'The red state-blue state divide threatens to kill the real American dream.'

  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jan 05, 2015 8:15 PM GMT
    Is Life Better in America’s Red States?



    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/is-life-better-in-americas-red-states.html
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14305

    Jan 06, 2015 4:06 PM GMT

    In some of the red, republican states, life appears to be better because of a stronger economy and lower rates of taxation. If the NARROW MINDED BIBLE THUMPING SCREWBALLS didn't have such a powerful influence over the political and cultural life of these red, republican states than the quality of life would be one hundred times better. I love the northern states but the low job growth rate along with high taxation can really depress the situation. Plus most of the older northern cities have been run into the sewer by longtime monolithic democratic party rule. Where the sunbelt cities that are either republican or controlled by both parties are doing much better financially and they are all growing in population and per capita income. Also several folks prefer warmer climates over a four season climate.
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 06, 2015 4:51 PM GMT
    My problem with this article has to do with its numerous oversimplifications and semi-baseless assumptions to form faulty conclusions. Firstly, I don't believe this red state/blue state division (at least described in this article) is political. The political division reflects the lifestyle, cultural and economic differences, not vice-verse. Although there is always a cyclic feedback. This division is caused by cultural developments shaped from the history, geography, population density, and to a minor degree political history of each state. When your state consists of one big city and its suburbs as a major part of its voting constituents then you'll be more well equipped (politically not functionally) to control its economy. When your state is very decentralized and rural, you are not well equipped politically to control the economy (people will dispute such powers more often.)

    I don't believe in the concept of economy by human design (which this article assumes) and I think no matter how hard you try there is going to be largely an economy through human action (spontaneous order.) When one implements controls, they are creating a means to distort this natural order, ideally with the intentions to make it better. But because, like weather, this is a chaotic system the results tend to be unintended and there is no way to predict if utility will be maximized, minimized, or have no net difference.

    And I think that is the large difference between these supposed blue-states and red-states. The red-state governments are not politically able to (even though they want to) control their economies. So they try to cover this up by advertising the positive features brought from it (relative to the blue states.) On the other-hand, the blue states are more able to control their economies, and the results can be great, or not so great depending on how lucky the politicians making these economic decisions were with their bets.

    Anyway, I think Northeastern States (and the West Coast) would learn a lot from states like, say, New Hampshire. It is a state that promotes decentralized, lesser controlled, lesser taxed economies without any hubris that a group of politicians are capable of controlling such economies, and it matches this with a great record in civil freedoms (the two go hand in hand.) The Mid-West is starting to transition in this direction as well, as more people become non-religious there, but there is still a long way to go culturally.

    I don't believe we will (again we can't control this very much) depend solely on higher education as the article posits as the "future." Some occupations require large research universities, particularly the STEM fields, but not everyone can be in the STEM fields. Other fields of study are largely a huge opportunity cost which exceeds any gain. That is why it is important to not distort the market too much that false information about the viability of certain fields of study is exchanged, and surpluses and shortages are the results (which we are now experiencing with the unemployed but highly educated population.) In the end it can be very dangerous to pick and choose which industries need to be subsidized and which need to have a pigovian tax and discouraged.

    Overall I have a very optimistic view about the situation. The Red-States are becoming more libertarian/liberal in their social attitudes. The blue-states are starting to learn that controlling an economy does indeed have negative and unintended consequences. As the article exemplifies, one instance is that blue-states are becoming less egalitarian, not more due to these policies. Overall though, this division helps us give context of how things can be different, and allows all states to look at the others and experiment. If the country were not divided and all states were homogeneous, change would not occur at the already slow rate it does.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2015 7:44 PM GMT
    The American Dream has been dead for quite awhile now.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 06, 2015 7:59 PM GMT
    sothis999 saidMy problem with this article has to do with its numerous oversimplifications and semi-baseless assumptions to form faulty conclusions. Firstly, I don't believe this red state/blue state division (at least described in this article) is political. The political division reflects the lifestyle, cultural and economic differences, not vice-verse. Although there is always a cyclic feedback. This division is caused by cultural developments shaped from the history, geography, population density, and to a minor degree political history of each state. When your state consists of one big city and its suburbs as a major part of its voting constituents then you'll be more well equipped (politically not functionally) to control its economy. When your state is very decentralized and rural, you are not well equipped politically to control the economy (people will dispute such powers more often.)

