within ancap society – the less effective a resource is managed, the less overall economic growth and productivity for society in general.–Rettoper
This is true, however its impossible to measure efficiency and it implies that societal welfare is based on something objective – angurse
Are you kidding dude?!
your wrong – it is NOT impossible to measure efficiency — astute capitalists do it everyday. Otherwise profitable enterprises and capital accumulation would be a “shot in the dark*”*
yet economics shows that interpersonal utility is impossible to measure.–angurse
This is ridiculous!
if it was impossible to measure then economics would not be able to confirm this. In sum, your statement is utter confusion.
moreover, what does the statement or “interpersonal utility” have to do with debunking anything I have offered on this thread ?
If a Forest owner, say Mr. Smith, knows the alternative uses for his land and chooses not to forgo deforestation and chooses leisure yet is forced by another party (potential investors, firms, and society(s)) to do anything other than his original intentions, he is obviously worse off. --angurse
of course, that is a sad fact of economic reality-- namely if the owner of a valued resource fails to efficiently manage his valued resources, he will fail economically.
More timber may be produced for “society” but that obviously has a lower value than leisure. --angurse
however its impossible to measure efficiency and it implies that societal welfare is based on something objective – angurse
here you contradict yourself in the same post. you claim to know that leisure has a greater value than timber (an arbitrary and subjective assertion) and yet in another post you claim that efficiency is impossible to measure.
in reality, Calculating the value of timber relative to leisure is the task of entreprenuers and investors – if a successful investor determines that a valued resource can be reallocated to a more profitable use in some other capacity - then thy will be done. If he is wrong, then he loses capital and becomes a more marginal figure in the economy.
There is clearly no economic grounding for saying that “society” is better off of more efficient given the fact that utility has been lowered.–angurse
by what economic calculation do you determine that reallocating land for timber production is less profitable than using the same land for leisure?
IN contrast, it is logical that individuals,firms, and societies motivated by aesthetic goals instead of economic goals will likely have less capital then individuals, firms, and societies motivated by purely economic goals.
On the free market, all individuals must either remain on the same utility plane or move to a higher one, --angurse
“same utility plane or move to a higher one” ?!?!
please explain to me what you are talking about here angurse before I comment on it .
voluntary actions increase societal utility.–angurse
not all transfers of valued resources can be done by voluntary and peaceful means for the reasons I outlined in numerous posts
Given the fact that it is impossible to compare interpersonal utility, it can never be said with absolute certainty that societal utility has been increased.–angurse
my assertions are based on economics, profit, and capital — not “interpersonal utility”.
let me try and make it easy for you with a brief outline —
(1) if the owner of a valued resource does not manage his resource efficiently (economic efficiency) then he will have less capital available for security.
(2) if an investor who covets the mismanaged resource determines through economic cost analysis that he can employ the resource(s) more efficiently AND the resource is not available for peaceful voluntary exchange AND the investor determines that he can annex the resource(s) using coercion to a net profit – then coercion it is .
IN sum, what does your interpersonal argument have to do with the economic calculations that led to an economically inefficiently managed resource being annexed by force ?
So the question remains, how exactly are you measuring interpersonal utility and efficiency? – angurse
so the answer is that interpersonal utility and efficiency are not directly examined in my assertions. My arguments are based on economic profitablity – hence maximal-captialism — NOT maximal-“interpersonal utility.”
Moreover, I havent sought to measure “interpersonal utility and efficiency” other than to assert that individual, firms, and societies that reject profit and capital accumulation for some other non-economic goals (perhaps interpersonal utility) will see their economic wherewithal relative to more profit driven investors, firms, and societies decline. And in turn, their ability to defend resources negatively impacted.
in sum, my assertions are based on economics, profit, and capital accumulation. you seem to be engaged in an argument with yourself on something that has little to do with the points I have outlined in this thread.
there isn’t any way for an outside observer(s) (potential investors, firms, and society(s)) to identify whether a particular resource will generate revenue or losses, that is to say, economic or uneconomic.–angurse
ridiculous.
Again, If profit and loss calculations were not possible in the free market – then successful enterprises and investments would be a “crap shoot”
trillions of transactions take place everyday in which individual actors base their decisions on cost/benefit analysis of whether the transaction will reap a profit. Of course, every single human endeavor has some measure of subjectivity, however successful investors and firms employ sophisticated economic tools to determine whether a particular enterprise will be successful or not and take action accordingly. Moreover, when actors subordinate economic considerations for aesthetic goals that actors economic wherewithal declines relative to a more economic profit driven actor.
To illustrate this point consider an example: Mr. Smith owns a large plot of land on top of an oil field and chooses not to pump the oil out. His actions demonstrate that Mr Smith’s perceived benefits don’t exceed the cost. The particular reason(s) why they don’t exceed the costs irrelevant, as the cost of any activity can only be measured by lost opportunities or utility, which is inherently subjective, due to the fact that it can only be anticipated by the decision-maker at that very instance. --angurse
Your statement confirms (1) that you didnt read my previous posts and/or (2) you didnt understand the rationale behind my assertions.
for example, it is not subjective that “Mr. Smith” is foregoing economic gain by not drilling for oil. Moreover, it is not subjective that Mr. Smith has subordinated economic goals for aesthetic goals by not drilling for oil on his land.
As a result, Mr. Smith’s decision that aesthetic goals are more important than economic goals will leave his valued resources economically under utilized. as a result, his valued resource will also be under defended since security is funded by economic capital as opposed to “aesthetic capital”.
the decision to forego maximum economic profit may be irrelevant to you and Mr. Smith – but to a profit motivated investor and his PDA of choice, it is an opportunity to use coercion to successfully release a heretofore untapped resource to overall societal economic benefit.
in sum, investors, firms, and societies that forego economic profit for some other aesthetic or non-economic goals will see their economic strength wane relative to economically minded competitors. In turn, this will lead to loss resources due to economic inefficiency and waste if the resource is economically valuable, under utilized, and under defended.
I have covered this in detail in previous posts if you cared to read them.
I will respond to the balance of your post in a few minutes.
I am getting kicked off my computer at work
before I waste my time replying to your strawmen and exercises in sematic diversions – please read my posts thoughtfully and without bias and ask for clarification before misrepresenting my arguments or making assumptions about their specific meaning.
