Global Food Crisis, overpopulation and Cannibalism

[Michael Hardner]

If he didn't harm anyone - what's the problem?

The problem is that the greater good is not served. We want the economy to do well so that it serves the greater good, and that's not what happens in this example.

Your view of how the economy should run is beautiful in its symmetry and consistency, but eventually such an economy would turn into a beautiful monstrosity. You depend on the good nature of individual people to not act in their own interest at the expense of the common good, such as someone who corners the market on a precious material, or a trade process. That's not realistic.

That's an extreme example, but even the example of the factory shows how economic power tends to accumulate. The government through its policies and the banks (not just the bank of Canada but private banks) run the country so that it works, so that people generally prosper. That means that the rich are taxed more, and taxed at a higher rate.

That's not fair, in terms of the mathematics, but it works - and it ensures that the individual booms and busts of economic adjustment are smoothed out, even somewhat.

It's a bad system, but to paraphrase Churchill it's better than the others. Part of the proof of that is, that it survives - that a mixed capitalist system with a social safety net beat out hard communism and pure capitalism as the system that won the 20th century.

If we go back to my example of the factory, it's not hard to see how protectionism comes up. Keep in mind that it's one person, one vote, and if economic growth isn't spread around evenly then it will (and should) be mandated by the government.

[Pliny]

What about Standard Oil ?

Part of a cartel sanctioned by government. They get to buy the oil from the government who owns it. Don't forget 80% of oil reserves are owned by government.

[Pliny]

The problem is that the greater good is not served. We want the economy to do well so that it serves the greater good, and that's not what happens in this example.

Your view of how the economy should run is beautiful in its symmetry and consistency, but eventually such an economy would turn into a beautiful monstrosity. You depend on the good nature of individual people to not act in their own interest at the expense of the common good, such as someone who corners the market on a precious material, or a trade process. That's not realistic.

That's an extreme example, but even the example of the factory shows how economic power tends to accumulate. The government through its policies and the banks (not just the bank of Canada but private banks) run the country so that it works, so that people generally prosper. That means that the rich are taxed more, and taxed at a higher rate.

That's not fair, in terms of the mathematics, but it works - and it ensures that the individual booms and busts of economic adjustment are smoothed out, even somewhat.

It's a bad system, but to paraphrase Churchill it's better than the others. Part of the proof of that is, that it survives - that a mixed capitalist system with a social safety net beat out hard communism and pure capitalism as the system that won the 20th century.

If we go back to my example of the factory, it's not hard to see how protectionism comes up. Keep in mind that it's one person, one vote, and if economic growth isn't spread around evenly then it will (and should) be mandated by the government.

I agree that left to it's devices the picture I paint of economic freedom will turn into a monstrosity. That monstrosity will, if reason and justice (the mandate of government) prevail, will be short lived. The monstrosity of a government socially engineered society will not deliver justice because in it's preferred authoritarian righteousness it must commit crimes against it's citizens in order to spread the economic growth. The nature of government to increase and centralize power over time is what needs to be understood.

You may be happy at this point with your democratic government and I can't say it is overly oppressive but does have that tendency already. The problem with a social democracy is not understanding that it is not static but progressive and becomes a system of special interests voting themselves favour and can't help but move toward authoritarian bureaucratic monstrosity that has a monopoly on the use of force making it a solid unchangeable system.

An example of a free market system developing into a monstrosity is the American Health care system. Although part of the problem is government intervention it is as close to a private health care system as we can get. the Beauty of this monstosity is that it has more ability to change than a public system. A public system is inflexible except for minor tinkering usually involving reassessments of priorities and reallocations of resources. It becomes an industry.

Part of the problem in the States is Insurance companies but then again they are hampered in their business of "risk assessment" by government regulations.

In the end we must have more faith in ourselves as honest individuals. Current lib-left basic political philosophy is tainted by a distrust and lack of faith in one's fellow man, his abilities, and his propensity to do the right thing. That outlook makes it very difficult to perceive his basic goodness and blankets the whole human race as a scourge upon the Earth. People like wyly and Waldo have no problem calling the general public stupid and it is a proclivity of the left to perceive humanity as incapable, dull and even evil.

A book I have on my list to read is "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Hans Herman-Hoppe. Apparently it takes Democracy to it's logical conclusion. I offer it as a suggestion for some future reading.

[Michael Hardner]

Part of a cartel sanctioned by government. They get to buy the oil from the government who owns it. Don't forget 80% of oil reserves are owned by government.

But they started out as a cartel when Rockefeller set out to buy up all the oil.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree that left to it's devices the picture I paint of economic freedom will turn into a monstrosity. That monstrosity will, if reason and justice (the mandate of government) prevail, will be short lived. The monstrosity of a government socially engineered society will not deliver justice because in it's preferred authoritarian righteousness it must commit crimes against it's citizens in order to spread the economic growth. The nature of government to increase and centralize power over time is what needs to be understood.

This is a more tempered view. I concur that government, like all things, tends to grow over time. If it doesn't, it dies.

You may be happy at this point with your democratic government and I can't say it is overly oppressive but does have that tendency already. The problem with a social democracy is not understanding that it is not static but progressive and becomes a system of special interests voting themselves favour and can't help but move toward authoritarian bureaucratic monstrosity that has a monopoly on the use of force making it a solid unchangeable system.

An example of a free market system developing into a monstrosity is the American Health care system. Although part of the problem is government intervention it is as close to a private health care system as we can get. the Beauty of this monstosity is that it has more ability to change than a public system. A public system is inflexible except for minor tinkering usually involving reassessments of priorities and reallocations of resources. It becomes an industry.

I think it's highly debatable which system is more flexible - Canada's or the US. Both systems are fiercely protected by powerful interests who won't let go of the power they have.

Part of the problem in the States is Insurance companies but then again they are hampered in their business of "risk assessment" by government regulations.

Government doesn't really force these people to do business, though. They either embed the risk costs into other revenues, or they get out of that business.

In the end we must have more faith in ourselves as honest individuals. Current lib-left basic political philosophy is tainted by a distrust and lack of faith in one's fellow man, his abilities, and his propensity to do the right thing. That outlook makes it very difficult to perceive his basic goodness and blankets the whole human race as a scourge upon the Earth. People like wyly and Waldo have no problem calling the general public stupid and it is a proclivity of the left to perceive humanity as incapable, dull and even evil.

A lot of the distrust of the left, as you point out, is distrust of leftists and their do-gooder ways.

I share that to a degree, but let's look at these issues on their own merits/demerits and not let our distrust of others colour our decisions too much.

A book I have on my list to read is "Democracy: The God that Failed" by Hans Herman-Hoppe. Apparently it takes Democracy to it's logical conclusion. I offer it as a suggestion for some future reading.

As time goes on, the economy improves so the results of failure aren't as dire to an individual. For example, if you were unemployed 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago, the consequences could be life-threatening. As the economy continues to improve, we should be able to provide the basics for everyone at less cost so the social safety net will change to cover needs that are more... social... like finding people emotional support, and a network wherein they can find a place in society.

It's kind of blue sky, but hey that's the type of conversation this is.

[blueblood]

But they started out as a cartel when Rockefeller set out to buy up all the oil.

But did he have an actual monopoly? Only gov't can legitimately pull that off.

Had Rockefeller actually pulled it off, there are just too many reserves in the world, too many other players, and the price of energy would have rose to a point where alternatives would have been considered a long time ago.

Bill Gates famously said "It's not the competition I fear, it's the guy in the garage coming up with the next thing that will make me obselete." Now we have Google nipping at Microsoft.

[Michael Hardner]

But did he have an actual monopoly? Only gov't can legitimately pull that off.

Had Rockefeller actually pulled it off, there are just too many reserves in the world, too many other players, and the price of energy would have rose to a point where alternatives would have been considered a long time ago.

Bill Gates famously said "It's not the competition I fear, it's the guy in the garage coming up with the next thing that will make me obselete." Now we have Google nipping at Microsoft.

Why do you keep saying only government can pull that off ? This was early on, before global oil exploration had started. His pricing strategy would have taken into account alternatives such as you mentioned.

[blueblood]

Why do you keep saying only government can pull that off ? This was early on, before global oil exploration had started. His pricing strategy would have taken into account alternatives such as you mentioned.

The government has the power to pass laws stating a monopoly can exist (theirs) in a particular industry. As much dollars as Rockefeller had, he couldn't pull this off, Rockefeller can not pass a law, even though he can gain an extremely large market share. The price of oil would always make it attractive to groups of investors wanting to make a buck off of it, or the exploration of alternatives would occur. Then there are the ineffeciencies of running a company of that size.

[Michael Hardner]

The government has the power to pass laws stating a monopoly can exist (theirs) in a particular industry. As much dollars as Rockefeller had, he couldn't pull this off, Rockefeller can not pass a law, even though he can gain an extremely large market share. The price of oil would always make it attractive to groups of investors wanting to make a buck off of it, or the exploration of alternatives would occur. Then there are the ineffeciencies of running a company of that size.

You have it backwards. You don't need to pass laws saying monopolies can exist - they come up naturally in some sectors. The exploration of other opportunities could occur, but he could manipulate the price against that alternative.

[blueblood]

You have it backwards. You don't need to pass laws saying monopolies can exist - they come up naturally in some sectors. The exploration of other opportunities could occur, but he could manipulate the price against that alternative.

I think you have monopolies and oligopolies mixed up. Eventually Rockefeller would be competing against various state owned oil companies from other countries and other oil companies from england. And eventually alternatives. The only way Rockefeller could have a true monopoly in the US is if the gov't legislated it. He is a dominant player otherwise (albeit extremely dominant), there would always be other players entering the energy industry.

[Michael Hardner]

I think you have monopolies and oligopolies mixed up. Eventually Rockefeller would be competing against various state owned oil companies from other countries and other oil companies from england. And eventually alternatives. The only way Rockefeller could have a true monopoly in the US is if the gov't legislated it. He is a dominant player otherwise (albeit extremely dominant), there would always be other players entering the energy industry.

He wasn't though. He had bought up much of the supply. How does the government legislate that ?

[blueblood]

He wasn't though. He had bought up much of the supply. How does the government legislate that ?

If the gov't wanted Rockefeller to have a monopoly, they'd simply pass a law similar to how autopac, SGI, MB Hydro, etc.

Bill Gates has a virtual monopoly on Operating Systems for Computers, but not a true monopoly.

[Oleg Bach]

What about Standard Oil ?

Our social policy including on how to handle and control or coerce the poor into complance was not dictated by government or any private charitable organization..It was created and implimented by big buisness..by a few controlling old executives out of the late 1950s - these men dispised charity and only saw it as a shield held against them and their agenda concerning the bottom line..this attitude still exist and that's why they feed the Haitians buiscuts instead of real food during his emergency. Heaven forbid that the poor gain enough strength to say no to the offer of heavey labour at subistance wages..you have to starve them into submission - and if they perish in the process at least you don't have to feed the useless bottom feeding humans.

[blueblood]

Our social policy including on how to handle and control or coerce the poor into complance was not dictated by government or any private charitable organization..It was created and implimented by big buisness..by a few controlling old executives out of the late 1950s - these men dispised charity and only saw it as a shield held against them and their agenda concerning the bottom line..this attitude still exist and that's why they feed the Haitians buiscuts instead of real food during his emergency. Heaven forbid that the poor gain enough strength to say no to the offer of heavey labour at subistance wages..you have to starve them into submission - and if they perish in the process at least you don't have to feed the useless bottom feeding humans.

Do you have any idea how the ag industry works?

[Pliny]

You have it backwards. You don't need to pass laws saying monopolies can exist - they come up naturally in some sectors. The exploration of other opportunities could occur, but he could manipulate the price against that alternative.

What monopolies come up naturally?

A monopoly has a very small chance of occurring naturally. Competition and innovation prevent them from occurring.

Laws that are enabling to monopolies are licensing laws, certification laws, qualification requirements, excessive fees.

Rockefeller Jr. married into the Aldrich family of NY. Aldrich was a prominent politician and very influential in writing laws regarding business and banking. No doubt Rockefeller Senior had some input into writing laws limiting competition since he hated competition and thought it was the greatest sin.

[Pliny]

He wasn't though. He had bought up much of the supply. How does the government legislate that ?

In the US landowners own the mineral rights. Rockefeller paid the landowners royalties to drill and extract oil. Many people got rich from that, not just Rockefeller.

In Canada we don't own the mineral rights when we buy land. The wealth isn't spread around much because of that "Government" regulation.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

If the gov't wanted Rockefeller to have a monopoly, they'd simply pass a law similar to how autopac, SGI, MB Hydro, etc.

Bill Gates has a virtual monopoly on Operating Systems for Computers, but not a true monopoly.

If Bill Gates had a patent on the idea for all operating systems, then that would be a true monopoly.

[Michael Hardner]

In the US landowners own the mineral rights. Rockefeller paid the landowners royalties to drill and extract oil. Many people got rich from that, not just Rockefeller.

In Canada we don't own the mineral rights when we buy land. The wealth isn't spread around much because of that "Government" regulation.

So, again, I'm wondering why we're still saying that monopolies happen because of regulations. Sure, there are regulations regarding non-competition, and laws protecting private property, and laws that govern mineral and oil rights - is this what we're talking about ?

If so, then I don't see why we're saying that government regulation leads to monopoly. Is that what we're saying ?

We should also throw oligopoly out there as an ownership structure that doesn't serve the public good in some situations.

[blueblood]

If Bill Gates had a patent on the idea for all operating systems, then that would be a true monopoly.

Patents expire, and a patent is a gov't tool.

[Michael Hardner]

Patents expire, and a patent is a gov't tool.

Ok. So, you're saying that a way to stop monopolies is to release patents, take back mineral rights and so on where required ? I'm confused. Aren't those ways that the government could come in to prevent monopolies ? I guess your statement:

Monopolies only exist because of gov't regulations.

means that if government didn't prevent theft, grant property rights and so forth, then there would be no protection for those who try to corner the market on a commodity, or process.

If that's what you mean, fair enough, but it's really a statement of philosophy that you have made, as far as I can see, and nothing that we can incorporate into real policies. We still have to protect patents, property, and secrets and we still have to mediate those rights to make sure the common good is still served.

[blueblood]

Ok. So, you're saying that a way to stop monopolies is to release patents, take back mineral rights and so on where required ? I'm confused. Aren't those ways that the government could come in to prevent monopolies ? I guess your statement:

Monopolies only exist because of gov't regulations.

means that if government didn't prevent theft, grant property rights and so forth, then there would be no protection for those who try to corner the market on a commodity, or process.

If that's what you mean, fair enough, but it's really a statement of philosophy that you have made, as far as I can see, and nothing that we can incorporate into real policies. We still have to protect patents, property, and secrets and we still have to mediate those rights to make sure the common good is still served.

People can try to corner a market, but that ends up driving prices which allows new players to come in and try to get a piece of an expanding pie.

IMO a monopoly is one company that has 100% of share and has no chance of losing it. The only things I know of that fit that description are crown corporations operating with laws barring the competition.

One thing of interest to me is Coca-Cola has no patent. It is a trade secret and I think only 2-3 people actually know the secret recipe at a time. They may have the market cornered, but they certainly don't have a monopoly. Recording Artists have patents and can soak customers based on the fact that they have them, which I don't necessarily agree with.

Maple Leaf foods has one of the largest share of the meat market in Canada, however there are lots of little guys in the meat market as well. It takes time and resources to compete against little guys, so Maple leaf lets them have a small share of the market, however if they perceive the little guys as a threat, the hammer comes down.

The entrepreneurial process is an amazing thing, just when you think a company is so large and has such dominant market share, someone else comes along with something different and its a whole new ballgame. That's why I don't buy that Rockefeller had a monopoly on the oil market, technically someone else would come in and try and cash in. Another thing to note is that the first diesel engine was powered by peanut oil, which was seen as an alternative to oil. Rockefeller came close to a monopoly, but it just isn't feasible without gov't making it happeen.

[Michael Hardner]

People can try to corner a market, but that ends up driving prices which allows new players to come in and try to get a piece of an expanding pie.

Not in every situation.

IMO a monopoly is one company that has 100% of share and has no chance of losing it. The only things I know of that fit that description are crown corporations operating with laws barring the competition.

Your definition is too rigid. Nothing is forever, and there's no such thing as "zero chance of losing it". Even crown corporations aren't necessarily forever.

One thing of interest to me is Coca-Cola has no patent. It is a trade secret and I think only 2-3 people actually know the secret recipe at a time. They may have the market cornered, but they certainly don't have a monopoly. Recording Artists have patents and can soak customers based on the fact that they have them, which I don't necessarily agree with.

Maple Leaf foods has one of the largest share of the meat market in Canada, however there are lots of little guys in the meat market as well. It takes time and resources to compete against little guys, so Maple leaf lets them have a small share of the market, however if they perceive the little guys as a threat, the hammer comes down.

The entrepreneurial process is an amazing thing, just when you think a company is so large and has such dominant market share, someone else comes along with something different and its a whole new ballgame. That's why I don't buy that Rockefeller had a monopoly on the oil market, technically someone else would come in and try and cash in. Another thing to note is that the first diesel engine was powered by peanut oil, which was seen as an alternative to oil. Rockefeller came close to a monopoly, but it just isn't feasible without gov't making it happeen.

"gov't making it happen" meaning government protecting private property, as I said in my last post. We're going in circles.

[Pliny]

Your definition is too rigid. Nothing is forever, and there's no such thing as "zero chance of losing it". Even crown corporations aren't necessarily forever.

Right. Nothing is forever. You only have problem with that when jobs disappear and workers are abandoned for capitalist interests. That is all a part of progress if you like "progressivism". When the health care system is no longer economically sustainable that monopoly will disappear and it won't involve a few thousand workers but the entire populace.

You seem more concerned with equitable wealth distribution and the public good though, Michael. Government creating monopolies is not in the public interest. It benefits some at the expense of others. And that is the basic problem with government it is not a zero sum activity. It must take from some, which we'll consider the losers, before it can give to anyone. Right now we are taking from the productio of future genrations to pay for the benefits of this generation. Those same benefits won't be there for those future generations.

You might complain of a few thousand workers who have come to think there is "there is zero chance of losing their job" and who have instilled in their minds that they are supposed to last forever.

"gov't making it happen" meaning government protecting private property, as I said in my last post. We're going in circles.

There is a legitimate mandate for government and it must perceive each individual to be treated equally in the protection of the sanctity of person and property. It is the only way that society can be stable enough to produce.

[Michael Hardner]

Right. Nothing is forever. You only have problem with that when jobs disappear and workers are abandoned for capitalist interests. That is all a part of progress if you like "progressivism". When the health care system is no longer economically sustainable that monopoly will disappear and it won't involve a few thousand workers but the entire populace.

No, I have a problem with using "nothing is forever" as a basis for saying effectively that monopolies aren't really a problem. For example, saying JD Rockefeller may have cornered the market on oil, but only a few decades or a century later, there was nuclear and solar.

The example of jobs disappearing is not a "problem" either. As I indicated above, it's an economic improvement that needs to be managed. It's an opportunity.

The health care example probably deserves its own thread, as this thread has drifted quite a bit anyway.

You seem more concerned with equitable wealth distribution and the public good though, Michael.

How many times do I have to explain that it's not about wealth distribution, but managing economic change ? The industrial revolution wasn't managed at all, and the resulting shock to the economic system brought revolution.

Government creating monopolies is not in the public interest. It benefits some at the expense of others. And that is the basic problem with government it is not a zero sum activity. It must take from some, which we'll consider the losers, before it can give to anyone. Right now we are taking from the productio of future genrations to pay for the benefits of this generation. Those same benefits won't be there for those future generations.

At no point in this thread did I advocate the creation of monopolies by government. You keep trying to pull the conversation back to wealth distribution, I guess because that's where you're most comfortable - where your abstract philosophical points ring the truest.

You might complain of a few thousand workers who have come to think there is "there is zero chance of losing their job" and who have instilled in their minds that they are supposed to last forever.

There is a legitimate mandate for government and it must perceive each individual to be treated equally in the protection of the sanctity of person and property. It is the only way that society can be stable enough to produce.

Yes, and I made that point to illustrate why monopolies or oligopolies may arise around limited resources, or trade secrets. When Blueblood said "Monopolies only exist because of gov't regulations. " he spoke of government guarantees of exploration rights, as if to say that one way to stop monopolies from arising would be to rescind patent or exploration rights.

So again, I'm not talking about wealth distribution but management of change which can bring economic improvements and, simultaneously, catastrophe to any sector overnight. The laissez-faire philosophy, if executed to its symmetrical perfection, will not mitigate these catastrophes.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Pliny]

So again, I'm not talking about wealth distribution but management of change which can bring economic improvements and, simultaneously, catastrophe to any sector overnight. The laissez-faire philosophy, if executed to its symmetrical perfection, will not mitigate these catastrophes.

Laissez-faire does mitigate the catastrophes by the mere fact that "all" sectors of the economy are not generally affected by one sector. Government broadly manages all sectors and any ineptness in it's management skills affects all sectors of the economy.

Government has taken over the creation of money. The tools it uses to attempt to "manage" the economy affect everyone. Interest rates, inflation, fiscal policy, trade policy, taxation and tariffs.

It has also taken over health care in Canada. The fact it is at best a mediocre system affects everyone. A system that ranks 30th in developed nations cannot be touched? No reform is possible and the Government that attempts it is suicidal. We must fund it into oblivion.

So when you have a central authority "managing" a whole nation's economy you better hope they understand economics and don't just make policy that secures their revenues and their retention of the seat of government - playing politics instead of managing an economy.

Correct management of the economy would demand too much of the democratic populace to ever tolerate it. Promises must be made to keep their vote. Is catering to those interests for the common good or is it simply vote buying?

There is an argument to be made against the protection of intellectual property rights. If all of humanity can benefit from invention or idea then why should intellectual property rights prevent it especially for monetary reasons.

Ayn Rand believed that all around her were stealing her ideas and came into conflict with many of her closest friends and supporters because of it.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Pliny