Economics Questions

Re: What exactly is poverty?

John James — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 03:22:22 GMT

Just caught this:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: What exactly is poverty?

John James — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 04:08:18 GMT

Fool on the Hill:
Well then, there's economic power for you. When Birthday Pony mentioned economic power, I figured s/he meant capitalists employing the state's power for economic purposes.

What difference does it make? Either she was saying what you're saying, and thus conceding my point, or she was using a different definition that what you think she meant, and is wrong.

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Fool on the Hill — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 02:49:34 GMT

Well then, there's economic power for you. When Birthday Pony mentioned economic power, I figured s/he meant capitalists employing the state's power for economic purposes.

Re: What exactly is poverty?

John James — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 04:03:07 GMT

Fool on the Hill:
Is Obama an agent of the state that can force people to do things? If so, then I don't see why a capitalist can't be one too.

Who ever said an agent of the state couldn't be a capitalist?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Wheylous — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 02:04:13 GMT

anyone but an agent

You gave an example of an agent.

Edit: Whoops, did I misread?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Fool on the Hill — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:39:16 GMT

I also know the definitions of "economic". The point I was making when I gave you the defintion of power the first time was that private individuals do not have any real possession of control or command over others. Only agents of the state can force people to do things. (again, you said so.) So again, could you please explain how anyone but an agent of the state holds any kind of power, economic or otherwise?

Is Obama an agent of the state that can force people to do things? If so, then I don't see why a capitalist can't be one too.

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Autolykos — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:40:53 GMT

John James:
Like I said, I don't think he/she has one. (At least not one that aligns with all his/her whinings and declarations.) As I said earlier this doesn't seem to be anything more than typical "whine for whining's sake"...devoting oneself to proving that something human has imperfections. That Earth is not Nirvana. Just like typical statists, it's a course of whining without end, yet never offering any alternative. Sowell extrapolates this quite well.

It's worse than that, actually. Not only are they committing the nirvana fallacy, they're also trying to jump the shark of the is-ought problem: "Reality is wrong because it's not nirvana."

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Autolykos — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:37:39 GMT

Birthday Pony:
The root of my analysis is within anyone who makes a claim to "legitimate" aggression. The state is certainly one of the perpetrators, but it also tends to be landlords that use the state to evict tenants, oil companies that use it to broker deals, and banks that use it when they go belly up. Conceivably, a post-state world could still be wrought with authoritarianism and gross disparities in power, whether or not those disparities coincide with ownership of something. My concern is not with the state or private individuals, this or that, but with authoritarianism in general. A power disparity is not just another splotchy mark on the state's record, but a problem in and of itself. Any system that depends on unequal control over one's own life is one that I oppose.

This, of course, raises the question of how you define "control over one's own life". I submit that you and other self-professed leftists have a fundamentally different view of this from that of people like John James, Clayton, and myself. We focus on actions, whereas you focus on conditions. We focus internally (i.e. what an individual does), whereas you focus externally (i.e. what others do). We focus on reality, whereas you focus on imagination.

Here's the thing: other people do not, strictly speaking, prevent one from setting out to do something that he's willing and able to do. Hopefully you recognize that. Even if you do, however, I don't think that's your concern. Your concern is what he's able to do. You imagine that, if things were different (i.e. better) for him, he'd be able to do more. That's all well and good, but what basis does that have on what he's actually able to do in the here and now?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Autolykos — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:18:09 GMT

Fool on the Hill:
By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them. In Scotland, custom has rendered them a necessary of life to the lowest order of men; but not to the same order of women, who may, without any discredit, walk about barefooted. In France they are necessaries neither to men nor to women, the lowest rank of both sexes appearing there publicly, without any discredit, sometimes in wooden shoes, and sometimes barefooted. Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people. ~ Adam Smith

Thanks for providing your definition of "necessity". Now please demonstrate how the rest of us are obligated to use that same definition.

On another note, the above quote by Adam Smith (of all people) is quite revealing about the position of leftists regarding "necessities". It's obvious to me that their concern is actually about social standing. That is, they don't want to have lower social standing than others. They don't want to feel like others consider themselves superior. They project their own feelings of insecurity onto other people, as if those other people are somehow forcing those feelings upon them. They aren't. No one ever makes anyone else feel a certain way - he can only do that to himself.

The flipside of this is that no one can make anyone else not feel a certain way. This was exemplified by an exchange I had with Francois Tremblay over on the FLL. He demanded that I stop "invalidating" him. I replied: "Too late." All he could do at that point, apparently, was sputter in rage - which, I can assure you, had no effect whatsoever on me.

Re: What exactly is poverty?

John James — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:50:12 GMT

Wheylous:
Judging from his posts on FLL, BP doesn't believe in "right-lib" property rights but looser "left-lib" rights, and this is where the problem may arise from. So good for asking him what system he proposes.

Like I said, I don't think he/she has one. (At least not one that aligns with all his/her whinings and declarations.) As I said earlier this doesn't seem to be anything more than typical "whine for whining's sake"...devoting oneself to proving that something human has imperfections. That Earth is not Nirvana. Just like typical statists, it's a course of whining without end, yet never offering any alternative. Sowell extrapolates this quite well.

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Wheylous — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:39:14 GMT

Any system that depends on unequal control over one's own life is one that I oppose.

No one can have control over someone else (as only we have access to our own minds, electric shocks notwithstanding). One can have great power, as with aggression. But pure capitalism doesn't create a system of control unless it's voluntary.

Judging from his posts on FLL, BP doesn't believe in "right-lib" property rights but looser "left-lib" rights, and this is where the problem may arise from.

So good for asking him what system he proposes.

Re: What exactly is poverty?

John James — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 14:10:20 GMT

Birthday Pony:
JJ, you did a really good job citing and then omitting the word "authority" in your definition of oppress. It's not often you see someone with the chutzpa to cite something and then just pretend like it's not staring them straight in the face from their copy-and-pasted definition.

I'm sorry, what? I copied the entire opening defintion, as it was the relevant one. If you want me to include the rest of them I have no problem with that:

op·press verb \ə-ˈpres\
transitive verb

1 (a) archaic : suppress

(b) : to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority

: to burden spiritually or mentally : weigh heavily upon

— op·pres·sor \-ˈpre-sər\ noun

See oppress defined for English-language learners »

See oppress defined for kids »

Examples of OPPRESS

The country has long been oppressed by a ruthless dictator.

They condemned attempts by the government to oppress its citizens.

people who have traditionally been oppressed by society

Origin of OPPRESS

Middle English, from Anglo-French oppresser, from Latin oppressus, past participle of opprimere, from ob- against + premere to press — more at ob-, press

First Known Use: 14th century

Shall I include the synonyms too? I have no idea how any of that makes any difference to what I said.

I take it you know the meaning of both the words "economic" and "power." Use some brainpower on this one. Do you need a definition for that one too? How about a definition of the word 'definition'?

Gettin a little aggitated are we?

Yes I know the definition of power. In fact I provided that definition to you only a few posts ago. Here, I'll give it again:

"power" in this context is defined as "the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy: ex. power over men's minds. "

I also know the definitions of "economic". The point I was making when I gave you the defintion of power the first time was that private individuals do not have any real possession of control or command over others. Only agents of the state can force people to do things. (again, you said so.) So again, could you please explain how anyone but an agent of the state holds any kind of power, economic or otherwise?

The root of my analysis is within anyone who makes a claim to "legitimate" aggression. The state is certainly one of the perpetrators, but it also tends to be landlords that use the state to evict tenants, oil companies that use it to broker deals, and banks that use it when they go belly up.

Again, you said the state's aggression was legitimate. So I'll ask you again. where is it exactly that the root of your concern lies? It certainly can't be with private individuals..."

(And just as a side note...a property owner doesn't have a right to get someone off his property? Whose property is it then?)

Conceivably, a post-state world could still be wrought with authoritarianism and gross disparities in power, whether or not those disparities coincide with ownership of something. My concern is not with the state or private individuals, this or that, but with authoritarianism in general. A power disparity is not just another splotchy mark on the state's record, but a problem in and of itself. Any system that depends on unequal control over one's own life is one that I oppose.

Great. So please describe the system you advocate. As I've pointed out multiple times in this thread already, you have yet to actually state what it is you're saying should be done. I've heard a lot of whining, but no actual argument. So let's have it. What is this system you don't oppose? What should be done about all the "injustices" you can't seem to quit crying about?

But this is something that escapes your worldview. When someone chooses to obey their boss over losing their job I suppose you'd say they've had as much of a choice as the boss deciding what to command.

Again, please describe what exactly you're saying should be done about such a "terrible" situation as someone actually choosing to do their job as opposed to not doing it.

Re: What exactly is poverty?

ulrichPf — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:40:40 GMT

I am assuming that when you talk about your studies about equality you are talking about Sweden, because you will find many more societies, both now and in the past, that had equality and very bad standards of living. Detroit got to its state not because inequality increased, it got there because productive people and capital fled the place, and it will never return just because equality is increased there.

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Birthday Pony — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:05:49 GMT

JJ, you did a really good job citing and then omitting the word "authority" in your definition of oppress. It's not often you see someone with the chutzpa to cite something and then just pretend like it's not staring them straight in the face from their copy-and-pasted definition. Congratulations.

"That was supposed to be in the first post."

OH MY GOD IT WAS REALLY IN THE SECOND AND THIRD POSTS YOU LYING COMMIE BASTARD!

"could you define that term please?"

I take it you know the meaning of both the words "economic" and "power." Use some brainpower on this one. Do you need a definition for that one too? How about a definition of the word 'definition'?

"Then you're saying "it seems to regularly correlate with owning stuff...oh and political positions too." Really. Ya don't say. So people who have the power to initiate aggression on others (which you say is legitimate, at least in their case) tend to have more stuff than people who aren't allowed to force people to do what they're told. Well blow me down."

We're on the same page here. Lucky us.

"So again, if no one but agents of the state can get away with exerting control and command over others, where is it exactly that the root of your concern lies? It certainly can't be with private individuals..."

The root of my analysis is within anyone who makes a claim to "legitimate" aggression. The state is certainly one of the perpetrators, but it also tends to be landlords that use the state to evict tenants, oil companies that use it to broker deals, and banks that use it when they go belly up. Conceivably, a post-state world could still be wrought with authoritarianism and gross disparities in power, whether or not those disparities coincide with ownership of something. My concern is not with the state or private individuals, this or that, but with authoritarianism in general. A power disparity is not just another splotchy mark on the state's record, but a problem in and of itself. Any system that depends on unequal control over one's own life is one that I oppose.

But this is something that escapes your worldview. When someone chooses to obey their boss over losing their job I suppose you'd say they've had as much of a choice as the boss deciding what to command.

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Wheylous — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 01:01:57 GMT

"Oppress" is an absolute term. You are either put down by force or you aren't.

Okay, you're right. Cleared my point up. Wasn't a flaw you had there. I just wasn't digging deep enough.

Economics Questions

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Examples of OPPRESS

Origin of OPPRESS

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?

Re: What exactly is poverty?