8 ms·

That only works so long. Eventually the actors in the economy figure out how to route around the damage being done.

by boon 13y ago

dragontamer 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure Sometimes, the market does not figure it out... especially with a populace that is imperfectly educated (and not "perfectly logical, perfectly rational" beings in most theoretical economics) But even with perfectly logical and perfectly rational beings however, there still are market failures. And it is up to the population to create Governments to deal with these market failures. (Usually through deregulation or regulation) Case in point: LEXG, a 2010 stock that is widely considered "pump and dump". Despite all the regulations, and centuries of knowledge of pump and dump... it still happened. BTC itself has a growing volume of trade... but a lot of smaller cryptocurrenies are simply pump-and-dump schemes.
- boon 13y ago
  It's a good thing we're really good at electing people that do a good job of watching out for our well-being! Do you think we'll always have an "imperfectly educated" populace? Do you consider yourself part of that sector of society?
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Imperfect education is a fact of life. Its well known that economic models of "free markets" fail instantly on the first assumption. We are not perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge. And yet, a number of "free market" arguments are based upon this fact.
    - VMG 13y ago
      If people are imperfectly educated, why let them elect representatives, which are themselves flawed in probably even worse ways that the average person?
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        > If people are imperfectly educated That's not really an if, it's a simple fact that has and probably will always be true. > why let them elect representatives Because millions of idiots turns out to be better than kings and dictators for the average quality of life.
        boon 13y ago
        Can we not think of a way to refine the system of "idiots voting" without being accused of the false dichotomy of wanting to go back to a monarchy?
        dragontamer 13y ago
        Good luck with that conversation. Any form of "removing idiots" from the voting pool will give comparisons to the Literacy Test, and you will be literally compared to a slave-driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test False dichotomies are the bread and butter of politics. Perhaps if you knew the history of this country, you'd know that you aren't gonna get very far on this subject. I welcome you to try, but from a political / historical point of view, there is too much bad blood in this discussion for people to discuss it sanely.
        boon 13y ago
        You're talking to someone whose political ideals already get me called "racist" and "slave driver". Oddly enough, I do not support racism nor slavery (quite the opposite). And I know the history — why do you think I brought the point up? (Come on, now.) But the point we're trying to make here is philosophical, not practical: If people are too uneducated to participate in a free market economy, why do we allow them to vote?
        dragontamer 13y ago
        Because the opposite is worse. An organization who controls who and what votes is far scarier than letting idiots vote. We in America have destroyed any organization (government led, or whatever) that attempts to limit the number of voters. Mind you, who should decide who can and can't vote? The free market? The Government? The answer is no one. The right to vote is considered sacred and that is a good thing. No one can or should deny others the ability to vote. EDIT: I'm surprised that I have to lecture you on this. I thought you were a libertarian? Aren't you all for personal rights and liberty? The freedom to vote is absolutely essential, and a holy right regardless of your political background. But it is THAT much more important if you're a self-proclaimed libertarian. Personal freedom is the king of the Libertarian philosophy.
    - boon 13y ago
      It just seems that the people that are rational are marginalized in any other system. One might go as far to say that's just as unfair.
      - dragontamer 13y ago
        And selfishness and greed are not sins in a free market. Instead, they serve as the mechanism under which everyone works together. A selfless man who strives for compromise will be abused by selfish actors in a pure free market setting. All philosophies have their pros and cons. Learning to pick which philosophy is an art. Personally speaking, I keep Capitalist AND Communist arguments in my brain. I'm ready to use either philosophy to prove whatever point whenever I want. For example, if you were a Communist, I'd deride the "free market" by talking about Bourgeois and the working classes. (But that wouldn't work on you, because you'd instantly think that I'd be creating a "class war"). All of these philosophies are theoretical anyway. The real purpose of them is to give us the ability to understand what other people are talking about. Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect. Free Markets have their market failures (Monopolies). Communists fail to allocate resources effectively. The solution therefore, is to pick and choose the philosophy that works in the right situation. Be a more educated man, and open to different ways of thought.
        boon 13y ago
        "Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect." I'm really curious where and when this 100% free market system existed that was proven unworkable. Because from my understanding of history, we've only ever had government. ZERO monopolies have become what they are/were without help from the government.
        dragontamer 13y ago
        Proven by thought experiment. If you don't like thought experiments, then pay me no mind. Perfectly theoretical free markets, with perfectly educated populations with 100% perfectly rational beings will be unable to solve the externality problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality It is known and proven. Do not give me a "Well, we'll figure it out later" bull... tell me how a free market is supposed to resolve an externality (which by its very definition is unresolvable by free markets). Perfectly rational and greedy actors will always offload their costs onto unwilling parties. It is the job of the government to ensure that costs align up with the actors who create those costs. If that is too theoretical for you, imagine two cities. "City Upstream" and "City Downstream" both are on the same river. City Upstream begins flushing their sewage into the river, and so City Downstream is no longer able to drink the water. Solve this issue using only rational actors in the free market. The "Government" solution, is to have the Federal Government create Water Treatment plants, and then force "City Upstream" to use them. Afterwards, you tax both cities to pay for the treatment plants. Your turn. Come up with a free market solution without the use of a central government or centralized 3rd party. Assume both cities are perfectly rational and perfectly selfish, as is common in these economic problems. Good luck coming up with a solution. But if you're like any other libertarian who I've issued this challenge to, you'll probably run away.

That only works so long. Eventually the actors in the economy figure out how to route around the damage being done.

by boon 13y ago

That only works so long. Eventually the actors in the economy figure out how to route around the damage being done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure Sometimes, the market does not figure it out... especially with a populace that is imperfectly educated (and not "perfectly logical, perfectly rational" beings in most theoretical economics) But even with perfectly logical and perfectly rational beings however, there still are market failures. And it is up to the population to create Governments to deal with these market failures. (Usually through deregulation or regulation) Case in point: LEXG, a 2010 stock that is widely considered "pump and dump". Despite all the regulations, and centuries of knowledge of pump and dump... it still happened. BTC itself has a growing volume of trade... but a lot of smaller cryptocurrenies are simply pump-and-dump schemes.

boon 13y ago
It's a good thing we're really good at electing people that do a good job of watching out for our well-being! Do you think we'll always have an "imperfectly educated" populace? Do you consider yourself part of that sector of society?
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Imperfect education is a fact of life. Its well known that economic models of "free markets" fail instantly on the first assumption. We are not perfectly rational beings with perfect knowledge. And yet, a number of "free market" arguments are based upon this fact.
  - VMG 13y ago
    If people are imperfectly educated, why let them elect representatives, which are themselves flawed in probably even worse ways that the average person?
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      > If people are imperfectly educated That's not really an if, it's a simple fact that has and probably will always be true. > why let them elect representatives Because millions of idiots turns out to be better than kings and dictators for the average quality of life.
      - boon 13y ago
        Can we not think of a way to refine the system of "idiots voting" without being accused of the false dichotomy of wanting to go back to a monarchy?
        dragontamer 13y ago
        Good luck with that conversation. Any form of "removing idiots" from the voting pool will give comparisons to the Literacy Test, and you will be literally compared to a slave-driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test False dichotomies are the bread and butter of politics. Perhaps if you knew the history of this country, you'd know that you aren't gonna get very far on this subject. I welcome you to try, but from a political / historical point of view, there is too much bad blood in this discussion for people to discuss it sanely.
        boon 13y ago
        You're talking to someone whose political ideals already get me called "racist" and "slave driver". Oddly enough, I do not support racism nor slavery (quite the opposite). And I know the history — why do you think I brought the point up? (Come on, now.) But the point we're trying to make here is philosophical, not practical: If people are too uneducated to participate in a free market economy, why do we allow them to vote?
        dragontamer 13y ago
        Because the opposite is worse. An organization who controls who and what votes is far scarier than letting idiots vote. We in America have destroyed any organization (government led, or whatever) that attempts to limit the number of voters. Mind you, who should decide who can and can't vote? The free market? The Government? The answer is no one. The right to vote is considered sacred and that is a good thing. No one can or should deny others the ability to vote. EDIT: I'm surprised that I have to lecture you on this. I thought you were a libertarian? Aren't you all for personal rights and liberty? The freedom to vote is absolutely essential, and a holy right regardless of your political background. But it is THAT much more important if you're a self-proclaimed libertarian. Personal freedom is the king of the Libertarian philosophy.
  - boon 13y ago
    It just seems that the people that are rational are marginalized in any other system. One might go as far to say that's just as unfair.
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      And selfishness and greed are not sins in a free market. Instead, they serve as the mechanism under which everyone works together. A selfless man who strives for compromise will be abused by selfish actors in a pure free market setting. All philosophies have their pros and cons. Learning to pick which philosophy is an art. Personally speaking, I keep Capitalist AND Communist arguments in my brain. I'm ready to use either philosophy to prove whatever point whenever I want. For example, if you were a Communist, I'd deride the "free market" by talking about Bourgeois and the working classes. (But that wouldn't work on you, because you'd instantly think that I'd be creating a "class war"). All of these philosophies are theoretical anyway. The real purpose of them is to give us the ability to understand what other people are talking about. Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect. Free Markets have their market failures (Monopolies). Communists fail to allocate resources effectively. The solution therefore, is to pick and choose the philosophy that works in the right situation. Be a more educated man, and open to different ways of thought.
      - boon 13y ago
        "Furthermore, it has been proven that ALL pure systems are imperfect." I'm really curious where and when this 100% free market system existed that was proven unworkable. Because from my understanding of history, we've only ever had government. ZERO monopolies have become what they are/were without help from the government.
        dragontamer 13y ago
        Proven by thought experiment. If you don't like thought experiments, then pay me no mind. Perfectly theoretical free markets, with perfectly educated populations with 100% perfectly rational beings will be unable to solve the externality problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality It is known and proven. Do not give me a "Well, we'll figure it out later" bull... tell me how a free market is supposed to resolve an externality (which by its very definition is unresolvable by free markets). Perfectly rational and greedy actors will always offload their costs onto unwilling parties. It is the job of the government to ensure that costs align up with the actors who create those costs. If that is too theoretical for you, imagine two cities. "City Upstream" and "City Downstream" both are on the same river. City Upstream begins flushing their sewage into the river, and so City Downstream is no longer able to drink the water. Solve this issue using only rational actors in the free market. The "Government" solution, is to have the Federal Government create Water Treatment plants, and then force "City Upstream" to use them. Afterwards, you tax both cities to pay for the treatment plants. Your turn. Come up with a free market solution without the use of a central government or centralized 3rd party. Assume both cities are perfectly rational and perfectly selfish, as is common in these economic problems. Good luck coming up with a solution. But if you're like any other libertarian who I've issued this challenge to, you'll probably run away.