Jump to content

If Capitalism is Immoral what System of Economics is Moral?


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

No, rather I was calling into question the part you point out here:

Which seems funny considering you discard Communism because you refuse to consider fantasy hypotheticals, but keep this one.

What's fantastic about recognizing or even ignoring the obvious fact that not everyone who needs a certain resource will get it? Do we not live in a world of limited resources? The point is that we have to allocate those limited resources in the best way possible, and free markets are the only way to do that.

If you're willing to discuss this issue on an intelligent, economically grounded level, then I will continue debating with you, but it seems obvious that you either lack the ability or the willingness to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also find it amusing you use a disaster scenario as your example, considering that's pretty much the perfect, textbook case of where capitalism completely utterly fails in real life. Most countries handle disaster relief in a very uncapatilistic way for a reason.

No, disaster relief was not the example. Plywood allocation in preparation for a hurricane was the example. Do you have an example of a country that has a socialistic approach to plywood distribution?

This is my last reply to your strawmans, Shryke. Either discuss this intelligently, or not at all.

And if you don't understand what I mean, I want you to write a post in which you intelligently argue that a communist society can be more efficient at allocation and production than a free market society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please, get over yourself.

You used an example of disaster relief/preparedness (little real difference between the 2 btw) which in fact contradicts your point.

What's fantastic about recognizing or even ignoring the obvious fact that not everyone who needs a certain resource will get it? Do we not live in a world of limited resources? The point is that we have to allocate those limited resources in the best way possible, and free markets are the only way to do that.

No, they aren't. In fact, in your very example they fail utterly because unless the part of town that needs the plywood is also the richest, those resources will go to those who can pay the most, not those who need them the most.

Your "point" only works if you assume that those who can afford the materials are those who need them the most. Something that is not even true in your example.

It's pretty funny honestly, especially in light of your attempt at a superiority complex.

Do you have an example of a country that has a socialistic approach to plywood distribution?

In an emergency situation? ..... Most countries?

Disaster Preparedness/Relief efforts are never, afaik, done via a free market method. It's usually donations/government funds distributed via your dreaded bureaucrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please, get over yourself.

You used an example of disaster relief/preparedness (little real difference between the 2 btw) which in fact contradicts your point.

No, they aren't. In fact, in your very example they fail utterly because unless the part of town that needs the plywood is also the richest, those resources will go to those who can pay the most, not those who need them the most.

Your "point" only works if you assume that those who can afford the materials are those who need them the most. Something that is not even true in your example.

It's pretty funny honestly, especially in light of your attempt at a superiority complex.

Ok, it's obvious you've never been in a single college level economics class. So what's the point of my arguing with you? I mean, would you even recognize a S/D graph if it bit you in the ass? Do you even know what a S/D graph is? Really, this is why these threads are useless. Uneducated people making ridiculous strawman arguments that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

People who need plywood the most are precisely the people who can afford to pay the most for it. Why? Because people who live on or near the beach are all wealthy people. The example I used is perfect, but only for reasonable, intelligent people. As you've shown, it isn't idiot proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disaster Preparedness/Relief efforts are never, afaik, done via a free market method. It's usually donations/government funds distributed via your dreaded bureaucrats.

I'm not talking about "preparedness." I'm talking about plywood. I've never heard of any government program that subsidizes plywood to wealthy beachfront homeowners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who need plywood the most are precisely the people who can afford to pay the most for it. Why? Because people who live on or near the beach are all wealthy people.

Katrina would like a word with you.

Regardless, you are apparently only here to furiously masturbate into our faces to how much smarter then us all you think you are because you took Econ 101 and only spent half the time in there doing the crossword. Congrats.

I'm not talking about "preparedness." I'm talking about plywood. I've never heard of any government program that subsidizes plywood to wealthy beachfront homeowners.

But you HAVE heard of government disaster preparednes programs no? You know, the ones that do things exactly the opposite of how you say it works?

Also, you still haven't shown how this allocation is in any way "the most efficient". Unless we take your ridiculous "Only rich people live in the path of hurricanes" assumption.

But then, I thought we didn't live in fantasy worlds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Katrina would like a word with you.

Regardless, you are apparently only here to furiously masturbate into our faces to how much smarter then us all you think you are because you took Econ 101 and only spent half the time in there doing the crossword. Congrats.

Holy hell! I didn't realize plywood would have kept the levees from breaching, or the ghettos in the Ninth Ward from flooding! The Army Corps of Engineers needs some donations so it can buy more plywood! Plywood, the miraculous cure all for communists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, you still haven't shown how this allocation is in any way "the most efficient". Unless we take your ridiculous "Only rich people live in the path of hurricanes" assumption.

But then, I thought we didn't live in fantasy worlds...

Only in your fantasy strawman argument world is plywood so expensive only rich people can afford it. People willing to pay the most for plywood means pretty much any homeowner who faces a serious probability of wind damage from a hurricane. Anyone who can't afford plywood probably doesn't own a home that would sustain wind damage from a hurricane anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Man, no wonder you don't understand economics. You took all those classes, but never learned basic logic.

Katrina is an example of how the rich aren't always the first in the path of the hurricane.

So there is, according to real world examples (scary to an economist wannabe , I know) the possibility of situations where the poor might be those most in need of resources. Including, potentially, plywood. And under your example, there is most definitely the possibility of them being priced out of the market for these valuable resources.

Hence, there is the distinct and obvious conclusion that, no, the free market will not most efficiently allocate those resources in certain situations. Situations that are NOT part of a fantasy world.

Only in your fantasy strawman argument world is plywood so expensive only rich people can afford it.

You mean ... your example? The one with, as you pointed out, limited resources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean ... your example? The one with, as you pointed out, limited resources?

You know, it takes balls to make up a strawman argument, then come back and claim that your opponent actually made that argument. It takes balls because you realize that anyone with some sense could just go back to the previous posts and realize that "people most willing to pay for plywood" does not equal "rich people." So, you disregard your credibility, not only by just creating a strawman, but actually claiming that the strawman was actually argued. It's like going into an atheism thread and claiming that the atheist just argued that God existed.

You've got balls, too bad you don't have any brains to go along with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thus the argument ends with more sputters from your overinflated ego and just general dickishness, but no actually rebuttals to the points raised. You're a classy fellow. But a terrible debater.

In post 57 you invoke an example of plywood distribution in preparation for a hurricane. You deliberately state:

Plywood will be a limited and valuable resource in this scenario. There isn't enough plywood to protect every house in this city, so it is critical that the houses that need plywood most get them.

So, we are dealing with a limited resource here, such that not everyone will be able to protect their homes. And the key desired outcome in this situation is that "the houses that need plywood most get them."

You then state that the Free Market will accomplish this most efficiently. (though technically you only state this outright in post 61):

The point is that we have to allocate those limited resources in the best way possible, and free markets are the only way to do that.

I point out the obvious and glaring flaw in this "logic". That flaw being that the Free Market will distribute the plywood (which is limited and high valued according to you) to those who can PAY the most, not those who NEED it the most. This is in clear violation of your goal (which is to insure that the houses that need plywood the most get it). Unless, obviously, those who need it the most are the same as those who can pay the most.

This would seem to easily be not the case. Or at the very least, confines your "solution" to such a narrow range of scenarios that it is meaningless as an overall approach to the problem.

You rebut with (post 64):

People who need plywood the most are precisely the people who can afford to pay the most for it. Why? Because people who live on or near the beach are all wealthy people.

Which is, for one, a rather more specific situation then the first and secondly isn't always true (Katrina being the simple, well known and obvious example of when the wealthy are NOT the people most in need).

And your response has been .... nothing. I assume because you have no rebuttal and have instead descended to personal attacks (or rather, continued them since you started off with personal attacks).

All in all, it's been hilarious for me personally. I rarely get to see someone so pompous be so bad at what they claim to be so good at.

PS - I almost forgot. This bit in post 68 was hilarious:

Only in your fantasy strawman argument world is plywood so expensive only rich people can afford it. People willing to pay the most for plywood means pretty much any homeowner who faces a serious probability of wind damage from a hurricane. Anyone who can't afford plywood probably doesn't own a home that would sustain wind damage from a hurricane anyway.
because you attempt to abandon the very first assumptions of your example. Namely:
Plywood will be a limited and valuable resource in this scenario. There isn't enough plywood to protect every house in this city, so it is critical that the houses that need plywood most get them.

So which is it? Can everyone afford to get plywood or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thus the argument ends with more sputters of from your overinflated ego and just general dickishness, but no actually rebuttals the points raised. You're a classy fellow. But a terrible debater.

In post 57 you invoke an example of plywood distribution in preparation for a hurricane. You deliberately state:

So, we are dealing with a limited resource here, such that not everyone will be able to protect their homes. And the key desired outcome in this situation is that "the houses that need plywood most get them."

You then state that the Free Market will accomplish this most efficiently. (though technically you only state this outright in post 61):

I point out the obvious and glaring flaw in this "logic". That flaw being that the Free Market will distribute the plywood (which is limited and high valued according to you) to those who can PAY the most, not those who NEED it the most. This is in clear violation of your goal (which is to insure that the houses that need plywood the most get it).

There is no flaw here. The ones who need plywood the most are the ones who are willing to pay the most. Nowhere did I discuss ability. I even had a post where I said ability isn't even in the discussion. Indeed, the vast majority of the people in the United States can afford plywood, even those who don't live anywhere near oceans. Strawman number one.

You rebut with (post 64):

Which is, for one, a rather more specific situation then the first and secondly isn't always true (Katrina being the simple, well known and obvious example of when the wealthy are NOT the people most in need).

I never mentioned Katrina, emergency preparedness, or disaster relief. I was only talking about plywood, and plywood doesn't help against flooding. Strawman number two.

And your response has been .... nothing. I assume because you have no rebuttal and have instead descended to personal attacks (or rather, continued them since you started off with personal attacks).

I haven't responded because your arguments have all been strawmans. Generally, responding to a strawman is a BAD debating tactic. Calling them out is a good tactic.

because you attempt to abandon the very first assumptions of your example. Namely:

So which is it? Can everyone afford to get plywood or not?

Some people can't afford plywood. They're the ones who don't need plywood at all. That's why plywood has a price, so people who don't need it can't get it. Only home and business owners at risk from wind damage need plywood. They're the only ones willing to pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, so we're back to the same flawed, already rebutted, point.

Namely, that those who can't afford it don't need it.

That's one hell of an assumption there. Care to show any proof that it is always true? Because otherwise your "solution" only applies to a very narrow range of cases.

I've already given an example where "Those who need it most" and "Those who can afford it" would potentially not be the same group. It's not hard to find others. Your entire "proof" relies on the assumption that the richest people will always live nearest the water.

Indeed, the vast majority of the people in the United States can afford plywood, even those who don't live anywhere near oceans.

You state as a basis for your example that:

There isn't enough plywood to protect every house in this city

Kindergarten level economics tells us this will result in the price rising, until supply=demand.

Hence, by the very definition of the Supply/Demand curve and your example not everyone will be able to afford plywood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know any home and business owners with property near the beach who can't afford plywood? Conversely, do you know any people who can't afford plywood who own homes or businesses near the beach?

I've already given an example where "Those who need it most" and "Those who can afford it" would potentially not be the same group. It's not hard to find others. Your entire "proof" relies on the assumption that the richest people will always live nearest the water.

And I have already pointed out the obvious error in your example. The poor people of New Orleans who suffered from Katrina suffered from flooding, not wind damage. I guess it's excusable if you were ignorant of the fact that plywood only protects against wind damage, not flooding.

Kindergarten level economics tells us this will result in the price rising, until supply=demand.

Hence, by the very definition of the Supply/Demand curve and your example not everyone will be able to afford plywood.

Of course, not every house in the city needs plywood. Only those close to the beach need direct wind protection for their windows. Like I said, this example is perfect for reasonable, intelligent people. I'm not sure why you have such a hard time with it.

By the way, this example is from Steven Landsburg, an economist at the University of Rochester. I didn't just make it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felice,

Nope. Any system that allows that isn't socialist. Some proportion of people's work does go to collective goods (healthcare, education, welfare, etc) rather than directly to their own personal wealth, of course.

Ah, the definitional defense. Therefore, using the same argument I can say any system that purports to be capitalist be that does not allow for true freedom of contract with equal bargining power to all parties to a private contract isn't really capitalist? That's the same thing you've done to define away corrupt systems that purport to be socialist. No perfect socialist or capitalist system has ever existed. All systems involving humans have corruption and differing levels of power for individuals regardless of their purported goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I have already pointed out the obvious error in your example. The poor people of New Orleans who suffered from Katrina suffered from flooding, not wind damage. I guess it's excusable if you were ignorant of the fact that plywood only protects against wind damage, not flooding.

And you still miss the point. Those most in danger are not always those most able to afford protection from said danger.

Of course, not every house in the city needs plywood. Only those close to the beach need direct wind protection for their windows. Like I said, this example is perfect for reasonable, intelligent people. I'm not sure why you have such a hard time with it.

But only those who can afford that protection will get it.

By the way, this example is from Steven Landsburg, an economist at the University of Rochester. I didn't just make it up.

Ahh, quoting from the textbook but not understanding what's going on. The usual explanation for "Stupidty + Superiority Complex".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make one brief throw into the dick-waving, try this:

1. Go to policymap.com

2. Look up the area around Homestead, FL.*

3. Look up poverty levels and median income and whatever else you want to look up.

4. See what groups live along what coastlines.

5. Argue with actual data.

* Generally-accepted US landfall site of Hurricane Andrew, 1992. I'm using this because it was a Cat 5 hurricane that travelled quickly enough across the tip of Florida that most damage was wind-based, where plywood might have helped. (Might. It was still a Cat 5, with the attendant vortices and whatnot.) This way we can avoid listening to arguments about whether plywood can hold up levees, and what damage is "real" hurricane damage. I hope.

Now, I recognise that policymap is not a perfect site, for a number of reasons, not least that they don't have 1992 data automatically part of their system. However, it's more likely to be looked at than either of you looking up the actual 1992 data, so I'll offer it as a suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you still miss the point. Those most in danger are not always those most able to afford protection from said danger.

Flooding is the perfect example of a danger that arises from government action. Without government intervention to build levees, no one would even be living in New Orleans. There is no protection from flooding that can be provided by the free market other than not living in areas prone to flooding like a city that is below sea level.

But only those who can afford that protection will get it.

Deja vu all over again. Hear it clearly this time: There are no poor people(i.e. people who can't afford plywood, even people we consider below the poverty line in the United States aren't too poor to buy plywood) who own beachfront property. Get over it. Life ain't fair I know.

Ahh, quoting from the textbook but not understanding what's going on. The usual explanation for "Stupidty + Superiority Complex".

I'm pretty sure you're the one not understanding what's going on. The example was used to explain why free markets and capitalism are a good idea. That's what I just used it for. You, on the other hand, think it displays the flaws inherent in capitalist systems. Therefore, you either misunderstand the example or think you know economics better than Steven Landsburg. It's just so easy to rebut you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make one brief throw into the dick-waving, try this:

1. Go to policymap.com

2. Look up the area around Homestead, FL.*

3. Look up poverty levels and median income and whatever else you want to look up.

4. See what groups live along what coastlines.

5. Argue with actual data.

* Generally-accepted US landfall site of Hurricane Andrew, 1992. I'm using this because it was a Cat 5 hurricane that travelled quickly enough across the tip of Florida that most damage was wind-based, where plywood might have helped. (Might. It was still a Cat 5, with the attendant vortices and whatnot.) This way we can avoid listening to arguments about whether plywood can hold up levees, and what damage is "real" hurricane damage. I hope.

Now, I recognise that policymap is not a perfect site, for a number of reasons, not least that they don't have 1992 data automatically part of their system. However, it's more likely to be looked at than either of you looking up the actual 1992 data, so I'll offer it as a suggestion.

Eef, I hope you didn't buy into Shryke's strawman argument that "rich" people are the only people who can buy plywood to protect their homes. I pretty clearly said "people who are most willing to pay." In the United States, no matter how poor you are, if you own a home that would benefit from plywood protecting the windows, then you can afford to buy it. It's pretty cheap. Even so, as low as the price is, it serves to allocate that resource only to those who would benefit from it.

Also, as you said, plywood isn't going to do anything for you in a Cat 5 storm. It only protects against very minor wind damage from weak hurricanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make one brief throw into the dick-waving, try this:

1. Go to policymap.com

2. Look up the area around Homestead, FL.*

3. Look up poverty levels and median income and whatever else you want to look up.

4. See what groups live along what coastlines.

5. Argue with actual data.

* Generally-accepted US landfall site of Hurricane Andrew, 1992. I'm using this because it was a Cat 5 hurricane that travelled quickly enough across the tip of Florida that most damage was wind-based, where plywood might have helped. (Might. It was still a Cat 5, with the attendant vortices and whatnot.) This way we can avoid listening to arguments about whether plywood can hold up levees, and what damage is "real" hurricane damage. I hope.

Now, I recognise that policymap is not a perfect site, for a number of reasons, not least that they don't have 1992 data automatically part of their system. However, it's more likely to be looked at than either of you looking up the actual 1992 data, so I'll offer it as a suggestion.

I looked it up. Them's some poor ass neighbourhoods.

There are no poor people who own beachfront property.

It's so cute. You don't know a thing.

No matter how poor you are, in the United States, if you own a home that would benefit from plywood protecting the windows, then you can afford to buy it.

Wait, so what your saying is that there is no scarcity here, therefore your example is meaningless. Gotcha.

I'm pretty sure you're the one not understanding what's going on. The example was used to explain why free markets and capitalism are a good idea. That's what I just used it for. You, on the other hand, think it displays the flaws inherent in capitalist systems.

Your example, again, only proves what you think it does in situations where, as you so aptly put it, "Whether they have the ability to do so is not the question.".

So, basically, it's a pointless example because it only applies in situations that don't occur in real life.

Also, you attempted to use it as an example of why free market was the better method of distribution, not just for why free markets are a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...