The Glade 4.0

Your logic is ridiculous. If there wasn't a government to enforce contract law, then private businesses wouldn't do any business ever? That's ridiculous. People would still trade, they'd just have to be much more cautious. A de-facto standard of contract would develop itself because businesses would depend on their good reputation to maintain patronage. In fact, this said phenomena exists today in the form of media publications that do nothing but review products and services and websites where people can exchange information about the quality of different services.



You are forgetting, or maybe you never considered, that demand is the same thing as supply. Your demand is your supply. You cannot demand anything unless you are able to supply something in return. The currency in which you barter is just the quantitative measure of this. Unless involved parties can supply something, no one can demand anything, because demand requires purchasing power. Economics is just the exchange of supply.

Adjectives like "aggregate" and "macro" don't lend any credence to your argument. There is no "macro" economy. Our economy is just an economy. There's no special qualifier that makes in "macro" in any sense. All you are doing with your wildly gross misuse of those words is demonstrating you haven't spent any time reading or studying basic economic theory in any school and simply responding based on your best guess at reasoning which helps supplant what you want to be right.



Except that you are presenting a false dilemma. Private industry is capable of everything you mentioned above. In fact, government supplanting funds which might go to private ventures which could provide the exact same role detract from the efficiency that some of those services could be executed with.

The government overseas things such as food and health standards. But even so, it's still insufficient in many cases. The fundamental problem with government is it is not run like a private venture. Private venture must make maximum return on its investments by creating the best possible product or it will risk obsolescence.

If Consumer Reports begins to turn out terribly inaccurate and uninformed product reviews, for instance, they risk losing their customer base. You might argue that they have more to gain by being corrupt and getting kickbacks for favorable reviews, but the service of accurate product information will be taken up by another venture which will supplant and make them irrelevant should this happen. Of course, if people refuse to hold them to a high standard by continuing to purchase a malfeasant product, that is another case altogether.



Stop right there. The chickens are currency. Currency is just a marker used in place of money. Money is not dollars or francs or yen. It is a concept which proposes wealth can be measured quantitatively and traded without actually moving around durable goods or providing services instantly.

Currency used to represent money has existed long before government created centralized currencies. People often traded depository notes represented actual quantities of rice or goods they owned.



That's a vast oversimplification of what would actually happen. Now everyone knows that trade with Bob carries the risk of death/injury and/or loss of property. He has compromised his own business. This is no different than Toyota's malfeasance building and selling cars that have bad acceleration control.

The fact of the matter is, people obey rules of common law not because it is law, but because doing so facilitates business. If I constantly walk out of restaurants (assuming an absence of law enforcement as you are suggesting), restaurants will simply stop serving me. Those who do business with restaurants might refuse business to me as well because me taking robbing the restaurants hurts them mutually. The Written Law is simply a codification and exact specification of what constitutes the laws which best help facilitate these ends, because ultimately, that is the goal of law.



First of all, can we stop with the histrionic and over-the-top literary imagery? It's just ridiculous and doesn't serve to make your point any more valid.

In the above scenario, the doctors are risking their practice to prescribe medication that they know is harmful (or maybe are ignorant as to whether or not it is). Either way, it is the doctor's job to prescribe things which do not compromise his patient's health. If he does, he has no patients, and no one to "pimp" my crappy drug to. If he can't do so, I can't give him chicken kickbacks and the whole system falls apart.

And then of course, this is absent that there isn't some sort of nationally acclaimed review board who's sole purpose is to review medications so that patients have an alternative source of information to cross-verify any advice. And the option of getting second opinions. But what, but what, but what IF they are all in cahoots??? We must remember that the due diligence for protection of the consumer lies with the consumer itself. And of course that as long as the service provided by honest information is valuable (how can you argue that it's not) some company will provide it.



Except no one expected consumers to do so, and that information can be bought. It's part of purchasing the expertise of a doctor. You are buying both his technical knowledge and his goodwill. Only a doctor who consistently sells both is valuable. And businesses who do nothing but evaluate doctors on the merits of these two qualities will exist in private enterprise. That consumers are too busy to find one is a different and irrelevant matter. In fact, were there no false (and believe me, it is false) sense of security for government to perform this role of due diligence on our own behalf, the need for such diligence would be greatly lessened.

Would you trust the government agency on swords if it stamped a sword for your use?



Strong safety standards that lead to negligent consumers buying things that don't meet their expectations does not increase demand. Government regulations are created and enforced by agencies that don't face the consequence of extinction for malfeasance.



We aren't discussing property theft. And even so, private property protection services can mitigate that. Do people not hire private security guards and form gated communities?

It is not a logical fallacy because you simply do not understand what wealth is and how it is created. Scamming people out of property just means you took capital away from those who are incapable or unwilling to wisely invest their funds. A fool and his money are easily parted and a fool who cannot protect his assets is incapable of making his wealth create more wealth. If he is, he's not a fool, is he?

If you inherit wealth, either you will use it to invest in venture which provide productive services and goods for society and maintain or increase your wealth, or you will not and you'll lose it.



You didn't demonstrate how it's a fallacy, because you didn't point out where the logic is flawed. You posted something which is absent any significance to what was posted.

If a single person scams a lot of people, it means those people he scammed were incapable of managing their own funds responsibly. If they were, they wouldn't get scammed. "But how were they supposed to know?" How, indeed? Obviously not everyone he talked to bought his scam. Maybe some people considered it, did some research and realized it might be a scam, or the risk that it was a scam was too great considering the potential cost and supposed payoff.

Those are the exact same traits that describe those who posses good business acumen. It's not that good business people are somehow immune to scams, or that scams only target people that are not sharp in business dealings. It's that in order to not get scammed, you have to be at least some basic level of intelligence, wits, reasoning, judgment and vision. Those same traits are what enable specific individuals to figure out how to lead company which hires individuals who provide things better, cheaper, faster, greener and so forth.



Did I mention the CRA? Do you care to address the effects of subsidized low interest rates, tax incentives such as credits for homebuyers, itemized deductions and the like? What about the massive secondary market which provided incentivization to package what was inherently illiquid mortgage debt, secure it and sell it under the guise there was some supposed secondary market, which ultimately was just Federal mandate of not letting businesses fail and guaranteeing debt by capping losses due to insuring counter party risk?



You are completely ignoring the consumer's responsibility. If people would rather have cheap good than keep a river clean, it's because people just don't give a ****. No law is going to change that, because as long as consumers are willing to forgo green production in favor for cheap prices, manufacturers will supply goods that meet those requirements.

And to the contrary, goods that are marketed as "green" produced actually do sell. That is an example of how the market does allow consumers the ability to choose green over cheap. But ultimately, it is the consumer's choice.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Why would you type all of that out, when you know he might only reply to a single sentence of it?

I find it hard to believe you have any formalized study in even basic microeconomics because you are displaying a very poor ability to comprehend simple mathematical concepts.

Dell sells 10,000,000 computers in a year. Falcon Northwest sells 10,000.

1:100 Falcon Northwest computers requires an RMA due to components failing under warranty valid conditions. 1:2000 Dell requires the same.

100 FN computers would require replacement in a year, but 5000 Dell machines would require the same.

5100 computers failed between the two that year. Out of a failed computer, it is 98% chance that it will be a Dell and less than 2% it will be a FN. Yet FN fail 100 times as often as Dell computers.

Now, in terms of total value of defaults between "lower income" and "wealthy" mortgages, one would need the Y-T-M (or perhaps Bond Equivalent Yield losses the owner of the security would take since these things got structured and resold, but that's another story) of all the different mortgages and sum them, then compare. However, given that the threshold dividing the two was the million dollar mark, I imagine the number of total "wealthy" mortgages to be tiny, so much that if one assumed fully matured mortgage value of every single "wealthy" mortgage, it would get dwarfed by even the most conservative estimates for total losses in the "lower income" category.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Partly for myself. It keeps my typing skills at a level that would rape the love child of Mavis Beacon and Cortez Peters Jr.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

The fact that there needs to be at least a minimal government to enforce contract law and protect people from crime or outside attack to do buisness does not establish that we therefore should tax that buisness for any particular end other than those absolutely necessary to do buisness in the first place.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."