ART

Jon, would you really rthear "live in Cuba than any of those places."You better believe it. Starvation seems pretty unpleasant to me. That's what you get in right wing free market Haiti.Jon: "Do you think Americans eat too much food? Here's a map of obesity trends."RonH: Well, I can't say for sure. You would have to ask them.No I would not.You are misusing the term Laissez-Faire. The term you want is Croney-Capitalism.No, Laissez-Faire is correct. On Laissez-Faire Capitalism my goal is to maximize the profits to investors. So let's just suppose I have 1000 calories of food to sell. A poor African has only eaten 500 today and an American has already eaten 2000. If creating deceptive advertising that causes the American to consume those extra 1000 calories and that is more profitable than getting it into the belly of the African, then what should I do on Laissez-Faire Capitalism?I would call that government stimulus spending, based on the false premise, beloved by Keynesians, that ANY spending creates demand, and therefore economic growth.You've gotten confused. In my analogy the government didn't pay anyone to dig ditches and refill them. The economic system with or without government did. Remember, we're talking about advertising that preys on irrational tendencies in people in order to persuade them to purchase things that are not in their rational interest. Billions is spent in advertising in order to induce the purchase of billions more in consumer goods that are not really needed from a rational perspective. Of course they are needed for profit maximization, so they are rational from the Laissez-Faire capitalistic position. Meanwhile poor Africans are starving. Your answer is it's OK because at least people in marketing get a salary and that boosts the economy. You are the Keynsian here, arguing that it's OK to waste because of the positive effects. I'm saying regardless of that why shouldn't we call this an inefficiency? If this is not an inefficiency you'll have to define what you mean by inefficiency.Again, you are describing croney-capitalism, in which business people enlists the tyranny of government to force outcomes they favor.Absolutely not. Did you read the article? Capitalism seeks profits and that means exploitable labor. The barrier to exploitable labor is often government, meaning on LF Capitalism we can see the incentive structure for dislodging unfriendly governments (meaning unfriendly to profits). Socialism's incentive structure is different in important ways that actually reduce these kinds of incentives.LOL, that's not a real world example, but a common theoretical thrown up in discussions of "fairness", and "duress".Oh, I thought you believed thatAny interference in that transaction by government in the form of regulations, taxes, or other restrictions diminishes the overall satisfaction of the two parties by adding costs.Some interference is OK. As long as you are under duress. Define duress for me. There was no threat. No violence. Purely voluntary transaction. Sure, you have a desperate need for water, but is the capitalist obligated to just give it to you? Is there something wrong with coming to agreeable terms?You probably want to skip the requirement for sex with my wife, as I can't commit another person to action against their will.Sure. He'll want both your signature and hers. Of course if you don't like that bargain that's fine. He'll leave and you, your wife, and your children will die. That is if you believe that voluntary transactions not involving violence or force are binding. Or do you not believe that?

Not Given