tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post3784255356716717953..comments2023-05-20T02:55:10.200-07:00Comments on @darjeelingzen: Voluntary Exchange Markets and Satisfaction/Wealth/Capital DistributionsDarjeelingzenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-2943727055350393872012-07-16T12:21:29.693-07:002012-07-16T12:21:29.693-07:00It may be significant to point out, that under cur...It may be significant to point out, that under current conditions, the market-place for banking/finance is /highly/ influenced by coercive-institutions; there are monopolistic privileges given to about a dozen of the largest banks to print money (with a little "over-sight" but not very much; certainly not with transparent reporting), these banks in turn, can loan out the newly created money at interest-rate below market-rates; this inhibits other banks, who do not have that coercive-monopolistic-privilege, from competing with legal-counterfeiting banking-institutions (those without that privilege actually have to have depositors). This is just the tip of the ice-berg in terms of coercive-manipulation of banking/financial markets; I trust this will suffice, to conclude that current financial-institutions operate under coercive market restrictions and as such, should not themselves be considered actions such banking/financial institutions would take under voluntary/free market conditions. (it's beginning to sound like we may need a separate thread on coercive-banking/finance manipulations, as that is such a huge topic by itself...)Darjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-66039226672445778202012-07-13T11:29:55.835-07:002012-07-13T11:29:55.835-07:00+Woozle Hypertwin commented: "The obvious mec...+Woozle Hypertwin commented: "The obvious mechanism is that as an individual gains more wealth (be that resources, money, consumables), their ability to influence others to give up their wealth increases. [Caveat: I'm not saying that most people are naturally greedy; I don't think that is the case. It doesn't take many people behaving selfishly, however, for this mechanism to come into play.]"<br /><br /><br />My response:<br />I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.<br /> I would be in agreement, that some people have natural-ability/learned-skills that make them more competitive in the market place. These persons might be better at business negotiations, at commodity value-assessment, at marketing/salesmanship, at predicting future market conditions and reorganizing their market-placement in response to those (hopefully correct) predictions, etc. These persons would be able to increase their market-share/profitability in the competitive marketplace.<br /><br />For instance a doctor or a mason might be very good at their respective vocations; their reputation in the market may mean that they have more offers for business than they could keep up with; therefore, they might choose to serve their friends or accept the highest offers for their services. These doctors or masons might have higher-profit margins as a result. But their superior-ability does not necessarily increase the accumulation of wealth into fewer hands. Their superior-ability is of benefit to their customers; their customers gain from the increase in the quality of the services that the doctor or mason could provide. But if there are no coercive-barriers to market-entry they would still have to continue to remain competitive in their respective market-places. They might have high-er profit margins, but consumers who do not need or wish to pay that level of service, may still take advantage of less-skillful providers of that respective service. Such as, if I only have a cold, and I do not need highly-specialize medical services, perhaps I would elect not to pay for the highly-qualified doctor and choose a general-practioner that offers a lower-price for service; if I only wanted a small crack in a concrete wall repaired, I might elect to pay for a less-expensive mason to repair the crack.<br /><br /> The barriers to market-entry imposed by coercive-institutions being removed, there would be a corresponding increase in the market-provision of products/services and consumers would have greater selection in choosing a purveyor that would meet their needs. It would seem, that although our superior-ability purveyors may have higher profit margins, within the market-place that they serve, there would still be a greater distribution of wealth/satisfaction than under coercive-market-place conditions.<br /><br />Does that address your objection?Darjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-53578845790640231572012-07-13T10:39:47.325-07:002012-07-13T10:39:47.325-07:00Noel Yap replied: "it can be argued that incr...Noel Yap replied: "it can be argued that increased competition can work towards increasing poverty. As the amount of competition increases, the amount of wealth one can make decreases."<br /><br />My response: I am in agreement, that as competition increases, profit-margins must necessarily decrease as each concern/business strives to compete with others; this reduces the particular profit for those businesses/concerns that were established in time of less competition, but overall, the consumers gain by the increase in competition, because they are able to sacrifice/pay less for goods than in less competitive conditions, additionally, this increase in competition would increase the over-all distribution of profits of producers/businesses into more hands, rather than less hands. So I am in agreement that, an increase in competition due to an expected increase in the fertility of voluntary/free-market conditions, would reduce the potential profit for those currently operating under coercive-institutional market conditions that create barriers to trade which benefit them specifically, but reducing potential for competition but the overall profit/wealth distribution would be greater under voluntary-market conditions.Darjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-38512667355172400812012-07-13T09:51:52.211-07:002012-07-13T09:51:52.211-07:00"...innumerable statutes, dictated by the spi..."...innumerable statutes, dictated by the spirit of monopoly, the whole purpose of which were [sic] to discourage industry, to concentrate trade within the hands of few people by multiplying formalities and charges, by subjecting industry to apprenticeships and journeymanships of ten years in some trades which can be learned in ten days, by excluding those who were not sons of masters, or those born outside a certain class, and by prohibiting the employment of women in the manufacture of cloth." Tugot<br /><br />Tugot's observation note the tendency for coercive-institutions to amass capital/"wealth" accumulation in fewer hands (by a variety of market-restrictions), than in more even-distributions. Barriers to trade/exchange (licenses, regulations, certifications, inspections) all result in coercive-monopolistic rent-seeking. Therefore, we would expect, under voluntary-market conditions, absent coercive-institutions, that these artificial/arbitrary barriers to market-entry as well a barriers/hindrances/inefficiencies to the conduct of business (those not imposed by the market itself, but by some arbitrary external source), would result in an increase in the tendency for increase in competition (more people entering the market to provide products/services), and this would increase the tendency for the market to be served by greater number of persons who do not have the economic-capacity to navigate the coercively-imposed market-barriers and would therefore result in a more even distribution of capital/"wealth"/human-needs-meeting/satisfaction.Darjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-66555554615114988552012-07-12T23:07:32.307-07:002012-07-12T23:07:32.307-07:00http://darjeelingzen.blogspot.com/2012/07/franz-op...http://darjeelingzen.blogspot.com/2012/07/franz-oppenheimer-state.htmlDarjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-56537573681389069722012-07-12T22:59:47.157-07:002012-07-12T22:59:47.157-07:00“There are two types of ethically invalid land tit...“There are two types of ethically invalid land titles: “feudalism,” in which there is continuing aggression by titleholders of land against peasants engaged in transforming the soil; and land-engrossing, where arbitrary claims to virgin land are used to keep first-transformers out of that land. We may call both of these aggressions “land monopoly”–not in the sense that some one person or group owns all the land in society, but in the sense that arbitrary privileges to land ownership are asserted in both cases, clashing with the libertarian rule of non-ownership of land except by actual transformers, their heirs, and their assigns.”<br />–Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of LibertyDarjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-34188380319755312282012-07-12T22:59:28.516-07:002012-07-12T22:59:28.516-07:00I would also like to point out, that my thesis is ...I would also like to point out, that my thesis is NOT: "Under voluntary-market conditions, absent coercive-institutions, there will be an /equalization/ of all 'wealth'; that is to say, that each person, will have an equivalent 'standard of living'." My explicit thesis that I would like to discuss here is, "Under voluntary-market conditions, absent coercive-institutions, there will be a tendency for greater distribution (fewer persons in 'poverty' and fewer persons who would be extraordinarily 'rich'/'wealthy') of 'wealth' across society, than there is currently."Darjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6267638155798940768.post-43660814741802577782012-07-12T22:59:06.708-07:002012-07-12T22:59:06.708-07:00First I might like to clarify some terms, I am par...First I might like to clarify some terms, I am particularly uncomfortable with the term "wealth" or "wealthy" & "poor" or "poverty". To a lesser extent, we may need some clarification as well as for "capital" (which may be used sometimes to describe liquid-assets or alternatively to "means of production").<br /><br />What is "wealth"? Is it merely money? If a person had a billion dollars, but was stuck on a deserted-island, would that person be "wealthy"? Could someone live in a 'mansion', but be in so much debt, that even if they sold their 'mansion' they would still have negative-assets, such that this person was considered "wealthy"? What about a Trappist or Buddhist monk, living a life under a vow of "poverty", yet be completely contented with almost no material possessions; would this person be "poor", or might alternatively, we say that as they consider all of their needs to be met and live a life of satisfaction & fulfillment, are they "wealthy"?Darjeelingzenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13459001964917082591noreply@blogger.com