Tyler H Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Why should I prefer the Mises Institute over Maxkeiser.com ? I already follow Cato the Younger on twitter. Again I do not think it is a bad thing if products are more expensive.. if it is too expensive... then don't buy it. Is food going to be too expensive to buy? If not then expensive prices are not a bad thing... because prices are already expensive for the everyday person and we dont need to be a consumerist society anyway. This is not a convincing reason as we would be better off as a savers society. Of course there is the grey market and smuggling but again that is not a worry since Americans(white people) follow so many rules without rebelling it will be the minority of people in the grey market. Maybe some things I would purchase on the grey market (edit to add since I live in Port City) but I would much rather have a goal to save and buy handcrafted quality made in America, no matter the price than the already expensive crap imported from other places. Right, I'm not so much concerned with the decisions people make in the absence of coercion as I am in the absence of coercion itself. Other than the moral argument, coercion in an economy incurs added expenses that are a net negative to society as a whole.
Susana Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 So..... The best "guarantee" for economic freedom and workers rights is not having regulations/licenses (not including finance/banking) so that people who want to braid, cut hair or open a stand on the side of the road can do so without having to get licenses and pay money to the government. So if there is a business who treats his workers badly... the employee can open up a business that competes with his old boss. However, how likely is it to happen that these regulations and licenses will be gotten rid of? The baby boomers who own the existing business and industry certainly do not want to allow or mentor upstarts. They wont even let the housing prices crash down to the levels they should be because that negatively effects their net worth. Everyone who already went through the money and time drain of getting their licenses will not want to support lots of upstarts not having to go through the same hurdles. Who is advocating this "non-coercion" idea:I also have heard the argument, just go ahead and have machines take over all "low-skill menial jobs" because then people would not want to immigrate because they would not be able to find any jobs. Then it would be better on the native population because the demand for housing, etc would greatly decrease.
Gavitor Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Who is advocating this "non-coercion" idea:I also have heard the argument, just go ahead and have machines take over all "low-skill menial jobs" because then people would not want to immigrate because they would not be able to find any jobs. Then it would be better on the native population because the demand for housing, etc would greatly decrease. Wouldn't having machines take over all menial jobs simply replace them with low skill tech jobs like data entry and the like, IE the jobs that india and china tend to fill? Also there are places in america where you can buy a house for 1$ (detroit), The problem with housing is that everyone wants to live in the same place and the people who call themselves government own all the land (because they said so).
shirgall Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Wouldn't having machines take over all menial jobs simply replace them with low skill tech jobs like data entry and the like, IE the jobs that india and china tend to fill? Also there are places in america where you can buy a house for 1$ (detroit), The problem with housing is that everyone wants to live in the same place and the people who call themselves government own all the land (because they said so). Labor-saving devices free people to perform jobs with higher productivity (and possibly higher pay as a result).
Will Torbald Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Labor-saving devices free people to perform jobs with higher productivity (and possibly higher pay as a result). Only in lala land where IQ doesn't exist and everyone is equally intelligent. People who are driven towards manual and skilled labor are the people who don't have the skills for entrepreneurship or STEM in the first place. Those laid off workers aren't going to jump into tech, or a medicine degree. They will remain unemployable and stuck in limbo - or what they usually do, resort to crime and homelessness - and/or government welfare. 1
shirgall Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Only in lala land where IQ doesn't exist and everyone is equally intelligent. People who are driven towards manual and skilled labor are the people who don't have the skills for entrepreneurship or STEM in the first place. Those laid off workers aren't going to jump into tech, or a medicine degree. They will remain unemployable and stuck in limbo - or what they usually do, resort to crime and homelessness - and/or government welfare. It did not break the IQ bank when pneumatic nailguns were invented for people that used to drive nails with hammers, and that's just one of billions of examples of labor-saving devices that increased productivity. Another good one is the remarkable increase in crop yields that enabled the human race to have an available workforce for industrialization. Another dramatic improvement of productivity in one area that lead to an improvement of productivity in another.
Will Torbald Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 It did not break the IQ bank when pneumatic nailguns were invented for people that used to drive nails with hammers, and that's just one of billions of examples of labor-saving devices that increased productivity. Another good one is the remarkable increase in crop yields that enabled the human race to have an available workforce for industrialization. Another dramatic improvement of productivity in one area that lead to an improvement of productivity in another. That's in the past, but the future of industry is full automation. Where are those people with nailguns going to go when a robot nails it for them?
