Forgive me for intruding onto the conversation but why conservative society neccesary have low-time preference. You guys seem to implies that a liberal society have the opposite time preference.
To me, it seem that time-preference have NOTHING to do with your cultural leaning.
A liberal person, for example, could denounces the ownership of expensive cars that the conservative masses like to buy and opt instead for a bike that is aquedute enough for transportation. But in addition to that, he also hold a nice programming job, a profession that traditionally doesn’t give a damn about how you look, what degrees what you have, but only care about your results. He just happen to be real good at his job oo he got a nice salary!
Since he denounces the materalism of the current society…He have no uses for the money for now and just save it in some bank account…
By the end of his life…he became richer than his conservative nieghbors only because he is thiftier than they are.
Welcome =]
The thing is, Giles claims that a conservative society has low time preference. I’m just saying that IF that’s the case, THEN he can’t also claim that people would prefer renting over buying. But Giles just plays dumb and refuses to acknowledge his contradiction.
I think that it almost goes without saying that time-preference has alot to do with culture.
A heroin junkie has a higher time preference than someone who abstains from drug use. He engages in capital consumption of his body. He is unable to delay the gratification of his next fix in light of the longer term benefits of good health.
A producer has a lower time preference than a criminal. He recognizes the longer-run higher productivity of division of labour and capital accumulation brought about by peaceful relations. The criminal is unwilling to make the immediate sacrifice of not taking what he pleases or conforming to social standards necessary to engage in peaceful relations with his neighbours.
I think overall, people who are farsighted will try to promote farsightedness in others. This will encourage others to increase participation in division of labour which is in everyone’s long-run interest. And this encouragement tends to take the form of trading more and including those that demonstrate culturally conservative social traits (low time-preference behaviour) and trading less (boycotting) and excluding (ostracizing) those who demonstrate child-like social traits (high time-preference behaviour).
Well, this is possible it would not be the general tendency. Besides, saving and using a bike instead of an expensive flashy car, would generally be a conservative trait.
Careful; heroin reacts chemically with the biology of the individual (the brain, body, etc.), which influences the psychology of the individual (neurotransmitters, dopamine, etc.), eventually influencing time preference. The individual does not automatically have a higher time preference because they do drugs, nor does an individual require a higher time preference in order to do drugs.
Imo, it would be interesting to observe the progress of cognitive science closely in an effort to draw time preference towards a more scientific basis (if it hasn’t been done already, I simply remark this since cognitive science, compared to psychology which has a head start, is still rather new & emerging as a science).
There is also the exception that depending on the drug, the individual, despite said addiction, can very easily function with or without a higher time preference (i.e. the consumption of caffiene, even in moderate doses, poses addiction to some extent).
The point is some individuals sacrifice their health (future consumption) for a high. And this is not independent of social influences. It is also dependent on biological and psychological factors, technological knowledge and capital stock. But some people are more civilized and some people are more childish.
I’m at a loss to figure out how TP relates to rental. Ownership of a piece of property is not more risky than rental of it. At best one can say it is more difficult than renting, but this does not deter consumers even now.
People need to save considerably more to buy a piece of land than they do to pay the monthly rent. As for ownership currently, the government does a lot to deter the renting of land, and it promotes land ownership.
Only, I said that there are numerous other incentives for people to rent. Yes, people would have low time preference, but this doesn’t mean that they’d wish to own land anyway.
Funny, when I asked you to provide me pictures of land that the US government holds and can’t be homesteaded, you changed subject.
Yes, it will be, but this is where TP comes into the picture.
No, it would only be a contradiction if I claimed that time preference was the only incentive for people to rent, if you’d actually read what I’d written you’d know that’s not the case.
No, it’s just a different aspect of the idea that owners of a store need the skills of the manager of the mall. It’s the same principle, just this time it’s owners of houses and the owners of communities.
We’re talking about a hypothetical free society, not about the current tyranny. You fail. Again.
No it won’t be. Besides you can (wrongly) invoke time preference regardless of the (hypothetical) price of land. That is, according to your ‘theory’, today the majority of people should rent but that’s not the case. And please don’t be as silly as to claim that the reason why people buy houses is that government subsidizes home ownership.
Your ‘argument’ is still contradictory. Whether there are other incentives or not is irrelevant. You’re claiming that people will have both low time preference, i.e. be ‘conservative’, but will prefer to rent, that is, have high time preference.
Trying to apply principles to situations in which those principles don’t apply is a sign of confusion…or worse.
Are you completely unable to debate properly, or have you just realized that you’r wrong so you resort to these silly little games? Once again, you’re avoiding the question. Show me, on a map, these large amounts of land that the US government holds that will bring land prices down.
Because we all know government has never done anything to subsidize home ownership [^o)]. Now then, go to my second post on this topic and you’ll see why people don’t rent today. By the way, what I missed there was that govenment doesn’t allow us to be selective in who we admit to our communities, which would do a lot to make such a venture unviable.
I only mentioned time prefence because you stated that as land prices went up so would the price for renting. Yes, you’re correct in that. But it doesn’t matter because of time preference. That was my point, you’ve been putting words in my mouth ever since. The other incentives for renting (higher property values, access to public places, less uncertainty) will also be taken into account.
But they do apply (you’re going to have to prove that they don’t if you want to argue that).
“The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States.”
So…you…fail ? Maybe even more land is ‘owned’ by state and city governments ? (I’m asking - I don’t really know)
Anyway, I’m not talking only about the US. I already said that in a free society, as a general principle, everything will be cheaper, including land.
Yes, since the stone age, the fed’s been subsidizing home ownership. And contrariwise, feudal land arrangements were not created by the state, no sir. There’s never been such things as warlords, militarism, and serfdom. In medieval times feudal land arrangements were so convenient that peasants ‘voluntary’ submitted to their lords.
I’ve dealt with your misconceptions and fallacious use of time preference 5 or 6 times already. I’m not wasting any more time. Have a good day.
True, and in the absence of a price control forcing interest rates down, home ownership will for a while become rarer. However, if a lower TP does predominate in a freed market, renting will gradually go out of fashion, as more accumulate wealth in the form of savings to purchase land (or at any rate, some permanent form of residence.)
On the other hand, In the absence of a state taxing its subjects at 50%, a lot of capital will be available to finance a lot of different things, home ownership included.
Yes, however, with less restrictions regarding land use and less uncertainty as a result of better security and lack of eminent domain it could also go the other way around.
As if all cultrually liberals use drugs and don’t know how to save. [^o)]
I have a permissive attitude toward sex and other devious behaviors as long as they don’t interfere with my life. I don’t do drugs and get high.
I also highly approves of the fact that my generation have no qualm about “stealing” musics even if they don’t want to admit it themsleves.
I don’t own iphones and other expensive gadetery because I felt the companies behind are just jackass and pussy for not giving out the source code. I run an alternative operating system because I felt it is superior to other software and that the people behind them actually respect me.
I also think shoping for clothes is a waste of money and possess a great hatred toward cars. I hate debt and I like to save money even if I am not successful at restraining myself.(Mostly spent it on food)
I felt that I am culturally liberal even though I possess low time preferance. Therefore I concludes that conservative values do not neccessary monopolizes the values of thift and hatred of materalism. One can be a liberal and be even more thifty.
Your repeated claim that the government “promotes land ownership” is mystifying to me, given that the government inherently constitutes and puts up massive barriers to entry due to its own claims on land. The government has a dejure legal claim on all the land, and if you want to own land you must appeal to this alleged prior owner (the government). If you get to the point where you do own it, you still do not technically have full owership due to things like property taxation, which presumes ownership on the part of the government. If you want to homestead land, it’s essentially impossible for you to do so without infringing on the state’s own territorial claims. The state lays claim to vast swaths of land that we are not allowed to make use of or homestead. So you appear to have this almost entirely backwards. The state essentially makes it harder for most individuals to become land owners, while entrenching the ownership of a handful of people in patronage with it.