You are asking me for an exact carbon-copy of the market in the political sphere to accept my point?
The market does not. Will somebody produce me an exotic variety of ice-cream which requires quite a heavy investment(because the capital required gets more votes from other people in the market place), and I being the only demander of the dish? If not, where’s the worth of my vote? Isn’t this a zero-sum equation too?
I am not being cynical, just trying to match up to the standards you’ve set just now for propoertional democracy.
No, your point is wrong. I already gave you the closest model in the blog post. Panarchy.
Nonsense. You can have whatever you pay for. You get to vote. You don’t get everything regardless of cost. Remember, scarcity is a constant.
Yeah, if you’re a socialist, then not getting everything you want, regardless of cost, would be worthless to you. Do you believe you are entitled to everything no matter how much or how little you contribute?
I’m pointing out the fallacies in the market = democracy statement.
A free market is an economy that has no centralized command and control. People simply do what they can and buy what they need. A free market respects property rights, labor rights, and freedom of association.
A free market is more just than one controlled by governments or large corporations. This is because they are not trusted with other people’s money or possessions, and are not allowed to change to rules at random. This makes the economy efficient and prosperous.
That’s the zero-sum game of the market. The same goes with the proportional representation system.
That’s a strawman. My point is, even the market(like a voters democracy) is a zero-sum play field, obviously because we live in scarcity. Not EVERYONE can have a say to their vote. So, you really don’t have a point to differentiate the market from a voters’ democracy.
I’m pointing out that the voters’ democracy and market share the same attributes - one of which is, a zero-sum equation.
It’s not a zero sum game. When you make trades in the market, both parties are better off. In a democracy, one party advances their agenda against the other, based on weight of the vote.
This is distressing to me, because you’re well into AE, and yet this distinction should be obvious to you. I’m concerned that you think the market is zero sum.
No it isn’t. I’m not making a claim about your position, I am asking if your position rephrased makes sense.
Like I said, it is disturbing that you see the market as zero sum.
I know that people exchange only when they have reverse preference scales.
The same is with a democracy. Jon can’t have bread for breakfast if Jim bids it away from Jon for picnic. As you said, it’s because of scarcity.
Dude, I am very well an AE fan even now. But I find the market process to be a voting machine.
The market allocates resources, based on who has the most votes. If I vote and bid a loaf of bread away from you, you do not have it. As simple as that. I am not talking about the ezxchange that happens between me and the baker, which obviously is a positive-sum game.
I find myself agreeing with the crowd saying that democracy is not a good analogy for a free market. I do see it as a form of “voting system”, but not in the same way as within a democracy.
“The market is a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. It is true that the various individuals have not the same power to vote. The richer man casts more ballots than the poorer fellow. But to be rich and to earn a higher income is, in the market economy, already the outcome of a previous election. The only means to acquire wealth and to preserve it, in a market economy not adulterated by government-made privileges and restrictions, is to serve the consumers in the best and cheapest way. Capitalists and landowners who fail in this regard suffer losses. If they do not change their procedure, they lose their wealth and become poor. It is consumers who make poor people rich and rich people poor. It is the consumers who fix the wages of a movie star and an opera singer at a higher level than those of a welder or an accountant.”
–Mises
So here’s another one, is this statement by Ludwig “fixed” by simply replacing “democracy” with something like “an informal voting system”? I think he’s accurate with just that change, and that he was probably using the term ‘democracy’ very loosely meaning simply that everyone has a say.
Could you please reword your sarcastic (double negative-ish?) comment so that someone who should have been asleep 2 hours ago can understand without putting too much effort into thinking about it?