Ludwig von Mises
Check out this awesome article from Values and Capitalism: “People-vs-Profits” is a False Dichotomy.
I wished business schools would remind themselves of this. I think b-schools students should be taught Austrian Econ, as a prerequisite
Personally, I’d replace “profits” with “incentives”. People far to often think of profits as purely monetary gains. But some people believe in gains that are not necessarily monetary in nature, such as emotional gains.
There are those that engage in supplying consumers for some sort of emotional gain and that, to them, is the incentive of doing business.
This is where the theories of economics start to diverge with the theories of ethics and philosophy; specifically with the ethics of altruism of David Hume.
Maybe it’s just me, but if we started talking about “income” and “profits” as things that go beyond just monetary gains, maybe we’d attract more individuals to the ideas of capitalism and anarcho-capitalism.
Markets are nothing more than the collective action of society and ethics are the collective belief of that society, than there’s no one to blame for unethical behavior of the market than society as a whole.
Therefore, if one wishes to clean up the market of unethical behavior, one shouldn’t punish the market with regulations. Instead, one should try to teach society to embrace and practice better ethics.— We need ethical evolution, not market regulation.
People always ask me this question and I always give the same answer. It’s simple and almost mind boggling that even some Ivy League “brains” don’t understand this.
If creators didn’t create, what would consumers have to buy?
If consumers didn’t consume, who would buy the creations of the creators?
If laborers didn’t labor, how would anything get built, shipped and maintained?
Everyone is integral to the success and sustainability of the market system. The cogs don’t just help the movement, they make up the structure. Remove one and you weaken and even collapse the entire machine of prosperity.
From innovators to mass producers to laborers and billionaires, if people didn’t participate in the Market, there would be no Market. There would be no jobs, no incomes, no progress, no society.
The less people participate in the Market, the less society benefits. The more input, regardless of who and how that input comes in, the better off society is.
The Market is the chicken and the egg. It doesn’t matter who came first, what matters is that they both remain integral to the cycle. Lose one, lose it all.
oh yeah, and concerning that picture of a farmer spending all his money on hookers not farm equipment:
an Austrian would argue that it is okay for a farmer to be doing that because markets shift towards where they should be
that is, if markets wanted tons of strippers and no food, that’s where it would go
so yeah, suck my dick haters
What’s your point? Sounds like a straw man argument.
This guy is so incredibly brain dead. “If the markets wanted strippers instead of food, that’s where it would go.” Really? You *really* think if you open the markets that somehow, people will magically suddenly forget that they need food to survive? Do you really consider society to be that fucking incapable of sustaining itself? That’s pretty much what I’m hearing right now.
people can’t understand hypotheticals
How exactly is that a hypothetical…to anything? What’s your big example? “If the market wants more strippers than it does toothpaste, that’s what’ll happen. If the market wants more strippers than cars, that’s what’ll happen.” Like what’s your point? Do you really think that most rational people will pick a stripper over brushing their own teeth? Or that it should actually matter to you what the fuck people do on their own time? JFC, Keynesians. Y’all baffle me.
>yfw there’s no such things as “rational”
It’s hilarious that people take your hypothetical and assume that’s were you think markets will go. Hint: NO ONE KNOWS WHERE MARKETS WILL GO! If we did, we would completely control our economy and limit the busts while replicating the booms. We’d have perpetual growth with relatively no effort. But we don’t because markets are organic.
If he said the market might shift from food to cocaine or from food to urine, it would still be as correct as saying the market would shift from hookers to food.
So many idiots.