16 Dec 2011, 5:01 pm
16 Dec 2011, 5:29 pm
dmm1010 wrote:
MarcusTulliusCicero wrote:
Oh another classic trick! I am obviously set in my opinion. This is coming from the guy who said that whatever I think, he doesn't care
I didn't make that statement.
Quote:
Sigh. If that's what you want to believe, so be it.
Course you didn't
Don't be pedanticQuote:
Was I wrong to propose two possible answers to my question along responses to both?
You didn't suggest two ever. You only said two after I had called you out on it.
Say, are you going to stop responding soon? Because all you're doing is you keep making this go in circles
16 Dec 2011, 10:35 pm
dmm1010 wrote:
marshall wrote:
If there are guaranteed "losers" then what is expected? Do you people expect the "losers" to have to live on the streets and beg?
Of course not. Let's equalize, by force, everyone's standard of living regardless of the value of their labor.
I don't advocate complete equalization, that's your own empty strawman. Now cut the sarcasm and stop insulting my intelligence. What is capitalism's plan to deal with the problem of unemployment/underemployment?
Quote:
Quote:
Also, you're not dispelling any myth. You are merely proclaiming things with no logic to back them up.
Did you just describe my argument as illogical? Ouch, that hurts.
Yup, can't handle the truth.
Quote:
Quote:
A study of game theory shows that mutual self-interested competition generally does not produce the optimal outcome for the individual. The prisoners dilemma illustrates this point. It is in each individuals best interest to play cut-throat, but if everyone plays cut-throat the outcome is worse than if everyone cooperates. Of course cooperation only works if everyone agrees to it. This is the basis of human morality.
There are also examples in nature where competition is not completely beneficial. In some elk populations, males evolved massive antlers in order to successfully fight for females. Its an example of an "arms race". Yet this arms race is not beneficial for the elk population as a whole when there are predators because the antlers prevent the male elk from being able to maneuver through thick vegetation.
If fact, the financial innovations and buildup to the sub-prime mortgage crisis can be seen as a type of financial arms race.
There are also examples in nature where competition is not completely beneficial. In some elk populations, males evolved massive antlers in order to successfully fight for females. Its an example of an "arms race". Yet this arms race is not beneficial for the elk population as a whole when there are predators because the antlers prevent the male elk from being able to maneuver through thick vegetation.
If fact, the financial innovations and buildup to the sub-prime mortgage crisis can be seen as a type of financial arms race.
The prisoner's dilemma doesn't apply to all, or even most, economic situations. Your second example appears to be a straw-man, given that I'm arguing against a purely cooperative economy rather than in favor of a purely competitive one.
The prisoners dilemma as a very specific example where lack of cooperation is detrimental. More general cases do apply to economics. The elk example I gave is a good example of a detrimental "arms race" scenario. When corporations chase after cheaper and cheaper sources of labor abroad in order to beat the competition this is analogous to the elk growing larger and larger antlers to compete for females. The net effect of the economic arms race for cheap labor is the destruction of consumer demand. The net effect of male elk growing larger and larger antlers is to make them less able to evade predators. Another example is that of banks chasing after riskier and riskier loans in order to grab a greater share of the sub-prime market than the competition.
I'd argue that what we have now is much closer to purely competitive than purely cooperative. What's worse is now corporations compete for the pockets of the politicians who set the rules of the game.
17 Dec 2011, 1:26 am
17 Dec 2011, 3:34 am
androbot2084 wrote:
people should be paid according to their needs.
This idea is the one thing that Ayn Rand really did a good job of demolishing in Atlas Shrugged, as once it becomes more advantageous to be needy than productive people will race each other to the bottom in order to justify their greater "needs". Plus, I just wanted to bring up Ayn Rand in this thread, as merely invoking her will cause certain people to lose their collective minds...
17 Dec 2011, 4:01 am
Dox47 wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
people should be paid according to their needs.
This idea is the one thing that Ayn Rand really did a good job of demolishing in Atlas Shrugged, as once it becomes more advantageous to be needy than productive people will race each other to the bottom in order to justify their greater "needs". Plus, I just wanted to bring up Ayn Rand in this thread, as merely invoking her will cause certain people to lose their collective minds...
Besides which Ayn Rand warned us that something like this might happen. So it was told in -Atlas Shrugged-.
The Scruffoids would better spend their time getting the government out of the bail-out business. Left with the consequences of their own stupidity, many of the bankers would be out of business and out of circulation. The problem with the banks is largely (though not totally) government made.
ruveyn
17 Dec 2011, 2:19 pm
Dox47 wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
people should be paid according to their needs.
This idea is the one thing that Ayn Rand really did a good job of demolishing in Atlas Shrugged, as once it becomes more advantageous to be needy than productive people will race each other to the bottom in order to justify their greater "needs". Plus, I just wanted to bring up Ayn Rand in this thread, as merely invoking her will cause certain people to lose their collective minds...
I don't want to speak for androbot, but usually when it's said that people should be paid according to their needs, what they really mean is people should be paid at a minimum according to their needs, that is as long as they are working to the best of their ability. If an employee has a skill that is in demand, he/she should still be able to negotiate a higher pay.
Your argument only applies to the most draconian version of communism/socialism where all wealth is completely equalized.
17 Dec 2011, 2:46 pm
17 Dec 2011, 9:13 pm
17 Dec 2011, 9:28 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
17 Dec 2011, 11:13 pm
18 Dec 2011, 10:35 am
18 Dec 2011, 11:36 am
Yesterday, I walked up to three panhandlers near the local market and said that I would pay one of them $50 to help me move some furniture. They all turned me down...
#1 said, "Go hire a Mexican."
#2 said, "I'm an accountant, not a mover."
#3 said, "Just give me the money ... we'll split it."
Lucky for me, my nephew dropped by, helped me out, and didn't want to take the money. So we went to a nice restaurant instead.
When we drove past, those three were still "Occupying" the same place outside the market. What is it with some people?
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
18 Dec 2011, 11:56 am
Fnord wrote:
Yesterday, I walked up to three panhandlers near the local market and said that I would pay one of them $50 to help me move some furniture. They all turned me down...
#1 said, "Go hire a Mexican."
#2 said, "I'm an accountant, not a mover."
#3 said, "Just give me the money ... we'll split it."
Lucky for me, my nephew dropped by, helped me out, and didn't want to take the money. So we went to a nice restaurant instead.
When we drove past, those three were still "Occupying" the same place outside the market. What is it with some people?
#1 said, "Go hire a Mexican."
#2 said, "I'm an accountant, not a mover."
#3 said, "Just give me the money ... we'll split it."
Lucky for me, my nephew dropped by, helped me out, and didn't want to take the money. So we went to a nice restaurant instead.
When we drove past, those three were still "Occupying" the same place outside the market. What is it with some people?
Well good for the panhandlers I guess........but I really hope you are not trying to say a typical panhandler outside the store, resembles the average occupy protester because those are two different things.
Last edited by Sweetleaf on 18 Dec 2011, 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
18 Dec 2011, 12:02 pm
19 Dec 2011, 8:14 am
