Off Topic Poker Forums

improva, this really is an interesting view, and maybe i see where the deep disconnect is. so you think all industries must evolve to privatize or only certain industries that have the information asymmetry (or just expert problem) must evolve in order to privatize?

do you think even small groups of people can cooperate? or is your basic view 1) that there is no "invisible hand" upon which the free market theory is based? or if you acknowledge it, 2) maybe that the invisible hand cannot achieve a greater good for society as free market theory says? or maybe further, even if it can do good, 3) just like in the theory of communism, it can never in reality be achieved as it goes against human nature or humans will always try to game the system as Steppin is saying?

I have identified one axiom from which I think most of my POVs can be deduced:

#1 A society should always try to give it's children the best possible education.

From this it follows that every market has to be regulated to ensure that it does not lead to situations where a significant portion of the population will receive little or very poor education.

It is important to note that #1 also limits the regulation.

It also follows that a society should try to avoid situations where is it very expensive to change the regulations a market.

#1 A society should always try to give it's children the best possible education.

This is always a feeling that keeps everyone choked up. "We have to do it for the children."
Every politician uses it to get elected and to push through bloated bills. After all, what kind of monster would not want to "help the children".

But again, yes, there are "unintended consequences" that cannot be ignored in the real world.
Just one of a thousand examples is this.........the welfare machine has wrecked the black family. Today, 72% of black children do not have fathers around (single mothers). The government has picked up the bill.....for responsibility. This fact alone should make anyone sick. In my opinion, it is criminal. But the government social engineered the situation (and many other similar situations.)
Unintended Consequences.

Now remove the social-engineering Intelligentsia, and maybe companies would stay in the US -- and give jobs to the families. Entrepreneurs/Small-Busineses and workers suffer eventually under burdensome regulations that are stacked, one on top of the other.

===
Thomas Sowell has written extensively about this. More money is not the answer for a good education (in the US). $$$Gazillions are spent/given for education. 100 years ago, kids were packed into classrooms. They had to share books between themselves. Things were not the best. But scholars came out of the systems. Why? Because the student studied. Accountability. The student was not given a free ride through all levels of education.
.......IMO, if we want a good education for children, all of that starts at the home. The student has to have a desire to learn. The parents must be held accountable (by themselves. not govt). It starts at home -- not the government. Throwing more money and more money at the problem -- does not make the student smarter.
EDIT: in his writings, Thomas Sowell, especially dislikes where black children (or others) are given special handicaps. As a professor, he was told to give free passes -- to help blacks. He refused to play the game. Study and get a good grade....... or F*** around and suffer the consequences (fail). A real professor. Not a political hack inserted into the education system.

In Summary, economies (politics) cannot be based on this. At some point, it is the responsibility of the student and families -- not the government.

This is always a feeling that keeps everyone choked up. "We have to do it for the children."
Every politician uses it to get elected and to push through bloated bills. After all, what kind of monster would not want to "help the children".

I have a couple of comments:

I never said anything about how much money to spend on education. I just said everybody should have access to good education (and because there are so many poor people in the US it should be free for the students).

What welfare system are you referring to? 1/6th of the US population lives below the poverty threshold. Maybe that is why the crime rate in the US is insane?

That said I do agree that education starts in the family. But no child to have to carry the weight of it's parents stupidity.

The SMB section is not to the extend of my knowledge leaving the US. It is true that it is a little harder to start a new business in the US compared to socialist countries like Denmark.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859204575525883366862428.html

I definitely do agree that education is important. No way around that. It cannot be ignored. It Is incredibly important that people understand this. However, if they are taught that someone will always take care of them -- cradle-to-grave -- then the whole idea of "helping the children" becomes a perpetual fantasy for those demanding money and services (taxes).

IMO, this rule or philosophy cannot be #1 on the list for a society's economy. Otherwise, it becomes the chicken-and-the-egg.. You need a good economy to pay for the cost (good or bad). Yet, we do agree that it is beneficial for a country's own citizens, to have good education and become a functional part of the economy.

"1/6 poverty" means, that one of every 6 people we know is below the poverty level.
......First, the poverty-level in the US would make them wealthy in other countries. The term poverty-level has been perverted in the US. The system needs more victims, in order to grow itself. "See. There is another victim. Let's grow the system more.".
......Second, if the poverty level really is a concern, illegal immigration should be controlled (same as in any other country.) No free rides. Allow the LEGAL immigrants and citizens to get the jobs and help their families. By far, it is the LEGAL immigrants that are damaged more by this dilemna. The US cannot be the escape valve for other countries' poor economic systems -- even less so, during bad economic times. Back of the line or go to Denmark ;-)

IMO, this rule or philosophy cannot be #1 on the list for a society's economy. Otherwise, it becomes the chicken-and-the-egg.. You need a good economy to pay for the cost (good or bad). Yet, we do agree that it is beneficial for a country's own citizens, to have good education and become a functional part of the economy.

We are starting to outline some of the Axioms for our belief systems so perhaps instead of just saying that we are wrong you can outline to us the Axiomatic core beliefs that you are using.

We are starting to outline some of the Axioms for our belief systems so perhaps instead of just saying that we are wrong you can outline to us the Axiomatic core beliefs that you are using.

I have been giving my studied opinion on several topics (I think about 90+% LIbertarian). It all goes back to Basics of Economics.

Here are a few in no particular order.
** I am for "limited government" , as well as limited government powers.
** Freedom to choose and decide my own destiny. Responsibility and accountability.
** Free Markets are more nimble and adaptive/responsive than big governments.
** People need help (a hand up).....but the constant search for victims -- in order to demonize the successfull -- is an abyss. Help but do not hinder. There are "Unintended Consequences"

The list is endless. If you do not understand my position(s), read Thomas Sowell. Lot's of free articles out there. Pick your topic. I am open to learning. That is why I keep studying.


Here is an economic fact that normally surprises people. Zero percent unemployment is NOT good for an economy. As I remember it, 3-4% is about the right number. Sounds strange, right?
.....The reason is, because at zero percent, inflation increases rapidly. Many reasons. The principle reason is because as an employer, it will cost me more to hire an employee away from another company. Maybe someone remembers the dot-com-craze. They were hiring basket-weavers to do tech jobs. The salaries climbed along with that. And the product/services went up accordingly.
.....Also, because more money available (more demand) as salaries increase, prices rise along with it. Inflation.

So you are asking for me to outline my princples, you need to read some books that I recommended. Volumes of articles/books are written on each subject. Most of the articles are free online. Which subject?

EDIT:=======================================
I guess you can call this an "axiom", if you like. ;-)

In the book, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles , Sowell says that,
* Constrained view -- sees humans as fallable, with each individual/group having different self-interests.. We must work with that system, and find the opportunities -- without forcing our belief system on everyone (one-size-does-not-fit-all).
* UnConstrained view -- sees humans as mallaeable/moldable. Remove people from the economic model, and then force them into the grand plan/belief. Coercion/Force via government intervention. Intelligentsia.
For debate purposes, I will agree that both sides are well-intentioned. We all want the best for everyone. The real debate is about how to make that happen.

NOTE: the two definitions above are paraphrased, and do not do justice to the book. But it explains the principle differences.

"1/6 poverty" means, that one of every 6 people we know is below the poverty level.
......First, the poverty-level in the US would make them wealthy in other countries. The term poverty-level has been perverted in the US. The system needs more victims, in order to grow itself. "See. There is another victim. Let's grow the system more.".

If a 400lb man were on the moon, he'd weigh less than the healthy weight for his height. Get that man some food!

The term "poverty level" is based on the cost of living in the US. Unless you are proposing a system where we ship our poor to a third world country so they can live like kings, this is a pretty reasonable measurement.

The term "poverty level" is based on the cost of living in the US. Unless you are proposing a system where we ship our poor to a third world country so they can live like kings, this is a pretty reasonable measurement.

He is proposing that we stop treating our poor like third world kings and start treating them like 3rd world poor. Also, I've been to and lived in the 3rd world. Our poor don't live like kings there. Our poorest live like less poor than their poorest people. That's about the best you can say for our poor.

Zero percent unemployment is NOT good for an economy. As I remember it, 3-4% is about the right number. Sounds strange, right?

It might surprise people at your local bar. Depending on which model you use it is actually often a little bit higher.

To help you a little with your axioms. Which one is true?

#1 In a free market companies adjust to the greater good
#2 In a free market companies will try to maximize their profit

And I have read Sowell.. he has some good points.. but also a lot of non-scientific, populistic non-sense. The contrained/unconstrained is a great example of the later.

He is proposing that we stop treating our poor like third world kings and start treating them like 3rd world poor. Also, I've been to and lived in the 3rd world. Our poor don't live like kings there. Our poorest live like less poor than their poorest people. That's about the best you can say for our poor.

Razor, I can speak for myself. Thankyou.
As usual, you are full of BS, and few are objective enough to call you out on it.
If you really had lived (and traveled) in poor countries, you would not say anything as absurd as this.

The line is long to get to the US.....but according to you, the poor in the US should want to leave and go to the poorest countries (because it is better?). Completely absurd.
You are a victim hunter, and at some point it clouds your facts.

I said nothing like you suggested.. I have said more than once "Responsibility" and "Accountability" for all parties involved in the equation -- especially the government. Only an ideologue would not agree with at least this basic point. You do not look for agreement on even the most basic principles. Boring.

To help you a little with your axioms. Which one is true?

#1 In a free market companies adjust to the greater good
#2 In a free market companies will try to maximize their profit

What you are suggesting, is that if I pick #2 , than #1 can not apply (or vice versa).

It is none of our business what they do, as long as it is not illegal. That is my point. They are not churches or non-profits. They are businesses, and the image they decide to have -- is their own decision. A free market of consumers (if permitted) will decide if they agree with them -- not you, me, or the government.
Someone else's "greater good" may be different than yours or mine. It is not for us to decide. Steve Jobs was pretty good with developing products that revolutionized our everyday lives. People pay a premium for that....until other companies catch on, and prices begin falling. Fedex was considered a crazy idea, but revolutionized mail delivery. Greater Good? For legacy, yes. For working in the "now", profits/market-share should be their main motive.


Social Engineering by the Intelligentsia is more dangerous than allowing companies to do what they do (according to their industry). My biggest concern is that Small Businesses do not stand a chance, when all of the bureaucracy is stacked against the small guy. Big companies can afford to get the best attorneys and accountants. Small Business person? Screwed by government.

=======
I have owned a business before, with my own little savings account. As soon as I wanted to hire another person, it became clear to me that the system was stacked against the employer -- regardless of size. People crying about "FAIRNESS", most of the time have not dealt with owing a business and trying to make it grow -- risking everything they own. It is scary and not easy. That is why everyone does not do it. Demonizing Small Business people is a silly dogma.
=======
SUMMARY: as long as it is not illegal, it is none of our business to decide what a company should do. Greater Good vs Profits? This should be a question only for Non-Profit organizations and Churches.

It is none of our business what they do, as long as it is not illegal. That is my point. They are not churches or non-profits. They are businesess, and the image they decide to have -- is their decision.

You completely misunderstood my post. And FWIW I own 2 companies in the EU and 25% of a company in the US. It is a little more complicated to run a business in the US but not much.

You completely misunderstood my post. And FWIW I own 2 companies in the EU and 25% of a company in the US. It is a little more complicated to run a business in the US but not much.

"Which one is true?" = the other one is false

Respects for owning your business. How many people do you employ in the US (and in other countries)? What do your employees do?
This is interesting to me, but you don't have to discuss it on the forum. PM me if you like. I sincerely find it interesting. Owning a business is not a walk-in-the-park, like many think.

"Which one is true?" = the other one is false

Respects for owning your business. How many people do you employ in the US (and in other countries)? What do your employees do?
This is interesting to me, but you don't have to discuss it on the forum. PM me if you like. I sincerely find it interesting. Owning a business is not a walk-in-the-park, like many think.

...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders....

Clothes design (we outsource all production for obv. reasons)
(1.25 company) We help environmental labs automate their report generation.

I employ 15 people ATM (6 in the US).

And I don't think anybody think it is a walk in the park to run a business.

but according to you, the poor in the US should want to leave and go to the poorest countries (because it is better?).

I don't know if you don't read my posts, or don't comprehend them, or skip every other word, or what.

I don't know if you don't read my posts, or don't comprehend them, or skip every other word, or what.

Your whole paragraph below. Absurd. I never said anything like that.

He is proposing that we stop treating our poor like third world kings and start treating them like 3rd world poor. Also, I've been to and lived in the 3rd world. Our poor don't live like kings there. Our poorest live like less poor than their poorest people. That's about the best you can say for our poor.

Razor, I can speak for myself. Thankyou.
As usual, you are full of BS, and few are objective enough to call you out on it.
If you really had lived (and traveled) in poor countries, you would not say anything as absurd as this.

The line is long to get to the US.....but according to you, the poor in the US should want to leave and go to the poorest countries (because it is better?). Completely absurd.
You are a victim hunter, and at some point it clouds your facts.

I said nothing like you suggested.. I have said more than once "Responsibility" and "Accountability" for all parties involved in the equation -- especially the government. Only an ideologue would not agree with at least this basic point. You do not look for agreement on even the most basic principles. Boring.

Oh, come on. I can't tell if you're intentionally twisting what I say, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You said this:

First, the poverty-level in the US would make them wealthy in other countries

I'm merely pointing out how meaningless of a metric that is. As far as I know, there are very few people making US incomes that fall below the poverty level who are also living abroad. In that case, US poverty level should be based on cost of living, not on what people make in other countries.

As for the premise that this "responsibility" and "accountability", I agree, but not in the way you probably wanted. I think people have a responsibility to care for others. Being concerned about the rise in poverty is part of that. Calling the poor "victims" as if they chose to be poor is not.

SUMMARY: as long as it is not illegal, it is none of our business to decide what a company should do. Greater Good vs Profits? This should be a question only for Non-Profit organizations and Churches.

If legality is an acceptable limit to what a company can do, isn't that acknowledging the government regulation has a place? Aren't anti-trust laws and EPA regulations just demarcations of legality and limits?

I have contributed quite a bit to this thread. I am going to take a little break from it for now. The argument seems a bit circular without any attempt for agreement on fundamentals. Hopefully, it provoked some objective thought.

Short summary of this debate (my perspective).
The thread started out about "Gaming" the System, which is always true and cannot be ignored.
But then we can see that there are basic opinions that differ about building an economy.

One side focuses completely on the inequalities. Desires to bring everyone down to the same level. Essentially punish the successful, and reward failures (along with those who really do need help).....completely ignoring the unintended consequences of government actions (coercion). No middle ground is permitted. Utopia is the goal. It requires victims (of all types) in order to prove that "fairness" still has not been achieved. Basically, pull the rest down. It believes capitalism is, "I win. Someone else must lose." Because of this belief, many believe it is the government's job to pick winners and losers. That is dangerous imo.

The other side focuses on how to make the engine better (vs putting all focus on equality). Give people the freedom and opportunity to raise their level of living. Encourage entrepreneurship and small businesses. Let people enjoy the rewards of their success. The better the inflow of monies to the economy, the easier it is to help other people and communities. ....... Yes, there is a need to provide solid education and welfare to help others get up. No one disagrees with this. But businesses and workers pay for this. It is dangerous to over-leverage debt and printing money. Eventually it will be the next generations (children) who must face and deal with paying the debts.




And as far as the difference in the poor in other countries, there is one thing that stood out for me as an advantage outside of the US. Community. "Group-oriented" societies. I am not talking about economy/welfare. I am talking about a difference in interaction. If you are poor, but are friends with your neighbors (via church or whatever), .....well, there is something to be said for that. This has really been noticable to me in my travels around the world. Some of it still exists in the small towns of the US. My simple reasoning for this, is most other countries do not have the same diversity of cultures as in the US. Similar cultures do make life easier for communities. Another part of it may be related to the earlier RSA video Nawhead put up.
......but that is another conversation all together (albeit an interesting observation to me).

You have not understood anything.

Your whole paragraph below. Absurd. I never said anything like that.

That is the implication of what you said.

And as far as the difference in the poor in other countries, there is one thing that stood out for me as an advantage outside of the US. Community. "Group-oriented" societies. I am not talking about economy/welfare. I am talking about a difference in interaction. If you are poor, but are friends with your neighbors (via church or whatever), .....well, there is something to be said for that.

On this I can agree with you. I've found that often people who are impoverished are at the same time the most generous and more aware of the transience of ownership if that makes sense. They'll share food with their neighbor, even though they don't really have it to share. They'll lend something more easily, and borrow things more easily.

You have not understood anything.

+1. He can't because he's blinded by righteousness.

+1. He can't because he's blinded by righteousness.

Razor, the "righteousness" is on your part, but it is more your hyper-focused ideology on inequalities that blinds you to the positives. You always defend government -- and you do not hold government accountable for the f***-ups that cost trillions of dollars in DEBT. Prime example (no pun intended), is that you have always defended Barney Frank and the Community Reinvestment Act. Royal f***-up.

I do not believe I know better than the 314million people and their trillions of daily transactions. It is very elitist for one to believe that government should intervene and decide "fairness" in all of them. It is elite "righteousness" to pick winners and losers in an economy -- and it is worse to do it during a bad economy.

Let the markets work. Let the people choose freely without the burdensome nanny-state. Unleash the engines of entrepreneurship and small-businesses. Nothing selfish or self-righteous about that.

<OK I am breaking from this thread until I get my studies back on track. I totally derailed my plans last week. Not the forum's fault. Too many trips to Homedepot also. lol>

...the directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interests of the corporation and of the shareholders....

the thing is, free market theory demands (or realistically expects) people to act in their self-interest, but it's believed the unintended consequences of such selfish interests will lead to the benefit of society.

this is in contrast to the unintended consequences of central planning which is believed (by free market advocates like Milton anyway, i don't know if it's an explicit assumption of the theory itself) to not achieve its intended goals while making society poorer and less free.

"The proud and unfeeling landlord views his extensive fields, and without a thought for the wants of his brethren, in imagination consumes himself the whole harvest ... [Yet] the capacity of his stomach bears no proportion to the immensity of his desires ... the rest he will be obliged to distribute among those, who prepare, in the nicest manner, that little which he himself makes use of,... The rich...are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society..."
- Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)


and as long as we're talking axioms: "My God is Freedom" - Milton Friedman

the thing is, free market theory demands (or realistically expects) people to act in their self-interest, but it's believed the unintended consequences of such selfish interests will lead to the benefit of society.

this is in contrast to the unintended consequences of central planning which is believed (by free market advocates like Milton anyway, i don't know if it's an explicit assumption of the theory itself) to not achieve its intended goals while making society poorer and less free.

You're falling into sneakers territory. To not be an anarchic free marketeer does not make one a central planner.

I would amend the first sentence to say people are assumed to act rationally, either individually or as a group and that if everyone acts rationally, then everyone benefits. The inherent flaw is that people do not act rationally (in the scientific sense).

You're falling into sneakers territory. To not be an anarchic free marketeer does not make one a central planner.

I would amend the first sentence to say people are assumed to act rationally, either individually or as a group and that if everyone acts rationally, then everyone benefits. The inherent flaw is that people do not act rationally (in the scientific sense). SO WE MUST CONTROL THEM. WE CANNOT TRUST PEOPLE TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. WE MUST DECIDE THE WINNERS AND LOSERS FOR THEM. TAX and punish success BIG GOVT MAN reward failure
(did I forget to mention the inequalities)

FixedYourPost