Thesh wrote:That's all a complete load of nonsense that indicates you don't understand...
you just keep rationalizing, not thinking;...
That's just a really stupid thing to say.
You really do not put any thought into any reply you give, do you?
Anyway, it seems quite clear that you don't care about anything but dismissing the possibility that...
Wow. You are a fucking ridiculous person.
you are full of shit.
Fucking hell, man. You just refuse to get it.
Could we please
keep the personal attacks out of SB. Derision is not analysis.
I certainly do
understand that other types of property rights exist. So does everybody else on the thread. It's not necessary to give a basic economics course in each post, and so I don't. But here's a basic question for you:
Peter and Bob finish a day working at the collective, and get paid the same, but they do different things with their money.
Peter goes to the pub and purchases a Piña Colada. Now, if he went to the store
for the ingredients and made it himself, he'd actually own the beverage in fee simple. It would be his to do pretty much anything he wants with. But at the bar, he does not own the drink; he only owns the non-transferable right to consume it, limited in time, manner and place. He can't leave the tavern with it, he can't give it to his ten-year-old daughter, he can't sprinkle it all over the floor... The limitations on his "ownership rights" can be expressed in many different ways, but the result is the same. He gets to drink it, and go home happy.
Bob bumbles over to the boutique and buys a book. He now owns the book in fee simple - it is his property and he can do pretty much anything he wants with it (except perhaps copy the contents). He goes home and reads the book, learns something useful neither he nor Peter knew before, and then goes to sleep.
The next day, they work another day at the collective, get paid again, and go off to entertain themselves. Both of them shuffle off to the saloon, Peter has another Piña Colada, which he pays for with his salary. Bob has one too, but he trades his book to the bartender for the drink. Bob keeps his salary in his pocket, just in case he wants another drink later. Both go home happy, but Bob is ahead by one salary and one intellectual idea.
Granted, the story is overly simplistic because I left out a bunch of (to me) irrelevant details, but the essence (fee-simple private property) is there. However, it seems to me that this would not work in Theshville, because Bob could not buy a book
. Instead, the book would be owned by some collective and he'd "rent" it or something. This would prevent him from being able to trade it for his first drink, leaving him on equal footing with Peter.
Thesh wrote:you didn't even attempt to understand the relationship between land and people. Your argument flat-out assumes every single property is locally owned and managed
I make no such assumption. People don't have it as their purpose in life to "be most productive". They want to be with family, they want to enjoy their environment, they want to meet new friends, they want many
different things, each of which plays into their decisions as to where to live out their lives. True, some people have more ability to choose because they are richer, but that's what money is for. In any case, I would not at all
expect a natural movement towards equality. I would expect some bias towards opportunity, but that is self-agglomerating.
Thesh wrote:And no, equity does not pay people for past work
Like the book, equity stores
the past rewards for past work. In any case, you did not explain what you meant by "...equity itself is equivalent to debt in that respect, it's just that the debt is owed by your community rather than you, yourself..." So, I still don't know what you are saying. If I get a salary, and buy gold instead of a gin and tonic, that gold stores the reward for my labor
for future use.
Thesh wrote:All the education and healthcare in the world does not matter if people don't actually have jobs...
All the jobs in the world do not matter if people don't actually have an education that will let them appreciate the world around them, including the ladder, and allow them to decide to climb it for the right reasons. If we all work and don't know enough to climb the ladder, we have (to borrow an overused word), slavery.
Thesh wrote:...and safety net spending will never be enough to allow the bottom 20% to compete with the top 20%.
That's not what it's for. And I'm ok with the bottom 20% never being able to "compete with" the top 20%, as long as they have a decent chance to escape the bottom 20%. It's on them to do the rest.
Tyndmyr wrote:Anyone can drive a hard bargain, and that's expected.
Well, not really. Anybody can try
to drive a hard bargain, but to actually succeed
at it requires a disparate bargaining position. Or a lucky bluff, I suppose. Disparate bargaining positions are very common, but when the positions become disparate enough, only one side has a reasonable chance at successfully driving that hard bargain. It is the disparate bargaining positions that potentially engender exploitation, if the disparity is extreme enough. It is a reasonable function of government to protect people from such extreme disparity. Things like consumer protection, environmental protection, fraud prevention, and even law enforcement (to generalize a bit) have their basis in this concept.
Tyndmyr wrote:Money's just being used because it makes for easy examples.
Easy examples make bad arguments. But in any case, the simple existence of the trade implies that the dollars worth of value are equal. I think that ignores important aspects of "value".
Tyndmyr wrote:Most people don't care. They place very little value on privacy...
Right - which is why I say ignorance
is being exploited. (That is, if I'm right in that privacy is important. And I am right about that. IMEO, of course.
Tyndmyr wrote:...their lack of skills/life circumstances are not the fault of the business...
But a business that takes advantage of that is certainly exploiting them, at least to that extent. It's a sliding scale. At some point, it's "too much" and we do something. Or we decide we don't care, and do nothing. Which society would you prefer to live in?
Tyndmyr wrote:So if you want wealth to be more equal, education is the obvious thing to fix.
Seconded. But it takes more than just that. It takes motivation and confidence, and some of that is also imparted by family and culture.
Thesh wrote:Yeah, just ignore all of the barriers to entry caused by established businesses and the lack of ability to raise capital; education solves all!
Nothing "solves all", including your system. But education is extremely powerful. Education plus motivation pretty much makes the world go round. (or flat, if that's your bent
). Education plus motivation plus luck yields wealth.
Power imbalances certainly exist, and they are not negligible. But education plus motivation equals power, and power is a good tool against power imbalances.
Thesh wrote:whether you are very rich or very poor is determined primarily by your parents
If you want to fix that, ask why. The answer is likely to be that rich parents educate their children better than poor parents. That's
the place to apply the fix - better education for all. Yes, that's not enough - you also need motivation, which also comes from parents and cultural norms. That's another place to apply a fix. But just throwing money at people, especially people who don't know what to do with it, won't solve anything.