Gyroscopic Investing

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new BBC poll has found widespread dissatisfaction with free-market capitalism.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8347409.stm

I wonder what the results would be in China. Their embrace of a more free market has resulted I the fastest growing middle class in the world.

Of course; statists tinker with the free market "in the name of fairness" and blame the results on capitalism.

There was a country song "god is great, beer is good, and people are crazy"

How does anyone know if they dislike having a free market when no country has a free market?

In another thread someone asked me why I believe that France will be the first of the large industrial nations to get into really nasty troubles. Above is the answer.

TripleB wrote: How does anyone know if they dislike having a free market when no country has a free market?

TripleB wrote: How does anyone know if they dislike having a free market when no country has a free market?

Since it has never existed, what makes you so confident that it would actually work well? A free market might be more economically efficient, but I think it would be a social nightmare. Im willing to sacrifice economic growth and efficiency for a bit more equality. Ultimately I think it makes life a lot more enjoyable. We are humans, not economic machines.

Simonjester wrote:

doodle wrote:

TripleB wrote: How does anyone know if they dislike having a free market when no country has a free market?

Since it has never existed, what makes you so confident that it would actually work well? A free market might be more economically efficient, but I think it would be a social nightmare. Im willing to sacrifice economic growth and efficiency for a bit more equality. Ultimately I think it makes life a lot more enjoyable. We are humans, not economic machines.

i suspect he means never had a "totally free" market, and what makes us confident it would work well, or well enough, is that every time an element of freedom is added in, markets flourish and prosperity and innovation happen (like having rich soil for a plant), every time the market gets controlled from above based on a few men's idea of justice, efficiency and equality the market withers and begins to die (the soil is salted)

Peoples lives in America have improved in economic terms despite the growth of government. Americans consume vastly more goods and services than they did just 50 years ago. Shouldnt the growth of government be making our lives worse according to your argument? Why are things improving? Free markets are great, but even Adam Smith recognized the need for regulation.

doodle wrote: Peoples lives in America have improved in economic terms despite the growth of government. Americans consume vastly more goods and services than they did just 50 years ago. Shouldnt the growth of government be making our lives worse according to your argument? Why are things improving? Free markets are great, but even Adam Smith recognized the need for regulation.

No, e.g. even Obama and his policies can't stop the economy from growing (a little bit) it is just that a non-statist, hell even Eastwood's empty chair literally doing nothing would have been improvement in that it would have done less harm and the economy would likely have grown faster.

Maybe the economy would have grown faster, but there are other aspects to a society than just exonomic growth. Are americans any happier today than they were 50 years ago despite the fact that the exonomy has grown enormously over this period of time? If not, then why is exonomic growth so important that a little cant be sacrificed?

doodle wrote: Since it has never existed, what makes you so confident that it would actually work well? A free market might be more economically efficient, but I think it would be a social nightmare. Im willing to sacrifice economic growth and efficiency for a bit more equality. Ultimately I think it makes life a lot more enjoyable. We are humans, not economic machines.

If you have a high standard of living and can take care of your family, why do you care if other people have more?  The fact that Warren Buffet has 50 billion dollars has no effect on me if I have a good standard of living.

The forces of envy are always willing to throw us collectively under the bus in order to tear down the successful in the name of being "equitable."

I'll take a society where those willing to work hard are afforded ample opportunity due to a vibrant economy over one with negligible wealth inequality.

doodle wrote: Peoples lives in America have improved in economic terms despite the growth of government. Americans consume vastly more goods and services than they did just 50 years ago. Shouldnt the growth of government be making our lives worse according to your argument? Why are things improving? Free markets are great, but even Adam Smith recognized the need for regulation.

The "free market" isn't mutually exclusive with a lack of regulation, merely government regulation.  Private regulation is superior in the vast majority of cases.  What government does best is deal with market coordination failures which can arise due to behavioral errors.  A little nudge of force can bring parties out of self-centered stasis.  A good example was the LTCM crisis.

doodle wrote: Maybe the economy would have grown faster, but there are other aspects to a society than just exonomic growth. Are americans any happier today than they were 50 years ago despite the fact that the exonomy has grown enormously over this period of time? If not, then why is exonomic growth so important that a little cant be sacrificed?

