Why do you disagree with libertarianism?
I believe they are all crazy
3.6% (9)
3.6% (9)
I believe their economic ideas are wrong
35.5% (89)
35.5% (89)
I believe their social ideas are wrong
6.8% (17)
6.8% (17)
I believe their economic and social ideas are wrong
25.5% (64)
25.5% (64)
I am a libertarian
17.5% (44)
17.5% (44)
Other
10.4% (26)
10.4% (26)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Why do you disagree with libertarianism?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Overhead:

Bentusi16:
Classical liberals are considered a form of libertarian.

Also: Have you gotten a chance to look at the majority? They're stupid. The majority tends to react in the same way an animal does.

And since the government is made up of humans, the government as a whole is subject to the corruption of humanity, e.g. powermongering, greed, populism.

See, I just don't understand why people think corporations must be inherently corrupt but the government only has our best interest at heart. Bullshit. Corporations are made up of people, the government are made up of people, so why should we expect people to not act like people. Watch them both like hawks, don't ASSUME the government wants whats best for you. It wants whats best for it and the people within it, specifically the ones at the top, not so much the rank and file. I don't really see any difference between a CEO and the Speaker of the House. Both are out to gain something, but for one its cash and the other it's a more nebulous concept of political power...and probably cash.

Not to get to far off topic, but nearly everything people declare 'inherently wrong' are human constructs. All of them. Government, corporations, every political philosophy, every ideology, every ism, every religion, is a human construct. Humanity is to blame for all its problems. And expecting humans to act in a way other then human is like..super confusing to me. Saying 'it's the governments fault' or 'it's those corporations!' is disingenuous. It's the humans in those corporations, in the governments faults, and it's a lot easier to punish a human individual then it is to punish 'the government' or 'the corporation'. It's probably why people in power like to keep it nebulous as possible, to avoid personal responsibility.

For a start? Are the majority stupid? Really? And if so, why the assumption that the rich aren't stupid too?

But really I think this whole premise is based on a false analysis and concept.

For one you're talking about corruption in business and government as if they were the same thing. The problem with governments being corrupt is that they override the wishes of their voters and exploit them. The same doesn't hold true with capitalist businesses, because their entire purpose is to exploit the workers. They don't have to become corrupt to cause the kind of problems a government official does if he's corrupt, the problems are part of the capitalist model.

I also find the concept poor on an elementary level, because what this really comes down to is that different social/economic/legal/etc factors will influence how people act. An investor directly benefits from voting to cut the wages of people in his business and lay off a large portion of the workforce because that way they'll get greater profits. A politician receives no such direct benefit from cutting the wages of and laying off people in a government department.

If the workers are unhappy with a politician, they can support a different party to try and get them replaced. If workers are unhappy with an investor's decisions, they cannot force the investor to be replaced with a friendlier investor.

The examples should be obvious from here on out, but the overall point is a democratic government is one where moral behavior is encouraged and immoral behavior discouraged. This doesn't mean that governments are perfect and politicians will never falter, but it means the various conflicting forces in society are pushing them in a better direction than the forces which effect businessmen.

Your core premise seems to be that people will inherently be corrupt so why not just go with corporations? Well why corporations? If the structure of society has no effect on people act, why are you picking corporations? Why not a feudal state? Or a tribal system? After all people are inherently corrupt and always will be, so why bother?

Why not? That's my fucking point. I don't like corporate greed, but I'm not willing to pretend it's any more damaging on the whole then government greed. That's my point.

All people are inherently corrupt, greedy, and selfish. So why do we PRETEND that the minute someone goes into government service, they stop being people? They still have all the flaws of everyone else but because they're 'elected', they become immune to the greed and corruption that marks humanity.

I'm not picking corporations. Don't say I am. Because I'm not. I'm not sure where the fuck you got that idea. I'm just saying that I'm not going to trust the government ANY MORE then I trust corporations.

Bentusi16:

But I've never argued against oversight of businesses. What I've argued against is this belief that it's ok not to have oversight on the government because their motivations for fucking you are slightly different.

But no-one thinks the government should go without oversight. Preferably it should have lots and lots of oversight.

Admittedly, I have a cynical world view. I believe everyone is out to fuck everyone else, sometimes for blatant greed (Corporations) and sometimes 'for our own good" (governments).
...
The issue isn't government, corporate, religious, majority, or minority, it's 'people'.

Everyone is not out to fuck everyone else: you can be cynical to a fault.

Pretty much everyone (except perhaps some sociopaths) has a circle of care and respect. Influences can be exerted to expand or contract that circle, including through society, institutions and organisations. I feel a lot of libertarian ideologies plainly act to contract those circles.

Bentusi16:

Overhead:

Bentusi16:
Classical liberals are considered a form of libertarian.

Also: Have you gotten a chance to look at the majority? They're stupid. The majority tends to react in the same way an animal does.

And since the government is made up of humans, the government as a whole is subject to the corruption of humanity, e.g. powermongering, greed, populism.

See, I just don't understand why people think corporations must be inherently corrupt but the government only has our best interest at heart. Bullshit. Corporations are made up of people, the government are made up of people, so why should we expect people to not act like people. Watch them both like hawks, don't ASSUME the government wants whats best for you. It wants whats best for it and the people within it, specifically the ones at the top, not so much the rank and file. I don't really see any difference between a CEO and the Speaker of the House. Both are out to gain something, but for one its cash and the other it's a more nebulous concept of political power...and probably cash.

Not to get to far off topic, but nearly everything people declare 'inherently wrong' are human constructs. All of them. Government, corporations, every political philosophy, every ideology, every ism, every religion, is a human construct. Humanity is to blame for all its problems. And expecting humans to act in a way other then human is like..super confusing to me. Saying 'it's the governments fault' or 'it's those corporations!' is disingenuous. It's the humans in those corporations, in the governments faults, and it's a lot easier to punish a human individual then it is to punish 'the government' or 'the corporation'. It's probably why people in power like to keep it nebulous as possible, to avoid personal responsibility.

For a start? Are the majority stupid? Really? And if so, why the assumption that the rich aren't stupid too?

But really I think this whole premise is based on a false analysis and concept.

For one you're talking about corruption in business and government as if they were the same thing. The problem with governments being corrupt is that they override the wishes of their voters and exploit them. The same doesn't hold true with capitalist businesses, because their entire purpose is to exploit the workers. They don't have to become corrupt to cause the kind of problems a government official does if he's corrupt, the problems are part of the capitalist model.

I also find the concept poor on an elementary level, because what this really comes down to is that different social/economic/legal/etc factors will influence how people act. An investor directly benefits from voting to cut the wages of people in his business and lay off a large portion of the workforce because that way they'll get greater profits. A politician receives no such direct benefit from cutting the wages of and laying off people in a government department.

If the workers are unhappy with a politician, they can support a different party to try and get them replaced. If workers are unhappy with an investor's decisions, they cannot force the investor to be replaced with a friendlier investor.

The examples should be obvious from here on out, but the overall point is a democratic government is one where moral behavior is encouraged and immoral behavior discouraged. This doesn't mean that governments are perfect and politicians will never falter, but it means the various conflicting forces in society are pushing them in a better direction than the forces which effect businessmen.

Your core premise seems to be that people will inherently be corrupt so why not just go with corporations? Well why corporations? If the structure of society has no effect on people act, why are you picking corporations? Why not a feudal state? Or a tribal system? After all people are inherently corrupt and always will be, so why bother?

Why not? That's my fucking point. I don't like corporate greed, but I'm not willing to pretend it's any more damaging on the whole then government greed. That's my point.

All people are inherently corrupt, greedy, and selfish. So why do we PRETEND that the minute someone goes into government service, they stop being people? They still have all the flaws of everyone else but because they're 'elected', they become immune to the greed and corruption that marks humanity.

I'm not picking corporations. Don't say I am. Because I'm not. I'm not sure where the fuck you got that idea. I'm just saying that I'm not going to trust the government ANY MORE then I trust corporations.

All people are also caring, brilliant, kind, compassionate and egalitarian (I know you can bring up the example of a sociopath here to prove not all people have kindness, but then I can bring up the example of Siddhārtha Gautama or some other famous ascetic-type to prove not all people have greed so let's just agree we're speaking in generalities).

People are not a single emotion. People are not JUST greed or JUST corruption any more than they are JUST kindness.

Now it's fairly obvious that all kinds of socio-economic factors effect how people think and act. The most obvious is the profit motive, which in Capitalism has long been recognised as a main factor towards how businesses are run.

There is also the desire to hold to social standards, there are legal frameworks which constrain how people act, there is democratic oversight, etc, etc.

Is a CEO of a large American company who was brought up as a ruthless capitalist going to treat his employees the same as the owner of a small Finnish business who knows all his staff by name and was brought up as a social-democrat? No, even if they were genetic twins there are massive differences in the social, legal, psychological and economic framework they operate in which will effect how they treat their employees.

The same holds true for politicians. They are held to a completely different framework. They don't have an investment in the government which pays dividends. They aren't able to pull their capital out of the government they're invested in and become senator in a completely different company. They have elections where the people they make decisions about can throw them out of office whether they want to or not.

The structure of a politicians position guides them towards being fair, kind and democratic. The structure of a CEO guides them towards exploiting workers and disregarding kindness. Neither works perfectly and it's not static, it's a constantly shifting dialectic, but that is the flow of effect.

So if you're not picking companies, who are you picking? Because it should be clear that every kind of social structure isn't exactly identical in effect, so you want to be picking the socioeconomic structure with the best results. Which do you think that is?

Seanchaidh:

farson135:

SeanchaidhI:
I attacked your reasoning directly. You said that private corporations need a market for their goods-- people to sell to-- and people to employ to do work. Since you did not in any way specify something that a business would actually do in order to maintain a minimum standard of living or to make sure that people continue to exist in order to buy their products, I made the most obvious way for them to do so my example: by paying its workers enough to buy its products, a business could make sure that there are at least some people to buy its products.

There you go everybody. He just admitted to saying what I said he said.

No.

Attempting to make sure that there are at least some people to buy products by paying workers more does not in any way entail that employees are the only people buying anything. Stop it.

YOU said it. You did not include ANY other factions. You narrowed your focus and you screwed yourself over. Get over it and move on. I told you that 10 times in that post to move on but you did not listen. Big surprise.

Overhead:
Find my any professional reference calling the Roman plantation an economic system.

Ok, here is the dictionary definition for economic system- "the system of production and distribution and consumption"

Easy huh? A commune is an economic system even if you boil it down to a micro level.

The point was about people working and getting paid. Do businesses that employees don't work for pay their wages? Then they aren't relevant in that way, are they, and you've made a meaningless distinction.

No, I have made a meaningful distinction. The Lyer and I were talking about economic systems on a macro scale (which means the interactions of multiple companies) while Sean is talking about it on a micro scale (one company). Once again, unless you boil the entire system down to a Roman Plantation system there are more important interactions at play than employees purchasing from employers.

Using one business as he did is called using an example. It's pretty much always preferable to making large overreaching statements without proof, which is what you're doing.

Using one business to talk about an entire economic system. He is the one who tried to talk about employee well being while cutting off every other avenue from which a business could gain funds.

It has proof, you're just refusing to discuss it because you beleive your opinions are superior to everything.

You know, most people have trouble speaking in the third person for long periods. Good job.

None of those say that it's a plantation economy. None of them infer it.

Every single bolded part states it.

All you've done is post a quote that I've already read and assumed that by bolding parts of it your points will be proven true.

It's not a plantation economy, it is just talking about employees because those are the relevant part.

If that is the only relevant part then why don't you prove that employees make up a majority of the sales in a typical market. You can't. That means that he ignored the largest section of the market.

Get your story straight. You're saying he said it and then in the next sentence you're changing it to him only mentioning the labour force.

So did he only mention the labour force or did he specifically say that there were no outside consumers? It was the former, so stop claiming the latter.

He did both.

If the company only sells to it's employees, upping the wages for employees so they can purchase the goods they produce is a bad idea.

Which is his argument.

If the company sells to plenty of people other than it's employees, upping the wages for employees so they can purchase the goods they produce is a bad idea.

And you added onto his argument.

This fixation of yours is completely pointless to the point being made. It changes nothing and all it's done is let you spent post after post avoiding the point.

I am avoiding the point? I have begged y'all to stop being so obstinate and move on. Instead y'all insist on attacking me. Y'all are the ones drawing this out not me. Blame yourselves.

You're inferring that not specifically mentioning something means they're not there.

Specifically not mentioning a major part of typical economies and only mentioning the minor part of a typical economy (which itself is a major section for an atypical economy) implies that you are using an atypical economic model when you are discussing major interactions throughout an entire economic system.

In which case you can deal with his point as it's been made and discuss it on those grounds and bring up your disagreement, rather than just disagreeing over the meaning of what he's said even when three seperate people are all telling you what it meant.

I did. Y'all are the ones who will not drop it. But of course, everything is my fault. You guys are veritable saints and you never do anything wrong. Get over yourself.

He brought paying employees up to specifically showing that's ineffective.

To show that it is ineffective for a business to rely solely on its labor as its consumers. I wonder who said that.

It's an academic peer-reviewed study. I've offered proof. You've offered nothing.

Your "proof" is one page from a book that covers the wrong period.

All you've provided is your say-so, I've got expert evidence.

Your expert advice is one page from a book that covers the wrong period.

BTW I do have proof but you are going to whine about it. I am a history major. I read books. Everybody whines after I tell them to read a source because it requires effort. I fully expect you to whine right now. Here we go-
Ancient Rome by Christopher Mackay
Roman Law and the Legal World of the Romans by Andrew M. Riggsby

Then again, you should not even need this. Even a high school history class will teach you about feudalism. The fact that it has its origins in the late Roman Empire. As things began to decentralize and break down aristocrats concentrated around their own holdings. Trade broke down. The peasants were tied to the land. The aristocrats had to protect themselves and their holdings. Over time, what we know as feudalism developed and was used by the Carolingian Dynasty as a way to unify the land. But of course you do not know such basic historical facts.

So when you said "No people to work, nothing to make" that wasn't referencing working?

If you truly believe that, then the problem here is that you're the one who can't write what you mean because your posts explicitly mention it.

Or you are being deliberately obtuse. That part is referring to the employees. The other sentence is referring to the consumers.

You've made this big generalised accusation, now back it up with specifics.

Nowhere did I say that employees are the principle consumers in this model. He said that I did.

You were talking about something else completely and when you've clarified what you supposedly meant you expect us to give you the same leeway that you are even now refusing to give to Seanchaidh.

Hypocrisy.

First of all, I expect only common leeway. I made an aside. It was not designed to turn into this. Y'all are the ones who did this. Y'all want to attack me and you will not let this idiocy go. I had to expand because of that.

Second of all, Sean is still fucking wrong. He never changed the model like I asked. Tell him to do it and end this idiocy. Y'all are the ones that are keeping this going. Not me.

And if you say plantation economy and only add roman in later posts and even then only occasionally, you made the mistake and it's your fault your posts are wrong.

No, it is your fault for not letting this go. It was an aside that I had to expand because y'all insisted on attacking me.

The key to that is that you clarify your meaning in the original instance.

Not really. Asides do not require that. Read through the prologue of most history books and you see that.

You have done the exact opposite of what you've posted and referred to it by completely the wrong name first of all, a name which is used to refer to something completely different, then only later used the correct name.

Actually I used the correct name the entire time. Your problem is that you cannot separate yourself from modern definitions.

farson135:
Ok, here is the dictionary definition for economic system- "the system of production and distribution and consumption"

Easy huh? A commune is an economic system even if you boil it down to a micro level.

Notice how it says system and not 'individual instance of;

A commune isn't a system. Communism as a whole is a system.

A tuna factory isn't a system. Capitalism as a whole is a system

A roman plantation isn't a system. Feudalism or Capitalism or whichever economic system it falls under is a system based on your particular viewpoint.

No, I have made a meaningful distinction. The Lyer and I were talking about economic systems on a macro scale (which means the interactions of multiple companies) while Sean is talking about it on a micro scale (one company). Once again, unless you boil the entire system down to a Roman Plantation system there are more important interactions at play than employees purchasing from employers.

The one company is there as an example of what he is stating, which would then apply to all companies. Also the one example he used is one which is well known for selling goods to a paticular example.

If you're now going to say that you think he was specifically talking about that company and not about Capitalism as a whole, there is no way you can stick to your original claim that he was talking about just selling to workers seeing as pretty much everybody in the world knows that the Ford motor company sells to a hell of a lot of people who aren't their workers.

Using one business to talk about an entire economic system.

Yes. Either way you're talking about the entire economic system. "Here is how this thing which applies to all businesses works" (your method) is functionally identical to "Here is how this thing which applies to all businesses works, which I will explain using one business as an example" (His method).

Although his one is actually better because it attempts to give a decent explanation.

He is the one who tried to talk about employee well being while cutting off every other avenue from which a business could gain funds.

The extra funds don't matter. Regardless of how much money they are making, increasing wages loses them money compared to what they'd otherwise have.

That's why the other people buying the product weren't mentioned, because they're entirely incidental to the point and only someone who has completely misunderstood it would go on about them.

You know, most people have trouble speaking in the third person for long periods. Good job.

I've provided infinite times more proof than you, which isn't hard seeing as you've provided zero proof.

Every single bolded part states it.

The first sentence you have bolded is : "Take the famous example of Henry Ford paying his workers enough so that they could all buy one of the cars that they helped to make."

So as he requested in his post, take the example of Henry Ford. Did Henry Ford or did he not sell a stupidly huge amount of cars to people who weren't his employees?

He sold a massive amount of cars to people that weren't his employees and in the very first sentence you wanted me to look at we've seen that you're completely and totally wrong.

If that is the only relevant part then why don't you prove that employees make up a majority of the sales in a typical market. You can't. That means that he ignored the largest section of the market.

He doesn't claim that. This point is that they couldn't. The entire point he is making revolves around workers using their wages to buy some of the product from their company being a loss.

"So I pay my workers enough to afford my product. OK. I sell my product to 100% of my labor force rather than none-- outstanding! My profit from paying my workers more is..? Labor costs increase by enough for workers to afford the price of one car each. The material cost (steel or aluminum and plastic and so on) is of course deducted from the price when it comes to my own profit. So we have +PRICE-MATERIALCOST-PRICE. Or... the negative of the price of the materials used to make the car is my 'profit'. Ah, yes: my profit is less than zero. Negative. Wonderful!"

He is specifically saying that what you have said won't happen, so there is no reason to prove it because you've imagined it.

He did both.

The two are mutually exclusive.

Which is his argument.

It can be inferred from his argument, but his argument is much more general than that.

And you added onto his argument.

No, I've clarified what every other person who has read his post has been able to see, what i can see when he reads it, what he specifically has said is the meaning but which you refuse to accept is the meaning.

I am avoiding the point? I have begged y'all to stop being so obstinate and move on. Instead y'all insist on attacking me. Y'all are the ones drawing this out not me. Blame yourselves.

You're accusing him and everyone else of being liars. You're in the wrong.

Specifically not mentioning a major part of typical economies and only mentioning the minor part of a typical economy (which itself is a major section for an atypical economy) implies that you are using an atypical economic model when you are discussing major interactions throughout an entire economic system.

No it doesn't. There are plenty of people who have made posts here, you included, who haven't mentioned major parts of the economy when you've made examples. think back, every time you've made an example have you made sure to say that it's based on a Capitalist model? That it takes place in a system with a government? What all the various forms of taxes are paid? That basic systems of law are in place so businesses can't simply hire mercenary armies to destroy one another?

People aren't expected to cover all of the most basic assumptions. That's why they're basic assumptions.

Now for one he specifically used an example where lots of stuff was sold to people who had no connection to the business.

Secondly, the specifics of who bought what aren't relevant. he is using the example to highlight something universal to all businesses.

If there are outside purchasers or not, raising the wages of employees so they can buy the product they manufacture is stupid. If there are outside purchasers as you would expect, it's stupid because it'll at best reduce your profits and maybe mean you take a loss. if you have no outside purchasers it's super stupid because you're guaranteed a loss.

It doesn't effect the point.

I did. Y'all are the ones who will not drop it. But of course, everything is my fault. You guys are veritable saints and you never do anything wrong. Get over yourself.

You're the one making accusations of arguing in bad faith, which disqualifies any honest debate. If you are willing to take him at his word for what he meant, seeing as it's been explained to you several times, then you can continue. If you continue to refuse to accept that he said what he says he said, the roadblock to continuing is you.

To show that it is ineffective for a business to rely solely on its labor as its consumers. I wonder who said that.

No, not specifically for a business who relies solely on it's labour as consumers. It's ineffective for any business.

Your "proof" is one page from a book that covers the wrong period.

That's not a page from a book, it's the opening to a piece of research published in FinanzArchiv / Public Finance Analysis, the world's oldest scholary journal in public finance. It is a peer reviewed scientific document which says you are wrong.

Your expert advice is one page from a book that covers the wrong period.

The wrong period. You didn't say anything about periods and nooooow you add it in. First it's plantation economies, then it's roman plantations, not it's later period roman plantation economies. What happens when if I bother to prove that wrong as well, you clarify you were talking about the later period roman plantation economies from an alternate history sci-fi book you like to read? This is the second time you've had to redefine what you're talking about.

BTW I do have proof but you are going to whine about it. I am a history major. I read books. Everybody whines after I tell them to read a source because it requires effort. I fully expect you to whine right now. Here we go-
Ancient Rome by Christopher Mackay
Roman Law and the Legal World of the Romans by Andrew M. Riggsby

Give me page references, because I swear that I will get these books from the library and show you're completely wrong if I have to.

Then again, you should not even need this. Even a high school history class will teach you about feudalism. The fact that it has its origins in the late Roman Empire. As things began to decentralize and break down aristocrats concentrated around their own holdings. Trade broke down. The peasants were tied to the land. The aristocrats had to protect themselves and their holdings. Over time, what we know as feudalism developed and was used by the Carolingian Dynasty as a way to unify the land. But of course you do not know such basic historical facts.

Well actually anyone a slightly higher level of learning who's gone beyond memorising by rote will tell you that there are various disciplines and approaches to pretty much every subject aside from hard science.

For instance Marx's dialectic approach would classify Rome as a Slave Society with feudalism a minor pole in the dialectic struggle. The professor I quoted earlier who specialises in roman history defines it as Capitalism.

So please, spare me from your 'absolute truths'.

So when you said "No people to work, nothing to make" that wasn't referencing working?

If you truly believe that, then the problem here is that you're the one who can't write what you mean because your posts explicitly mention it.

Or you are being deliberately obtuse. That part is referring to the employees. The other sentence is referring to the consumers.

So you did talk about the employees working, yes?

Nowhere did I say that employees are the principle consumers in this model. He said that I did.

No, that's the thing you're supposed to provide specific proof of remember. instead all you've done is state your opinion again.

See how that's not what was asked for.

First of all, I expect only common leeway. I made an aside. It was not designed to turn into this.

You called him a liar. You called me a liar. You consistently again and again are saying that what you've been told is a person's meaning, isn't their meaning.

What you expect is nothing more than what anyone expects.

But I'm not going to give you common leeway if you won't give anyone else any.

You said plantation economy first, which is totally different from a roman plantation. You only added that in later posts. Why should I believe you? You claimed it was a plantation economy. Not a roman economy, you first of all specifically said it was a plantation economy - something which is well known for having lots of outside customers and markets.

You have changed your story after the fact when what you said at first is clear.

Second of all, Sean is still fucking wrong. He never changed the model like I asked. Tell him to do it and end this idiocy. Y'all are the ones that are keeping this going. Not me.

It doesn't need to be changed, he's said what it means and clarified that it's not talking about a 'plantation economy' He's said what he's specifically told you it means is what it has always meant. Three separate people who are neutral in this have come in and agreed with him, saying that's clearly what it means and your reading of it is wrong.

He doesn't need to change shit.

No, it is your fault for not letting this go. It was an aside that I had to expand because y'all insisted on attacking me.

Admit you misinterpreted Seanchaidh and I will. Otherwise why should I do the same for you?

Not really. Asides do not require that. Read through the prologue of most history books and you see that.

Yes, they do. The most obvious reason is history books aren't internet posts.

A history book is complete and the explanation is right there, a paragraph down. When you posted saying it was a 'plantation economy' that was the entirety of your post. There was no 'roman plantation' bit a few paragraphs below. You made your claim and no further explanation existed, something you only slotted in days later.

Actually I used the correct name the entire time. Your problem is that you cannot separate yourself from modern definitions.

No, a plantation economy is a specific term different from what you mean;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_economy
http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/plantation-economy-in-the-age-of-globalisation-rev.pdf
http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/plantation-economy-retrospective-2002.pdf
http://discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/routes/places-involved/west-indies/plantation-economy/
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2633275?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102448240251

Also note this backs my earlier point about what an economic system is. None of these examples of a plantation economy refer to one farm, but the whole collective system.

Agema:

Bentusi16:

But I've never argued against oversight of businesses. What I've argued against is this belief that it's ok not to have oversight on the government because their motivations for fucking you are slightly different.

But no-one thinks the government should go without oversight. Preferably it should have lots and lots of oversight.

Admittedly, I have a cynical world view. I believe everyone is out to fuck everyone else, sometimes for blatant greed (Corporations) and sometimes 'for our own good" (governments).
...
The issue isn't government, corporate, religious, majority, or minority, it's 'people'.

Everyone is not out to fuck everyone else: you can be cynical to a fault.

Pretty much everyone (except perhaps some sociopaths) has a circle of care and respect. Influences can be exerted to expand or contract that circle, including through society, institutions and organisations. I feel a lot of libertarian ideologies plainly act to contract those circles.

I've seen instances of people on this forum basically saying 'we should give government a pass because they have whats best for us at heart.' That's the attitude I fight again. Basically people who seem to think the the government will never abuse any of the powers we give them, or the information they take from us.

And yes, I am in fact cynical beyond a fault. I'm borderline melancholic. It's probably something I should see therapist for since my general cynicism makes it hard for me to get up in the morning. But, I was used to be an optimist and an idealist. Hammer and anvil of life and all that.

In fact I think there's a famous quote about how the worse cynics tend to have once been the biggest idealist. Summed up my view pretty well when I could find it.

Overhead:
Snip.

As I pointed out and cited sources for before, ethical companies earn more money and have more staying power then unethical ones on the whole.

See, this pretty much sums up what I rail against. No one is guided towards anything by their position. No one. A CEO can be nice and still be a CEO and quite successful; nice does not mean stupid or naive. Politicians have absolutely no reason to be nice other then trying to win elections, and as I cited before, even the really shitty ones that basically
caused my countries economy to start collapsing in on itself were REELECTED.

And now, for some wonderful cognitive dissonance: I choose order. I want people to be good, but I don't think they are; I think people are corrupt, but I want them to be controlled. How can they be controlled if I also believe that the maximum amount of happiness among the most amount of people is the best goal we can aim for, and that scaling back government is the way to do it?

The best I can answer is that I think government should be like a razor. Small, focused, sharp, and able to do what its supposed to do with amazing talent. And like a razor, when it starts to dull you sharpen it by filing off the burrs. Not that I'm saying we should go as far as hanging the corrupt...tempting as it is.

You know I suppose part of the reason I distrust the government so much is that I was SUPPOSED to hold them to higher standards. I was taught that government officials became public servants because they were trying to help the people in the country, and as I've gotten older all I've seen is public officials using their authority to give themselves more authority so they can get more authority and be unfuckingmovable, ignore their constituents, and live fat.

Bentusi16:

As I pointed out and cited sources for before, ethical companies earn more money and have more staying power then unethical ones on the whole.

Off hand I'd say you didn't really prove anything because it was just a few web articles, but that disregards the main problem of this not tackling the concerns.

Businesses aren't designed with social benefit in mind in the way that governments are.

If a government is harming people then they might be corrupt, they might be incompetent, they might be holding to the wrong ideology, etc. Whatever has happened, they're not meant to be causing harm so something has gone horribly wrong.

The same does not hold true with businesses. There's meant to be a rough correlation between profit and some kind of social benefit, but it is quite rough and sometimes it's massive net-harm to society.

I'll give you an example. Massive pharmaceutical companies are not staffed by giggling psychopaths. They do not sit around laughing at the deaths of people that suffer and die from preventable diseases.

Yet all the same, every day, every year, they are pumping massive amounts of money into erectile disfunction, hair loss and other minor problems while masses of people are dying of disease. The profit motive draws them towards pursuing these treatments because stopping poor black people from dying in their millions in developing countries earns shit all.

They're not (necessarily) dodging taxes, they're not (necessarily) taxing bribes, they're not (necessarily) doing anything wrong or corrupt but that doesn't stop them from doing massive harm. To talk about corruption misses the point.

In fact even the above example doesn't really get to the core point which is a much more complex explanation involving the exploitative extraction of surplus value from the workers, the heirarchal set-up damaging to the lives of people that must live in it, etc.

See, this pretty much sums up what I rail against. No one is guided towards anything by their position. No one. A CEO can be nice and still be a CEO and quite successful; nice does not mean stupid or naive. Politicians have absolutely no reason to be nice other then trying to win elections, and as I cited before, even the really shitty ones that basically
caused my countries economy to start collapsing in on itself were REELECTED.

This is completely wrong headed. People are complex creatures and are effected by a multitude of socio-economic factors.

Here's a quote from Ha-Joon Chang, Professor at the London School of Economics and well known author:
"The assumption of self-seeking individualism, which is at the heart of free-market economics, has a lot of resonance with our personal experience. We have all been cheated by unscrupulous traders, be it the fruit seller who put some rotten plums at the bottom of the paper bag of the yoghurt company that vastly exaggerated the health benefits of its products. We know too many corrupt politicians and lazy bureaucrats to believe that all public servants are solely serving the public. Most of us, myself included, have goofed off from work ourselves and some of us have been frustrated by junior colleagues and assistants who find all kinds of excuses not to put in serious work. Moreover, what we read in the news media these days tells us that professional managers, even the supposed champions of shareholder interest such as Jack Welch of Ge and Rick Wagoner of GM, have not really been serving the best interests of the shareholders.

This is true. However, we also have a lot of evidence - not just anecdotes but true systematic evidence - showing that self-interest is not the only human motivation that matters in our economic life. Self-interest, to be sure, is one of the most important, but we have many other motives - honesty, self-respect, altruism, love, sympathy, faith, sense of duty, solidarity, loyalty, public-spiritedness, patriotism, and so on - that are sometimes even more important than self-seeking as the driver of our behaviours.

Our earlier example of Kobe Steels shows how successful companies are running on trust and loyalty, rather than suspicion and self-seeking. If you think this is a peculiar example from a country of 'worker ants' that suppresses individuality against human nature, pick up any book of business leadership or any autobiography by a successful businessman published in the West and see what they say. Do they say that you have to suspect people and watch them all the time for slacking and cheating? No, they probably talk mostly about how to 'connect' with the employees, change the way they see things, inspire them, and promote team-work among them. Good managers know that people are not tunnel-visioned self-seeking robots. they know that people have good sides and bad sides and that the secret of good management is in magnifying the former and toning down the latter.

Another good example to illustrate the complexity of human motivation is the practice of 'work to rule', where workers slow down output by strictly following the rules that govern their tasks. You may wonder how workers can hurt their employers by working according to the rule. However this semi-strike method also known as 'Italian strike' (and as 'sciopero bianco' or 'white strike', by Italians themselves) - is known to reduce output by 30 - 50%. This is because not everything can be specified in employment contracts (rules) and therefore all production processes rely heavily on the workers goodwill to do extra things that are not required by their contract or exercise initiatives and take shortcuts in order to expedite things when the rules are too cumbersome. The motivations behind such non-selfish behaviours by workers are varied - fondness of their jobs, pride in their workmanship, self-respect, solidarity with their colleagues, trust in their top managers or loyalty to their company. But the bottom line is that companies, and thus our economy, would grind to a halt if people acted in totally selfish ways, as they are assumed to do in free-market economies."

The Capitalists of the early mass production era thought like you when they tried to deprive workers of control over the speed of the shiny new conveyor belts. They quickly found their workers becoming passive, unthinking and even uncooperative when they were deprived of their autonomy and dignity.

Starting with the Human Relations School in the 30s, which highlighting the need for communication with and among workers, loads of new managerial approaches have emerged that emphasise the complexity of human motivation and suggest ways to bring the best out of workers.

One of the best known if the Japanese or Toyota production system. It exploits the goodwill of creativity of workers by giving them responsibilities and trusting them as moral agents. Workers are given a considerable degree of control over the production line. They are also encouraged to make suggestions for improvements to the production process. This approach has enabled japanese firms to get such production efficiency that many non-Japanese firms are now imitating them.

By assuming that there are lots of other motivations besides self-interest, Japanese companies have got the best out off their employees."

It makes more sense if you're read the entire book, but this belief that people exist where nothing, no social relation, no cultural expectations, no laws, no oversight will at all effect their actions is a daydream. It holds no relation to the world as it exists.

And now, for some wonderful cognitive dissonance: I choose order. I want people to be good, but I don't think they are; I think people are corrupt, but I want them to be controlled. How can they be controlled if I also believe that the maximum amount of happiness among the most amount of people is the best goal we can aim for, and that scaling back government is the way to do it?

Well I'd dispute your initial assumptions so it's not a question I'd consider answering.

Also you're not associating this corruption and awfulness you see with government. Apparently you see it as inherent to humans, but you haven't pointed out why governments deal with this corruption worse than another system.

The best I can answer is that I think government should be like a razor. Small, focused, sharp, and able to do what its supposed to do with amazing talent. And like a razor, when it starts to dull you sharpen it by filing off the burrs. Not that I'm saying we should go as far as hanging the corrupt...tempting as it is.

And I'd say the best way to regulate the running of the entire world isn't to base it on a platitude.

You know I suppose part of the reason I distrust the government so much is that I was SUPPOSED to hold them to higher standards. I was taught that government officials became public servants because they were trying to help the people in the country, and as I've gotten older all I've seen is public officials using their authority to give themselves more authority so they can get more authority and be unfuckingmovable, ignore their constituents, and live fat.

Some will, but you don't here much about the guy in charge of planning 5% of railway development in your country with a phd in railway engineering who diligently does his job. I had a Member of Parliament near me who took the average worker's wage when he was in parliament and since leaving office works in an ordinary job for the local council. All across the world there are people devoting their time to worthy matters, whether in a civil position or a voluntary one.

People can do good, it's just a question of the system which most encourages them to act good.

Overhead:
A commune isn't a system. Communism as a whole is a system.

A commune is an economic system. Just a micro level one.

A roman plantation isn't a system. Feudalism or Capitalism or whichever economic system it falls under is a system based on your particular viewpoint.

Yes it is a system. Your problem is that you cannot separate modern ideas from ancient realities. Rome was never really a centralized state, nor were other large nations (even the word nation does not really fit in that time period). Rome never had a single economic system. It had many that were based on area. Modern economic systems are based upon area that the government effectively controls. If the government cannot control an area then it can have any system it wants based on any ideas it wants. A Roman Plantation system is an economic system because they were systems of production and distribution and consumption and at this period Roman effectively had little control over those areas.

The one company is there as an example of what he is stating, which would then apply to all companies.

No it can't because he cut off outside interactions.

If you're now going to say that you think he was specifically talking about that company and not about Capitalism as a whole, there is no way you can stick to your original claim that he was talking about just selling to workers seeing as pretty much everybody in the world knows that the Ford motor company sells to a hell of a lot of people who aren't their workers.

Wow. I suppose it should not be a big surprise that you do not understand what I was saying to begin with. You came into this with the goal of attacking me and not with any decent intentions.

He built a model that allowed it. He used a single element from Ford as an example.

Yes. Either way you're talking about the entire economic system. "Here is how this thing which applies to all businesses works" (your method) is functionally identical to "Here is how this thing which applies to all businesses works, which I will explain using one business as an example" (His method).

Although his one is actually better because it attempts to give a decent explanation.

Except for the fact that he did not give a decent explanation he talked about only one minor group of consumers and cut off the rest.

The extra funds don't matter. Regardless of how much money they are making, increasing wages loses them money compared to what they'd otherwise have.

That's why the other people buying the product weren't mentioned, because they're entirely incidental to the point and only someone who has completely misunderstood it would go on about them.

And only someone who has completely misunderstood the point would defend his model.

Tell me something, his model ignores all other consumers. How are we to argue that the company can be profitable with no other consumers whatsoever? ALL exterior effects (like marketing) are completely out the window without exterior consumers. In other words, his model completely destroys any possibility of success. It is the equivalent of taking a sledgehammer to a person's legs and telling them to run a race. His model cripples any chance of anything being done. It is a failed model.

You know, most people have trouble speaking in the third person for long periods. Good job.

I've provided infinite times more proof than you, which isn't hard seeing as you've provided zero proof.

There you did it again. Amazing.

The first sentence you have bolded is : "Take the famous example of Henry Ford paying his workers enough so that they could all buy one of the cars that they helped to make."

So as he requested in his post, take the example of Henry Ford. Did Henry Ford or did he not sell a stupidly huge amount of cars to people who weren't his employees?

He sold a massive amount of cars to people that weren't his employees and in the very first sentence you wanted me to look at we've seen that you're completely and totally wrong.

We cannot do this if you are going to be so dishonest and hypocritical. He confined his model solely to employees.

He doesn't claim that. This point is that they couldn't. The entire point he is making revolves around workers using their wages to buy some of the product from their company being a loss.

In other words, he built a model where only the employees purchase a product and not exterior forces. WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HAS BEEN ARGUING THAT. Dear god, I understand that you want to attack me but you have to do a better job. You keep admitted the fact that he said exactly what I said he did.

The two are mutually exclusive.

Prove it.

It can be inferred from his argument, but his argument is much more general than that.

Another admission that I am right. Finally, we are getting somewhere.

You're accusing him and everyone else of being liars. You're in the wrong.

No, you are in the wrong. You have attacked me over and over again. AND you continue this idiotic series of posts.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

There are plenty of people who have made posts here, you included, who haven't mentioned major parts of the economy when you've made examples.

Prove it.

think back, every time you've made an example have you made sure to say that it's based on a Capitalist model?

That is the name of a number of overarching systems. Naming a system is irrelevant for the basics.

That it takes place in a system with a government?

If government is not necessary to the model then of course you do not mention it.

What all the various forms of taxes are paid?

If it is not significant then it is not mentioned. Are you trying to argue that employees make up the majority of sales for a company? No? Then he ignored the majority.

That basic systems of law are in place so businesses can't simply hire mercenary armies to destroy one another?

Blablablablablablablabla

I already covered all of this.

People aren't expected to cover all of the most basic assumptions. That's why they're basic assumptions.

Because those things are not relevant. The fact that a company cuts of 99% of its sales and basically any advantage that might come from having employees buy their products IS relevant.

If there are outside purchasers or not, raising the wages of employees so they can buy the product they manufacture is stupid.

First of all, that argument is irrelevant. Employees purchasing from a company that they work at is not a relevant part of my post or The Lyer's post.

Second of all, if an employee purchases your new revolutionary product and gives you free advertising to exterior agents then you profit. An example of why excluding exterior forces is wrong.

You're the one making accusations of arguing in bad faith, which disqualifies any honest debate.

Agema is that you?

YOU are the one that said that first. You accused me of arguing in bad faith long before I did. Jump off of your high horse.

If you continue to refuse to accept that he said what he says he said, the roadblock to continuing is you.

Considering you just argued that he said EXACTLY what I said he did, YOU are the roadblock.

It is a peer reviewed scientific document which says you are wrong.

Still from the wrong period. I notice that you keep ignoring that point.

The wrong period. You didn't say anything about periods and nooooow you add it in.

Actually I said it several times. Hypocrisy much? Late Roman Empire is a period.

Give me page references, because I swear that I will get these books from the library and show you're completely wrong if I have to.

Last three Chapters of the MacKay book. Pick an area from the Riggsby book. He does not go in chronological order, he goes by subject and the various elements are scattered throughout. Alternatively you can ask him yourself- ariggsby@utexas.edu. He is a nice guy, if a little long winded (and far too much of it is in Latin). I do not know if he is still around for the summer but I can ask if you want. Ask him to explain decommercialization and the "Villa Culture" in reference to the Late Roman Empire and he will know what you are talking about. If you need more help use the damn index.

Alternatively you could also try doing a little bit of research before you get so pissy- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latifundium

"In the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the largely self-sufficient villa-system of the latifundia remained among the few political-cultural centres of a fragmented Europe. These latifundia had been of great importance economically, until the long-distance shipping of wine and oil, grain and garum disintegrated, but extensive lands controlled in a single pair of hands still constituted power: it can be argued that the latifundia formed part of the economic basis of the European social feudal system."

Of course wiki is just an overview and I fully expect you to attack me over something. After all, the idea that the great Overhead is wrong is just ludicrous, right?

Well actually anyone a slightly higher level of learning who's gone beyond memorising by rote will tell you that there are various disciplines and approaches to pretty much every subject aside from hard science.

For instance Marx's dialectic approach would classify Rome as a Slave Society with feudalism a minor pole in the dialectic struggle. The professor I quoted earlier who specialises in roman history defines it as Capitalism.

So please, spare me from your 'absolute truths'.

Absolute truths? Try basic facts.

Also, once again, terms vary based on time. Capitalism in Ancient Rome is very different from modern capitalism. For one thing, the Ancient Roman government was more than happy to fix prices and assassinate people (depending on the time period).

You called him a liar. You called me a liar.

You called me a liar.

But I'm not going to give you common leeway if you won't give anyone else any.

What common leeway do you expect? The kind where I roll over and admit you were right when you have already admitted that I was right?

He doesn't need to change shit.

Yes he does.

Admit you misinterpreted Seanchaidh and I will.

Admit that you misinterpreted what I said and I will pretend this never happened.

A history book is complete and the explanation is right there, a paragraph down. When you posted saying it was a 'plantation economy' that was the entirety of your post. There was no 'roman plantation' bit a few paragraphs below. You made your claim and no further explanation existed, something you only slotted in days later.

Because it was an aside not a principle point. I seem to remember you telling me that Sean can ignore 99% of all sales but I cannot shorten a phrase.

No, a plantation economy is a specific term different from what you mean

Third World Country also has a specific definition, depending on what time period you are in.

Bentusi16:
In fact I think there's a famous quote about how the worse cynics tend to have once been the biggest idealist. Summed up my view pretty well when I could find it.

"An idealist whose rose-colored glasses have been removed, snapped in two and stomped into the ground, immediately improving his vision"?

That's probably the most famous.

Overhead:
Businesses aren't designed with social benefit in mind in the way that governments are.

If a government is harming people then they might be corrupt, they might be incompetent, they might be holding to the wrong ideology, etc. Whatever has happened, they're not meant to be causing harm so something has gone horribly wrong.

The same does not hold true with businesses. There's meant to be a rough correlation between profit and some kind of social benefit, but it is quite rough and sometimes it's massive net-harm to society.

At the root they're both designed with social benefit in mind. Both become corrupted for the same reasons, such as money. Government isn't anymore fundamentally righteous than business, you're overlooking the constant in both: people. We kind of have a big problem with people screwing each other over. Like everywhere. Since always.

I would like to point out that a lot of people on this thread are confusing Objectivism with Libertarianism, two completely different philosophies, Ayn Rand, the mother of Objectivism hated Libertarians, like absolutely hated Libertarians. Don't judge Libertarianism based on Rand Paul and Ron Paul but based on Penn Jillette who is a real libertarian.

farson135:

The first sentence you have bolded is : "Take the famous example of Henry Ford paying his workers enough so that they could all buy one of the cars that they helped to make."

So as he requested in his post, take the example of Henry Ford. Did Henry Ford or did he not sell a stupidly huge amount of cars to people who weren't his employees?

He sold a massive amount of cars to people that weren't his employees and in the very first sentence you wanted me to look at we've seen that you're completely and totally wrong.

We cannot do this if you are going to be so dishonest and hypocritical. He confined his model solely to employees.

Okay, until you actually start answering questions and not dodging them there's no reason for me to carry on as if you're giving legitimate responses when you consistently either avoid every single question or change the topic.

Whether he was talking just about employees is what we are debating, so simply restating your position is completely meaningless and in no way answers the questions.

As I previously asked you and you ignored, answer these two questions.

1) At the very start of the example, did he or did he not tell you that it would be using the famous example of Henry Ford?

2) Did Henry Ford or did he not sell massive amounts of cars to people who weren't his employees.

The answer to both questions is yes, so just admit you're wrong already.

AgedGrunt:

Overhead:
Businesses aren't designed with social benefit in mind in the way that governments are.

If a government is harming people then they might be corrupt, they might be incompetent, they might be holding to the wrong ideology, etc. Whatever has happened, they're not meant to be causing harm so something has gone horribly wrong.

The same does not hold true with businesses. There's meant to be a rough correlation between profit and some kind of social benefit, but it is quite rough and sometimes it's massive net-harm to society.

At the root they're both designed with social benefit in mind. Both become corrupted for the same reasons, such as money. Government isn't anymore fundamentally righteous than business, you're overlooking the constant in both: people. We kind of have a big problem with people screwing each other over. Like everywhere. Since always.

No, businesses are designed with profit in mind. The entire basis of Capitalism is to maximise profit. Every day people trade on the stock market and change their shares in companies, not because they think one company has suddenly become more socially beneficial than another, but because it has become more profitable.

The assumption is that people will only purchase your goods and allow you to accrue a profit if the product is in some way socially beneficial, but it's a rough correlation and sometimes doesn't hold true at all.

I'm also not ignoring people. The entire point I'm making is about people.

People don't exist in a vacuum and they don't respond exactly the same under completely different conditions. If they live in a society with certain cultural norms, that will effect how they act. If they are in a different social position (senator compared to garbageman) that will effect how they act. If they are held under a certain kind of oversight, that will effect how they act. If there rare laws in place prohibiting certain behaviour, that will effect how they act.

Recognising who and what people are and how we're effected by things is my core point, not something I'm overlooking.

Even if people screwing each over since always is a big problem, it's a problem we have dealt with, are dealing with and can continue to tackle in the future.

We won't ever deal with every negative aspect of the human psyche (not completely to form some kind of future utopia) but differences in culture, law, how society is structured, etc, can make people's behaviour better or worse.

To say "People are bad, therefore why bother" therefore completely misses the point of "People react different to different organisational and social forms, laws, cultures, etc," and that the question is what is the best arrangement we can put together to get things running smoothly rather than simply giving up because it might be difficult.

farson135:

Overhead:
The one company is there as an example of what he is stating, which would then apply to all companies.

No it can't because he cut off outside interactions.

Have you heard of the ceteris paribus assumption? It is "All other relevant variables being equal..." which is usually left unstated but is still very much present when we speak of the effect of doing something differently. Among other things, this assumption allows us to speak about the effect of a single decision or change in a relatively complex system. We can speak about the profit or loss of installing a new machine or changing a policy or paying employees more so that more of them will buy our crap without specifying that there are other sources of profit and loss. If those other sources of profit and loss are the same in both circumstances, they are accounted for without being specified.

farson135:

Overhead:
He doesn't claim that. This point is that they couldn't. The entire point he is making revolves around workers using their wages to buy some of the product from their company being a loss.

In other words, he built a model where only the employees purchase a product and not exterior forces. WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HAS BEEN ARGUING THAT. Dear god, I understand that you want to attack me but you have to do a better job. You keep admitted the fact that he said exactly what I said he did.

Those "other words" are words only you are saying. Overhead is not saying that. I don't need to telepathically look into Overhead's mind to know that-- I know this because I can distinguish between the profit of a particular aspect of a company's operation and the profit of the company as a whole, and it is obvious Overhead is referring to the former. The loss that Overhead is talking about in that quote, and as well that I've been talking about regarding this example all along, is comparative. Compared to paying less, paying a greater wage for the purpose of allowing employees to buy more of your stuff doesn't result in more profit: it results in a loss. A loss compared to otherwise.

As I said in the first place, a company can still be profitable if they pay workers more than necessary to keep them working-- just not maximally profitable. The incentives that guide a business point it toward maximizing profit, not just making some amount of it. That a business is profitable is not to say that everything the business does is profitable-- it is to say that all that the business does, taken together, is profitable even if some of the things the business does (such as paying workers more than is necessary to keep them working) are not profitable. Individual aspects of what a business does can be analyzed. That is what my example was doing all along.

You can draw the conclusion from my analysis that a business that sells only to its employees would not be a profitable one because in that case 100% of its income would be subject to my analysis.

On the other hand, a villainous plantation (or feudal manor) would tend to be profitable in another way: the manor or villa accrues the product and then does whatever it wants with it (feeds soldiers, holds a feast, sells it to others, whatever.) The villa or manor, however, does not generally sell its product to its workers (even if it is "self-sufficient".) It does either or both of the following: pays them a portion of their produce and/or extracts from them rent as a portion of their produce (which practically amounts to the same thing in many cases.) That is significantly different from and inapplicable to my example. Bringing it up was extremely strange.

Tell me something, his model ignores all other consumers.

I considered their effect and decided that it wasn't significantly different in the two situations I was comparing: paying workers less or paying workers more. They went unmentioned in my analysis because they act about the same in both situations.

How are we to argue that the company can be profitable with no other consumers whatsoever?

You aren't supposed to be arguing that-- I said in the first place that a company can still be profitable while paying wages larger than necessary. It is not necessary to argue that. It is also not sufficient to rebut my point, either.

ALL exterior effects (like marketing) are completely out the window without exterior consumers. In other words, his model completely destroys any possibility of success. It is the equivalent of taking a sledgehammer to a person's legs and telling them to run a race. His model cripples any chance of anything being done.

Yes, I suppose my argument is exceptionally difficult to contradict. I accept the compliment.

Second of all, if an employee purchases your new revolutionary product and gives you free advertising to exterior agents then you profit. An example of why excluding exterior forces is wrong.

That's kind of an interesting angle to look at it from-- but it doesn't really help you. Paying workers a larger wage (larger enough so that they'll buy some of what they produce) has what we can presume to be the same effect as giving away the same amount of product instead to random people-- and that is assuming that 100% of the wage increase goes to buying your product rather than something else (which, because I gave the idea its best case scenario before rejecting it, is actually my assumption!) More realistically it would be less efficient than just giving away your product. This effect does not constitute businesses having an incentive to maintain a minimum standard of living-- especially not for their workers. It does constitute a reason to have a marketing department and to occasionally give free samples (or have a 'special' or 'sale'.)

The fact that I can so easily dismiss this effect is a product of the reason I didn't include other consumers in my expression of the profitability of increasing wages. I didn't even have to consider how large this effect would be or whether it could pay for the increase in wage in order to reasonably dismiss it: the effect you describe can be gotten cheaper-- increasing wages is outperformed in this regard by a practice that businesses already do a little bit (giving free samples to advertise their product) but which they don't do to a degree that would constitute "maintaining a minimum standard of living." We can reasonably conclude that the effect is not strong enough to justify paying substantially higher wages.

So my point survives your assault: paying workers more than necessary to keep them working decreases rather than increases profit. Even if the effect of "free" advertising can in some cases be enough to outweigh the loss incurred by increasing wages, it's more efficient to gain that effect with free samples-- not least because you won't have this ugly precedent of paying higher wages hanging over your head once you've gotten to a point where you're getting enough similar advertisement from the people who actually bought your product. And doing both just gives you too much advertisement (advertisement, like anything else, is subject to diminishing marginal utility.)

You accused me of arguing in bad faith long before I did.

So now you've admitted to arguing in bad faith.

Now, I know you didn't mean this. But my saying that you did would still be more accurate than your accusation that I "admitted" that my example did not account for other consumers. I did account for them-- I judged that they would have no particular reason to act significantly differently based on the wages of the employees.

AgedGrunt:

At the root they're both designed with social benefit in mind. Both become corrupted for the same reasons, such as money.

Corporations are surely not really designed with social benefit in mind. It just so happens that they tend to provide a number of social benefits in the course of their real intent: making money.

And if the question is as simple as whether something is going to be corrupted by money, intuitively you'd think it is more likely to occur in an organisation that explicitly exists to make money rather than one that does not. On the other hand, this is a moot point as reducing corruption is really a matter of ethics and oversight.

Government isn't anymore fundamentally righteous than business, you're overlooking the constant in both: people. We kind of have a big problem with people screwing each other over. Like everywhere. Since always.

But why then why support libertarianism if you think this is a problem? Societal atomisation, deregulation, decreased social oversight and so on is most likely to facilitate the ability of people to screw other people over.

Agema:

But why then why support libertarianism if you think this is a problem? Societal atomisation, deregulation, decreased social oversight and so on is most likely to facilitate the ability of people to screw other people over.

Nonononono, you don't get it.

Allowing companies to lie in ad's and sell faulty products will be their downfall! The only thing keeping the corrupt companies up is Government regulation, remove the regulation and everything will take care of itself, when people stop buying their products! Remember the BP oilspill and how Government regulation didn't stop it? (Disregarding those boring details about budgetcuts for the people who were supposed to look over the place) People totally stopped buying BP oil since then, I mean. You saw how they went bankrupt right? After all the fraud, cheating, and disgusting enviromental policies people were bound to stop buying their products....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP (Third most profitable energy-company in the world)

Oh.....

"Studies discussed at a 2013 conference found that a "large percentage" of Gulf residents reported mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. These studies also showed that the bodies of former spill cleanup workers carry biomarkers of many chemicals contained in the oil. A study that investigated the health effects among children in Louisiana and Florida living less than 10 miles from the coast found that more than a third of the parents reported physical or mental health symptoms among their children." So, what did these people get from BP? I don't recall BP paying these people anything.

Anyway, yea. A world without Government regulation is a world where the rich guy wins and the poor man looses.

Nikolaz72:

Agema:

But why then why support libertarianism if you think this is a problem? Societal atomisation, deregulation, decreased social oversight and so on is most likely to facilitate the ability of people to screw other people over.

Nonononono, you don't get it.

Allowing companies to lie in ad's and sell faulty products will be their downfall! The only thing keeping the corrupt companies up is Government regulation, remove the regulation and everything will take care of itself, when people stop buying their products! Remember the BP oilspill and how Government regulation didn't stop it? (Disregarding those boring details about budgetcuts for the people who were supposed to look over the place) People totally stopped buying BP oil since then, I mean. You saw how they went bankrupt right? After all the fraud, cheating, and disgusting enviromental policies people were bound to stop buying their products....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP (Third most profitable energy-company in the world)

Oh.....

"Studies discussed at a 2013 conference found that a "large percentage" of Gulf residents reported mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. These studies also showed that the bodies of former spill cleanup workers carry biomarkers of many chemicals contained in the oil. A study that investigated the health effects among children in Louisiana and Florida living less than 10 miles from the coast found that more than a third of the parents reported physical or mental health symptoms among their children." So, what did these people get from BP? I don't recall BP paying these people anything.

Anyway, yea. A world without Government regulation is a world where the rich guy wins and the poor man looses.

You do realize there's a difference between 'no regulation', 'less regulation', and 'different priorities in regulation', right?

Bentusi16:

Nikolaz72:

Agema:

But why then why support libertarianism if you think this is a problem? Societal atomisation, deregulation, decreased social oversight and so on is most likely to facilitate the ability of people to screw other people over.

Nonononono, you don't get it.

Allowing companies to lie in ad's and sell faulty products will be their downfall! The only thing keeping the corrupt companies up is Government regulation, remove the regulation and everything will take care of itself, when people stop buying their products! Remember the BP oilspill and how Government regulation didn't stop it? (Disregarding those boring details about budgetcuts for the people who were supposed to look over the place) People totally stopped buying BP oil since then, I mean. You saw how they went bankrupt right? After all the fraud, cheating, and disgusting enviromental policies people were bound to stop buying their products....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP (Third most profitable energy-company in the world)

Oh.....

"Studies discussed at a 2013 conference found that a "large percentage" of Gulf residents reported mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. These studies also showed that the bodies of former spill cleanup workers carry biomarkers of many chemicals contained in the oil. A study that investigated the health effects among children in Louisiana and Florida living less than 10 miles from the coast found that more than a third of the parents reported physical or mental health symptoms among their children." So, what did these people get from BP? I don't recall BP paying these people anything.

Anyway, yea. A world without Government regulation is a world where the rich guy wins and the poor man looses.

You do realize there's a difference between 'no regulation', 'less regulation', and 'different priorities in regulation', right?

Budget cuts in regulation was what... Well, I'll go as far to say caused it to go so wrong in the first place. Actually it seems cutting corners in regulation is what caused many of BP's plentyful accidents that has cost hundreds of human lives (and ruined more than thousands, damaged tens of thousans, and negatively affected millions)in the past couple of decades.

Far as I can see the regulation in the U.S is pretty bare-bones. I could understand (well, MIGHT come to understand) why someone would want to cut it over here, where its a major expense. But in the U.S its as small as it gets, and the small size of it has already been the cause of much distress. Cutting it further would only put more strain on it.

Do you know of a way to cut it even further than the massive cuts that has hit it already, without further reducing the effectiveness of the regulation which has now stopped working? I'll argue that you need more regulation, not less. And that the money spend on Tax-Cuts might be better placed in making sure the people earning tons of cash do so without running the needless risk of ruining peoples lives.

Nikolaz72:

Bentusi16:

Nikolaz72:

Nonononono, you don't get it.

Allowing companies to lie in ad's and sell faulty products will be their downfall! The only thing keeping the corrupt companies up is Government regulation, remove the regulation and everything will take care of itself, when people stop buying their products! Remember the BP oilspill and how Government regulation didn't stop it? (Disregarding those boring details about budgetcuts for the people who were supposed to look over the place) People totally stopped buying BP oil since then, I mean. You saw how they went bankrupt right? After all the fraud, cheating, and disgusting enviromental policies people were bound to stop buying their products....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP (Third most profitable energy-company in the world)

Oh.....

