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

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

    Jan 09, 2015 4:35 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    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.


    Actually that was mainstream economics I just abbreviated . All particpants are pricetakers in competitive markets. It has nothing to do with dogma. It is hypothesized through mathematics and then recertified through empirical data. That is something you learn in econ 101. Anyway my ideal society is anarchic so yes no borders. Which leads me to your contradiction. Earlier in this thread you said that if it were not for the state there would be no markets and every thing would fall apart. Now you say the rich would rule. Which is it? It cannot be both.

    Edit: It seems to me as if a lot(not all) liberals learned their "economics" in sociology class. And then it is ironic when they call actual economics religion.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 09, 2015 5:49 AM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    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.


    Actually that was mainstream economics I just abbreviated . All particpants are pricetakers in competitive markets. It has nothing to do with dogma. It is hypothesized through mathematics and then recertified through empirical data. That is something you learn in econ 101. Anyway my ideal society is anarchic so yes no borders. Which leads me to your contradiction. Earlier in this thread you said that if it were not for the state there would be no markets and every thing would fall apart. Now you say the rich would rule. Which is it? It cannot be both.

    Edit: It seems to me as if a lot(not all) liberals learned their "economics" in sociology class. And then it is ironic when they call actual economics religion.

    It can be both. We could have feudalism and a global dark ages. The trouble with your take on economics is that the economy is just one force that drives human culture, and our economy is a delicate invention, like a game. It has to be governed, and there has to be diversity, including many countries, otherwise all of the tyranny, corruption, theft, labor abuses, environmental abuses, discrimination, etc, would make it's way to the top. Greed makes people wicked. The economy led to slavery and war and caused racism. It can't be free. It has to be regulated like clean drinking water.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 6:47 AM 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.





    icon_redface.gificon_twisted.gif

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

    Jan 09, 2015 1:55 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    It can be both. We could have feudalism and a global dark ages. The trouble with your take on economics is that the economy is just one force that drives human culture, and our economy is a delicate invention, like a game. It has to be governed, and there has to be diversity, including many countries, otherwise all of the tyranny, corruption, theft, labor abuses, environmental abuses, discrimination, etc, would make it's way to the top. Greed makes people wicked. The economy led to slavery and war and caused racism. It can't be free. It has to be regulated like clean drinking water.


    I agree. There has to be a decentralized and diverse economy. And my argument is that the greedy people stay on the top only because they have the tool of force that is the state to create barriers of entry for the small guy. Believe it or not, despite their high taxation and their welfare state, Denmark (a much acclaimed Nordic economy by liberals) is partly so successful because of its relatively free-markets. There are vastly fewer regulations in Denmark than the United States, and the predominate ones have to do with either the environment or health/safety. Everything else tends to stay off-limits. It is one of the many contributing factors to their low economic disparity. Within the U.S, the states with the freest markets and lowest government influence are the most equal. Utah, Alaska, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Iowa all have the lowest Gini coefficients (measures economic inequality.) None of them have progressive income taxes, and some of them don't have sales taxes, income taxes, nor both. And while I understand there are other factors, like homogeneous small populations, I also think their relatively free-markets is a requisite.

    Federal states like the Soviet Union's (or nation-states like modern day Venezuela) learned very quickly that they were unable to calculate demand and supply as efficiently as a market would. That is why they either had shortages or surpluses in their production. This led to either widespread famine, and/or a surplus in militarization (the latter we are experiencing in the U.S now.) There are efficiency limitations to what CAN be done to an economy. And that was my point in my original post. If the Soviet Union had a real democracy or the peasants had weapons, a means of communication or a means of travel then there would've been a counter-revolution rather than a slow crawl back to liberal economies (I use liberal in the original sense of the word.) I can guarantee you though that the top members of the Ministry of Agriculture, Chemical Industry, Construction, Culture, etc, etc didn't have starving families to feed. They were probably living quite well. Greed existed in that system as it does in the corporatist one we have now, and it will exist in a free-market economy too. Greed will exist in all people and in all systems. Whether you are rich or poor. Woman or man. Black, White, or Asian. And to be honest, it is through our selfish interests that we trade with others and advance production, increasing standards of living. For that reason self-interest is a good thing, not a bad thing. But that is only true when the self-interest is decentralized. Not centralized in a state or in a monopoly.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 09, 2015 2:05 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    It can be both. We could have feudalism and a global dark ages. The trouble with your take on economics is that the economy is just one force that drives human culture, and our economy is a delicate invention, like a game. It has to be governed, and there has to be diversity, including many countries, otherwise all of the tyranny, corruption, theft, labor abuses, environmental abuses, discrimination, etc, would make it's way to the top. Greed makes people wicked. The economy led to slavery and war and caused racism. It can't be free. It has to be regulated like clean drinking water.


    I agree. There has to be a decentralized and diverse economy. And my argument is that the greedy people stay on the top only because they have the tool of force that is the state to create barriers of entry for the small guy. Believe it or not, despite their high taxation and their welfare state, Denmark (a much acclaimed Nordic economy by liberals) is partly so successful because of its relatively free-markets. There are vastly fewer regulations in Denmark than the United States, and the predominate ones have to do with either the environment or health/safety. Everything else tends to stay off-limits. It is one of the many contributing factors to their low economic disparity. Within the U.S, the states with the freest markets and lowest government influence are the most equal. Utah, Alaska, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Iowa all have the lowest Gini coefficients (measures economic inequality.) None of them have progressive income taxes, and some of them don't have sales taxes, income taxes, nor both. And while I understand there are other factors, like homogeneous small populations, I also think their more free-markets is a requisite.

    Federal states like the Soviet Union's (or nation-states like modern day Venezuela) learned very quickly that they were unable to calculate demand and supply as efficiently as a market would. That is why they either had shortages or surpluses in their production. This led to either widespread famine, and/or a surplus in militarization. There are efficiency limitations to what CAN be done to an economy. And that was my point in my original post. If the Soviet Union had a real democracy or the peasants had weapons, a means of communication or a means of travel then there would've been a counter-revolution rather than a slow crawl back to liberal economies (I use liberal in the original sense of the word.) I can guarantee you though that the top members of the Ministry of Agriculture, Chemical Industry, Construction, Culture, etc, etc didn't have starving families to feed. They were probably living quite well. Greed existed in that system as it does in the corporatist one we have now, and it will exist in a free-market economy too. Greed will exist in all people and in all systems. Whether you are rich or poor. Woman or man. Black, White, or Asian. And to be honest, it is through our selfish interests that we trade with others and advance production, increasing standards of living. For that reason self-interest is a good thing, not a bad thing. But that is only true when the self-interest is decentralized. Not centralized in a state or in a monopoly.

    Trading is about mutual self interest (hopefully). But selfishness is not a virtue. I balk at that Ayn Rand crap. It just gives people an excuse to put material interests over humanity, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that putting material interests over the health of the environment could put us all in peril. If we let selfishness rule, we're all going to run out oxygen. The planet can't support those desires. Nature has limits, and the human imagination and capacity for each individual to consume to their heart's desire simply has to be regulated differently, because we've literally changed the chemistry of the oceans and atmosphere in a very short period of "progress." Let's not be lemmings here and progress off a cliff.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 2:36 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Trading is about mutual self interest (hopefully). But selfishness is not a virtue. I balk at that Ayn Rand crap. It just gives people an excuse to put material interests over humanity, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that putting material interests over the health of the environment could put us all in peril. If we let selfishness rule, we're all going to run out oxygen. The planet can't support those desires. Nature has limits, and the human imagination and capacity for each individual to consume to their heart's desire simply has to be regulated differently, because we've literally changed the chemistry of the oceans and atmosphere in a very short period of "progress." Let's not be lemmings here and progress off a cliff.


    Sorry, but as material beings we rely on "material interests." We need food, water, shelter to live. We need recreational tools (among other things) to be happy with life. We thrive on creating new things. So on and so on. You do bring up the point of externalities (such as the environment) and that is a good point. I won't get into that discussion since it is another field of economics with a variety of contestant arguments. I'll just say there is a free-market argument of how to deal with externalities and there are a variety of non free-market ones.

    Also, side note:

    Ethical egoism wasn't invented by Ayn Rand.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 09, 2015 3:19 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    Trading is about mutual self interest (hopefully). But selfishness is not a virtue. I balk at that Ayn Rand crap. It just gives people an excuse to put material interests over humanity, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that putting material interests over the health of the environment could put us all in peril. If we let selfishness rule, we're all going to run out oxygen. The planet can't support those desires. Nature has limits, and the human imagination and capacity for each individual to consume to their heart's desire simply has to be regulated differently, because we've literally changed the chemistry of the oceans and atmosphere in a very short period of "progress." Let's not be lemmings here and progress off a cliff.


