Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Two Issues With Capitalism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 2:30:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's a lot of issues that can be talked about but lets just focus on these two here.

The first is the reality of limited resources.

To understand this we can start off by thinking of a survival situation on a small island. There are only so many supplies for everyone. Is a system where people are allowed to indefinitely stockpile those resources and charge others for their use of them really a rational system? Even hardened Libertarians should be able to disregard ideology in favor of practical application of action based on context. But now, why do they suddenly assume that this no longer applies when considering the world as a whole? They must bring forward a case. It seems to me the majority of problems that people hold with Capitalism arise of this issue. Capitalism would be perfect if we all had unlimited easy access to resources. But we don't live in that world.

The second is the reality that economic growth is not a priori.

Lets ignore that there's great arguments for certain regulations actually helping economic growth. Lets humor the Libertarians and say that pure Capitalism is the most productive. Economic growth exists so that we may increase prosperity. But, at times, the methods used to reach it may actually be opposed to net prosperity. And, at times, economic growth itself may actually be opposed to net prosperity, due largely to the first issue. Libertarian often seem baffled when they prove a certain regulation to be bad for economic growth and yet people go on advocating it. But perhaps they are simply missing the point of the regulation. Examples include labor laws and environmental protection. Economic growth is not a solve-all, end-all. They must also provide a justification here.

Or they could just reform their opinion.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 3:36:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 2:30:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There's a lot of issues that can be talked about but lets just focus on these two here.

The first is the reality of limited resources.

To understand this we can start off by thinking of a survival situation on a small island. There are only so many supplies for everyone. Is a system where people are allowed to indefinitely stockpile those resources and charge others for their use of them really a rational system? Even hardened Libertarians should be able to disregard ideology in favor of practical application of action based on context. But now, why do they suddenly assume that this no longer applies when considering the world as a whole? They must bring forward a case. It seems to me the majority of problems that people hold with Capitalism arise of this issue. Capitalism would be perfect if we all had unlimited easy access to resources. But we don't live in that world.

The second is the reality that economic growth is not a priori.

Lets ignore that there's great arguments for certain regulations actually helping economic growth. Lets humor the Libertarians and say that pure Capitalism is the most productive. Economic growth exists so that we may increase prosperity. But, at times, the methods used to reach it may actually be opposed to net prosperity. And, at times, economic growth itself may actually be opposed to net prosperity, due largely to the first issue. Libertarian often seem baffled when they prove a certain regulation to be bad for economic growth and yet people go on advocating it. But perhaps they are simply missing the point of the regulation. Examples include labor laws and environmental protection. Economic growth is not a solve-all, end-all. They must also provide a justification here.

Or they could just reform their opinion.

Your first objection sets up an impossible fantasy. Never in history has a single person completely controlled any natural resource. Competition forces firms to offer prices that closely represent the true worth of a good or service. Moreover, firms are only allowed to gather resources if they are permitted to do so. If the goods the firms are mining, picking, drilling are truly so scarce and in demand, the firm will need to spend a large sum of capital to be able to command the resources. Firms cannot just walk around and take all the resources they want. That's not how it works.

Your second objection ignores the fact that capitalism revolves around choice, and ignores the clear picture history has so clearly, and so painfully painted. Negative externalities cause by firms, such as environmental damage, should be compensated for.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:42:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Don't take it as an ad hom, but it seems reoccurring that the biggest obstacle in conversing with Libertarians is getting them to stop thinking in black in white.

Yes, of course that extreme isn't the reality. But perfect competition isn't the reality either. The point is that things are somewhere in-between. And that point changes based on context. There's no sure way to do things across different times and places. Capitalism would be perfect under the certain conditions. But no where are those conditions present on Earth. We also don't have the opposite conditions which make Capitalism entirely wrong.

The facts I present are here not to argue that Capitalism is wrong. I do not say it is right or wrong. I'm just asking people to accept that different systems are necessary under different scenarios. And then I'm asking them to look around at the imperfect and complex world we have and base their political decisions off of that, rather than pursuing blind ideological standards.

It is a given that different situations call for different methods. Take my island example. Capitalism in that situation can end up catastrophic. So unless someone can provide an argument for why Capitalism works under all circumstances, including that one, this point is not up for debate. What we should be debating is what our situation is and what method it, specifically, calls for.