    I don't believe in the concept of economy by human design (which this article assumes) and I think no matter how hard you try there is going to be largely an economy through human action (spontaneous order.) When one implements controls, they are creating a means to distort this natural order, ideally with the intentions to make it better. But because, like weather, this is a chaotic system the results tend to be unintended and there is no way to predict if utility will be maximized, minimized, or have no net difference.

    And I think that is the large difference between these supposed blue-states and red-states. The red-state governments are not politically able to (even though they want to) control their economies. So they try to cover this up by advertising the positive features brought from it (relative to the blue states.) On the other-hand, the blue states are more able to control their economies, and the results can be great, or not so great depending on how lucky the politicians making these economic decisions were with their bets.

    Anyway, I think Northeastern States (and the West Coast) would learn a lot from states like, say, New Hampshire. It is a state that promotes decentralized, lesser controlled, lesser taxed economies without any hubris that a group of politicians are capable of controlling such economies, and it matches this with a great record in civil freedoms (the two go hand in hand.) The Mid-West is starting to transition in this direction as well, as more people become non-religious there, but there is still a long way to go culturally.

    I don't believe we will (again we can't control this very much) depend solely on higher education as the article posits as the "future." Some occupations require large research universities, particularly the STEM fields, but not everyone can be in the STEM fields. Other fields of study are largely a huge opportunity cost which exceeds any gain. That is why it is important to not distort the market too much that false information about the viability of certain fields of study is exchanged, and surpluses and shortages are the results (which we are now experiencing with the unemployed but highly educated population.) In the end it can be very dangerous to pick and choose which industries need to be subsidized and which need to have a pigovian tax and discouraged.

    Overall I have a very optimistic view about the situation. The Red-States are becoming more libertarian/liberal in their social attitudes. The blue-states are starting to learn that controlling an economy does indeed have negative and unintended consequences. As the article exemplifies, one instance is that blue-states are becoming less egalitarian, not more due to these policies. Overall though, this division helps us give context of how things can be different, and allows all states to look at the others and experiment. If the country were not divided and all states were homogeneous, change would not occur at the already slow rate it does.


    But the economy was designed by humans, silly.icon_razz.gif
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 06, 2015 9:08 PM GMT
    HottJoe said:
    But the economy was designed by humans, silly.icon_razz.gif

    Humans are the actors in an economy, but they don't 'design' it. No single person or group of people thought up and told other people to start interacting with one another through voluntary trade, just as no single person told people to start talking and develop different languages or cultures (usually when they try it ends up going badly.) It is a by-product of human action, not human thought/design.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 06, 2015 10:19 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said:
    But the economy was designed by humans, silly.icon_razz.gif

    Humans are the actors in an economy, but they don't 'design' it. No single person or group of people thought up and told other people to start interacting with one another through voluntary trade, just as no single person told people to start talking and develop different languages or cultures (usually when they try it ends up going badly.) It is a by-product of human action, not human thought/design.

    That's just something elitists say to justify poverty.

    No single person invented architecture either, but manmade structures are a human invention.
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 06, 2015 10:25 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said:
    But the economy was designed by humans, silly.icon_razz.gif

    Humans are the actors in an economy, but they don't 'design' it. No single person or group of people thought up and told other people to start interacting with one another through voluntary trade, just as no single person told people to start talking and develop different languages or cultures (usually when they try it ends up going badly.) It is a by-product of human action, not human thought/design.

    That's just something elitists say to justify poverty.

