Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Extreme economic circumstances.

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 2:14:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Even if you're against redistribution in general, would you concede it is necessary in extreme situations where a wealthy upper class controls 99% of the wealth and the rest of the people are dirt poor (like third-world country poor)?

Example: Palestinian territories, where Yasser Arafat became incredibly rich by pilfering money from charity for the Palestinians and the PLO received millions from taxing the descendants of former Palestinian refugees. This was while the actual territories had massive unemployment and survived almost entirely on welfare.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Jake-migkillertwo
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 2:32:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/11/2012 2:14:44 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Even if you're against redistribution in general, would you concede it is necessary in extreme situations where a wealthy upper class controls 99% of the wealth and the rest of the people are dirt poor (like third-world country poor)?

Example: Palestinian territories, where Yasser Arafat became incredibly rich by pilfering money from charity for the Palestinians and the PLO received millions from taxing the descendants of former Palestinian refugees. This was while the actual territories had massive unemployment and survived almost entirely on welfare.

I would not say that it is necessarily true that redistribution of wealth is a good even in such extreme cases of inequality.

Let's have the tl;dr overview of factor markets. Factors of production are paid their marignal products by those who use them (usually businesses) to produce output. So wages are simply a stock/flow equilibrium. Given the level of technology and the amount of each factor of production, the marginal productivity of each factor (land, labor, capital, knowledge, entrepreneurial skill, whatever) is a given.

Now such a distribution of income is a result of a certain distribution of factors. if one person owns 99% of income, he probably has a lot of one factor of production.

If such a factor is land and it just exists (doesn't need to be maintained, doesn't need to be replenished, etc.), then it probably makes sense to redistribute land to those who work it because teh peasants might be just as productive with said land.

But if such a factor is capital and it depreciates and needs to be replaced, then confiscating such factors of production might make people less inclined to replace said factors.

If the factors of production are not land and labor, but labor and capital, and I own a factory, I might decide to not invest any more of my income if the government decides to confiscate my factory and redistribute it to the workers. At first it's a simple zero-sum transaction: my "obscene" profits are redistributed to workers in the form of higher wages.

But if the factory's machine and plant degrades with use over time, somebody has to replace it, and that somebody would be those who save. But if the government doesn't like investors, then people won't invest, and the factory will continue to degrade, and therefore overall output and therefore wages will decline.

So in the long run, the incentives created by redistribution of wealth could easily make everyone worse off. This is exactly the situation in developing nations with poorly developed financial and legal systems. Some systems make it extremely burdensome for banks to claim title to collateral, thus making loans riskier. If loans are too risky, savers will decide not to lend to people with profitable investment opportunities because the arcane legal systems create massive problems of adverse selection and moral hazard.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 4:10:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anyone who applies the same solution, regardless of context, doesn't know how the world works.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2012 4:29:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's redistribution through taxation and spending (this is what governments basically do - taxes from, for example, the timber industry, get spent via government contracts in, let's say, the aerospace industry - wealth redistributed), or are you talking about being a modern day Robin Hood?

I'm not necessarily opposed to the latter, even if part of the wealth being redistributed will be destroyed in the redistribution process, as legitimized criminal activity, a la the modern banking indusry, destroys much more wealth by being allowed to continue their legalized racketeering than could possibly be lost in a one-time redistribution of that wealth.

Just curios which one you're talking about.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2012 11:14:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."

Andrew Carnegie
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2012 12:32:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 11:14:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."

Andrew Carnegie

That is retarded.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2012 8:58:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/14/2012 12:32:54 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/13/2012 11:14:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."

Andrew Carnegie

That is retarded.

You're retarded.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 8:40:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/13/2012 11:14:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."

