:lol: What, now "inside information" is going to be claimed to be a crime? That cracks me up. It is simply a person taking action based on unique knowledge. We want people to take action based on what they know that other don't and to risk their own property backing themselves over such situations. That's how progress happens. To claim that he can't pick up the beer without some society-wide auction/allocation process is to claim that nobody can pick up a gold nugget and claim it as theirs without some sort of society wide auction/allocation process.
There's no such thing as a market "transaction with values 3 times, 5 times, 10 times the market value". There's the price it traded at and that is all. It doesn't matter if someone pays $20, $200 or $2,000 for a ticket to see, say, the Rolling Stones. The price they paid is simply an observation about how much they valued seeing the concert (and it sure as heck doesn't cost the Rolling Stones anything like the prices they charge to stage a concert). It's Economics 101.
You said: No actually, you don't think it's wrong. You just have an inconsistent approach to what you think is appropriate acquisition and that which is inappropriate. For example: This is baffling. It makes it very difficult to own something if you can't keep what you earn in the first place. And doubly so if when you do manage to earn something, the State is entitled to take some of what you spend with what is left over after the initial acquisition of the State. But then, appropriation of another man's wealth is just wrong, in your opinion. The problem with socialism is that it has no market indicator. It's a system that exists simply by appropriating the wealth of the few and pissing the gains down the drain.
You don't read much do you? :/ He's come up with an interpretation that suits his premise, that is all. That is not even worth a response. Damn!!!! :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading You're cracked up. Exactly. Progress happens when some people cheat other people. You were probably one of those students who cheated in all the exams, so that ... progress could happen. And again you're twisting things so that you can try to make a point. 1) Nobody here said you couldn't pick up the beer. What Phransisku's said was that you could have other people using your stuff. So, of course you can buy a beer to your friend. He'll use it, it'll disappear and it's done. 2) However, if it's a house, you'll use it, but it won't disappear. In that case you can keep using it, but it'll never be yours. Got it or you need a scheme? 3) Finding a gold nugget in the wild is not the same as finding a piece of gold left by your friend 1 second before. Hence the analogy with the insider information, where you are in a clear advantage for which you did nothing to deserve. The latter is unfair, illegitimate and illegal. Why shouldn't the former be too?
I don't know where you learnt your Economics 101, but I can assure you that's simply wrong. You think the price is determined by how much they valued seeing the concert?? That's only the demand side! Price is determined by supply and demand. So, if people are selling the same tickets at the same location in the same conditions for 200$, it's ludicrous to pay 2000$. People do not always make rational decisions, but 10x difference is just insane!
No, that's not all. He's come up with a definition (which btw I agreed with and showed to you it was compatible with yours) that had no counter from you. When you don't have arguments, it's just simpler to attack, isn't it? It's not worth, but you keep relying to us (because...you despise us). You say nothing, but have to come here to do that. I can see your frustration. You don't have any arguments, but you wish so badly you had.
Now that is hilarious!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: It's because people do not always make rational decisions that prices paid for a good can be 10x or 20x the original market price, it is a condition that is beyond the supply or demand of a good. Insanity is a natural element in the market, as are a host of other human qualities, knowledge, ignorance, motive, desire etc. Supply and demand is not a law that applies universally, we don't live in a perfect world. I think you may have missed a few pages. Of course I despise you. I despise Statists.
I still can't get over the idea of "supporting" property rights while st the same time dictating what people can do with their property :lol:
:lol: I can walk outside and within 100 metres of the front door I can pay anywhere between $0.67 and $6.00 for a 375ml drink of Coca-Cola. There are four locations within 25 metres where the exact same 375ml can of takeaway refrigerated Coca-Cola costs $1.00, $1.80, $2.00 and $4.00. Every single one of those prices is legitimate and every single one of those four places regularly sells the product. Last week the local supermarket was selling a 2 litre bottle for $4.39, today it is $2.50 while sometime last month it was $3.00. The same product sold from the same store can therefore be 75% more expensive from one day to the next. This happens all the time across thousands of products. (Indeed last Friday the local radio station truck was giving them away for free just outside.) Yes supply and demand will greatly affect the prices that are offered and accepted on the market but in the end the price people pay is simply an observation about how much those that paid it value the product more than than the money they parted with in conjunction with an observation about how much more the seller valued the money than the product they sold. You cannot objectively say whether or not it is "reasonable" to pay $6.00 or $0.67, all you can say is that at the time the people that paid $6.00 valued the Coca-Cola sold by that vendor in the manner that they sold it by at least $6.00. No doubt many more people saw the price and were not willing to pay that much and instead opted for the $0.67 option. That just tells us that they valued the can of coke at that particular time and place by at least $0.67. Economics 101. Edit: Actually, probably closer to 250m and 50m.
Whether or not something is claimed to be illegal by a Government doesn't say anything about whether it is legitimate or not. As I already posted, 90-yr old men feeding the homeless is a crime in Fort Lauderdale. That doesn't make his actions immoral, unfair or illegitimate. Apparently women are banned from driving in Saudia Arabia. That doesn't make women driving immoral, unfair or illegitimate. In the case of insider trading, there is no such thing that has a victim which is not already covered by anti-theft or anti-fraud laws (which exist to protect the negative right to own property). Victimless crimes (namely behaviour that is illegal but does not violate or threaten the rights of anyone else) should all be abolished.
bordie that was one of the best explanations of how both supply/demand and subjective valuation operate. It is the second thing of yours that I have copied and kept. Actually it's the third, you sent me my Santa avatar last Xmas.
@ Phransisku, on Monday morning I was visited by a young girl drumming up support for some breast cancer mob, I think it was the national Breast Cancer Foundation. They claim to be the leading community-funded organisation in Australia raising money for research into the prevention, detection and treatment of breast cancer. Basically, the Federal government has cut funding to charities and NFP (not for profit organisations), I'm not sure how much but I'm told by the charity workers with whom I am in contact that it is enough to put their budget plans in disarray. Now I'm overwhelmingly excited by the prospect of these charities not receiving any of my hard earned money simply because I don't have a choice which organisations receive funding and that possibly some of these organisations could actually be making it more difficult for me to earn a livelihood. Unfortunately, I'm underwhelmed because the government is not giving me back any of my money that they are cutting from charities, thereby maintaining a system that denies me the availability of extra funds which I may direct to charities of my choice. But back to the cancer foundation, I was quite willing to donate some cash on the day, but like the Canteen (teens with cancer) workers, she was not collecting cash donations, rather, she was attempting to raise awareness and then get a commitment from me to enter into a contract for a regular weekly (or monthly, my eyes were glazing over) deduction from our bank account. It was at this point I said no thanks, explaining that whilst I am happy to donate one-off sums and happy to continue our corporate and personal sponsorship of the Jane McGrath Foundation (working with breast and prostrate cancer) activities in our district, I don't want to be bound to a World Vision type contract for a specified sum over a specified period. So, because the Federal government has slashed funding to these organisations, and because these organsiations have to increasingly approach me in order to raise funding, I see this as an improvement in my "relevance of choices" and therefore according to your argument, my freedom has increased. So if it is the same for all taxpayers in Australia it must be then that the sum of all freedom must also have increased. I and all the other 11.5 million individual taxpayers - ignoring the fact that (equalised or averaged out), taxpayers earning less than $48 000 per year actually pay no tax as they are net recipients of welfare payments - we now have a greater choice of whether we willingly fund an organisation or not and therefore our freedom has been enhanced. Do you agree that the State has increased mine and all other Australian taxpayer's freedom by cutting the funding of charities and NFP organisations?
This is a good anti-Keynesian one: There is never a deficiency of demand. Men err in their productions. (Slight rewording of Ricardo 1821) An economy is driven by real, value adding supply. Nothing else. There is no such thing as a recession due to shortfall of demand. A recession/depression is the consequence of cumulatively-induced refusals to sell at prices consistent with the coordination of the economy.
That's like saying that, in regards to a communist regime, you want to put people in poverty for no reason. No we don't. We want people to work for a living. The difference between us is that I want it on every case, you just want it on some. You think that it's perfectly ok for a person not to work and earn a living through his capital. You think it's perfectly ok for a person not to build his own wealth when somebody else can do it for him. I don't see much difference between you and communists.
I'll quote George Box then: We don't live in a perfect world, and so Supply and Demand (S&D) do not act perfectly. People do not always make rational decisions. I acknowledged that in my very first comment. But saying that transactional prices can be anything (like 10x or 20x the maket price) is just saying the S&D model is useless, which is funny coming from a liberal. I think you may have missed a few counters. I've shown to you that your definition was compatible to his and I don't remember of having a counter from you (I'm not sure now). But please show me I'm mistaken.
I can't believe I'm explaining S&D to liberals and they (I mean you) don't want to accept it! All those locations provide different services. That's why you have different prices. What is being sold to you isn't just the cola can. I'm shocked! The price also depends on the day? I would never say that umbrellas in the winter are more expensive than in the summer! We can, if we look at the same product (which can be or include a service), at the same location, with the same conditions (e.g. on the same day, with the same queue length, etc.). Why are you trying to fuzzy the S&D model?
