“Planners”, eh?
Not “regulators” or “auditors” or “courts of law”?
Not “the moral censure of society at large”, which is the only thing we’ve actually done to these bastards yet?
“Planners”, as in centrally-planned economies, like that one in Eastern Europe a few decades back? Like that nice man with the moustache and the five-year plans?
Not sure what you’re getting at there, is there some semiotic implication I’m missing?
What? Computers are not doodads. Most information one learns in school is available for free on the internet.
Neither is access to public schools as is very evident. The info is there for free if people don’t want to use it that’s their choice. Public schools aren’t free yet they still aren’t used in many areas. So which makes sense to advocate?
After WWII only the US had a surviving manufacturing base. This would seem to be more relevant to why the US economy grew during the 50s and 60s. Seems once competition geared up, along with even more government spending, in the 70s thing fell off the rails.
I would say never. Or possibly by accident.
You don’t seem to understand what a market system is. A market is a system of voluntary interaction, if it’s enforced it’s not a free market. I guess when every solution one can imagine is based on centralized power it’s hard to understand.
Nope, the US economy for example has been increasingly regulated over that period. The exact opposite of what you state is true.
Yikes! Are you kidding? How is wealth data human lives?
Regulations exist and are created without government intervention.
I don’t, that’s why I don’t want government imposed regulations. They’ll always be corrupted.
Property laws aren’t regulation- at least not those protecting ownership.
Seems like that would be pretty violent.
I think it would end pretty poorly for those who attempted to take another person’s property. Currently it seems to me those who want to take need protections- in the US at least.
As the cost of labor increases along with productivity there is less demand for long hours. Of course there will be many reasons, I don’t think it’s safe to assume only through bureaucracies can people enact positive change.
No, is that the only outcome? Seems rather pessimistic to me.
Uh… business taxes already pay for the bulk of public education. Come on now, this is basic.
And a decrease in Pirates. It’s crazy!
I didn’t make the assertion- I’m not arguing that theirs a tea cup in orbit around the sun.
Markets are based on many individuals interacting, mostly following their own goals. Markets are an example of spontaneous order- they exist and are created without any top down commands.
They’re very large and small from a neighborhood lemonade stand to big business deals.
Why can you only imagine a non-voluntary central authority as a solution?
No, it doesn’t matter what you name the planner and enforcers, I was referring to central planning itself. Call it fuzzy bunny planning, it make no difference.
Really? Who is doing the regulating, then? And how are the regulations created?[quote=“stupendousman, post:64, topic:15348”]
Property laws aren’t regulation- at least not those protecting ownership.
[/quote]
Sure they are. Property laws, like all laws, serve to regulate how people act.
Incarceration of those who violate property laws is pretty violent. Laws allowing you to use force in defence of property are pretty violent.
OK, if you really want to get rid of government intervention, then lets get rid of all property laws, release all prisoners incarcerated on property crimes (well, release everyone since prisons are also forms of government regulation), and rely on people protecting themselves. If this doesn’t sound like a good idea, then you’re really not against government and regulation per se, just against regulations you don’t agree with.
That’s a proposition I never made. I will note, however, that laws regulating hours and conditions of employment predated any employer-driven trend towards shorter hours. And why would market forces ever want less labour out of profitable employees? Are the market-driven employers suddenly saying “OK, he’s made enough money for us—we don’t need any more profit from him”?
No, what’s basic is that [property taxes are a hugely important component of k-12 education funding][1], which is why living in a poor area of town (with lower property values and lower tax revenues) means that you will almost certainly receive a poorer education. And thanks to publicly-funded PBS for providing information that someone who believes in less government and self-driven, technology-based education was apparently unable to find on his own.
[1]: Finance ~ How Do We Fund Our Schools? | Where We Stand | PBS[quote=“stupendousman, post:64, topic:15348”]
And a decrease in Pirates. It’s crazy!
[/quote]
What’s crazy is that you probably believe this is actually a valid response. Perhaps you forgot that we were talking about increasing employment regulations (which you then compared to regulations in general, and it is your generalization that I was responding to); are you suggesting that increasing (employment) regulations have not actually had an effect on employment conditions?
No, but you are making an assertion that poor kids have better technology than you have. If this is not a relevant assertion, just say so, and we’ll be fine with totally disregarding your statement and giving it no weight whatsoever.
Interactions are not voluntary when they are performed on a backdrop of state laws backed up by state coercion. Laws favoring property owners mean that transactions are not completely free, as property holders have recourse to state coercion should arbitrary property laws be violated.
It’s also available for “free” in schools. And to most families schools are more free than the internet since they don’t require the purchase of any devices or rental of infrastructure.
Of course it matters what you call it.
I could equally well sum up a hands-off stance on economic regulation as “naive optimism”, “sullen apathy” or “craven toadying” and that makes a world of difference.
You can’t expect to just parrot web-forum buzzwords like “central planning” or “fiat currency” and be taken seriously by a broader audience.
The market doesn’t care if you fall ill or your cart gets stolen or if your orchard burns to the ground. It only cares that you have apples. No apples? GFY
There is no human element to the market. It is indifferent. Arbitrary.
We already exist at the mercy of an arbitrary force (nature) to piggyback another arbitrary force on top of that seems insane to me
still not getting london’s value in the modern economy.
What’s your question, exactly? I mean, the metropolitan London area comprises about 30% of the UK’s GDP, so it’s pretty important/valuable in that sense. I doubt that’s what you’re asking, though.
The wealth gap has serious consequences for human beings. That’s my point.
Do you need them to survive–do they provide food, shelter, or love/community? Then, yes, they are "doodads, in that we don’t need them. Education, however, we do need that. In any society, no matter they type, understanding how a society works is necessary. Having access to facebook or the twitters (or Wikipedia for that matter) is not. And no… once again, the internet is not free.
Might have to do with how neglected some public schools are, actually. But let’s just gloss over the education disparity along with the wealth gap, right?
Public spending did not stop. We poured billions into infrastructure across the country AFTER THE WAR including the largest public works program in history, the highways. We poured money into schools, and subsidized housing and education for millions of (white, male) Americans. We embraced (commercial) Keynsianism, which indeed kept the economy humming along for at least 2 decades postwar. Unlike post WW1, where the federal govenment pulled out of the private sector, the federal government stayed in. And taxes stayed high on the upper brackets, too. The Cold War had much to do with this. The 70s saw detente and deindustrialization, and local struggles over resource allocation, especially in the wake of civil rights. See Lizbeth Cohen’s Consumer Republic, Kevin Kruse White Flight, and Lassiter’s Silent Majority.
Theory of what a market system is does not equal what it actually has been historically. There is not market economy without modern forms of government. They make it happen. There is always going to be force of some kind in that system. That is modernity and that is a market economy. Try reading other economists, like Polyani or Keynes.
Increasingly regulated for a the benefit of large corporate interests maybe.
Contracts, private mediation of contracts, civil court, industry standards, etc.
I’m certainly not in favor of incarceration- public shaming, adopting of a reputation economy, and social banishment are more my speed.
Defense of property is defense of oneself.
Hm… no changes would have to be made gradually. Certainly changing laws protecting negative rights would be last.
Because labor has finite utility. Just because a business can make X widgets doesn’t mean their are X customers to purchase them.
OK, maybe I was a bit off. But you will notice an area with many businesses, factories etc. usually has a good tax base. Poor areas of town usually don’t have many.
I’m suggesting that it would have happened anyway at less cost.
OK, so you dispute this?
Yes I agree.
That’s a statement. How do property laws favor property owners?
Nope, it’s been paid for.
It isn’t hands-off. Do you think people interact in a market blindly?
It might, it doesn’t guaranty serious consequences. Assuming one outcome to a situation would seem to lead to only on solution regardless of outcome.
Not might. DOES. It does. It IS having serious consequences.
Yes you do need them in today’s economy. Love/community?
So? I never said it did.
Markets develop spontaneously. There have been markets as long as there have been people. Government is one method used to regulate markets but it isn’t necessary, there are other options.
No.
More important to human survival than ipads, if you ask me.
Are you purposefully missing my points on this issue? The postwar expansion rested on government spending. Full stop. the federal government was involved in positive economic growth…[quote=“stupendousman, post:78, topic:15348”]
Markets develop spontaneously.
[/quote]
A market economy is a very specific thing, of the past few hundred years. All trade is not markets.[quote=“stupendousman, post:78, topic:15348”]
No.
[/quote]
Yes?
Who enforces those contracts? Who makes and carries out civil judgments? [quote=“stupendousman, post:74, topic:15348”]
“And why would market forces ever want less labour out of profitable employees?”
Because labor has finite utility. Just because a business can make X widgets doesn’t mean their are X customers to purchase them.
[/quote]
So our theoretical business would prefer to employ more people to make x widgets when they could employ fewer people to make the same x number of widets. And why would they prefer that, again?
You are totally wrong about something you think is basic knowledge, and your response is that “maybe” you were “a bit off”? I’m also not sure what you think you’re saying, either: that there are great schools in factory-heavy areas? That businesses are unaffected by demand, and are not correlated to the income levels of their locale? That business taxes comprise a substantial component of tax revenue (they don’t, and on average about 3% of state and local revenues come from corporate tax)? If places with lots of businesses and factories do have good tax bases, it’s not because of the corporate tax being paid by those businesses.
Again, what’s the basis for this claim? I mean, other than weird logic about how employers would stop wanting more hours from their employees—apparently because companies enjoy the higher production costs that come with more employees working fewer hours, as compared to fewer employees working longer hours.
Well, do you agree that property laws are state laws backed by state coercion? Because if so, then you agree that transactions involving property are not purely voluntary.
And how do property taxes favour property owners? Basically the same way the first amendment favours those speaking in public.
The very point of property laws is to protect property owners. Going back to an example I used earlier, as US copyright law has evolved it has taken more and more “property” that belonged to the public and put it in private ownership. You are now criminally and civilly liable (under laws that the government will enforce) for things that would have been perfectly OK in prior eras. It’s pretty clear that these property laws are protecting the “owners” of this property. The same can be said of other forms of property. Squatters rights have changed and are increasingly restrictive. Both of these examples show how laws are evolving to be increasingly protective of property owners, and both illustrate how the laws protect those who own property. But if you want to know how property laws fundamentally protect property owners, you only have to recognize that the state punishes people for breaking these arbitrary laws. Theft is a crime, and the state will punish you, protecting the owner of the property.
I understand that’s your objection. But you think that technology devices and infrastructure are free? If they’re free, why on earth would anyone have better technology than you? Shouldn’t everyone have the same amount of this free technology?
Ummm, a few posts ago you were vigorously criticizing the point that wealth is the same as a human life. But now you’re saying that defending property is the same as defending a person?
Sure, I’m disputing that the average poor kid has better technology than the average guy in your position.
