AC: The Economics of Revolutions

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
The only markets in which criminal mobs and gangs spring up are precisely those markets that are monopolized, i.e. made black, by the central mob, the state. Violence is not +EV when free competition is allowed. It is only when government outlaws free competition that the competition becomes populated with outlaws.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I understand this argument. Are you saying that anytime someone, for example, steals goods and then sells them, this is a result of the existence of the state?

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm using the term 'personal' to argue for a more expansive, non-financial meaning of capitalism.

Sane people are, by definition, rational emotional actors. Financial gain or hardship is just one factor in the multivariable emotional choices that underlie every decision and action we make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, this is much more reasonable.

Have you ever read Ulster or rational choice theory? I think some of it is garbage because assuming people make rational choices about their actions gives them credit for clearly understanding and thinking about them. 'Rational emotional choices' is problematic too but less so.

NT

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Well argued, as always.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I found it particularly funny that Boro even attempted the "Because you say so?" comeback, when it was not too long ago (see: today) he demanded his nonsense be respected because he apparently believes he's the only one on the forum who's cracked a book. In fact, it's a strange comeback coming from any ACist, since they (and the Austrian economists they adore) rely so heavy on "logical deductions", which are by their very nature highly subjective -- and not much more than arguments which rely on "because *I* say so" to carry some compelling weight.

So I'm not sure why Boro said "Because you say so?", other than to give us all a few laughs at his blatant hypocrisy.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Syndicates will identify goods and services that they can corner the supply on, providing it only for a higher fee, introducing a price/extortion structure that appeases the majority but offends some.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Good luck with that. A) "Syndicates" cannot exist in unregulated free markets; the EV to break the syndicate is too high for any individual member (because he could gain massively in market share by dropping his prices), so they are unstable in the absence of government interventions. B) Good luck finding a good or service that you can "corner the supply on" (hint: this is what I was talking about when I said this is impossible in a modern technologically advanced capitalist society based on a high degree of the division of labor; there are always several, if not dozens, hundreds, or thousands of suppliers of any conceivable good, service, resource, or factor of production). C) Good luck appeasing the majority by charging them higher prices.

Great business plan!

I chortle.

[bisonbison]

Have you ever read Ulster or rational choice theory? I think some of it is garbage because assuming people make rational choices about their actions gives them credit for clearly understanding and thinking about them. 'Rational emotional choices' is problematic too but less so.

I think you'll find that if you qualify statements about people with: 'with what they can see about the present state of the universe' you can say that everyone in every situation always makes rational choices.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only markets in which criminal mobs and gangs spring up are precisely those markets that are monopolized, i.e. made black, by the central mob, the state. Violence is not +EV when free competition is allowed. It is only when government outlaws free competition that the competition becomes populated with outlaws.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I understand this argument. Are you saying that anytime someone, for example, steals goods and then sells them, this is a result of the existence of the state?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'm saying the criminal enterprises can only dominate in markets where legitimate businesses are not allowed to compete. Making something illegal does not eliminate the demand for it. Since the demand exists, people will supply it. Those people, by definition, are criminals. The state sends armed thugs to attack those suppliers. Is it any wonder that the most successful of those suppliers are themselves violent? Is it any wonder that those suppliers are high time preference people who are more interested in high short term profits (created by the state, of course) than they are in potential long term risks and consequences?

When the state removes the prohibition, these people simply cannot compete with legitimate businesses. Violence is risky and costly, and costs reduce profits. High time preference thugs do not form plans as well as low time preference businessmen. Their costs are higher and their planning is poorer. They suffer losses and go out of business.

[bisonbison]

Great business plan!


You're thinking very narrowly about this. Your imagination for what people do to each other in order to turn a buck is quaint.

You only need to corner the supply locally in order to profit from such cornering. In a lawless society, there is no barrier to making physical threats against rivals in order to reduce supply in the market.

And it doesn't help to drop prices if thieves of your goods can sell them well below your cost. A thief breaks into your room at a hotel while you're out and steals a necklace. How much does he have to sell that necklace for to turn a profit?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you'll find that if you qualify statements about people with: 'with what they can see about the present state of the universe' you can say that everyone in every situation always makes rational choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy [censored]! I agree!

[bisonbison]

Holy [censored]! I agree!

See, I like you cause you're smart. I dislike you cause you're WRONG.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
. In a lawless society, there is no barrier to making physical threats against rivals in order to reduce supply in the market

[/ QUOTE ]

Rothbard land is not lawless.