Then there was no reason to waste our time on it. — Garrett Travers

My point did not depend on equality. I explained my point long ago. And I have pointed out that you chronically skip the telling points in my original argument and the further explanations in response to you.

I'll pick this up tomorrow. — Garrett Travers

So I guess your promise to another poster that you wouldn't bother him with your Objectivism if he read ITOE and found it wanting doesn't apply also to me.

/

You said you recently aced a course in logic. What was the textbook?

Function, as in what the purpose reason has been evolved to fulfill. — Garrett Travers

Okay. Still, the Objectivist ethical thesis is not supported by valid argument.

The former (Rand agrees here), constitutes unnecessary ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of self
— Possibility

No, she regards it as evil because it asserts that it is proper for the human to be regard as a fit subject for the practice of sacrifice, either to someone, or someone to your self. Respect for one's own reason is inconsistent with this view. — Garrett Travers

Same argument, just a broader perspective.

(Rand is less forthcoming here) permits ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of ‘other’
— Possibility

That is your choice. It is against the value of reason to hold others not responsible for their own pursuit of knowledge and a better life. — Garrett Travers

Again, same argument, broader perspective. Your understanding of ‘the value of reason’ is relative to a human conceptualisation of affect.

The trick, I think, is to recognise that Rand’s idea of a rational consciousness is limited by the perceived potentiality of individual human survival.
— Possibility

Yes. Individuals are bound to this one precarious life woth only their reason as a means of survival. — Garrett Travers

Perhaps, but consciousness isn’t, and neither is rationality. Which suggests that there may be more to rational consciousness than Rand’s philosophy makes out. And certainly more to consciousness than this concept of the ‘individual’.

So, it still permits a level of selfishness, and therefore ignorance, isolation and exclusion - which Rand seems to argue is necessary.
— Possibility

100%, it simply doesn't admit willful ignorance, that's irrational. — Garrett Travers

Fair enough. Except how can you tell the difference, when each individual’s reasoning and will are necessarily bound by their own (irrational) preference for survival? What you judge as wilful ignorance may simply be ignorance on their part, and vice versa. In this sense, we can only make moral judgements on our own behaviour and intentions. But then we have no way of determining the extent of our ignorance.

Yes. It is impossible for me to do any good for those I love within my virtue, without an increasing knowledge base, productive skills, and refinement of virtues. — Garrett Travers

Agreed - and yet we don’t often include these potential gains in rationalising our willingness to do good. It’s also arguable that kindness, generosity and gentleness regularly net gains in awareness, connection and collaboration - increasing our knowledge base, productive skills, refinement of other virtues, etc - in ways that are unpredictable, or at least unquantifiable in potentiality.

her fictional writing (particularly in relation to characters who intend beyond their rational self-interest) does not.
— Possibility

That's a cool point. Who did you have in mind? — Garrett Travers

Irina and Sascha in We The Living who resist the communist regime at the cost of their freedom. Howard Roark in The Fountainhead also loses his one opportunity to work as an architect by choosing integrity. These characters muddy the waters somewhat, choosing to risk their self-interest for the idea of a rational consciousness that is ultimately bigger than this one precarious life. It’s a minor point, granted, but for me it renders the idea of rational self-interest as a possible reductionist methodology, not an obligation.

It's been two in the morning for 24 hours for you since your first post. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, just since two.

Moreover, that is bidirectional. With both directions, mys original formulation is tantamount to yours. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It can't be. If my ethical standards are out bound in the direction of other humans, I have violated the exact same reasoning process that is naturally ourcurring within them, with the application of standards that they have not generated. Such an act benefits nobody. In the event that standards align, then benefit is still present for both parties, as mutually aligned standards are mutually beneficial.

So I guess your promise to another poster that you wouldn't bother him with your Objectivism if he read ITOE and found it wanting doesn't apply also to me. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure, I never implied anything different. But, we weren't done here.

What was the textbook? — TonesInDeepFreeze

We didn't use a textbook. Professor did a series of lectures supplemented with a payload of online resources and exercises.

because we have an immense amount of data over just the past 70 years showing us what markets produce for the world, and how states ruin the world as a result of being in control of those markets. — Garrett Travers

Since capitalism, in your sense, admittedly has “never existed,” then any results you’re referring to is the product of a mixed economy.

So once again your assertion, much like with other zealous individuals, amounts to nothing more than “anything positive is attributable to markets over the last 70 years.” Despite your claim that free markets have never existed.

So either something positive has come out of state-capitalist systems, which is all that exists, or state interference ruins everything.

It’s incoherent. And what data are you referring to, exactly?

My point did not depend on equality. I explained my point long ago. And I have pointed out that you chronically skip the telling points in my original argument and the further explanations in response to you. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You didn't have a point with this. It isn't relavent to what we're talking about.

Okay. Still, as I said the Objectivist ethical thesis is not supported by valid argument. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Glad to see we're finally past that, maybe we can make this constructive from here on, what do you say?

Okay, not that validity implies truth, but let's start with this one. What problems do you have with it as an argument?

If individual humans are the source of moral reasoning, then individual benefit is the standard for moral action.
Individual humans are the source of morality,
therefore, individual benefit is the standard for moral action.

product of a mixed economy. — Xtrix

That's why I said markets specifically. We can see what markets have produced just within the current system in the past 70 years.

So once again your assertion, much like with other zealous individuals, amounts to nothing more than “anything positive is attributable to markets over the last 70 years.” Despite your claim that free markets have never existed. — Xtrix

I've said no such thing. I'm talking about the specific positives that have specifically markets to thank, like most technology and services. There's nothing incompatible with what I've said. The current state structure is a part of that assessment.

It’s incoherent. And what data are you referring to, exactly? — Xtrix

Just from a little bit of all over that shows the trends in gdp, individual income, corporate income, and the changes in tech, health, literacy, etc. that have accompanied:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG?locations=US
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts

Despite your claim that free markets have never existed.
— Xtrix

I've said no such thing. — Garrett Travers

Where have free markets existed?

You’ve said capitalism hasn’t existed. By capitalism you mean laissez faire capitalism. So that hasn’t existed, but free markets have? Where? When?

Free markets have never existed. Thus your claims about what markets have produced is irrelevant. Why? Because “markets” don’t function in a vacuum— there’s state intervention on every level. If these markets have produced things, good or bad, they’ve done so with support of the state.

technology and services — Garrett Travers

What technology and services? Like computers and the Internet? Which developed through state funding?

shows the trends in gdp, individual income, corporate income, and the changes in tech, health, literacy, etc. that have accompanied:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG?locations=US
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts — Garrett Travers

The first link shows graphs of various metrics. The second talks about progress in various domains (like poverty). What does any of this has to do with free markets?

Notice the first graph — GDP. When was the era of highest growth? Not during the neoliberal era. It was when capitalism was MORE regulated, not less.

Also, extreme poverty decreases have come overwhelmingly from China. Is THAT your example of what “markets” have produced? There’s massive state intervention there— and the state happens to be communist. So I assume, by your theory, that we should attribute the decrease in poverty to markets/capitalism in China. Since, by essentially definition, “communism bad.”

The reality is that state capitalist economies is all that’s ever existed, with various levels of influence from the state (regulations, taxes, etc). Turns out that with more regulation and more state-direction, as in the era of “regimented capitalism” in the 50s and 60s, you had far greater growth, wages, etc— better outcomes. Since the 80s, the neoliberal “Government is the problem” era, we’ve seen poor results (except for those on top).

Yet the claim continues. Much like trickle-down economics, its a zombie idea. It doesn’t die. Why? Because no matter what happens, there’s always a way to twist the evidence. There’s no way to falsify it.

Again, same argument, broader perspective. Your understanding of ‘the value of reason’ is relative to a human conceptualisation of affect. — Possibility

Well, we don't have much else to go on except other human conceptualizations, so I'm stuck with empirically approaching this from what is most well understood. I'm open to ideas, of course.

Perhaps, but consciousness isn’t, and neither is rationality. Which suggests that there may be more to rational consciousness than Rand’s philosophy makes out. And certainly more to consciousness than this concept of the ‘individual’. — Possibility

Those are all good postulates, I just don't know how much support they have empirically. From what we know, consciousness is a neural phenomenon, so is reason and rationality, and those processes are confined to the individual brain producing them. The concept of the individual qua individual, is empirical. I'm talking to you right now, and you me. Neither of us are talking to anyone else in this specific conversation. Individuality is self-evidently so. And I don't see any way around that.

Fair enough. Except how can you tell the difference, when each individual’s reasoning and will are necessarily bound by their own irrational preference for survival? What you judge as wilful ignorance may simply be ignorance on their part, and vice versa. In this sense, we can only make moral judgements on our own behaviour and intentions. But then we have no way of determining the extent of our ignorance. — Possibility

To be honest, the only real irrationality I've ever noticed, as everybody operates empirically in their day to day functions, is the kind that is encapsulated in values. The dismissal of reason as a value itself. The kind of stuff that allows people to pray over cancer patients, and then thank God when chemo works out. Reason is a natural function of the brain itself, it is constantly taking in data in these recurrent feedback loops. One's values can guide that process at a very high level. Reason, even from the Randian view, makes room for natural capacities/limitations, that's not really an issue at base Objectivism level. It can be when you're talking about the genuinely under privileged.

Agreed - and yet we don’t often include these potential gains in rationalising our willingness to do good. It’s also arguable that kindness, generosity and gentleness regularly net gains in awareness, connection and collaboration - increasing our knowledge base, productive skills, refinement of other virtues, etc - in ways that are unpredictable, or at least unquantifiable in potentiality. — Possibility

I'd meant "within my purview" with that, sorry. But, yes. These ethical standards that are directed at others are in fact beneficial if the ethical standards of those others align with yours. I wouldn't suggest being kind to a clepto, drug addict, or a murder in any way that implied connection or collaboration. But, for those who respect you as a reasoning individual, being good to them is being good to yourself through respect of THEIR individual reason. Rand highlights this in Atlas Shrugged endlessly. And I mean, over and over and over.

Irina and Sascha in We The Living who resist the communist regime at the cost of their freedom. — Possibility

That's a good point, I'll reflect on that. I really didn't enjoy that one all that much, smacked of her attempt at Russian Existentialism. It read well for a Russian to English first time novel, but I prefer her Romanticism.

Howard Roark in The Fountainhead also loses his one opportunity to work as an architect by choosing integrity. — Possibility

Yes, Howard was written specifically for that, as in specifically. He was supposed to represent the walking ideal of "integrity at all costs." It's a Romantic novel. The point being that if one cannot have their own reason and consciousness, and all of the contents of its product, then life isn't worth living. I would agree. She didn't grow up like that, and currently we live in a world that is only now getting close to being conducive to it- apart from Russia, of course, who'd have thought? Human societies flourish when mutual respect for individual consciousness and reason are values of that society. Such is rational selfishness defined, as applied broadly. This does not apply to many societies in history at all.

It’s a minor point, granted, but for me it renders the idea of rational self-interest as a possible reductionist methodology, not an obligation. — Possibility

It is. Don't you see? You're 100% right. How do I take the whole of human interaction, and reduce it to its base function? I have the individual, his/her capacity to reason, which informs his/her interactions with others. That's the basic unit. You've nailed something that is key here. If I can't approach our interaction from exactly that perspective, you and I are going to have issues with one another, especially if our interactions are in person. I think you and I should explore this more, to expand appreciations and what not, if you feel like.

Where have free markets existed? — Xtrix

The only places I know of in history, are Epicurean communes. Where property was respected, productivity was a value/virtue, and inabilities were fostered with education and philosophy. In other words, the only real successful communist Societies, have been Capitalist ones, and have been exctinct since the time of Constantine. Now, there are some Christian adaptations that exist to day, like the Hutterites, or the Amish, but that's about it.

Free markets have never existed. Thus your claims about what markets have produced is irrelevant. Why? Because “markets” don’t function in a vacuum— there’s state intervention on every level. If these markets have produced things, good or bad, they’ve done so with support of the state. — Xtrix

Again, I just said that I accept this. The question isn't that states do something, it's how states do something. The effectiveness of markets have been demonstrated. That's all I'm saying.

The first link shows graphs of various metrics. The second talks about progress in various donations (like poverty). What does any of this has to do with free markets? — Xtrix

It doesn't, it has to do with (markets).

Notice the first graph — GDP. When was the era of highest growth? Not during the neoliberal era. It was when capitalism was MORE regulated, not less. — Xtrix

Post war, yes. When the soldiers came home, flooded the market labor force, and the science from the war brought services, services, services. Markets. Regulations or not have no bearing on what I'm highlighting.

Also, extreme poverty decreases have come overwhelmingly from China. Is THAT your example of what “markets” have produced? There’s massive state intervention there— and the state happens to be communist. So I assume, by your theory, that we should attribute the decrease in poverty to markets/capitalism in China. Since, by essentially definition, “communism bad.” — Xtrix

Xtrix, relax and try to follow what I'm saying to you. You and I are in agreement here. It's just you aren't differentiating laissez-faire and markets in your head, or in mine.

The reality is that state capitalist economies is all that’s ever existed, with various levels of influence from the state (regulations, taxes, etc). Turns out that with more regulation and more state-direction, as in the era of “regimented capitalism” in the 50s and 60s, you had far greater growth, wages, etc— better outcomes. Since the 80s, the neoliberal “Government is the problem” era, we’ve seen poor results (except for those on top). — Xtrix

There's no such thing as state capitalist economies, only dirigist ones. As far as post 60's economy, that's primarily due to the effects of the Fed and federal taxation setting in, in tandem with the instantiation of the corporate structure we know today that initiated the decline in median income, all mixed in with new tech and innovations that sprang up out of post-war science. So, lot's of variables. Again, none of this stuff is anything I disagree with you on, except for what you call it. State economic domination has been going for thousands of years.

You've done a good job providing strong arguments against GT's position.

You've done a good job providing strong arguments against GT's position. — T Clark

Against the original syllogism, yes. Nothing else so far.

What does Rand mean by selfish:

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals

Let's start there, what's your issue with this proposition? Is it valid, is is sound? If not, then why for each. — Garrett Travers

For starters, unless one is a Candidean optimist who desires everything he has and who has everything he desires, a Randian egoist is oddly similar to everyone else and not exactly an egoist at all (and certainly not special).

Given that even a Randian egoist still has to make a living, either by selling products or services, or by theft or robbery, this means that his values and goals need to be aligned with the values and goals of other people. For in order to make money, by selling one's products or services, one has to offer other people products or services that they will buy, ie. those products or services need to be aligned with other people's values and goals, or they won't buy them. So not much individuality here. But the thief and the robber aren't much better off either, for they are still bound by what other people have that can be taken from them, and those things are a reflection of those other people's values and goals. Again, not much individuality here.

In short, all this Randian talk of the freedom to pursue one's own values and to achieve one's own goals doesn't contain much freedom nor individuality. At best, it's a hotheaded glorification of the ordinary.

For starters, unless one is a Candidean optimist who desires everything he has and who has everything he desires, a Randian egoist is oddly similar to everyone else and not exactly an egoist at all (and certainly not special). — baker

A nice opinion, but fair enough. Keep it as you wish.

Given that even a Randian egoist still has to make a living, either by selling products or services, or by theft or robbery, this means that his values and goals need to be aligned with the values and goals of other people. — baker

This is specifically the perspective of the Randian. Objectivist ethics is predicated on individual benefit being the standard measurement. This is because it is specifically the individual human that is the source of ethical deliberations to begin with, and relies solely on reason to obtain resources that sustain his/her life, and pursue self-directed goals in accordance with self-generated values that leads to happiness. To extend ones own individually concluded standards to another, violates the exact same reasoning process occurring by way of his/her cognitive functions, which he/she may not have concluded is of benefit to him/herself. This is a violation of ethics, as it violates the ethical processes of one in favor of another, meaning one is hurt through a violation to the benefit of another, destroying the possibility of mutual co-operation, which is a benefit to both. It is through an alignment of reasoning and values that people are mutually benefited. But, at base analysis, both parties are forced to either respect eachother's independent reason, the source of ethical deliberation, or violate it. Mutual benefit is the only way to approach this situation ethically.

So not much individuality here. — baker

That's the definition of individuality. The respect for individual reasoning between parties that allows for peaceful co-operation for mutual benefit, is as individualistic as it gets. I benefit from your ethical actions, and you from mine. But, I can only benefit from you if you are ethical individually, and I can only benefit myself by seeking benefit that doesn't involve creating hostilities through violations of other's values, or forcing them to accept my own for no benefit to themselves. This is why swindlers, cheats, bad product developers, and people like Putin lose business and support. You think Putin has gained anything by violating Ukraine's rights of self-determination for his own irrational purposes? The world is about to show you how it feels about such things, the guy is finished. Very selfless behavior on his part, he took no mind to his own benefit; now watch his markets crumble. Now, if only we'd apply that same standard between individuals, we'd probably get somewhere in life. Just like I have. I went from homeless, to making money, to university, because I started putting my life above the considerations of others, and I didn't have to violate anyone's personal ethics to do so.

In short, all this Randian talk of the freedom to pursue one's own values and to achieve one's own goals doesn't contain much freedom nor individuality. At best, it's a hotheaded glorification of the ordinary. — baker

You've come to the exact opposite conclusion that is implied by the standard. Think of the 1st Amendment. The entire predicate of this country is the protection of just this very expression of reason and pursuit of individual benefit as non-violable ethically. Not an imperative that one be made to regard the well-being of others as their moral standard. This is as free a country one can imagine, notwithstanding that the government is still trash. Again, the rational selfishness standard of ethics is the only one that produces interpersonal harmony, or individual flourishing. You've just got it mixed up a bit is all.

You think Putin has gained anything by violating Ukraine's rights of self-determination for his own irrational purposes? — Garrett Travers

What do you gain by bad faith and misrepresenting others?

Again, the rational selfishness standard of ethics is the only one that produces interpersonal harmony, or individual flourishing. You've just got it mixed up a bit is all. — Garrett Travers

Americans love drama and they love to overstate the obvious and try to present it as something special.

What do you gain by bad faith and misrepresenting others? — baker

I don't know what this question is asking or why. It doesn't apply to me.

You think Putin has gained anything by violating Ukraine's rights of self-determination for his own irrational purposes? — Garrett Travers

One party's right to self-determination includes their right to make themselves an enemy to another, but that other must simply stand by?

It does apply to you.

Americans love drama and they love to overstate the obvious and try to present it as something special. — baker

It's literally the single rarest value on the planet.

It does apply to you. — baker

It doesn't apply to me.

One party's right to self-determination includes their right to make themselves an enemy to another, but that other must simply stand by? — baker

What is the question here? Elaborate on who it is you are representing in each of these descriptors.

If animals had no reason at all, dogs would be knocking over trash cans non-stop.

If animals had no reason at all, dogs would be knocking over trash cans non-stop. — theRiddler

Or, we'd never be able to get them to sit, duh.

The question isn't that states do something, it's how states do something. The effectiveness of markets have been demonstrated. That's all I'm saying. — Garrett Travers

The "effectiveness of markets"? Demonstrated how, exactly?

It doesn't, it has to do with (markets). — Garrett Travers

So not free markets, just markets. Meaning markets with state intervention, which is all that exists. So whether we're talking about successes or failures, we're talking about state capitalist systems -- i.e., mixed economies.

Notice the first graph — GDP. When was the era of highest growth? Not during the neoliberal era. It was when capitalism was MORE regulated, not less.
— Xtrix

Post war, yes. When the soldiers came home, flooded the market labor force, and the science from the war brought services, services, services. Markets. Regulations or not have no bearing on what I'm highlighting. — Garrett Travers

You're really not highlighting anything. Soldiers coming home from war is an example of..."markets"? They weren't coming back for 30 years. Also, manufacturing was the heart of the economy. So the comment about "services services services" is meaningless to me. Services existed then as they do now.

Also, extreme poverty decreases have come overwhelmingly from China. Is THAT your example of what “markets” have produced? There’s massive state intervention there— and the state happens to be communist. So I assume, by your theory, that we should attribute the decrease in poverty to markets/capitalism in China. Since, by essentially definition, “communism bad.”
— Xtrix

You and I are in agreement here. It's just you aren't differentiating laissez-faire and markets in your head, or in mine. — Garrett Travers

Markets have existed for millennia. In our modern age, since the rise of the nation-state and in the industrial age, they also exist. They aren't free. There is no laissez-faire. So you pointing to the miracles of "markets" means exactly nothing, as in the case of China. Plenty of success there. But so what? Does the state intervention/planning not deserve credit as well? Of course. Why? Because, as has been said now many times, markets don't exist in a vacuum. They're not some free-floating force of nature, some "invisible hand." They exist, and they exist with massive intervention. So praising markets is essentially praising governments, which runs counter to everything you've claimed so far.

There's no such thing as state capitalist economies, only dirigist ones. — Garrett Travers

Of course they exist. You're just not familiar with the term.

State capitalism has also come to be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses. Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to the economy of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed "too big to fail" receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[21][22][23] This practice is held in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[24]

"Mixed economies" is fine as a term as well. Doesn't matter much: the state intervenes in either case.

As far as post 60's economy, that's primarily due to the effects of the Fed and federal taxation setting in, in tandem with the instantiation of the corporate structure we know today that initiated the decline in median income, all mixed in with new tech and innovations that sprang up out of post-war science. So, lot's of variables. — Garrett Travers

What is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed"? What does "federal taxation setting in" mean?

The economy of the last 40 years has involved the Federal Reserve, yes. They've played an important role in bailing out corporate America. But that's monetary policy. I was referring to both the executive actions of the neoliberal era, beginning with Reagan, as well as fiscal policies. It was an era of deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, union busting, "free trade," and globalization. These are the policies that have defined this era, in contrast with the, say, "Keynesian" era of the the 40s-70s.

"instantiation of the corporate structure" is likewise meaningless. If you want to explain it, please do, but don't assume anyone knows what you're talking about when you're being this vague. "Corporate structure" has remained largely the same. Corporate governance, on the other hand, has changed a great deal. That's worth talking about. But let's at least be clear about what we're addressing.

The "effectiveness of markets"? Demonstrated how, exactly? — Xtrix

I already gave the statistics that you mischaracterized to evade this point, I'm not going over it again.

So not free markets, just markets. Meaning markets with state intervention, which is all that exists. So whether we're talking about successes or failures, we're talking about state capitalist systems -- i.e., mixed economies. — Xtrix

Yes, I was simply talking about markets, even within that context.

You're really not highlighting anything. Soldiers coming home from war is an example of..."markets"? — Xtrix

Yes. The labor force was flooded by soldiers returning home, and that multiplied by the other factors I enumerated, including the introduction of women to the labor market in force, were all variables of market expansion. The point being only, lots of variables there.

Markets have existed for millennia. In our modern age, since the rise of the nation-state and in the industrial age, they also exist. They aren't free. There is no laissez-faire. So you pointing to the miracles of "markets" means exactly nothing, as in the case of China. — Xtrix

No, it means plenty. It's just, you've been trained not to listen to any of it, or actually analyze data. Markets have not been around for millennia. Almost nobody has had rights for the entirety of civilizational history. Not markets of free participants, which is a part of what defines actual markets. But, again, all we've ever had, including today is Dirigisme. We just have a couple extra perks to help things along.

But so what? Does the state intervention/planning not deserve credit as well? — Xtrix

Depends on what they've done and how they did it.

Because, as has been said now many times, markets don't exist in a vacuum. — Xtrix

No, they most certainly would exist without governments. Nothing else would exist but markets in the absence of governments. Markets and market creations.

hey're not some free-floating force of nature, some "invisible hand." — Xtrix

No, their the sum total of human action leading to the production of socially valuable goods that can be traded between one another. That's why the freer we become, the more markets expand. That's why wealth exploded after the founding of America. More people than ever were protected from property violations. Excpet for the blacks of course. Then when they were freed, another explosion, as more people contributed to market production. It is naturally emergent human behavior.

They exist, and they exist with massive intervention. So praising markets is essentially praising governments, which runs counter to everything you've claimed so far. — Xtrix

No, ahistorical. Mass intervention deems it valuable, and so assumes control. Nothing more.

Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism'

What he's actually refering to is :

state control of economic and social matters. He just wants you to keep using that term while turning your gaze from his preferred dirigisme.

What is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed"? What does "federal taxation setting in" mean? — Xtrix

The "neoliberal" phase of a heavily regulated economy that hasn't stopped in a long time. And I actually gave you a report on this a while back and you simply didn't even respond to it. Regulation has not been diminishing over the past 70 years, but growing. Another thing you just don't get: https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/reg-stats

The economy of the last 40 years has involved the Federal Reserve, yes. They've played an important role in bailing out corporate America. But that's monetary policy. I was referring to both the executive actions of the neoliberal era, beginning with Reagan, as well as fiscal policies. It was an era of deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, union busting, "free trade," and globalization. These are the policies that have defined this era, in contrast with the, say, "Keynesian" era of the the 40s-70s. — Xtrix

The complete bullshit in this statement will be dispelled by the above source. I'm not responding to this nonsense.

"instantiation of the corporate structure" is likewise meaningless. If you want to explain it, please do, but don't assume anyone knows what you're talking about when you're being this vague. "Corporate structure" has remained largely the same. Corporate governance, on the other hand, has changed a great deal. That's worth talking about. But let's at least be clear about what we're addressing. — Xtrix

In 1971, Nixon abolished the gold standard and the process of corporatizing America was complete. Afterwards which, the data will demonstrate that everything you hate about modern markets is in fact the fault of the government: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

The question isn't that states do something, it's how states do something. The effectiveness of markets have been demonstrated. That's all I'm saying.
— Garrett Travers

The "effectiveness of markets"? Demonstrated how, exactly? — Xtrix

I already gave the statistics that you mischaracterized to evade this point, I'm not going over it again. — Garrett Travers

You gave no statistics, you gave a website with various metrics, like GDP and poverty. I could give the same link after talking about government policies. So this demonstrates the effectiveness of government policy? No -- accordion to you these "statistics" demonstrates the "effectiveness of markets." I'm asking: how? How do we know the results are an outcome of "market efficiency" and not governmental policy?

The world is just not as simple as you want to make it.

So not free markets, just markets. Meaning markets with state intervention, which is all that exists. So whether we're talking about successes or failures, we're talking about state capitalist systems -- i.e., mixed economies.
— Xtrix

Yes, I was simply talking about markets, even within that context. — Garrett Travers

Markets within the context of mixed economies. Which, again, I ask: since the markets are largely influenced by government intervention, the "effectiveness" you talk about can be equally interpreted as a result of policy. Simply pointing to graphs like "GDP since the 1940s" and then saying: "See, market effectiveness!" is nonsense.

You're really not highlighting anything. Soldiers coming home from war is an example of..."markets"?
— Xtrix

Yes. — Garrett Travers

No. It's not an example of markets. Soldiers returning home had many effects, one of them being on markets.

Markets have existed for millennia. In our modern age, since the rise of the nation-state and in the industrial age, they also exist. They aren't free. There is no laissez-faire. So you pointing to the miracles of "markets" means exactly nothing, as in the case of China.
— Xtrix

No, it means plenty. It's just, you've been trained not to listen to any of it, or actually analyze data. — Garrett Travers

How about you stop pretending you know more about this than I do, when you and I both know it's not true (I've demonstrated it over and over again.), and try a different tack? Are you trying to fool yourself or others that may be viewing this interchange, or me? Who?

It is you in fact, who, through your zealous devotion to Ayn Rand, has largely prevented yourself from seeing recalcitrant data, historical and economic.

Markets have not been around for millennia. — Garrett Travers

They have. Plato and Aristotle had things to say about them, in fact. Were they the global markets of today? No, of course not. But no one is claiming that.

But so what? Does the state intervention/planning not deserve credit as well?
— Xtrix

Depends on what they've done and how they did it. — Garrett Travers

Yes, which means we have to look at policies, fiscal and monetary. Not simply point to graphs and say "markets."

Because, as has been said now many times, markets don't exist in a vacuum.
— Xtrix

No, they most certainly would exist without governments. Nothing else would exist but markets in the absence of governments. — Garrett Travers

I'm talking about the real world.

There's no evidence to suggest "nothing else would exist but markets in the absence of governments." Statements like these just aren't serious.

They exist, and they exist with massive intervention. So praising markets is essentially praising governments, which runs counter to everything you've claimed so far.
— Xtrix

No, ahistorical. Mass intervention deems it valuable, and so assumes control. Nothing more. — Garrett Travers

This is gibberish.

Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism'

What he's actually refering to is :

state control of economic and social matters. He just wants you to keep using that term while turning your gaze from his preferred dirigisme. — Garrett Travers

No, that's not close to what he's referring to; nor am I.

The second sentence is laughable and meaningless.

Also, you use the word "dirigisme" way too much. Friendly criticism.

What is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed"? What does "federal taxation setting in" mean?
— Xtrix

The "neoliberal" phase of a heavily regulated economy that hasn't stopped in a long time. — Garrett Travers

So the neoliberal era is primarily due to the effects of the Federal Reserve? I have no idea what this means, and I'm fairly sure you don't either. But feel free to elaborate.

And I actually gave you a report on this a while back and you simply didn't even respond to it. Regulation has not been diminishing over the past 70 years, but growing. Another thing you just don't get: https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/reg-stats — Garrett Travers

A report on what? The "effects of the Fed"? Because that was the topic. This paragraph is completely out of left field and has nothing to do with the above. The link you provide, which I did indeed look at, deals with regulations.

What does this have to do with your statement that the "neoliberal phase" is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed?" The "Fed" is the Federal Reserve, which is the central banking system of the United States. Did you mean the government?

The economy of the last 40 years has involved the Federal Reserve, yes. They've played an important role in bailing out corporate America. But that's monetary policy. I was referring to both the executive actions of the neoliberal era, beginning with Reagan, as well as fiscal policies. It was an era of deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, union busting, "free trade," and globalization. These are the policies that have defined this era, in contrast with the, say, "Keynesian" era of the the 40s-70s.
— Xtrix

The complete bullshit in this statement will be dispelled by the above source. I'm not responding to this nonsense. — Garrett Travers

Not a surprise, given that these are concrete, and well documented, policies that have taken place over the last 40 years, starting in the late 70s.

The "above source", again, is talking about regulations. So how this would "dispel" the policies of tax cuts, union busting, free trade agreements, and globalization is beyond me. If you mean it dispels the notion that there has been deregulation over the neoliberal era, then you're wrong. There has been -- especially in the financial sector. SEC rules governing buybacks is a good example.

The absolute number of regulations on the books is not what is meant by deregulation. So your source doesn't address even this.

"instantiation of the corporate structure" is likewise meaningless. If you want to explain it, please do, but don't assume anyone knows what you're talking about when you're being this vague. "Corporate structure" has remained largely the same. Corporate governance, on the other hand, has changed a great deal. That's worth talking about. But let's at least be clear about what we're addressing.
— Xtrix

In 1971, Nixon abolished the gold standard and the process of corporatizing America was complete. Afterwards which, the data will demonstrate that everything you hate about modern markets is in fact the fault of the government: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ — Garrett Travers

The link you provide is a series of graphs, with no commentary that I can see. Many of those graphs look suspect to me -- but that's a moot point, since there's no argument presented. Besides the fact that a number of graphs are seemingly suggesting something happened in 1971 that changed various trajectories. Fine.

Yes, I'm well aware of the Nixon shock. What does this have to do with "corporate structure"? Can you be concrete about anything?

For someone who falls back on "That's not an argument; no argument has been presented" etc, etc., you sure offer up a lot of vaguery, poorly constructed sentences, and unsubstantiated fluff. No offense!

What about greed, sloth, and cheap product, I say. Cause that's what really keeps American factories in business. Honest, pragmatic men must suffer for the greed of cheap, tasteless men.

Honest, pragmatic men must suffer for the greed of cheap, tasteless men. — theRiddler

I think that needs work. Pretty sure the greedy men who are in charge of making cheap and tasteless shit live in a world of heightened, plastic free luxury.