# Economics and free market

179 replies to this topic

### #35 Buffy

Buffy

Resident Slayer

• 8946 posts

Posted 09 December 2007 - 07:51 PM

One interesting bunch of service middlemen are those who deal with speculation. For example, if they think the supply of oil will change, even if it hasn't changed, they can cause the market to react. This creates nothing tangible and can even take stuff away, subjectivity. They act as service middlemen that allow money to be made betting on the point spread. One can't allows tell cause and affect, since these middle men could be working for the people who need them to help make money.

And this provides liquidity and broader distribution. If it increases prices, its likely that its just because there are restrictions on the *source* either real (elephant ivory, dodo skins) or manufactured (oil! diamonds!). If there are limits, these "middlemen" do indeed bid up prices, and when they do, they create incentives and opportunities for other suppliers to enter the markets.

Middlemen are essential to creating efficient markets. There are many people involved in markets who "add value" to the delivery of products and services, and their value may not be obvious.

It might be fun to think of them as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes," but they really do make the economy go.

In my opinion, the biggest source of problems in laissez faire markets is that it is indeed easy to corner supply--sometimes with the assistance of corrupt governments--and thus create imbalanced markets: Government does indeed play an important role in markets by ensuring that monopolies do not develop and the number of participants is large enough to ensure competition.

You don't need to make up terms to find problems to be fixed:

Demand side economics...

As discussed earlier in this thread, this is a non-standard definition of "demand side economics". There is supply and there is demand, and they interact to create markets. The term "supply-side economics" refers to the activity of government lowering taxes to free up capital for increasing production as well as to drive consumption. "Demand-side economics" (which is a little-used derogatory colloquialism to economists who more frequently refer to they concept as "Keynesian Economics") is also a government driven policy of increasing government spending to spur demand directly. Neither term is used outside of the discussion of government policy.

There really are a lot of good books out there on Economics, and its much more interesting to study it than to make stuff up that's been long-since figured out in quite a bit of detail!

Here's a great one to start with (I haven't read it but its been recommended to me by friends: Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Dismal-Science/dp/0393324869/. There are oodles more though! Browse around!

Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists,
Buffy

### #36 TheFaithfulStone

TheFaithfulStone

Rockin'

• Members
• 1488 posts

Posted 09 December 2007 - 11:26 PM

It might be fun to think of them as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes," but they really do make the economy go.

tfs

### #37 Mike C

Mike C

Explaining

• Members
• 744 posts

Posted 10 December 2007 - 07:43 AM

Who says they don't deserve it?
All right, lets look and Bob.
Bob makes widgets and sells them out in front of his factory.
He sells 20 a day.
Bob hires a marketing genious. With advertising and shipping he now sells 2000 a day.

So although the shippers didn't 'make' anything and the marketer didn't 'make' anything both allowed the company to sell more and make more money. So why don't the people who didn't make anything but helped sell deserve money for their efforts?

So they provided a service. That is a job and service should get paid. .
The marketer or more specifically, the salesman provided a service. But the workers in the factory created the widgets.
So the creators of goods and the people providing services, certainly deserve to be paid for what they do.

I am talking about multimillionaires and billionaires.

Mike C

### #38 Zythryn

Zythryn

Creating

• Members
• 1539 posts

Posted 10 December 2007 - 09:27 AM

So you don't believe that people that provide services, but earn more than an arbitrary number deserve to be paid?

I am talking about multimillionaires and billionaires.

Where do you think the multimillionaires and billionaires come from?
Sure, maybe not 100% come from small businesses but I bet more than half do.

### #39 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

• Members
• 5702 posts

Posted 10 December 2007 - 01:55 PM

I am not talking about 'absolute' equality.

Who said you were? I do not understand why you brought this up.

What I am saying is that capitalism is 'skimming' practically all the wealth for itself and reducing the workers to just a 'commodity'.

You're anthropomorphizing "capitalism". You appear to be just quoting a line out of Marx. His sad and futile economic philosphy has been proven by history to be unworkable and void of value.

As I said before, capitalism does NOT create any 'real tangible wealth'. Only workers do that. In other words, brains do not create anything 'real'.

Now you are contradicting yourself. It's true that only workers create wealth. But it is the brains of the workers that create that wealth. Especially in today's INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY economy. You're talking like someone who has fallen out of a tall tree.

So why are governments allowing these people to help themselves to all this wealth that IMO, they do not deserve....

I'm gonna ignore the rest of this post. And if you're next post is like this one, I'm likely to ignore all of it.

### #40 Mike C

Mike C

Explaining

• Members
• 744 posts

Posted 11 December 2007 - 08:10 AM

Who said you were? I do not understand why you brought this up.

Thats because other critics have criticized my promotion of the US Constitutional mandate of promoting equality. The CN does not say it has to be absolute, although there are somethings that it does say so like 'one person, one vote'.

You're anthropomorphizing "capitalism". You appear to be just quoting a line out of Marx. His sad and futile economic philosphy has been proven by history to be unworkable and void of value.

I did not read Marx's communist book and do not promote communism in any way because it is a dictatorial regime that is NOT mandated by our US Constitution. You bring Communism into this discussion that I never once promoted in any way. Quit equating communism with Democratic Socialism, since the latter is derived from our Constitution.
Our CN preceded communism by a century and a half.
What I am promoting is a government that is supposed to represent the citizens, not capitalism that is 'self serving' and corrupting our government to serve them.

Now you are contradicting yourself. It's true that only workers create wealth. But it is the brains of the workers that create that wealth. Especially in today's INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY economy. You're talking like someone who has fallen out of a tall tree.

The Chinese workers are using their brains to create the wealth? Ha ha.
You would be more accurate if you said 'their hands' as directed by Walmart.

Mike C

### #41 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

• Members
• 5702 posts

Posted 11 December 2007 - 09:33 AM

...I did not read Marx's communist book and do not promote communism in any way because it is a dictatorial regime that is NOT mandated by our US Constitution. ...

I did NOT say "communism". I said "Marxism". If you want intelligent conversation around here, please try to listen to what the other guy is actually saying.

Communism is a form of dictatorial government. Marxism is an economic philosophy. From what I can see, what you are espousing sounds much like Marxism.

So, what would your opinion be if you suddenly found yourself to BE a billionaire? (Not that it's very likely)

### #42 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

Creating

• Members
• 7797 posts

Posted 11 December 2007 - 09:46 AM

Pyotex said

You're anthropomorphizing "capitalism". You appear to be just quoting a line out of Marx. His sad and futile economic philosphy has been proven by history to be unworkable and void of value.

Has it?
has anyone ever read K Marx?
He sounds a lot like that other discredited faith Roman Catholicism.
Perhaps the art is in the application of the theory, not in the theory itself?
mike said

The Chinese workers are using their brains to create the wealth? Ha ha.
You would be more accurate if you said 'their hands' as directed by Walmart.

### #44 Zythryn

Zythryn

Creating

• Members
• 1539 posts

Posted 11 December 2007 - 11:11 AM

It was quite boring and repetitive. Did I mention repetitive?

I also heard it was repetitive:shrug:

### #45 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

Creating

• Members
• 7797 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 01:10 AM

I got through about 20 pages of reading, 100 pages of skimming. It was quite boring and repetitive.

The reason no one really understands what he was on about.(!)
I had /have the same problem with the Catholic Catechism.(!)

Did I mention repetitive? Is that all????? Where do I sign up?????

LOLOLOlollollololololol
Did I say "part-time"? second degree?
(For local natives only)
I can also tell you the degrees that are "Mickey Mouse" and you pass by enrolling. A great shame on Oz Universities.
Hopefully the new Rudd Government will help rectify this.

### #46 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

Exhausted Gondolier

• Members
• 6241 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 05:56 AM

I believe it is still a lot cheaper than that over here. When I started it was dirt cheap and standards were still high. Sometimes even a bit too high, or let's say it was highly selective. Free Market drove it down the drain.

### #47 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

Creating

• Members
• 7797 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 06:55 AM

I believe it is still a lot cheaper than that over here. When I started it was dirt cheap and standards were still high. Sometimes even a bit too high, or let's say it was highly selective. Free Market drove it down the drain.

