tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post4343330303004256976..comments2023-08-24T18:26:14.508-07:00Comments on Pragmatarianism: EvonomicsXerographicahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post-67805217464341795402023-05-16T20:56:20.771-07:002023-05-16T20:56:20.771-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Nasir Techhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12646928777737992144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post-77425484151014409422017-12-26T06:57:52.833-08:002017-12-26T06:57:52.833-08:00You're critiquing pragma-socialism. As I'...You're critiquing pragma-socialism. As I've told you many times before, I am not a pragma-socialist. I am a pragmatarian. This means that I want to create markets where none currently exist. Right now a market does not currently exist in the public sector. Taxpayers do not have the opportunity to use their tax dollars to help determine the usefulness of goods supplied by the government. This is the problem that pragmatarianism would solve. <br /><br />With pragmatarianism there would be two markets... one in the public sector and the other in the private sector. The market in the private sector would have prices. The market in the public sector would not have prices. This means that consumers will be more honest in the public sector market. So my best guess is that the public sector market will devour the private sector market. The result would be pragma-socialism. <br /><br />Like I said, this is my GUESS. You think that my guess is wrong. My guess might be wrong. The fact of the matter is that I don't need my guess to be right. Because, again, I am not a pragma-socialist. I am a pragmatarian. <br /><br />I've explained all of this to you countless times before. You seem obsessed with attacking pragma-socialism. But the world doesn't have a single pragma-socialist in it. Nobody is a pragma-socialist. Xerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4824790768118172625.post-45037706698485931922017-12-26T02:29:38.483-08:002017-12-26T02:29:38.483-08:00The whole strength and value, then, of human judgm...The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand. In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him; to profit by as much of it as was just, and expound to himself, and upon occasion to others, the fallacy of what was fallacious. Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this; nor is it in the nature of human intellect to become wise in any other manner. The steady habit of correcting and completing his own opinion by collating it with those of others, so far from causing doubt and hesitation in carrying it into practice, is the only stable foundation for a just reliance on it: for, being cognisant of all that can, at least obviously, be said against him, and having taken up his position against all gainsayers—knowing that he has sought for objections and difficulties, instead of avoiding them, and has shut out no light which can be thrown upon the subject from any quarter—he has a right to think his judgment better than that of any person, or any multitude, who have not gone through a similar process. - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty<br /><br />So, in the spirit of this passage, will you address the concern that your interpretation of Smith's Hand only references 'communication',and does not address the action that flows from it.<br /><br />In a market, the action is driven by competition. This occurs at two levels.<br />1. between consumers who each want to pay the LEAST for any good or service, but are driven by competing consumers to bid up the buy price to get the goods or services they want, and <br />2. between producers who each want to charge the MOST, but are driven by competing producers to bid the sell price down, in order to sell all that they produce.<br /><br />This competition results in a single price (the market clearing price) where every producer in the market is able to seel all that they can produce at that price and make an acceptable profit, while every consumer that can afford to pay the price is able to buy the goods and services the need.<br /><br />In the process, the least efficient producers are put out of businesses, while those consumers who cannot afford the price miss out.<br /><br />If you want to promote a different style of market that relies on each consumer paying the maximum they can afford, you will need to show how it would work to allocate goods and services to better meet our needs than the traditional market competition which Smith has characterized as the Invisible Hand. He calls it a 'Hand' because it acts, it does not merely 'communicate'<br /><br />Will you address these concerns by working though an example to show how the tradtitional market works and then to show how your system would do a better jobMichael Haineshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07689182095658988640noreply@blogger.com