If Capitalism is Immoral what System of Economics is Moral?

[SergioCQH]

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

So there are poor people living near the ocean? What a shocker.

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

Yeah, there are poor people living in Florida. I bet none of those poor people own beachfront property. Beachfront property ownership does not equal citizens of Homestead, FL.

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

There is no scarcity because we have an efficient capitalist system. Did I really have to point that out to you? If we did not have price allocation, then there would be problems.

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 in this case.

Take it up with a university economics professor who got his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, has published several books, and now teaches at the University of Rochester. He used this example precisely to demonstrate how free markets are better at allocation, which is precisely what I used it to demonstrate. Apparently, you think formal education in economics pales in comparison to your use of "logic," which seems to consist solely of making up and shooting down strawman arguments.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

No, what I'm mostly arguing against is the set of assumptions you've put up:

1. No poor people own beachfront property.

2. Anyone who owns beachfront property will be able to afford (and you did use that word, not just "be willing to buy") plywood.

3. Those with less use for the plywood will not buy up the plywood, further decreasing the supply and increasing the price. People aren't rational, and will often go for what benefits them a little over leaving it for someone who'd benefit a lot. (And yes, technically in a case like Andrew hose in the direct path have less use for the plywood than those further out, where it might make some difference, but again, people aren't rational. Most people won't leave their home unprotected at all, even though it's likely to make no difference. They'll still try *something*, just in case.)

[SergioCQH]

No, what I'm mostly arguing against is the set of assumptions you've put up:

1. No poor people own beachfront property.

I don't see how you can argue against this assumption with the data you offered. Yes, there are poor people who might live close to people who own beachfront property, but that doesn't mean anything.

2. Anyone who owns beachfront property will be able to afford (and you did use that word, not just "be willing to buy") plywood.

Again, if these people can afford to pay the property taxes and utilities on those properties, then they can afford plywood.

3. Those with less use for the plywood will not buy up the plywood, further decreasing the supply and increasing the price. People aren't rational, and will often go for what benefits them a little over leaving it for someone who'd benefit a lot. (And yes, technically in a case like Andrew hose in the direct path have less use for the plywood than those further out, where it might make some difference, but again, people aren't rational. Most people won't leave their home unprotected at all, even though it's likely to make no difference. They'll still try *something*, just in case.)

Yes, people aren't rational, but that is a failing of humanity, not capitalism. Free markets offer incentives against irrational actions, while command economies do not. The allocation effect of prices have small effects, but certainly they are better than no allocation at all.

[SergioCQH]

Oh wait, a simple check has revealed that Homestead, Florida is inland. There are no beachfront properties. Poor bastards.

[Shryke]

So there are poor people living near the ocean? What a shocker.

I'm sure it was for you considering you've already said that they don't. :lol:

There is no scarcity because we have an efficient capitalist system. Did I really have to point that out to you? If we did not have price allocation, then there would be problems.

That capitalist system prices people out of products all the time. That's like ... pretty much what the SD curve MEANS. And the scarcity of resources is why these factors come into play in the first place.

The plywood is a scarce resource. This is both an assumption your example makes and something that is necessary for it to even be applicable. If the plywood is not scarce, then EVERYONE can afford it and the free market is doing nothing because it is not allocating those scare resources.

Your example is supposed to be of how the free market is allocating scarce resources to those who need them most. The free market will cause the price to rise till, supposedly, only those who REALLY actually need it will be willing to pay that price. (Post 57 "In a free market economy, the price of plywood will increase so that the people who own the houses that will be most at risk will be the ones buying the plywood.")

The only way this works is if people are being priced out of buying that plywood. This is the ONLY way this example actually applies.

And the only way this works as you claim (ie - the only way it distributes the resources to where they are most needed) is if people are only being priced out because they don't WANT to pay that much, not because they CAN'T pay that much.

But this situation is blatantly ludicrous.

You just don't seem to understand what your talking about. I mean, seriously, you bring out an example and yet don't seem to understand it or the issues with it. Your quoting from a textbook to try and fake that you know something.

No, what I'm mostly arguing against is the set of assumptions you've put up:

1. No poor people own beachfront property.

2. Anyone who owns beachfront property will be able to afford (and you did use that word, not just "be willing to buy") plywood.

3. Those with less use for the plywood will not buy up the plywood, further decreasing the supply and increasing the price. People aren't rational, and will often go for what benefits them a little over leaving it for someone who'd benefit a lot. (And yes, technically in a case like Andrew hose in the direct path have less use for the plywood than those further out, where it might make some difference, but again, people aren't rational. Most people won't leave their home unprotected at all, even though it's likely to make no difference. They'll still try *something*, just in case.)

Exactly. The assumptions don't hold out.

Oh, btw, your Prof Buddy would seem (though I'm not 100% sure) to be from the Chicago School of Economic Thought. That explains alot. :rofl:

[MinDonner]

Ooh, this thread got entertaining!

*munches popcorn*

[Shryke]

I don't see how you can argue against this assumption with the data you offered. Yes, there are poor people who might live close to people who own beachfront property, but that doesn't mean anything.

Of course it does, because it's the basis of your example. You yourself, in post 64, state as much. You say that this example works "because people who live on or near the beach are all wealthy people." Something proven already to be false.

Yes, people aren't rational, but that is a failing of humanity, not capitalism.

Sounds like every defense of communism I've ever heard. :lol:

Oh wait, a simple check has revealed that Homestead, Florida is inland. There are no beachfront properties. Poor bastards.

They still got the shit kicked out of them. The small amount they were inland didn't seem to help much. They probably could have used some plywood, eh?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sergio,

Oh wait, a simple check has revealed that Homestead, Florida is inland. There are no beachfront properties. Poor bastards.

Isn't your point that Capitalism is, in most circumstances, more efficient than command style socalistic economic systems? Not that it is always more efficient than government run systems that may be put in place for short periods of time during severe emergencies like cat 5 hurricanes?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Funnily enough, the site I linked to has data going all the way to the coast, not just in Homestead proper.

I'm not trying to argue that only poor people live on the coast; that'd be patently absurd. However, even if you want to narrow "beachfront" to "nothing but sand (or rocks) between you and the ocean"* it still doesn't hold that all residents are at or above the median income.

*If you do want to say that, then I suggest you save some energy to talk to all of the tourist agencies and hotels who advertise their "beachfront properties -- only XXX yards and YY blocks away from the entrance to the beach".

[SergioCQH]

That capitalist system prices people out of products all the time. That's like ... pretty much what the SD curve MEANS. And the scarcity of resources is why these factors come into play in the first place.

The plywood is a scarce resource. This is both an assumption your example makes and something that is necessary for it to even be applicable. If the plywood is not scarce, then EVERYONE can afford it and the free market is doing nothing because it is not allocating those scare resources.

Your example is supposed to be of how the free market is allocating scarce resources to those who need them most. The free market will cause the price to rise till, supposedly, only those who REALLY actually need it will be willing to pay that price. (Post 57 "In a free market economy, the price of plywood will increase so that the people who own the houses that will be most at risk will be the ones buying the plywood.")

The only way this works is if people are being priced out of buying that plywood. This is the ONLY way this example actually applies.

And the only way this works as you claim (ie - the only way it distributes the resources to where they are most needed) is if people are only being priced out because they don't WANT to pay that much, not because they CAN'T pay that much.

But this situation is blatantly ludicrous.

You just don't seem to understand what your talking about. I mean, seriously, you bring out an example and yet don't seem to understand it or the issues with it. Your quoting from a textbook to try and fake that you know something.

Let me ask you something, do you buy leg insurance? Why not? I mean, surely anyone can benefit from leg insurance right? Anyone can injure his or her legs any day. Only those people whose livelihoods depend on their legs buy leg insurance even though plenty of people who can afford it don't buy it.

Likewise, plywood is insurance against minor wind damage. Anyone remotely near a hurricane MIGHT benefit from plywood insurance, but only some people buy it. Those are the people whose homes and businesses are most at risk. There are plenty of people who can afford it and who face a small risk of wind damage, but they won't buy it because they don't want to pay for it. If plywood were free, everyone with the remotest risk of sustaining damage would line up for it. Then it isn't properly allocated to those willing to pay for it, the people who have the most to gain from it.

Oh, btw, your Prof Buddy would seem (though I'm not 100% sure) to be from the Chicago School of Economic Thought. That explains alot. :rofl:

The Chicago School of Economic Thought has won Nobel Prizes. The last time, I checked, one of the most liberal countries in the world was in charge of giving out those babies. What prizes has the Shryke school of economic thought won? The prize for famine and the deaths of millions?

[SergioCQH]

Isn't your point that Capitalism is, in most circumstances, more efficient than command style socalistic economic systems? Not that it is always more efficient than government run systems that may be put in place for short periods of time during severe emergencies like cat 5 hurricanes?

Like I said, Scot, I'm not talking about emergency response. I'm just talking about plywood.

[The Pita]

There's a type of place in Israel called the Kibbutz, which is sort of like a little Socialist village.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

are there causes of massive wind damage that don't require living near a beach? How would this plywood example apply to say... a tornado?

[SergioCQH]

Funnily enough, the site I linked to has data going all the way to the coast, not just in Homestead proper.

I'm not trying to argue that only poor people live on the coast; that'd be patently absurd. However, even if you want to narrow "beachfront" to "nothing but sand (or rocks) between you and the ocean"* it still doesn't hold that all residents are at or above the median income.

*If you do want to say that, then I suggest you save some energy to talk to all of the tourist agencies and hotels who advertise their "beachfront properties -- only XXX yards and YY blocks away from the entrance to the beach".

Eef, by poor people, I mean people who can't afford plywood, and I've already stated this several times. Citing income levels is irrelevant to this discussion. Shryke insists on talking about people who are priced out of the plywood market because of ability to pay, and there are precious few homeowners in the United States that can't afford plywood. This isn't luxury cars and high-rise condominiums. Yes, thanks to efficient free markets, plywood is affordable for even the poorest of the poor who have just enough money to own property near the beach.

[MinDonner]

Let me ask you something, do you buy leg insurance? Why not? I mean, surely anyone can benefit from leg insurance right? Anyone can injure his or her legs any day. Only those people whose livelihoods depend on their legs buy leg insurance even though plenty of people who can afford it don't buy it.

Those people like immigrant fruit-pickers, casual construction workers, roadsweepers, bicycle couriers... yeah, I bet they've all got that vital leg insurance to make sure their lucrative livelihood is never compromised. Just when I thought the examples couldn't get any weirder...

[Shryke]

Let me ask you something, do you buy leg insurance? Why not? I mean, surely anyone can benefit from leg insurance right? Anyone can injure his or her legs any day. Only those people whose livelihoods depend on their legs buy leg insurance even though plenty of people who can afford it don't buy it.

Likewise, plywood is insurance against minor wind damage. Anyone remotely near a hurricane MIGHT benefit from plywood insurance, but only some people buy it. Those are the people whose homes and businesses are most at risk. There are plenty of people who can afford it and who face a small risk of wind damage, but they won't buy it because they don't want to pay for it. If plywood were free, everyone with the remotest risk of sustaining damage would line up for it. Then it isn't properly allocated to those willing to pay for it, the people who have the most to gain from it.

And, again, this ignores the main issue which is your continued assumption that people only don't pay because they don't WANT TO, not because they CAN'T. This, fyi, would be horribly false.

The Chicago School of Economic Thought has won Nobel Prizes. The last time, I checked, one of the most liberal countries in the world was in charge of giving out those babies. What prizes has the Shryke school of economic thought won? The prize for famine and the deaths of millions?

Aw, is little baby's feelings hurt? The Chicago School is a Libertarian joke.

Those people like immigrant fruit-pickers, casual construction workers, roadsweepers, bicycle couriers... yeah, I bet they've all got that vital leg insurance to make sure their lucrative livelihood is never compromised. Just when I thought the examples couldn't get any weirder...

But Min, don't you see that being able to afford that insurance doesn't matter. The only thing we should consider is whether they want to, not whether they can.

And obviously fruit-pickers like to live dangerously.

[SergioCQH]

are there causes of massive wind damage that don't require living near a beach? How would this plywood example apply to say... a tornado?

So, the next time you see a tornado, hop in your truck, drive to Home Depot, and buy some plywood. I assure you there will be no competition and the price will be low.

[SergioCQH]

Those people like immigrant fruit-pickers, casual construction workers, roadsweepers, bicycle couriers... yeah, I bet they've all got that vital leg insurance to make sure their lucrative livelihood is never compromised. Just when I thought the examples couldn't get any weirder...

I should think the fruit-pickers would buy hand insurance first. On second thought, we all need brain insurance, surely? Just in case we drive drunk and get thrown through the windshield. Got any more absurd retorts?

[TheLoneliestMonk]

I wasn't asking for advice, just pointing out that you don't need to live near the beach to risk wind damage.

[SergioCQH]

Ok, ignoring this absurd discussion about plywood allocation. I'd like to see one of the posters who think communism is all that write a post explaining how a command economy can overcome the inability to use markets and prices to allocate resources and determine levels of production. Can't do it? Well, I don't blame you. There is a reason no serious university level economist these days argue for command economic policies.