Andrew Carnegie

But Carnegie himself was always compromising. He paid wages, didn't he? Shamefully low ones, but wages. Then didn't he compromise again by paying back a portion of those profits in exchange for pride, prestige, and his name everywhere?
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 6:38:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
But how do you implement it in such a way as to avoid the exact same issue you describe with Arafat? It seems to me you have to assume there are benevolent, trusting souls that can be given control to do the confiscation and redistribution.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 7:40:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 6:38:49 PM, ax123man wrote:
But how do you implement it in such a way as to avoid the exact same issue you describe with Arafat? It seems to me you have to assume there are benevolent, trusting souls that can be given control to do the confiscation and redistribution.

Why stop at confiscation and redistribution? Why not banking, maintenance, groundskeeping, too? Life is a bunch of trade-offs; you can try to do it all yourself--low risk, low efficiency--or you can delegate tasks.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 8:07:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 8:40:20 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/13/2012 11:14:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."

Andrew Carnegie

But Carnegie himself was always compromising. He paid wages, didn't he? Shamefully low ones, but wages. Then didn't he compromise again by paying back a portion of those profits in exchange for pride, prestige, and his name everywhere?

Lol wut? Since when is not paying wages a symbol of his philosophy? Since when is getting profits an exchange for pride, prestige, and his name? Stop this dumbfvckery.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 8:16:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 8:07:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Lol wut? Since when is not paying wages a symbol of his philosophy? Since when is getting profits an exchange for pride, prestige, and his name? Stop this dumbfvckery.

I said paying profits back, not getting them. As for the wages, you don't think he would have preferred to just help himself to the labor power free of charge?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 8:57:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 8:16:14 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/17/2012 8:07:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Lol wut? Since when is not paying wages a symbol of his philosophy? Since when is getting profits an exchange for pride, prestige, and his name? Stop this dumbfvckery.

I said paying profits back, not getting them.

Since when are free market people against voluntary private charity?

As for the wages, you don't think he would have preferred to just help himself to the labor power free of charge?

Who wouldn't? However, how does that directly coincide with his libertarian ideology?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 9:08:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/15/2012 8:58:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/14/2012 12:32:54 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/13/2012 11:14:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."

Andrew Carnegie

That is retarded.

You're retarded.

It can be true that if the world abides by certain principles, it would be for the best.

But we do not live in a world willing to do that. We live among disagreements and diversity.

Nothing gets improved unless people are willing to compromise.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2012 9:17:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 9:08:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/15/2012 8:58:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/14/2012 12:32:54 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/13/2012 11:14:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."

Andrew Carnegie

That is retarded.

You're retarded.

It can be true that if the world abides by certain principles, it would be for the best.

But we do not live in a world willing to do that. We live among disagreements and diversity.

Nothing gets improved unless people are willing to compromise.

Considering that virtually every scientific, social, and economic interaction in the world can be mathematically mapped out and modelled, the world certainly abides by specific rules. It's just a matter of creating a theory to suit these facts.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 2:26:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 9:17:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/17/2012 9:08:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/15/2012 8:58:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/14/2012 12:32:54 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/13/2012 11:14:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."

Andrew Carnegie

That is retarded.

You're retarded.

It can be true that if the world abides by certain principles, it would be for the best.

But we do not live in a world willing to do that. We live among disagreements and diversity.

Nothing gets improved unless people are willing to compromise.

Considering that virtually every scientific, social, and economic interaction in the world can be mathematically mapped out and modelled, the world certainly abides by specific rules. It's just a matter of creating a theory to suit these facts.

No, every scientific, social and economic interaction cannot be mapped out. Chaos theory. Small anomalies create vast unpredictable affects.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 2:47:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 2:26:59 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2012 9:17:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/17/2012 9:08:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/15/2012 8:58:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/14/2012 12:32:54 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/13/2012 11:14:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
"The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."

Andrew Carnegie

That is retarded.

You're retarded.

It can be true that if the world abides by certain principles, it would be for the best.

But we do not live in a world willing to do that. We live among disagreements and diversity.

Nothing gets improved unless people are willing to compromise.

Considering that virtually every scientific, social, and economic interaction in the world can be mathematically mapped out and modelled, the world certainly abides by specific rules. It's just a matter of creating a theory to suit these facts.

No, every scientific, social and economic interaction cannot be mapped out. Chaos theory. Small anomalies create vast unpredictable affects.

that doesn't mean it can't be modeled. It just means that it can't be predicted. Chaos theory has been modeled quite well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 3:32:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 2:47:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
that doesn't mean it can't be modeled. It just means that it can't be predicted. Chaos theory has been modeled quite well.

Yes, the point being that you won't be able to follow any principles into a perfect order.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 4:03:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/17/2012 8:57:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Since when are free market people against voluntary private charity?

Did I say they were? That's the point; such charity is a compromise, contrary to Carnegie's macho pretense.

Who wouldn't? However, how does that directly coincide with his libertarian ideology?

Did I say it did? That's the point; libertarian ideology is inconsistent, because it's for compromise in transfer, but what's being transferred is dictatorship. It's not unlike the slave trade in that regard.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 10:48:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 3:32:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/18/2012 2:47:23 AM, darkkermit wrote:
that doesn't mean it can't be modeled. It just means that it can't be predicted. Chaos theory has been modeled quite well.

Yes, the point being that you won't be able to follow any principles into a perfect order.

Who needs perfect?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 5:10:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 4:03:36 AM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/17/2012 8:57:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Since when are free market people against voluntary private charity?

Did I say they were? That's the point; such charity is a compromise, contrary to Carnegie's macho pretense.

Lol wut? If they aren't against charity then donating to charity cannot in any way be a compromise of his principle. Are you retarded?

Who wouldn't? However, how does that directly coincide with his libertarian ideology?

Did I say it did? That's the point; libertarian ideology is inconsistent, because it's for compromise in transfer, but what's being transferred is dictatorship. It's not unlike the slave trade in that regard.

Dictatorship? The whole premise of libertarianism is voluntary exchange. Perhaps you should get your head out of your as$ before existing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 7:52:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 5:10:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Dictatorship? The whole premise of libertarianism is voluntary exchange. Perhaps you should get your head out of your as$ before existing.

Perhaps you should learn to read. I granted that libertarianism's exchange is voluntary, but "whole premise"? No, there's also the matter of what is being voluntarily exchanged. In the case of libertarianism, that's dictatorship; the one deemed owner has sole power over the property.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 7:58:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 7:52:14 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/18/2012 5:10:32 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Dictatorship? The whole premise of libertarianism is voluntary exchange. Perhaps you should get your head out of your as$ before existing.

Perhaps you should learn to read. I granted that libertarianism's exchange is voluntary, but "whole premise"? No, there's also the matter of what is being voluntarily exchanged. In the case of libertarianism, that's dictatorship; the one deemed owner has sole power over the property.

Is it a dictatorship in the warped sense of the world that you have absolute control over your own property? Yes. Is it a "dictatorship" in the way that any sane and non-mentally handicapped person uses it? No.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 8:06:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 7:58:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Is it a dictatorship in the warped sense of the world that you have absolute control over your own property? Yes. Is it a "dictatorship" in the way that any sane and non-mentally handicapped person uses it? No.

You have cause and effect reversed; what makes it yours is that you have absolute control over it. Now, that doesn't mean you don't have some weak justification for such control; indeed, dictators are more reliant on propaganda than anyone.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 8:07:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 8:06:16 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/18/2012 7:58:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Is it a dictatorship in the warped sense of the world that you have absolute control over your own property? Yes. Is it a "dictatorship" in the way that any sane and non-mentally handicapped person uses it? No.

You have cause and effect reversed; what makes it yours is that you have absolute control over it. Now, that doesn't mean you don't have some weak justification for such control; indeed, dictators are more reliant on propaganda than anyone.

http://tgfb.net...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 9:54:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/18/2012 8:56:21 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 12/18/2012 8:07:55 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
http://tgfb.net...

tl;dr

?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."