The stock Market

@Grimlock,

Grimlock wrote:

Scarcity and abundance are just words the way you're using them. Needing to eat in a world of limited resources is not a state of being created by an economist somewhere; it is a basic, primal fact.

A person with a weapon taking another person's food profits precisely because of the absence of rules governing such behavior. He doesn't rob the weaker man to enjoy the "abundance" of bread; he does it so he can eat the bread.

This argument seems to be a parody of semantics.

Are you really missing that in a society without economic rules there can be no scarcity and that it would therefore be 'the good' for any person to collect ones own food, not leaving any reason for robbery? The primal is to eat, not to rob remember..

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

The primal is to eat, not to rob remember..

Then how do you explain the scores of animals who rob their neighbor of his food rather than hunt for their own? Yes, the primal urge is to eat, by whatever means necessary.

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

If there are no regulation's people will take advantage of the system...

Nonsense. Regulation does not stop people from taking advantage of "the system" (whatever that means). In fact, if you are referring to the market as the system, that is called arbitrage and is impossible to maintain. All regulation does is provide greater avenues for business corruption and manipulation. The path of liberal regulation on the market has been the history of corporate use of government to secure its stranglehold on all economic aspects of our lives.

The only thing that will prevent abuse of the market and its participants is information and education. Only laborers and consumers who are aware of their position of power and grasp the manner in which said power can be used will keep corruption low. Regulation can do no such thing, rather it is most often the product of such corruption.

Ever heard of Big Sugar or any other bureaucratic (but noncompetitive) industry?

Quote:

There need's to be rule's for there to be order and peace.

The market produces emergent rules that reflect the values that populate it.

Quote:

Sadly alot of people dont even know what "free trade" is...

Or its consequences.

@Grimlock,

Grimlock wrote:

Sure, a guy with a gun taking what he wants.

I would consider it a stretch to call prohibition of violence an economic regulation.

Arjen wrote:

The values being lined out in the form of scarcity, which I might add is in economics a word for abundance. The values are carefully noted in international ad national exchange rates and are daily decided upon by stock exchanges and common markets. Those rules existed then, just as now.

Scarcity is a natural law and the root of all economic issues. If you argue that scarcity is a law that can be taken advantage of unfairly, you are indicting your own position.

Grimlock wrote:

Scarcity and abundance are just words the way you're using them. Needing to eat in a world of limited resources is not a state of being created by an economist somewhere; it is a basic, primal fact.

A person with a weapon taking another person's food profits precisely because of the absence of rules governing such behavior. He doesn't rob the weaker man to enjoy the "abundance" of bread; he does it so he can eat the bread.

This argument seems to be a parody of semantics.

It can be argued that the person with the gun is not exploiting in the absence of rules, rather he is creating his own set of rules that he can exploit. Furthermore, he is doing this in much the same way that business and government have done it over the years.

I believe some of the posters on here might call this hypothetical interaction a "social contract".

Arjen wrote:

Are you really missing that in a society without economic rules there can be no scarcity and that it would therefore be 'the good' for any person to collect ones own food, not leaving any reason for robbery? The primal is to eat, not to rob remember..

You are getting it backwards. There is natural scarcity (people need resources, resources are not infinite), laws are created to deal with this scarcity.

The question for me is whether regulation is more efficient or fair in distributing these resources. There will be rules regardless.

@Grimlock,

Grimlock wrote:

Then how do you explain the scores of animals who rob their neighbor of his food rather than hunt for their own? Yes, the primal urge is to eat, by whatever means necessary.

You have to realise that economic scarcity only exists in the mind. In reality only absence or prensence of any give good exists. The econmic scarcity exists by the definitions of hypothetical borders, thus creating certain high and low pressure points.

I do object to your example of nature by the way. The choice of robbery is not one that is natural, it is a product of workings of the mind of the creature which commits it.

Anyway, what Mr. fight the power states is what I ment by the initial remark:

Quote:

It can be argued that the person with the gun is not exploiting in the absence of rules, rather he is creating his own set of rules that he can exploit. Furthermore, he is doing this in much the same way that business and government have done it over the years.

I do have to object to the following though:

Quote:

I believe some of the posters on here might call this hypothetical interaction a "social contract".

It is what I would call 'law'. I think it was you who, in our previous discussion, held that such things are a product of the social contract, effectively placing it on an equal level with any set of laws. That was what I was disagreeing with in that topic anyway.

@Arjen,

Arjen wrote:

It is what I would call 'law'. I think it was you who, in our previous discussion, held that such things are a product of the social contract, effectively placing it on an equal level with any set of laws. That was what I was disagreeing with in that topic anyway.

No, not at all. I do not follow any social contract theories.

I was actually indicting the social contract theory as the scenario which we are dealing with is fairly analogous with the manner in which government is formed and maintained, but no one would call the interaction between a mugger and his victim a contract.

The idea behind social contract theory is that any law that is formed by free agreement, by contractual agreement, is just because it has the consent of those who abide by the law. I don't have any argument with this part of the theory, I just don't think that has ever happened or will happen between citizen and government.

However, I should not have made that statement and we should return to topic.

@Mr Fight the Power,

I would like to steer the topic to whats been going on recently too. The stock market in the USA is now hurting, and there is a plan for a 700 billion dollar bail out.

Is this a good idea, or is it just plain wrong?

Philosophy Forum

The stock Market

Quick Links

My Account

able2know