PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader said...

Government can "tinker at the edges" of "the free market" (e.g. 10% to 20%) for better or worse (e.g. for some people in particular).

However, government can't "fix" the free market, because it has to deal with timeless forces (which are inherently moral) it can't understand.

The free market will reveal how much it'll tolerate from government.

-------

Artem Boytsov said...

Sprewell,

Please forgive me for not properly addressing your detailed and very reasonable comment, you've just reminded me that I indeed don't have that much time to waste.

I think your position is reasonable, and though I disagree with some points, I am sure had we continued that discussion, we would certainly come to some mutual conclusion, or at least agree to disagree. As I said earlier, it is refreshing after facing the dogmatism of VangelV and Ron. I think it is insulting to Dawkins, who you mentioned, to be in the same sentence with their names.

I think when we look at the markets from purely moral point of view (leaving efficiency completely behind), it cannot withstand any serious criticism. Misery is extremely non-linear, and the amount of misery one experiences by living below poverty line or going through a healthcare-related bankruptcy, is thousands of times more than a rich person would experience seeing his income tax jump from 40% to 80%.

If we redistribute wealth right now, right this second, the overall amount of misery in our country will be drastically, hugely reduced.

I understand though that the real question is not this - the real question is whether it is sustainable and where it leads. The biggest argument for free markets is that in the long-run it eliminates misery more efficiently than wealth redistribution. Let's assume it is true. Then we face a moral dilemma which is as old as the world itself - should you kill a baby now if you knew he will grow up to kill two innocent people 20 years from now?

The answer to this question is not easy, and we shouldn't pretend it is. If your goal is simply to minimize misery at some point in the future, the answer is "where's the knife?". There must be some balance.

--------

ZZMike said...

Artem: "VangelV is trying to prove that free-markets are absolutely moral, and he's having a very hard time doing so."

Not surprising - since nothing is absolutely anything. If he'd argue that free-markets are more moral than any other, I'd sign in.

With the usual caveats: that government carries out its appropriate role of enforcing contract and property law.

The welfare state is by its very nature unfair, and therefore immoral (but not absolutely). Taking from A and giving to B, without A's consent, is immoral.

However, as almost everyone realizes (sooner or later), life stops being fair right after kindergarten. Some people are smarter (not their fault), some people stronger (not their fault), some faster, some work harder, &c.

To the victor go the spoils - but much goes to the runner. To the sitter, nothing.

Which is why he needs government to take from the runners.

--------

PeakTrader said...

Artem Boytsov says: "If we redistribute wealth right now, right this second, the overall amount of misery in our country will be drastically, hugely reduced."

Redistributing private property has more consequences than you can imagine.

We need to "redistribute" work.

--------

Artem Boytsov said...

"Redistributing private property has more consequences than you can imagine."

PeakTrader, quoting out of context is a mortal sin.

Here's what I actually said:

"If we redistribute wealth right now, right this second, the overall amount of misery in our country will be drastically, hugely reduced.

I understand though that the real question is not this - the real question is whether it is sustainable and where it leads."

Since you've decided to start the conversation with dishonesty, please don't bother responding.

-------

PeakTrader said...

Artem Boytsov says: "...the real question is whether it is sustainable and where it leads."

My answer is the same.

-------

PeakTrader said...

If two people work equal hours, and one builds a product that has great value and the other builds a product that has no value, the free market will give one everything and the other nothing.

Is that really fair, moral, or just?

--------

Artem Boytsov said...

"If two people work equal hours, and one builds a product that has great value and the other builds a product that has no value, the free market will give one everything and the other nothing.

Is that really fair, moral, or just?"

"fair" have two semantical meanings. One is following the rules (i.e. adhering to a previously made agreement). Let's put it aside for now so that we don't get confused. Let's pretend this other meaning does not exist.

Then, according to how people use this word in everyday life, the answer to your question, provided both people worked equally hard and had equally good faith and intent to create something of value:

No, no and no.

I think it should be obvious. Otherwise by admitting that "life is not fair" you're contradicting yourself.

---------

PeakTrader said...

If a student earns an "A" and another student earns an "F", I'd be for lowering the "A" to raise the "F", e.g. a "B" and a "D," for the student to pass (school or life).

Except, it's a thousand times harder to get an "A" than an "F" and a hundred times harder to get a "B" than a "D."

And when everyone is getting "Cs," a tremendous amount of effort or value is destroyed, in school or life.

--------

Artem Boytsov said...

"If a student earns an "A" and another student earns an "F", I'd be for lowering the "A" to raise the "F", e.g. a "B" and a "D," for the student to pass (school or life).

Except, it's a thousand times harder to get an "A" than an "F" and a hundred times harder to get a "B" than a "D.""

There are MANY things wrong with that analogy, but I won't go into details, because the conclusion is correct.

"And when everyone is getting "Cs," a tremendous amount of effort or value is destroyed, in school or life."

Yes. The key word here is incentive. If you pay everyone based on their efforts, there will be little incentive to produce results, just efforts. That doesn't make it unfair though, just very inefficient and impractical.

Efforts do not always lead to results, and it will become more and more apparent as technology develops. In science this is particularly obvious. You have to have a certain amount of luck to see what you should put your efforts in. In technology, it's often winner-takes-all, but these losers are also necessary because if it's not for them, there would be no winners at all (you have to try 100 ideas in order for 1 to work).

I would never propose to reward people based on their efforts only, since it's an extreme. The opposite extreme is to reward people based on their results only.

This is precisely why fundamental science struggles to exist in a free-market society. To my knowledge, the majority of big scientific advances of 20th century have been subsidized by the government in one way or another.

So, it might not even be the most efficient way. But we're talking about a moral way.

There's always a trade-off about morality and efficiency, they are not the same. A very fair society where everything is shared equally would probably still be in caves. A very unfair, winner-takes-all-losers-die society might still be most efficient (fear is a good motivator, after all). It's a question of balance.

You could try to equate efficiency with morality by saying that an efficient society will be more effective in eliminating misery in the long-run, but then you run to other moral dilemmas which I pointed out before.

I don't have answers, I'm just here to kick the dogmatism out of people's heads.

--------

PeakTrader said...

Government has a role and there's an optimal size.

If it's less than optimal size, the private sector may take up the slack.

If it's more than optimal size, the private sector may be "crowded-out."

Government that's too big may be more inefficient and immoral than government that's too small.

--------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=1954711687545394759

--------

PeakTrader said...

Sethstorm, being dependent on government is slavery.

Work is not slavery. It's something that has to be done.

Also, I may add, many people are working harder for less, because there's too much government dependence by other people.

It seems, you don't care about them.

--------

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28997633&postID=9153230682822700665