Can a Country be Prosperous Without Screwing Others?

[Baptist]

So for one of my classes I'm studying Latin America and the Caribbean. I've read story after story of hardships down there and economic crisis. Many (if not all) were the result of intervention by the West through groups like the IMF, World Bank, CIA, etc.

Is it possible for a nation to be prosperous without screwing others?

Can we all have Iphones, Ipods, and cheap laptops without buildings full of South American women working for pennies a day to assemble them? Can we have access to any fruit and vegetable any time of the year without CIA overthrows of governments, banana republics, and unfair "free trade" agreements that screw small and local farmers? Can we all have closets full of clothes and half a dozen pairs of shoes without near slave labor conditions in China? Can we all afford new SUVs and big houses without our government, via a monopoly on the petrodollar, screwing the rest of the world through inflation?

If it is possible, when has it occurred? In our own country's history we enslaved an entire race of people, kicked another race of people off their lands, and stuffed our factories full of immigrants to mass produce goods.

I think that the Bible calls for moderation in everything. Maybe there would be less suffering if everyone was happy with clothes on their back, food on the table, and a simple roof over their head. Is it possible to move beyond this moderation without making others suffer?

[evilfunnystuff]

generaly i belive it is possible if the world didnt squnder so much money on government

examples? i have none

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

no, this is why we need to train monkeys better, or make robots that do our work for us :D

http://i45.tinypic.com/2czda1s.png
Coffee Party 2012!!!

[MN Patriot]

So for one of my classes I'm studying Latin America and the Caribbean. I've read story after story of hardships down there and economic crisis. Many (if not all) were the result of intervention by the West through groups like the IMF, World Bank, CIA, etc.

Is it possible for a nation to be prosperous without screwing others?

Can we all have Iphones, Ipods, and cheap laptops without buildings full of South American women working for pennies a day to assemble them? Can we have access to any fruit and vegetable any time of the year without CIA overthrows of governments, banana republics, and unfair "free trade" agreements that screw small and local farmers? Can we all have closets full of clothes and half a dozen pairs of shoes without near slave labor conditions in China? Can we all afford new SUVs and big houses without our government, via a monopoly on the petrodollar, screwing the rest of the world through inflation?

If it is possible, when has it occurred? In our own country's history we enslaved an entire race of people, kicked another race of people off their lands, and stuffed our factories full of immigrants to mass produce goods.

I think that the Bible calls for moderation in everything. Maybe there would be less suffering if everyone was happy with clothes on their back, food on the table, and a simple roof over their head. Is it possible to move beyond this moderation without making others suffer?

Moderation is the key, but how to determine moderation? Maybe some sort of formula where the marginal benefits outweigh the costs. Kind of basic economics thing.

How about moderation of political power? Suggest that to the present bunch of Republicans and Democrats, who keep expanding the role of government. Thanks to technology, making stuff has been getting cheaper. In order to survive with our decent standard of living we would only have to work 2 or 3 days a week. But capitalist marketing persuades us to buy stuff we don't need. Government takes our money before we even get it, and then don't even miss it.

Reducing the stupidity of government is a good first step to reducing the suffering.

[BenIsForRon]

Affluenza (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6806939155215812613&ei=sOxzS_SaFouMqwLnpODhBw&q=affluenza&view=3&dur=3#)

Some classic Gereald Celente in this film for you folks. :) This movie captures the craziness you talk about.


I think if people would willing to pay more for their stuff, we would be in good shape. Pay more for the TV because it was produced in humane working conditions, pay more for your food because it was grown locally, etc. In the end, Americans will have less stuff, but they will be happier and the economy will be more secure. Then devloping countries would be more likely to build a fair, sustainable economy, as they wouldn't have the WTO and IMF bribing their government into enslaving them.

[bunklocoempire]

OP
Is it possible to move beyond this moderation without making others suffer?

Yes. On an individual level we do this daily, weekly, monthly, yearly.

The main difference between a Country such as ours as a whole doing the moderation thing and an individual is the check book.

My checkbook has to balance.

Sound money goes a long way in keeping things in check.




