'You Didn't Build That'

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A man can't build a bridge without two banks to anchor it on.

Do you mean banks literally or metaphorically? I could see both.

I think we should let it stand in its ambiguity, because in that sense it's a rather good pun, ne?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The workers then are individually replaceable but collectively obviously not. I don't know that that's necessarily any less relevant than Ludwig being (ostensibly) individually irreplaceable.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think anybody disputes that. What we're disputing is what constitutes effective or preferable utilization.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's all a matter of ideological point of view, jmfcst.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's all a matter of ideological point of view, jmfcst.

No, it's a matter of understanding how capital flows function, Heinrich.

There's no fundamental reason why capitalist ownership on the particular hierarchical model that is for the most part currently followed would be necessary for capital flows to work, except for just enjoying the hierarchical model on its own merits.

I don't think any of us are denying the necessity of some semblance of a market.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There's no fundamental reason why capitalist ownership on the particular hierarchical model that is for the most part currently followed would be necessary for capital flows to work, except for just enjoying the hierarchical model on its own merits.

Ever been to school?  Don't all the students start each semester with a clean slate?  Yet some excel while others struggle.  Why is that?  Isn't part of the reason is that some are smarter and/or work harder than others and therefore are more effective at school?

So it is in life - if you redistributed all the wealth evenly and then left the individuals to their own merits, after a relative short period of time, you'd end up with roughly the same distribution as you currently see.  The only way to keep the wealth evenly distributed is to hold back the more effective.

Every semester you were in school taught you that lesson.  Apply it.

I'm actually extremely good at formal education, but they don't give me control over the livelihoods and grades of the C students on that basis. Social stratification isn't usually meritocratic, and even when it is what's being rewarded with control of work is not always skill at the type of work being controlled. Not every analogy works.

Did you ever have study buddies or lab partners? I actually didn't, usually, because I'm not that good with people, but I'm told most people have.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think any of us are denying the necessity of some semblance of a market.

why offer this?  in the New World, there will be football games, and people will bet on them, and others still will book the bets.  markets always and ever take the place of where the human mind cannot reach.  when time runs out, turn to markets; otherwise, compassion and intelligence and empathy Save the Day.

A market's just any mechanism to actually distribute stuff, in any way other than top-down (or center-out). Of course it should be run according to principles other than make-a-buck-quick.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nathan, I'm not sure you understand the way markets work and why they work. It's not really something you can construct based on whatever arbitrary principle you personally like. Which is what jmfcst was saying - I got his analogy just fine.

The point I was trying to make was germane to regulation and to how we socially conceptualize markets, not to what a market's necessarily actually 'doing' at its core. I think we probably had different ideas of what jmfcst's point was supposed to be.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nathan, I'm not sure you understand the way markets work and why they work. It's not really something you can construct based on whatever arbitrary principle you personally like. Which is what jmfcst was saying - I got his analogy just fine.

The point I was trying to make was germane to regulation and to how we socially conceptualize markets, not to what a market's necessarily actually 'doing' at its core. I think we probably had different ideas of what jmfcst's point was supposed to be.

You seemed to be saying that we can decide what motives drive actors in the market, but that's pretty dubious. But it's possible that I misunderstood you.

He'll correct me if I'm putting the wrong words in his mouth, but I think what Nathan was getting at with that comment was that we should have some regulation to muzzle the market and try - to the extent that it's possible  - to harness the maximum positive and reduce the negative effects of a free market system.

I mean, let's say taxes may reduce the incentive to earn, but that still doesn't make it okay for a modern country not to have tax-funded public healthcare, and so on.

Oh, then I just misread him. That part sort of goes without saying, in my opinion. I got the impression that he views markets as a social construct that could be anything and I disagree with that assessment.

I do think the way people conceive of markets can to an extent be socially constructed or reconstructed but what I was getting at was basically Oakvale's interpretation, yes.