Are the Poor Getting Poorer?

[Lootifer]

I think it should be recognized from another perspective how much charity wealth creation makes possible.

Like all that good charity ole' Stevie Jobs did? /snort

The society that puts equality before freedom, well end up with neither.
The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great deal of both.

Got some evidence behind that assertion big fella?

[Phatscotty]

I think it should be recognized from another perspective how much charity wealth creation makes possible.

Like all that good charity ole' Stevie Jobs did? /snort

The society that puts equality before freedom, well end up with neither.
The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great deal of both.

Got some evidence behind that assertion big fella?

I can try little guy!
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=155347&p=3402613#p3402613

[BigBallinStalin]

Interesting graph. One thing that stands out to me is that the US has the most people making above 40k$ (three whole percentile groups, Canada and the UK come 2nd with 2. ) and fewer people making bellow 20k$(3 percentile groups, only one country beats them, Norway with only two percentile groups) than the OECD average. Another thing were the countries which tie the US for fewest people under 20k$; Denmark, Britain, Canada, Norway.

None of those are particularly low tax countries. Which is interesting as it suggests Taxes cause a depressing effect on the higher end of earnings.

Just out of curiosity does PPP usually take into account what might be government provided services in some countries? For isntance would they include the cost of a doctors visit in the UK to the cost of a doctors visit in the US?

As many of the countries on the lower scale such as France or Germany have many government provided services and would hardly be thought of as poor.

That's a difficult question to answer...

Purchasing power parity (there's absolute, relative, and future) only deals with the relative value of currencies across borders. So "$1000 in the US should buy the same stuff for 750 pounds in England" is the general idea here.

But what stuff are we buying?

That's measured with a country's consumer price index (CPI).

CPI uses weighted averages of a basket of goods, and then PPP compares these costs across borders while adjusting for inflation.

Take, for example, the money you spend on a house. The US government will estimate that to be about 50% of your total income (i.e. it's a weighted average). This includes every American who owns a house, so we can start to see how inaccurate this can be. Nonetheless, it's still useful, it's "good enough for government statistics," and I'm not aware of any other method that's more useful and practical.

I'm not sure how they calculate health services, and how they differentiate between government-paid and privately-provided. My intuition tells me that they don't separate them. They'll just use the category "Health Services" and drop a weighted average on it (it's 6.2% for the US).

The problem is that these weighted averages vary across countries, so it's not accurate to say that $1000 USD will buy you an equivalent amount of goods for the exchanged amount of 750 pounds (or whatever that exact amount is). That's just the nature of the game.

(off topic). Recall that $2 per day fact. Does that $2 in some very poor country buy the same amount of goods in the US? No, not at all. CPI's don't factor in the benefits of social networks (charities, family, community, etc.).

[Lootifer]

What were we saying about biased rhetoric? (it was mentioned in another thread to rip apart one of Natty_dreads links).

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm not really focusing on the one of the left. I'm using the right graph to explain how certain economic policies which focus on "bringing up" the poor come at a significant cost to everyone else (as seen by everyone else's reduced incomes relative to the US's). That unseen cost is what I'm talking about, and it's important for people to realize the missed alternatives when their moral sentiments for helping the poorest of poor are implemented into policy.

Flip that around and you see there is also a cost of not doing that. The US has its top 30% make more money, its bottom 30% makes less. the 40% in the middle do about the same as everyone else give or take a couple thousand a year.

Be careful because you're only using percentages; the proportions don't accurately describe the relative costs.

Sure, I agree that the poorest of the poor in the US make as much as Spain or Italy's poorest of the poor, but not as much as Denmark's, Germany's, and the rest.

However, every other group within the US earns more relative to their respective groups in Denmark, Germany, France, etc., so it's a trade-off. It's apparent that the economic policies of many developed countries incur tremendous costs on nearly all the other categories in order to lift up the poorest of the poor. In my opinion, those costs to every category (but the poorest) don't justify the moral appeal for government intervention (via heavier taxation to provide certain goods).

By costs, I'm talking about the lost opportunity of others to earn more income. This lost opportunity is caused in order to boost the poorest marginally up the scale--but at a significant cost to everyone else.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, look at the poorest of the US, and yeah, they're much poorer than everyone else; however, look at the costs incurred by the other 4 groups in other countries who attempt to fix this problem--presumably through much higher taxes than the US. On average, their people are poorer. That's a huge cost to society, and I wouldn't want to burden anyone with that because a loud minority screams "unfairness" (for one particular group) while ignoring the unseen costs on everyone else.

Yeah... I don't think it's really that simple.

US may have a larger amount of overall capital at the moment... but then US is the largest country on that list. And there are tons of other factors that should be taken in account.

The deciles average people into categories so that total population doesn't distort the statistics, nor would total capital.

However, it's interesting to note that the correlation between the higher incomes of the wealthiest with higher incomes of all other deciles. The exception being the last US decile; however, the 2nd to last decile is a $1000 median income less than Denmark's second to last.

So still, there's huge social costs with countries that tend to have more egalitarian/distributive-income approaches toward alleviating poverty.

[BigBallinStalin]

To occupy wallstreet . At first i didn`t agree but when i realized this... Gov`t forced banks by law to lend to less qualified individuals , this inturn spurred artificial inflation of home values based on the gov`t enrichment program. with the majority of these loans being subprime , interest only . who made out in the end ? As you can see it was a tag team operation to remove cash from the population , mainly the middle class .

Thanks for choosing to take the red pill, danfrank.

[Lootifer]

By costs, I'm talking about the lost opportunity of others to earn more income. This lost opportunity is caused in order to boost the poorest marginally up the scale--but at a significant cost to everyone else.

This "cost" is also incurred even if you don't boost them up the scale as you say, but mearly in the provision of equal opportunities to move up the scale.

And you are saying that the poor don't deserve this?

To use a real life example: the poor child deserves to sit in a classroom with 49 other students and a terrible (bottom rung of the quality ladder - as free market principles dictate) teacher just so the Joe Wealthy can have 1/8th of a Masarati?

Or my brothers hypothetical children deserve to live in poverty, not through any lack of hard work, but because my brother chose to invest his hard work into providing a better life for people with intellectual disabilities?

[BigBallinStalin]

By costs, I'm talking about the lost opportunity of others to earn more income. This lost opportunity is caused in order to boost the poorest marginally up the scale--but at a significant cost to everyone else.

This "cost" is also incurred even if you don't boost them up the scale as you say, but mearly in the provision of equal opportunities to move up the scale.

Notice how there are no equal opportunities. Can you really justify the stance that the poorest of the poor in all those countries have "equal opportunities"? We need to notice how shifting opportunities to one segment of the population removes many possibilities from the rest of the population, and that applies to every country.

And you are saying that the poor don't deserve this?

To use a real life example: the poor child deserves to sit in a classroom with 49 other students and a terrible (bottom rung of the quality ladder - as free market principles dictate) teacher just so the Joe Wealthy can have 1/8th of a Masarati?

Or my brothers hypothetical children deserve to live in poverty, not through any lack of hard work, but because my brother chose to invest his hard work into providing a better life for people with intellectual disabilities?

You're constructing a poor straw man fallacy. Steps toward a free market entail empowering individuals, and thus empowering spontaneous order--as oppose to central planning. It's difficult to predict how millions of people would find innovative solutions to these problems had the government not eliminated (or nearly eliminated) these possibilities.

Do the poorest deserve terrible police protection and rubbish legal representatives? Do they deserve terrible public education? Do black people deserve the destruction of their communities from rampant and racist law enforcement? Because that's what we're getting now; that's what the governments have been producing. Look at the wars this country has created in the past 10 years. That's part and parcel with the exact opposite of free markets.

There's little incentive for others to help because they perceive that the state is doing "everything possible." Most don't realize that the possibilities of innovation by millions of people have been blocked. This is from the government seizure of part of our incomes and more importantly the crowding out effect from government spending and control over certain sectors. This is what people need to realize. They need to see the unseen costs of government action.

[spurgistan]

To occupy wallstreet . At first i didn`t agree but when i realized this... Gov`t forced banks by law to lend to less qualified individuals , this inturn spurred artificial inflation of home values based on the gov`t enrichment program. with the majority of these loans being subprime , interest only . who made out in the end ? As you can see it was a tag team operation to remove cash from the population , mainly the middle class .

Thanks for choosing to take the red pill, danfrank.

Is that the odd syntax pill?

[BigBallinStalin]

To occupy wallstreet . At first i didn`t agree but when i realized this... Gov`t forced banks by law to lend to less qualified individuals , this inturn spurred artificial inflation of home values based on the gov`t enrichment program. with the majority of these loans being subprime , interest only . who made out in the end ? As you can see it was a tag team operation to remove cash from the population , mainly the middle class .

Thanks for choosing to take the red pill, danfrank.

Is that the odd syntax pill?

What do to mean you?

I'm just highlighting the action of taking the pill, instead of just choosing it, and letting the mental image carry the implication for you. Just call on me Captain Clarity is.

[Baron Von PWN]

Interesting graph. One thing that stands out to me is that the US has the most people making above 40k$ (three whole percentile groups, Canada and the UK come 2nd with 2. ) and fewer people making bellow 20k$(3 percentile groups, only one country beats them, Norway with only two percentile groups) than the OECD average. Another thing were the countries which tie the US for fewest people under 20k$; Denmark, Britain, Canada, Norway.

None of those are particularly low tax countries. Which is interesting as it suggests Taxes cause a depressing effect on the higher end of earnings.

Just out of curiosity does PPP usually take into account what might be government provided services in some countries? For isntance would they include the cost of a doctors visit in the UK to the cost of a doctors visit in the US?

As many of the countries on the lower scale such as France or Germany have many government provided services and would hardly be thought of as poor.

That's a difficult question to answer...

Purchasing power parity (there's absolute, relative, and future) only deals with the relative value of currencies across borders. So "$1000 in the US should buy the same stuff for 750 pounds in England" is the general idea here.

But what stuff are we buying?

That's measured with a country's consumer price index (CPI).

CPI uses weighted averages of a basket of goods, and then PPP compares these costs across borders while adjusting for inflation.

Take, for example, the money you spend on a house. The US government will estimate that to be about 50% of your total income (i.e. it's a weighted average). This includes every American who owns a house, so we can start to see how inaccurate this can be. Nonetheless, it's still useful, it's "good enough for government statistics," and I'm not aware of any other method that's more useful and practical.

I'm not sure how they calculate health services, and how they differentiate between government-paid and privately-provided. My intuition tells me that they don't separate them. They'll just use the category "Health Services" and drop a weighted average on it (it's 6.2% for the US).

The problem is that these weighted averages vary across countries, so it's not accurate to say that $1000 USD will buy you an equivalent amount of goods for the exchanged amount of 750 pounds (or whatever that exact amount is). That's just the nature of the game.

(off topic). Recall that $2 per day fact. Does that $2 in some very poor country buy the same amount of goods in the US? No, not at all. CPI's don't factor in the benefits of social networks (charities, family, community, etc.).

A fair point. I only meant to point out that the gross dollar value someone takes in, may not accurately reflect their standard of living. For instance according to the WHO the US ranks bellow most of the listed countries in terms of Health system rankings. (France and Italy are 1st and 2nd respectively). All of this is to say statistics can be thought of like a bikini, what they show is great but what they don't show can be more important.

[BigBallinStalin]

A fair point. I only meant to point out that the gross dollar value someone takes in, may not accurately reflect their standard of living. For instance according to the WHO the US ranks bellow most of the listed countries in terms of Health system rankings. (France and Italy are 1st and 2nd respectively). All of this is to say statistics can be thought of like a bikini, what they show is great but what they don't show can be more important.

I partially agree because the statistics explain more than 5% of one's "body." Given the inherent inaccuracy of each country's CPI's, it's not like the governments of developed countries would tend to have outrageously weighted averages; they're still reasonable enough to compare across countries. Sure, it's not 100% certain, but I wouldn't gauge it at a bikini 5%.

Relative median incomes would be lower in countries that rely more on government intervention partially because of the unseen costs of government inefficiency or its unintended consequences. Basically, people pay for the waste government creates. So, sure, France marginally scores better in average health than in the US but the French pay a significant amount of their income merely to boost the lowest group.

But let's use your point. How much do people enjoy being slightly fatter? The WHO will mark that down for health, but does that really reflect subjective preferences? How much does a marginal increase in chubbiness result in a healthier or unhealthier mindset overall? Who knows.

How about mortality rates in the US? Could they be decreased by emulating France's socialized healthcare? Or is it really just an unintended consequence from law enforcement policies? Who knows.

How much do economic incentives shape moral behavior and cultural attitudes? And vice-versa? How responsible are those factors? It can't be measured.

