TFT snippet #5

Dilandu wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Yet no one is becoming extinct and more people are elevated out of poverty because of free markets, voluntary exchange and the indulgence of competition.

Yeah? About a million Tutsi in Rwanda clearly would not agree with you on the matter of "not becoming extinct". As well as literally thousands examples out of colonial era, where whole nations were devastated for the sake of "free market".

PeterZ wrote:You claims that this is immoral are countered by facts.

Exactly what facts? The facts that 1% of world population own 50,1% of world's total wealth?

Just ten years ago it was just 42,5%.

I say it's pretty much immoral, especially considering the fact that this tendency did not seems to stop.

Tutsis are endangered because they sell goods to the US at prices that force starvation upon them? Not bloody likely. Look at their own political issues.

There are far greater disparities in wealth in those oligarchies scattered around the world than in the US. Even so worldwide poverty is falling. Where poverty is expanding you will find less free market activity and voluntary exchange. Venezuela and Cuba come to mind.

PeterZ wrote:Tutsis are endangered because they sell goods to the US at prices that force starvation upon them? Not bloody likely. Look at their own political issues.

Tutsis are endangered because the whole capitalist politic around Africa was to pump out resources & wealth, and use nationalism, civil wars and genocide as effective means to control the population. So-called "free marked" for Africa basically means that direct colonial rule was replaced by indirect control.

Rwanda was hit by civil war as a direct result of Belgian colonial rule (and Belgium by herself clearly demonstrated, that capitalism have NO MORAL AT ALL), under which the nations were directed at each other as an instrument of colonial control. And the unequal prices on the main export good - the coffee - played crucial role. The country was unable to create any alternate source of income (because they have no money to start with!), and crop failure in 1990 basically ruined the small income they have.

There are far greater disparities in wealth in those oligarchies scattered around the world than in the US. Even so worldwide poverty is falling. Where poverty is expanding you will find less free market activity and voluntary exchange. Venezuela and Cuba come to mind.

Of course "the poverty is falling", because it's a statistical parameter. If the situation turns to 1% of world population owning 99% of the world's wealth and the rest 99% own 1% of world's wealth, you could claim that statistically, there is no poverty, because 99% of world's population is in the same situation.

Seriously, all this chants about the "miracles of free market" started to sound like religious cult. You claiming that the "survival of the fittest" in therms of free trade is the natural order of things, but also contradictory claim that "no one is becoming extinct". Sorry, you couldn't have both at same time. If you have totally free exchange, then it is survival of the fittest scenario. If you want no one to become extinct, then it's not the totally free scenario, because you are placing the restrictions.

Dilandu,

Voluntary exchange just means both sides want to trade. I haven't used the term free trade. You assert I believe in survival of the fittest as you believe it to mean. I have not made any such claims. I believe you are demonstrably wrong, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. In the discussion about Harchong's economics, the best template available to them is Duke Delthak's version of capitalism.

Dilandu wrote:

PeterZ wrote:There are far greater disparities in wealth in those oligarchies scattered around the world than in the US. Even so worldwide poverty is falling. Where poverty is expanding you will find less free market activity and voluntary exchange. Venezuela and Cuba come to mind.

Of course "the poverty is falling", because it's a statistical parameter. If the situation turns to 1% of world population owning 99% of the world's wealth and the rest 99% own 1% of world's wealth, you could claim that statistically, there is no poverty, because 99% of world's population is in the same situation.

Seriously, all this chants about the "miracles of free market" started to sound like religious cult. You claiming that the "survival of the fittest" in therms of free trade is the natural order of things, but also contradictory claim that "no one is becoming extinct". Sorry, you couldn't have both at same time. If you have totally free exchange, then it is survival of the fittest scenario. If you want no one to become extinct, then it's not the totally free scenario, because you are placing the restrictions.

I not claiming anything beyond voluntary exchange and free markets facilitate income equality. It doesn't gurantee it. Nothing will guarantee it. Those nations with the least voluntary exchange will have the greatest disparity of wealth.
Such nations are either run by privately owned wealth in the hands of oligarchs or under socialist governments like Cuba and Venezuela.

What is so moral about begaring a nation like the Castros did in Cuba or Chavez did in Venezuela? Venezuela is a nation wealthy in resources, yet it has squandered it and impoverished their citizens. They did so not in pursuit of captialism, but socialism. Neither form of economics is moral. Socialism simply ascribes a moral goal but constrains that goal with an ineficient economic structure that requires more resources to produce the same amount of production as a system with voluntary exchange can. That means fewer people are served under socialism for any given amount of available resources. Further, the more a system engages in voluntary exchange the less disparity of wealth (as measured as the amount of those owning the median and those owning the most)there is. Competition and voluntary exchange limits just how piggish oligarchs can get, especially in the US.

runsforcelery wrote:
Oops.

Was really tired and completely missed the irony! Well, that, and I'd just spent the day fending off some really . . . less than stellar comments in an email from an irate reader who just knew he had a better grasp of my characters' internal logic than I do. I guess that sorta just splashed onto the way I read your post.

Sigh.

We all have bad days in the office sometimes

Enjoying the snippets from both books and glad you have some time to interact with the forums again.

Annachie wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Yet no one is becoming extinct and more people are elevated out of poverty because of free markets, voluntary exchange and the indulgence of competition. You claims that this is immoral are countered by facts.

Actually, poverty levels in the USA have been fairly consistant since the early 1970's, and the number below 50% of the poverty line is actually going up.

Was this done with a fixed definition of the poverty line, e.g., is there a luxury good like a radio in the home? I am old enough to remember when car ownership was upper middle class and well-to-do workers, e.g., steel, autos, etc., and two cars in the household was literally the millionaire who lived next door.

I think that particular one was a percentage of median income measure.

The definition of poverty has not been fixed. It has been raised consistently. I don't believe there has been any study measuring how frequently the same standard of living as measured by some set of conveniences exists compared to previous time. Innovation has made even the poorest folks lives so much better.

Randomiser wrote:[

1) I was reminding readers that you would have ensured an ammunition supply for the serfs

2) I was encouraging reflection on how complacent the government was in assuming that it was peacetime and their convoy was perfectly safe. (Sporadic uprisings have been popping up for quite a while)

3) I was anticipating the response of many of the Aristocracy in blaming the ministers (Aristos who would, of course, have done exactly the same thing themselves)

4) I was indulging in a bit of Shadenfreude (What does it say about a culture that it has such a word in its language, anyway?)

In other words, I was mostly having fun, but from North Wind Blowing's POV your comments are perfectly reasonable and business as usual.

I just reread Snippet#4 and came across something that I overlooked that is a pretty big deal.

"Didn't seem to me they lasted a lot longer here," ex-Sergeant Syngpu observed. "Still, I'll give you that they didn't know their arse from their elbow. Just like the Captain of Foot said they wouldn't." (bold text added for emphasis by yours truly)

The ambush was commanded by an 'ex' sergeant and an 'ex' corporal. They got their intel and a run down on the enemy formation from "the Captain of Foot".

Now, that may have meant that they interrogated a captured Captain of Foot and got the intel but would he really have had a frame of reference as to the quality of the troops they would be facing in comparison to what the Mighty Host had faced? Doubtful since the Spears and the regular Harchongese army didn't get sent to the Temple Lands.

Oh the other hand, 'the Captain of Foot' may refer to their Captain of Foot- suggesting that there's already a chain of command in place made up of Mighty Host veteran NCO's and officers.

Mighty Host veteran NCO's that were trained up by Temple boys veterans to a surprisingly high standard before they got a taste of what it was like to face Charisan and Siddarmarkan "New Model Army' troops. if I remember the last book or so correctly, Charis and Siddarmark found them to be a handful, too, and a big step up in quality from the massed Temple armies they had faced the previous campaign season.

Just the sort of folks you'd want to use as a training cadre, huh?

The sort that had 'been there, done that,' enough to know what was important to know and what could be saved for later.

The sort of folks that could give some quick and dirty field instruction to complete noobs on little things like proper maintenance and manual of arms of a front stuffer rifle or the Temple's Ferguson knockoff and get useful results from doing it?

Peasants, slaves and serfs already understand following orders. The biggest problem they will have is holding discipline after the fighting's over.

Rainbow Waters used a pretty heavy hand culling out the dullards with lots of connections but no skills from his officer cadre, too, especially those with field positions. Those back in Harchong will be combat veterans, too, I think. Very few, if any, nobles at the lower levels, most likely, but some very bright junior officers with good training and combat experience.

Methinks that column in this snippet is not going to be an issue and things in the North are going to be getting very ugly, very very quickly.

PeterZ wrote:A quibble. Capitalism controlled by Kleptocratic Oligarchs will be comparable to socialism. The form of ownership is far less important than voluntary exchange and free markets. I will concede that socialism drastically limits just how free a market can be as well as limiting the areas where there can be voluntary exchange compared to full and broad private ownership. So while socialism inherently limits free markets and voluntary exchange more so than capitalism, who owns the capital is less port ant than how the capital is used.

1) Kleptocratic oligarchs do not produce what I would call capitalism. The essence of capitalism is competition.

2) You're missing the core point of what I was saying--under capitalism those who control the wealth will be more skilled at making/preserving wealth than those who control it under socialism. How can this not result in more wealth in the long run?