Sunday, December 18, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The very verbiage of the question (by intent) sets up a mutually exclusive response: either the one asked must agree that the State must be allowed to come in and save the infirmed, or the infirmed will suffer and die. This dichotomy is false, and used as it is, a shameful ploy; by saying that we are not for the State to use legal force against one to help another by no means that we are for the infirmed one’s suffering.
If any one of us sees someone sick, or potentially dying on our front yard, we have one of three responses to make: 1) ignore them, which is total irresponsibility (responsibility here as taking direct action with a specific focus) on, and won’t deal with the issue; 2) kick them off the property, which is responsibility on the expulsion, but just pushes the issue away; 3) assist them to the extent one thinks and feels is right, which is the beginning of taking care of, taking some responsibility and alleviating the issue.
Which option is it when the State is to take care of the infirmed? It is, in actuality, option 1. It is ignoring self-responsibility when confronted with an issue, wanting to have the State come in and take over. This doesn’t take care of the issue, while it doesn’t force the issue away; it just enables one to look away with a clear conscience. A system will be created that someone, somewhere will take care of the infirmed, somehow.
Notice, the first action is diverting responsibility. It is an embracing of a ‘We’ve thrown money at it, and that’s enough’ mentality. If one was actually interested in the health and well-being of the infirmed, they wouldn’t just pass on the responsibility, but make sure the care received was timely, appropriate and economical: timely, to address urgency; appropriate to deal with the actual infirmity; economical for time and money are limited, so those resources could be maximized. A couple key points (among numerous other points) to focus on with universal coverage, or any other form of State-covered/assisted care: 1) it doesn’t increase the suppliers of health care, but does increase the number of people going to those suppliers; 2) with the coverage/assistance, it will prompt the larger pool to use it more often. Flooding demand, and not increasing supply will not make care more timely, appropriate or economical. Or, in other words it will be health care ‘tragedy of the commons.’
With the dichotomous manner the [State-covered or infirmed die] question asked, the best option is ignored: individuals taking the initiative to help: charity. This is in both areas of individual acts at the moment (helping someone who fell get back to their feet), and in organizations others may come to (individuals volunteering and forming groups): offering a hand directly, or pooling resources to create a charitable organization/medical service. Its psychological fact, the less direct responsibility one has to something, the less one feels vested into that something; this is in both closeness (proximity) to that thing, as well as when one is blended in a crowd (anonymity) – someone, somewhere, somehow. Privately, and voluntarily, there is a direct investment in whatever charitable offerings that may be made. Instead of the throwing money at a problem attitude, there will be actual oversight to make sure care is timely, appropriate and economical.
The aforementioned is on a pragmatic consideration; there are also moral issues to consider. Some will state the moral issue is about leaving the infirmed alone to suffer; that is following their lead in their false dichotomy. There are other moral issues to consider. Like most other aspects in politics, the goal may not actually reflect one’s values and moral positions as much as their plans of implementing those goals. It isn’t just about wanting to help the infirmed, but how to help them. How does the State assist the infirmed?—through laws. Laws mean that through the legal use of force, those who managed to create and earn wealth will have it taken from them. That wealth will then be put into a system where there is a high degree of indirect responsibility and little oversight. The end is to give the wealth to those who need help and aren’t able to afford things themselves; through force, wealth to pay for services is taken from those who have and given haphazardly to those who have not. Where is the morality in the use of force to take wealth?—the use of force to throw money at a problem?—the use of force to acknowledge someone needs help, and to put them into a system that is flooded, meaning they cannot get timely, appropriate or economical care? There is no morality in any of it, and illness does not justify theft or enslavement.
The proper way of answering the question is to turn it around. When I state by turning it around, I mean by instead of allowing the asker to lead us into their false dichotomy, to ask them what would they do, for they see the infirmed in order to direct us to allow the State to take our means of sustaining ourselves in order to help that infirmed one. “What will YOU do?-you who also sees someone who needs help.” And, continue “I advance private, voluntary help, not the threat of force that doesn’t directly assist, but indirectly helps through the direct threat of force. Don’t just state someone (else) or something (State) will step and take responsibility for you. What will YOU do?”
The free market and free people help others in ways that are more timely, appropriate and economical. The State is a way to humor oneself that something is being done to benefit the infirmed, while what is mostly being done is the easing of one’s conscience. If the goal is helping those who need it, the way to do help is by private, voluntary actions, with local implementation. It isn’t legal or moral for anyone to take a gun and rob another to take their wealth to pay for any bills; it isn’t something that can be made moral through numbers voting on it. Get the State out of the way, and stop it siphoning the limited resources and much more can be done, and done morally.
Morality first; pragmatism second.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
What is the right to life? Simply, the right to life is not to be murdered. This is different from being killed, for killed may include accident, sickness and age and there is no such right or possibility to protect one from each of those situations; only certain types of accidents may be criminal. Murder brings with it, its own context through a willful, intentional and unlawful killing of another.
What is the right to liberty? Simply, the right to not have undue restrictions placed upon one.
What is the pursuit of happiness? Simply, in following one’s right to life, and with the liberty to act, one chooses the path that is seen best in life to each individual. There may be nature and nurture influences, and those may be embraced or rebelled against, but the emphasis is the choice in/on that pursuit.
Who has rights?-a collective of any size (family, community, corporation, State) or the individual? The options here are mutually exclusive, for if the individual has rights then the collective may not impose upon or sacrifice the individual; if the collective has rights over the individual, then regardless of individual desires, they may be positioned or used for collective ends.
Regardless of the type of collective, and regardless of any size of a collective, it is nothing more than a collection of individuals. Individuals who have something categorizing them together, regardless whether it is meaningful or superficial, inherited or willfully joined in to, make up a collective: e.g. blondes, family a religious/political group.
Any grouping by its increased number doesn’t gain extra rights. Just because one may be in a larger group doesn’t negate the rights of the smallest group, or most importantly the individual. If 99% decide they don’t like the 1%, they don’t have any more authority, with their numbers, to murder, enslave or steal from the 1%.
So the individual has rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the individual has the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, what does the State, or collective have to give the individual?
We must first make one more distinction, and that is between collectives, for not all collectives are equal. There are two types of collectives: the State, that has the force of law behind it: all others that do not have the force of law behind them. This is the difference between someone (or group) legally being able to force another to obey or punish according to any law that they may enact, contrasted with any group where though in a collective, the punishments (outside of voluntarily entered into legal contracts) are not punishable by law. One may leave the dictates of a private collective while one cannot walk away from the dictates of the State.
Returning to the question of what the collective is to give the individual; the aforementioned difference must be examined. Is it up to the collective to assist the individual with their respective rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? As private collectives are willfully joined, they may assist their members, but the State as a public collective cannot assist people with those rights. The State is to protect through enforcing the laws the individual pursing their rights, but not to assist them in achieving those rights. If the State did assist one in pursuing rights, what would it look like and why would it be wrong for the State to act as such?
A couple examples are needed to show why the State collective is not to assist. The first amendment right to free speech is a specified form of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as speech is an extension of thought, speaking one’s mind is an act of liberty and pursuant to one’s goals. Each individual has the right to speak. What is it to assist an individual with their right to speak? A private collective, being willfully belonging to, may through those voluntary actions as a whole assist anyone. FOX, CBS, Discovery, OWN or any other television channel may offer someone an audience through giving time, or selling time on their broadcast. The State is funded by taxes, which are taken by force, and it doesn’t own these networks. To assist people in speaking, to say as broadcasting their speech, the State could only force those who can broadcast to give access to their networks. That violates the rights of those broadcasters on who they choose to allow to assist in broadcasting their speech.
On a more general level, there is no way to assist in the right to life. There are ways of assisting various facets to preserve one’s life, such as with food, housing and healthcare. Private collectives may offer one assistance in these various facets, which are implemented voluntarily. The State giving any of these is by force. The State doesn’t grow food, build a house or offer any health services outside of what it has taken away by force from someone else.
In order to ‘give’ away anything, the State must first violate the rights of another. This isn’t equivalent to where each member of society contributes to that which enables the State to work in areas that it should be active in: e.g. military, judicial system. The giving away of goods is through the act of legal plunder, the taking away from those who made wealth, in order to give it to another; the one who produced the wealth receives no benefit from having the wealth taken.
There is no such thing as free wealth; it may be free to the receiver, but that is because someone else already paid the cost. Whether it is food, health care or some other thing that was produced, it was done by one who vested their own wealth (financial and labor) into the production of that good. As they live their life, through their liberty to act as they pursue their happiness, they create. As they created, it is up to them how to sell, or give away their creation. Private collectives, being voluntary may receive donations or discounts (or not) that may be offered to their individual members. The State doesn’t ask; it mandates. The State through legal force takes the wealth, depriving the liberty and pursuit of happiness of the producer.
Some will state: what about the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of those who receive the ‘free’ goods? We must see the common link in those rights: they are from the individual to act on their own in society; they are not guarantees that are to be given, that is first stolen from another to be given to a second. There is no right to violate the rights of another. No one comes into existence holding a claim as a master over another’s life; the State cannot offer someone a whip in order to take something from another.
This is the land of opportunity. The land of opportunity is of the individual to pursue his own life, liberty and happiness. This includes those who work to create a better good, or help those who are not able to help themselves through voluntary interactions. The land of opportunity is that where the individual may make a life as big as he can with what he can create, but not by forcing another to be the tool to assist him. There are other restrictions in life and they are inevitable; one may not be as strong, smart, be born in the wrong area, among various other factors that may hinder attaining one’s goal. But, these hindrances have a possibility to be overcome; the State’s hindrances are legal restrictions upon the individual who may be fined or imprisoned for violations. Not everyone will succeed, or can succeed. The opportunity is not freedom from the restrictions life and nature create, but from undue restrictions man may create. The land of opportunity is where anyone may have the chance, that is the opportunity, to try.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
When one is speaking off-the-cuff, their values come to the fore as they advance those values without a conscious filter. However, there are two sides to the value ‘coin’ as there is the side that one sees – the explicitly declared values – and there are the implied values that show one’s base value system that the conscious and explicit values are based upon. To say that any given thing is ‘good,’ that good is based upon something.
Most politicians speak of goods, but leave them undefined: what exactly ‘affordable housing, health care’ or what is ‘fair’? Those ideas are the seen side of the coin; the manners by which those goals are to be achieved constitute the hidden side of the coin. What methods are to be implemented to achieve the undefined affordable whatever, or fairness?
Obama’s faith can be seen in two key exchanges, both widely televised, but not much connected. The two exchanges involve when he was campaigning and he spoke with Samuel ‘Joe the Plumber’ Wurzelbacher, and in a debate moderated in part by Charlie Gibson.
With Joe the Plumber, after Obama talks [rambles] about justifying progressive taxes, he then makes the (in)famous ‘spread the wealth around’ comment. That comment was important, but more relevant and showing was in the democratic debate when he was asked about the capital gains tax (when rates decreased, revenues increased; when rates increased, revenue decreased), Obama’s response was that “I’d look at raising the capital gains tax, for purposes of fairness…” Two separate comments about the goal of fairness; two separate comments implying his real value of fairness was redistribution through force – by legal plunder.
Fairness is never defined, it is just left floating around so that any politician may come along and try and blow it in the direction they desire for the time. But the hidden values of legal plunder comes through. Even with the premises that revenue goes down when the taxes were raised, and revenue rose when taxes were decreased, Obama still wanted to increase taxes for fairness, that is plunder the wealth from some to give to the others, and that is to punish the more successful for their success.
This is Obama’s faith. It has nothing to do with religion, outside of the religion of the State to rule as a god, with the arrogance and false belief that they can command the laws of nature and economics. There may be some religious base to how he forms his ideas, but in action Obama’s faith calls for the sacrifice of value of the wealthy (notice how wealthy isn’t clearly defined so it can be changed), to be given to others. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t even financially pragmatic, for he didn’t contest the premises of the negative relation of taxes and revenue; for the purposes of his faith, value must be plundered from those who worked for it, and handed out to those who didn’t work for it. This doesn’t mean that people don’t work, for many do. But hard work isn’t enough. Obama’s faith doesn’t care about that, though. It calls for others to sacrifice their value.
Friday, October 28, 2011
When the need has been met, the flag will lower because it will no longer be such a hotspot; resources will be relocated to another area. This is the way it should work. With the flag being the marker showing a hotspot where resources are needed, if the flag isn’t allowed to be raised or lowered accordingly, whatever prevents the flag’s movement will make it so the resources aren’t diverted properly. What are the ways that it will not work?
Preventing prices to rise: though the flagpole allows the flag to be raised higher, a bracket has been placed somewhere blocking the flag being raised. Though there is more need, without the flag being raised those in the marketplace do not see the demand, or do not see it as needed enough to relocate their resources to assist that spot.
Picture Steve Jobs being told he cannot sell the iPhone for more than $50. He might still produce it with a long-term agreement that whoever bought one had to pay a monthly service fee to offset the cost of production. Now picture a cap being set on that monthly service so the cost of production cannot be recouped. Apple wouldn’t be producing the iPhone; others in the field wouldn’t be putting their resources into producing like models. Or, for hurricane-ravaged areas, if there was a limit placed on canned goods, then those goods would quickly consumed. Without seeing the demand needed with the raised flag, others who also sell the canned goods won’t see the flag and won’t relocate their resources to assist the area.
Preventing prices from falling: though the flag needs to be lowered so resources can go to other areas, there is a bracket blocking the lowering of the flag so the resources keep coming. Other areas need the backing, but they are not getting the resources while the original area doesn’t need or want it, and even needs to purge the excess; resources flood the area as the flag is not being lowered. More and more resources will pile up, saturate the base and inevitably will overtake the flagpole leading to it collapse under the pressure of the piled-up resources – the prices, following the flag, will be down on the ground – a crash, or bust.
Recently, this can be seen in the housing market. This is tied to something good: home ownership. But just because something is linked to something good, doesn’t mean that all parts of it are good for everyone, especially at any time. Sellers want to make the most they can from their product, but the market will state that any given thing is only worth so much. When the flag is kept higher than the marketplace says it should be is by giving the product an artificially high value and paying for the difference through infusing a value difference. Not everyone needs to buy a home. For those who do want a home, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is the right time for them; they may not be able to make monthly payments. But with making home ownership easier with guarantees or assistance, the flag isn’t lowered to where it should be to allow the marketplace to find the true value. Non-market infusions mean that along with an artificially high price to be paid, there will be a debt created that will also siphon value, helping that flagpole, when it does fall, fall that much quicker.
Picture a city with an average house cost of $100k. At first, the prices will reflect the proper market value. With so many people being able to purchase a home with assistance (non-market value credit) – not having to take on the normal market purchasing process, the home ownership rate will rise. The housing market will become saturated because the purchases will continue because all of those who couldn’t normally afford a house, buy one. With all the purchasing of houses, the price will rise, and continue to rise as long as the demand is being met; the price may increase to $120k. Multiple factors will force the decline in the housing market, among them are the limitations that any given area can support at any given time, those who normally wouldn’t have been able to afford their house have the reality that they can’t afford the house and foreclose, and like any trend even in optimal circumstances, it will slow on its own. It will come to a point when the prices need to fall because the area has been otherwise saturated. Those who bought, or got a loan for a house in this city during the boom may have paid $120k, though when the market settled and corrected itself, the value of that purchase is only worth $80k. Those who didn’t buy, but already owned their house also lost some value.
Nothing in the marketplace is static. There will always be some degree of fluctuation. With the market being left to correct itself, the fluctuations will be smaller and more quickly corrected. If the market isn’t allowed to correct itself (of which it cannot actually be stopped, just delayed), the market will build and bring forth a collapse forcing the correction.
There is only one who can actually ‘force’ the brackets into place, and that is the government. The government is the non-market factor that sabotages the marketplace, through guaranteed loans, subsidies, licensing fees and regulations. All these things are enacted with the goal of helping people, under the guise of equality, but a scorched-earth policy’s form equality is in the shared destruction. Any individual in the system who tried the same manipulation would be pointed out and lose their market share as the marketplace would correct itself from such acts – sometimes the correction is quick, sometimes slow. But the marketplace would correct itself, and expunge such manipulators who would be unable to have their affect any longer. There isn’t getting away from the government.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
Parable of the Protection Room
A couple of parents wanted to shield
their child, from birth, from all the dangers
that may befall him. In order to
ensure full protection, they built a special
room. They went about and padded the
floor, the walls and all objects within the
room. Toys were all safe. Any friends who
were allowed to visit had to play, and
overall behave in certain ways approved
by the parents. The room was the only
world the child knew as it grew; the par-
ents treated the child the same as he developed,
and they educated.
Eventually, the child became old
enough to want to venture out, and the
parents realizing they had taught the
youth what they thought was appropriate,
let him go out into the world.
However, once the youth stepped outside
of the room, he was quickly overwhelmed;
the sun was so bright - he never
seen it before; there was so much variety
in sound, he was deafened by all the noise
and couldn’t concentrate. Perplexed, he
sought some help; a couple helped him,
but another robbed him. Lost and confused,
he eventually succumbed to sickness
for his body was weak from not
developing, matching his ignorance that
brought him to harm.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The boom and the bust of the market is like the ebb and flow of a stream.
Look at the flow of a stream as consumer demand. It is a constant in some degree, larger at some times, lesser at others; if it dries up, then all around it dies from no water. The mountains and valleys that form the tributaries, that are innovations, which contribute to the flow of the stream and are brought into consumer demand. These innovations, like the flow of water from the mountains out to the sea have their own birth, life and death as they form on their way to the stream, flow with the stream until the stream expels it out to the sea; e.g. the Model T being built, mass produced, and then phased out - replaced. There is one more part to consider, and that is the dam – the marketplace. The marketplace is where consumer demand builds, the various innovations are available for various consumers; it pools the innovations, yet also provides an outlet to expel that which is no longer desired in the market, such as the Model T being ousted from the marketplace when newer, better autos became available.
The marketplace, in conjunction with consumer demand and innovation regulates itself. When a new innovation is available, such as Ford replacing horse buggies, others seek to participate in the demand, and General Motors among other auto manufacturers add their own in their tributary to the stream of consumer demand. The level in the dam rises. Eventually, the dam rises too much, there is too much input and the release is increased flushing out the excess. The beginning is when prices are high with lesser supply but higher demand; the middle is where more supply is offered by those seeking to profit off the demand; the end is when there is more supply than demand and prices are at their lowest. There is no boom, no bust, just small fluctuations.
It’s an efficient system, and takes care of itself with its cycles, its ebbs and flows. However, there are ways of messing up the system, and the biggest way is through governmental influence introducing artifice into the marketplace; it is by an outside influence altering the cycles, and that only can bring problems for the marketplace and all those who are in it.
For example, the government may influence it in two main ways: trying to stimulate production, more of what comes from the tributaries; controlling the consumption, that is regulating the release of the dam.
Through stimulating production, the State is giving that which isn’t otherwise marketable a false place in the market, siphoning water from one route that produces more and routing it to a dead zone, such as re-routing a creek from an area of lush vegetation so that parched earth may get wet; the lush vegetation suffers, while the parched earth gets wet, and may eventually produce something, but not as much if the water went to grow that which was already growing. An example here is how much was lost across the planet for ‘green’ jobs. They may be marketable at some point, but now they’re not: see Solyndra.
Through controlling consumption, the State is blocking the release of the dam and not letting the prices change to how the stream dictates. This release control is done in two ways: stopping the release, or forcing the release to be too much. Keeping the release open beyond what the marketplace desires keeps the price too high, and as its too high to stay in the marketplace, it quickly goes out and the marketplace doesn’t built; consumers don’t consume as much and this can be seen in minimum wage laws, licensing fees and other regulations that increase the cost of business but do not actually contribute to the process of business.
This brings us to the most damaging part, and that is when the release of the dam has been jammed shut, and the marketplace just builds. This is the bubble that will burst. Without a release, the marketplace gets flooded with goods with higher prices than what the market says it should be. It wants to expel the excess, but it can’t because the State blocked the release. So, more builds in the marketplace, and it continues to build; the housing market is an example of this. The demand for houses was high, and the prices were rising so more got into the housing market. The more that enters the market, the more the prices should go down; the release should be triggered. However, with the blocking of the State, the marketplace couldn’t get rid of the excess so it only grew. Things can only grow for so long; if the dam doesn’t break altogether, it will overflow. That is the burst bubble. The market is correcting itself and trying to get the prices to where they should be. With the artificially high prices being what was invested in, those are the prices people agreed to, but after the correction began, and the real market value comes to the fore is when people lose their equity.
Those are the only things the state can do in the marketplace. Stimulate that which the market says isn’t ready to be marketed in one of three ways, or worse and compounding, blending the three. If the marketplace was left alone, the basic fluctuations of supply and demand would take care of it self; with the interference of the State, bubbles are created and great amounts of wealth are lost.
Let’s keep the government in its proper place: protecting individual rights. When it tries to get into the field of business outside of rights violations, it will only hamper the market.
Friday, October 7, 2011
They’re not the worst things in the world, but career politicians are a definite negative factor in society. What is a career?—a career is chosen path, profession or occupation. Being in a profession, one wants to be productive; what is it to be productive politician?-worse, what is it to be a productive legislator?
There are some areas of governmental work where one can make a career: military or law enforcement: police and judges. However, where governmental careers create problems are when they are in the executive or legislative branches. There will likely always some members of society that may decide rights violations are appropriate, so there will always be a need for police. Even moral people may come to disagreements on terms, so aside from criminal prosecution, judges are needed. To deal with criminal acts and civil disagreements, it can be daily work.
What do legislators do? What more do legislators need to add? Legislative laws are to reflect moral laws in application in society, i.e. not allowing, and prosecuting violations of individual rights. If that law protecting individual rights is set, what more can a legislator add? When the principle has been set, only the superfluous may be added. If someone murdered another, then they should be punished (after being judged guilty) for the act of murder; the principle of the right to life was violated, and that violation is to be punished. Adding the superfluous to that principle, e.g. a ‘hate’ crime to justify a more severe sentence, or for a lesser sentence, maybe someone was ‘mentally impaired.’
With legislators getting into the situation, the principle is no longer enough. Context may have been given consideration in the process of a trial, where the jury of peers may weigh the validity of said context, but with legislators preempting the judicial system, what emerges a formula created by someone outside of the prosecution of the trial. It is also a justification of the legislator being able to legislate, giving the image that they should continue to legislate in society, and in more areas in society.
What happens when the legislator legislates in other areas?—further intrusion into the lives of those in society, denying them to take their own context into consideration, and be told what is acceptable by the distant legislator. A couple of examples include the minimum wage and rent control. If someone is short on money and needs some earn some supplemental income, but the potential employer that has work that is only worth a wage that is not as much the minimum wage, then his work remains incomplete and the one short on funds, remains short on those funds. With a ceiling on what can be charged on renting a room, then more can afford it, but there are consequences with that as well and not just the goal of more people getting a room like the legislator wanted. With the prices being held artificially down, then more can afford to rent, and rent on their own where they might have roomed with another, and more do not have a room at all. With the limit on what can be earned, there won’t be the incentive to offer more rooms, so the supply will not increase, but the demand will have increased. With an increased demand, but same supply, concern of quality and upkeep will be less for it isn’t worth the same investment, and if someone doesn’t like it there will be another in line who will accept the lesser quality, cheaper room.
Legislators keep themselves busy; No Child Left Behind, Obamacare, drunk driving laws, subsidies, the HUD, and each of these programs/laws have consequences far beyond the hyped goal pontificated by the legislator.
But, people see the busy law-makers and applaud ‘look at how productive they are.’ They have been productive, and cumulative; that which previous law-makers create remain as laws until a following law-maker works specifically to overturn the earlier laws. The federal tax code has close to 80,000 pages – how all those legislators have kept busy. Each code is a restriction, barrier or at the very least, a ‘hoop to jump through’ in order for ‘free’ people to associate with each other in business and employment.
Politicians were not to exist in that sphere for a career – they were to be living their lives and coming to serve the public, to return to their lives. But with the push for production, a great trait for the private sector, legislators’ production comes with new laws/codes/regulations that have with them the threat of a gun behind them. A body will die from a thousand cuts; a State will die from a thousand laws.
We need less productive legislators. We need less productive government, for a 'productive' government is one that is busy governing in our lives, meaning leaving our lives less free.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Consider if you will, Mexico, having a problem with someone in the US (Sheriff Joe Arpio, notorious on immigration, for example), and to deal with their problem, the Mexican military began shooting rockets into Arizona, killing some US citizens while destroying US private property and infrastructure. On top of that, as the Mexican military continued to step up their attacks on trying to get Arpio, began building bases, enforcing their legal systems in suburbs of Phoenix. This would be a foreign country initiating attacks upon US soil, targeting a US citizen while taking over US land. Who’d be pissed at Mexico?
Now, let’s add to the aforementioned, with the Mexican military’s desire to get Arpio’s network of like-minded sheriffs, began expanding their range of attacks and the number of bases, including taking over Mt. Rushmore, the Alamo, and the Washington and Lincoln monuments. Think more would be pissed at Mexico?
Switch it around, and that would be the US in various areas in the world. Some areas welcome our presence, but some do not: a foreign power coming into and taking over one’s country (therefore their sovereignty), causing the loss of life and property.
We in the US have our first amendment, so how would we like a theocracy imposed whether it was by some Iranian mullahs who used force to impose Sharia law, or some Roman priests to impose laws based from the Old Testament? While trying to dismantle constitutional protection and Sharia was being preached from the Washington monument, or Old Testament rules were being preached from Mt. Rushmore and that from these foreign sources called for ‘moving beyond’ the existing cultural belief structures, again who’d be pissed?
Regardless of an objective value of a culture, using force to impose change increases fundamentalist resistance as that is the culture’s assertion of its tradition, led by the most ardent of its adherents. Someone is going to be pissed, try and garner support and raise that support against the perceived threat based on how the cultural values are perceived.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Regulations are the requirements to do business, and there are always regulations. The question is: who creates the regulations?—the market or the State.
Market-created regulations, first and foremost, are voluntary. Not only are market-created regulations voluntary, but they are also amorphous. Being voluntary and amorphous, individuals (those involved in a transaction) may interact as they see fit. This applies to businesses as large multinational corporations, to kids selling lemonade on a front yard, and their customers; if you don't like how the product is processed, thinking it is unsanitary, such as using not cleanly processed lettuce in hundreds of restaurants, or a dirty lemonade pitcher, any individual may decide to not purchase the product. However, if those concerns are addressed (and quickly addressed from decreasing market share), patronage may return. If there wasn’t enough to warrant a concern, patronage wouldn’t have stopped.
State-created regulations, first and foremost, are involuntary. What is it to blend the involuntary when mixed with the authority of the State?—the removal of choice with legal punishment and all that entails. With State-created regulations, the individuals who actually want to do business with one another are of a secondary concern to what the State will first allow. Want to get a specific style of hair braid from the only beautician who knows how to do that style (Jestina Clayton*)? Without the proper State-sanctioned license for the beautician, it’s not allowed. Want to buy that glass of lemonade?—the child didn’t get the license to sell the lemonade, so they’ve been shut-down by the threat of a fine. Patronize the license-less beautician, and fines will follow.
Market-created regulations just mean there will be no transaction unless terms have been agreed upon; if terms have not been agreed upon, then from mutual agreement, there will be no transaction from disagreed upon acceptable terms. State-created regulations mean that permissions must be sought and approved by governmental bureaucracy. If those permissions haven’t been given, to continue means instead of license fees for permission to act, there will be fines to be paid in punishment for acting without permission – refuse to pay the fines, and one goes to jail.
Let’s expand upon the aforementioned on something like wages; they can be regulated by the market, or by the State. Market-regulated wages would be dependent on the context. The market is the King of context. If there is a high demand but there were too many workers, the wages would be lower, but more would be employed. While if the demand was still high but if there were too few workers, the wages would be higher and the best would be employed. If the demand was low, then the wages could be lowered to hire some to perform the less demanded work.
State-regulated wages requires a minimum wage to be offered, and sometimes a cap on what can be offered. If there was a high demand with many people, but with the higher wage dictated by the State, then there would be fewer employed for there is still only so much that the work justifies in wages, so the fewer employees would earn some more wages, but there will be higher overall unemployment. If there was a lower demand, then an employer would skip hiring altogether for the hiring wouldn’t pay for itself, or be profitable. (Wages and prices will be another article).
Market-created regulations follow economics: an individual’s incentive mixed with limited resources. A well-funded, established businessman may splurge for a luxury work vehicle to be part of his image, while one just starting may buy a used car, emphasizing practicality. Both may be able to buy the expensive vehicle, but the recently-started businessman would decide funds would be better spent on other work expenses instead of just one car, especially primarily for image. More on context with incentives and limited resources: the family of six needs a different vehicle than a bachelor, and both have only so much to pay for a car while needing to also pay for other expenses relevant to their lives. To continue, a brooch may just be a trinket to one, but an heirloom with high subjective value to a family member. A can of SPAM may be repulsive and not worth a dime to one accustomed to caviar as they live in luxury, but that same one who stranded and starving may find the SPAM – their only source of nutrition – as worth hundreds of dollars at that time. At the same time, one who likes SPAM may not be interested in caviar at any dollar amount, until it is the only source of nutrition. Again, the market is the King of context.
State-created regulations are laws. Laws are mandates on what must be done, how, and punishments for not doing things according to law: proscriptions and prescriptions, blended. When laws are introduced into the market, aside from rights violations, such as requirements for licenses, subsidies, quotas or ‘sin’ taxes, it is artifice introduced into market. All the aforementioned false-market effects are created for a reason, to help some one, or sector. Help them do what?—get an advantage in some way: help them with something or prevent competition doing something. Before the artifice-laws were created, more were on equal footing with opportunity, but afterward, the established sets up assists (e.g. subsidies) for themselves, or barriers (e.g. licensing fees) for competitors. Through the force and manipulation of the State, regulations prop up that which isn’t worthy, while putting at a disadvantage that which is otherwise worthy. An extension of this artifice is that what the market normally would deny because it wouldn’t be practical or desired, gets a false foothold in the market, such as green energy, high-speed rail and ethanol. All of this artifice is done by ‘investment’ by the State with someone else’s (the taxpayer) money being handed out – handed out by those not directly in the transaction of the buyer or seller. (Each of these have their own market effects).
State-created regulations allow true monopolies, prevent competition and last as long as the law remains, across the area the law affects. Market-created regulations do not prevent competition, and last only as long as there isn’t a better option available in a given area. It is the difference between the post office and a grocer who may be replaced by a new grocer offering better product for better prices, if the first doesn’t improve what they offer.
Lastly, we’ll look at regulations dissuading innovation. Regulations that were designed, in part to ‘protect’ us, (also to protect the vested interest of those established in business and the State) stifle innovation. An example, if a bureaucrat decided what needed to be added in order to ensure ‘safety’ the Wright brothers never would have flown, but because they planned, worked and took their own risks, they, and with what they started enabled all of us to fly.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
As a follow-up to the incendiary language issue, there comes the issue that Bob Beckel displayed, and that is 'name-calling.'
Hoffa Jr. made news recently with calling various Tea Party Republicans 'son-of-a-bitches.' Beckel equated Hoffa's name calling to whether one could call Obama a socialist, and when Bolling defended calling Obama a 'progressive socialist,' Beckel ranted about how wrong it was to use such a pejorative term (socialist).
This is a false comparison, for a socialist is a denotative term to reflect a set of beliefs and policies, while son-of-a-bitch is a connotative term that is impossible to reflect anything in a denotative manner outside of a canine, or genetic manipulation. Son-of-a-bitch is slang; socialist is not slang.
Where the disingenuous nature comes in is by comparing the two terms, it is an attempt to hide the beliefs and behaviors that denote the denotative term by linking it to the inflammatory connotation of the slang term.
Don't let those who try and make such a comparison get away with it. Defend your terms, and make them defend theirs.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
(I am not a member of the Tea Party, but some of the attacks on them are ridiculous. This is for the Tea Party, against the likes of Andre Carson’s ‘blacks to be hanging from a tree’, John Kerry and ‘literally wanting to cut the baby in half’, Maxine Waters wanting them to ‘go to Hell’, to generalized claims of hostage-taking, and being terrorists).
What is debt? Debt is the borrowing of wealth with the promise to pay the amount of borrowed wealth (principle) in addition to the interest for borrowing the wealth. The more debt, generally the more time it takes to pay it off; to pay for a car the term may be for a couple years, but for a house the term may be for a couple decades. The debt of the US was (supposedly) limited at 14.3 trillion, but has been increased.
How is debt paid off?—by work, and the more debt, the more work is needed to pay it off. Who pays the debt?—the ones who took out the loan. With individuals, the one issuing the loan gets payments from the one who borrowed with clearly defined payments and a limit based on the marketability of the borrower: one who can afford only a used car, won’t be loaned funds for a new car (unless some things are manipulated to counter the marketability). But, when it is the government taking out the loans, it is an ever-expanding IOU without clear terms, especially with who exactly pays who. A borrower from a bank remains the same; the government changes with each election. What doesn’t change is who ultimately pays the government’s debt. It is paid by the tax payers (businesses and individuals).
The debt limit has been increased. It has continually been added to for decades and all administrations, but it has increased dramatically the past decade (two administrations). For generations the idea of stopping spending has been passed on to the next generation while the current generation continues to add to the debt. It can only be increased for so long; only adding a drop at a time will cause a 55 gallon barrel to overflow eventually.
Tax businesses more and they raise their prices, so individuals are the ones in the long-run who have to pay. With the cost of everyday goods rising, individuals have less purchasing power. To follow the increase of doing business, existing businesses won’t expand and hire more while possibly laying-off some existing staff; new entrepreneurs have new regulations they have to meet, fees to pay, making starting another business unlikely. In these circumstances, it becomes more difficult to pay off the debt that has been accrued, let alone the extra added to the debt. There is less purchasing power, higher un-/under-employment, and less opportunity to earn or create wealth.
