[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why should the private sector ‘rise to the occasion’ when it would then only be asked to shoulder an even greater portion of the load? There’s a point at which the producers will stop making efforts to expand, expanding within this country, etc.[/quote]
The “producers” have no reason to expand when there is no demand.
[/quote]
If this were true the word “innovation” wouldn’t be part of our vocab and we would still be using horse drawn wagons.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why should the private sector ‘rise to the occasion’ when it would then only be asked to shoulder an even greater portion of the load? There’s a point at which the producers will stop making efforts to expand, expanding within this country, etc.[/quote]
The “producers” have no reason to expand when there is no demand.
[/quote]
If this were true the word “innovation” wouldn’t be part of our vocab and we would still be using horse drawn wagons. [/quote]
Not true. The biggest innovation to be applied to the real world economy is probably the internet. This was developed in the public sector.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why should the private sector ‘rise to the occasion’ when it would then only be asked to shoulder an even greater portion of the load? There’s a point at which the producers will stop making efforts to expand, expanding within this country, etc.[/quote]
The “producers” have no reason to expand when there is no demand.
[/quote]
If this were true the word “innovation” wouldn’t be part of our vocab and we would still be using horse drawn wagons. [/quote]
Not true. The biggest innovation to be applied to the real world economy is probably the internet. This was developed in the public sector.[/quote]
lol, yes. The internet is the only innovation in the whole of human history.
You have to be trolling at this point.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, yes. The internet is the only innovation in the whole of human history.
You have to be trolling at this point. [/quote]
And Zep believes that Al Gore invented the Internet.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, yes. The internet is the only innovation in the whole of human history.
You have to be trolling at this point. [/quote]
And Zep believes that Al Gore invented the Internet.[/quote]
reminds me of this
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why should the private sector ‘rise to the occasion’ when it would then only be asked to shoulder an even greater portion of the load? There’s a point at which the producers will stop making efforts to expand, expanding within this country, etc.[/quote]
The “producers” have no reason to expand when there is no demand.
[/quote]
If this were true the word “innovation” wouldn’t be part of our vocab and we would still be using horse drawn wagons. [/quote]
Not true. The biggest innovation to be applied to the real world economy is probably the internet. This was developed in the public sector.[/quote]
lol, yes. The internet is the only innovation in the whole of human history.
You have to be trolling at this point. [/quote]
To the contrary it is you who is trolling. I said the BiGGEST innovation to be applied to the real world was the internet. Where were the free marketeers in the development stages?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, yes. The internet is the only innovation in the whole of human history.
You have to be trolling at this point. [/quote]
And Zep believes that Al Gore invented the Internet.[/quote]
You guys are so brainwashed it is sad. If you only had the nerve to look outside the elite point of view…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, yes. The internet is the only innovation in the whole of human history.
You have to be trolling at this point. [/quote]
And Zep believes that Al Gore invented the Internet.[/quote]
reminds me of this[/quote]
In context of what he was saying I think that’s semantics tho
People might not have known about cars, but there was still demand for them. Talking about “demand” as a market force
Anything that a human could think of and then someone else goes “that would be pretty cool” - that is “demand” actually. Anything which speaks towards your values, tastes, desires, etc. How strongly it does so is a measure of how strong the demand is, but averaged out over everybody (or averaged over a particular market)
Demand for cars probably didn’t exist in ancient tyrannies for example, because there was probably no demand. It’s funner to be carried by slaves anyways. And the slaves’ opinions obviously don’t count. But in America with a free market people desire such things and demand for cars goes way back before the Revolutionary War. That’s why all sorts of inventions pop up around here - because of what he said.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The “producers” have no reason to expand when there is no demand.
[/quote]I think he pushes it a bit to far when he says “no reason”
But demand is by definition an increased incentive for producing/inventing - assuming a free market (or similar) where peoples deepest desires count for anything at all
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I said the BiGGEST innovation to be applied to the real world was the internet.[/quote]
I would say it was domesticated animals and/or the planting of seed, but hey, we have internet pron so I guess that wins.
But anyway, it isn’t like “the internet” even proves your point so not sure where this is going.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[/quote]
He is saying: Demand comes first, so people make stuff.
I’m saying: People make stuff, whether there is demand for it or not. More often than not, greed and violence has lead to mankind’s greatest advancements.
Your saying: Just because the demand isn’t explict doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
You I agree with, because it is basically what I said. It is also basically what he said. But in the context of the conversation, you’re splitting hairs here.
Demand can come first, invention may come first. There is no absolute. He speaks in absolute.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I said the BiGGEST innovation to be applied to the real world was the internet.[/quote]
I would say it was domesticated animals and/or the planting of seed, but hey, we have internet pron so I guess that wins.
But anyway, it isn’t like “the internet” even proves your point so not sure where this is going. [/quote]
You made fun of Solindra. I was simply giving you an example of how a new technology “the internet” was incubated in the public sector first. The same needs to be done with alternative energy sources. It is a brand new technology and a lot of R & D needs to be done. The capitalists will never pony up the money for research. Just like they didn’t for the new technology of the internet. That is where I’m going.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[/quote]
He is saying: Demand comes first, so people make stuff.
I’m saying: People make stuff, whether there is demand for it or not. More often than not, greed and violence has lead to mankind’s greatest advancements.
Your saying: Just because the demand isn’t explict doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
You I agree with, because it is basically what I said. It is also basically what he said. But in the context of the conversation, you’re splitting hairs here.
Demand can come first, invention may come first. There is no absolute. He speaks in absolute.[/quote]
He overgeneralized, but he has a point
Demand can and does fuel innovation
It is not the only fuel, but it works wonders
He had a major point actually, and it seemed to me that you were splitting hairs to deny him that. Agreed that he did screw up by speaking in absolute
But there was solid gold in what he said - I just had to dig it up and show everybody who might have missed it
shrug
(or at least try…)
[quote]
Hazlett actually thought that unions were legitimate. What would he say? Well if he was being consistent with his philosophy he would probably come to agree with those who are pissed that there wages are stagnating. His economic philosophy has more in common with the 99%.
Stimulus in infrastructure would create jobs, give more money to those who need it and would spend it which creates demand which creates more jobs. This also creates a wider tax base thus more taxes to pay down the debt. And helps this country’s ailing infrastructure problems. [/quote]Well I don’t know what Hazlett would be if he was alive today, but my quote from him was relevant to what you just posted
If you frame the question as “jobs vs. no jobs”, then you’re going to have good logic for coming to your conclusions
My question is (in my opinion) a bit more advanced and skips the obvious and instead asks “which jobs”. For the most part this should be determined by “the market”, which is really just a combination of all the tastes, desires, etc. of everybody in the country. You earlier mentioned democracy - free market is a democracy. However in this form it is not a concept in opposition to limited government - it is actually both at the exact same time. I think that’s pretty cool
But if you like a bit of government power to enforce the rebuilding of roads and bridges and giving jobs and all kinds of cool stuff, then in this specific instance I am a bit softer myself because I can see some benefit to what you are saying. I don’t really think you are considering the costs - but I can admit that it is reasonable to consider that they might actually be worth it. So I won’t argue that - in this specific instance. For the most part stimulus is tyranny and it sucks, but this just may be the exception to that rule
[quote]
I disagree with you when you claim that comparing Ecuador and Europe is bullshit. Here you have a live comparison of 2 macro-economic models going head to head with the results right before your eyes. Ecuador has been lifted out of a recession in 3 months while Europe is heading back into one. [/quote]Everybody knows that stimulus is ‘better’ in the short term. It is debt
In the long term debts tend to get paid - that is the concept behind them anyways
A long term plan of paying back debt cannot be judged on a 3 month window - that’s BS.
But again I remind you that I’m not for austerity just in case you’re forgetting
[quote]
When people talk about the collapse in the finance sector you are talking about corruption that has put us into a recession. It has brought the entire country down. The largest scale of corruption is always in the private sector. Enron, WorldCom and Goldman Sachs to name a few.[/quote]Those may be private companies, but if corruption were limited to private sectors then there would also be gov’t delivered justice - while there isn’t
Plus Goldman Sachs is practically taking over the public sector anyways
Private vs. public isn’t a perfect paradigm either. “Public” positions are still filled with “private” individuals who care about themselves and their buddies more than they care about “us”
So you could call that corruption “private” as well if you want - but it comes with public power - so it’s kind of useless
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
The capitalists will never pony up the money for research. [/quote]
This is beyond wrong lol.
God I wish I could upload certain pieces of information right now.
I can literally walk down to the file cabnit and prove this wrong
[quote]Just like they didn’t for the new technology of the internet. That is where I’m going.
[/quote]
Whoa, is it that they didn’t want to, or couldn’t?
Did the private sector have access to the same technology?
@my leftist comrades :
you can’t win on their own ground.
You have to acknowledge the fact that “capitalism works”.
Or more accurately, capitalism is the best tool to reach capitalistic goals.
You have to acknowledge the fact that it works more or less the way their theoricians and economic experts say it works.
You have to acknowledge the fact that the most recent “mixed” models, like social-democracy and liberalism (in its american meaning), have all been absolute failure. They never destroyed ploutocracy, they only added technocracy to it.
So, if you still want to argue, you’ll have to attack their premises.
Namely : private property as a natural right, wage system as a legitimate contract, economical growth as an intrinsically good thing, consensus as the root of political authority, market as the primary mean to determine the value of products, services and ressources, etc.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
But there was solid gold in what he said - I just had to dig it up and show everybody who might have missed it
[/quote]
Point being you have to dig through bullshit to get to the “gold”.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I said the BiGGEST innovation to be applied to the real world was the internet.[/quote]
I would say it was domesticated animals and/or the planting of seed, but hey, we have internet pron so I guess that wins.
But anyway, it isn’t like “the internet” even proves your point so not sure where this is going. [/quote]
the domestication of animals and the planting of seed predates both the state and our current definition of private property.
Who knows what would have happened if the first herder and the first farmer had an army of lawyers to protect their patents and intellectual properties ?
An amusing synopsis for a scifi uchrony : Monsanto travels through time to remake the Neolithic Revolution in its own image.
[quote]kamui wrote:
the domestication of animals and the planting of seed predates both the state and our current definition of private property. [/quote]
Okay sure. Doesn’t make make the internet more of an impact or more the BIGGEST by any stretch…
[quote]Who knows what would have happened if the first herder and the first farmer had an army of lawyers to protect their patents and intellectual properties ?
[/quote]
I imagine they had a GodKing to steal the fruits of their labor just the same.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the domestication of animals and the planting of seed predates both the state and our current definition of private property. [/quote]
Okay sure. Doesn’t make make the internet more of an impact or more the BIGGEST by any stretch…
[quote]Who knows what would have happened if the first herder and the first farmer had an army of lawyers to protect their patents and intellectual properties ?
[/quote]
I imagine they had a GodKing to steal the fruits of their labor just the same. [/quote]
Probably not. Or at least, not immediatly.
The first herders and farmers were born among tribes of hunter-gatherers. So no accumulated capital nor stolen labor, only subsistence economy. No god yet, only spirits. No king either. Only the occasional habit to call “Chief” the crazy uncle with narcissic personality disorder.
Actually, it’s probably an example of the law of unintended consequences :
Thanks to the bright inventions of the first herder and the first farmer, population started to grow. Which caused an increase of the number of crazy uncle with narcissic personality disorder.
After a few fights for the monopoly of the title of chief, they probably made a deal. And the state was born.
[quote]
Okay sure. Doesn’t make make the internet more of an impact or more the BIGGEST by any stretch…[/quote]
one could argue that the development of internet tremendously helped the first world countries to make the transition to a service-based economy, dominated by the tertiary sector of the economy…
Which also means it contributed to kill their (heavy) industry…
which also means it indirectly contributed to the development of the industrial sector of the “emerging markets”…
which etc.
These things are rarely as simple as our ideologies would like them to be.
Maybe we should start to think about our economical systems as ecosystems and to see diversity as the main criterium of their health.
