28 Apr 08
Just a thought on a topic that comes up quite regularly. We have those who are convinced that market forces should rule our economy and that the best strategy is to let the market just regulate itslef and not worry about trying to control it.
Yet the thought crossed my mind that if anyone suggested that the core of a nuclear reactor should run itself, that person would be laughed at at best for being a loon or even locked up for culpable negligence if they were in charge of a power utility.
Why is it, that we can recognize the devastating effects of the fallout of an uncontrolled nuclear reactor, but we are expected to blithely accept that a market that supposedly is set up to serve humanity, should run in a manner that can arbitrarily junk the lives of hundreds and thousands of individuals?
Is it possible to see that sacrificing the stability and livelihood of ordinary individuals by blindly following the mantra of efficient monetary exchange is just as insane as saying that because the end product of a nuclear reaction is heat, the most efficient way to produce that heat would be to accelerate the chain reaction until it was self sustaining and then let the core fire up as hot as it can be.
We recognize this wold be a stupid approach to turning that heat into a useful usable energy such as electricity, and yet we think that an unregulated market will somehow be more beneficial for humanity.
Does anyone care to discuss or explain this absurdity?
28 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87A reactor cannot manage itself because there is no intelligence associated with it. A market is the combined behavior of intelligent beings.
Just a thought on a topic that comes up quite regularly. We have those who are convinced that market forces should rule our economy and that the best strategy is to let the market just regulate itslef and not worry about trying to control it.
Yet the thought crossed my mind that if anyone suggested that the core of a nuclear reactor should run itself, that ...[text shortened]... mehow be more beneficial for humanity.
Does anyone care to discuss or explain this absurdity?
There is a basic, flawed assumption behind "market management" ideas. This is that it is possible to provide for an indefinite number of people by taxing those who are wealthier. You might not agree with this assumption - but are you suggesting mandatory birth control? If not, then keep in mind the simple fact that people have sex and make babies whether or not they can feed them. Then those babies grow up and have sex and make babies. It's an exponential process, except among fairly wealthy people for some reason. The poor will eat the rich out of house and home eventually. There's no escaping it - not without mandatory birth control.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by kmax87Analogy - failed
Just a thought on a topic that comes up quite regularly. We have those who are convinced that market forces should rule our economy and that the best strategy is to let the market just regulate itslef and not worry about trying to control it.
Yet the thought crossed my mind that if anyone suggested that the core of a nuclear reactor should run itself, that ...[text shortened]... mehow be more beneficial for humanity.
Does anyone care to discuss or explain this absurdity?
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's one adjective too many for a definitive statement ...
A market is the combined behavior of intelligent beings.
"Among the inefficiencies described by behavioral finance, underreactions or overreactions to information are often cited, as causes of market trends and in extreme cases of bubbles and crashes). Such misreactions have been attributed to limited investor attention, overconfidence / overoptimism, and mimicry (herding instinct) and noise trading." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_economics
When people make irrational decisions in every other sphere, why expect them to be rational when it comes to economics?
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIrrational decision making channels money to the rational, who are better able to find the spot in the economy where it's needed as investment.
That's one adjective too many for a definitive statement ...
"Among the inefficiencies described by behavioral finance, underreactions or overreactions to information are often cited, as causes of market trends and in extreme cases of bubbles and crashes). Such misreactions have been attributed to limited investor attention, overconfidence / overop ...[text shortened]... l decisions in every other sphere, why expect them to be rational when it comes to economics?
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by WajomaNot true. I think kmax87's analogy is thought provoking. AThousandYoung's "A market is the combined behavior of intelligent beings" thing doesn't withstand scrutiny. The "intelligent beings" bit is a red herring. The key to it is the "combined behavior" bit. The "combined behavior" obviously needs regulation because it clearly has no coherent "intelligence" of its own nor are its results in the interests of the majority. You would need to be almost insanely doctrinaire to not see both the worth and the intellectual playfulness of the analogy. It's a shame so many of you are dull idealogues!
Analogy - failed
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot so. Here in Indonesia, the private sector, judging by the billions of dollars it invests in advertising (in this 63 year old democracy with lamentable infrastructure, people dying for want of $1 vaccines, some school classes held under trees) is very focussed on skin whitening creams and anti-dandruf shampoos, vacuous date-a-celebrity text messaging schemes, and trying to get children to smoke cigarettes. It always strikes me as odd when people argue that "markets always know best". And then the people who point out how ludicrous this 'intellectual' position is, are accused of believing that "governments always know best", when that just simply isn't true. To think it's a case of one or the other is facile.
Irrational decision making channels money to the rational, who are better able to find the spot in the economy where it's needed as investment.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by FMFWhat's the current population in Indonesia may I ask? 150 million or so?
Not so. Here in Indonesia, the private sector, judging by the billions of dollars it invests in advertising (in this 63 year old democracy with lamentable infrastructure, people dying for want of $1 vaccines, some school classes held under trees) is very focussed on skin whitening creams and anti-dandruf shampoos, vacuous date-a-celebrity text messaging schemes, ...[text shortened]... ", when that just simply isn't true. To think it's a case of one or the other is facile.
28 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere are clearly enough wealth and resources in the world to support all the people living in it and much more. You'd be the first to agree with me when I say that its uneven distribution is utterly shocking and rigidly enforced by violence or the threat of violence.
There is a basic, flawed assumption behind "market management" ideas. This is that it is possible to provide for an indefinite number of people by taxing those who are wealthier. You might not agree with this assumption - but are you suggesting mandatory birth control? If not, then keep in mind the simple fact that people have sex and make babies whether or not they can feed them.
Now, I have more than just a little respect for you as a student of human nature. Greed, we are told is simple human nature. The instincts of the rich and powerful to defend the current lopsided distribution of wealth - it's simple human nature, we're told. Don't stand in its way, etc. etc.
And here you are insinuating that what we need to do is stop the majority of mankind from having sex. And that this is more realistic than interfering with the "intelligence of the market" or butting heads with the utterly virulent and rapacious "human nature" of the wealthy classes who have concentrated 90% of the world's riches & power in their hands.
I would appreciate clarification about your thoughts on human nature. Greed. Concentration of power. Community solidarity. The 'need' to have sex. Just so I don't get the wrong end of the stick.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat's stopping them from investing it so as to enrich themselves immensely notwithstanding any potential damage to the economy as a whole?
Irrational decision making channels money to the rational, who are better able to find the spot in the economy where it's needed as investment.
How rational was sub-prime lending?
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by FMFWealth distribution hasn't got a lot to do with a nuclear meltdown, which is governed by some very strict physical laws, unlike the free market. So either kmaxs analogy was off, you've misinterpreted it or we're going off topic.
There are clearly enough wealth and resources in the world to support all the people living in it and much more. You'd be the first to agree with me when I say that its uneven distribution is utterly shocking and rigidly enforced by violence or the threat of violence.
Now, I have more than just a little respect for you as a student of human nature. Greed, we ...[text shortened]... solidarity. The 'need' to have sex. Just so I don't get the wrong end of the stick.
I don't have any problem with wealth distribution unless the wealth has been attained by the initiation of force or fraud. No-one owes anyone else a liter of water, a roof over their head, a $1.00 vaccine or a rolex watch. The wealth available to the average Joe today was not even enjoyed by the top .005% of the wealthy just a few hundred years ago. And it just keeps getting better.
As for greed, it is an excessive desire, and people have excessive desires for all sorts of things. So someone wants to build a money mountain, that's their business, as it is their business if they have an excessive desire to be the fastest runner or highest jumper. (An analogy that does stand up) Excessive anything is never good, that is the very definition of the word, but excessive by who's standard? That is for the individual themself to decide.
Most wealthy people don't want to build a money mountain though, they use their money to make more money and they're good at it. The key word here is 'make'. To make money, literally, to create wealth, is a noble pursuit and something to aspire to. Rather than putting stumbling blocks in front of those that are good at creating wealth we should celebrate them as we do those that have shown the skill and dedication to become top in their chosen field, we should celebrate them as we do athletes and sportsmen.
28 Apr 08
1 edit
free markets that aren't controlled are like beards that aren't controlled, they get all bushy and look bad and stuff so the reactor goes all critical and then needs new dilithium crystals to be brought back under control so you need to shave and control the market and not let reactors go all crazy
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by WajomaYour earnestness is admirable. Your wide-eyed sycophancy for the 'noble rich' is, in a way, kind of touching. It certainly liberates your 'analysis' from much in the way of intellectual gravitas. What I find interesting about your posts, Wajoma, is the sort of world-weary 'adult' pretense mixed with the childlike internalization of cozy myths and disingenuous selfish petulance.
To make money, literally, to create wealth, is a noble pursuit and something to aspire to. Rather than putting stumbling blocks in front of those that are good at creating wealth we should celebrate them as we do those that have shown the skill and dedication to become top in their chosen field, we should celebrate them as we do athletes and sportsmen.
The system you advocate, almost by definition, pays the people in the middle and at the bottom as little as it can. Meanwhile, it pays the people at the top as much as it can - even when they fail. For you to assert that money goes unfailingly to the people who are productive, and those who have little money are in that situation because they are unproductive is just plain daft. And actually rather insulting and mean-spirited, come to think of it. But, above all, just plain daft.
Here in Indonesia the mass media serves up oodles of the vicarious "noble pursuit" claptrap you rather oddly admitted to liking in your post. They idolize those that are supposedly good at creating wealth - or accumulating it, which is not the same - they urge us to celebrate them as we do those that have shown the skill and dedication to become top in their chosen field, and - we are told incessantly - we should celebrate them as we do athletes and sportsmen.
And yet for the most part, the people here who have half a dozen top of the range European cars and four fully staffed houses - who haven't sewed a single shoe together in their life - and haven't really produced anything either - just juggled their family's money around - a classic, nuts & bolts element of capitalism, you'll agree - also have maybe thousands of people on their payroll who actually produce things, working a grim and startlingly productive 60 hours a week, and moonlighting too, while still not having enough money to send both their kids to school, or enough money to eat properly in the last 4 or 5 days of the month... and the last time they actively grumbled about it, U.S.-trained 'special units' were called in to crack a few skulls and set people straight or maybe make a couple of key figures disappear, thanks to 'contacts' and 'favours owed'. And we should celebrate the "skill and determination" of these soft-palmed "wealth creators" as we do athletes and sportsmen?
Wajoma, nobody outside the U.S.A. watches Ozzie & Harriet for heaven's sake! Spare us your "And it just keeps getting better" nonsense. Your belief that, in your economic model, domestically or globally, the wealth has been attained without the initiation of force or fraud, or that 'people are rich because they are productive and they struggle because they are not productive enough', is ludicrous and deluded.
Come on! Offer us something that indicates that you've lived a life, been anywhere, or understood anything! Please. It's just memorized platitudes and easily refuted mantra so far. Give us something from the heart. Give us something with some humanity or some awareness of how things actually are beyond your own bitter, selfish, cliche-ridden horizon. Come on!
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by FMFrec'd
Your earnestness is admirable. Your wide-eyed sycophancy for the 'noble rich' is, in a way, kind of touching. It certainly liberates your 'analysis' from much in the way of intellectual gravitas. What I find interesting about your posts, Wajoma, is the sort of world-weary 'adult' pretense mixed with the childlike internalization of cozy myths and disingen ...[text shortened]... re beyond your own bitter, selfish, cliche-ridden horizon. Come on!