1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




direct democracy

Home Forums Research Law and Politics direct democracy

This topic contains 37 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of J.L.-Frusha J.L.-Frusha 3 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 38 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12117
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    Alan wrote:
    However, while I like the idea of Restitution it is not always sufficient. If a thief knows that if he steals $100 he will only be required to pay back $100, what is his incentive not to steal? At worst, he will have to pay back what he took – and he will be no worse off than if he did not steal at all. However, if he is required to pay back $400 he will know that he could end up losing a lot of money from his crimes.

    Your Immutable laws (b)”no theft or fraud” You community can’t steal $300 from him.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12123
    Avatar of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    Alan wrote:

    Matt wrote:

    I strongly believe that the largest minority in the case quoted above is the individual. One person should not have less rights than ten.

    All well and good until that one person asserts their right to rob or kill the other ten.

    Or the 5% assert the right to tax the general population in order to support them. [/quote]

    This has already been solved, on paper at least, by asserting the existence of only negative rights:

    Right to life means the right to preserve one’s life by one’s means, and prohibits taking someone else’s life – but not one’s own.

    What most people and the U.N call positive rights (to be fed, to be kept alive, to shelter, to health to whatever) are actually entitlements.

    IMO, the genius of seasteading is that it allows for different individuals to enter resident or citizenship contract with communities offering a wide configuration of rights and zero to a lot of entitlements: no system is intrinsically bad as long as the relationship is contractual (with the prevision of fraud and freedom of thought when entering such contract – imagine a religious sect for example)

    A system with only negative rights and no entitlements whatsoever would be the base. Still security and a legal system will have to exist so different configurations of it will exist. Within this system, people who like to live/work/share in groups are still free to do so, using freedom of association, they still don’t need a separate country. I like this system the best.

    A system with negative rights and some entitlements would work for a richer community that can actually afford to enter into a wide contract that covers not only legal protection, but healthcare, housing, late-life support network. As I always say, communism is for billionaires.

    A system with positive rights can exist, ideally for a religious sect. Why would anyone here would want that I don’t know as they have the whole Earth’s landmass to do just that. But I bet the scientologists might be interested in a little sovereignty, and they have the cash. This is the kind of problems I forsee.

    Another system would be someting identifiable as Anarchy, but actually a very fluid customary law in practice. Within (yet not outside) this system people have no rights, but they enter the danger/opportunity zone supposedly on their own will. A very real-life example of this are the favelas and shantytowns. As proven from Bobay to Buenos Aires, these are NOT unliveable hellholes but actually the only examples of social upward movement one sees on poor countries.

    #12124
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    My first proposal under direct democracy is that we enslave 49% of the population, and use the profit of their labor to enrich 51% of the population.

    My second proposal under direct democracy is that we enslave 96% of the prior mentioned 51% to enrich the remaining 4% in addition to the previously enslaved 49%.

    Notice that 2% of the population is always profiting? They’re equal opportunity slavers and don’t care if your skin is red or blue.

    The general public is so retarded, I could collect a sallary for a lifetime by providing the simple “service” of suggesting they treat each other like animals.

    Elections are engineered to be close by design. It’s the same reason why prison gangs and sex-traffickers love to loan money. Slaves put up less of a fight if they think they did something to deserve it.

    It’s no accident that America’s ruling elite compose ~2% of the population. A good mathematician could have predicted that outcome as early as 1788.(even earlier if they kept their ear to the ground)

    My third proposal? Debase the currency, grafting away money from all holders of government currency by financing public relations stunts.

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

    Inflation is a trailing indicator of low approval ratings…

    #12129
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    My third proposal? Debase the currency, grafting away money from all holders of government currency by financing public relations stunts.

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

    Inflation is a trailing indicator of low approval ratings…

    The value of a dollor has a vary secific curve it has to follow.

    Devalue it to fast and people will stop using it. not devalue it fast enough and… well that would be like only enslave 45% of the people.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12130
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:

    tusavision wrote:

    My third proposal? Debase the currency, grafting away money from all holders of government currency by financing public relations stunts.

    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

    Inflation is a trailing indicator of low approval ratings…

    The value of a dollor has a vary secific curve it has to follow.

    Devalue it to fast and people will stop using it. not devalue it fast enough and… well that would be like only enslave 45% of the people.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    [/quote]


    If it were truly about stabilizing the population growth/currency relationship then they would give away a trust fund with every birth certificate. Fill it with government bonds and use the money to pay off their student loans.

    That’s too straightforward and doesn’t muddy the waters enough to allow out and out theft via debasing the currency.

    I’ll suppose the Malthusian premise for a second and assume that availability of commodities can’t keep pace with an exponential increase in demand.

    With 6.8 billion people running around this planet why are we trying to take the brakes off of the hand basket? As if it isn’t hard enough keeping people from breeding their way in to poverty, we want to give them cheap credit and blow up M3 so they can afford more diapers?

    All ponzi schemes eventually run out of new investors, and this forum’s existence should tell you how long until Uncle Sam is going to be looking like Bernie Maddoff.

    #12132
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    If it were truly about stabilizing the population growth/currency relationship then they would give away a trust fund with every birth certificate. Fill it with government bonds and use the money to pay off their student loans.

    Chagnon: “At first they give away tools, machetes, cooking pots, and begin providing the Yanomamo with food, things like rice and sugar. And eventually, particularly the younger men, who don’t like to make gardens to begin with, become very highly dependent on mining camps that are located near their villages. So they stop planting. When the miners stop giving them food and other goodies after enough miners get there and they can resist Yanomamo demands, then that puts the Yanomamo into a very unfavorable kind of relationship with the miners. They no longer are given the handouts that they originally got when the Yanomamo outnumbered the miners, and they have failed to plant their crops, so they become destitute.”

    Translator: “Before the miners arrived here, the Indians lived their normal life. They lived in the jungle but now they have more comfort, they have more food, and the gold miners bring them progress. They bring them food, clothes, all the things that they need. And the Indians adore the miners.

    The impression that people have on the outside is that the miners fight with the Indians. This is not true. The Indians love the miners, and the miners like the Indians.”

    Narr: Anthropologists fear that with their subsistence base destroyed and with their new dependency on trade goods brought by the miners, the Yanomamo will someday join the millions of dispossessed people who congregate in urban slums throughout the world. And some Yanomamo, themselves, believe the miners have brought death to the human race.

    Translator: “Many people ask for the White man’s things. I say to them, “Don’t ask for those things. The miners are only going to lie to you. They’ve already killed some of our people. They’re very fierce. When there are enough of them, they are going to kill us. That is what I say, but no one hears me.”

    Or for a fuller explination read

    The_Natural_Economic_Order By Silvio Gesell

    or

    Progress and Poverty by Henry George

    or

    Studies in Islamic Economics By Professor Dr. Mahmud Abu Saud

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12140
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:

    tusavision wrote:

    If it were truly about stabilizing the population growth/currency relationship then they would give away a trust fund with every birth certificate. Fill it with government bonds and use the money to pay off their student loans.

    Chagnon: “At first they give away tools, machetes, cooking pots, and begin providing the Yanomamo with food, things like rice and sugar. And eventually, particularly the younger men, who don’t like to make gardens to begin with, become very highly dependent on mining camps that are located near their villages. So they stop planting. When the miners stop giving them food and other goodies after enough miners get there and they can resist Yanomamo demands, then that puts the Yanomamo into a very unfavorable kind of relationship with the miners. They no longer are given the handouts that they originally got when the Yanomamo outnumbered the miners, and they have failed to plant their crops, so they become destitute.”

    Translator: “Before the miners arrived here, the Indians lived their normal life. They lived in the jungle but now they have more comfort, they have more food, and the gold miners bring them progress. They bring them food, clothes, all the things that they need. And the Indians adore the miners.

    The impression that people have on the outside is that the miners fight with the Indians. This is not true. The Indians love the miners, and the miners like the Indians.”

    Narr: Anthropologists fear that with their subsistence base destroyed and with their new dependency on trade goods brought by the miners, the Yanomamo will someday join the millions of dispossessed people who congregate in urban slums throughout the world. And some Yanomamo, themselves, believe the miners have brought death to the human race.

    Translator: “Many people ask for the White man’s things. I say to them, “Don’t ask for those things. The miners are only going to lie to you. They’ve already killed some of our people. They’re very fierce. When there are enough of them, they are going to kill us. That is what I say, but no one hears me.”

    Or for a fuller explination read

    The_Natural_Economic_Order By Silvio Gesell

    or

    Progress and Poverty by Henry George

    or

    Studies in Islamic Economics By Professor Dr. Mahmud Abu Saud

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    [/quote]

    Ok, so a morality tale on the same premise as “The Road to Serfdom”.

    I’m not even sure if we’re in disagreement.

    I suppose your premise that inflation is necessary to prevent economic stagnation from lack of liquidity as savings becomes more profitable than commerce.(expansion of wealth inequality and cementing position of economic juggernauts at the expense of economic mobility)

    I suggest that a more viable solution if inflation is a necessary evil is to put the increase in the money supply where it belongs: in the hands of the youth who lack the necessary capital to compete with the stagnate establishment.

    Your counter argument is “beware strangers bearing gifts” which I’m in total agreement with. You can see time and time again the destruction caused by free trade/world bank/subsidized food aid to the local economies of third world farmers.

    You can see the fascism born from dependency on charity in the inability of the individual United States to legislate their own drinking age because of the misappropriation of the lion’s share of the laffer curve to the Fed.

    My argument was that inflation in the form of bread and circusses is a way of deflecting hostility towards the ruling elite. Inflation may be a necessary evil, but Zimbabwe is proof that the gift of the Midas touch is too tempting to be trusted in good faith to the conscience of benevolent public servents.

    If inflation is a necessary lubricant to class mobility then so be it, but I reject the notion that bread and circusses are the appropriate way to deliver that lubrication when there are much more impartial and fair approaches which are not so tempting to corruption.

    Meanwhile, we see the evil’s of a government trying to balance the books of a snowballing pyramid scheme every day. As far as I can tell, the entire war on drugs is a jobs program, deflationary check on congress, and most importantly: a means of demonizing the unemployed and impoverished so that the plutocracy can put down the unrest of technological obscelence of labor in a manor more profitable for the capitalist than a 30 hour work week.

    1 man with access to capital is 1000 times more productive today than a worker was in the 1800s, and we don’t have sufficient financial or mental capital to turn those 999 men in to enterpeneurs. We can either let them starve until they burn down the factory, start a war to keep them busy/dead, or we can pass on the 1000x increase in profits to all partys in the form of a reduced work week.

    Prices will go down as the Iron Law of Wadges will have it’s edge removed, and we’ll see a decline in corruption with the electorate suddenly having more time to dedicate to political involvement and oversight.

    The problems of the 21st century are the problems of the 20th century with better access to information. The only thing keeping these problems from being solved is a sufficient level of discomfort to cut through the political machines marketing smokescreen.

    #12147
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    I’m not even sure if we’re in disagreement.

    You say the the problem with money is that it’s ‘Fiat Money’ and if we go back to the gold stadured them our plroblems will be solved.

    I say that the problem with money is that it is ‘legal tender’

    tusavision wrote:
    My argument was that inflation in the form of bread and circusses is a way of deflecting hostility towards the ruling elite. Inflation may be a necessary evil, but Zimbabwe is proof that the gift of the Midas touch is too tempting to be trusted in good faith to the conscience of benevolent public servents.

    The Wörgl experiment that was conducted from July 1932 to November 1933 is a classic example of the potential efficacy of local currencies. Wörgl, a small town in Austria with 4000 inhabitants, introduced a local scrip during the Great Depression. On the initiative of the town’s mayor, Michael Unterguggenberger, the local government printed 32,000 in labor certificates which carried a negative 1% monthly interest rate and could be converted into schillings at 98% of face value.

    According to you the perpose of inflation is to “Debase the currency, grafting away money from all holders of government currency by financing public relations stunts.” so a negative 1% monthly interest rate is the same as a 1% monthly inflation rate. but clearly they are the opposite of each other.

    tusavision wrote:
    If inflation is a necessary lubricant to class mobility then so be it, but I reject the notion that bread and circusses are the appropriate way to deliver that lubrication when there are much more impartial and fair approaches which are not so tempting to corruption.

    Inflation is necessary to stop class mobility. Actually Inflation only stops upward class mobility but still allows them to fall to a lowwer class.

    tusavision wrote:
    1 man with access to capital is 1000 times more productive today than a worker was in the 1800s, and we don’t have sufficient financial or mental capital to turn those 999 men in to enterpeneurs. We can either let them starve until they burn down the factory, start a war to keep them busy/dead, or we can pass on the 1000x increase in profits to all partys in the form of a reduced work week.

    Wow! Really? A single Slave owner with a 1000 slaves is just as productive as 1000 workers?

    In the so-called free-economy or capitalist economy, money has acquired a privileged status over all other commodities. By the definition arbitrarily given to it, it has become superior to man himself, it implies some qualifications that are not supposed to be within its jurisdiction and which have evolved and become as if they were really genuine, despite the fact that they have no physical existence. What Hicks did not say was expressed by Prudhon when he was asked:

    “Why are we short of houses, machinery and ships? He answered: Because money is a sentinel posted at the entrance to the markets with , orders to let no one pass. Money you imagine, is the key that opens the gates of the market (by which term is meant the exchange of products); that is not true – money is the bolt that bars them.”

    And in fact one would ask: Why is it that money supply is on the increase while recession is besetting the markets ? The answer is that a great part of that supply is not used to meet the “transactional demand” in the Keynesian sense. By holding the greater part of money supply for precautionary and speculative purposes, people are checking the main function of exchange and are rather incapacitating the role of money.

    tusavision wrote:
    The only thing keeping these problems from being solved is a sufficient level of discomfort to cut through the political machines marketing smokescreen.

    I’ve heard that before.

    “We civilize the savage by increasing his wants, by cultivating his fancy, his appetites, his desires. He is then willing to work to satisfy these new wants.” Robert Green Ingersoll

    Many economists write, as assuming that it is a step forward in civilization when a barbarous people learns artificial wants. If a New Zealander, instead of being satisfied with a mat for his back, which, made by himself, will last him for years, betakes himself to an English coat, which he must buy with a price,—which indeed less effectually shields him from wet, and sooner wears out,—he does that which is convenient to the English trader, but to him is a very doubtful gain : perhaps rather he brings on himself colds, cough, and consumption. If a thousand Maoris did the same, the commerce might figure in a Maori budget, and a Maori economist might point to the new trade as a step forward in national prosperity. The Zulus, as described by Englishmen who have travelled in Zululand or lived in the midst of them in Natal, arc an upright, generous, faithful, honest race ; and strange to say, Englishmen, who have such experience of them, are found to corroborate the utterance of Cetewayo, ” A Zulu trained by a missionary is a Zulu spoiled”—that is, when trained in our habits they lose their national virtues. How can this be ? why should it be ? Apparently, because from us they learn artificial wants. While an apron suffices a Zulu fur clothing, and a very simple hut fox shelter, he can in many ways afford to be hospitable and generous. /A man with very few wants has all the feelings of superfluity and wealth while surrounded by possession* so slender that we count him very poor: and when with an amount of toil which to his hardihood is not at all severe, he can always calculate on providing for himself and family all that their simple habits need, he is not deterred from present generosity by studying for his own future. But if he learn to covet and count necessary a number of articles which requircfrom him threefold labour, he feels himself no longer rich, but poor ; then, instead of giving small favours gratuitously, he claims to be paid for everything; instead of being princely, he becomes mercenary and stingy. If he imitate the dress, he is liable to envy the wealth of the Englishman, and in schemes of laying up for the future he easily becomes avaricious, perhaps fraudulent. Such are the steps by which one may justly calculate that some or many barbarians degenerate from the normal goodness of their fellows. The artificial wants which they learn when housed with our missionaries, or imbibe from the crafty allurements of traders, are not (primd facie) a benefit at all, do not conduce to independence, to the sense of wealth, nor to the practice of virtue. They are simply a convenience to the European trader. If a Maori or Zulu chief frown upon such trade, which judgment does he deserve—to be scolded as barbarous, or to be praised as sagacious ? “With them, perhaps also with us, to account but few things necessary is a foundation for many virtues. Our economists often reverse the picture.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12150
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Altaica wrote:

    You say the the problem with money is that it’s ‘Fiat Money’ and if we go back to the gold stadured them our plroblems will be solved.

    I never said that. You assume as much and put words in my mouth because it’s a common theme among those who complain about inflation and you’re eager to jump on my shit because I have an abrassive personality.

    I was commenting more on the absurdity of an electorate to be bribed with their own money/a debasing of their savings. You extrapolated that to mean that I support a national currency enslaved by manipulation of a commodities market.

    The Wörgl experiment that was conducted from July 1932 to November 1933 is a classic example of the potential efficacy of local currencies. Wörgl, a small town in Austria with 4000 inhabitants, introduced a local scrip during the Great Depression. On the initiative of the town’s mayor, Michael Unterguggenberger, the local government printed 32,000 in labor certificates which carried a negative 1% monthly interest rate and could be converted into schillings at 98% of face value.

    According to you the perpose of inflation is to “Debase the currency, grafting away money from all holders of government currency by financing public relations stunts.” so a negative 1% monthly interest rate is the same as a 1% monthly inflation rate. but clearly they are the opposite of each other.

    I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to say here. It’s an interesting premise, but it barely differs from my proposal in intent, and I disagree on the clarity of your conclusion. If all currency is depreciating at the same rate, the ultimate impact on the true value of the currency is non-existent. If all currency divides or multiplies at the same rate, the net impact on anything but psychology is nill.

    It’s like using stop watches as currency and acting like the changing numbers impacts their value. The scrip would change hands at least once per month until ending up in the hands of someone who wanted to save and accumulate at which point it would be removed from circulation by the bank and the schilling reserves would be plundered. Good money drives out bad, and 98 shillings are worth more to me than 99 time bombs or 99 time bombs worth of corn flakes supposing I have as many corn flakes as I need. For someone who wants for nothing: the decision to exchange the depreciating currency immediately would be obvious. The end outcome would have been a government bank holding a ton of stop watches, an empty vault with no shillings, and prices set in shillings with a 2-10% reduction in prices(depending on how long it took for the average villager to get the money to a producer).

    Inflation is necessary to stop class mobility. Actually Inflation only stops upward class mobility but still allows them to fall to a lowwer class.

    I appreciate the consequences of wages not keeping pace with prices but I don’t understand what your argument is. Do you oppose class mobility?

    Wow! Really? A single Slave owner with a 1000 slaves is just as productive as 1000 workers?

    That’s not even remotely what I said so I hesitate to agree but if the slave owner enslaves them and motivates them to produce: the equation seems to balance to me.

    In any case I still don’t know where the slave owner part comes from as I was refering to the massive advances in manufacturing productivity driven by mechanization among other things.

    In the so-called free-economy or capitalist economy, money has acquired a privileged status over all other commodities. By the definition arbitrarily given to it, it has become superior to man himself, it implies some qualifications that are not supposed to be within its jurisdiction and which have evolved and become as if they were really genuine, despite the fact that they have no physical existence. What Hicks did not say was expressed by Prudhon when he was asked:

    “Why are we short of houses, machinery and ships? He answered: Because money is a sentinel posted at the entrance to the markets with , orders to let no one pass. Money you imagine, is the key that opens the gates of the market (by which term is meant the exchange of products); that is not true – money is the bolt that bars them.”

    And in fact one would ask: Why is it that money supply is on the increase while recession is besetting the markets ? The answer is that a great part of that supply is not used to meet the “transactional demand” in the Keynesian sense. By holding the greater part of money supply for precautionary and speculative purposes, people are checking the main function of exchange and are rather incapacitating the role of money.

    That’s very romantic/pseudo-communist of you however I personally think you’re out to lunch. Are you seriously suggesting that a national currency obstructs trade more from it’s lack of availability than it conducts it via simplifying the barter system?

    I’ve heard that before.

    “We civilize the savage by increasing his wants, by cultivating his fancy, his appetites, his desires. He is then willing to work to satisfy these new wants.” Robert Green Ingersoll

    …Interesting quote. Very telling about your opinion of me that is how you interpretted what I said. I was saying that political revolution doesn’t occur among a well fed electorate. I wasn’t proposing that we break labor. I was proposing the opposite, that labor will eventually realize that it’s in their interest to demand a 30 hour work week.

    Many economists write, as assuming that it is a step forward in civilization when a barbarous people learns artificial wants. If a New Zealander, instead of being satisfied with a mat for his back, which, made by himself, will last him for years, betakes himself to an English coat, which he must buy with a price,—which indeed less effectually shields him from wet, and sooner wears out,—he does that which is convenient to the English trader, but to him is a very doubtful gain : perhaps rather he brings on himself colds, cough, and consumption. If a thousand Maoris did the same, the commerce might figure in a Maori budget, and a Maori economist might point to the new trade as a step forward in national prosperity. The Zulus, as described by Englishmen who have travelled in Zululand or lived in the midst of them in Natal, arc an upright, generous, faithful, honest race ; and strange to say, Englishmen, who have such experience of them, are found to corroborate the utterance of Cetewayo, ” A Zulu trained by a missionary is a Zulu spoiled”—that is, when trained in our habits they lose their national virtues. How can this be ? why should it be ? Apparently, because from us they learn artificial wants. While an apron suffices a Zulu fur clothing, and a very simple hut fox shelter, he can in many ways afford to be hospitable and generous. /A man with very few wants has all the feelings of superfluity and wealth while surrounded by possession* so slender that we count him very poor: and when with an amount of toil which to his hardihood is not at all severe, he can always calculate on providing for himself and family all that their simple habits need, he is not deterred from present generosity by studying for his own future. But if he learn to covet and count necessary a number of articles which requircfrom him threefold labour, he feels himself no longer rich, but poor ; then, instead of giving small favours gratuitously, he claims to be paid for everything; instead of being princely, he becomes mercenary and stingy. If he imitate the dress, he is liable to envy the wealth of the Englishman, and in schemes of laying up for the future he easily becomes avaricious, perhaps fraudulent. Such are the steps by which one may justly calculate that some or many barbarians degenerate from the normal goodness of their fellows. The artificial wants which they learn when housed with our missionaries, or imbibe from the crafty allurements of traders, are not (primd facie) a benefit at all, do not conduce to independence, to the sense of wealth, nor to the practice of virtue. They are simply a convenience to the European trader. If a Maori or Zulu chief frown upon such trade, which judgment does he deserve—to be scolded as barbarous, or to be praised as sagacious ? “With them, perhaps also with us, to account but few things necessary is a foundation for many virtues. Our economists often reverse the picture.

    Did you seriously just throw down with some nobel savage fallacy? That’s a 15 minute phase people go through after reading guns germs and steel. Most people find themselves incapable of holding such a belief for any longer because of it’s absurdity and ease of rebuttal.

    Being able to cite anecdotes and quotes may make an argument more credible, but it hardly makes it more true.

    #12168
    Avatar of Altaica
    Altaica
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:
    Are you seriously suggesting that a national currency obstructs trade more from it’s lack of availability than it conducts it via simplifying the barter system?

    Of course not.

    I’m suggesting that a national currency obstructs trade more by complicating the barter system than it conducts it via it’s greater of availability

    If Money simplifyed barter then why has the economic value of a good or service has puzzled economists since the beginning of the discipline?

    Now what does science say of this expression “value” ?
    Those who wish to know should read Gottl’s work: “The Idea of ‘Value,’ a Veiled Dogma of Political Economy.” Out of deference to his colleagues the professor does not openly express what his book so clearly proves, that “value” is a hallucination, a mere product of the imagination.

    tusavision wrote:

    …Interesting quote. Very telling about your opinion of me that is how you interpretted what I said.

    That you are a compleate idiot that can’t tell the diffrance between direct and indirect exchange; and that you have failed to realize the fundamental problem involved in the methods of your economic calculation? Unaware of the fact that interpersonal exchange, and consequently market exchange effected by the intermediary of a common medium of exchange–money, and therefore prices, are special features of a certain state of society’s economic organization which did not exist in primitive civilizations and could possibly disappear in the further course of historical change[1]. That you do not comprehend that money prices are the only vehicle of economic calculation?

    the wrote:
    Indivisibility of certain goods: If a person wants to buy a certain amount of another’s goods, but only has for payment one indivisible unit of another good which is worth more than what the person wants to obtain, a barter transaction cannot occur.

    That serious blunder owes its origin and its tenacity to a misinterpretation of this imaginary construction was the assumption that the medium of exchange is a neutral factor only. According to this opinion the only difference between direct and indirect exchange was that only in the latter was a medium of exchange used.

    Direct exchange barter, by its vary diffinition “Barter is a method of exchange by which goods or services are directly exchanged for other goods or services without using a medium of exchange, such as money.”, you are begging the question since there is no money there is no money price. and since in the scenario no one exhanges his “indivisible unit of another good” for anything the value of his “indivisible unit of another good” is nothing. or to be more grammericaly correct. His “indivisible unit of another good” does not have any value.

    Since you obivously aren’t interested in Silvio Gesell’s or Henry George’s explination. Let me.

    If person-A wants to exchange a certain amount of person-B’s goods-C, but is only willing to give an indivisible unit of good-D which is worth more to person-B than what the certain amount of goods-C is worth to person-B, a barter transaction cannot occur.

    If Alice wants to exchange one of her ducks for 4 of Bob’s Chickens and Bob is willing to exchange one of Alice’s Ducks for 5 Chickens.

    One wouldn’t say the Bob is unwill to trade with Alice! One would say Bob is a thief.

    You could take it as meaning “If Alice wants to exchange one of her ducks for 4 of Bob’s Chickens and Bob is willing to exchange 1 Duck for 5 Chickens.”

    certently not prohibiting the trade there.

    4 Chickens are worth 4 Chickens. 1 Duck is worth 5 Chickens to Bob. He 4 chickens worth of goods for 5 chickens worth of goods. unless you are going to claim a unit of chickens isn’t worth a unit of Chickens

    How about

    If person-A wants to exchange a certain amount of person-B’s goods-C, but is only willing to give an indivisible unit of good-D which is worth more to person-B than what the certain amount of goods-C is worth to person-A, a barter transaction cannot occur.

    If Alice wants to exchange one of her Ducks for 4 of Bob’s Chickens and Bob is willing to exhange one of Alice’s Ducks for 5 Chickens.

    … and yet Bob is unwilling to give her only 4? and Alice is unwilling to take the 5th Chicken?

    How about

    If person-A wants to exchange a certain amount of person-B’s goods-C, but is only willing to give an indivisible unit of good-D which is worth more to person-A than what the certain amount of goods-C is worth to person-A, a barter transaction cannot occur.

    If Alice wants to exchange one of her Ducks for 4 of Bob’s Chickens and Alice is willing to exhange one of Alice’s Ducks for 5 Chickens

    So here it’s excited state that She will accept ether 4 or 5 Chinkens nothing there says Bob will or will not accept ether offer.

    If person-A wants to exchange a certain amount of person-B’s goods-C, but is only willing to give an indivisible unit of good-D which is worth more to person-A than what the certain amount of goods-C is worth to person-B, a barter transaction cannot occur.

    A Duck is worth more to Alice than 4 Chickens is Worth to Bob. Now in your indirect exchange based market economy you would have a problem Alice tring to trade a $10 Duck for $8 worth of Chickens. and it has nothing to do with some ‘indivisibility’ of the duck unit. it

    If person-A wants to buy a certain amount of person-B’s goods with a certain amount of another good which is worth more than what the person wants to obtain, a market transaction cannot occur. Even if person-B also wants to sell the certain amount of his goods for the certain amount of person-A’s another good a market transaction cannot occur Why? becouse even thou person-A and person-B feel that the certain amount of goods is a fair price for the certain amount of another good . But the issuer says “That’s not fair! you need to pay another $2.” Of course the issuer may assess the value to be what ever he chooses. Like wise the issuer may compulse you to sell your goods and services, as as he pays you what he says is the value. Thanks your money he can get you to do what ever he wants and keep you from doing what ever he want.

    You meantioned Gresham’s Law(“Where legal tender laws exist, bad money drives out good money.”) more precise definition is this: “A currency that is artificially overvalued by law will drive out of circulation a currency that is artificially undervalued by that law.” It just as it is inevitable that the bad money proffered, good money retained so to is it inevitable that bad services are preformed and good services advoided. bad goods will flood the markets, good goods will be unavalible.

    Why shouldn’t this person that can decide what you will and will not do be called your owner?

    But in dirict exhance the only time the transaction cannot occur is when Alice’s value for 4 Chickens is less-than her value for a Duck, which would go against the premise that She wanted to exchange her duck for the 4 chickens, or Bob’s value for a Duck is less-than his value for 4 Chickens.

    Or to reverse it

    in dirict exhance the only time the transaction may occur is when Alice’s value for 4 Chickens is greater-than-or-equal to her value for a Duck or Bob’s value for a Duck is greater-than-or-equal to his value for 4 Chickens.

    Now I’m sure someone will object, we said “has for payment” not “wanting to exchange as payment” but in Direct exchange “has for payment” means “willing to include as part of what they will give in the exchange”

    tusavision wrote:
    I was saying that political revolution doesn’t occur among a well fed electorate. I wasn’t proposing that we break labor. I was proposing the opposite, that labor will eventually realize that it’s in their interest to demand a 30 hour work week.

    I was says that you are the type of idiot that thinks that when ‘labor will eventually, beleifing that it’s in their interest to, demand a 30 hour work week.’ it will be a good thing for the laborers..

    tusavision wrote:

    Wow! Really? A single Slave owner with a 1000 slaves is just as productive as 1000 workers?

    That’s not even remotely what I said so I hesitate to agree but if the slave owner enslaves them and motivates them to produce: the equation seems to balance to me. [/quote]

    By sides the fact that a single Slave owner with a 1000 slaves is 1001 persons and 1000 workers is only 1000 persons argo it is better to have 1001 free workers that 1 slave owner and 1000 slaves…..

    tusavision wrote:
    In any case I still don’t know where the slave owner part comes from as I was refering to the massive advances in manufacturing productivity driven by mechanization among other things.

    the slave owner part comes from the Pope.

    Pope wrote:
    It is surely undeniable that, when a man en-gages in remunerative labor, the very reasonand motive of his work is to obtain property,and to hold it as his own private possession. If one man hires out to another his strength orhis industry, he does this for the purpose ofreceiving in return what is necessary for foodand living; he thereby expressly proposes toacquire a full and legal right, not only to theremuneration, but also to the disposal of thatremuneration as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, andinvests his savings, for greater security, in aslave, the slave in such a case is only his wagesin another form; and consequently, a working-man’s slave thus purchased should be as com-pletely at his own disposal as the wages he re-ceives for his labor.

    let me remind you what you said

    tusavision wrote:
    1 man with access to capital is 1000 times more productive today than a worker was in the 1800s, and we don’t have sufficient financial or mental capital to turn those 999 men in to enterpeneurs. We can either let them starve until they burn down the factory, start a war to keep them busy/dead, or we can pass on the 1000x increase in profits to all partys in the form of a reduced work week.

    What is that ‘capital’ that you spoke of?

    Money? maybe you could say that before we removed the gold base and switched to fiat money. But the fact is we have switched to fiat money and the resoan for that switch was specificaly so we would never run.

    Proudhon asked: Why are we short of houses, machinery and ships ? And he also gave the correct answer: Because money limits the building of them. Or, to use his own words: “Because money is a sentinel posted at the entrance to the markets, with orders to let no one pass. Money, you imagine, is the key that opens the gates of the market (by which term is meant the exchange of products), that is not true-money is the bolt that bars them.”

    Money simply will not suffer another house to be built in addition to every existing house. As soon as capital ceases to yield the traditional interest, money strikes and brings work to a standstill. Money, therefore, acts like a serum against the “building-plague” and the “working fury”. It renders capital (houses, industrial plant, ships) immune from the menace of its own increase.

    ouk emou alla tou logou akousantas homologein sophon estin hen

    #12169
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    I’m afraid a simpleton like me can’t grasp why I should care if Alice sucks at haggling with Bob, and the Pope’s thoughts on slavery impress me as splitting hairs. (I would argue that 1 slave owner and 1000 slaves is MORE productive than 1001 workers. He coordinates their efforts and in doing so spares them from redundant wastes of resources. Similarly, by dealing with the management details, the workers are not constantly interrupted from their labor by chores such as customer service and fending off government regulators.)

    So instead I’ll focus on the part of your post that interests me:

    Altaica wrote:

    Proudhon asked: Why are we short of houses, machinery and ships ? And he also gave the correct answer: Because money limits the building of them. Or, to use his own words: “Because money is a sentinel posted at the entrance to the markets, with orders to let no one pass. Money, you imagine, is the key that opens the gates of the market (by which term is meant the exchange of products), that is not true-money is the bolt that bars them.”

    Money simply will not suffer another house to be built in addition to every existing house. As soon as capital ceases to yield the traditional interest, money strikes and brings work to a standstill. Money, therefore, acts like a serum against the “building-plague” and the “working fury”. It renders capital (houses, industrial plant, ships) immune from the menace of its own increase.

    Why are we short of crude oil, land, and clean water? Because these are FINITE resources. If we fire up the printing presses Zimbabwe style will the price of oil stay the same yet be more affordable? Of course not! Because there is only so much of this limited resource to go around.

    In MY economy, Alice doesn’t get as much oil and real estate as Bob because Alice is terrible at making money. Since making money is a demonstration of your ability to use resources efficiently: this is fair and right.

    Should we give the most valuable productive farm land to an athlete because they look like they can work a field? Of course not. They wouldn’t have the business or agricultural skills necessary to maximize production from that rich soil.

    What is the consequence of malinvestment? The economy is poorer by an entire harvest of tomatos. The price of tomatos is stupid high and Alice starves because she lives paycheck to paycheck. Now the economy is poorer by a harvest of tomatos and an otherwise productive worker because we tried to centrally manage resources.

    We give that same piece of real estate to Bill Gates and he would sell the land or hire a farming expert instead of trying to do it himself. This access to capital has allowed him to manage the limited resources of this planet more efficiently rather than trying to “Do it Himself” because he was poor and couldn’t afford to hire a specialist.

    Now let’s suppose that this same piece of land was bought by Martha Stewart. Martha Stewart is broke as shit after losing it all on the stock market. She has this awesome piece of land and she could “pass the buck” and hope the buyer isn’t retarded, or: she could try and help society by making it produce food.

    Martha Stewart is broke so she can’t afford to feed her Oxe and it dies before she can make it to harvest. Her plants die and she starves. Dumb fucking move Martha! But what choice did she have?

    This is why availability of credit(at a market determined interest rate) is productive and good for the economy. Martha can borrow money to finance her Tomato farming enterprise. She can afford to feed her Oxe, and she makes a million dollars selling tomatos/feeding people because she had $50 to buy Oxe feed with. For this reason, $5 interest isn’t so bad.

    But let’s suppose that the dumass Alice has a competing farm and she wants to borrow that same $50 dollars, cause she wants to spend it on American cars. American car factories take valuable comodities like steel and oil and turn them in to greenhouse gases, and rust doomed labor killing machines. Further, because someone is dumb enough to loan Alice $50, she doesn’t have to sell her unproductive farm to Martha.

    Alice eventually goes bankrupt because she spent all her earnings on gas guzzling rust buckets instead of fertalizer, and her crops die while the farm is being sold as a forclosure.

    In a fucked up economic system like the one which caused the real estate crisis: you have a perversion of interest rates where Alice is more credit worthy than Martha because of who she voted for rather than because of her actual risk. Alice is a “sub-prime” investment, yet she is given $50 instead of Martha because of her haircut.

    Alice dies in a car crash, Martha goes bankrupt, and the economy is now poorer by 2 tomato harvests.

    In a healthy economic system: Alice moves back in with her parents and sells her farm to Martha who brings both crops to fruition.

    In Zimbabwe: Alice & Martha get $50, except no one will sell Martha Oxe feed because it’s appreciating value against dollars by the minute.

    Only one of these scenerios results in productive utilization of finite resources. Even if Alice can manage a farm using organic fertalizer and prayer assisted growing techniques, she’s not going to be nearly as effective at it as Martha who uses Ammonium Nitrate and genetically engineered crops.

    When you only have 1 farm to give away, you give it to Martha because she will make the most productive Return On Investment.

    When there are people starving to death because there aren’t enough tomatos, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the argument that we should give money to “James” so he can start a business building 1:1 scale replica Viking ships in Nevada. That money represents finite resources such as oil to run tractors and timber to build houses. “James” gets the money for his Viking ship fetish at the expense of the economy which needs houses and tractors.

    #12170
    Avatar of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    (I would argue that 1 slave owner and 1000 slaves is MORE productive than 1001 workers. He coordinates their efforts and in doing so spares them from redundant wastes of resources.

    That’s plain wrong. If it were true, then the South would have been more productive than the North, and won the war. If it were true, Mauritania and Yemen (were slavery is perfectly legal and in practice) would be productive countries copared to their regions but they aren’t.

    If you’re referring to wage slavery or some other dilluted concept of slavery, then why would PR China which eploys hard labor, have a saller GDP than South Korea, H.K, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan combined?

    It would seem by empirical evidence that the redundant waste (aint that a redundancy?) of resources is less than the creation of wealth produced spontaneously when people are left alone to pursue their own interests, be it a tomatoe for his hungry stomach or a ship replica for his hungry mind.

    #12171
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Matt wrote:

    tusavision wrote:

    (I would argue that 1 slave owner and 1000 slaves is MORE productive than 1001 workers. He coordinates their efforts and in doing so spares them from redundant wastes of resources.

    That’s plain wrong. If it were true, then the South would have been more productive than the North, and won the war. If it were true, Mauritania and Yemen (were slavery is perfectly legal and in practice) would be productive countries copared to their regions but they aren’t.

    If you’re referring to wage slavery or some other dilluted concept of slavery, then why would PR China which eploys hard labor, have a saller GDP than South Korea, H.K, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan combined?

    It would seem by empirical evidence that the redundant waste (aint that a redundancy?) of resources is less than the creation of wealth produced spontaneously when people are left alone to pursue their own interests, be it a tomatoe for his hungry stomach or a ship replica for his hungry mind.

    [/quote]

    People left to pursue their interests are inefficient and fickle. I should know.

    The South vs. the North had so many other variables at play contaminating the study you can hardly draw conclusions.

    Slavery economics is fascinating to read about. Fubarnomics has a good chapter on it. The short answer for why the North was more prosperous than the South was greater utilization of disruptive technology and better railroad infrastructure. Compare GDP between the south and north per capita PRE-steam engine for a more sane analysis of Slavery’s merits.

    You’re falling victim to the fallacy of correlation = causation in the case of Yemen. Yemen allows slaves because it’s a shithole. Yemen isn’t a shithole because it has slaves.(although slavery might contribute, but my argument is productivity not economic health)

    In shear productivity, yes slaves win. When you take in to account things like the fact you have to provide them with housing and food: it’s more profitable to use superior negotiation skills and the iron law of wages to contract those logistical problems to them for far less than it would cost you to provide them.

    #12172
    Avatar of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    tusavision wrote:

    Matt wrote:

    tusavision wrote:

    (I would argue that 1 slave owner and 1000 slaves is MORE productive than 1001 workers. He coordinates their efforts and in doing so spares them from redundant wastes of resources.

    That’s plain wrong. If it were true, then the South would have been more productive than the North, and won the war. If it were true, Mauritania and Yemen (were slavery is perfectly legal and in practice) would be productive countries copared to their regions but they aren’t.

    If you’re referring to wage slavery or some other dilluted concept of slavery, then why would PR China which eploys hard labor, have a saller GDP than South Korea, H.K, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan combined?

    It would seem by empirical evidence that the redundant waste (aint that a redundancy?) of resources is less than the creation of wealth produced spontaneously when people are left alone to pursue their own interests, be it a tomatoe for his hungry stomach or a ship replica for his hungry mind.

    [/quote]

    People left to pursue their interests are inefficient and fickle. I should know.

    The South vs. the North had so many other variables at play contaminating the study you can hardly draw conclusions.

    Slavery economics is fascinating to read about. Fubarnomics has a good chapter on it. The short answer for why the North was more prosperous than the South was greater utilization of disruptive technology and better railroad infrastructure. Compare GDP between the south and north per capita PRE-steam engine for a more sane analysis of Slavery’s merits.[/quote]

    But that is exaclty my point: machines, robots, make better slaves than people, in both productivity and economic health; and social and cultural health as it not only allows, but forces freed slaves, and unemployed ex wage-slaves to divert their quest for reproduction and happiness towards other more creative means. It has its downside, like crime and poverty, but also its longer ter upside, the ephemerization of labor (the use of the mind instead of the body – same some could say the heart instead of the body).

    tusavision wrote:

    You’re falling victim to the fallacy of correlation = causation in the case of Yemen. Yemen allows slaves because it’s a shithole. Yemen isn’t a shithole because it has slaves.(although slavery might contribute, but my argument is productivity not economic health)

    There are worse shitholes than Yemen. That cultural treasure of a country allows legal slavery because they abide by religious Islamic Law.

    I was just asking for some historical proof that slavery is a better productive or otherwise, system than industrialism.

    The Socialist Germans, Russians and Chinese tried it with respectively increasingly levels of success. Slave workers didn’t work for the Nazis. They did work for the Russians and their socialist infrastructure, but stopped doing it. The Chinese purpotedly still do it today but not as an integral part of their productive system.

    Slavery exists worldwide, not as wage slavery, but as actual slavery, and still is a profitable but not an essential part of the productive system. In the most advanced countries its limited to the only task not better performed by a robot. Sex.

    tusavision wrote:

    In shear productivity, yes slaves win. When you take in to account things like the fact you have to provide them with housing and food: it’s more profitable to use superior negotiation skills and the iron law of wages to contract those logistical problems to them for far less than it would cost you to provide them.

    How so in sheer productivity slaves win? Define slave or at least clarify whether you are using the traditional, held against will and treated as private property, definition of slave, or the wage-slave concept. By your last sentence it would seem you see no difference between the too.

    Even if I accepted that, then I’d ask, do you still believe that wage-slaves are more productive than robots? On the very long term which is usually shorter than it sees in some cases (Singapore, South Korea).

    #12173
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Matt wrote:

    tusavision wrote:

    Matt wrote:

    tusavision wrote:

    (I would argue that 1 slave owner and 1000 slaves is MORE productive than 1001 workers. He coordinates their efforts and in doing so spares them from redundant wastes of resources.

    That’s plain wrong. If it were true, then the South would have been more productive than the North, and won the war. If it were true, Mauritania and Yemen (were slavery is perfectly legal and in practice) would be productive countries copared to their regions but they aren’t.

    If you’re referring to wage slavery or some other dilluted concept of slavery, then why would PR China which eploys hard labor, have a saller GDP than South Korea, H.K, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan combined?

    It would seem by empirical evidence that the redundant waste (aint that a redundancy?) of resources is less than the creation of wealth produced spontaneously when people are left alone to pursue their own interests, be it a tomatoe for his hungry stomach or a ship replica for his hungry mind.

    [/quote]

    People left to pursue their interests are inefficient and fickle. I should know.

    The South vs. the North had so many other variables at play contaminating the study you can hardly draw conclusions.

    Slavery economics is fascinating to read about. Fubarnomics has a good chapter on it. The short answer for why the North was more prosperous than the South was greater utilization of disruptive technology and better railroad infrastructure. Compare GDP between the south and north per capita PRE-steam engine for a more sane analysis of Slavery’s merits.[/quote]

    But that is exaclty my point: machines, robots, make better slaves than people, in both productivity and economic health; and social and cultural health as it not only allows, but forces freed slaves, and unemployed ex wage-slaves to divert their quest for reproduction and happiness towards other more creative means. It has its downside, like crime and poverty, but also its longer ter upside, the ephemerization of labor (the use of the mind instead of the body – same some could say the heart instead of the body).

    tusavision wrote:

    You’re falling victim to the fallacy of correlation = causation in the case of Yemen. Yemen allows slaves because it’s a shithole. Yemen isn’t a shithole because it has slaves.(although slavery might contribute, but my argument is productivity not economic health)

    There are worse shitholes than Yemen. That cultural treasure of a country allows legal slavery because they abide by religious Islamic Law.

    I was just asking for some historical proof that slavery is a better productive or otherwise, system than industrialism.

    The Socialist Germans, Russians and Chinese tried it with respectively increasingly levels of success. Slave workers didn’t work for the Nazis. They did work for the Russians and their socialist infrastructure, but stopped doing it. The Chinese purpotedly still do it today but not as an integral part of their productive system.

    Slavery exists worldwide, not as wage slavery, but as actual slavery, and still is a profitable but not an essential part of the productive system. In the most advanced countries its limited to the only task not better performed by a robot. Sex.

    tusavision wrote:

    In shear productivity, yes slaves win. When you take in to account things like the fact you have to provide them with housing and food: it’s more profitable to use superior negotiation skills and the iron law of wages to contract those logistical problems to them for far less than it would cost you to provide them.

    How so in sheer productivity slaves win? Define slave or at least clarify whether you are using the traditional, held against will and treated as private property, definition of slave, or the wage-slave concept. By your last sentence it would seem you see no difference between the too.

    Even if I accepted that, then I’d ask, do you still believe that wage-slaves are more productive than robots? On the very long term which is usually shorter than it sees in some cases (Singapore, South Korea).

    [/quote]

    I never said that slaves are more productive than robots. I said that slaves are more productive than workers for the same reason that robots are more productive than workers: lack of labor protections, long hours, low pay, and because they don’t quit and find a different employer after you’ve just finished training them.

    You give me 10 slaves and a whip and I’ll get them to make more widgets in 10 days than a cooperative of willing employees could in 11. The absurdly low price we pay for chinese goods is evidence of this.

    The UAE’s treatment of immigrants would be a great counter example to Yemen.

    I’m not going to bother defining wage slavery because it’s true in any form. The only advantage free workers have over slaves is creativity, which I assume why Americans are 5 times more productive than sweatshops. Not because a spoiled American can sweat with the best of them, because they can’t, but because of the definition of productivity.

    The absurdly high price of American Labor demands that mechanization and robots be used. To measure American “workers” productivity would be more appropriately compared to measuring the productivity of a slave driver on a plantation pre-civil war based on the product of his underlings. Put that same slave driver in the fields and they wouldn’t be competitive at all with the labor they compete with.

    I think the entire discussion is a waste of time honestly. Why is this even a point of contention? I’m not advocating slavery. It’s inhumane. Productive, but inhumane. I guess it’s not politically correct to acknowledge it has any merit at all, but I don’t think that’s intellectually honest. People wouldn’t put up with the stink and bullshit if it wasn’t productive.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 38 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate