Libertarianism (was EEL is returning)

Anything that is not directly related to the game or its community.

Re: Libertarianism (was EEL is returning)

Postby Amazeroth » Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:55 pm

EEL Mk2 wrote:
Amazeroth wrote:That's no different than when we say that it's fine if failing businesses go bankrupt in the "real" market, and there are usually even more people losing their jobs and homes because of that.
Actually that is not true. If a business in the 'real' market goes bust, how many people will lose their jobs? Ten? Fifty? Even if it's a very large business, a few thousand, perhaps? Whereas when a significant bank goes down, this has a systemic impact on the entire financial system due to the potential for contagion in financial markets (another weakness which is largely unique to financial markets), and the whole system freezes up. This obviously has a catastrophic impact across the entire economy.


Well, it always depends on the size fo the business, but there can be (and have been in the past) a lot more than 1000 jobs in the balance. Also, if it's a large business, it will take others with it, who have depended on contracting to this business.

Also, the reason why a bank going down has that much of an impact is not the financial market, but the real one - everyone has money there, or depends on the ability to take loans. And with everyone I mean consumers and businesses alike. So the problem with banks going down rests with the nature of the bank - the financial market is rather removed from it.

Amazeroth wrote:Also, the GFC, while happening mainly on the financial market, was not really caused by the nature of the financial market system, but by inadept regulation amounting to sheer irresponsibility in some cases, especially in the (failing or simply missing) regulation of banks, and of course the rather embarassing failure of the rating agencies themselves.
If you acknowledge that financial markets require some sort of regulation, then surely you cannot, at the same time, maintain that financial markets are not inherently flawed in some way that goes beyond the ordinary potential for market failure in some circumstances.


That doesn't make any sense - every market needs to be regulated (in order to be free) - which is why theft and fraud still need to be outlawed even in the freest of markets. One of the most important reasons a free market works in the first place is the availability of correct information, and that has to be provided (to a degree) by regulation - ie outlawing fraudulent behaviour.

Amazeroth wrote:There is no surefire way to really assess the worth of a company apart from the point of sale, and much less the worth of future trades.
I would not have the audacity to go through the stock market and tell your which assets were overpriced, but given that there is a theoretical potential for mispricing which is largely unique to financial markets, and given the size and depth of financial markets, it is inevitable that a significant number of assets are problematic.


For now, you'd still have to present evidence that mispricing is largely unique to financial markets. Also, size and depth wouldn't matter, since significance could only exist in relation, whether it's 25% (or whatever you find significant) of 10 or a million is irrelevant to significance.

Amazeroth wrote:We have that speculative motive in product markets too, though. And, depending on how many trades are done with a product until it reaches the consumer, it doesn't necessarily have a smaller impact than in financial markets.
Firstly, I don't accept that that motive occurs to the same extent given that the end goal of product markets is to produce something for consumption, not, primarily for investment. Secondly, I think that we have earlier established the systemic significance of financial markets which is entirely absent in the market for apples or whatever - almost any product market, in fact. So it is simply not true to say that there is an equivalence between the impacts.


That's not the point of what I said - what I said was that you can't really fault the financial market to be speculative, when you don't fault the real market for that - because your point would only be valid if you somehow showed that speculation itself was inherently bad. If it's not, then a market is not automatically more problematic if it is more speculative.

Amazeroth wrote:Yes, but that's no different from when a trader buys too much apples, or a farmer planting too many apple trees. Or a consumer mistakenly buying more than he can eat.
Under those circumstances, those people would be punished by the market. They would lose money. In financial markets, because you have shifting demand curves in response to higher prices, that would not happen. I am not saying that stupid behaviour does not happen in product markets, merely that product markets are not as susceptible to failing to correct for that.


Financial markets are just as effective in correcting that kind of behaviour - if they're not overregulated. Your point would only be valid if the shifting demand curve would somehow result in a price increasing indefinitely, which is impossible.


Amazeroth wrote:However, glancing over the list of companies in there, I don't see anything I'd have heard of as failing or stagnating since 2008
Well, there are a few hundred companies, and I suspect you're not familiar with all of them. But I strong suspect that some of them are probably going down the toilet.


There are only 30 constituents in the Dow, have a look and tell me which of them you think are due for a plunge. It's not that easy.
Eines Tages traf Karl der Große eine alte Frau.
"Guten Tag, alte Frau", sagte Karl der Große.
"Guten Tag, Karl der Große", sagte die alte Frau.
Solche und ähnliche Geschichten erzählt man sich über die Leutseligkeit Karls des Großen.
User avatar
Amazeroth
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:28 pm
Location: Central Europe

Re: Libertarianism (was EEL is returning)

Postby EEL Mk2 » Tue Aug 18, 2015 7:57 am

Amazeroth wrote:There are only 30 constituents in the Dow, have a look and tell me which of them you think are due for a plunge. It's not that easy.
I apologise for making a mistake of fact - most indices are a bit bigger in terms of components and I imagined that the Dow was not substantially different - but nonetheless I would say that there are a number of oil companies, for example, represented on the index which should, if we are to be reasonable, be doing rather poorly considering the relatively depressed price of oil. ExxonMobil, for example, has gone for a gentle slide, which appears to me to be understating the size of the issues in the sector.

Moreover, even if it were impossible to identify companies that ought to have their prices going through the floor, the fact remains that it is quite implausible for one to suggest - as the markets would suggest - that companies are doing better, or will do better in the foreseeable future, than has ever happened in the past. I could turn your challenge around and ask you, have a look and tell me which you think deserve to be performing at record highs. It's not easy either.

Also, I would make the point that, as I've stated earlier, it is generally impossibly difficult to pin down the exact fundamental value of any financial asset, but it is possible for us to assess the general performance of the share market as being unreasonable in the context of general market conditions, which still remain less than stellar and are likely to remain that way for quite some time, as the consensus of economists' predictions would have us believe.

Finally, even if at the current time stocks are not being over-valued, that does not mean that they have not in the past been substantially over-valued, or that such a situation will not arise in the future. It certainly does not mean that misbehaviour of financial markets as a whole is a theoretical impossibility, or that financial markets do not behave in a way which is in some way fundamentally different to other markets. I would put it to you that in a number of occasions in the past the market clearly has not reflected the value of the underlying asset, even if that is not occurring right now (although I would beg to differ on that point). Often this has been caused or exacerbated by government, but that does not negate the fact that there are inherent weaknesses in financial markets.
Image
EEL Mk2
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:11 am

Re: Libertarianism (was EEL is returning)

Postby Arizal1 » Sat Aug 22, 2015 4:24 am

Darkylightytwo wrote:
Arizal1 wrote:I have read almost all the posts, except the two last, yet I fear I will not be able to answer to everything that has been said. Still, let's try.

I have a fondness for libertarianism since it seems to me (at core) a so simple and idealistic way to think about reality in term of exchanges. Socially, I am all for people to be able to harm themselves by whichever way they want. It is their choice, and if their internal rationality says to them that they can do this, who am I to obligate them to not do so?


Well, I think we all agree on that basis, if your actions do no cause harm to someone else, well they should not be illegal, that is why we have no problem with flag burning, yeah he insulted the nation, but he did not attack anyone. and why we allow people to drink, but not to drive while being drunk. People don't harm others when they drink, but if they are drunk on the road, they became a danger for others as well as themselves.


We may agree on this, but it is less evident for other people, apparently. Many people (and us too, I suppose) given a proper example, want to restrict what others can do on a moral basis. What about polygamy, incest or public nudity? A libertarian, in my view, tries to maximise liberty, and doesn't care at all about barriers unless those barriers involve harming another person. The idea that you own yourself means you can do whatever you want with your body. This idea is opposed to some "conservative" thinking, I believe, but also to "statist" ideas.

I expressed my belief that the State tries to impose itself to the citizens and do not work for their well-being, but rather for its own preservation and growth. Of course, many actions from the State are good for some of its citizens, and are often good for its whole population (if more collective wealth, fairness, and equality are good things), but in the process of improving the lives of its citizens, the State often takes matters into its own hands. By doing so, while he could simply regulate sectors of the economy, he creates state-runned monopolies which don't work by the same rules as other companies. Those monopolies can become inefficient or encourage inefficient behaviours, and they are also controlled by the State, so that their independance toward it is compromised. Also, when when the State takes matters into its own hands, he is judge and part if a work conflict starts between the employees and the employer : itself.

Now, I am well aware that this is all theory and no practice. You may think you have examples to contradict me, and I will be glad to see them, but this is what I believe for now.

About the examples you set, Loto-Quebec was initially created to limit gambling. It makes sense to me that the gambling industry was mafia-controlled, so even if I didn't find a proof of that, I will follow you. This of course gave a reason for the State to centralize gambling. Perhaps it was just too difficult at the time to try to regulate a very changing gray sector of the economy.

A State-run company is often a forced monopoly and that it is far more subject of interferences by the State which are not in the form of general regulations, so to speak to arbitrary interventions. You say that the problem is "not state-control, it is political interference", I say that they are the same thing. When a company is a State company, nominations in it pass by a political filter. The administrators have other goals beside the well-being of the company.

In Loto-Quebec case, there doesn't seem to be much reasons to prefer a prvate company over a or many public one, I admit that. The whole sector isn't anted by the moral standards which prevail in our culture and Loto-Quebec accomodates business very well. My original idea was that the money Loto-Quebec is making and giving back to the State acts as an incentive to not adress the gambling issue as much as it could. It might encourage to State to keep some people under in this system in order for it to continue to thrive. Whether the State gains money directly (by contribution or by taxes), the State still gets more money if a sector is thriving. The difference is that it gains more money if a public sector is thriving than if a private sector is.

Hydro-Quebec, now, is a monopoly and acts as a company which is just that : a monopoly. It is as secretive as a long-standing private monopoly, only the State limits the price of what it provides. It could do that with a private organism, as it does with the universities. The idea of a monopoly on electricity distribution actually has my favor, since it guarantees much clarity in the electricity bills. However, the idea to artificially decrease this price only makes us care less about our electricity consumption. There would be means to adress the fact that the poorest have difficulties to pay their electricity bills without making the price flat for everyone and encouraging everyone to comsume.

The LPQ took political decisions, perhaps not for the good reasons. Its decisions may also not be good for the future, but those political decisions, he made them because he had leverage on Hydro-Quebec because this company was technically controlled by the State and it was far more simple to force a public company to take a turn toward the wind-energy than to force a private company to do the same thing.

Darkylightytwo wrote:and yet, you talk about direct control, but you don't think that state company can actually be independent ? CBC, if anything, is a very good media and a proof that state-run company can be very independent from the government. because if a state company can be act independently, then its not state control of the economy and the point you made about state-companies being worse just fail. Beside, there is only being that run all companies in this world, humans, be they state-run or private run.


It is all conjectures, but maybe CBC stayed untouched during many years because the political parties which were exchanging the power (the LPC and the CP) were not that far away from each other. Perhaps they feared that upsetting the equilibrium between them and the CBC would do them more harm than good. Each has the power to hurt the other, after all : the CBC can spread a negative vibe about a political party while the political party can cut the funds of the public organism. Once a party had the support of a majority of voters who were apparently not listening to this media, its influence lessened.

Whether it is true or false that the CBC was against the Conservatives, as some of them seem to think, they cut the CBC fundings. The CBC apparently refused to bow, but is it because it cherish its neutrality, or because they are waiting better days? The gambling can be effective.

Darkylightytwo wrote:but that aside, I think we agree that the service should always got the back of people when they find very though times, or poverty, and maybe you just forgot education and healthcare...


We indeed agree with that, but not in the same way. I mostly favor the idea that private companies should be forced by the government to meet some minimal standards and the insurances should be given to equalize the chances for everyone.

I didn't forget about health and education, I rather encompassed them in the private sector, as I think the government should be perfectly able to regulate education strictly enough for it to be given by private companies while it gives educational vouchers to the parents and makes sure no school nor hospital impose unreasonnable fees. But honestly, I'm not sure how well this would work nor if this would have any impact at all, given the fact that if the prices are capped by the State and many rules are in place, we would be almost in the same old public system...
The Social-Liberal Caucus (Ibutho) (Inactive) (Particracy Classic)
Demokrat Konservativen Partei (DKP) (Narikaton and Darnussia) (Particracy Classic)
The Federalistische Partij (Laaglanden) (Particracy Dev)
Arizal1
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:48 am

Re: Libertarianism (was EEL is returning)

Postby Darkylightytwo » Sat Aug 22, 2015 4:24 pm

Arizal1 wrote:We may agree on this, but it is less evident for other people, apparently. Many people (and us too, I suppose) given a proper example, want to restrict what others can do on a moral basis. What about polygamy, incest or public nudity? A libertarian, in my view, tries to maximise liberty, and doesn't care at all about barriers unless those barriers involve harming another person. The idea that you own yourself means you can do whatever you want with your body. This idea is opposed to some "conservative" thinking, I believe, but also to "statist" ideas.

Is there really anyone who believe in the state as the ultimate source freedom ? Not really,while it is true that there are parties and group who believe in the state, these people are not worried about freedom, but they want to sacrifice it for security.
And I fail to see why those ideas are not just liberals, they don't only belong to libertarian. my views are simple, any consensual union should be legal, no matter the person, as long as it is consensual, should be legal<

and I'll even let go one part of my though, that is not private property, it is personnel property. and no abolition of private property does not mean abolition of personnal property. that is just an error the socialists parties have committed.

Arizal1 wrote:
I expressed my belief that the State tries to impose itself to the citizens and do not work for their well-being, but rather for its own preservation and growth. Of course, many actions from the State are good for some of its citizens, and are often good for its whole population (if more collective wealth, fairness, and equality are good things), but in the process of improving the lives of its citizens, the State often takes matters into its own hands. By doing so, while he could simply regulate sectors of the economy, he creates state-runned monopolies which don't work by the same rules as other companies. Those monopolies can become inefficient or encourage inefficient behaviours, and they are also controlled by the State, so that their independance toward it is compromised. Also, when when the State takes matters into its own hands, he is judge and part if a work conflict starts between the employees and the employer : itself.


And yet, the private company got free hands, by libertarians, even if they are exactly like the state, you just don't believe that a state can put some distance between the central and state-companies and that the state-ciompanies can be independant. But when we had the MMA's train crash on Lac Megantic, because they let a train with no surveillance on the main way, no one accused Rail Inc to be responsable, only the MMA, who is now bankrup and only paid 25 million, but the MMA belong to Rail Inc. And yet we seem to believe it can act as an independant unit.
and your last phrase is false, the state never intervene in the conflict hydro-quebec and its employee or other state companies, which is why state companies employee have far better service then any public service servant (with cities), while employee negociate with the state, the politics just pass a special law and impose the law, but Hydro-Quebec don't have that power, they had to no negociate.

Arizal1 wrote:A State-run company is often a forced monopoly and that it is far more subject of interferences by the State which are not in the form of general regulations, so to speak to arbitrary interventions. You say that the problem is "not state-control, it is political interference", I say that they are the same thing. When a company is a State company, nominations in it pass by a political filter. The administrators have other goals beside the well-being of the company.


This is not forced, a state company should be that dependant from politics, but I believe I know of those problem of politic interferance in the state companies.

Arizal1 wrote:In Loto-Quebec case, there doesn't seem to be much reasons to prefer a prvate company over a or many public one, I admit that. The whole sector isn't anted by the moral standards which prevail in our culture and Loto-Quebec accomodates business very well. My original idea was that the money Loto-Quebec is making and giving back to the State acts as an incentive to not adress the gambling issue as much as it could. It might encourage to State to keep some people under in this system in order for it to continue to thrive. Whether the State gains money directly (by contribution or by taxes), the State still gets more money if a sector is thriving. The difference is that it gains more money if a public sector is thriving than if a private sector is.

Hydro-Quebec, now, is a monopoly and acts as a company which is just that : a monopoly. It is as secretive as a long-standing private monopoly, only the State limits the price of what it provides. It could do that with a private organism, as it does with the universities. The idea of a monopoly on electricity distribution actually has my favor, since it guarantees much clarity in the electricity bills. However, the idea to artificially decrease this price only makes us care less about our electricity consumption. There would be means to adress the fact that the poorest have difficulties to pay their electricity bills without making the price flat for everyone and encouraging everyone to comsume.


Hydro-Quebec is a monopoly or near, since it have the right to sell it, but my electricity don't even come from there, because my city had nationalised it a long time ago, it is called, hydro-Sherbrooke. we had private companies dealing with electricity at the time, and it was not pretty, and we paid the private companies compensation for nationalisation them. yeah, the poor get their electricty cut during summer, but during perioud of need, there are law that force the company to provide, I believe it is because we though of it as a vital tool. and somehow, we have to use it, unused electricity is a waste

Arizal1 wrote:The LPQ took political decisions, perhaps not for the good reasons. Its decisions may also not be good for the future, but those political decisions, he made them because he had leverage on Hydro-Quebec because this company was technically controlled by the State and it was far more simple to force a public company to take a turn toward the wind-energy than to force a private company to do the same thing.


they force hydro-Quebec to buy back electricty from private companies, we should have just nationalized that sector, hence hydro-Quebec would be buying electricity from itself and would only work on that sector when it compatible with the prices in place. This is nothing then corruption, and this is no surprise, knowning the PLQ

Arizal1 wrote:It is all conjectures, but maybe CBC stayed untouched during many years because the political parties which were exchanging the power (the LPC and the CP) were not that far away from each other. Perhaps they feared that upsetting the equilibrium between them and the CBC would do them more harm than good. Each has the power to hurt the other, after all : the CBC can spread a negative vibe about a political party while the political party can cut the funds of the public organism. Once a party had the support of a majority of voters who were apparently not listening to this media, its influence lessened.

Whether it is true or false that the CBC was against the Conservatives, as some of them seem to think, they cut the CBC fundings. The CBC apparently refused to bow, but is it because it cherish its neutrality, or because they are waiting better days? The gambling can be effective.


CBC did not care what they do, they had their own agenda and they own goal, very different from all politicals parties on the country, fail to see on it is not proof that they act in a very independant way.

Arizal1 wrote:We indeed agree with that, but not in the same way. I mostly favor the idea that private companies should be forced by the government to meet some minimal standards and the insurances should be given to equalize the chances for everyone.

I didn't forget about health and education, I rather encompassed them in the private sector, as I think the government should be perfectly able to regulate education strictly enough for it to be given by private companies while it gives educational vouchers to the parents and makes sure no school nor hospital impose unreasonnable fees. But honestly, I'm not sure how well this would work nor if this would have any impact at all, given the fact that if the prices are capped by the State and many rules are in place, we would be almost in the same old public system...


No I don't think we agree, because I see no reason why should even have to pay for education, to learn is a right. education is not a marchandise, it should be given freely to all those want desire it, not being paid, I fail to see which private company would provide education for free. And the private schools in Quebec, they receive state funds.

nor I see a reason for healthcare being paid, if you fall sick, it is always your fault ? you got brain cancer, why ? you don't know, you really don't know why you got a tumour in your brain, but it is there, you may not even be responsable for it, but it there and somehow a private company will ask you ton of money to get it from your brain. maybe if you were somehow responsable I could understand, but you are not, it may just appear there. So why must pay for that, if you are no responsable ?

There should be free to me. And pretty much all there establishment are independant from the central.

I believe you have a bad opinion of the state, where you see as one body who control all, but it is not like that, in fact, ministries often fight between themselves, and many bodies are independant units.

I am not saying, the state is always better then the private entreprise, they just deliver two different services, and it many aeras, the private entreprise should not be present becausen of the type of service that the state can provide, Free-education is one. Universities are pretty much public entreprises, they are extremely independant because no one want the state to interfere and they act as private entreprise, despite around 50% of their fund coming from the public
I hoy a claim for this http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-599-x/8 ... 7-eng.pdf.. page 8. Universities are pretty public-paid entreprises, but privatly-run.

I strongly believe that if something can be done by private entreprise, it can be done by a state, with just a different goal, after all, humans are going to be in one way or the other.
Darkylightytwo
 
Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 6:27 am

Previous

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests