I certainly do not consider everyone who isn’t a total capitalist a socialist. I realize that there is a spectrum between laissez-faire and full government control, and someone who in the middle may not be a socialist. However, history shows us that government doesn’t change overnight and awareness now is the key to preventing tragedy later.
Incidentally, I don’t see how wanting to keep what I earn on my own makes me a free-loader. Perhaps you mean the idea that I want infrastructure for free. The road example is quite a good one. I would be quite glad to pay a fee to a private company in order to use their roads (and certainly it has been proved that the free market can provide such services more efficiently and cheaply than the government bureaucracy…look at charity - less than 10% overhead for private charity, while 3/4ths of every welfare dollar goes to bureaucracy). Excise and sales taxes would more than pay for a constitutional government (DEFENSE of America, not sending our troops to every damn corner of the earth every time there’s a little dirty war…well, so long as it’s a politically correct dirt war; police to protect our homes, which would be a lot cheaper once the inane War on Drugs ends and we can put away REAL criminals; courts to enforce contracts; and yes…currency production based on a real gold standard!)…I’m not an anarcho-capitalist…I do recognize that government does have constitutionally provided functions (to protect our freedoms!) And YES, I do feel that I pay a hell of a lot more in than I get out. If you feel the need to give your money freely, would not your dollar be better spent by private charity, who have full accountability lest you give your dollar elsewhere, than by government…and we all know how accountable government is!
As for not using the roads, when I stop paying taxes, I’ll stop using the roads…fair???
Man, don’t you know they don’t care if it’s fair or not? There are two types of people who actually want everything to be fair. Us, and socialists (well, I guess commies do too, in their own way, but they’ve got socialism built-in). Anyway, the rest of the population find it acceptable to have the majority dictate to the minority(until recently, when even the minority can dictate to the majority). They find it acceptable that people don’t agree and thus, some men must always be put under the will of others. They would rather have this situation occur through some form of vote aimed to change government policy to be on their side than to let simple ability reflected through market economics make that decision. Repeat, they don’t want anything to be fair. A state of fairness is a utopia(literally–nowhere). It is a pipe dream, you see, to think that people could exist on their own ability.
So, you’ve got my gold when we meet in the gulch. Until then: good luck!
I thank you for returning, if even just for a little while. I fully agree with you..........no sense in spending any longer here now that the forces of the collective have pooled their efforts against the men of the mind. I do own my life and the product of it, of that there can be no debate......and the only way any of these people can take it from is is by the gun. Time to leave the looters be and make our way to the gulch!!!!
Oh yes, and don’t forget regulatory infrastructure that keeps your food safe, drugs clean etc.
Ever here of positive externalities? By the way, where are the figures from?
Government service, in any event, is economic where there are large positive externalities (such as massive infrastructural investments from which it will be difficult if not impossible for private concerns to fully recoup their invesments.) Free markets largely but not always can provide services cheaper and more efficienty – it all depends on the underlying economics. Roads are in fact a perfect example, I can not think of one extensive highway system which was successfully built through private toll roads. The positive externalities of cheap transport --subsidized through government funded road building have outweighed
that always seems to be the real motivation.
Let’s see, government books open and publically examined. Private charities books closed, not often publically examined except insofar as federal income tax law requires them to be… Ironic eh?
No, you will have to stop buying produce --taxpayer dollars go to see that it’s fit for public consumption so I’m afraid if you’re not paying in, in your world you don’t have a right to it.
You also will have to stop buying pharmacuticals approved by the FDA: of course you should be able to get some from black market sources from India and China, but then you’re probably still free-loading off of FDA and European research, but since that makes it complicated, I’ll let you off with buying uncontrolled drugs from China.
To be truly pure you should also echew any goods whose saftey testing and/or certification has been funded through government expenditures. To really be true to your ideals you should include European and Japanese products whose evil nasty tax eating governments have also provided relatively safe and secure product environments.
Just don’t whine about not getting your money’s worth when your uncontrolled drugs or products don’t quite stand up to the usual standards.
Perhaps a small cabin in the mountains with a old typewriter would be best.
I wish to make clear that what I’ve been critiquing here is not the idea that government should be minimalized, an intellectually defensible idea, but the charactiture of the idea as presented so far. Rather than ad hoc blanket assertions, it would be infinately more useful to see people taking the much more nuanced view which modern economic theory, and by that I mean free market oreinted and even neo-classical theory (with perhaps the exception of some extremists in the Chicago School of thought) takes of government role in markets.
