4 ms·

>the free market is economically more efficient You never specified your definition of "efficient." I can only assume that "value-generating at a high rate" is

by uoaei 9y ago

>the free market is economically more efficient You never specified your definition of "efficient." I can only assume that "value-generating at a high rate" is your working definition. If so, there is no connection between a high efficiency and a lack of exploitation. Exploitation of people via coercion, exploitation of a lack of regulations leading to concentration of wealth, etc. > You're using your own personal definition of "voluntary" which is not inline with the conventional definition. My definition of "voluntary" is equivalent to that of "non-coercive." I'm not sure that yours is the same. You speak about people choosing to use Uber as if they have a choice, and not as if they are coerced by the circumstances (lack of jobs in their field, outstanding debt, mouths to feed...). Your choice is to ignore these different scenarios and focus only on those who voluntarily take part in driving for Uber. This is a dishonest practice and does not reflect reality. > Someone being poor is certainly capable of engaging in voluntary economic interactions, and there's no evidence at all to suggest otherwise. If you have no money, then you cannot spend money. You have no value to contribute to an economy, and can only participate by receiving value at no cost, which never happens. The evidence is not needed, and is in fact impossible to provide, because this is a clear-cut deduction. If you think differently, you need to clarify your standing. > How is it apparent that the poor are unable to engage in such interactions when wages for the poor are growing at their fastest rate in history? Because poor people are poor... Having more than a tiny bit of something is still not very much. They can participate in more, sure, but is that enough? Depends entirely on the context: where they live, what services are available there, etc. To put things a bit bluntly, most of the places in the world aren't very fun to live in for the reason that there's not a lot available and not a lot of earning potential to pay for what is there. Globalization still fails at the "last mile," with the exception of some supply chains such as Coca-Cola's. I don't disagree that some regulatory restrictions are making things hard for your everyday Jane, but the solution would be instead to regulate those at the top more, rather than regulate those at the bottom less. Using your hedge fund example from Brookings, the problem is not that other types of funds are not allowed to do the same things as hedge funds, but instead that hedge funds are allowed to do things that others aren't, leading to a massive concentration of wealth that wouldn't be possible otherwise. This is an uneven playing field but deregulating it only gives power to those who use force, physical or otherwise, to get what they want while leaving those at the bottom with little more than crumbs. I'm not sure why you are linking to those biases as I don't believe to have expressed any of them. Again, you will need to be clearer if your message is to be understood accurately.

Jabanga 9y ago
>You never specified your definition of "efficient. Being effective at using economic resources to generate more economic resources. Being efficient at utilizing economic resources at meeting people's material needs. Unions, and industries walled off by licensing regimes, are not efficient, and contribute to growing income disparity. That's what decades of economic theory and raw statistical evidence suggests. >Exploitation of people via coercion, exploitation of a lack of regulations leading to concentration of wealth, etc. This is not an accurate definition for exploitation. It amounts to anything one doesn't like that conforms to some precept of social justice ideology. 'Exploitation' is nothing more than a buzzword in this context. And like I said, there is no evidence that the free market leads to growing income disparity. The links I provided provide evidence for the opposite: that restrictions on the free market are the cause of growing income disparity. >You speak about people choosing to use Uber as if they have a choice, and not as if they are coerced by the circumstances (lack of jobs in their field, outstanding debt, mouths to feed...). That's not what "coercion" means. Needing to do something to avoid starvation is not the same thing as being coerced into doing something. Both are terrible situations, but in one situation, a person is taking the best option available to them, while in the other, someone is threatening to rob them of their life or property in order to force them to do something that they otherwise would not choose to do. >If you have no money, then you cannot spend money. But almost everyone has money, especially in the developed world, and the vast majority have the capability to generate more money, especially in the developed world. The victim theme is not justified by the facts. >To put things a bit bluntly, most of the places in the world aren't very fun to live in for the reason that there's not a lot available and not a lot of earning potential to pay for what is there. Wages are increasing in the developed world faster than ever before in history. >but the solution would be instead to regulate those at the top more, rather than regulate those at the bottom less. So those at the top just pay accountants more to hide their income and split it among their family members. Why treat the successful as the enemy? Why treat them like villains that should be punished? The statistical evidence suggests those with less money can indeed compete with the very rich when there is a free market, without regulatory barriers and corporate welfare helping the very rich. Why abandon the idea of a society where everyone is free to engage in any mutually voluntary interaction they wish, and resort to strong-arming government interventions against people whose only crime is receiving too much currency in mutually voluntary trade? What you're proposing is not conducive to justice and the principle of noninterference/nonviolence. It also reduces the space for economic activity, leading to a less efficient economy where wages/prosperity increase more slowly.

by uoaei 9y ago

Jabanga 9y ago

>You never specified your definition of "efficient. Being effective at using economic resources to generate more economic resources. Being efficient at utilizing economic resources at meeting people's material needs. Unions, and industries walled off by licensing regimes, are not efficient, and contribute to growing income disparity. That's what decades of economic theory and raw statistical evidence suggests. >Exploitation of people via coercion, exploitation of a lack of regulations leading to concentration of wealth, etc. This is not an accurate definition for exploitation. It amounts to anything one doesn't like that conforms to some precept of social justice ideology. 'Exploitation' is nothing more than a buzzword in this context. And like I said, there is no evidence that the free market leads to growing income disparity. The links I provided provide evidence for the opposite: that restrictions on the free market are the cause of growing income disparity. >You speak about people choosing to use Uber as if they have a choice, and not as if they are coerced by the circumstances (lack of jobs in their field, outstanding debt, mouths to feed...). That's not what "coercion" means. Needing to do something to avoid starvation is not the same thing as being coerced into doing something. Both are terrible situations, but in one situation, a person is taking the best option available to them, while in the other, someone is threatening to rob them of their life or property in order to force them to do something that they otherwise would not choose to do. >If you have no money, then you cannot spend money. But almost everyone has money, especially in the developed world, and the vast majority have the capability to generate more money, especially in the developed world. The victim theme is not justified by the facts. >To put things a bit bluntly, most of the places in the world aren't very fun to live in for the reason that there's not a lot available and not a lot of earning potential to pay for what is there. Wages are increasing in the developed world faster than ever before in history. >but the solution would be instead to regulate those at the top more, rather than regulate those at the bottom less. So those at the top just pay accountants more to hide their income and split it among their family members. Why treat the successful as the enemy? Why treat them like villains that should be punished? The statistical evidence suggests those with less money can indeed compete with the very rich when there is a free market, without regulatory barriers and corporate welfare helping the very rich. Why abandon the idea of a society where everyone is free to engage in any mutually voluntary interaction they wish, and resort to strong-arming government interventions against people whose only crime is receiving too much currency in mutually voluntary trade? What you're proposing is not conducive to justice and the principle of noninterference/nonviolence. It also reduces the space for economic activity, leading to a less efficient economy where wages/prosperity increase more slowly.