Printable View
How can you deny the oily reasons for the iraqi war, the greediness of the human race and the fact that communism is an economical current more than a political ideology all in one post?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
The video just says that capitalsm is less greedy than communism, which doesn't undermine my previous statements at all.
What does war have to do with capitalism? If you actually understood what capitalism was, you'd see that war is ANTI-CAPITALIST!Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
I'm not an economist, so please enlighten me with your insights.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
If you're going to shut out everything I say, why should I expend the energy trying to convince you? If you lack the common sense to see that wholesale destruction is bad for generating wealth in a society, then you're beyond hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
Perhaps I am beyond hope. I just try to counter your 'counterarguments'.
You just say my point of view is wrong. Without saying what is right, that just disturbs and annoys me. I've been wrong more than a couple of times in my life, but I don't think I'm wrong on this one: theoretically speaking a society between anarchism and communism is ideal. Because it offers civilians both security and safety as a lot of freedom.
As for the fringeelements video: The video says that we're not living in a democracy because we live in a representative democracy and a particracy. And that taxraisings shouldn't be in democracies because the income of your neighbor isn't partially yours to claim?
Does this mean you're not an advocate of democracy? In what do you believe then?
Except that wholesale destruction isn't bad for generating wealth in society? The vast majority of the wealth in the "developed world" stems from the wholesale destruction of cultures around the world. Think slavery, looting for gold, stealing land and the resources that comes with it, etc. Did you forget about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Furthermore, so long as the destruction is over there, then we have to build shit to get there, we have to build guns, we have to pay soldiers, we have to train soldier, etc. This circulates wealth through the economy. War is great economic activity and the only way that I can think that somebody would disagree with that statement is to specifically cherry-pick examples by disregarding the origin of our own wealth.
The idea of democracy is representation concerning political affairs. What those political affairs encompass is another issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Well the system of capitalism is predicated upon the concept of voluntary exchange. That means that Party A voluntarily enters into an agreement with Party B without interference from a third party. Now there such ideas as "state-capitalism," "corporatism," and other terms which basically center on a partnership between business and government. That is what people mean when they say the "Military-Industrial Complex." It's the partnership of military producers/suppliers and governments. Anyways, with war comes the environment of embargoes and trade blockages towards the "enemy" country. So here we have a third party interfering with the voluntary transactions of Party A and Party B, something antithetical to capitalism. So in a sense, war is anti-capitalistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
Well you're committing one of the most basic fallacies of economics. Namely the "Broken Window" fallacy. We build bombs to drop and explode, make bullets to expend, make gasoline for tanks to expend, artillery shells, missiles, flares, C4, grenades. The list goes on and this list is the "broken window" of the story. It's produced yet destroyed. It doesn't bring a net profit to society.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Pretty sure I'm not. The broken windows cause the circulation of wealth and its re-accumulation with large centers of power. Money doesn't do any good if it's sitting in a basement somewhere. Somebody gets paid to break a broken window. Then they go buy a burrito. Then the burrito stand pays an employee. Then the employee goes and gets beer.
Also, my assertion is that the net profit to (our) society comes from stealing land and resources from other societies. Now they're poorer and we're richer.
Haha, you're priceless. Not only is this a broken window fallacy, but it's also the Scrooge McDuck fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
The chimp in your avatar is appropriate.
That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen; by Frederic Bastiat
Been blown out of the water for 161 years and people still advocate this sort of stuff. Shame.
cmind, you need to work on your public relation skills.
philosopherstoned is a push; he'll never be convinced by reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Cmind, I've never seen you bring reason to bear on an issue so you may not be the best to judge.
As far as the scrooge mcduck fallacy, I didn't commit it. From skimming the article you linked, I would have had to postulate that money is sitting in a basement somewhere. I just said that it doesn't do any good if it is. Do you disagree?
As far as the broken window fallacy, I simply said that war causes a circulation of money in the economy for the agressors. Again, do you disagree?
What about my accusation that to claim that war doesn't create wealth, you need to cherry pick through history by discounting the source of wealth enjoyed by the 'developed world'. Any comeback? Or were you convinced by reason?
EDIT: Also, Blueline, I have a really hard time considering anything that an economist says to have blown anything else out of the water. They study The Magic Monkey That Lives At The Center Of The Universe And Has Perfect Knowledge And Always Makes Rational Decisions And Sweats Axe Body Spray And Exists In Isolation From Its Environment. This is not an interesting animal to study (even as a first order approximation) because it doesn't actually exist. Historians have much the same problem.
So have you read the essay? I can also suggest a book that takes Bastiat's basic message from his 1850 essay and applies it to various topics if you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
He doesn't read conflicting points of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
It's actually in the wikipedia article I linked. While wikipedia is not a solid source for evidence, I don't think it is wrong in this case. I mean you could google Broken window + war and you will get more examples of what I am trying to show you. Money sitting in the basement certainly can be doing "good" if you analyze what a person's desires are. If a person desires to save their money until its purchasing power is higher then it is now then keeping it in a basement is a perfectly acceptable means. They could put it in their drawer, in a safe lock box, etc.
When someone breaks a window, the owner has to pay to get it fixed. So they have to spend money to return it to its original condition instead of saving that money or spending it on a nice new luxury item. So it is not a net benefit to society if you have to expend money to return an article to a natural state. It's like taking two steps back and one step forward and thinking you're ahead. Do you see the point?
He's one of the few people on this forum that actually listen to what people say and can formulate interesting arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
If you store your money in the hypothetical basement in war time, doesn't devalue it over time?
In Dutch there's the saying: Money's gotta roll which implies that a healthy economy is an economy in which there is a constant circulation of money.
<I'm not an economist.>
Isn't it better to replace a broken window in wartime than to keep sitting on your wallet till your money has no value left? Would be my hypothetical question.
Well it depends on how the war is financed. If they are financed like they are today by inflating the money supply in order to acquire more goods/services then yes it would devalue over time. The value of money, its purchasing power, is greatly dependent upon its supply/demand but not exclusively that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
Well if I had a dollar and gave you a dollar then you gave me back a dollar then I gave you back the dollar, is that building wealth? It's not the act of circulation that creates wealth and prosperity, it is the increase in the abundance of goods/services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
It would really depend upon the personal preferences of the individual. They could value a fix window more then retaining their money. Or they could value withholding the inflated dollars until a deflationary period in which their dollars would go up in value. The decision to choose when to consume good/services is what is called "time preference." If someone has a short time preference they prefer to consume goods now rather then later. A person with a long time preference is opposite of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oktober
That's right. I read them to decide if I agree with them or not. If I don't agree with it, then I don't read it. If I do agree with it, then I go ahead and read it. :?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
@Laughing Man and Blueline, I'll get back to this thread. Or maybe I'll start a new one to discuss the foundations of economics. I have a feeling that I'd loose this particular debate without addressing foundational concerns though so, in that sense, I concede the points. I'm still right though :P
Me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned