NATION

PASSWORD

Capitalism or Socialism: Which is better?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Capitalism or Socialism or Mixed?

Capitalism
305
30%
Socialism
285
28%
Mixed-Economy
417
41%
 
Total votes : 1007

User avatar
Staenwald
Senator
 
Posts: 4244
Founded: Oct 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Staenwald » Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:02 am

Neu Leonstein wrote:
Mercator Terra wrote:We're in recession due to alot of bubbles created by the federal bank. I would go into detail but atm im done with explaining things. I can recommend book articles etc but im tired and freezing my ass off.

Don't bother, I've read them all. And I do think the Fed kept rates too low for too long. But it's hardly the only, or even the main reason. The hilarious thing about the Austrians is that they emphasise the nature of the economy as an almost biological organism, unfathomably complex and driven by interactions between private individuals subject to non-mechanical or -linear relationships that we from the outside can't reliably measure or predict.

And then they say the government is at fault for everything. Am I the only one who sees the contradiction?


The economy does act like one huge body if you think about it, take a metaphor, the people are the blood and their money which they carry is vital substances which help build other parts of the body (businesses and industry, homes etc). And like this, if not enough oxygen can get to parts of the body they die or their growth is stunted, juts like in the economy. Of course the economy is unfathomably complex. We can measure general trends in purchasing behaviour etc. Anything involving human thought will be subjective, because no matter how many people think ratinally and objectively there is still possibility of people not doing so, or making mistakes- that doesnt happen in nature, things dont make mistakes because there is no goal to reach so there is nothing to lose. So if humans are involved where choices and behaviour are involved and you'll have to work off trends, but there are certain things which occur as a result of their actions which can be measured as absolutes. Say, if this person puts their money here, this will happen. Like if we put loads mroe money into the economy, infaltion will happen. But we couldnt say that a person will choose the lowest priced or best value every time, there is just a trend to say so. Some people are more vain than other and will buy the most expensive things for a better social appearance etc.

Government then. Governmentcan do things right or wrong with it's money, the same as people can of course. The government even maybe has more information and expertise on economics available to them. The get things right and make mistakes sometimes. But as the economy is subject to cause and effect, the effect of them due to the greater amount of money them use leads to greater effects if they make mistakes. Also, they take the hands out of a large number of people, some who may make right or wrong decisions, and reduces the span of risk. Plus, governments create laws and regulations to go on the economy, something that does not occur naturally in a free market, which goes against it's 'nature'. It prevents the market for getting what they need and want and then put money in other areas. This is social engineering. This is the use of force to stop getting people what they need and want to make their lives better, this is preventing supply and demand working, and it creates all kinds of economic and moral problems.
Last edited by Staenwald on Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Found my sig 6 months after joining...thanks Norstal.
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.

Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."

The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.

User avatar
Staenwald
Senator
 
Posts: 4244
Founded: Oct 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Staenwald » Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:15 am

Norstal wrote:
Staenwald wrote:What the fuck are you talking about, I was just talking about how inefficient it is to ask the public anything about prices and services, because they'll always ask for more service/products and lower prices. This si the way to a better economy yes, but markets do this trhough creating better tools of production, governments just increase taxes, which they couldnt do if they wanted more public services for less taxes.

But in a planned economy, the government don't need to levy taxes because they can just shit money. They can trade shit for things like apples or oranges. The less moist the shit is, the more valuable it is.


wow, thats the most intelligent explanation i've ever heard...You can't just create value from thin air, it doesnt work, its like I can't wish that I'll have food in my hand and then it appears and i can eat it. If you mean it does it through the government owning the tools of production and making money off it then your metaphor theory works, but it doesnt mean the government will do the right thing for the economy. If they dont produces, there no other way than to levy taxes.
Found my sig 6 months after joining...thanks Norstal.
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.

Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."

The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.

User avatar
Staenwald
Senator
 
Posts: 4244
Founded: Oct 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Staenwald » Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:19 am

New Hampshyre wrote:
Quailtopia wrote:No you can't. Well, I guess one could in theory, but people don't think that way, even if they say they do. That phenomenon is in that last paper I cited earlier as well. People say they figure out the price/ounce and how ridiculous it would be to interact on a different level, and yet thats what they do. You don't have control of the situation, regardless of actually being there.


Of course people do, though they often don't care to take control. For a lot of people it is just isn't rational to be that focused on the small things. Its rational ignorance. The issue at hand (price per ounce) simply isn't worth stressing out over so people don't commonly do it. They might not consciously make the choice not to, but it is still rational because for most people being that picky just makes for a miserable waste of time that isn't worth the relatively small savings. They are being subconsciously rational. If we were a lot more poor, to the point where we were desperate for a little more savings, we would almost certainly pay more attention because then it would be worth it for us (or if the savings were a WHOLE lot bigger).

Truly irrational behavior is REALLY hard to find because we humans have evolved over a ridiculously long time and truly irrational behavior has never once given us an evolutionary advantage. You might be able to find individuals who are irrational, but you'll be hard pressed to find all/most of humanity to be irrational about very many things. Even stuff like religious behavior, which seems to be irrational at first, actually has a rational basis in ensuring survival because it binds people together and strengthens communities (Or, at least it did for a very long time, today it might cause more net harm then good)

Or at least that's my theory anyhow.


Truly irrational behaviour? People in the UK who have flat screen TV's two dogs and 3 children and lots of video games and fathers who go down to the pub every day and spend their paycheck on booze, yet they are ones who recieve a government housing, pay no taxes, and recieve benefits. That is an incredible stereotype of the welfare sponger (i've seen it enough times on the TV- on the news- BBC news, which is impartial). I'm sure some people use the welfare like you are supposed to. But what I'm trying to say is that welfare doesnt let truly irrational behaviour show it's effects.
Found my sig 6 months after joining...thanks Norstal.
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.

Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."

The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.

User avatar
Staenwald
Senator
 
Posts: 4244
Founded: Oct 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Staenwald » Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:23 am

Quailtopia wrote:And anyway, this thread has continued going long past its point of usefulness and coherence. People don't read 120 pages of assumptions, especially when the thread title makes it clear that the exercise is subjective.


it's because we are focusing on particulars and fine details. If you look at the capitalist defenders we all have the same basis for the argument but we can offer different solutions, and offer different reasons to argue on the basis. Because thats free markets allow us to work things out in different ways. From my observation it doesnt appear that the socialists have such a good shared base. you have state planners, free market socialists, communist anarchists etc.

To be honest i dont care if people cant follow the thread, but the people involved in it can.
Found my sig 6 months after joining...thanks Norstal.
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.

Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."

The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.

User avatar
Norstal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41465
Founded: Mar 07, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Norstal » Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:29 am

Staenwald wrote:
Norstal wrote:But in a planned economy, the government don't need to levy taxes because they can just shit money. They can trade shit for things like apples or oranges. The less moist the shit is, the more valuable it is.


wow, thats the most intelligent explanation i've ever heard...You can't just create value from thin air, it doesnt work, its like I can't wish that I'll have food in my hand and then it appears and i can eat it. If you mean it does it through the government owning the tools of production and making money off it then your metaphor theory works, but it doesnt mean the government will do the right thing for the economy. If they dont produces, there no other way than to levy taxes.

Of course it doesn't work. Once the politicians distributed all their shit to the people, they're going to keep the quality shit. They'll distribute moist shit instead.

Nor can they determine that moist shit means less value. Someone out there is going to say that moist shit will be able to purchase an iPod, while another vendor will require hard shit for an iPod.

This scatological analogy was meant as sarcasm btw.
Last edited by Norstal on Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★


New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.


IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10


NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.



Supreme Chairman for Life of the Itty Bitty Kitty Committee

User avatar
Quailtopia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 465
Founded: Oct 04, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Quailtopia » Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:42 am

New Hampshyre wrote:
Quailtopia wrote:No you can't. Well, I guess one could in theory, but people don't think that way, even if they say they do. That phenomenon is in that last paper I cited earlier as well. People say they figure out the price/ounce and how ridiculous it would be to interact on a different level, and yet thats what they do. You don't have control of the situation, regardless of actually being there.


