Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty

124

Comments

  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    Commy wrote:
    for it to be fair, those doing the most work should get the biggest slice of the pie yeah?

    well, doing the most work doesn't necessarily mean producing the most goods (or services) and the goods (or services) that provide the most utility to a consumer at a fair price. Not only do you have to work hard, you have to be good at what you do. If you don't like working hard, or are untalented, there is no room for you. Social darwinism at its best!
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    he still stands wrote:
    well, doing the most work doesn't necessarily mean producing the most goods (or services) and the goods (or services) that provide the most utility to a consumer at a fair price. Not only do you have to work hard, you have to be good at what you do. If you don't like working hard, or are untalented, there is no room for you. Social darwinism at its best!
    fair was the term used. Shouldn't the individual doing the work make the most money? The individuals on the factory floor. Those in the mills. How about teachers? And what about celebrities? A case could be made that they do very little and recieve many pies. Fair doesn't seem to be the right term when discussing laissez faire.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    he still stands wrote:
    No? I think you need to brush up on your ECON 101, homey.

    I do? Where in "ECON 101" do you learn that laissez faire economies lead invariably towards monopoly?
    Is the government a "for profit" entity like a business? If so, I have A LOT to learn about government!!! ;)

    Of course government is "for profit". Are you suggesting that government provides a value equal only to its cost (or less than its cost), or are you suggesting that you'd be cool with Exxon controlling all the world's oil as long as they don't make a profit?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Commy wrote:
    your term actually, you define it.

    Ok, fair enough.

    "Equitable" is the most just situation wherein people are treated exactly like what they are. In economics, equitable scenarios are scenarios wherein all involved parties benefit in values corresponding to the values of their contributions.

    If you agree, I'll answer your question. If you disagree, please provide your definition.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I do? Where in "ECON 101" do you learn that laissez faire economies lead invariably towards monopoly?
    Chapter 7.

    Fuck dude you are wearing me out here. I'm not going to lecture you about the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and why it was formed... do you not read about our government constantly shutting down proposed business mergers? Have you ever worked in this industry at a managerial level and seen the benefits towards being bigger and bigger with more economies of scale? I have and I know the evil fucking hell that is spewed out of mouths during corporate big-wig meetings. I love the idea of laissez faire economics, but people are generally so damn greedy, and once people have ties to the elite, or grab the upper hand from a strategic perspective, everyone else in that industry is fucked without government protection.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Of course government is "for profit". Are you suggesting that government provides a value equal only to its cost (or less than its cost), or are you suggesting that you'd be cool with Exxon controlling all the world's oil as long as they don't make a profit?

    huh? Yes I'm suggesting that an efficient government provides a service equal to its cost in taxpayer dollars. I'm not saying the US government, or any government for that matter, is completely efficient. But a lot of that goes back to big business and the ties with politicians. A lot of money is pulling government in every direction.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    he still stands wrote:
    Chapter 7.

    Of what?
    Fuck dude you are wearing me out here. I'm not going to lecture you about the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and why it was formed... do you not read about our government constantly shutting down proposed business mergers? Have you ever worked in this industry at a managerial level and seen the benefits towards being bigger and bigger with more economies of scale? I have and I know the evil fucking hell that is spewed out of mouths during corporate big-wig meetings. I love the idea of laissez faire economics, but people are generally so damn greedy, and once people have ties to the elite, or grab the upper hand from a strategic perspective, everyone else in that industry is fucked without government protection.

    The "Sherman Anti-Trust Act" does not prove that free markets invariably tend toward monopoly any more than a law against murder proves that all people invariably murder their neighbors.
    huh? Yes I'm suggesting that an efficient government provides a service equal to its cost in taxpayer dollars.

    Really? So in other words, if you got rid of government, you'd be no better or worse off?
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ok, fair enough.

    "Equitable" is the most just situation wherein people are treated exactly like what they are. In economics, equitable scenarios are scenarios wherein all involved parties benefit in values corresponding to the values of their contributions.

