Cuba’s Inspectors and Private Workers

[El Presidente]

Great discussion. Well played. 

[NSXCIGAR]

17 hours ago, gweilgi said:

As I understand it, the state was the reason why slavery existed because slaves were deemed to be property, and enforcement of property rights was (and remains) a prime function of the state.  So did the state really have a choice in the matter, given the constitutional mandate?

If slaves are deemed property, then it would be within the purview of the state to protect it. But as human property is unlike any other property the only way to protect it is to socialize the cost of recovery of fugitive slaves onto the taxpayer, something that only a taxing state can do. In a society where all humans are equal under the law as individuals, slavery would be impossible, or would be considered kidnapping.

 

17 hours ago, gweilgi said:

Beg to differ.  Societies will have different definitions and classifications of class, whether we are talking aristocracy or caste or race or any other criteria.  But in a capitalist system, class would be defined by wealth and purchasing power.  When a rich person goes broke, he drops in the class structure -- and the poor chap who makes good rises in class.

The very fact that there is movement between classes is in direct conflict with the traditional concept of classes. Constructing a class system based solely on one's wealth is, to me, a futile exercise. The entire concept of class, particularly in the Marxian paradigm, suggests that the same people (or their anointed successors) occupy the same place in these same classes all the time. Basically, born a proletariat, die a proletariat. That is simply not true and is the big lie of Marxism. The concept of class as it has historically been understood crumbles as soon as barriers to moving in and out of these classes are removed. You can claim someone with 1 billion dollars is in a different class than someone with a million dollars, but the amount of stuff someone has that was obtained through honest means does not change the person's status under the law or magically give them powers that a poor person doesn't have as Marx would suggest or that would be the case in a caste system or a system of nobility and peasants.

The rule of law and equality under the law--all western "capitalist" concepts, are what take the teeth out of any claim of a class system in these countries. Now, the fact that the wealthy may be able to essentially buy favors from the government, is a problem of government--not a problem of wealth. If the state was relegated to simply protecting life and limb and enforcing private contracts there would be no favors to hand out. This was the case throughout most of the 19th century in the US. The government's role in the economy was so small that the wealthy really gained no advantage by attempting to rent-seek, at least on the federal level. 

17 hours ago, gweilgi said:

Would you really?  A poor person in the EU can rely on job protection that means they cannot be fired without several months' notice.  Healthcare is typically free, or almost free (at point of use, of course).  If unemployment does strike, this poor person can expect between 60-90% of their salary in dole payments for the first year, with a minimum payment to ensure their income stays above absolute poverty levels.  Maternity leave is generally guaranteed, in several EU countries at full pay.  The commute to work may be subsidised with tax credits.  At the very bottom end of the labour market, rent and essentials are typically subsidised even for social housing.  

Now, I do find some merit in the notion that such generosity does not offer the best incentive for job-seekers, but not he other hand, it does mean that all things being equal, being poor in the EU is rather less miserable than in the US.

And what happens when all of these benefits expire? What happens when you are destitute and are trying to find a low-skilled job? There are consequences to this kind of welfare. Unemployment in Europe is much higher than in the US and has been for many years. You are correct in that these programs also encourage many not to seek jobs. Also, low skilled jobs are much easier to get in the US and real purchasing power is higher. Good luck getting a cell phone with unlimited calling and texting for $20/month there. In the US, you can. Good luck finding decent housing on a low-skilled salary. In the US, you can. I can't imagine the waiting lists for these subsidized of social housing units in Europe. 

17 hours ago, gweilgi said:

What makes you think that voluntary exchange always creates value for all the parties to the transaction?  I may willingly enter into an exchange of money for entry into a concert -- but the value I place on the experience of seeing Led Zeppelin live does not create wealth for me.  If you obtain 1,000 shares in Acme Inc and the share price subsequently drops by half, this voluntary exchange will in fact result in a destruction of wealth.

Because you valued the concert tickets more than the money you paid for them, and the seller valued your money more than the tickets. You have both have greater value after the transaction than you did immediately prior. 

The stock example doesn't hold. At the time of the purchase, you felt you wanted the stock more than the money and the trading fee or you would not have made the exchange. You obviously didn't expect the stock to drop, or you would not have entered into that transaction. The value that is created pertains to the perceived value at the time of the transaction, not at some later point. If I buy a car, and the engine blows up a week later that doesn't negate the perceived value I gained at the time of purchase. Buyer beware still applies. Perhaps you bought the stock and it went up more than you expected. Does that mean that the value created at the time was more than you thought it was? No. 

A book that everyone should read:

17 hours ago, gweilgi said:

So what would you propose to do about natural monopolies?

True natural monopolies are very rare and are only really found in some rare mineral mining. They are not, as many believe, utilities such as water, electricity, etc. There is no reason multiple providers or competition can't exist in these markets. In fact, in New York City in the late 19th century had I believe something like 18 competing electric companies and costs were always falling and service was always increasing. Telephone was also considered a natural monopoly for decades until it was proven not to be.

17 hours ago, gweilgi said:

If I get an asthma attack caused by air pollution, who should I sue?  Who COULD I sue?  How could I even begin to enforce private property rights -- my lungs -- when pollution is a general issue affecting a common resource?  

