Quote notes (#36)

When Don Boudreaux makes sense, he makes a lot of sense:

By what logic are humans correctly understood to be unable successfully to centrally plan and arrange the monopoly provision of steel, ink, ball bearings, automobiles, breakfast cereals, cauliflower, catering for weddings, and other goods and services but are able successfully to centrally plan and arrange the monopoly provision of the good “money”?

September 30, 2013admin 5 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Commerce

TAGGED WITH : ,

5 Responses to this entry

  • VXXC Says:

    As long as they stay away from UP monopoly…but here the same mistakes are being made.

    Musk and Bezos both want space, but they’re going to the Mob to shut the other one out…

    http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37389musk-calls-out-blue-origin-ula-for-%E2%80%98phony-blocking-tactic%E2%80%99-on-shuttle-pad

    I’m not you know a complete prude. I’m not against the Mob in Space. I’m against the Detroit Mob in Space.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Is that a “better on the inside pissing out” thing?

    [Reply]

    VXXC Reply:

    Musk and Bezos may see it that way.

    When you invite the Mob into the money side of your business you are taking Heroin to deal with your Alcoholism. However in certain situations it’s their natural forte – Vice, loansharking, proper Labor management. Black Markets for stuff people want. Or need. The Mob works better than say – Detroit.

    Today–When you invite the USG in o your barn, they send the cow to college and ban the milk as racist.
    All the while they take your money to pay for it.

    The USG is now past where you want them shitting on your competitors to gain advantage. First it’s dirty pool, secondly USG is certifiably insane. Musk and Bezos will regret their “associations”.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 30th, 2013 at 11:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Rasputin's Severed Penis Says:

    More central planning…

    Eliezer Yudkowsky on the Poverty Equailibrium – do you feel that understand the forces that underly it?

    “It seems unlikely that the Swiss will pass this (huge) basic income guarantee, but I’ll go on record as making a very startling prediction: That even if it passes and is implemented, it will not very much affect poverty and people will have to go on working awful jobs.

    The forces restoring the poverty equilibrium are tremendous. Compared to hunter-gathering, agriculture can sustain 100 times as …many people per unit area of land… and there were still poor people, indeed more of them. Then agricultural employment dropped from 95% to 2%, implying a rather large increase in productivity of each farmer… and there were still poor people. They were, in many ways, better off, but they still existed in an environment of constant fear, scarcity, desperation, living hand-to-mouth, sometimes going hungry. Yes, they do outright *die* a lot less often nowadays, I am not denying progress. But there’s still experienced poverty, even after one farmer became capable of producing 100 times as much food. There must be extremely powerful forces which enforce the existence of poverty. This basic income guarantee is not going to surpass them.

    I don’t quite understand what forces underlie the Poverty Equilibrium. My guess is that there are many forces like rent and taxation which continue to extract value from people until they are so desperate that nothing more can be obtained from them. I also suspect that the temporary emergence of a middle class was an anomaly (I don’t know why it happened) and that we are now watching the Poverty Equilibrium come back into force as rents rise, the cost of school rise, many people have to borrow for basic living expenses and have to spend more of their income on credit servicing – the systematic extraction of all but a tiny amount of value seems to be coming back into play.

    If productivity increasing by a factor of 100 didn’t destroy poverty, then neither will this. All that will happen will be that Swiss rents will rise and their schools and healthcare will get more expensive… or something, I’m not sure what. I don’t quite understand where the Poverty Equilibrium comes from. I do strongly suspect that after 10,000 years *this* will not be the final change that defeats it, especially when there doesn’t seem to be any consensus on what forces underlie the Poverty Equilibrium in the first place.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Interesting. I’d naively considered the Swiss to be far too sane to succumb to this kind of BS social engineering.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 6th, 2013 at 4:30 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment