Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Story of The Free Market - Flawed

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    That's what envy is, wanting to have what someone else has. But let's look at it from that perspective: would you rather have what the folks in a nation have where even the poorest of the poor have homes, cars, the ability to put food on their plates, or would you rather have what the folks in a nation don't have where everyone, with the exception of a tiny "clique" of those in power & their cronies, lives in really crappy conditions?

    An "if I can't have the same luxuries that the wealthy have then I don't want anyone to have anything" attitude from those who are envious is selfish and greedy.
    Stop Strawmanning me Neil!

    It does matter because it affects our Lives. If people want to make 100 times more than the next man, fine as long as the next man isn't struggling in their life. But we never get that. In Capitalism, people can become filthy Rich at the same time as people can become filthy Poor. You don't think that because Money is a scarce commodity, this wouldn't have any relevance in this whole vast distribution of Wealth? Can you envision a time or setting where people have such variance in Wealth but at the same time those with the least are still able to live a comfortable life? How is this possible when Money leaves ones hands faster than when you acquired it making those with less, assured to struggle to hold on to it and stay afloat?

    By removing the State, do you remove Scarcity also? Does this remove Unfair Advantages and provides an equal playing field so everybody Wins?? Or can an environment of Scarcity provide all of this? It's not about Envy. To me it's just simply about common sense.
    droneBEE likes this.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,061
    Yes...a few become 'filthy' rich precisely because many live 'dirt' poor.....the connection could not be more obvious or harmful.....

    We all must wonder where some of Neil's assertions come from..no??....because his description above is only limitedly exampled by the few Northern European Countries where an emphasis on equality is apparent in the policies enacted and abided by...certainly not the U.S. where homelessness and poverty are rampant, and policy makers largely ignore (placate/reinforce) the plight of the poor....for the continued benefit of the rich,,,,,
    Ernest likes this.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hisoka View Post
    Thank you Neil, I don't think I have a better understanding than you from your last post above.

    I'm a quite ego-centric person, I don't like losing in anything let alone a debate but at this point, I care more about learning and increasing my understanding on this subject and many others so I can come to my own conclusions about them.

    Do you have any resources you would recommend to increase my understanding of the intricacies of Capitalism(or anything else you think would be of value, doesn't have to be money related at all)?
    I think Jacque Fresco is a pretty good source on capitalism & many other things. Ron Paul is also a good resource. I'll mention more as I can think of them; in the mean time, I think no one else expresses it more eloquently & succinctly than Grumpy Cat:


  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Stop Strawmanning me Neil!
    How am I strawmanning you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    It does matter because it affects our Lives.
    It seems like you're answering a question I didn't ask; when did I say, "why does it matter"? There's nothing like that in the part you're replying to; I don't recall expressing something to that effect and I'm not going to spend my time on an easter egg hunt for it either. Please point to where I said something like that, if I did.

    Also, I'm the one saying these things matter because of how it affects our lives.

    LOL what you're doing here is not only like practically putting words in my mouth, it's also like taking some away from me and putting them in your own mouth. That's a pretty clever try, but nah, it didn't work with me, at least this time; sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    If people want to make 100 times more than the next man, fine as long as the next man isn't struggling in their life.
    Let's try to put a little more thought into this - if there's someone making 100 times more than average, it would be because someone is paying them and as a result they're ending up with 100 times more, and the reason they're doing that is because they're producing some goods and services people want - there's demand for what they offer. You might be inclined to say something like, "well it's just because their company that's paying them that much", but at some point that money has to come in from elsewhere & that would be those customers with the demand for goods and services they offer. Any hypothetical individuals who are struggling are going to this person because they're providing the answer, the solution for eliminating or resolving their struggle. By working for this individual, they get to have a job where they're providing them with the help they need with providing the goods and services they offer in exchange for a salary that eliminates their struggle.

    In a free market, the government isn't preventing those who are struggling from freely choosing to go to those who can provide them with what they need, in order to resolve or eliminate their struggle; the goverment isn't also forcing people to user their hard-earned money to purchase goods or services they don't want or need. In a free market, the employee is free to quit their job and work for someone who offers a better salary & to offer to work for a lower salary to someone they want to hire them. In a free market, there will be competition for goods, services, employees, and jobs, meaning the costs for those things will go down for everyone. Productivity will maximize, meaning struggling will minimize.

    Just because a politician promises free this and free that doesn't mean those free things offered will be delivered. Less people working to produce goods and services means less goods and services, which in turn means more people struggling. Raising taxes isn't going to do any good, because all it will do is further impede the economy, meaning even more people struggling. The politicians then blame the wrong thing, increase taxes even more, make even more promises of free this and free that, and we have yet even more people struggling. Blame the politicians who want to undo all of that damage; yes that'll work to get me re-elected so I can be one of the few "haves" with a suit, tie, and an "I care about you" smile to appease voters, who continue to fall deeper into the "have nots" abyss. Meanwhile, people continue to scratch their heads wondering why the hell Trump won the election.

    If there's an increase in the number of people struggling it's because government got in the way of the market and caused it to happen; that's all goverment can do, is to act like friction on the economy. I'm not just making this up, this is what history has repeatedly shown us.

    This movement was started as the activist branch of Fresco's TVP, where he himself states things such as politicians aren't trained to solve problems & the solution to society's problems are technical, not political. I wish I could understand why this message is getting inverted with people. Why is that happening? All I know is that's not good & it's not a good sign.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    But we never get that.
    I agree, and it's unfortunate. I agree because either people can't seem to understand economics & don't seem to care about trying to understand economics.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    In Capitalism, people can become filthy Rich at the same time as people can become filthy Poor.
    Well what do you mean by "filthy poor"? If a person has a job, a means of transporation, ability to acquire food, water, etc., ability to acquire clothes, furniture, televisions, computers, etc., are they filthy poor? If a person is fairly well educated, in good health or able to access healthcare when needed, are they filthy poor? If that's what you mean, if you mean some can become filthy rich and some can become filthy poor, then yeah, sure, that's what happens in capitalism.

    But, if by "filthy poor" you mean they end up living in poverty, meaning they can't afford many basic & essential things, they often go without having enough food to eat, maybe they're homeless or living in deteriorating homes and neighborhoods, then what you're talking about is state capitalism, where there's central planning, meaning goverment is made too big by placing mandates, restrictions, or bans on goods & services.

    It's a matter of being a rather simple question, under which system are people far less likely to fall through the cracks & struggle, state capitalism or a free market system? I think the answer would be a free market system, given what history shows us when you see what happens in places where the free market is denied, such as the now defunct Soviet Union, Venezuela today, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    You don't think that because Money is a scarce commodity, this wouldn't have any relevance in this whole vast distribution of Wealth?
    I don't understand what you mean by money being a scarce commodity; money is an economic tool with purchasing power. It's just a medium of exchange & when something's a medium of exchange, I'm not sure how it makes sense to speak of it as something that's scarce. Even if it were, it would again, have to be the doing of the goverment, by forcing people to not be allowed to use anything for money or a medium of exchange other than what it provides, and it makes it more difficult for people to use it for trade by doing things such as somehow trying to force the value of the supply it puts in circulation (such as with price controls, minimum wages, etc.).

    It would be relevant to the distribution of wealth, and probably in "unintended", undesired, and adverse ways to the economy.

    It doesn't really matter how much money there is in circulation or who has it; what matters is how many widgets the economy is producing; the more the better, given that the more widgets produced the less struggling folks there would be out there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Can you envision a time or setting where people have such variance in Wealth but at the same time those with the least are still able to live a comfortable life?
    I think that's what we've had here in the US for a while, and still have to some degree, but are probably in the process of ruining things if we don't get our act together.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    How is this possible when Money leaves ones hands faster than when you acquired it making those with less, assured to struggle to hold on to it and stay afloat?
    It's someone like me who'd be asserting that it's not possible. Reduce taxes, reduce bans, mandates, and restrictions imposed on the market, decentralize things, and what you describe here is less likely to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    By removing the State, do you remove Scarcity also?
    I don't believe removing the state is a good idea until we no longer need trade/money/jobs/etc. The state's necessary for, and a part of, capitalism. What needs to be removed is the state's goverment from where it shouldn't be meddling, which is intervening in the market. When the state or goverment is essentially only acting as a referee (e.g., enforcing contracts or protecting victims' rights), it's not meddling with the economy; it's providing a peaceful, productive, and efficient social infrastructure for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Does this remove Unfair Advantages and provides an equal playing field so everybody Wins??
    Limiting government to essentially only play a role as a referee and stay out of the market does get rid of the unfair advantages and unfair disadvantages that it creates when it gets in the way; it does provide an equal playing field. Everybody wins is a matter of perspective; so is everybody loses, except for a few crony capitalists. Everybody wins in the sense that they're free to compete & better themselves. When professional athletes play a game, one team wins and one team loses; they all actually win, though, because they're all receiving paychecks either way. That's just the analogy. The truth is that everybody does indeed win, because they have jobs, they can produce goods and services for others, they can obtain goods and services from each other, they can afford food & a roof over their heads, quality of life & standards of living can go up for everyone. Is this somehow a bad thing? Yes, it is, for those who hate being envious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    Or can an environment of Scarcity provide all of this?
    LOL An environment of scarcity obviously won't provide very much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    It's not about Envy.
    It's the only reason I see for complaining about a free market. Why complain, then, if it isn't about envy? We don't exactly have a free market; if people are complaining about what we have now, then perhaps what they're really complaining about is that we don't have a sufficiently free market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    To me it's just simply about common sense.
    Hey! Me too!

