Socialism is great?

[Fletch]

Yup. That is me, I am two years old.

Wealth is created, and most of the people that pay for the creation reap the benefit. Maybe they paid more than they would have, but they reaped the benefits of the enactment of a social policy.

Maybe, if the world was different in the past, things would have been different and they would have created more wealth. Maybe they would have created the same wealth and it would have cost less. Then again, maybe not...

The "maybe not" has been sorted out by folks like Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc. They've determined and demonstrated that your foregoing options must be correct.

Sorry for blowing my stack. I tend to lose my mind after I've repeated something a given number of times. It's going to make adopting kids very interesting.

 

[dross]

Sorry for blowing my stack. I tend to lose my mind after I've repeated something a given number of times. It's going to make adopting kids very interesting.

I have a four year old and I only lose patience with her after going over something a hundred times. For instance, she can't seem to get that profits must be calculated as a cost of production, and she's still clinging to the notion that prices are arbitrarily set by the producers, instead of the fact that they are only information as to the value of the product as seen by the market. She also continues to argue for cost-based pricing as the only moral form of pricing, but I think that's just to annoy me.

 

[Fletch]

I have a four year old and I only lose patience with her after going over something a hundred times. For instance, she can't seem to get that profits must be calculated as a cost of production, and she's still clinging to the notion that prices are arbitrarily set by the producers, instead of the fact that they are only information as to the value of the product as seen by the market. She also continues to argue for cost-based pricing as the only moral form of pricing, but I think that's just to annoy me.

I see what you did there...

 

[hornadylnl]

Obviously IG has never heard of wage committees (pay union scale even though contractors who bid pay less than union wage), politics involved in choosing contractors, politicians taking kickbacks to choose certain contractors, politicians taking kickbacks to provide unnecessary projects to contractors, etc.

Have you not ever heard of contractors begging for government work? If there wasn't more money in doing government contracts, why would they want those jobs if the private sector jobs paid more? I've heard of contractors who hire "minorities" as partners, co-owners, etc just so they can get more government contracts.

I had to skip the last several posts as I couldn't take it any more. Great Job, Fletch and Dross. Just please don't get him on the subject of oil.

 

[Manan]

The early Church also freely gave their resources to the community; they weren't taken from them via taxation; which may be the dividing line between "workable socialism" and the governmental theft system called "socialism".

Don't confuse the church's voluntary "Charity" with the governments mandated redistribution of the profits of MY labor.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I think the only place we truly disagree is the idea that if the Federal Government had not created the interstate highway system, the free market would have created a similar transportation system (similar as in within the same time frame and the same scale). I do not believe the free market was poised to create a system near the scale of the international highway system - and it was the scale of the international highway system that attributed to the benefits to our economy.

Could they have changed pace and decided to? Sure... but no indicator existed that they would have. If we believed the free market would put that scale of transportation in place - the government would not have had to do it. If the free market could is not the same thing as would the free market have.

The program was not undertaken by the free market, so it does not matter if the free market possibly could have done better - because they did not do better. I understand you are saying that by government putting a social program in place, they were not given the chance... But they had the chance and were not poised to build on the same scale.

The fourty year benefits of our highway system have been estimated to be around 6 to 7.5 times the investment. If the free market decided to embark on a similar scale project, maybe the wealth generated would be greater - but the federal government doing it creates more wealth than the free market not generating that wealth.

 

[Fletch]

I think the only place we truly disagree is the idea that if the Federal Government had not created the interstate highway system, the free market would have created a similar transportation system (similar as in within the same time frame and the same scale). I do not believe the free market was poised to create a system near the scale of the international highway system - and it was the scale of the international highway system that attributed to the benefits to our economy.

All of that is very nice, but it has nothing to do with my argument, which I've grown tired of repeating. If you ever care to address my actual points, feel free. There's several dozen posts of source material should you need references.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

All of that is very nice, but it has nothing to do with my argument, which I've grown tired of repeating. If you ever care to address my actual points, feel free. There's several dozen posts of source material should you need references.

Your arguments are great - I really enjoyed reading them.

I understand your argument, I just do not think that our international highway system - in the economy that it came to be - was a bad economic investment.

I just still believe the interstate highway system in many ways has stimulated our economy. Could it have been done better? Of course... but so could every business, even in the private sector.

Does all social policy negatively impact the economy? In most aspects of our economy, it is fairly clear that it would... but in some instances, social policy could provide stimulation that would not have existed if they were not enacted.

Having economic stimulation create wealth, is better than that stimulation not existing.

 

[Fletch]

Your arguments are great - I really enjoyed reading them.

I understand your argument,

I find it difficult to believe that you understand it when you persist in mischaracterizing it every time you attempt to frame it.

I just do not think that our international highway system - in the economy that it came to be - was a bad economic investment.

I have not said that it was bad. I have said that it has produced less wealth than otherwise would have been produced. I also take issue with your misuse of the word "investment", in the mode of modern politicians.

Having economic stimulation create wealth, is better than that stimulation not existing.

And we're back to this, where following the logic to its ultimate conclusion necessarily means that government should take over all production of everything everywhere, to further stimulate the relevant sectors and thus create the wealth that would not exist otherwise. After all, not everyone has an iPod yet, and that wealth is only lacking a push from government to get it created.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

And we're back to this, where following the logic to its ultimate conclusion necessarily means that government should take over all production of everything everywhere, to further stimulate the relevant sectors and thus create the wealth that would not exist otherwise. After all, not everyone has an iPod yet, and that wealth is only lacking a push from government to get it created.

No... an economy that is already competing to provide a product will provide it for cheaper.

It is when an economy is not competing to provide a product that in turn would provide great stimulation to the economy that social policy would make sense.

The Ipod is the portable music market. The portable music market is very competitive, and the free market competes in a healthy manner in which the government would not be able to compete - so social policy would not makes sense. Social policy could not stimulate the economy by getting into the portable music market, so this is not the same.

 

[lashicoN]

I bought a Zune to stick it to Apple and their fancy iPod that everyone must own, but then I turned around and bought a PS3 to stick it to Microsoft and their crappy pay-to-play Xbox 360 that can't even play my John Adams Miniseries on Blu-Ray.

I think this is very important to the argument at hand. By the way, I should have bought an iPod, the aftermarket accessories are insanely slated towards the iPod platform. Maybe the government should step in and make some Zune accessories to even things up?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I bought a Zune to stick it to Apple and their fancy iPod that everyone must own, but then I turned around and bought a PS3 to stick it to Microsoft and their crappy pay-to-play Xbox 360 that can't even play my John Adams Miniseries on Blu-Ray.

I think this is very important to the argument at hand. By the way, I should have bought an iPod, the aftermarket accessories are insanely slated towards the iPod platform. Maybe the government should step in and make some Zune accessories to even things up?

So you are upset that you chose a lesser quality product, even though that superior product exists? The superior product would have been cheaper because of Zune's existence, if you chose to go with an iPod...

As far as the international highway system - the superior product did not exist. The superior product was not poised to come into existence in the scale the economy and defense of the US demanded. The free market had produced cassette players, and our market demanded MP3 players that were not anticipated, let alone in a fair time frame or in a highly competitive way. The US government developed a way to build them, and those that bought the product in the end paid for their creation. Those that did not choose to buy music players (walked / rode bikes), were not taxed for their creation. Those that chose to use cassette players (trains) did not pay for their creation. The government turned to Microsoft and Apple and said "who can build them for cheaper" and competition existed in the production. The impact of these magic MP3 players, unlike actual personal music devices, stimulated widespread portions of the US economy, and not just the music industry.

 

[lashicoN]

So you are upset that you chose a lesser quality product, even though that superior product exists? The superior product would have been cheaper because of Zune's existence, if you chose to go with an iPod...

I'm upset that my Dell DJ's battery went to crap a few years back and they stopped making them. I prefer the old fashioned Windows 98 interface without all the bells, whistles, and loadings screens.

I chose the Zune over the iPod, because I got a larger screen, 120 GB hard drive, and I didn't have to give Apple any of my money. I also didn't have any use for the endless useless corny apps on the iPod.

I'm not upset about the quality, because I still don't believe iPod is a better MP3 player, as far as my ears can tell, the music sounds the same as it did on my Dell DJ from 2003. My zune has a great screen with vibrant colors and fantastic quality. I'm only upset about the aftermarket products and how nearly all of them are only compatible with my fiancé's fancy 16GB () iPod video.

Which is why I think the government needs to end this monopoly that Apple has on MP3 accessories.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

LOL I actually like my Zune too but...

The Zune just does not provide as much demand for aftermarket accessories. Those of us that bought Zunes, are not the same bunch that need a tactical thigh dock. We can still easily find basic accessories for our Zunes... But say goodbye to that hello kitty car dock you always wish you had.

Apple also only produces a fraction of the iPod accessories - the iPod accessories market is ripe with competition.

 

[level.eleven]

Here you go IG, a perfect example of the Broken Window Fallacy.

Japan Recovery Effort Could, Eventually, Create Economic Spark - FoxBusiness.com

 

[dross]

Here you go IG, a perfect example of the Broken Window Fallacy.

Japan Recovery Effort Could, Eventually, Create Economic Spark - FoxBusiness.com

Gosh, Beav'! Let's hope for a hundred more tsunamis! We'll all be rich!

Idiots.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Yah.. I get the broken window fallacy...

It is when something stimulates the free market itself, and competition, where it does not always play out in the same manner.

Creating demand itself will never truly stimulate the market.

Creating competition which in turn promotes healthy business practices, is a different story.

Japan - only demand, money exchanging, no competitive growth...

International highways - competitive growth, competing businesses - best businesses rewarded and growing... goods prices altered by business practices ... more production ... consumers able to buy more for their work ... positive to free market...

 

[cbseniour]

Two things
1. Socialism does not work never has never will
2. Name a socialist country where you are free to own and carry handguns. (besides the US that is)

 

[dross]

Yah.. I get the broken window fallacy...

It is when something stimulates the free market itself, and competition, where it does not always play out in the same manner.

Creating demand itself will never truly stimulate the market.

Creating competition which in turn promotes healthy business practices, is a different story.

Japan - only demand, money exchanging, no competitive growth...

International highways - competitive growth, competing businesses - best businesses rewarded and growing... goods prices altered by business practices ... more production ... consumers able to buy more for their work ... positive to free market...

I've been where you are. You're almost there, but you're hung up. I don't really want to argue with you anymore, we're getting nowhere, and we're stuck at the same place.

I say this kindly - we don't have a difference of opinion, I can tell that you believe in the free market - you are just missing a piece that's right in front of you.

When there's a demand, the free market will address it. The government doesn't address market demand, it addresses political problems. Some of those political problems, like defense, are justified. By addressing political problems, however, market efficiency is degraded. Yes, the highway system created growth. It's just that we would have had more growth OF SOME TYPE without the government addressing the problem.

The part you're missing, the key piece, is the part you can't see. If I can't see it, you ask, how do I know the part I can't see would be more efficient? Again here is what you're missing, the gap in your knowledge and understanding: It's a proven economic principle. It's not in question. Once you understand that, you've got it. If you keep arguing against that and you're sure you're correct, you need to study economics, get a PhD in the field, and write it up with proof. You'll win the Nobel Prize, because you will have disproven an established principle of everything but Marxist economics, and they could never prove it either, though it doesn't keep them from asserting it.

There, I'm pretty much done with this now.