Bunkloco

[Met Income]

Yes, it's called trade.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This reminds me of a situation if the whole world was socialist the people would wonder, is it possible for a free society? They would have known nothing other than socialism. Likewise, in a world of exploitation through not only monetary, but regulatory interventions one wonders, can you have a world without these things?

The answer to both questions is the affirmative.

The first goal is to stop stealing (No taxation). The second is to stop putting restrictions on capital.

[SelfTaught]

First of all, you should disconnect the overthrow of governments to the so called "slave labor" you talk about, which produces clothes, gadgets, shoes, and food.

Billions of people work at the subsistence level, where they are barely getting by with what they have. They work like slaves without anyone employing them. When US companies choose to build factories in these 3rd world countries and employ the native population, it is not slave labor. They may get paid a tiny fraction of what Americans get paid, but they choose to work there because it's better than "slaving" away in the fields. Working in a stuffy factory sucks, but I'm willing to bet those people would rather do that than pick a measly amount of crops with primitive tools. Working for just a tiny bit of capital will set them on a path to improve their own well being in the future. You shouldn't wish that these people didn't have to work in "slave labor", you should wish they had better options.

Remember when all American factories were like these factories in the third world? You have to start somewhere. We can't just transform 3rd world poverty to 1st world technological, overnight. We transformed ourselves into the richest, most well paid, and greatest manufacturer in the world in a few decades. And don't forget about Hong Kong, which transformed from 3rd world to having a standard of living on par with the US, in just 50 some years, all under British rule as a colony.

There was an article on Lew Rockwell about half a year ago about how some Chinese workers were rioting because an American humanitarian group shut down their "slave" factories. Yep, the humanitarians high fived each other and thought they made a better world, but in reality, they put hundreds/thousands of people out of work, who would have to look for another job or go back to the rice patties and continue their subsistence living.

Don't let these leftist ideas take hold of you, no matter how tempting it may be.

[BenIsForRon]

Don't let these leftist ideas take hold of you, no matter how tempting it may be.

You paint a biased picture. Many of these Chinese were forced into factory labor because the government annexed their farmland for "economic development". Many of these people would much rather spend time in the fields than 12 hours a day, 7 days a week in the factories.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You paint a biased picture. Many of these Chinese were forced into factory labor because the government annexed their farmland for "economic development". Many of these people would much rather spend time in the fields than 12 hours a day, 7 days a week in the factories.

The wonderful benefits of the State show up again. :p

[BenIsForRon]

The wonderful benefits of the State show up again. :p

Exactly, the state had a huge hand in creating the problem.

However, you can't dismiss the role of the American consumer. Of course, their behavior was influenced by the Fed and the government, but they are still the one that swiped that credit card.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Exactly, the state had a huge hand in creating the problem.

However, you can't dismiss the role of the American consumer. Of course, their behavior was influenced by the Fed and the government, but they are still the one that swiped that credit card.

It's like putting a twinkie in front of a fat guy. The twinkie isn't going to last very long. I also agree though with SelfTaught, that "slave labor" "factory workers" "sweat shops" etc. are a mischaracterization of reality. The fact is, the people who work in these places around the world are better off with that work, than they would be otherwise. Similarly, the former farmers in the Industrial Revolution who worked in the factories had a dramatic rise in their standards of living. Liberals would have you believe they were better off being poorer and working in even more dangerous conditions prior to the Industrial Revolution. Not surprising liberals almost religiously idolize nature, and demonize modern civilization.

[BenIsForRon]

It's like putting a twinkie in front of a fat guy. The twinkie isn't going to last very long. I also agree though with SelfTaught, that "slave labor" "factory workers" "sweat shops" etc. are a mischaracterization of reality. The fact is, the people who work in these places around the world are better off with that work, than they would be otherwise. Similarly, the former farmers in the Industrial Revolution who worked in the factories had a dramatic rise in their standards of living. Liberals would have you believe they were better off being poorer and working in even more dangerous conditions prior to the Industrial Revolution. Not surprising liberals almost religiously idolize nature, and demonize modern civilization.

So are you saying the farm is more dangerous than the factory? Have you seen the air in China?

http://www.asianews.it/files/img/HONG_KONG_-_Inquinamento_(600_x_450).jpg

Imagine what the quality of the air in the actual factories are!

As for the dramatic rise in standard of living, that is due just as much to the increasing availability of fossil fuels as it is the efficiencies gained in industrialization. After 1900, we opened more mines and drilled for more oil than any other society, and we reaped the benefits of that cheap energy.

Let's see how well this mass industrialization works when oil is $300 a barrel.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So are you saying the farm is more dangerous than the factory? Have you seen the air in China?

http://www.asianews.it/files/img/HONG_KONG_-_Inquinamento_(600_x_450).jpg

Imagine what the quality of the air in the actual factories are!

As for the dramatic rise in standard of living, that is due just as much to the increasing availability of fossil fuels as it is the efficiencies gained in industrialization. After 1900, we opened more mines and drilled for more oil than any other society, and we reaped the benefits of that cheap energy.

Let's see how well this mass industrialization works when oil is $300 a barrel.

Yes, it is. Not only due to a lower standard of living, but also because the conditions are worse. An agrarian society has always had a very short life expectancy.

We also had a relatively free market with a sound currency in the 19th Century also. This allowed for the entreprenuer to conduct trade and business which allowed for those cheap prices. We would have had a second Industrial Revolution by now if we still had a relatively free market with a sound currency, but no. We have restrictions on all sorts of things from Nuclear Energy, to offshore drilling, to research into new products.

As you can see, we haven't had another Industrial Revolution since the (relatively) Free-Markets disappeared from the Earth. Thank you Neo-Mercantilism and Socialism.

[BenIsForRon]

Yes, it is. Not only due to a lower standard of living, but also because the conditions are worse. An agrarian society has always had a very short life expectancy.

We also had a relatively free market with a sound currency in the 19th Century also. This allowed for the entreprenuer to conduct trade and business which allowed for those cheap prices. We would have had a second Industrial Revolution by now if we still had a relatively free market with a sound currency, but no. We have restrictions on all sorts of things from Nuclear Energy, to offshore drilling, to research into new products.

As you can see, we haven't had another Industrial Revolution since the (relatively) Free-Markets disappeared from the Earth. Thank you Neo-Mercantilism and Socialism.


Farmers do not have a shorter life expectancy than factory workers. Farmers in centuries past had short life expectancies, due to lack of access to medical care, but factory workers couldn't afford that medical care either, in most cases.

I guarantee you the average American farmer has a greater life expectancy than the average American factory worker. And don't look at the life expectancy of "farm workers", as their working conditions are more akin to a factory than a real farm.

Of course industrialization helped develop advanced medical care, but that doesn't mean that the factory worker is better off than the farmer.

As for the industrial boom, I don't think it would have happened nearly as fast without the cheap energy. Freer markets helped, but they are constrained by the resource base.

[SelfTaught]

As for the industrial boom, I don't think it would have happened nearly as fast without the cheap energy. Freer markets helped, but they are constrained by the resource base.

False. Fossil fuels have been around for millenia and have been used by humans since ancient times. It was either the Greeks or Romans (or both) that use to fill pots/jars with oil and use it to bomb enemy ships. The Chinese have been extracting oil for millenia.

But, it was free markets that truly unleashed the usefulness and cheapness of oil. Inventors and entrepreneurs in free markets allowed for the burning of fossil fuels to be converted into mechanical, electrical, and biological energy. They also created new ways of extracting oil from places that were formerly out of reach.

So, free markets aren't constrained by fossil fuels. The true power of fossil fuels are constrained by a lack of free markets. Free markets are only constrained by controlling entities, namely the government. Other than that, free markets take what already exists as a limited amount of resources and makes them more useful, more efficient, and increasing available.

[BenIsForRon]

False. Fossil fuels have been around for millenia and have been used by humans since ancient times. It was either the Greeks or Romans (or both) that use to fill pots/jars with oil and use it to bomb enemy ships. The Chinese have been extracting oil for millenia.

But, it was free markets that truly unleashed the usefulness and cheapness of oil. Inventors and entrepreneurs in free markets allowed for the burning of fossil fuels to be converted into mechanical, electrical, and biological energy. They also created new ways of extracting oil from places that were formerly out of reach.

So, free markets aren't constrained by fossil fuels. The true power of fossil fuels are constrained by a lack of free markets. Free markets are only constrained by controlling entities, namely the government. Other than that, free markets take what already exists as a limited amount of resources and makes them more useful, more efficient, and increasing available.

Dude, you can't start a post with "false", then proceed to go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with my statement.

Let me say it differently, fossil Fuels are limited, and free markets can't use more than are currently extracted and refined. Once the amount that can be extracted goes down, the output of free markets will go down with it. Yes, there are efficiency increases, but that doesn't change the fact that once you use the energy, it's gone. No matter which way you slice it, you can only industrialize as far as the resource base allows.

[SelfTaught]

Dude, you can't start a post with "false", then proceed to go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with my statement.

Let me say it differently, fossil Fuels are limited, and free markets can't use more than are currently extracted and refined. Once the amount that can be extracted goes down, the output of free markets will go down with it. Yes, there are efficiency increases, but that doesn't change the fact that once you use the energy, it's gone. No matter which way you slice it, you can only industrialize as far as the resource base allows.

What makes you think fossil fuels are the only source of energy? If fossil fuels were the only source of energy, then you're probably correct.

And for the record, my post had everything to do with your statement.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Dude, you can't start a post with "false", then proceed to go off on a tangent that had nothing to do with my statement.

Let me say it differently, fossil Fuels are limited, and free markets can't use more than are currently extracted and refined. Once the amount that can be extracted goes down, the output of free markets will go down with it. Yes, there are efficiency increases, but that doesn't change the fact that once you use the energy, it's gone. No matter which way you slice it, you can only industrialize as far as the resource base allows.

Yes, because the only resource imaginable are fossil fuels. Allowing the creative spirit of entreprenuers to flourish would not produce any new innovations.

Free-Markets are the sole reason why Fossil Fuels were harnessed in their current capacities. Without Free-Markets there would have been no Industrialization, period.

Once the price of Fossil Fuels rise, accordingly, more capital will be spent in researching new sources of energy. This in turn will lead to a new Industrial Revolution, but by choking off capital and entreprenuers we will descend into a period of stagnation at best, and at worst a swift regression. Having a central planner say, money should go here and we should research this, doesn't work. Have you ever read the I, Pencil story?

If we had Free-Markets we would not be using as much Fossil Fuels as we currently do. Nuclear Energy for instance is the most efficient and cost effective source of energy. We wouldn't have massive armies to siphon off resources, and new innovations would lead to new transportation methods. Why are we still using combustable engine cars and trains nearly 150 years later?

[BenIsForRon]

What makes you think fossil fuels are the only source of energy? If fossil fuels were the only source of energy, then you're probably correct.

I'm don't, I'm just saying the industrial revolution would have been much slower and taken a much different form without them.

See: Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI

At peak flow rates, usually early on in the extraction, oil can give you a ratio of 30:1 EROEI. Coal has a high ratio as well. If we didn't have access to these two things there is no way we could have produced energy at the level we did.

Edit: We probably would have jumped headlong onto the nuclear bandwagon, like France, but they used a fuckton of oil and coal to to power their trade vessels.

[SelfTaught]

As for the OP, yes, a country can be properous without screwing other people. It's called capitalism. Despite what you've heard, capitalism is a positive sum game, where the participants all gain. It is not a zero sum game.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

As for the OP, yes, a country can be properous without screwing other people. It's called capitalism. Despite what you've heard, capitalism is a positive sum game, where the participants all gain. It is not a zero sum game.

Any voluntary action is necessarily beneficial to both parties. This is a priori.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm don't, I'm just saying the industrial revolution would have been much slower and taken a much different form without them.

See: Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI

At peak flow rates, usually early on in the extraction, oil can give you a ratio of 30:1 EROEI. Coal has a high ratio as well. If we didn't have access to these two things there is no way we could have produced energy at the level we did.

Edit: We probably would have jumped headlong onto the nuclear bandwagon, like France, but they used a fuckton of oil and coal to to power their trade vessels.

How do you know?

[BenIsForRon]

Any voluntary action is necessarily beneficial to both parties. This is a priori.

The myth is that the third world countries actions are voluntary. Their dictators actions are voluntary, the workers are just trying to survive.

[BenIsForRon]

How do you know?

EROEI and the laws of thermodynamics.

[SelfTaught]

I'm don't, I'm just saying the industrial revolution would have been much slower and taken a much different form without them.

See: Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI

At peak flow rates, usually early on in the extraction, oil can give you a ratio of 30:1 EROEI. Coal has a high ratio as well. If we didn't have access to these two things there is no way we could have produced energy at the level we did.

Edit: We probably would have jumped headlong onto the nuclear bandwagon, like France, but they used a fuckton of oil and coal to to power their trade vessels.

I understand all that energy jargon and the theory of peak oil, as I have read Matt Savinar's site for years, but I no longer do. I just come to a different conclusion and proposed set of solutions. But it's kinda strange that all the Peak Oilists call for governments to do something or have absolutely no faith in markets.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The myth is that the third world countries actions are voluntary. Their dictators actions are voluntary, the workers are just trying to survive.

Are you saying that the individuals who work at these places in the Third World are being forced to by their Central Authorities? Or, is it that they are voluntarily working in these places as it is a better alternative than not having a job at all?

[BenIsForRon]

all the Peak Oilists call for governments to do something or have absolutely no faith in markets.

Come on dude, all peak oilers? Don't pigeonhole people like that. Many peak oiler's advocate alternate currencies, decentralization, and deregulation much like many of us Ron Pauler's do.

[BenIsForRon]

Are you saying that the individuals who work at these places in the Third World are being forced to by their Central Authorities? Or, is it that they are voluntarily working in these places as it is a better alternative than not having a job at all?

They either had their property stolen or they were born with out it because it was stolen from their ancestors. So yes, they are in essence being forced by those in power.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

EROEI and the laws of thermodynamics.

If there were no fossil fuels anywhere on the planet (Carbon life necessarily dictates fossil fuels fyi), how can you know the length and time of Industrialization? How do you know that since there were no fossil fuel sources that these entreprenuers might have taken longer to find some energy source sufficient to drive Industrialization? You don't. You can't. We can only know the actions of individuals given their circumstances in a defined time stamp (IE, in 1816 at 2 AM, this individual did this. Or, in 1818 this individual found and commercialized X).

[SelfTaught]

The myth is that the third world countries actions are voluntary. Their dictators actions are voluntary, the workers are just trying to survive.

Well, then let you ask you this question. Do you think third world countries would be better off if US corporations simply shut down their factories and came home?

[BenIsForRon]

If there were no fossil fuels anywhere on the planet (Carbon life necessarily dictates fossil fuels fyi), how can you know the length and time of Industrialization? How do you know that since there were no fossil fuel sources that these entreprenuers might have taken longer to find some energy source sufficient to drive Industrialization? You don't. You can't. We can only know the actions of individuals given their circumstances in a defined time stamp (IE, in 1816 at 2 AM, this individual did this. Or, in 1818 this individual found and commercialized X).

I do know the individuals and circumstances, and I can make an educated guess based on research and observation of their behavior.

[BenIsForRon]

Well, then let you ask you this question. Do you think third world countries would be better off if US corporations simply shut down their factories and came home?

In the long run, beyond the current generation? Yes.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I do know the individuals and circumstances, and I can make an educated guess based on research and observation of their behavior.

You are extrapolating circumstances from one real world scenario to a hypothetical world where fossil fuels do not exist. You cannot do that. Individual actors act based on information that is available. This is fact. You cannot then say, they would have acted similarly, or the same, if the circumstances were totally different. You are pulling this shit from your ass plain and simple.

PS: You sound like a positivist. Do you believe that there are indeed universal truths -- A priorism and apodictic truths?

[BenIsForRon]

You are extrapolating circumstances from one real world scenario to a hypothetical world where fossil fuels do not exist. You cannot do that. Individual actors act based on information that is available. This is fact. You cannot then say, they would have acted similarly, or the same, if the circumstances were totally different. You are pulling this shit from your ass plain and simple.

PS: You sound like a positivist. Do you believe that there are indeed universal truths -- A priorism and apodictic truths?

Fossil fuels fueled industrialization because of their availability. There is a reason why we didn't use (and still don't use) other sources. So my "what if" scenario was just demonstrating my point of the free market and its limits within the arena of increasing productivity and/or quality of life.

And I don't follow any specific philosophy, the universe is a mysterious place. But I guess I share many ideas with positivists.

[SelfTaught]

In the long run, beyond the current generation? Yes.

I disagree. Whether these countries are totalitarian or free-market leaning, they benefit from some form of capitalism and capital accumulation. Even when they live in an unfree country they at least have a shot at accumulating capital, even though that capital may be subject to confiscation. That, I think, is better than not having a chance to do so at all.

And I don't think that all or even most of these 3rd world laborers are forced to work in US corporate factories.

[SelfTaught]

You are extrapolating

I was going to say this.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Fossil fuels fueled industrialization because of their availability. There is a reason why we didn't use (and still don't use) other sources. So my "what if" scenario was just demonstrating my point of the free market and its limits within the arena of increasing productivity and/or quality of life.

And I don't follow any specific philosophy, the universe is a mysterious place. But I guess I share many ideas with positivists.

If given the opportunity the Free-Market will harness the atom, which is near infinite energy. So, the limits are not from the Free-Market, or voluntary human action, but from State imposed rules, regulations, favors, Central Planning, etc.

You are also now going off on a tangent. If there were no fossil fuels anywhere on the planet history itself would be totally different, in fact, there would be no humans. So it's quite a dumb hypothetical situation to begin with.

[SelfTaught]

Fossil fuels fueled industrialization because of their availability.

But my point is, fossil fuels have always been available during man's existence. Free markets are what really started industrialization. And if civilization does regress because of diminishing fossil fuels, would we have been better off without industrialization at all?

[BenIsForRon]

I disagree. Whether these countries are totalitarian or free-market leaning, they benefit from some form of capitalism and capital accumulation. Even when they live in an unfree country they at least have a shot at accumulating capital, even though that capital may be subject to confiscation. That, I think, is better than not having a chance to do so at all.

And I don't think that all or even most of these 3rd world laborers are forced to work in US corporate factories.

The Chinese only accept their tyrannical government because they've been seeing a 6% growth in GDP. If it was less, I guarantee you would see revolution a lot sooner. The result of that revolution is up in the air, but it's likely you would see more freedom.

[SelfTaught]

The Chinese only accept their tyrannical government because they've been seeing a 6% growth in GDP. If it was less, I guarantee you would see revolution a lot sooner. The result of that revolution is up in the air, but it's likely you would see more freedom.

Then, I disagree with you again. That 6% of growth led to a higher standard of living for lots of people in China. Now that they've tasted a little bit of prosperity and freedom, they are more likely to have a revolution than if they were always down in the dumps.

[SelfTaught]

Any voluntary action is necessarily beneficial to both parties. This is a priori.

I like how Walter E Williams explains it in this video. Skip to 30:30 and he gives a nice example of this concept.

Walter_Williams_-_The_Role_of_Government_in_a_Free_Society.wmv (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7875134359110829988&ei=Cg50S_CiC5WkqAKBm-nbBw&q=walter+e+wlliams&hl=en&client=firefox-a#)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I like how Walter E Williams explains it in this video. Skip to 30:30 and he gives a nice example of this concept.

Walter_Williams_-_The_Role_of_Government_in_a_Free_Society.wmv (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7875134359110829988&ei=Cg50S_CiC5WkqAKBm-nbBw&q=walter+e+wlliams&hl=en&client=firefox-a#)

Have you watched HH Hoppe Praxeology: The Austrian Method video at MisesMedia on YT? It is a great great lecture. Check it out and let me know what you think, and when I get home from work I'll check this out.

[catdd]

Can a Country be Prosperous Without Screwing It's Own Citizens?

[demolama]

In a country full of geniuses someone still needs to be the janitor

[YumYum]

This reminds me of a situation if the whole world was socialist the people would wonder, is it possible for a free society? They would have known nothing other than socialism. Likewise, in a world of exploitation through not only monetary, but regulatory interventions one wonders, can you have a world without these things?

The answer to both questions is the affirmative.

The first goal is to stop stealing (No taxation). The second is to stop putting restrictions on capital.

I was having a discussion with a friend about a Free Market Society. He asked me, “Do we need some sort of government intervention to protect the Middle Class?” I was wondering if you knew of a link which explains how in a feasible Free Market Society with no government involvement and regulations, you wouldn't have just the extreme rich and the extreme poor, with no middle class? He brought up some good points. Just how would the Middle Class survive in a greedy world controlled by the extreme rich?

[BenIsForRon]

If given the opportunity the Free-Market will harness the atom, which is near infinite energy. So, the limits are not from the Free-Market, or voluntary human action, but from State imposed rules, regulations, favors, Central Planning, etc.

You are also now going off on a tangent. If there were no fossil fuels anywhere on the planet history itself would be totally different, in fact, there would be no humans. So it's quite a dumb hypothetical situation to begin with.

If the energy inside the atom is able to be harnessed, it will take time, which is all I'm saying. The reason I brought all this up is because you were attributing the gains in living standards to the free market, and I'm saying that's not the entire picture, because all we did was harness this energy we've been sitting on for thousands of years.

It's basically like saying "I was starving but now I'm still alive because I picked this apple off of a tree!" Well, yes, you picked the apple, but the apple tree had to be there first.


Then, I disagree with you again. That 6% of growth led to a higher standard of living for lots of people in China. Now that they've tasted a little bit of prosperity and freedom, they are more likely to have a revolution than if they were always down in the dumps.

You may be right about that, who knows. I still have a problem with what their government did and continues to do, and most corporations are taking advantage of the situation, and in my opinion, are undermining the potential of both America and China's people.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If the energy inside the atom is able to be harnessed, it will take time, which is all I'm saying. The reason I brought all this up is because you were attributing the gains in living standards to the free market, and I'm saying that's not the entire picture, because all we did was harness this energy we've been sitting on for thousands of years.

It's basically like saying "I was starving but now I'm still alive because I picked this apple off of a tree!" Well, yes, you picked the apple, but the apple tree had to be there first.



You may be right about that, who knows. I still have a problem with what their government did and continues to do, and most corporations are taking advantage of the situation, and in my opinion, are undermining the potential of both America and China's people.

So are you saying that humanity did not discover oil until the 19th Century? That is the only logical conclusion I can come up with.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I was having a discussion with a friend about a Free Market Society. He asked me, “Do we need some sort of government intervention to protect the Middle Class?” I was wondering if you knew of a link which explains how in a feasible Free Market Society with no government involvement and regulations, you wouldn't have just the extreme rich and the extreme poor, with no middle class? He brought up some good points. Just how would the Middle Class survive in a greedy world controlled by the extreme rich?

I would recommend Market for Liberty by the Tannehills.

http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

I must confess I do not understand the rationality behind this statement:

"Do we need some sort of government intervention to protect the Middle Class?”

Protect them from what? Voluntary human action? If you are talking about rights violations, then yes there needs to be organizations for law. There are whole books about this, and about the production of security.

In the Free-Market fear trumps greed. What we have now is greed without fear, and that is a dangerous concoction. In a Free-Market the once rich man can become poor very quickly, likewise the poor man can become a rich man very quickly. When you have no road blocks to capital accumulation and use, and to competition, you will achieve a much more prosperous society for all. Likewise, the poor in America are rich compared to Africa. Sure, you may be relatively poor compared to the rich man, but if you only have to work 25 hours and obtain a better standard of living compared to the 40 hour work week today, is that not a betterment?

Labor is like any other good. A scarce commodity and resource. In a world where the laborer can become the entreprenuer and businessman without impediment, and only limited by the savings (capital accumulation) and loan requirements (remember the bank wants to make a profit from their loans), the playing field is leveled. The rich men do not like this, for they can become poor and have to react to competition. In a society that has a State the ultimate consequence is that the rich man will see a better investment of his money in the politician which holds a monopoly, thereby creating nothing, but destroying the unseen. In a society where there are no legal monopolies, this will not happen, and we will not run into the problems faced by such Moral Hazards.

Many people posit that a Free-Market society will be more egalitarian than any other we have seen. There is some truth to this, but it is nothing more than a by-product of voluntary human action and preference.

[YumYum]

AED, thanks for the link. It's 174 pages, and I will read it, but while I have your attention could you answer me this. Let's say that a multi-billioniare moves to my County, which is relatively poor, and decides he wants to have absolute control and power. He buys up businesses for a low cost, and for those who don't sell he sets up competing business, undercuts their prices at an initial loss to himself, putting all the businesses out of business. Once he owns all the businesses he can up the prices for goods and services, and keep competition from returning. It's like playing poker. The guy with the most money will eventually win. How can you keep a governmentless society from being controlled by rich, evil people who would expliot their fellow man? Remember, the extreme rich can hire an army if they want to, just like drug lords do.

[BenIsForRon]

So are you saying that humanity did not discover oil until the 19th Century? That is the only logical conclusion I can come up with.

The logical conclusion is that it is the combination of free market economics with cheap, abundant energy that gave us this lifestyle. Which means that nature provides, and the free market opens it up for exploitation by the masses.

A farmer can still prosper in a free market without oil, but he can't industrialize in a century without it.

BOOM!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

AED, thanks for the link. It's 174 pages, and I will read it, but while I have your attention could you answer me this. Let's say that a multi-billioniare moves to my County, which is relatively poor, and decides he wants to have absolute control and power. He buys up businesses for a low cost, and for those who don't sell he sets up competing business, undercuts their prices at an initial loss to himself, putting all the businesses out of business. Once he owns all the businesses he can up the prices for goods and services, and keep competition from returning. It's like playing poker. The guy with the most money will eventually win. How can you keep a governmentless society from being controlled by rich, evil people who would expliot their fellow man? Remember, the extreme rich can hire an army if they want to, just like drug lords do.

You are making some very broad assumptions. For one, you are assuming every business in that county is locally owned and operated, and no other larger entity resides within. You are also assuming that the inhabitants living there are forceably retained there and aren't allowed to move. You also make a logical fallacy in which, if a Company raises there prices to exorbitant levels after becoming the single supplier of an area, that no other outside business would enter that market. Indeed, the opposite happens, and it is why price ranges are set by the market. The market is a self-regulator. If another company sees that company making a large profit, they will want a share. Since there is no barriers to competition, the competing business moves in and competes thereby driving prices lower.

The businessman knows this will happen because he has no legal monopoly. Therefore, he will not act in this way. Indeed, this has never happened in the history of Free-Markets (the sectors which experienced the most free markets for instance). Indeed also, by selling more goods at a lower price he will reap more profit from Economies of Scale than if he instead raised prices which caused him to lose sells. Remember people have marginal utility, and preference.

The guy with the most money can lose it the next day by making bad business decisions and a failure to correctly interpret future preference. Moreover, the guy with less money can become the guy with the most money by correctly making future market predictions. In a society which has a Free-Market interest rate, where individuals save and spend and loan out allows easy entry to competition.

The cumulative wealth of the society writ large is more than a single entity. There will be security companies, and militia. A business can not adequately hire an army to subdue any sizable population because #1 the population will not view that action as legitimate, and two the population will not obey therefore he will have no revenue and will be hemorraging his wealth for no gain. Since the business owner does not have the authority to steal (Read: Tax), he will lose money, and thereby lose everything he has. The businessman understands this, and therefore would not attempt this action. Secondly, it would be in the interest of the security firm to protect its customers. So now not only has the businessman alienated his customers by attacking them, he has now himself become a target by the security firms employed by society. This is suicide and no individual would attempt it. Wars are waged by theft viewed as legitimate (taxation) and subjugation. Without the requisite barriers to entry for war, war is financially infeasible. Sure, you may have local conflict, but nothing widespread, and nothing so destructive as modern conflicts.