Socialism is great?

[IncendiaryGunner]

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?

Because I still reap the benefits of the extra wealth produced, even if a private entity does not make profit. The stimulation of the economy increases the wealth to everyone who pays the tax. The end user benefits more, because of this. The free market is still involved, and competition still prevails - because the roads themselves are still built by the free market. The difference is how the money is collected, and how many people can skim profit, and who can then control and monopolize the roads. In our case, the monopoly is owned by the people - so we reap the benefits, do not pay more than the cheapest contractor - and no excess profits on top of that.

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.

Maximizing individual wealth is exactly the point! Someone else gaining profit does not have to exist in this model - leaving me with MORE wealth for my money.

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.

The government does have that ability, even if it does not always practice it. Apparently, with "too big to fail" corporations, we have somehow decided even the free market does not have that ability anymore.

 

[Fletch]

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.

But your neighbors are impoverished so that you can. This is what we've been saying all along. There are costs which are hidden to you, that you do not care about. Your wealth may be greater, but it is at the cost of all the wealth of others that must be destroyed in order to provide it.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

But your neighbors are impoverished so that you can. This is what we've been saying all along. There are costs which are hidden to you, that you do not care about. Your wealth may be greater, but it is at the cost of all the wealth of others that must be destroyed in order to provide it.

If a private entity built the roads, your saying that cost would not be a possibility?

That is the cost of a free market, not transportation.

Those that gain profit importing goods from the cheapest source is an inherent part of the free market system.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Can you guess the biggest factor in the company I work for losing wealth?

Good discussion on INGO LOL

 

[Fletch]

Because I still reap the benefits of the extra wealth produced, even if a private entity does not make profit. The stimulation of the economy increases the wealth to everyone who pays the tax. The end user benefits more, because of this. The free market is still involved, and competition still prevails - because the roads themselves are still built by the free market. The difference is how the money is collected, and how many people can skim profit, and who can then control and monopolize the roads. In our case, the monopoly is owned by the people - so we reap the benefits, do not pay more than the cheapest contractor - and no excess profits on top of that.

The amount of roads built is more than the amount which would have been built without government interference. Transportation efficiency and personal wealth would be maximized, because just enough roads would be built to meet the demand. The amount of road purchased over that which would have been produced represents destroyed wealth and wealth-creating opportunities, which necessarily exceed the amount of wealth provided by the creation of the superfluous roads.

Maximizing individual wealth is exactly the point!

Not in the system you favor, it isn't. Wealth must be destroyed first. A lot of it. More than will be created from the resultant destruction. If a thief steals $100 from you and gives it to poor orphans, the wealth of those orphans is surely increased, but your wealth is destroyed. You ability to choose has been taken from you. You have lost more than the $100, you have lost whatever you valued more than $100 and would have traded for it. It doesn't matter that some benefit from the destruction of your wealth.

The government does have that ability, even if it does not always practice it. Apparently, with "too big to fail" corporations, we have somehow decided even the free market does not have that ability anymore.

The free market had that ability, and was about to exercise it on all of these "too big to fail" corporations, UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT STEPPED IN AND STOPPED THE PROCESS. Are you really that blind to the obvious?

 

[vz. 61]

False. socialism is actually a very good theory. Socialism (as a theory) involves all the people in the system working together towards the common good. Socialist countries give equal treatment to all citizens, regardless of income, race, gender or creed, in medicine, education and culture. socialism is also what the Apostles used to set up the early Christian communities mentioned in Acts. so unless you're saying that the apostles and Jesus are evil, know what you're talking about and come back when you know what you're talking about.

Socialism is great. the practice of it is flawed, because it A) is run by people who are influenced by greed and B) gives too much power to the government.

good theory. bad practice.




Ever read the book "the Acts of the Apostles" in the bible? worked well for them, cuz they were governed by a common goal that was stronger than their own greed.

This is a very late response, whatever.

I regard socialism as evil because it enslaves the individual to the will of the mass. I believe that altruism is an evil moral philosophy, self sacrifice is evil, and that Capitalism properly promotes prosperity and individual rights.

So because I'm not a Christian Altruist I don't understand collectivism?

 

[Fletch]

If a private entity built the roads, your saying that cost would not be a possibility?

That is the cost of a free market, not transportation.

Those that gain profit importing goods from the cheapest source is an inherent part of the free market system.

What I am saying is that to the extent that government has lowered the transaction cost of transportation below that of market prices, it has encouraged the mobility of productive facilities. We don't really have a way to compute that difference, but it is necessarily proportionate to the scale of the interstate highway system, and thus it is completely reasonable to assert that the cost in closed factories and other relocated businesses is significant.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The amount of roads built is more than the amount which would have been built without government interference. Transportation efficiency and personal wealth would be maximized, because just enough roads would be built to meet the demand. The amount of road purchased over that which would have been produced represents destroyed wealth and wealth-creating opportunities, which necessarily exceed the amount of wealth provided by the creation of the superfluous roads.

Not in the system you favor, it isn't. Wealth must be destroyed first. A lot of it. More than will be created from the resultant destruction. If a thief steals $100 from you and gives it to poor orphans, the wealth of those orphans is surely increased, but your wealth is destroyed. You ability to choose has been taken from you. You have lost more than the $100, you have lost whatever you valued more than $100 and would have traded for it. It doesn't matter that some benefit from the destruction of your wealth.


The free market had that ability, and was about to exercise it on all of these "too big to fail" corporations, UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT STEPPED IN AND STOPPED THE PROCESS. Are you really that blind to the obvious?

I am not blind to the government bailouts being foolish.

Companies would have a hard time building roads and making profit off of them, without imposing toll roads. Toll roads bottleneck traffic, waste gas, and cost more than publicly funded interstates. Companies always requiring profit means toll roads always collecting tolls, far after the costs of building and maintenance have been paid. Once the road is built, and once a company owns it, it will be viewed as a source of income for the company. I then also have to incur the cost of paying staff to sit at the toll booths.

If the government owns the road, and does not require profit - they collect representative taxes in order to maintain it. Even the waste associated with government oversight is not as high as the wealth yielded to the company that owns the road.

In the end, those paying the tax for the road, profit more. The only entity that may lose, would be the company that does not exist because of this.

Since so many businesses and individuals keep wealth due to this, every individual that uses the road retains their wealth. The difference is "does the consumer and every company involved in transport gain more, or do we yield a portion of gains to a third party company involved in the transaction".

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

What I am saying is that to the extent that government has lowered the transaction cost of transportation below that of market prices, it has encouraged the mobility of productive facilities. We don't really have a way to compute that difference, but it is necessarily proportionate to the scale of the interstate highway system, and thus it is completely reasonable to assert that the cost in closed factories and other relocated businesses is significant.

The person transporting is paying the tax. The government is not taxing people that do not use the road.

The difference is not taking from people who do not use the road - it is making the road cheaper by government ownership.

Every company that exports/imports goods gains more wealth. The consumer gains more wealth. The only difference in a full on free market approach is that a company in the middle does not take a cut.

Companies that are able to export goods gain wealth - so only facilities that cannot compete with production of other places end up being the "dead wood". In that sense, it stimulates the free market.

 

[Fletch]

I am not blind to the government bailouts being foolish.

Companies would have a hard time building roads and making profit off of them, without imposing toll roads. Toll roads bottleneck traffic, waste gas, and cost more than publicly funded interstates.

You say this because Indiana's one shining example of a toll road is a complete boondoggle. Shall we wager on just how much government interference in its operation I would find, were I to begin investigating?

Come to Oklahoma. Our toll roads are the best roads in the state. Bottlenecks for the most part don't exist except at the one place headed down toward Lawton. We zip through toll booths at 75 mph, with our hair blowing in the breeze. Construction takes place as quickly as possible to keep people from using alternate routes out of frustration.

State roads by comparison are pothole-ridden, construction lasts literally for years, and there is much being built that doesn't need to be.

Companies always requiring profit means toll roads always collecting tolls, far after the cost of building and maintenance have been paid. Once the road is built, and once a company owns it, it will be viewed as a source of income for the company.

Of course it will. I don't see a problem with that. The company directs new earnings into new investments, such as adding a third lane, or clearing up traffic snarls. Unhappy customers don't use the road, so it's in a company's best interest to keep the road as easy to use and congestion-free as possible.

If the government owns the road, does not require profit - they collect representative taxes in order to maintain it. Even the waste associated with government oversight is not as high as the profits that would be incurred yielding wealth to the company that owns the road.

You assume that profits are simply maximized with no other consideration. Competition keeps profits honest. If I can take route A or route B, I will take whichever route offers me the greatest value as I perceive it. The companies competing for my transportation dollar would have to make every effort to insure that I am as satisfied as possible, otherwise I will use their competitor's road. Government has no such incentive.

In the end, those paying the tax for the road, profit more.

Unsupported assertion, and once again you ignore those who pay tax for the road but do not gain from its use, because you don't care when other people are hurt to give you what you want.

The only entity that may lose, would be the company that does not exist because of this.

And the people who must pay and not gain. And the people whose wealth is destroyed by subsidization of the transportation industry. And the people who do not value the road as much as the tax being forced out of them for its use, and who cannot choose another provider.

Since so many businesses and individuals keep wealth due to this, every individual that uses the road retains their wealth. The difference is "does the consumer gain more, or do we yield it to a company".

No, the difference is "does IncendiaryGunner gain more, and screw everyone else".

 

[dross]

Fletch has not just led you to water, he's led you into the middle of the stream and is holding the water up to your lips. I suggest you read his posts carefully, he is giving you the straight truth and in simple form.

 

[Fletch]

The person transporting is paying the tax. The government is not taxing people that do not use the road.

This is utterly false. Every time I fill up a vehicle that does not travel on a federal highway, I am still taxed by the federal government for each gallon of gas. Every time I fill up a vehicle which does not travel on the state roads, I am still taxed by the state government for each gallon of gas. Further, my purchase subsidizes those whose travel damages the road more than I do.

The difference is not taking from people who do not use the road - it is making the road cheaper by government ownership.

It is not cheaper, as we have been at pains to explain.

Every company that exports/imports goods gains more wealth. The consumer gains more wealth. The only difference in a full on free market approach is that a company in the middle does not take a cut.

No, the difference is in all of the other wealth-producing activities that are never undertaken because the road was created by force.

 

[dross]

No, the difference is in all of the other wealth-producing activities that are never undertaken because the road was created by force.

The broken window fallacy is like a cockroach - it can withstand nuclear holocaust. You just can't kill it.

I remember during Katrina, listening to a news announcer with a straight face explain how rebuilding the damage would actually help the economy.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You say this because Indiana's one shining example of a toll road is a complete boondoggle. Shall we wager on just how much government interference in its operation I would find, were I to begin investigating?

Come to Oklahoma. Our toll roads are the best roads in the state. Bottlenecks for the most part don't exist except at the one place headed down toward Lawton. We zip through toll booths at 75 mph, with our hair blowing in the breeze. Construction takes place as quickly as possible to keep people from using alternate routes out of frustration.

State roads by comparison are pothole-ridden, construction lasts literally for years, and there is much being built that doesn't need to be.



Of course it will. I don't see a problem with that. The company directs new earnings into new investments, such as adding a third lane, or clearing up traffic snarls. Unhappy customers don't use the road, so it's in a company's best interest to keep the road as easy to use and congestion-free as possible.



You assume that profits are simply maximized with no other consideration. Competition keeps profits honest. If I can take route A or route B, I will take whichever route offers me the greatest value as I perceive it. The companies competing for my transportation dollar would have to make every effort to insure that I am as satisfied as possible, otherwise I will use their competitor's road. Government has no such incentive.



Unsupported assertion, and once again you ignore those who pay tax for the road but do not gain from its use, because you don't care when other people are hurt to give you what you want.



And the people who must pay and not gain. And the people whose wealth is destroyed by subsidization of the transportation industry. And the people who do not value the road as much as the tax being forced out of them for its use, and who cannot choose another provider.


No, the difference is "does IncendiaryGunner gain more, and screw everyone else".

Our interstate system - although constantly under construction, is actually pretty good now. I truly always hated toll roads, and really dislike the credit card system. Stopping at a toll road in winter is not fun.

Obviously, some people could pay for gas and not use the highways, and in that regard the representative tax is not perfect - as I have state previously.

However, the overall cost of roads is cheaper. The overall cost of transport, is cheaper. The vast bulk of that cost is paid by people who do use interstates. People that drive on the interstate in general will use more gas and diesel. When you factor in the transportation industry - like trucking - this trend will really begin to show.

Companies that produce goods more efficiently, or of higher quality for the same price, thrive in a free market. In a free market, those companies are the ones that should profit. The companies that cannot compete do not.

The ability to transport goods for less cost, creates wealth for those companies with good business models. It creates wealth for the consumer that buys their goods. The companies that suffer, are the companies that the free market dictates are not as healthy as other companies.

If my company produces X product for $1, and it costs me $0.25 to ship it to Louisville - if the best company in Louisville produces a similar quality product for $3, who should get the business? My company, transporting to Louisville, will pay a representative tax to transport the goods - in a sense paying for construction and maintenance of roads. They may use some of that money to construct other roads, but in the end it will generally be cheaper than using privately owned toll roads.

The company that produces X product for $3 will lose that business - but not because of cheaper cost of the road, but because they are not able to produce the same quality product for the same price. If I can undercut them so much that after I transport the product to their area, it is STILL cheaper - that is the free market at work.

The companies that are able and willing to compete, will grow and gain wealth. They can then expand, producing even more goods, and yielding those goods to the consumer at a cost lower than my competition.

The free market's strength lies in me being able to buy a gallon sized container of pickles for $3 at Wal-Mart, not me having to pay $12 for local pickles.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

No, the difference is in all of the other wealth-producing activities that are never undertaken because the road was created by force.

Or the wealth-producing activities that are then undertaken because the road was created....

Import/Export... the trucking industry in general...

 

[dross]

I used to teach some night classes at a local college. One of the courses I taught was the equivalent of Business 101.

I had a young woman quit my class in anger because I suggested that the government shouldn't break the patent on Cipro - a drug that treats Anthrax - which at the time was a hot topic.

All she could see were the people who would be helped by a cheaper supply of Cipro. I tried to explain about all the people we don't know who would die of diseases not yet known, because of the lack of drugs that would never be invented because breaking patents on drugs that treat rare diseases would create a disincentive to risk money on creating those drugs.

All she could see were the people who would be helped right now.

It's the same thing.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I used to teach some night classes at a local college. One of the courses I taught was the equivalent of Business 101.

I had a young woman quit my class in anger because I suggested that the government shouldn't break the patent on Cipro - a drug that treats Anthrax - which at the time was a hot topic.

All she could see were the people who would be helped by a cheaper supply of Cipro. I tried to explain about all the people we don't know who would die of diseases not yet known, because of the lack of drugs that would never be invented because breaking patents on drugs that treat rare diseases would create a disincentive to risk money on creating those drugs.

All she could see were the people that would be helped right now.

It's the same thing.

So... You are for social regulation?

This government regulation... stimulates the economy?

 

[dross]

So... You are for social regulation?

This government regulation... stimulates the economy?

You will never find ME arguing for no government. I just want government limited to preventing/punishing the initiation of force. Or, just stick with the enumerated powers in the Constitution, of which patents are one.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

You will never find ME arguing for no government. I just want government limited to preventing/punishing the initiation of force. Or, just stick with the enumerated powers in the Constitution, of which patents are one.

Um... so.. like interstates? Since they were originally imposed for the defense of the country, and the ability to transport military goods?

 

[Fletch]

Or the wealth-producing activities that are then undertaken because the road was created....

Import/Export... the trucking industry in general...

It's really cute that you can keep repeating the broken window fallacy as though it represents some great truth, but it remains the broken window fallacy. It is the cornerstone of understanding the impact of government interference in the market, and none of what you have said amounts to a hill of beans compared to that one grave error.

I'm sorry that you can't conceive of the wealth that is being destroyed, and I'm saddened that you apparently don't give a **** for the people whose wealth is destroyed so that you can have your highways. Neither your ignorance nor your callousness makes you correct.

All of the transportation scenarios you have posited can easily exist in a free market for transportation, which would necessarily be a more efficient market due to the price mechanism's regulation of the supply and demand curves. This is not conjecture, it's been demonstrated repeatedly in any number of texts, which I could recommend if I thought you had the slightest interest in understanding the truth.

If you honestly believe that government provision of roads is an unmitigated good, then I don't understand why you are not similarly arguing for government provision of every other product and service in existence. After all, clearing out all of that unnecessary profit will surely maximize our wealth even further, if we are to accept your logic.