Given all that, the statistics still make an interesting point. People pay significantly more in countries with more intrusive government programs mostly to increase the measured livelihood of the poorest group--and only on the margin. It's not a significant gain for the immense social cost--sure, it's median income, but all that money from all the other groups could have been spent on numerous other things. Who knows what options were eliminated with increased state intervention? Given the large gap between more capitalistic societies (e.g. Canada, US, UK) compared to the others, the range of options reduced in "less-capitalistic" societies appears to be significant.

[thegreekdog]

This lost opportunity is caused in order to boost the poorest marginally up the scale--but at a significant cost to everyone else.

Why is there a significant cost to everyone else, thegreekdog asks rhetorically.

thegreekdog continues, rhetorically, in case BBS didn't pick up what he was throwing down in the first question, The entity or individual (I don't know who it could be) who decides to "boost the poorest" marginally at a cost to everyone else should be doing things efficiently, right?

[Lootifer]

Notice how there are no equal opportunities. Can you really justify the stance that the poorest of the poor in all those countries have "equal opportunities"? We need to notice how shifting opportunities to one segment of the population removes many possibilities from the rest of the population, and that applies to every country.

But it's not simply moving opportunity from one disconnected group to another, wealth and opportunity is an increasing linear relationship. Here I made a pictor cause it's a slow morning at work:

You're constructing a poor straw man fallacy. Steps toward a free market entail empowering individuals, and thus empowering spontaneous order--as oppose to central planning. It's difficult to predict how millions of people would find innovative solutions to these problems had the government not eliminated (or nearly eliminated) these possibilities.

Yes and god may exist; I may be using a straw man, but you are straying into the "belief" spectrum.

Do the poorest deserve terrible police protection and rubbish legal representatives? Do they deserve terrible public education? Do black people deserve the destruction of their communities from rampant and racist law enforcement? Because that's what we're getting now; that's what the governments have been producing.

And how exactly is a free, unconstrained market going to change these issues?

There's little incentive for others to help because they perceive that the state is doing "everything possible." Most don't realize that the possibilities of innovation by millions of people have been blocked. This is from the government seizure of part of our incomes and more importantly the crowding out effect from government spending and control over certain sectors. This is what people need to realize. They need to see the unseen costs of government action.

I don't like to delete blocks of text and not reply; but this just seems like a bit of a rant? (much like my earlier straw man post) Tell ya what, i'll try to limited my bias rhetoric, if you limit yours

[BigBallinStalin]

This lost opportunity is caused in order to boost the poorest marginally up the scale--but at a significant cost to everyone else.

Why is there a significant cost to everyone else, thegreekdog asks rhetorically.

thegreekdog continues, rhetorically, in case BBS didn't pick up what he was throwing down in the first question, The entity or individual (I don't know who it could be) who decides to "boost the poorest" marginally at a cost to everyone else should be doing things efficiently, right?

<leans back, rests foot on knee, begins to stroke the chin thoughtfully>

Why, yes, TGD, that entity, which shall forever remain unknown, should be doing things efficiently.

Between you and me, I wonder: how long it will take the others to catch on?

(@others: I left a hint in the second paragraph there, fellas!)

[BigBallinStalin]

Notice how there are no equal opportunities. Can you really justify the stance that the poorest of the poor in all those countries have "equal opportunities"? We need to notice how shifting opportunities to one segment of the population removes many possibilities from the rest of the population, and that applies to every country.

But it's not simply moving opportunity from one disconnected group to another, wealth and opportunity is an increasing linear relationship. Here I made a pictor cause it's a slow morning at work:

Opportunities aren't created in some easily measurable linear relationship. The world is complex. You're simply assuming that the government can create more opportunities for poor people, yet you're still overlooking the unintended consequences of state intervention and its inherent inefficiency. That inefficiency creates shear waste, lost opportunities, etc., please continue reading before you respond to this.

You're constructing a poor straw man fallacy. Steps toward a free market entail empowering individuals, and thus empowering spontaneous order--as oppose to central planning. It's difficult to predict how millions of people would find innovative solutions to these problems had the government not eliminated (or nearly eliminated) these possibilities.

Yes and god may exist; I may be using a straw man, but you are straying into the "belief" spectrum.

It's not a claim of faith. Simply compare the Soviet Union and any capitalist country. Gee, what's doing the heavy lifting here? Markets. Why's that? Because the markets in capitalistic societies are freer than the Soviet Union's (which are centrally planned or operate as black markets which faced severe transaction costs).

Do the poorest deserve terrible police protection and rubbish legal representatives? Do they deserve terrible public education? Do black people deserve the destruction of their communities from rampant and racist law enforcement? Because that's what we're getting now; that's what the governments have been producing.

And how exactly is a free, unconstrained market going to change these issues?

I've no idea because I can't predict the behavior of millions of people acting on newly created opportunities, which have come into existence after the government has stopped crowding out the demand for goods and services.

There's little incentive for others to help because they perceive that the state is doing "everything possible." Most don't realize that the possibilities of innovation by millions of people have been blocked. This is from the government seizure of part of our incomes and more importantly the crowding out effect from government spending and control over certain sectors. This is what people need to realize. They need to see the unseen costs of government action.

I don't like to delete blocks of text and not reply; but this just seems like a bit of a rant? (much like my earlier straw man post) Tell ya what, i'll try to limited my bias rhetoric, if you limit yours

Instead of logically dealing with that part, you ignored it, so it's no surprise that you completely failed to understand what I've been typing. If you don't get what I'm typing, just ask. Save me time and spare me unnecessary ridicule.

Here's an example: the history of the FCC and bandwidth regulation. Back in the day, broadcasters were delineated certain amounts of bandwidths which was given by the government. Essentially, medium through which radio and TV traveled was centrally planned by the government. The missing opportunities to innovate, create jobs, and provide the good more efficiently was completely eliminated at this time. Ever since the FCC relinquished its power over that medium, cable TV came into existence, bandwidths were freely traded to more valued uses, etc. Those opportunities (recall that they were previously eliminated) all came into being after that governmental agency was abolished* (correction: it wasn't exactly the FCC, but some department which regulated bandwidths and was related to the FCC).

In a nutshell, those are the implications of free(r) markets.

[Lootifer]

Opportunities aren't created in some easily measurable linear relationship. The world is complex. You're simply assuming that the government can create more opportunities for poor people, yet you're still overlooking the unintended consequences of state intervention and its inherent inefficiency. That inefficiency creates shear waste, lost opportunities, etc., please continue reading before you respond to this.

I agree with your first point. But I have never overlooked governement inefficiency. I completely understand the benefit area on the chart (the lower volume representing the helping the poor) is less than the cost area on the chart (the long thin area representing the loss of opportunity to the non-poor). But thanks, i enjoy the condescension.

It's not a claim of faith. Simply compare the Soviet Union and any capitalist country. Gee, what's doing the heavy lifting here? Markets. Why's that? Because the markets in capitalistic societies are freer than the Soviet Union's (which are centrally planned or operate as black markets which faced severe transaction costs).

I've never been in favour of central planning, there's no argument that in a pure sense free markets are the ideal solution; the issue is there is little ideal in this world. Bad things happen, so we need to make accomadations.

I've no idea because I can't predict the behavior of millions of people acting on newly created opportunities, which have come into existence after the government has stopped crowding out the demand for goods and services.

Humor me, you're clearly a smart person. Have a go at explaining with logic and rationale what you think would happen.

Instead of logically dealing with that part, you ignored it, so it's no surprise that you completely failed to understand what I've been typing. If you don't get what I'm typing, just ask. Save me time and spare me unnecessary ridicule.

Here's an example: the history of the FCC and bandwidth regulation. Back in the day, broadcasters were delineated certain amounts of bandwidths which was given by the government. Essentially, medium through which radio and TV traveled was centrally planned by the government. The missing opportunities to innovate, create jobs, and provide the good more efficiently was completely eliminated at this time. Ever since the FCC relinquished its power over that medium, cable TV came into existence, bandwidths were freely traded to more valued uses, etc. Those opportunities (recall that they were previously eliminated) all came into being after that governmental agency was abolished* (correction: it wasn't exactly the FCC, but some department which regulated bandwidths and was related to the FCC).

In a nutshell, those are the implications of free(r) markets.

[/quote]
Again I understood exactly what you were trying to say. I just thought it an unnecessary dialog on something we were explicitly covering elseware.

And I agree, heavy regulation by FCC will (has) dampen(ed) growth and innovation. But are you saying that that very same innovation would never have occured?