Now we come to the crux of the matter, and the point of this article.
With the weakening employment prospects along with the ever-expanding debt that has to be paid off, these modern-day politicians who keep wanting to raise the debt (and those who press the politicians to act as such), while making it more difficult for businesses to hire, are trying to rape your children. Rather, they are not directly trying to rape your children, but just set them up to be raped – to be pimped out as a sex-indentured servant/slave. Regular employment is less available, but ‘the oldest profession’ is still around and can be offered without any other resources than one’s body. So, the government with the barrel of a gun is setting your children to be shot in a different manner. Yes, Uncle Sam, the labor union leadership, the congressional black caucus, as well as these entitlement-seeking groups want your child to get scraped knees, but from a different kind of ‘play’.
Don’t worry; the raping will not be done by other Americans for most won’t be able to afford it. For the most part, the rapes will be done by other countries, especially China for as a foreign power they have the most US debt. With the majority of the rapes being done by foreigners, there won’t be the added problem of your children being traumatized by seeing their violator repeatedly. However, there will be those of your children who will be raped by other Americans as the Federal Reserve has the most of the debt, but we might be able to get out of that for if they are actually a governmental body, then it is debt owed to ourselves and can be ignored, but if they are actually a non-governmental body… then they’ll be invading the bodies of your children.
Just keep in mind that with each bill that gets passed, Obamacare, extended unemployment insurance, EPA regulations and such, those who are passing the bills, adding to the debt while making paying off that debt more difficult, want your children to be bent over that much more, spread their cheeks that much more. Ignore the cries of the children, for it will only hurt as long as debt is still owed. The debt limit was just increased to over 16 trillion; how long would that take to pay off?
Now, was the real issue of debt seriously considered with the hyperbolic offering?—the point may be made, while being overshadowed by the example.
Wait, I forgot about two other issues affecting the attempted rapes: UNFUNDED liabilities and the manipulation of the money supply. With the those two factors, it is going to take longer to get out of the great debt our ‘leaders’ have gotten us; tell your kids to prepare their kids, and their kids, and so on.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Bachmann keeps giving reasons as to why she shouldn't be president, and they keep being added to, including and most importantly by her own words.
Byron York's question was on her 'submission' to her husband's admonition "now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law." Her thought was "I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that?" (Quotes are her own words)
After a few seconds of empty booing from the crowd, Bachmann replied equating submission with respect and that husbands and wives are to respect one another. Very good, but that wasn't the question. Paraphrased, the question was: who makes your decisions?-you or your husband? She could have closed any question about this if she simply, decisively declared: I make my own decisions. Instead she waffled and answered a question not asked. The presidency is too important to have someone who isn't direct and self-directed.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
O'Reilly recently was talking about freedom and political choice, with the right and freedom to be liberal, conservative, libertarian or a tea-party member. He made the same error that many others have made: confusing/blending political and philosophical ideas.
Tea-party members are more amorphous, while libertarian is a little more specific. But the dominant groups in modern politics are conservatives and liberals. How the difference can be seen, and the crucial nature of the difference between a philosophical belief and a political belief, though crucial, is simple.
A political belief/ideology being applied in politics and into law removes the freedom to choose. Whether it is a current liberal redistribution plan that increases a tax rate, or whether it is a conservative plan to define marriage, the effect is the same: the people losing the freedom to choose for themselves.
At philosophical levels, these ideas do not take away freedom, but are in fact expressions of freedom when people act upon them: the liberal may donate more if they choose, and the conservative may keep their marriage according to their dictates, while not infringing upon one who keeps their money to spend, invest or save it as they see fit, or for another couple to get married according to the dictates of their beliefs.
It is the crucial difference between a positive and a negative law: negative laws punish violations of rights; positive laws seek to guarantee things to be given/enforced that have nothing to do with defending rights, but at base to be implemented violate the rights of the citizens.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
With any goal to be implemented, there needs to be a series of steps toward that goal. Those steps, and of course the goal itself, are each based on assumptions that form the foundation that the beliefs are created from, therefore how the actions are to be implemented.
For example, increasingly common in modern industrialized societies, and under a new banner of 'social justice' there is the goal of raising those with less to a higher level. The goal is equality, or, as the colloquialism goes: to spread the wealth around.
To spread the wealth around, what must first be decided is the line of demarcation from which to judge where one should receive; i.e. who is to receive. Is that level where one it to receive to be based upon net worth, income level, number of dependents, number that they may be dependent on, or something else?
Next, what needs to be decided is exactly what is to be equalized, or to be spread around. Is it money, an amount of goods, percentage of employment, representation in government or business leadership?
After finding out who is the one to be receiving something and receiving what, there is a flip-side to be considered: if a proper amount has been decided from which one should not be below, what exactly is too much? Who is considered to have ‘too much of the pie’ in the aforementioned areas?
But we come back to a deeper assumption in order to look at who should receive what: what are values? This is not asked a nuanced level of Smith or Anderson should receive a how much of a value from their mutual interaction, but before that. What must be looked at is whether or not a value something that belongs to individuals who can act in a collective or do values belong to collectives who can act upon the individual. So, the question may be rephrased: who should have values?
For the sake of argument, let’s go with the social justice argument that some have received too much, while others have not received enough, and we also have our line of demarcation wherever that may be. In answering these questions, we have stated as a primary that values are social goods, for if they may be transferred to equalize a social system, any personal value is of a distant, secondary consequence to the social good that must be equalized. The ‘haves’ are to loose something so the ‘have-nots’ may gain that thing.
An example: we have decided that wealth should be taken from the haves, and given to have-nots. We must back up briefly. Who are the ‘deciders’?—the deciders are the group who looked about, decided who should receive wealth, who should have wealth taken away, and how to take and give away wealth. The deciders classified who are the haves and the have-nots. If wealth was a personal value, then the haves could give it away as they saw fit. But with wealth being a social good, the deciders can take it away, by force if necessary for the collective good is better served if individual haves are forced to equalize the rest.
To put the decider’s plan into action, as society is large, there would have to be various components of implementation: firstly, the deciders, then after that, the logistical side: collectors, sorters, distributors. These groupings would have to be repeatedly created for ‘the public’ is a formless mass. These would be decider-collectives and would be staffed by numerous individuals of a shared vision to implement their plan. Numerous collectives would be created for the decider’s plan of redistribution.
We must also briefly look at the deciders and the collectives the deciders created to implement the redistribution. It is an assumption that things will proceed without a problem, but the very nature of said work is problematic. With the legal use of force being used to change the possession of value only the State can implement any actions. The nature of the position would make it implemented by those without competition, not elected, and not overseen by others than those in the system that takes wealth. The nature of the work includes being without competition, unelected and not overseen invites corruption. The assumption is that those working for the State are the faithful public servants working for the public good, and are beyond ‘selfishness,’ but this ignores that these people are still individuals who became public servants, and their motivation for society’s greater good is an assumption placed upon them. The nature of the legal use of force as a tool to implement an agenda attracts those of a specific mindset who see wealth as a social good; there are those who also enter public service of protecting individual rights, but they are a minority. Without competition the deciders collective could perform poorly and remain inefficient, if not fully corrupt. And, with the model of inefficiency, the nature of their work would take away from the wealth so it could pay for the program itself, as well as assisting other State programs that need wealth. Even if not corrupt, the bureaucracy would siphon funds.
With the legal use of force behind what they decide, the deciders would be better entitled dictators; the decided and now dictate others what is to be done.
Two more assumptions that need to be considered: 1) that one who is not in the nuanced situation knows more about what needs to be done than those who are in it; 2) an assumption of Ceteris Paribus, that after a change has been implemented that those changes will not bring forth new changes.
These last two assumptions, however, are obviously false. We know principles, e.g. 2+2=4 and freezing cold and water will make ice; the specifics change for though the principle may be immutable, the specifics in a different place may change to a different principle, e.g. 2(rulers)+2(yardsticks)=8 feet of distance. Only those nearby are those who can verify which details are important to the formulation; the distant one who still continues 2+2=4 is right in the general principle, but wrong in the specific circumstance. A greater problem emerges when one takes his local principle and applies it to all, such as 2(rulers)+2(yardsticks)=8 feet of distance and stating it has to be used in an area that is based off the metric system.
New changes come about for though freezing cold and water will make ice, if one area introduces a red dye to make red ice, there won’t be a significant change; if another area introduces alcohol, then there won’t be ice, but a cold liquid.
One more thing about change, is that it is always constant. Of the infinite variables interacting in life, they are continuously interacting in the various ways that their principles (their identity) dictate: will the water freeze or not?—what are the components interacting in this situation?—the new principle to be considered?—is the change relevant enough to require a new principle to be considered? But, with society, there is the additional constant change to be included in that man ages, the population cycles and demographics fluctuate. Those who make up the bulk of a society and consume more, or produce more will change.
Even if one was foolish and arrogant enough to believe they had all the answers to the aforementioned questions and can remain up-to-date with all the changes, everywhere, all the time, there is one more assumption, and that is that aid/redistribution actually helps. Helps who, how and with what are generally unanswered in specifics for it is the general idea that is desired of helping one without, receive. Aside from the morality (a very important issue), let’s look at the taking by force, one’s wealth who earned it to be given to another who has not earned it: that wealth should be taken from the haves, and given to the have-nots. In principle it is rewarding behavior that has failed to meet the reward-level where receiving it was just; in principle it is punishing behavior that put forth the right work. On a pragmatic level, as aforementioned, the model of work includes being without competition, unelected and not overseen invites corruption, or at the least, inefficiency.
Now, some may come forth with the declaration of the specifics being of a bigger importance, like was mentioned with the 2+2=4 example: making the exception the rule – anecdotal evidence to justify a rule. That is nonsensical, for the exception by its nature showed there was an unknown variable affecting a thing, changing the principle to be applied. But to find out how that variable is affecting a thing, it would take an examination of the specific instance which would be local application of the general principle, fine-tuning it to get to its reality. The smallest unit who can best know how to act with what is theirs is an individual, which makes values personal goods.
A final assumption to be examined is that of perspective. Perspective may color how one sees what is valuable. Someone who is born into wealth may look at the man driving a ‘junker’ car on his way to a minimum wage job in order to pay for his family, may see someone who is without what he needs to survive; the same man driving a junker on the way to his minimum wage job would be looked upon with envy by the man in a third-world country who mines all week for what the minimum wage-earner makes in one hour, while his family, including his children also work in order to earn what their society can offer.
Assumptions are important for they form the unconscious base from which we act consciously. They are, however, damaging when faulty. Faulty assumptions affect our individual lives, and when one has more reach, their faults reach further. That red fruit is good is a general principle, but the locals who have cherries, and not butcher’s broom, will get nourishment, while the others will get quite sick. Now, consider if the dictator commanded all red berries to be eaten. The universe is not affected by the ignorance those who act in it, but allows ignorant consequences, with their pain, come to those actors; the universe also rewards those who act rightly.
Monday, July 18, 2011
The American economy is based upon the ‘market.’ Following that, what must be asked is ‘what is the market?’ The market (or marketplace) is where ideas (abstractions) or goods/products (concretes) are brought forth to be offered to the public, or to those interested.
Now, that is in itself abstract so let us examine how the market came to be – examine its nature. Being where ideas or goods are brought forth to be offered means a couple of different things: 1) someone has something to offer; 2) someone is interested in what another has to offer. For example, farmer Jed has harvested his corn and sees that he has more than he needs to survive until the next harvest, while rancher Sanders has raised extra chicken and has more than he needs to survive; both men have more than they need of a given good. As they have excess of what they need, they bring the excess to where they might be able trade their excess: where Sanders may want some corn and Jed may want some chicken. They discuss and with each desiring what the other has, come to an exchange of value X amount of corn for Y number of chickens. But, as the market is open to those interested, let us add farmer O’Malley who has excess potatoes and is interested in Sanders’ chickens. Now, in the best of worlds, each would have enough to fulfill what each other wants: plenty of chickens for each. However, as this is the best world we have and it involves scarcity, there won’t be enough chicken for each and for Sanders to maintain his productivity; he does himself, and those he deals with no good if he sets himself to go out of business. With only Y number of chickens to trade, he has to decide what is more valuable: corn, potatoes, some of each or just keeping his stock. Jed and O’Malley will barter with Sanders as to what would be a good price to get the chickens.
Sanders has a monopoly only for there not being another who offers chicken or any other meat product, while the others offer vegetables (not a scientific term); Sanders, being the only one who offered meat could dictate price since there isn’t another chicken rancher, while Jed and O’Malley offer a more interchangeable good. But, if Roy came along and he offered beef, Sanders wouldn’t be able to dictate price like he used to because, like Jed and O’Malley having to compete against each other, Sanders would have to compete against Roy for the meat market.
Each party, in order to stay in business, would have to maintain their product. Not only would they have to maintain it, they’d have to improve upon it for in the market, there are numerous other Jeds, O’Malleys, Sanders and Roys, each offering a good that may be the same, or similar. In order to compete and maintain a profitable business, whoever entered the market would have to find ways of getting and keeping customers, and that is done primarily by lowering cost, and by improving quality. The market is where economics rule: incentives blended with scarcity.
To move bushels of produce, or dozens to thousands of animals is logistically problematic so the barter system is to be replaced. Something of value as agreed upon becomes a substitute so trade may be easier: money is created. Money is a standard, tied to an objective value that is agreed upon by the parties, for they choose to accept money as payment when they could still accept forms of barter instead. Money is to be representative of a portion of what could be used to trade for any produce. Traditionally, and for millennia, that objective value was gold; metals are enduring, and precious metals, like gold remain pure. With an objective value, what comes is that Z amount of gold could buy X vegetables, or Y meat. Produce comes and goes, but the gold endures. Various people are able to do business, so that vegetarians may still sell produce to a rancher who may not have goods to barter.
Returning to our mini-market, production may be stabilized and predicted to an extent, but it is never guaranteed; various forces may affect production: drought, sickness (plant or animal), excess along with changing appetite in the market. If there was a fungus that wiped out 50% of the corn, while at the same time there was a boom on chicken production while demand remained the same changes in price would be needed. With less corn the price would have to be raised for Jed would have to make more from each amount of corn in order to cover loses and to maintain production, while the price of chicken would have to go down for there would be too much to go around and keeping all that stock would cost Sanders to maintain so he would want to unload more and to tempt customers to buy more than they originally would.
However, if the production remained the same, but the demand changed to only 50% of the corn was demanded while twice as much chicken was demanded, the prices would have to be changed again. Jed would have to lower his price in order to sell what he could to try and break-even at least, or to minimize losses, while Sanders would increase his prices to maximize profit while involving the most customers who themselves would compete by bidding up to satisfy their incentive in getting the chicken they desired so much; Sanders’ suppliers (feed, fencing, etc) also would raise their prices. That would ensure other suppliers would compete for those scarce resources. This continues from the fence-maker requires an increased demand from the metal forger, who requires an increase from the miners, who require an increase in the tool-makers and labor market – that also affects each other level. Like everyone else, each is looking to satisfy his incentive to make a profit to better his life, improve his product, and create a cushion in case of lean times and at least maintaining a level of production. With the customers who are buying at the higher prices, a single customer is not able to purchase all of the stock, so that more customers are able to purchase some of the stock. From the increase demand and cost, other producers from around will have an incentive to spend the money to bring their goods over so they can also partake in the business; more goods are brought to be sold.
In very short-form, that is the market for products. However, it would be folly to assume a static nature for things change: technology, appetite, populations and more, continually change. Some change more quickly than others, but they all change. With those changes in society, the market will be affected.
As an example of change, let’s say that Jed has been a steady supplier of corn and his customers are happy. However, one day a new farmer of corn, Del, comes to the market. Del offers corn, but because of how he can produce it, he has more to offer so he can offer it at a lower price. Intrigued by the savings, Jed’s customers try Del’s corn and find not only is it less expensive, but it tastes better as well. Regardless of how long Jed may have had his customers, he is now in danger of losing them as his customers pursue their incentives (self-interest) and get the most for their dollars, enabling them to purchase more of another good, or save. Jed has two choices: adapt or perish (in business). Even if Jed cannot adapt, Del’s position of on top of the corn market is not static for the forces of the market dictate, in time, Del may be replaced as well.
Now, to see how the market cannot work (be self-adjusting) lets introduce artifice into the market: i.e. governmental regulation. If to ensure ‘fairness,’ because those who did buy the chicken at the lower price no longer could buy as much as they had before, those consumers went to the government (lets say, Sam) to regulate the prices: someone outside supply or demand dictating prices. When the demand for Sanders’ chicken skyrockets and the market says he has to raise prices, but the market price was ignored and Sanders was force to sell his chickens at a below-market price demanded by Sam, then fewer people would buy more and take up the resources quickly; it would, in essence, a state-mandated percentage-off sale, where Sanders takes the loss. Sanders wouldn’t be able to make a profit for his suppliers charges would still go up from increased demand. If there was to be a price control on all aspects of production (Sanders, and all those he deals with in feed, fencing, etc) then the market would dry up for each of them, like the consumers, seeks to satisfy their incentive, and with less incentive the cost of production goes up. People work more at that which is profitable for it increases the quality of life and offers building a cushion during lean times; if the work isn’t profitable and potential profit is not seen, then there won’t be the same incentive to work, meaning less work going into the chicken market, meaning less chickens available. Distant producers will not bring their product. State-mandated percentage-off sales end up being going-out-of-business sales. Mandated labor without profit is slavery.
That artifice was directly on the producer, out to the consumer. Next we will examine what happens when a regulation is imposed upon the market, but not on a producer directly.
Jed was the first corn farmer, and already had a business base. Through being a farmer, he employed (directly and indirectly) many people to help grow, harvest, ship, package and sell his corn. However, with Jed having a monopoly on corn (not all vegetables), Del decided to try and offer his corn and the customers found his corn was better. Jed no longer has a monopoly and needs to adapt; however, instead of adapting his business to what is in the market, Jed seeks Sam to restrict the access of Del (and all like him) to sell to the consumer base, or restrict the consumer base’s ability to buy through such measures as licensing fees and new, selective taxes (e.g. tariffs and ‘sin’ taxes). Sam introduced artifice so the market isn’t correcting itself. New supply and demand has been created, but Sam is denying their effect. A monopoly has been created. The monopoly that Jed had originally was because of no one else selling corn, but anyone could enter and compete for customers. The monopoly introduced by Sam is non-market, State-mandated monopoly, and others could not compete for Jed’s customers. That means Jed could do what he wanted, charge what he wanted and let quality go for he wouldn’t have the incentive to lower prices or improve his goods; his customers would get lesser quality and have to pay more for it.
Now we’ll look at introducing artifice into the market through the money supply. Gold is heavy, so something else that represents varying amounts of gold is created, e.g. coins and bills. But those monies are tied to the gold for the gold is an objective value. If money is not tied to an objective value, and can be created arbitrarily through artifice in the money supply, then it is not tied to a value system, and is not attached to that which states something is worth anything else. It would be as worthless as taking anything, any scrap of worthlessness and stating it as value. It was agreed that Z amount of gold was worth X or Y of another good. But, as hauling gold is difficult, notes are used instead of bulk gold to represent the varied amounts of gold. As the gold is finite, the value from it is finite. Here is where artifice is introduced: if without an increase in the base value (gold) more notes representing a piece of that value are created. If there was a system of value, but more money was added without adding to the value system backing it, then each unit of old and new money becomes worth less with each unit created: a pie can only be divvied up so much, but it cannot be duplicated (unless more of the backing value was gained, i.e. gold mined).
In the marketplace of ideas, there is similarity in that someone who advances an idea comes forth, as does another with a different idea. Those two debate and present their cases for their respective ideas and from who presents the better argument, or is more persuasive, the audience will listen to that speaker and accept their ideas. Knowledge is the key component in the market. This is true with ideas or goods, for the better idea presentation wins, just as the better corn farmer. There may be a temporary setback; there may be one whose sophistry convinces that rotten corn may be good, or that this specific idea is good, but with experience and the knowledge that comes from it the truth may be discovered and it can be conveyed so that corn will not be purchased, that idea will not be believed, and the better good and idea will prevail. Through people pursuing their incentives, the market as a whole will self-correct when artifice is not introduced.
Briefly, that is the market.