Print

[Greg Chamberlain]

The topic of economic freedom was breached in the "...and they broke me" thread, and rather than hijack it, I'm creating a new one for the purpose of discussion. Before we begin, I think there are a couple of definitions worth mentioning (just so we're all on the same page):

Wikipedia: Economic Freedom
Economic freedom is freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. Economic freedom is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative. In the present the concept, as it is most used, is usually associated with a free market system. Indices of economic freedom try to measure economic freedom, and empirical studies based on some these rankings have found it to be correlated with economic growth and poverty reduction.

Wikipedia: Free Market
A free market is a market in which property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, in a free market environment buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor is the transfer coerced by a third party. [...] In a free market, price is a result of a plethora of voluntary transactions, rather than political decree as in a controlled market.

Although Wikipedia defines coercion as being, "the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force", I think people should remember that governmental mandate is also thought of as being coercion.

[Greg Chamberlain]

I'll start simply with: Given the sheer number of transactions that occur everyday in them, modern economies are chaotic (chaotic in mathematical sense) enough to say that any attempt at central-planning will ultimately fail to lead to greater efficiency due to the impossibility of central-planners to be completely aware of all information in their economy.

Free markets however, need not be completely aware of all information in the economy. This is because prices, when not artificially inflated or deflated through central planning, represent this information themselves. And because prices both carry the information of and effect changes in the economy, we find greater efficiency expresses itself as an emergent phenomena. This is often referred to as spontaneous order.

[Bob Beadles]

Economic freedom is a great idea. We had economic freedom in this country until 1913.
International bankers see economic freedom as a problem because that freedom makes it difficult for international bankers to rob the rest of the country. Big government and big business are partners with the international bankers but the international bankers keep the lions' share of the money for themselves.
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Council_Foreign_Relations.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MOST IMPORTANT VIDEO EVER! MUST WATCH Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ZPGaGngJU&NR=1

[The Shaggy Marlin]

I'm ok with economic freedom as long as all companies are required to be non-profit.

[zard0z]

I'm ok with economic freedom as long as all companies are required to be non-profit.

HA...!

[The Shaggy Marlin]

I know it'll never happen but that's the only way I'll agree with a free market.

[Greg Chamberlain]

I'm ok with economic freedom as long as all companies are required to be non-profit.

That doesn't really make any sense. It's like saying you're all for people having freedom speech as long as they never use it for their own gain.

Why don't you like profit?

[The Shaggy Marlin]

That doesn't really make any sense. It's like saying you're all for people having freedom speech as long as they never use it for their own gain.

Why don't you like profit?

I don't like the greed that drives profit.  I'm sorry but NO HUMAN needs more than $200,000 a year to survive off of.  All of that excess goes to making more money.  You see for something, there isn't a such thing as too much money.  While children starve the rich live in their ivory towers looking down upon the common man because we do not have the cash that the rich man does.

[Greg Chamberlain]

I don't like the greed that drives profit.  I also don't like how that profit gets passed down to their useless children.

Can you define "greed"? Because I think greed is a pretty powerful emotion that can do great things if harnessed properly. It provides important incentives.

[The Shaggy Marlin]

From Dictionary.com

greed   Audio Help   (grēd)  Pronunciation Key 
n.   An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

[zard0z]

Define "greed".

You're kidding, right...?

[T-M-T]

I don't like the greed that drives profit.  I'm sorry but NO HUMAN needs more than $200,000 a year to survive off of.  All of that excess goes to making more money.  You see for something, there isn't a such thing as too much money.  While children starve the rich live in their ivory towers looking down upon the common man because we do not have the cash that the rich man does.

Not to survive, they don't.  But when providing for a family including good schools, the best medical care, extracurricular activities, travel, saving for college and retirement and putting money aside "just in case,"  $200,000 a year (before taxes) doesn't make you crazy rich.

[Greg Chamberlain]

I'm sorry but NO HUMAN needs more than $200,000 a year to survive off of.  All of that excess goes to making more money.

Actually, I'm pretty sure no human really needs more than like $15,000/year to survive. In fact, I know someone who lives on about that much money per year who lives a fairly minimal yet happy life. Of course, I wouldn't find that kind of life very comfortable so I endeavor to earn more than that.

I think part of economic freedom means deciding for yourself what you need, and whether the amount of work needed for that is reasonable.

You're kidding, right...?

No. I was actually hoping we would center this on the dictionary definition which involves "need' and "deserves".

[Greg Chamberlain]

Last year, Tiger Woods earned around $177 million dollars from winnings and endorsements. That is nearly 1000x the figure Shaggy mentioned in #7. Would this be an example of greed? Certainly Tiger doesn't NEED $177 million to survive, but does he deserve it?

Well, when Tiger Woods endorses a product, that product tends to sell really well. In fact, it usually generates more profit than it cost to get Tiger's endorsement (otherwise what would be the point?). So, the case could certainly be made that Tiger deserved his fee. Same goes for his winnings because his participation increases ad revenue above and beyond what his prize money costs. In fact, it is so much more, that golf tours are willing to pay Tiger just to show up to play.

I think greed from the standpoint of earning more money than you need isn't really such a bad thing. And further, I think greed as a matter of "deserves" has to take into consideration the entire arrangement. Basically, I think what I'm saying is while greed can cause people to do bad thing, it itself isn't entirely bad.

[The Shaggy Marlin]

Last year, Tiger Woods earned around $177 million dollars from winnings and endorsements. That is nearly 1000x the figure Shaggy mentioned in #7. Would this be an example of greed? Certainly Tiger doesn't NEED $177 million to survive, but does he deserve it?

Well, when Tiger Woods endorses a product, that product tends to sell really well. In fact, it usually generates more profit than it cost to get Tiger's endorsement (otherwise what would be the point?). So, the case could certainly be made that Tiger deserved his fee. Same goes for his winnings because his participation increases ad revenue above and beyond what his prize money costs. In fact, it is so much more, that golf tours are willing to pay Tiger just to show up to play.

I think greed from the standpoint of earning more money than you need isn't really such a bad thing. And further, I think greed as a matter of "deserves" has to take into consideration the entire arrangement. Basically, I think what I'm saying is while greed can cause people to do bad thing, it itself isn't entirely bad.

Well, you obviously have a different view of "deserves" than I do.  You see I don't believe that anyone should get paid such a ridiculous amount for playing a game.  Yes, he has a talent that surpasses any in his game, but that talent is a gift and gifts should be shared.  This reminds me of when I read tarot.  I could have charged upwards of $20 a reading because I was that damn good, but I didn't because it was morally offensive to do so.  Personally I can barely live with myself making what I do for the job I do.  The only reason why I don't give all if it away is because I'm in debt, because I listened to the culture of greed as a youth, and a guy like me wouldn't last that long in prision.    Now if you want to make money, fine, but let's make it reasonable.  I say a CEO of any company shouldn't make more than 10X the amount of his lowest paid full time employee. 

Not to survive, they don't.  But when providing for a family including good schools, the best medical care, extracurricular activities, travel, saving for college and retirement and putting money aside "just in case,"  $200,000 a year (before taxes) doesn't make you crazy rich.

Riddle me this.  My father has never made more that $60,000 a year in his life.  He raised 3 sons, owns a 28 ft boat, and a house.  He travels to Mexico at least twice a year to go SCUBA diving.  Oh, just an FYI, mom didn't start working until about 5 years ago and their combined income is less than $110k a year now. Tell me now that you need $200k a year gross.  You see children are way too relient on their parents now adays.  When I was 17 I went to college.  I took out all the loans under my name and was told not to come back home unless I had a degree.  Well, I didn't have a degree so I didn't come back home.  It's all about instilling the value of something into your children.

You don't need the fastest car, you don't need the best cell phone, you don't need to eat steak every night.  People don't understand that.