Socialism is great?

[IncendiaryGunner]

If wealth is tied to people's subjective value of goods, and more goods can be created by a government system... more wealth is created.

If the US found an uncharted island and claimed it, and sold half of the land to generate revenue (not taxed)...

Then they took said revenue, and used the money to farm the remaining land...

Does the production created equal more wealth?

If most people subjectively believe the interstate system is beneficial and valuable to them, does that mean wealth is created?

In a perfect work the free market system could work perfectly... the free market system in our world also does not function perfectly.

 

[misconfig]

Socialism is a novel idea - it'll never work in the real world because no one wants to be the trash man for the greater good of the nation.

There is 1 place this works extremely well OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.

 

[dross]

If wealth is tied to people's subjective value of goods, and more goods can be created by a government system... more wealth is created.

But the government doesn't create more goods - it's not set up for that. It can only take goods from one to give to another. Then it points to the one who benefitted from the receipt of those goods and ignores the one from whom they are taken - just as you must do to continue this point.

If the US found an uncharted island and claimed it, and sold half of the land to generate revenue (not taxed)...

Here you desperately create a scenario where nothing was taken. So yes, in this case wealth would be created. However, the money I earn isn't an uncharted island. It's mine, and if they take it and give it to someone else, nothing was created, only moved around, without a thought to the productive use I would have put it.

Then they took said revenue, and used the money to farm the remaining land...

Does the production created equal more wealth?

Yes, in your scenario which you have constructed so as to ignore how government gets its money in the real world. If they got all the money from finding uncharted islands your analogy would almost hold up, except I am quite certain the private sector could find them better, and besides, the only way to get government ships to find uncharted islands is to take resources from someone else to build them, so we're back at square one.

If most people subjectively believe the interstate system is beneficial and valuable to them, does that mean wealth is created?

Wealth for them, at the expense of those from whom it was taken.

In a perfect work the free market system could work perfectly... the free market system in our world also does not function perfectly.

Correct. The argument is how much government do we need, and what is its role.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The money to fund the interstate is collected through user fees.

If you do not use that mode of transportation, you do not pay for it.

They collect so much money from that, they quasi-illegally use quite a bit of the money for other purposes.

It is not redistribution of wealth....

Those that use it, value it... and those that do not, do not pay for it...

If they did not use those funds for other purposes, and the money they collected was only used to build/maintain roads... without turning a profit I might add... it is by far cheaper than commercial alternatives.

I would imagine the majority of people would agree the interstate is an important - valuable - thing. That means, it produces, not destroys, wealth.

 

[Fletch]

If wealth is tied to people's subjective value of goods, and more goods can be created by a government system... more wealth is created.

The value of "more" goods is also problematic. If roads are valuable, and all we do is build roads, what are we going to eat? There is a point at which production of one thing must stop, and production of another begin. Government cannot find this point because government does not have access to the price mechanism in the same way that the private sector does.

If the US found an uncharted island and claimed it, and sold half of the land to generate revenue (not taxed)...

Then they took said revenue, and used the money to farm the remaining land...

Does the production created equal more wealth?

Compared to what?

If most people subjectively believe the interstate system is beneficial and valuable to them, does that mean wealth is created?

Wealth is created, but more wealth is destroyed. Not sure how many times I have to say this.

In a perfect work the free market system could work perfectly... the free market system in our world also does not function perfectly.

Define "perfect" without substituting your own values for those of someone else.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The interstate system is about as close as you can get to a represented tax.

In a perfect world, we could not tax gas that is not used on the highway.

The majority of people that buy gas, get some use out of the highway.

It is a valuable part of our economy, that helps stimulate many other portions of our economy.

The money gathered and spent on the highway stimulates more wealth production than is destroys.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The value of "more" goods is also problematic. If roads are valuable, and all we do is build roads, what are we going to eat? There is a point at which production of one thing must stop, and production of another begin. Government cannot find this point because government does not have access to the price mechanism in the same way that the private sector does.

But that is not the realistic case... we have unemployed members of our society we can put to work. We would be able to do both...

Compared to what?

Compared to that food not existing, what else...

Wealth is created, but more wealth is destroyed. Not sure how many times I have to say this.

Wealth is destroyed also in the private sector. You seem to point to the fact that we cannot show what could have happened, but you seem to always assume something better would have happened. This is not always the case.

Define "perfect" without substituting your own values for those of someone else.

In our world the "free market" cannot stand without any regulation whatsoever. People will game, people will be gamed - and competition is stifled when this happens. The idea of the free market is to generate competition, and when entities like monopolies exist, competition is stifled. In an unregulated market, monopolies and cartels will exist.

 

[Fletch]

The money gathered and spent on the highway stimulates more wealth production than is destroyed.

It cannot. This would be the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. The money gathered, less the cost of government itself (which would not be a cost in the private sector), is spent on creating wealth.

Government consumes wealth in the same way that you consume food. Your fecal matter technically has some nutritional value, but it is not the same value as the food you originally consumed. Government operates in exactly the same way.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

It cannot. This would be the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. The money gathered, less the cost of government itself (which would not be a cost in the private sector), is spent on creating wealth.

Government consumes wealth in the same way that you consume food. Your fecal matter technically has some nutritional value, but it is not the same value as the food you originally consumed. Government operates in exactly the same way.

Private sectors spend money on administration. CEO's require payment for their jobs... and make more money than most public administration.

Private sector companies, in the end, require functioning costs also.

What private sector company does not incur operating costs?

 

[Fletch]

Wealth is destroyed also in the private sector.

False. Free exchange means that I have A, you have B. I value B more than A, you value A more than B, so we trade, and BOTH of us increase our wealth. If we did not value one another's goods more than we valued our own, we would not trade, and wealth would still be maximized.

In our world the "free market" cannot stand without any regulation whatsoever. People will game, people will be gamed - and competition is stifled when this happens. The idea of the free market is to generate competition, and when entities like monopolies exist, competition is stifled. In an unregulated market, monopolies and cartels will exist.

In an unregulated market, monopolies and cartels will cease to exist as quickly as they come into existence. Competition can and will arise from anywhere to challenge dominant players. It is only with the aid of government intervention or other forms of violence that monopoly power can be made to last.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

False. Free exchange means that I have A, you have B. I value B more than A, you value A more than B, so we trade, and BOTH of us increase our wealth. If we did not value one another's goods more than we valued our own, we would not trade, and wealth would still be maximized.

But I value the interstate system. If I did not value the transportation provided by my automobile on the interstate, I would not buy gas. That is an exchange I choose. The difference is, instead of a private sector company also gaining wealth.. the government is not supposed to be in it for a profit. They do it for our benefit - since we are the people. The tax they collect on the gas does not get stepped on as heavily as a private sector would.

Wealth is created - just more wealth for the individual that uses the interstate, instead of some for me and some for someone else.

My wealth is not redistributed to others, I gain ALL the wealth in that scenario.

In an unregulated market, monopolies and cartels will cease to exist as quickly as they come into existence. Competition can and will arise from anywhere to challenge dominant players. It is only with the aid of government intervention or other forms of violence that monopoly power can be made to last.

Tell that to the early American railroad cartels... Force is always part of the market... Hired force will always exist, like every other commodity. In an unregulated market, that force is not regulated...

 

[Fletch]

Private sectors spend money on administration. CEO's require payment for their jobs... and make more money than most public administration.

Private sector companies, in the end, require functioning costs also.

What private sector company does not incur operating costs?

Those operating costs are rolled into the investment that comes from someone's savings. They affect the asking price of the good or service finally offered, which will rise and fall accordingly. If two companies produce the same kind of product, the company with a better, more efficient business model will be able to offer it at a lower asking price, and the market thus works to keep operating costs as low as possible.

When government undertakes a project, such efficiency is not encouraged by outside competition. The money government uses is confiscated -- at gunpoint if necessary -- rather than voluntarily saved and contributed to the enterprise. Efficiency of overhead is not a consideration except in dire budget times, and it is not affected by the final price of the final product.

 

[Fletch]

But I value the interstate system. If I did not value the transportation provided by my automobile on the interstate, I would not buy gas. That is an exchange I choose.

Wealth is created.

Wealth for you. Not for the person you steal from.

Tell that to the early American railroad cartels... Force is always part of the market... Hired force will always exist, like every other commodity.

The early American railroad cartels existed because of government intervention in the railroad sector. If you want an excellent source of comparative info on government-influenced and free market rail, read How Capitalism Saved America, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. He covers all of this.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Those operating costs are rolled into the investment that comes from someone's savings. They affect the asking price of the good or service finally offered, which will rise and fall accordingly. If two companies produce the same kind of product, the company with a better, more efficient business model will be able to offer it at a lower asking price, and the market thus works to keep operating costs as low as possible.

When government undertakes a project, such efficiency is not encouraged by outside competition. The money government uses is confiscated -- at gunpoint if necessary -- rather than voluntarily saved and contributed to the enterprise. Efficiency of overhead is not a consideration except in dire budget times, and it is not affected by the final price of the final product.

Oh, but it is - since bidding for roadwork is done in the private sector.

Private sector companies COMPETE to do the work.

The private sector company that does it the most efficiently, and cheapest, will always revolutionize road building and maintenance. Competition is not killed.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Wealth for you. Not for the person you steal from.

I paid the tax for the road. I paid for the wealth I received. The difference is, in this scenario, the entity in control of contracting to build the road is not in it for profit - so I pay less. Since I gained more for my money, my trade was better. I can then spend that remaining money on other things, gaining more wealth.

Since nearly every business is stimulated by cheaper transportation, nearly all goods I buy are cheaper because of this transportation system.

The loaf of bread I buy costs less money. I can buy more things, with the same amount of my work in the end.

 

[Fletch]

Oh, but it is - since bidding for roadwork is done in the private sector.

Private sector companies COMPETE to do the work.

And once again I have to explain that the amount being purchased is not the amount that would be purchased in the free market. It does not matter if government finds the "best" price for 1000 units of product X if the free market would have purchased something other than 1000 units. Further, the free market by definition would have purchased something different, otherwise government would not have thought it "necessary" to purchase those units on our behalf.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

And once again I have to explain that the amount being purchased is not the amount that would be purchased in the free market. It does not matter if government finds the "best" price for 1000 units of product X if the free market would have purchased something other than 1000 units. Further, the free market by definition would have purchased something different, otherwise government would not have thought it "necessary" to purchase those units on our behalf.

Or would not have done it at all.

Again, you assume that transportation would still be as widespread available for the same cost without profit gouging.

The free market does not always make the best decision. You can look at the recent financial crisis in our country as evidence. Bad business decisions have been made in the past - by the free market.

Just because a person/company does not find a means to profit off of doing something - does not mean it cannot stimulate production.

 

[Fletch]

I paid the tax for the road. I paid for the wealth I received. The difference is, in this scenario, the entity in control of contracting to build the road is not in it for profit - so I pay less. Since I gained more for my money, my trade was better. I can then spend that remaining money on other things, gaining more wealth.

Having the real cost of a transaction hidden from you does not make that transaction better. It just makes you ignorant of the real cost.

Since nearly every business is stimulated by cheaper transportation, nearly all goods I buy are cheaper because of this transportation system.

Including the ones that ship factories to Mexico and put all of your neighbors in the unemployment line.

 

[Fletch]

Or would not have done it at all.

Again, you assume that transportation would still be as widespread available for the same cost without profit gouging.

I make no such assumption. I have clearly stated, repeatedly, and you have ignored, that TRANSPORTATION AS WE CURRENTLY KNOW IT WOULD NOT EXIST. It would take a different form, and it most likely would be less pervasive. Seriously, if you're not even going to take the time to read my posts, why should I even bother with this conversation?

The free market, does not always make the best decision.

Define "best". Best for who? You seem to believe that there is some condition other than maximized individual wealth which is more desirable, but have failed to explain that condition, or why I should accept it as being more desirable.

Bad business decisions have been made in the past - by the free market.

Of course they have. That brings up the other function of the free market, which government does not have: the ability to clear away the dead wood and stop funding projects that clearly make no sense.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Having the real cost of a transaction hidden from you does not make that transaction better. It just makes you ignorant of the real cost.



Including the ones that ship factories to Mexico and put all of your neighbors in the unemployment line.

The real cost is not hidden. I pay for it in the tax. It is part of the gas that I buy.

And including the one they ship FROM Mexico, making those goods cheaper. I can then buy twice as much Mexican / Chinese junk - gaining more wealth. More free market trade, from a social program.