Which is more important to the US?

[David Floyd]

It's a made up demand curve. Graph a few. For instance try one with low, constant elasticity. Try a linear one. Learn to determine the monopolists profit-maximizing price.

I fully understand that. My point is I can use whatever numbers I wantto make whatever curve I want, same as him.

[TCO]

David, the exact numbers are not relevant. Try graphing a few and you will see. The point is that the supplier profit maximizing price is different from the price under free competition. He is just showing the process that a monoplist goes through to determine his best price.

[David Floyd]

Perhaps coertion wasn't the good word. I'll have to take my translator to see. I wanted to mean that to be sure people do not infringe rights of others, you have to make laws and apply them.
And it is the exact same principle that happen in economics, as economical tyranny is as possible as politial one.

And again, that is why I (and I assume Wraith) support laws against fraud.

[David Floyd]

David, the exact numbers are not relevant. Try graphing a few and you will see. The point is that the supplier profit maximizing price is different from the price under free competition.

I understand the concept, I suppose I just misunderstood what he was doing. I don't claim much economic knowledge, and frankly I don't much care what's most economically beneficial to someone - I care about freedom and individual rights. I'll leave more complex arguments of why laissez-faire is best to people who know what they are talking about, but for me it is enough to say that freedom=good, laissez-faire=freedom, therefore laissez-faire=good

[TCO]

Well, you're in college. Stretch your mind a little. Take a micro course.

[Wraith]

--"I wanted to mean that to be sure people do not infringe rights of others, you have to make laws and apply them."

See, this is the problem. You are refusing to recognize what I mean by a free market. A complete seperation of state and economy does not mean that government does not protect its citizens' rights, no matter how they're violated. A free economy does not mean you can force someone (by whatever means, including fraud) into something without expecting government retribution. You seem to think I'm advocating pure anarchy (ie. no government at all), when I am in fact advocating minarchism. What you mean by regulation is quite certainly not the same thing I mean by regulation, and very little regulation (using my definition, which is the accepted US political definition) has anything to do with protecting rights.

--"Well, yes, I meant that the same thing could be said about you."

I know, but you happen to be wrong. English is my native language, and I am fairly fluent. In school I was one of those obnoxious gits with a larger vocabulary than any of the teachers.
Also, as I've said, I tend to use Rand's definitions. I get into a lot of arguments involving things like selfishness where people refuse to acknowledge this, and it causes a lot of pointless arguing, just like here.

Wraith
"The great nations have always acted like gangsters and the small nations like prostitutes."
-- Stanley Kubrick

[David Floyd]

Well, you're in college. Stretch your mind a little. Take a micro course.

Yup, much as I hate math, economics is probably my next subject to get into (as in, outside of school, take a break from military history).

[Akka]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"I wanted to mean that to be sure people do not infringe rights of others, you have to make laws and apply them."

See, this is the problem. You are refusing to recognize what I mean by a free market. A complete seperation of state and economy does not mean that government does not protect its citizens' rights, no matter how they're violated. A free economy does not mean you can force someone (by whatever means, including fraud) into something without expecting government retribution. You seem to think I'm advocating pure anarchy (ie. no government at all), when I am in fact advocating minarchism. What you mean by regulation is quite certainly not the same thing I mean by regulation, and very little regulation (using my definition, which is the accepted US political definition) has anything to do with protecting rights.

Our fundamental difference of point of view is that I believe in a heavily regulated market. I think that any society is to serve the men that are part of it, hence the economy is a way to enhance the quality of life of everybody. I believe in partial wealth redistribution (I mean partial, I don't want the kind of total seizure like in communist utopia) and social welfare.
I think I can safely assume that you do not share my beliefs

--"Well, yes, I meant that the same thing could be said about you."

I know, but you happen to be wrong. English is my native language, and I am fairly fluent. In school I was one of those obnoxious gits with a larger vocabulary than any of the teachers.

I won't blame you for this
I'm an EXTREMELY nitpicking guy when it comes to vocabulary, syntax, spelling and the like in my native language. I hate to see a word misused, and I'm always trying to perfect my language skills.
In the mirror's expression, I just translated word-by-word 'cause I did not knew the english's expression and knew it was still understandable.

Also, as I've said, I tend to use Rand's definitions. I get into a lot of arguments involving things like selfishness where people refuse to acknowledge this, and it causes a lot of pointless arguing, just like here.

Don't know anything about Rand's. Who is he and what are his definitions ?

[David Floyd]

Our fundamental difference of point of view is that I believe in a heavily regulated market. I think that any society is to serve the men that are part of it, hence the economy is a way to enhance the quality of life of everybody. I believe in partial wealth redistribution (I mean partial, I don't want the kind of total seizure like in communist utopia) and social welfare.

Translation - he believes in individual rights, and you don't. Right?

Don't know anything about Rand's. Who is he and what are his definitions ?

Ayn Rand (a woman) is a famous Objectivist who emigrated to the US from the Soviet Union and developed and set forth ideals for a free society and a just and moral government, including natural rights and laissez-faire economics.

[Akka]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Translation - he believes in individual rights, and you don't. Right?

I did not expected anything more about you than this kind of caricature. I extend the individual rights to a longer-sighted point that's all.

[Wraith]

--"I think that any society is to serve the men that are part of it,"

Society is a fiction. It's just a group of individuals. Society therefore can not take precedence over the individual.
So, in the end what's best for "society" is what's best for every individual.

--"I think I can safely assume that you do not share my beliefs"

Nope, not at all. As soon as you proclaim that the function of some is to provide for others you have entered the realm of slavery, and I will have no part of it.

--"Don't know anything about Rand's. Who is he and what are his definitions ?"

Ayn Rand, founder of Objectivism, and (as David noted) a woman. Your question makes me guess you haven't been around the Off-Topic forum's political discussion long, since she tends to be mentioned fairly frequently (especially by me, a neo-Objectivist).
If you're curious, this site is a good resource. For the definition of selfishness in particular, try this faq response.

Rand is not much in favor with the philosophy schools. She has serious problems with philosphies such as Kant and Hegel, which dominate (along with their intellectual heirs) the colleges. She is, however, fairly influential. A US Library of Congress survey indicated that one of her books, "Atlas Shrugged", was second in influence in the US only to the Bible. If you plan on getting into a lot of arguments concerning philosophy, economics, and/or government on these forums it's probably worth your time to at least find out the basics.

--"I extend the individual rights to a longer-sighted point that's all."

It sounds much more like you're saying "the ends justify the means". I do not agree that any method that achieves a good end is a good method. I also do not believe that you are correct in assuming this will lead to a good end. In both the medium and long runs, we would be much better off with an actual free market economy. Wealth distribution and so on is inherently inefficent (and I do not mean corrupt or wasteful government; this is simply by economic definitions).

Wraith
"Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
-- Milton Friedman

[Sava]

It depends.... IMO, Democracy is more important... but America isn't a Democracy. A true Democracy is when the country votes on everything. Popular vote doesn't even determine the president for Pete's sake. The Electoral college doesn't have to cast its state vote for the presidential candidate the people chose. The only Democratic part of the US Government is Congress. Those are the only government officials that are actually voted into office by the people. And even then, Congressmen (Senators and Reps) do whatever they want, not what the people want.

True Democracy would be important and would make this country a better place. But instead we have a Corporate-Funded-Republic. Capitalism (complete freedom) is sh!t... the rich and wealthy exploit the weak. The only way you can make it to the top is to have an absolutely extrodinary idea or product/business. And even then, everything is dependent upon the stock-market (which is basically rich corporations and investors becoming richer by throwing all their money into businesses that are succeeding). Communism, the other extreme, is sh!t as well.

There needs to be a regulated system that is fair and protects all people. Monopolies should be allowed, but only if profit margins aren't too high. The oil industry is proof that parallel pricing practices between 5-6 companies can be much worse than one company controlling everything.

[David Floyd]

Wraith - you might be interested to know that my Political Philosophy prof this semester was an Objectivist, and the TA was president of UT's Ayn Rand Society. Needless to say I got an A

[kolpo]

Originally posted by GP
David, the exact numbers are not relevant. Try graphing a few and you will see. The point is that the supplier profit maximizing price is different from the price under free competition. He is just showing the process that a monoplist goes through to determine his best price.

Yes indeed, off course are those number incorrect. My main point is that a virtual cartel is like a monepoly(the way the prices are formed), so that even with many competitors still a monepoly like situation can happen.

[JohnT]

Democratic Capitalism!