Universities have been diverting resources into degree prefered o by OS students
Enginering etc Courses like communications,arts, media etc have suffered.

### #48 Mike C

Mike C

Explaining

• Members
• 744 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 08:09 AM

I did NOT say "communism". I said "Marxism". If you want intelligent conversation around here, please try to listen to what the other guy is actually saying.

Communism is a form of dictatorial government. Marxism is an economic philosophy. From what I can see, what you are espousing sounds much like Marxism.

So, what would your opinion be if you suddenly found yourself to BE a billionaire? (Not that it's very likely)

I would give away everything above say '$250,000'. All I need is an income of about$15,000 a year to enable me to live my life to my level of subsistance.
With that kind of an income, I could go to the casinos twice a month instead of the current once a month.

I am not 'power crazy' like some people that want it all!
I am not competing with anyone to see who is the supreme 'dollar stuffer'.

My mission is to promote the truth as I see it. And that is to comply to the untimate Law in our country (US CN). Also I bellieve in the Laws of physics and the one god concept that IMO is Nature, our greatest teacher. Our greatest inventor and our greatest artist.
However in Nature, it promotes the 'multiple god system'. That way, we coulld all be happy by selecting the one we want to believe in.

Currently in the US, the dollar stuffers rule because they use bribery to buy our politicians to represent them.

BTW, can you give a breif summary of Marx'z economic system? i never read the book because I believe in our CN, so I see no other substitute for a representative government that is 'supposed' to represent the citizens in our country.
Did Marx invent the process of electing government? This method preceded Marx by a century and a half.

Mike C

### #49 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

• Members
• 5702 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 01:19 PM

...BTW, can you give a breif summary of Marx'z economic system? i never read the book because I believe in our CN...

Sure Mike.

Marx believed that Capitalism was evil because it put "property" into the hands of individuals. People like you and me. Only, some people managed to get more property than anyone else--these people he called "Capitalists"--and he believed that these rich folks got their property (money) by taking advantage of the poorer classes (you and me). Marx believed that all property should be owned by the STATE, and that the STATE should decide who could use that property and for what purpose. He believed that if no one could own any property, then no one could become greedy.

### #50 Mike C

Mike C

Explaining

• Members
• 744 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 08:43 AM

Sure Mike.

Marx believed that Capitalism was evil because it put "property" into the hands of individuals. People like you and me. Only, some people managed to get more property than anyone else--these people he called "Capitalists"--and he believed that these rich folks got their property (money) by taking advantage of the poorer classes (you and me). Marx believed that all property should be owned by the STATE, and that the STATE should decide who could use that property and for what purpose. He believed that if no one could own any property, then no one could become greedy.

Will get back to you tomorrow.
I have a live hacker here on my computer that I think is an agent of Microsoft corporation interfering with my use of Internet Explorer.
This hacker has been giving me problems for a couple of years and destroyed my W98 SE OS a while back, plus my computer.

He is a crybaby because of my criticism of capitalism.
Just another example of capitalisms illegal censorship of my criticism of their greed.

Mike C

### #51 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

Exhausted Gondolier

• Members
• 6241 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 09:36 AM

Marx believed that all property should be owned by the STATE,

lol I once gave that as the start of a brief answer to a student activist that was pushing for a course in Marxism. She wanted to show me that I don't know what it is and I tried to show her I knew at least what it's about so I said something along those lines. She cut me short with a lecture saying it all should be in the hands of the people, not of the state. I didn't take the course anyway and I've never followed up the details all that well.

Universities have been diverting resources into degree prefered o by OS students
Enginering etc Courses like communications,arts, media etc have suffered.

That's not the only problem though. Standards have been going down. Students graduate on schedule but understand little, compared with my days. An old friend who was an assistant professor in physics for a while says this.

Did Marx invent the process of electing government? This method preceded Marx by a century and a half.

Of course he didn't invent it, the ideas behind representative democracy, in various forms, came even more than century and a half before Marx.

In medieval Europe, however, these ideas were being advanced mostly by the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy, while Marx and his buddies were guiding the common people against the ruling classes. They coined the term proletariate for those without a substantial wealth of property. The term capitalist came from the title of Marx'es book The Capital.