Quake3World

Probably should've backed Mikko up on some of this. I'm no Austrian, but against the flood of unwashed hippy posts, we appear nearly of one mind.

"Get it while it's hot" seems to be the new motto

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080920/ap_ ... l_meltdown

I heard yesterday that congress is also planning on putting aside $50 billion to replace potential losses in money market funds. What the fuck? What the hell ever happened to having to deal with money you lost on investments gone south?

Massive Quasars wrote:

Mikko_Sandt wrote:Of course you can't privatize air, but steps should be taken to privatize whatever we can. For example, when it comes to fishing permits, semi-privatization of fishing areas has led to a reduction is overfishing. In Africa, public ownership of biologically diverse areas has led to decay but when these areas have been put into private use the populations inhabiting the areas have recovered.

That's quite conceivable. Given the diverse constitution of nature though, it's more a case-by-case matter as to what model (public, private, both) is optimal.

http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... d=12253181

Here's a seemingly promising private fisheries scheme.

Nightshade wrote:I heard yesterday that congress is also planning on putting aside $50 billion to replace potential losses in money market funds. What the fuck? What the hell ever happened to having to deal with money you lost on investments gone south?

Profits are kept private, while losses are socialized. All hail the almighty Market.

Massive Quasars wrote:Probably should've backed Mikko up on some of this. I'm no Austrian, but against the flood of unwashed hippy posts, we appear nearly of one mind.

Well the main problems with a "free" market is that a) it has no inherent ethics and b) it assigns a zero value to things that should in reality have an infinite value.

I can't really see how these problems can be solved within the market itself, without some kind of socialized regulation?

scared? wrote:i mean the socialism has gone as far as communism now...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_bi_ge/aig_99

how you might come to these conclusions is beyond me?
the only valid source on either side of the argument in this thread is pooh poohed (greenspan), and the argument continues with relentless speculative abandon.
goof, the eternal fountain of sourceless and baseless misinformation

lol

The rich don't like to lose money...so they get their rich friends in the government to bail them out when they fuck up. Then when the gravy train is rolling again the rich keep all the profits (it's a "private" business after all that is entitled to profits earned) and - worse still - they get to keep their bailouts because their friends give them and their companies tax cuts.

IMHO...the "free market" is nothing more than a lawless scam set up to suck from the tit of a money printing machine with an endless supply of cash flow. Who in their right mind could resist?

Oh...and don't forget more than $10 billion is still missing in Iraq.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:IMHO...the "free market" is nothing more than a lawless scam set up to suck from the tit of a money printing machine with an endless supply of cash flow. Who in their right mind could resist?

Bingo. I ever meet you in person, the ale is on me.

I'm going to ignore posts with pathetic ad hominem arguments.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:
And just for kicks I'm gonna go ahead and bet $100 that pretty much anyone who's "pro free market" has forgotten about the billions of "emergency funds" for a couple of select airlines after 9/11....airlines that were already running themselves into the ground.

It's funny...corporations have actually convinced people to feel sorry for them during those "hard times" when they don't have a bottomless pot of gold to exploit others like they do on any other normal day.

I'm not sure to whom you directed this argument but I have never defended corporate welfare. It's even worse than welfare checks to bums since it misallocates resources to unproductive purposes.

they get their rich friends in the government to bail them out when they fuck up. Then when the gravy train is rolling again the rich keep all the profits

This is what the Democrats and their lobbyists are doing with Freddie & Fannie. The GSEs were created by the Democrats, the Democrats have opposed reforming Freddie and Fannie and Democrat candidates are getting campaign money from them. Hell, the whole point of Freddie & Fannie was to provide loans that the free market wouldn't.

werldhed wrote:Conservation will always cost more monetarily than polluting.

Nonsense. Familiarize yourself with the concept of opportunity costs.

lol

Hey MQ you should read The Wealth of Nations. I bet you'd find it quite eye opening.

It's nice to know that at least a couple of the dolts in Washington don't have their heads up their asses all the time:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8374
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8376

If these kinds of discussions were leaked out more often, then maybe some of those spineless Dems who support the lobbyists wouldn't get re-elected. =\

Mikko_Sandt wrote:

werldhed wrote:Conservation will always cost more monetarily than polluting.

Nonsense. Familiarize yourself with the concept of opportunity costs.

Note that I did say monetarily. I'm not sure what sort of situation you're envisioning where you would need to assess cost/benefit in terms of pillaging the environment for profit. But since you bring up opportunity costs, I'll assume by "cost" you mean more than just economic profit. In which case I'd have to argue just the opposite of what I first said: the value of conserving will always be more than polluting.

If you have a specific example of an exception to this, by all means tell me. But if you really are referring to total value, and not just objective monetary cost, then I suspect this is a point we'll always disagree on.

I think you're missing the point he's trying to make about the bottom line. Selling a product is not the only thing contributing to profit in a business.

unless you're the average large Chinese corporation

Mikko_Sandt wrote:

werldhed wrote:Conservation will always cost more monetarily than polluting.

Nonsense. Familiarize yourself with the concept of opportunity costs.

Sorry, but corporations do not work on the timescales involved in conservation of natural resources, which means that opportunity cost is useless when calculating environmental values.

If it makes short term sense to exploit a natural resource, someone will do it unless prevented by regulation, simply because that's how the stock market and corporate system works (main directive is making money etc.). How many corporations have long term plans? By long term I mean at least 20 years for some resources like timber, and upwards toward 1000 years for others, like entire biotopes etc. Petroleum is formed on a geological timescale. Some resources, when used up, they're lost for good (animal species etc.).

Plus, the environment has a nasty ability to come up with hidden costs, which weren't apparent when making the original calculation.

werldhed wrote:objective monetary cost

no such thing

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:lol

Hey MQ you should read The Wealth of Nations. I bet you'd find it quite eye opening.

The unwashed hippy remark was a potshot, I should know better.

Grudge wrote:Sorry, but corporations do not work on the timescales involved in conservation of natural resources, which means that opportunity cost is useless when calculating environmental values.

If it makes short term sense to exploit a natural resource, someone will do it unless prevented by regulation, simply because that's how the stock market and corporate system works (main directive is making money etc.). How many corporations have long term plans? By long term I mean at least 20 years for some resources like timber, and upwards toward 1000 years for others, like entire biotopes etc. Petroleum is formed on a geological timescale. Some resources, when used up, they're lost for good (animal species etc.).

Plus, the environment has a nasty ability to come up with hidden costs, which weren't apparent when making the original calculation.

We discussed this early on in the thread, consider reading some of that exchange.

The hidden cost issue is a fair point, when affecting change in a system we don't fully understand, negative externalities (consequences) may rear their head. It is a delicate risk-reward balance that we try to maintain given such uncertainties, and depending on our ability to do so through private exchange, government regulation of some degree and extent may well be justified.

Massive Quasars wrote:

Grudge wrote:Sorry, but corporations do not work on the timescales involved in conservation of natural resources, which means that opportunity cost is useless when calculating environmental values.

If it makes short term sense to exploit a natural resource, someone will do it unless prevented by regulation, simply because that's how the stock market and corporate system works (main directive is making money etc.). How many corporations have long term plans? By long term I mean at least 20 years for some resources like timber, and upwards toward 1000 years for others, like entire biotopes etc. Petroleum is formed on a geological timescale. Some resources, when used up, they're lost for good (animal species etc.).

Plus, the environment has a nasty ability to come up with hidden costs, which weren't apparent when making the original calculation.

We discussed this early on in the thread, consider reading some of that exchange.

The hidden cost issue is a fair point, when affecting change in a system we don't fully understand, negative externalities (consequences) may rear their head. It is a delicate risk-reward balance that we try to maintain given such uncertainties, and depending on our ability to do so through private exchange, government regulation of some degree and extent may well be justified.

Yes, we discussed it already, but iirc his Mikko's argument was that we need to privatize as much of the natural resources we can. I don't buy it. He claims privatization has been a solution before, citing overfishing as an example. Never mind that gov't regulation is what keeps overfishing in check, at least here.

As for the hidden cost argument, I agree with you there. My point is that in a system we don't fully understand, I'm willing to bet those hidden costs will always outweigh profit. So opportunity cost becomes moot.

Mikko_Sandt wrote:I'm going to ignore posts with pathetic ad hominem arguments.

I completely debunked two of your points on the last page. No response?

werldhed wrote:Yes, we discussed it already, but iirc his Mikko's argument was that we need to privatize as much of the natural resources we can. I don't buy it. He claims privatization has been a solution before, citing overfishing as an example. Never mind that gov't regulation is what keeps overfishing in check, at least here.

That's because the world we're in right now is not the wonderfully pure, ideal world of the free market.

Fucking hell.

We get people arguing how markets should be if they were run correctly, there were no external variables and if everyone was honest. Nothing but hollow "theory" and a penchant for ignoring the existence of human beings in the equation.

Utopia only happens on a spreadsheet. Perhaps if the only market participants were emotionless robots working in perfect unison then everything would work out ok? When it all falls to shit the free market champions blame someone/something else...never the methodology. How about blaming "that's life"?

werldhed wrote:As for the hidden cost argument, I agree with you there. My point is that in a system we don't fully understand, I'm willing to bet those hidden costs will always outweigh profit. So opportunity cost becomes moot.

Always is a strong qualifier.

The question is of empirical import, I'm not merely waxing theoretical.

Yes, it is of "empirical import." Even if you replace "always" with "70% of the time," his point still stands. And, if you agree with this mikko fellow, that means that, contrary to werldhed's position, you're willing to bet those hidden costs will not outweigh profit

R00k wrote:We are forced to pay for something we don't want in exactly the same way with our privately-owned cable packages...You have to buy packages.

That is not the same. FoxNews needs viewers to stay alive. Therefore it is subject to market mechanisms. If people don't like it, they don't watch it and it is then forced to make adjustments or collapse. You're paying by watching commercials. State controller broadcasting companies don't need to care much about ratings. Besides, if a state controller broadcaster needs viewers it can monopolize them by banning others from broadcasting. There are obviously practical reasons why you need to buy packages but at least you don't need to pay for owning a tv and at least you get to choose your packages.

I pay nearly $600 a year for my viewing pleasure. Half of that is compulsory and the other half goes to a five-channel package I purchase every year. I mind paying the first half since I don't even watch the state channels (except for Law & Order, which I could buy on dvd for $30 a season). $300 a year for three channels that I don't want is unreasonable. I don't mind paying the other half even though I really need only one (NHL games) of the five channels. You see, at least I chose to pay for the package. The way I understand it, the average American gets dozens of channels practically for free. And if you really want quality you can pay for that.

At least there's political diversity in America. In Finland and Europe every notable party is a social democratic party. There's no real political discussion. It's all about fine-tuning the welfare state. America is dynamic, the engine of the world while Europe merely tags along. If everyone thinks the same (Democratic candidates are supported by 90% of the population) how can there be dynamism? If you cannot create you need to adopt what others create and this is how the relationship between the US and Europe works. Naive Europeans just don't get it because they have been taught by state controlled schools and media not to think.

The rates are only one part of what caused our current problems.

This is what I said.

Another very important part was legislation passed in '99 that removed a key regulation, preventing banks from operating in the private investment market.

Regulation is needed only if you have a state-backed system, like you have now, but, as I said before, having a state-backed system is the problem and needs to be fixed. More regulation probably won't solve anything since companies have been able to bypass restrictions and even take advantage of them. As I have said, bureaucrats usually have no idea how companies work and evolve.

banks were able to buy and sell these securities bundles that included tons of bad loans. When the loans went bust, they lost a ton of money, and they went bust too.

I know this but the problem still is the fact that the government encouraged this. Hell, the government even created institutions that increased unhealthy activity in the financial sector so that some poor people could afford homes. Subprime lending was encouraged by the government. You're focusing purely on the symptons caused by government interference which I think makes little sense.

There was no way for the customers to know that their bank had purchased bad investments.

That is because there were no incentives for them to care about it due to deposit insurance. Your money is safe anyway so why care how risky your bank is? Hell, you may even be rewarded if the risky investments taken by your bank turn out to be productive!

What you are essentially saying is that the onus is on the customer of the bank to not put his money in a "risky" bank - but at the same time, also saying that no bank should be forced to disclose how it operates, to anyone. This is fallacious logic.

If deposit insurance didn't exist private individuals would be a lot more careful with their savings. This would encourage banks to operate transparently. Risk-averse individuals would choose safe banks whileas risk-seeking individuals would choose banks that offer attractive risk premiums.

If you think there is nothing wrong with corporations owning every park, pond, tree, lake in the country, including the Grand Canyon, then we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on much of anything.

Private individuals may own resources as well, of course.

Again: if the question of whether there is anything wrong with pollution comes down to a simple economic cost/benefit analysis to you, we aren't going to agree on much.

Arbitrarily valuing natural resources makes no sense.

I completely debunked two of your points on the last page. No response?

So that's what you think?

I'm obviously not able to respond quickly to every single message since this is basically me versus the rest and it'd take tons of time.