Comments on: The Tragedy of Boxes http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-tragedy-of-boxes "Frustratingly brilliant reasoning" -- The Atheist Blogger Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:38:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-tragedy-of-boxes/comment-page-1#comment-37887 db0 Fri, 08 May 2009 05:52:30 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2464#comment-37887 Er, I've already submitted one on Monday :-/ Er, I've already submitted one on Monday :-/

]]> By: BlueLinchpin http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-tragedy-of-boxes/comment-page-1#comment-37731 BlueLinchpin Thu, 07 May 2009 19:15:06 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2464#comment-37731 Interesting analogy, though funny how it's overthought by everyone. It's just an analogy! Anyways, db0, Doug's Global Communist site is up and is doing great, and we're going to be starting a blog carnival--I'm doing the first one, since no one else seemed interested. Would really love for you to submit something, even if it's an old post. <a href="http://global-communist.com/redcarnival.php" target="_blank">http://global-communist.com/redcarnival.php</a> Interesting analogy, though funny how it's overthought by everyone. It's just an analogy!

Anyways, db0, Doug's Global Communist site is up and is doing great, and we're going to be starting a blog carnival–I'm doing the first one, since no one else seemed interested. Would really love for you to submit something, even if it's an old post.

http://global-communist.com/redcarnival.php

]]> By: db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-tragedy-of-boxes/comment-page-1#comment-34809 db0 Mon, 04 May 2009 07:03:37 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2464#comment-34809 First of all, aren't the markets supposed to be impervious to irresponsibility, poor assessments etc? Aren't they "self-correcting"? Of course I know that they aren't but if you accept this then it would be weird that you would support them. As for investments, you would be incorrect *, while in a boom economy investments are good, they are the driving force for a slump. Particularly the rise in investments means that either more and more workers are laid off (as investments in machinery downsize them) which leads to oligarchy as the company undercuts its competitors and drives them out of business, or profit increases for a short while as production increases, until the competition invests as well and catches up. However while the second thing happens, the rate of profit drops, which means that the cost of the investment is lost (as a company keeps earning the same amount as before the investment) and this forces the company to reinvest faster than the dropping rate of profit. Of course, this cannot continue ad infinite, as there's simply a point where no new technologies are developed and there's no more room to expand. Once this happens, the rate of profit finally drops and the cost of the latest investment cannot be repayed. This in turn leads into a slump as no more investments can be made. Then the companies start shedding workers and reducing wages, which makes the slump worse and if they can't do that fast enough, they crash. Not only that, but the more one company has gone into debt to invest, the harder it will crash * Incorrect in that they are only good, not that this is not a complex issue. First of all, aren't the markets supposed to be impervious to irresponsibility, poor assessments etc? Aren't they "self-correcting"? Of course I know that they aren't but if you accept this then it would be weird that you would support them.

As for investments, you would be incorrect *, while in a boom economy investments are good, they are the driving force for a slump. Particularly the rise in investments means that either more and more workers are laid off (as investments in machinery downsize them) which leads to oligarchy as the company undercuts its competitors and drives them out of business, or profit increases for a short while as production increases, until the competition invests as well and catches up.

However while the second thing happens, the rate of profit drops, which means that the cost of the investment is lost (as a company keeps earning the same amount as before the investment) and this forces the company to reinvest faster than the dropping rate of profit. Of course, this cannot continue ad infinite, as there's simply a point where no new technologies are developed and there's no more room to expand. Once this happens, the rate of profit finally drops and the cost of the latest investment cannot be repayed. This in turn leads into a slump as no more investments can be made. Then the companies start shedding workers and reducing wages, which makes the slump worse and if they can't do that fast enough, they crash. Not only that, but the more one company has gone into debt to invest, the harder it will crash

* Incorrect in that they are only good, not that this is not a complex issue.

]]> By: Antimatter http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-tragedy-of-boxes/comment-page-1#comment-34799 Antimatter Mon, 04 May 2009 06:45:41 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2464#comment-34799 I'm afraid that's quite the oversimplification of a complex issue. The current economic downturn is related to irresponsible lending by middlemen, poor risk assessment by insurance firms and mutual funds, a lack of accountability to investors and regulatory agencies, and many other factors. "Growing investments" are normally a good thing in any economy, as they enable the implementation of ambitious new projects and ideas, driving economic activity and progress. I'm afraid that's quite the oversimplification of a complex issue. The current economic downturn is related to irresponsible lending by middlemen, poor risk assessment by insurance firms and mutual funds, a lack of accountability to investors and regulatory agencies, and many other factors. "Growing investments" are normally a good thing in any economy, as they enable the implementation of ambitious new projects and ideas, driving economic activity and progress.

]]> By: db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-tragedy-of-boxes/comment-page-1#comment-34784 db0 Mon, 04 May 2009 05:54:44 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2464#comment-34784 It is still some form of force however. For example, to prevent someone from going in the concert (think an open air), you would require physical force, especially since the concert in this example repressents the economy in general from which people must opt-out or made to do so. It is still some form of force however. For example, to prevent someone from going in the concert (think an open air), you would require physical force, especially since the concert in this example repressents the economy in general from which people must opt-out or made to do so.

]]> By: db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-tragedy-of-boxes/comment-page-1#comment-34781 db0 Mon, 04 May 2009 05:45:49 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2464#comment-34781 Unfortunately this analogy holds because it acts very similar to how Capitalism has hitherto acted with Investment, namely that growing investment brought the system down, and the more of it there was, the harder the system fell. Unfortunately this analogy holds because it acts very similar to how Capitalism has hitherto acted with Investment, namely that growing investment brought the system down, and the more of it there was, the harder the system fell.

]]> By: Richard Williams http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-tragedy-of-boxes/comment-page-1#comment-33498 Richard Williams Fri, 01 May 2009 21:49:26 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2464#comment-33498 You make a good analogy, but I do not think it follows that physical force is necessary to prevent people from stacking boxes. In an anarchist/socialist system, the concert would likely be run by a collective of some sort; the collective could simply exclude anyone wishing to stack boxes from the concert. This would be analogous to a larger collective of people refusing to trade with anyone who hoards capital. How does this interfere with the negative liberty of those people? I have always thought that negative and positive liberty are two sides of the same coin; one is meaningless without the other. That seems to be the case here as well. You make a good analogy, but I do not think it follows that physical force is necessary to prevent people from stacking boxes. In an anarchist/socialist system, the concert would likely be run by a collective of some sort; the collective could simply exclude anyone wishing to stack boxes from the concert. This would be analogous to a larger collective of people refusing to trade with anyone who hoards capital. How does this interfere with the negative liberty of those people?

I have always thought that negative and positive liberty are two sides of the same coin; one is meaningless without the other. That seems to be the case here as well.

]]> By: Antimatter http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-tragedy-of-boxes/comment-page-1#comment-32895 Antimatter Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:02:59 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2464#comment-32895 Oops. I get the threading system now. Honestly! Oops. I get the threading system now. Honestly!

]]> By: Antimatter http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-tragedy-of-boxes/comment-page-1#comment-32892 Antimatter Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:02:12 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2464#comment-32892 Can a forest be brought down by a domino effect? Sure it can. These systems are complex and interconnected ecosystems. But my point was not that a forest is a better analogy for capitalism. My point was more that arguing by analogy is not compelling, an informal fallacy. Your conclusion depends on your construction of the comparison. Just because two systems are similar in certain respects does not mean they'll react the same in all situations. Even your analogy strains to fit your perception of capitalism with these special rules for boxes that stack and topple. Can a forest be brought down by a domino effect? Sure it can. These systems are complex and interconnected ecosystems.

But my point was not that a forest is a better analogy for capitalism. My point was more that arguing by analogy is not compelling, an informal fallacy. Your conclusion depends on your construction of the comparison. Just because two systems are similar in certain respects does not mean they'll react the same in all situations. Even your analogy strains to fit your perception of capitalism with these special rules for boxes that stack and topple.

]]> By: db0 http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-tragedy-of-boxes/comment-page-1#comment-32691 db0 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:25:03 +0000 http://dbzer0.com/?p=2464#comment-32691 There's probably a lot more ways to improve this analogy but to explore them all would just dilute the main point imho. Generally the idea I'm trying to promote in the end is that this kind of thing can be prevented by non-violent means with violence being the last resort, because when someone is greedy enough, all the peaceful means in the world won't prevent them from acting on their rational individualism. This is why Capitalism can't be restrained by customer action and always breaks free from government restriction. There's probably a lot more ways to improve this analogy but to explore them all would just dilute the main point imho. Generally the idea I'm trying to promote in the end is that this kind of thing can be prevented by non-violent means with violence being the last resort, because when someone is greedy enough, all the peaceful means in the world won't prevent them from acting on their rational individualism. This is why Capitalism can't be restrained by customer action and always breaks free from government restriction.

]]>