Well, well, well. You know something is wrong when someone uses a dictionary to define economic terms and makes no attempt to figure out which definition we're actually using! But never mind that, let's look at your argument (if I may be allowed the liberty of calling it that).
quote:
capitalism Impeded is destructive. wtf? yeah its anti egalitarian. so...? that's good. that's the point. i don't want the other firm to reach the finish line? perfect competition my ass.
Out of curiosity, what experience in economics do you have? Actually, scratch that question, I know the answer to it. What experience in logic and argumentation do you have? Because for all your incredulous questions, I can't find a single argument in these first few lines. Let's look at some more of your points:
quote:
how the hell is that competiton? your definition of equality is based on statism and collectivism - that somehow the majority or the state is above the individual.
Well, I gave a definition of equality? Where? Do you have a clue what I'm talking about? Equality that I'm talking about here is
between firms. That is to say, some firms will do better than others (i.e. greater profits, more excess for technical investment, etc.), and thus start to exercise market power. This leads to monopolistic competition, which of course, is the only type of competition between firms that exists in the world today. But I'm sure you don't even know what I'm talking about (as shown by your first little tirade and your inability to grasp that I'm talking about firms and market structure). So moving swiftly on...
quote:
it is not. true equality is justice.
Do explain what you mean by "true equality is justice."
quote:
i am here to serve myself and not the state. Therefore, i may do whatever i wish within my rights as long it does not interfere with other mans rights. I live my life for me and my own happiness and not the happiness of other men.
And who fed you when you were young? And how long would you last if a plague wiped all of humanity out bar yourself? We cooperate with others as a part of our existence. Think of some non-capitalist institutions, like, say, the family. Humanity wouldn't last very long if every single parent decided taking care of their children wasn't worth doing (what a sacrifice!). There are things beyond individual selfishness that make our fragile world go round. Cooperation is one of them.
quote:
and by leveller you mean legal theft through taxes of those members of our society who have earned their wealth legally and through smart decisions.
No. By the "leveller" I mean an institution that understands that poverty brings social costs on the
whole of society, and that it is worth doing something both from an economic and humanistic viewpoint, to prevent people from suffering. Have you heard of the French Revolution? Letting the poor eat cake didn't quite work out now did it? Of course, it might be a good idea to explain exploitation to you, but then I'd probably end up being called a Marxist.
quote:
do not introduce ken lay agian into this argument. they inititated force into their business relationships through fraud and should therefore be punished for their crimes.
You must be confusing me with someone else. How good are your reading comprehension skills?
quote:
...snip meaningless definitions of wealth and capital which only go once again to show that someone doesn't realise that we're looking for economic definitions, since the debate, er... exchange is probably a better word... is on economic structure
I'd tell you the point, but you wouldn't understand, as you'd have to be familiar with Marx's Labour theory of surplus value (or more probably, I'd have to tell you what it is in agonising detail though flying over your nescient head). Secondly you'd have to figure out that socialism is not
necessarily anticapital or antimarket. But I wouldn't want your brain to explode just yet. Thirdly, I'm not a socialist, so it's far too much trouble.
But if you're interested, you might try reading an introductory economics text book. Look out especially for the section on "externalities." If you're getting more adventurous, try the following list. But don't forget that introductory economics text!
Here are introductory texts to theories of economic institutions. You'll notice that the reason that these institutions (including government) exist, is that they increase efficiency. It's a rather obvious reason once you think about it.
Eggertsson, T. (1990)
Economic Behaviour and Institutions, Cambridge University Press
North, D. (1990)
Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press
For more historical perspectives--here's the sort of hard data that analyses the efficiency of institutions. I don't know which I like better, but I've only just started to get my teeth into the second one.
North, D. (1973)
The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History, Cambridge University Press
North, D. (1981)
Structure and Agency in Economic History, New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
For a devastating methodological critique of neoclassical economics (although it would help you to first find out what neoclassical economics does and doesn't say--remember that introductory text!), this book is particularly powerful in deconstructing the methodological individualist and ahistorical mathematical positions:
Hodgson, G. (2001)
How Economics Forgot History: The Problems of Historical Specifity in Social Science, London: Routledge
For understanding that basal equality exists in different spheres and that differing paradigms place differing levels of importance to these parameters, read this:
Sen, A. (1992),
Inequality Reexamined, Oxford: Clarendon Press
For understanding why heterogenous economic theories for development and change are important to society, and why we shouldn't be so arrogant as to assume we have all the answers, try this. It also has a good a discussion of the shortcomings of both the Austrian and Marxist schools:
Hodgson, G. (1999),
Economics & Utopia: Why the Learning Economy is not the End of History, London: Routledge
And finally, a nice professional take on why neoliberal structural adjustment programs in the third world failed and caused so much problems (and some possible solutions), there's this (you probably don't know what structural adjustment is, but rest assured, it does have to do with the sorts of ideas you like):
Stiglitz, J. (2002),
Globalization and its Discontents, London: Allan Lane
Three of the aforementioned authors are mere Nobel prize winners in economics, and I'll go out on a limb to predict that Hodgson will join them one day. You would do well to learn from some of them.
Joel
Edited to correct the format.
[This message has been edited by Celsus, 04-26-2003]
™ Version 4.2
