|
|
#172
02-20-2007, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] He does seem to be confusing someone "controlling" his own money with "controlling" the market as a whole. [/ QUOTE ] As if the two could never happen together. As if the Market Fairy will stop concentrated wealth from exploiting the disproportionate advantages of greater size that cause imperfect competition in the marketplace. [/ QUOTE ] LOL @ Market Fairy. [/ QUOTE ] Don't laugh too loud, or you might piss off the Market Fairy, then no magic sprinkles for ACland. [ QUOTE ] A company having a large market share due to the advantage of its large size, is not the same thing as "controlling the market" as long as it's a free market. [/ QUOTE ] You are using a simplistic model that neglects the nonlinear properties of externality as a function of market share. [ QUOTE ] They're still just controlling their own wealth. Their large market share is due to economies of scale, not "control of the market". [/ QUOTE ] Wrong. The external influence of an operation of large size in a given context of supply or distribution is disproportionately great. 
|
|
#173
02-20-2007, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
Other people being worse off != you are better off. [/ QUOTE ] So, you are saying I don't benefit when the Chinese peasants have a "choice" to make a nice cheap pair of shoes for a couple of bucks an hour or starve. One thing that will never change is that rich people will always require an abundant supply of poor people
|
|
#174
02-20-2007, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] They're still just controlling their own wealth. Their large market share is due to economies of scale, not "control of the market". [/ QUOTE ] Wrong. The external influence of an operation of large size in a fixed context of supply or distribution is disproportionately great. [/ QUOTE ] Are you defining "control of the market" as "great influence"? I never said the rich wouldn't have a "great influence".
|
|
#175
02-20-2007, 07:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Other people being worse off != you are better off. [/ QUOTE ] So, you are saying I don't benefit when the Chinese peasants have a "choice" to make a nice cheap pair of shoes for a couple of bucks an hour or starve. One thing that will never change is that rich people will always require an abundant supply of poor people [/ QUOTE ] Are those Chinese workers better off with the sweat-shop there? D'you think they'd rather it had never appeared? Look, you have to work to earn a living. You can work to produce your own food and clothing, etc, or you can work to make something else to trade. This view that workers are oppressed by their employers is really silly. The employer gives the worker the chance to work at one thing and produce a lot more value for themselves than if they worked for themselves. If the job weren't making those people better off then they wouldn't take it!
|
|
#176
02-20-2007, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Cliffnotes: The ability to subsidize the costs of war onto the population is a major difference between statism and AC. [/ QUOTE ] Oversimplification. The conquered people are often the ones who pay, while the citizens of the empire are beneficiaries. [/ QUOTE ] O M G, you have got to be joking. It certainly does benefit a few - the haliburton's of the world, but the VAST majority of US citizens are significantly worse off thanks to the war.
|
|
#177
02-20-2007, 07:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The company can "persuade" their debt-ridden employees to work harder to pay for the campaign. The corporations built on a Japanese model with lots of corporate loyalty already instilled in their employees will have an advantage. We'll see a lot of low-intensity assasination campaigns waged by over-worked sararimen. [/ QUOTE ] The difference is that nobody is forcing you to work for the company; you are there of your own free will. You are free to leave anytime you like (unless you signed a contract that restricts when you can leave, but then, you shouldn't have signed it). This is not the case with governments. [/ QUOTE ] Too bad for all the wage slaves who live from paycheck to paycheck and carry huge debts. Nobody is forcing them ofcourse, but how is an average guy going to get ahead without taking huge loads of debt? Pay for college, pay for books, for rent, groceries, while studying and holding minimum wage dead end job. Most people aren't born on a third base. So, now that he got a job, and a kid and mortgage, where is he going to go? He'll play along and work 70 hour weeks to support his company's little adventure. Once you are a wage slave with tons of debt and a family to care about, you don't quit your job anytime you like. And in the first place, if you are looking for that sweet job to pay for your mortgage, you'll sign a lot of contracts and won't even think about it twice, until it bites you in the ass. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, where to start? Hint 1: Don't borrow more money than you can afford to pay off the rest of your life! If you have to borrow so much for college that you go into debt for the rest of your life then you shouldn't go to college! Incidentally, this is HIGHLY unlikely. The great majority of personal debt is due to extremely poor spending habits. If you just borrowed for college, worked, and spent carefully there really should be no problem. Hint 2: Don't have children if you can't afford them! Hint 3: Don't sign contracts you don't read! (Or if you do, be prepared for the consequences) [ QUOTE ] Too bad for all the wage slaves.. [/ QUOTE ] You're doing a really bad job of making me feel sorry for them (not that it would make any difference if I did).
|
|
#178
02-20-2007, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The company can "persuade" their debt-ridden employees to work harder to pay for the campaign. The corporations built on a Japanese model with lots of corporate loyalty already instilled in their employees will have an advantage. We'll see a lot of low-intensity assasination campaigns waged by over-worked sararimen. [/ QUOTE ] The difference is that nobody is forcing you to work for the company; you are there of your own free will. You are free to leave anytime you like (unless you signed a contract that restricts when you can leave, but then, you shouldn't have signed it). This is not the case with governments. [/ QUOTE ] Too bad for all the wage slaves who live from paycheck to paycheck and carry huge debts. Nobody is forcing them ofcourse, but how is an average guy going to get ahead without taking huge loads of debt? Pay for college, pay for books, for rent, groceries, while studying and holding minimum wage dead end job. Most people aren't born on a third base. So, now that he got a job, and a kid and mortgage, where is he going to go? He'll play along and work 70 hour weeks to support his company's little adventure. Once you are a wage slave with tons of debt and a family to care about, you don't quit your job anytime you like. And in the first place, if you are looking for that sweet job to pay for your mortgage, you'll sign a lot of contracts and won't even think about it twice, until it bites you in the ass. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, where to start? Hint 1: Don't borrow more money than you can afford to pay off the rest of your life! If you have to borrow so much for college that you go into debt for the rest of your life then you shouldn't go to college! Incidentally, this is HIGHLY unlikely. The great majority of personal debt is due to extremely poor spending habits. If you just borrowed for college, worked, and spent carefully there really should be no problem. Hint 2: Don't have children if you can't afford them! Hint 3: Don't sign contracts you don't read! (Or if you do, be prepared for the consequences) [ QUOTE ] Too bad for all the wage slaves.. [/ QUOTE ] You're doing a really bad job of making me feel sorry for them (not that it would make any difference if I did). [/ QUOTE ] I didn't mean to make you feel bad, I am just explaining how most people don't have the choices you think they have. One doesn't have to work till the end of their life to pay their debts. However, when one graduates college, one is in debt, and has to start repaying the debt. If one doesn't go to college, one usually gets a crappy job, and will likely always be poor, and behind. So, little savings and little choices for the first few years of one's working life. If most people didn't spend carelessly, they'd be savers, wouldn't they? And then, what do you think would happen to our consumer economy? If few people spend, to whom would the companies sell? If the sales dropped, where would the jobs be? Spending carefully is one of those things where I can legitimately ask you what would happen if everybody was doing it? Everything would change. Ditto with people not having children they cannot afford. Fewer children, fewer products sold, fewer jobs. So, one graduates from college with debt, has to repay it, where would one find more money to hire lawyers to read and explain the contracts? Who would get the job first do you think, a candidate who hires a lawyer to argue fine points in the contract, or the candidate who signs right away? The market will make sure, that people are in position to do most everything their employer says, and always in fear of losing their job. So, the companies will have a lot of leverage to squeeze their employees. Most industries do not have labor shortage, so only the top talent will get better treatment.
|
|
#179
02-20-2007, 08:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Other people being worse off != you are better off. [/ QUOTE ] So, you are saying I don't benefit when the Chinese peasants have a "choice" to make a nice cheap pair of shoes for a couple of bucks an hour or starve. One thing that will never change is that rich people will always require an abundant supply of poor people [/ QUOTE ] Are those Chinese workers better off with the sweat-shop there? D'you think they'd rather it had never appeared? Look, you have to work to earn a living. You can work to produce your own food and clothing, etc, or you can work to make something else to trade. This view that workers are oppressed by their employers is really silly. The employer gives the worker the chance to work at one thing and produce a lot more value for themselves than if they worked for themselves. If the job weren't making those people better off then they wouldn't take it! [/ QUOTE ] Good points all. Before you can get the people to work in your sweatshops you have to somehow make sure that they'd be worse off without the jobs you offer. So, if they are worse off, it does benefit you after all, otherwise they wouldn't work for you and make you a tidy profit.
|
|
#180
02-20-2007, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Too bad for all the wage slaves who live from paycheck to paycheck and carry huge debts. Nobody is forcing them ofcourse, but how is an average guy going to get ahead without taking huge loads of debt? Pay for college, pay for books, for rent, groceries, while studying and holding minimum wage dead end job. Most people aren't born on a third base. So, now that he got a job, and a kid and mortgage, where is he going to go? He'll play along and work 70 hour weeks to support his company's little adventure. Once you are a wage slave with tons of debt and a family to care about, you don't quit your job anytime you like. And in the first place, if you are looking for that sweet job to pay for your mortgage, you'll sign a lot of contracts and won't even think about it twice, until it bites you in the ass. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, where to start? Hint 1: Don't borrow more money than you can afford to pay off the rest of your life! If you have to borrow so much for college that you go into debt for the rest of your life then you shouldn't go to college! Incidentally, this is HIGHLY unlikely. The great majority of personal debt is due to extremely poor spending habits. If you just borrowed for college, worked, and spent carefully there really should be no problem. Hint 2: Don't have children if you can't afford them! Hint 3: Don't sign contracts you don't read! (Or if you do, be prepared for the consequences) [ QUOTE ] Too bad for all the wage slaves.. [/ QUOTE ] You're doing a really bad job of making me feel sorry for them (not that it would make any difference if I did). [/ QUOTE ] I didn't mean to make you feel bad, I am just explaining how most people don't have the choices you think they have. One doesn't have to work till the end of their life to pay their debts. However, when one graduates college, one is in debt, and has to start repaying the debt. If one doesn't go to college, one usually gets a crappy job, and will likely always be poor, and behind. So, little savings and little choices for the first few years of one's working life. [/ QUOTE ] I know the choices a lot of people have. I know that I have had more choices than most. Ultimately, they will act in their own best interest and if that involves being employed by someone else then so be it. Incidentally, the term "wage slave" is a total oxymoron. No slave has ever received a wage. [ QUOTE ] If most people didn't spend carelessly, they'd be savers, wouldn't they? And then, what do you think would happen to our consumer economy? If few people spend, to whom would the companies sell? If the sales dropped, where would the jobs be? Spending carefully is one of those things where I can legitimately ask you what would happen if everybody was doing it? Everything would change. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. When people borrow to finance spending, they have to pay it back eventually, and that is when they won't be able to afford to buy things. You're giving one of the ultimate economic fallacies. A lot of people borrowing money to spend doesn't just magically improve everyone's standard of living. [ QUOTE ] Ditto with people not having children they cannot afford. Fewer children, fewer products sold, fewer jobs. So, one graduates from college with debt, has to repay it, where would one find more money to hire lawyers to read and explain the contracts? Who would get the job first do you think, a candidate who hires a lawyer to argue fine points in the contract, or the candidate who signs right away? The market will make sure, that people are in position to do most everything their employer says, and always in fear of losing their job. So, the companies will have a lot of leverage to squeeze their employees. Most industries do not have labor shortage, so only the top talent will get better treatment. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, for a lot of jobs, the employer has the leverage in the negotiation, but the employer cannot write anything totally outrageous into the contract because then nobody would agree. No employer is going to expect you to sign a contract without checking it out first. Heck, if I'm an employer, I wouldn't want an employee who signed a contract without checking it out first because that implies to me that they're a total f*cking moran. The other point you are missing is that when the job market is poor, it puts the value of entrepreneurship up tremendously, and that is good for everyone.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