Have you considered that Americans aren't happier because they have to deal with more and more overzealous regulations that take up more and more of their working hours?  Since Obama took office, there were 170,000 new regulations published in the Federal Register.  There is simply not enough nefarious economic activity to justify that kind of largesse.  It is simply full-employment for bureaucrats, lawyers and attorneys of the various three-letter agencies.

RuralEngineer wrote:

doodle wrote: Since it has never existed, what makes you so confident that it would actually work well? A free market might be more economically efficient, but I think it would be a social nightmare. Im willing to sacrifice economic growth and efficiency for a bit more equality. Ultimately I think it makes life a lot more enjoyable. We are humans, not economic machines.

If you have a high standard of living and can take care of your family, why do you care if other people have more?  The fact that Warren Buffet has 50 billion dollars has no effect on me if I have a good standard of living.

The forces of envy are always willing to throw us collectively under the bus in order to tear down the successful in the name of being "equitable."

I'll take a society where those willing to work hard are afforded ample opportunity due to a vibrant economy over one with negligible wealth inequality.

I just believe that for better or for worse humans have a problem with gross inequity. Let's use the analogy of a school classroom for society. A classroom has a bell curve distribution of intelligences just like a larger society does. This classroom also caters to and rewards certain skills just like a larger society does. Now, imagine a classroom where the teacher gives out candy rewards to the first student to raise their hand with the correct answer. Under this set of rules, a certain small segment of very intelligent students will win all the candy while those at the bottom end will win nothing. Now, the students at the bottom are not any worse off for not winning candy. I mean they are still getting an education and all that, but suddenly 10% of the students are munching on chocolate bars while the rest are watching them do so. What do you think the social environment in this cut throat classroom would be like? Do you think it would have an enjoyable and joyful atmosphere?

MachineGhost wrote:

doodle wrote: Maybe the economy would have grown faster, but there are other aspects to a society than just exonomic growth. Are americans any happier today than they were 50 years ago despite the fact that the exonomy has grown enormously over this period of time? If not, then why is exonomic growth so important that a little cant be sacrificed?

Have you considered that Americans aren't happier because they have to deal with more and more overzealous regulations that take up more and more of their working hours?  Since Obama took office, there were 170,000 new regulations published in the Federal Register.  There is simply not enough nefarious economic activity to justify that kind of largesse.  It is simply full-employment for bureaucrats, lawyers and attorneys of the various three-letter agencies.

There might be a certain level of annoyance to the entrepreneurial business class, but I don't think it necessarily relates to happiness. I think the larger problem is that humans think that happiness is something that can be purchased on a store shelf.

"Affluenza" is a term used by critics of consumerism to describe "a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more".

Proponents of the term consider that the prizing of endless increases in material wealth may lead to feelings of worthlessness and dissatisfaction rather than experiences of a 'better life', and that these symptoms may be usefully captured with the metaphor of a disease. They claim some or even many of those who become wealthy will find the economic success leaving them unfulfilled and hungry only for more wealth, finding that they are unable to get pleasure from the things they buy and that increasingly material things may come to dominate their time and thoughts to the detriment of personal relationships and to feelings of happiness

doodle wrote:
I just believe that for better or for worse humans have a problem with gross inequity. Let's use the analogy of a school classroom for society. A classroom has a bell curve distribution of intelligences just like a larger society does. This classroom also caters to and rewards certain skills just like a larger society does. Now, imagine a classroom where the teacher gives out candy rewards to the first student to raise their hand with the correct answer. Under this set of rules, a certain small segment of very intelligent students will win all the candy while those at the bottom end will win nothing. Now, the students at the bottom are not any worse off for not winning candy. I mean they are still getting an education and all that, but suddenly 10% of the students are munching on chocolate bars while the rest are watching them do so. What do you think the social environment in this cut throat classroom would be like? Do you think it would have an enjoyable and joyful atmosphere?

"What do you think the social environment in this cut throat classroom would be like? Do you think it would have an enjoyable and joyful atmosphere?"

Aside from liberal utpoia/dystopias in any real world there is competition and some people are more successful and are rewarded.  Your attitude has resulted in schools with awards for participation and downplaying success/competition in schools.  This is most certainly not in the best interests of this country (no matter how much better it makes people feel).

"I just believe that for better or for worse humans have a problem with gross inequity"
Liberals are obsessed with this and are sure everyone else must be also.  Just as liberals are sure they know what is best for everyone in multiple areas.

And the above points illustrate the danger of liberalism e.g. creating a society where people are less inclined to compete, punished by fairness taxes if they do, and of course having the gov't bail them out for those who don't succeed.

Benko,

No one is saying there cant be any inequality or that there cant be any competition. Im saying that society doesnt function well and cohesively when the inequality becomes extreme. The problem with dogmatic libertarianism is that everything is either black or white. There is no room for nuance.

Simonjester wrote:

doodle wrote: Benko,

No one is saying there cant be any inequality or that there cant be any competition. Im saying that society doesnt function well and cohesively when the inequality becomes extreme. The problem with dogmatic libertarianism is that everything is either black or white. There is no room for nuance.

the problem with ad hominem attacks such as calling a philosophy "dogmatic" and using a strawman such as describing someones view as seeing everything in black or white and lacking in nuance, is they are fallacious arguments and convince no one, and they generally aren't worth replying to...

inequality seldom becomes extreme in either the quantity of money or access to the ability to get money without the addition of corruption, and cronyism. Stealing from one group to give to another by use of force does nothing to fix this problem, and it only creates more opportunity to manipulate the system for the rich and to build inequality/dependance amongst the poor.
as long as i have a fair shot at closing the gap there is no such thing as "to big a gap" or any difference in wealth that is to extreme... what others have is completely meaningless to me, all that matters is what action i take to get what i want or need... inequality only exists if it is a measure of access to and benefit from government corruption (either to many, or to few, or horribly bad regulations) and more government adds more corruption and opportunity for corruption not less..

Simonjester wrote:
  as long as i have a fair shot at closing the gap there is no such thing as "to big a gap" or any difference in wealth that is to extreme... what others have is completely meaningless to me,

+1

Doodle,

What I described is not theory, these have already happened (to some degree) and why people view liberalism as bad for society (perhaps with good intentions). 

Simonjester wrote:

doodle wrote: Benko,

No one is saying there cant be any inequality or that there cant be any competition. Im saying that society doesnt function well and cohesively when the inequality becomes extreme. The problem with dogmatic libertarianism is that everything is either black or white. There is no room for nuance.

the problem with ad hominem attacks such as calling a philosophy "dogmatic" and using  a strawman  such as describing someones view as seeing everything in black or white and lacking in nuance, is they are fallacious arguments and convince no one,  and they generally aren't worth replying to...

inequality seldom becomes extreme in either the quantity of money or access to the ability to get money without the addition of corruption, and cronyism.  Stealing from one group to give to another by use of force does nothing to fix this problem, and it only creates more opportunity to manipulate the system for the rich and to build inequality/dependance amongst the poor.
  as long as i have a fair shot at closing the gap there is no such thing as "to big a gap" or any difference in wealth that is to extreme... what others have is completely meaningless to me, all that matters is what action i take to get what i want or need...  inequality only exists if it is a measure of access to and benefit from government corruption (either to many, or to few, or horribly bad regulations) and more government adds more corruption and opportunity for corruption  not less.. 

I do find libertarianism dogmatic. The entire economic philosophy that free markets without any regulation will function perfectly well and provide the best outcome for society is about as close to a religious belief as one can get. That is not an ad hominem attack unless libertarianism is a human.

As far as your second paragraph.....well, I disagree. And not that I really care about their opinions, but as libertarians tend to be such constitutionalists, many of the founding fathers would as well...

The republic would be well-served by laws that reduce extreme wealth ... and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.”?. .... John Adams

Benko wrote:

Simonjester wrote:
  as long as i have a fair shot at closing the gap there is no such thing as "to big a gap" or any difference in wealth that is to extreme... what others have is completely meaningless to me,

+1

Doodle,

What I described is not theory, these have already happened (to some degree) and why people view liberalism as bad for society (perhaps with good intentions). 

Have you guys looked at social mobility in the United States compared to the more socialistic OECD countries? Were bottom of the barrel.

Simonjester wrote:

doodle wrote:

I do find libertarianism dogmatic. The entire economic philosophy that free markets without any regulation will function perfectly well and provide the best outcome for society is about as close to a religious belief as one can get. That is not an ad hominem attack unless libertarianism is a human.

As far as your second paragraph.....well, I disagree. And not that I really care about their opinions, but as libertarians tend to be such constitutionalists, many of the founding fathers would as well...

