by SecondRateMind 226 Replies latest jw friends
@SRM:
I am late to this thread. Tough to catch up. Some questions:
1. Do you think the 10 commandments are moral? If so, how do you feel about your proposal blatently violating two of them?
2. If your dream redistribution can be shown to throw an economy into a state of chaos, resulting in horrible starvation and suffering, would you feel you still have the moral high ground?
To the best of my knowledge, no one on this thread, or even this forum, has proposed an alternative to resolve the scandalous state of the poor, the marginal, the vulnerable and the dispossessed of the world.
The free market. A real one. No minimum wage, no price fixing (setting interest rates), no massive money printing. And no theft. Minimum government to insure private property rights, and not much else.
"I am sure God will dispose appropriately of our souls, in whichever quadrant of the matrix they inhabit" (2RM).
I am late to this thread. Tough to catch up. Some questions:
1. Do you think the 10 commandments are moral? If so, how do you feel about your proposal blatently violating two of them?
2. If your dream redistribution can be shown to throw an economy into a state of chaos, resulting in horrible starvation and suffering, would you feel you still have the moral high ground?
MeanMrMustard, Thank you for taking the trouble to catch up. But you will have to humour me. 1. Which commandments would they be? 2. How might that chaos, starvation and suffering arise out of what I propose?
The free market. A real one. No minimum wage, no price fixing (setting interest rates), no massive money printing. And no theft. Minimum government to insure private property rights, and not much else.
Believe me, I am not ideologically opposed to the free-market. Indeed, I think when it's fundamental requirements are met (eg; commodities are identical and replacable; many suppliers, none large enough to fix the price; many consumers, all acting rationally with perfect knowledge of the market, mobility of capital, labour and consumers, etc) then I think it works reasonably well.
But in many markets, that is not what we have, and therefore we see this concentration of more and more of total world wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. And I think that is not good for the world, or for the people in it.
Best wishes, 2RM.
@2RM - MeanMisterMustard asked you about the 10 commandments.
Are you really saying you are confused by MMM's question?
MeanMrMustard, Thank you for taking the trouble to catch up. But you will have to humour me. 1. Which commandments would they be? 2. How might that chaos, starvation and suffering arise out of what I propose?
1. The seventh and tenth.
2. By destroying resource allocation (not allocating through prices by rather some arbritrary calculation) thereby introducing the calculation problem almost overnight, wiping out the capital in all investment, as well as a massive motivational problem.
Note: my first two questions focused on morality, because that is the topic of your thread. But you have not answered them yet (humoring you).
Believe me, I am not ideologically opposed to the free-market. Indeed, I think when it's fundamental requirements are met (eg; commodities are identical and replacable; many suppliers, none large enough to fix the price; many consumers, all acting rationally with perfect knowledge of the market, mobility of capital, labour and consumers, etc) then I think it works reasonably well.
Those requirements aren’t reasonable. In fact the reasons markets work well are exactly because products are never identitcal, it produces competition (unless it is stamped down by government favor or regulation or barriers to entry), prevents monopolies (because of the absence of government favor, regulation, and barriers to entry), and nobody has perfect knowledge - indeed the market *counts on* imperfect knowledge.
Note your inconsistency: you complain about a market without perfect knowledge, and yet you assume you can reallocate resources yourself.
The "problem" your solution introduces is that nature will re-establish the disproportion pretty much immediately. There is massive wealth mobility in this world, people that are poor can get rich and vice versa, but statistically speaking the 1% (which is not a fixed set of people, but rather a statistical group) will always have more than the remaining 99% even if you redistributed money, which is a social construct and only has value because we give it value. Money would simply lose its value and you would measure wealth by some other metric which would, with another set of people, have the same imbalances.
Either way, if you believe in the divinity of Jesus, there is also the commandment to be happy with what you've got. If you ignore how much other people have, you can find ways to be in the 1% of other, more important metrics.
1. The seventh and tenth.
Hmmm. MeanMrMustard, I presume you mean 'Thou shalt not steal' (the 8th) and 'Thou shalt not covet...' (the 10th)
So, a) I am not proposing anyone steals anything. Only a massive charitable effort, on behalf of the rich, to succour the poor. I do not see how that might be construed as 'stealing'.
and b) I am not proposing that anyone covets anything. Only that those who have more wealth than they need, donate it, directly or indirectly, to those who have less wealth than they need.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Those requirements aren’t reasonable.
Nevertheless, they are the theoretical underpinning of what economists call 'a free market'.
In fact the reason markets work well is exactly because products are never identitcal, it produces competition (unless it is stamped down by government favor or regulation or barriers to entry), prevents monopolies (because of the absence of government favor, regulation, and barriers to entry), and nobody has perfect knowledge - indeed the market *counts on* imperfect knowledge. These are the exact reason why the market algorithm works so well.
So, I infer that you don't actually want a free market, at all. Just a whole load of oligopolies and monopolies, (which is what suppliers of non-identical commodities are) that will inevitably exploit their market leverage to extract wealth from the poor to deposit with the wealthy.
Note your inconsistency: you complain about a market without perfect knowledge, and yet you assume you can reallocate resources yourself.
On the contrary, I have already answered this point, earlier in the thread. I propose that each individual makes his/her own decision about where, and to who, their excess of wealth should be directed.
Best wishes, 2RM.
