BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


What's so good about Market Forces, anyway?

 
  

Page: 123(4)567

 
 
jbsay
14:22 / 07.12.04
You claim that we are talking about individuals
Yup
but you need people to behave as one in order to make your model of a) "socialist" apocalypse certain and b) capitalist utopianism workable.
At the heart of your argument you have to represent people as simultaneously capital-handling individuals and as an undifferentiated mass who, provided with pure capitalism will LIVE IN PLENTY and if kept in socialist slavery will BURN, BURN AND DIE.


I need nothing of the sort. I'm saying that each individual human acts. Not that they all act identically.
 
 
jbsay
14:32 / 07.12.04
Kit Kat--

Good points. Again, that was one example of how to limit the destructive role of government. There are many other possibilities, including no government at all. Personally, I'd be happy to protect my property myself. Others (particularly socialists) would rightfull worry about how to protect the private property of people who can't protect themselves. These are administrative issues for capitalism, that might or might not make "pure" capitalism possible. It is not a glaring error with the theory. Different communities could probably come up with different solutions that best fit their needs. If the socialists really want a socialist community, they could even set it up on private property such that it doesn't force OTHER people into their socialist utopia. Contrast this with the fact that under socialism there are no property rights of individuals AND the public can't allocate resources.

Saying that a small tax is as bad as a big tax makes no sense. That's like saying that killing one person is as bad as killing a million. Both are bad, but there are clearly degrees. Is a small tax perfect, pure capitalism? No. will it distort the economy? Yes. Will it lead to total ruination such as by the majority of the ownership of means of production in the hands of the public? No.
 
 
jbsay
14:42 / 07.12.04
To the earlier point about me not understanding "history". I am well aware of the difference between "history" and "prediction".

By history, I was referring to virtually every socialist country turning into an economic and social basket case.

Want to analyze history? We can start with National Socialism. This is also known as Nazi-ism. The socialists printed a lot of marks, and had all sorts of goofy socialist economic policies (social security, which is now about to bite america in the ass, was developed by Otto von Bismark. he wanted to win over votes. he asked his actuary what the statistical average age of death was, and then promised benefits to all citizens after this age. unfortunately, the life span expanded which screws up this little ponzi scheme. oops). The shopowners in germany had legal ownership of their shops, but in actuality all business was planned for them by the government via regulation etc (public ownership). ALl of this, plus crippling debt led to hyperinflation. Hitler was democratically voted into power. Do you see lots of pictures of smiling jews in concentration camps in Germany? Lots of puppy dogs prancing towards rainbows, and pretty girls singing and dancing during WWII? I dont remember how that turned out.

Or, we can look at Russia. Good economy? If they werent doing gain-on-asset-sales of commodities and looking at prices in the capitalist world, would have collapsed long before it did. Were the 13 million Ukrainians who starved to death and turned to cannibalism happy with the results of socialism?

How about all the people who died under Pol Pot, Mao, or Castro. Nice people? Good role models? Noticing a pattern here?

Or, more recently, let's look at south america. How'd that turn out? Good economies? You own a lot of pesos? You happy?
 
 
jbsay
14:57 / 07.12.04
Speaking of Bismark, that really nice guy came up with your public education system as well. Basically, after Prussia (war-state) got its ass kicked by Napolean they were embarrassed and needed a way to make the nation "more efficient" so this wouldnt happen again. In short, they needed more obedient citizens. Note that the US socialists imported this Prussian system.

From an unreferenced article someone sent me once, but I've read Gatto's boook (Underground History of Education)


Prior to the advent of “public education”, the literacy rate for Americans was considerably higher than after the introduction of what amounted to a Prussian system of education. An important reference to this aspect of the U. S. educational system is contained in John Taylor Gatto’s exceptional article on The Public School Nightmare. Gatto, it might be noted is a two-time winner of New York State’s “Teacher of the Year”. His article is absolutely essential reading for anyone who thinks education is always beneficial.

The importation of the Prussian educational System was not without a reason.

Briefly, the Prussians divide all student into three groups: The children of society’s elite, comprising 0.5% of the society, who are actually educated; a second, more open category, comprising 5.5% of the remaining children, who were sent to schools where they were partially taught to think, and the remaining 94% who were sent to work schools to learn “harmony, obedience, freedom from stressful thinking and how to follow orders.” The Prussian system does not specify it as such, but Americans have evolved a fourth category.

The idea is now to take the great mass of people within the jurisdiction of a governmental authority, and split them into four groups:

1) The first group are the elite (as in the Prussian model) -- almost always the children of the previous generation of the elite (i.e. governmental and societal leaders), who do not go to public schools, but instead are sent to selected private schools where they are taught to be the leaders of society. On rare occasion, someone enormously talented (primarily in gathering power) is granted admission into the elite, and thereafter (a few generations), their children may become full-fledged elitists themselves.

(This leaves the public education system to deal with the rest of humanity. As such it is designed to identify and separate the three other groups, i.e.

2) A second group, known as the Creatives, are those individuals who provide the brain power to advance technology and the quality of life. These are “accidents of birth” where a particular, random gene pattern produces a genius. Said genius can be manifested as talents in everything from art and music to science and engineering -- no one in the elite cares as long as the “genius” creates a better technology and an improved quality of life for the elite. These children are sent to what the Prussians called “real” schools, but where the so-called education is geared to “thinking in a box” (i.e. specialization), and avoids universality or generality (from whence derives the word, “university”).

3) A third group, known affectionately as the Masses, are those individuals who are expected to obey authority, never question the controllers, and seldom think (and even then almost never take action based on their few errant thoughts). Instead, they believe in the bastardized “Work Ethic” as something marvelously good. These are the targets of all the advertising and marketing -- including government and media propaganda. These are the people who in order to demonstrate their patriotism, go to wars that benefit only the banksters and corporations. These are the believers in authority who dutifully pay their taxes to an immoral government. They are the clear majority, but recent trends suggest the Creatives may be gaining in percentage population of the mass of humanity.

4) A fourth group, an American invention known as the Rabble Rousers, are those individuals who early on question authority, think independently, and are uncooperative in becoming mere cogs in the machine. The principle goal of the American educational system is prevent these types from gaining the ability to learn how to affect the system, and if necessary, to simply weed them out all together -- preferably by getting them completely out of the school system. These are the same individuals who market analysts consider “fringe members” of society. They -- as well as the Creatives -- are never pitched to in advertisements, in that they either don’t have the money to buy anything (particularly the “Fringees”), or even if they have the money, they are not as subject to manipulation by the advertisers as others, and thus by extension are not easily marketed to. They are ignored, or as politicians, advertisers, and other liars refer to it: “marginalized”. Anyone reading this website is in serious danger of becoming a Rabble Rouser!

Meanwhile, the Media’s job is to cater to the second and third group, keeping the masses in line, and hopefully, keeping the Creatives from getting too creative in terms of new and interesting ways of becoming independent of their government and the elite’s leadership.

A vitally important part of the educational system is to break the link between reading and the young child, because a child who reads too well becomes knowledgeable and independent from the system of instruction and is capable of finding out anything. In order to have an efficient policy-making class and a sub-class beneath it, you’ve got to remove the power of most people to make anything out of available information. This can be done by discouraging reading, or making distractions as entertaining as possible. This explains in part the enormous success of television and radio. Don’t read; don’t think; watch television (or in a pinch, listen to radio). Above all: Don’t think. That’s called in politics: “Staying on message.”

Another technique is the use of “positive language” (i.e. a “no-contradiction principle”). This is one that can be and is encouraged by the (Prussian-style) authorities to be used in the home. According to this concept, when one parent tells a child something, the other parent (or “significant other”) must concur. Unfortunately, in this manner, the parents are (unknowingly?) avoiding a situation where two diverse viewpoints could be rationally presented, and the child then obliged to use (and/or develop) an ability to judge between alternatives, and thus access avenues of critical thinking, self-reliance, autonomy, and ultimately, flexibility. The “no-contradiction principle” motivates children to become used to following authority figures, rather than questioning received wisdom and thus thinking for themselves. Such a system is anti-Discrimination -- in the negative sense.

The idea children need “positive language” in order to learn the truths that are necessary for survival is not the issue. Any such truths must be taught by acts, not by words! The idea is to insist that a child not blindly follow the words of an authority figure (the parent), but to model themselves on how the parent acts, even if their actions are in contradiction with their words. A mind is a terrible thing to waste in a dysfunctional educational system.

But it gets worse.

1963 saw the culmination of research by a combination of German, chemical medicine and Wundt psychology on American upbringing. This group of scientific researchers centered at John Hopkins University, and supported by the General Education Board, reached the point where they concluded that they could use amphetamines like Dextrines and Ritalin to “treat” children that were considered “difficult” or hyperactive -- see, for example, “The Myth of the Hyperactive Child, and other Means of Child Control” by Divoky and Schrag.

The subsequent national terror occasioned by the wide-spread use of Ritalin, et al and Mandatory Vaccines constitute a tragedy far in excess of 9-11-2001. All, of course, in the name of control.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:23 / 07.12.04
1) We both know that you are advocating as much control as possible (majority) on the public side,

No. You imagined that, because you believe that everyone who does not agree with you is a Trotskyite. Find anywhere I have said that. You appear to be easily distracted.

2) You have told us that all societies not built according to your principles are socialist. Therefore, I would like you to explain, country by country, why every single country on Earth is currently indulging in the cannibalism and poverty you identify as the lot of all socialist systems. Start with Sweden. I didn't set this definition - you did.

3) Your history is off. The hyperinflation crisis was in 1923-24. Hitler was not elected until quite some time later. The two events are causally connected, but often badly taught as contiguous. Talk about causes and effects if you can, otherwise I'd suggest leaving it. The fact that you see the Holocaust as nothing more than a Godwintastic brickbat to throw at the armies of imaginary Bolsheviks you find surrounding you is near-psychotic in its indifference to the weight of human suffering, by the way.
 
 
pacha perplexa
17:31 / 07.12.04
How'd that turn out?

No idea. Tell us how it turned out.


You own a lot of pesos?

No. We work with reais, actually.


You happy?

Yeah, I'm happy.


Good economies?

No. You?
 
 
jbsay
17:33 / 07.12.04
Tann

No. You imagined that, because you believe that everyone who does not agree with you is a Trotskyite. Find anywhere I have said that. You appear to be easily distracted.
By "you" i meant the other side of the debate (we are debating capitalism v. socialism). I have clearly defined what both capitalism AND socialism are.

2) You have told us that all societies not built according to your principles are socialist. Therefore, I would like you to explain, country by country, why every single country on Earth is currently indulging in the cannibalism and poverty you identify as the lot of all socialist systems. Start with Sweden. I didn't set this definition - you did.

I've also said there are DEGREES of socialism and that just because something HASN'T exploded yet doesn't mean its not a time bomb WAITING to explode.

Again, I have shown you the theory (or proof, depending on your viewpoint) of why socialism is incorrect and you are telling me to prove every hypothetical case that falls out of this theorem (again, using statistics, which are not valid to human action). This is not a valid debating tactic. You don't ask Newton to show that every single time object interact F=ma. He showed it once, the rest follows. THe burder is up to you to disprove the theory.

Again, in the realm of social sciences, using examples to "prove the theory" is impossible since it ignores, among other things, opportunity costs (which are invisible, as per Bastiat). This doesn't mean you can't use history HIGHLIGHT the issues, it just means its not proof. The US hasn't imploded yet. But you can see very clearly (go the BIS web site at the government) that the dollar has lost 96-98% of its purchasing power since the socialistic central bank was put into place. This is an unmitigated disaster and has caused untold misery to the population (particularly people living on fixed income).


3) Your history is off. The hyperinflation crisis was in 1923-24. Hitler was not elected until quite some time later. The two events are causally connected, but often badly taught as contiguous. Talk about causes and effects if you can, otherwise I'd suggest leaving it. The fact that you see the Holocaust as nothing more than a Godwintastic brickbat to throw at the armies of imaginary Bolsheviks you find surrounding you is near-psychotic in its indifference to the weight of human suffering, by the way.
It's not off. I was summarizing a series of events. If you also think that because i listed a bunch of events that Bismarck "caused" Hitler then we've got some issues. I can re-summarize if you want. The idiot government following socialist principles (such as printing money) CAUSED hyperinflation which CAUSED a lot of pain and suffering which CAUSED the people to cry out to the government to "do something" and CAUSED them to vote hitler into power which set in motion the events that CAUSED the holocaust. OK? And if there are no private property rights, Hitler can very logically argue that the citizens are rightfully the property of the state (or the "public good") and that it is in the "public good" to purify society along racial lines and exterminate jews. Better?
 
 
jbsay
17:55 / 07.12.04
As for sweden (I don't fully endorse this article since it using statistics to compare the health of economies, and we've already been thru why this is impossible).

Sweden: Poorer Than You Think
by William L. Anderson

[Posted May 16, 2002]

One of the enduring myths of the "Third Way" welfare state is that a nation as a whole can have a high standard of living--even if no one really has to work--as long as government transfers massive amounts of wealth from those who are well off to those who are less well off. For the past four decades, we have been inundated with news stories, books, and public commentary, all of which have exhorted us to be like Sweden.

The Swedes, we have been told, enjoy free medical care, generous welfare benefits, time off from work, and subsidies for just about everything. When one counters that Swedes pay enormously high taxes, the standard reply is, "That is true, but look at what they receive for their payments."

According to a recent study, however, the cat is out of the bag. Relative to household in the United States, Swedish family income is considerably less. In fact, the study concludes, average income in Sweden is less than average income for black Americans, which comprise the lowest-income socioeconomic group in this country.

The research came from the Swedish Institute of Trade, which, according to Reuters, "compared official U.S. and Swedish statistics on household income as well as gross domestic product, private consumption and retail spending per capita between 1980 and 1999."

The study used "fixed prices and purchasing power parity adjusted data," and found that "the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households." Furthermore, the study points out that Swedish productivity has fallen rapidly relative to per capital productivity in the USA.

In defense of the Swedes, let me first say that simple comparisons of income can be deceiving. While I have never been to Sweden (even though I have relatives there), I would think that even the poorest sections of Stockholm and other Swedish cities are more livable and attractive than what one finds in many U.S. cities. Even with the high taxes, I think I would rather live in downtown Stockholm than in downtown Detroit or Newark.

However, the study alerts us to something that is much more important, and that is that the European welfare states are not making their citizens wealthier. Over time, the cracks in these relatively wealthy nations are growing larger, and if the disease is not arrested, much of Europe will tumble off into real poverty in the not-so-distant future. Europeans--and, most likely, Americans--seem destined to learn the hard way that large, seemingly intractable welfare systems have their way of destroying the Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs.

While people can debate the present condition of Swedes in Stockholm versus blacks in Harlem, there is a deep issue here that people seem to forget when it comes to welfare states: they are destructive at their roots. Advocates of welfarism concentrate only upon distribution while vilifying production. Such a state of affairs cannot go on forever as governments are forced to cannibalize their own capital structure over time in order to make the system to continue to work.

The premises of the welfare state are as follows: (1) free markets, if not regulated by the state, lead to continuing inequality, as wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people, while more and more people become poorer; (2) the only way to combat this problem is for the state to take a large portion of earnings from the wealthy and distribute it among others; and (3) such distribution actually enables the economy to grow, since growing concentration means that fewer people will have the ability to consume the products that are created within a private-market system.

Karl Marx developed the first premise into his theories, calling this the "internal contradiction" of capitalism. However, the statement contains its own internal contradictions, as it creates an impossible scenario.

As Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard have pointed out, in a private-market society, individuals cannot gain wealth unless they produce goods that are demanded by large numbers of people. For example, it was Henry Ford who became rich producing cars, not the producers of early luxury automobiles that were accessible only to the wealthiest people in American society. Ford developed a method in which he could create cars that most people could afford, yet keep his costs low enough to where he could still make a profit. The most successful producers in our economy have been those people who make goods accessible to people across all socioeconomic levels.

Wal-Mart, which is another example, became the largest corporation in this country--and one of the most successful--by creating a retail system that would enable large numbers of people to conveniently do their shopping. In fact, Wal-Mart began its route to success by building discount stores in rural areas and small towns that were shunned by larger department stores and enterprises like the now-bankrupt Kmart.

Therefore, it seems that if producers are becoming wealthier, it can only occur if consumers are purchasing on a large scale what the the producers are producing. The first statement justifying the welfare state does not have a good causal mechanism, for it does not explain how this transfer of wealth from poor to rich takes place, especially since it makes the implicit assumption that the voluntary purchase of goods is actually a wealth transfer. Such a statement turns the age-old theory of exchange--that economic exchanges create mutual beneficiaries--upon its head.

If anything, wealth transfers inhibit economic growth, not increase it. For one, it violently penalizes entrepreneurs for being successful. By accusing those who create wealth of actually being the ones who destroy wealth, welfarists do violence to language itself. If enough people are punished for creating wealth, less wealth will be created in the future. The more government impedes the creation and distribution of wealth, the less that will be created, which means that those people who are on the margins--that is, those who are less productive--are the first to be hurt. Thus, the welfare state actually makes the poor worse off in the long run.

This notion that the welfare state actually "helps" an economy is also bogus. As I stated earlier, consumption of goods must first take place before producers can reap the rewards from creating them. Furthermore, welfare regimes that attack business enterprises by confiscating their profits also impede future capital formation.

This became quite apparent to me in 1982 when I went to Central Europe, including what was then East Berlin, the capital of the former communist East Germany. While East Berlin was likened to being the "Paris" of the then-communist world, it was more like a huge time warp in which one was placed back in 1948. The entire city was shabby, and what new construction there was had the appearance and attractiveness of a typical American public housing project.

While the western portion of Germany was better kept and more modern than its eastern counterpart, it was still like traveling back to the 1960s. West Germany had a well-developed welfare state by then, having shunned its earlier model as an engine of free enterprise. A close friend who is a dentist brought this point home to me.

Like other medical care, dentistry in Germany is run on socialist principles. That means that individuals do not pay directly for dental (or medical) care, which is provided by the state. My friends, who were vacationing in Germany, visited a number of dental offices and found that the facilities looked like dentist offices in the United States four decades ago. In other words, the German dentists are still depending upon old capital.

One of the worst aspects of socialism, economically speaking, is that it has the perverse tendency to turn new capital from an asset--as is the case in a free-market economy--into a liability. German dentists have no incentive to purchase more modern equipment, since it is expensive and patients have nowhere else to go. In fact, wherever socialist medicine has been practiced for a long time, one can readily see deterioration of capital stock.

For many years, Sweden, like its European counterparts, has been eating its capital stock instead of replenishing it. Some high-profile Swedish companies like Volvo have been able to remain well capitalized, but even those companies are now finding it more attractive to locate in other nations, where their profits are not so readily confiscated.

The Swedes and other northern Europeans are somewhat lucky in that they have had a relatively high standard of living. People in southern European nations like Italy and Spain--where high taxes and vast regulatory agencies abound--find themselves to be much poorer and with no prospects of real improvement.

Unfortunately, many Europeans (like our Canadian neighbors) believe that a vast welfare apparatus makes them morally superior to nations that do not have the same scope of benefits. (While one can point out that the United States has a huge welfare bureaucracy itself, it does not offer the same "generous," long-term benefits of the European states.) While they prattle on about their moral superiority and their egalitarianism, however, something else is happening. They are slowly becoming poorer and poorer, and the welfare state cannot save them. It can only accelerate their downward slide.
 
 
jbsay
18:01 / 07.12.04
More on sweden from lewrockwell.com

Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism
by David Dieteman

"I was walking through Gamla Stan, the Old Town in Stockholm, when it struck me that Sweden was the only country I’d ever been in with no visible crazy people. Where were the mutterers, the twitchers, the loony importunate?"

P.J. O’Rourke, Eat the Rich, Ch. 4

Sweden is the poster state for those who believe in the power of the government to solve all problems.

Frequently referred to as a "benevolent" socialist or social democratic state, to distinguish it from the run-of-the-mill socialist butcher shop, such as Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia, Sweden is the Promised Land of the Left. Where the USSR was a departure from the genius of Karl Marx, Sweden shows the potential.

(As an aside, O’Rourke notes that the US ambassador to Sweden at the time of his visit was Thomas Siebert. He was Bill Clinton’s roommate at Georgetown. O’Rourke also notes that Mrs. Siebert is a friend of Hillary Clinton. Americans can stop wondering where the most intelligent and courageous female politician ever known finds inspiration for her collectivist dreams.)

As usual, the rosy picture painted by the Left could not be farther from the truth.

First, assume that everything the Left has to say about Sweden is true. This would only make Sweden the exception which proves the rule. In other words, even if Sweden were heaven on earth, this fails to answer the question of why Cuba, China, North Korea, the USSR, and most of Africa, Latin and Central America, and Asia are much more akin to Hell on earth.

Second, it must be noted that the touted stories of Swedish socialism, if not generally false, omit important facts.

For starters, unlike the godless state to which American leftists aspire, Lutheranism is the state-supported religion of Sweden. (Despite this fact, less than 10 per cent of Swedes regularly attend church).

With respect to claim that Swedish socialism shows the "success" of socialism, as O’Rourke notes, free trade reigned in Sweden from roughly 1846 until the Social Democrats were elected in 1932. After 1932, Sweden was helped by its neutrality in World War Two. Unlike Germany, Sweden’s major cities were not bombed flat. The Social Democrats, then, had a great deal of wealth produced by capitalism and undamaged by war to share as political spoils.

According to a Swiss federal government statistical comparison of Switzerland and Sweden, the percentage of Swedish unmarried pregnancies in 1996 was 54% percent – roughly equal to the black community in the United States. The reason for this high rate of unwed pregnancies is apparent in both cases, and it is not illegal drugs: the state gives incentives to unwed mothers in the form of social benefits, with predictable results. Why go through the hassle of getting married or staying married when a government check means that such a decision has no practical consequences for your life? Over the long-term, a 54% illegitimacy rate can only undermine Swedish society.

Worst of all, the Swedes have not always acted benevolently, as reported on page A1 of the August 29, 1997, Washington Post,


From 1934 to 1974, 62,000 Swedes were sterilized as part of a national program grounded in the science of racial biology and carried out by officials who believed they were helping to build a progressive, enlightened welfare state...In some cases, couples judged to be inferior parents were sterilized, as were their children when they became teenagers.

Margot Wallstrom, the Swedish Minister of Health and Social Affairs, told the Post that "there was nothing secret about the sterilization program. It was carried out in the light of public debate at a time when Swedes believed they were creating a society that would be the envy of the world." The Swedish Institute for Racial Biology, founded in 1922, was the first national institute of the kind. The Swedes were also the first to sterilize the mentally ill, beginning in 1934.

One woman, aged 72 at the time of the Post article, was sterilized "because she couldn’t read a blackboard because she did not have eyeglasses and was deemed to be retarded."

The Post also reports that Dagens Nyheter, the Swedish newspaper which ran a multi-part documentary of the sterilization program, contended that the ruling party at the time – the Social Democrats – "accepted the policy as an essential part of their overall philosophy." This claims is supported by the fact that, as noted above, the Social Democrats came to power in Sweden in 1932. In other words, they waited a mere two years before embarking on a program of eugenics. This would appear to make the eugenics program a high priority for the Social Democrats, as Dagens Nyheter contended.

The Irish Times of August 30, 1997, meanwhile, reports that "90 per cent of [those sterilizied] were women," and that "the practice, which predated and outlived Nazi Germany, started as an attempt to weed out perceived genetic weaknesses, mental or physical defectsand ended as a method of social control." According to Professor Gunnar Broberg, "Young girls were told they would be set free from [mental] homes and prisons ‘if we are allowed to make you calmer.’"

Interestingly, among the supporters of the sterilization program were Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, according to a 1991 Swedish radio documentary produced by Bosse Lindquist. Gunnar Myrdal was a socialist economist who shared the 1974 Nobel Prize for Economics with Friedrich Hayek. Gunnary Myrdal has also been praised as a "pioneer" in race relations.

Unfortunately, sterilizations are just the tip of the iceberg. As the Irish Times and Agence-France Presse reported on April 7, 1998, a Swedish Television documentary reveals that Sweden lobotomized perhaps 4500 "undesirables," in some cases without the consent of their families:


Some 500 lobotomies were conducted on patients who were not from mental hospitals...including a seven-year-old boy in Umeaa in northern Sweden in 1949. Diagnosed as "mentally retarded, hyperactive", he died during surgery."...One man featured in the documentary, who was lobotomised in 1963, is now 67 and has no concept of time, still believing that his children are small.

In part, the benevolent socialist government of Sweden hoped to discover whether "lobotomies could cure alcoholics and criminals."

Sweden also "forced hundreds of ‘mentally deficient’ Swedes to let their teeth rot after being force-fed candy in dental experiments."

The allegedly "benevolent" Swedish social democrats, then, behaved very like the Nazis.

Sweden, however, is not alone in hiding its past. As the Irish Times also reports,


Since the Swedish revelations, other apparently "clean" countries have found similar skeletons in their cupboards. Both Norway and Denmark had similar policies. And this week a Swiss history professor, Hans Ulrich Jost, said Swiss doctors sterilised mentally-handicapped patients (again most of them women) against their will under a law passed in 1928. "Even Hitler requested a copy of the law from the canton and from the government in Berne as a basis for Nazi Germany’s own racist laws."

The Washington Post claims that similar programs existed in Austria and Belgium, and the Telegraph (UK) recently reported that Norway sanctioned the physical and sexual abuse of children of occupying German soldiers born to Norwegian women.

As reported in the Telegraph,


victims have spoken out about the savage treatment meted out to them by the Norwegian government and by ordinary citizens during the postwar years for the crime of being Tyskerbarna or "German bastards". Many were locked away in orphanages or mental asylums for years – where they were subjected to sexual abuse – or had the "Germanness" beaten out of them by their Norwegian foster parents.

One girl, Tove Laila,


was taken at the age of one by the SS to her German grandparents in the east German city of Eberswalde in 1942 after her father was killed in action. Mrs Laila, now aged 59, remembers: "It was the happiest period in my life."

Alas, her happiness was not to last:


In 1947, under an agreement reached by the Allies and the Norwegian government, Mrs Laila was returned to her Norwegian mother where she was an unwelcome guest. Aged only six and speaking no Norwegian, she was beaten daily by her stepfather whenever she uttered a word of German. He later regularly sexually abused her.

The Norwegian attorney handling compensation claims against the government, Randi Hagen Spydevold, stated that "No attempt was made by the Norwegian authorities to check what kind of family Mrs Laila was being sent to. She suffered years of abuse because nobody was interested in her well-being." Mrs. Spydevold also stated that the Norwegian defense ministry and the CIA tested the effects of LSD on the children of German soldiers.

Predictably, the Norwegian government is fighting the compensation claims:


Norway’s Social Democrat health minister, Tor Toenne, said: "They had an especially difficult childhood, but the misdeeds against these children were lapses. It is difficult to reconstruct what happened to them after so many years."

Right. Contrast this to the recent outrage over the claim that Swiss banks were holding money which was identifiable as having been stolen by the Nazis from Holocaust victims. Despite the fact that some of the victims in question had their property confiscated perhaps five to ten years before the Norwegian abuses began, these events took place at roughly the same time. Perhaps the Swiss just keep better records than the Norwegians.

Thankfully, the Norwegian victims are demanding justice:


The survivors are adamant, however, that the government should address one of the most shameful chapters in Norway’s history. Gerd Fleischer, a 58-year-old Oslo charity organiser and the daughter of a German soldier and a Norwegian woman, said: "The terminology used to describe us was as bad as the Nazis in its contempt for mankind. I grew up as a second-class person in hell. As a civilised nation, Norway must finally apologise and bring all the facts to light."

Europe and the rest of the world indeed ought to face facts and admit their hypocrisy where eugenics and human rights are concerned.

Europe and the rest of the world should also give up their search for a magical socialist solution to the material conditions of human existence.

As Ludwig von Mises writes in The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, it is capitalism – based upon individual liberty and private property – which has materially advanced human life from mud huts and horrific infant mortality rates to the comfort in which much of the world lives today.

It is also in capitalist nations – where the right to liberty and the right to property are protected – where men and women have been comparatively free from the eugenic nightmares of other nations. Although prisoners and "mental deficients" were sterilized in the United States, such programs never reached the levels they reached in Sweden, let alone in Germany under the National Socialists.

March 13, 2001

Mr. Dieteman is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
18:10 / 07.12.04
Moderator note: I've moved to have jah's "if you disagree with me you must also be in favour of rape, aha you have a female name, I will now be as creepy and borderline-threatening as possible" post to be removed. If you want to engage with what Anna de Logardiere in a less inflammatory manner, jah, please go ahead.
 
 
jbsay
18:35 / 07.12.04
Flyboy
21:10 / 07.12.04
Moderator note: I've moved to have jah's "if you disagree with me you must also be in favour of rape, aha you have a female name, I will now be as creepy and borderline-threatening as possible" post to be removed. If you want to engage with what Anna de Logardiere in a less inflammatory manner, jah, please go ahead.


Flyboy, if you will re-read my post I was most certainly NOT threatening Anna, so your censorship is unwarranted. Moreover, removing my post and saying that I threatened her is very underhanded.

I was taking her philosophical assumption (that it is OK to steal from me) view to its logical conclusion. The exact same way Hitler took this point of view to ITS logical conclusion (genocide). Want to use your political correctness to rewrite history as well?

Why did you not remove her post for threatening to steal from me?
 
 
jbsay
18:52 / 07.12.04
Furthermore, Flyboy. If you have been following this debate at all (pay attention now son, and try not to throw a hissy fit this time), you will realize that my entire philosophy is AGAINST rape or any other coercive force (theft, slavery, war, genocide, murder, etc.) against another person.

This is the whole point of private property. Private property is what we are debating in the philosphy section of a blog. If Anna doesn't believe in private property, and thinks she can tell me what to do with my property because I really don't own it, then where does this stop? How can she argue that rape is immoral?
 
 
MJ-12
19:06 / 07.12.04
pop
 
 
jbsay
19:50 / 07.12.04
In all seriousness, this is an issue inherent to the debate. I can very easily dismiss all of the above atrocities as a violation of private property. If you abolish private property, how do you determine what is the "public good"? Who decides? What if it is in the public good for anna to marry a man she doesnt love? What if the public decides she is unfit to have children and sterilizes her? What if the public decides that she is mentally incompetent and lobotomizes her? What if the the public decides that women (or jews, or blacks, or homosexuals) make society "less efficient" and should all be killed? These are not new ideas, they have for the most part been put into practice in socialist countries.

My point is this. It's difficult if not impossible to argue logically against these atrocities if you are arguing that there is no such thing as property and the public good trumps the private (individual) good.
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:09 / 07.12.04
Jah, I wouldn't be at all surprised if your comment is deleted, and I entirely concur with Flyboy that it was inappropriate, to say the least. I would strongly advise you to moderate your tone.

Also, the practice of posting entire articles is considered bad form here on Barbelith. Generally, one links and summarises or presents choice quotes.
 
 
jbsay
20:14 / 07.12.04
Lurid,

My post my indeed have been sarcastic in tone, but I fail to see how my post was more or less inappropriate than Anna's post, which suggested that my house (property) is not really my house and that she can do with it as she pleases (i.e., steal it). You can suggest that I moderate my tone, I would similarly suggest that this is extremely hypocritical on your part.
 
 
Lurid Archive
20:27 / 07.12.04
I don't want to continue this threadrot, but I should point out that if you feel that the moderators are treating you unfairly, you should start a thread in the Policy. Otherwise I would say that it is in your best interests to calm down and refrain from using shock tactics.
 
 
jbsay
20:34 / 07.12.04
Lurid,

Fair. Then let me rephrase the debate in a more appropriate way such that there is no need for censorship.

If society abolish private property, and put the "public good" ahead of individual rights, how can one logically and consistently argue against the atrocities I've listed above? For example, if I don't own anything (whether it is my body, my house, or my life), what is to stop you from stealing from me? from raping me? from killing me? from lobotomizing me? Or censoring me on the web for saying things that "the public" does not think is appropriate? All in the name of the "public good". The "public" does not sleep or eat breath. It is a euphemism to descripe a group of individuals. So who is actually deciding what is in "society's" or "the public's" best interests? What if different people have conflicting views over what is "best for society" or "most moral" (e.g., christian right v. homosexuals, or Nazis v. Jews).
 
 
jbsay
21:00 / 07.12.04
Lurid,

I'm also not sure that this is threadrot. This is a pretty good example of the socialist process in action. Someone (you, and flyboy), decides that someone else (me) is doing something "inappropriate" (posting "creepy" and "threatening" messages) that goes against society's (barbelith's) best-interest. You have a pre-formed opinion that it is ok to threaten someone's house (property) but NOT ok to threaten someone's body (also property). Your instict is to censor the post that "society" (mine) doesn't approve of even though both posts were intellectually equivalent. This is the same instict that leads to censorship of information/ideas that are "bad for society" (religion? homosexuality? news?). Same thing when Christians think that homosexuality or gay marriage is not in "society's" best interest and should therefore be illegal. Or that Jews are not in "society's" instict. People take their personal viewpoint and make the mistake that this is best for "society" but don't reciprocate these "rights". Very hypocritical.
 
 
Tom Coates
21:51 / 07.12.04
You can debate the functioning of Barbelith as much as you like - in the Policy. Whether you like it or not, Barbelith does have some structures and norms that it is recommended that new posters abide by. You may see this as evidence of an enormous marxist conspiracy. That's fine, you can do that. But you're still subject to its structures while you're in here, I'm afraid.

If you're going to reference articles, PLEASE LINK TO THEM. This is not a freedoms issue - people tend to think it's cheap argument and they'll listen to you less. Argue your own position and reference articles that you think support it. I'm going to assume that you're prepared to reference articles that don't necessarily support your position too, on the understanding that otherwise it's really just propaganda.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:52 / 07.12.04
He showed it once, the rest follows.

Dude, he was Newton You ain't. this before we even consider that - hold on - this was utterly not the case. Have Newtonian physics not been demonstrated as incomplete?

Soooo.... do you have anything not from lewrockwell.com, misesfetish.com oir similar? It occurs to me that all your information seems to come from the same two or three extreme libertarian websites...
 
 
Lurid Archive
22:22 / 07.12.04
Have Newtonian physics not been demonstrated as incomplete?

Every theory is arguably incomplete, but the strength of theories of this type (empirical and braodly scientific) relies on the supporting empirical evidence. (If an economic theory fails to be empirical in this way, if it can't be checked in any way, then it may have some value, but must fall far short of being inevitable.)

Newton didn't just decide how mechanics worked, he justified it by some startling accurate predictions about the motion of the planets, and the body of Newtonian mechanics is one of the most tested theories there has ever been.

jah is of course being quite dishonest when challenging people to argue against his theory, since he considers any deductive criticism socialist, and hence flawed, yet any criticism which refers to evidence is also invalid, because statistics cannot be applied to human behaviour. Notice the disgenuous use of the word "statistics", which is used to apply not only to statistical analysis, but actually any form of data, except when that data is supportive of the libertarian thesis.

This is all a very long winded way of pointing out the rather obvious fact that jah isn't arguing in good faith. He has a hermetically sealed belief system which rejects any criticism as invalid by definition. This is a shame, in a way, since there do exist libertarians who aren't complete nutbars.

I suggest we move on and consider some of laces questions.
 
 
jbsay
23:59 / 07.12.04
On reflection, I'd like to apologize. While I stand by my moral/philosophical/logical argument, PRACTICALLY, it was an asshole statement (more so than usual). So apologies to Anna (no offense or threat intended) and apologies to the group. I try to use sarcasm to keep the debate amusing (economics is dry), but I probably stepped over the line.

So what I'd like to suggest is this. Split the thread into two. One that debates the ECONOMIC side of the socialist/capitalist isse (namely, how can you make economic calculations and allocate assets in a socialist commonwealth?) and another thread that debates the MORAL side of the issue (namely, "public good" versus individual liberties, and the slippery slope that ensues from public good argument).

Finally, work is picking up again so I'll be lurking more than posting (probably a relief for some of you), but will read your arguments with great interest.
 
 
jbsay
00:03 / 08.12.04
You can debate the functioning of Barbelith as much as you like - in the Policy. Whether you like it or not, Barbelith does have some structures and norms that it is recommended that new posters abide by. You may see this as evidence of an enormous marxist conspiracy. That's fine, you can do that. But you're still subject to its structures while you're in here, I'm afraid.

See my previous post (the apology). My issue is not whether your policies are correct or not, but as a microcosm for decision making in communities and society at larges, HOW are your policies formualted? Who is society? Who in particular decides what are appropriate and inappropriate actions for other members of society?

If you're going to reference articles, PLEASE LINK TO THEM. This is not a freedoms issue - people tend to think it's cheap argument and they'll listen to you less. Argue your own position and reference articles that you think support it. I'm going to assume that you're prepared to reference articles that don't necessarily support your position too, on the understanding that otherwise it's really just propaganda.
Fair enough. As an aside, most of the time I'm at work, and even tho its been slow I still take the shortcut.
 
 
jbsay
00:07 / 08.12.04
Dude, he was Newton You ain't. this before we even consider that - hold on - this was utterly not the case. Have Newtonian physics not been demonstrated as incomplete?
Of course not. I'm well aware ofthe shortcomings of Newtonian mechanics. I'm simply saying, that if someone puts for a theory, you cant ask him to prove it by going through every possible combination and permutation of what happened. If you can come up with a counterargument, or a situation where the theory is NOT correct (a la Einstein), then this is valid.

Soooo.... do you have anything not from lewrockwell.com, misesfetish.com oir similar? It occurs to me that all your information seems to come from the same two or three extreme libertarian websites...
If i had more free time i'd be happy to write out everything myself. Those sites just happen to have really smart people who have examined the same issues from the same economic and moral viewpoint as I have, and organized it in a couple convenient locations, and I'm pinched for time. No need to reinvent the wheel, the articles from those sites give you a sense of the ideas we are talking about. Want to critize the ideas directly or the source?
 
 
jbsay
00:34 / 08.12.04
Lurid--

There is nothing dishonest about it. I am presenting a "hypothesis" that says that even if you grant the socialists everything the want, unless they are omniscient they STILL can't calculate and therefore can't achieve their ends. Can you show me how in theory they COULD calculate and why this hypothesis is false? (This would not prove that socialism works, but it would simply prove my hypothesis false).

I do not consider any deductive criticism socialist. I am saying that in the realm of SOCIAL SCIENCES (which deals with conscious human action), unless you think that humans are unconcious and/or have no free will, then you cannot empirically look at aggregate statistics to derive iron laws (since humans can change their mind, learn, and adapt). If you want to debate THIS, that is a separate issue. I will never use STATISTICS to prove my point, even though I arguably have as much if not more background in statistics and econometrics as you do. I WILL potentially use statistics to highlight certain things, sure. But never to prove my case. The reasons are that:
1) I believe humans are conscious, so they may change their minds tomorrow and break your statistical model (an unconscious object will most likely NOT wake up and do something different tomorrow than it did yesterday). So propability theory does not apply to human choices and actions. If this were the case, you should be able to set up a computer program that will take the role of entrepreneurs, or another program to predict the stock market. The problem is that humans are conscioius and can adapt. So if you could statistically quantify the market, and everyone knew about it, then someone ELSE out there would adapt and start trading around your statistical program until your advantage is arbitraged away and your statistical model breaks. The problem is that as human beings change their minds and act differently, and so your statistical model breaks down (in technical analysis, this is a "regime change").

2) the STATISTICS can (almost by definition) never show the "hidden" part of the economics, namely "opportunity cost" (or the "invisible costs", as Frederick Bastiat wrote).

3) the TERMS you use in your statistics and models are ill-defined and therefore virtually meaningless. if you know anything about accounting, you know that a lot of qualitative assumptions go into the seemingly "hard" science of financial statements. the same is true of economic metrics as it is of company's financial metrics, and this leaves the issue ripe for abuse depending on who is doing the analysis. what is wealth? is it GDP? if so, how is it calculated? are you adjusting for inflation? what is your definition of inflation? will your inflation definition over or understate GDP growth? are you adjusting for leverage? is there a difference between productive (self-liquidating) and non-productive (non-self-liquidating) leverage? what is growth? from what base is it growing (is there any survivorship bias? how did you pick your time window)? how are you classigying consumer and government consumption? there are almost an infinite number of seemingly trivial questions that can TOTALLY mess up your analysis, even IF statistics was a valid method.

4) any econometric (statistical) model i've ever built or have seen includes a fudge factor (qualitative). basically, to give an analogy on wall street, the brokerage houses FIRST figure out what their "price target" for a stock is (50% upside? let's make money for our clients!), and then use the "solver" function in excel to back into the appropriate assumptions (risk premium, discount rate, etc.)

5) the data quality you are feeding into your model is awful. are you getting it from the government? is it from enron? i can show you in great forensic accounting detail why the government and aggregate data is skewed. pick a statistic and I can walk you through it. is it seasonally adjusted? hedonically indexed? etc etc
 
 
jbsay
00:49 / 08.12.04
Lurid, not to put you on the spot, but lets say we can use statistics, its a valid method. why dont you walk me through a statistical analysis of two individual companies in the same industry before you look at a whole friggin economy. let's keep it simple and adjust for LIFO/FIFO accounting (under different inflationary scenarios), reserves (doubtful accounts), tax rate, depreciation assumptions, deviations between earnings and operating and free cash flow, and revenue recognition method. how does this affect the relative financial strength and relative valuation of the two companies?

The point is you cant compare this stuff apples to apples, even if you have intimate knowledge of the accounting and assumptions going into it (which most pinheads playing around with econometric models surely do not). If you cant do it for something relatively simple like two companies (believe me, I do this for a living, it's an art not a science), how can you expect to do it for an economy which is infinitely more complicated?
 
 
jbsay
01:15 / 08.12.04
Lurid, would you care to say that your actions are statistically predictable? That you are basically a robot (or could be replaced by a robot simulating your thought process)? Do you know any women who act predictably and consistently? Men? People in general? If I say "knock knock" 100 times, and you say "who's there" 100 times, and then I kick you in the balls, does this mean that on the 101 time you won't catch on to this game and do something differently (like move out of the way, or block my kick) for the next 100 times? If you've cheated on your girlfriend/boyfriend/(sheep?) for the past 100 lovers, does this mean that if you fall in love with the NEXT lover you are statistically guaranteed to cheat on her?

Admittedly, these are ridiculous cases and dont in themsleves disprove statistics as applied to human action. But still, that's the type of thing you're assuming when you apply statistics to humans acting. You're also setting yourself up to apply all sorts of bizarre social engineering experiments that can really fuck up people's lives. If you as an individual are really no different than a robot simulating the statistical model of your thought process, why can't "society" kill you a replace you with a "more efficient" robot that doesnt need to eat and so doesnt drain the resources of society?
 
 
jbsay
02:02 / 08.12.04
Every theory is arguably incomplete,
Agreed

but the strength of theories of this type (empirical and braodly scientific) relies on the supporting empirical evidence. (If an economic theory fails to be empirical in this way, if it can't be checked in any way, then it may have some value, but must fall far short of being inevitable.)

Disagree. Were einstein's gendanken experiments objectively true/untrue before people could figure out how to gather empirical evidence that bore them out?
 
 
jbsay
02:07 / 08.12.04
Also, the Austrian theory (e.g., for the business cycle) best fits the empircal data. Mises was one of the only economists to have a theory of the business cycle that accurately predicted the great depression in america.

But, to use an example of opportunity costs. Austrians believe that inflation comes from an expansion in money supply/credit (taking a slight liberty with the definition here). In general, and i'm simplifying to make a point this causes prices to rise HIGHER THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE IN THE ABSENCE OF MONETARY EXPANSION. however, prices could be flat or declining even under monetary expansion (e.g., lets say there is some technical breakthrough that lowers costs). So while you will see prices falling or flat (and thus the statistics will show no ill effects from the monetary expansion), the statistics will NOT capture how much lower prices WOULD have been if you hadn't been inflating the money supply (opportunity cost/hidden cost). This is part of the reason why you cant use statistics in economics.
 
 
_pin
07:58 / 08.12.04
On 'laces questions, but using some of jah's terms (And I can't answer them with practical points, but this is how I see the issues happening)

How do we get jah's capitalists and socalists, as noted above as existing, now that he seems to have accepted my point right at the start that he can't force his throies of property on to other people and actually allowed other people to exist, to coexist, given the scarce resource of land?

What would be there to embody a comonality between them, and protect deviant forms of property rights? How much deviancy? if we don't protect deviancy we basically wipe out whole cultures because we havea different view to them, and I don't think we can make the claim that our views of proerty are better then theirs. It seems to me we have to debate the terms on how we tell other people not to tell other people how to live their lives, rather then just not telling other people how to live their lives. Ther is a qualitative differnce betwween attacking racists and attacking black people, no?

Is this what you were getting at, 'laces?
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:24 / 08.12.04
I should really back away, but...

There is nothing dishonest about it. I am presenting a "hypothesis" that says that even if you grant the socialists everything the want, unless they are omniscient they STILL can't calculate and therefore can't achieve their ends. Can you show me how in theory they COULD calculate and why this hypothesis is false?

Since you already think that all countries are socialist, I really don't see where the problem is. You can protest that the economy of Sweden is impossible all you like, but you just end up sounding a little bit...odd.

you cannot empirically look at aggregate statistics to derive iron laws

This is a hobby horse of yours. I don't need to derive "iron laws" to decide on plausible policy choices. But in a discussion it tends to help to argue against what people say, rather than what the straw man version you enjoy to attack would say. I agree that using statistics is problematic, though you set a double standard. You are happy to point out that certain economies are doing badly in terms of debt and long term prospects, but refuse a priori to accept that any measure of a country doing well economically is valid.

There are problems with using GDP or GDP per capita as a crude measure of wealth, sure. But you are making statements about the effects on wealth, while denying that there is any way to have any idea about what wealth is. Do socialist policies cause economic problems? How can you possibly tell?

Lurid, not to put you on the spot, but lets say we can use statistics, its a valid method. why dont you walk me through a statistical analysis of two individual companies in the same industry before you look at a whole friggin economy

Lets suppose I met some loony who claimed that any company working in the tech industry was doomed to failure, citing some grand, yet oddly marginalised, theory that he claimed was somehow inescapable. If I then answer that there are lots of tech companies that do well, I don't really have to engage in minute detail with econometric issues, nor do I have to deny free will, since I am making observations to compare against the statement, not formulating an inviolable theory.

Disagree. Were einstein's gendanken experiments objectively true/untrue before people could figure out how to gather empirical evidence that bore them out?

Objective truth can be a rather unhelpful term when applied to predictive empirical theories. But, to answer your question, the strength of any theory depends on the evidence to support it. A thought experiment can be interesting and illuminating, but remains unconvincing by itself. Relativity is no different in this regard.
 
 
jbsay
10:43 / 08.12.04
Lurid

I am saying 2 things
1) you can not objectively or quantitatively measure wealth or value. value and wealth are subjective concepts for each individual. if i love my girlfriend and want to spend time with her (valuing this greater than earning income), does this contribute to the "wealth" of an economy? am i better off spending the commodity of my leisure time with her or working?

We may say, the value of this commodity is greater than the value of that; but it is not permissible for us to assert that a commodity is worth "so much". Every economic act involves a comparison of values. A person chooses among several commodities. He exchanges one commodity for another. Every economic act may be regarded as a kind of exchange. Mises in Human Action made central this idea of human action as exchange: an exchange of conditions. "Action is an attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one. We call such a wilfully induced alteration an exchange. A less desirable condition is bartered for a more desirable." Nevertheless, the exchange is not based on someone's measure of value, merely his comparison of value: more vs. less. As he says, "The judgement, 'Commodity a is worth more to me than commodity b' no more presupposes a measure of economic value than the judgement 'A is dearer to me – more highly esteemed – than B' presupposes a measure of friendship". This means that "There is no such thing as abstract value". If you'd like to know about this, and also why money (e.g. $1) does NOT "measure" objective value, read the THeory of Money and Credit.


2) even if there were an objective measure of wealth, you are using incredibly crude tools and your data quality is awful (garbage in/garbage out). and you are using these tools to implement policies that affect the lives of MILLIONS of people. are you ok with that?

in contrast, by building up from individual human action, i can walk you through (a priori) what effect a particular economic policy will likely have, using logic and reason and walking you through all the incentives you create for people to take certain actions around your policy. For instance, if you set up social security, I can show economically that this is just a giant ponzi scheme that is eventually doomed to failure. The austrians made this comment when the US was implementing the policy back in the day. If you set up a deposit insurance company (FDIC) or pension insurance company (PBGC) or a lender of last resort (Fed/IMF/Worldbank) or welfare payment schemes--I can very easily walk you through the moral hazards, adverse selection, and other incentives that you are creating for people. If you print money and lower interest rates, I can show what types of distortions and problems this will cause in the economy. If you set a minimum wage, or price controls, or exchange controls, I can show what kind of effects these will have.
 
 
_pin
12:03 / 08.12.04
Yes commodity values are subjective but because we all live in physical situations that contian more then two people, the values of the others will effect how much something is worth because the "market" (you've tried to tell me it doesn't exist, but it is a useful abstract noun so I will put it in inverted commas for you) will be full of a certain thing, and so will sell for less. it may well be that your version of this stuff that you have made is precious and dear to your heart, but why should anyone else care about that?

Overall, a group of people will price out stuff only a minotiry of them want so that only rich people can buy them. This will happen with social choices and moral actions as well as simply buying things. Sure, the people can choose to starve rather then interact with other people, but you can choose to kill yourself rather then pay taxes. Markets are as bad as all the regimes you hate, on the reasons that you hate them, because of this.

Don't be a prick and tell me Mises says markets are a concept, because you've already talked about Mises' "private-market society."

Can we please play a new game now.
 
 
jbsay
13:16 / 08.12.04
Pin

You are still clearly misunderstanding “the market” even though you throw the term around like you understand it.

Commodity prices are subjective because different people value different commodities differently. Different individuals think about things differently. This has nothing to do with groups of people. If I’m on an island by myself, I’ll still prefer coconuts to shrimp.

Overall, a group of people will price out stuff only a minotiry of them want so that only rich people can buy them. This will happen with social choices and moral actions as well as simply buying things. Sure, the people can choose to starve rather then interact with other people, but you can choose to kill yourself rather then pay taxes. Markets are as bad as all the regimes you hate, on the reasons that you hate them, because of this.

Your understanding of mystical market forces is something right out of Das Kapital, as per your assertion that a group of people will price out stuff only a minority of the people can buy. I would argue that this is the exact OPPOSITE effect of how markets work. If you are only supplying your goods to the rich few, how do you grow your business? When all the rich people (which you are saying are the top 2%, say) have your product, then what do you do with your business? (if you really want, I can walk you through the full examination of this offline).

Point being, this is an absolutely absurd way of looking at “the market”, as anyone who has ever had any practical experience running or analyzing any sort of business can tell you (for starters, you can ask me). Your goal as a business owner is to add value to as many people as possible, and as efficiently as possible—you want to sell into as broad a market as possible. This is why business owners are so excited about the opportunity to use your “market forces” in China, despite the fact that the vast majority of Chinese are currently poor. It’s an opportunity to make money by selling into a market of ONE BILLION poor people. If you can produce things cheaply enough that they can afford it (say, $1?), and sell it to ONE BILLION people, you have ONE BILLION dollars in annual revenue. Remind me why I wouldn’t want to do this? This is a huge profit opportunity. It also, as an aside, directly raises the standard of living of the Chinese masses, even though this does not factor into my profit-loss equation (it DOES however, factor into the CHINESE consumer’s profit-loss equation, otherwise he wouldn’t buy from me). It’s a win-win. You’re saying as a business owner I’d want to price the Chinese consumers out of the market? Are you insane?

Take me through your case of how this “pricing out” would happen under a private property regime. Lets take the example of automobiles (originally deisgned for the very wealthy, which trickled down to the masses), computers and personal computers (similar), cell phones, TV’s, radios, etc. So while at FIRST the masses may not have a TV (note that they didn’t have a TV under public property either, and that it was invented on the free market), after a couple of iterations of the “market” the TV is now produced cheaply enough that virtually everyone in America has one.

Furthermore, you have yet to show me how these commodities that so clearly raise the standard of living can be produced under a public property system. I’m saying that they cannot, since there is no private property which means that there is no price system which means you cant weigh costs/benefits or figure out how to manufacture any of these things . You are flying blind.

On the other hand, I can very easily point to how these things can be produced under private property and cite historical examples.


Now let’s discuss moral choices. How can someone dictate morality (whether it involves sex, religion, or economic barter) between two consenting adults, on their respective private property, as long as it is clearly not infringing on someone elses private property? How can you draft someone to fight a war they don’t morally support under private property? How can you force kids to go to school against their will? How can you put people in jail for smoking weed? How can you outlaw gay marriage? How can you “discriminate” against subpopulations? The issues are very clear. Your business is your business. Their business is their business. If they want your help, they can ask you for it, and you can supply it or not.


The point is that PEOPLE are people. Are there bad people who will do bad things? Yes. Is this an effect of the market? No. Is it an effect of “society”? No. Under private property, you have a very clearly defined method of protecting the rights of individuals against aggression by other individuals, AND for furthering the standard of living of the masses.

Under public property, you have a very ill-defined method of protecting individuals from the “will of society” (which again, is one person or group of people deciding how another group should live) which leads to a slippery slope. Furthermore, under public property, you cannot advance the standard of living of the masses because you cannot make economic calculations, because you have no price system.


Don't be a prick and tell me Mises says markets are a concept, because you've already talked about Mises' "private-market society."

Sorry, but markets are a concept. This is Almighty Jah, His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I, telling you this, not Mises. You are confusing a concept with a reality. It’s like saying maps are real. Yeah, they are real, but they are NOT the territory they represent. No map can ever represent the territory completely (fractals and so forth). If you confuse the map with the territory you might fall into a ditch that wasn’t listed on your precious map. This is what you are doing when you talk about markets—falling into a ditch because you’re not understanding. And, in your case, you clearly need to buy a compass and take an orienteering class because you don’t even know how to read the map correctly--you have a faulty understanding of how the “market” concept works.

Can we please play a new game now.

Not until you understand the old game.
 
  

Page: 123(4)567

 
  
Add Your Reply