[Poelmo]

There's no such thing as a fixed cost. There will always be costs, but as society and technology progress those base costs are always reduced.

At any moment in time there exist fixed costs, as in the energy required to do something. It takes me drum of oil to power the machines that help me mine aluminium, in the future new technology may come along that gives me more energy to work with or makes the machines more efficient so it's cheaper for me to mine aluminium, but this cost will always be greater than zero and it is a cost that is independent of how much I pay my workers and that is why if I lower my workers' wages by x% and lower the price of my aluminium accordingly my workers will end up paying more of their income for aluminium than before.

No matter what system you intend, even pure socialism or communism, simply being alive will cost more for the poor than for anyone else.

Which is irrelevant. It was you contention that lowering workers' wages will make them better off and they'll be even better off if I pay them even less, and so on (so if I pay them nothing they'll be very rich, or maybe, just maybe, something about your contention is off).

[Eran]

humans aren't ants: our happiness and success in attracting suitable mates depends on how "successful" we are compared to others in society.

Indeed. But humans routinely judge themselves against (and attempt to attract suitable mates from amongst) their peers.

Thus feudal society, for example, was stable for centuries despite much greater objective inequality than we find in today's society.

Additionally people want to feel like they're getting their fair share: if I do one millionth of the work in my society then I want to get one millionth of my society's wealth as a reward, if my reward goes too far below this I will lose my motivation and may even start hindering my society through crime (if the big guys are stealing then why shouldn't I do the same?), anti-social behavior, disruptive activism, etc...

Again, references to human nature have to be weighed in light of historic experience. Stable societies have existed for centuries despite much more obvious and radical injustices than any suggested by a libertarian society.

In fact, the justice of a libertarian society is much easier to rationalise than that of any historic (and, arguably, current) society.

One of the biggest, perhaps THE biggest differences between libertarians and everyone else is that libertarians believe that either everyone gets what they deserve (that wealth is directly proportional to merit) so nothing bad can happen to you if you work hard and smart, while everyone else does not believe this to be the case.

You misunderstand the libertarian position.

Libertarians do believe that in a libertarian society, justice is served in that people get what is their due. But "their due" is measured by the scale of justice, i.e. the set of rules whereby people's property may only be acquired peacefully, and never by resorting to aggression.

This is an understanding of justice which has nothing to do with "merit". In fact, very few people really believe in merit-based justice. Such a system would preclude all unwarranted gift-giving as well as gambling (in both cases, the recipient has obviously not merited what they received).

Aside from libertarianism as a political theory, Austrian economics (on which point neo-classical economics agrees) shows that under free market conditions, people's earnings tend towards their marginal productivity.

This, however, is merely a tendency, rather than an iron-clad rule that applies everywhere and at all times.

Right, and it's good you point out that government spending isn't harmful per se

That's not what I pointed out.

Rather, the effect of government spending level is more difficult to disentangle. The cause is clear - current political ideologies make it very likely that as society becomes wealthier, its level of government spending increases. One way of looking at it is to view government as a parasite that feeds on its host (society). The wealthier the society, the bigger the parasite it can sustain without falling down.

But being able to sustain a parasite doesn't imply that such parasite isn't harmful per se. Merely, that its harm is tolerable.

[Poelmo]

Indeed. But humans routinely judge themselves against (and attempt to attract suitable mates from amongst) their peers.

Not sure where the "but" comes from.

Thus feudal society, for example, was stable for centuries despite much greater objective inequality than we find in today's society.

Feudal society co-opted religion to enforce the system, that's cheating. In addition feudal society wasn't lying to people about their prospects and the elite was so small and cordoned off (nobility) that everyone else was pretty much equal. A secular society that promises social mobility but is actually a rigid class system of more than two classes invites more trouble than feudal society did and feudal society already had its fair share of peasant revolts.

Libertarians do believe that in a libertarian society, justice is served in that people get what is their due. But "their due" is measured by the scale of justice, i.e. the set of rules whereby people's property may only be acquired peacefully, and never by resorting to aggression.

This is no different than co-opting religion: if the outcome of the system doesn't jibe with what "feels right" to humans (and animals), you just declare the basic rules of the system to be sacrosanct.

Aside from libertarianism as a political theory, Austrian economics (on which point neo-classical economics agrees) shows that under free market conditions, people's earnings tend towards their marginal productivity.

Austrian economists rarely use math, had they used a bit more math they'd have realized that averages don't do sh*t for the individual and that the law of large numbers doesn't work for low-occurence events. Similar to how in a professional league you expect someone other than the best team to top the ranking after two playing rounds (the best team does often come on top after a larger number of playing rounds). Besides, this only works intra-sector, between two bricklayers for example, while inter-sector comparisons are distorted by a difference in clientele: if a single billionaire is so inclined he may pay a fortune to a pimp of underage prostitutes (which basically becomes the replacement of political power), even though everyone else in society appreciates the work of the bricklayers much more. To give political power to anyone you buy stuff from isn't at all evident as being ethical or desirable. Then again, this is something where Austrian-economists and neoliberal (which is most) economists have something in common, probably because it's so pervasive in human nature to look for patterns and explanations, no wonder millions are trying to unravel "the secret of becoming rich", "20% hard work and 80% favorable market conditions, parents and other forms of luck" simply sounds too depressing to them. Believe in market "justice" is largely no different than any form of supersitition.

[SueDeNîmes]

Thus feudal society, for example, was stable for centuries despite much greater objective inequality than we find in today's society.

Feudal society co-opted religion to enforce the system, that's cheating. In addition feudal society wasn't lying to people about their prospects and the elite was so small and cordoned off (nobility) that everyone else was pretty much equal. A secular society that promises social mobility but is actually a rigid class system of more than two classes invites more trouble than feudal society did and feudal society already had its fair share of peasant revolts.

Plus the fact that feudalism wasn't stable either. Persistent, yes. Anthropological evidence and European demographic records going back to the 1200s show that people were about a hundred times more likely to suffer violent death than in modern democratic states.

Which is also consistent with modern democratic states where local inequality rather than absolute deprivation remains the best predictor of homicide rates. The evolutionary rationale is probably the same : competition between males for social status and share of available resources, which is always zero sum. So any purported 'Non Agression Principle' that blithely allows for inequality is talking about the wrong species.

[Eran]

Feudal society co-opted religion to enforce the system, that's cheating.

Every society is based on ideology, and the church was merely a tool for conveying and strengthening the dominant ideology of feudal society.

Our society is also based on ideology, with the public school system and popular media being tools for conveying and strengthening that dominant ideology.

Naturally, a libertarian society would also be based on an ideology - that of individual sovereignty and the NAP.

Feudal ideology caused people to be broadly content with their station in life, as does contemporary ideology, and as would libertarian one.

In addition feudal society wasn't lying to people about their prospects and the elite was so small and cordoned off (nobility) that everyone else was pretty much equal.

That's not historically accurate. Feudal society had great gradation of wealth, both within the upper classes (from the great lords down to country knights) and within the other classes (from poor serfs to land-owning yeomen, tradesmen, merchants, clergy, etc.).

Nor would a libertarian society be lying to people about their prospects. Prosperity is open to all and guaranteed to none.

A secular society that promises social mobility but is actually a rigid class system of more than two classes invites more trouble than feudal society did and feudal society already had its fair share of peasant revolts.

What makes you think a free society would be in any way "rigid"?

This is no different than co-opting religion: if the outcome of the system doesn't jibe with what "feels right" to humans (and animals), you just declare the basic rules of the system to be sacrosanct.

As mentioned above, every society (including today's) co-opts some of the vague, innate sense of justice within humans. Libertarian justice, I would argue strongly, is closer to that intuition than that of any other ideology. The "proof" is that such justice is the cornerstone for the vast majority of human interaction in all societies.

Non-libertarian societies carve out certain limited exceptions to the rules of (libertarian) justice, and then work hard to rationalise, justify and legitimate those exceptions. Libertarians reject those exceptions and insist on consistent application of the rules of justice.

Austrian economists rarely use math, had they used a bit more math they'd have realized that averages don't do sh*t for the individual and that the law of large numbers doesn't work for low-occurence events.

Actually, by avoiding the use of math, Austrian economists are more resistant to the temptation of relying on average and statistical measures than are mainstream economists.

Besides, this only works intra-sector, between two bricklayers for example, while inter-sector comparisons are distorted by a difference in clientele: if a single billionaire is so inclined he may pay a fortune to a pimp of underage prostitutes (which basically becomes the replacement of political power), even though everyone else in society appreciates the work of the bricklayers much more.

I'm not sure why you feel you disagree with me. I have emphasised that earnings only converge to marginal productivity as a tendency, not as a mathematical rule. Consequently, there will always be exceptions.

To give political power to anyone you buy stuff from isn't at all evident as being ethical or desirable.

The power to buy isn't "political" in any meaningful sense. What you do when you buy stuff is indicate that you value what you bought more than what you paid for it. You thus indicate your expectation to profit from the trade. If the resources you gave up (including whatever those resources could buy) were more important to you than what you received in return, you wouldn't have bought the items in question.

Having bought the stuff, you are now out of the picture. However, the new owner of those resources (which you previously owned, but then used to purchase something of greater value (to you)) has no political power. He cannot, by virtue of his new ownership, do anything against anybody's will. All he can do is what you just did, namely to tempt people to do something (or give up something they own) in exchange for what they consider to be of greater value. In other words, every interaction (the one in which you bought something from that person, as well as the one in which that person uses the resources to buy something else), requires that the willing cooperation (and thus indicate the a-priori expectation to benefit) of all participants.

This is precisely why the power thus obtained isn't "political". Political power is always associated with the ability to compel others to do your will (against theirs) by threatening them with the use of force, rather than by persuading them that they would be better off.

[Rothbardian]

At any moment in time there exist fixed costs, as in the energy required to do something. It takes me drum of oil to power the machines that help me mine aluminium, in the future new technology may come along that gives me more energy to work with or makes the machines more efficient so it's cheaper for me to mine aluminium, but this cost will always be greater than zero and it is a cost that is independent of how much I pay my workers and that is why if I lower my workers' wages by x% and lower the price of my aluminium accordingly my workers will end up paying more of their income for aluminium than before.

Okay. So by fixed cost you mean there will always be a cost even if that cost is being reduced. Another way of saying this would be to point out that we live in an environment of scarcity since that is all cost represents. Seems a little redundant.

Which is irrelevant. It was you contention that lowering workers' wages will make them better off and they'll be even better off if I pay them even less, and so on (so if I pay them nothing they'll be very rich, or maybe, just maybe, something about your contention is off).

I never said that lowering workers wages will make them better off. My contention is that raising wages doesn't necessarily make workers better off.

[Baff]

I agree with this, it might do, or alternatively it might also just devalue the price of your currency accordingly.

If £10 was redeemable against an hours work and now £15 is redeemable against the same hours work, that's 50% inflation if everyone else in the country still wants to get the same reward for their own labours.

In this case all you've done is re-label the currency.

So it's not necessarily an improvement to increase wages unless productivity has also been increased to match.
Because money is a commodity. It's what you can trade it for that gives it value, not the size of the number printed on the note.

So if you now charge me £15 for an hour of your time, I will now charge you £15 for an hour of my time. Our wages will both have gone up but neither of us will be able to afford more of eachothers time than before. We will not be richer.

[Poelmo]

I agree with this, it might do, or alternatively it might also just devalue the price of your currency accordingly.

If £10 was redeemable against an hours work and now £15 is redeemable against the same hours work, that's 50% inflation if everyone else in the country still wants to get the same reward for their own labours.

In this case all you've done is re-label the currency.

So it's not necessarily an improvement to increase wages unless productivity has also been increased to match.
Because money is a commodity. It's what you can trade it for that gives it value, not the size of the number printed on the note.

So if you now charge me £15 for an hour of your time, I will now charge you £15 for an hour of my time. Our wages will both have gone up but neither of us will be able to afford more of eachothers time than before. We will not be richer.

Are you playing dumb? Of course everyone here meant higher wages relative to the income of the rich, but that's such a mouthful and should be f*cking obvious (I wasn't even thinking about paper money, but about control over natural resoruces and labor without specifying if these were distributed through money or not) so we just say "higher wage".

[Baff]

Oo relative to the income of the rich?
I'm pretty sure that only you here may have meant that.

The mythical rich. How I hate them and their endless rivers of champagne. Laughing their demoinc laughter while the mythical poor all drink stale pee from their own urinals

Who are the rich then and what are their incomes?



Is it you who gets to decide who is overvalued and who is undervalued, or is it me? Because I assure you that this is something that no two people are ever going to agree on.
Everyone on earth thinks they are underpaid. All of us.
We all think our bosses are overpaid too. Welcome to the human race. Clearly you qualify.


The single most important natural resource known to man is man's own labour. I don't know anyone who does not have 100% control over this resource for himself.
I've never met anyone who does not have control over this resource for himself.

I have met a vast number of people who have exchanged their own human labours for other natural resources. Other natural resources strike me as being openly and readily traded just about everywhere. It's not difficult to do. It's not some mighty herculean task unachieveable to mere mortals. It's something most people on the planet do as part of their daily routine.
There is no great conspiracy keeping you poor and keeping scarse resources out of your hands.

Do some work, get paid for it, buy some natural resources. Everyone else does it, it's really not so hard.

I've been doing it since I was a small child and as you noted I am really stupid. So if I can, a smart guy like you can too.


I don't measure the value of money relative to the amount that rich people have. I measure it buy the amount of goods and services I am able to buy with it.
This is not a pissing competition we are discussing here.
How much more or less money other people have to me is not relavant. It does not affect whether or not I can afford to eat and drink and shelter from the elements. it does not affect whether or not I have the money I require to do the things I want to do.

If I do a crap job with low pay low effort and low responsability, all I care about it is that it pays enough to do enough of the things I want to do in life.
If on the otherhand I take a job that will destroy the ability for me to do many of theings in life I want to do.... work long hours.. away from home... need to study for many years in advance to be able to do the job...need to provide all the capital to start the company... or whatever, I am expecting to make those sacrifices in exchange for financial renumeration that takes them into account.
It's not for everyone. Not all of us want to be rich.

Some of us prefer an easy life for less money. I know I do.