Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:55 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Force 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor

BookTalk.org Moderator

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1149 times in 843 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Force
The free market trends inexorably to monopolies and then rediculous abuse.

one competitor out-performing another is the basis of the free market, right?
Well, when one competitor vanquishes another and takes up their market share then they become more powerful. A market fued between mom-and-pop stores leads to little. But eventually one of those stores becomes walmart.

As one conquering business moves on to the next mom-and-pop it becomes easier and easier to dominate them. Fairness does't come into play here. This is just the momentum of accumulated plunder bowling smaller competitors under.

And of course there are those services which there is no alternative but to have. Choosing between 10 or a hundred different brands of peanut butter where you can pick and choose what price you will pay for what product is the free market, but it does not function for things like life-saving cancer treatments, fire departments, or military defense.

You either blow every cent you and your family has ever earned trying to survive cancer, plus go into ludicrous debt, or you die next week. that is no choice at all, and so is not a viable free market situation.


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:58 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Wearing Out Library Card


Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 243
Thanks: 2
Thanked: 24 times in 23 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Force
So you have something against Walmart for their low prices compared to momandpop stores? You would rather people pay higher for merchandise? Would you want the government to bar competition in regards to momandpop stores, stores that cannot compete with retailers that offer lower prices? Do you want the government to step in, bar Walmart from a given area, so that people can continue to pay higher prices?

In Rands view it would be immoral for the government to bar competion in the marketplace. If people have anything against WalMarts lower prices, then simply shop at momandpop stores and not at Walmart then.


_________________
"Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self."
- Cyril Connolly

My seven published books are available for purchase, click here:
http://www.amazon.com/Steven-L.-Sheppard/e/B00E6KOX12


The following user would like to thank Mr A for this post:
Robert Tulip
Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:23 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I Should Be Bronzed

Silver Contributor

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1655
Location: Hampton, Ga
Thanks: 254
Thanked: 325 times in 248 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Force
Wal-Mart is a good example of the tipping point in which benefit comes with costs. I see this as a kind of tragedy of the commons.

If a company can provide a product or the sale of a particular product at a lower cost through economies of scale then it's usually a good. That's usually seen as irrefutable. The problem arises when that entity takes up too much of the market and is then able to dictate how much buyers and sellers receive - it's able to control both how much it pays for a particular product and how much it sells it for. That's power and that's a good indicator of how much control of a market an entity has.

Wal-Mart does this. They tell those who produce how much they'll sell their products for and then offer them to consumers at an elevated price. They have the power to do this because of how big they are. The bigger they are, the more power they have to do this.

An argument can be made that someone else will just offer sellers more money and then sell their items to consumers for a lower price. But to do so would mean having to compete against the already established behemoth which could incur enormous losses in order to drive out competition. It would be business suicide to compete against Wal-Mart. When any companies wishing to compete came on the scene, Wal-Mart could theoretically offer their items at near cost in order to drive out the competition in a certain area. They could do this, because of how much profit they make, without raising the prices in any of their other stores. Once the competition was choked out, Wal-Mart would again raise prices. They would be in control. The cost to enter such a market would be close to impossible.

Now, by driving mom and pops out of business, many locals who used to run their own business now are left to seek employment. They can go work for Wal-Mart for significantly less pay. Wal-Mart doesn't require them to think anymore. They don't need to balance their accounts, make sure the meat is cut and packed correctly, or anything associated with running a business. The butcher who used to run his own local shop and is now working for Wal-Mart only has to put the pre-cut/pre-packaged meat on the rack and take away those which have reached their expiration.

The butcher used to represent the middle class. He has been cut out - his wages decreased, his responsibility and thought squelched.

The reason I'm not more upset about all of that is that there is still opportunity out there and it is coming in the form of the internet. Businesses are now able to sell to nearly as large a market as Wal-Mart without having to use them to get their products out there! We'll see how free the internet will remain in the coming future. ;)

To think that entities which are 'too big to fail' are not dangerous is just irresponsible. To know why Wal-Mart has great potential to be an evil is to know why monopolies and tyrannies are not usually in a country's or a market's best interest.



The following user would like to thank President Camacho for this post:
johnson1010
Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:49 am
Profile Email YIM
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor

BookTalk.org Moderator

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1149 times in 843 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Force
Yes, Walmart not being in your community is a good thing.
Yes, paying more by not shopping at walmart is a good thing.

Have you really ever thought about the fact that you can buy a pair of shoes for 15 bucks? What are the implications there? If you learned how to make a shoe, how much would you want to be paid for the effort? How much is reasonable?

Assembly lines can drastically reduce the cost of doing business, but ultimately there are people out there who are putting in sweat and effort to produce these goods. In sweat shops actually.

I saw an interview on Oprah once where they were talking about nations and their comparative wealth and lifestyles. She had a woman on there from the United Arab Emerits who was explaining that everyone over there has money and they can get backrubs every day for super cheap and everything is good. But who’s giving these backrubs for pennies?

In other words, extreme wealth discrepancies come at the expense of the people who are actually doing the work. The president of Nike doesn’t make shoes. He runs a hierarchy. And each day he makes more than two of his workers will make in a year. That’s exploitation, pure and simple.

When you buy a set of shoes at walmart you are part of that exploitation. Someone over seas is working incredibly hard, in terrible working conditions, at terrible hours, with ass-all for pay to get you that pair of 15 dollar, disposable, low-quality shoes.

It definitely would be better if there were a local cobbler who made you a pair of shoes. They would probably cost quite a bit more than 15 dollars, but I don’t think they would be too much more expensive than a pair of expensive jordans. Then there would be a place to get your shoes repaired and maintained, rather than just throwing them away after a while. That puts money directly into the community to a business owner who lives there, buys there, hires there, pays taxes, cares for his community, and builds a more locally robust economy.

It reduces fuel expenditure, waste products, garbage, raises the income of local workers who can learn a trade and produce a product which could sustain them no matter where they live.

Giving money to walmart puts dollars in the hands of a conveyor belt which continually siphons money out of a community and deposits it in a corporate HQ in the Cayman islands (for tax avoidance purposes). Employee’s are treated like shopping carts. Necessary, but expendable. Certainly not worth investing in, and not worth the trouble to maintain. Just get new ones. That’s why they are paid very little, have very little prospect for opportunity and growth, terrible benefits, and no retirement plans to speak of. Goods are shipped in from distant locations manufactured by border-line slave labor sweat shops, heavily polluting factories, over-packaged in precious crude oil product, saturated with preservative chemicals, toxic paints, shipped thousands of miles just to be thrown away after a short life of gaudy excess.

The united states is living in a dream right now. We have tremendous wealth because we have tremendous power. That means we pay little for what others have sacrificed much to obtain. It isn’t sustainable. It isn’t fair. It isn’t going to last. Walmart and other big-box stores are generally the facilitators of our exploitation. We use a quarter of the world’s resources. That couldn’t last, even if everyone else thought we were right to do so.

Walmart is exactly what happens with un-regulated free markets. It’s built into the system. Walmart IS how the system works. Global communication and travel have made these inevitabilities all the more precipitous.


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


The following user would like to thank johnson1010 for this post:
Kevin, President Camacho
Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:08 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Wearing Out Library Card


Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 243
Thanks: 2
Thanked: 24 times in 23 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Force
johnson1010 wrote:
Yes, paying more by not shopping at walmart is a good thing.


And this is precisely the choice people have - shop there, or not.

The point is, that government should not ban any competition in the market, period. Whether their prices are at, above or below market values, whether or not they provide jobs that pay at, above, or market values, whether or not they offer benefits, or retirement, or vacations. If people have a problem with any of this - don't buy their mechandise, don't work for them.

Ayn Rand:

Quote:
There is no way to legislate competition; there are no standards by which one could define who should compete with whom, how many competitors should exist in any given field, what should be their relative strength or their so-called “relevant markets,” what prices they should charge, what methods of competition are “fair” or “unfair.” None of these can be answered, because these precisely are the questions that can be answered only by the mechanism of a free market.


Her government is only concerned with recognizing, upholding, and protecting man's rights, that's it. Man has a right to sell at whatever price he wants to sell products at, and to set the wage/salary to whatever amount he wants to. And man has a right not to buy products at whatever price that they are being sold for, and man has a right not to work a job that he think pays too little. In her system, no one has a right to get the government to force competitors out of a market or into a market, to get a business to set a minimum wage amount or to cap pay, etc. as it's a violation of their individual rights, which that principle is paramount.


_________________
"Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self."
- Cyril Connolly

My seven published books are available for purchase, click here:
http://www.amazon.com/Steven-L.-Sheppard/e/B00E6KOX12


Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:49 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5802
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2256
Thanked: 2190 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Force
johnson1010 wrote:
Yes, Walmart not being in your community is a good thing. Yes, paying more by not shopping at walmart is a good thing. Have you really ever thought about the fact that you can buy a pair of shoes for 15 bucks? What are the implications there? If you learned how to make a shoe, how much would you want to be paid for the effort? How much is reasonable? Assembly lines can drastically reduce the cost of doing business, but ultimately there are people out there who are putting in sweat and effort to produce these goods. In sweat shops actually.

Johnson, turning the tables on your comment, have you really ever thought about the fact that the global median income is about $3 a day?

Thats right. Half the people living on our planet exist on less than $3 per day, although in purchasing power parity terms $3 buys a lot more in poor countries than it does in the rich world. But still, in the USA ten times that amount is still very poor.

So, you have to think about the consequences of your moral call to ban sweat shops. The alternative for poor people in China and wherever is to go back to subsistence agriculture, working as a peasant on a tiny plot, dependent on the rain to avoid starvation, tied to the soil with no hope of change.

For people in such circumstances, factory employment to provide your $15 shoes is an improvement on their real alternative. As well, industrial production builds their skills and wealth, giving them the potential to educate their children so they can be as productive as rich people, and eventually as wealthy.

You call for protection of high cost US producers, such as cobblers. The moral result of such protection is that you are saying to someone in China, even though you are willing to provide the same product for much lower cost, you are banned from doing so because of geography. That is not just.

The challenge for the US to retain its wealth is to invest in human capital, so that people can still be just as wealthy within a free market. If people don't want to work at Walmart, they can get an education which will enable them to find a better job.

When cars replaced horses and when other technological improvements came along, some people lost out in the disruption of change. Supermarkets are a far more efficient retail system than many traditional markets. In Asia, there is a supermarket revolution because people appreciate the convenience, safety, standards, quality, value, freshness and range. It makes things tough for traditional market sellers, but it produces overall economic growth which means people can adapt and find new lines of employment at a higher level. It is just this sort of change that has driven rich countries towards a focus on high value services rather than low value production, for which other countries now have a comparative advantage. Economics by romance is not rational.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:27 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Pulitzer Prize Finalist


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 482
Location: Texas
Thanks: 39
Thanked: 98 times in 83 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Force
Robert Tulip wrote:
So, you have to think about the consequences of your moral call to ban sweat shops.
Has he actually argued that they should be banned? I haven't read the entire thread, maybe he has... but what I've seen is an argument that you shouldn't shop at WalMart not that you shouldn't have the option of shopping at WalMart.

Quote:
The alternative for poor people in China and wherever is to go back to subsistence agriculture, working as a peasant on a tiny plot, dependent on the rain to avoid starvation, tied to the soil with no hope of change.
Really? That's it - WalMart on the one hand and perpetually rolling in the dirt on the other? I think there's at least a third option, and one that is a reasonable one - highly regulated markets. After all, who doesn't want regulation? Does Big Pharma, say, argue that patent protection should be done away with? Maybe so, but I doubt it. Regulation brings more freedom than does handing the keys over to WalMart, Monsanto and so on...

Quote:
For people in such circumstances, factory employment to provide your $15 shoes is an improvement on their real alternative. As well, industrial production builds their skills and wealth, giving them the potential to educate their children so they can be as productive as rich people, and eventually as wealthy.
My perception is that over the last 40 years or so the middle class in the the US, UK and western europe has tended to drift more to the lower rather than the higher class... which if true makes your above statement seem far too optimistic. There will always be peasants to exploit... and today's cheap labor will be tomorrow's victims of cheap labor if they're even that lucky.

Quote:
You call for protection of high cost US producers, such as cobblers. The moral result of such protection is that you are saying to someone in China, even though you are willing to provide the same product for much lower cost, you are banned from doing so because of geography. That is not just.
No, what I am saying (nopt speaking for Johnson) is that it is being said to WalMart et al... and again with the banned... there doesn't have to be a ban when a fee will do.


_________________
The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? - Jeremy Bentham


Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:06 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Masters


Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 467
Location: canada
Thanks: 66
Thanked: 179 times in 132 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Canada (ca)

Post Re: Force
Robert Tulip wrote:



The challenge for the US to retain its wealth is to invest in human capital, so that people can still be just as wealthy within a free market. If people don't want to work at Walmart, they can get an education which will enable them to find a better job.

When cars replaced horses and when other technological improvements came along, some people lost out in the disruption of change. Supermarkets are a far more efficient retail system than many traditional markets. In Asia, there is a supermarket revolution because people appreciate the convenience, safety, standards, quality, value, freshness and range. It makes things tough for traditional market sellers, but it produces overall economic growth which means people can adapt and find new lines of employment at a higher level. It is just this sort of change that has driven rich countries towards a focus on high value services rather than low value production, for which other countries now have a comparative advantage. Economics by romance is not rational.


A question Robert: When developing countries have the capability, and the educated work forces, to design software, build spacecraft, high speed trains, and all the other items previously limited to western countries, what sort of investments and education will provide us continuing wealth? Under an globalized free market, why provide any new technology or service at western prices when it could be done for so much less in China, India, or others in similar states of authoritarian government or urgent demographic need?


_________________
"I suspect that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose"
— JBS Haldane


Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:41 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5802
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2256
Thanked: 2190 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Force
etudiant wrote:
A question Robert: When developing countries have the capability, and the educated work forces, to design software, build spacecraft, high speed trains, and all the other items previously limited to western countries, what sort of investments and education will provide us continuing wealth? Under an globalized free market, why provide any new technology or service at western prices when it could be done for so much less in China, India, or others in similar states of authoritarian government or urgent demographic need?


If poor countries achieve the level of productivity of the rich world, then the level of abundance in rich countries will be even greater due to trade. My opinion is that our planet has resources to enable wealth for all, and that growth in one country enables trade, and is good for growth in other countries.

As an example in response to your suggestion that the rich world might lose out from growing wealth in the poor world, at the moment, mining companies working in poor countries choose to bring in high level experts from rich countries. If they could source the same level of expertise locally, they would, as they are driven by profit. In a just economy, income reflects productivity. If shareholders assess that a CEO has delivered exceptional leadership, then that CEO deserves exceptional pay. It is not for outsiders to judge pay scales, since the shareholders set remuneration with a view to maximising profit.

There will always be opportunities for people of talent and drive. Any population that thinks it can bludge is headed for poverty.

Australia has a long list of occupations available for skilled immigrants. If there were too many Australians with skills and qualifications in these fields, they would not be open to foreigners.

I don't think that authoritarian government is capable of achieving prosperity. China is something of an exception, but they are reaching a tipping point where the population will demand democratic processes. Wealth brings demand for accountability.

My view is that new technology will enable abundant low cost energy, and new occupations will emerge to tap growing global wealth.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:54 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5802
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2256
Thanked: 2190 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Force
Kevin wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
So, you have to think about the consequences of your moral call to ban sweat shops.
Has he actually argued that they should be banned?
That was an inference I drew from Johnson's post, that the moral evil of Nike-style inequality should not be allowed, and a new crusade is needed like the abolition of slavery.
Quote:
WalMart on the one hand and perpetually rolling in the dirt on the other? I think there's at least a third option, and one that is a reasonable one - highly regulated markets.
Property rights can only be protected through regulation, or by a return to Dark Ages methods of anarchy constrained by local force. The big question in Atlas Shrugged is the risk of pernicious regulation with collusion between populist governments and cartels. If a government regulates to force a private firm to trade with one supplier or customer and not with another, without any objective basis of demonstrable harm from allowing free trade, it opens the door to injustice.

Your call for 'highly regulated markets' is something I agree with regarding harmful products, or areas of genuine need for restriction such as protection of biodiversity, but apart from those type of areas firms should be free to trade on a level playing field based on their own commercial interests. Once governments start to distort markets they are on the path of rent-seeking, socialism, stagnation and corruption.
Quote:
My perception is that over the last 40 years or so the middle class in the the US, UK and western europe has tended to drift more to the lower rather than the higher class.
And is that perceived hollowing out of the middle class due to too much objectivism or not enough? I suspect the latter. If we encouraged competition, we would provide incentive for growth, with resulting demand for more goods and services, through a middle class able to supply them.

In fact, the income and wealth of all quintiles has grown. Perceptions of middle class decline are not supported by census statistics in the USA. Since 1967, the median household income in the United States has risen by 31%
Image
Quote:
today's cheap labor will be tomorrow's victims of cheap labor if they're even that lucky.
What a dismal view you have Kevin! There is a common tendency to generalise from hard luck stories, ignoring the statistics that show things are generally improving. If tomorrow people are unwilling to work for low wages, it will only be because their skills and productivity have risen so they can obtain something better. Hardly victims.
Quote:
there doesn't have to be a ban when a fee will do.

So you propose a tariff barrier to trade like the current unjust arrangements that support the US bloated farm lobby. That sort of protectionism is a beggar thy neighbour policy that has the same effect as a ban, and that actually does harm to the buyer by denying them the right to obtain goods from the most efficient producer.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Sat Nov 03, 2012 6:37 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Wearing Out Library Card


Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 243
Thanks: 2
Thanked: 24 times in 23 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Force
johnson1010 wrote:
As one conquering business moves on to the next mom-and-pop it becomes easier and easier to dominate them. Fairness does't come into play here.


What do you mean by "fairness" anyways?

johnson1010 wrote:
Have you really ever thought about the fact that you can buy a pair of shoes for 15 bucks? What are the implications there? If you learned how to make a shoe, how much would you want to be paid for the effort? How much is reasonable? Assembly lines can drastically reduce the cost of doing business, but ultimately there are people out there who are putting in sweat and effort to produce these goods.


How much is reasonable, is determined by the market. How much are people willing to pay or are willing to work for, how much do people value the product/service/business, many factors, mechanisms involved in the market. If someone is willing to make shoes for $4.00 an hour, there is absolutely nothing wrong, evil, immoral, nor illegal with that in Rand's laisez-faire capitalism, since no ones rights are being violated. But if the government were to step in and tell them they have to pay them a minimum of $8.00, that is in violation of a businesses right to set their own wage rate, and against the right of a person to be able to work for $4.00.

Robert Tulip wrote:
Property rights can only be protected through regulation


Support that claim.

In Rand's laissez-faire capitalism, property rights are protected through government which bans the initiation of the use of force.


_________________
"Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self."
- Cyril Connolly

My seven published books are available for purchase, click here:
http://www.amazon.com/Steven-L.-Sheppard/e/B00E6KOX12


Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:17 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5802
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2256
Thanked: 2190 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Force
Mr A wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
Property rights can only be protected through regulation

Support that claim.
In Rand's laissez-faire capitalism, property rights are protected through government which bans the initiation of the use of force.

Mr A, your comment here illustrates how words mean different things to different people. "Regulation" is used in economic literature to mean much the same as "rule of law". For example, a government banning the use of force has to use its legal powers to do so, through regulation. Wikipedia defines regulation as "a legal provision that creates, limits, or constrains a right, creates or limits a duty, or allocates a responsibility." This clearly includes creation of property rights.

Regulation can be good or bad. In Atlas Shrugged, the regulations used to control Rearden's and Taggart's enterprises are bad, but the implication is not that there is no need for government. Rather it is that government should regulate well to enable free enterprise prosperity and competition, for example through protection of property rights.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:07 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7042
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Force
Quote:
And is that perceived hollowing out of the middle class due to too much objectivism or not enough? I suspect the latter. If we encouraged competition, we would provide incentive for growth, with resulting demand for more goods and services, through a middle class able to supply them.