Who's doing the polluting? It is quantifiable. Businesses emit a measurable amount of pollutants in a given geographical area. Polluters are sued all the time. This to me seems like a very easy problem to deal with. And incidentally, you are aware that the British government's position in the late 19th century was that industrial polluters should be immune to damages as industry was a social good? Another example of "public good" and "social good" being subjectively defined at the expense of property rights. 

14 hours ago, 99call said:

Capitalism is free of classes?     this is just simple nonsense. Floyd Mayweather maybe free to get rich in the States, is he free to be powerful?, or move into the higher echelons of the closeted classes?

Who are these upper echelons of closeted class? I don't think I know what you're referring to. Would this be like illuminati-type people? So then money is not directly tied to class. Why are we linking the two then? If you're referring to those who pull the "levers of government", my response would be that we need a smaller less influential government so that when levers are pulled they don't affect us. If "power" or ability for certain individuals to use the state's power is even possible, than we have a tyrannical government that should ideally be de-fanged.

[gweilgi]

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

If slaves are deemed property, then it would be within the purview of the state to protect it. But as human property is unlike any other property the only way to protect it is to socialize the cost of recovery of fugitive slaves onto the taxpayer, something that only a taxing state can do. In a society where all humans are equal under the law as individuals, slavery would be impossible, or would be considered kidnapping.

The very concept of slavery is utterly repugnant to me, whatever form it takes (in this context, we tend to think of the version practised in the Americas, but there were others).  

A thought does occur to me, though.

I freely admit that I haven't read up on this to the depth I would want to, so it may well have escaped my notice, but did states not bill owners for the services rendered?  In other words, if Ohio caught and returned a fugitive slave to his owner in Georgia, did they not make the owner pay?  And if not, why not?  After all, we all routinely pay a fee for all manner of government services above and beyond our taxes.

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The very fact that there is movement between classes is in direct conflict with the traditional concept of classes. Constructing a class system based solely on one's wealth is, to me, a futile exercise. The entire concept of class, particularly in the Marxian paradigm, suggests that the same people (or their anointed successors) occupy the same place in these same classes all the time. Basically, born a proletariat, die a proletariat. That is simply not true and is the big lie of Marxism. The concept of class as it has historically been understood crumbles as soon as barriers to moving in and out of these classes are removed. You can claim someone with 1 billion dollars is in a different class than someone with a million dollars, but the amount of stuff someone has that was obtained through honest means does not change the person's status under the law or magically give them powers that a poor person doesn't have as Marx would suggest or that would be the case in a caste system or a system of nobility and peasants.

You have to bear in mind that Marx wrote at a time when democratic principles and practices in Europe were still comparatively new and being developed.  Class-based rights and privileges were still very much in existence at the time, even enshrined in law.  This means that there has been some drift in the meaning of the term in the last 150 years, and as you quite rightly point out, today there are no class differences under the law.

But equality under the law does not mean that class does not exist in a social or economic context.

These days, class is generally assigned by two criteria: profession/education, and money.  Thus, a long-distance truck driver may well earn rather more than a tenured college professor, but he would not be considered middle class ... but a Wall Street investment banker making eight figures every year is never working class whatever his background.  The difference to the past, it would seem to me, is that class these days tends to be an individual and lifetime thing, not automatically inherited or passed on.  We rise and fall on our own achievements.  Having parents of a certain socioeconomic class may confer some (dis)advantages in our way through life, but in the end it is our own actions that define our membership of a certain class.  

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The rule of law and equality under the law--all western "capitalist" concepts, are what take the teeth out of any claim of a class system in these countries. Now, the fact that the wealthy may be able to essentially buy favors from the government, is a problem of government--not a problem of wealth. If the state was relegated to simply protecting life and limb and enforcing private contracts there would be no favors to hand out. This was the case throughout most of the 19th century in the US. The government's role in the economy was so small that the wealthy really gained no advantage by attempting to rent-seek, at least on the federal level. 

In principle, yes.

In practice, I don't think so.  Even if you retrench the state to its basic functions ("simply protecting life and limb and enforcing private contracts"), wealth and class still confer relative advantages.  Education and money will always give you better access, will always improve your ability to manipulate the system to your advantage.  In any dispute over property rights, who will be better off: the poor person without resources or education to understand the system and enforce his rights, or the college-educated individual with money in the bank to hire a good lawyer?  

As for rent-seeking, did you consider the example of the railways?  It was financial clout influencing the government that led to the transfer of something like 200 million acres of government (public) land to the private operators through political allocation rather than free market sales.  Now that's one hell of an incentive, IMO.  Altogether, the US government during the 19th century transferred almost 900 million acres of public land to private and corporate ownership, and with it all the mineral and exploitation rights...

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

And what happens when all of these benefits expire? What happens when you are destitute and are trying to find a low-skilled job? There are consequences to this kind of welfare. Unemployment in Europe is much higher than in the US and has been for many years. You are correct in that these programs also encourage many not to seek jobs. Also, low skilled jobs are much easier to get in the US and real purchasing power is higher. Good luck getting a cell phone with unlimited calling and texting for $20/month there. In the US, you can. Good luck finding decent housing on a low-skilled salary. In the US, you can. I can't imagine the waiting lists for these subsidized of social housing units in Europe. 

The main problem with unskilled labour finding jobs is not availability or even wages.  It's regulatory and legal impediments.  In the US, a firm can hire a ditch-digger in the clear knowledge that he can be fired again when there is no more need for his labour.  Job protection legislation in Europe means that not only are the secondary costs extremely high -- the employer's share of payroll taxes for any worker may well add 60-80% to the gross wages paid to the worker -- but also make it very much harder (and again more costly) to fire them when the work is done.  The system can and does work -- places like the Netherlands or Germany are not exactly on the verge of economic collapse -- but it does impose a clear cost in terms of tax burden and higher systemic unemployment. 

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Because you valued the concert tickets more than the money you paid for them, and the seller valued your money more than the tickets. You have both have greater value after the transaction than you did immediately prior. 

I have no trouble with exchanging money for something I value.

What I commented on was your argument that such exchanges create *wealth* for all parties concerned.  In this example, what I gained was an experience, a memory -- I may treasure it, but it does not constitute wealth.  And in our current system at our general levels of wealth, a great many exchanges do not create wealth because we do have the disposable income to exchange material wealth for intangibles.  We indulge in conspicuous consumption.  We buy consumer goods that decrease in value from the moment of purchase.  We exchange the results of our productivity for immaterial things that enrich our lives in non-commercial ways that do nothing for our wealth. 

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

True natural monopolies are very rare and are only really found in some rare mineral mining. They are not, as many believe, utilities such as water, electricity, etc. There is no reason multiple providers or competition can't exist in these markets. In fact, in New York City in the late 19th century had I believe something like 18 competing electric companies and costs were always falling and service was always increasing. Telephone was also considered a natural monopoly for decades until it was proven not to be.

Utilities are not naturally monopolies, but they may be.  A national power distribution grid, for example, carries huge capital and start-up costs that deter multiple entrants: it is simply easier and cheaper for power generating companies to accept such monopoly and pay usage fees.  Particularly if the market is small: the US might be large enough to support more than one national grid, but a small nation probably does not.  

The same obtains in transport: while it may be technically feasible to construct a second (or third, or fourth) set of Interstate highways, it would be so prohibitively costly that an effective natural monopoly exists.  The same goes for railways, both long-distance and local: could you imagine the cost and hassle it would mean to try and construct a second track on the North-East Corridor?

What kills natural monopolies is changes in technology and law.  Telephone or broadband services were a natural monopoly for a time ... and then technology changed to side-step the existing copper network while legislators forced monopolistic operators to open their networks to competitors.  If internal combustion had not been invented, would the railways have lost their natural monopoly over long-distance transport of people and freight?  I think not -- at best, legislators would have stepped in (as they indeed did) to artificially introduce competition.

 

2 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Who's doing the polluting? It is quantifiable. Businesses emit a measurable amount of pollutants in a given geographical area. Polluters are sued all the time. This to me seems like a very easy problem to deal with. And incidentally, you are aware that the British government's position in the late 19th century was that industrial polluters should be immune to damages as industry was a social good? Another example of "public good" and "social good" being subjectively defined at the expense of property rights. 

If we can tie one specific pollutant to specific damages in health and property, we can sue.  But if I have that asthma attack because 1,298 cars drive past my house every day, who do I sue?  When all the manufacturers of spray cans and refrigerators cause a hole in the ozone layer and give me skin cancer, who can I sue?  When all the pollution from factories and private homes meet an inversion layer over LA in a thick layer of smog, who can we hold legally responsible?  The Cuyahoga River in Ohio was so polluted that it was dead -- no life in it at all -- and actually caught fire at least 13 times, with the largest fire in 1952 causing at least $1 million in damages (in 1952 dollars when they were still worth something).  No-one was ever sued -- because it was quite impossible to identify culpable parties.  

 

[NSXCIGAR]

2 hours ago, gweilgi said:

The very concept of slavery is utterly repugnant to me, whatever form it takes (in this context, we tend to think of the version practised in the Americas, but there were others).  

A thought does occur to me, though.

I freely admit that I haven't read up on this to the depth I would want to, so it may well have escaped my notice, but did states not bill owners for the services rendered?  In other words, if Ohio caught and returned a fugitive slave to his owner in Georgia, did they not make the owner pay?  And if not, why not?  After all, we all routinely pay a fee for all manner of government services above and beyond our taxes.

As it is repugnant to me as well, and I don't know if I can ever really wrap my head around the social acceptance of it after the enlightenment period. It boggles the mind how anyone could even accept that an innocent human could be property, but so it was. And as slavery had been the norm since recorded history I don't think the west gets enough credit for ending it, peacefully in all cases excepting the US.

As far as the billing of slave owners for returned slaves, I am not aware of this taking place. I do know that the US Fugitive Slave Act was highly opposed in many states and those states actually passed laws punishing those who attempted to recapture fugitive slaves or prohibiting local law enforcement from complying. It's a very interesting area of history.

Slavery was really becoming highly unpopular at the time of the Civil War. Europe was probably going to start economically sanctioning the southern states and no northern states were complying with the fugitive slave laws anyway. It would not have lasted in the US much past 1861, and the issue could have been avoided entirely if the US had simply purchased the slave's freedom from the slave owners as the British Government did. But then of course, even Lincoln himself stated the Civil War had little to do with slavery, at least at the onset.

2 hours ago, gweilgi said:

But equality under the law does not mean that class does not exist in a social or economic context.

I completely understand that. I simply find it nothing but academic and not useful to use the concept of class in that way. I know it's accepted parlance, e.g. the "middle class" but I think the term class has morphed into something different than it had been throughout history. Unless there are barriers to economic or political movement (as is true for caste systems), I take issue with the term class in describing people in relatively free societies. I just think it's inaccurate. 

I do agree though, as I stated, that there are individuals that one could argue are trapped in a cycle of the economic "lower class", but again, this is due to government interventions and not people acting in a free market. Governments run the schools, run the housing, institute minimum wages and disrupt these communities with militarized police. 

And again, I agree that many with money can influence the levers of power through government, but this simply means that the government has too much power when there are benefits to be derived from lobbying and bribing it. When money gets you access to government power, yes, I would agree, a ruling elite or true upper class has been created along the lines of a caste system. But this is not free market forces. If people get tons of money, but can obtain no special favors or benefits from it, they are in the same class as you or me. 

2 hours ago, gweilgi said:

I have no trouble with exchanging money for something I value.

What I commented on was your argument that such exchanges create *wealth* for all parties concerned.  In this example, what I gained was an experience, a memory -- I may treasure it, but it does not constitute wealth.

Sure, going to a concert is absolutely wealth, as it is valuable to you. It is a service, and the more services we have the wealthier we are. Goods and services are both wealth and value. You knew what you were expecting to get from the concert and determined at the moment immediately prior to the purchase that the experience of the concert was more valuable to you than the money you handed over (or technically, what else you could purchase for that same amount of money) or else you wouldn't have exchanged it at that time and at that place. Conversely, the seller valued the amount of money more than the tickets to that show. Perhaps he would not have sold you tickets to AC/DC at that price, but maybe he hates Led Zeppelin. Regardless, you both improved your respective wealth because the transaction was made. Any voluntary exchange made without fraud is one that creates wealth and or value. This is apodictically true, and part of basic economics and praxeology. 

 

2 hours ago, gweilgi said:

Utilities are not naturally monopolies, but they may be.  A national power distribution grid, for example, carries huge capital and start-up costs that deter multiple entrants: it is simply easier and cheaper for power generating companies to accept such monopoly and pay usage fees.  Particularly if the market is small: the US might be large enough to support more than one national grid, but a small nation probably does not.

The "infrastructure" argument is a common one in monopoly discussions, but what people fail to realize is that what seems like a lot of money really is not. 10, 20, 30 billion dollars is really not that much for a group of investors or companies to raise to come in and out-compete or challenge a major player who is overcharging or providing poor service. You would be very surprised how many investors and companies will swoop in when profits in a given industry or market are too high. 

And you are correct in that not only does new technology or ideas bring down a "natural monopoly" but it brings down most major companies. High market share is so incredibly difficult to maintain. Not even John D. Rockefeller, who at one point had nearly 90% of the market share of refined petroleum, could sustain that. By the time the antitrust case was brought against Standard Oil their market share had dropped to nearly 60% due simply to free market competition. 

And don't forget the Great Northern Railroad built entirely with private funds by James J. Hill that out-competed all the government-subsidized railroads (probably the source of the most widespread corruption and graft in the history of the world--a very interesting area of study if one is so inclined) and proved wrong decades of thought that governments must fund railroads and provide land grants (and kill Indians) as rail was a "public good". A great book on the topic of the incredible graft, fraud and corruption in the US railroad industry and government in the 19th and early 20th century is Railroads and Regulation by Gabriel Kolko (1965). It will absolutely blow your mind.

2 hours ago, gweilgi said:

If we can tie one specific pollutant to specific damages in health and property, we can sue.  But if I have that asthma attack because 1,298 cars drive past my house every day, who do I sue?

I would say that the emissions of individual cars are probably going to be a tough sell for direct damage. That would probably be considered acceptably negligible pollution. Also, if one's place of residence or place of work is close to heavy traffic, and your health is that important, a sacrifice must be made and you may need to relocate. Obviously, industrial polluters are far more concentrated and much more likely to emit enough toxins to be measurably harmful. 

[99call]

9 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Who are these upper echelons of closeted class? I don't think I know what you're referring to. Would this be like illuminati-type people? So then money is not directly tied to class. Why are we linking the two then? If you're referring to those who pull the "levers of government", my response would be that we need a smaller less influential government so that when levers are pulled they don't affect us. If "power" or ability for certain individuals to use the state's power is even possible, than we have a tyrannical government that should ideally be de-fanged.

No not the Illuminati.   Assisted social mobility for those who don't deserve it, happens in every society, Including America. Jesus, Donald Trump has moved his whole hillbilly family into positions in the white house!!   Ivanka Trump actually sat at a G20 leaders table the other week!?.  Do you think the person who is actually qualified to be an advisor to the President of the US hasn't had their freedoms shat on by this incestuous mess?

-Apathy towards assisting the lower classes out of poverty

-Nepotism, protectionism, among the rich, to ensure they, and the people they like stay rich, regardless of talent and work ethic.  These things exist in the world, and they exist in America. 

Am I saying America is a bad place? no. Am I saying America is as faulted as any other developed country? yes. Am I saying I think that picture of communism in North Korea is a heathy one?  of course not.  Am I saying that there are some communist concepts, (surrounding equality and fairness that are quite admirable)? yes.

When I first commented on this. I was frustrated about being banging on endlessly about all the evils of Habana being directed towards socialism. What I should have said, is, the exploitation of poor people for profit, happens in Capitalist countries also.  Full stop

[NSXCIGAR]

10 hours ago, 99call said:

No not the Illuminati.   Assisted social mobility for those who don't deserve it, happens in every society, Including America. Jesus, Donald Trump has moved his whole hillbilly family into positions in the white house!!   Ivanka Trump actually sat at a G20 leaders table the other week!?.  Do you think the person who is actually qualified to be an advisor to the President of the US hasn't had their freedoms shat on by this incestuous mess?

People chose to elect the guy--many of those same people voted for Obama the last 8 years. That's democracy for you.

10 hours ago, 99call said:

-Apathy towards assisting the lower classes out of poverty

So if one believes government-run welfare programs, schools and housing function to exacerbate the complex social problem of poverty they are automatically apathetic to helping the poor? Because we differ on the optimal means to a solution doesn't mean we disagree on the problem or are apathetic about it. Saying the government shouldn't run schools is not the same as saying no one should get an education, although that's how our modern society would paint it many times.

10 hours ago, 99call said:

-Nepotism, protectionism, among the rich, to ensure they, and the people they like stay rich, regardless of talent and work ethic.  These things exist in the world, and they exist in America. 

Nepotism is never going away, however those placing incompetent relatives in positions of power in business will have a competitive disadvantage over those who place more competent people in positions of power. Politics, I suppose, you get who you vote for and they do what they do. And as far as nepotism, protectionism and insuring the rich stay rich socialist countries have far more of that than in western capitalist countries. And protectionism--by far better in the capitalist countries, although zero protectionism is ideal. 

10 hours ago, 99call said:

Am I saying that there are some communist concepts, (surrounding equality and fairness that are quite admirable)? yes.

Sure, I think the concepts are also wonderful but the problem is how fairness and equality are defined. Humans can never be equal in terms of anything--intelligence, size, talent. So all we as a society can do is create equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. And what is most fair for society is to reward those who organize scarce natural resources in the fashion most valued by the most people. This is actually what money prices and profit do. The more profit that is obtained through legitimate voluntary exchange the more value is created for the customers. The pie of wealth is ever-expanding in a free market, it is not a fixed amount of wealth that all people share. The total wealth, meaning the total number and quality of goods and services we all have access to gets larger and larger every day. How do we know this? The earth can sustain 7 billion people now yet when the population was only 1 billion people most of them were starving.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions has never been a more appropriate phrase when it comes to socialism. Pathological altruism is also another term that comes to mind. 

If you can come to understand that the current situation in the western world is so far from the free market and laissez-faire capitalism it simply cannot be blamed for really any of the social problems we have today. To call western democracies "capitalist" is to straw man the term. We have at best mixed or "third way" economies, and most importantly, governments control all supplies of money and interest rates. How can anyone think what happens on Wall Street is a function of free market forces? The commercial banks and investment banks have been working in concert with the government for over 100 years. I'll repeat what a wise economist once said: if you don't have a free market in money you don't have a free market, and there hasn't been one in the US since 1913.

10 hours ago, 99call said:

When I first commented on this. I was frustrated about being banging on endlessly about all the evils of Habana being directed towards socialism. What I should have said, is, the exploitation of poor people for profit, happens in Capitalist countries also.  Full stop

I agree, people get exploited to the degree than they have socialist policies, and western democracies have a lot of them. But what you don't see is a handful of people directly exploiting millions like in Cuba and North Korea. And the standard of living that the handful of elites have in these countries is exponentially greater than the average citizen there.  In the US, the billionaire lives in a mansion and the average person lives in a medium-sized house in the suburbs. In the socialist countries the elites live in palaces and the average citizen lives in a rat-infested bathroom closet. 

[99call]

7 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I agree, people get exploited to the degree than they have socialist policies, and western democracies have a lot of them. But what you don't see is a handful of people directly exploiting millions like in Cuba and North Korea. 

This is exactly what I "do" see. At the beginning of this discussion, I stated that to me pure communism, doesn't feature someone on a watchtower with and AK47 pointed at it's people. To me, the process of few people seizing power, and becoming a perverse sort of Royal Family, has more to do with opportunism, and almost an entrepreneurial act, something (to my mind) that is opposed to many communist values.

Looking back, I think you hit the nail on the head to say that these countries were probably more in line with facist dictatorships.

I just had gut full of people (in other threads) hanging all the ills of the world on communism, when I didn't really see any of mentioned countries having anything to do with it's pure principles.  It's just rich people, making poor people work till their dead, by force.  

[NSXCIGAR]

9 hours ago, 99call said:

Looking back, I think you hit the nail on the head to say that these countries were probably more in line with facist dictatorships.

I just had gut full of people (in other threads) hanging all the ills of the world on communism, when I didn't really see any of mentioned countries having anything to do with it's pure principles.  It's just rich people, making poor people work till their dead, by force.

I understand what you're saying. My argument is of course that almost any intervention by the state is in essence a socialist act, be it a fascist, communist, mercantilist, corporatist or what have you act. Socialism takes many forms with specifically the principles of communism leading historically to the most deaths and misery. As we've never had a pure free market or pure communism, I'm not sure that's a valid concept. We can however, examine the effects of many of these principles over time, despite there never being a society that implemented any of them fully. My position is that any and all socialist policies mis-allocate scarce resources and create more problems than they solve. There will always be complex social problems in society and my position is that the state has a terrible track record of attempting to solve them and the private sector has a much better track record. The free market isn't perfect or a utopia, but it is the most effective system ever devised for improving the standard of living for the maximum amount of people, and it would appear that communism has been the most destructive system ever devised. 

