Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Growth vs. Sustainability

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 3:37:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It seems to me that the mass of all economic debate seems to be over which ideology maximizes growth the best. Across ideological lines, decrease in growth is universally accepted as the evil that must be avoided.

But what if we have it all wrong? What if ways to increase growth isn't the best thing to spend our economic thoughts on? What if a higher GDP isn't necessarily a good thing? What if the notion of infinite growth in a world without infinite resources isn't the smartest? You may disagree with my stance on it but I think that the simple question of "what if?" has been horribly avoided.

What then, if not growth, should our economic goal be? It turns out that the very definition of "economical" is "Careful, efficient, and prudent use of resources. Operating with little waste or at a saving." The clear goal that I see is sustainability. Achieving the most public benefit with the least use of resources possible.

Thoughts?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 6:06:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.

Do you think sustainability can be reached without government intervention in a Capitalist system?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:43:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 6:06:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.

Do you think sustainability can be reached without government intervention in a Capitalist system?

Yes. Since over-used resources would have greater value in the future, they would be traded in future markets.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:45:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 6:06:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.

Do you think sustainability can be reached without government intervention in a Capitalist system?

Absolutely no long-term or public goals can be directly addressed without government intervention in a capitalist system. Removing or slashing the government doesn't logically seem to be the answer either. It's like there is a raging bull on a leash and the libertarians and ancaps want us to cut the leash to control the bull... Socialism is what your professors in college are going to shove down your throat in a couple years, or else you can go elsewhere, DDO for example, and immerse yourself in completely illegitimate ideas of radicalism. I hope you don't take what you learn here and bring it up in your classes because you'll be laughed out of the room. Liberals only want to talk about government intervention-this and new regulation-that. Socialist drones and conservative drones are the only people who can maintain respect in the public spotlight.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:46:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:43:12 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/17/2011 6:06:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.

Do you think sustainability can be reached without government intervention in a Capitalist system?

Yes. Since over-used resources would have greater value in the future, they would be traded in future markets.

So let's degrade our resources until they become more valuable?
kfc
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:52:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:46:57 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:43:12 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/17/2011 6:06:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.

Do you think sustainability can be reached without government intervention in a Capitalist system?

Yes. Since over-used resources would have greater value in the future, they would be traded in future markets.

So let's degrade our resources until they become more valuable?

Well the resources would have more value in the future then in the present, so people would more likely hold onto them in future markets. This creates a sustainable use of resources.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 8:32:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:52:39 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:46:57 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:43:12 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/17/2011 6:06:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.

Do you think sustainability can be reached without government intervention in a Capitalist system?

Yes. Since over-used resources would have greater value in the future, they would be traded in future markets.

So let's degrade our resources until they become more valuable?

Well the resources would have more value in the future then in the present, so people would more likely hold onto them in future markets. This creates a sustainable use of resources.

Could you explain in layman's terms how this would save the Ogallala aquifer?
kfc
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 8:58:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 3:37:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
It seems to me that the mass of all economic debate seems to be over which ideology maximizes growth the best.

This is quite unfortunate.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 11:07:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 3:37:34 AM, FREEDO wrote:
It seems to me that the mass of all economic debate seems to be over which ideology maximizes growth the best. Across ideological lines, decrease in growth is universally accepted as the evil that must be avoided.

But what if we have it all wrong? What if ways to increase growth isn't the best thing to spend our economic thoughts on? What if a higher GDP isn't necessarily a good thing? What if the notion of infinite growth in a world without infinite resources isn't the smartest? You may disagree with my stance on it but I think that the simple question of "what if?" has been horribly avoided.

What then, if not growth, should our economic goal be? It turns out that the very definition of "economical" is "Careful, efficient, and prudent use of resources. Operating with little waste or at a saving." The clear goal that I see is sustainability. Achieving the most public benefit with the least use of resources possible.

Thoughts?

Economics per se has nothing to say about what should happen. It only describes what is likely to happen, ceteris paribus, with a given set of assumptions. Personally I don't see the need to have "goals". I'm in favor of voluntary association. I tend to think this will maximize production in the long run (quantitatively and qualitatively), but I wouldn't care much if it that could be achieved another way. Voluntary interaction is is better than coerced interaction because value is subjective, not some objectively defined and measurable quantity and voluntary interaction expresses the subjective valuation of all individuals who participate.

This is true even if a coerced society is more "productive" (i.e. higher GDP, though this is a counter-factual and can never be proven). The whole point of production is to create things that consumers value. Production for its own sake is meaningless to the end of economic progress because it is divorced from the wants and desires of the consumer. This is a big reason why war time spending and public works projects do not make us better off, regardless of the numbers reported in GDP.

I would say GDP is actually a fairly useless (or at least misleading) statistic, so I would agree that it shouldn't be our "goal". And technically speaking, it's not possible to measure growth objectively. We have many more types of cars than we did 50 years ago. Cell phones are of a much higher quality than 20 years ago. Computers didn't exist 100 years ago. How does one take these qualitative changes into account? It isn't really possible. Not to mention GDP is measuring unlike terms (price1*quantity1 + price2*quantity2 + price3*quantity3 etc.). Plus GDP doesn't (and can't) mesaure leisure, black market activities, and any activity not measured with prices (e.g. being a stay at home mom/dad) which are all certainly important in determining overall welfare.

As for the public benefit, I have no idea what is in the general interest of the "public" nor do I particularly care. The public is not a separate entity capable of thoughts, actions, wants and/or desires. I want that which maximizes individual happiness, though in some sense this could be construed as maximizing benefits to society, or the public, or whatever other aggregative term you wish to use. Again however the economist qua economist has nothing to say of the ought, only the is.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:14:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 6:06:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.

Do you think sustainability can be reached without government intervention in a Capitalist system?

Sure.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:16:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:45:27 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/17/2011 6:06:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.

Do you think sustainability can be reached without government intervention in a Capitalist system?

Absolutely no long-term or public goals can be directly addressed without government intervention in a capitalist system. Removing or slashing the government doesn't logically seem to be the answer either. It's like there is a raging bull on a leash and the libertarians and ancaps want us to cut the leash to control the bull.

First problem is presupposing that the market is like a "raging bull". That's just rhetoric.

Second problem is that we don't want to control anything. That's the point of divorcing the state from the economy. :P

Socialism is what your professors in college are going to shove down your throat in a couple years, or else you can go elsewhere, DDO for example, and immerse yourself in completely illegitimate ideas of radicalism. I hope you don't take what you learn here and bring it up in your classes because you'll be laughed out of the room. Liberals only want to talk about government intervention-this and new regulation-that. Socialist drones and conservative drones are the only people who can maintain respect in the public spotlight.

Unfortunate.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:22:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:16:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:45:27 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/17/2011 6:06:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.

Do you think sustainability can be reached without government intervention in a Capitalist system?

Absolutely no long-term or public goals can be directly addressed without government intervention in a capitalist system. Removing or slashing the government doesn't logically seem to be the answer either. It's like there is a raging bull on a leash and the libertarians and ancaps want us to cut the leash to control the bull.

First problem is presupposing that the market is like a "raging bull". That's just rhetoric.

Second problem is that we don't want to control anything. That's the point of divorcing the state from the economy. :P

How can 1 group say that with no regulations, growth will be maximized, then another say that with no regulations we can have sustainability? Less you argue that maximum growth and sustainability are the same thing?

The reason to divorce the state from the economy is to basically say "I want the economy to go where the free market will take it." Or "I simply don't care where the economy goes, just leave me alone." (applies the moral nihilist thing there, extended outward) If you want the economy to go in a different direction than where the free market would take it, does that not imply that you would support a state or something else that controls the economy?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:24:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:22:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
How can 1 group say that with no regulations, growth will be maximized, then another say that with no regulations we can have sustainability? Less you argue that maximum growth and sustainability are the same thing?

Very much this.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:31:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:22:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:16:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:45:27 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/17/2011 6:06:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.

Do you think sustainability can be reached without government intervention in a Capitalist system?

Absolutely no long-term or public goals can be directly addressed without government intervention in a capitalist system. Removing or slashing the government doesn't logically seem to be the answer either. It's like there is a raging bull on a leash and the libertarians and ancaps want us to cut the leash to control the bull.

First problem is presupposing that the market is like a "raging bull". That's just rhetoric.

Second problem is that we don't want to control anything. That's the point of divorcing the state from the economy. :P

How can 1 group say that with no regulations, growth will be maximized, then another say that with no regulations we can have sustainability? Less you argue that maximum growth and sustainability are the same thing?

Nope. My position is that there is a certain level where quantitative growth will finally prove useless or counterproductive, at which point we can begin to shift our economic values toward a paradigm of qualitative development.

The reason to divorce the state from the economy is to basically say "I want the economy to go where the free market will take it." Or "I simply don't care where the economy goes, just leave me alone." (applies the moral nihilist thing there, extended outward) If you want the economy to go in a different direction than where the free market would take it, does that not imply that you would support a state or something else that controls the economy?

The thing is, the direction in which a market economy will progress is contingent on the fundamental values of its agents. Keep in mind that the economy isn't a tangible thing. There's not an "it". It's just a big pool of agents engaging in transactions. So, if their values change (i.e. "Oh, guess we have enough growth to meet our needs, let's try to make use of this massive pool of value to increase quality of life, etc.), then the result of an unhampered market will be different.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:35:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:31:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Nope. My position is that there is a certain level where quantitative growth will finally prove useless or counterproductive, at which point we can begin to shift our economic values toward a paradigm of qualitative development.

The thing is, the direction in which a market economy will progress is contingent on the fundamental values of its agents. Keep in mind that the economy isn't a tangible thing. There's not an "it". It's just a big pool of agents engaging in transactions. So, if their values change (i.e. "Oh, guess we have enough growth to meet our needs, let's try to make use of this massive pool of value to increase quality of life, etc.), then the result of an unhampered market will be different.

So your position is that a change in people's attitudes will change the free-market?

Seem to me that a change in people's attitudes will more likely do away with the free-market.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:38:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:35:18 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:31:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Nope. My position is that there is a certain level where quantitative growth will finally prove useless or counterproductive, at which point we can begin to shift our economic values toward a paradigm of qualitative development.

The thing is, the direction in which a market economy will progress is contingent on the fundamental values of its agents. Keep in mind that the economy isn't a tangible thing. There's not an "it". It's just a big pool of agents engaging in transactions. So, if their values change (i.e. "Oh, guess we have enough growth to meet our needs, let's try to make use of this massive pool of value to increase quality of life, etc.), then the result of an unhampered market will be different.

So your position is that a change in people's attitudes will change the free-market?

No. A change in attitudes changes the results of having a market economy. It doesn't change the market itself.

Seem to me that a change in people's attitudes will more likely do away with the free-market.

It could, if their attitude is "Hey, let's oppress people".
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:42:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:38:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:35:18 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:31:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Nope. My position is that there is a certain level where quantitative growth will finally prove useless or counterproductive, at which point we can begin to shift our economic values toward a paradigm of qualitative development.

The thing is, the direction in which a market economy will progress is contingent on the fundamental values of its agents. Keep in mind that the economy isn't a tangible thing. There's not an "it". It's just a big pool of agents engaging in transactions. So, if their values change (i.e. "Oh, guess we have enough growth to meet our needs, let's try to make use of this massive pool of value to increase quality of life, etc.), then the result of an unhampered market will be different.

So your position is that a change in people's attitudes will change the free-market?

No. A change in attitudes changes the results of having a market economy. It doesn't change the market itself.

Seem to me that a change in people's attitudes will more likely do away with the free-market.

It could, if their attitude is "Hey, let's oppress people".

>Implying the free-market doesn't oppress people
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:46:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:42:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:38:44 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:35:18 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:31:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Nope. My position is that there is a certain level where quantitative growth will finally prove useless or counterproductive, at which point we can begin to shift our economic values toward a paradigm of qualitative development.

The thing is, the direction in which a market economy will progress is contingent on the fundamental values of its agents. Keep in mind that the economy isn't a tangible thing. There's not an "it". It's just a big pool of agents engaging in transactions. So, if their values change (i.e. "Oh, guess we have enough growth to meet our needs, let's try to make use of this massive pool of value to increase quality of life, etc.), then the result of an unhampered market will be different.

So your position is that a change in people's attitudes will change the free-market?

No. A change in attitudes changes the results of having a market economy. It doesn't change the market itself.

Seem to me that a change in people's attitudes will more likely do away with the free-market.

It could, if their attitude is "Hey, let's oppress people".

Implying the free-market doesn't oppress people

Oh, cut the rhetoric. The notion of "free-market oppression" is right up there with phrases like "wage slavery".
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:47:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:46:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Oh, cut the rhetoric. The notion of "free-market oppression" is right up there with phrases like "wage slavery".

But if there is no Government, who will regulate the evil conglomerates?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:50:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:47:30 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:46:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Oh, cut the rhetoric. The notion of "free-market oppression" is right up there with phrases like "wage slavery".

But if there is no Government, who will regulate the evil conglomerates?

Ohhhh, trollface.jpg.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:51:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:46:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Oh, cut the rhetoric. The notion of "free-market oppression" is right up there with phrases like "wage slavery".

Markets are an invention of law.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:51:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:16:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:45:27 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

First problem is presupposing that the market is like a "raging bull". That's just rhetoric.

When the markets are left alone, we usually suffer in terms of
-collusion
-monopolies
-pollution
-control of our choices (e.g., GM's EV-1)
-resource degradation

"Raging bull" might be wittless rhetoric, but my point is that capitalism needs a leash. Ancaps and berts like to tell me that mutually beneficial situations will control this, but that is just weak and I'd have to be slightly retarded to eat this up and say "yeah, OK." The government causes it's fair share of problems, but not half as much as it solves in terms of preventing the aforementioned issues. The reason why liberals keep adding onto the socialist framework we already have is because the owners of the means of production keep finding new ways to screw the public in favor of themselves. Life's good for them, and yeah Ragnar doesn't mind if only 1% of us are happy but I do.

Second problem is that we don't want to control anything. That's the point of divorcing the state from the economy. :P

Socialism is what your professors in college are going to shove down your throat in a couple years, or else you can go elsewhere, DDO for example, and immerse yourself in completely illegitimate ideas of radicalism. I hope you don't take what you learn here and bring it up in your classes because you'll be laughed out of the room. Liberals only want to talk about government intervention-this and new regulation-that. Socialist drones and conservative drones are the only people who can maintain respect in the public spotlight.

Unfortunate.
kfc
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 7:56:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:51:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Markets are an invention of law.

In what regard?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 8:06:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:51:08 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:46:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Oh, cut the rhetoric. The notion of "free-market oppression" is right up there with phrases like "wage slavery".

Markets are an invention of law.

No they aren't. Certain markets are, like the "politicians who can give you a competitive advantage" market. Not all markets.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 8:09:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:31:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:22:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:16:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:45:27 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/17/2011 6:06:18 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:12:48 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 5:11:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I already agree with this. I think you would enjoy steady-state-economics.

Though I disagree with steady-staters in their approach, which requires pretty massive government intervention. I really only agree with their premise that unlimited growth is impossible, even given new technology, the growth of the information/knowledge economy, etc.

Do you think sustainability can be reached without government intervention in a Capitalist system?

Absolutely no long-term or public goals can be directly addressed without government intervention in a capitalist system. Removing or slashing the government doesn't logically seem to be the answer either. It's like there is a raging bull on a leash and the libertarians and ancaps want us to cut the leash to control the bull.

First problem is presupposing that the market is like a "raging bull". That's just rhetoric.

Second problem is that we don't want to control anything. That's the point of divorcing the state from the economy. :P

How can 1 group say that with no regulations, growth will be maximized, then another say that with no regulations we can have sustainability? Less you argue that maximum growth and sustainability are the same thing?

Nope. My position is that there is a certain level where quantitative growth will finally prove useless or counterproductive, at which point we can begin to shift our economic values toward a paradigm of qualitative development.

And you believe this will all happen naturally and harmonically?


The reason to divorce the state from the economy is to basically say "I want the economy to go where the free market will take it." Or "I simply don't care where the economy goes, just leave me alone." (applies the moral nihilist thing there, extended outward) If you want the economy to go in a different direction than where the free market would take it, does that not imply that you would support a state or something else that controls the economy?

The thing is, the direction in which a market economy will progress is contingent on the fundamental values of its agents. Keep in mind that the economy isn't a tangible thing. There's not an "it". It's just a big pool of agents engaging in transactions. So, if their values change (i.e. "Oh, guess we have enough growth to meet our needs, let's try to make use of this massive pool of value to increase quality of life, etc.), then the result of an unhampered market will be different.

I like the way you start with "it isn't tangible" and "there is not 'it'" to "if their values" like that was singular.

Really, how many people, regardless of their income, are going to purchases product A_1 at $20, when A_2 (of the exact same quality) is $10, just so the workers can have a higher quality of life (of course, the knowledge of that off the top of your head while at the store would be extremely unlikely)? If we get to the point were we assume cheap prices = underpaid workers, I just have to raise the prices (without raising wages) so that you think that money is going to the employees.

And beyond that, if that ever does become a dominent view, whats to stop the people from simply forming socialism (or some governmental labor movement) to require companies do what the majority of people believe that they should be doing?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 8:17:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:51:53 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:16:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:45:27 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:

First problem is presupposing that the market is like a "raging bull". That's just rhetoric.

When the markets are left alone, we usually suffer in terms of
-collusion

We suffer from this when states intervene in markets, because, at that point, businesses actually gain a lot of power from colluding. :P

-monopolies

The state is a monopoly. A very, very coercive monopoly.

-pollution

Alright, let's grant that. The state's going to magically stop all pollution, or...?

-control of our choices (e.g., GM's EV-1)

Our choices are always dependent on external circumstances, whether you're in a market society, under state oppression, living in the wilderness, etc. There are just different choices based on your circumstances. I'm assuming this is the whole "companies suppress X if it isn't profitable" argument, which I'm pretty sure Kenyon gave a good analysis on in the other capitalism thread.

-resource degradation

This is possible with or without a market. In fact, existing states contribute to it by getting in cozy with oil companies, for example. What do you honestly think is going to happen, though? Just run out of resources one day and go into total collapse?

"Raging bull" might be wittless rhetoric, but my point is that capitalism needs a leash. Ancaps and berts like to tell me that mutually beneficial situations will control this, but that is just weak and I'd have to be slightly retarded to eat this up and say "yeah, OK." The government causes it's fair share of problems, but not half as much as it solves in terms of preventing the aforementioned issues. The reason why liberals keep adding onto the socialist framework we already have is because the owners of the means of production keep finding new ways to screw the public in favor of themselves. Life's good for them, and yeah Ragnar doesn't mind if only 1% of us are happy but I do.

And a state isn't the main contributor to capital owners' ability to screw people? Do you even begin to realize how far the reach of the state into the economy extends? For mine own part, the research and links I could post here in a day would barely scratch the surface for a single industry. Most of the state's intervention is so near invisible that we take it for granted to be what a free market looks like, since there aren't readily visible media reports of regulation or regularly-visible bureaucrats paying a visit to a plant to conduct an inspection. I honestly don't even know how to describe it. The scope of intervention is so mind-blowingly large, I just... I don't even know what to say.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 8:18:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 7:31:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Nope. My position is that there is a certain level where quantitative growth will finally prove useless or counterproductive, at which point we can begin to shift our economic values toward a paradigm of qualitative development.

OK so we'll just keep screwing up and polluting, destroying species, etc. until we crash? Let's keep acting selfishly, and then let future generations deal with the problem and finally start cleaning up the damage we are causing. You remind me of when I talk myself out of doing chores...

The reason to divorce the state from the economy is to basically say "I want the economy to go where the free market will take it." Or "I simply don't care where the economy goes, just leave me alone." (applies the moral nihilist thing there, extended outward) If you want the economy to go in a different direction than where the free market would take it, does that not imply that you would support a state or something else that controls the economy?

The thing is, the direction in which a market economy will progress is contingent on the fundamental values of its agents.

Which are universally terrible. Our values are greed (capitalism), pride (nationalism), and hatred (Christianity).

Keep in mind that the economy isn't a tangible thing. There's not an "it". It's just a big pool of agents engaging in transactions.

... selfishly.

So, if their values change (i.e. "Oh, guess we have enough growth to meet our needs,

Yeah that happened some time in the 1950s I think.

let's try to make use of this massive pool of value to increase quality of life, etc.), then the result of an unhampered market will be different.

It's easier to leave things pristine than to try and clean them up after the fact just to justify greed and say "alas, no other system but capitalism works! We've tried communism and we all know that leads to destruction, so we just have to keep doing this even though our scientists are screaming at us to stop. But those scientists have no right to tell us what to do with the economy because we are the economists."

When Ptolemy convinced the world that his complicated terminology and ways of viewing the sky were correct, we believed him. It really didn't hurt anyone to believe that, and eventually we realized it was a lot simpler than we were making it out to be. When economists convinced the world that their complicated capitalist BS was the way to address production, we also believed them. When the health care debate was in full swing, Republicans and Democrats sat around the table with Obama with thick texts and complicated explanations that completely contradicted each other, and the public just sat and watched like :o. Whether you sided with the Reps or Dems on Obamacare had nothing to do with rigorous study of those thick texts... that would be impossible. All that mattered was who you wanted to defend and what you thought ought to happen. Economists have created this world of technical chaos that no one truly understands, and they have purposefully excluded scientists from the discussions. So keep reading about your marginal nominal costs and variable transitory excludable tax-free compounding interest factors and try to use that knowledge to explain how we can maintain our natural resources. While your at it, you might as well start studying equants and epicycles as well.
kfc
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 8:23:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 8:09:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:31:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:22:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/17/2011 7:16:56 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
First problem is presupposing that the market is like a "raging bull". That's just rhetoric.

Second problem is that we don't want to control anything. That's the point of divorcing the state from the economy. :P

How can 1 group say that with no regulations, growth will be maximized, then another say that with no regulations we can have sustainability? Less you argue that maximum growth and sustainability are the same thing?

Nope. My position is that there is a certain level where quantitative growth will finally prove useless or counterproductive, at which point we can begin to shift our economic values toward a paradigm of qualitative development.

And you believe this will all happen naturally and harmonically?

Nope. I said it can happen. I can't say exactly what it will look like because I don't ask for the snug (albeit false) sense of security that central planning offers. It might very well be the case that we're on the precipice of extinction before we finally shift our thinking.

The reason to divorce the state from the economy is to basically say "I want the economy to go where the free market will take it." Or "I simply don't care where the economy goes, just leave me alone." (applies the moral nihilist thing there, extended outward) If you want the economy to go in a different direction than where the free market would take it, does that not imply that you would support a state or something else that controls the economy?

The thing is, the direction in which a market economy will progress is contingent on the fundamental values of its agents. Keep in mind that the economy isn't a tangible thing. There's not an "it". It's just a big pool of agents engaging in transactions. So, if their values change (i.e. "Oh, guess we have enough growth to meet our needs, let's try to make use of this massive pool of value to increase quality of life, etc.), then the result of an unhampered market will be different.

I like the way you start with "it isn't tangible" and "there is not 'it'" to "if their values" like that was singular.

Pronoun problem, I guess. The "their" was referring specifically to the agents, rather than the singular pool thereof. You need to watch Stephen Fry's Kinetic Typography, you grammar fascist. :)

Really, how many people, regardless of their income, are going to purchases product A_1 at $20, when A_2 (of the exact same quality) is $10, just so the workers can have a higher quality of life (of course, the knowledge of that off the top of your head while at the store would be extremely unlikely)?

It was never my argument that such would be the case. I'm not sure where you pulled that from.

If we get to the point were we assume cheap prices = underpaid workers, I just have to raise the prices (without raising wages) so that you think that money is going to the employees.

Saying that workers are "underpaid" assumes that there is some "proper" pay rate. Underpaid compared to what? Market value of their labor, or...?

And beyond that, if that ever does become a dominent view, whats to stop the people from simply forming socialism (or some governmental labor movement) to require companies do what the majority of people believe that they should be doing?

I don't even understand the question.