The Merchant Exchange?

[smacksim]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
How can it be that a group of individuals totaly bent on Self preservation at the individual level (and some even seeing a value in group preservation) would in their global output be totaly self destructive down to the last individual?

There is no connection necessarily between the needs of the one and the needs of the many. That this shocks you says a few things I think.

-Smack

Petri Dish, bacteria, explosion, no more agar food, no more bacteria. Had the bacteria reasoned that by reproducing slowly and keeping their population in check they could last longer, perhaps long enough for Dr. Beaker to come along and feed them again, they would survive. No, bacteria don't need to reason to be successful. As you said, some individuals would survive (carried away on a breeze or a lab tech's sleeve, etc.). But I ask you, why on earth would we want to follow this kind of population pattern ourselves?

-S

[Sikander]

Free Market is simply centuries of observation of human behavior. No one invented it, it evolved independently in many places. Many ancient peoples were well aware of its intricacies even if they didn't have Adam Smith etc. to codify their own knowledge and observations. Because FM evolved, survived and thrived it has a lot going for it.

Socialism on the other hand is a man made idea, or at best an application of a familial system of resource allocation on a massive scale. It works to the extent that one can make it work, in the most successful cases with a FM economy to provide the energy that so far a purely socialist mindset seems unable to produce on its own. In other words FM is an endemic economic system, and socialism is a political system that sometimes (imo dubiously) likes to call itself an economic system.

FM is actually quite capable of adapting to even a green mindset if the political system which regulates it is capable of the same thing. It isn't that difficult to add expenses (usually taxes or fees) to an activity which heretofore has given a benefit to a few while costing society more in the long run. Supply and demand are tools available to all who wish to use them. It remains for us to rule ourselves thoughtfully. If we fail it won't be because of Free Market economies, but an unwillingness to do what is necessary to survive. As that doesn't sound like the sort of behavior typical of what is arguably the most successful species on the planet at this time, I have high hopes for the future.

[Enigma_Nova]

What about that -5 police rating?
FM tends to exploit disadvantaged peoples.
It is noted that people's will to survive is situational, and by manipulating the situation you can get people to work for you by the fact that they'll die if they don't.

As a species, we perform the usual blah; we preserve ourselves and move for happiness.
Personal competition on a Societal level produces a -5 police rating, mainly because folk would exploit each-other for their own happiness.

We -could- let them kill each-other off, but there are laws in place against murder; why allow natural selection in one area and deny it in another?
Either make sure everyone is happy or let them kill each-other off, but pick an ethos and keep it consistant!

EDIT:
In a post this long, I should have referred to myself at least twice.

[RoadRash]

Originally posted by smacksim
On that last comment of yours Roadrash, the one that says that any 4 year old can see where the policies of Socialism will lead. Where will they lead in your opinion? I'm curious.

Ok, I admit I was heavy handed there. And yes, I'm enjoying this discussion as well.

So.... "What if we reward failure and punish success?"

The outcome seems so obvious to me that I hesitate to answer. Perhaps we have different assumptions about what it means to be "protective of the whole population". If you are arguing in favor of some sort of moderate safety net, then we could agree that the the economy could survive. But socialism doesn't stop there. Rather the goal seems to be: to eradicate economic variations within society. For example, working harder in a socialism does not provide one with greater medical benefits.

Socialism is a system designed to reward its members based on need rather than based on productivity. But the vast majority of people respond according to rewards, even if they must violate socially acceptable norms to gain their rewards. They will commit crimes, cheats on tests, commit adultery, etc. Do we really want to reward mankind's uglier instincts? An extreme version of this experiment was tried under Hitler, and an entire nation found itself willing to commit heinous crimes against humanity.

Of course, the impact of socialism will vary from country to country. Small homogeneous populations are better poised to implement socialism, vs countries with large mixed populations. The bigger the political unit, the more apt it is to contain conflicting goals and values. A system of multiple small political units inherently imposes less consolidation of political power than one huge government.

Scandinavian countries are often pointed to as examples of successful socialism. But these countries are inherently less susceptible to the disadvantages of socialism. They boast small and (relatively) homogenous populations. Yet even these countries are not immune to the long term social degradation associated with rewarding laziness. In at least one Scandinavian country they are beginning to experience a plague of "psuedo sick" leave. I predict such symptoms will gradually worsen, impacting long term productivity and innovation. Indeed, socialism often covers it's own tracks, as it is impossible to tally economic booms that didn't happen because would-be entrepeneurs found themselves disempowered by the bureacracy.

Christopher Columbus repeatedly attempted to gain backers for his expeditions. And repeatedly he failed until hooking up with Ferdinand and Isabella. Had he faced a monolithic Euro-government with a single Department of Trade, his landmark journeys would likely have been cancelled before they started.

In economic stagnation, political power trends toward draconian consolidation. The antidote to totalitarianism is therefore economic growth, which fosters an educated and prosperous working class. Economic (not population) growth is best accomplished when decision making happens at lower levels, where they can be directly tied to the interests of those concerned, and where great risks can bring great rewards. The most expedient way to achieve this? To maintain maximum freedom in a well-policed marketplace.

[Santiago_Claus]

Well I did say "for a given population size" ...

The most brutal planned economies, such as North Korea, may prove greener on a per-acre basis simply because of the reduced population that comes of mass starvation.

Starving people may do temporary damage to the land as they engage in such environmentally unfriendly practices as pulling up handfuls of grass and baking bread out of it, but once they're out of the way the land should quickly recover, that is if meddlesome "aid groups" don't interfere with Nature's perfect plan.

Free markets, on the other hand, produce vast surplus quantities of foodstuffs, stylish clothing (in multiple fashions even!), cars adorned with attractive chrome, cozy homes, waterbeds, thick curtains for privacy from nosy neighbors, stereos, and smooth 70's soul music. Taken together this represents an environmental catastrophe!

Except for that little thing called "The Pill" ... also a product of the free market.

[smacksim]

O.K. Roadrash, that was an excellent post, I must say! Here's my next two questions ( Smack see's how much tutelage he can scrap from the vast bank of knowledge at Apolyton. A reasonably quick graduate course in Economic Policy has always been my idea of a good time ) ....

1. How are population growth, resource-use growth, and economic growth tied together or completely separate? I've always wondered how economic growth can occur without some sort of increasing consumption. Or can it?

2. We seem to be talking past each other a little bit in that I'm trying to imagine a better system than free market. That doesn't mean I suggest we set lower goals like Socialism for the long term. I just think that there is better logic than :To quote RoadRash: "In economic stagnation, political power trends toward draconian consolidation. The antidote to totalitarianism is therefore economic growth, which fosters an educated and prosperous working class." I agree, however, the alternative to economic growth might not be draconian consolidation if the entire nature of the market is somehow changed. Am I alone in imagining that there must be a better system in the future? It seems quite simple to argue the point that Free Market economies have succeeded where other models have failed or been marginalized. I challenge you to argue another model, an idealized model of the future, possibly even the very distant future.

-Smack

[Enigma_Nova]

It's hard to think of a system better than one optimally adjusted for human desires.

You -could- improve it by opening up tasks that are both useful and enjoyable to the populous, so that your people are happy and productive.

You may wish to subsidise industries that increase your nation's innovation, power or happiness while taxing industries that are degrading to said values.

Beyond changing the human condition, that's the best I can come up with.

[bondetamp]

Originally posted by RoadRash
"However, in principle, only planned economies/governments can be truly directed away from damaging effects."
-- Indeed the argument sounds plausible. Why do you suppose it works the exact opposite in reality?

Because no planned government this far has been overly concerned about the enviroment? The reason for this is, of course, the same that drives corporations to pollute. Short term productivity boosts are far more important than long term enviromental benefits to the people making the decissions.

[smacksim]

Right, because so far, governments have either been in competition (We need a military damnit!), or have otherwise been corrupted from within (I want a seventh palace), rather than having the people's long term interests in mind. I say this with tongue in cheek because, as much as I would like to believe otherwise, no political machine seems capable of rising above the short term.

Enigma_nova nails it:

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
It's hard to think of a system better than one optimally adjusted for human desires.

And thats the damning quality of our nature, in my opinion. It's just really hard for us to think beyond our * *s. How could placing checks on our desires be desirable? This is why I say that Free Market is childish. Children have to learn that they can not simply masturbate all day when they go to school.

They go to school for three reasons:

1. Education is Socialization. They must become members of a culture, a society, and take an appropriate role in that society.
2. Schools help push back the mean reproductive age which encourages smaller families and better care of the children. Less population pressure, more productivity from the parents.
3. To keep a certain age range out of the workforce. 50% of kids go to college in the U.S. because there is pressure to keep them from competing for jobs. We have more people than jobs.

Anyways, the main point is that children learn that they cannot simply placate their immediate desires, IF they want to reach their long term goals. This has been true as long as there has been culture. Our economic system does not really reflect this....yet.

-Smack

[Enigma_Nova]

Our inability to think past our whims is a notable flaw,
but not one for which there is an easy solution.

Do people make the decisions themselves?
Do we make the decisions for them?
Or do no decisions get made at all?

Each theory has its own flaws.
Axiomatically, People are concerned only with their concerns.
These concerns tend not to include the concerns of others.
Let people guide themselves, you end up with everyone fighting everyone else because people only give a damn about themselves.

If one group makes decisions for another, corruption leads the decision-makers to further their own interests at the neglect of the people they command.
And if no decisions get made then you're sitting around waiting to die, aren't you!

[Santiago_Claus]

Checks and balances seem to be the only thing that work against the destructive elements of human nature.

The free market is a check against government power. The government is a check against concentrations of power in the marketplace.

The second point is obvious, but the first is much more subtle.

Perhaps I can explain it most easily this way: the mixing of coercion and money corrupts both.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Smacksim:

Economic Growth is simply the Growth in the total "value" of the interactions, things and services in the Economy. We try to discount inflation and only count "Real" Economic growth here.

Resorce Consumption is ofcorse a simple strait forward "How many trees did we chop down", "How much oil did we pump".

Its the efficiency of the Industrial Processes that determine if your using a forest to make a toothpick, or a Barrel of Oil to drive to work each day. If efficiency of resorce use incresses then a stagnant economy will use less resorcses and a growing Economy can stay esentialy stagnant in resorce consumption (esentialy the case for the US over the last 50 years).

Addi in Population and we start to look at PER CAPITA Economic Growth and Resorce use.

In Western Europe you have population stabalization or decline, incressing efficency, stagnant or declining resorce consumption, a growing economy and rising standards of living.

In the US we have a growing population (due mostly to imigration), incressing efficency, stagnant resorce consumption, an untill resently stagnent economic growth and an overall stagnant standard of living.

As you can see things are related but not directly connected. Economies can expand and wealth can incresse on a Per Capita level with a Declining consumption of resorces provided population is declining or Efficiency is rising (or a combination of both).

[sammy1339]

Sorry to butt in, but I simply can't understand how people can say that the free-market system should endure for all eternity. This planet has the capacity to support roughly 12,000,000,000 people, provided we kill all the other animals. If we keep expanding at an uncontrolled rate, with everyone only taking care of his own needs, it will only be a couple centuries before we drown in our own filth. Someone eventually will have to put strict impositions on the growth of industry, which means moving away from a free market economy. The issue of what they should move to is a separate subject, but I don't think that it is possible to make a good argument that a free-market system can persist forever. Restrictions on the kind or quantity of ecological damage that industries can cause just won't do it. Already we have oxymorons like "clean coal," and people really believe that the technology exists to take coal smoke and make it eco-friendly. It will take a disaster before politicians really start to do anything about it, but the destruction of the environment can't be stopped just by placing restrictions on how much of each chemical you can make per factory, because there is alot of political nonsense involved in those restrictions so that mostly they just end up being for show. We will eventually need limits on the actual number of factories, and the number of people. So I really don't see how a free-market economy can persist for more than a couple hundred years. The only way I can imagine to argue against that is to say that the earth can actually produce enough food to support indefinitely many people (indefinite amounts of food) and we will all learn to breathe sulfur dioxide.
To address a completely different question, the ideal economic system is the one where the robots do all the work and everything is free. And so long as we are talking centuries ahead that is a perfectly viable solution. (booya)

[RoadRash]

"If we keep expanding at an uncontrolled rate ... it will only be a couple centuries before we drown in our own filth."
-- But we're not, and therefore we won't.

Anyone remember the phrase "population explosion"? Several decades ago people were saying that the world would be standing-room-only by the year 2000. Whoops.

Grim claims about projected population growth and limited resources consistently ignore critical factors. Such as shifting trends in social values.

For years environmentalists have warned that the price of raw materials, such as metals, will soar as higher populations contend for limited resources. Yet in nearly every instance, prices have been steadily DROPPING for years. The one obvious exception is oil, which has risen in price solely due to trade cartels preventing the oil market from functioning freely.

(A side note: The oil cartels are wise to bounce prices up and down. That way they can preriodically rape the market, then drop the price to purge fresh competition. And no, the cartel's monopolistic machinations are in no way compatible with my vision of a "free market". It reminds me of Bill Gates, who publicly claims to favor a free market, but privately works to obstruct it.)

The study of resource consumption is largely a question of economics. When an environmentalist predicts an economic crisis due to resource exhaustion, they are dabbling outside their area of expertise.

Why do grim projections about limited resources always end in the same punch line - "we need more control"? Ask who is gaining that control. It's not you or me. Nor will it be our elected government representatives. They know nothing about the environment, and must take their cue from experts. The new power will devolve upon those experts called upon to define government policy. Concidentally, these are the very people who are calling for more controls. Consider the consequences. Top economic decisions will be made by individuals who have no greater understanding of economics than the guy scrubbing the floor at burger king.

[GeoModder]

A crisis does occur when a resource is exhausted. But sofar a replacement for a given exhausted one was found. This can't continue for ever though.

And those environmentalists ringing the bell for higher resource prices have in mind that that growing population will reach a higher standard of living, which basically doesn't happen.

Claims about projections are only based upon present knowledge at the time of making them. It's rather hard to 'predict' the impact of unknown factors, but it's also unknown if a beneficial new factor will pop up.