    No single person invented architecture either, but manmade structures are a human invention.


    That might be true. That doesn't make it a false observation though. Many people use a lot of facts to justify their distorted views. Religious people often say that god must exist because of how organized the world is. Yes the world is organized, but it doesn't have to have been designed to be organized. For example,science tells us evolution is an empirical explanation for order in life, evolution being another example of spontaneous order - order which comes from chaos. Your architecture example misses my point. A single person invents a building or a bridge. Until recently, however, nobody planned the total sum of bridges and buildings - a city. Today there are zoning boards and so on, but even then their control is just a distortion in the unplanned growth of a city. There are limitations to how much they can micromanage, and the rest is left to spontaneous organization.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 06, 2015 10:28 PM GMT
    ^I'm not missing your point. I just think someone taught you garbage. Granted, you could get rich on that garbage.

    The economy is run by rules. The men with money make the rules. There's nothing natural about it. If we had anarchy the whole thing would fall apart and we'd be wiping our asses with currency.
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 06, 2015 10:36 PM GMT
    HottJoe said^I'm not missing your point. I just think someone taught you garbage. Granted, you could get rich on that garbage.

    The economy is run by rules. The men with money make the rules. There's nothing natural about it. If we had anarchy the whole thing would fall apart and we'd be wiping our asses with currency.


    Well if you don't believe in the concept of markets, then you're obviously in the minority of human beings in today's world. I'll be content with the garbage that is the concept of a market economy as opposed with the alternative (central planning.) I'm actually a market anarchist, if I were to label my political views. Markets can, have, and will exist without a state. Unless a market is non-competitive (oligopoly/monopoly) all people are price-takers and nobody can "make rules." Usually it is the state that creates such oligopolies/monopolies that benefit these rich.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 06, 2015 10:38 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said^I'm not missing your point. I just think someone taught you garbage. Granted, you could get rich on that garbage.

    The economy is run by rules. The men with money make the rules. There's nothing natural about it. If we had anarchy the whole thing would fall apart and we'd be wiping our asses with currency.


    Well if you don't believe in the concept of markets, then you're obviously in the minority of human beings in today's world. I'll be content with the garbage that is the concept of a market economy as opposed with the alternative (central planning.) I'm actually a market anarchist, if I were to label my political views. Markets can, have, and will exist without a state. Unless a market is non-competitive (oligopoly/monopoly) all people are price-takers and nobody can "make rules." Usually it is the state that creates such oligopolies/monopolies that benefit these rich.

    If nobody made rules, the richest and greediest would be slave owners, as history shows. Your faith in money is disheartening. I'm sure you'll be very successful.icon_evil.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 06, 2015 10:42 PM GMT
    The US and European economies were built on the backs of slaves. Now we have sweatshops. Yay, free market.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 06, 2015 10:45 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said^I'm not missing your point. I just think someone taught you garbage. Granted, you could get rich on that garbage.

    The economy is run by rules. The men with money make the rules. There's nothing natural about it. If we had anarchy the whole thing would fall apart and we'd be wiping our asses with currency.


    Well if you don't believe in the concept of markets, then you're obviously in the minority of human beings in today's world. I'll be content with the garbage that is the concept of a market economy as opposed with the alternative (central planning.) I'm actually a market anarchist, if I were to label my political views. Markets can, have, and will exist without a state. Unless a market is non-competitive (oligopoly/monopoly) all people are price-takers and nobody can "make rules." Usually it is the state that creates such oligopolies/monopolies that benefit these rich.

    If nobody made rules, the richest and greediest would be slave owners, as history shows. Your faith in money is disheartening. I'm sure you'll be very successful.icon_evil.gif


    Where did I say anything about money? Economics has much more to do than just money. In fact there have been entire economies without money (bartering economies.) Economics is just the study of human interactions. Money is just an easier mode of exchange. Anyway, I have no endeavors of becoming wealthy or obtaining a lot of money. I'd rather do something I enjoy that accrues less money. At the same time I still understand how people benefit from relatively free markets when pursuing their goals in life. That is why the most happy countries in the world with the people pursing their individual interests so happen to have the most free markets.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 06, 2015 11:04 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said^I'm not missing your point. I just think someone taught you garbage. Granted, you could get rich on that garbage.

    The economy is run by rules. The men with money make the rules. There's nothing natural about it. If we had anarchy the whole thing would fall apart and we'd be wiping our asses with currency.


    Well if you don't believe in the concept of markets, then you're obviously in the minority of human beings in today's world. I'll be content with the garbage that is the concept of a market economy as opposed with the alternative (central planning.) I'm actually a market anarchist, if I were to label my political views. Markets can, have, and will exist without a state. Unless a market is non-competitive (oligopoly/monopoly) all people are price-takers and nobody can "make rules." Usually it is the state that creates such oligopolies/monopolies that benefit these rich.

    If nobody made rules, the richest and greediest would be slave owners, as history shows. Your faith in money is disheartening. I'm sure you'll be very successful.icon_evil.gif


    Where did I say anything about money? Economics has much more to do than just money. In fact there have been entire economies without money (bartering economies.) Economics is just the study of human interactions. Money is just an easier mode of exchange. Anyway, I have no endeavors of becoming wealthy or obtaining a lot of money. I'd rather do something I enjoy that accrues less money. At the same time I still understand how people benefit from relatively free markets when pursuing their goals in life. That is why the most happy countries in the world with the people pursing their individual interests so happen to have the most free markets.

    Well, you win the semantics argument. I guess the economy is natural, in the sense that people will naturally declare what's theirs.

    I just see the free market as being responsible for climate change, abuse of power, etc. Sure there are benefits as well, but your posts seem to have a sort of religious blindness that makes me question your premise.

    The free economy is great for the winners, and sucks for the losers. It has to be regulated. Extreme wealth makes people greedy and lose their empathy for those who live in extreme poverty.
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 06, 2015 11:07 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said^I'm not missing your point. I just think someone taught you garbage. Granted, you could get rich on that garbage.

    The economy is run by rules. The men with money make the rules. There's nothing natural about it. If we had anarchy the whole thing would fall apart and we'd be wiping our asses with currency.


    Well if you don't believe in the concept of markets, then you're obviously in the minority of human beings in today's world. I'll be content with the garbage that is the concept of a market economy as opposed with the alternative (central planning.) I'm actually a market anarchist, if I were to label my political views. Markets can, have, and will exist without a state. Unless a market is non-competitive (oligopoly/monopoly) all people are price-takers and nobody can "make rules." Usually it is the state that creates such oligopolies/monopolies that benefit these rich.

    If nobody made rules, the richest and greediest would be slave owners, as history shows. Your faith in money is disheartening. I'm sure you'll be very successful.icon_evil.gif


    History also shows that when statual rules were lessened (such as was the case in the late 18th century in Western Europe and America) economic mobility is more prevalent, leading to egalitarian results.There were various controls on the economies in the Western world until the 18th century. The overwhelming majority of people were destitute (not just relatively impoverished.) After the economies became based on markets and not national mercantilism (the nation owns the means of production, you lease it), and after the hard work of many non-slaves and slaves alike, people were able to break that cycle of being what their parents were and destitution in general. Since that time the world went from 80% destitute to only 20% destitute. That is amazing progress, in my opinion. Statual rules are just the tools the big companies use to remove their smaller competition. Bigger companies are able to cope with costs that small ones cannot. That leads to the market power you are talking about. Statual rules are the opposite of what an egalitarian should be pushing for.
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 06, 2015 11:16 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    Well, you win the semantics argument. I guess the economy is natural, in the sense that people will naturally declare what's theirs.

    I just see the free market as being responsible for climate change, abuse of power, etc. Sure there are benefits as well, but your posts seem to have a sort of religious blindness that makes me question your premise.

    The free economy is great for the winners, and sucks for the losers. It has to be regulated. Extreme wealth makes people greedy and lose their empathy for those who live in extreme poverty.


    How can you conclude the free market is responsible for climate change when certain countries have the least free markets yet are some of the greatest polluters (see: China?) Pollution will exist regardless of market orientation. If central planning won the economic cold war the climate change discussion would still exist today. I mean, people are still going to consume in both situations, and that consumption leads to pollution. The question is who gets to consume how much and who gets to decide that? That is the question markets vs. central planning address.

    I've already addressed how mixed economies benefit the rich over the not-rich. The rich don't want competition. The rich create laws to remove their competition. The rich then have both political and economic power. Rinse, repeat. In a free-market there would be no such thing as removing competition through legislation. The whole situation would be analogous to the separation of church and state.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 06, 2015 11:18 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said^I'm not missing your point. I just think someone taught you garbage. Granted, you could get rich on that garbage.

    The economy is run by rules. The men with money make the rules. There's nothing natural about it. If we had anarchy the whole thing would fall apart and we'd be wiping our asses with currency.


    Well if you don't believe in the concept of markets, then you're obviously in the minority of human beings in today's world. I'll be content with the garbage that is the concept of a market economy as opposed with the alternative (central planning.) I'm actually a market anarchist, if I were to label my political views. Markets can, have, and will exist without a state. Unless a market is non-competitive (oligopoly/monopoly) all people are price-takers and nobody can "make rules." Usually it is the state that creates such oligopolies/monopolies that benefit these rich.

    If nobody made rules, the richest and greediest would be slave owners, as history shows. Your faith in money is disheartening. I'm sure you'll be very successful.icon_evil.gif


    History also shows that when statual rules were lessened (such as was the case in the late 18th century in Western Europe and America) economic mobility is more prevalent, leading to egalitarian results.There were various controls on the economies in the Western world until the 18th century. The overwhelming majority of people were destitute (not just relatively impoverished.) After the economies became based on markets and not national mercantilism (the nation owns the means of production, you lease it), and after the hard work of many non-slaves and slaves alike, people were able to break that cycle of being what their parents were and destitution in general. Since that time the world went from 80% destitute to only 20% destitute. That is amazing progress, in my opinion. Statual rules are just the tools the big companies use to remove their smaller competition. Bigger companies are able to cope with costs that small ones cannot. That leads to the market power you are talking about. Statual rules are the opposite of what an egalitarian should be pushing for.

    And then the bubbles burst and we have bailouts. The Great Depression is a great example. The economy was working, and then it collapsed, and then we had to fix it, and deal with it like anything else we build that then gets broken.

    I just don't see how it's natural. It's a contrived structure and we have to manipulate it. It doesn't just flow naturally like a river. It's more like indoor plumbing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2015 11:23 PM GMT
    The 'old' American dream was based off of a LIE. A conservative one, to enslave and control the masses.

    Old dream and Long term: Job, Mortgage, Marriage, Children-College, Debt
    New dream and Short term: Job-Business-Investments, Landlord, Marriage-Pre-nup (Children optional), Debt Free
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 06, 2015 11:34 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    And then the bubbles burst and we have bailouts. The Great Depression is a great example. The economy was working, and then it collapsed, and then we had to fix it, and deal with it like anything else we build that then gets broken.

    I just don't see how it's natural. It's a contrived structure and we have to manipulate it. It doesn't just flow naturally like a river. It's more like indoor plumbing.


    The Great Depression happened, arguably, because the Federal Reserve did not print enough money when it was supposed to (in an economy that was distorted to become dependent on it.) This led to what Keynesian economics called thrift, in which everyone was afraid to spend. Bubbles are caused by barriers to information exchange (people make decisions they otherwise would not have if they were omniscient.) When you have a central bank, like the Federal Reserve, information is entirely dependent on how well the Federal Reserve does its job, as money is the mode of information and the Federal Reserve controls money. If the banking system were decentralized, then that Great Depression likely would not have happened. Although there might've been other types of smaller depressions, like there were before the creation of central banks.

