The Terrible Sweal

Not outrageous, just extremely speculative. He means the total return, ... Really? Then it's a point that would be hardly worth making: 'bigger pools of capital are bigger than smaller pools of capital'. I thought Mises was proposing that the untrammelled market would provide the need of the poor because of the attractiveness of mass markets. Ergo, he would be suggesting that mass markets are more profitable. (Which, as I have shown, does not hold.)

Oh, the Irony!

Something seems to have happened to the fascinating discussion of medieval Iceland that used to be here.

Ask modern Russia?

So guess what. Bombardier has, all this while, as they collected government loans and guarantees to fund an ocean of debt, been PAYING DIVIDEND. I.e. Bombardier has been funnelling tax money into shareholder pockets. Personlly I find that outrageous. No company should be crying poor and getting relief while they're shovelling the money out the back door.

Here we go again. What poverty line? How measured? Including and excluding what? If it were a savings system, how could there be a surplus? There's no such thing as "surplus savings". However, there can be a surplus if you're redistributing wealth and you find that more people paid in than withdrew! I feel you are improperly recruiting my comment to support you psotion there. First, you're discussing (unfunded government) pensions, but use my comment about UI. As I pointed out earlier, these are different programs with different characteristics. As regards unfunded public pension plans, they are subject to a range of publicpoliy criticsm in their form and function. Most of those would be met by the simple application of actuarial reality to the pricing of the benefit. I.e. make it fund itself properly. If this were done, the program would effectivly become a savings/investment program. In their present form, it is not untrue to say unfunded public pensions are a wealth redistribution program. However, in terms of left/right political economy, they redistibute wealth in very peculiar directions and theory fom either camp seems to overlook that. UI has been generating a surplus because of improper pricing as well. Particpants have been charged more than the cost of the benefit, over recent periods. Instead of arguably legitimate uses (reduced premiums, risk mitigation, or cost control) the surplus as been approptirated into general funds by the federal government and spent on governemtn activities. UI itself is therefor not an income redistribution program. Sweden has 287 doctors per 100,000 people. The USA has 279. Hong Kong has 160. I don't think it's access to medical care facilities. There are two difficlties with this response. First, you are addressing my example, but not my point of logic. Whatever the cause, longevity in Hong Kong does not disprove that Sweden's longevity is achieved through social welfare. Second, your counterpoint actually supports my example. Possibly, concentration and proximity allows a mere 160 doctors to serve Hong Kong as well as many more do in other places. I'm not interested in that. I'm describing Canada's UI program. Good grief Hugo! You can't just say "all else being equal" to eliminate the very point of the exercise! Mises theory is (supposedly) that as a general rule, a mass market will better returns. My answer is that this doesn't hold as a general rule because margins matter just as much as scale. You can't meet that criticism by just saying 'Yes, but hold margins equal...!' That’s not the issue. High cost sellers in low margin areas will not succeed, obviously. 'If what I say is true', all I need to show you is what I aready have, the obvious: returns depend on scale AND margin. I'm not sure what their cause is, but your frequent imprecisions tend to produce fallacies of ambiguity in discussions. I am most decidely NOT "claiming the wealth of a company is not measured in overall profits but in profit per unit". I don't understand how you can even say that since we've already been through the BECOME discussion once already. Mises (apparently) is claiming that the return of high volume business as a general rule will be better than lower volumes. He is wrong.

That is a possible, but not necessary, conclusion. It is equally possible that Swedish longevity has been obtained through social welfare and that Hong Kong's has been acheived through some other process (e.g. concentration of population near medical care facilities). And what is that? Pretty much the things you already acknowledged, though I probably view them as being more valuable than you would. Again, you misdescribe it. Canada's UI system has generated a surplus from premium payments for many years now. By sharing the risk of short term unemployment, it acheives the three benefits I listed. Mises is wrong. Look: Company A # units = 100 Product A cost to market: $10,000/unit Market Price = $100,000/unit Revenue: 10M Profit: 9M Company B # units = 1,000,000 Product B cost to market: $ 0.10/unit Market price = $ 1.00/unit Revenue= $1,000,000 Profit = $900,000

Therefore, I think a comparison of Hong Kong to Sweden is just as useful as a comparison of the USA to Sweden, and you had no problem with the latter. The original point compared Sweden to 'anywhere'. You then chose to compare Sweden to the USA. That is the discussion we are having now: Sweden/USA. Yes, I know that's what you think. I'm saying that's incomplete, because it ignores the fact that substantial value is obtained by Swedes independent of the quantum of their income. Hah. Tell that to George W. Bush and Paul Martin. They insist on calling their redistributive schemes "pensions". To be fair, let me be clear: you did not originate the imprecise use of the word pension. Nevertheless, using one term to describe two much different things is confusing and should be avoided. That is the most immediate incentive for employees to participate, yes. Regulating? I certainly didn't say regulating. That is what salaries are for, primarily to avoid poverty, ... !??! Sorry, no. Salaries are like remuneration of any kind -- incentivising sought-after activity. No, "wealth" is an absolute, measured in material assets. Please pay attention. It says, if you'd bother to look: "BECOME rich". Note the semantic element indicating change from one condition to another. BECOME rich. Generate wealth.

Without a substantial analysis of factual similarities and differences, I don't think bringing any third state into a comparison of Sweden and the US is particularly likely to be useful. That definition means that your argument ends up simply going in a circle. A point still at issue here is the utility of an income-based comparison of poverty at all. You say the poor in America are better off than the poor in Sweden based on the quantum of income, but I say quantum is not meaningful without an assessment of value. You're shifting ground again. You've inserted 'children' out of nowhere, and you're switched my example of fresh fruit to some generic staples calculation. So, this reply is a non sequitur. Well, actually pensions are a wealth redistribution scheme. You support pensioners now. Ah. See, here is the danger of using sloppy terminology. By pensions, you mean welfare schemes targetted at the elderly or disabled poor. True, they are often labelled 'pensions', but that's an imprecission we should try to avoid for clarity's sake. The goal of unemployment insurance is not the abrogation of poverty. The short term unemployed don't often fall into actual poverty. UI is a risk-sharing program. And, "we" don't "provide" it. It is paid for (ie. provided) by employers and employees. It's macro benefit is stability, efficiency and flexibility in the labor market. Pensions (of the 'real' kind where payments go in and a benefit comes out eventually) are not for the abrogation of poverty, unless you also agree that that's what salaries are for. Welfare-type programs have as an immediate purpose the abrogation of poverty, but that purpose is selected because it will (theoretically) capture other important values in so doing. I'm not inclined to hear your anecdotal evidence. You should be. "Could". But didn't. No, I don't think so. YOU don't think so? Well, my dear interlocutor, please take that up with the disciplines of Finance and Economics. They both have a lot in them you might find informative. But that is NOT what we are speaking of. We are speaking of Mises (alleged) position that " it's a lot more likely to become rich through selling to the masses". So, our concern is with production of wealth, and so obviously the rate of return is the central concern.

And my reply is that before you make that conclusion you have to determine that Americans are first somehow obtaining those values that Swedes receive from their social system. You say they seem to, but the opposite seems true to me. I suggest that a 2 year difference is substantial, both as individuals experience life, and as society values its members. Remember, life expectancy figures serve as a rough measure for lifelong wellness. I disagree. Fascinating, but not convincing. Who do you mean by the poor? What good is a cheapass color TV when you can't afford fresh fruit? To digress briefy, folding these three social programs in one lump is probably not a sound analytical approach. Unemploment Insurance is a risk-sharing program, and pensions are payments for value received. I cannot imagine what conception of poverty could possibly lead you to such a conclusion. I have been to both countries and I can assure you that evidence of poverty is much more pervasive in the U.S. No, as I said, I'm skeptical of that as a general principle. As I said, a large low-margin enterprise may make more in absolute terms than a small high-margin enterprise. But the proper measure for wealth creation is relative to the input.

Reminds me of a joke: A bear and a rabbit are both having a BM out behind the woods. The bear looks down at the rabbit and says "Hey rabbit -- d'you have a problem with crap sticking to your fur?" The rabbit looks up and says: "No. Why do you ask?" So the bear grabs the rabbit, wipes himself with him and strolls away.

FOUL. Strawman and/or Red Herring and/or Diversion. Focussing on "consumer goods" changes the ground of the discussion. The point is that Swedish households get value for their tax dollars. Focusing on disposable income ignores this extremely relevant value received. Before you make that conclusion you have to determine that Americans are first somehow obtaining those values that Swedes receive from their social system. That is a different contention than what the author made. And again, it has sufficient counter examples to make it suspect. In terms of what? A large low-margin enterprise may make more in absolute terms than a small high-margin enterprise, but which one would you want investment exposure in?

Ah. Sweden's version of the Fraser Institute.

This is not quite an accurate reflection of what the study found. As Hugo's Mises Institute source states: So, in fact, the Swedish household is not "poorer", it simply has more fixed costs for which it receives defined benefits. In fact, the Mises writer admits as much... Unfortunately, no data about the incomes of American blacks is provided to assess that part of the claim. BTW, it is never really safe to rely on the Mises Institute for economic analysis. They are more a lobby-group than a economic think-tank, and it shows up in a lack of rigour in their positions. Consider: Now, of course, this the fallacy of Hasty Generalization -- when one forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which are not representative of all possible cases. Tell Tiffanies, Louis Vuitton, and Mercedes that you have to go down-market to make money and they'll laugh in your face.

Who or what is The Swedish Institute of Trade and what was their methodology.

Correction, Pocketrocket: THE best science fiction series is FARSCAPE, hands down.

Exactly. If it were possible for a business to lower the price for women's articles, price competitiveness would give them the incentive to do it. "Women's clothes at par"

Link?

Look at these two statements: 1) People have a right to healthcare. 2) White people have a right to healthcare. Faulty analogy.

Where? Demonstrate. Are you insane? IMR said: You replied: But IMR had never said a word about pre-secondary education. You fabricated his alleged stance agains pre-secondary education out of thin air. Knock that kind of stuff of. It's a sleazy, annoying way to behave.

That law woulld have to be extremely carefl o it could run the risk of getting in the way of perfectly legitimate business practices. Price-leading for gender specific business is very common. For example, "ladies night" promotions at bars.

There's nothing distorted about my logic. Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly acceptable strategy ... But what you did was different. You took IMR's statement, interprteted it unreasonably, attributed that unreasonable interpretation to IMR, and set it up as a strawman to apply reductio ad absurdam to. No-one enjoys that crap.

Too slippery, too.

Since he specifically states that only post-secondary education need be paid for, it seems that he is inferring that pre-secondary education is worthless, ... !!!! And here I thought it was only me you used blatantly false distortionary tactics with. Well, it's good to know I'm not alone, but it sucks that making up shitty lies is something you do all the time.

According to you the definition of creation is important, so let's hear your definition! You're being ridiculous. You said metaphysica things can't create anything. It's for you, not me, to have some examinable meaning for such an assertion. You may well have an encyclopedic and unparalleled knowledge of medieval Iceland, for all I know (or care). Lie. Since you know absolutely nothing about the subject, I could tell you that the Icelanders worshipped bricks of cheese and you would not be qualified to say "nonsense." You mistake the nature of my criticism. I don't fault yourknowledge of Iceland. I fault the conclusions you draw about society and government based on that knowledge. Your statement was nonsense because your facts are incapable of amounting to valid support for your contention. Utter nonsense. Why is that? In several ways: The concept of self-governing is at best undefined and likely unworkable depending what you mean. Also, the idea of doing anything other than survive (or not) without a society is inconceivable. It means that the people of Iceland chose, on an individual basis, the laws, policing and dispensation of justice they were going to have, ... This resonse is too superficial. What dos it mean, in practice/mechanically, to say individuals chose thir own laws? I am tempted to say "nonsense" again. Instead I'll sa I cannot begin to speculate on what you might mean by 'buying laws'. Well, personally I'd chose 3 as the number but I wanted to admit the possibility of two. But the answers to your question obviously turn on what I mean by government. I mean the function by which a society makes and carries out common choices and intentions. Since any three people in association do make common choices and intentions, however they do this is the governmental function of their society. Aboriginal Americans. You know, "Indians." You can also look at Australian aboriginals, who also had/have a mutualist, anarchistic society. First, let me alert you to the fact that there were and are numrous different aboriginal North American societies. Second, Australian aborigine society did not exist without a govermental function, as I mean it.