Why has Capitalism failed to produce optimal value everywhere?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

The car market is liquid enough that finding a buyer willing to pay the market price does not normally take alot of time. To have to sell the car to me for a much lower price the seller would have to be in major hurry. Being in a major hurry to get money to a predictible cost like rent certainly implies bad planning.

This is completely beside the point. You have no idea about their planning, because I didn't say anything about it.

I could be the best planner in the world. I could plan to take over the world. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Now I would like to take one bad assumption or yours at a time.

If it were just self-interest, why should I care if the other party consents to the deal?

Huh? You care because you get to buy the car for less than it is worth.

People of like mind to mine? Who'd that be?

People who normally believe that deals between two consenting adults are always fair, except that aren't as absolute about it as you are.

Let's say you're right about the majority of polytubbies. If so, so what? If said majority thought that boiling bearded people alive should be legalized, would that therefore be right?

You claimed an axiom. It's hardly so. If your opinion is such a minority then you should really consider alternatives. Truth exists outside of yourself. You are biased towards yourself. You have to be open to the opinions of others. Why do you call yourself the Last Conformist anyway? You don't seem to be living up to your name.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The value of land is speculative value though. Land doesn't provide more utility than food.

What does this mean and how does it advance any point you are trying to make?

Obviously everyone needs food . .. what's your point?

[Flubber]

To follow up . . . if value is utility wht doesn't land have value just like everything else? Why do you call it speculative?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


What does this mean and how does it advance any point you are trying to make?

Obviously everyone needs food . .. what's your point?

I don't have a point about it. I was just responding to Ned.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
To follow up . . . if value is utility wht doesn't land have value just like everything else? Why do you call it speculative?

Land doesn't have utility anymore than people have utility. Land is used to produce things that have utility, just like people are used.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


This is completely beside the point. You have no idea about their planning, because I didn't say anything about it.

Actually your failure to mention planning is irrelevant. If you set up a scenario in which people cannot fetch near market price in a fact situation where it would normally take only a couple of days at most to fetch near-market price . . . and the reason is that they must meet a normal expected monthly expense, it is totally reasonable to state that this situation arose from a failure to plan.

Originally posted by Kidicious


I could be the best planner in the world. I could plan to take over the world. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

The "best planner" in the world would only plan based on reasonable expectations and assumptions. Something that is unreasonable and unattainable would not in my book, qualify as a "good plan".

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Land doesn't have utility anymore than people have utility. Land is used to produce things that have utility, just like people are used.

Why can't land have utility?

cultivated farmland
berry picking grounds
forestry
that mountain view

heck-- 3 of these 4 involve completely unmodified land.


So why is land different than a car, vase, air compressor or baseball bat? The major difference I see is that in most cases it is not possible to cause land to cease to exist (although you can make it uninhabitable or destroy possible economic uses of it).... But its probably more difficult to destroy a diamond.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Actually your failure to mention planning is irrelevant. If you set up a scenario in which people cannot fetch near market price in a fact situation where it would normally take only a couple of days at most to fetch near-market price . . . and the reason is that they must meet a normal expected monthly expense, it is totally reasonable to state that this situation arose from a failure to plan.

It's not. Obviously plans fail. Anything could happen. This is all irrelevent to the issue anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Why can't land have utility?

cultivated farmland
berry picking grounds
forestry
that mountain view

heck-- 3 of these 4 involve completely unmodified land.


So why is land different than a car, vase, air compressor or baseball bat? The major difference I see is that in most cases it is not possible to cause land to cease to exist (although you can make it uninhabitable or destroy possible economic uses of it).... But its probably more difficult to destroy a diamond.

It does have utility, obviously. It's just in a category of it's own, like labor, because it is a factor of production.

[Flubber]

oh and land CAN be created-- I saw a piece on the UAE where they are creating small islands (with channels about a hundred metres across between them) and are selling these properties for huge sums.

The interesting part was that they were shaping these islands so that from the air it looked like a political map of Canada and I think their intent was to do pretty much the whole world

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
oh and land CAN be created-- I saw a piece on the UAE where they are creating small islands (with channels about a hundred metres across between them) and are selling these properties for huge sums.

The interesting part was that they were shaping these islands so that from the air it looked like a political map of Canada and I think their intent was to do pretty much the whole world

The value of that type of land is clearly created by labor. God, or nature, created the natural type, not labor obviously.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

It's not. Obviously plans fail. Anything could happen. This is all irrelevent to the issue anyway.

Probably but you were trying to set up a scenario where one party was in obvious duress that the other party could use to their advantage. Your scenario would only occurr if people failed to plan properly.

But I do accept that some people get themselves in these types of situations. Your question is whether I would snap up a great deal in those circumstances.

My answer is that I would snap up something that I saw as a good deal but if it was outrageously good I probably wouldn't allow myself to do it. For example, if a car that was obviously "worth" at least 6000 dollars was offered to me for 600, I would have difficulty making that deal

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious


This is completely beside the point. You have no idea about their planning, because I didn't say anything about it.

You tell me why I said it was beside the point at the beginning of this little tangent. Hint: It was not because I thought it was relevant to the point at hand.

Huh? You care because you get to buy the car for less than it is worth.

Look at it like this: I have three alternatives:

i) Pay the guy the market price.
ii) Pay the guy the (lower) price he is willing to accept.
iii) Kick the guy in the groin and make off with his car without giving him a cent.

You, I'm sure, would only find (i) acceptable. I find (i) and (ii) acceptable. Someone who only cared for his or her own benefit would find all three acceptable.

This means that my stance is not equal to only caring about my own benefit - it leads to a different evaluation of (iii).

You claimed an axiom. It's hardly so. If your opinion is such a minority then you should really consider alternatives. Truth exists outside of yourself. You are biased towards yourself. You have to be open to the opinions of others.

What makes you think I have not considered the alternatives? What do you think made me ask for people in this thread to justify their positions if not a desire to understand them?

At the end of the day, tho, truth isn't a democracy. If a lot of people think something, that in itself doesn't make that right.

Why do you call yourself the Last Conformist anyway? You don't seem to be living up to your name.

I'm the Last Conformist, ie the only one. Obviously this means I'm different from all you non-conformists.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber


Probably but you were trying to set up a scenario where one party was in obvious duress that the other party could use to their advantage. Your scenario would only occurr if people failed to plan properly.

No. One possibility is that the money was stolen. There are many.

But I do accept that some people get themselves in these types of situations. Your question is whether I would snap up a great deal in those circumstances.

My answer is that I would snap up something that I saw as a good deal but if it was outrageously good I probably wouldn't allow myself to do it. For example, if a car that was obviously "worth" at least 6000 dollars was offered to me for 600, I would have difficulty making that deal

And that's all I was trying to show. If you have the information about the situation, and you are suspicious, then you will have reservations. Some people might still do it, but most people will get at least a little bad feeling from it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
You tell me why I said it was beside the point at the beginning of this little tangent. Hint: It was not because I thought it was relevant to the point at hand.

You tell me why planning should be an issue at all. You never mentioned it, and it's completely irrelevent to me. If you think that people who plan adequately don't make unfair deals for themselves you are wrong on that account too, but that's not what the issue is. The issue is whether two people can make an unfair deal regardless of planning.

Huh? You care because you get to buy the car for less than it is worth.

Look at it like this: I have three alternatives:

i) Pay the guy the market price.
ii) Pay the guy the (lower) price he is willing to accept.
iii) Kick the guy in the groin and make off with his car without giving him a cent.

You, I'm sure, would only find (i) acceptable. I find (i) and (ii) acceptable. Someone who only cared for his or her own benefit would find all three acceptable.

No. People who steal are criminals. You can be self-interested and operate within the law.

This means that my stance is not equal to only caring about my own benefit - it leads to a different evaluation of (iii).

Tell me again why you think two is not in your self-interest.

You claimed an axiom. It's hardly so. If your opinion is such a minority then you should really consider alternatives. Truth exists outside of yourself. You are biased towards yourself. You have to be open to the opinions of others.

What makes you think I have not considered the alternatives? What do you think made me ask for people in this thread to justify their positions if not a desire to understand them?

You told me that I was automatically wrong because I disagreed with you about fair deals.

At the end of the day, tho, truth isn't a democracy. If a lot of people think something, that in itself doesn't make that right.

Obviously not, but even more relevant is that just because you yourself beleive something doesn't make it truth.

I'm the Last Conformist, ie the only one. Obviously this means I'm different from all you non-conformists.

ok, I wondered about that.