But I remain open to the idea that some Randians are capable of sustaining a reasoned argument. I even believe there are Randians who feel no desire to cast all who disagree with them as socialist scarecrows.
I just wish someone would provide evidence for my belief.
Well, whoever the poster was that pointed out the inverted Leninism of Rand was simply 100% on target – given the group think I see here the reference to “collective” as highly ironic.
Given that I was accused of blanket observations, false dichotomies, etc, I find this comment more amusing than the one about the food safety, which I addressed in a different post
Everyone …
Inverted leninism, incidentally, would involve not only complete economic freedom but complete lack of government as well, wouldn’t you say? Or have I somehow managed yet AGAIN to not understand the english language. I don’t doubt you might try to convince me otherwise, much like personal experiences aren’t subjective and morality has nothing to do with economics.
Of course you would find minimalized government intellectually defensable, I’ve heard good arguments for solipsism too, but that wouldn’t change the fact that we couldn’t agree on anything, so therefore we are all gonna get slighted. This was your justification for the current state of affairs in semi-free economies. I let that go, why bother? I tried to argue my point instead of pointing to the inconsistencies in yours. But you won’t accept that people make economies, not math. You won’t accept that if one can’t break the law legally, the term loophole would not have its negative connotation. Laws are, in fact, a self referencing system, herr Godel, in case you missed the whole point of checks and balances. Keynesian economics spawned the idea of deficit spending in a time of recession. Deficit spending by the government. But I don’t want to argue that with you either, because you won’t accept that; you assume that a stable economy is better than a free one, to paraphrase your own tactics. If that doesn’t spell morality in economics, I don’t know what does. If that doesn’t sound like me rephrasing “you assume a free economy is good” then perhaps you really are out there, failing to see the forest through the trees.
I spent too much time trying to defend my ideas in this thread, all the while cursing at what I read. To paraphrase the infamous Mr. Hand, “What are you people, on dope?” It doesn’t take a phD to se that we are progressively losing freedom each year. It doesn’t take a lawyer to read a law and see how blantently arbitrary it is. It doesn’t take an economist to know a monopoly when you see one. I came to these conclusions before I ever read Rand, whom I didn’t find until two years ago. Never even heard of her until then. I became a capitalist after I earned my first paycheck years ago, when I still had the naivety to think like a young person, “Why are people not free?” This is like the question, “Why are there still wars if no one wants them?” Obviously, some people DO want wars. “Why are people not free?” Obviously, because some don’t want to be. And they assume everyone else shouldn’t be free either.
Perhaps what is obvious to me is not obvious to you. I have the great privilege of knowing four individuals, three of whom I work with, who were all from different parts of the former USSR. I can assure you, Spiritus, that in practice Orwell is definitely the truth. The application of closing of the mind and keeping it in the country was very obvious to each of them after they got out. While in there, and I want to stress this, it was never even conceived that life could be any better. Perhaps you doubt this, as well. Be my guest. I can’t cite people I work with.
The horror of it all is akin to the fnord joke from Illuminatus!, if anyone here has read that but me. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it. I point to an obvious use of socialism/fascism (take your pick, and no they aren’t the same thanks) in modern economics or government regulation and I get, “That’s not socialism/fascism, that’s necessary for stability/safety/security.” Fine, I say, s/he obviously can’t see that freedom is being literally removed from right under your nose, like the evil protection racket afore mentioned. So let’s try a different tactic. Economics is the study of trade and such (no need for a formal definition, we all know how I mess those up) and how conditions affect value etc. I then calmly proceed to point out that since it is people doing the trading, perhaps we should consider that? And what guides people’s actions??? HINT HINT HINT
But, no. Of course not. We are merely cattle to the god of economic theory. Why even bring human interaction into it when we could, in fact, continue on our course and regulate it away. Who is putting whom into a box now? And how convenient is it in the long run?
Ever wonder why businesses themselves went to trial over monopolies when, as I was told here, it was actually beneficial to them? That didn’t strike the thought, “Hey, they became billionares but can’t see the obvious benefit of trust busting? Even I can see that!” Can you? Then next time you are a billionare, I’ll concede. Until then, its their product of effort and they don’t want it ripped apart. I’ll take their word for it. Unless of course you mean, good for you, in which case I agree…breaking up power is a good thing. HINT HINT HINT. I just question why you feel giving the government more power than the people it is busting is doing anything. Oh, yes, the checks and balances. From here the argument is largely circular and begins again…but that is seen as a flaw in my argument, not in the system I argued about.