Also take note that I do not equate Capitalism with free association. Capitalism is a property system.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:47:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:42:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Don't take it as an ad hom, but it seems reoccurring that the biggest obstacle in conversing with Libertarians is getting them to stop thinking in black in white.

Yes, of course that extreme isn't the reality. But perfect competition isn't the reality either. The point is that things are somewhere in-between. And that point changes based on context. There's no sure way to do things across different times and places. Capitalism would be perfect under the certain conditions. But no where are those conditions present on Earth. We also don't have the opposite conditions which make Capitalism entirely wrong.

The facts I present are here not to argue that Capitalism is wrong. I do not say it is right or wrong. I'm just asking people to accept that different systems are necessary under different scenarios. And then I'm asking them to look around at the imperfect and complex world we have and base their political decisions off of that, rather than pursuing blind ideological standards.

It is a given that different situations call for different methods. Take my island example. Capitalism in that situation can end up catastrophic. So unless someone can provide an argument for why Capitalism works under all circumstances, including that one, this point is not up for debate. What we should be debating is what our situation is and what method it, specifically, calls for.

Also take note that I do not equate Capitalism with free association. Capitalism is a property system.

I find it unproductive to discuss political or economic systems in such abstract terms such as the desert island scenario, because it's ultimately irrelevant.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:51:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We're not talking about the desert scenario. We're talking about our current scenario. The island scenario is meant to illustrate a point that method changes with context.

All I'm asking you to do is think. Which is the opposite of what ideology does. Ideology assumes that the same thing works everywhere. But as I've just explained, that's retarded.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:53:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:51:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
We're not talking about the desert scenario. We're talking about our current scenario. The island scenario is meant to illustrate a point that method changes with context.

All I'm asking you to do is think. Which is the opposite of what ideology does. Ideology assumes that the same thing works everywhere. But as I've just explained, that's retarded.

Just because I don't periodically say "Capitalism is awesome, but not on desert islands with limited resources, mind you," doesn't mean I'm not thinking.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:57:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:42:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Don't take it as an ad hom, but it seems reoccurring that the biggest obstacle in conversing with Libertarians is getting them to stop thinking in black in white.

Yes, of course that extreme isn't the reality. But perfect competition isn't the reality either. The point is that things are somewhere in-between. And that point changes based on context. There's no sure way to do things across different times and places. Capitalism would be perfect under the certain conditions. But no where are those conditions present on Earth. We also don't have the opposite conditions which make Capitalism entirely wrong.

The facts I present are here not to argue that Capitalism is wrong. I do not say it is right or wrong. I'm just asking people to accept that different systems are necessary under different scenarios. And then I'm asking them to look around at the imperfect and complex world we have and base their political decisions off of that, rather than pursuing blind ideological standards.

It is a given that different situations call for different methods. Take my island example. Capitalism in that situation can end up catastrophic. So unless someone can provide an argument for why Capitalism works under all circumstances, including that one, this point is not up for debate. What we should be debating is what our situation is and what method it, specifically, calls for.

Also take note that I do not equate Capitalism with free association. Capitalism is a property system.

Life is black and white. Sometimes the issue is so intricate that it looks gray from a distance, but there are always absolute principles involved. The third law of logic, the law of the excluded middle, dictates this. By asking people to be 'realistic' and admit that there is 'gray area' you are asking them to abandon reality by declaring that there are special areas where the laws of logic break down. Like hypothetical islands. The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict. But it is absolute.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:58:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:53:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 9:51:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
We're not talking about the desert scenario. We're talking about our current scenario. The island scenario is meant to illustrate a point that method changes with context.

All I'm asking you to do is think. Which is the opposite of what ideology does. Ideology assumes that the same thing works everywhere. But as I've just explained, that's retarded.

Just because I don't periodically say "Capitalism is awesome, but not on desert islands with limited resources, mind you," doesn't mean I'm not thinking.

I didn't say you weren't. I don't anything about you.

But ideology is definitely a barrier. It's a nice trick we like to play on ourselves to make us feel like we've figured everything out without actually needing to figure anything out. Just apply blanket standards. The truth is that it's much much much harder than that. And we are ignorant little ants in a complex world.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 9:59:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:57:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/2/2013 9:42:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Don't take it as an ad hom, but it seems reoccurring that the biggest obstacle in conversing with Libertarians is getting them to stop thinking in black in white.

Yes, of course that extreme isn't the reality. But perfect competition isn't the reality either. The point is that things are somewhere in-between. And that point changes based on context. There's no sure way to do things across different times and places. Capitalism would be perfect under the certain conditions. But no where are those conditions present on Earth. We also don't have the opposite conditions which make Capitalism entirely wrong.

The facts I present are here not to argue that Capitalism is wrong. I do not say it is right or wrong. I'm just asking people to accept that different systems are necessary under different scenarios. And then I'm asking them to look around at the imperfect and complex world we have and base their political decisions off of that, rather than pursuing blind ideological standards.

It is a given that different situations call for different methods. Take my island example. Capitalism in that situation can end up catastrophic. So unless someone can provide an argument for why Capitalism works under all circumstances, including that one, this point is not up for debate. What we should be debating is what our situation is and what method it, specifically, calls for.

Also take note that I do not equate Capitalism with free association. Capitalism is a property system.

Life is black and white. Sometimes the issue is so intricate that it looks gray from a distance, but there are always absolute principles involved. The third law of logic, the law of the excluded middle, dictates this. By asking people to be 'realistic' and admit that there is 'gray area' you are asking them to abandon reality by declaring that there are special areas where the laws of logic break down. Like hypothetical islands. The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict. But it is absolute.

Ayn Rand : "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."
<3
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:01:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:57:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Life is black and white. Sometimes the issue is so intricate that it looks gray from a distance, but there are always absolute principles involved. The third law of logic, the law of the excluded middle, dictates this. By asking people to be 'realistic' and admit that there is 'gray area' you are asking them to abandon reality by declaring that there are special areas where the laws of logic break down. Like hypothetical islands. The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict. But it is absolute.

You're semantically agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:06:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 9:57:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/2/2013 9:42:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Don't take it as an ad hom, but it seems reoccurring that the biggest obstacle in conversing with Libertarians is getting them to stop thinking in black in white.

Yes, of course that extreme isn't the reality. But perfect competition isn't the reality either. The point is that things are somewhere in-between. And that point changes based on context. There's no sure way to do things across different times and places. Capitalism would be perfect under the certain conditions. But no where are those conditions present on Earth. We also don't have the opposite conditions which make Capitalism entirely wrong.

The facts I present are here not to argue that Capitalism is wrong. I do not say it is right or wrong. I'm just asking people to accept that different systems are necessary under different scenarios. And then I'm asking them to look around at the imperfect and complex world we have and base their political decisions off of that, rather than pursuing blind ideological standards.

It is a given that different situations call for different methods. Take my island example. Capitalism in that situation can end up catastrophic. So unless someone can provide an argument for why Capitalism works under all circumstances, including that one, this point is not up for debate. What we should be debating is what our situation is and what method it, specifically, calls for.

Also take note that I do not equate Capitalism with free association. Capitalism is a property system.

Life is black and white. Sometimes the issue is so intricate that it looks gray from a distance, but there are always absolute principles involved. The third law of logic, the law of the excluded middle, dictates this. By asking people to be 'realistic' and admit that there is 'gray area' you are asking them to abandon reality by declaring that there are special areas where the laws of logic break down. Like hypothetical islands. The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict. But it is absolute.

Skep, I think he meant that capitalism cannot be discussed in black in white because there is no automatic frame of reference for it to apply to. Therefore, it has to be judged in black and white (good or bad) on an individual basis.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:07:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:01:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/2/2013 9:57:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Life is black and white. Sometimes the issue is so intricate that it looks gray from a distance, but there are always absolute principles involved. The third law of logic, the law of the excluded middle, dictates this. By asking people to be 'realistic' and admit that there is 'gray area' you are asking them to abandon reality by declaring that there are special areas where the laws of logic break down. Like hypothetical islands. The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict. But it is absolute.

You're semantically agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time.

No, I am disagreeing with your implorations to abandon ideology because it is absolute and the world is not. I'm neither agreeing nor am I disagreeing with your conclusion. I will elaborate on my views now. If capitalism cannot be applied to an area it is not because there s a gray-ness to it which we mere mortals cannot possibly understand, it is because the absolute conditions there are different from the absolute conditions elsewhere. For example, if every person in a community was required to sustain said community through labor then capitalism could not work as it requires a government to function, which his society is incapable of supporting.

But in what are commonly called 'first-world countries', capitalism is the best system available to us, with the possible exception of anarchism, which I believe could only survive in certain rare and fragile situations.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:12:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Your sentiment "The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict" was the whole point behind my "things are not black and white". Who knows what either of us means by ideology.

