too great a cost to the sector. Zero-net fallacies at its best. He evacuates positions now found for low-skilled labor, and brings more productivity and availability to the new companies and new positions he fills. Without job training and a skilled labor force, how do you expect companies to expand their markets reached and global competition? It's not some bloke running up the down escalator in education and job advancement. For those born poor, the safety net for the destitute provides enough to keep on living, and its up to his own mind, family, labor, and time to get ahead. He should not be reliant on his voting power to lawfully confiscate an increasing share of other people's money.
I consider your policies to be some of the basest conclusions to an envy mentality and a no-growth/low-growth advocacy. Find your ad-hominem victimhood somewhere else, contrary to your assertions, I have no idea whether or not you exist as a drain on society. I want your ideas about how to re-organize society to fail.
There will always be differences in outcomes; I see the plain results of your redistributionist policies to tend towards an overall lowering of individuals bent on becoming successes. When you tout "a fair share" for redistribution, I'm reminded of your belief that a central entity can spend the hard-earned money of successful individuals better than they can. Government is brilliant and knows best how to move money/save money, making it certain the individual has less to reinvest in his businesses, employ in other investments, and buy products other successful companies sell. That might be an order of magnitude less efficient than ordinary price and competition (that you disdain). It goes to anticompetitive practices, rewards the politically connected, even further advances cronyism in the economy. Again, there will always be differences in outcomes, so let's make sure the opportunity to hit the middle and high successes is as great as possible. The big-picture society will always have socialist destabilizers, but as with all small thinkers, their ideas should be marginalized and laughed out of town. The politics of envy always have to hide behind more just-sounding cloaks to make headway in a prosperous society.
|
On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much.
. . . ? I'm right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you know something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about.
|
On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'n right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about.
It's a pattern that has been highlighted several times by several people from a variety of places on the political spectrum. It's a clear and deliberate behavior.
I miss the days before it was so predictable. Now old One-line Jonny Payroll is as predictable as an episode of Power Rangers.
|
On May 26 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'n right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about. It's a pattern that has been highlighted several times by several people from a variety of places on the political spectrum. It's a clear and deliberate behavior. I miss the days before it was so predictable. Now old One-line Jonny Payroll is as predictable as an episode of Power Rangers.
It's well past time that this guy got banned.
|
On May 26 2015 13:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'n right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about. It's a pattern that has been highlighted several times by several people from a variety of places on the political spectrum. It's a clear and deliberate behavior. I miss the days before it was so predictable. Now old One-line Jonny Payroll is as predictable as an episode of Power Rangers. It's well past time that this guy got banned.
Straight past a failed attempt to dispute the behavior pattern, directly into backseat moderating, impressive.
If you had something of substance to say about the discussion being had than I encourage you to share it, but your typical tangential at best one-liners are way past played out.
|
On May 26 2015 14:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 13:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'n right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about. It's a pattern that has been highlighted several times by several people from a variety of places on the political spectrum. It's a clear and deliberate behavior. I miss the days before it was so predictable. Now old One-line Jonny Payroll is as predictable as an episode of Power Rangers. It's well past time that this guy got banned. Straight past a failed attempt to dispute the behavior pattern, directly into backseat moderating, impressive. If you had something of substance to say about the discussion being had than I encourage you to share it, but your typical tangential at best one-liners are way past played out.
What? Making a polite, concise point?
|
On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'm right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you know something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about.
The subject of the post I responded to was 'capitalists', not 'capital flight'. You didn't quote another post, so what "it's" was referring to wasn't entirely clear, but you were talking about a 'brain drain' in your previous post, and you were talking about capitalists moving away from the South in the post I quoted.