    Economies are natural in the same way language is natural. While there can be standards of grammar and vocabulary in language created by an organization, language is not precluded to that and will continue to change regardless. Languages don't change because people collectively through vote choose to not use a grammatical feature or rule. Languages change and evolve by popular usage. Economies work similarly. They change and evolve by the trends of actions of people. That is my point. No single person or group of people think up all the prices in an economy, think up who trades with whom, and in which field an individual can choose for their occupation. These things exist by the natural laws of economics, an example being supply and demand. It is not possible to calculate prices, for example, better than people do by trading. You can't micro-manage an economy in the same way you can your plumbing. Instead, we find organization and order by the sum of the individual actions of everyone.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 07, 2015 2:23 AM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    And then the bubbles burst and we have bailouts. The Great Depression is a great example. The economy was working, and then it collapsed, and then we had to fix it, and deal with it like anything else we build that then gets broken.

    I just don't see how it's natural. It's a contrived structure and we have to manipulate it. It doesn't just flow naturally like a river. It's more like indoor plumbing.


    The Great Depression happened, arguably, because the Federal Reserve did not print enough money when it was supposed to (in an economy that was distorted to become dependent on it.) This led to what Keynesian economics called thrift, in which everyone was afraid to spend. Bubbles are caused by barriers to information exchange (people make decisions they otherwise would not have if they were omniscient.) When you have a central bank, like the Federal Reserve, information is entirely dependent on how well the Federal Reserve does its job, as money is the mode of information and the Federal Reserve controls money. If the banking system were decentralized, then that Great Depression likely would not have happened. Although there might've been other types of smaller depressions, like there were before the creation of central banks.

    Economies are natural in the same way language is natural. While there can be standards of grammar and vocabulary in language created by an organization, language is not precluded to that and will continue to change regardless. Languages don't change because people collectively through vote choose to not use a grammatical feature or rule. Languages change and evolve by popular usage. Economies work similarly. They change and evolve by the trends of actions of people. That is my point. No single person or group of people think up all the prices in an economy, think up who trades with whom, and in which field an individual can choose for their occupation. These things exist by the natural laws of economics, an example being supply and demand. It is not possible to calculate prices, for example, better than people do by trading. You can't micro-manage an economy in the same way you can your plumbing. Instead, we find organization and order by the sum of the individual actions of everyone.

    The economy and our languages are part of human culture. All species communicate and thrive together somehow. And who knows, someday we might replace language with telepathy or have a robot economy. We can dream. But it seems like insanity to attribute our machinations to nature itself, as if we should trust it to be something we didn't create. We did create it and we do have to micromanage it. The reality is that our culture is in direct conflict with nature's limitations on us, as far as our relationship to the earth. We dream big, especially in a free economy, but if nature takes it's course we're doomed. We'll either be the next dinosaurs, or aliens, if we're lucky.
  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 07, 2015 2:58 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    The economy and our languages are part of human culture. All species communicate and thrive together somehow. And who knows, someday we might replace language with telepathy or have a robot economy. We can dream. But it seems like insanity to attribute our machinations to nature itself, as if we should trust it to be something we didn't create. We did create it and we do have to micromanage it. The reality is that our culture is in direct conflict with nature's limitations on us, as far as our relationship to the earth. We dream big, especially in a free economy, but if nature takes it's course we're doomed. We'll either be the next dinosaurs, or aliens, if we're lucky.


    I never said we didn't create economies, nor am I trying to separate it from human beings. I said that it wasn't "designed" which means more than just creating something. Designed implies that there was a planned creation. Now while the parts of economies are planned, the whole is not. It just happens (for reasons we can only guess and test against reality through evidence.) Also when I use the word natural, I'm not just talking about the environment. I am also talking about human nature. It is human nature to want to own, build, and trade things. It isn't something exclusive to only rich or poor people. All people want to create things(and keep their creations), and many people like to trade their creations for other things which other people created. That right there implies that economies are natural parts of humanity, voluntary interactions and exchanges between people are natural parts of humanity. Markets are the consequence of these voluntary interactions on the large scale. They are the organized system that forms as a result of the smaller decisions. Just as in evolution a species is the result of many small mutations in the genomes of animal populations over a long period of time.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 07, 2015 3:28 AM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    The economy and our languages are part of human culture. All species communicate and thrive together somehow. And who knows, someday we might replace language with telepathy or have a robot economy. We can dream. But it seems like insanity to attribute our machinations to nature itself, as if we should trust it to be something we didn't create. We did create it and we do have to micromanage it. The reality is that our culture is in direct conflict with nature's limitations on us, as far as our relationship to the earth. We dream big, especially in a free economy, but if nature takes it's course we're doomed. We'll either be the next dinosaurs, or aliens, if we're lucky.


    I never said we didn't create economies, nor am I trying to separate it from human beings. I said that it wasn't "designed" which means more than just creating something. Designed implies that there was a planned creation. Now while the parts of economies are planned, the whole is not. It just happens (for reasons we can only guess and test against reality through evidence.) Also when I use the word natural, I'm not just talking about the environment. I am also talking about human nature. It is human nature to want to own, build, and trade things. It isn't something exclusive to only rich or poor people. All people want to create things(and keep their creations), and many people like to trade their creations for other things which other people created. That right there implies that economies are natural parts of humanity, voluntary interactions and exchanges between people are natural parts of humanity. Markets are the consequence of these voluntary interactions on the large scale. They are the organized system that forms as a result of the smaller decisions. Just as in evolution a species is the result of many small mutations in the genomes of animal populations over a long period of time.

    I agree that it's in our nature to want to own stuff, and that's why we depend on an economy. But the economy is a human design. We as humans design it at every step, particularly those with the most economic power design it. I understand it isn't planned in the sense that it isn't coordinated, but neither is advancing technology, or language. Slang is designed.... Culture is like a patchwork quilt. It's all a social construct. The economy is a civil rights issue. Having a liberated economy empowers people more than anything else could, but wealth is power, wealth corrupts, and it's not something we can just say humans didn't design. To me that's like someone saying humans didn't create religion. We have to take responsibility or hand it over to a higher power. Otherwise we're just fools.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jan 07, 2015 11:21 AM GMT
    HottJoe saidThe US and European economies were built on the backs of slaves. Now we have sweatshops. Yay, free market.icon_rolleyes.gif


    If you want to see sweatshops being built on the backs of slaves take a vacation to China and save your yays for communism.

    The article drips of curdled socialist angst from the author's home in Canada about the impending disaster facing "blue" states and their alleged superior (and admitted) over regulated and over taxed economies. He even accuses "red" states of stealing industries from "blue" states where taxes are higher and regulations are oppressive.

    This is amusing. It reminds me of whiny posts in forums that can be summed up as "why does everyone in the world make my life so hard?" Some people go through life without a minimum capacity for introspective self assessment and the author exhibits his lack of it. He seems to be incapable of considering that the problem with socialist dominated blue states is that they are socialist dominated blue states that are by their very definitions and designs hostile to new and small businesses.

    It's no secret that the USA has the highest corporate tax rates on the globe. Have the corporations who've abandoned the US fled to "red" states or nations? NO! They've fled to less oppressive ones just as so many businesses have fled oppressive taxes and regulations for states who welcome them. No theft of "blue state" industry involved.

    Without giving away details, five years ago a colleague of mine perfected something he'd worked on for two decades and was approached by a Dutch company interested in buying it at an impressive high seven figure price. In the legal preparations for the sale he found out that after federal and "blue" state taxes and regulatory fees he would end end up wit less than 50% of the sale amount. He moved to Gibratar where there's no tax on wealth in order to keep what he had worked over twenty years for.

    If someone wishes to make an argument for how oppressive taxes and over regulation are conducive to a strong expanding economy I'm sure all of us would be amused to read it. The author of the article didn't even attempt to do this.

  • sothis999

    Posts: 58

    Jan 07, 2015 4:42 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    I agree that it's in our nature to want to own stuff, and that's why we depend on an economy. But the economy is a human design. We as humans design it at every step, particularly those with the most economic power design it. I understand it isn't planned in the sense that it isn't coordinated, but neither is advancing technology, or language. Slang is designed.... Culture is like a patchwork quilt. It's all a social construct. The economy is a civil rights issue. Having a liberated economy empowers people more than anything else could, but wealth is power, wealth corrupts, and it's not something we can just say humans didn't design. To me that's like someone saying humans didn't create religion. We have to take responsibility or hand it over to a higher power. Otherwise we're just fools.


    There are instances in which what you say is true - that few people can control an entire market - but only in these instances does someone have this power. These instances are when there is a monopoly or oligopoly. In competitive markets, however, trying to control the economy would be like trying to make a wave that goes against the ocean. You are a price-taker and everything happens to you, you can't do anything to change that. I personally believe that monopolies and even oligopolies would be very rare in a free-market economy. The costs to protect that amount of property and assets would exceed their value, and somebody else would have to pick up the slack. However, some people believe otherwise, and that is why there are competition laws. Even still, certain regulations lead to less competition, which means the market is in the hands of a few and controllable. When it is controlled, however, there are unforeseen ripples and consequences. This is true when a monopolist does it, or if a politician does it. In both instances the market is distorted and negative unforeseen effects can arise. This isn't to say that negative effects won't arise naturally in a decentralized economy, but those negative effects are like natural disasters, meanwhile in a controlled economy they are more like if somebody accidentally or even intentionally set off an atomic bomb. One is viewed less favorably than the other.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 08, 2015 4:38 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    I agree that it's in our nature to want to own stuff, and that's why we depend on an economy. But the economy is a human design. We as humans design it at every step, particularly those with the most economic power design it. I understand it isn't planned in the sense that it isn't coordinated, but neither is advancing technology, or language. Slang is designed.... Culture is like a patchwork quilt. It's all a social construct. The economy is a civil rights issue. Having a liberated economy empowers people more than anything else could, but wealth is power, wealth corrupts, and it's not something we can just say humans didn't design. To me that's like someone saying humans didn't create religion. We have to take responsibility or hand it over to a higher power. Otherwise we're just fools.


    There are instances in which what you say is true - that few people can control an entire market - but only in these instances does someone have this power. These instances are when there is a monopoly or oligopoly. In competitive markets, however, trying to control the economy would be like trying to make a wave that goes against the ocean. You are a price-taker and everything happens to you, you can't do anything to change that. I personally believe that monopolies and even oligopolies would be very rare in a free-market economy. The costs to protect that amount of property and assets would exceed their value, and somebody else would have to pick up the slack. However, some people believe otherwise, and that is why there are competition laws. Even still, certain regulations lead to less competition, which means the market is in the hands of a few and controllable. When it is controlled, however, there are unforeseen ripples and consequences. This is true when a monopolist does it, or if a politician does it. In both instances the market is distorted and negative unforeseen effects can arise. This isn't to say that negative effects won't arise naturally in a decentralized economy, but those negative effects are like natural disasters, meanwhile in a controlled economy they are more like if somebody accidentally or even intentionally set off an atomic bomb. One is viewed less favorably than the other.

    You seem to have faith in an ideology which I think is misguided. I feel like I'm talking to a religious nut job at this point. If your ideals were implemented, the rich would be like demigods and the poor would be treated like cattle.

    Edit: if we did have a free market, then we'd have to get rid of national identities, so that people would be free to get a job or start a business anywhere... But that won't happen, because it's only free if you're a jet setter.