|
Rockopolis posted:Really? I would have thought demand for holes was finite. After all each person has only one hole that was made for them. yeah but humans always want to reproduce so there is infinite demand for people so there is obviously an infinite supply of people and infinite people means infinite holes dddrrrrrrrrr
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 06:53 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2024 05:09 |
|
QuarkJets posted:I fundamentally disagree with this statement. It's true in many scenarios, but it isn't always true. OK, reading it out of its context I do too. That was an oversimplification. "The Market" will not necessarily be able to correct. It is possible, for example, that we could wipe out all the tea on the planet and the market would not be able to give us real tea ever again. Also, the inevitable heat death of the universe, etc. The idea underlying The Market is that complex systems adjust and react to disruptions and imbalances, which, largely, is true. If we watched human history as any sort of graph of population, death, disease, poverty, wealth, lifespan, religion, or any other thing, ignoring that they were humans (relabel them quatloos) you would see quatloo imbalances all over the place, in a dynamic system of excesses and rebounds, rise and fall. As I said in the other post (JROD REPLY TO MY POST) it's almost tautologically true that "things will work out" in some way, barring nuclear annihilation etc. My thesis, though, isn't that markets always work, it's that even granting that markets work as intended, In order to convince me that Libertarianism is the way to go, Jrod or whoever else would have to convince me that: There is a value more important than reducing human suffering that libertarianism holds to that other systems do not OR That lacking the choice between buying governmentally regulated safe milk and milk contaminated with heavy metals and anthrax is a higher form of suffering than not having that choice but also not having to worry overmuch about my milk being contaminated with heavy metals and anthrax I get the desire for FREEDOM that libertarians value. I just disagree that freedom means "I get to do whatever whenever with no authority over me that I didn't explicitly agree to" I believe that I have more freedom in my life to do the things I want to do in my life when there are rules I didn't explicitly agree to. If there weren't traffic laws that everyone more or less follows pretty much all the time, getting from place to place would be a nightmare of constant near-death experiences and gridlock. If there weren't food safety regulations I would have to spend many hours vetting milk companies just to be able to make an educated guess about which bottle is least likely to contain ebola and lead, because I could never have all the information even if I researched every decision forever, which is both impossible and leaves little time for hobbies. The reason that I accept that these rules aren't something I'm explicitly agreeing to is that aint nobody got time for that. If I had to vote on or sign off on every piece of legal minutiae necessary to be safe enough not to live in a constant state of panic in the modern world, if there were enough hours in the day at all, I would never get anything else done ever, which is completely self-defeating. So I accept that representatives get informed and make these decisions as their job ,while bakers bake and policemen police and [workers] [work]. This system is far from perfect, but it is immensely freeing over having to spend every waking moment on mere survival rather than the things I want to be doing. TL/DR: We have more autonomy and actual freedom when we have less of the technical freedom libertarians claim to crave.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 14:15 |
Yeah, libertarians are definitely stuck with a very narrowly defined negative conception of liberty. A reminder to anyone that never studied politics, positive and negative concepts of liberty were coined by Isiah Berlin in a lecture called Two Concepts of Liberty. Berlin here defines 'negative liberty': quote:"liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons'." In other words, a version of liberty that in some sense concerns the non-interference of agents on your ability to act (balanced against the rights of others to the same). This he differentiates from what you could call the continental school of liberty, the positive school, which expounds liberty through the actualisation of goals (such as the actualisation of one's nature) or the achievement of things. A person extolling a strict negative concept of liberty would therefore regard a homeless person who was starving to death as free, while a person who extolled a positive conception can quite clearly argue that the freedom to starve to death doesn't add up to much at all - it's the opposite irony to George Bernard Shaw's 'pretty coffin for a dead dog'. Of course, it's not intended that you commit fully one way or another. This was just intended as a means of analysis for how we look at the world. Berlin wants to say that the problem with positive concepts is that they are more capable of being manipulated by malevolent elites (given when he was writing, understandable) to achieve disastrous ends. -- The Shaw quotation I cite above is actually quite relevant to our question here, coming as it does from an essay on Fabian socialism. A longer version reads: quote:A New York lady, for instance, having a nature of exquisite sensibility, orders an elegant rosewood and silver coffin, upholstered in pink satin, for her dead dog. It is made: and meanwhile a live child is prowling barefooted and hunger-stunted in the frozen gutter outside. The exchange-value of the coffin is counted as part of the national wealth; but a nation which cannot afford food and clothing for its children cannot be allowed to pass as wealthy because it has provided a pretty coffin for a dead dog. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Apr 8, 2015 |
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 14:34 |
|
While we're talking definitions, I'd still love to hear a response to my post earlier which brings up the definition of violence:Cognac McCarthy posted:Also, Jrod I'm genuinely curious because I've never heard a libertarian answer it (I think I asked it in another thread but don't remember if I got an answer, or if any answers came from anyone actually familiar with libertarianism):
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 16:09 |
|
Rockopolis posted:Really? I would have thought demand for holes was finite. After all each person has only one hole that was made for them. Drrr drrr drrr
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 16:26 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:yeah but humans always want to reproduce so there is infinite demand for people so there is obviously an infinite supply of people and infinite people means infinite holes dddrrrrrrrrr The funny thing to me is that the idea that people typically want more stuff than will ever realistically be produced has no idiolpgical consequences whatsoever. It's completely consistent with leftism. Poor people need more stuff and rich people are greedy and want more stuff too. So watching people's reaction is like watching baboons throw poop at a TV because they don't understand it.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 17:36 |
|
asdf32 posted:The funny thing to me is that the idea that people typically want more stuff than will ever realistically be produced has no idiolpgical consequences whatsoever. It's completely consistent with leftism. Poor people need more stuff and rich people are greedy and want more stuff too. Demand that cannot be transacted for is little more than a thought experiment; without the resources to buy things, a person's demand functionally does not exist. Posit it's reality all you want, it is irrelevant to economic planning and analysis because it has no effect.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 17:39 |
Demand has a technical definition and is intrinsically linked to purchasing power, but thanks for playing.
|
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 17:42 |
|
Disinterested posted:Demand has a technical definition and is intrinsically linked to purchasing power, but thanks for playing. If the accusations off vagueness are true it may be partly the result of the fact that sometimes I pretend this audience, well, isn't this audience. I've actually outlined, in significant depth, exactly what demand means (two things) several times and exactly how what I'm saying trivially relates to that. Now part of me knows this audience can't or won't keep track (muscle tracer thought he was being smart by calling them put earlier), but oh well.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 18:07 |
asdf32 posted:If the accusations off vagueness are true it may be partly the result of the fact that sometimes I pretend this audience, well, isn't this audience. Yes, let's attribute your failings as a communicator to others.
|
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 18:08 |
|
asdf32 posted:If the accusations off vagueness are true it may be partly the result of the fact that sometimes I pretend this audience, well, isn't this audience. You are absolutely insufferable with this poo poo. Here you are admitting that you like to redefine words to mean something other than their actual economic or colloquial definitions, and not only do you not see that as a bad thing, but you even have the gall accuse us of being stupid because we refuse to stoop to your level. It's like watching the dumbest person in the room loudly congratulating themselves on outwitting their peers while poo poo dribbles out of the bottom of their pant leg.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 18:26 |
|
asdf32 posted:idiolpgical You know it's sad that I don't know if this is a typo of "ideological" or if you just tried to make up a new word. It's really 50/50 because you do it all the time.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 18:50 |
|
QuarkJets posted:
wikipedia posted:Demand is a buyer's willingness and ability to pay a price for a specific quantity of a good or service. Demand refers to how much (quantity) of a product or service is desired by buyers at various prices. Just to be clear, this outlines the two parts I referenced earlier. I'm not making this up. And like I said, I think I pretty clearly indicated, at least several times what "infinite" was meant to refer too ("willingness" in the above).
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 19:43 |
asdf32 posted:Just to be clear, this outlines the two parts I referenced earlier. I'm not making this up. And like I said, I think I pretty clearly indicated, at least several times what "infinite" was meant to refer too ("willingness" in the above). Yes, we get it, you're bad at using words.
|
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 19:47 |
|
I'm pretty impressed that in the phrase "willingness and ability," the word that you failed to understand was "and."
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 19:50 |
|
I shouldn't be surprised that asdf32 doesn't understand the difference between "and" and "or". Have you ever hosed a watermelon asdf32?
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 20:14 |
|
paragon1 posted:I shouldn't be surprised that asdf32 doesn't understand the difference between "and" and "or". Here, let me help: code:
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 20:17 |
|
asdf32 posted:Just to be clear, this outlines the two parts I referenced earlier. I'm not making this up. And like I said, I think I pretty clearly indicated, at least several times what "infinite" was meant to refer too ("willingness" in the above). Right so like always you've managed to be a stupid pedant and said something effectively meaningless.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 20:22 |
|
come back to us, jrode we'll never* call you an idiot horsefucker again we've seen the light we've scraped it from the bottom of the barrel with our tongues please, jrode, have some compassion
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 20:28 |
|
Muscle Tracer posted:come back to us, jrode I just want to know if he ever hosed a watermelon.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 20:37 |
|
Literally The Worst posted:I just want to know if he ever hosed a watermelon. His silence on this is deafening.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 20:40 |
|
asdf32 posted:Just to be clear, this outlines the two parts I referenced earlier. I'm not making this up. And like I said, I think I pretty clearly indicated, at least several times what "infinite" was meant to refer too ("willingness" in the above). It's pretty clear you either didn't read the definition you quoted or are just incredibly stupid, but it reads "Demand is a buyer's willingness and ability to pay a price for a specific quantity of a good or service." Nobody would be willing to get an infinite amount of a good or service. Even if it was free, nobody wants infinite roads, infinite cupcakes, or infinite poo poo posts. Using your own stupid hosed up twisted interpretation, you're still wrong.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 21:23 |
|
Lemming posted:It's pretty clear you either didn't read the definition you quoted or are just incredibly stupid, but it reads "Demand is a buyer's willingness and ability to pay a price for a specific quantity of a good or service." Infinite watermelons to gently caress
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 21:43 |
|
Lemming posted:It's pretty clear you either didn't read the definition you quoted or are just incredibly stupid, but it reads "Demand is a buyer's willingness and ability to pay a price for a specific quantity of a good or service." People want more/better stuff than the economy will ever produce until replicators. In short, I called that infinite. This doesn't apply to every person with respect to every good but pretty much every good has a demand curve which exceeds its current intersection with supply. This is, to use the term in a non-negative fashion, Economics 101. What about this statement is a problem for you?
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 22:20 |
|
The education system has clearly failed you.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 22:48 |
|
asdf32 posted:People want more/better stuff than the economy will ever produce until replicators. In short, I called that infinite. The point is that what you said isn't what you meant and what you said is wrong. Since we aren't space magicians, we can't read your mind, which means that when what you say is wrong, we are going to call you a wrong idiot. Your communication skills are poo poo. also wikipedia posted:In economics, the demand curve is the graph depicting the relationship between the price of a certain commodity and the amount of it that consumers are willing and able to purchase at that given price. The bolded section also doesn't make any sense. The demand curve is a graph. "Exceed" in this context is meaningless. Demand might exceed supply in a specific case, but that has a specific definition that doesn't mean "people want an infinite amount of stupid garbage."
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 22:50 |
|
Jesus Christ you're thick. And =/= or.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 22:50 |
|
asdf32 posted:The funny thing to me is that the idea that people typically want more stuff than will ever realistically be produced has no idiolpgical consequences whatsoever. It's completely consistent with leftism. Poor people need more stuff and rich people are greedy and want more stuff too. Maybe you should take a break, you're just being petulant now
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 23:01 |
|
Lemming posted:Since we aren't space magicians, Well you aren't anyway.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 23:06 |
|
Who What Now posted:Well you aren't anyway. All of my Level IX spell slots have "shitpost" in them.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 23:13 |
|
Who What Now posted:Well you aren't anyway. Reminder that as a statist I am not only a space magician I can violate quantum causality and commit violence against libertarians while twiddling my thumbs in my office at the same time.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2015 23:17 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe you should take a break, you're just being petulant now But I have an infinite demand for his posting! asdf32 posted:People want more/better stuff than the economy will ever produce until replicators. In short, I called that infinite. No. That's not infinite. Infinite implies that if I have a house, I will keep buying houses. I will not stop buying houses. I will never be satisfied. I have a two bedroom apartment. I only want a two bedroom apartment. My demand has been met. I'm not continually renting apartments, with only my cashflow stopping me. I disproved your demand is infinite claim.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2015 01:14 |
|
asdf32 posted:The funny thing to me is that the idea that people typically want more stuff than will ever realistically be produced has no idiolpgical consequences whatsoever. It's completely consistent with leftism. Poor people need more stuff and rich people are greedy and want more stuff too. I think you don't understand what "demand" means. I would like a new car. I however cannot currently afford one. As far as the car industry is concerned I am generating zero demand. Desire != demand. Until I have a handful of money that's enough to get a new car and I go out and say "I would like to purchase a new car" my desire for a new car will not lead to somebody supplying me a new car. As far as the economy is concerned I am generating exactly zero new car demand.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2015 02:39 |
|
Cemetry Gator posted:But I have an infinite demand for his posting! No it means you'd buy a larger house if it was free (or that generally most people would). Given that, what you should have said was "I don't want a larger apartment no matter what!". Which would have been smarter than what you wrote but still inadequate as a rebuttal.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2015 02:45 |
|
Have you ever cleaned a big house? gently caress all that.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2015 02:47 |
|
asdf32 posted:No it means you'd buy a larger house if it was free (or that generally most people would). Given that, what you should have said was "I don't want a larger apartment no matter what!". Which would have been smarter than what you wrote but still inadequate as a rebuttal. Do you have any idea how hard it is to keep a house clean? Who would want more house than they need? Ugh. e: f' it, beaten
|
# ? Apr 9, 2015 02:48 |
|
asdf32 posted:No it means you'd buy a larger house if it was free (or that generally most people would). Given that, what you should have said was "I don't want a larger apartment no matter what!". Which would have been smarter than what you wrote but still inadequate as a rebuttal. And that's also why I hoard other people's garbage I find on the side of the road.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2015 02:50 |
|
SedanChair posted:Have you ever cleaned a big house? gently caress all that. Heh didn't I already express my demand for a house cleaner (look for the part where I got called a murdering slave owner).
|
# ? Apr 9, 2015 02:52 |
|
asdf32 posted:Heh didn't I already express my demand for a house cleaner (look for the part where I got called a murdering slave owner). You have explained you have an infinite desire for human slaves, yes.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2015 02:59 |
|
|
# ? Jun 13, 2024 05:09 |
|
asdf32 posted:Heh didn't I already express my demand for a house cleaner (look for the part where I got called a murdering slave owner). But can you afford a house cleaner? If you can't afford one, and are not actively paying one or trying to hire one, that isn't "demand."
|
# ? Apr 9, 2015 03:01 |