The Thread For Greg's Stashes

[Deranged Rhino]

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Hmm, guess I don't qualify. I'm for fair trade, not free trade.

[TakeYouToTasker]

8 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Hmm, guess I don't qualify. I'm for fair trade, not free trade.

 

Free trade is only possible when your trading partners engage in it as well.  When both parties are engaging in free trade, that's the most fair trade their is.

 

If one party is not, however, then "fair trade" is best.

[Koko78]

28 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Free trade is only possible when your trading partners engage in it as well.  When both parties are engaging in free trade, that's the most fair trade their is.

 

If one party is not, however, then "fair trade" is best.

 

Fair trade works about as well as pure communism and pure capitalism.

 

Unfortunately, in the real world, people (and countries) are selfish greedy asshats who will use anything they can to get ahead.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

Fair trade works about as well as pure communism and pure capitalism.

 

Unfortunately, in the real world, people (and countries) are selfish greedy asshats who will use anything they can to get ahead.

 

You don't believe laissez-faire is workable?  I'd accept an argument that it hasn't been tried because the power elite would have to sacrifice their caste advantages to enact it, but not that it isn't workable.  Human freedom is very workable.

 

I think you lost me on "fair trade working as well as communism".  Was there a typo there?

[Azalin]

23 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

[Koko78]

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

You don't believe laissez-faire is workable?

 

I do not. Laissez-faire type polices resulted (at least in part) in the robber barons of the 19th century. Ultimately little-to-no regulation results in monopolies, because individuals are more interested in enriching themselves by capturing the market than in accepting competition. Monopolies are the antithesis of a free market.

 

12 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I think you lost me on "fair trade working as well as communism".  Was there a typo there?

 

Pure Capitalism, pure Communism, and, I would argue, free trade all suffer from the same fundamental flaw. They work well in theory, but not in practice. They don't account for bad actors. With pure capitalism, as I mentioned above, you run into the problem of captured markets and robber barons. With pure communism (and derivatives like socialism, to a certain extent), you run into a gigantic free rider problem. With free trade, you run into conflicts with national self-interest (including non-tariff barriers, dumping, race-to-the-bottom, currency manipulation, labor/wage manipulation, resource manipulation, etc.)

 

People, businesses, and nations are ultimately self-interested jackwagons. They care about themselves, not promoting a philosophy that benefits all.

 

Ultimately, controls need to be put in place, but balanced in such a way to promote growth and competition, without being unnecessarily intrusive. One thing that I like about the GATT/WTO scheme is that there are dispute resolution mechanisms in place, with punitive powers, to try to weed out nations engaging in bad acts.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

 

It wasn't me.  Those punctual ***** wouldn't open the door.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

27 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

I do not. Laissez-faire type polices resulted (at least in part) in the robber barons of the 19th century. Ultimately little-to-no regulation results in monopolies, because individuals are more interested in enriching themselves by capturing the market than in accepting competition. Monopolies are the antithesis of a free market.

 

 

Pure Capitalism, pure Communism, and, I would argue, free trade all suffer from the same fundamental flaw. They work well in theory, but not in practice. They don't account for bad actors. With pure capitalism, as I mentioned above, you run into the problem of captured markets and robber barons. With pure communism (and derivatives like socialism, to a certain extent), you run into a gigantic free rider problem. With free trade, you run into conflicts with national self-interest (including non-tariff barriers, dumping, race-to-the-bottom, currency manipulation, labor/wage manipulation, resource manipulation, etc.)

 

People, businesses, and nations are ultimately self-interested jackwagons. They care about themselves, not promoting a philosophy that benefits all.

 

Ultimately, controls need to be put in place, but balanced in such a way to promote growth and competition, without being unnecessarily intrusive. One thing that I like about the GATT/WTO scheme is that there are dispute resolution mechanisms in place, with punitive powers, to try to weed out nations engaging in bad acts.

 

Monopolies are created through the state action of legal preference, or capital barriers imposed by regulation, not through free markets.  Those you refer to as "robber barons" were largely political entrepreneurs who garnered market share by enticing government to subsidize their specific business within their industry, or their specific industry within the larger economy; or, conversely, to pass legislation which directly or indirectly harmed competing interests.

 

So, again, laissez-faire has never actually been tried because the money and power elite have too much to lose.

 

As for communism being a "good idea" in theory?  I reject that notion soundly, as communism is the political rejection of human freedom, which makes it immoral; and is unworkable because data cannot be compiled and analyzed quickly enough to provide any substitute to market mechanisms responding to need. 

Edited October 26, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

Starts 1:30 in. But here's trumps speech today in full from the young black leadership seminar. 

 

 

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Monopolies are created through the state action of legal preference, or capital barriers imposed by regulation, not through free markets.  Those you refer to as "robber barons" were largely political entrepreneurs who garnered market share by enticing government to subsidize their specific business within their industry, or their specific industry within the larger economy; or, conversely, to pass legislation which directly or indirectly harmed competing interests.

 

So, again, laissez-faire has never actually been tried because the money and power elite have too much to lose.

 

As for communism being a "good idea" in theory?  I reject that notion soundly, as communism is the political rejection of human freedom, which makes it immoral; and is unworkable because data cannot be compiled and analyzed quickly enough to provide any substitute to market mechanisms responding to need. 

 

Back up the trolley, buddy. I never said Communism was a "good idea" in theory or otherwise. I said it would "work well" in theory.

 

Not the same thing.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

Back up the trolley, buddy. I never said Communism was a "good idea" in theory or otherwise. I said it would "work well" in theory.

 

Not the same thing.

 

But on a serious note, that's fair.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[DC Tom]

29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

Bunch of ***** elephant *****...

[Kevbeau]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

Bunch of ***** elephant *****...

Starship or Petty? Stuck on an island and one is your eternal background music.

[/dev/null]

10 hours ago, Kevbeau said:

Starship or Petty? Stuck on an island and one is your eternal background music.

 

tom would probably wade into the lagoon never to return

[B-Man]

 

 

 

.

[Buffalo_Gal]

29 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

.

 

I know the feeling kid

[B-Man]