Originally Posted by Hessah
|
But when people spend MORE than they've EARNT they money that they exceeded on will have to come from somewhere, and that's borrowed money.
On paper we can say "well he'll just have no food for 10 days" but that's not how reality works.
|
But where does he get the money to eat for those 10 days? A loan? Why is he given a loan when he doesn't have any collateral to show for it?
|
Originally Posted by Hessah
|
|
That might also be people getting more than what they need... (and in turn, makes other who IS in need, not get what they need...)
|
Since when does "need" dictate who gets what? It's earning power that earns you money. I "need" food to live. So if I sit there and "need" it, I won't get it. I need to go "earn" it.
|
Originally Posted by Hraesvelg
|
Socialism works on paper, too, but it doesn't account for how humans actually behave. IF everyone were responsible with their money AND made correct decisions, then yes, the method you described would be great. However, reality is a lot messier than absolute philosophies.
Game theory really comes into play, here. Look up altruism and how it relates to evolutionary stable strategies.
|
Objectivist economics support laissez-faire capitalism, or in other words say that the markets are evolutionarily stable, because left to themselves, they will prosper. Now I didn't really find anything to do with altruistic economics, so if you could give me a link, I would be much obliged.