    Sorry, but as material beings we rely on "material interests." We need food, water, shelter to live. We need recreational tools (among other things) to be happy with life. We thrive on creating new things. So on and so on. You do bring up the point of externalities (such as the environment) and that is a good point. I won't get into that discussion since it is another field of economics with a variety of contestant arguments. I'll just say there is a free-market argument of how to deal with externalities and there are a variety of non free-market ones.

    Also, side note:

    Ethical egoism wasn't invented by Ayn Rand.

    Ayn Rand is the poster child, but her views are hardly ethical.

    And isn't a little hypocritical to avoid aspects of the discussion that contradict your talking points? You say your ideology isn't faith based, but again you argue like a fundie, by dismissing logic for agenda.

    I'm sure you're familiar with Star Trek and it's characters. Think of the logic of the Vulcans. They would recognize the Achilles heel of your argument, because your argument isn't logical. Yes, we depend on the environment to provide us with food, shelter, water, and even happiness. But we have overfished the oceans. If we destroy our environment, we will go extinct. We can't divorce reality from an ideology. It's illogical.

    I'm not going to look at one piece of the pie. You can choose to do that, but you're being unreasonable and illogical for doing so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 4:17 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Ayn Rand is the poster child, but her views are hardly ethical.

    And isn't a little hypocritical to avoid aspects of the discussion that contradict your talking points? You say your ideology isn't faith based, but again you argue like a fundie, by dismissing logic for agenda.

    I'm sure you're familiar with Star Trek and it's characters. Think of the logic of the Vulcans. They would recognize the Achilles heel of your argument, because your argument isn't logical. Yes, we depend on the environment to provide us with food, shelter, water, and even happiness. But we have overfished the oceans. If we destroy our environment, we will go extinct. We can't divorce reality from an ideology. It's illogical.

    I'm not going to look at one piece of the pie. You can choose to do that, but you're being unreasonable and illogical for doing so.


    No I chose not to discuss externalities because there is no single right answer of how to resolve them. People with different views will go about it in different ways. For somebody concerned about how command-control regulations will affect efficiency they'd rather go the route of internalizing the externalities through private means (Coase's theorem.) That means you privatize all land so that all people internalize the costs of its damage and you eliminate the tragedy of the commons (which deals with common resources, not private property.) An application in today's world is fracking. Certain states, like Pennsylvania, take the property rights below the land from the owners and allow fracking companies to frack under these property owners without their permission. If these people had undisputed property rights to the mantle, like it is in other states, it would be up to them whether or not the company can frack on their land. That would be the propertarian and market solution to the externality of fracking. However, most environmentalists would rather allow the fracking to occur, but tax the procedure so that the state can obtain more revenue to spend on whatever consequences there would be. In one case you prevent the fracking from happen in many instances but not all, and in the other you just fix the problem after it happens. Only one truly addresses the externality.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 09, 2015 4:34 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    Ayn Rand is the poster child, but her views are hardly ethical.

    And isn't a little hypocritical to avoid aspects of the discussion that contradict your talking points? You say your ideology isn't faith based, but again you argue like a fundie, by dismissing logic for agenda.

    I'm sure you're familiar with Star Trek and it's characters. Think of the logic of the Vulcans. They would recognize the Achilles heel of your argument, because your argument isn't logical. Yes, we depend on the environment to provide us with food, shelter, water, and even happiness. But we have overfished the oceans. If we destroy our environment, we will go extinct. We can't divorce reality from an ideology. It's illogical.

    I'm not going to look at one piece of the pie. You can choose to do that, but you're being unreasonable and illogical for doing so.


    No I chose not to discuss externalities because there is no single right answer of how to resolve them. People with different views will go about it in different ways. For somebody concerned about how command-control regulations will affect efficiency they'd rather go the route of internalizing the externalities through private means (Coase's theorem.) That means you privatize all land so that all people internalize the costs of its damage and you eliminate the tragedy of the commons (which deals with common resources, not private property.) An application in today's world is fracking. Certain states, like Pennsylvania, take the property rights below the land from the owners and allow fracking companies to frack under these property owners without their permission. If these people had undisputed property rights to the mantle, like it is in other states, it would be up to them whether or not the company can frack on their land. That would be the propertarian and market solution to the externality of fracking. However, most environmentalists would rather allow the fracking to occur, but tax the procedure so that the state can obtain more revenue to spend on whatever consequences there would be. In one case you prevent the fracking from happen in many instances but not all, and in the other you just fix the problem after it happens. Only one truly addresses the externality.

    If you'll only discuss the issues where there is supposedly a single answer, then you're not really discussing anything. You're just dictating your beliefs.

    You're completely off base about what most environmentalists want. They want clean water. PA has poor laws for property owners, that's obvious, but whether it's corporations, or individual property owners, the fracking itself has consequences to the environment that are profound, particularly when it comes to water contamination. No one should own the land, in the sense that no one should have the right to abuse the land just because they paid for it. It's unnatural.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 4:43 PM GMT
    HottJoe said

    You're completely off base about what most environmentalists want. They want clean water. PA has poor laws for property owners, that's obvious, but whether it's corporations, or individual property owners, the fracking itself has consequences to the environment that are profound, particularly when it comes to water contamination. No one should own the land, in the sense that no one should have the right to abuse the land just because they paid for it. It's unnatural.


    The specific case was to illustrate a single example. I'm not going to list the propertarian argument for solving externalities in every instance. And like I said. Externalities are a contested topic in economics. There is no single correct answer to address them. So yeah, it's largely going to be value-based.

    As for the property owner. It would be highly unlikely that they'll damage their own property without reparations. Property owners are much more invested in their properties than the monetary value of the property itself. This would cost the corporation hoping to frack, a lot more money. In turn, it would reduce the amount of fracking they can accomplish, as the market price for land to frack will increase. Furthermore, if their damage applies to other properties then they are liable to be sued. Right now the large corporation is not liable to be sued, and can steal property rights, because the state says it can do whatever it wants. It is protected by the force of the state. To me, it is illogical to believe that this same state will try to protect the environment. You'll have to change the state through voting. But by the time that happens the damage will already be done. So in this case, the market is more efficient at addressing the externality, because a free-market has the assumption of propertarianism.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 09, 2015 4:58 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said

    You're completely off base about what most environmentalists want. They want clean water. PA has poor laws for property owners, that's obvious, but whether it's corporations, or individual property owners, the fracking itself has consequences to the environment that are profound, particularly when it comes to water contamination. No one should own the land, in the sense that no one should have the right to abuse the land just because they paid for it. It's unnatural.


    The specific case was to illustrate a single example. I'm not going to list the propertarian argument for solving externalities in every instance. And like I said. Externalities are a contested topic in economics. There is no single correct answer to address them. So yeah, it's largely going to be value-based.

    As for the property owner. It would be highly unlikely that they'll damage their own property without reparations. Property owners are much more invested in their properties than the monetary value of the property itself. This would cost the corporation hoping to frack, a lot more money. In turn, it would reduce the amount of fracking they can accomplish, as the market price for land to frack will increase. Furthermore, if their damage applies to other properties then they are liable to be sued. Right now the large corporation is not liable to be sued, and can steal property rights, because the state says it can do whatever it wants. It is protected by the force of the state. To me, it is illogical to believe that this same state will try to protect the environment. You'll have to change the state through voting. But by the time that happens the damage will already be done. So in this case, the market is more efficient at addressing the externality, because a free-market has the assumption of propertarianism.

    That's naive to think people won't damage their property, or that their neighbors can successfully sue them if they cause widespread environmental damage. Anyone who has their sights set on personal profit is potentially a danger if their interests are in fracking. There's always someone living downstream. We simply need renewable energy, and more efficiency, and for that we need legislation. The free market means profit in any way you can, including by hiring lobbyists and twisting laws to benefit the capitalists at the expense of the planet. We can't let the markets dictate our laws. Common sense must prevail, but unfortunately that seems in short supply, especially in a culture that's sustained by consumerism and cash flow, rather than the actual needs of humans, plants, animals and the ecosystem as a whole.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 5:17 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    That's naive to think people won't damage their property, or that their neighbors can successfully sue them if they cause widespread environmental damage. Anyone who has their sights set on personal profit is potentially a danger if their interests are in fracking. There's always someone living downstream. We simply need renewable energy, and more efficiency, and for that we need legislation. The free market means profit in any way you can, including by hiring lobbyists and twisting laws to benefit the capitalists at the expense of the planet. We can't let the markets dictate our laws. Common sense must prevail, but unfortunately that seems in short supply, especially in a culture that's sustained by consumerism and cash flow, rather than the actual needs of humans, plants, animals and the ecosystem as a whole.


    I never said they won't damage their property. I said they would be less willing to damage their own property without reparations. That means a reduced supply, hence a shift upward for the supply curve and a higher equilibrium price for frackable land. Think of it like this. If you go to the movie store and rent a movie that, say, was watched ten times it is likely in worse shape than if you watched the movie ten times yourself. Why? Because it isn't their movie. Why would they care what happens to it? The same is true for a fishery. If the portion of water in a fishery is allowed for anyone to use. They'll fish until there are no more fish. Why? because they're not keeping tabs on what everyone else is doing. But let's say the fishery is privately owned. Well the owner will keep track of who is fishing and how much they are fishing so to prevent the destruction of his/her fishery by over-fishing. But in the case of somebody's house: there is more than the property value. There is personal ties to the house/land. That means the company needs to spend a lot of money if it wishes to destroy or damage that house/land, in many cases making it unlivable. Many people wouldn't take any money at all for it. Some would take it easily, since maybe they just purchased the land. But overall, the people making the decision are the ones who have the most to lose or gain. A bureaucrat in the state house is not personally tied to that land, and shouldn't be making the decision. Anyway, this phenomena of people caring more about the things they own than the things they don't own is heavily documented and has had many empirical studies. It is not naive.

    Also, without limited liability provided by the state, individual persons in companies would be personally sued, not said company. That means it would be easier to receive reparations. And no, capitalists =/= the free-market. The market = people. All people participate in markets and vote with their wallets. The marxism underlying your rhetoric is outdated and false. His ideas failed long ago, and it's time to move on from that. There was a time when socialists and leftists espoused free-markets because they understood how it took power from the capitalists and that it was mixed economies which pushed "capitalists" to the top not free-market economies (see: mutualism and proudhon). This was before marxism.

  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 09, 2015 5:32 PM GMT
    I'm not a marxist. I'm just being rational. There aren't enough lakes for everyone to have their own. We have to share the fish.icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 5:45 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidI'm not a marxist. I'm just being rational. There aren't enough lakes for everyone to have their own. We have to share the fish.icon_idea.gif


    I never said you were, although I guess I kind of implied it. Sorry for that. But a lot of his rhetoric still pervades dialogues of people on the left, even if the person using it isn't a marxist. Describing modern company owners as "capitalists" is especially a sign of marxism, because the word capitalist in that context specifically didn't exist before he used it that way. A disdain for markets in general is also a sign of marxian socialism (as other forms of socialism/left-wing economics accept markets in the majority of economic instances.)

    In a private system you can share the fish. The owner of a fishery leases the fishery to those who wish to fish in it. They might or might not charge a fee, depending on how they obtain revenue and if it is a fishery used for economic activity (resale.) There would even be recreational fisheries where you would buy tickets or passes to fish for fun (probably would cost less than a fishing license.) Chances are nowhere near a large percentage of lakes (and coastal space) would be privately owned though. The market would saturate well before then. So there would even be untouched lakes/coastal space. Think of it like campgrounds. Private persons own campgrounds, and they lease space in their campgrounds for people to use. The same can be applied to water property. And for the business side of things, it would be like a normal farm. Many farmers lease parts of their farm they can't keep up with to other farmers to work on, for a percentage of their profit.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 09, 2015 8:01 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe saidI'm not a marxist. I'm just being rational. There aren't enough lakes for everyone to have their own. We have to share the fish.icon_idea.gif


    I never said you were, although I guess I kind of implied it. Sorry for that. But a lot of his rhetoric still pervades dialogues of people on the left, even if the person using it isn't a marxist. Describing modern company owners as "capitalists" is especially a sign of marxism, because the word capitalist in that context specifically didn't exist before he used it that way. A disdain for markets in general is also a sign of marxian socialism (as other forms of socialism/left-wing economics accept markets in the majority of economic instances.)

    In a private system you can share the fish. The owner of a fishery leases the fishery to those who wish to fish in it. They might or might not charge a fee, depending on how they obtain revenue and if it is a fishery used for economic activity (resale.) There would even be recreational fisheries where you would buy tickets or passes to fish for fun (probably would cost less than a fishing license.) Chances are nowhere near a large percentage of lakes (and coastal space) would be privately owned though. The market would saturate well before then. So there would even be untouched lakes/coastal space. Think of it like campgrounds. Private persons own campgrounds, and they lease space in their campgrounds for people to use. The same can be applied to water property. And for the business side of things, it would be like a normal farm. Many farmers lease parts of their farm they can't keep up with to other farmers to work on, for a percentage of their profit.

    Your scenario is not how it plays out. If people are dependent on fish then they will end up indentured servants to the owner of the lake. That's the situation for people living on a dollar a day in impoverished countries. The rich own the resources and charge as much as they can get, which is every penny the people of the land are worth, in economic terms. Free market economy places a dollar value on every human life, but we're worth more than money. We're priceless. However, that's not how we're treated. The rich are in power and the poor are subject to their greed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 8:33 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    Your scenario is not how it plays out. If people are dependent on fish then they will end up indentured servants to the owner of the lake. That's the situation for people living on a dollar a day in impoverished countries. The rich own the resources and charge as much as they can get, which is every penny the people of the land are worth, in economic terms. Free market economy places a dollar value on every human life, but we're worth more than money. We're priceless. However, that's not how we're treated. The rich are in power and the poor are subject to their greed.


    There is no way the fish market will become a monopoly though. So people won't be dependent on a single owner and they can go to a different one. Plus there are a plethora of alternatives to fish, so the owner is not just competing with other fisheries, but also other food manufacturers. You can't assume every market is going to become non-competitive, and for no reason even. The majority of markets are competitive markets, especially resource markets with little start up costs other than owning something like a fishery or a farm. These countries you speak of don't have anything near a free-market. In fact they are on the total opposite of the spectrum. Everything is done by force. Please remember: the economy we have now is not a free-market either. It is a mixed economy. I'd argue that there are only two mostly "free-markets" in the world: Hong Kong and Singapore.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 09, 2015 8:52 PM GMT
    sothis999 said
    HottJoe said
    Your scenario is not how it plays out. If people are dependent on fish then they will end up indentured servants to the owner of the lake. That's the situation for people living on a dollar a day in impoverished countries. The rich own the resources and charge as much as they can get, which is every penny the people of the land are worth, in economic terms. Free market economy places a dollar value on every human life, but we're worth more than money. We're priceless. However, that's not how we're treated. The rich are in power and the poor are subject to their greed.


    There is no way the fish market will become a monopoly though. So people won't be dependent on a single owner and they can go to a different one. Plus there are a plethora of alternatives to fish, so the owner is not just competing with other fisheries, but also other food manufacturers. You can't assume every market is going to become non-competitive, and for no reason even. The majority of markets are competitive markets, especially resource markets with little start up costs other than owning something like a fishery or a farm. These countries you speak of don't have anything near a free-market. In fact they are on the total opposite of the spectrum. Everything is done by force. Please remember: the economy we have now is not a free-market either. It is a mixed economy. I'd argue that there are only two mostly "free-markets" in the world: Hong Kong Singapore.

    If those are your examples of free market societies then what is it about them that would make you want to emulate them?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 9:29 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    If those are your examples of free market societies then what is it about them that would make you want to emulate them?


    Well Hong Kong is especially impressive. Within fifty years it went from a small coastal town where most people were pretty poor for first-world standards to a mega-city with an average income equal to Americans. And this was mainly because it was the freest market in the world. When Japan's economy experienced recessions in the 90's Hong Kong's remained strong because of its intelligent fiscal policy and low debt. This freedom also attracted many migrants from mainland China. Today most people who live there are descended from other parts of China. Hong Kong allowed for a whole generation of people to prosper who wouldn't have otherwise. Afterwards these people were able help bring some forms of economic liberalism to China. It also has a plethora of social freedoms, such as its stringent policies on protecting people under free-speech laws (one of the reasons Edward Snowden fled there before going to Russia.)

    Here is a before/after pic of Hong Kong.

    world-cities-before-after-10.jpg

    Singapore is more of a city where rich business owners live and their government is more like a central company that invests in infrastructure than a government. I'm not a big fan of their very, very stringent social policies either. Still, they also benefit from very free-markets, and a lot of people from countries like India and Malaysia migrate there to get decent educations and improve their standards of living.

    Both cities are actually quite interestingly different, yet both have free-markets. I would love to see what the results of free-markets in other places around the world would look like.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 09, 2015 10:43 PM GMT
    ^ I guess I still don't see how they are closer to a free market economy. Doesn't China notoriously manipulate its currency?

    At any rate, this goes to one of my earlier points about how the economy is just one force that drives society. We simply have more rights here, including the right to criticize our government, which not everyone has.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 09, 2015 11:43 PM GMT
    HottJoe said^ I guess I still don't see how they are closer to a free market economy. Doesn't China notoriously manipulate its currency?

    At any rate, this goes to one of my earlier points about how the economy is just one force that drives society. We simply have more rights here, including the right to criticize our government, which not everyone has.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems


    Wikipedia"One Country, Two Systems" is a constitutional principle formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC), for the reunification of China during the early 1980s. He suggested that there would be only one China, but distinct Chinese regions such as Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan could retain their own capitalist economic and political systems, while the rest of China uses the socialist system. Under the principle, each of the three regions could continue to have its own political system, legal, economic and financial affairs, including external relations with foreign countries. Taiwan could continue to maintain its own military force.[1]



    Until 1997 Hong Kong was a British colony. One of the terms of returning Hong Kong to China was that it had almost full autonomy. It is called one country, two systems in China. Macau was also returned to China from Portugal, and is well known for being the only place in China that allows gambling.

    Like I said, Hong Kong has a great record with free speech. China's response to the Umbrella Revolution was definitely unfortunate, but it showed China to back off for a while. However I agree, that parts of the U.S are overall more free than Hong Kong in the general scheme.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 22426

    Jan 10, 2015 5:39 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidThe US and European economies were built on the backs of slaves. Now we have sweatshops. Yay, free market.icon_rolleyes.gif
    Hey MinneapolisMotorMouth, since you don't like the American and European market economies, would the brutal, totalitarian system in North Korea make much more natural sense to youicon_question.gificon_rolleyes.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 10, 2015 5:51 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    HottJoe saidThe US and European economies were built on the backs of slaves. Now we have sweatshops. Yay, free market.icon_rolleyes.gif
    Hey MinneapolisMotorMouth, since you don't like the American and European market economies, would the brutal, totalitarian system in North Korea make much more natural sense to youicon_question.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    No, I don't trust absolute power or the greed of the wealthy.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 22426

    Jan 10, 2015 6:42 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    roadbikeRob said
    HottJoe saidThe US and European economies were built on the backs of slaves. Now we have sweatshops. Yay, free market.icon_rolleyes.gif
    Hey MinneapolisMotorMouth, since you don't like the American and European market economies, would the brutal, totalitarian system in North Korea make much more natural sense to youicon_question.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    No, I don't trust absolute power or the greed of the wealthy.
    Well than what the goddamned hell do you trusticon_question.gif Inquiring minds want to knowicon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2015 7:02 PM GMT
    HottJoe said^ I guess I still don't see how they are closer to a free market economy. Doesn't China notoriously manipulate its currency?


    To clarify, here are ways Hong Kong's economy is more free than the U.S:

    - No subsidies/pigeovean taxes.

    - Very low flat and simple individual and corporate income tax rates (15% for individuals 17% corporate income tax) and if tax revenue exceeds budget predictions the revenue is returned to the people based on these rates.

    - Up until recently no price floors or ceilings: Hong Kong recently implemented a $3.6 minimum wage, but is unbounded (all wages exceed this) so it really has no real effect.

    - No tariffs, and very few licensing. This allows any ship from anywhere to come into their port and import/export without much difficulty. Overall decreasing the barrier of entry and costs for the people.

    - Strong fiscal situation and low debt. Their dollar is one of the best in Asia, if not the most versatile (for both imports/exports.) This is because it tends to stay constant, and their inflation rate is very low.

    - Low barrier of entry regulations. Many people choose poorer factory conditions for higher pay rates. By "poorer" I mean no air conditioning (they'll work shirtless) and likely in a housing community.

    - Not as stringent zoning laws. People can start up a business anywhere they choose to, really. The zoning laws in Hong Kong tend to focus on managing the limited land-space in larger districts than trying to separate each neighborhood into business vs. residential.

    If you're interested in comparing Hong Kong to the U.S, here.

    [url]http://www.heritage.org/index/visualize?countries=hongkong|unitedstates&src=ranking[/url]

    and here is the rankings of all countries.

    http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking