Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Minarchism vs. Socialism

Yarely
Posts: 329
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:50:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do you think works better or worked more effectively throughout history?
"Anarchism stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion and liberation of the human body from the coercion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. It stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals""
-Emma Goldman
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 10:04:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Socialism; there is more examples, I believe, of socialism rather than minarchism. Anyway, people in socialist society have better access to medical care.

Is this going to turn into a Cuba vs. Somalia battle?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 2:46:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 10:04:57 AM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Socialism; there is more examples, I believe, of socialism rather than minarchism. Anyway, people in socialist society have better access to medical care.

Is this going to turn into a Cuba vs. Somalia battle?

Somalia isn't minarchist. It is an example of an unstable African country having a central government collapse.

And, yes, socialism has been tried more. It has also failed everytime it has been tried.

Minarchist like governments are rarer, but they are successful wherever they are found.

If we had had a socialized medical system for the past 100 years, we would not have 10% of the medical innovation we have today.
President of DDO
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 2:47:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 2:46:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/20/2011 10:04:57 AM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Socialism; there is more examples, I believe, of socialism rather than minarchism. Anyway, people in socialist society have better access to medical care.

Is this going to turn into a Cuba vs. Somalia battle?

Somalia isn't minarchist. It is an example of an unstable African country having a central government collapse.

And, yes, socialism has been tried more. It has also failed everytime it has been tried.

Minarchist like governments are rarer, but they are successful wherever they are found.

If we had had a socialized medical system for the past 100 years, we would not have 10% of the medical innovation we have today.

Okay... name a successful minarchist state.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 2:52:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
all suck
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

les regulation has proven to = more jobs

less economic laws = more jobs

less spending aka stimulas = more jobs

and the only thing a government can do it tax. Austrian economics proves that correct. So is great.
minarchism
Socialism sucks.

http://infidelsarecool.com...
http://www.redcounty.com...
http://fwcon.wordpress.com...
http://www.redstate.com...

and later my blog will have this posted
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:03:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 2:47:53 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 2:46:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/20/2011 10:04:57 AM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Socialism; there is more examples, I believe, of socialism rather than minarchism. Anyway, people in socialist society have better access to medical care.

Is this going to turn into a Cuba vs. Somalia battle?

Somalia isn't minarchist. It is an example of an unstable African country having a central government collapse.

And, yes, socialism has been tried more. It has also failed everytime it has been tried.

Minarchist like governments are rarer, but they are successful wherever they are found.

If we had had a socialized medical system for the past 100 years, we would not have 10% of the medical innovation we have today.

Okay... name a successful minarchist state.

Hong Kong, Singapore, pre-New deal America.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:12:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
th new deal was like a mini socialist reform, and guess what it failed: http://www.heritage.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good

less spending aka stimulas = more jobs
Don't know if this is true, but it seems like the stimulus was a waste of money.
and the only thing a government can do it tax. Austrian economics proves that correct. So is great.
minarchism
Socialism sucks.
I actually agree with the idea that socialism is pretty bad; I just like minarchism less.

http://infidelsarecool.com...
http://www.redcounty.com...
http://fwcon.wordpress.com...
http://www.redstate.com...

and later my blog will have this posted
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:20:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good


Okun's law shows economic growth and unemployment are correlated:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also less unemployment means less idle resources (yes I'm considering labor and humans to be a resource). Think for a second, you have people that want to produce something for the economy but can't. How is that not bad for the economy. They want to consume more stuff but can't because they can't get a job. How is that not bad?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:24:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good

less spending aka stimulas = more jobs
Don't know if this is true, but it seems like the stimulus was a waste of money.
and the only thing a government can do it tax. Austrian economics proves that correct. So is great.
minarchism
Socialism sucks.
I actually agree with the idea that socialism is pretty bad; I just like minarchism less.

http://infidelsarecool.com...
http://www.redcounty.com...
http://fwcon.wordpress.com...
http://www.redstate.com...

and later my blog will have this posted

lol there are no jobs now and the economy is crap, under bush (first term) the economy was good and unempoylent was low, clinton second term, republican congress may I add, low unemployment, good economy. Dido with reagan.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:27:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:03:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 2:47:53 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 2:46:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/20/2011 10:04:57 AM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Socialism; there is more examples, I believe, of socialism rather than minarchism. Anyway, people in socialist society have better access to medical care.

Is this going to turn into a Cuba vs. Somalia battle?

Somalia isn't minarchist. It is an example of an unstable African country having a central government collapse.

And, yes, socialism has been tried more. It has also failed everytime it has been tried.

Minarchist like governments are rarer, but they are successful wherever they are found.

If we had had a socialized medical system for the past 100 years, we would not have 10% of the medical innovation we have today.

Okay... name a successful minarchist state.

Hong Kong, Singapore, pre-New deal America.

Thank you; I did not have a clear understanding of the subject at hand, so I shouldn't have commented in the first place. :/
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:32:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:24:53 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good

less spending aka stimulas = more jobs
Don't know if this is true, but it seems like the stimulus was a waste of money.
and the only thing a government can do it tax. Austrian economics proves that correct. So is great.
minarchism
Socialism sucks.
I actually agree with the idea that socialism is pretty bad; I just like minarchism less.

http://infidelsarecool.com...
http://www.redcounty.com...
http://fwcon.wordpress.com...
http://www.redstate.com...

and later my blog will have this posted

lol there are no jobs now and the economy is crap, under bush (first term) the economy was good and unempoylent was low, clinton second term, republican congress may I add, low unemployment, good economy. Dido with reagan.

How can you in any form state that Bush was a minarchist? That's laughable considering spending increased quite a bit under him. In fact, every single president you mentioned, spending has increased under them. I don't there has been a single president after WWII who hasn't increase spending.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:35:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:32:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:24:53 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good

less spending aka stimulas = more jobs
Don't know if this is true, but it seems like the stimulus was a waste of money.
and the only thing a government can do it tax. Austrian economics proves that correct. So is great.
minarchism
Socialism sucks.
I actually agree with the idea that socialism is pretty bad; I just like minarchism less.

http://infidelsarecool.com...
http://www.redcounty.com...
http://fwcon.wordpress.com...
http://www.redstate.com...

and later my blog will have this posted

lol there are no jobs now and the economy is crap, under bush (first term) the economy was good and unempoylent was low, clinton second term, republican congress may I add, low unemployment, good economy. Dido with reagan.

How can you in any form state that Bush was a minarchist? That's laughable considering spending increased quite a bit under him. In fact, every single president you mentioned, spending has increased under them. I don't there has been a single president after WWII who hasn't increase spending.

I agree with DK. Bush increased spending by a boatload (see: Iraq, Afghanistan, the expanding welfare state)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:36:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:03:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 2:47:53 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 2:46:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/20/2011 10:04:57 AM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
Socialism; there is more examples, I believe, of socialism rather than minarchism. Anyway, people in socialist society have better access to medical care.

Is this going to turn into a Cuba vs. Somalia battle?

Somalia isn't minarchist. It is an example of an unstable African country having a central government collapse.

And, yes, socialism has been tried more. It has also failed everytime it has been tried.

Minarchist like governments are rarer, but they are successful wherever they are found.

If we had had a socialized medical system for the past 100 years, we would not have 10% of the medical innovation we have today.

Okay... name a successful minarchist state.

Hong Kong, Singapore, pre-New deal America.

depends on how one defines "successful" (and "minarchy" for that matter).

We all know the recession rate of pre-new deal America vs post-new deal.

Lets jump to Hong Kong, which has several governmental welfare programs (well, they are "non-government but subsidized by the government"), including financial aid to students, social security, re-hab for both drugs and crime, and more.

http://www.swd.gov.hk...

As for Singapore, "Freedom of the world" gives it a "partly free" rating and the Economist gives it a "hybrid" rating. We can also turn to the Gini number (that though, reverts back to how one defines "successful").
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:38:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:32:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:24:53 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good

less spending aka stimulas = more jobs
Don't know if this is true, but it seems like the stimulus was a waste of money.
and the only thing a government can do it tax. Austrian economics proves that correct. So is great.
minarchism
Socialism sucks.
I actually agree with the idea that socialism is pretty bad; I just like minarchism less.

http://infidelsarecool.com...
http://www.redcounty.com...
http://fwcon.wordpress.com...
http://www.redstate.com...

and later my blog will have this posted

lol there are no jobs now and the economy is crap, under bush (first term) the economy was good and unempoylent was low, clinton second term, republican congress may I add, low unemployment, good economy. Dido with reagan.

How can you in any form state that Bush was a minarchist? That's laughable considering spending increased quite a bit under him. In fact, every single president you mentioned, spending has increased under them. I don't there has been a single president after WWII who hasn't increase spending.

There hasn't been. There hasn't been a single president in the last 100+ years that has left the debt at a low amount than when they took office. But you can't simply define minarchy by dollar amounts.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:41:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:20:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good


Okun's law shows economic growth and unemployment are correlated:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also less unemployment means less idle resources (yes I'm considering labor and humans to be a resource). Think for a second, you have people that want to produce something for the economy but can't. How is that not bad for the economy. They want to consume more stuff but can't because they can't get a job. How is that not bad?

A) I fail.
B) What I was thinking is that you can have more people employed, but for less money, thereby having less people to the economy. I still fail though.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:44:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:36:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

depends on how one defines "successful" (and "minarchy" for that matter).

Those were the closest examples of minarchist states I could think of. Can you name any unsuccesful ones?

We all know the recession rate of pre-new deal America vs post-new deal.

Well If your an Austrian economist you can make up history and state that post-new deal was much worse.
However there's no denying that America did have rapid economic exapansion during the gilded age and became a top-rate nation with a powerful economy.

Lets jump to Hong Kong, which has several governmental welfare programs (well, they are "non-government but subsidized by the government"), including financial aid to students, social security, re-hab for both drugs and crime, and more.

http://www.swd.gov.hk...

As for Singapore, "Freedom of the world" gives it a "partly free" rating and the Economist gives it a "hybrid" rating. We can also turn to the Gini number (that though, reverts back to how one defines "successful").

Again, those were the closest ones I could think of. Your right, its all relative to how you define minarchist. But can you think of any other minarchist nations that are failures. Perhaps one could collect data on tax rates vs. economic growth, although its still kind of an unfair measure, since poorer nations have an easier time to get economic growth then richer nations. Also, looking at GDP is also unfair since a nation that adopts minarchist policy but originally poor isn't all of a sudden going to become a 1st world nation overnight.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:48:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:41:07 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:20:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good


Okun's law shows economic growth and unemployment are correlated:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also less unemployment means less idle resources (yes I'm considering labor and humans to be a resource). Think for a second, you have people that want to produce something for the economy but can't. How is that not bad for the economy. They want to consume more stuff but can't because they can't get a job. How is that not bad?

A) I fail.
B) What I was thinking is that you can have more people employed, but for less money, thereby having less people to the economy. I still fail though.

It's a rare moment that I can turn someone to my point of view on DDO. It's a happy day for me besides the fact that I completely failed my final exam today which will totally screw me over for finding a good job..............oh.

But I think this outweighs it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:55:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:48:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:41:07 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:20:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good


Okun's law shows economic growth and unemployment are correlated:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also less unemployment means less idle resources (yes I'm considering labor and humans to be a resource). Think for a second, you have people that want to produce something for the economy but can't. How is that not bad for the economy. They want to consume more stuff but can't because they can't get a job. How is that not bad?

A) I fail.
B) What I was thinking is that you can have more people employed, but for less money, thereby having less people to the economy. I still fail though.

It's a rare moment that I can turn someone to my point of view on DDO. It's a happy day for me besides the fact that I completely failed my final exam today which will totally screw me over for finding a good job..............oh.

But I think this outweighs it.

I still think that regulation is necessary, though. Plus I think that the minimum wage is good. [evil laugh]
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:58:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:44:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:36:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

depends on how one defines "successful" (and "minarchy" for that matter).

Those were the closest examples of minarchist states I could think of. Can you name any unsuccesful ones?

We all know the recession rate of pre-new deal America vs post-new deal.

Well If your an Austrian economist you can make up history and state that post-new deal was much worse.
However there's no denying that America did have rapid economic exapansion during the gilded age and became a top-rate nation with a powerful economy.

Here, I disagree. If the economy (in terms of dollar amounts) is booming and growing by leaps and bounds, but only a small portion of the population gets to experience that boom, then it is not a "good" economy and not a "top-rate" nation.

This is where things like the Gini effect kick in.

Lets jump to Hong Kong, which has several governmental welfare programs (well, they are "non-government but subsidized by the government"), including financial aid to students, social security, re-hab for both drugs and crime, and more.

http://www.swd.gov.hk...

As for Singapore, "Freedom of the world" gives it a "partly free" rating and the Economist gives it a "hybrid" rating. We can also turn to the Gini number (that though, reverts back to how one defines "successful").

Again, those were the closest ones I could think of. Your right, its all relative to how you define minarchist. But can you think of any other minarchist nations that are failures. Perhaps one could collect data on tax rates vs. economic growth, although its still kind of an unfair measure, since poorer nations have an easier time to get economic growth then richer nations. Also, looking at GDP is also unfair since a nation that adopts minarchist policy but originally poor isn't all of a sudden going to become a 1st world nation overnight.

Of course, we run into many variables and questions on how to properly measure. One would also come across the question if different styles are better for different senerios.

We can look at Luxemburg as a potential example of the opposite (a successful "Labor" nation, I won't say "socialist" because we can bicker on that word too). It applies Kenyesian policies (the correct way, I might add, when times are good, you cut spending to get back into a surplus), has strong unions, has been tightening up their accounting laws, and has high taxes, yet maintains an open policy towards other nations. As such, they are ranked in the top 3 (from #1 to #3, pending your source).

It also isn't really accurate to look at tax rates allone. When you have a wealthier nation, a lower tax rate is much simplier, since there is less need from the people, and when they make more money, a lower percentage of income per person can be applied.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 4:04:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:55:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:48:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:41:07 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:20:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good


Okun's law shows economic growth and unemployment are correlated:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also less unemployment means less idle resources (yes I'm considering labor and humans to be a resource). Think for a second, you have people that want to produce something for the economy but can't. How is that not bad for the economy. They want to consume more stuff but can't because they can't get a job. How is that not bad?

A) I fail.
B) What I was thinking is that you can have more people employed, but for less money, thereby having less people to the economy. I still fail though.

It's a rare moment that I can turn someone to my point of view on DDO. It's a happy day for me besides the fact that I completely failed my final exam today which will totally screw me over for finding a good job..............oh.

But I think this outweighs it.

I still think that regulation is necessary, though. Plus I think that the minimum wage is good. [evil laugh]

Regulation: To some extent.

The minimum wage causes unemployment though through basic supply and demand economics. If your skill are less then minimum wage, people won't hire you and unemployment is worse then a low paying job. Also, people develop job skills while working, so your losing the opportunity to earn these job skills.

The action is voluntarily anyways, and both parties agree. There's nothing special about paid labor anyways. I could produce a good or service that people want and not get paid for. Why is it in certain cases I can produce a good or service for no money and other situations not produce a good or service for little money?

At best what you can do is that minimum wage can push prices up for consumers who also happen to be people that work minimum wage.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 4:11:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:58:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:44:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:36:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

depends on how one defines "successful" (and "minarchy" for that matter).

Those were the closest examples of minarchist states I could think of. Can you name any unsuccesful ones?

We all know the recession rate of pre-new deal America vs post-new deal.

Well If your an Austrian economist you can make up history and state that post-new deal was much worse.
However there's no denying that America did have rapid economic exapansion during the gilded age and became a top-rate nation with a powerful economy.

Here, I disagree. If the economy (in terms of dollar amounts) is booming and growing by leaps and bounds, but only a small portion of the population gets to experience that boom, then it is not a "good" economy and not a "top-rate" nation.

You do realize that wages for normal workers went up as well, right? More so then other nations during that time.

This is where things like the Gini effect kick in.


Of course, we run into many variables and questions on how to properly measure. One would also come across the question if different styles are better for different senerios.

We can look at Luxemburg as a potential example of the opposite (a successful "Labor" nation, I won't say "socialist" because we can bicker on that word too). It applies Kenyesian policies (the correct way, I might add, when times are good, you cut spending to get back into a surplus), has strong unions, has been tightening up their accounting laws, and has high taxes, yet maintains an open policy towards other nations. As such, they are ranked in the top 3 (from #1 to #3, pending your source).

Yes, its generally agreed that when it comes to economic data, its often a bickering contest since there are so many variables go on. I think I've stated before that I agree with the keynesian.

Curious about the unions though. I've had a hostility towards unions once I studied economics. I don't see how they can be beneficial though since they don't really add any value. I really don't see how they can do anything but increase unemployment.

It also isn't really accurate to look at tax rates allone. When you have a wealthier nation, a lower tax rate is much simplier, since there is less need from the people, and when they make more money, a lower percentage of income per person can be applied.

True
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 4:22:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 3:58:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:44:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:36:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

depends on how one defines "successful" (and "minarchy" for that matter).

Those were the closest examples of minarchist states I could think of. Can you name any unsuccesful ones?

We all know the recession rate of pre-new deal America vs post-new deal.

Well If your an Austrian economist you can make up history and state that post-new deal was much worse.
However there's no denying that America did have rapid economic exapansion during the gilded age and became a top-rate nation with a powerful economy.

Here, I disagree. If the economy (in terms of dollar amounts) is booming and growing by leaps and bounds, but only a small portion of the population gets to experience that boom, then it is not a "good" economy and not a "top-rate" nation.

This is where things like the Gini effect kick in.

That's not how economic growth works. Everywhere where there is free markets and economic growth, there is rising incomes for all groups.


Lets jump to Hong Kong, which has several governmental welfare programs (well, they are "non-government but subsidized by the government"), including financial aid to students, social security, re-hab for both drugs and crime, and more.

http://www.swd.gov.hk...

As for Singapore, "Freedom of the world" gives it a "partly free" rating and the Economist gives it a "hybrid" rating. We can also turn to the Gini number (that though, reverts back to how one defines "successful").

Again, those were the closest ones I could think of. Your right, its all relative to how you define minarchist. But can you think of any other minarchist nations that are failures. Perhaps one could collect data on tax rates vs. economic growth, although its still kind of an unfair measure, since poorer nations have an easier time to get economic growth then richer nations. Also, looking at GDP is also unfair since a nation that adopts minarchist policy but originally poor isn't all of a sudden going to become a 1st world nation overnight.

Of course, we run into many variables and questions on how to properly measure. One would also come across the question if different styles are better for different senerios.

We can look at Luxemburg as a potential example of the opposite (a successful "Labor" nation, I won't say "socialist" because we can bicker on that word too). It applies Kenyesian policies (the correct way, I might add, when times are good, you cut spending to get back into a surplus), has strong unions, has been tightening up their accounting laws, and has high taxes, yet maintains an open policy towards other nations. As such, they are ranked in the top 3 (from #1 to #3, pending your source).


It also isn't really accurate to look at tax rates allone. When you have a wealthier nation, a lower tax rate is much simplier, since there is less need from the people, and when they make more money, a lower percentage of income per person can be applied.

Luxembourg is hardly an example of socialism. And, even if it is, we are talking about a small banker haven nation. This is just like spouting off Norway as an example of socialism working, because Norway is just rich because of oil.

The fact is that there are many comparable nations with socialist type policies. If you want to look at nations with socialist policies that have comparable populations to, say, the USA, look at France and Italy. Over the past 30 years, these nations have had very slow GDP growth and low employment, because of tax and/or regulatory policies.

These nations, like the USA and even the UK, have largish populations and some level of diversity. Compare them to the UK and US over the past 30 years, the UK and US have had more dramatic freee market reforms with Thatcher and Reagan, and the UK and US do much better than do those nations.

Another point is that countries like Ireland and, yes, the UK were stagnating prior to free market reforms in the 80s and 90s.... after which they began growing quite fast. Ireland was even called the Celtic Tiger after their growth.

Now, the most economically "minarchist" nations in the world are Hong Kong and Singapore. You can go on and on about how they are not really minarchist, but they are the closest that we have.

They are the very highest in terms of economic freedom on all indexes, they have very low Government Spending to GDP rations, they have low tax rates, weak unions, very few regulations, etc etc....

So, compared to other nations, they are very close to "economic minarchism". Now, of course, these nations are different demographically from other nations, which makes comparisons hard.

However, they have done extremely well and they are the only examples of anything close to economic minarchism in the entire world. So, again, comparison is hard, but the only economic minarchist nations have been extremely successful.

You can also look at South American nations, like Chile, which had dramatic free market reforms in the 70s or 80s and have seen very strong growth since.

(This pretty much explains the free market nations have grown faster since 1980 point, with all the data)-- http://www.themoneyillusion.com...

(Hong Kong and Singapore)-- http://www.cato.org...

(Chile economic development compared to socialist Cuba)-- http://super-economy.blogspot.com...
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 4:24:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 4:04:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:55:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:48:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:41:07 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:20:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good


Okun's law shows economic growth and unemployment are correlated:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also less unemployment means less idle resources (yes I'm considering labor and humans to be a resource). Think for a second, you have people that want to produce something for the economy but can't. How is that not bad for the economy. They want to consume more stuff but can't because they can't get a job. How is that not bad?

A) I fail.
B) What I was thinking is that you can have more people employed, but for less money, thereby having less people to the economy. I still fail though.

It's a rare moment that I can turn someone to my point of view on DDO. It's a happy day for me besides the fact that I completely failed my final exam today which will totally screw me over for finding a good job..............oh.

But I think this outweighs it.

I still think that regulation is necessary, though. Plus I think that the minimum wage is good. [evil laugh]

Regulation: To some extent.

The minimum wage causes unemployment though through basic supply and demand economics. If your skill are less then minimum wage, people won't hire you and unemployment is worse then a low paying job. Also, people develop job skills while working, so your losing the opportunity to earn these job skills.

Basic supply and demand would predict that a worker gets paid for the value of their work. I.E. if my work makes $20 an hour for the company, companies will continue to compete for me to push my wages up towards $20 an hour (likely reaching $19.75 or so, until we get to the point where I'm not going to switch companies for that little extra nickle or so).

However, such a case would also suggest that employers would NEVER offer Over Time at time and a have. However, they do. That is proof that people are not paid at how much they are worth.

The reason for that is because the previous example (technically a strawman, I appologize, but I've heard so many time, I'm just assuming) is assuming that there is a greater supply of companies looking for work than there are workers (so they are competing against each other for each worker). However, there are more workers than job openings, so the wages actually get pushed down, towards who is willing to work for the least, rather than find a happy medium between what the worker will accept and what the company will accept.

Now, in order for free-trade to work (for any transaction) according to its own theory, both parties need to be able to say "no thanks" to any transaction without reprecussions. For example, if I'm dying of a disease, and you are offering to sell me the cure, I don't really have the option of "no thanks" and so the price that we would come to (you likely owning everything of mine) would not be the free market value of the goods. This is similar to being unemployed (if there are no social safety nets).

As such, wages would not fall to where free market theory predicts that they would.


The action is voluntarily anyways, and both parties agree. There's nothing special about paid labor anyways. I could produce a good or service that people want and not get paid for. Why is it in certain cases I can produce a good or service for no money and other situations not produce a good or service for little money?

At best what you can do is that minimum wage can push prices up for consumers who also happen to be people that work minimum wage.

One can also show that minimum wage is better in some cases.

Example...

A company is looking for one shelf stocker.

Applicant A (AppA from now on, and there will be AppB in a moment) is willing to do the job at at $7 an hour, and his labor is worth $13 an hour to the company. AppB is willing to work for only $3 an hour, and his labor is worth $11 to the company (he's not as good, but he'll do the work).

Now, without unemployment, AppB would get the job (his work results in a +$8 an hour for the company, rather than +$6 of AppA). This means that the most qualified is not working, ultimately providing a lower quality, and lower GDP.

If a minimum wage of $7 an hour is established, now AppA gets the job. This creates a higher GDP (if that is how you like to measure "success" of an economy), and also results in a more level Gini number (if that is how you like to measure "success" of an economy).

Before you say that the manager could hire both, remember, that the company only needs one. They only have a finite number of shelves to stock with a finite number of goods to go on those shelves. Hiring a second person will not generate more work for that person to do.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 4:29:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 4:04:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:55:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:48:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:41:07 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:20:04 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:14:11 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:00:16 PM, 16kadams wrote:
no I take that back minarchism is great. Simple logic proves this.

less regulation has proven to = more jobs
More jobs =/= good for the economy

less economic laws = more jobs
Again, more jobs =/= economically good


Okun's law shows economic growth and unemployment are correlated:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also less unemployment means less idle resources (yes I'm considering labor and humans to be a resource). Think for a second, you have people that want to produce something for the economy but can't. How is that not bad for the economy. They want to consume more stuff but can't because they can't get a job. How is that not bad?

A) I fail.
B) What I was thinking is that you can have more people employed, but for less money, thereby having less people to the economy. I still fail though.

It's a rare moment that I can turn someone to my point of view on DDO. It's a happy day for me besides the fact that I completely failed my final exam today which will totally screw me over for finding a good job..............oh.

But I think this outweighs it.

I still think that regulation is necessary, though. Plus I think that the minimum wage is good. [evil laugh]

Regulation: To some extent.

The minimum wage causes unemployment though through basic supply and demand economics. If your skill are less then minimum wage, people won't hire you and unemployment is worse then a low paying job. Also, people develop job skills while working, so your losing the opportunity to earn these job skills.

In a perfect world.

The action is voluntarily anyways, and both parties agree. There's nothing special about paid labor anyways. I could produce a good or service that people want and not get paid for. Why is it in certain cases I can produce a good or service for no money and other situations not produce a good or service for little money?

Advertise it!

At best what you can do is that minimum wage can push prices up for consumers who also happen to be people that work minimum wage.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 4:53:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 4:24:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Basic supply and demand would predict that a worker gets paid for the value of their work. I.E. if my work makes $20 an hour for the company, companies will continue to compete for me to push my wages up towards $20 an hour (likely reaching $19.75 or so, until we get to the point where I'm not going to switch companies for that little extra nickle or so).

However, such a case would also suggest that employers would NEVER offer Over Time at time and a have. However, they do. That is proof that people are not paid at how much they are worth.

Well technically they are paid for their marginal value, not actually value. Theoretically marginal costs equals marginal revenue. A company can offer overtime pay If the company expects marginal revenue to increase (increased demand for their good or service) and it would not be worth it to hire workers If itts just temporary and/or because the hiring process takes time.

The reason for that is because the previous example (technically a strawman, I appologize, but I've heard so many time, I'm just assuming) is assuming that there is a greater supply of companies looking for work than there are workers (so they are competing against each other for each worker). However, there are more workers than job openings, so the wages actually get pushed down, towards who is willing to work for the least, rather than find a happy medium between what the worker will accept and what the company will accept.

However, only a small percentage of jobs are minimum wage jobs. And as I stated earlier, unemployment is much worse then lower pay. And it ignores that If you increase the price of labor, you increase the cost of goods and services.

Now, in order for free-trade to work (for any transaction) according to its own theory, both parties need to be able to say "no thanks" to any transaction without reprecussions. For example, if I'm dying of a disease, and you are offering to sell me the cure, I don't really have the option of "no thanks" and so the price that we would come to (you likely owning everything of mine) would not be the free market value of the goods. This is similar to being unemployed (if there are no social safety nets).

Well, a society that has a minimum wage usually has minimum wage. Also, your saying that people will work for desperation, but are denying them that chance.
That's like taking the drug away from the person from the disease. Also, a person will have friends, family or charity to go towards for help during unemployment and can sell assets and might have savings. In the great depression despite the high levels of unemployment, there wasn't exactly an incredible death rate. There was no famine.

One can also show that minimum wage is better in some cases.

Example...

A company is looking for one shelf stocker.

Applicant A (AppA from now on, and there will be AppB in a moment) is willing to do the job at at $7 an hour, and his labor is worth $13 an hour to the company. AppB is willing to work for only $3 an hour, and his labor is worth $11 to the company (he's not as good, but he'll do the work).

Now, without unemployment, AppB would get the job (his work results in a +$8 an hour for the company, rather than +$6 of AppA). This means that the most qualified is not working, ultimately providing a lower quality, and lower GDP.

If a minimum wage of $7 an hour is established, now AppA gets the job. This creates a higher GDP (if that is how you like to measure "success" of an economy), and also results in a more level Gini number (if that is how you like to measure "success" of an economy).

Before you say that the manager could hire both, remember, that the company only needs one. They only have a finite number of shelves to stock with a finite number of goods to go on those shelves. Hiring a second person will not generate more work for that person to do.

Well Application A can find another job. His options are open If he is willing to work for more.

Also the company saves more money and making a greater profit from this deal. This will create a signal for others to expand or start their own business. This means that other companies will be created and/or expand, which will increase GDP.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 5:07:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 4:11:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:58:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:44:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/20/2011 3:36:10 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

depends on how one defines "successful" (and "minarchy" for that matter).

Those were the closest examples of minarchist states I could think of. Can you name any unsuccesful ones?

We all know the recession rate of pre-new deal America vs post-new deal.

Well If your an Austrian economist you can make up history and state that post-new deal was much worse.
However there's no denying that America did have rapid economic exapansion during the gilded age and became a top-rate nation with a powerful economy.

Here, I disagree. If the economy (in terms of dollar amounts) is booming and growing by leaps and bounds, but only a small portion of the population gets to experience that boom, then it is not a "good" economy and not a "top-rate" nation.

You do realize that wages for normal workers went up as well, right? More so then other nations during that time.

http://www.measuringworth.com...

I would be curious as to where the Hard Data is for this. I looked to the US Census Bureau and could only find data for income quintiles going back to 1947.

While we can see the GDP growth going back all the way to 1790, I'm not finding where we can see how much that growth really helped the workers. I know we can look at how much different quintiles have been effected in any time frame from 1947 to the present though.


This is where things like the Gini effect kick in.


Of course, we run into many variables and questions on how to properly measure. One would also come across the question if different styles are better for different senerios.

We can look at Luxemburg as a potential example of the opposite (a successful "Labor" nation, I won't say "socialist" because we can bicker on that word too). It applies Kenyesian policies (the correct way, I might add, when times are good, you cut spending to get back into a surplus), has strong unions, has been tightening up their accounting laws, and has high taxes, yet maintains an open policy towards other nations. As such, they are ranked in the top 3 (from #1 to #3, pending your source).

Yes, its generally agreed that when it comes to economic data, its often a bickering contest since there are so many variables go on. I think I've stated before that I agree with the keynesian.

Curious about the unions though. I've had a hostility towards unions once I studied economics. I don't see how they can be beneficial though since they don't really add any value. I really don't see how they can do anything but increase unemployment.

My oppinion regarding a company's responsibilities.

A company has a responsibility to three different aspects.

1) To their owners/shareholders. Companies need to take care of and thank those that invested in them and started them up. Often through dividends.

2) To their customers. Companies need to take care of their customers because, the money that keeps the company following comes from their customers. This is often down by trying to maintain high quality and low cost (e.g. a balance of the two) and helpful customer service.

3) To their employees. Companies need to take care of the employees since they are the ones that take care of the customers, which in turn generates money. This is often done through good wages and benefits.

Unions formed to ensure that the employee part got taken care of, but nothing else. A union can be very helpful when the employee part of the triange is lacking. However, because it only focuses on one aspect, it can also grow that one aspect over the line of balance (I see this most with the TU). This is why unions had such a positive effect through the 50's, 60's and 70's, and why they started becoming a problem in the late 80's 90's and early 00's. And now it is getting to where it may swing back to where they are helpful. But to stop the pendulm, they need to get the employees properly taken care of, then back off, and not push beyond the balance.


It also isn't really accurate to look at tax rates allone. When you have a wealthier nation, a lower tax rate is much simplier, since there is less need from the people, and when they make more money, a lower percentage of income per person can be applied.

True

I think another major thing to look at for these wealthy and growing nation is their military expense.

(Stating from memory, so I might be wrong)
Hong Kong - none
Singapore - none
Luxembourg - not sure of expense but size is 800 army, 0 air force, 0 navy. I would imagine that this costs less than $100 million (that would be $125,000 per soldier), which is less than 1% of the government's budget.

I thought for awhile, how much better North Korea could be doing if it didn't waste 25% of the national GDP on its miliary. Looking at Japan, which was completely wasted after WW2, and how it bounced back, largely in part because they did not need to waste money on their own protection (the US had it covered), while much of Europe was slow because they had to keep up military spending to provide a defense against the USSR.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"