Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 2:04pm:



Current governments did NOT listen to Friedman nor Keynes.

They picked and chose a couple of aspects of what they proposed and ignored the rest which was essential! For instance the current GFC woes is blamed on Keynes, even though I disagree with him I have to defend him as it is only just:

Keynes advocated saving a surplus and then spending it during a deficit/downturn he warned against governments racking up debt FIRST to get out of debt, without having first saved the surplus! This is what the US did, it followed keynes advice only in debt spending but ignored his imperative that you MUST save the surplus first!

Friedman and JFK were right and both wanted to abolish the FED and return control of the currency to the government as per the constitution. It's not their fault that the FED and petro-dollar have run rampant and destroyed so much and created so many problems, they wanted to get rid of the fed! Friedman himself after returning the currency to the government though it even more desirable just as Hayek had proposed to have multiple competing currencies to create an equilibrium to prevent rapid devaluation of currency.

Good to know you still gloss over and refuse to read peoples posts before spitting out an opinion Good old chimp screeching and throwing sh*t around just like the name suggests

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 2:24pm:


lol...

Two pathetic clowns looking at the simple small picture - cant see the horizon nor the thunderstorms nor the rainbow

Whilst the global population is a long term factor, it is not the main problem of the world today.

The issue today concerns the distribution of wealth and resources etc, both within countries and between them

The USA for example makes up about 5% of the global population and yet generates about 30% of the net global pollution and waste, as well as requiring 1/3 of the worlds resources.

So the stress and demands on the planet are identical if there were 1.4 billion US citizens on it, or if there were about 16.5 billion citizens from Taiwan

or about 73 billion Kalahari bushmen or 91 billion Canadian eskimos.

So I assume when you two clowns are expressing concern about the total global population, you are being good little bigoted, racially deranged freak fascists

In counter to my own above argument:

You could use a similar example to prove the opposite but it raises another more important question.

Man A and B again. A earns $500 yet B earns $50, again with $55 being the poverty level. They are not nearly equal and B is worse off than A.

A socialist would say we have to take A's money/resources/property and give it to B. That is immoral. (use of force, theft, involuntary etc).

There are many solutions to the above problem then merely taking from one to give to another. A if left unrestricted to be charitable to B, A could hire B, B could start his own business, B could get an education and qualify for higher productivity thus higher wage, B's family could help, B could work towards being self sufficient. I'm sure you can come up with many more efficient ways than I just did, than redistribution. As Thomas Sowell would say wealth is not distributed, it is earnt by appeasing people in voluntary interaction.

The key point is, that by stepping out of the way you allow B the best chance to have opportunity to increase his wealth above poverty, more opportunity than trying to restrict both with regulations or restrict A from helping B through regulations. The question is what gives B the best opportunity to morally increase his wealth? I say freedom of choice is much more desirable than force.

Would you agree?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 31^st, 2013 at 3:53pm:


Is my example wrong in disproving that equality is the ultimate measure of happiness and prosperity? Especially when the poor in Australia are better off than the rich in other countries. That's the whole point even those in poverty if the whole society is prosperous are better off and have better opportunity.

Though I would still put forward that the destruction of the middle class is due to state restrictions that prevent small business from competing, from state actions such as monopolizing industries, controlling the economy, private central banking etc etc.

The above that you mention is not a result of voluntary interaction for mutually perceived benefit but rather crony corpatism and socialist policies.

This is an effect of people having less opportunity the pure result of government restriction on opportunity.

Interstingly Athos free market capitalism promotes two things, not just one. It promotes competition between business and employees which empirically IS beneficial as a whole. It also promotes voluntary interaction for mutually perceived benefit IE cooperation.

I fail to see how people trading voluntarily in cooperation and competing to please consumers/employess is immoral.

A lot of people tend to disagree with Adam Smith due to times being different now and economics evolving. Obviously that isn't a refutation to his argument but i'd love to see someone explain how these "cartels" form in the absence of a state? Without using logic that includes causation due to corporations (state created) and direct state actions.

My argument is that these cannot form in a free society due to the incentive to undercut and compete for customers and skilled employees. The difference is the society we have has business receiving special privileges and subsidies whilst unions are becoming militant with the power the state grants them to negatively effect employees that don't  join them.

I can see how they have formed with the above corporate lobbying in direct action via corporations or states. (By state I mean things like privatizing an industry to a sole company or a resource to a small group etc, which is largely different then opening it up to the entire world to compete in)

With the rating agencies and DRO's I'll give examples of some ideas that are in their infancy today. (However most of it is gone into in the article itself which I encourage people to read BEFORE criticizing something at face value)

Ebay and paypal mediate disputes, the RTA in Australia mediates disputes. In australia you have things much more effective than courts. For example TICA the rental blacklist here, what is more of an incentive to you to behave:

A. Not paying rent, skipping out of town when the bill comes around giving the lessor/agent no possible way of serving you with notices and enforcing debt repayment.

B.  Ending up on a rental black list meaning you will be refused tenancy agreements 9/10 times and only accepted by dodgy private agents in dodgy areas.

The same goes for things like not paying your phone/electricity/Car loans etc, if you get a bad enough credit rating; no phone for you, higher premiums for certain things, no loan for you, no contract for you.

Now imagine that carrying over in a free society to contracts etc, in combination with dispute resolution companies that you subscribe to or pay a usage fee to, in order to enforce contracts, resolve disputes etc. It's all much better explained in the article.

I would close with the idea that anything that is now recognized as essential, will have such a demand in a free society that it will be taken care of. People all have the same fears and if every Australian fears losing workers rights then it makes sense that to appease every Australian employers would have to settle this in the multi-generational change to a free society. If every business decided not to offer penalty rates, what do you think would happen the moment one business did? All employees would flock to them and they would have the pickings and choosing of the most qualified for each position, unlike the competitors. If you can't imagine that happening then what horribly negative imagination do you have, is that not a logical conclusion?

With the above idea of DRO's and Credit Agencies, I would like to know how in a free society a cartel could possibly form without, corporate power given to it by the state and without direct state intervention that has created a framework in the past for monopolies.

Cheers.