|
Who What Now posted:Nah, asdf has been pretty consistent that he wants to tax the rich and fix the roads, but gently caress you poors you don't get a dime of this sweet, sweet road money. But if you ever put an actual proposal in front of him to do this, he would find a way to be against it. Taxing the rich and fixing the roads is vague enough to shift goalposts against as well.
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Nah, asdf has been pretty consistent that he wants to tax the rich and fix the roads, but gently caress you poors you don't get a dime of this sweet, sweet road money. Think he'd support building infinite roads?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
The demand is there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
quote:Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron. So Silicon Valley tycoon and noted libertarian loony Peter Thiel literally thinks that women and welfare recipients shouldn't get the franchise because they'd demand concessions from randroid übermenschen like him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Of course, we all know who he's really talking about when he says "welfare recipients"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Of course, we all know who he's really talking about when he says "welfare recipients" Banks? Oil companies? The biggest corporate farms? Defense contractors?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:He never said that. In fact he said he supported minimum wage policy because of its popularity, even if it was untimely bad from a redistribution angle. Agreeing on policy outcomes though isn't that important. Plenty of people share lots of specific opinions with Jrod (I.E. corporations are too powerful, recent wars have been bad). The "why" is both more important and more interesting. CharlestheHammer posted:The demand is there. Yep there is more demand for smooth un-potholed roads than currently exists. I can attest to that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Agreeing on policy outcomes though isn't that important. Plenty of people share lots of specific opinions with Jrod (I.E. corporations are too powerful, recent wars have been bad). The "why" is both more important and more interesting. and most important of all, "how," as yospos can attest. if we all agree the poor should be better taken care of, but some of us believe this is best achieved by abolishing the state and reverting to the gold standard and voluntary charitable societies...
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yep there is more demand for smooth un-potholed roads than currently exists. I can attest to that. But is there infinite demand? Where would we put infinite roads?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:But is there infinite demand? Where would we put infinite roads? Mars, clearly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Banks? Oil companies? The biggest corporate farms? Defense contractors? Close!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Banks? Oil companies? The biggest corporate farms? Defense contractors? _________/  Nice try young man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:But is there infinite demand? Where would we put infinite roads? Of course there is infinite demand, because there's a lot of road, more than asdf could ever personally drive over, and since there are roads he will not use ergo demand for roads is infinite. It's also so simple! And of course there is infinite demand to drive on these infinite roads, infinitely. The entire human population driving, forever. Never stopping, not even to eat or drink. People die in their cars but their corpses still weigh down the gas pedal, forever driving long after they have expired. Society collapses but no one cares, all that matters is the infinite demand of the open road. We realize too late that it was not we who demanded the roads, but the roads who demanded us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 14:37
|
|
quote:If you were given $1,000, would you spend it immediately or place it in your bank account for future consumption? How about if you were given $1 million? One trillion? At what point would you douse your pile of newly acquired pile of greenbacks in lighter fluid and set them ablaze, as all your possible wants have been satisfied?  Say's law has been a nonsense since the mid-19th century of course.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
holy poo poo have these people not heard of opportunity cost e: or marginal utility Muscle Tracer fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Jrodefeld: serious post to you here buddy. I haven't been dogging on you, and I'm not doing it here, and this isn't a gotcha post about chemtrails or anything, so I'd appreciate a thoughtful reply. I want to discuss briefly the idea that The Market will fix things. The idea is, essentially, that the public demands Good Things and doesn't want Bad Things, and so when companies do Bad Things, people will stop paying them and instead choose or create companies that do Good Things. Imbalances of goods, resources, and even human lives will correct themselves. Bubbles will form and burst, leaving the savvy, the hardworking, and the lucky in better positions than the unfortunate others. Necessity is the mother of invention, and someone will crop up to fill the needs in the market, at least for those who can pay - and if there are too many people who can't pay, that will be corrected for in due course. Here's the thing about it, and why I am not a Libertarian. I agree. It's all true. The market will correct. Imbalances will be balanced. Voids will be filled. OK, that's not why I'm not a libertarian. That's why I briefly was years ago. Why I'm not is simple: during all those "corrections", those reestablishments of balance, people will needlessly suffer. From a detached perspective, I can grant that "things will work out" and The Market will correct for nearly anything. It's almost a tautology it's so obviously true. You must wonder why no one can see it. Well, it's perfectly visible, and if we were talking about game pieces and monopoly money or mindless robots or crystal formations or any other kind of chits you can stack and measure and put through algorithms - Sims in some game - that might be enough. It might even be the most efficient way if handling it. No central planning, no oversight, no emotional involvement - why bother? That would be wasting resources - the problems will take care of themselves on their own. But we aren't talking about Sims or robots or strings of beads. We are talking about people. People with the capacity to suffer. Letting the market correct for everything will work almost all of the time, but many, many people will needlessly suffer. We cannot prevent all suffering, but we can prevent much suffering. Most moral systems people operate under are consistent that reducing aggregate suffering is a good thing, all other things being equal. The only way libertarianism makes sense is if the values that it champions are more worthy of consideration than the prevention of human suffering, including literal starvation and disease, humiliation and degradation. Unrestricted Personal Freedom is little comfort to someone suffering from an easily preventable fatal illness, or who has the liberty of choosing between sending their child off to do degrading dangerous slave labor or simply starving or dying of exposure. It isn't necessary for non-libertarians to think markets don't work. I will grant to you for the sake of argument that every libertarian idea about life in libertopia will work flawlessly. One of the necessary effects of this is that some (likely very, very many, but some is enough) people will suffer terribly - and this suffering could easily be prevented with the resources that are, collectively, readily available to us. Your arguing of the facts and mechanisms of markets will get you nowhere, because even if they are granted to you for the sake of argument the Values that are foremost in libertarianism are incompatible with the values of most people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 15:14
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:holy poo poo have these people not heard of opportunity cost This idea was basically corrected by JS Mill who realised that if money is another commodity then suddenly the analysis is relatively unproblematic.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Trent posted:Your arguing of the facts and mechanisms of markets will get you nowhere, because even if they are granted to you for the sake of argument the Values that are foremost in libertarianism are incompatible with the values of most people. there's also the fact that people want good things way more than they unwant bad things, as long as those bad things are happening somewhere else. if two companies produce paint, and one of them saves a nickel per gallon by dumping toxic byproducts into a river instead of storing them safely, then everyone who doesn't live on that river is still going to buy the cheaper paint, and likely many who do live there and are unaware. essentially, jrode doesn't just think people want good things, he thinks that they are good, which is an interesting viewpoint to have considering [every event in all of human history]. Disinterested posted:This idea was basically corrected by JS Mill who realised that if money is another commodity then suddenly the analysis is relatively unproblematic. i just love the idea that anything about humans, finite creatures with finite attention spans, could be infinite. i literally could not experience, say, a trillion gallons of milk over my lifetime, therefore my demand for milk must be limited.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
I think their point is that if you have £100 spare and x-ray machines are for some reason £1, in the absence of anything else to spend your money on you will buy x-ray machines.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Of course there is infinite demand, because there's a lot of road, more than asdf could ever personally drive over, and since there are roads he will not use ergo demand for roads is infinite. It's also so simple! The Libertarian Utopia
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
I still don't understand how buying up all the land around someone else's property counts as initiatory aggression because reasons. Who are you to tell me what to do with my property, Jrod?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I still don't understand how buying up all the land around someone else's property counts as initiatory aggression because reasons. Who are you to tell me what to do with my property, Jrod? It's not aggression, it just won't happen for reasons. I mean, once someone owns all of the roads surrounding your neighborhood, your neighbors and you can just pool your money to buy a path in and out. If the offer is high enough, the person sieging you won't be able to resist selling some of his land. It's just like the popsicle comic, but in reverse. (and if that price includes all your property and your self-ownership, then that's just the perfectly voluntary free market in action!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I still don't understand how buying up all the land around someone else's property counts as initiatory aggression because reasons. Who are you to tell me what to do with my property, Jrod? well you see all of our rules are logically derived ipso facto from incontrovertible axioms, ergo nothing bad will ever happen. if something is bad, lorem ipsum it won't happen. if something will happen, cogito ergo sum it won't be bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think their point is that if you have £100 spare and x-ray machines are for some reason £1, in the absence of anything else to spend your money on you will buy x-ray machines. How do landfills even exist? They're filled with stuff that's priced at 0, why isn't stuff flying out of there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:06
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How do landfills even exist? They're filled with stuff that's priced at 0, why isn't stuff flying out of there. Look I don't care what empirical evidence says because in the Platonic world of ideal forms all is for the best in the best of all possible economic systems.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I still don't understand how buying up all the land around someone else's property counts as initiatory aggression because reasons. Who are you to tell me what to do with my property, Jrod? It's not, jrod's counterargument was that human altruism always wins out and "I don't need to know exactly how such a scenario would work out, but rest assured that the free market would fix it in the right way"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Trent posted:It's all true. The market will correct. I fundamentally disagree with this statement. It's true in many scenarios, but it isn't always true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:I still don't understand how buying up all the land around someone else's property counts as initiatory aggression because reasons. Who are you to tell me what to do with my property, Jrod? You don't even have to do that. Just buy up the roads at the entrance and exit of a neighborhood and you can price gouge all you want on tolls, because what are people going to do? Walk 10 miles a day to work? Quit their jobs and starve? Never transport anything into or out of their home that they can't carry?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:
Hmm, how do you think this happens? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:28
|
|
asdf32 posted:Hmm, how do you think this happens? You believe in Austrian economics: T/F?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Hmm, how do you think this happens? mechanization
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You believe in Austrian economics: T/F? What a dumb question. Parts of it undoubtedly. Mechanization: Exactly, which broadly falls under the category of says law. The difference is that Says law says new production necesarily increases demand and production. The "necesary" part is over the top but it still works as a general trend. Hence why mechanization can be the primary driver of economic growth. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:What a dumb question. Parts of it undoubtedly. "i don't even know what austrian economics entails, much less what i personally believe"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:What a dumb question. Parts of it undoubtedly. Then you are undoubtedly a moron.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:You believe in The Four Humours: T/F? What a dumb question. Parts of it undoubtedly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:What a dumb question. Parts of it undoubtedly. what makes you think demand was lower in the 1930s
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:what makes you think demand was lower in the 1930s Heh, it wasn't. But production was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Why did Atari bury almost a million video game cartridges when they could have just set the price to zero and everyone would demand infinite cartridges to, I don't know, level furniture, pave garden paths, use as building material, etc. Oh wait poo poo, that's empirical evidence which is worthless in the face of pure reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why did Atari bury almost a million video game cartridges when they could have just set the price to zero and everyone would demand infinite cartridges to, I don't know, level furniture, pave garden paths, use as building material, etc. They would have sold like hotcakes if they cost negative twenty dollars each 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh, it wasn't. But production was. asdf32 posted:production necesarily increases demand heh
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 18:59
|
|