Words are often not the same.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:14:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:12:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Your sentiment "The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict" was the whole point behind my "things are not black and white". Who knows what either of us means by ideology.

Words are often not the same.

No, skep means things are black and white whether we can deconstruct the issue effectively or not.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:16:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:12:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Your sentiment "The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict" was the whole point behind my "things are not black and white". Who knows what either of us means by ideology.

Words are often not the same.

Freedom is discussion black and white as it pertains to words, phrases, concepts or ideas; skep is discussing black and white as it pertains to actual events. Big difference here.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:16:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:16:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 10:12:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Your sentiment "The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict" was the whole point behind my "things are not black and white". Who knows what either of us means by ideology.

Words are often not the same.

Freedom is discussion black and white as it pertains to words, phrases, concepts or ideas; skep is discussing black and white as it pertains to actual events. Big difference here.

Freedo*
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:21:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:14:08 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 10:12:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Your sentiment "The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict" was the whole point behind my "things are not black and white". Who knows what either of us means by ideology.

Words are often not the same.

No, skep means things are black and white whether we can deconstruct the issue effectively or not.

I'm obviously applying some standard, as I try to construct solutions at all. My "not black and white", then, applies to different situations and different methods to fit them. It would not, then, apply to basic standards for making sense of the world. At least not in the context of this thread. I do question that elsewhere.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:24:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:16:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 10:12:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Your sentiment "The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict" was the whole point behind my "things are not black and white". Who knows what either of us means by ideology.

Words are often not the same.

Freedom is discussion black and white as it pertains to words, phrases, concepts or ideas; skep is discussing black and white as it pertains to actual events. Big difference here.

That part is an honest misunderstanding then.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:28:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:16:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 10:12:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Your sentiment "The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict" was the whole point behind my "things are not black and white". Who knows what either of us means by ideology.

Words are often not the same.

Freedom is discussion black and white as it pertains to words, phrases, concepts or ideas; skep is discussing black and white as it pertains to actual events. Big difference here.

I'm I right on this, Freedo?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 10:29:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course, it still doesn't change the fact that Dylan's critique of your critique was never answered. He did make many of the pertinent points.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 3:20:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:28:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 10:16:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2013 10:12:14 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Your sentiment "The real world is complicated, it is messy, and it is hard to predict" was the whole point behind my "things are not black and white". Who knows what either of us means by ideology.

Words are often not the same.

Freedom is discussion black and white as it pertains to words, phrases, concepts or ideas; skep is discussing black and white as it pertains to actual events. Big difference here.

I'm I right on this, Freedo?

Not entirely sure what you said.

But I do think this is kind of a tangent.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 3:27:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 10:29:10 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Of course, it still doesn't change the fact that Dylan's critique of your critique was never answered. He did make many of the pertinent points.

What was not answered?

To his response of my first issue, I said, to paraphrase, that he had projected a false dichotomy. I set up no "fantasy". I reasserted that the real world is somewhere in-between the unlimited resources ideal for Capitalism and complete scarcity.

To his response of my first issue I let him know that my definition of Capitalism does not necessitate free association. That it is simply a property standard. Indeed, the people on the island could freely agree to hold everything in common. But it would no longer be Capitalism by my standard.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 3:54:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 2:30:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There's great arguments for certain regulations actually helping economic growth.

What regulations do you think foster economic growth?

Side thought: Economic growth can be stimulated during the short-term with monetary policy, but it greatly diminishes long-term output advances. So in this sense, one could argue that economic growth through stable, increasing production of goods and services is the goal.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 7:14:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 2:30:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There's a lot of issues that can be talked about but lets just focus on these two here.

The first is the reality of limited resources.

To understand this we can start off by thinking of a survival situation on a small island. There are only so many supplies for everyone. Is a system where people are allowed to indefinitely stockpile those resources and charge others for their use of them really a rational system? Even hardened Libertarians should be able to disregard ideology in favor of practical application of action based on context. But now, why do they suddenly assume that this no longer applies when considering the world as a whole? They must bring forward a case. It seems to me the majority of problems that people hold with Capitalism arise of this issue. Capitalism would be perfect if we all had unlimited easy access to resources. But we don't live in that world.
Coercive monopolies don't occur in a free market. Competition destroys them. When someone charges a high price for something in demand, there is an opening for someone to charge a lower price. Also, non coercive monopolies aren't bad. If there are no barriers to entry and a corporation is able to get to that point, it deserves it. Buy Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for a more in-depth explanation.


The second is the reality that economic growth is not a priori.

Lets ignore that there's great arguments for certain regulations actually helping economic growth. Lets humor the Libertarians and say that pure Capitalism is the most productive. Economic growth exists so that we may increase prosperity. But, at times, the methods used to reach it may actually be opposed to net prosperity. And, at times, economic growth itself may actually be opposed to net prosperity, due largely to the first issue. Libertarian often seem baffled when they prove a certain regulation to be bad for economic growth and yet people go on advocating it. But perhaps they are simply missing the point of the regulation. Examples include labor laws and environmental protection. Economic growth is not a solve-all, end-all. They must also provide a justification here.

Morality. I support free trade because I believe in individual rights. The benefits of growth are just a consequence of that. If statism was better in every way but freedom, I would still be a capitalist.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 7:24:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2013 3:54:06 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/2/2013 2:30:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There's great arguments for certain regulations actually helping economic growth.

What regulations do you think foster economic growth?

Side thought: Economic growth can be stimulated during the short-term with monetary policy, but it greatly diminishes long-term output advances. So in this sense, one could argue that economic growth through stable, increasing production of goods and services is the goal.

If you leave workers unemployed for too long in the short term their skills degrade, hurting long term growth.

A welfare state (and limited liability laws) allows entrepreneurs to take risks because they won't immediately go homeless if their enterprise fails

Patent laws allow researchers and the companies that fund them to reap the rewards of technological advances, providing an incentive to innovate.

Regulation can prevent externalities that hurt everyone, like air pollution.

Government expenditure can fill spending gaps that would not be taken by corporations because of risk. For example, a great deal of scientific research has no obvious short term or medium term benefit so firms underinvest in that kind of research. The internet and nuclear power, as well as countless other scientific advances were funded by government.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 9:27:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2013 7:14:55 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/2/2013 2:30:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There's a lot of issues that can be talked about but lets just focus on these two here.

The first is the reality of limited resources.

To understand this we can start off by thinking of a survival situation on a small island. There are only so many supplies for everyone. Is a system where people are allowed to indefinitely stockpile those resources and charge others for their use of them really a rational system? Even hardened Libertarians should be able to disregard ideology in favor of practical application of action based on context. But now, why do they suddenly assume that this no longer applies when considering the world as a whole? They must bring forward a case. It seems to me the majority of problems that people hold with Capitalism arise of this issue. Capitalism would be perfect if we all had unlimited easy access to resources. But we don't live in that world.
Coercive monopolies don't occur in a free market. Competition destroys them. When someone charges a high price for something in demand, there is an opening for someone to charge a lower price. Also, non coercive monopolies aren't bad. If there are no barriers to entry and a corporation is able to get to that point, it deserves it. Buy Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for a more in-depth explanation.


The second is the reality that economic growth is not a priori.

Lets ignore that there's great arguments for certain regulations actually helping economic growth. Lets humor the Libertarians and say that pure Capitalism is the most productive. Economic growth exists so that we may increase prosperity. But, at times, the methods used to reach it may actually be opposed to net prosperity. And, at times, economic growth itself may actually be opposed to net prosperity, due largely to the first issue. Libertarian often seem baffled when they prove a certain regulation to be bad for economic growth and yet people go on advocating it. But perhaps they are simply missing the point of the regulation. Examples include labor laws and environmental protection. Economic growth is not a solve-all, end-all. They must also provide a justification here.

Morality. I support free trade because I believe in individual rights. The benefits of growth are just a consequence of that. If statism was better in every way but freedom, I would still be a capitalist.

"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for a more in-depth explanation."

Love that book.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 1:20:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 2:30:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
There's a lot of issues that can be talked about but lets just focus on these two here.

The first is the reality of limited resources.

To understand this we can start off by thinking of a survival situation on a small island. There are only so many supplies for everyone.....

The only issue I take from this is that you assume all resources cannot be substituted for another with negligible loss of the quality of life. Of course air and water have no substitute, but we could get along with ethanol and zirconium diamonds if we had to.

Since we have 2/3 of a planet full of water and miles of atmosphere, these resources will prolly be around for a while. Even if you use up resources, some use can always be had with the byproducts. Even crap helps corn grow.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 1:25:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Maybe 5000 years from now, people will have expensive deep drilling mines harvesting discarded plastics in landfills.... who knows?