Why should the government decide what to do with my money? — Agustino

My mate Jesus had something to say about that. Not that either of us is a huge fan of government for it's own sake, and here in the UK there is a particular distaste for the government at the moment. But let's just say that the government is the only arbiter and guarantor that your money is your money, and not the mafia's or the marauding mob's. Apart from your private army of course, which is a business expense probably worse than taxes.

"How did you get started robbing banks?"
"Oh this philosopher gave me the idea, he said I should ignore the government and be self-reliant."

So, in essence, be happy that you're able to post here or elsewhere at leisure, without having to toil to make bread and milk, and don't feel sorry for the poor — Question

It seems to me your post could have been more or less copied verbatim from a text-book on neoliberalism. Self-interest, I can see, but by what's 'enlightened' about it? 'The greatest good for the greatest number', or 'concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% who can then game the system in such a way as to increase and maintain their privilege?

Besides, liberal economics is based on the impossible dream of never-ending growth. But the world is already using more than one Earth's worth of resources every year, just to maintain itself at its current population level. But populations grow exponentially, and resources don't - so I believe we're facing a large-scale economic catastrophe in the next couple of decades. The advanced economies have so far made a complete hash of adjusting to the reality of climate change, I don't expect them to do any better in respect of attaining a no-growth economic model.

Wages remain low in the 3rd world due to discriminatory immigration policies in western countries and if there was free movement of people between countries the poor countries would receive much larger gains in wages. So, if you're going to attack low wages, then you might as well attack immigration policies that allow the rich to live behind gates communities. — Question

How is an entire country is a 'gated community'? Do you mean, there ought to be no such thing as an immigration policy?

It can always be argued comparatively that the poor just have it worse off. That's not the topic though. But, if you insist, I would like to point out that every nation with a demographic of 'poor' individuals is/are always worse off than those who are relatively better or well off instead. I have nothing aginst some socialism for the poor, and I suspect any politician that runs for office in a noncorrupt nation will be answerable to the poor also. So, in the end, the poor eventually get what they need through work and voting. Which, brings to fray the need for strong and stable governments that encourage open markets and intellectual freedom... — Question

Straw man.

I did not "compare" anything. I stated that low wages is just one small pixel in the picture of the plight of people who we supposedly help by being selfish and taking advantage of the low prices that their plight makes possible rather than by approaching them altruistically.

If you are going to completely address a picture, you have to see the complete picture.

In regards to your second point... I would argue that eventually, all externalities have to be accounted for in the end. Typically prices reflect the typical externalities accounted for. Sadly all externalities cannot be accounted for and if some are omitted, then the taxpayer is left to pick up the tab. — Question

Irrelevant.

The point is that if all of the costs of "goods produced in China or India" that you specifically refer to were included in their price either demand for them would be so low that they would not be produced in the first place or the price would be so high that people in "rich countries" would instead buy local products. Either way you wouldn't be coming here saying that it helps workers with breathtakingly low pay more to buy the products that their breathtakingly cheap labor produces rather than altruistically directly address their plight--either way we would not be having this conversation.

But let's just say that the government is the only arbiter and guarantor that your money is your money, and not the mafia's or the marauding mob's. — unenlightened

I'm not sure about that. The government can just as easily one day seize all my money and put me in jail. If they hold absolute power, then they can also use absolute power. So no - it's not at all certain that the government is working for me, and even if it is, that it will keep working for me. Look at what happened to this guy.

So no, the state isn't certainly out there to protect you.

The government can just as easily one day seize all my money and put me in jail. — Agustino

Of course, and governments do that sort of thing. There is no law of nature - again - that prevents governments from being mafias. What you going to do about it? You might need some help. I already said that there is no institution or system that is inherently fair moral and desirable.

In the end, we live in an anarchy, property rights do not exist any more than any other rights except to the extent that people come together to agree and institute them. The state is just a bunch of people being busybodies, and business and charity, organised crime are the same. So you just have to decide which busybodies you want to align yourself with, or if you'd rather be one against the world.

we live in an anarchy — unenlightened

Interesting.

So you just have to decide which busybodies you want to align yourself with — unenlightened

Exactly, but that decision cannot be one that you stick to forever. That decision changes with circumstances.

Neoliberalism is a self-serving racket that exempts billionaires and large corporations from the constraints of democracy, from paying their taxes, from not polluting, from having to pay fair wages, from not exploiting their workers. — George Monbiot

You might well disagree with this or at least find it exaggerated to the point of vacuity. Nevertheless, that it makes sense to say it illustrates that a government can become a mafia. And if and when it does, obviously a man of principle and virtue will oppose the government. It is a sign of my left wing bias of course, that this appears in my newsfeed rather than fulminations against Communism. Exactly how one opposes depends on how much of a self-serving racket it is and one's resources, and one's character. Hopefully, many people will oppose such tendencies on an ongoing basis such that the government is obliged to serve the citizens as a whole rather than any clique. That is what approximates to 'good government' in my book, and it depends entirely on the vigilance of citizens in defending their own and each other's rights to fair treatment and a pleasant environment. To take the position that one doesn't mind ill-treatment of people as long as it is not oneself being ill-treated is woefully short-sighted.

The entrepreneur assumed the risk, bought the mine — Agustino

How is it that putting up a whack of cash is called "risk"? If the money's lost there's no skin off the back of the billionaire, it's just a number in the ledger. You don't seem to have respect for the fact that "money" has a different value to people who earn a wage or salary and use this money to live off of, to pay for the necessities of life, then it does for those who use money to make more money, the capitalist.

Who else should take the biggest cut? The miner? The miner had it easy. All he had to do was take the gold out. His pay was fixed. Whether he did an average job or a fantastic job - he still got paid. The entrepreneur didn't. He absolutely had to make it work. — Agustino

The guy who has to physically move the material, dealing with the hazards of the physical world has it easy, while the guy who sits in the office moving numbers around in the books has the difficult job? That's a good one bro, tell me another.

Are you kidding me? Most entrepreneurs out there fail. Even those who succeed, they fail more times than they are successful. The personality that is required to be a successful entrepreneur is very very different than the common personalities generally found around the world. — Agustino

An important issue with respect to entrepreneurship, is the question of whether one is willing to cross that line, to become a capitalist. Crossing that line means giving "money" that unnatural sense of value, which some would argue is immoral. One can be a successful entrepreneur without becoming a capitalist, but it is very difficult, and the failure of many entrepreneurs is due to one's unwillingness to venture into the realm of capitalism. The capitalist, by giving "money" that unnatural value, has an unfair advantage over the non-capitalist entrepreneur, having the capacity to force that entrepreneur into failure, for no reason other than that the entrepreneur is seen as "competition" or a threat to what the capitalist values, money. This is immoral.

One can be a successful entrepreneur without becoming a capitalist, but it is very difficult, and the failure of many entrepreneurs is due to one's unwillingness to venture into the realm of capitalism. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree. Also, unless you're running a Fortune Global 500 corporation, entrepreneurship (the experience of some forum members) and macroeconomics (the topic of this thread) are incommensurable.

'The market' conjures an image of some version of the miner selling ore to the blacksmith, who sells tools to the farmer, who sells food them both, and money or barter regulates supply and demand such that everyone provides value to others and receives equivalent value from others.

But obviously it is nothing at all like that. The miner, the farmer, the blacksmith does not get the value of his labour because things are not arranged as a market of that sort at all. Rather, the mine owner, the landowner, the 'entrepreneurs' literally take a cut between every exchange between others, impoverishing them all. The 'market' is institutionalised robbery. — unenlightened

The 'fee' from managers is minuscule compared to the fee you pay to the government for running the business. We're talking about 0.1-1% as a management 'fee' compared to 15-55% as a government 'fee'.

Furthermore, businesses need to generate revenue. Who pays for the initial upfront costs? Not the workers or the government; but, the business owners.

Being a worker is "100% risk-free". being a business owner or investor means it's possible for you to lose more $$$ than you invested.

I don't know about that. We have a bunch of homeless people--a bunch of people who have no regular shelter and who have trouble acquiring food, we have a bunch of people who are unemployed or who can't find a decent job that pays well, we have a bunch of people with either no healthcare or who have to worry about whether they'll not go bankrupt should something happen to them that requires any sort of hospital stay, we have a bunch of people who can't afford a home, etc. If that's a good organization of labor and resources, maybe we should try a "bad" organization of labor and resources for a bit. — Terrapin Station

Applying undue duress on the system for not fixing every socio-economic problem is not fair. Besides, it's not specifically the fault of the system; but, rather of the political domestic policymaking that has failed (social expenditure).

Give UBI (universal basic income) a chance?

Not so much a marketplace then, as a battlefield, where rather than add value to the community, one seeks to take value from others. And a battlefield is a place that adds no value, but destroys it, and redistributes the remains on an arbitrary and unequal basis.
— unenlightened

Exactly. And that would be Fascism. — Galuchat

How does that make it anything resembling fascism? The is no market, to begin with in centrally planned economies.

It seems to me your post could have been more or less copied verbatim from a text-book on neoliberalism. Self-interest, I can see, but by what's 'enlightened' about it? 'The greatest good for the greatest number', or 'concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% who can then game the system in such a way as to increase and maintain their privilege? — Wayfarer

What's enlightened about it is that investment goes to the neediest group typically due to the economics of their cost of labor being so low. Again, China and India being examples.

Also, there are estimates that worldwide, obesity, is an issue for 40% of the population. Any Malthusian scenario is out of the water with such high numbers of 'poverty'.

You might well disagree with this or at least find it exaggerated to the point of vacuity. — unenlightened

I don't have a problem with billionaires, I have a problem with multinational corporations which use their financial power to squeeze out entrepreneurs. Billionaires, at least most of them, have earned it (through ingenuity and hard work largely). There are some billionaires - like hedge fund managers - who have stolen it, and they often control the corporations (that's how they've made their money).

Nevertheless, that it makes sense to say it illustrates that a government can become a mafia. — unenlightened

Indeed. And how will you oppose the government become mafia? By voting? Don't kid yourself. A government become mafia doesn't care about what goes in the pot, but what comes out.

The only way to oppose a government become mafia is by counterplay. That means effectively getting involved in politics yourself, undermining the present regime, and replacing it. How? By using the instruments of power - the whole arsenal, deceit, treachery, leverage, pressure etc. Whatever it takes. Until you get yourself into a position of power - then you can assure a good government, until your death (think here Ghandi).

The history of man is written by the struggle between the good and the bad to hold the reigns of power. More often than not, the bad have held them. There is no alternative. If you care about politics, then YOU and YOU alone have to do it (and the very few who are determined and share your vision, obviously).

It seems to me that democracy has infected our mentality and we often like to pretend that voting actually makes a huge difference. It has become a way of being emotionally satisfied that we're doing something, doing something with 0 risk, of course.

The point is that if all of the costs of "goods produced in China or India" that you specifically refer to were included in their price either demand for them would be so low that they would not be produced in the first place or the price would be so high that people in "rich countries" would instead buy local products. Either way you wouldn't be coming here saying that it helps workers with breathtakingly low pay more to buy the products that their breathtakingly cheap labor produces rather than altruistically directly address their plight--either way we would not be having this conversation. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

So, I don't understand the issue. Either the price is subsidized or not, or tariffs are imposed on the goods or not. What costs are you talking about here?

You might well disagree with this or at least find it exaggerated to the point of vacuity. Nevertheless, that it makes sense to say it illustrates that a government can become a mafia. And if and when it does, obviously a man of principle and virtue will oppose the government. It is a sign of my left wing bias of course, that this appears in my newsfeed rather than fulminations against Communism. Exactly how one opposes depends on how much of a self-serving racket it is and one's resources, and one's character. Hopefully, many people will oppose such tendencies on an ongoing basis such that the government is obliged to serve the citizens as a whole rather than any clique. That is what approximates to 'good government' in my book, and it depends entirely on the vigilance of citizens in defending their own and each other's rights to fair treatment and a pleasant environment. To take the position that one doesn't mind ill-treatment of people as long as it is not oneself being ill-treated is woefully short-sighted. — unenlightened

Are you presenting the government as an entity greater than the market? Because nowadays, and I don't think this is an exaggerated claim, governments are responsible for the well-being of a market.

What's not to love about having the government in check by the participants of the market? I see it as an enhancement to democracy to have a market that helps tame the desires and pursuits of a government, nowadays.

What is the most interesting question on the top of my mind nowadays is how can certain economies (like China) have such a close relationship (not centrally planned economy; but, partially) with its own market and facilitate so much growth. It kind of flies in the face of the truism that markets are best left self-regulating and free.

How is it that putting up a whack of cash is called "risk"? — Metaphysician Undercover

If the investment goes bad, the entrepreneur loses. The worker gets his wage. Simple.

You don't seem to have respect for the fact that "money" has a different value to people who earn a wage or salary and use this money to live off of, to pay for the necessities of life, then it does for those who use money to make more money, the capitalist. — Metaphysician Undercover

All smart people should be using money to make more money, since money is one of the levers of power, and we all know, that if good men don't rise to the top, then the bad will rise to the top, and everyone will have it bad.

The guy who has to physically move the material, dealing with the hazards of the physical world has it easy, while the guy who sits in the office moving numbers around in the books has the difficult job? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes he does have it easy. He takes no risk - if the project goes bad, he still gets paid at the end of the day.

Crossing that line means giving "money" that unnatural sense of value — Metaphysician Undercover

The only unnatural sense of value that can be attributed to money is when money is seen as a means for facilitating hedonism. If someone uses their wealth in order to sit on a yacht, then yes, that is immoral and unnatural.

But, otherwise, the more money, the better. Money is one of the key resources you need to influence society. But money isn't the whole of it. The right authority is also needed (which also requires money to acquire). Otherwise you have shit like this happening:

You know why a prick like this is allowed to mock the entire justice system, laugh at the people he has hurt, and put himself above the law? Because the law is weak - the justice system is weak. It's not run by strong and reasonable men. At least in Russia or China - no rich man - regardless of how rich - dares mock the government. None. Not a single one. Authority must be respected. Authority shouldn't "beg" some despicable thief to cooperate... authority should force them to cooperate, whether they like it or not.

This is immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, money is just a tool, the way it is used is either moral or immoral. Money in itself isn't immoral.

What's not to love about having the government in check by the markets? — Question

That's a very easy question, Question. An ungoverned market will deal mainly in pigs in pokes. To prevent people being poisoned by the food they buy, burned by the shoddy housing they rent, electrocuted by unsafe products, run down by faulty cars and so on we like to have trading standards. When the market controls the government, these standards are called 'red tape' and gotten rid of or relaxed or ignored to free up enterprise. People die.

That's a very easy question, Question. An ungoverned market will deal mainly in pigs in pokes. To prevent people being poisoned by the food they buy, burned by the shoddy housing they rent, electrocuted by unsafe products, run down by faulty cars and so on we like to have trading standards. When the market controls the government, these standards are called 'red tape' and gotten rid of or relaxed or ignored to free up enterprise. People die. — unenlightened

Maybe if we're talking about monopolies; but, the market isn't controlled by one corporation or one business, as we all know, and we still buy toys and goods produced in China, so moot point.

You mean like the Grenfell Tower fire?

Yes, that is rather in my mind at the moment.

Maybe if we're talking about monopolies; but, the market isn't controlled by one corporation or one business, as we all know. — Question

Monopolies have nothing to do with it, though they produce other problems. Take food:

During the Industrial Revolution at the turn of the 19th Century, people moved towards towns and cities for work and became reliant on food retailers as a result. Industrial managers became increasingly infuriated by high levels of absenteeism, a major cause of which was the consumption of adulterated foods. In the 1850’s, Thomas Wakley, a surgeon and MP, and physician Arthur Hill Hassall conducted extensive work on samples of food and drink purchased from the marketplace. They catalogued each of the vendors, locations, dates and products purchased. Each food and drink item was analysed and the results were published. It was concluded that food adulteration was a lot more common than was believed and that many of the adulterated foods were actually poisonous. This information, coupled with industrial pressure on the Government, lead to the development of The Adulteration of Food and Drugs Act 1860, which was later revised in 1872, and the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875. The revised Adulteration of Food and Drugs Act 1872 made provisions for the appointment of public analysts. Two years later the Society of Public Analysts was founded.

In the Early 20th Century foodborne illness became more broadly recognised and as a result, statutes connected to food safety and food quality were introduced. These included The Milk and Dairies Act 1914, which covered the production and sale of clean and safe milk for human consumption. Compositional requirements had also been introduced for some foods.

From here.

Since we live in an anarchy as unenlightened has correctly identified (I believe), the only solution which can maintain peace and stability is reliance on good, reasonable and strong men - exactly as Plato identified in the Republic. Without such men reaching out to grab and maintain power by whatever means, society can never be at peace, and will instead be ruled by tyrants - regardless of what political system is actually at play. We have democracies which are ruled by tyrants too, and the democratic aspect certainly makes no difference.

And this is true whether we're talking about business, or politics. The Jews needed a Moses to get them out of Egypt.

undue duress — Question

What counts as due versus undue duress on a system?

Being a worker is "100% risk-free". being a business owner or investor means it's possible for you to lose more $$$ than you invested. — Question

If the investment goes bad, the entrepreneur loses. The worker gets his wage. Simple. — Agustino

You two have a very twisted concept of "risk". The worker may be injured or die on the job. The owner of the business stands to lose some money, of which he or she has far more than what is needed to provide the necessities of life anyway. Where's the risk? Unless you value money more than life, the worker has the greater risk.

Yes he does have it easy. He takes no risk - if the project goes bad, he still gets paid at the end of the day. — Agustino

Have you never done physical work in your life? The risk is to life and limb, and even a slight risk of losing one of these far outweighs the risk of losing a pile of cash, especially when you have many piles of it.

The only unnatural sense of value that can be attributed to money is when money is seen as a means for facilitating hedonism. If someone uses their wealth in order to sit on a yacht, then yes, that is immoral and unnatural. — Agustino

When money is valued to make more money, then it has no value. What value could it possibly have if the only use for it were to make more money? To use money for the sake of making more money is completely illogical.

All smart people should be using money to make more money, since money is one of the levers of power, and we all know, that if good men don't rise to the top, then the bad will rise to the top, and everyone will have it bad. — Agustino

Sorry, but you're delusional. Money cannot buy you power, especially is your using that money only to make more money. But if power is what you value more than money, then money will buy you the illusion of power, so that the people whom you are paying off will make you believe that you have power, when you really do not have power. These are your fair-weather friends. To make more and more money with the idea that this money might be used to buy power is completely illogical because it is well known that you cannot buy loyalty.

Tell me please Agustino, and don't be bashful, what do you think is the nature of power? In this context, the way you have used it in this post in relation to these phrases, "rise to the top", "influence society", "authority", what does "power" mean to you?

Take food — unenlightened

I don't want to nitpick; but, it seems to me that in general there is nothing wrong with some regulation. Is there some golden mean that we can agree on regulation being a net positive instead of stifling growth?

For the matter, it seems quite obvious to me, that Europe despite having stricter regulations than the US, is still quite competitive.

I meant to say that neo-liberalism isn't the answer to the things you demand from it, e.g eliminating poverty or homelessness.

The worker may be injured or die on the job. — Metaphysician Undercover

The owner may die in the office from obesity and a sedentary lifestyle too. So what? The owner may die in a car crash from all the travelling he has to do, etc. etc. There's risks with everything in life so don't bullshit. The worker also doesn't necessarily risk serious injury or death - it all depends on the job.

Unless you value money more than life, the worker has the greater risk. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's false.

he or she has far more than what is needed to provide the necessities of life anyway — Metaphysician Undercover

especially when you have many piles of it. — Metaphysician Undercover

First, no, most entrepreneurs don't have easy access to cash, especially when they show inability to handle it. So losing cash, especially other people's cash, is quite a terrible spot to be in as an entrepreneur. And most entrepreneurs aren't rich, even most successful ones, unless you call 1-10 million dollars as rich. That's being a tiny bug in the large scheme of things. True wealth that can be used to have a significant impact on society starts from $50-100+ million, numbers which are absolutely not easy to achieve.

Have you never done physical work in your life? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I have. I've worked as a construction worker for an NGO for example, before I was an engineer. Every night my hands would be more broken than the night before and you'd fall asleep instantly once you hit the bed. So what? Was it difficult? Not really. I certainly don't think I was taking more risk than those who conceived of the project, or those who gave them money. Most people are just very lazy - I don't know but it seems to me you're all born with a silver spoon in your mouths. We are meant to work, and work hard. But most people complain "ugh so hard so this and that" - what the hell?

It's especially ridiculous how academics and university students complain about how "hard" their tasks are >:O

When money is valued to make more money, then it has no value. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's your (uninformed) opinion.

What value could it possibly have if the only use for it were to make more money? — Metaphysician Undercover

I never said ONLY use it to make more money.

Sorry, but you're delusional. Money cannot buy you power, especially is your using that money only to make more money. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, do you want to speak with this guy?


Why don't you tell him that money can't buy him power?

But if power is what you value more than money, then money will buy you the illusion of power, so that the people whom you are paying off will make you believe that you have power, when you really do not have power. — Metaphysician Undercover

So long as you can order them to do something and they execute it, then you do have power.

These are your fair-weather friends. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, but nobody has any doubts about that. Governing society requires the use of fair-weather friends since most people aren't that moral to begin with. So leaders always have to make good use of these people in order to successfully govern a society. Their energy, greed and lust has to be channeled in productive directions.

ell me please Agustino, and don't be bashful, what do you think is the nature of power? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand why you say I'm bashful, but to answer your question, power is influence and capacity to direct the march of society - capacity to set the rules. Granted that as unenlightened said, and I agree with him, I actually think it's a great idea, we actually live in an anarchy. There are no property rights, in reality. There are no other rights either. All our political systems are mere attempts of hiding the anarchic system we actually live in - attempts to move, however imperfectly, away from the state of anarchy. But fundamentally, we do live in an anarchy, where most people are not moral, and if given sufficient power, will use that power to oppress and subjugate others to their whims. There's only some people who can handle power morally, and they should as per Plato, want it the most.

For example, (and I'm giving you a hypothetical based on a real example now, that I personally know of) someone powerful enough can force you out of your house/property. Or someone powerful enough can force your daughter to marry them. And nothing can protect you, because remember, ultimately we live in an anarchy. The law only exists when it is enforced, and it can only be enforced by the powerful (naturally). And when the powerful are immoral and corrupt, then you're fucked, if they happen to put their eyes on you.

Property rights can only be guaranteed by the powerful. Therefore society depends on strong, reasonable and moral man to govern and rule over the rest in order to guarantee such rights. Otherwise, there is no hope.

To make more and more money with the idea that this money might be used to buy power is completely illogical because it is well known that you cannot buy loyalty. — Metaphysician Undercover

Power doesn't mean loyalty. Loyalty is, or can be, an important aspect of power, but it's not the only one.

In this context, the way you have used it in this post in relation to these phrases, "rise to the top", "influence society", "authority", what does "power" mean to you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Power means the capacity to decide on the direction of society, to influence others, and/or the capacity to guarantee (or not) property and other rights. Ghandi was powerful. Hitler was powerful. Bill Gates is powerful. Jesus was powerful. As was someone like Osho in the modern age. Trump is powerful, Putin is powerful, etc.

Consider the testimony of John Perkins (among others), look up the definition of fascism in any dictionary, then explain to me how the use of that term doesn't apply to the type of activity described by Perkins.

https://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man

Perkins specifically mentioned that it is our foreign policy that is the cause for the arguable actions of these economic hit men. That's distinct from liberalism or neoliberalism mentioned here in this topic, and I have yet to understand how fascism factors in here.