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Yes...a few become 'filthy' rich precisely because many live 'dirt' poor.....the connection could not be more obvious or harmful.....

    We all must wonder where some of Neil's assertions come from..no??....because his description above is only limitedly exampled by the few Northern European Countries where an emphasis on equality is apparent in the policies enacted and abided by...certainly not the U.S. where homelessness and poverty are rampant, and policy makers largely ignore (placate/reinforce) the plight of the poor....for the continued benefit of the rich,,,,,
    Ok, pick your favorite one of Neil's assertions and maybe we can figure out where they came from, one at a time.

    So, tell me what the assertion is and where I made it, then we can go from there.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    Ok, pick your favorite one of Neil's assertions and maybe we can figure out where they came from, one at a time.

    So, tell me what the assertion is and where I made it, then we can go from there.
    LOL....that would require going back a few years and more effort than its worth my friend, and besides, it would largely result with wasting both our time, no?.....

    The typical Neil pattern seems to be ....Come around...Stir up some trouble by offering some libertarian based 'opinions'.....often disguised as somehow remotely related to TZM, or containing meaningful insights (sometimes they even are!!)....Start a debate...make some 'assertions'........Disapear when the questions and challenges come hard and heavy....Rarely returning to the debate or discussion 'started' and left behind.....After a couple weeks...there's Neil again....planting the same libertarian seeds.....WTF dude?

    Neil's TZM Patten?...While I can be admittedly slow at times, its all very predictable after being subjected to it for a few years already.....

    I just gotta wonder....how many stings do Neil's bees give him in a season? ...if an answer is received (I won't hold my breath) I've got some anecdotal information I'd like to share about Beekeepers, those of us who get stung a lot and those who rarely get stung at all.....


    BTW; Here's an assertion that we're all still waiting for Neil to back up......claiming to know what Envy is and then neatly placing/catagorizing envy along with GREED and Selfishness to fit ....jAll one need do is just look at the words Neil has typed in this very thread....There's no need to go back....

    Love and Happiness to All.....
    Last edited by droneBEE; 1 Week Ago at 04:46 AM. Reason: clarity
    Ernest likes this.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    LOL....that would require going back a few years and more effort than its worth my friend, and besides, it would largely result with wasting both our time, no?.....
    Ha ha - are using this as an excuse, maybe because you realize I might actually be right? This is actually rather disappointing to me, though, because I'd like to be proven wrong. Don't you, as a member of TZM, want to educate people - even me?

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    The typical Neil pattern seems to be ....Come around...Stir up some trouble by offering some libertarian based 'opinions'.....often disguised as somehow remotely related to TZM, or containing meaningful insights (sometimes they even are!!)....Start a debate...make some 'assertions'........Disapear when the questions and challenges come hard and heavy....Rarely returning to the debate or discussion 'started' and left behind.....After a couple weeks...there's Neil again....planting the same libertarian seeds.....WTF dude?

    Neil's TZM Patten?...While I can be admittedly slow at times, its all very predictable after being subjected to it for a few years already.....
    There's only so much time I'm willing to spend on one issue. Anyone who's willing to be impartial and unbiased can look at the evidence and arguments I put forth and decide for themselves.

    Those who aren't willing to be impartial and unbiased will try to stop truth from spreading by using various tactics, including keeping a person who's trying to spread truth and awareness tied up and busy with a bombardment of refuted claims, fallacies, repetition of the same thing, insults, etc.

    The assault on truth can be motivated by bandwagon - strength in numbers; might makes right. All the truth opposition needs to do is have enough of their folks dispatched throughout the world to get in the way of truth and try to impede those spreading truth so they don't make any progress. It's easy to make those spreading truth look like the bad guys, because the truth being what it is can be ugly and unpleasant; it could be what people don't want to hear or what they want to deny. It can be easily attacked by simply distorting it or what someone said (BTW at present, this is what's happening with President Trump); for example, someone reading this might decide to convince themselves that by saying this, I'm claiming to always be right all of the time. That is in fact not what I'm trying to do, and there's nothing that I have actually written that entails that claim; I'm even taking the extra step of explicitly stating that I'm not trying to claim that I'm right all the time. It's not even the word I was using; I was using the word "truth", and I'm also going to explicitly state that I might be wrong about what the truth is. What's most amazing is that sometimes people will simply ignore it and come up with a way to twist my words anyways, especially when I'm trying to point out that it'll probably happen. It's amazing what people do & I guess I'm proceeding with it anyways as an experiment. I suppose I do that sometimes; I'll say something, knowing what to expect, just to see if it'll happen, and sure enough, it does happen. It doesn't end there; these explanations by people like me will then be used in a "cut and paste" manner on us in an almost mocking manner, but meant to be more serious, as though that's all they need to prove them right about something.

    I don't claim to be right and I don't have to be all the time; if I'm wrong about something, then it shouldn't be difficult for someone who knows I'm wrong to show it. A person can't know that I'm wrong if they can't see for themselves that I'm wrong; and if they can see for themselves that I'm wrong, then all they have to do is show everyone else what they see. If I am wrong, I can be shown that I'm wrong; it would be a simple matter of saying, "Neil, you're wrong, and here's why...." A paragraph or two is usually enough. If that's done, then I think it's very likely that we'd all be able to quickly address the issue, consider it resolved, and move on to the next issue. Even if don't agree or maybe can't seem to see the point, or whatever, I would at least be willing to acknowledge that there's a different position or perspective from the one that I have. As a matter of fact that happens to be the role I'm playing, but in some cases instead of people being willing to consider that I have a different position or perspective, I'm practically attacked with a tone and sentiment of "how dare you have a different position or perspective" (that, I might add, I can prove or show the reason for why I have a different position or perspective). That's how people with religious and political agendas act; that's not how sommeone who wants to speak about truth, facts, and science behaves.

    It's a simple matter of the scientific method. If it can be observed and repeated, then it's science. If it has been repeatedly observed throughout history, then we're dealing with facts.

    I'm content to at least be able to drop truth about reality where it's needed, spend some time defending it, then repeat the process at the next target. If I let myself get tied up in a debate on one issue, I won't have time to cover other issues that need addressing. I'm only one person and can only do so much.

    I made the decision to speak truth, to be objective and consistent, whenever I can, even though it might be hated, denied, attacked, and repelled.

    That's ok, I'm used to it; that goes on throughout the world every day, it has been since long before we were all born, and it unfortunately will probably continue long after we're gone. I'm not going to give up, though - because so far I still care.

    I can see why people give up and stop caring; they're probably thinking to themselves, why should I bother with continuing to exert the effort in vain only to subject myself to the pain and misery of trying to deal with these folks? That's what happens when you're over the target, you receive a large amount of flack.

    Or maybe in some cases they don't give up but end up frustrated, because they're being forced to have deal with it or are subjected to it. For example, a mandated minimum wage prices essential jobs out of existence; it's bad for people without skills & experience who need to develop them, and it's bad for small businesses that need those services. That's frustrating to both the small business owners as well as people who need jobs. This idea of creating a minimum wage was conjured up by some politician trying to win votes; not only is politics not a solution to society's problems, but it actually creates problems. Once they implement their minimum wage policy and as a result damage the economy by creating an unemployment problem, their "solution" is to cause even more damage to the economy - raise the minimum wage! Those trying to clean up their mess, their opponents, end up being the ones getting blamed for the mess.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    I just gotta wonder....how many stings do Neil's bees give him in a season? ...if an answer is received (I won't hold my breath) I've got some anecdotal information I'd like to share about Beekeepers, those of us who get stung a lot and those who rarely get stung at all.....
    Currently I have no bees; they've all either left or were poisoned. I was recently informed by my friend who set up the 2 hives in Loudoun that they're empty, now. He said they were ok last time he checked them, earlier this spring. I'd be interested in it anyways & I'm sure other readers would also be interested.

    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    BTW; Here's an assertion that we're all still waiting for Neil to back up......claiming to know what Envy is and then neatly placing/catagorizing envy along with GREED and Selfishness to fit ....jAll one need do is just look at the words Neil has typed in this very thread....There's no need to go back....
    I'm simply going with definitions of the words and the descriptions that are involved. When we see the description that's given about the issue being complained about, we can see that it's the definition of the word envy: Envy | Define Envy at Dictionary.com

    1. a feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc.
    2. an object of such feeling
    3. Obsolete. ill will.
    (Gee I wonder why #3 is now considered obsolete.)

    Envy is what can mainly lead to greed; here's the definition for greed: Greed | Define Greed at Dictionary.com

    1. excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.
    Greed is want can drive or motivate someone to be selfish; here's the definition for selfish: Selfishness | Define Selfishness at Dictionary.com

    1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
    2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Love and Happiness to All.....
    Last edited by Neil; 1 Week Ago at 01:38 PM.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,191
    Here's a perfect example of how a professor of science is portrayed as a bad guy:


  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,061
    Oh Neil, my friend....your points are pointless to me and unfortunately, to the questions posed..............You didn't answer one of them......

    One can be 'envious' if one has no home, no food, and can see inside the homes of others who do.....that form of Envy is NOT the same as Greed or selfishness ....only in so far as it 'fits' your own world view (I still think you need to get out more )

    Do you require more examples? Plenty of them abound...if the eyes are looking and heart is open..........But you'll be disappearing from this debate soon enough, heh? ....as usual...its been fun.....
    Last edited by droneBEE; 1 Week Ago at 07:43 AM.
    Ernest likes this.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1