|
|
 Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Clearly, I have a lot to learn about economic fundamentals. And I think you've got a few things to learn about people. They aren't rational. They will violate a non-aggression pact.
People who will be willing to use violence to secure their ends are the reason why there is a robust market in security, and I don't mean just the kind that states claim to give to citizens. Corner stores in tough neighborhoods invest in closed-circuit cameras, bulletproof glass, and security guards. But these stores still exist because they can turn a profit in spite of all of the risk factors that increase their costs. No doubt the violence causes a drain on the growth potential of that local economy, but the store wouldn't exist for long if it had an unsuccessful business model, and the bulletproof glass manufacturer contributes to the possibility that even a community wracked by violence can experience economic growth and capital accumulation.
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
They don't always benefit from mutually agreed trades (gamblers agreeing to put a coin into that blinking machine).
Who are you to say what constitutes a personal benefit to someone else? Maybe playing the slot machines in Atlantic City for the weekend helps people relieve the stress and boredom of their day jobs? The value person A ascribes to an activity will not necessarily be the same as person B's valuation of the same activity.
By your apparent standards of what constitutes wealth creation, a million things people pay for from nightclub tabs to massages to a tickets to the opera would be net losers for society. And yet they are not. No doubt, someone with a pathology or addiction of some kind can squander resources, I won't deny that. But there's simply no way to valuate things from the top-down and there's overwhelming data to suggest that free-market economies trend toward wealth creation over time.
|
Reply With Quote