FYI, I would say that the most transformative book that anyone who holds your position can read is Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. That book does a better job than I ever could of addressing the concerns you have. If you read that book (or have read it) and still feel the same way as you do now, then there's not much more I can add to the discussion.  It's available for free here: https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/upldbook351pdf.pdf

[99call]

11 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

 

I appreciate everything you've put forward, I've learned a great deal. 

However, The minute someone put a gun to someones head, I think the ability to reference these acts to any social structure, becomes null and void.  Just my opinion 

Out of interest, do you think the free market and laissez-faire model you mentioned, ended in 1913 due to the increased saturation of people to assets balance in America?. I'm quizzical as to why (if it was such a raging success) it to came to an end?        This is not poking the bear, this is a question out of interest, I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

[NSXCIGAR]

12 hours ago, 99call said:

I appreciate everything you've put forward, I've learned a great deal. 

However, The minute someone put a gun to someones head, I think the ability to reference these acts to any social structure, becomes null and void.  Just my opinion 

Out of interest, do you think the free market and laissez-faire model you mentioned, ended in 1913 due to the increased saturation of people to assets balance in America?. I'm quizzical as to why (if it was such a raging success) it to came to an end?        This is not poking the bear, this is a question out of interest, I'd be interested to hear your take on it.

A great question. 1913 was a very interesting year that saw policies introduced by the US federal gov't that would have long-term consequences. Three in particular--the federal income tax, the Federal Reserve Act and the direct election of US Senators.

I believe all three led to the US's ability to get involved in WWI and consequently WW2. In that sense, 1913 was the beginning of the US's large-scale imperialistic policies. Of course, the Spanish-American War was the US's first foray into imperialism. 

The Federal Reserve Act created a banking cartel and fiat currency which has had wide-ranging consequences. The fascinating story of the creation of the Fed is a very interesting one and the best book on the subject is The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin.

Prior to 1913, US Senators were appointed by their respective state's legislatures. If they didn't vote in accordance with their state's wishes they would be recalled and fired meaning US Senators were far less beholden to Washington lobbyists and were far more responsible to the people on a local level. Senators would not have been able to accumulate favors with special interests nor did they rely campaign donations from those special interests. Having the Senators much more centralized after 1913 was a recipe for the growth of policies that benefited the powerful special interests that today now base themselves in Washington. 

I also believe that the government takeover of education if the late 19th century had been an underlying influence of people's willingness to accept increasing levels of government intervention in their lives.

Again, the answer to why a "successful" system, particularly a free market one comes to an end is a question addressed in Hayek's Road to Serfdom. People always think the grass is greener and of course government is always pushing to expand with promises of taking what is already good and making it better.

For example, as poverty was rapidly declining from 1890-1960, particularly in minority communities, it's easy for people to think that perhaps it's not happening fast enough as it is a slow process from the point of view of those living at the time. In the early 20th century, poverty was declining at a rate of about 1% per year for decades except during the Great Depression, of course. So even though poverty was declining at an extraordinarily rapid pace by historical standards, people are easily sold on the government trying to speed up the process, so enter the Great Society programs of the 1960s. Same with drugs. A somewhat insignificant problem throughout US history, but the people were sold on the idea that government could take an already small problem and wipe it out completely, and so they went along with it.  And few were aware that almost all of the drug policies in the US were, at their onset, anti-minority or anti-hippie policies, as were the first minimum-wage laws that were openly intended to protect white union workers from low-skilled minority competition and had nothing to do with helping the poor. 

That's why principles are so important. Knowing that there's little if anything the government can do to solve complex social problems means people will never feel tempted by the government's promises which of course are really only covers for expanding the sphere of influence and power of the politicians implementing them.

[gweilgi]

6 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Nepotism is never going away, however those placing incompetent relatives in positions of power in business will have a competitive disadvantage over those who place more competent people in positions of power. Politics, I suppose, you get who you vote for and they do what they do. And as far as nepotism, protectionism and insuring the rich stay rich socialist countries have far more of that than in western capitalist countries. And protectionism--by far better in the capitalist countries, although zero protectionism is ideal. 

Hmmm ... that might be worth a study.  Of course, there is always a disadvantage when one prefers incompetent relatives in positions of power over competent outsiders.  But on the other hand, there is also value to be had in having people one can trust absolutely, people who can be relied upon to be both loyal and beholden to the great oompah.  

 

6 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Sure, I think the concepts are also wonderful but the problem is how fairness and equality are defined. Humans can never be equal in terms of anything--intelligence, size, talent. So all we as a society can do is create equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. And what is most fair for society is to reward those who organize scarce natural resources in the fashion most valued by the most people. This is actually what money prices and profit do. The more profit that is obtained through legitimate voluntary exchange the more value is created for the customers. The pie of wealth is ever-expanding in a free market, it is not a fixed amount of wealth that all people share. The total wealth, meaning the total number and quality of goods and services we all have access to gets larger and larger every day. How do we know this? The earth can sustain 7 billion people now yet when the population was only 1 billion people most of them were starving.

So where would you class something like public transport?  People do value it but typically are not willing to pay actual market prices for the service to cover the cost, let alone turn a profit.  This means that public transport companies always run at a loss.  On the other hand, such a service creates huge benefits for society and the local economy: it reduces pollution, it reduces pressure on the road network (another scarce resource), it creates hugely concentrated economic spheres by allowing the movement of very large numbers of workers at negligible cost.  In other words, as a standalone business, a municipal transport company is a non-starter ... but in wider economic terms, it is a definite boon.  

Equality of opportunity ... a concept that is as hard to define and agree on as fairness or equality (surely two of the most over-used, mis-used and abused terms int eh English language).  Fundamentally, though, I would argue that equality of opportunity would in many areas require some form of redistribution,  Take education, for example.  Pure market forces would mean that only those whose parents can afford the tuition fees would attend college, regardless of their abilities or aptitude.  Is it equality of opportunity if a kid's chances of college depend on the luck of the draw to be born to parents wth money?  Or secondary education: where is the equality of opportunity to be growing up in a school district with crappy property prices and resultantly low funding levels for schools?  

Basically, I would not disagree with your argument that growing wealth is ultimately good for all of us, and that those who do so should be rewarded for it.  But I would argue that we do need to take a wider approach to profit and wealth than the narrow look at personal gain or corporate profits.  Public transport, as I outlined above, is a good case in point: a bad business model in the narrow sense, but it delivers massive value for the wider society and economy.  Or universal education: it costs the state around $12,000 a year per child per year up throughout K-12 and is funded through taxation rather than by straight-up fees, and those costs are never directly recouped.  But in the long term, it is a clear winner as most of those kids grow up to be productive, wealth-creators, consumers and tax payers (the average tax paid by American households is very roughly $20,000 a year).  So for me, this means that what we need to look at is not merely the reward for those who organize scarce natural resources in the fashion most valued by the most people, but the overall economic impact of their actions.  

 

6 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions has never been a more appropriate phrase when it comes to socialism. Pathological altruism is also another term that comes to mind. 

Very true in a political sense.... 

The big difference, I suppose, is whether one is altruistic with other people's money or with one's own resources.  A guy who dedicates his life to helping others for the betterment of Mankind gives up his own labour and time and resources, a politician or lobby group likes to do so with everybody's resources.  

 

6 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

If you can come to understand that the current situation in the western world is so far from the free market and laissez-faire capitalism it simply cannot be blamed for really any of the social problems we have today. To call western democracies "capitalist" is to straw man the term. We have at best mixed or "third way" economies, and most importantly, governments control all supplies of money and interest rates. How can anyone think what happens on Wall Street is a function of free market forces? The commercial banks and investment banks have been working in concert with the government for over 100 years. I'll repeat what a wise economist once said: if you don't have a free market in money you don't have a free market, and there hasn't been one in the US since 1913.

"Governments control all supplies of money and interest rates" -- interesting point.  We have seen a rise in cryptocurrencies, and so far, governments have not really acted to defend that monopoly.  On interest rates, I would argue that aside from laws concerning usury, we are relatively free to set interest rates.  Sure, governments set official rates but they are not directly binding, and IMO their influence is directly related to the size of government debt and hence on their impact on the markets rather than on regulatory compulsion.

 

 

[NSXCIGAR]

On 9/2/2017 at 7:22 PM, gweilgi said:

So where would you class something like public transport?  People do value it but typically are not willing to pay actual market prices for the service to cover the cost, let alone turn a profit.

Then by definition people do not value it enough to justify it's existence. If an endeavor is unprofitable that means that scarce resources are being diverted for uses less valued by society. If public transportation can't turn a profit that is a signal that society is squandering scarce resources which is actually a net detriment for society. This is a very important economic principle to understand. If an endeavor is unprofitable it means that it is a public "bad", not a public good no matter how the good or service appears to "help" people. Society as a whole suffers and its wealth declines when endeavors are unprofitable assuming it is being run by the most competent people and methods. As I said, get the overpaid public unions out and perhaps public transportation could be profitable under private ownership. 

On 9/2/2017 at 7:22 PM, gweilgi said:

 Public transport, as I outlined above, is a good case in point: a bad business model in the narrow sense, but it delivers massive value for the wider society and economy

Again, if the endeavor cannot turn a profit (assuming competent management and market costs of operation) then that is a signal that society is actually worse off by squandering the scarce resources involved in its operation. Profit is the sign that resources are being allocated and organized in a fashion more highly valued than before. Losses are the sign that those resources are more highly valued elsewhere in society. 

On 9/2/2017 at 7:22 PM, gweilgi said:

Equality of opportunity ... a concept that is as hard to define and agree on as fairness or equality

Not really--just eliminate barriers to entry for individuals in the economy. What you're referring to is still equality of outcome--in this case, everyone gets into college. First, not everyone should get into college. Many studies have shown that less intelligent people do not benefit from college and actually are worse off for it. Some people are most effective in life learning a trade and can make a very good living working hard at it or even open their own business and become very wealthy. Trade schools still do exist and can be very effective.

As far as the cost of college, in the US where the best schools in the world have always been, before the government got involved subsidizing college and providing student loans anyone could afford full tuition and room and board at any school in the country working a full-time summer job and at most a part-time job during the school year. This was the case in the for over 100 years until the 1970s. Student loans were virtually non-existent outside of highly technical fields like medicine and even then they were rare. And of course, the most gifted students have always traditionally been awarded scholarships, particularly if they're poor. 

On 9/2/2017 at 7:22 PM, gweilgi said:

So for me, this means that what we need to look at is not merely the reward for those who organize scarce natural resources in the fashion most valued by the most people, but the overall economic impact of their actions.

But that is the very definition of economic impact. The economy benefits (meaning the most wealth is created for the most people) when resources are allocated in the ways in which they are valued the most, and profit is the indicator that this is occurring. Education (not necessarily school) is ostensibly a profitable investment and I fail to see why the state needs to provide it or subsidize it. Honestly, if parents can't afford to pay the reasonable amount that education would probably cost in a free market, they shouldn't be having kids, nor should society be enabling and condoning those people having children. 

On 9/2/2017 at 7:22 PM, gweilgi said:

"Governments control all supplies of money and interest rates" -- interesting point.  We have seen a rise in cryptocurrencies, and so far, governments have not really acted to defend that monopoly.  On interest rates, I would argue that aside from laws concerning usury, we are relatively free to set interest rates.  Sure, governments set official rates but they are not directly binding, and IMO their influence is directly related to the size of government debt and hence on their impact on the markets rather than on regulatory compulsion.

Governments have been cracking down on cryptocurrencies on a regular basis as they are a direct threat IMO. And sure, we are free to set interest rates in private transactions but the fiat money itself (which is always created by government debt) and the price of distributing it through the commercial banks who receive it first is set by the central banks, and all activity in the capital markets is affected by that.

[99call]

16 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

 

Just caught this,  fascinating

 

[NSXCIGAR]

6 hours ago, 99call said:

Just caught this,  fascinating

Peterson is great. One of the loudest champions of free speech and freedom of thought we have in the world today, and an extremely intelligent and insightful man. Everyone should be checking him out.

[99call]

57 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Peterson is great. One of the loudest champions of free speech and freedom of thought we have in the world today, and an extremely intelligent and insightful man. Everyone should be checking him out.

I thought they were all very even handed, which is impressive

I thought their comments on stuff going on with the Universities was pretty scary stuff. It seems pretty hard to believe, but this whole 'fake news' nonsense. and the "if you dont agree with me, you're a Nazi" is such an erosion of intelligence, and a worrying sign that people have a dangerous degree of contempt for the fellow man, for the smallest differences. 

I have to agree with what Peterson said with regards to there being (almost) a sole emphasis on control and power, as education.  I was educated alongside a few Americans during my masters, and their approach to the course, was very aggressive. Sort of 'going at' or 'attacking the curriculum/couse as a mountain that must be crushed, in addition to undermining (or trying to beat) fellow students, as if only one person could pass?.

I'm not suggesting that this is a truism of the American education system (or those within it), but the key things I noticed that were very different to the approach in the UK. There was almost a complete dis-interest in lateral thinking, (to feel out a topic). I bit like multiple choice, but at a masters level. i.e locate the right answer, and that it. There was no space between right or wrong, the ethereal and ephemeral were of no value, 

I'm not suggesting there was anything simple about it. It was like watching someone construct a lawyers case for the prosecution, a train of thought that had no gaps, or room for alternatives. 

Before hearing what Peterson had to say on this worrying trend, I just though it was an oddity, I had noticed years ago, (as the unusual approach of a few). Do you think the heavily litigious culture of America, has accentuated the "I'm right, you're wrong" hard line?

 

 

[NSXCIGAR]

2 hours ago, 99call said:

Before hearing what Peterson had to say on this worrying trend, I just though it was an oddity, I had noticed years ago, (as the unusual approach of a few). Do you think the heavily litigious culture of America, has accentuated the "I'm right, you're wrong" hard line?

I honestly don't know what's happening. My best description is simply political correctness run amok. I also think it's related to a failure to understand the gravity of the principles of free speech and thought and its role in the western world. And the rise of postmodernism and subjectivism in academia as Peterson so often points out. I think it's less the "I'm right, you're wrong" position as everyone thinks that. I think it's the "you shouldn't be allowed to say wrong things" position. Or the concept that speech can be considered aggression or force against someone. 

I think Peterson is frequently pointing out that this type of approach regarding limiting speech and thought is essentially the pillar of totalitarianism, which of course is collectivism or socialism in ideology, historically. And Peterson is very keen to point out the very poor historical record of regimes that have gone down that path. 

The "if you don't agree you're Nazi" kind of thing I think is secondary to the "it's OK to punch a Nazi" mindset. You can call anyone you like a Nazi but I think intelligent people see through that. It's when they try and legitimize force against those who they simply label a Nazi. Peterson rose to fame by attacking Canadian government efforts to criminalize someone's failure to use a certain pronoun when addressing people who want that pronoun used, which is unequivocally a violation of the freedom of speech and thought. 

[99call]

10 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

 I think it's less the "I'm right, you're wrong" position as everyone thinks that. I think it's the "you shouldn't be allowed to say wrong things" position.

HHmm, I think this illustrates the difference I'm highlighting.   Through my education in the UK, or just generally arguing/debating with mates at the Pub.  I would say the majority of people I know, see the debate as a forum where everyone throws in there opinion, (to be clashed against one another's) to see what comes out of the meat grinder at the end, as being the closest thing to the truth. 

I think if you saying "everyone thinks that" that their right and you're wrong, it's indicative of people who don't listen, but are rather just waiting to talk. 

I think the danger comes in when the focus becomes winning the argument/debate, as apposed to the original purpose of debates, which is to get closer to the truth, or decipher new learning. I think it's all about respect, If a person approaches someone else's knowledge base, as a hurdle, or a door to kick through, instead of a potential new box of tools, that you can borrow from, then everything gets pretty militant and non-progressive.