sadly, so
I’m confused. Why are prominent members of this forum debating, when their political ideologies are similar?
What’s name for this arguing tactic ? This attempt at ignoring the main point while making comments that are only half-related ?
Whether the owner of capital consumes it or not, is not a priori good nor bad. But maybe you keep on insisting that your value-free value-laden interpretation of things is the correct one.
You didn’t ?
So, again, why does the beneficiary of legal privilege lack the incentive to consume capital ? And even in the case that he didn’t consume capital, why would this benefit his (forced) customers ?
Because they’re having a measuring contest, and if they aren’t smart enough to stop it I’ll show them who really has the biggest. And I guarantee it’s neither one of them.
To the extent that he consumers capital he will have to purchase more of it, raising the market price and worsening the situation for other producers who do not have state priveledge. Moreover, consuming capital means that a worse service will be provided.
Non sequitur. He can just consume it. Or use it for his personal ends, which don’t include customer satisfaction.
The same thing is true for a public provider. You’re trying (and failing) to show the differences between nominally ‘private’ monopolists and public monopolists. But all you do is make observations which apply to both.
And by doing so, he gains revenue how?
Yes, you’re quite correct. But unlike the public monopolist the private monopolist can expect a stream of revenue into the future and as such will wish to accomodate to that stream, the public monopolist cannot and hence will exploit the means of production as quickly as possible.
By selling whatever service he sells at 10X the market price. A private monopolist is just a facade for the state and its tax collecting system.
It seems to me that the same thing is true for a public monopolist. We’re talking about the people who work at the post office (for instance), not about elected politicians. Although even elected politicians know that their ‘job’ is a lifetime occupation.
Both public and private monopolists have a guaranteed source of income and both lack incentives to provide adequate services.
I took a quick look and didn’t see a response, but that’s ok. You and I invested a lot of time into this yesterday. I’ve got to limit my time here, it’s so easy to fall back into the habit of constant debate and declining productivity.
If/when you get a chance to respond, you can always drop me a PM/conversation. Again, if you don’t reply, no worries.
I disagree with this statement, but won’t defend my disagreement.
Economics is the study of human action and is not confined to material wealth, but the way we take decisions as beings with free will.
Utilitarianism is a subset of value systems based on production of wealth or some other ends justify the means type rationale.
Imposing utilitarianism on economics is no different than imposing egalitarianism on the same. IMHO, if you want to remain value neutral, you will stick with the broader “economics”, and not it’s minor and narrow subset, utilitarianism.
I’ve been reading through this thread trying to catch up. It’s been interesting.
I thought economics was concerned with exchanges between individuals in the free market. And those exchanges are related to value, not how much more one has than another. Also rights of those involved in the exchange are considered, meaning, in a free market rights are protected whereas oppositions to the free market those rights are violated. So it seems we define this differently. You look at the exchange with a utilitarian premise (means to meet an end). My premise in the exchange is based on value.
No, it is not correct. The state may be supporting free riders when the road is socialized, but when it is under fascism, the free rider becomes the owners of the road. Moving a public monopoly to a private monopoly just changes the ownership structure. With the public monopoly, there is no upside. When the monopoly is made private, the downside is made public.
Again, I am for privatization. But I am not for fascism. If you want to privatize, you must deregulate and allow competition, or it’s just another flavour of socialism.
Sure capital consumption will be profitable for him. He is going to get new capital stock through subsidy and bailouts. You can see it with AIG and the banking cartel in America. You have a private monopoly, and when they consume their capital, they get a bailout. The moral hazard is built into a private monopoly. The incentives for a private monopolist are completely different from a private firm under free market competition. Competition is the foundation of the incentive structure you keep referring to that dictates time preferences, investment and capital.
I’m not responding to this because I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing, and I have no idea what you are talking about.
He has not proven that and neither have you. These are just assertions. And I fear, you’re both promoting a form of gradualism that is all pomp and no show.
Wait, I thought praxeology studied the implications of the truth of human actyion, with economics being its biggest subset.
You’re right. I tend to use the terms interchangeably because every time I say praxeology to a layman, they look at me like I just spoke another language.
After reviewing their common definitions, I haven’t been accurate using it here.
That said, I still reject that economics is focused on more production, or that it is qualitative and not qualitative. We know that “more” is subjective.