Anyways, my point was that the slave holders in the South didn't like the whole market capitalism thing going on in the North. + Show Spoiler +Christian morality is impractical in free society and is the natural morality of slave society. Where all men are equals, all must be competitors, rivals, enemies, in the struggle for life, trying each to get the better of the other. The rich cheapen the wages of the poor; the poor take advantage of the scarcity of labor, and charge exorbitant prices for their work; or, when labour is abundant, underbid and strangle each other in the effort to gain employment. Where any man engaged in business in free society to act upon the principle of the Golden Rule--doing unto others as he would that they should do unto him--his certain ruin would be the consequence. "Every man for himself'" is the necessary morality of such society, and that is the negation of Christian morality. . . On the other hand, in slave society, . . .it is in general, easy and profitable to do unto others as we would that they should to unto us. There is no competition, no clashing of interests within the family circle, composed of parents, master, husband, children and slaves. . . . When the master punishes his child or his slave for misconduct he obeys the golden rule just as strictly as when he feeds and clothes them. Were the parent to set his chidden free at fifteen years of age to get their living in the world, he would be guilty of crime; and as negroes never become more provident or intellectual than white children of fifteen, it is equally criminal to emancipate them. We are obeying the golden rule in retaining them in bondage, taking care of them in health and sickness, in old age and infancy, and in compelling them to labor. . . . 'Tis the interest of masters to take good care of their slaves, and not cheat them out of their wages, as Northern bosses cheat and drive free labourers. Slaves are most profitable when best treated., free labourers most profitable when worst treated and most defrauded. Hence the relation of the master and slave is a kindly and Christian one; that of free laborer and employer a selfish and inimical one. It is in the interest of the slave to fulfill his duties to his master; for he thereby elicits his attachment, and the better enables him to provide for his (the slave's) wants. Study and analyze as long as [you] please the relations of men . . . in a slave society, and they will be found to be Christian, humane and affectionate, whilst those of free society are anti-Christian, competitive and antagonistic. + Show Spoiler +Richmond (Virginia) Examiner, July 17, 1861, as quoted in Fighting Words, a 2004 book by Andrew S. Coopersmith (pp. 49-50)
|
On May 26 2015 14:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 13:23 IgnE wrote:On May 26 2015 12:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 26 2015 09:43 IgnE wrote:
And I can tell you that it's not because the capitalists were opposed to racist laws. I could make an argument that they fled the south because they were upset that slavery was abolished. You're right about the term 'brain drain' but the capitalists were in the North and the slave holders didn't like them very much. . . . ? I'm right about everything. If the subject is capital flight from the reconstruction era south then comments like "the capitalists were in the north" are worse than irrelevant. Stick to chiming in with irrelevancies on topics you know something about or make an attempt to understand what the discussion is about. The subject of the post I responded to was 'capitalists', not 'capital flight'. You didn't quote another post, so what "it's" was referring to wasn't entirely clear, but you were talking about a 'brain drain' in your previous post, and you were talking about capitalists moving away from the South in the post I quoted. Anyways, my point was that the slave holders in the South didn't like the whole market capitalism thing going on in the North. + Show Spoiler +Christian morality is impractical in free society and is the natural morality of slave society. Where all men are equals, all must be competitors, rivals, enemies, in the struggle for life, trying each to get the better of the other. The rich cheapen the wages of the poor; the poor take advantage of the scarcity of labor, and charge exorbitant prices for their work; or, when labour is abundant, underbid and strangle each other in the effort to gain employment. Where any man engaged in business in free society to act upon the principle of the Golden Rule--doing unto others as he would that they should do unto him--his certain ruin would be the consequence. "Every man for himself'" is the necessary morality of such society, and that is the negation of Christian morality. . . On the other hand, in slave society, . . .it is in general, easy and profitable to do unto others as we would that they should to unto us. There is no competition, no clashing of interests within the family circle, composed of parents, master, husband, children and slaves. . . . When the master punishes his child or his slave for misconduct he obeys the golden rule just as strictly as when he feeds and clothes them. Were the parent to set his chidden free at fifteen years of age to get their living in the world, he would be guilty of crime; and as negroes never become more provident or intellectual than white children of fifteen, it is equally criminal to emancipate them. We are obeying the golden rule in retaining them in bondage, taking care of them in health and sickness, in old age and infancy, and in compelling them to labor. . . . 'Tis the interest of masters to take good care of their slaves, and not cheat them out of their wages, as Northern bosses cheat and drive free labourers. Slaves are most profitable when best treated., free labourers most profitable when worst treated and most defrauded. Hence the relation of the master and slave is a kindly and Christian one; that of free laborer and employer a selfish and inimical one. It is in the interest of the slave to fulfill his duties to his master; for he thereby elicits his attachment, and the better enables him to provide for his (the slave's) wants. Study and analyze as long as [you] please the relations of men . . . in a slave society, and they will be found to be Christian, humane and affectionate, whilst those of free society are anti-Christian, competitive and antagonistic. + Show Spoiler +Richmond (Virginia) Examiner, July 17, 1861, as quoted in Fighting Words, a 2004 book by Andrew S. Coopersmith (pp. 49-50) Moreover, the North, where the industrialists and capitalists mainly were, was very much against slavery.
The entire discussion was about people leaving the South for the North, and the who and the why.
But it's good that you clarified that there were, in fact, people in the North. I'm sure all of us would have been confused and assumed people were fleeing to a barren wasteland otherwise.
|
On May 26 2015 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 10:44 Sermokala wrote:
"The invisible hand" is a term used from the very birth of economic thought. Its as credible an idea as Laissez-faire is today. It makes sense on a fundamental level but I wouldn't put any more stock into it meaning something as much as calling the higgs bosin the "god particle". Considering the context within which each were originated, I don't think they are remotely comparable in the way you are suggesting. I think the notion that the invisible hand is actually God is a reasonable interpretation of Smith's work. As for Higgs he is an open Atheist, so it's not a nickname he's a fan of. I think it's fair to say it's not necessarily referencing a "Christian God" but it is clearly an appeal to some sort of natural order that is mostly a fabrication of imagination and not an observation of reality (or is a half blind one).
Both where failed attempts to solidify something that was understandable and real into an actual point of policy. Believing that The invisible hand of capitalism is the force behind economy is the fundamental belief behind the french economic policy of the time. Just now are we understanding the endless complexity that gripped "economy" back even then before globalization threw a wrench into anyone understanding of what to do to make economy good.
I think its a great point that it had judeo-christian influences in someway. I was just trying to make a point about how nothing really made sense back then when people where throwing shit at the wall trying to make something stick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
