Holy mama, this is a long one! There's a regular-sized response to CommanderSock, followed by a HUGE response to fire_i. I put a divider between them, so you don't have to read each other's stuff to get to your own.
CommanderSock wrote:
If banks seize up, the flow of credit will stop.
That's true if the banking INDUSTRY seizes up, but if some specific banks seize up, others may use the raising cost of money to lend money at better rates than they could otherwise expect. They stand to increase their profits per dollar loaned, and thus have more incentive to loan money.
It's still an economic change, since interest rates would be going up. But it's not a disaster.
Also, I was talking about banks failing entirely, ceasing to be banks. Your response has to do with them bracing for impending failure, not actually failing and ceasing to be.
CommanderSock wrote:
White flight?
I've never actually heard that term before. Maybe if I lived in the South...
CommanderSock wrote:
US banks are more localized, so if a local bank fails, local business will suffer (i.e, unable to use credit, tighter restrictions on borrowing, higher interest rates, etc).
In a specific locale, that makes sense. But if the money market is bad in a specific location, banks from better regional markets can move in with what are for them high rates (better profits) but for the locality low rates (better price). Both lenders and loan-seekers would be highly motivated to expedite these reparations. Or am I wrong?
CommanderSock wrote:
From my understanding CRA is direct social engineering. Removing the redlines, for what-ever reason they exist. Again, this is an America unique problem. However, banks went all out and actually gave out more loans (NINJA etc) to bad credit clients, than good ones. Because it seems there are so many people in the US who live in "financially under-served" areas.
CRA does not apply solely to organizations known to have participated in redlining. It applies to all banks, motivating them to give out loans for reasons other than profitability based on the perception (true or not) that the given practices were racist or socially unjust.
In my view, it was a law that confused a coincidental correlation with causation: this poor neighborhood largely consisting of minorities is not getting loans. Clearly, they reasoned, the banks must be denying them loans based on race. But deciding entirely based on finances would have given out the same loans to the same people, and the 'fix' acted against the health of the banking industry.
Not that I think racism doesn't exist; rather, I think greed trumps racism as a motivator of business behavior. To be racist without any change to one's finances is immoral, but to lose money via racism is both immoral and self-destructive. Even immoral scum generally seek to protect themselves from destruction.
CommanderSock wrote:
This bill is a doorstop, to prevent a deep recession, or worse. I'm sure new regulations will follow.
A $700 billion doorstop? Are you really more than $700 billion more right than me?
-------------------------------
START OF RESPONSE TO FIRE_I
-------------------------------
fire_i wrote:
I stand by my earlier opinion: a public organism, as it comes with a different set of responsibilities and (especially) goals, is in better place to suit the aspirations of the populations.
A private producer seeks it's own success. If it fails, only those outsiders who trusted too much in it's success are hurt. A public producer seeks everyone else's success and stands as a sole supplier. If it fails, everyone is hurt by the loss of it's unique production. Is that not so?
Given that, and given that "There will always be bumps in the road", isn't it better to choose the system that fails and recovers in small parts rather than in whole?
fire_i wrote:
On a side note, it is not in every situation that the will of a minority is completely overlooked, [. . .] the actual reality is less contrived than what you make it out to be here.
You're right. It was somewhat of a worst-case scenario. But that same problem, in some degree, will certainly occur.
fire_i wrote:
guaranteeing some minimal rights in a constitution (or by any other method) is as necessary as restricting the power of the state so it bends to the will of the people as best as it is possible.
We agree here. We disagree on whether private possession of means of production is or should be among those rights.
fire_i wrote:
I qualify means of production as different because of three main reasons:
first, they indirectly imply the control of the price and accessibility of all goods. [. . .]
Second, they generate massive profit. [. . .]
In your first point, you accurately describe how mixed regulation is subject to bad compromises that to not suppress and may actually increase corruption. I certainly agree there. That is not the result of private control of price or accessibility of goods. Further, public (read: government) control of price or accessibility of goods is not obviously better capable of meeting private individuals' needs. Public controls lack the self-serving, profiteering nature that leads private companies to hoard goods or manipulate markets, but they also lack the self-serving, profiteering nature that drives competing companies to innovate, cut expenses to maximize efficiency, or otherwise seek to produce not just an adequate product but an excellent product.
I nearly always prefer freer markets to less free markets, but I recognize that any actual implementation of democratic policy will be a compromise containing some regulation and that a freer false compromise is worse than a more regulated but sensible compromise. Still, I don't agree with you that the better sensible compromises rest closer to socialism.
In your second point, regarding the massive generation of profit, you claim that massive stockpiles of money pass back and forth only within a super-rich elite to the (presumably immoral) exclusion of the majority of the population. I don't see how that's the case. There are numerous examples of individuals moving from the lowest to the highest classes in American and other societies. The fortunate few argument only remains accurate if you recognize that any individual can, through their own choice and actions, become a member of that class. (I wish I could remember the name of that multi-millionaire cell-phone magnate from Africa... but I'm sure you know enough of these stories without reminder.) The distinction between the 'fortunate few' and the rest, whether in a idealized free market society or a well-designed, freedom-seeking mixed market, is in their life story and personal actions.
If a man designs and produces for the world something mankind has never before had, or in a better way than was previously availabile, doesn't he deserve a reward, financial if he likes, in scale to his contribution? What more precise or more democratic means is there of determining what scale of reward he deserves than by what a hundred million individuals give him of their own free choice in exchange for one of his products each?
fire_i wrote:
a public organism would have no reason to stockpile immense amounts of cash (maybe just a small cushion, just in case) or to just have it rotate around between speculators instead of using it for concrete results.
What motivation does a private organization have stockpile immense resources? If they are profit-centric, capitalist types, it better serves their principles to re-invest the money in other projects that will give them the maximum financial gain; thus, the best, most innovative ideas from the most capable men, whether they be friends from the Fortunate Few meetings or strangers from foreign circumstances.
Storing money in the Bank of Mattress is guaranteed not to maximize profits. Ebenezer Scrooge fails at capitalism.
To put friendship, loyalty, prejudice, or bribery over profitability hurts profits and, thus, is anti-capitalistic. But to reward the downtrodden have-nots lends itself to rewards for personal loyalty, for prejudicial speculation, or other misjudgments in defining who the downtrodden are.
If a capitalist misjudges, he loses money, the ultimate failure in that ideology, and hiding the mistake does not return the lost money/self-respect. If a socialist misjudges, he was caring and thoughtful out of proportion to their need - there is only a minor, excusable mistake there, the repercussions of which can be prevented by hiding the truth. The motivation toward knowing the truth without prejudice and to open transparency is stronger for capitalists.
fire_i wrote:
What is more important? The possibility for one to innovate through means of production, or the redistribution of generated profits across society?
Without the first, there are no profits to distribute. Thus, the former is more important.
fire_i wrote:
Now, I'm all for individual rights, but I'm capable of accepting some of the least critical economic individual rights to be pushed aside in favor of the good of all.
It's the Job argument: if you pick a scapegoat and harm him only so that everyone else, now and forever, is better off, is it moral to do so? The answer is no. If society can pick a scapegoat to destroy, no citizen of that society has any guarantee of better rights than that scapegoat. All of life and society is cheapened by the act, which more than neutralizes any gains made.
(Incidentally, in the Biblical story Job endures it well and is better off himself in the end, both spiritually and materially; literally everyone benefits rather than everyone but Job, so his own story does not fit the argument named after him.)
Even if you do not accept that argument, how does it make sense to have one human right be 'less critical' than another? The idea of human rights is that government is not allow to make laws that circumvent those rights. Either government can make that law or it can't. How can it be only partially allowed to make that law?
And, even presuming you produce a satisfactory answer to that, what makes the only means of improving the human material condition (production) a
less critical right? All other rights require the material capability of exercising them. If production does not provide those capabilities, the legal permission cannot produce a single, actual use of those rights.
fire_i wrote:
Psudo wrote:
Communism didn't fail solely because of corruption and bad times. It is also less effective in a practical sense and less tolerable in a moral sense than many of the alternatives already existing in our world.
I would dispute that.
Allow me to restate that more clearly. Totalitarian states run by men claiming to be communists did not fail solely because of the totalitarianism, the corruption, and the hard times. The ideology of collective production they supported is also less effective in a practical sense and less tolerable in it's effects to the human condition of those ruled thereby than many of the alternatives as actually practiced in our world. Even comparing the never-implemented ideal of collectivist production to the existing and historic examples of economies, many of the existing and historic economies are better.
That is the same meaning I intended the first time, but apparently my phrasing was unclear. And, if the term 'morality' is too ambiguous for you, you may assume I always mean the betterment of humanity's material condition (health, success, prosperity, freedom, etc) as 'moral' and detraction from that material condition (illness, pain, failure, poverty, oppression, etc) as 'immoral'.
fire_i wrote:
Remember I was arguing the supposed "human nature" here - arguing the fact that everyone wants their good over that of others.