You don't solve demand-side issues by 'encouraging competition'. Demand side issues are due to people's inability to purchase what they desire. Increased competition with no consumers would not help the US. If increased competition lead to higher wages, then it would lift up some of the lower class. But that is causally removed from increasing competition. There are more direct methods to stimulate the demand side of the economy, with multipliers when comparing stimulus vs. GDP. The higher the multiplier, the more effective the stimulus. Most of the changes proposed by Objectivism that I've looked over show neutral multipliers, or can't be quantified because we've never tried them. Others, such as tax breaks for the "job creators", have failed outright; they do not work.

The current emphasis on objectivist policies promote those that would deregulate areas where we NEED regulation, and would increase rent-seeking opportunities as a result. What's more, the most pressing issues of our nation such as high inequality and high debt can't be solved in the short term by objectivist ideas. We're too far off track.

We can't delete our government and replace it with objectivism. Well, it's 'possible', but would never happen. The conversation is moot. In selecting which baby steps to take in the direction of objectivism, the policy drift has only made matters worse. In a vacuum the ideology may work, but we need different solutions to solve the issues currently facing us. Proposing more baby steps towards objectivism will only further entrench the already entrenched private interests. Every baby step we make will favor them as long as they have great influence over politics.

Quote:
If someone is willing to make shoes for $4.00 an hour, there is absolutely nothing wrong, evil, immoral, nor illegal with that in Rand's laisez-faire capitalism, since no ones rights are being violated.


That is why we can't accept Rand's objectivism wholesale. You misunderstand the relationship between employee and employer. Employers have leverage that allows for unfairness. This leaves employees with the option of "unfair" or "very unfair". They settle for unfair, and are thus labeled as "willing". But if they refused every job offered, they'd be unemployed and even worse off. Employees need to be defended against such failures of the market. Competition must be "regulated" in some areas to ensure fairness.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:25 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Masters


Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 467
Location: canada
Thanks: 66
Thanked: 179 times in 132 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Canada (ca)

Post Re: Force
Robert Tulip wrote:
etudiant wrote:
A question Robert: When developing countries have the capability, and the educated work forces, to design software, build spacecraft, high speed trains, and all the other items previously limited to western countries, what sort of investments and education will provide us continuing wealth? Under an globalized free market, why provide any new technology or service at western prices when it could be done for so much less in China, India, or others in similar states of authoritarian government or urgent demographic need?


If poor countries achieve the level of productivity of the rich world, then the level of abundance in rich countries will be even greater due to trade. My opinion is that our planet has resources to enable wealth for all, and that growth in one country enables trade, and is good for growth in other countries.


But exactly how will abundance be greater? The mantra of those in favour of free trade has always been that lower levels of economic activity, like basic maufacturing, can be left to the developing world, while the advanced countries ratchet ever higher due to improved technology and effeciency. They work harder (and for less) while we work smarter, and each will climb the ladder together.

But today we are seeing the end product of this process. Not too surprisingly, with education and improving infrastructure, formerly third world countries can now do many other things besides low level industry. China is taking a leading role in green technologies, Brazil has a competitive aerospace industry, computer softwear is written in India, and the hardwear manufactured in South Korea. It seems to me a little self-satisfied to imagine that the west will simply rise above the common herd, forever.

Britain led the way during the industrial revolution, and did stay ahead for a while, as other countries climbed the ladder of industrial development. But no one could say today that Britain leads the way, as they have advanced as quickly as, say, Europe and America have gone through their own industrial revolutions. There is a time when all catch up. And that time is near.


Robert Tulip wrote:
As an example in response to your suggestion that the rich world might lose out from growing wealth in the poor world, at the moment, mining companies working in poor countries choose to bring in high level experts from rich countries. If they could source the same level of expertise locally, they would, as they are driven by profit. In a just economy, income reflects productivity. If shareholders assess that a CEO has delivered exceptional leadership, then that CEO deserves exceptional pay. It is not for outsiders to judge pay scales, since the shareholders set remuneration with a view to maximising profit.

There will always be opportunities for people of talent and drive. Any population that thinks it can bludge is headed for poverty.


But again, times change. When California ruminated on building a high speed rail network, they consulted with China, as there where people with experience there. If we are assuming the west will have a lock on educated and experienced professionals in the future, then I think it is misguided.


Robert Tulip wrote:
[
Australia has a long list of occupations available for skilled immigrants. If there were too many Australians with skills and qualifications in these fields, they would not be open to foreigners.

I don't think that authoritarian government is capable of achieving prosperity. China is something of an exception, but they are reaching a tipping point where the population will demand democratic processes. Wealth brings demand for accountability.

My view is that new technology will enable abundant low cost energy, and new occupations will emerge to tap growing global wealth.


I've heard the same things about Canada. In fact BC is now bringing in coal miners from China, saying there arent' "qualified" people here to do the job. Whether or not this may be true in some limited cases, it does no alter the global employment picture. New technology and improving effeciency means that we need less people in the workforce. This is a central dilemma in our world today. What to do with the excess labour? Europe has tended in the direction of throwing them some of societies resources. The US has tended in the direction of shutting them out of the process, except during election time.

Of course there will be new jobs, in green technology, in I.T., in research, etc. But the point is that employment is going through techtonic shifts right now. The masses that were needed to man machine tool stations, or work the plow, are no longer needed. For the thousands of jobs displaced, hundreds are created.

Trade is a good thing, but the evidence so far with the vastly increased trade of recent years has indicated that jobs exported can be hard to replace. Unemployment is not only high, but work has shifted from high paying, essential jobs, to low paying, peripheral jobs. Those that used to manufacture refrigerators now may find themselves running a used clothing store, simply to get by.

There are always of course opportunities for those with drive and ability. But this statement confuses individual merit with demographic and economic reality. If a given economy will only provide employment (or at least meaningful employment) to 85% of the potential workforce (and this is likley not too far off the mark for both the US and Europe) it really matters not that the most ambitious rise to the top. There will still be a segment left out.

Historically, countries that have had a succesful record of developing their economies have done exactly what Ayn Rand would have gagged over. They set social goals, intervened heavily in their economies, redistrubted resources, set protectionist tariffs, and otherwise presided over a top down, heavily state infuenced economy. Britain and America did it way back, the Asian Tigers did it in recent decades, and China is doing it today.

Leaving the world's economy to "market forces", Ayn Rand style, will only result in distortions and skewing of relationships. The rich will grab what they can. The organized will prevail. The weak and disconnected will loose out.


_________________
"I suspect that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose"
— JBS Haldane


Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:12 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Wearing Out Library Card


Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 243
Thanks: 2
Thanked: 24 times in 23 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Force
Robert Tulip wrote:
Regulation can be good or bad.


In Rand's view, it's either, or - black, or white.

Regulations are immoral/bad/evil/illegal in her system, as any of them in some way, violate man's rights, period.

It all comes down to principles with her - in this case, the principle of individual rights.

Interbane wrote:
You misunderstand the relationship between employee and employer.


No, I do not. An employer and potential employee reach an agreement between each other on their own terms. This goes for what is involved with the job, how many hours, how much pay, etc. If either have have a problem with the other - no agreement can be reached, and the employer can seek to hire others, the potential employee can seek employment elsewhere. But, if governmental intervention occurs in any of this, it's a violation of their rights. There is no way around that. The principle of individual rights is paramount. To Rand. To me. But obviously, not to you. You'd rather violate rights. In the name of 'fairness".

This reminds me of Mr. Mowen says here, in Atlas Shrugged:

Quote:
I’ve been waiting six months for an order of steel from Orren Boyle— and now he says he can’t promise me anything, because Rearden Metal has shot his market to hell, there’s a run on that Metal, Boyle has to retrench. It isn’t fair— Rearden being allowed to ruin other people’s markets that way. . . .


Is this what you mean by “fairness”?

In Rand’s view, in lassiez-faire capitalism, since no rights are being violated by Rearden, he would be doing absolutely nothing wrong/illegal/immoral with being successful in the marketplace in that way. Boyle would not be able to get governmental intervention in the economy to “bridle” Rearden with any regulations, controls, policies and so forth.


_________________
"Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self."
- Cyril Connolly

My seven published books are available for purchase, click here:
http://www.amazon.com/Steven-L.-Sheppard/e/B00E6KOX12


Sun Nov 04, 2012 1:45 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your Non-Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank