Aestu wrote:
This is false because of externalities. The price tag does not, and cannot, reflect all the costs of producing an item.
Also see: Impending seafood crash
You're arguing environmental cost, yes?
I don't lose sleep over environmental regulation, I lose sleep over environmental regulation that trades perceived or not fully proven heavy impact on the environment for guaranteed heavy impact on industry.
There's a lot of regulation (in effect and could be in effect) that is good both for the environment as well as sustaining industries (which anybody in industry with a brain knows is a good thing). There's two things I dislike about many good regulations though:
They're done by the Federal Government, when they should be done by state governments, because of constitutionality reasons as well as practical reasons.
Sometimes it's people that aren't part of the industry paying for said regulations, due to generalizing funds. If I don't eat fish, why should I be beholden to making sure a fishing industry that has no effect on me is made sustainable, or an environment across the world is kept up? This is generally ties into the first part. Why should people from New York have to pay for something people in California benefit from?
Aestu wrote:
"Man does not live by bread alone".
Raw numbers don't tell the whole story. The question isn't how much is being produced, cumulatively - it's a question of distribution, values, externalities.
This is kind of avoiding the question.
Without production, you have nothing to demand. In which case, you get only what you yourself make - or produce. Now you're friend decides - hey you make this, I'll make that, and we'll trade extras with each other. You've created demand, you're now demanding this from your friend, and he's demand that from you. The simplest benefit to this, you're both making higher quality items because of increased practice and focus. If you both produce nothing - you don't have anything to demand.
Aestu wrote:
Red herring.
Again my point about Utopia. Gross output is not the issue. It hasn't been for centuries.
I don't know your point about 'Utopia'. Ergo I'm not entirely sure of the point.
Do you mean that production isn't always prosperity? Like in WWII? Where basically everyone had a job, but everybody was still scraping by?
If that's the case, you're right. But creating demand never brings about prosperity. I can demand all I want from my neighbor, but he's going to demand something back. Something I don't have without first producing.
Say he is producing something - he's going to demand something of me (if not to be prosperous, then to continue producing, if he is charitable, he's going to have to turn profit somewhere in order to remain charitable). If I'm not producing something to trade (whether it's money, time or service), he isn't getting anything from me, nor me from him, and the economy goes stale.
Aestu wrote:
There is no such thing as a free market in the sense you describe. A market is given definition by the regulations put upon it. Regulation was first implemented 80 years ago because it was necessary, and that "necessity" hasn't changed. The free market didn't exist 80 years ago because it didn't work.
Even before 80 years ago the government had structured the economy, assuming a monopoly on the printing of money.
The government took a monopoly on printing money, yes. A free market is where you aren't forced to spend money on anything, where all transaction is voluntary. This means voluntary on both ends - for both the consumer and producer. When government is the producer, you get a lot of involuntary transaction. Yes, roads are beneficial, yes most people use them, and we've done a pretty good job in making those transactions voluntary - gas tax - if you aren't driving, you aren't paying for roads, and the more you drive, the more wear on roads, the more you pay (at least was intended that way). Education - yes education is beneficial, yes everybody should be educated, but we've done a pretty bad job in making those transactions voluntary, to put it lightly.
I can argue that dictating how money should be spent (by public sector) only prolonged The Great Depression - that was caused by an artificial boom, something else you don't have with free markets - and such dictation is a major factor in prolonging this recession.
Aestu wrote:
What makes you think business is less prone to abuse its power than government?
What power does business have that isn't in some way shape or form through the government?
Government has a monopoly on force. A business can't force me to do anything without using government to do it. Most bad regulation is one business trying to stifle competition. Competition is a wonderful thing for consumers.
You limit government, you limit business by default.
Aestu wrote:
No, because whether the employer or the employee pays the tax, the cost is attached to the employer-employee contract. The employer promises the employee a certain level of material gain for being employed. Whomever "pays the tax" doesn't matter because either way, the tax gets paid, and the employee gets the same amount of money to spend. That amount will or will not be sufficient to his wants and needs, regardless of which end it comes out of.
If the employee is paying the tax, and he doesn't feel he has enough left over, the employer will have to pay more as the labor market will bear. Conversely, if the employer pays the tax, and the employee's wage is docked accordingly, he has the same amount of money to spend, and the employer is spending the same amount as if the employee were the one physically signing the check to Uncle Sam.
A) Employee for sale: $20/hr
B) Employee for sale: $15/hr, $5 mandatory labor tax
A) LF employee: $20/hr
B) LF employee: $15/hr, all taxes paid
Whether I'm right or wrong on that point, it sounds like we agree that payroll tax isn't a good thing, economics wise. Which sounds like what Dvergar is saying.
Ciiiiiiiiiiircle Jeeeeeeeerk.
