av8torntn
Well-Known Member
I give up. Who?
Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.
- Thread starter outamyway
- Start date
I give up. Who?
A superior argument? I haven't seen it yet. Just simple bloviating (kudos Bill O'reilly) about the evils of government blah, blah, blah, blah. Didn't even accuse you of being ignorant. Maybe narrow minded and given to a very simple world view that require you to ignore the obvious, but not ignorant. I quite certain that you know your arguments are half-baked, sophomoric swill, but it does fit the agenda and therefore it will suffice for you. Some may think that's ignorant. I just think it's pure ideological vitriol and self justification.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Jones,
The last frame of "The Modern World" cartoon is so true. I speak of the part where "The Hand" sez:
"The Taxpayers can take care of the mess! That's how the free market works you know!"
It also reminds me of the introduction to Kevin Carson's work entitled "The Iron Fist Behind the Hidden Hand, Corporate Capitalism As a State System of Guaranteed Priviledge." which reads partly as follows:
As to the larger topic at hand, when we begin to realize a true free market is a completely voluntary market. that all ideals and concepts can enter and exit at will of the market players and that no ideal or concept can monopolize and dominate a market leaving said market to still be truly free (the word free still means that exact thing) then the pure authoriterianism of all those vying to control the state for their own ends will be easily seen at all times no matter what lovely political name they call themselves!
For those who argue we have a free market I have one question. In a true free market, people could grow marijuana or even industrial hemp at will, press the seeds and from that extract oil to be made into a fuel for transportation purposes. In our "free market" why is this forbidden and why does the state intervene on behalf of the oil cartel or how about corn to ethanol thanks to gov't subsidy to give clear advantage to one market player over another? In fact one market is allowed while the other is prohibited yet no one screams monopoly much less seeing the cartels for what they truly are. For the moralist out there who fears our activities in the bedroom or living room must be regulated, did you ever consider that if marijuana proves vastly more useful in some industrial capacity that people might chose to not consume it themselves but dedicate it towards these industrial purposes?
In a true free market, things like this could easily and quickly come to the marketplace if it wanted but in our "free market" this is not prohibited unless the State grants you permission to do so first. And at whose behest is this industrial crop still held as illegal and whose market status of cartel or even possible monopoly is maintained as a result?
Again, understanding the term "free" to mean just what it does and using just this one single example, how do we then call what we have as a true "free market" whether you want to blame for it's ills or proclaim it for it's blessings? And let's not even discuss the legal tender laws that mandate economic transactions be done according to a state approved monetary unit that is controlled by a private concern! They are granted an exclusive monopoly status for the creation and determination of what is wealth (capital if you will) and how it is distributed. A medium of exchange is not determined by a 3rd party to an economic transaction who then seeks to extract a rent (1) but rather in a free market is determined by agrement of the 2 parties involved in the transaction. In the idea of State created monopoly of mediums of exchange, the idea of a free market again is thus destroyed.
Once you realize the very people, the so-called captains of industry don't want a free market period and who have been the real "hidden hand" of big gov't have used gov't to obtain regulatory capture in order to build their own monopoly while concentrating wealth into their hands or control. When the ICC was created in 1887' to so-called regulate the railroad barons, everyone ignores the fact that the biggest period where the railroad barons gained the vast part of their wealth and power while at the same time squeezing out small, local railroads all while be overseen by the ICC. This model has grown to the point now that big business is like Briar Rabbit who proclaims, "please don't throw me into the briar patch!" We just lack the courage to do exactly that!
And when you stop falling for the nonsense then titles like this thread are seen for the mind numbing manipulation that they really are.
jmo
(1) Rent Seeking: In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic or political environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth.
The last frame of "The Modern World" cartoon is so true. I speak of the part where "The Hand" sez:
"The Taxpayers can take care of the mess! That's how the free market works you know!"
It also reminds me of the introduction to Kevin Carson's work entitled "The Iron Fist Behind the Hidden Hand, Corporate Capitalism As a State System of Guaranteed Priviledge." which reads partly as follows:
As to the larger topic at hand, when we begin to realize a true free market is a completely voluntary market. that all ideals and concepts can enter and exit at will of the market players and that no ideal or concept can monopolize and dominate a market leaving said market to still be truly free (the word free still means that exact thing) then the pure authoriterianism of all those vying to control the state for their own ends will be easily seen at all times no matter what lovely political name they call themselves!
For those who argue we have a free market I have one question. In a true free market, people could grow marijuana or even industrial hemp at will, press the seeds and from that extract oil to be made into a fuel for transportation purposes. In our "free market" why is this forbidden and why does the state intervene on behalf of the oil cartel or how about corn to ethanol thanks to gov't subsidy to give clear advantage to one market player over another? In fact one market is allowed while the other is prohibited yet no one screams monopoly much less seeing the cartels for what they truly are. For the moralist out there who fears our activities in the bedroom or living room must be regulated, did you ever consider that if marijuana proves vastly more useful in some industrial capacity that people might chose to not consume it themselves but dedicate it towards these industrial purposes?
In a true free market, things like this could easily and quickly come to the marketplace if it wanted but in our "free market" this is not prohibited unless the State grants you permission to do so first. And at whose behest is this industrial crop still held as illegal and whose market status of cartel or even possible monopoly is maintained as a result?
Again, understanding the term "free" to mean just what it does and using just this one single example, how do we then call what we have as a true "free market" whether you want to blame for it's ills or proclaim it for it's blessings? And let's not even discuss the legal tender laws that mandate economic transactions be done according to a state approved monetary unit that is controlled by a private concern! They are granted an exclusive monopoly status for the creation and determination of what is wealth (capital if you will) and how it is distributed. A medium of exchange is not determined by a 3rd party to an economic transaction who then seeks to extract a rent (1) but rather in a free market is determined by agrement of the 2 parties involved in the transaction. In the idea of State created monopoly of mediums of exchange, the idea of a free market again is thus destroyed.
Once you realize the very people, the so-called captains of industry don't want a free market period and who have been the real "hidden hand" of big gov't have used gov't to obtain regulatory capture in order to build their own monopoly while concentrating wealth into their hands or control. When the ICC was created in 1887' to so-called regulate the railroad barons, everyone ignores the fact that the biggest period where the railroad barons gained the vast part of their wealth and power while at the same time squeezing out small, local railroads all while be overseen by the ICC. This model has grown to the point now that big business is like Briar Rabbit who proclaims, "please don't throw me into the briar patch!" We just lack the courage to do exactly that!
And when you stop falling for the nonsense then titles like this thread are seen for the mind numbing manipulation that they really are.
jmo
(1) Rent Seeking: In economics, rent seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm seeks to earn income by capturing economic rent through manipulation or exploitation of the economic or political environment, rather than by earning profits through economic transactions and the production of added wealth.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
You poor thing. You missed step four and skipped straight to step five.
Just to help you along and only because I'm a charitable guy not only did you call me ignorant you called me very ignorant.
bbsam said:
Definition of ignorant.
–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.
—Synonyms
1.uninstructed, untutored, untaught. Ignorant, illiterate, unlettered, uneducated mean lacking in knowledge or in training. Ignorant may mean knowing little or nothing, or it may mean uninformed about a particular subject: An ignorant person can be dangerous. I confess I'm ignorant of mathematics. Illiterate originally meant lacking a knowledge of literature or similar learning, but is most often applied now to one unable to read or write: necessary training for illiterate soldiers. Unlettered emphasizes the idea of being without knowledge of literature: unlettered though highly trained in science. Uneducated refers especially to lack of schooling or to lack of access to a body of knowledge equivalent to that learned in schools: uneducated but highly intelligent. 2. unenlightened.
Funny how I so easily (for someone who by your own words is very ignorant) predicted exactly what you were going to do.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Did the taxpayers not agree to take care of the mess when they hired BP to extract oil from this part of the gulf? If we had a free market should two groups of individuals not be allowed to make an agreement? Does the government not charge all drilling companies fees that were supposedly to be set aside to clean up oil spills? You mentioned the Jones Act in another thread. I am not sure how one can maintain that they have control over the waters there but yet at the same time control over those waters is someone else's fault.
I'm not a fan of this entire process. I can easily see that there is no way that an oil company would be drilling in such a costly and risky area if not encouraged through regulation and incentives from the government.
It is also interesting how BP is being portrayed as such bad guys when they just set aside a 20 billion dollar fund that was the responsibility of the government and they also set aside another 100 million dollar fund that to pay for consequences solely caused by our government.
Oh. Took it out of context. Now I see. I should have said that you believe your own subset of the facts, the ones you want to believe in are in fact the complete set. Yes. That would be a form of ignorance on your part but a truly optional one. That is why I don't believe you are in fact ignorant. I think you just want to believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts--like Sean Hannity looking for WMD. Ok. Ignorant it is then.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Oh. Took it out of context. Now I see. I should have said that you believe your own subset of the facts, the ones you want to believe in are in fact the complete set. Yes. That would be a form of ignorance on your part but a truly optional one. That is why I don't believe you are in fact ignorant. I think you just want to believe what you want to believe regardless of the facts--like Sean Hannity looking for WMD. Ok. Ignorant it is then.
Actually no it is not that I believe some subset of facts it's just that I do not believe the things you made up. I guess for good reason.
What does Hannity have to do with anything? I thought you guys were supposed to always attack Rush when you started flailing around and attacking any old thing. According to your handbook you must blame Bush first then attack Rush second. Get back in lock step you know you "progressives" are not allowed independent thought.
Keep your head in the sand and ignore how policies and government interventions have undesirable influences.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Whistle blown..."Foul".....you will not take our Progressive stero-type of being "independent" an open minded thinkers....the mere word Progressives means open to new ideas and means... Stick to your old guard Conservative values, moral highground, wrap yourselves with the flag, and repeat words like "freedom" "liberty" "troops" and accuse people of Socialist commie activities...This is the word of the Lord...... Lord Beck and Lord Linbaugh....Amen
In my opinion a true free market has never existed and probably never will, because it's an idealized system and neither people nor the world they live in are ideal. Trying to selectively apply free market principles in the current system without regard for the fact that we really don't have a true free market quite often just results in someone (usually the little guy) getting screwed.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I agree a free market doesn't exist and in the American experience may have just for the most brief of moments have existed in small localized situations but on a national level whether America or elsewhere, it never has. We agree there for sure. Whether it ever will down the road, in the moral mindset of mankind today, I'd have to give your "probably never will" the nod. However, if we continue to blame a pure fiction as the root cause of our economic problems rather than honestly facing what we are and what we have been doing along with what we really did wrong, how can we ever find a true workable long term solution? If you are prohibited from the ultimate root cause, you are left to only address the symptoms which are ever continuing regardless how hard you try to prevent until it ultimately destroys the host.
BTW: The flipside is to blame Karl Marx and like blaming the free market, blaming Karl Marx is as big an equal fiction as well!
On a bit of a comedic note, if a group of people actually tired to create a local true free market where any and all economic ideals from Austrian to Marxian could enter or exist at will, exist side by side and market players could enter and exit at will based on what worked best for them, the State would declare it illegal, sell it to the masses as some type of black market (anti-American in a nationalism sense) and then obtain societal compliance in order to crush it. So is the world we live and thus the proof that no free market does exist and that freedom and liberty are themselves pure fictions and illusions designed to occupy our minds in order to shade us from the truth that we are nothing more than field hands picking cotton in someone else's field!
The same fearism created by the state over so-called terrorists, so-called communists, global warming, Jesus is coming, etc. is the same fearism used by the state against a true free market. We likely won't get there but understanding that should at the least be instructive even while accepting our realities!
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Pleeeeeeeease you guys are anything but open minded. I have your handbook now.
See you skipped a couple of steps and went straight to the Limbaugh step. You better hurry and get back in step and join the rest of your zombie brethren. You guys should never talk to me about not being open minded. No solution ,outside of the government taking freedom, exists for your side. See how your zombie partner had nothing but personal attacks and fabrications (lies) to try and support his argument. It was not hard to predict, you guys rarely use anything else. If you guys could come up with something original I'd have to tell you that would be refreshing. The sad part to me is that you think it is a bad thing to want freedom, or to love life enough to want to protect the lives of children as much as those of adults. You think it is a bad thing to have morality?
Accuse people of socialism? You guys normally embrace that label. That is always your point. You need the force of the government to force your will on others yet if others attempt to use the force of the government to force their will on you I see you are screaming the loudest.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
An interesting article written in 1993' by Richard Ebeling who at the time was the Mises Professor of Economics at Hillsdale College and VP at Future of Freedom Foundation. The artcle entitled "Historical Capitalism verses The Free Market" IMO challenged many ideas on economics and opened up discussion that a true free market would have all options on the table and not be limited to a certain construct model that feeds an oligarchy while pressing down on what is called by some, "the little guy." It also shows or suggests that the capitalist model can be just a authorterian and restricitive as other competing models to capitalism which are so often claimed (and rightly so) to be.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
Hmm. Hillsdale College. Ever seen one of their brochures? They are so far Right that they are about to fall-off the scale. Rush adores Hillsdale, and has mentioned the school numerous times on his program. Anything emanating from Hillsdale is straight from the Tea Party/Libertarian talking points menu. If you want your kid to grow-up and be a Right Wing Lipton Whacko, send them to Hillsdale.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
What's sad is that people like you think that some reasoned explanation is always justification for a lose of freedom or destruction of markets.
What's sad is that people like you refuse to think beyond the talking points to see the truth: people cannot (nor do they want to) handle freedom. Even big business when the going get's tough looks to the government either for bailouts, lawsuits, or subsidies. It is the bane of libertarianism that no matter how good it looks on paper, people will never take on the responsibility freedom requires. I have said it once and will say it again: There is no guarantee that this exercise in self governance and fiscal capitalism will succeed. The ball is in the court of those on the right to prove that government is the problem and then when in power remove government from being the problem. I don't think they have what it takes to A) convince people of that or B) govern in such a manner.
Similar threads