    If you agree, I'll answer your question. If you disagree, please provide your definition.
    Ok. But how can there be an equitable distribution of wealth when a fascist institution ii in charge of resource and wealth distribution? Which seems to be the case under laissez faire .

    btw, I'm not calling for equal pay, I like where you said "involved parties benefit in values corresponding to the values of their contributions". You could ask "how do they benefit?" Monetarily in a capitalist example, but how would they benefit in a socialist? Perhaps celebrities are made this way.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Of what?

    Sarcasm. Would you like me to define it for you?
    farfromglorified wrote:
    The "Sherman Anti-Trust Act" does not prove that free markets invariably tend toward monopoly any more than a law against murder proves that all people invariably murder their neighbors.

    If there wasn't a problem, the law wouldn't exist, correct? How many car manufacturers were there in the US 75 years ago? Hundreds. Most were small, family run businesses. Today? Two. GM and Ford. What about banking? Airlines? Telecommunications? Grain merchandising? Mining? Oil? How many companies existed within each industry compared to today? 1000x? 10,000x?
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Really? So in other words, if you got rid of government, you'd be no better or worse off?

    WTF? I said that they provide a value near to what the taxpayer dollar generates. There is always going to be waste, but that doesn't mean that I want anarchy... is that what you are saying because that is how it reads...
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Commy wrote:
    Ok. But how can there be an equitable distribution of wealth when a fascist institution ii in charge of resource and wealth distribution? Which seems to be the case under laissez faire .

    What "fascist institution" are you referring to?
    btw, I'm not calling for equal pay, I like where you said "involved parties benefit in values corresponding to the values of their contributions". You could ask "how do they benefit?" Monetarily in a capitalist example, but how would they benefit in a socialist? Perhaps celebrities are made this way.

    "Benefit" is not an objective term -- it is a subjective term relative to the expectations of each party. That is the essence of why laissez faire is such an equitable modality. It allows you to value your own goods and the goods of others and act according to your values, as opposed to someone else's values.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    he still stands wrote:
    Sarcasm. Would you like me to define it for you?

    I'm surprised you covered sarcasm in "econ 101".
    If there wasn't a problem, the law wouldn't exist, correct?

    LOL...that's a pretty complicated question. Regardless, the law doesn't prove what you want it to prove.
    How many car manufacturers were there in the US 75 years ago? Hundreds. Most were small, family run businesses. Today? Two. GM and Ford.

    If you're couting "small, family run businesses", there are still hundreds.
    What about banking? Airlines? Telecommunications? Grain merchandising? Mining? Oil? How many companies existed within each industry compared to today? 1000x? 10,000x?

    There are more banks, more airlines, more telecommunications firms, oil companies, and mining companies. Not sure about "grain merchandising".
    WTF? I said that they provide a value near to what the taxpayer dollar generates. There is always going to be waste, but that doesn't mean that I want anarchy... is that what you are saying because that is how it reads...

    I don't think you're understanding my question. I'm asking you if you are profitting from the existence of government -- meaning, are you better off than you would be if government simply didn't exist.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What "fascist institution" are you referring to?

    corporations.
    "Benefit" is not an objective term -- it is a subjective term relative to the expectations of each party. That is the essence of why laissez faire is such an equitable modality. It allows you to value your own goods and the goods of others and act according to your values, as opposed to someone else's values.


    When I was a lead cook at a 3 star restaraunt, making 11 million a year for a group of owners, I was making some $30,000 a year. Did I benefit from my labor? Yes. Was it relative to how much I produced for the company? No.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Commy wrote:
    corporations.

    Can you expound on this? I run a corporation. How am I a fascist?
    When I was a lead cook at a 3 star restaraunt, making 11 million a year for a group of owners, I was making some $30,000 a year. Did I benefit from my labor? Yes. Was it relative to how much I produced for the company? No.

    How much, in dollars, did you produce for the company?
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I'm surprised you covered sarcasm in "econ 101".

    Wow I guess you didn't follow me on this one... thats okay.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    LOL...that's a pretty complicated question. Regardless, the law doesn't prove what you want it to prove.

    Yes, it does actually.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    If you're couting "small, family run businesses", there are still hundreds.

    No, there isn't. Name one please. (I'll give you a hint, the last one was a guy named "Delorean" and his cars were funded by Cocaine sales)
    farfromglorified wrote:
    There are more banks, more airlines, more telecommunications firms, oil companies, and mining companies. Not sure about "grain merchandising".

    nope. do you just say whatever you want regardless of fact?
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I don't think you're understanding my question. I'm asking you if you are profitting from the existence of government -- meaning, are you better off than you would be if government simply didn't exist.

    Am I profiting personally? Yes. The government provides many benefits to me for the low low price of $30,000 per year!
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    he still stands wrote:
    Wow I guess you didn't follow me on this one... thats okay.

    I did follow you.
    Yes, it does actually.

    No, it doesn't. You said this:

    "The trend of any free market system will always be towards monopolies".

    Your "evidence" of this fact was a law against monopolies.
    No, there isn't. Name one please. (I'll give you a hint, the last one was a guy named "Delorean" and his cars were funded by Cocaine sales)

    :rolleyes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors
    nope. do you just say whatever you want regardless of fact?

    Feel free to show me the facts that show there are less banks, communications companies, oil companies and airlines as there were 75 years ago.
    Am I profiting personally? Yes. The government provides many benefits to me for the low low price of $30,000 per year!

    So, given your claims above that government provides services equal in value to its cost, you'd be just as happy and well off keeping your $30k? Or would you like to reconsider your earlier claim?
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Can you expound on this? I run a corporation. How am I a fascist?

    in a corporate environment the laborers have no say in how the company operates, have no say in who is hired (usually), have no say in day to day operations. Its a top down structure, usually a small group or 1 individual in charge of the entire company.
    How much, in dollars, did you produce for the company?


    math. As near as I can figure its

    1500x$50/6 per weekend and
    300x50$/5 per weekday night.
    /6

    $94000 a year.

    idk. its hard to figure. I was doing a lot of the inventory, ordering and closing, more than the average individual working there, and this is an average estimate.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I did follow you.

    No, you obviously didn't. Describe to me what I meant.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No, it doesn't. You said this:

    "The trend of any free market system will always be towards monopolies".

    Your "evidence" of this fact was a law against monopolies.

    Among other evidence.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    :rolleyes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors

    How many others?

    :rolleyes:
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Feel free to show me the facts that show there are less banks, communications companies, oil companies and airlines as there were 75 years ago.

    Feel free to show me evidence that you breath air.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    So, given your claims above that government provides services equal in value to its cost, you'd be just as happy and well off keeping your $30k? Or would you like to reconsider your earlier claim?

    Well, logically, you make no sense here whatsoever. If I claim that the government provides me a service near to the dollar value, why would I be just as happy keeping that $30K? Who else is going to provide this service to me?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    he still stands wrote:
    No, you obviously didn't. Describe to me what I meant.

    You meant to belittle my knowledge of economics by sarcastically suggesting that your claims were basic economics. I called your bluff and now you're simply backpeddling.
    Among other evidence.

    What "other evidence" do you have that free markets invariably trend toward monopoly? What you have provided so far is not evidence at all.
    How many others?

    :rolleyes:

    LOL...there are lots more. Phoenix Motorcars is another. Chrysler is another. If we get into the boutique hand-builders, there are dozens more.
    Feel free to show me evidence that you breath air.

    What kind of insane response is this? I obviously "breath air" as I'm a human being alive enough to respond to you. If you were here, there are all sorts of chemical proofs to futher demonstrate that I "breath air".

    What I asked for is some basic evidence of your claims that there are fewer banks, more telecommunications firms, etc. You obviously have none to offer.
    Well, logically, you make no sense here whatsoever. If I claim that the government provides me a service near to the dollar value, why would I be just as happy keeping that $30K? Who else is going to provide this service to me?

    *Sigh*

    If government's service, to you, is only "near to the dollar value", that implies that it is worth no more than than the dollars to you. Would you buy a stick of gum for $20? Or would you only instead be willing to pay $.20, since that is more consistent with its actual value to you?

    When you exchange one thing ($30k) for another thing (government services), you are tacitly saying that the latter thing has a greater value than the first. Exchanging one thing for another thing of greater value is known as profit. Do you still believe government is a "non-profit"?

    When you ask "who else is going to provide this service to me", you simply reiterate what I said earlier -- government is an enforced monopoly for the majority of the services it provides. Complain about monopolies while advocating for government is contradictory and silly.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Commy wrote:
    in a corporate environment the laborers have no say in how the company operates, have no say in who is hired (usually), have no say in day to day operations. Its a top down structure, usually a small group or 1 individual in charge of the entire company.

    This is half-truth. Rare is the corporation where "1 individual" is in charge of the "entire company" in terms of operations. Most corporations have boards or shareholders or networks of managers. However, certainly corporations are "top down structures". I'm failing to see how this is "fascist", however.

    Fascism is intrinsically linked with nationalism, authoritarianism, and force. While it's certainly plausible that corporations can grow into fascist bodies, I fail to see one example of this, let alone a dominant trend. Most corporations are not nationalistic and in fact are becoming more and more internationally focused. Most corporations are not authoritarian -- they cannot command customer bases and their employees are almost entirely there voluntarily. Most corporations value exchange over force -- they provide goods or services to willing market participants in exchange for money or other goods and services. The dominant trends in corporations then are not fascistic at all.

    Laborers, in a corporation, are sellers. They sell their labor in exchange for steady salary payments and risk avoidance. A person in a car factory may very well contribute greatly to the production of automobiles, but that person does not necessarily earn a equal or large share of the sale of that automobile. Why? Because that person isn't selling automobiles, they are selling their abilities to work in factory. That ability has a relatively low market value and the individual's payment for their service will match that relative low value.
    math. As near as I can figure its

    1500x$50/6 per weekend and
    300x50$/5 per weekday night.
    /6

    $94000 a year.

    idk. its hard to figure. I was doing a lot of the inventory, ordering and closing, more than the average individual working there, and this is an average estimate.

    Where do these numbers come from? What is "1500" or "300"? Are those hours? Where did the $50 figure come from? If you believe these numbers to be the actual value of your labor, why would you have ever sold it for $30k per year?

    What you're missing here is that labor itself is a product. And like any product, labor has a market value relative to the valuation to its sellers and buyers. An average cook in a restaurant has a low value since there is a very high supply of average cooks in the marketplace relative to the demand.

    Capitalistic structures are highly equitable because they tend toward providing people with values equal to investment. This means that a person who provides small values to society extracts small payments from society whereas people who provide lots of value to society extract large payments from society. The value you provide to society is not yours to name -- it is society's to judge. This is the beauty of capitalism in terms of individual freedom. Every member of a free market is free to judge the value of their own labor and the labor of others without being able to directly force the imposition of those values onto others as happens in systems dominated by authoritarian constructs. Those who disagree with this tend to hold up the "laborer" as a counter-example but fail to realize that the value a basic laborer provides to society is very small even if he or she works very hard. Society, time and time again, judges basic, expendable labor to be of a very low value.

    Obviously, no capitalistic system is perfect in terms of equity. Even the best of free market systems will have its victims. Those who sell free market "utopias" in which each person gets out of the system exactly what they put in are selling fantasies. That said, most economists would agree that free market systems achieve levels of equity higher than their alternatives.

    For instance, communistic structures are not equitable at all as they guarantee levels of consumption largely decoupled from levels of production. This is why they fail. A person in a communistic system can provide zero value to society while still extracting value from society, the opposite of equity.

    This does not suggest that capitalism is preferrable from all perspectives. It simply defends it economically in the context of "equity". Certainly one can argue that capitalistic systems can be and are brutal. Socialistic (or better Keynesian) systems, as are found in most industrial nations, try to strike a balance between the two options above. They seek to ensure a certain level of equality by sacrificing the equity found in the free market.
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You meant to belittle my knowledge of economics by sarcastically suggesting that your claims were basic economics. I called your bluff and now you're simply backpeddling.

    Nope. Try again?
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What "other evidence" do you have that free markets invariably trend toward monopoly? What you have provided so far is not evidence at all.

    The evidence of 6 major industries gravitating towards fewer and fewer players until they have, today, reach an oligarchical structure. Without government intervention tomorrow they would all be monopolies.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    LOL...there are lots more. Phoenix Motorcars is another. Chrysler is another. If we get into the boutique hand-builders, there are dozens more.

    Chrysler? You mean Cerberus?

    Phoenix Motorcars won't do since they purchase all of their major components from GM and Ford and slap in an electric motor. I asked about manufacturers, not assemblers.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What kind of insane response is this? I obviously "breath air" as I'm a human being alive enough to respond to you. If you were here, there are all sorts of chemical proofs to futher demonstrate that I "breath air".

    Again, do you know the definition of sarcasm?
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What I asked for is some basic evidence of your claims that there are fewer banks, more telecommunications firms, etc. You obviously have none to offer.

    No, I'm not going to conduct research for you. If you doubt what I say do your own research and you will find that what I have learned in books and during college is correct.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    *Sigh*

    If government's service, to you, is only "near to the dollar value", that implies that it is worth no more than than the dollars to you. Would you buy a stick of gum for $20? Or would you only instead be willing to pay $.20, since that is more consistent with its actual value to you?

    When you exchange one thing ($30k) for another thing (government services), you are tacitly saying that the latter thing has a greater value than the first. Exchanging one thing for another thing of greater value is known as profit. Do you still believe government is a "non-profit"?

    Yes, the government is non-profit. Show me their income statement, please.

    A good or service might provide me slightly less utility than what I could have otherwise had with that dollar spent. That is the case here. But if NOBODY paid the government then I would be much worse off than I am now. So in the practical sense I am getting much more utility on the dollar here than if I had spent that dollar elsewhere.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    When you ask "who else is going to provide this service to me", you simply reiterate what I said earlier -- government is an enforced monopoly for the majority of the services it provides. Complain about monopolies while advocating for government is contradictory and silly.

    There is a fine line between "Laissez faire politics" and anarchy. It is unfair to compare a government with a monopoly because 1) we the people control who is in that government 2) our government today is a democracy, not a republic, and the congressman/senators have the duty to enforce policies that benefit the people of their district 3) we don't control who the decision makers are in the oligarchies/monopolies of America 4) the few decision makers in Corporations don't have to enforce decisions that benefit the people of their company, they have a duty to their shareholders to make a dollar at all costs. 5) Because they have no fiduciary duty to their employees, and because they are out to destory/take over the competition, there are a few people getting very rich while the rest of us think we are doing well if we make $50k per year.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    farfromglorified wrote:
    When you exchange one thing ($30k) for another thing (government services), you are tacitly saying that the latter thing has a greater value than the first. Exchanging one thing for another thing of greater value is known as profit. Do you still believe government is a "non-profit"?
    I'ms sorry to intrude in your discussion but isn't the government working for the society rather than the individual? I mean, you pay 30k to your government, but not just for services benefitting to you, but to uphold values for the community (or society) seeked by the community (or society). In this case you don't exchange your 30k for a service but you give in your share to maintain your society (your brick to the building or something like that).

Categories