[quote]No, that's not what I'm arguing. It makes some people wealthier. How many is determined by a lot of factors. You're more productive with a computer, but if your boss got you a faster one that allowed you to do more work in the day, that doesn't mean he's automatically going to raise your salary.[/quote]
Capital goods innovation increase society's productivity --> increase society's wealth. Again, you are pointing out examples of how *some* people might not be benefited. And anyway, if everyone in the company is more productive and the business therefore makes more money, the workers will certainly benefit. You will never have a government regulation that makes it such that there aren't some people who have it bad.
No man, the essence of marketing is creating demand. Calling SUVs more stylish, etc than station wagons is marketing. Desires is a much better word for you to be using than benefit. [/quote]
You are clearly ignorant about what marketing is. Straight from the first pages of a textbook used at a top 10 business school in the US - "Marketing is the performance of activities that seek to accomplish an organization's objectives by anticipating customer or client needs and directing a flow of need-satisfying goods and services from producer to customer or client."
"Marketing isn't just selling and advertising. Unfortunately, some executives still think of it that way. They feel that the job of marketing is to "get rid of" whatever the company happens to produce. In fact, the aim of marketing is to identify customers' needs and meet those needs so well that the product almost "sells itself." If the whole marketing job has been done well, customers don't need much persuading. They should be ready to buy. And after they buy, they'll be satisfied and ready to buy the same way the next time."
Now that is subjective.[/quote]
How is that subjective? People who have high quality products are wealthier than they otherwise would be without them, all else being equal. The fact that someone can afford an ipad who wouldn't have been able to afford even a desktop computer 15 years ago is a clear sign of a increase in wealth. If your argument is about whether or not technology actually makes people happier, that's a different story and is much more philosophical and actually unrelated because we are talking about wealth, not happiness.
It makes some people wealthier. For others they get paid the same amount while now having work able to tap them on the shoulder wherever they are, increasing the amount of hours they work for the same amount of money.[/quote]
Again, you aren't looking at the total benefit to the economy as a whole and what is benefiting the most people, but rather just picking out examples of how some people aren't benefited by innovation. Never did I claim that innovation leads to Utopia and everyone is made rich when it happens - my argument is that more poor people become middle class and more middle class people become "wealthy" under a free enterprise system than under any other.
If you're interested, I suggest reading All The Devils Are Here. It's better than Too Big To Fail IMO. I've talked about this before but here's the jist:
In the late 80's, easy credit did not come from the FMs. Didn't come from banks. It came from wall street. They had invented a new financial product (that BTW caused George H Bush to have to bail them out of when it blew up in their faces the first time). [/quote]
a) Didn't know the fed/fractional reserve banking didn't exist during the 80s. oh wait, it did. Didn't know getting government bail outs is part of capitalism. Oh wait, it's not. Didn't know the government ran up huge deficits in the 80s despite Regean's rhetoric. Oh wait, it did.
b) part of investing is that you can lose money. As sauce123 put it nicely in one of his blog posts, "It seems to me that people have a mistaken view of what investing is, and that this mistaken view leads to bad intuitions about policy. I think that when people hear "investing" they think of a practice which is guaranteed to have positive returns in the long run, subject to some short term fluctuations up and down. (a funny consequence of this view might be that people holding it have the intuition that shorting something is somehow morally reprehensible.) A possible reason they might think this is that over the past 60 years, which coincides with just about everyone currently investing's lifetimes, the American stock market has had extremely positive returns fairly consistently. However, there is absolutely no reason why this trend has to necessarily continue- past trends do not determine the future: this is the problem of induction. I think people think that Wall Street has somehow "rigged the game" and deprived their investments of the positive returns which are their just due. But an investment (in a stock, for example, not going to talk about derivatives) is just that, owning a very small part of a company. If the company does well, the investment likely produces positive returns, if the company does poorly (for whatever reason) the investment is likely to produce negative returns. Poker players know how to define that situation with a better term than "investment", we prefer to call it a bet."
rest of blog post http://www.leggopoker.com/blogs/sauce123/ shows how what you suggest about investing and the market is totally illogical.
Like Countrywide. These companies got money from Wall St to loan to people to create a mortgage to bundle together. Not having the backing of the FMs made them riskier, which made people interested in hedging them. All was well and people were making money hand over fist. Then they ran into a problem. In order to keep the product going it needed raw material - mortgages. So they made riskier ones. Loaned to people who had no business borrowing. Mortgage companies had to produce loans if they wanted money from wall st. They lied to people to get them to sign. Told people to lie about their income. These excesses are well documented. It wasn't easy credit, it was go out a find someone to convince to get a loan. In order to keep sanity at bay, Wall St decided that they could bundle the bundles so that it would further reduce risk. The housing excesses and bubble were built by an unregulated derivative market.
Meanwhile, the government sponsored agencies initially took a holier than thou stance. When the government told them to lower standards, they basically said F off. They manipulated numbers to appear to be doing what they were told, while keeping their standards high. Then they saw how much wall st was making and took it as a threat to their dominance of their market. They were late to the party, but they were much bigger than anyone else so when they jumped in, it was like a fat guy jumping into a pool with most of the water already gone.
However, the driving force in the financial crisis was the unregulated derivative market, where Wall St. created a product, was able to make it out of whatever they wanted to, and traded it. The sick thing is they all knew it wasn't sustainable but they did it anyway. They took 5 good loans and 2 bad ones and called it an A. Then they took that package, added 3 good ones and 4 bad ones and called it an A. Then kept doing that on a grand scale.[/quote]
Greenspan has been a free market disciple since before the Nixon era. You won't find a guy more flabbergasted that the free market failed in this instance than him. [/quote]
I have no idea how you can claim that the chairmen of a CENTRAL BANK - arguably the biggest affront to free market capitalism there is, was a disciple of free markets. If you want a disciple of free markets, read Rothbard. Greenspan is not a free market guy at all. Arguably the most important good in a economy is money. When a government decides what is and what isn't legal tender and then has a central bank determine the supply, that is 180 degrees opposite of a free market.
Free means exactly that. Unfettered. A rule is a regulation. Fraud resulting in a penalty means there is a regulation against fraud. You're talking about fair, not free. [/quote]
No, free means unfettered from PRIOR RESTRAINT. It doesn't mean you can commit fraud lol.
[quote] A private protection agency has no authority to jail anyone unless that's mutually agreed upon, at which point you've just formed a government.[/quote]
I guess a better description for anarchy would be the absence of the State instead of absence of government, because you keep trying to call voluntarily agreed upon private agencies governments, so, although they aren't governments, even if you want to play semantics and call them governments, these governments are different than the State.
[quote]I agree it's not a real choice. Much like buying gas. It's an illusory choice. [/quote]
Actually we would have a lot more energy choices if we had free markets instead government intervention in the energy industry, government favors to oil companies etc
[quote]But to your first point, tax rate is the price you agree to pay when evaluating your other product qualities as you put it. To the second, indeed there are barriers to any kind of movement whether it's to a new place to live or into a new (to you) market. [/quote]
Legal barriers. Your use of the term barriers is way off. See below.
[quote]To your third point, that was not the point of having many states, nor does the Constitution grant the majority of power to the states, nor was it intended to. [/quote]
lmao have you read the 10th amendment? All the powers not granted to the federal governments or prohibited for the States is left to the states. Being that not many powers were left to the federal government, that means the majority of the power is left to the states. I actually don't know if I should have responded to this because I think it might be a joke.
[quote] federal tax rates and regulations exist because if you lived on the border of NC and SC and wanted to trade with your neighbor across the line, you were subject to your own state taxes as well as theirs, and what you wanted to trade had regulations in your state that were different than the regulations in his state.[/quote]
there were no federal tax rates until 1913, and there weren't really many federal regulations in later hafl of the 19th century, so not sure what your saying here.
Come on now. A true barrier is defined as exactly and only the barrier you don't like? An average joe cannot enter the cell phone provider market unless you're trying to tell me you're not in it because of the telecommunications laws. Cause I can tell you I'm not in it because I don't have billions of dollars, billions of acres of land, billions of miles of fiber optic cable, and several years in which to combine them all. That's not a barrier, that's a freaking mountain range. And that's even if the law is 'do whatever you want dude'. [/quote]
Lol the phrase "having no barriers to entry" doesn't, never has, and never will mean that anyone can enter a market. By your definition having a below average IQ is a barrier to entry. And you don't have to have it such that every person has exactly the same capital available in order to have a market that can be entered by enough competing firms to achieve equilibrium. You just have to have a market that can be entered by enough competing firms to achieve equilibrium.
I don't think we're going to convince each other so I'll let it die after you reply (you can have the last word). [/quote]
I don't mind keeping it going if you don't. I love defending freedom any time I have the opportunity to.