Subject:
|
Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:34:11 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@saynotospamNOVERA.COM
|
Viewed:
|
2437 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> > Assuming that making systems and services more efficient won't cost • millions of
> > jobs.. oh wait!
>
> But if production is made more efficient, this means that those doing the
> production will get more money, and when you dig all the way down,
> ultimately the only way to actually spend the money is to increase jobs (or
> cause inflation). Now I suppose a market inefficiency could be introduced by
> the rich just passing the money around, but it seems to me then that the
> rich guy who decides not to play that game will come out ahead, because
> while A and B are passing their money back and forth, C is out using his
> additional money to increase production even more by hiring more people (and
> perhaps even passing some of the wealth to the workers by increasing their
> pay - which of course makes happier workers, who will probably produce more,
> which means....).
This is precisely why Ford decided to pay his workers 5 bucks a day when
people were making 1 and 2 dollars a day. He wanted them to be rich,
relatively speaking, and be able to afford his products (and those of
his friends). And it worked.
>
> Wild thought which I have not investigated: are their people who came out of
> the market crash of 1929 ahead because instead of investing their money in
> the play money of stocks, invested it in workers and production?
I know for a fact that this is the case. The crash was a chance (just as
any bankruptcy is a chance) for people who were better at managing
resources to displace those who were merely riding atop a bubble
fostered by government.
> > Either way, if not handled properly Libertopia would be a lot worse before
> it
>
> > started becoming better.
>
> I don't think that Larry has ever denied that it will not be easy to make
> the transition (and there are some concrete things that will make the
> transition difficult such as Social Security).
While I don't claim it will be easy, I DO claim it can be done and done
in such a way as to not be as disruptive as say, a brush war or a
moderate panic (the late 70's stagflation for instance). No one will
lose their life savings, those who planned around the government taking
care of them will be no worse off, and so forth.
> > Ah, so the charities are like a mini dollar-electable government?
No, they're like a marketplace. They don't govern anything because they
don't have the force mandate.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Libitarian guff
|
| (...) One minor point I'd add regarding the occasional need for government: the Securities Exchange Commission was established to prevent the same cataclysmic market crash from happening again. Among other things, the SEC requires that brokers be (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