So basically, what you're saying here is that the nature of humans is that they want to obtain critical success, but only through hard work, and that while they are envious of the more successful, they never have the will to "steal" it away, only to do the same of their own. Or maybe you're just the only one to think this way, but one exception disproves a rule...
You're the one who said "their good" rather than "their wealth". If one believes stealing is bad, it is not 'their good' to steal. =]
I admit I overstepped my sure knowledge and ventured into speculation. I admitted that fact when I spoke of my own desires and followed with "Am I so unique?" It was not a statement, but a question.
But even if I am unique or nearly so, an obvious corollary to "everyone wants their good over that of others" is that "people want to aspire to greater good than they have". Even in the purely materialistic sense, people don't know what potential good might await them unless they see an example of it elsewhere in the world. "Wow, that TV is even nicer than mine! I need to get that. That'll make my life better."
What is the exchange rate between current condition and potential future condition? Would you give up an enjoyable hour of reading a day if, by spending that time on an unpleasant project, you could gain some otherwise unachievable success in the future? No, not everyone is so far-sighted, but it is entirely in line with wanting one's own good to have a greater potential for good available.
When making small talk about Bill Gates, the typical point (besides "His software and business practices suck.") is "What would you do with that kind of money?" They see him as an example of the highest possible potential for their own material condition. Even if they see him as evil, it is because they see him as enjoying a good life he doesn't deserve. No one pities his wealth.
fire_i wrote:
Psudo wrote:
People don't want mere survival, they want to dramatically thrive. People who merely survive are people who stand too close to death for evolution to allow them survival.
You're assuming again.
Only based on your assumption. You said people always prefer their own good. Given that, they will always prefer better rather than worse because it's to their own good.
fire_i wrote:
Likewise, human beings who merely survive have shown incredible resiliency and capability to reproduce... if you want a real-life, world-shaking example, think of the high birth rates in some of the globe's poorest countries. Humans who merely survive DO play a damn important role in evolution.
So if you gave a starving mother of 8 a chance for wealth, prosperity, and education for her and her kids, she'd turn it down? If so, then how could redistribution of wealth possibly work? =]
My point was they don't WANT to merely survive. They want comfort and security at least, then guarantee of it in the future, then social connections, then leadership, then self-actualization. Manslow's hierarchy of needs; you wanted real science about human nature.
fire_i wrote:
Psudo wrote:
fire_i wrote:
Lack of regulation leads to abuse.
Only when combined with lack of responsibility for the consiquences of one's actions.
And that is far from infrequent! Some will always administer correctly, but bad apples do exist, hence why regulation is a necessity.
If being a bad apple doesn't aid your own situation in life, you won't do it. Mankind seeks only their own good; your rule.
fire_i wrote:
I'm saying the point is to find the right middle. I'm far from advocating statu quo and you know it. Don't try applying logical fallacies to my argumentation when the only reason you'd perceive one is misinterpretation of it, please.
Your very valid argument was that there was a right middle and a wrong middle, a rational choice and a logical fallacy. I pointed out the fallacy because you were right to recognize it's use in this case and reject it.
But you went on to advocate for the 'right middle'. Over the false compromise, sure, but why over the partisan choices? Either partisan choice was also better than the wrong middle. Why are they less worthy of consideration than the right middle?
fire_i wrote:
Again, the point is not to always be in what we consider to be the middle. It's to find the *correct* middle, for purely black and white situations are nearly non-existent, and absolutism is as such rarely effective.
Neither partisan answer was an absolute ideal, either. Elected officials are, by the nature of democratic elections, never the absolute extreme. On a black and white scale, dark gray and light gray were both better choices than the false compromise that denied the market both oversight and risk. Black and white did not come into play.
fire_i wrote:
In any case, one could say I'm a partisan of deep-end regulation, not the compromise. I don't even actually have anything to do with the bad compromise you're speaking of.
I wasn't accusing you of affecting the outcome, or of any bad conduct beyond perhaps bad thinking. I meant no offense, I only meant to continue debate.
-----
Speaking of game theory, have you ever played the game '
So Long Sucker'? It's a card game for 4 players designed by game theorist John Nash, the subject of the movie A Beautiful Mind. You may like it. It cannot be won by one individual's good strategy.
CKA Elite 
Forum Super Elite 
Newbie 
