Vander Zalm speaks out against outsourcing

[Michael Hardner]

A truly free economy has never existed but if you look at periods of history where we have come close, for instance, America for about 20 years post-Revolution and between 1840 and 1860, industrial development, innovation and trade all boomed without any government input at all.

Even if such a system would work, the conditions requiring that to happen would be impossible to produce.

And in the end, countries with no advantage at all would become virtual slave states, wouldn't they ? I'm asking here, not telling.

[Hugo]

Even if such a system would work, the conditions requiring that to happen would be impossible to produce.

Pure capitalism would require the abolition of nation-states, for one thing. But we should strive to get as close as possible.

And in the end, countries with no advantage at all would become virtual slave states, wouldn't they ?

No. They would develop in their own right and create their own wealth. The situation you see in the third world right now is, economically, quite similar to our own at around the time of the industrial revolution, give or take perhaps a century. As capitalism generates increased wealth, increased leisure and better living conditions, their condition will constantly improve as long as they adhere to the free market. World capitalism is inevitable, it is the only system that actually works, and when we reach such a point we may be in a position to pursue pure capitalism and complete liberty. Murray Rothbard wrote about this in A Future of Peace and Capitalism which is well worth reading. There is an online copy here.

[maplesyrup]

This jerk Hahn, or whatever his name is, who is in charge of BC Ferries, needs to get the boot - imagine going to a conference to give a speech on privatization. Who the hell does he think he is? Are the BC taxpayers paying for his trip? For one thing he is way overpaid. This must be Premier Campbell's secret agenda. What is he anyways, a lush like Campbell, one of Campbell's drinking buddies? :angry:

[takeanumber]

Well, we can quibble over the fate of Spain, but it doesn't change the fact that Spain in the 16th Century mirrors Saudi Arabia, and both had fast, easy money through comparative advantage, and Saudi Arabia will eventually go the way of Spain.

I believe that it was fundamentally an economic failure that caused Spainish decline, and I believe that it will be fundamentally an economic failure that leads to the Saudi's, and most likely, the United States. (If they continue to trade greenbacks for solid goods...selling trust in effect.)

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

Government DOES have a role in expropriation.

Why do you think it happens all the time in the city?

There's incentive to extort the city for the maximum amount possible. The government can buy up 101 of the 102 plots needed for a railway, or a highway, that would benefit hundreds of thousands of people, and then you have the risk of a single person holding it all up. Extorting the government for millions if they wanted.

And the market says it fine.

But I, and most people, would not. It's not pareto optimal, it's not even cost-effective.

And worse, it leads to market failure. Why, because it undermines trust and cooperation, which are essential to a well functioning market.

This is why PPP's are popular in neo con provinces. You get governments which reduce expropriation risk (imagine a private firm getting held hostage, in fact, I can think of one, look 'Calgary Stampede Board' with respect to Victoria Park. That's a solid example of what happens.)

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

You need government policies to foster capital intensive industries.

I'll quote the following case studies:

Prussia, 1860's.

France, 1850's.

Korea, 1950-present.

Japan, 1955-present.

Canada, "the National Policy", 1870's (I think)

Brazil, 1920-1985, 1990-1995.

Sure, you might be able to do it the British way (1740-1850) of slow capital accretion, but most people won't wait a hundred years.

You need a large amount of land.

You need government cooperation.

You need a critical mass to form a specialized cluster.

I'm not arguing that government should do everything.

I'm arguing that government has a moderate role to play in faciliating a desirable outcome.

And no, Market outcomes are not always desirable.

I understand that intellectualism breeds extremism, but you have to take a step back from being an idealogue and face the realities of our time.

[August1991]

Well, we can quibble over the fate of Spain, but it doesn't change the fact that Spain in the 16th Century mirrors Saudi Arabia, and both had fast, easy money through comparative advantage, and Saudi Arabia will eventually go the way of Spain.

I'm uncomfortable discussing Spain in the 16th century since while I know about the Duc de Parme and the defeat of the Armada, I'm hardly knowledgeable.

As to Saudi Arabia, I've travelled there and met Saudis. I have to say that it is one of the most weird places I've ever been to. (All things considered, Iran is more normal.)

I agree with you TalkNumb but for slightly different reasons. True, as soon as the oil runs out (or its use is replaced), the Saudis will have nothing. But in addition, the Saud family's hold on the country is tenuous and feudal. I'm also surprised to read rarely about how the Saud population is about 7 million and the non-Saud population is about the same. (These numbers are extremely rough, and indeed unknowable.) Non-Sauds have no citizenship and can be deported at any moment. Needless to say, they do all the work, from cleaning to managing.

I believe that it will be fundamentally an economic failure that leads to the Saudi's, and most likely, the United States. (If they continue to trade greenbacks for solid goods...selling trust in effect.)

The US is selling its country to foreigners. The Sauds are accumulating the countries of others.

I recall a British engineer's comment about Saudi Arabia. "Imagine you gave $500 billion to Henry VIII. What would he do with that kind of money? That's Saudi Arabia."

[takeanumber]

Exactly August.

I think of Saudi Arabia as the comparative advantage being applied to the extreme and blindly.

The country only does one thing: oil. It's what they do best, and cheaper than anybody else.

They outsource everything.

I don't believe that extreme policies are best for any country.

Arguably, when Saudi Arabia falters, many will attribute it to feudalism and the retardation that occurs to any society when religion is allowed to dictate all aspects of life. But I think that blindly following comparative advantage is certainly a massive factor.

[Hugo]

I believe that it was fundamentally an economic failure that caused Spainish decline

It was really a failure of society and of foreign pressure. The Habsburgs had too many wars to fight on too many fronts, which bankrupted them, and their continual failure to perform necessary social reform (ending the mercantilist families, the power of the church, etc) which led to several rebellions and riots.

Why do you think it happens all the time in the city?

There's incentive to extort the city for the maximum amount possible. The government can buy up 101 of the 102 plots needed for a railway, or a highway, that would benefit hundreds of thousands of people, and then you have the risk of a single person holding it all up. Extorting the government for millions if they wanted.

And the market says it fine.

Alright. What you are advocating here is government-sanctioned theft and extortion. I shall illustrate. Let's say there's 101 equal plots of land, I own one of them and a railway company needs to buy them for a new railroad.

If 100 plots of land are bought up, the marginal value of my land has increased 100 times. If the government forbids me to sell at this price, interfering in a free economic transaction, and forces me to sell at the old price, the government has robbed me of my property. My rights have been violated. What has happened is that the government has stolen the marginal value of 100 plots of land from me and given it to this railroad company (by forcing me to sell to them at the old price).

By what right does the government steal what belongs to me and give it to a railroad company?

You need government policies to foster capital intensive industries.

Rubbish. I'll cite Bombardier as an example again. You should note that in America and in Britain the periods of greatest industrial and economic growth exactly coincided with the periods of minimal government interference in the economy.

I'm arguing that government has a moderate role to play in faciliating a desirable outcome.

Government is evil and has no rightful role to play in anything. I defy you to give a definition of "taxation" that does not also describe high-minded robbery. You sometimes meet good people, and you sometimes find good corporations, but there has never been a good government.

[Michael Hardner]

Government is evil and has no rightful role to play in anything. I defy you to give a definition of "taxation" that does not also describe high-minded robbery. You sometimes meet good people, and you sometimes find good corporations, but there has never been a good government.

Government provides a medium for balancing out the various forces that affect our lives. What you seem to be advocating is anarchy.

In such a state, power will accumulate in a small number of individuals and institutions with no recourse for the average person whatsoever.

I'll ask an honest question here: are you also against laws that protect individuals from assault and murder ? If you are, then how much different are laws that are designed to protect people from being economically abused ?

[Hugo]

Government provides a medium for balancing out the various forces that affect our lives.

So we would hope. Unfortunately, government is not, never has been and never can be impartial, so all government ends up doing is benevolence towards some drawn from abuse of others, after having deducted a handsome stipend for itself, of course.

What you seem to be advocating is anarchy.

In such a state, power will accumulate in a small number of individuals and institutions with no recourse for the average person whatsoever.

I disagree. What we have right now is a very strong accumulation of arbitrary power in a small number of individuals and institutions i.e. government. As the free market prevents economic monopoly, so would a stateless society prevent political monopoly. Right now, political power is invested in a group of individuals who will always be operating against the wishes of somebody, and who can exercise arbitrary power against anybody.

I'll ask an honest question here: are you also against laws that protect individuals from assault and murder ? If you are, then how much different are laws that are designed to protect people from being economically abused ?

The only economic abuse that occurs does so with the blessing of the state. A free market relies upon voluntary transactions and, in such a system, it is impossible for anybody to be abused. For an analogy, in order to do violence upon you I must control your movements. If I am powerless to control your movements I cannot inflict violence upon you because you can simply avoid me.

[August1991]

What we have right now is a very strong accumulation of arbitrary power in a small number of individuals and institutions i.e. government.

I don't disagree but... The government is an institution that we may choose to submit to.

Humans wisely prefer to conduct their affairs in association with others because as individuals, we achieve more. Call this co-operation. We use a variety of associations to do this primarily markets, a family, corporations and the government.

IOW, the government is just another method people use to co-operate. It has the peculiarity that it creates a long term contract which cannot be breached. It is the ultimate commitment. I can see why people would voluntarily enter into such a contract.

When you move into a small town, you are assessed property taxes to pay for the fire department. This is a form of insurance which could in theory be offered "privately". If it's offered by the municipality, what's the difference? That's one view of "government".

I'll go further, you move into the small town and you agree never to leave. That's my view of government and I can see valid reasons for it to exist.

Hugo, don't be ideological on this one! As for the others, 1000 years ago a world without the Catholic Church would have been unthinkable in Europe. Well, it has in effect happened. Just because something is here now does not mean it will be here tomorrow.

[Hugo]

The government is an institution that we may choose to submit to.

I never agreed to submit to the government of either Paul Martin or Dalton McGuinty, but yet they exercise arbitrary power over me, against my will, expropriate my rightful property on a daily basis, and make decisions affecting my life that I would never consent to.

IOW, the government is just another method people use to co-operate.

I don't believe that is true either. Government is and always has been a weapon that some groups aim at other groups. The "co-operation" we have under government is coerced and unwilling. A majority of Canadians never agreed to "co-operate" with or under the Liberal government, but they are forced to anyway under threat of arrest and jail.

When you move into a small town, you are assessed property taxes to pay for the fire department.

What if I don't want to pay for the fire department? What if, in my view, the risk of my property catching fire is so negligible that it does not make financial sense for me to pay dues for the fire department? Do I have a choice? No.

Hugo, don't be ideological on this one!

August, I would challenge you to "think outside the box", as Maplesyrup might say, and actually think about what a world without government would be.

[August1991]

What if I don't want to pay for the fire department?

Well, why did you choose to move in to the small town?

People voluntarily pay to enter a cinema. Imagine the cinema doesn't last for two hours but rather several years. In fact, it's like joining a club. The decision to join the club is voluntary, but to remain a member, you must submit to the club's will. In one view, we have just defined "government".

I would go further and suggest that there may be clubs to which we would choose to be a member before our birth and in which membership would last our whole lives. To me, this is the proper sense of "government".

In fact though, the first definition is adequate (and perhaps less contentious).

I never agreed to submit to the government of either Paul Martin or Dalton McGuinty

Welcome to the club! But if you don't like it, leave.

Government is and always has been a weapon that some groups aim at other groups. The "co-operation" we have under government is coerced and unwilling.

Agreed, but this is ex post. Ex ante, I'm not so sure.

More pertinent, I can see why people might voluntarily agree to restrict their options prior to negotiating an agreement. IOW, we voluntarily restrict our freedom receiving nothing of benefit in return - except the benefit of making the negotiation possible.

Examples? Two parties in a divorce agree (commit) not to consult lawyers. Two countries commit to using nuclear weapons in the case of war.

Another example? It's as if we both agree to have the Hell's Angels ensure we stick to certain agreements but then we discover that the Hell's are stealing from both of us. You're saying get rid of the Hell's; I'm saying let's figure out how to stop them stealing from us.

IOW, on balance, you may be right. They're not worth the hassle.

[Hugo]

People voluntarily pay to enter a cinema. Imagine the cinema doesn't last for two hours but rather several years. In fact, it's like joining a club. The decision to join the club is voluntary, but to remain a member, you must submit to the club's will. In one view, we have just defined "government".

Well, in a cinema, I can choose not to go in. Please tell me where I can go, not pay taxes, and not receive government services.

I would go further and suggest that there may be clubs to which we would choose to be a member before our birth and in which membership would last our whole lives. To me, this is the proper sense of "government".

To me it's a proper sense of "coercion." How can I give my consent to anything before my birth?

Welcome to the club! But if you don't like it, leave.

Once again, if you tell me how I can opt out of government I'll do it!

IOW, on balance, you may be right. They're not worth the hassle.

About what? The Hell's Angels or the government?

[Biblio Bibuli]

Great thread going here. I'm learning a lot.

I bought a great big Saguaro cactus from Bill Vander Zalm. Circa 1980. Not as big & tall as they grow in Arizona though, only about 4 feet tall. It's over 10 now. Ready to hit the ceiling.

Didn't like the price when I was purchasing it ($50) so I took off the tag, then made Bill guess the price. He said about $30, but called over Lillian, just to make sure. She guessed corrrectly but he said "I already promised" and let me have it for thirty bucks.

Try it sometimes, it works, especially on one of a kind items.

You're welcome!