The republic would be well-served by laws that reduce extreme wealth ... and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.”?. .... John Adams

  you find your miscaricaturisation and unfounded impressions of libertarians dogmatic, real libertarians and i am fairly certain few or none of the people you try to debate with here, believe in zero regulation or that it will function perfectly, libertarians believe in limited regulation and that it will function better than over regulation or top down state controlled  markets...


To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”? — Thomas Jefferson,

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”? — James Madison

*the libertarians you are arguing with are human and referring to them as dogmatic would be an ad hominem.. if i misread the way it was phrased my apology's..

We're making arguments of degrees. I tend to prefer that the country takes a direction that is slightly more socialistic than you do. I believe that free markets are capable of creating enormous wealth and spurring human ingenuity, but there does exist too much of a good thing. Just as some exercise is good for your health, obsessive exercise can destroy it. I agree that in some areas legislation could be lightened while in others we maybe need more. In all cases legislation can be improved, but lets not make perfect the enemy of good.

Since you quoted Jefferson and Madison....here is a snippet from a letter between the two (Jefferson writing). I think they both were conciously aware of the dangers of inequality to the republic.

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.

Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

doodle wrote: I just believe that for better or for worse humans have a problem with gross inequity. Let's use the analogy of a school classroom for society. A classroom has a bell curve distribution of intelligences just like a larger society does. This classroom also caters to and rewards certain skills just like a larger society does. Now, imagine a classroom where the teacher gives out candy rewards to the first student to raise their hand with the correct answer. Under this set of rules, a certain small segment of very intelligent students will win all the candy while those at the bottom end will win nothing. Now, the students at the bottom are not any worse off for not winning candy. I mean they are still getting an education and all that, but suddenly 10% of the students are munching on chocolate bars while the rest are watching them do so. What do you think the social environment in this cut throat classroom would be like? Do you think it would have an enjoyable and joyful atmosphere?

Your analogy sucks, but I find it very telling regarding your philosophy and how you view the economy.

1. In your analogy wealth is finite and only grows due to the the distribution of some kind of authority figure.  In the real world the authority can produce more money, but it can't really create wealth.  The wealth would be created by the workers, in this analogy the students.  Steve Jobs didn't die rich as hell because some authority figure granted him money.  The man created multiple entirely new markets and dominated them.  He enlarged the pie as well as carved himself a larger slice.  There are quite a few people who got a larger slice of pie due to his efforts as well.

2. Your analogy posits an "all or nothing" type of wealth distribution where the rich have everything and everyone else has nothing.  This is ridiculous on its face.  Everyone in America save perhaps the homeless would be considered rich by many nation's standards.  Even measured solely against the U.S. standards of living are the highest ever, historically.

3. The result of hard work is completely discounted in your analogy.  The smarter students have rewards handed to them, and no other student can ever compete to gain any measure of the pie.  This is blatantly non-representative.  On a superficial level, intelligence is by no means correlated with success.  There are many intelligent people who are complete failures due to a lack of effort.  The reverse is also true.  What's more, even if one is never able to accumulate AS MUCH as the smartest and hardest working, hard work is always capable of generating additional wealth.

Basically what I get from your analogy is that the people with wealth aren't more deserving of it than anyone else, despite having the "right answer."  Rather than trying to enlarge the pie, your main priority is making all the pieces equal (this I already knew from your previous statements).  And finally you have a poor grasp on where wealth comes from.

I find your arguments all particularly ludicrous in light of my family history.  My grandparents raised 7 children on a single salary from my grandfather's wage as a sheet metal worker, without taking a dime from the government.  He had an 8th grade education.  My father was a machinist, got laid off and went back to school in order to get his certificate and become a teacher.  He later completed his bachelor's degree while working full time.  On two teacher's salaries (not much), my parents raised 3 children and got all of them a college degree (my sister has two).  We all earn significantly more than my parents did at our age (inflation adjusted) because we were told to focus on practical and flexible degrees that would ensure employment in almost any economy. 

I often see things that I desire but can't afford (without loans).  Rather than spending my time figuring out how I can steal them, or convince someone to steal them for me, I have two options.  I can either work harder and save for the things I want, or I can decide that I really don't want/need that particular item.

No one is denying that people feel envious of others' wealth when it exceeds their own.  What we're saying is that envy doesn't justify theft.  Rather than spending energy trying to devise systems to strip wealth from those who earn it and redistribute that wealth, we should be focusing on having a robust economy with ample opportunity such that one has the ability to increase their own personal wealth through hard work.  Pandering to the evils of our nature gets us no where positive, as has been demonstrated historically.

Bravo, RuralEngineer. Beautifully written. I couldn't agree with you more, and my own family history has similar stories.

Well, I think you took my analogy a bit far. If you look at the basic breakdown of wealth in this country you will see that the top 20 percent owns nearly 90 percent of the countries wealth while the remaining 80 percent share the remaining 10 percent. This inequality seems to be growing as well. In a classroom of twenty children, 4 would have 9 chocolate bars....while 16 would be sharing 1 between all of them.

Im not advocating total redistribution...im merely suggesting that some of the GROSS inequality be adjusted.

In many societies, attempts have been made, through property redistribution, taxation, or regulation, to redistribute wealth, sometimes in support of the upper class, and sometimes to diminish extreme inequality.

Examples of this practice go back at least to the Roman republic in the third century B.C., when laws were passed limiting the amount of wealth or land that could be owned by any one family. Motivations for such limitations on wealth include the desire for equality of opportunity, a fear that great wealth leads to political corruption, to the belief that limiting wealth will gain the political favor of a voting bloc, or fear that extreme concentration of wealth results in rebellion. Various forms of socialism attempt to diminish the unequal distribution of wealth and thus the conflicts arising from it.

During the Age of Reason, Francis Bacon wrote "Above all things good policy is to be used so that the treasures and monies in a state be not gathered into a few hands... Money is like muck, not good except it be spread."

Do you think that a democractic society can operate effectively if the inquality were to grow to the point where 1 percent held 99 percent of the wealth? At what point does wealth inequality become an issue and how do you address it? In South America it usually has resulted in the election of someone like Hugo Chavez. I have little pity for wealthy Venezuelans who complain about their situation because it was their greed and the extreme inequality in their country which resulted in their present political situation. Im advocating we adress this issue before it has to go that far.

Doodle,

Do you realize what a whopping disconnect there is between the spiritual stuff you are interested in and post and eg your signature and your desire for forcing people to do things?

Instead of answering me (which will not help you) you might really think about this.  People who are interested in spirituality are rare and since I know what you are talking about it is worth encouraging you.  However forcing other people to do anything no matter how well intentioned is not compatible with the spiritual path

And though I've probably said this before, you really should read  Anthony DeMello Awareness (spirituality) who talks about this issue. 

Simonjester wrote: i do have to give him props for being a dedicated contrarian, arguing the opposite opinion from a large group is a great way to learn both the art of debate and the short falls in ones own positions, i recommend it as a "great exercise and good sport" for anyone who wants to challenge their own belief systems and develop an understanding of logic and reason, when or if you want a real challenge try arguing the opposite of your own beliefs, it is an even more challenging version of the same exercise.

It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.
Buddha

The subject of the article linked below doesn't necessarily point out a flaw in the "free market" per se, but rather indicates a problem with our particular monetary system and the way in which money is distributed. When the consumer must indebt themselves in order to maintain aggregate demand and thus preserve their job, there is some serious imbalance happening. If these consumers were to not indebt themselves, our economy would tailspin downwards making everyone worse off including those at the top. This article seems to call into question the extent to which the private sector will deleverage...It looks like the youngin's are following in their parents footsteps.

American credit card holders in their late 20s and early 30s have more debt than older consumers, repay it more slowly and risk dying in debt if they don't curb their spending habits, a new study showed on Monday.

Researchers that people born between 1980 and 1984 have on average $5,689 more debt than their parents had at the same stage of their lives, and $8,156 more than their grandparents.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100379306

doodle wrote: The subject of the article linked below doesn't necessarily point out a flaw in the "free market" per se, but rather indicates a problem with our particular monetary system and the way in which money is distributed. When the consumer must indebt themselves in order to maintain aggregate demand and thus preserve their job, there is some serious imbalance happening. If these consumers were to not indebt themselves, our economy would tailspin downwards making everyone worse off including those at the top. This article seems to call into question the extent to which the private sector will deleverage...It looks like the youngin's are following in their parents footsteps.

American credit card holders in their late 20s and early 30s have more debt than older consumers, repay it more slowly and risk dying in debt if they don't curb their spending habits, a new study showed on Monday.

Researchers that people born between 1980 and 1984 have on average $5,689 more debt than their parents had at the same stage of their lives, and $8,156 more than their grandparents.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100379306

I wonder what those numbers would look like if you adjusted them for inflation.