"Studies discussed at a 2013 conference found that a "large percentage" of Gulf residents reported mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and PTSD. These studies also showed that the bodies of former spill cleanup workers carry biomarkers of many chemicals contained in the oil. A study that investigated the health effects among children in Louisiana and Florida living less than 10 miles from the coast found that more than a third of the parents reported physical or mental health symptoms among their children." So, what did these people get from BP? I don't recall BP paying these people anything.

Anyway, yea. A world without Government regulation is a world where the rich guy wins and the poor man looses.

You do realize there's a difference between 'no regulation', 'less regulation', and 'different priorities in regulation', right?

Budget cuts in regulation was what... Well, I'll go as far to say caused it to go so wrong in the first place. Actually it seems cutting corners in regulation is what caused many of BP's plentyful accidents that has cost hundreds of human lives (and ruined more than thousands, damaged tens of thousans, and negatively affected millions)in the past couple of decades.

I agree, but that being said, please don't spout a strawman 'libertarian are objectivist' view point at me or others who haven't blatantly stated they want 'all regulation gone'. I want regulation shifted, looked at, redone, resharpened, I certainly don't want it gone, even as a libertarian.

I've never actually met someone who wants all regulations thrown out the door, to be honest. What I've mostly seen is people disagree on how much something should be regulated, and what should be regulated, with one side inevitably starting to call the other either 'socialist who want to seize control of private businesses through regulations' or 'objectivist who want kittens and children to get killed because it saves a corporation a dollar a day'.

Bentusi16:

Nikolaz72:

Bentusi16:

You do realize there's a difference between 'no regulation', 'less regulation', and 'different priorities in regulation', right?

Budget cuts in regulation was what... Well, I'll go as far to say caused it to go so wrong in the first place. Actually it seems cutting corners in regulation is what caused many of BP's plentyful accidents that has cost hundreds of human lives (and ruined more than thousands, damaged tens of thousans, and negatively affected millions)in the past couple of decades.

I agree, but that being said, please don't spout a strawman 'libertarian are objectivist' view point at me or others who haven't blatantly stated they want 'all regulation gone'. I want regulation shifted, looked at, redone, resharpened, I certainly don't want it gone, even as a libertarian.

If you want to be taken as anything else than an objectivist by people, you might just wanna call yourself a Classic Liberalist. Because the Libertarian name has effectively been changed to the beliefs argued for by the likes of Ayn Rand.

And if there ever was demons on earth I'd believe it to be the likes of her.

And don't start with the whole "She wasn't an objectivist" I think as far as followers go, the ones that worship her openly (and loudly) are the ones whom want the government gone and the corporations calling the shots.

Nikolaz72:

Bentusi16:

Nikolaz72:

Budget cuts in regulation was what... Well, I'll go as far to say caused it to go so wrong in the first place. Actually it seems cutting corners in regulation is what caused many of BP's plentyful accidents that has cost hundreds of human lives (and ruined more than thousands, damaged tens of thousans, and negatively affected millions)in the past couple of decades.

I agree, but that being said, please don't spout a strawman 'libertarian are objectivist' view point at me or others who haven't blatantly stated they want 'all regulation gone'. I want regulation shifted, looked at, redone, resharpened, I certainly don't want it gone, even as a libertarian.

If you want to be taken as anything else than an objectivist by people, you might just wanna call yourself a Classic Liberalist. Because the Libertarian name has effectively been changed to the beliefs argued for by the likes of Ayn Rand.

And if there ever was demons on earth I'd believe it to be the likes of her.

Ayn Rand herself said any libertarian that didn't agree with her brand of objectivism was not an objectivist and should be ignored.

And by most definitions I'm a classic liberal, yes, but I still identify myself as libertarian because that is the agreed upon category that 'classical liberal' falls under.

I don't consider it all that different then my desire to seize the republican party back from the moral majority idiots.

Bentusi16:

Nikolaz72:

Bentusi16:

I agree, but that being said, please don't spout a strawman 'libertarian are objectivist' view point at me or others who haven't blatantly stated they want 'all regulation gone'. I want regulation shifted, looked at, redone, resharpened, I certainly don't want it gone, even as a libertarian.

If you want to be taken as anything else than an objectivist by people, you might just wanna call yourself a Classic Liberalist. Because the Libertarian name has effectively been changed to the beliefs argued for by the likes of Ayn Rand.

And if there ever was demons on earth I'd believe it to be the likes of her.

Ayn Rand herself said any libertarian that didn't agree with her brand of objectivism was not an objectivist and should be ignored.

And by most definitions I'm a classic liberal, yes, but I still identify myself as libertarian because that is the agreed upon category that 'classical liberal' falls under.

I don't consider it all that different then my desire to seize the republican party back from the moral majority idiots.

I think the U.S Social Democrats and the U.S Libertarians should come together and agree to start their parties at the same time so that one of the two large parties won't get an advantage. Course Libertarians is gonna take people out of both Parties but with some luck they'll snatch more Republicans than Democrats.

Look at what the Democrats has done this last decade, have any of them really argued on behalf of their Social Democrat members (A group which was large enough to elect a Senator in a state mind you)? I mean the Universal Healthcare thing certainly ended up as a deformed monstrosity.

But I'm going off-topic. Point is, you aren't gonna make Republican the Libertarian party anytime soon.

Agema:
> Corporations are surely not really designed with social benefit in mind. It just so happens that they tend to provide a number of social benefits in the course of their real intent: making money.

>> But why then why support libertarianism if you think this is a problem? Societal atomisation, deregulation, decreased social oversight and so on is most likely to facilitate the ability of people to screw other people over.

> Corporations exist because business, like government, grows and it becomes necessary to restructure. Yes, the intent of a business is to make money. That does not mean that social benefit is happenstance. They provide many benefits and indirectly make government possible. Benefit is not a footnote here, it's a part of an equation: I need this done. Here is money. Transaction. Both parties satisfied. People have needs and both government and business are created to meet them.

>> For personal liberty and a lean government. I want one I can take apart and put back together if I need to, like a traditional PC. If something is wrong, people should be able to fix it. An efficient government can make those regulations and oversights more possible than ever.

Overhead:
I'm also not ignoring people. The entire point I'm making is about people.

Recognising who and what people are and how we're effected by things is my core point, not something I'm overlooking.

Even if people screwing each over since always is a big problem, it's a problem we have dealt with, are dealing with and can continue to tackle in the future.

If it's about people and behavior, then why are you attempting to draw this distinction between business and government?

My point wasn't "why bother", and I'm not saying much ado about nothing. It just seems that business is sort of being considered by people as a money-making machine producing social harm while there's almost empathy in peoples' words for government as a tragic hero. There's so much wrong with the general tone against one and for the other when both are fundamentally good forces.

AgedGrunt:
If it's about people and behavior, then why are you attempting to draw this distinction between business and government?

Because many things influence people's behavior.

As the purpose, ethics, organisational structure, laws, internal culture and social expectations with business and government are completely different, this will mean that people in business and government will act differently.

My point wasn't "why bother", and I'm not saying much ado about nothing. It just seems that business is sort of being considered by people as a money-making machine producing social harm while there's almost empathy in peoples' words for government as a tragic hero. There's so much wrong with the general tone against one and for the other when both are fundamentally good forces.

It's not about absolute good and evil, it's comparative benefit and effectiveness. There is nothing fundamental about either's goodness.

I have major problems with Capitalism, but I can admit that it does a lot of good progressive stuff compared to what came before it.

Likewise I have criticisms of government, although a lot of those centre around it's intertwinement with capitalism and my solution would be to weaken capitalism rather than the government.

It's their comparative values and benefits they both impart that I'm analyzing them on.

Anything should be legal as long as it's not hurting somebody?

Is it not the rule that wherever someone profits, there's someone else that suffers?

Or are we talking physical harm?

And why should it be illegal to physically harm someone?
Someone that, say, harmed you in a non-physical, but still very painful way?

Overhead:
Okay, until you actually start answering questions and not dodging them there's no reason for me to carry on as if you're giving legitimate responses when you consistently either avoid every single question or change the topic.

Coming from you this statement is irrelevant. I have asked several questions AND I have pointed out the fact that you are contradicting yourself.

If you cannot back up hat you say then stop cluttering my inbox.

As I previously asked you and you ignored, answer these two questions.

Both questions are irrelevant.

so just admit you're wrong already.

Considering you just admitted that Sean said what I said he did, YOU admit that YOU are wrong.

Seanchaidh:
Have you heard of the ceteris paribus assumption? It is "All other relevant variables being equal..." which is usually left unstated but is still very much present when we speak of the effect of doing something differently. Among other things, this assumption allows us to speak about the effect of a single decision or change in a relatively complex system. We can speak about the profit or loss of installing a new machine or changing a policy or paying employees more so that more of them will buy our crap without specifying that there are other sources of profit and loss. If those other sources of profit and loss are the same in both circumstances, they are accounted for without being specified.

You can, when you set up a model that does not cripple any other influences.

You set up a model where only what the employees buy is considered relevant to profit. So, any possible advantage that comes from outside influences is cut off. Your model ONLY allows for profit coming directly from employees to influence your argument. Therefore, the free advertising that comes from employees using your new product is irrelevant because your model only looks at how much your employees are paying you. Etc. Are you still not seeing the problem?

Those "other words" are words only you are saying.

Then why does your model not allow for exterior forces?

The loss that Overhead is talking about in that quote, and as well that I've been talking about regarding this example all along, is comparative. Compared to paying less, paying a greater wage for the purpose of allowing employees to buy more of your stuff doesn't result in more profit: it results in a loss. A loss compared to otherwise.

And that point is still irrelevant to my point. You brought up something irrelevant and I called you out on it.

That is what my example was doing all along.

And your example was faulty. I have pointed that out several times.

I considered their effect and decided that it wasn't significantly different in the two situations I was comparing: paying workers less or paying workers more. They went unmentioned in my analysis because they act about the same in both situations.

So you are arguing that advertising on a revolutionary BRAND NEW product is not valuable.

Once again, your model is faulty.

You aren't supposed to be arguing that-- I said in the first place that a company can still be profitable while paying wages larger than necessary. It is not necessary to argue that. It is also not sufficient to rebut my point, either.

Your model handicapped the company to the point that profitability is impossible. Your model sucks.

Yes, I suppose my argument is exceptionally difficult to contradict. I accept the compliment.

Yes.....compliment-

Wonderful victory, sire.

That's kind of an interesting angle to look at it from-- but it doesn't really help you. Paying workers a larger wage (larger enough so that they'll buy some of what they produce) has what we can presume to be the same effect as giving away the same amount of product instead to random people

Except for the low cost and the basic fact that since they built it they have a better idea of how to use it and therefore (in the case of the car) it probably will not end up broken in the middle of the street (bad advertising). And on.

The fact that I can so easily dismiss this effect is a product of the reason I didn't include other consumers in my expression of the profitability of increasing wages.

Actually, the fact that you dismissing proves how little you thought about it.

So my point survives your assault: paying workers more than necessary to keep them working decreases rather than increases profit.

Of course your point succeeds. It is your model that sucks.

This is something that you cannot seem to wrap your head around so let me put it too you simply. You are right in principle but the way you went about proving it is 100% wrong. Your model sucks. Fucking get rid of it and I will have no problem.

Do you understand? Or do I have to simplify this even more?

farson135:
Coming from you this statement is irrelevant. I have asked several questions AND I have pointed out the fact that you are contradicting yourself.

Yes, you've given your opinion on lots and lots and lots of things. You've given your opinion that when someone says something they mean the opposite. You've given your opinion that when someone does a specific thing it's wrong but when you do it it's okay because you're special. You've given your opinion that your words mean the opposite of what you say they mean when it turns out their original meaning is inconvenient.

I don't want to know what your opinion is of what's irrelevant or your opinion of what contradicts what.

I want to know the answer these two questions, which is why I asked it.

1) At the very start of the example, did he or did he not tell you that it would be using the famous example of Henry Ford?

2) Did Henry Ford or did he not sell massive amounts of cars to people who weren't his employees.

If you cannot back up hat you say then stop cluttering my inbox.

The double standards again. The amount of questions you've avoided is likely in triple figures by now. I'm trying to get a response from you on the most singly important one because it shows your entire premise is false and you still can't give me a yes/no answer.

Both questions are irrelevant.

If he said the example was the Ford Company and you know the Ford Company sold to lots of people outside it's own labour force, all your claims are false. So answer the question.

1) At the very start of the example, did he or did he not tell you that it would be using the famous example of Henry Ford?

2) Did Henry Ford or did he not sell massive amounts of cars to people who weren't his employees.

The answer to both questions is yes, so just admit you're wrong already.

Considering you just admitted that Sean said what I said he did, YOU admit that YOU are wrong.

I didn't admit that. If you think I did, it's because you read what I wrote wrong again.

Overhead:
I don't want to know what your opinion is of what's irrelevant or your opinion of what contradicts what.

Then I suppose it is a good thing that it is not my opinion but fact.

I want to know the answer these two questions

You can want but that does not make your questions any less irrelevant.

The double standards again. The amount of questions you've avoided is likely in triple figures by now.

Prove it.

BTW YOU started attacking me for not answering questions. I did not start it. So, you admit that you are not answering my relevant questions but you are attacking me for not answering your irrelevant questions. Hypocrisy much?

I'm trying to get a response from you on the most singly important one because it shows your entire premise is false and you still can't give me a yes/no answer.

I won't bother because the questions are irrelevant.

If he said the example was the Ford Company and you know the Ford Company sold to lots of people outside it's own labour force, all your claims are false. So answer the question.

No need. Your questions are irrelevant. His model is not the Ford company. It was an example of one thing the company did.

so just admit you're wrong already.

You first.

I didn't admit that.

Then why did you say- "This point is that they couldn't. The entire point he is making revolves around workers using their wages to buy some of the product from their company being a loss." So you acknowledged my point as correct.

farson135:
Then I suppose it is a good thing that it is not my opinion but fact.

That's probably one of your main problems. Opinion =/= fact.

You can want but that does not make your questions any less irrelevant.

So you're refusing to give an honest answer to two simple questions?

1) At the very start of the example, did he or did he not tell you that it would be using the famous example of Henry Ford?

2) Did Henry Ford or did he not sell massive amounts of cars to people who weren't his employees.

What could be more relevant or easy to answer?

Prove it.

Okay, in this post you avoided 100% of my questions and points.

Estimating by the size of my posts and the number of posts, you have avoided 231 questions.

BTW YOU started attacking me for not answering questions. I did not start it. So, you admit that you are not answering my relevant questions but you are attacking me for not answering your irrelevant questions. Hypocrisy much?

You haven't come back and asked me to answer any questions. If I've answered everything (Except the questions pending until after you answer these two) then you've nothing to complain about. If there is some question you feel I haven't answered, you've got to bring it up. It's not up to me to read your mind.

No need. Your questions are irrelevant. His model is not the Ford company. It was an example of one thing the company did.

What company was he talking about then?

It was the Henry Ford Company. He said so. maybe you didn't read it at the time and you didn't really know what you're objecting too but now you know.

So let's answer the questions and make it official

1) At the very start of the example, did he or did he not tell you that it would be using the famous example of Henry Ford?

2) Did Henry Ford or did he not sell massive amounts of cars to people who weren't his employees.

You first.

I was wrong to think you would be willing to answer two simple questions.

Now you.

You were wrong to make all of your claims.

Then why did you say- "This point is that they couldn't. The entire point he is making revolves around workers using their wages to buy some of the product from their company being a loss." So you acknowledged my point as correct.

As I said the entire point he is making revolves around workers using their wages to buy some of the product from their company being a loss.

What you are claiming is the point is that in specifically a business which has no customers except it's employees the business will lose money.

It's bad enough when you misunderstand everyone else's points, but when you misunderstand your own points too?

AgedGrunt:

> Corporations exist because business, like government, grows and it becomes necessary to restructure. Yes, the intent of a business is to make money. That does not mean that social benefit is happenstance. They provide many benefits and indirectly make government possible. Benefit is not a footnote here, it's a part of an equation: I need this done. Here is money. Transaction. Both parties satisfied. People have needs and both government and business are created to meet them.

Governments long predate businesses (i.e. corporations) - they surely do not need them to exist. Depending on how far we want to go back and what we want to call governance and business (i.e. work and trade), it's hard to say whether business or government predate the other or even if it's a meaningful question to ask.

The initial intent in the creation of corporations was to serve a social benefit. The earliest companies, to my knowledge, were essentially government monopolies - the government hiving certain key activities off into semi-independent concerns by charter (which government could revoke at will and return to itself full control). Then limited liability companies were created with stocks and shares, and other developments to the modern day.

Capitalism claims in a nebulous way that it (and by extension corporations) does serve a social benefit - swiftly reacting to provide the needs of society, and I would concur with this generally. However, it is very dubious that modern corporations as individual entities these days have any much institutional sense that they are there to provide a social benefit. Social benefit is not a significant motivation of its owners and workers; they do not preach social benefits except in the sense it can make them money, and frequently only due to consumer pressure; they act contrary to general social benefit if it profits them to do so.

>> For personal liberty and a lean government. I want one I can take apart and put back together if I need to, like a traditional PC. If something is wrong, people should be able to fix it. An efficient government can make those regulations and oversights more possible than ever.

Organisations and processes require time from initial construction to settle down - there are bugs, hitches, problems and so on in any complex system that need to be resolved. When government must react to changing circumstances, it must crate new systems to deal with them. You're not talking about fitting a pre-existing plug-and-play PCI module: you're talking about needing to design and construct a whole new module.

Governance is enormously complex, as it needs to be to oversee the vast complexity of human existence. If it is "lean" then it is unlikely to dealing with complexity. There's a huge amount of injustice hiding in the fine detail.

farson135:

Seanchaidh:
Have you heard of the ceteris paribus assumption? It is "All other relevant variables being equal..." which is usually left unstated but is still very much present when we speak of the effect of doing something differently. Among other things, this assumption allows us to speak about the effect of a single decision or change in a relatively complex system. We can speak about the profit or loss of installing a new machine or changing a policy or paying employees more so that more of them will buy our crap without specifying that there are other sources of profit and loss. If those other sources of profit and loss are the same in both circumstances, they are accounted for without being specified.

You can, when you set up a model that does not cripple any other influences.

Or when they are not significantly different in both circumstances.

You set up a model where only what the employees buy is considered relevant to profit.

No, that's just how it turned out-- that was the result of the comparison, not the premise of it.

So, any possible advantage that comes from outside influences is cut off.

The point is to figure out whether increasing wages above the market equilibrium has a positive influence on profitability, especially in a way that businesses would typically find to be worth doing.

Your model ONLY allows for profit coming directly from employees to influence your argument.

No, it allows for profit coming from anywhere. However, when you are measuring the difference between two quantities, and the same number is a part of both those quantities, it cancels out. (X+Y+Z)-(X+Y)=Z

One of my assumptions was also that 100% of a wage increase is going straight back to the company as income. Which, between your asinine "free" advertising effect (which is outperformed by free samples and thus not worth doing) and that assumption do you think has the larger effect on the outcome? I gave the idea its best case scenario and it was still bad.

Therefore, the free advertising that comes from employees using your new product is irrelevant because your model only looks at how much your employees are paying you. Etc. Are you still not seeing the problem?

Why do you keep calling it "free" advertising?

This is the cost of it: Material cost+wages to pay for its assembly+price-price (or the amount of increase in wage necessary to ensure that workers will buy your product, which I've underestimated at 100% of the price)
This is the cost of a free sample: material cost+wages to pay for its assembly

Notice how they're both the same. Utilizing free samples instead, however, allows the business not to make a high wage precedent (which has a cost in the future either in payment or workers being spiteful/quitting due to the change and causing some amount of turbulence) to tailor their expenditure to how much advertising they want (which is another advantage) and to disperse the samples in whatever way the company wishes. Also, a free sample is in no danger of being spent on something else like a wage increase could be (but in my example isn't because I'm being way too nice to the idea.)

My model is "a business that sells things and has employees". The stupid thing about your criticism is that you've always been free to say "hey, what about X effect? I think it'd be different in the two cases you're comparing and that increasing wages would be the most efficient way to achieve that effect." -- instead of inaccurately whining about how my example resembles a "plantation". Mine is a simple example of a business decision that someone could make that would actually promote a minimum standard of living via the reasoning you provided-- that businesses need a market for their goods and to have employees. I examined whether there could possibly be an incentive to do it. There isn't one, provided the business is primarily profit-seeking.

Those "other words" are words only you are saying.

Then why does your model not allow for exterior forces?

It does allow for them. My "model" is just "a business that makes something to sell and pays a wage to employees". The decision being analyzed was a very narrow one suited to your idea that businesses have an incentive to actually do something with regard to making sure that there are people to buy things. The effect of the company's wages on outside consumers was regarded as small enough to be ignored-- and you haven't yet given me a good reason to decide that was an error.

The loss that Overhead is talking about in that quote, and as well that I've been talking about regarding this example all along, is comparative. Compared to paying less, paying a greater wage for the purpose of allowing employees to buy more of your stuff doesn't result in more profit: it results in a loss. A loss compared to otherwise.

And that point is still irrelevant to my point. You brought up something irrelevant and I called you out on it.

It counts against the idea that businesses have an incentive to make sure that there are other people existing.

I suppose there is a somewhat less dry example, though, to rebut what you finally specified as the reason that companies have an incentive to "maintain a minimum standard of living"-- what is essentially the argument from Adam Smith, that necessity breeds demand encourages businesses and individuals to seek profit by satisfying that demand. (This is actually what I was thinking of when I said there was a plausibly rational way to disagree with The Lyre. However, it doesn't use the reasoning that you first responded to The Lyre with.) Does a dealer in addictive drugs that have negative side effects have an incentive to keep his clients alive and able to pay? Or should he attempt to maximize his sales in the short run even if some of his clients die or lose their jobs due to abuse of his product? If he has a choice, should he attempt to make his product more addictive (and thus more problematic to the lives of consumers)? Does he want to warn people about the downsides of using his product in order to make sure those people continue to be around to buy it, or is it better to mislead? What does the history of the Tobacco industry have to tell us about this?

Hah, I guess this example features one of those industries in which free samples are quite favorable. The first one's free, anyway.

That is what my example was doing all along.

And your example was faulty. I have pointed that out several times.

You have claimed such.

I considered their effect and decided that it wasn't significantly different in the two situations I was comparing: paying workers less or paying workers more. They went unmentioned in my analysis because they act about the same in both situations.

So you are arguing that advertising on a revolutionary BRAND NEW product is not valuable.

It could be however valuable you want to say, but if that value can be obtained more cheaply than by wage increases it doesn't matter: the company will have an incentive to do that cheaper way instead and leave wages the same.

Secondarily, Henry Ford popularized the gasoline powered automobile capable of transporting passengers on roads-- he was very far from inventing it (more than thirty years, depending on what you count as the first such automobile, actually.) He was able to popularize it because he made it very cheap. What he revolutionized was the production process and organization, not the product. He could get a lot more traction probably simply by publishing his prices.

Once again, your model is faulty.

The 'advertising' effect of increasing wages is outperformed by literally GIVING YOUR PRODUCT AWAY FOR NOTHING. It would be quite ludicrous to think this constitutes a significant reason to have higher wages. I'm imagining a Star Trek episode where Mr. Shatner visits a planet where the aliens explain "Our planet's economy is based on the profitability of free samples-- they provide so much benefit to advertising that all our people are able to maintain a comfortable existence by taking advantage of such deals and our companies have an incentive to maintain that comfortable existence." Yeah, ok, ships can go faster than light in the future, sure-- they travel hundreds of lightyears in hours. And there is also artificial gravity and other fun stuff. Ok, ok, plausible. But a capitalist economy in which the minimum standard of living is high because free samples are just so good for advertising? That's just absurd.

