Land is finite now. Some resources are finite now. Space exploration will solve this problem within a few centuries. Besides, we only live on 5% of the land right now. There is no land shortage. And other resources many claim to be finite are often not...the best way to tell is by looking at those resources a few decades or centuries back. If they increased as the economy oncreased (like food production) then the problem is a red herring.

BTW that space exploration (whether mining or for habitat) will be driven by profits.

And they had zero property rights except in the top percentage that owned everything, and they didn't price by supply and demand, creating major problems in economic cycles we no longer face. Feudalism isn't comparable.

It's still pretty feudal where they made your kecks.

looooooool yeah let's just make it 100% for effect, while we're at it.

Grunch: This is the thing that irritates me the most about libertarians and conservatives.

Even people who know for a fact that there are situations where cooperation>competetion will steadfastly claim that in economics it's different and competition and free market is always better than government intervention.

There is nothing that says the invisible hand can't have cooperation. If it's advantageous to cooperate, cooperation will happen.

Warren Buffet claims he pays 15% income tax. The reality is you must add corporate tax to capital gains tax, coming out with 49%. Considering stocks have not moved anywhere since 2000, the rise in stock prices due to inflation, and the replenishment of cash corporations must do when inflation rises, Buffett probably pays close to 90% in income tax.

Unless, Buffett thought raising the CG tax would knock out investment competitors. He chose a logic that not only did not benefit him, it is proven to be wrong.

You may be pro-life knowing having increased babies in the country may lead to famine, war, and strife down the line, but you believe abortion is murder.

If you see a position leading to a better world, you may be mistaking that for economic reasons you personally benefit.

I see international low rake poker, free to place your server anywhere you want, as good for the world. I don't even know if European players are better then U.S. players. Even if I was not allowed to play on the network.

Sure, in many cases. But to deny that situations similar to, say, prisoner's dilemma don't exist ever or that they can all be solved by the free market seems unbased. You're also basically asserting that externalities don't exist or at the very least, that government intervention is always worse than the inefficiencies caused by the externalities.

It's always just asserted that the free market can solve all of these problems, but where's the proof?

It's not help it wants it's a good hard slapping. Unfettered capitalism is a bully's charter. The powerful just flog those without power practically to death in the pursuit of profits. That's been the history of the world.

They exist but they can be solved. Prisoner dilemma goes away through multiple repetitions. Externalities exist. I would agree that intervention is almost always worse than the externalities.

Cool story, bro.

This is what everybody does...
Both Cons and Libs max self-interest equally.

But Cons say it's a Good Thing on the whole...
Libs just lie about not doing it...
Libs are Elitists = above being soiled by Human Nature.

So entire OP is based upon a Liberal False Premise.

Look no further than Progressive Poster Boy Al Gore...
He "cares" about the planet and obsesses about "climate"...
But his personal Carbon Footprint is 1,000 times yours...
Probably closer to 10,000 times yours.

And Al has turned his "caring" into $200,000,000 net worth...
All that money fraudulently drained from the Middle Class...
Via slick propaganda, scare tactics, and govt connections...
And an attempted monopoly via the Chicago Climate Exchange.

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet...greg-pollowitz

It's Russian Oligarchy 101...
You control something common and necessary...
Then let your friends license and tax it.

If Al Gore weaseled a 1% tax on all the sugar consumed in USA...
The Dem Power Structures and Media Ellte would not say a word.

No, everyone simply does few million rounds of backwards induction and defects in the first period and thereafter.

Government intervention != cooperation

If you are talking about optimal play, yes. But how people really play works out much differently. This is because very few things in the real world work like prisoners dilemma. Incentives matter, and reputation matters.

How does prisoner's dilemma go away through multiple iterations? FWIW, I don't know of any studies of how people behave in practice in such a situation, but "tit-for-tat" is definitely worse for everyone than cooperating every round.

Cooperating results in people taking advantage of you.

Tit-for-tat is about as good as it gets for an unknown number of iterations.

Of course, the idea that you can't communicate or coordinate or even add penalties for defective shows how limited its applications it is to reality. There are built-in social mechanisms for ostracism of people who do not cooperate and are selfish. This makes them worse off for obvious reasons. This is why people naturally tend to cooperate, even when it might not be in their best interest. Our brain is rewarding us for cooperating. Our brain is also wired to punish people even if it hurts us if we view them as being unfair.

1 to 2% within a reasonably quick period of time (less than a year).

People don't know what you are thinking, so you're leaving it up to them to characterize you. Those who are going to think of you as a troll are more likely to mention it, as opposed to those who don't. Also characterizing you as a troll, degenerates into a non-serious discussion. It's an easier battle for them to win (or not lose), rather to trying to win a debate.

You're giving liberals too much credit. For the most part, they don't think that. If they thought along those lines, the answer to question #1 would be much higher, and you probably don't initiate this thread.

Which is the entire point. If either player tried to play in a way that would result in the best result for everyone, they would get taken advantage of by people just being selfish. So yeah, not a very convincing argument for why people being selfish yields the best results for everyone.

And it's still significantly worse than cooperation every round.

I agree that the prisoner's dilemma is too restrictive, but look at the rest of what you're saying. You're saying that people are wired in a way that makes them not act in their best interest, while trying to defend the claim that people acting in their best interest yields the best results for society.

Assuming that you really want to say something along the lines of "people looking out for their best interested, but with the restrictions naturally put into place by our biology, yields the best results for society," then I would ask why you believe our natural mechanisms are better than anything else we could put in place on top of that, and also why you think natural mechanisms work well in today's world.

Ostracism and feelings of guilt works in some contexts, but when people aren't living in small societies where everyone knows one another, and many of our interactions with people are so impersonal, I wouldn't expect our natural tendency to cooperate to be perfectly suited for our conditions.

No it doesn't eg if you jump into bed with every woman you fancy this might satisfy you but it is likely to be bad for your partner/wife, your kids and society as a whole.

facepalm.jpg

Read a book.

20%? (: If it was in the east maybe 33%?

..Did I pass?? :*

Believe it or not conservatives, there are some people out there that genuinely care what happens to other people beside themselves. There are also people out there that genuinely value freedom as a principle. Yes I'd like poker to be allowed because I could make money off of it, but the principle of the matter is more important to me and to our country's future as a whole.

Same when it comes to left vs right economic issues. Some people (Warren Buffett comes to mind) are willing to sacrifice some of their personal gain if they feel it is best for the world.

Research has discovered that you don't need to accumulate money to be happy you just need enough to make you feel secure and your freedom. That's where capitalism fails people. It encourages them to work longer doing things they don't like for money they don't need.

This is true but it doesn't change the fact that the people working hardest to make our economy and country run aren't compensated fairly because they have no leverage.