Of course people do, though they often don't care to take control. For a lot of people it is just isn't rational to be that focused on the small things. Its rational ignorance. The issue at hand (price per ounce) simply isn't worth stressing out over so people don't commonly do it. They might not consciously make the choice not to, but it is still rational because for most people being that picky just makes for a miserable waste of time that isn't worth the relatively small savings. They are being subconsciously rational. If we were a lot more poor, to the point where we were desperate for a little more savings, we would almost certainly pay more attention because then it would be worth it for us (or if the savings were a WHOLE lot bigger).

Truly irrational behavior is REALLY hard to find because we humans have evolved over a ridiculously long time and truly irrational behavior has never once given us an evolutionary advantage. You might be able to find individuals who are irrational, but you'll be hard pressed to find all/most of humanity to be irrational about very many things. Even stuff like religious behavior, which seems to be irrational at first, actually has a rational basis in ensuring survival because it binds people together and strengthens communities (Or, at least it did for a very long time, today it might cause more net harm then good)

Or at least that's my theory anyhow.


Since the study tested people with various amounts of economic capital, the bolded points really have no merit. Living under the poverty line certainly makes the price of food relevant, and yet people don't examine for it. There isn't a reason not to do that, especially given the inefficiency of America's welfare system(meaning you can't just go get food/stamps at a later date).

Note: I'm not saying people are irrational. Rationality is not a binary. There are simply too many factors(time period, culture, socioeconomic class) to honestly say whether or not someone/thing is 'irrational'(which I'm defining as a lack of rationality).

Staenwald wrote:it's because we are focusing on particulars and fine details. If you look at the capitalist defenders we all have the same basis for the argument but we can offer different solutions, and offer different reasons to argue on the basis. Because thats free markets allow us to work things out in different ways. From my observation it doesnt appear that the socialists have such a good shared base. you have state planners, free market socialists, communist anarchists etc.


Wait, are you saying Capitalists agree on the free market? What about Keynes, Hayek, the entire Historical school and the Neoclassicalists? Capitalists are just as diverse as the people on the Socialist side.
Probably a Stalinist
Sibirsky wrote:(about the WHO)The Cuban government is not a source.
New Hampshyre wrote:Exceptionally rational poor people will quickly rise out of their poor status

User avatar
Staenwald
Senator
 
Posts: 4244
Founded: Oct 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Staenwald » Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:59 am

Norstal wrote:
Staenwald wrote:
wow, thats the most intelligent explanation i've ever heard...You can't just create value from thin air, it doesnt work, its like I can't wish that I'll have food in my hand and then it appears and i can eat it. If you mean it does it through the government owning the tools of production and making money off it then your metaphor theory works, but it doesnt mean the government will do the right thing for the economy. If they dont produces, there no other way than to levy taxes.

Of course it doesn't work. Once the politicians distributed all their shit to the people, they're going to keep the quality shit. They'll distribute moist shit instead.

Nor can they determine that moist shit means less value. Someone out there is going to say that moist shit will be able to purchase an iPod, while another vendor will require hard shit for an iPod.

This scatological analogy was meant as sarcasm btw.


yes..sarcasm...^^
Found my sig 6 months after joining...thanks Norstal.
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.

Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."

The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.

User avatar
Staenwald
Senator
 
Posts: 4244
Founded: Oct 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Staenwald » Mon Dec 27, 2010 4:11 am

meh...
Last edited by Staenwald on Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
Found my sig 6 months after joining...thanks Norstal.
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.

Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."

The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.

User avatar
Himeu
Diplomat
 
Posts: 862
Founded: Aug 26, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Himeu » Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:36 am

Capitalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

User avatar
Staenwald
Senator
 
Posts: 4244
Founded: Oct 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Staenwald » Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:33 am

Himeu wrote:Capitalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Join the club...let's hope you can defend yourself.
Found my sig 6 months after joining...thanks Norstal.
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.

Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."

The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.

User avatar
Staenwald
Senator
 
Posts: 4244
Founded: Oct 21, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Staenwald » Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:34 am

I justed watch inception...my brain is totally screwed now.
Found my sig 6 months after joining...thanks Norstal.
Lord Tothe wrote:Well, if Karl Marx turns out to be right, I....I'll eat my hat! As a side note, I need to create a BaconHat (TM) for any such occasions where I may end up actually having to eat my hat. Of course, this isn't one of them.

Katganistan wrote:"You got some Galt not swallowing this swill."

The Black Forrest wrote:Oh go Galt yourself.

User avatar
Mercator Terra
Minister
 
Posts: 3320
Founded: Nov 14, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mercator Terra » Mon Dec 27, 2010 9:38 am

Staenwald wrote:I justed watch inception...my brain is totally screwed now.

Im torrenting the complete season of Mr Bean to bad its gonna take forever.... :mad:
Vecherd wrote:
Linperia wrote:how can a market be free if we got participants with very few money and with a lot.
but maybe a equal market would lead to a free society.


A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither.

Amoral Stirnerite Individualist Market Anarchist

“Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.” Friedrich Nietzsche
“Whoever will be free must make himself free. Freedom is no fairy gift to fall into a man's lap. What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self.”-Max Stirner

User avatar
Arilando
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1576
Founded: Jul 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Arilando » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:03 am

Sibirsky wrote:
Arilando wrote:What? You say that the free market is the best economic model because consumers will buy the best products, but that ignores the other aspects of an economy like saving and investment. And than you say that there are taxes in a planned economy what the fuck?

What do savings and investments have to do with either case? So far, in every planned economy we have had, we had taxes.

There are no taxes in north korea.

User avatar
Arilando
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1576
Founded: Jul 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Arilando » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:05 am

Sibirsky wrote:
Arilando wrote:I dont care about the us government, there are other government that are not in debt. You should become more international :palm:

4 of them. Four governments do not have any debt.

It is irrelevant how small the number is because it proves that governments do not have to be in debt.

User avatar
St George of England
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8922
Founded: Aug 25, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby St George of England » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:06 am

Arilando wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:What do savings and investments have to do with either case? So far, in every planned economy we have had, we had taxes.

There are no taxes in north korea.

Hence why North Koreans have so much disposable income. :roll:
The Angline-Guanxine Empire
Current Monarch: His Heavenly Guanxine The Ky Morris
Population: As NS Page
Current RP: Closure of the Paulianus Passage
The United Coven of the Otherworlds
Current Leader: Covenwoman Paige Thomas
Population: 312,000,000
Military Size: 4,000,000
New to NS? TG me if you have questions.

User avatar
Mercator Terra
Minister
 
Posts: 3320
Founded: Nov 14, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mercator Terra » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:25 am

Arilando wrote:
Sibirsky wrote:What do savings and investments have to do with either case? So far, in every planned economy we have had, we had taxes.

There are no taxes in north korea.

Theres no taxes because you dont get payed in N Korea they take all your money. :palm:
Vecherd wrote:
Linperia wrote:how can a market be free if we got participants with very few money and with a lot.
but maybe a equal market would lead to a free society.


A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither.

Amoral Stirnerite Individualist Market Anarchist

“Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.” Friedrich Nietzsche
“Whoever will be free must make himself free. Freedom is no fairy gift to fall into a man's lap. What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self.”-Max Stirner

User avatar
New Hampshyre
Diplomat
 
Posts: 506
Founded: Nov 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby New Hampshyre » Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:52 am

Staenwald wrote: welfare doesnt let truly irrational behaviour show it's effects.


I think what it really does is change what irrational behavior is. Going out and spending money on relatively unnecessary things is irrational behavior in a rational world. But in the irrational welfare world that kind of behavior is perfectly rational because people are paying you to be jobless.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. – John Stuart Mill

User avatar
New Hampshyre
Diplomat
 
Posts: 506
Founded: Nov 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby New Hampshyre » Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:03 am

Quailtopia wrote:Since the study tested people with various amounts of economic capital, the bolded points really have no merit.


Unless we live in a time period where there truly isn't any large group of people who are desperate enough to find it worth their while to be careful with buying food.

Or maybe that there are groups of people who are more often irrational then others. Presumably this makes the wasteful spenders when they shouldn't be, prevents them from getting as good of employment as they otherwise could get, hurts their credit scores so that society is less willing to invest in them, ect. This leads to a RATIONAL situation where the least rational people are given the fewest resources since they're not likely to allocate resources rationally. That might be why the experiment worked out even for poorer people. Exceptionally rational poor people will quickly rise out of their poor status until it is no longer rational to stress over price/ounce decisions. Other irrational people are quickly made poor and they continue to not make the effort to calculate price/ounce since they aren't that rational.

I'm not really arguing with you about this, I'm just trying to figure out for myself why the experiment would turn out like that.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. – John Stuart Mill

User avatar
New Hampshyre
Diplomat
 
Posts: 506
Founded: Nov 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby New Hampshyre » Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:06 am

Arilando wrote:There are no taxes in north korea.


http://www.asiatradehub.com/n.korea/tax1.asp

Found within 5 seconds.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. – John Stuart Mill

User avatar
New Hampshyre
Diplomat
 
Posts: 506
Founded: Nov 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby New Hampshyre » Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:07 am

Arilando wrote:It is irrelevant how small the number is because it proves that governments do not have to be in debt.


Of course it is relevant. There extremely small number indicates their prevalence for saving as opposed to going in debt. Those 4 countries are OUTLIERS, they are rare exceptions to the rule.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. – John Stuart Mill

User avatar
Arilando
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1576
Founded: Jul 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Arilando » Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:14 am

New Hampshyre wrote:
Arilando wrote:It would also be accounted for in a planned econmoy if the planners are good. And i dont think people should be driving in unsafe cars.


Who the hell are you to decide what cars other people should want to drive? I'll have you know that some people don't want to spend a fortune on their vehicles and so they buy cares that are less safe then others but are safe enough for their own personal standards.

Those who do not care about they own safety are too stupid to take care of themselves.
And you're assuming there CAN BE "good planners". That is IMPOSSIBLE. No planner has access to even a decently sized fraction of the information that is constantly altering the market. The US by itself has 300 million citizens, many of which make individual judgments based on supply and demand, prices, evolving preferences, ect that each minutely affect and guide the market. Centralized planning can't even begin to replace the innumerable of constant calculations the free market is processing.
They can have many planners working together.
Arilando wrote:lol this is the stupid assumption that people cant be altruistic.


Not in elected office they can't. Politicians MUST function to maximize their votes or they will get out competed. That's just how it is. If a politician doesn't buy votes and pay of special interest groups than he will not be able to beat those who ARE willing to do so. The political world is a very ugly place.

Not if the government funds election campaigns, instead of private individuals.
But then, private individuals ARE free to be altruistic with the wealth they earn. Try cooperating with others in their private capacities to achieve good ends, injecting the use of force into complex social and economic issues just makes it possible to prevent rational outcomes.

Governments can do far more to improve the lives of people than individuals.
Arilando wrote:This does not take into account that there is most likely misinformation and disinformation in a market.


Those things don't exist in the government? All politicians are angelic geniuses who are infallible and not prone to disinformation spread by lobbyists? I think not. Politicians are human just like people in the private market are, and what is worse is that they are NOT AS CAREFUL with spending money and making decisions because their actions. If a private company isn't careful with its spending that company will die. Thus it has every incentive to spend money wisely. If a politician spends money on useless baloney it will help him get more votes from whoever was selling it. And if a wealthy politician makes a decision to vote against unsafe cars he doesn't lose a damn thing because his car's likely already an expensive and safe one and his constituents will probably naively be like you and think what he is doing is benevolent. It is only the people with the smallest political clout, the poor, who end up paying the full cost of that law by not being able to afford any car at all!

Private parties have incentives to resist mis/dis-information, but politicians don't. Their highest priority is getting re-elected and it often pays for them to use and be used by mis/dis-information.

If you cant afford a safe car you should not have a car.
Arilando wrote:Not if you ask what the consumers want, by making a poll.


You are seriously being ridiculously naive if you think polls can replace the constant information feed back that the market is going through. Every transaction that ever takes place on the market helps adjust it in subtle and important ways.

:rofl:
Arilando wrote:i'm a consequentialist, so i dont care if you think it is tyrannical.

me wrote:Allowing the government to be tyrannical has some pretty serious consequences Arilando!

Arilando wrote:Tyrannical by your definition, not my definition.


But you DO admit then that tyranny has bad consequences and that is should be avoided right?

Yes but tyranny according to my definition.

User avatar
Arilando
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1576
Founded: Jul 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Arilando » Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:20 am

New Hampshyre wrote:
Arilando wrote:No the free market does not reward the companies that are making a contrubtion to society, they reward the company that treats it's workers the worst, has the best commercials, pollute the enviroment the most, and has the cheapest but worst products.


Who has been spoon feeding you this nonsense?

Let's say we have 2 equal companies that produce the same product. Lets say that 1 then starts making the product a little better without increasing the cost. This would lead more customers to buy its product and less to buy from the other. This rewards the better product's company for providing consumers a better product. There. You have just been proven wrong. Now go read a little about economics.

I'll continue if you need any more reassurance that you're speaking non-sense:

Lets say we have 2 equal companies that produce the same product. Let's say that 1 then starts treating its workers worse without increasing their pay. That company is now more likely to have strikes, lower morale, and a worse reputation. These first 2 lead to lower efficiency which gives their competitor an advantage and the 1st company is thus punished for its bad behavior. Thus, treating workers badly negatively effects companies and they have an incentive to not do so.

Let's say that we have 2 equal companies that produce the same product. One figures out how to produce their product without polluting without increasing the cost of the product. This gives them an advantage since they can now sell their product as a green alternative which some customers prefer to polluting products.

PS: The free market has a much greater track record in preserving the environment then non-free economies. You can see that in the annual report at freetheworld.com

A lot of that is due to the fact that the free market causes us to automatically conserve scarce resources. As a resource becomes scarce in the free market its price goes up since its supply is dropping relative to demand. That rise in price causes people to conserve the use of the resource, recycle it, and find alternative resources to replace it.

The private market also gives people incentives to take better care of resources. For example, loggers who are allowed to log in public lands will take as much as they can take because they know that if they don't, other loggers will. But on privately owned lands loggers only take the trees that are ripe for logging and they replace what they take so that they can log more in the future or so they can preserve the value of the land that they own.

Let's say that we have 2 companies that produce the same product. One makes a more expensive but higher quality product. They then are able to sell more of their product to those who want higher quality and are willing to pay the higher price. The other company then sells more of their product to those who don't think that the higher quality is worth the price. Neither company necessarily wins out, but the customer does since he now has more choices.

As for commercials, that doesn't really matter because lobbyists are the commercials of the political world so the government is just as susceptible, or even more so, to the any aspects of salesmanship.

So you say that private companies are better at limiting they green house gas emissions? :rofl:

User avatar
Arilando
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1576
Founded: Jul 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Arilando » Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:23 am

New Hampshyre wrote:
Arilando wrote:It is irrelevant how small the number is because it proves that governments do not have to be in debt.


Of course it is relevant. There extremely small number indicates their prevalence for saving as opposed to going in debt. Those 4 countries are OUTLIERS, they are rare exceptions to the rule.

But the argument was that GOVERNMENT dont save they money.

User avatar
Arilando
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1576
Founded: Jul 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Arilando » Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:24 am

Mercator Terra wrote:
Arilando wrote:There are no taxes in north korea.

Theres no taxes because you dont get payed in N Korea they take all your money. :palm:

You do get paid in north korea.

User avatar
Arilando
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1576
Founded: Jul 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Arilando » Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:25 am

New Hampshyre wrote:
Arilando wrote:There are no taxes in north korea.


http://www.asiatradehub.com/n.korea/tax1.asp

Found within 5 seconds.

http://www.heritage.org/index/Country/NorthKorea

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Celritannia, Duvniask, Emotional Support Crocodile, Far Mit Badi Buron, Saiwana, The Xenopolis Confederation, Unmet Player

Advertisement

Remove ads