Nothing.

My tangential investigation into the raw data on the concentration of wealth in a separate thread (around here: http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=426719&page=3 (anyone wanna educate me on how to post a /thread link?)) led LoneSnark and 1337 b4k4 to suggest a pretty common question most people think of when the old idea of concentrated wealth is discussed: Why is it so wrong?

It isn't. But it plays heavily into the limitations on information exchange brought about by our worldwide authority-and-submission based societies, which create the same problems some attribute to wealth concentration. It's groupthink among rainmakers, a possible consequence of this phenomenon, that can be disastrous to billions of people in the scale the old Marxist spoke of.

A civilization based on authority-and-submission, as is the current global paradigm, is without sufficient means of self-correction. Effective communication flows only one way: from master-group ("Ultra-HNWI's" in the above-stated case) to servile-group ("HNWI's" on down). Any cyberneticist knows that such a one-way communication channel lacks feedback, and cannot behave "intelligently."

The epitome of authority-and-submission culture is the Army, few would argue against it being among the most strict, hierarchical, and authoritarian organizations in the world. Some would even argue it's one of the most effecitve. But the control-and-communication network of the Army has every defect a cyberneticist's nightmare could conjure. Its typical patterns of behavior are immortalized for us in folklore as SNAFU (situation normal, all fucked up), FUBAR (fucked up beyond all redemption/recognition), and TARFU (Thing are really fucked up). In less extreme, but equally nosological form, these are the typical conditions of any authoritarian group--corporation, nation, family, or civilization.

One way communication is stupidity. Two way communication amounts to rationality, growth, and progress. Anyone who's ever been in a relationship knows both, or should. Another, less touchy, analogy is the human body.

The hand delivers the brain an instantaneous, raw, unfiltered message via its information exchange network when it's pressed against an object whose temperature is 500°. It passes through without regard to the class, history, ethnicity, philosophy, occupation, or any authority-denoting status of any cell in the network, though all are different.

Would the hand last long if the body's network were jammed with the authoritarian barriers mirroring those of our civilization? One in which the net worth of each cell factored heavily into the likelihood it'd get a response from the brain?

Or futher, where a third of those connections to it were freyed by malnutrition? Another group by the poor availability of basic sanitation? Where as many as 75% of the nerve endings don't have the education necessary to understand the problem of the temperature and thus lose the urgency of the problem?

Where each individual interaction about the problem of the temperature is subject to continual manipulation, misrepresentation, and violence due to historical rivalries between cells? I could go on, but you can see that not many carriers of this urgent message of safety are going to overcome the obstacles already inherent in the network--mostly through no fault of their own. None have operated within it for longer than 30 days, or really remember it being any different.

But assuming a few managed to recognize the heated surface, they'd still need to be among that even smaller section of the hand that isn't intimidated by the idea of being isolated at best, or imprisoned and killed at worst, for advancing an unpopular idea in the cellular culture. They would also necessarily have to be self-righteous enough to think the brain should give them the time of day.

To apply this, take a look at the looming crises facing the largest numbers of people in the world. Then take a look at how long they've been "looming." Here's your 500° F stove, and your measure of how effectively the crisis is being communicated by the hands, feet, and all load-bearing extremities--those affected by the crises--to the brain--those rainmakers who can actually address the problems.

We don't have to rely on the presumption that they are enlightened and compassionate enough to treat the betterment of society as a business venture in which we're all shareholders. 1337 b4k4 and many economists already tell us that private investment and charitable donation come almost exclusively from the rainmakers, but is that the best measure of how optimally the distribution is working? Or are the results of their work?

2,333,333,333 people of all age groups, but not national origin and economic dispositions, are and will continue to be afflicted by malnutrition this year. That's one in three people of Earth. And this isn't a new problem. A third of us are afflicted by a problem as few as 0.001% of us have the resources to solve. It's just one instance of this metaphorical 500° burn afflicting the global human body, and serves as just one of our current transparent failures to address a widespread problem.

With the current state of information exchange in our global culture, the concentration of wealth isn't responsible for this to be sure, but it incidentally factors in. The wealthy and powerful happen to be few in number and atop the dominance-and-submissive pyramid of information exchange, in which most information flows one way: downward. Not their fault, but not one that many of them are out to change either.

The messages either aren't efficiently moving upwards, or we're left to believe that even most of the power brokers of the world are cold, heartless, materialists, or at worst, nihilists. I take the former view and chalk it up to a problem of the growing barriers of power in information exchange.

I invite others to comment on their views of the concentration of wealth. Positive or negative.

8/20/2006 8:42:24 PM

I say we give all the wealth to one family. We'll call them....the royal family. And we'll call the rest of us, the peasants. This is a great system I just thought up.

8/20/2006 8:47:37 PM

I guess, I could also turn this into the place for my question for LoneSnark. From the other thread...

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Our top 1% may or may not work hard, but they are effective.""

Quote :

"Gamecat: Effective at what? Concentrating wealth? No arguments here. Concentrating income? No kidding. The top 1% earned more than 20% of the money earned in 2000."

8/20/2006 8:54:24 PM

You've seemed to only look at it sociologically. Economically speaking, concentration of wealth tends to discourage competition.

8/20/2006 9:55:36 PM

also it implies a society with low economic mobility, the hallmark of america is high economic mobility.



[Edited on August 20, 2006 at 10:01 PM. Reason : dfh]

8/20/2006 10:00:40 PM

^^ How so? The same members of every BOD? Or do you mean something else?

8/20/2006 10:22:42 PM

I may not be understanding your post clearly, but Ill write about communication.

If we consider just the economy, then price signals appear to work extremely well in mostly free societies with consumers sending information to the producers who can then supply them.

This, to me, is more similar to the type of communication that occurs between hand and brain than the kind you are talking about.

Now you also bring up the example of a relationship. The reason that personal communication is important in our relationships is because we consider male and female to be equal. But, that is also the major factor in why relationships in the west are so likely to fail. If we were to consider the family as a unit whose function it is to produces offspring in a stable, nurturing home, then that type of equal partnership is probably a bad thing. So what happens when you try to organize society along similar lines?

[Edited on August 20, 2006 at 10:38 PM. Reason : ]

8/20/2006 10:37:39 PM

Quote :

"A civilization based on authority-and-submission, as is the current global paradigm, is without sufficient means of self-correction. Effective communication flows only one way: from master-group ("Ultra-HNWI's" in the above-stated case) to servile-group ("HNWI's" on down)."

Where did you come up with this nonsense? The current global paradigm is based upon freer trade and self determination. In essence, economic liberty. The ideal behind globalization is that no one is subservient to anyone else, unless they choose to be. This ideal is lost in the mix, sure enough, but it is not destroyed, just ask the millions of Chinese that took their first road-trip last year without first needing to get a travel permit.

If there was validity to your thesis then why don't the owners of Ford simply use their authority to make people buy their cars? Are they seriously volunteering to lose billions every year?

Quote :

"Or further, where a third of those connections to it were frayed by malnutrition? Another group by the poor availability of basic sanitation?"

Ah, yes, the world's poor, those individuals desperate to take part in our "worldwide...based societ[y]" that you call it, although it in no way resembles an "authority-and-submission" system. Nevertheless, you are right why 1/3rd are starving to death, but it has nothing to do with free-enterprise globalization and everything to do with "The epitome of authority-and-submission culture" that is the socialist or totalitarian state.

And Clear5 nailed it, I'll grand-stand by quoting one of my recent posts:
"Another way of thinking about it is to view prices as humanity's way of making sense of reality. It is how humans find out if a resource is plentiful, or if others have better uses for a resource than we do. It is how we answer the most complex question ever to confront the human race: what should be produced and how should it be produced? People that try to ignore the price system are trying to ignore reality..."

To be more relevant to your post, prices are the medium through which the various levels of the pyramid communicate, and it is definitely two-way (just ask Ford Motor Company if they are receiving any important signals right now).

[Edited on August 20, 2006 at 10:46 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/20/2006 10:38:37 PM

Just ask the Ford Motor company how much they'd be losing if they hadn't already secured the alliances of government...

8/20/2006 10:57:37 PM

Why don't you tell me?

And I'm impressed it was that easy. You start a post complaining the current global socio-economic system is doomed to failure and with one post from me you about-face and join with me to defend the world free-enterprise system from governmental meddling. Miraculous

From a liberty lovers perspective, governments are rediculously medlesome nowadays, but nothing like they used to be and no longer disasterously so. People the world over are far freer today than at any time in human history. Sure, Americans are not as free as they once were, but we make up for it with technological prowess, and the rest of the world has made remarkable progress. Even Adam Smith would be forced to look favorably upon what China is becoming.

[Edited on August 20, 2006 at 11:33 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/20/2006 11:30:49 PM

Quote :

"Ah, yes, the world's poor, those individuals desperate to take part in our "worldwide...based societ[y]" that you call it, although it in no way resembles an "authority-and-submission" system"

Well there is no worldwide organization, but all corporations, governments, and armies have a hierarchial structure that can be loosely described as authority and submission. Now in free societies, most of these are formed by way of contract out of mutual interests, and people are free to leave them.

Its the best way to organize people if you want to get anything done.

8/20/2006 11:39:46 PM

^ Exactly. And I'm still waiting to learn what it is exactly that those 1% are effective at...

[Edited on August 20, 2006 at 11:44 PM. Reason : .]

8/20/2006 11:43:31 PM

Well I would assume most of them have been effective at investing money.

8/20/2006 11:48:32 PM

^^ Oh, sorry, missed that. Well, as Clear5 pointed out, it is the price structure which allocates societies resources, which includes talent. The money you are paid by others in exchange for goods and services is your reward for giving others what they want. If the top 0.01% is as wealthy as you say, then they are obviously very good and figuring out what the other 99.99% wants and selling it to them at a price and quality which makes them willing to buy it.

A person's fabulous wealth is society's signal to tell them that they have done society a great service by either boosting worker productivity or inventing new products to make people's lives better.

Or at least that is the way it is supposed to be. Governmental meddling tends to disrupt "the World of Truth" as one author described the price system, potentially rewarding individuals for harming society, what economists call "perverse incentives."

[Edited on August 20, 2006 at 11:56 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/20/2006 11:50:26 PM

Paris Hilton.

8/20/2006 11:53:36 PM

And you had to wait until the third time I asked that. And the only time I asked without suggesting for you that they are effective at concentrating wealth and income.

The thing is, it's more than wealth and income they've become effective at concentrating. That's why I approached the topic sociologically as well. They've been effective at concentrating power as well, which is where dominance-and-submission interference comes heavily into play. Factor that into the system and all the issues it presents.

The disparity between the comfort of that 1% and the suffering below them continues to widen due to those influences. That's my case. Not that they asked for them, but that they are inefficient stewards because of them.

8/21/2006 12:00:32 AM

^^ Then, of course, there is Paris Hilton. The purpose of the price system is to first determine what people want and how much they want it, and then determine how best to produce it. It turns out humans can appear irrational to each other, but "the World of Truth" does not lie, obviously someone was buying her weirs.

This is not to say "the World of Truth" is always right, in the short term people can misinterpret the signals or down right lie to each other (of course I'll be willing to pay more for carbon-neutral-electricity... NOT!), but in the long run people that lied or refused to accept reality are eventually made to tell the truth, usually to their creditors.

Quote :

"The thing is, it's more than wealth and income they've become effective at concentrating...They've been effective at concentrating power as well"

True enough, but only so far. Exxon really is a ridiculously well run company, so is Microsoft, so is Google. The Cato institute a few years back added up the dollar value of all the damage being inflicted upon society every year by government (in all its forms) and while the number was huge it was not insurmountable, especially after deducting the dollar value of all the good being done for society (on net only a trillion or so in dead weight loss, if I remember correctly).

You see, while Congress and the various state legislatures are doing their best to make their friends rich they are not granting monopolies. And as a few heroes of the 19th century demonstrated, mere legislative favors and subsidies are no real dissuasion to a truly industriously entrepreneur (I recommend a book titled The Myth of the Robber Barons). That spirit to overcome government ineptitude is alive and well today in America, hence our admirable standard of living in spite of all our governments efforts.

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 12:19 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/21/2006 12:17:05 AM

Paris Hilton is a moron and if she was poor would remain poor. Yet she is rich, and her exploits make her richer.

8/21/2006 12:22:45 AM

1% is a huge number of people.

Power has to be concentrated to an extent. If everyone has an equal amount of power, thats anarchy.

The UHNW people have a good bit but they also have competing interests. Bill Gates, for all his money, cant even manage to get his favored political party in control of government.

If the market is distributing power, or these rich people have been effective at concentrating it, then it still appears to be a much better way of distributing power than bloodlines, guns, or any other method ever has been.

Its not perfect, but better than everything else.

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 12:42 AM. Reason : ]

8/21/2006 12:39:08 AM

Quote :

"Clear5: 1% is a huge number of people."

Is it?

One quarter of the population of the United States, fully 5% of Earth's population itself, is a huge number of people?

I mean, this is neverminding that UHNWI's make up over a hundred times fewer than 1% of Earth. I'm just shocked that you'd think so. I'd also remind you, it's not the fact that there are so few of them taken by itself. It's the fact that there are so many--numerous billions, who are so incredibly, unbelievably, repulsively far below them taken together with it.

It's obvious enough that there is a problem somewhere here...

Quote :

"Clear5: Power has to be concentrated to an extent. If everyone has an equal amount of power, thats anarchy."

A great point. And nobody wants that. So, the best way to avoid anarchy is to...concentrate power in the hands of about 85,000 people who on average will never hear about or personally understand any of the problems of the other 6.9 billion? I'd have to disagree with that, but only because of the methodology that has put those 85,000 into place.

Quote :

"Clear5: The UHNW people have a good bit but they also have competing interests. Bill Gates, for all his money, cant even manage to get his favored political party in control of government."

But is that really relevant? Has the outcome of any election in the last 6 years affected his status as chief rainmaker on Earth? Or principal wealth-hoarder?

Quote :

"Clear5: If the market is distributing power, or these rich people have been effective at concentrating it, then it still appears to be a much better way of distributing power then bloodlines, guns, or any other method ever has been."

What's convinced you that it's not already being kept in place by guns? I thought that much was obvious.

---

Quote :

"on net only a trillion or so in dead weight loss, if I remember correctly"

ONLY $1,000,000,000,000 PER YEAR???

THAT'S ALMOST 4 IRAQS PER YEAR MAN!!!1

Are you, an economist, really going to suggest to me that with a trillion more dollars in resources every year, that some large significant problem (or fifty) facing the United States couldn't be entirely solved in a matter of 5 years?

I mean, you've got to realize that the backlog facing the development of new technologies these days isn't one of ideas. There are billions of them in our patent offices, and in the garages of average people who couldn't get in front of a billionaire if they took hostages. It's one of applying capital to ideas.

This is exactly why I often find economists among the philosophically least interesting people to discuss policy with. Their data is good, and I love good data, but the callousness in expressing a statement like that parenthetically makes me a little nauseous sometimes.

And it also ignored my point completely. Government is an organization in my view. So is a corporation. What I've described is like an illness affecting both types of organization. The head doesn't receive feedback from the extremities when they are threatened as well as it should.

Quote :

"You see, while Congress and the various state legislatures are doing their best to make their friends rich they are not granting monopolies."

Of course not. Monopolies are granting themselves. Bill Gates can't help Democrats win elections, but he can certainly afford a great attorney. Witness the wide variety of viable operating system platforms available to your average consumer...

Quote :

"And as a few heroes of the 19th century demonstrated, mere legislative favors and subsidies are no real dissuasion to a truly industriously entrepreneur."

A few heroes from the 19th century, eh. Is that really the last time a truly industrious entrepreneur could defeat legislative favors and subsidies in the marketplace?

Quote :

"That spirit to overcome government ineptitude is alive and well today in America, hence our admirable standard of living in spite of all our governments efforts."

Admirable compared to the lower 95% of the world's, and yet inordinately poorly distributed even considering that fact. The excesses remain both an unimaginably vast and widening, as is told by your continual avoidance of that fact. It's a consequence of crudely overlaying your nearly religiously defended "free market" onto a society raised by the stick of dominance-and-submission.

You sound like an economist's Candide here. I wonder what conclusions could an economist draw from the data that didn't support a free market conclusion? I mean, I find it hard to believe that we just happened to pick the perfect one a few hundred years ago, and yet after years of practice, there are still so many problems facing the country and planet.

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 1:08 AM. Reason : ...]

8/21/2006 12:42:10 AM

Quote :

"A few heroes from the 19th century, eh. Is that really the last time a truly industrious entrepreneur could defeat legislative favors and subsidies in the marketplace?"

No, but I assumed your knowledge of history would include the 20th century. My point was that Government Legislators have been doing the same work since the 15th century, modern interference is not abnormal (except maybe for how little there is). Back in the 16th century there was far more intrusion on a vastly more destructive scale (wages for freed-men used to be capped, the opposite of today's minimum wage, the King routinely sold "writs of monopoly" for whole sectors of the economy).

Quote :

"and yet inordinately poorly distributed even considering that fact. The excesses remain both an unimaginably vast and widening, as is told by your continual avoidance of that fact."

You yourself said the concentration of wealth meant nothing. Besides, only a fraction of today's growing concentration is due to government action. Concentration is the natural result of high corporate profits (they've never been higher) which are the natural result of structural and technological innovation and the productivity improvements they generate (the highest in 50 years). This vastly unequal process will slow down eventually, but today's society will not become more equal until we either run out of innovation or government kills it.

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 1:01 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/21/2006 12:57:29 AM

Quote :

"What's convinced you that it's not already being kept in place by guns?"

Oh, its definately kept in place by guns. They dont fight it out in the streets though.

Quote :

"So, the best way to avoid anarchy is to...concentrate power in the hands of about 85,000 people who on average will never hear about or personally understand any of the problems of the other 6.9 billion?"

I still maintain that it is an incredibly large number of people compared to all previous societies.

I personally wish they were less connected with the masses. Despite their inordinate wealth, their tastes and preferences are still fairly common. They have the potential with their wealth to exhibit some of the more nobler aspects of the older aristocrocies, but they dont.

Quote :

"It's the fact that there are so many--numerous billions, who are so incredibly, unbelievably, repulsively far below them taken together with it. It's obvious enough that there is a problem somewhere here"

I agree with a lot of what Tocqueville said in Democracy in America, and think the problem is that there are so many damned people that are concerned with equality more than they are with liberty or most other political matters.


[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 1:20 AM. Reason : ]

8/21/2006 1:18:53 AM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: No, but I assumed your knowledge of history would include the 20th century."

I'm familiar enough with Ford and his theories. Like capitalism with a socialist's bent, brilliant sounding, but again, where's it being practiced? Anywhere that impacts large numbers of the rest of us?

Quote :

"LoneSnark: My point was that Government Legislators have been doing the same work since the 15th century, modern interference is not abnormal (except maybe for how little there is). Back in the 16th century there was far more intrusion on a vastly more destructive scale (wages for freed-men used to be capped, the opposite of today's minimum wage, the King routinely sold "writs of monopoly" for whole sectors of the economy)."

And my point is that everything you've recognized here has factored into the problems inherent in what we're dealing with today in government, labor, family, etc.

I don't see how the hell pointing at the past and saying it was worse helps your argument. I've already pointed out that 2.3 billion people deal with chronic malnutrition in your better, modern, more efficient marketplace. All you're suggesting is that while the world's accelerated the pace of flattening, they've lagged behind in finding the proper incentives to motivate each other to make food available to 33% of the global marketplace.

Framed differently, I'd ask you this question, since it drives at the presumption underlying your argument: Why does it necessarily have to be this bad for so many?

Quote :

"LoneSnark: You yourself said the concentration of wealth meant nothing."

By itself it means nothing. I go on a great deal explaining how it is intricately tied to socio-economic problems, but in an incidental way. I'd expect and economist to realize that the current concentration of wealth and the concept of information exchange may have an interactive relationship with one another at some point in an economic system due to incidental factors.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Besides, only a fraction of today's growing concentration is due to government action."

1) Is that taking a long view of history? Or is this some of that "short term" in which "people can misinterpret the signals?"

2) How much wealth has really moved between families over the last three centuries?

3) Upon what basis do you ground your assertion?

Quote :

"LoneSnark: This vastly unequal process will slow down eventually, but today's society will not become more equal until we either run out of innovation or government kills it."

The ol'dichotomy. A weak argument's last hope. I'll forgive the myopia in the interest of politeness...

---

From your edit...

Quote :

"LoneSnark: People the world over are far freer today than at any time in human history."

True enough, but how much of that speaks more to how terrible history was for them?

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 1:45 AM. Reason : ...]

8/21/2006 1:27:26 AM

Quote :

"Clear5: Oh, its definately kept in place by guns. They dont fight it out in the streets though."

Ok. I'm confused. Please explain why you said this earlier:

"If the market is distributing power, or these rich people have been effective at concentrating it, then it still appears to be a much better way of distributing power than bloodlines, guns, or any other method ever has been."

Quote :

"Clear5: I still maintain that it is an incredibly large number of people compared to all previous societies."

That wouldn't have anything to do with all previous societies being exponentially smaller, would it?

Quote :

"Clear5: I personally wish they were less connected with the masses."

Why?

Quote :

"Clear5: Despite their inordinate wealth, their tastes and preferences are still fairly common."

How do you know? What are their tastes and preferences?

Quote :

"Clear5: They have the potential with their wealth to exhibit some of the more nobler aspects of the older aristocrocies, but they dont."

Like a $6,000 shower curtain? $40,000 wallpaper? $250,000 television sets? Forbes magazine says otherwise.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/02/26/cx_bs_0227home.html

Warren Buffett helps you. But that's about it.

Quote :

"Clear5: I agree with a lot of what Tocqueville said in Democracy in America, and think the problem is that there are so many damned people that are concerned with equality more than they are with liberty or most other political matters."

Actually, liberty is an essential point of my argument. There is no liberty for the malnurished. I doubt Tocqueville could demonstrate how those concerned with equality are responsible for the 33% of people who chronically suffer from a lack of food.

8/21/2006 1:39:09 AM

Quote :

"Ok. I'm confused. Please explain why you said this earlier"

Obviously it is within the confines of our current system which is ultimately protected by guns.

But, the way they are getting power and the way they are using it is through the market or some interaction with the government, and not through violence.

Quote :

"Why? ... How do you know? What are their tastes and preferences? ... Like a $6,000 shower curtain? $40,000 wallpaper? $250,000 television sets? Forbes magazine says otherwise."

Well the second part was the why.

Look at the the things you just mentioned: shower curtains, wall paper, and television sets. Extremely expensive, yes. But, that is fucking common taste. That is the sort of shit some drunk ass redneck would buy if someone gave him a billion dollars. They should have received more than a business or technical education, and spent their money on finer things such as good art, architecture, financing good writers, establishing universities and schools, etc. Things that are beautiful and that last.

Hell Warren Buffet's use of money is probably more along the lines of what Im talking about. Although, I dont particularly like his reasons for giving money away.

Quote :

"doubt Tocqueville could demonstrate how those concerned with equality are responsible for the 33% of people who chronically suffer from a lack of food."

Look around at some of the governments that have caused these people to be poor and malnourishd. Half the time it was the people who were concerned with equality. If those nations had put in the place the ordered liberty we enjoy, their people wouldnt be starving. South Korea vs. North Korea for a clear example.

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 2:09 AM. Reason : ]



[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 2:11 AM. Reason : ]

8/21/2006 1:57:35 AM

Quote :

"Clear5: Obviously it is within the confines of our current system which is ultimately protected by guns."

Ok, so since you don't think it is advanced with guns anymore, I'd like to know when you think that transition took place. It's a simple enough question.

Quote :

"Clear5: But, the way they are getting power and the way they are using it is through the market or some interaction with the government, and not through violence."

Tell that to the Waltons. All 5 of whom became billionaires by blood.

Not that it's a crime or anything, but inheritance is a popular way into billionairehood that you didn't mention.

Quote :

"Clear5: Look at the the things you just mentioned: shower curtains, wall paper, and television sets. Extremely expensive, yes. But, that is fucking common taste. That is the sort of shit some drunk ass redneck would buy if someone gave him a billion dollars. They should have received more than a business or technical education, and spent their money on finer things such as good art, architecture, financing good writers, etc. Things that are beautiful and that last."

Wait, are you suggesting that since I didn't list them in the introduction to the link, that the billionaires on that list don't own other things reminiscent of "the more nobler aspects of the older aristocracies?"

None of what I listed was exclusively available to the UHNWI's. All of that was easily available to anyone cracking the top half of HNWI (we're still only talking ~0.5% of Earth).

I assure you that if you'd clicked that article, you'd have read that billionaires do own good art. David Geffen comes immediately to mind in fact. Art collection among the super-wealthy is a big issue you hear a lot about if you meet curators.

Let me ask you this, though. How does a UHNWI find a good writer to finance? Certainly no writer who's not already a prodigal son can find an UHNWI in most settings...

Quote :

"Clear5: Hell Warren Buffet's use of money is probably more along the lines of what Im talking about. Although, I dont particularly like his reasons for giving money away. Andrew Carnegie would probably be the best example of the type of person I wish these people would try to become."

I fundamentally agree with you.

Nonetheless, they continue to be exceptions and not rules.

Quote :

"Clear5: Look around at some of the governments that have caused these people to be poor and malnourishd."

Whoa, whoa. You're painting with an awful broad brush here. How'd their governments cause them to be poor? What were the circumstances up to that point?

Also, how does the government's culpability matter? Or relieve or forgive it? The same issue, poor exchange of information due to enculturation into a dominance-and-submission framework, remains at play whether you blame government or business for it.

I was also still hoping you had an answer for me as to why you "personally wish they were less connected with the masses."

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 2:25 AM. Reason : ...]

8/21/2006 2:24:03 AM

^ok, last post on this

If these people were spending money more along the likes of Carnegie, we would see thier influence around us a lot more than we currently do.

I was just trying to throw some things out there in the middle of the post and probably could have written that part much better, but its getting late.

For why I wish they were less connected with the masses:

Once again, they may be distant from their "problems" but they are just like everyone else for the most part. That is all Im talking about in that regard. All I can do here is give you my opinion that they should turn toward higher and better things than what many of them do. We see it some in a few individuals but I think if they were all using their money for the good of society, or of civilization we would see their influence around us much more than we currently do.

I cant believe you havent heard people talk about this before because everybody from Tocqueville to Nietzsche to Weber highlight this aspect of the capitalist upper class.

Government:

People might be in a lower class because every hierarchy needs a bottom, but no one starves because of the capitalist economy or the concentration of wealth. People starve in the modern world because they do not live in economically liberal nations. Governments that adopt ordered liberty quickly make their people well off in absolute terms and not starving.

8/21/2006 2:45:21 AM

Quote :

"Obviously it is within the confines of our current system which is ultimately protected by guns. "

A common fallacy. From a psychological stand-point, the average American respects private property to a far greater extent can be explained by the threat of force. No system of private property can be maintained if the people living within it do not consider it legitimate. Think about the times that people would get away with stealing, such as finding someone else's wallet, seeing someone drop something without noticing, and the vast majority of people will make an effort to get the property back to the real owner.

Not to mention the obvious: the police officers have not been brainwashed by their employers, they are expected to have a sense of right and wrong that includes property rights and they were expected to get it from mom and dad, not from uncle sam.

Quote :

"Also, how does the government's culpability matter? Or relieve or forgive it? The same issue, poor exchange of information due to enculturation into a dominance-and-submission framework, remains at play whether you blame government or business for it."

Again, not true. Like I explained above, business does not suffer from a lack of information; firms in a free enterprise system are subservient to price signals being sent by the while of society. It is only government that suffers from a lack of communication and in the Western World governmental domination over the marketplace is at new lows.

However, South America society is still hamstrung by governmental policies such as mercantilism abandoned in the Anglo-Saxon countries back in the 17th century. African society is still subsisting in the modern equivalent of 15th century feudalism. There is no mystery why 1/3rd of the worlds people are starving to death when 1/3rd of the world's people are still living in feudal societies (1/3rd seems high, where did you get this number? 1/6th sounds more reasonable).

This is the problem and short of military invasion there is nothing the 0.01% can do to save the 33%. Of course, invasion could be an option, but in the western world private armies are no longer considered legitimate, so there is no hope that a modern "East India Company" will invade, occupy, and rescue the poorest regions of Africa (this is not to suggest the original EIC was not a scourge for India, merely to suggest that it would be beneficial for Africa).

8/21/2006 8:43:32 AM

Poster 1: Libertarianism!

Poster 2: No!

Repeat ad infinum.

This has been a reenactment of a Soap Box thread. Join us next week when we'll reenact a Lounge thread, and discover the intricacies and ramifications of a term called 'trainwreck'.

8/21/2006 11:03:12 AM

^ lets not forget Sports Talk

Poster 1: Marcus Stone's record is 5-1

Poster 2: Herb rules, fans suck

8/21/2006 11:06:58 AM

Quote :

"Clear5: Once again, they may be distant from their "problems" but they are just like everyone else for the most part. That is all Im talking about in that regard."

I'm still confused about how this somehow makes you wish that they were less connected with the masses. What do you feel we gain through the elitest of the elite being so inordinately disconnected from the masses?

Quote :

"Clear5: I cant believe you havent heard people talk about this before because everybody from Tocqueville to Nietzsche to Weber highlight this aspect of the capitalist upper class."

All philosophy is based on prior philosophy.

I've read a lot of Nietzsche, and won't deny there's an element of it that's influenced this very debate. But I'm by no means under the impression that I'm that "FUCKING FAGGOT COLLEGE KID" who's seized onto a wholly new idea. I just noticed it hasn't been addressed in this way, in TSB, for as far back as I could see.

Plus, if done correctly, this could actually be a hell of a lot more productive a discussion than any simple "right-left" debate over the President or Middle East.

Quote :

"Clear5: People might be in a lower class because every hierarchy needs a bottom, but no one starves because of the capitalist economy or the concentration of wealth."

This amounts to "the bottom is at the bottom because that's where the bottom goes."

Can you explain why the bottom has to be so large and so poor?

We're talking about 150 million Americans, living in the richest nation on Earth, who have an average net worth of less than the price of a used car. I understand that an economic system will tend to produce a hierarchy, but do not understand why we still accept the extent of the current one.

Quote :

"Clear5: People starve in the modern world because they do not live in economically liberal nations. Governments that adopt ordered liberty quickly make their people well off in absolute terms and not starving."

Explain that. Because I'm wondering how causality can be established here.

People starve in the United States and other industrialized nations. Not many, but they're as real as you and me.

8/21/2006 11:14:59 AM

damnit this thread is going to keep me posting

Quote :

"I'm still confused about how this somehow makes you wish that they were less connected with the masses. What do you feel we gain through the elitest of the elite being so inordinately disconnected from the masses? ... All philosophy is based on prior philosophy. I've read a lot of Nietzsche, and won't deny there's an element of it that's influenced this very debate "

Well I was referring to how they talk about the need for the ruling to be distant and less connected with their subjects.

Although I hardly agree with a lot of Nietzsche, he does a good job explaining this,

From Beyond Good and Evil:

"Every enhancement of the type 'man' has so far been the work of an aristocratic society - and it will be so again and again - a society that believes in the long ladder of an order of rank...and that needs slavery in some sense or other. Without the pathos of distance which grows out of the ingrained difference between the strata - when the ruling caste constantly looks afar and looks down upon subjects and instruments and just as constantly practices obedience and command keeping down and keeping at a distance - that other, more mysterious pathos could not have grown up either - the craving for an ever widening of distances within the soul itself, the development of ever higher, rarer, more remote, further-stretching, more comprehensive states - in brief, simply the enhancement of the type 'man.'"

8/21/2006 11:39:18 AM

Quote :

"If there was validity to your thesis then why don't the owners of Ford simply use their authority to make people buy their cars?"

To some degree they do, and have done. I know you don't like to recognize it's existence, but many firms have some degree of market power.

Quote :

"Even Adam Smith would be forced to look favorably upon what China is becoming."

I'd like to hear what you and he would think about Denmark.

Quote :

"society a great service by either boosting worker productivity or inventing new products to make people's lives better. Or at least that is the way it is supposed to be. Governmental meddling tends to disrupt "the World of Truth" as one author described the price system, potentially rewarding individuals for harming society, what economists call "perverse incentives.""

I love this whole ad hoc thing you've got going here. I could point to any market failure and you could simply blame the government as the sole cause, simply because one would be there.

The price system doesn't work, sure it sounds nice, but perfectly competitive markets don't exist in the real world. Many of our most successful got that way through destroying competition. The government can misallocate and price incorrectly, but on a long enough timeline, your price system will always fail and result in monopoly, oligopoly, or monopolistic competition, all of which ineffectively price goods.

8/21/2006 12:05:23 PM

Quote :

"I'd like to hear what you and he would think about Denmark."

Probably the same that the CIA world factbook appears to think: Denmark is a "thoroughly modern market economy" whose "Government objectives include streamlining the bureaucracy and further privatization of state assets."

A strong welfare state coupled with a free-enterprise system in which the government has no control over prices and minimal impact upon the labor market. Hell, Adam Smith would probably proclaim Denmark to be an unattainable dream for his mercantilist England.

Quote :

"on a long enough timeline, your price system will always fail and result in monopoly, oligopoly, or monopolistic competition, all of which ineffectively price goods."

Life doesn't have to be perfect. It isn't going to cause the downfall of civilization if an industry or two fall into a natural monopoly. All it has to do is allocate better than the government would, which is guaranteed because politics and reality rarely if ever meet.

A privately run monopoly, the worst case in a free-enterprise system, serves its customers better than a state run monopoly because, take PDVSA and Pemex as examples, the state legislatures are constantly raiding their respective state monopolies of the investment capital needed to expand production. Back in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s when PDVSA was an independent monopoly, investment was easy, production was energetic, and the company was well run and produced a growing stream of oil for its customers and tax revenue for Venezuela. Nowadays, with oil at $70 a barrel PDVSA is having its investment capital raided by the government, it is unable to pay its contractors to perform the constant maintenance needed for its older oil fields and real damage is being done.

Government officials are invariably only interested in the here and now. They need to buy political capital right now to keep their jobs, not five years from now when the oil wells start drying up.

8/21/2006 1:59:13 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: A common fallacy."

An intellectual recognition of history is more like it.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: From a psychological stand-point, the average American respects private property to a far greater extent can be explained by the threat of force."

Established by what? Because I'd suggest that force had a lot to do with it.

You're obviously more informed on the subject, so I should ask you: To what extent is the average American's respect for private property rights due to force or the threat of force? Do you consider incarceration force? Why or why not?

Going back even further, what effect do you think all the clubs and bats wielded by those police officers who "have not been brainwashed" back in the '30s had on the parents of those we now call our grandparents?

In that period of American history (and moreso earlier) you either:

1) Agreed either explicitly or tacitly with property rights (and could breed), or
2) Were beaten, imprisoned (cannot breed), or killed (cannot breed) by agents of government or strikebreakers

After all, money is property. Through Franklin, I could argue that time is, too. And all the workers were asking for was a slightly greater share of both. It was only after decades of being fired, beaten, or killed at the hands of the leadership in those and similar battles, that property rights were actually secured.

The lessons they received there echo through our culture for sure, so it's as naive to presume it's something we just "naturally" understand as it would be as it is to assume that it's just "naturally" more effective for 2 parties to run a government. The answer continues to reduce to some version of "it's better because it's this way" instead of "it's this way because it's better."

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Like I explained above, business does not suffer from a lack of information; firms in a free enterprise system are subservient to price signals being sent by the while of society. It is only government that suffers from a lack of communication and in the Western World governmental domination over the marketplace is at new lows."

Spoken like at true academic. Every business suffers from a lack of information, whether it's about its consumers, its employees, or the regulators of the marketplace. The fact that the marketplace--especially business operations---is changing reflects this fact, it doesn't dispute it. To illustrate, all I need ask is how corporations have changed over the last decade or two and then ask why.

The mistake you've made, and economists continue to make, is confusing a "better than terrible" system with a perfect one.

There's a reason that within any organization ideas are rarely at a premium and good information is.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: There is no mystery why 1/3rd of the worlds people are starving to death when 1/3rd of the world's people are still living in feudal societies (1/3rd seems high, where did you get this number? 1/6th sounds more reasonable)."

If there's no mystery, then why does the problem continue to exist?

Data Source: WHO.org. One in three suffer from malnutrition.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: This is the problem and short of military invasion there is nothing the 0.01% can do to save the 33%."

No matter how often you repeat these false dichotomies, they don't get any less false.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Of course, invasion could be an option, but in the western world private armies are no longer considered legitimate..."

Blackwater ring a bell? There are plenty where they came from.

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2006 2:02:24 PM

Quote :

"To illustrate, all I need ask is how corporations have changed over the last decade or two and then ask why."

Because circumstances have changed.

Quote :

"What effect do you think all the clubs and bats wielded by those police officers who "have not been brainwashed" back in the '30s had on the parents of those we now call our grandparents?"

Only a tiny fraction of today's American citizens have had a relative beaten by strike-breakers (which, BTW, were just reinforcing the right of non-union citizens to go to work where they chose, and your rights end where mine begin).

Which is kind of irrelevant. Private Property has traditions going back to developments in English Common Law back to the 14th century (no free man could have his property taken, even by the King).

Quote :

"If there's no mystery, then why does the problem continue to exist?"

Why don't you tell me? I've said why I think Africa is full of poor people, yet you insist on blaming the economic system found in America for poverty found in Africa! The economic system of North America is not operating in Africa. If it was Africa would not be so full of poor people.

8/21/2006 2:21:48 PM

Two points that come to mind immediately, but I don't have time to do the whole thread right now.

In regards to Gamecat's questions about the billions suffering from malnutrition, the problem is not entirely an economic problem. To a degree it's a social problem as well. The top 1% of the world earners could dump all of their money into that 2 billion people and the end result would be the same, 2 billion people suffering from malnutrition, in part because there's more wrong than just a lack of money. It's a lack of resources and ability to use that money.

If you define an arbitrator, you run the risk of a corrupt arbitrator (as is the current case with corrupt governments) if you just could magicaly give the money to everyone all at once, you still have the problem of A) Not increasing anyone's relative wealth and B) the first person to get more wealth than everyone else will start eh cycle all over again.

In a away the problem is that the value of your money is proportional to how far you are from being the richest. For example, look at all the charity ads. Your $5 US will feed a family of 4 for weeks in <Radom Poor Country>, the reason for this is because there's so little money there (both relative to the global top and the local top) that every penny is worth that much more. By contrast, hear in america your $5 US will barely feed you for 1 day, because the money is much more common. You are that much closer to the richest. Now say that all the money from the top 1% went to <Random Poor Country>, now everyone is equaly that much closer to the global top, and no closer to the local top than they were before, so in the end all you've don't is lowered the value of each penny to those people, they're still just as poor as they will before because everyone has $1US, where as before everyone had 1¢.

Second in regards to:

Quote :

"The price system doesn't work, sure it sounds nice, but perfectly competitive markets don't exist in the real world. Many of our most successful got that way through destroying competition. The government can misallocate and price incorrectly, but on a long enough timeline, your price system will always fail and result in monopoly, oligopoly, or monopolistic competition, all of which ineffectively price goods."

On a long enough timeline, all monopolies and oligopolies and ineffective price points will fall and correct themselves. Inefficiencies are just transition points between market corrections.

8/21/2006 2:24:06 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Because circumstances have changed."

1) How have corporations changed over the last decade or two?

2) What circumstances led them to make said changes?

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Only a tiny fraction of today's American citizens have had a relative beaten by strike-breakers."

Oh? I find that hard to believe. The longer time passes, the more likely it'd be that Americans would have a relative who'd been beaten or shot at by police, guardsmen, and other strike-breakers. Population being on the exponential upswing and all...

Edit: Nonetheless, are you attempting to myopically convince me that incidents in my grandparents' parent's lives as impactful as the direct (personal) or indirect (impersonal--knew someone who had) experience of being fired, personally threatened, tortured, beaten, or killed due to expressing their unwavering and totally uncapitalistic belief that they deserved more than an hour or two a day to themselves and safe working conditions couldn't have had any impact on how they raised their children? Or how they raised my parents? Or how they raised me?

We all learned lessons about property rights somewhere, and I'll tell you this much: it wasn't Natural fucking Law regardless of what Locke might be whispering in your ear.

The reason we're arguing is becoming increasingly clear to me. You don't understand what I've said in this thread. Pretty much at all. You really should go back now and reread my first post before either of us waste anymore bandwidth talking past each other.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Private Property has traditions going back to developments in English Common Law back to the 14th century..."

Traditions nonetheless rooted in the exact same paradigm. It's obvious enough in the next words you used: "(no free man could have his property taken, even by the King)."

Who decided a king was of such status that a caveat limiting his ability to STEAL YOUR PROPERTY needed to be added even at this late date?

You're still talking about phenomena growing out of the same problem...

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Why don't you tell me?"

I have. I'd almost swear I made a thread about it and explained it in the first post...

Quote :

"LoneSnark: I've said why I think Africa is full of poor people"

And I've asked upon what you base your belief. Still waiting on a response...

Quote :

"LoneSnark: yet you insist on blaming the economic system found in America for poverty found in Africa!"

*double take*

I do?

Please. Point me to where.

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 2:48 PM. Reason : ...]

8/21/2006 2:35:16 PM

Quote :

"A strong welfare state coupled with a free-enterprise system in which the government has no control over prices and minimal impact upon the labor market."

Excuse me? Unions, minimum wage, etc.

Quote :

"Life doesn't have to be perfect."

No, but if you wish to proclaim it an "efficient system", it kind of needs to actually be efficient.

Quote :

"It isn't going to cause the downfall of civilization if an industry or two fall into a natural monopoly."

I'm not talking about natural monopolies.

Quote :

"All it has to do is allocate better than the government would, which is guaranteed because politics and reality rarely if ever meet."

Let me follow your logic here, your system is efficient because the government isn't?
Even if that premise was sound, which you've far from proved, doesn't mean your system would be good, only marginally better than one other one.

Quote :

"A privately run monopoly, the worst case in a free-enterprise system, serves its customers better than a state run monopoly because, take PDVSA and Pemex as examples, the state legislatures are constantly raiding their respective state monopolies of the investment capital needed to expand production."

You can neither prove nor assume that this will always happen. I've noticed you've been doing this quite frequently lately, so I'm going to go ahead and call you out on it. You need more than a teaspoon full of anecdotal evidence to support a claim as bold as that one. You can't take one example, simplistically and biasingly examine it to prove such a bold claim.

Quote :

"On a long enough timeline, all monopolies and oligopolies and ineffective price points will fall and correct themselves."

No they won't. They'll use market power to create barriers to entry and stifle competition.

Quote :

"Inefficiencies are just transition points between market corrections."

I'd argue that inefficiencies are the destination points of your market, it takes the government to knock it back down to keep it from getting there.

8/21/2006 3:52:23 PM

Quote :

"Kris: No they won't. They'll use market power to create barriers to entry and stifle competition."

And I'd add that this occurs here, in the world of the future. Which, according to LoneSnark's view, somehow wasn't impacted by the dominance-and-submissive paradigm to which he're flailing to argue the extension of capitalism is a rebuttal, rather than system operating within.

I'd also like to add that with all the advancements of this distribution, the best we've seen is a linguistic evolution of "no free man could have his property taken, even by the King" into a more honest "few men with property can have it taken by other men without the majority vote."

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 4:23 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2006 4:17:31 PM

I guess we are talking past each other. You are arguing that if only we lived in an anarchist world without all the threat of violence to maintain capitalist and fascist institutions, the poor would not be in their current state. I am arguing that these institutions are not as restrictive as you let on and most of the ill effects you blame on the system actually have innocent or unrelated causes (Zimbabweans are poor because Zimbabwe refuses to allow its people to participate in the global free-enterprise system, it has nothing to do with either the U.S. Army or the New York Police Force). Did I get close?

Your parents/grandparents are not the whole of American society. I could point out the large number of American families that were not here in the 1930s (immigrants), I could point out that in 1930 the vast majority of America's population was farm bound; I don't know of too many farmers going on strike for better working conditions and getting beat up for it. But it doesn't matter, my point is that even your parents would consider it wrong for someone to break into their home and steal their stuff. But even this doesn't matter; all that matters is that Americans are psychologically conditioned to perceive private ownership of the means of production as just, regardless of whether a cop is around or not.

Ask Kris all about preconditioning and whether force will always be needed to maintain the conditioning. He'll say something about Asimov's dog or another.

Quote :

"Kris: I've noticed you've been doing this quite frequently lately, so I'm going to go ahead and call you out on it. You need more than a teaspoon full of anecdotal evidence to support a claim as bold as that one. You can't take one example, simplistically and biasingly examine it to prove such a bold claim."

It was not my intention to "prove" anything, merely to point out a correlation. If I wanted to prove something then I'd need a research team, lots of funding, and a good year to work. Of course, I've noticed you always do this, not just lately, so I'll go ahead and call you out on it. When someone presents evidence, anecdotal it may be, you should usually present an anecdote that shows an opposite correlation before dismissing the information as "unproven." I presented evidence, you did not contradict it, so far I'm ahead in the argument.

Quote :

"Kris:Let me follow your logic here, your system is efficient because the government isn't? Even if that premise was sound, which you've far from proved, doesn't mean your system would be good, only marginally better than one other one."

You've got it. The human race has been trying different forms of organization for centuries and while none are perfect, they all suffer problems, we have at least worked out what their pros and cons are. A government planned economy is bad at resource allocation (human, capital, technological, and inputs). It isn't just a little worse, it is substantially worse. Now, since the purpose of an economic system is to perform this allocation, nothing else, why go with a system that works poorly when we know of, and have already implemented, a system that works noticeably better?

Or were you upset I didn't address Feudalism and theocratic economic systems?

8/21/2006 4:24:16 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Did I get close?"

But no cigar. You definitely got the jist of my argument right here:

"You are arguing that if only we lived in an anarchist world without all the threat of violence to maintain capitalist and fascist institutions, the poor would not be in their current state."

You got everything after "anarchist world" right. I highly doubt a lawless society without institution would make it. And to be quite honest, I'll go ahead and tell you, this is where I really will confess to totally speculating.

I'm not 100% sold on any ideas I've heard to fix it.

But to confess more openly, the while some of the best ideas I've heard begin with an only mildly anticapitalistic idea--funding an organization with a radical idea that any advisor an UHNWI would advise against, and then would pretty much involve a shit ton of free market capitalism , including its extension throughout the world, after that.

Bucky Fuller's worldwide shared power grid is just one of the DAMNED GOOD STARTS already available out there, just waiting on something economists don't plan on: pride. It's the best I've heard of, and I'm sure you've got a rational exploit worthy of an entire thread (which I would love to go into). But that's beyond the scope of this already interesting, and broad thread.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: I am arguing that these institutions are not as restrictive as you let on and most of the ill effects you blame on the system actually have innocent or unrelated causes (Zimbabweans are poor because Zimbabwe refuses to allow its people to participate in the global free-enterprise system, it has nothing to do with either the U.S. Army or the New York Police Force)."

While it might appear an indictment of the US Army of NYPD, it's not. That's a misrepresentation of their function, which is clearly a matter of policy with every new administration.

I fundamentally agree with your point about the source of Zimbabwean poverty. And I agree that, used properly, the US Army and NYPD can do good work for the benefit of the world right now, but I still disagree with the way that both organizations are constructed, how they operate, and the results of their work. Most of my complaints aren't the faults of any one person, or even necessarily anyone who's living now. It's just a matter of sense to me.

And I'd argue that the guns, laws, and other types of barriers to entry preventing those institutions from receiving rational information does even free market capitalists a huge disservice, neverminding the plight of the common man.

The institutional barrier I'm identifying isn't so much a brick and mortar one as a psychological one that prevents the rational distribution of information in an economy, or population. The "stick," be it a real stick, a rifle, machine gun, terrorist bomb, bunker buster, or nuclear warhead is clogging our information system on a scale far larger and fundamental than any silly debates over how to best move the precious magic paper from one computer to another.

Just to illustrate how you shouldn't read to much into posts in the Soap Box...

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Your parents/grandparents are not the whole of American society."

1) Since when did they need to be in order for such actions to be seared into the memories of an entire generation? I mean, some people weren't even awake on 9/11. Is that why they're not afraid of terrorists?

2) My parents/grandparents/great-grandparents aren't even the players in this story--that I'm aware of. I am sure that the view of property rights my great-grandparents held just might've trickled my way; or at least, you just spent the last few posts arguing with me as if they had. In either case, you can't be so ridiculous to present that the events of the 1930s--military and police firing on hundreds and thousands of people at a time--didn't etch a certain bent towards property rights on a generation. I'm not claiming to know the direction of them all, but given a individual's economic status at the time, I bet I could be right more often than not.

You move on at this point and so will I...

Quote :

"LoneSnark: even your parents would consider it wrong for someone to break into their home and steal their stuff. But even this doesn't matter; all that matters is that Americans are psychologically conditioned to perceive private ownership of the means of production as just, regardless of whether a cop is around or not."

Yes. And this is probably the last place where we agree.

Given that we are at a point where people understand three things (1) it's inefficient to rely on the "stick," (2) that generations of continuing to do so has led to enormous deadweight losses to the world's population, and (3) we are nearing though not quite at a point where another large conflict between "stick wielders" (for the purpose) ends the game for all players, why should we not begin to shift and refocus resources--in amounts reflect the degree of our understanding of the problems--towards creating the proper incentives to encourage other methods of solving these larger problems?

Take a synergistic-capitalistic approach like Bucky Fuller's power grid again as a model. It discourages disruption because each nation's grid is linked to the other. It's more beneficial to everyone to have the lights on than off. Simple shit.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Ask Kris all about preconditioning and whether force will always be needed to maintain the conditioning."

I'd rather ask you to explain why such force is economically in the best interest of all humans involved in the stakes of its use. I'm not debating with Kris on this point. Communism isn't running the world, capitalism is.

8/21/2006 5:26:10 PM

From Drudge just today...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3e3eeab2-3137-11db-b953-0000779e2340.html

Quote :

"Water scarcity affects one in three A third of the world’s population is suffering from a shortage of water, raising the prospect of “water crises” in countries such as China, India and the US. Scientists had forecast in 2000 that one in three would face water shortages by 2025, but water experts have been shocked to find that this threshold has already been crossed. Frank Rijsberman, director-general of the International Water Management Institute, said: “We will have to change business as usual in order to deal with the growing water scarcity crisis." ..."

8/21/2006 6:14:46 PM

Well, gamecat, I have read what you wrote and believe I understand your points.

But I still disagree with you on the level you already know. I don't believe our world is that far from the ideal anarchist world. Yes, it would feel very different, and people would act different, but it would not look all that different from our world. You see, the furthest I go is anarcho-capitalist. I honestly believe in a state of anarchy humans will band together, agree what form money will take (probably precious metals), agree on traditions of land and property ownership, and go to work building an entire free-enterprise economy from these foundations.

After several decades you will have 0.01% that are fabulously wealthy except they did it without government help (relying upon the rights of self defense and contract security guards). With today's technology and international circumstances the elites of the elites are going to be rediculously wealthy and far off countries that instead set up dictatorships will still be poor.

8/21/2006 6:24:06 PM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: But I still disagree with you on the level you already know."

I don't know what level you mean.