You aren't supposed to be arguing that-- I said in the first place that a company can still be profitable while paying wages larger than necessary. It is not necessary to argue that. It is also not sufficient to rebut my point, either.

Your model handicapped the company to the point that profitability is impossible. Your model sucks.

No, it did not. I said in the first place that a company could be profitable while paying more than what workers demand to work. What I did was examine the consequence of a decision that is very clearly unprofitable and came to the conclusion that it was very clearly unprofitable. It's fine.

Yes, I suppose my argument is exceptionally difficult to contradict. I accept the compliment.

Yes.....compliment-

Wonderful victory, sire.

Yes, yes, my argument works so well I must clearly be cheating or hacking or something.

That's kind of an interesting angle to look at it from-- but it doesn't really help you. Paying workers a larger wage (larger enough so that they'll buy some of what they produce) has what we can presume to be the same effect as giving away the same amount of product instead to random people

Except for the low cost

The low cost of substantially increasing the wages of every employee such that 100% of them will buy your product rather than none of them doing so..? That 'low' cost?

and the basic fact that since they built it they have a better idea of how to use it and therefore (in the case of the car) it probably will not end up broken in the middle of the street (bad advertising).

Do you really think working on an assembly line makes a person some kind of automotive engineer or mechanic? Ford employees tended to do just one extremely simple task repeatedly. "I'm an expert at tightening a bolt!" Oh boy. They also tend to live near the factory-- much better to geographically disperse your free samples than to put them all at the factory.

And on.

Please do go on, since none of that was in any way substantive or helpful to your point. Maybe you'll blunder into something helpful if you keep listing more things.

The fact that I can so easily dismiss this effect is a product of the reason I didn't include other consumers in my expression of the profitability of increasing wages.

Actually, the fact that you dismissing proves how little you thought about it.

No, I just know what an opportunity cost is and how it applies to this argument. If there is some effect of a wage increase that can be gotten by other means more profitably, then instead of increasing wages the business will do that other thing. There is no incentive to do the second best thing with your money-- there is a net disincentive, in fact.

So my point survives your assault: paying workers more than necessary to keep them working decreases rather than increases profit.

Of course your point succeeds. It is your model that sucks.

This is something that you cannot seem to wrap your head around so let me put it too you simply. You are right in principle but the way you went about proving it is 100% wrong. Your model sucks. Fucking get rid of it and I will have no problem.

Do you understand? Or do I have to simplify this even more?

I'm understanding you just fine, but what you are saying is false. Develop some humility and realize your mistakes.

To be sure I know the difference between libertarians and Objectivists- the former is a political philosophy I disagree with, the latter is downright philosophically incoherent (claiming both rationality and dogmatism at the same time.)

To me, it's simple- there needs to be a safety net, no matter how "undeserving" a recipient may be, and there need to be limitations on corporate power as much as government power. I don't necessarily think capitalism as a whole needs to be overthrown, but at the very least it must be reformed so that it works compassionately. (An end to wage slavery would be nice but let's start with the attainable goals.)

Overhead:
/snip

There is an ultimate force that influences people: money, and it transcends capitalism. Perhaps consider that it's not the capitalist system, but the spirit residing in many people no matter where they are.

Consolidating more into government is just going to make it the better proposition -- for the elite few that make it.

Agema:
> Governments long predate businesses (i.e. corporations) - they surely do not need them to exist.

>> Governance is enormously complex, as it needs to be to oversee the vast complexity of human existence. If it is "lean" then it is unlikely to dealing with complexity. There's a huge amount of injustice hiding in the fine detail.

> My point is that dependency is intertwined. It's clear you don't like corporations and take a hard line on capitalism, but this is all speculative and pointless when we consider how rife government is with the same mentality and power-hungry zealots going before crowds with dollar signs in their heads and social harm coming out of their mouths. In fact I'd even guess there are more beneficial businesses in the world than governments.

> Again, money and power are driving factors. If you're taking the bad with the good in government because it's not out to make the big dollar and expand their empires the way big business does, at the expense of the little guy, I have to call BS on that every time.

>> I disagree. The way to understand the complex is to make it simple. No small feat, but when you create an 11,000 page tax code you aren't overseeing a complex environment, you have created one.

Overhead:
That's probably one of your main problems. Opinion =/= fact.

Duh. Your main problem is the fact that you cannot understand when something is opinion and when it is fact.

So you're refusing to give an honest answer to two simple questions?

Two simple questions that are irrelevant.

Tell me something, your questions are irrelevant but also you insult and degrade me over and over again (even after I prove you wrong like in the Roman Plantation case) and somehow you expect me to play your game? You are not an honest debater and you have a very petty debating style. If you have nothing of value to say then stop cluttering my inbox.

Okay, in this post you avoided 100% of my questions and points.

Estimating by the size of my posts and the number of posts, you have avoided 231 questions.

Throwing out a bunch of numbers means nothing. Prove your point.

You haven't come back and asked me to answer any questions. If I've answered everything (Except the questions pending until after you answer these two) then you've nothing to complain about. If there is some question you feel I haven't answered, you've got to bring it up. It's not up to me to read your mind.

You do not need to read my mind you only need to read my posts.

I was wrong to make all of my claims.

Fixed it for you.

As I said the entire point he is making revolves around workers using their wages to buy some of the product from their company being a loss.
What you are claiming is the point is that in specifically a business which has no customers except it's employees the business will lose money.

You attack me as dishonest and then you keep changing Sean's arguments to fit your bias. Show me where he describes ANY other outside buyers. He doesn't. The model is limited to internal buyers. So let us change it back to how it should be-

As I said the entire point he is making revolves around workers using their wages to buy all of the product from their company being a loss. What you are claiming is the point is that in specifically a business which has no customers except it's employees the business will lose money.

Try reading that and tell me how they are different. Fail.

You keep trying to weasel your way out of this point but it still exists.

It's bad enough when you misunderstand everyone else's points, but when you misunderstand your own points too?

Yeah, I would not know how that feels. Tell me about it.

Seanchaidh:
Or when they are not significantly different in both circumstances.

They are significantly different.

No, that's just how it turned out-- that was the result of the comparison, not the premise of it.

Then why did you cut off all forms of profit other than employees?

The point is to figure out whether increasing wages above the market equilibrium has a positive influence on profitability, especially in a way that businesses would typically find to be worth doing.

A model which we could discuss if you had not cut off outside influences.

No, it allows for profit coming from anywhere. However, when you are measuring the difference between two quantities, and the same number is a part of both those quantities, it cancels out. (X+Y+Z)-(X+Y)=Z

You have cut off outside influences in your model. If we only look at what comes directly from employees then you cut off outside influences.

It does allow for them. My "model" is just "a business that makes something to sell and pays a wage to employees".

And people accuse me of weasel wording. You and I both know that you are making your model more generic so that you can pretend to be right. Your selling only to employees is a model. You created a space from which to discuss your ideas. Your space is not tied to the real world and because of that it is stupid. Models can be of different sizes and you know damn well that I am talking about your one model.

It counts against the idea that businesses have an incentive to make sure that there are other people existing.

No it doesn't unless you plan to argue that employees are the only consumers.

Does a dealer in addictive drugs that have negative side effects have an incentive to keep his clients alive and able to pay? Or should he attempt to maximize his sales in the short run even if some of his clients die or lose their jobs due to abuse of his product? If he has a choice, should he attempt to make his product more addictive (and thus more problematic to the lives of consumers)?

Problem, your model relies on comparing very different industries. How does a dealer get by when his customer cannot work anymore? Now he has a partner (a very disposable one). That by itself is valuable. If you make meth you can get these guys hooked and then get them to steal materials for you. Sure, 2/3 will get caught but as long as you are careful it does not lead back to you and the one that succeeds will drop your overall cost. Cool huh?

So, you are comparing an illegal business whose purpose is to continue to do illegal things (which by themselves are also harmful).

Does he want to warn people about the downsides of using his product in order to make sure those people continue to be around to buy it, or is it better to mislead? What does the history of the Tobacco industry have to tell us about this?

When talking about the Tobacco industry it is better for them to make safer products so that their people live longer. Technology has not caught up to their wishes but that does not change what they want.

Secondarily, Henry Ford popularized the gasoline powered automobile capable of transporting passengers on roads-- he was very far from inventing it (more than thirty years, depending on what you count as the first such automobile, actually.) He was able to popularize it because he made it very cheap. What he revolutionized was the production process and organization, not the product. He could get a lot more traction probably simply by publishing his prices.

I am aware. However, it does not matter. Fords were revolutionary to people because they were available and they could be seen. My Great-Grandfather told me about the first time he saw a car (I think he said it was in the 30s and it was a Ford) and he was surprised. He thought that they were a gimmick until he actually saw how they could be used. Doesn't matter who is first, it matters who convinces people. That is why Eli Whitney is the "inventor" of the Cotton Gin (among other so called inventions).

No, it did not. I said in the first place that a company could be profitable while paying more than what workers demand to work. What I did was examine the consequence of a decision that is very clearly unprofitable and came to the conclusion that it was very clearly unprofitable. It's fine.

No it is not. You crippled the model to ensure the outcome.

Do you really think working on an assembly line makes a person some kind of automotive engineer or mechanic?

More so than your average person in 1904.

Develop some humility and realize your mistakes.

You know, I was about the say the same thing to you.

AgedGrunt:

> My point is that dependency is intertwined. It's clear you don't like corporations and take a hard line on capitalism,

I do not dislike corporations as a whole at all, and generally support capitalism. There is a considerable difference between having strong criticisms of something and not liking or supporting it; or to put it another way, you can like something despite its faults.

but this is all speculative and pointless when we consider how rife government is with the same mentality and power-hungry zealots going before crowds with dollar signs in their heads and social harm coming out of their mouths. In fact I'd even guess there are more beneficial businesses in the world than governments.

Given the salaries for Western politicians and skills required to achieve high office, I suspect most of those people would have been better off trading on their talents to high positions in private sector employ, which is the best way to earn megabucks.

The ones out for vast enrichment usually depart the political process after they've managed to amass sufficient fame or insider knowledge that they can trade on it for far more money. Sarah Palin made more money off one TV deal than she would have from the salary of a whole 40-year working lifetime as governor of Alaska.

On the other hand, there are all sorts of problems in terms of links between politicians and business, and many politicians do probably have unsavoury interests of some sort that do not equate to the public good. It's not always easy to tell what is "social benefit" and what isn't - in most of the case it comes down to opinion, for politicians as for us.

> Again, money and power are driving factors. If you're taking the bad with the good in government because it's not out to make the big dollar and expand their empires the way big business does, at the expense of the little guy, I have to call BS on that every time.

I wouldn't dream for a minute of claiming government does not have considerable problems of its own that need resolution.

>> I disagree. The way to understand the complex is to make it simple. No small feat, but when you create an 11,000 page tax code you aren't overseeing a complex environment, you have created one.

The complex cannot just be made simple. Put it this way, I do teaching. And a certain amount of what I do when I teach people complex things at a level they'll understand is I exclude stuff. But that stuff is still important to how things really work.

Or take an example. We could simplify the laws on killing people by declaring anyone who kills another commits murder and gets life in prison. That's harsh on cases of self-defence, manslaughter, etc., but it's much simpler. This is what I mean by saying there's a lot of injustice possible in the fine detail.

You might certainly be right that the tax system could be cleaned out and simplified. Although I will quite bet you it would spend the next few decades reaccumulating complexity.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked