|
| Thread: The Federal Reserve |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted November 23, 2008 03:35 PM |
|
|
The question is where do we draw the line? Why would welfare ("police" is a kind of welfare against robbery, so to speak) not be included and others would be? That's the big question.
Like, protecting the poor against robbery? Big bosses don't need that yet they still pay taxes to the police (they have bodyguards anyway).
Protecting the poor against poverty? Big bosses don't need that yet they still pay taxes to welfare.
Why would it be different? Of COURSE there has to be drawn a line somewhere but where?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 03:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Besides, any decent person, rich or poor, sees value in independent armed services and legal system.
Indeed.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 03:44 PM |
|
|
Well such things do occur. We do not live in an ideal world. But does this mean we should abandon the idea of having police? I believe not.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 03:45 PM |
|
|
No but it begs the question: "Why stop at police?" 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 03:57 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 15:58, 23 Nov 2008.
|
In an ideal world we would need no police anyway.
A friend of mine got beaten by cops because they mistook him for some guy running away from them.
The thing is that policemen, much like catholic priests, are a clan which seems to be law-proof. Shoot a man and you go to jail. Shoot a man while wearing a uniform and you're either a hero or, at worst, you get a "no-no" speech from your boss.
Apparently something needs to be done. Cars help people too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work on lowering the pollution they produce. Everything has its pros and cons - but we have to constantly work on reducing the con level if we are to evolve.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 04:15 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 17:29, 23 Nov 2008.
|
Well, indeed an ideal world would require no police at all.
But it is not as simple as decreasing cons. Why? Because often you can increase pros, but also increase cons at the same time. As well often if you decrease cons, you might decrease pros as well.
Say you forbid policemen to shoot people without warning. But in many cases, unless policeman kills a criminal outright, he is soon too dead to issue a warning. And I'd rather have policemen allowed to shoot people outright and face consequences of their incompetence later.
@thedeath
And why extend?
Everyone of us has an idea of what the societies in this unideal world should look like. My is close to a minimalist state, with only a few things public. I would prefer an anarchocapitalist 'dystopia' to a communist 'utopia', but what I wish for the society lies between, as for most of us.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 05:16 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
It's called "opportunity", which is NOT EQUAL to everyone no matter what. I think reality tells us that only a few percent can be millionaires. Millionaires LEECH on poorer people -- it is 'relative' in a way.
Wrong. Look at Bill Gates, for instance. It's true that not everyone can be Bill Gates, but he created opportunities - a lot of them. And he didn't "leech" on poorer people - he made their lot better.
If your neighbor becomes 5% more productive, and you become 4% more productive, your neighbor is going to be richer than you are. But you both are going to be better off.
TheDeath and Executor:
The thing about Robin Hood is that many of those whom he robbed stole what they had in the first place. So he was justified, in that sense. On the other hand, if he robbed honest traders, then that's different.
As for the police issue, the reason why we need a public police force is because private police forces have two major problems.
1. They can get out of control much more easily than public police forces. At least in theory, a public police force is under the control of the elected government, so if the police gets overzealous, the people through the government can make the police stop. But if a private police force decides to rule the world, the citizenry would have no control over it.
2. The free rider problem. Say a rich guy hires a private police company to catch a criminal. They succeed. And the problem is that everyone benefits from the rich guy's expenditures - even if they never met the rich guy or had ever given a cent to catching a criminal. Essentially, everybody except for the one rich guy would be getting something for nothing. So the rich guy starts to think, "Hey, why should I be the one to pay for it? Some other rich guy might!" and then no one catches the criminals.
That's why we need a public police force.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 05:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
TheDeath and Executor:
The thing about Robin Hood is that many of those whom he robbed stole what they had in the first place. So he was justified, in that sense. On the other hand, if he robbed honest traders, then that's different.
Haven't we've said all of this already  ?
Quote:
2. The free rider problem. Say a rich guy hires a private police company to catch a criminal. They succeed. And the problem is that everyone benefits from the rich guy's expenditures - even if they never met the rich guy or had ever given a cent to catching a criminal. Essentially, everybody except for the one rich guy would be getting something for nothing. So the rich guy starts to think, "Hey, why should I be the one to pay for it? Some other rich guy might!" and then no one catches the criminals.
That's why we need a public police force.
If there were no public police, then a rational rich man would have a private police force anyway, at least as long as his costs are lower than losses due to criminal activity. Free riders are less of a problem.
A more important problem is that a private police force could be used to further private goals, harming other people, with no one to stop it. That's why it is not an excellent idea.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 05:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If your neighbor becomes 5% more productive, and you become 4% more productive, your neighbor is going to be richer than you are. But you both are going to be better off.
You think too flat. Are you telling me a millionaire is 'productive'? No he GIVES OTHERS the chance to be productive, but HE gets the MOST profit. In fact, WHY does he even "own" that? Was he born with it? No, but he HAD an opportunity to GET it (e.g: from his daddy or someone gave the business to him etc). He had more opportunities than others, and he isn't "productive" but still gets most profit. This is why it is UNFAIR. He just took the opportunity. Of course not everyone can be businessmen you see --> because then they wouldn't be able to hire "poorer" people. But why not switch sides so they become poor and someone else takes their place? The answer is that it's impossible for EVERYONE to be millionaire because it is relative, like I said. When you become one, you just take a 'seat' from a LIMITED amount compared to people.
Just like in competition. Someone MUST take the 1st place, and someone is BOUND to take the 2nd place. Even though he could be extremely good and just right behind the 1st place, he'll still be 2nd. You can't have 2 1st places. So the first one who gets it "steals" from it -- think that each time you take the first place, you steal someone else's opportunity at it. If you didn't exist he would be 1st (and possibly better off), or vice-versa.
That's why it's not fair, because most of these people don't even go in 'competitions', it's just either luck (opportunities) or inheritance or whatever. The point is, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this 'luck' or whatever to be available to everyone. So when only a few percent take it, it's not fair when they haven't done much.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 05:52 PM |
|
|
Police officers in the United Kingdom are not allowed to bear firearms, if I'm not mistaken. And I don't see how British people are worse off than Americans.
However what I'm saying is not so much telling the policemen what to do as making them face the consequences of their actions.
You shoot a man because you mistook his wallet for a gun, you go to jail. It's that simple. Same rules for them and for us.
Or is that too utopian to strive for?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You shoot a man because you mistook his wallet for a gun, you go to jail. It's that simple. Same rules for them and for us.
I am all for it  ! I even said it a few posts before >>I'd rather have policemen allowed to shoot people outright and face consequences of their incompetence later<<.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 07:05 PM |
|
|
Executor:
Free riders would still be a problem. As long as someone pays for something, and somebody not involved in that transaction benefits, then there is the potential for a free rider problem.
And the rich man would be paying to remove the criminals for everybody. Thus, everybody else would be a free rider, and the rich man's costs would not be reflecting the social benefits of his expenditures.
TheDeath:
Quote:
WHY does he even "own" that? Was he born with it? No, but he HAD an opportunity to GET it (e.g: from his daddy or someone gave the business to him etc).
Did Bill Gates get Microsoft from his daddy? Did someone give it to him? I didn't think so.
And you are correct: many millionaires enable other people to become much more productive than they would be otherwise. Thus, it would be unfair for the millionaires not to get a chunk of the increased productivity. If all of the capital of the world were to disappear, then people would become much less productive and become worse off.
It's not unfair. Everyone is better off. Some are better off than others, true, but everyone is better off than they were. Say you're a billionaire and your work creates a couple of millionaires, as well as providing jobs for a lot of middle-class people. What's so unfair about that? Everyone benefits.
Quote:
Someone MUST take the 1st place, and someone is BOUND to take the 2nd place. Even though he could be extremely good and just right behind the 1st place, he'll still be 2nd. You can't have 2 1st places. So the first one who gets it "steals" from it
No. There's no stealing involved, since the other person didn't have 1st place in the beginning. Either there will be different degrees of winners, or there will be no winners and no race. I think the first is much more preferable.
And it's not all luck and "opportunities".
Baklava:
I believe the phrase "lol decaying Britain" is appropriate here.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 07:25 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:28, 23 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
And you are correct: many millionaires enable other people to become much more productive than they would be otherwise. Thus, it would be unfair for the millionaires not to get a chunk of the increased productivity. If all of the capital of the world were to disappear, then people would become much less productive and become worse off.
Yes he does. Another person can't possibly do what Bill Gates has done now that Microsoft exists. At best it would have resulted (back then) in a competition. Tell that to a guy in poverty (supposing he knows a lot of stuff) and let's wait see if he can make a company that will beat Microsoft (suppose the guy is smarter than Bill with all other factors, except money & opportunity of course, set aside).
Business does not require skill or brains... it requires opportunities.
Quote:
It's not unfair. Everyone is better off. Some are better off than others, true, but everyone is better off than they were.
Do you know the definition of fair?
Sure everyone might be better off, but why the capitalists (aka businessmen) who do almost nothing but had opportunities (or gave others what to do) get BETTER than 'better' off for the average guy who works hard? Because he had opportunities.
What would a world with everyone being a businessman look like? They won't even be 'rich' anymore because there's no one weaker/without opportunities to exploit!
So when two equal people except for opportunities win 5$ and 1000$ respectively, I consider it unfair (even though it's better than 0$, but in a welfare system it's not gonna be 0$, more like 502.5$ and 502.5$).
Quote:
No. There's no stealing involved, since the other person didn't have 1st place in the beginning.
But he WOULD have it if you didn't take it 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 07:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Tell that to a guy in poverty (supposing he knows a lot of stuff) and let's wait see if he can make a company that will beat Microsoft (suppose the guy is smarter than Bill with all other factors, except money & opportunity of course, set aside).
If he's smarter than Bill with all other factors, then why is he in poverty? If he didn't have Gates's luck, he may not have created something as successful as Microsoft, but with such skills there's no way he would be in poverty.
Or think about this. What if Bill Gates were to somehow (though no fault of his own) lose all of his money, stocks, house, etc. tomorrow? How do you think he'd fare? I doubt he'd create anything as successful as Microsoft, but I'm pretty sure that in a month he'd have a job where he'd be making a few hundred thousand dollars at least. As you climb up, luck matters more and more. But luck is nothing without skill and work.
Quote:
Sure everyone might be better off, but why the capitalists (aka businessmen) who do almost nothing
They do almost nothing? Go tell that to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Andrew Carnegie, etc.
Quote:
What would a world with everyone being a businessman look like? They won't even be 'rich' anymore because there's no one weaker/without opportunities to exploit!
There's more than one way to be rich. And "rich" is relative, anyway. But consider a society where there are no workers or farmers - they've all been replaced by machines that are more efficient. These machines are owned by various people or companies. (Let's say that the process happened gradually, and the population decreased, so there is no significant unemployment.) The rest are doctors, engineers, scientists, etc - jobs that are pretty high-paying now. Who would be rich? Obviously, the people who own the machines would be richer than the others. But because of increased productivity (and less mouths to feed), everyone would live better than they would now. You need to move beyond thinking about rich and poor in relative terms, and start thinking about whether they are better or worse off than they were.
Quote:
But he WOULD have it if you didn't take it
John Smith and the computer?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 07:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They do almost nothing? Go tell that to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Andrew Carnegie, etc.
Ok sure, let's see how a guy who works very hard (and in fact, there's no one else better at doing the job he does), how much his income is, and compare it with Bill Gates', and see how many times less he has (divide), and then multiply his 'work' by that amount. For example, if Bill has 1000 times more income, then it surely means he works 1000 times harder right? 
Quote:
But consider a society where there are no workers or farmers - they've all been replaced by machines that are more efficient. These machines are owned by various people or companies. (Let's say that the process happened gradually, and the population decreased, so there is no significant unemployment.) The rest are doctors, engineers, scientists, etc - jobs that are pretty high-paying now. Who would be rich? Obviously, the people who own the machines would be richer than the others. But because of increased productivity (and less mouths to feed), everyone would live better than they would now. You need to move beyond thinking about rich and poor in relative terms, and start thinking about whether they are better or worse off than they were.
Who cares whether they are better or worse off? I care if the difference between two people is fair or not. That is, if people are 'better' of with like:
Guy A: 100$
Guy B: 1000$
then it's unfair, much better would be:
Guy A: 550$
Guy B: 550$
in both scenarios they are 'better' off and the total is the same. Spot the difference in 'fairness'.
And a society with robots would ONLY work with socialism, since like you said, otherwise there would be like 90% of the population in unemployment
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 08:42 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 21:06, 23 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Executor:
Free riders would still be a problem. As long as someone pays for something, and somebody not involved in that transaction benefits, then there is the potential for a free rider problem.
And the rich man would be paying to remove the criminals for everybody. Thus, everybody else would be a free rider, and the rich man's costs would not be reflecting the social benefits of his expenditures.
As log as his costs are below his valuation of having police, there is no need that any other benefactor pays anything. Positive side-effects are not an issue. Negative are.
@theDeath
If there is a new opportunity and nobody robs another, then any division of new gains is fair, as long as sides agree on it. If an engineer has a great idea, but needs capital, comes to a guy who has the capital an hears an offer "I take 90% of profits" and agrees, then it is fair. If they agree on 50-50, fair as well. If the guy with capital offers "I pay you $1000000 for the idea and all profits are mine" and they agree, fair as well. Of course the inventor may turn back any of these offers and go to search for capital further, and it may happen that other offers are even worse.
Better a bit of something than half of nothing, is it not?
However, if the other guy wants all profits, and threatens the inventor to block him access to other sources of capital(and is willing and capable to do it), then it is unfair.
There is a difference between "I will agree only if our deal is such and such" and "If you don't do business with me, you won't do it with anyone else".
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 09:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Police officers in the United Kingdom are not allowed to bear firearms, if I'm not mistaken. And I don't see how British people are worse off than Americans.
However what I'm saying is not so much telling the policemen what to do as making them face the consequences of their actions.
You shoot a man because you mistook his wallet for a gun, you go to jail. It's that simple. Same rules for them and for us.
Or is that too utopian to strive for?
Equal = good. Balance is a part of equal.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 09:10 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
For example, if Bill has 1000 times more income, then it surely means he works 1000 times harder right?
It's not just about how hard you work. It's about how much you produce. It can be summarized in a formula:
(Amount produced) = (time spent)(effort)(productivity)
When productivity is very well-directed (as it was with Gates), then the amount produced is likewise increased.
Plus, near the top, small differences in amount produced make bigger differences in pay.
Quote:
Who cares whether they are better or worse off?
I do.
Quote:
That is, if people are 'better' of with like:
Guy A: 100$
Guy B: 1000$
then it's unfair, much better would be:
Guy A: 550$
Guy B: 550$
How is that better? It's making them the same by artificial means, when they're not the same. One produces more than another, so should get more. It's rather unfair to take from some and give to the others.
Quote:
And a society with robots would ONLY work with socialism, since like you said, otherwise there would be like 90% of the population in unemployment.
Not at all. Of course, with the inevitable decrease in production costs, more jobs would be created, so unemployment wouldn't really increase. And also population could decrease.
Executor:
Yes, but maybe he wouldn't fund it to the extent that he would if he was subsidized for the positive social benefit.
Alternative energy research is a similar situation. Of course some companies stand to gain by researching alternative energy. But alternative energy has social benefits that wouldn't be reflected in the profits that the company would be making. Thus, the company would underinvest, unless their research is subsidized.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Who cares whether they are better or worse off?
I do.
hehe I didn't mean that I meant that it's irrelevant since it'll be anyway, but the point was that HOW it is.
Quote:
How is that better? It's making them the same by artificial means, when they're not the same. One produces more than another, so should get more. It's rather unfair to take from some and give to the others.
It's 'better' because it's more 'fair'. And no, the flawed thinking of "x produces more" IS flawed depending on demand or how a business works like -- which in itself is subjective reasoning. Yes there isn't any objective value of a product, which is a reason why it should be FAIR. Just because Guy B sits with his fat ass doing nothing because he OWNS something (like a factory) doesn't mean he is more productive just because he OWNS it. Such 'owning means of production' might be the problem after all, in fact. Not everyone can own a lot -- unfair depending on which was 'born' in a more better position for opportunities. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2008 09:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes there isn't any objective value of a product, which is a reason why it should be FAIR.
The value of a product is, for lack of a better word, semi-objective. That is, it is variable and there is nothing inherent in the product that determines its value, however if its price is allowed to fluctuate on the free market, it will settle at some point (though it will change once in a while), and that point is its value. It's about demand.
Quote:
Just because Guy B sits with his fat ass doing nothing because he OWNS something (like a factory) doesn't mean he is more productive just because he OWNS it.
First of all, that factory didn't come out of nowhere. Someone invested in it, etc. Second, the guy is making other people's productivity possible; thus, he is getting some part of it. If he didn't take a risk and build the factory, then other people couldn't be as productive as they are.
People take risks in business. Some risks pay off, and others don't. Not everyone can be rich. But everyone can be richer.
You know what I think is unfair? When people are held back because other people claim that it would be "unfair" for them to go forward.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