“…as someone that values consistency…” Yet, how I read this you are stating it is “value free”. Then why did you state consistency has value if it does not involve value? Also you state “consistency is… (a) good thing…” Thus consistency is moral. In philosophy moral = good. Thus to ask “What is moral?” Is the same has asking “What is good?” which by the way is also the same as asking “What is valued?”.
I’m definitely not trying to answer for them, but the answer seems obvious to me. Cause people are a bunch of individuals and not robots programmed to think the same. Libertarians a bunch of individuals imagine that…lol [:P] just being funny, seriously no sarcasm intended [:)]
Ha. This is tame.
consistency does not have value. yet, i personally value consistency in moral theory. it is me that places value on consistency in the context of moral theories, and it so happens that i see the greater consistency in the particular moral theory called natural rights. its an example of me projecting value onto something because it has quality. like my valueing a diamond because i like shiny things. its the shiny that i value but the diamond is value free.
consistency isnt a ‘universally’ good thing. its just good to me and others who value consistency (in moral theories). for those that dont value consistency (in moral theories) they will merely find it hard to argue their ethics when i rip them apart for being inconsistant.
i admit i could be wrong about whether ethical theories are value free or not. but im rather confident economics is value free. since one can argue that when one accepts the ‘force of the argument’ of a particular ethical theory, this compels you to act in harmony with the ethical theory in order to be good and in order not to be bad, and every ethica ltheory that i’ve come across insists on people having to be good and having to avoid being bad (this is where the compulsion comes in), it is the power of the moral theory to bind you to respecting it and conforming to its dictates that would be the thing that lets us call it ‘value laden’ , because we would have to carry away its value, acknowledging it would be the same as adopting its values, moral theories mention right and wrong, permissable and impermissable and this is what they are for, to give you values. but economics is a science of ‘ifs and therefores’, and does not make ethical claims, it does not say good and bad, its just says how things work. it doesnt even try to give you value. its value free.
I don’t object to your moral theory. That’s your freedom. But I don’t agree. I find more consistency in this value philosophy I ascribe to.
I think the diamond has value, not just cause “I” think it does, though maybe it is just cause “I” think it does. I think the particles that make a diamond valued certain bio-chemical bonds (coal), and then the valuing process of geology had an outcome called diamond. I define value as “a force of attraction”. Also, this philosophy I adhere to does not disregard anything found in science whatsoever, but I argue actually provides a better perspective as to what is going on in science. I am not alone in this philosophy. I value this rational for its’ better consistency, meaning, value is consistent in all patterns. Thus, the consistency of this value rational is more consistent I think and is not limited to this, but not that. Value is everywhere I think.
Well, my value philosophy states your being inconsistent for you find value here, but not there. It’s the inconsistency and non-universality that logical positivists and those of a subject/object metaphysics have had difficulty mending.
You do admit you might be wrong. I might be wrong as well. I’m glad we can each admit such.
How would you know that economics is value free if you can’t separate your value from economics? In other words your perspective of economics is not outside of you. Your perspective and understanding of economics can’t be separated from the economics that you know and value.
Ethics is the intellect reasoning what is right and wrong, but that is different from morals. Ethics is a subset of morals. Therefore, ethics are moral values indeed, but also the meta-moral or meta-value, thus, the reality of valuing is not necessarily only about a choice of what is right and what is wrong. I value maple syrup. Does that mean I’m ethically right or wrong? No. Is it a moral decision? Yes. I think maple syrup tastes good. It IS good. The reality of the maple syrup and I is good. I don’t value brussel sprouts. Is that an ethical decision? No. A moral one? Yes. I find it good to not value brussel sprouts. Are any of these morals definitive for all everywhere? No. Freedom is moral. Now ethics does try to come up with definitives or universal laws of what is right and wrong. Yet, that’s why law is a subset of ethics and ethics is a subset of moral.
I ascribe to the metaphysics of quality by Robert Pirsig, so you understand where I am coming from. Pirsig is a pragmatist, and has been considered to be of the school in pragmatism called radical pragmatism with the likes of John Dewey.
Here’s an obviously short explanation of his metaphysics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOQ
What logic is, has never been set in stone and many philosophers throughout time have tried to explain its reality (explain what it is).
I think our philosophies are individual preferences and I’m not so concerned here to argue which one is better. But at least you know where I am coming from. Thanks.