You haven't answered practically any question I've asked you.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: You see, the furthest I go is anarcho-capitalist."

So, why not move toward a more global-anarcho-capitalistic system...given that we now have the information and resources without the prejudices of history to muddy the picture for us?

Quote :

"LoneSnark: After several decades you will have 0.01% that are fabulously wealthy except they did it without government help (relying upon the rights of self defense and contract security guards). With today's technology and international circumstances the elites of the elites are going to be rediculously wealthy and far off countries that instead set up dictatorships will still be poor."

Why, aside from "uhhh because it's happened before?"

8/21/2006 6:33:12 PM

The problems of information exchange within such a system as evidenced in the recent news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14454295/site/newsweek/

8/21/2006 7:26:26 PM

I've tried to answer every question I saw that looked the least bit serious (brain cells and limbs were rhetorical, I trusted).
Well, do me a favor, I'm obviously not getting your proposals, they kinda read like psycho babble at points. So, I can only continue to try and answer specific questions:
"why should we not begin to shift and refocus resources--in amounts reflect the degree of our understanding of the problems--towards creating the proper incentives to encourage other methods of solving these larger problems?"
For the same reason people have always had trouble shaping civilization, because we don't know how. I can tell you why Zambia is poor, I can tell you why wealth is so concentrated, but I cannot tell you how to fix it. These are complex problems and we must remain realists. There is no mechanism in this reality to fix Zimbabwe without first raising an army to invade and occupy the country. There is no mechanism to normalize resource distribution in America without taking a wrecking-ball to the free-market system (such as occurred in the 1930s: high tax rates, redistributive transfers, stronger centralized government, rigid economic controls, and ever more police force brought to bear against the American People).

These are the only answer I see because like I've said repeatedly, the current round of wealth concentration had nothing to do with government barriers and everything to do with natural barriers (globalization coupled with a productivity boom).

Now, maybe I've overlooked something. Perhaps you could describe to me the abstract of a bill congress could pass that would fix these problems without causing far worse problems?

[Edited on August 21, 2006 at 9:25 PM. Reason : sp]

8/21/2006 9:24:55 PM

Quote :

"No they won't. They'll use market power to create barriers to entry and stifle competition. "

Which is only a temporary situation. As a monopoly grow larger and creates more barriers, it becomes complacent in it's market position. As it does so, it becomes inefficient, slow to change and eventualy becomes it's own worst enemy as it must seek to compete with itself. All of these generate weak points in the monopoly position. An inefficient company will be ousted by an efficient one, a slow to change company will miss the golden oportunity to jump on the latest and greatest tech and reach new markets, and the company that must compete against itself will be weakened by the fact that it must quite literaly build obselecense into it's products in order to encourage people to keep buying. While consumers are slow and lazy, they will indeed only take so much (as the recent increase in people searching for alternatives to Microsoft products shows).

This even works in an oligopoly situation as can be observed by Wal-mart's new dominance of the supermarket arena (more efficient than it's competition) and it's venturing into the ethanol fuel arena (new markets over the old oil companies).

8/21/2006 10:37:04 PM

Quote :

"Ask Kris all about preconditioning and whether force will always be needed to maintain the conditioning. He'll say something about Asimov's dog or another."

Correct conditioning actually maintains itself.

Quote :

"It was not my intention to "prove" anything, merely to point out a correlation. If I wanted to prove something then I'd need a research team, lots of funding, and a good year to work."

True, yet you need only a keyboard to make a baseless outlandish claim!

Quote :

"When someone presents evidence, anecdotal it may be, you should usually present an anecdote that shows an opposite correlation before dismissing the information as "unproven.""

I tell you what, one time I woke up and the sky was green, should you now respond with "one time I woke up and the sky was blue"? It's just silly. I'm not going to present my own stupid interpretation of some situation to counter yours.

Quote :

"A government planned economy is bad at resource allocation (human, capital, technological, and inputs). It isn't just a little worse, it is substantially worse."

See this is another bold claim that would need REAL evidence to support.

Quote :

"Or were you upset I didn't address Feudalism and theocratic economic systems?"

No, it's simply illogical for you to claim that one is "good" when it is actually, at best, "better", assuming the radical claim you can't actually support is in fact, true .

-------------------------------------------------

Quote :

"Which is only a temporary situation."

Mankind is a temporary situation. You have an ad hoc arguement much like [user]LoneShark[/user]'s every market failure is the government's fault. I could point to any market failure in price and you'd simply respond with "oh that's temporary", and it's a claim that's impossible for anyone to prove or disprove. My point is that even if it is temporary, it's fucking up. This is the economy we're talking about, we have a lot of money on the line here, it needs to work well all the time. How would you like to get on a plane that just temporarily malfunctions?

Quote :

"As a monopoly grow larger and creates more barriers, it becomes complacent in it's market position."

And exactly who the fuck says that? I've never once heard of this amazing aspect of monopolies.
There is no way that you could say that monopolies will become complacent in their position, in fact, economics would argue quite the opposite, the market pricing system for monopolies does not change with time, as you claim it does.

Quote :

"as the recent increase in people searching for alternatives to Microsoft products shows"

Where is this recent increase? I know it's not in the home user or the server markets, in fact, I believe the server market has gone increasingly microsoft dominated.

Quote :

"This even works in an oligopoly situation as can be observed by Wal-mart's new dominance of the supermarket arena (more efficient than it's competition) and it's venturing into the ethanol fuel arena (new markets over the old oil companies)."

It seems you've taken another page out of loneshark's book (or he's taken one out of yours, I don't know) and over simplified a very complex situation.

8/21/2006 11:48:27 PM

Either way Kris, it is true, we don't have that many historical examples to draw from but in every one that is how it plays out: An independently run and operated monopoly actually makes investment and serves its customers (PDVSA before Chavez), a state run monopoly sometimes does (Statoil) but usually does not (PDVSA after Chavez, Pemex, Gazprom, Pertamina, KPC, Rosneft, etc). "The fact that NOCs are sitting on the vast majority of the world's oil but pumping only about half of global output suggests a systematic failure to invest."
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_SNSDPDT

Quote :

"See this is another bold claim that would need REAL evidence to support."

Alright, fine, jeez, we've been over this. There are only a few examples of truly state run economies to draw from in history, so we must derive understanding from what we have, I recommend the book titled The Rise and Fall of the The Soviet Economy: An Economic History of the USSR by Phillip Hanson et al.
Soviet run industries (as well as industries across the soviet block countries) were chronically overmanned, suffered from slow capital turnover, and appalling input efficiency (since the 1960s factor efficiency fell every year, compared to the Western world where factor efficiency increased every year there was not a recession). (Hanson)
Of course, that is not all the evidence we have, we can also derive evidence from state run economic sectors in Japan, Mexico, Europe, and the Americas. State run entities tend to be overmanned (wasting labor resources) and waste inputs (usually because they get favorable regulatory treatment). They are also bad at maximizing efficiency with labor and inputs because they usually under invest in capital. (Economist, Aug 2006)

Quote :

"No, it's simply illogical for you to claim that one is "good" when it is actually, at best, "better""

No, I did mean good, and I think I can say that. You see, Soviet Communism works pretty-good, it could have worked for centuries if the people hadn't given up on it. You must have a scale to put things in perspective: Totalitarian Dictatorship (Stalinist Russia) worked fine, the Soviet Union worked good, a Mixed Economy works better, and a free-enterprise economy works best.

[Edited on August 22, 2006 at 9:51 AM. Reason : sp]

8/22/2006 9:33:58 AM