Also you need to bear in mind (I am not completely over the FCC thing, but we have similar issues here in NZ) that communication infrastructure has huge barriers to entry (fundamentally derived by the nature of the good/service, regardless of regulation or lack there of). These barriers to entry cause significant market distortion and sometimes will result in market failure. On one hand you have a high likelyhood of a natural monopoly (which has the similar efficiency to central planning), on the other you have two/three/five/etc cellphone towers being built next to each other where a single large one would provide the least cost to consumers.

As I've always said: The free market is great. But it's no silver bullet.

[BigBallinStalin]

Opportunities aren't created in some easily measurable linear relationship. The world is complex. You're simply assuming that the government can create more opportunities for poor people, yet you're still overlooking the unintended consequences of state intervention and its inherent inefficiency. That inefficiency creates shear waste, lost opportunities, etc., please continue reading before you respond to this.

I agree with your first point. But I have never overlooked governement inefficiency. I completely understand the benefit area on the chart (the lower volume representing the helping the poor) is less than the cost area on the chart (the long thin area representing the loss of opportunity to the non-poor). But thanks, i enjoy the condescension.

Hey, lootifer, I didn't mean it like that. I meant to say that the following explains that paragraph, so that paragraph shouldn't be treated separately.

Anyway, when people appeal to government intervention or control over the provision of a certain good, they just assume that the intervention is better than waiting out the temporary market failure or perceived problem. What they don't expect is that the outcome in the long-run usually becomes worse, and when that happens, they just demand further government intervention. "Politician-entrepreneurs" spot this opportunity and provide people "the solution," because the politicians are aware of the people's high time-preference regarding these problems (i.e. the people don't want to wait regardless of the long-term benefits).

Given that situation, and that government intervention crowds out demand for private solutions, I don't readily assume that the government can create more opportunities for people, or assume that the government is the answer to any particular problem.

It's not a claim of faith. Simply compare the Soviet Union and any capitalist country. Gee, what's doing the heavy lifting here? Markets. Why's that? Because the markets in capitalistic societies are freer than the Soviet Union's (which are centrally planned or operate as black markets which faced severe transaction costs).

I've never been in favour of central planning, there's no argument that in a pure sense free markets are the ideal solution; the issue is there is little ideal in this world. Bad things happen, so we need to make accomadations.

We do, but appealing to the government as the solution only assumes that such a method would produce a more optimal solution in the long-term. It might make things worse, or marginally improve things as the loss of more rapid improvements provided by the market in the long-run.

A fun example is the current housing crisis in the US. The perceived problem was that some people didn't own homes; therefore, they should. The appeal to government was made, and the government happily obliged them. That was in 1996. The government provided bad incentives for large banks to make loans to risky borrowers with the (most likely) implicit agreement to bail out the bank if things go bad. 2007 comes around, and whoops! Even default credit swaps were enabled from previous laws which extended into the 1980s IIRC. Given this instance, I don't immediately assume that the government should step in whenever people perceive that there's a problem, or that temporary "market failure" occurred.

I've no idea because I can't predict the behavior of millions of people acting on newly created opportunities, which have come into existence after the government has stopped crowding out the demand for goods and services.

Humor me, you're clearly a smart person. Have a go at explaining with logic and rationale what you think would happen.

How can I? I'm not millions of people, nor am I the collection of entrepreneurs who succeed or fail in providing some good/solution.

Instead of logically dealing with that part, you ignored it, so it's no surprise that you completely failed to understand what I've been typing. If you don't get what I'm typing, just ask. Save me time and spare me unnecessary ridicule.

Here's an example: the history of the FCC and bandwidth regulation. Back in the day, broadcasters were delineated certain amounts of bandwidths which was given by the government. Essentially, medium through which radio and TV traveled was centrally planned by the government. The missing opportunities to innovate, create jobs, and provide the good more efficiently was completely eliminated at this time. Ever since the FCC relinquished its power over that medium, cable TV came into existence, bandwidths were freely traded to more valued uses, etc. Those opportunities (recall that they were previously eliminated) all came into being after that governmental agency was abolished* (correction: it wasn't exactly the FCC, but some department which regulated bandwidths and was related to the FCC).

In a nutshell, those are the implications of free(r) markets.

Again I understood exactly what you were trying to say. I just thought it an unnecessary dialog on something we were explicitly covering elseware.

I got'cha. The FCC point is relevant because it highlights the opportunities which would have been available if the government wasn't already "helping." This is in response to the overall theme of this discussion (I guess; it's getting a bit incoherent, though ). (If anything, I'd just like to focus on the last part of this reply because we can revisit these parts in the discussion in a different form).

And I agree, heavy regulation by FCC will (has) dampen(ed) growth and innovation. But are you saying that that very same innovation would never have occured?

TV was transmitted through air waves for 50 years since its introduction. This was prolonged because the FCC prevented innovation. After the market was deregulated (mostly privatized), cable TV can into being extremely quickly. Apparently, that change wasn't going to occur any time soon while the status quo remained.

Also you need to bear in mind (I am not completely over the FCC thing, but we have similar issues here in NZ) that communication infrastructure has huge barriers to entry (fundamentally derived by the nature of the good/service, regardless of regulation or lack there of). These barriers to entry cause significant market distortion and sometimes will result in market failure. On one hand you have a high likelyhood of a natural monopoly (which has the similar efficiency to central planning), on the other you have two/three/five/etc cellphone towers being built next to each other where a single large one would provide the least cost to consumers.

(1) Barriers to entry depend not just on the capital required, but also on the laws/regulations involved. So, the regulation can increase transaction costs to the point which prohibits entrepreneurs from providing the good.

(2) How do you know?

[PLAYER57832]

You're constructing a poor straw man fallacy. Steps toward a free market entail empowering individuals, and thus empowering spontaneous order--as oppose to central planning. It's difficult to predict how millions of people would find innovative solutions to these problems had the government not eliminated (or nearly eliminated) these possibilities.

Yes and god may exist; I may be using a straw man, but you are straying into the "belief" spectrum.

It's not a claim of faith. Simply compare the Soviet Union and any capitalist country. Gee, what's doing the heavy lifting here? Markets. Why's that? Because the markets in capitalistic societies are freer than the Soviet Union's (which are centrally planned or operate as black markets which faced severe transaction costs).

Except... the Soviet was not the only planned economy. Nazis Germany was planned. Even the US turned heavily planned during the wars. (what else would you call rationing, etc?)

Overall, what is required is to have a focused, unified goal. The soviet pretended to try, but really was just another group of elite taking control. I would argue that aside from something like a war or other uniform threats ( say the fight against polio), having such a unification for an entire nation is impossible. However, it is important to note that it IS possible, given the right conditions. It is possible and, in some circumstances, even necessary.

The overall problem is not having a directed or demand system, the overall problem is finding the correct mix. The other problem is knowing when that control from above IS necessary, which problems are serious enough that they cannot just be left for the markets and peoples individual greed/will to decide. (I use greed to mean not just the desire for money, but the desire for kids to have "popular" clothes, for people to have more than their neighbor -- a vital component of the market, but an urge that needs to have limits).

[BigBallinStalin]

You're constructing a poor straw man fallacy. Steps toward a free market entail empowering individuals, and thus empowering spontaneous order--as oppose to central planning. It's difficult to predict how millions of people would find innovative solutions to these problems had the government not eliminated (or nearly eliminated) these possibilities.

Yes and god may exist; I may be using a straw man, but you are straying into the "belief" spectrum.

It's not a claim of faith. Simply compare the Soviet Union and any capitalist country. Gee, what's doing the heavy lifting here? Markets. Why's that? Because the markets in capitalistic societies are freer than the Soviet Union's (which are centrally planned or operate as black markets which faced severe transaction costs).

Except... the Soviet was not the only planned economy. Nazis Germany was planned. Even the US turned heavily planned during the wars. (what else would you call rationing, etc?)

Overall, what is required is to have a focused, unified goal. The soviet pretended to try, but really was just another group of elite taking control. I would argue that aside from something like a war or other uniform threats ( say the fight against polio), having such a unification for an entire nation is impossible. However, it is important to note that it IS possible, given the right conditions. It is possible and, in some circumstances, even necessary.

The overall problem is not having a directed or demand system, the overall problem is finding the correct mix. The other problem is knowing when that control from above IS necessary, which problems are serious enough that they cannot just be left for the markets and peoples individual greed/will to decide. (I use greed to mean not just the desire for money, but the desire for kids to have "popular" clothes, for people to have more than their neighbor -- a vital component of the market, but an urge that needs to have limits).

How does "one" know when it is necessary?

[Phatscotty]

If I could change the subject....one thing I have always believed is that our black market employs a lot of the "poor".

I bet you that 10's millions of people who are "poor" on paper actually make a lot of money dealing drugs or unreported tips or prostitution etc. One of the things I realized as far as legalizing drugs goes is the most likely unanticipated impact on the poor. And yes this is another effort to show that America's poor really aren't as poor as the bleeding hearts would have you believe, as far as changing our entire system based on it. I'm not saying that the life of the drug dealer or prostitute is glorious or is not a product of a fucked up system, but I am saying many of those people are poor on paper yet live lifestyles far beyond those of the middle class.

This song inspired my thoughts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSaSVNbS8zs Silk used to openly brag he was still getting food stamps and counted as "poor"

[PLAYER57832]

You're constructing a poor straw man fallacy. Steps toward a free market entail empowering individuals, and thus empowering spontaneous order--as oppose to central planning. It's difficult to predict how millions of people would find innovative solutions to these problems had the government not eliminated (or nearly eliminated) these possibilities.

Yes and god may exist; I may be using a straw man, but you are straying into the "belief" spectrum.

It's not a claim of faith. Simply compare the Soviet Union and any capitalist country. Gee, what's doing the heavy lifting here? Markets. Why's that? Because the markets in capitalistic societies are freer than the Soviet Union's (which are centrally planned or operate as black markets which faced severe transaction costs).

Except... the Soviet was not the only planned economy. Nazis Germany was planned. Even the US turned heavily planned during the wars. (what else would you call rationing, etc?)

Overall, what is required is to have a focused, unified goal. The soviet pretended to try, but really was just another group of elite taking control. I would argue that aside from something like a war or other uniform threats ( say the fight against polio), having such a unification for an entire nation is impossible. However, it is important to note that it IS possible, given the right conditions. It is possible and, in some circumstances, even necessary.

The overall problem is not having a directed or demand system, the overall problem is finding the correct mix. The other problem is knowing when that control from above IS necessary, which problems are serious enough that they cannot just be left for the markets and peoples individual greed/will to decide. (I use greed to mean not just the desire for money, but the desire for kids to have "popular" clothes, for people to have more than their neighbor -- a vital component of the market, but an urge that needs to have limits).

How does "one" know when it is necessary?

Individual make stupid decisions. The collective usually does better. The exception is when it comes to science. Science is where many of the disputes lie now. That is, science is pretty clear that our current lifestyle is hurting us and absolutely hurting our futures. Yet, that voice is being silenced because it is too inconvenient for the people who now have the most power.

The REAL reason there is so much opposition to alternative energy, etc is that it would take away from some of the profits of the oil companies and others in power today. Other players would certainly step in. Your argument that not supporting oil so heavily would inherently destroy industry is wrong. It would change it, not destroy it, except that we have reached a point where the problem is getting so serious the changes might have to happen too quickly. Changing too quickly WILL be harmful. The longer we wait to shift our economy, thinking, the harsher it will be.

AND...on top of all that, the continued inattention to sustainability has led to a mindset that ignores impact of company decisions on not just the environment, but workers here as well. The two are inticrately tied. That is, you can have some jobs without sustainability. However, nothing will last.. it will be just another series of booms and busts, with the booms getting smaller and he busts getting deeper until we decide on sustainability.

[Lootifer]

I'll get back to you BBS, just busy celebrating our world cup semi final victory at work

[Phatscotty]

This is starting to sound like some high-tech new age economic Primae Noctae. "We have the first right to your money, we get to pop the cherry on your paycheck and we take it before you ever get it in your hands. Sall good though, you get to keep sloppy seconds forever!"

If they get what they want now, it wont be long after that until the next horror arises and it's even more terrible than before and will take more money and the louder cries will be to give the government even more power that takes more freedoms from the individual and further financially enslave them to the social issue du jour. The country can only take so much of that and still remain free, all done in the name of helping the poor and the sick and the unlucky or unfortunate. The more freedoms that are taken away, the more groups that will be added to the list of people who need help, making them even greedier and the need to take even more ever greater, and so on. It doesn't end well.

They were feeling safe that the worker would never make it far enough to claim the rights to their own labor, their own earnings, and their own lives. They have a wonderfully sophisticated system for keeping them down, keeping them dependent. But every once in a while, peoples do rise up and overthrow tyrannical systems.

We can do better.