patrick.net

GraooGra says

They don't understand profit. K. Marx misunderstood profit. He equated it to greed. Progressives take it from Marxists.

I guess Karl Marx misunderstood greed too.

Progressives tend to favor certainty over unknown. They also tend to confuse "knowledge" with epistemology and they loathe to contemplate unknowability.

JohnLaw says

Therefore they know that it is unsustainable. Furthermore, government has put further cost burdens on private business through new healthcare requirements. So why would any responsible business executive hire more people and ramp up production under these circumstances?

You are answering my question of who is creating imbalances in the free market economy.

Government creates imbalances. Big government and its interference into the free market creates imbalances.

I believe in laissez faire market. You let it go it is going to self adjust really fast.

Peter P says

This is my meta-ethical belief:

1) everyone should self-legislate his own moral code, and

2) a moral code is valid if and only if the moral value of any given action can be determined ex ante

Don't go to metaphysics with me. I believe in ethical monotheism. The code has to be external and dissociated from our emotions and subjectivity.

GraooGra says

Government creates imbalances. Big government and its interference into the free market creates imbalances.

One paradox though: the sole function of an ideal government is to protect private properties. This alone can create distortions in the market.

As market participants, we just have to make business decisions around these distortions.

GraooGra says

If you don't make enough profit you won't do the business. As simple as that.

Sure. I make profit on my work, everybody makes profit.

But economics rents -- profit -- are eroded by competition, so the powerful seek to find economic areas with reduced competition.

This is called rent-seeking.

Real estate, natural resources, telecommunications (both wired and RF), health care have been natural monopoly opportunities with high barriers to entry and thus protected profits.

The imbalance comes from the 99% having to "willingly contract" with these rent-seekers for life's necessities.

Money just keeps flowing up the pyramid, and the rent-seekers just buy up more natural monopolies.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/11/15/hedge-fund-blackstone-buying-100-million-in-foreclosed-homes-every-week/

Recall your last game of Monopoly for how this dynamic ends.

GraooGra says

Don't go to metaphysics with me. I believe in ethical monotheism. The code has to be external and dissociated from our emotions and subjectivity.

Meta-ethics is not the same as meta-physics.

I give up on external value systems long ago. And we really do not need one. Now I am a subjectivist who respects Ayn Rand.

The market is supposed to

1) allow individuals with different values communicate expectations
2) enforce that such expectations be met

It really is an amazing thing.

Peter P says

One paradox though: the sole function of an ideal government is to protect private properties. This alone can create distortions in the market.

So whoever has property creates the government. I believe if government is small enough it would be true representative of the people. It doesn't become a self serving beast.

GraooGra says

The code has to be external and dissociated from our emotions and subjectivity.

now that's some good "pseudo-rationalist" thinking!

GraooGra says

So whoever has property creates the government. I believe if government is small enough it would be true representative of the people. It doesn't become a self serving beast.

Absolutely. The government should exists only to protect individual private properties.

But since the government is comprised of self-serving individuals it too can become self-serving.

GraooGra says

So whoever has property creates the government

No, government creates property. No property exists without government.

Well, real property at least:

"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant." --Thomas Jefferson, 1812.

Bellingham Bill says

Recall your last game of Monopoly for how this dynamic ends.

So the one of government roles is to protect us from monopolies, oligopolies and cartels.

This conversation is fun. I feel like in my economy class all over again. But it was long time ago, I must miss something ;)

There is no real objectivity. There is only subjective understanding of objectivity. Hence it is better for the system NOT to rely on objectivity.

GraooGra says

So the one of government roles is to protect us from monopolies, oligopolies and cartels.

That has some philosophical consequences. However, if that is true, labor unions belong to one of those categories.

Bellingham Bill says

GraooGra says

The code has to be external and dissociated from our emotions and subjectivity.

now that's some good "pseudo-rationalist" thinking!

I really don't want to go into religion. However, atheists in the real world borrow from moral code of believers.

Bellingham Bill says

No, government creates property. No property exists without government.

Government can act as a registry and protector of properties. But of course one can have properties without a government. But you will need to:

1) get others to recognize your ownership
2) defend the properties against those who disagree

Peter P says

There is no real objectivity. There is only subjective understanding of objectivity. Hence it is better for the system NOT to rely on objectivity.

Some explorers discovered that even cannibalistic tribes never accustomed with the modern world felt deeply inside that it was something wrong with their rituals.

GraooGra says

I really don't want to go into religion. However, atheists in the real world borrow from moral code of believers.

Is God dead?

GraooGra says

Some explorers discovered that even cannibalistic tribes never accustomed with the modern world felt deeply inside that it was something wrong with their rituals.

If that is the case subjective codes will quite resemble one another. No worries.

Government is a representative of the group of people who has the greatest power. If private property owners have power they create government institutions.
My key word is LIMITED government.

Peter P says

GraooGra says

I really don't want to go into religion. However, atheists in the real world borrow from moral code of believers.

Is God dead?

I don't know but I believe just in case...
Anyway you said there is no objective, external code. I said it is.

Yes, limited government is good.

GraooGra says

I don't know but I believe just in case...
Anyway you said there is no objective, external code. I said it is.

Yep. Pascal's Wager. This is why I believe atheism is irrational.

Peter P says

Pascal's Wager.

LOL. Your entire worldview is literally based on a logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

"Pseudo-rationalist" indeed.

Peter P says

But of course one can have properties without a government. But you will need to:

1) get others to recognize your ownership
2) defend the properties against those who disagree

Congratulations, you just recreated a government.

Bellingham Bill says

Peter P says

Pascal's Wager.

LOL. Your entire worldview is literally based on a logical fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

"Pseudo-rationalist" indeed.

There is a difference. I make decisions based on the understanding of unknowability.

GraooGra says

atheists in the real world borrow from moral code of believers.

belief in mythical beings is positively correlated with immorality, not morality.

religion is just one massive appeal-to-authority fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I wonder how many fallacies you have incorporated into your daily life.

We probably haven't even gotten started yet.

Bellingham Bill says

Peter P says

But of course one can have properties without a government. But you will need to:

1) get others to recognize your ownership

2) defend the properties against those who disagree

Congratulations, you just recreated a government.

Not really. This is how it works among nations, and there really is no world government yet (thank God).

Bellingham Bill says

religion is just one massive appeal-to-authority fallacy.

Religion is not the same as God. It is about some humans having power over other humans.

I am not part of any established religion.

Why would anyone want to be part of a religion in which he is not at least a high priest?

Peter P says

There is no real objectivity. There is only subjective understanding of objectivity. Hence it is better for the system NOT to rely on objectivity.

If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them.

Jack Handy

Peter P says

Many progressives hate profit because they do not understand risks and they refuse to accept the stochastic nature of worldly affairs.

Just as they hate the rich, right ? (btw, using words like stochastic isn't going to change my impression of your intelligence, not that intelligence as you said, isn't "an illusion").

GraooGra says

They don't understand profit.

Yes, I'm not real smart. I need pictures to help me understand.

http://imgur.com/a/wrIds

marcus says

http://imgur.com/a/wrIds

yeah, I saw that on reddit or somewhere.

China has a 1.03 billion more people than us, 440 million more working-age people 18-42. This of course drives their natural labor rate to something approximating zero.

Trade with China has been an under-appreciated tailwind, 1990-now.

Yet with this trade has come stupendous trade deficits, and trade with a deficit is trade only partially completed.

We have had reckless disregard for our nation's economic security, since 1993 or so.

We're being sold down the river.

The stupid thing is all the savings we're seeing in getting our stuff from cheap-labor China (+ their artificially weak currency) has been beaten out of us in higher rents.

How can we talk of savings at all when housing rents are 50% higher, nationwide, since 2000 (and have increased more than that in many areas).

This system we've got now is fundamentally fucked, yet so few can see exactly how.

Here's the deal: most people who made their own wealth share a common quality. No, it's not greed. It's not "a rich dad" though that may very well help things along. It's extremely high levels of personal integrity. These are people who keep their promises and pay their debts on time. Because of this personal quality, because they would not steal and call it some euphemism like "redistribution," they could be trusted with other people's money. Because this was true, they made money for their investors. And then were rewarded. They rose because they were willing to stoop, to be subject to the rules of moral conduct and are thus worthy to be entrusted with more.
This is a truth. To those who have, more will be given. The reward for work well done is more work.

Quigley says

Here's the deal: most people who made their own wealth share a common quality.

I say its a combination of hard work, intelligence, discipline and luck (not necessarily in that order).

Not that the virtues such as integrity and honesty don't help. I think they are essential to being a good person, and may hinder success if not there, but it's sort of like talking about how important it is to not be an asshole, if you want friends. Okay,...yeah,....so ? That's not all there is to it.

Yup, that's the deal!

Those trillion dollar flows from the middle class to the wealthy, not important compared to that fact that most self-made people have extremely high levels of personal integrity.

Their farts don't smell, either.

Quigley says

The reward for work well done is more work.

Quigley says

It's extremely high levels of personal integrity.

That is the same as taking responsibility of one's actions.

marcus says

I say its a combination of hard work, intelligence, discipline and luck (not necessarily in that order).

Or, someone who manages his "luck" intelligently.

The maxim of cutting losses short and letting profits run is very true. One must handle luck with asymmetry.

Bellingham Bill says

bully for you, LOL

meanwhile, here in the real world, rent are up 50% since 2000:

I didn't say the rents (including mine) are cheap ;) But it is not like the rise in rents is so unpredictable that it will put you into financial turmoil vs all the stuff that can go wrong with owning a house - plus you can always downsize instantly if your rent becomes unbearable.Bellingham Bill says

Yes, we all want free money. That's our fucking problem. 5-10% returns have to come from people doing the actual work -- real-life goods & services wealth creation -- in this economy.

And the bigger the top 10% make their pile, the bigger these 5-10% returns have to be.

Soon the pile is going to fall over. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians in this economy.

Sure, too many chiefs. But in a free market interest rates are very simple. You get a decent savings rate and the bank (or any other creditor) takes a bit more when they loan out the money - included in this calculation is obviously the percentage of defaulters and people who withdraw their savings prematurely. I don't think it requires anybody to work hard for these returns, they calibrate and occur naturally if there is no intervention like there has been the past decades.

I don't know if and how many people have stopped trying (as suggested by Peter P) harder and while it sure looks like there are some I think far more people are guilty of continuous overspending, as in, "hey, can you get this cab ride for us, you know I have a mc mansion mortgage to pay now and I'm sure you understand..." Or as in "You know I need to upgrade my electronic gimmicks every 6 months to stay hip!" - just buy a linux laptop already and it will last and perform nicely 5+ years, you can so some amazing shit with it (improve your coding skillz) and it only costs as much as an iPhone but can do so much more ;)

Bellingham Bill says

GraooGra says

atheists in the real world borrow from moral code of believers.

belief in mythical beings is positively correlated with immorality, not morality.

religion is just one massive appeal-to-authority fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

I wonder how many fallacies you have incorporated into your daily life.

We probably haven't even gotten started yet.

You can not explain religion with rational. Belief is what it is, a belief.
We were talking about moral code we live with more or less. It was created by monotheistic religions. Even if you are atheist, you know that you shouldn't murder, steal, lie, etc. Like it or not, you took it from the religious code of morality. But I was just inserting it in the context of law. I was saying that some laws are immoral and they can be broken. Laws are imposed by the government which tries to coerce you to do something. Sometime the whole system of government goes crazy. People create laws, people make huge mistakes. For example, slavery was a law of the land, I would say go ahead and break it.... You understand that concept.

GraooGra says

We were talking about moral code we live with more or less. It was created by monotheistic religions.

eyeroll.

We got our moral code from all over the place -- pagan Germany for a lot of it.

Even if you are atheist, you know that you shouldn't murder, steal, lie, etc. Like it or not, you took it from the religious code of morality.

Not in the slightest. Modern-day religions arrived after mankind developed morality, not before.

I don't owe my morality to the "Judeo-Christian" tradition any more or less than I do to Mormonism.

"Treat others as you would be treated" is the beginning and end of wisdom.

And no, the writer(s) of the book of Matthew didn't invent that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

People looking for their morality out of a bronze-age desert-goatherder religious community are simpletons at best, very dangerous ideologues at worst.

If you want to live your life like the Old Testament, move to Iran or Saudi Arabia.