LOL. I'm not the one that runs to the mods every time someone says something bad about them......like someone we know.

Back on the porch, now.

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

Look, I disagree that that
is "THE" reason, but what he is saying is that there are so many Ex-Cubans in florida that it effects the respresentative votes and could tip the balance of which party would get the electorial votes in a presidential election. I have heard that too.

Which facts are in dispute? That a command economy can initiate any public sector ventures it chooses, by simple legislative decree? Are you saying that there is some kind of prohibition in a command economy's social contract that would preclude that public sector from building modern infrastructure (as a form of promoting the general welfare) instead of weapons of mass and micro destruction (as a form of promoting the general warfare)?

And again you demostrate your inability to even hear questions that require examination of your core belief.

Again I try to tell you that the point you are missing is that your belief that command economies can simply create wealth at will is not universally accepted and that this is the idea that you need to defend.

And again you instead answer a question that no one asked, about if a command economy can force public sector spending, which is not the topic.


Indeed in context, your statements raise some interesting points to follow up on regarding command economies, but there is no point trying to do so when you are not hearing what anyone is saying.

You seem to have strong internal barriers to communication.

From my perspective, there is no discrepancy in my core beliefs about statism and any public sector's ability to create forms of wealth (even if done by a command economy).

Which facts are in dispute? That a command economy can initiate any public sector ventures it chooses, by simple legislative decree.

Why do you have the opinion that any government (e.g. command economy) cannot create wealth by simply promoting the general welfare? I did not know that any given state's ability to create wealth was in dispute.

Are you saying that there is some kind of prohibition in a command economy's social contract that would preclude that public sector from building modern infrastructure (as a form of promoting the general welfare) instead of weapons of mass and micro destruction (as a form of promoting the general warfare)?

Yes!! By God, You got it!! The idea that a state can create wealth is in dispute. Now you can start talking with people.


No backsliding, you have admitted that you understand what we are talking about, don't pretend you don't.

Since when has any state's ability to create wealth been in dispute? You only have to go as far as the US Mint to realize that a state may create some forms of wealth by simple legislative decree (as every command economy on the planet has done.)

Since forever. That is why goverments tax, because they do not create wealth, but can only take it from the productive segements of the population,


The US mint does not create wealth, they print money. In the absence of something to back the idea that the money is worth something, the value of the money would be limited by the quality of the art on the paper and the paper itself. Values provided by the artist, engravers, and printers, not the guy who gave the order to roll the presses.


Now the question is, do you airely dismiss my points here and restate your beliefs as though everyone in the world agrees with you and I am a lone fool or do you try to argue your point that states can create wealth?

The choice is yours! A hush falls over the crowd, and ...

Since when is money not a form of wealth (even if only as a perfectly competitive medium of exchange)? The only reason states tax is because they are not for profit, or very market friendly.

How much is the Hoover Dam worth? How much is Uncle Sam's copyright and patent protection racket worth to the owner of intellectual property?

The list goes on....

If statism is worthless and cannot create wealth, why is statism so prevalent on the planet; and why are those states able to improve the standard of living for their populaces where truer forms of anarchy cannot?

Thank you for showing me the respect of answering my questions.



Bingo! The money is a medium of exchange, a representation of wealth, not actual wealth.

Interesting that you mention not for profit, I have worked for not for profit organizations. I think they may form a useful example for this discussion as it developes.



Very good questions! Lets deal with the second one first. THe patent office does not create wealth so much as it improves the environment to encourage wealth creation. It does this by protecting the rights of those who do create the wealth, ie the inventors and investors.

The Hoover dam is a better example. It was built by the goverment and does have a certain value, it provides energy for sale. This does seem to be the creation of wealth by the goverment. Could this be the exception that proves the rule?


Does it really? Or are the examples of wealth creation by goverment very limited, compared to the ability of the free market.

Because states do provide benifits to their citizens. Two of which are the protection of rights of property and the enforcements of contracts. THis can create a enviroment that protects and encourages the creation of wealth. Anarchy is of course a state where the absense of these can discourage wealth creation, however many nations have existed and do exist that have goverments that do not do this and these nations experiance less wealth creation, such as Cube (if you will forgive an on topic comment ).


THus we have a more complex situation than a simple spectrum leading from more to less goverment. Differant goverments view their responsiblities differantly, thus leading to differant outcomes.

A goverment may try to be the primary source of wealth creation. Others may try to encourage the creation of wealth by various methodes, such as the patent office. I think a look at the current relative status of the world's nations can be illuminating as to which way is best.

That is mostly true of fiat money. Commodity money is a form of wealth. Any public sector can create wealth if it creates commodity money.

I have to disagree with your position about any public sector's copyright and patent protection racket being some sort of lesser form of wealth creation, to the extent that any legal monopoly (via statism) is a form of wealth that would not exist without statism creating (manufacturing) it. Any command economy can create wealth for its populace by simply creating a legal monopoly (via command economics.)

Our lunar landing created wealth (in the form of an externality as an advancement in knowledge.)

Statism creates a form of wealth by reducing anarchy to the point where there is sufficient domestic tranquility to enable markets to flourish. Hence, my assertion that statism can create forms of wealth, where truer forms of anarchy (i.e. lack of statism) cannot. Thus, statism (and any public sector created by it; i.e. command economy) can create forms of wealth, by merely existing. Therefore, there is no economic basis for any command economy to not legislate, and develop, its way to to a form of wealth known as a first world economy.

And does anyone use anything else today?


,

You deny the role of the investor and the inventor?



For? I think a better term here is from. Patents allow for temporary monopolies to reward and encourage wealth creation, but the cost comes from higher costs passed on to the consumer. THis income is for the investor and/or the inventor, not the public sector. THe public sector benifits indirectly by the higher level of innovation the system encourages.


If you are referring to the advancement of technology from the R&D involved then perhaps,



Ensuring the functioning of good markets is a role for goverment that greatly encourages the creation of wealth but is not the creation of wealth by the goverment.

I agree that anarchy, without protection for private property and enforcement of contracts is an enviroment that discourages wealth creation.

Then why does it happen so rarely?

I thought the point was that a command economy can create a form of wealth by manufacturing commodity money, if it chooses to do so.

I am not sure how you reached that conclusion? I do not minimize the role of the investor or inventor, to the extent that any legal monopoly (via statism) is a form of wealth that would not exist without statism creating it.

From a macroeconomic perspective, any non market recognizable social transaction (i.e. An externality) can be considered beneficial or detrimental to the society that implements it. I assert that the reduction of anarchy, via statism, is a form of wealth that is currently not very market recognizable, without a basis for comparison. If you consider that all third world countries are more anarchic that most first world countries, it can be inferred that some forms of statism (via a social contract) can be considered forms of wealth by merely existing.

I think it is because of our current state of global anarchy. If we (the US) were part of the US of Earth, we would probably be cooperating more in the manner of the the current states of any union are willing to cooperate.

But before we go on with this bit, we are in agreement that in practice no one is doing this, correct?

You just did it again. You are doing it by giving primacy to the goverment that grants the patent or legal monopoly, not the people that do the actual work or put up and risk their own money on a gamble. THe goverment is encouraging the process by creating legal mechanisms to increase potential gain for the people that are actually creating wealth.


An interesting theory.



But are you sure all third world countries are anarchic? My understanding is that many of them are quite statist, with large, corrupt, socialistic, economically intrusive goverments.



Alleged third world anarchy is related to global anarchy? What prevents national goverments from enforcing contracts and protecting private property rights?



Any possible gains from increased cooperation would be vastly outweighted by the costs of 1st world economic/political decisions being made by third world majorities.

And that assumes responsible behaviour from world leadership, god forbid you get one demagogue demanding reperations for past injustices and...BOOM, global civil war.


And really I am curious about your take on this question?

I do not know of any current (traditional) command economies creating commodity money. However, virtually all (traditional) command economies administer the means of production of the state, as a public good. The resulting product of that production can be considered a form of wealth.

A legal monopoly, via statism, is a product of the public sector that serves to create wealth. In this sense, the public sector has manufactured a conduit to markets (via command economics: legal monopoly) that facilitates wealth creation. From this perspective, any command economics legislation (in the form of a mechanism of production) that encourages wealth creation, can be considered a form of wealth.

By anarchic, I am usually referring to the economy. I am sure you will agree that most third world countries are not socialist enough to support a first world military.

Why would federalism be any worse at the global (interstate) level than at the state (e.g. US) level?

I am not sure that other states are socially contracted to promote the general welfare, as is the US.