A problem with the free-market?

[wilderness]

@DD5

If somebody knows better, like all those who complain about this, why don’t they buy off the land from Disneyland and make a profit?

Hmm, you wouldn’t be happening to be talking about an entrepreneur would you?

[limitgov]

“Libertarians claim that the free market puts reasources where the most demand is. This instance with Disneyland seems to be a counterexample;”

that’s not true…the probelm is, you are only looking at the small picture, not the overall bigger picture…

Disney will bring in WAY MORE resources by keeping all the surrounding land to themselves…

If Disney would have allowed others to build that stuff, it would have devalued the feeling you get at Disney World considerably… the feeling you get at Disney World being surrournded by all Disney property is worth way more to many than letting the unused property be used by someone else. This is why Disney World is the number 1 destination in the world.t true

[Snowflake]

Did no one thing my response was any good? Not worth replying to? I’d like to know why

Maybe my next post will be more offensive so as to cajole the mises people into acknowledging me. Fart.

[bloomj31]

Here’s another question: Why is Disney holding onto the land if they don’t think that’s the most profitable thing they can do with it? Are they trying to lose money?

[twistedbydsign99]

@Snowflake

Consider that a person who set up shop right outside disneyland would be free-riding off of disney’s investment, harming disney’s expected revenues.

The higher disney’s revenues, the more money they can invest in building a park. Seen vs unseen.

Amateur economist away!

I’m not sure that is what free-riding means. I think the issue is if disneyland ever wanted to expand the park (which they did) they would need the neighboring plots of land, if someone else owned them they could hold out and disney could not expand in a contiguous manner.

[JakobM]

Economics informs us that its not possible for socialism to work the way leftists want it to. This is a rational point.

Human action is inherently rational. Socialism is human action. Socialism is inherently rational.

If socialists conceded that their system would lead to mass poverty and still preferred it, we’d have no rational argument with them.

Pooh pooh. Poverty is a matter of subjective preference. You can’t define poverty in objective terms.

[yessir]

Human action is inherently rational. Socialism is human action. Socialism is inherently rational.

---

It’s not rational, it is purposeful

[twistedbydsign99]

@yessir

Human action is inherently rational. Socialism is human action. Socialism is inherently rational.

---

It’s not rational, it is purposeful

As long as you don’t conflate rational with correct I agree.

[JakobM]

Mises Daily | Mises Institute

If human action always aims at a purpose, which by definition it does, then human action must be rational, that is, consistent with reason or guided by one’s will and intellect. It can never be termed irrational.

In making this point, Mises in Human Action (p. 19) writes “Human action is necessarily always rational. The term ‘rational action’ is therefore pleonastic and must be rejected as such. When applied to the ultimate ends of action, the terms rational and irrational are inappropriate and meaningless. The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man.”

I think my comments stand. Your rejection of socialism is based on arbitrary value judgments.

[nirgrahamUK]

Your rejection of socialism is based on arbitrary value judgments.

you forgot ‘informed by facts about economics and consequences’

[yessir]

You use the term rational differently. I assume you mean it in terms of using your mind and coming to correct conclusions depending on your goals; which clearly as a socialist you don’t

[AuthoritarianCommerc]

you forgot ‘informed by facts about economics and consequences’

Right, no reasonably ordinary, judicious person aware of the economics and sociological factors of socialism could prefer it to the market. As for those that do? F*** 'em. Weirdos.

[nandnor]

Libertarians hold that the free market, through the price mechanism, allocates scare resources towards their most valuable use. I have a possible counterexample to this claim, and I’m unsure of the best way to answer it.

I heard a rumor that, several years back, Disneyland bought up all of the land surrounding a competing theme-park to prevent them from expanding. Nowadays, Disneyland rents out this land but refuses to sell any of it. The most valuable use of this land would be for the expansion of the competition’s theme park (evidenced by the amount of money they would be willing to pay for it) but since Disneyland doesn’t want the additional competition, this will never happen. The land is not being put towards its most valuable end.

There is obviously nothing coercive going on in this situation, so libertarians couldn’t object to it on that basis. I’m tempted to take a hard-line approach; admit that this is a legitimate free-market use of property, and maintain that government interference won’t be a good alternative. If there’s a better way of answering this objection, I’m interested in hearing what it is.

Values cannot be interpersonally compared due to being an ordinal size. They only have meaning in a persons value scale.

[permabear86]

“Right, no reasonably ordinary, judicious person aware of the economics and sociological factors of socialism could prefer it to the market.”

I agree!

[Reasoning]

[QUOTE=DD5]
And of course, it is so obvious to as why this is the case that no elaboration is necessary?
[/quote]

That is correct. Obviously Disney has not homesteaded said land.

[JakobM]

you forgot ‘informed by facts about economics and consequences’

Those are irrelevant and subject to empirical considerations anyway. Ultimately you reject socialism because of arbitrary value judgements. And then, you market totalitarians show your true colors…

Communists will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.

---

no reasonably ordinary, judicious person aware of the economics and sociological factors of socialism could prefer it to the market.

Why not? Because you say so? The problem is that socialism is not in line with your subjective ‘rationality’? Looks like you don’t really understand what ‘subjective preference’ means…

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini

Hm. Wasn’t Mussolini a key socialist in italy? At least until he changed his subjective preferences…

[DD5]

@Reasoning

That is correct. Obviously Disney has not homesteaded said land.

Do you really expect anybody to respond when you continue to be so vague in your “reasoning”?

[nirgrahamUK]

why should I believe you that ‘economics’ facts are irrelevant to the question of human well being !?

[wilderness]

@yessir

It’s not rational, it is purposeful

There is no difference between the terms therefore rational is purposeful.

“Action is, by definition, always rational. One is unwarranted in calling goals of action irrational simply because they are not worth striving for from the point of view of ones own valuations.” - Mises; Epistemological Problems of Economics

[wilderness]

@yessir

I assume you mean it in terms of using your mind and coming to correct conclusions depending on your goals; which clearly as a socialist you don’t

All socialists act purposefully for mass starvations and murdering. That’s what it means to be a socialist. They even, historically, had gulags, and told some people to stop planting crops. They attack private property and don’t believe in maintaining individual liberty. They are ad hoc when it comes to what they can do to other people, don’t find the need to realize scarcity, and basically avoid any truth-values that have to do with private property maintenance and economic science. They are violence and disregard peace, which peace is the only way for any economic action to take place.