Tyler H Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 That's in the past, but the future of industry is full automation. Where are those people with nailguns going to go when a robot nails it for them? Do you think they knew the future prior to those inventions? I doubt it. I don't doubt there were people "arguing" the same stance you're taking now.
shirgall Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 That's in the past, but the future of industry is full automation. Where are those people with nailguns going to go when a robot nails it for them? You are focused on only one aspect of technology. Kiosks that handle rote labor are not going to put millions out of work. Robots that assemble hardware aren't either. Focus on what skills are actually being made unnecessary. Running a cash register? Swinging a hammer? Splitting a log? Plugging in a wiring harness in a dashboard? Welding in a straight line? Sure, what is being supplanted is gradually rising in skill level, but it's not robot Armageddon.
Will Torbald Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 You are focused on only one aspect of technology. Kiosks that handle rote labor are not going to put millions out of work. Robots that assemble hardware aren't either. Focus on what skills are actually being made unnecessary. Running a cash register? Swinging a hammer? Splitting a log? Plugging in a wiring harness in a dashboard? Welding in a straight line? Sure, what is being supplanted is gradually rising in skill level, but it's not robot Armageddon. It is robot armaggedon for the low IQ people who would have done those jobs. I mean, how do you get away with saying that robot replacement won't leave millions out of work when it is the very definition of job scarcity? Some jobs will never go away, but optimism isn't comforting.
shirgall Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Menial jobs have been supplanted regularly for thousands of years and most everyone's lot in life has improved.
Will Torbald Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Menial jobs have been supplanted regularly for thousands of years and most everyone's lot in life has improved. Still not thinking ahead.
shirgall Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 Still not thinking ahead. I'm thinking the market will continue to generate innovations, as it always has, and that standard of living will continue to rise along with with productivity, as it always has, as long as the market is not interfered with by unavoidable externalities (namely luddites and the state actors that manipulate them for personal gain). What are your thoughts? Shoot me if I manufacture a robot or refuse to pay a retraining tax? I do not condescend to think that people with gainful employment now who might face technological unemployment are incapable of finding something else to gainfully pursue. There have been periods of technological and social unemployment in the past and most people figure it out. 1
Will Torbald Posted August 6, 2016 Posted August 6, 2016 What are your thoughts? Shoot me if I manufacture a robot or refuse to pay a retraining tax? My thoughts are that the idea that past success is an indicator of future success is what the dinosaurs were thinking, too.
shirgall Posted August 6, 2016 Posted August 6, 2016 My thoughts are that the idea that past success is an indicator of future success is what the dinosaurs were thinking, too. Their drive to eat and procreate did not make them strong enough to repel the giant meteor therefore we should stop using anything more technological than fire and spears? I know it's a straw man, but I have difficulty following the reasoning.
Gavitor Posted August 6, 2016 Posted August 6, 2016 Labor-saving devices free people to perform jobs with higher productivity (and possibly higher pay as a result). That's basically what I was getting at. Rather then labor people will do low end tech jobs that don't require a lot of technical knowledge and in some cases none at all. As long as people can be trained and follow directions there will be something for them to do. If they can't they wouldn't have a job in the first place.
neeeel Posted August 6, 2016 Posted August 6, 2016 Compromise is lose-lose I think this is horribly incorrect. It could be that I misunderstood your use of the word "compromise" though
Gavitor Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 I think this is horribly incorrect. It could be that I misunderstood your use of the word "compromise" though A compromise is when both parties give up something to end a dispute. So by definition a lose lose.
shirgall Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 A compromise is when both parties give up something to end a dispute. So by definition a lose lose. Shouldn't always be the case. Unless you lose with all of your feasible alternatives to the agreement you settled on. If you lose on all of your alternatives, you probably aren't dealing with a free market.
neeeel Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 A compromise is when both parties give up something to end a dispute. So by definition a lose lose. yes, they give up something, to gain something more important ( to them). So, win win.They value what they gain, more than they value what they are giving up, the definition of free trade. both parties "give up" something in a trade. Are you saying trade is lose lose?
Gavitor Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 You're confusing trade with compromise... they are not the same thing. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compromise
neeeel Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 You're confusing trade with compromise... they are not the same thing. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compromise No. Your definition of compromise was "A compromise is when both parties give up something to end a dispute. So by definition a lose lose." I am pointing out that this definition also fits trade ( I suppose you could quibble about whether trade is a dispute, and so it doesnt apply, but in general in a trade both parties are giving up something. ) Also, if compromise really was lose lose, then no one would do it.
rosencrantz Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 The problem will become worse once expert systems replace a lot of white collar jobs.
Gavitor Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 No. Your definition of compromise was "A compromise is when both parties give up something to end a dispute. So by definition a lose lose." I am pointing out that this definition also fits trade ( I suppose you could quibble about whether trade is a dispute, and so it doesnt apply, but in general in a trade both parties are giving up something. ) Also, if compromise really was lose lose, then no one would do it. Well the difference from what I can tell is a trade is a win win because both are gaining something. Both are trading something with less value for something that has more value (perceived value*). So both gain or the exchange wouldn't happen. Compromise is similar but different in that you both lose something to go from negative to neutral (ending a dispute). Neither really gains so much as neutralizes a negative. If there was not a negative situation there wouldn't be any need for a compromise in the first place. The problem will become worse once expert systems replace a lot of white collar jobs. What problem is that?
neeeel Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 Compromise is similar but different in that you both lose something to go from negative to neutral (ending a dispute). Neither really gains so much as neutralizes a negative. If there was not a negative situation there wouldn't be any need for a compromise in the first place. going from a negative to a neutral is a net gain 1
Gavitor Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 going from a negative to a neutral is a net gain No... because you are ignoring the cost. You are giving up a positive to neutralize a negative. 1
Tyler H Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 I think compromise can be used to describe the outcomes of many different types of negotiations, but it does have a sacrificial connotation to me; it does mention concessions in the definition. So I can see how it's not the outcome both parties would ideally prefer but it is a positive since they engage in the interaction (unless there is an infliction of a negative to get someone to comply).
Gavitor Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 Unemployment. Unemployment is mainly a problem due to excessive regulations and licensing laws. Otherwise what is stopping people from simply making their own jobs?
rosencrantz Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 Otherwise what is stopping people from simply making their own jobs? You need capital to make your own job. The lower the capital investment needed, the higher the competition and the lower the money you make.
Gavitor Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 You need capital to make your own job. The lower the capital investment needed, the higher the competition and the lower the money you make. Right, that's where savings and borrowing come into play. People did it in the past they can do it in the future.
rosencrantz Posted August 12, 2016 Posted August 12, 2016 If you have a company in a secure enviroment, the capital turnover is low. If you invest 100 000$ and you get 2% you have earned 2000$. And from that you have to pay expenses, rent and what not. To make a living you have to invest a lot.
lacne13 Posted August 18, 2016 Posted August 18, 2016 It would be great to see Stef do a full breakdown of Trump policies, positive and negative, in one concise truth about. However I understand that Stef is pushing the collapse of the media and status quo politics. Trump isn't scared of the politically incorrect tag. He is therefore a good step in the direction of promoting alternative media and addressing reality. It is a long way to anarchism but Trump is a step in the right direction in contrast to status quo Hillary. I'm hoping for the population to continue waking up. The unrest is already there. Now all we need is the direction.
Buford T. Justice Posted August 19, 2016 Posted August 19, 2016 Re the "dark" moniker newly-floated against Trump: It wasn't engineered by think tank geniuses. It's a simple steal from Anne Widdecombe's highly-effective use of the term to disrupt the 1997 UK conservative leadership election. From Wikipedia: In 1997, during the Conservative leadership election of William Hague, Widdecombe spoke out against Michael Howard, under whom she had served when he was Home Secretary. She remarked that "there is something of the night about him". The remark was considered to be extremely damaging to Howard, who was frequently satirised as a vampire thereafter. He came last in the poll. Howard went on to become party leader in 2003, however, and Widdecombe then stated, "I explained fully what my objections were in 1997 and I do not retract anything I said then. But this is 2005 and we have to look to the future and not the past."
Recommended Posts