Then again, perhaps I was deluded into thinking freedom was something desireable. Perhaps my assumption is entirely unfounded. There are obviously a great many people who want to take it away. I just refuse to put pretty bows on it and call it something else when they do.
You want to call them taxes? Fine; I call it stealing. You want to call it secrity? Fine: I call it a cage of fear. And I don’t want either without my consent. “America, love it or change it!” Buddy, there’s about 90% of this country I would change, if not scrap entirely, and even if I lived to be 500 and fought politically every step of the way there would still be piles, and piles, and piles of laws I never even got to look at. America…love it or it will change you.
Taxes can, in a pipe dream, be voluntary. But they can be much smaller. The government already appoints the Fed board of directors or whatever they’re called, why waste the time? They appoint and suggest to the fed, they control huge amounts of dollars to “stimulate growth”, they own the economy. Why not just dispense with the hogwash and let the Government run for a profit? Then, miracle of miracles, it doesn’t need our tax dollars. But this could never be done if the government could make laws about the economy…and so we circle back again and again
So, here we are, stressed with the burden of observation and the lack of vocal cords to say anything about it. If I sound dogmatic, believe me, it sounds no better to hear many other people speak. The thoughts on this board have been much more collected than mine, and I’ve found discussion, obviously, difficult. But I do intend to research more into all the fields that were mentioned here.
Yes, hansel, we are pretty creepy people.
Spiritus, perhaps this is me going through the motions of accepting a social contract I haven’t honored yet? Oh, and the “everything is either physics or stamp collecting” WAS a joke; as a statement of fact, I was glad to make you laugh.
Actually, Aynrandlover, you seem to me to be a more lucid Randian than those about whom I’ve been told, and RugbyMan, who makes the gulch sound like a place to get “special” Kool-Aid. A friend of mine is doing his PhD in philosophy at USC, and a classmate of his is the wife of some fairly prominent Objectivist; his experience of her has been largely negative because, as he’s seen, to be a classical objectivist one believes so strongly in it that debate is effectively shut out, and there is only proselytizing. Any questioning of Objectivism is discouraged - Rand got it right, and one may ask for clarification, but not change.
You, on the other hand, seem willing to argue it, which is good - any philosophy benefits from critical examination and testing. The problem in this thread has been that you need some practice in the dialectical style at which Spiritus is so good, and I think that Rand is probably poor reading for learning that. All you need to do is broaden your library a bit. Email me if you’d like some recommendations.
Thanks for your confidence in my ability, however lacking the evidence of it may be; actually, I think Rand appealed to me because we have similar argument style: broad, sweeping generalizations. I’d like to think people see that I am trying to get to the core of the issue, but then I get lost in my own frustration and everything comes apart. You start off from something like, everything not capitalist is socialist, or all restrictions on trade are fascist. From here, it is a matter of what the difference between fascist restriction and mixed economy restrictions are. No one has drawn a clear line for me yet, so I’m forced to conclude that I am right. It is only, as can be said, a matter of degree. I get hung up on details quickly.
I argue absolutes. When I know the person I’m arguing with things are much different. My friend is a big fan of Hume and Kant, and we talk for weeks on the subject of whether or not I exist. She sends me her philosophy papers, and I can quickly find jumps in her logic. Mine, however, always remains out of reach.
But I’m always trying. Two weeks ago I had someone trying to find out how everyone wasn’t actually dating everyone else and monogomy was a fraud. But when the issue means something to me (as monogomy wouldn’t when you’re single) I find myself losing my cool all too quickly.
I still don’t want to give this damn fight up, but I’m way behind. It would need to start over somewhere else than here, and on one topic at a time. I’m always willing for a focused debate; too bad I have a hard time keeping it there.
That aside, I conceded Rand had huge problems with epistemology and Rugby conceded she had a problem with her personal life. We are neither worshippers or anything of the sort. I mean, come on, I like hot dogs but I don’t eat them every day. I’ve never met other Randians (love that term) so I don’t have much of an opinion on them. I think it was more of a wink wink nudge nudge than a
“Praise be to Rand and the Gulch. We shall meet in the place where…etc etc” between Rugby and I. In other words, we are always trying to turn things around. Ever read Atlas Shrugged? I’d be more of a Dagny Taggart than a John Galt, but like Dagny, as well, I know when my battles are lost.
Well I can’t argue worth a shit, but I don’t cast people who don’t believe what I do as scarecrows. Actually I dont bother with most people anyway.
I have seen where some of what Rand said has come true. I remember something about her saying that Economics majors learn lots of Marx economic theories yet little of Capitolism. I know when I took my only Econ class I learned NOTHING about the dow jones or anyhthing. We did though have to read books on Marx, know his 10 theories or whatever they where. Hello I don’t live in Russia so I’d rather know how THIS economy works.
There are other examples but I don’t remember them off the top of my head.
I haven’t read every post here so this might have been said, but Rand never liked the idea of anarchy, she actually really disliked it because she knew that there had to be SOME gov in order to keep peace.
I’ll stop writing now as my post has become strange sounding even to me!
For the record, I feel that calling Rand an inversion of Lenin is grossly oversimplified. It does seem, however, that both Rand and many of her most ardent admirers despise socialism with an idealistic fervor that does little to encourage careful thought.
I never argued either of those cases. I have, however, noted that you are often careless in both your use of language and your presentations of positions not in agreement with your own.
Case in point: :rolleyes:
Not mine, thanks. You seem to labor under the misconception that the only alternative to agreeing with your reforms is agreeing with the status quo. Hmmmm, now what’s that called again . . .
I have seen nobody argue that people play no part in economies. Perhpas you have a quote to defend this assertion. Perhaps you are simply falsely assigning radical opinions to those who disagree with you. Again.
I won’t accept your using common words in ways contrary to their definitions. Circumventing the intent of a law os not breaking the law. It is not my fault if you use the English language poorly. It is your fault if you react to demonstrations of your mistake by defending an indefensible claim rather than restating your position accurately.
Why, a person open to such things might even have used the grammatical constructions as a metaphor for the very concept, loopholes, we were discussing. Then again, subtlety is lost upon some people.
Laws are not statements of truth value, Herr Not-to-be-confused-with-a-mathematical-genius, in case you missed the whole point of the Incompleteness Theorem.
Perhaps because I do not. I do not assume that a completely free economy is the best possible economy. Nor do I accept on faith that an economy regulated according to your personal understanding of morality is the best possible economy.
To a mind not obsessed with dichotomies, those statements leave open a plethora of possibilities.
Agreed.
Then again, I never argued that morality could never inform economic theory. I said they were different fields. I implied, through analogy, that they were sets whose intersection was not empty and whose union contained elements not found in the intersection. I did not address earlier, but will state now, that neither field is a subset of the other. If vBB could code venn diagrams, I would draw you a picture. You might like it. It is simple.
Perhaps the time might have been better spent understanding what you read.
I think that much is obvious to all. What is less obvious, to me at least, is why you have been so utterly incapable of conveying the obvious in a rational, consistent manner.
Perhaps it isn’t so simple after all.
USSR? Pardon me, I had assumed you were referencing Orwell to imply a commentary about the dangers of the situation in the United States. I can certainly see where Orwell is a fine caution for the situation that might have resulted in the USSR in some alternate reality where the events of the last 15 years never happened.
I don’t see why you would raise that issue, but I admit that Orwell might be a fine prognosticator for that other country in that alternate Universe.
Not at all. I have known many people who have lived under extreme censorship. Diane Sawyer, IIRC, had a very telling anecdote about Gorbachev visiting a grocery store in the United States which argued that the tailoring of information affected even the highest levels of Soviet society.
If you are trying to convince me that I do not want to live under a Soviet-style communist state, please rest easy. I will eagerly concede the point.
Where? In this thread? Not from me.
Of course, given your habit of calling every regulation socialism I can envision an example where “That’s not socialism” would be an accurate response. Perhaps if you actually quoted the exchange in question rather than supplying your version of it . . .
No, you baldly asserted that economics and morality are the same study. When people have disagreed with this position, you have reacted, again, as if we were espousing a whole range of positions which we have never claimed.
It is entirely possible to develop an argument for how and why it is best to consider human morality when discussing ideal economic theorie. You have not done so.
If you do so, it will still not demonstrate that the two studies are identical.
You are trying to put me into a box. It does not fit well, and I refuse to wear it.
Perhaps because businesses are not a monolithic entity whose interests always lie in the same place. Perhaps not all businesses benefit/suffer equally from a monopoly. Perhaps the human beings making the business decisions cared more about their short term profit than thelong term benefits/hindrances to the eonomy. How about that–more than one possible answer. More than two, even.
I have seen nobody argue that freedom is undesirable.
Except, of course, in the scarecrows you are so fond of constructing. Whenever I read them, I hear Ray Bolger’s voice singing, “if I only had a brain”.
For someone so dedicated to economic theory you seem remarkably fuzzy on teh concept of ownership.
Heres a HINT HINT HINT for you – the ability to set the prime lending rate does not constitute ownership of the economy. If it did, I would simply offer to lend you 50$ at 5% interest and thus own your entire economic potential. That plus a sack is surely worth a sack.
Blaming you lack of clarity upon a metaphorical muteness is a cop out.
Ideas and expression are the tools of this medium. If you cannot construct a convincing argument, then either your ideas or your expression is at fault.
I am not sure what you mean, I’m afraid. Within the SDMB society, and GD in particular, there is an expectation that assertions will be supporte and that arguments will be rationally developed. Is that the social contract you mean?
Thanks. It was more of a snort, really, since I missed the comedic intent. Sometimes subtlety is lost on me, too.
Where on earth are you studying economics? I can’t say I’ve studied econ in every university, but a perusal of recent economics literature and journals would reflect very, very little marxism if any.
Rand’s assertion is full of shit. Free market economics is the name of the game at least in American universities. I’m sure there must be exceptions but…
(On the other hand, in an intro econ. class they are not going to teach about the dow jones industrial average. About stocks in general perhaps…)
aynrandlover;
Try not to be such a whiney little character. I gather from what you are saying that you simply ignore any and all critiques which don’t fit into Randism. (unsurprising given the lack of connection between what I or Spiritus argued and what you replied) Pity that.
Now you are right, calling Randism inverted Leninism is not entirely accurate, but I hope I can be forgiven for the lapse in the face of your, ahem, “arguments” by distortion.
In regards to your understanding of economics: Spiritus has already said what needs to be said. All I can say is that anyone who believes the Fed owns the economy through the setting of prime rates is at best unacquainted with modern economics.
sigh
No, the Fed does not control the economy. My statement was to show that between the government setting economic regulations, appointing the board of directors to the fed, and reserving the right to nudge the fed (and the fed usually agrees, but I know they sometimes don’t) that the government pretty much does run the economy.
Consider the role, if you will, of a parent to a child. This is the government and the economy. The government, or parent, sets all the rules and then decides which ones to tolerate if broken. The child then does what it wants. Some call this freedom, some call it secured freedom, some would no doubt call it a bad metaphor. But in the end, the child is stuck with the parent. Eventually the child grows up and moves out, so the metaphor ends there, doesn’t it? We are dependant on the government for our economy now. That is not a debatable matter; were it to pull out and merely function as a government buying toilets at regular market price and paying employees this and so on and so forth, our economy would collapse. The foriegn money market would take a dump, etc etc. The child will now die without the parent. Great metaphor in some respects. But please don’t call it free; it is tolerated.
Spiritus, how can you accept a metaphor from me in circumstance but not another? I use Godel’s work metaphorically, not absolutely, because Godel’s work refers to self-referencing systems. Law is a self referencing system. The systems Godel worked with were logically consistent (no omega talk here please). the law is (semi)logically consistent, except it has exceptions on top of its rules. Like, division by zero is impossible EXCEPT when we are considering limits (since zero is never actually reached) so we apply l’hopitol’s rule here and etc. Godel’s favorite point of mine was that by adding an axiom of some sort to remove an incosistency or to prove a true theorem that couldn’t be proved, we would be making no more mistakes than we had already; ie-than was already there in our system. I metaphorically place this with laws; ie-we make more laws in an effort to get things more defined/better/easier and yet we find our problems are still here. I thought it was a great metaphor. Do you still disagree? I don’t like using metaphors much because they are a pretty weak method of proof, but they are a superb tool for understanding sides. Has this helped any?
As far as set theory goes, I understand an intersection well enough. You still failed to see what I was saying. Let me try one more time, and if you still think I’m off then I guess I am. Morality and economics are seperate studies because…? I don’t know, but I do know they intersect as I hope my milk example made painfully clear; morality can apply to economics. It was then pointed out to me that it doesn’t necessarily have to. Here is where I still find you to be wrong. A system needs a guiding principle, whether that principle be forced disorder (say, ownership, purchases, etc were determined by a mandatory die roll), complete disorder (absolute individual freedom), short term gain (artificial speculation market forced by a permanent easy-money policy), long term stability (I think we’re all clear on what this means), etc etc. Each one of these systems, as you can see, has a guiding principle. There is a reason behind it. Why do we choose such and such a reason? Because we determine it to have some characteristic of goodness/badness. It is irrelevant of 100% of the population finds it bad, and chooses it deliberately because its bad (as absurd as that is); in any case, there was a motivating principle behind the human action to put the economy in the way it is. Motivating principles behind human action are…ready for this?..philosophies. Philosophies consist largely of morality (as well as epistemology, etc etc).
Was that any damn better or are we resolved to find me wrong all over again?
I hate giving up, even in the face of my own actions.
Who is this mysterious government which reserves the right to nudge the fed, wink wink, nudge nudge? Is this nudging you speak of simply responsible officials speaking their minds about what they wish would happen? (If so, do you presume there should be gag orders) Or are you implying some subterranean schemes?
Or a better question: Do you have the slightest grasp of how the Federal Reserve works? What the role of a Central Banks?
“run the economy.” This is such a wild-ass exageration its hard even to know… But then this comes from someone who claims anything but Randism is “Socialism/Fascism” [sic]
So, I take it you are against Central Banks. Oh pray tell what then shall we replace them with? Allow private banks to print their own currency and see what kind of wonderful results that will make? I eagerly await your revolutionary suggestions on how to remake our financial system to render it “free”.
I prefer to consider the relevant economic literature rather than these pointless illustrations.
I read this three times. I still do not follow the logic. Pull out? Of the business of Central Banking as it were? Allow us to experience the joys of competing currencies? What relevance do toilets have with the Fed? Why would the government wish to pay employees the regular market price of toilets?
But of course, you’re quite right. If the Fed ceased to exist (the precise scenario escapes me, how you are replacing the central bank, if at all, leaves so many options) the economy would collapse.
Even more puzzling. Well I suppose that were the USA, in a fit of madness, ever were to abolish the Fed the world would have a bad moment. Then perhaps the Euro could take over, given that I am presuming that the Europeans would remain uninfected by this madness.
Those respects utterly escape me.
What’s tolerated? The economy is tolerated? Your idiosyncratic use of the language renders your thinking ever more opaque to me.
I await Spiritus’ response to this gem with immense anticipation. I positively beg Spiritus not to ignore this, even though the case is quite clearly hopeless.
[quote
Was that any damn better or are we resolved to find me wrong all over again?
[/quote]
Ohyes. The profundity of your confusion is dismaying.
You used Godel to support an explicit position. I warned you that if you wished to do so you would have to be rigorous. You responded with factual mistakes.
Now you say you meant it as a metaphor.
You could have just said so at the beginning. Then I would simply have told you your metaphor was both not apt and a poor model for the proposition you were trying to suport.
The relation between truth statements and indeterminate truths is not sufficiently similar to laws and loopholes.
Indeterminate truths are not inevitable consequences of truth statements, which is the analgous situation you proposed.
Law is not a deductive system.
It is not intuitively obvious that one can construct a meaningful Godel statement of indeterminate legality. I suspect that no such statement is possible under our present legal system, but perhaps you have one in mind.
I accept metaphors as illustration. I do not accept them as support.
They are not a method of proof at all. I remain confused as to why you thought an illustration by metaphor was necessary, since I was not having trouble understanding your position. I simply disagree. I also remain confused as to why introduced the subject with, “If your argument is that loopholes can cease to exist, I refer you to Godel’s study of logical systems.”
That does not seem to be an introduction of metaphor to me. It seems to be a statement that Godel’s work had specific application to laws and loopholes.
Helped what? It has given me neither greater understanding of your position nor greater appreciation of your arguments. To be perfectly frank, it looks to me like a post facto attempt to redefine your position.
there are economic questions with no moral component and because there are moral questions with no economic component.
How should I invest this money for maximum return on investment over 6 months? Should I swat the fly on my table?
Not necessarily. Even if such a principal exists, there is no necessity for it to be a morality.
Give up as in stop the search? Or give up as in realize the truth isn’t where you thought it was?
C., I had typed up an incredibly long response, quoting the anti-trust laws, more court cases, pointing to the ambiguity of them, causing business to wonder just what the hell they had to do to operate legally. But, as you’ve said, you’re not a lawyer. While I am reading up on game theory, I ask that you review the court cases having to do with monopolies and find out how arbitrary the government’s power is.
The Fed, being another of the government’s agents for a strong banking system, does what it can to offset the government. Banks want big companies, the governemnt doesn’t. Then why is the government involved in the Fed at all? I hesitate to hear your conclusions. I am no longer offering mine. I forfeit my side of the debate.
Spiritus, the antitrust laws themselves are a fine example of the government declaring itself illegal by definition. Pick the Sherman Anti-Trust laws, the Clayton Act, whatever. “I am not legal by my own power.” If that isn’t Godellian, “I am not a theorem of number theory,” then I guess after game theory I’ll hit the math books again.
Of course, I’ll be rereading my econ books to see what the hell you guys are talking about. Who knows, maybe my good grades were all flukes. Too bad I didn’t go to a private school or we could REALLY start slinging shit at private industry and the poor products their monopolies offer.
As well, if you are going to use an example about the seperation of economic decisions and morality, try to exclude the word should which implies the existence of a preferred course of action. Unless I don’t even know the meaning of the word should, which wouldn’t suprise me right now.
Not even close to a reasonable interretation of the statutue. The statute does not make anti-trust statutes illegal. The language specifically addresses contracts, combinations and trusts, and conspiracies. Frankly, I am surprised you even went here. It seems to me that your only hope of finding a Godel statement would by necessity rely on the limiting influence of the Constitution. Even then, I doubt such a statement exists, given the difference between a deductive logic and an interpretive human authority.
Please read that last sentence again and think about how a law is determined to be “legal” or “illegal”.
Good idea. I suggest paying particular attention to some of the other forms of Godel statements, particularly formulations like, “the Truth Machine will never say G is true.” I think you are falling prey to similarities in form without understanding the underlying principles required.
At this point, I think I will also choose to observer that you again seem to be arguing for the application of Godel’s Theorem rather than its use as a metaphor.
I used the word quite explicitely and with reason. I was using an example of an economic question devoid of morality to also demonstrate a guiding principal not based upon morality. Again, it appears I was too subtle for my own good. Shall we look at the wording again? How should I invest this money for maximum return on investment over 6 months?
Yes, it used the word should which implies a guiding principal. It also supplied the specific guiding principal to be used: maximum return on investment over 6 months. There is no moral element to return on investment. At least , there need not be. One might, I suppose, make profit an axiomatic good in one’s morality. One might also make unconsciousness an axiomatic moral good.
That does not mean that either profit or unconsciousness implies morality.
Similarly, a preferred course of action does not imply morality. My dog prefers having his ears scratched to getting a shot. That does not mean that when he comes to me instead of the vet it is a moral decision.
You seem fine on the meaning. Your mistake, again, is in finding extreme implications to that meaning which are not justified by the definition itself.
Neither are you. I actually work in one of these large companies you seem to have wet dreams over. Let me give you a hint. We have specialists for all kinds of operations: risk analysis, legal issues. For the well-run company which is not a monopolist, I don’t see laws being fundamentally more challenging than anything else. Operating legally is simply getting legal opinions and working with them. I fail to see how in terms of anti-trust laws anyone but an actual monopolist will feel they can not operate legally. Intel (although their defact monopoly seems to be breaking down now) manged to do so just fine – of course quite clearly it did not take restrictive measures to exclude its new competitors…
Arbitrary according to you. I frankly don’t see a problem.
Banks want big companies? Why?
I hope that banks seek to lend to economic actors whose activities will generate high rates of return. Big, small. Of course, banks are relatively --as compared to venture capital and perhaps some investors-- risk averse so they certainly do tend to shy away from small start-ups.
As for the “government” not wanting large companies: you once more are conflating concepts. Large is not necessarily monopolist. They are distinct concepts. Yes, that’s right, distinct.
Because the Fed is the American central bank, which controls monetary policy. Monetary policy is one of the fundamental roles of government, nothing new about that. The USA has a queer system with the Fed being so independant from the executive but it works.
I take this to mean you don’t know what Central Banks do or are?
My conclusions are not terribly unique. I imagine almost any economics text will give the same basic story.
