The post that was quoted here has been removedHe makes the convincing case that non economists suffer from four prevailing biases: they underestimate the wisdom of the market mechanism, distrust foreigners, undervalue the benefits of conserving labor, and pessimistically believe the economy is going from bad to worse."
Some economists have making these kinds of claims in one form or other for over 100 years, yet the economy is still reasonably sound.
26 Jan 18
The post that was quoted here has been removedHe's actually an anarcho-capitalist disciple of Murray Rothbard. People of that ideological persuasion have been moaning and complaining how stupid voters keep interfering with the flawless working of the "free market" for decades - Wajoma here is a follower of such crank ideas.
Originally posted by @no1marauderMaybe yes maybe no, primarily I am an advocate for a free society that would allow you blokes to form collectives and operate by rules nominated and accepted voluntarily by the members.
He's actually an anarcho-capitalist disciple of Murray Rothbard. People of that ideological persuasion have been moaning and complaining how stupid voters keep interfering with the flawless working of the "free market" for decades - Wajoma here is a follower of such crank ideas.
The right, the left it doesn't matter, whoever lost out the last election are whinging about how stupid and unqualified the voters are when their side loses.
BTW can you find where I have used the word 'flawless' in conjunction with any economic, political or philosophical system. After a few people getting their knuckles rapped over their red herring 'utopian' we see a lot less of it, don't tell me you need another lesson here.
Well, I’ve never heard anyone but Ayn Rand call any human behaviour rational. So this rational voter thing sounds cuckoo to me.
As for letting the free market dictate... yeah.... what is the free market? That’s people (who are also voters and not rational) gambling to make hordes of money over the backs of others.
Rationality is: observing that a nurse is far more important than a bank manager.
Irrationality is the bank manager being paid 10x the salary of a nurse.
So anyone voting to sustain that system is voting irrationally (even a bank manager needs a nurse more than another bank manager).
However, voting to correct that system would be rational.
The writer of that books suggests all voters sustain irrationality. This is therefore a false claim.
The writer suggests that leaving the system up to the market is better. It’s the market which has created the discrepency between what’s important and what’s paid most. So his solution and his claims are irrational. And false.
Originally posted by @shavixmirThe Shav: "As for letting the free market dictate... yeah.... what is the free market? That’s people (who are also voters and not rational) gambling to make hordes of money over the backs of others."
Well, I’ve never heard anyone but Ayn Rand call any human behaviour rational. So this rational voter thing sounds cuckoo to me.
As for letting the free market dictate... yeah.... what is the free market? That’s people (who are also voters and not rational) gambling to make hordes of money over the backs of others.
Rationality is: observing that a nu ...[text shortened]... what’s important and what’s paid most. So his solution and his claims are irrational. And false.
It's also two people quite possibly bartering without currency, maybe for vegetables in the most humble dirt lot markets in the world, your dreams about the free market being some kind of Wall St wheeling dealing stocks and shares thing is a million miles from reality, they operate under numerous guvamint buratcracies and thousands of pages of regulation which shape the game, nowhere near a free market.
26 Jan 18
Originally posted by @wajomaMaybe you could explain how this would work in practice.
Maybe yes maybe no, primarily I am an advocate for a free society that would allow you blokes to form collectives and operate by rules nominated and accepted voluntarily by the members.
The right, the left it doesn't matter, whoever lost out the last election are whinging about how stupid and unqualified the voters are when their side loses.
BTW can ...[text shortened]... their red herring 'utopian' we see a lot less of it, don't tell me you need another lesson here.
Person A says "I own 1 million acres of land and no one else is allowed to use it".
Persons B-Z say that "according to socialist principals, you are not allowed to own that much land as it deprives others of the possibility of feeding themselves free of your domination".
So how does a "free society" resolve such conflicting claims?
Originally posted by @no1marauderWhatever land you own you hand it over to the 'cause'. Convince the guy with the million acres to join your cause.
Maybe you could explain how this would work in practice.
Person A says "I own 1 million acres of land and no one else is allowed to use it".
Persons B-Z say that "according to socialist principals, you are not allowed to own that much land as it deprives others of the possibility of feeding themselves free of your domination".
So how does a "free society" resolve such conflicting claims?
If it's as popular and right as you say it is you should have no problem convincing people to hand over their stuff to the collective, TV evangelists do it all the time.
The collective has as much right to take land from the lone million acres guy as he does from them.
Originally posted by @wajomaYou're dodging.
Whatever land you own you hand it over to the 'cause'. Convince the guy with the million acres to join your cause.
If it's as popular and right as you say it is you should have no problem convincing people to hand over their stuff to the collective, TV evangelists do it all the time.
The collective has as much right to take land from the lone million acres guy as he does from them.
By what right does Person A get to claim he owns 1 million acres? Why should anybody else take such a claim seriously?
Answer that please.
26 Jan 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderThat needs to be examined case by case. Did he buy it? Did he inherit it? Did he take it forcefully?
You're dodging.
By what right does Guy A get to claim he owns 1 million acres?
Answer that please.
Surely you're not arguing for a complete abandonment of property rights, don't the collective want the land that they've amassed protected?
26 Jan 18
Originally posted by @wajomaNo one started with owning any land. The concept of ownership of land is a creation of some men imposed on the great mass of the People by force.
That needs to be examined case by case. Did he buy it? Did he inherit it? Did he take it forcefully?
Surely you're not arguing for a complete abandonment of property rights, don't the collective want the land that they've amassed protected?
You might want to recheck the hundreds of posts where the difference between "private" and "personal" property was explained to you.
26 Jan 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderIf your system is right, and it results in a happy prosperous society it will grow and amass more collectively owned land. Who wants a 1/4th or 1/8th acre piece of dirt with a humble house on it when folk can just wander about sleeping and living where ever they like, you're going to have no problem convincing people it's the better way to go, and they will join your collective voluntarily, leaving a few nutcases stuck with their lot, you'll be able to point to them and say "That is not the way to live, let that be an example."
No one started with owning any land. The concept of ownership of land is a creation of some men imposed on the great mass of the People by force.
You might want to recheck the hundreds of posts where the difference between "private" and "personal" property was explained to you.