Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Investments > Investing Science > Re: Friedman's ...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 6 of 50 Topic 15531 of 16003
Post > Topic >>

Re: Friedman's Folly

by Les Cargill <lcargill@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 15, 2008 at 07:23 PM

The Trucker wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:23:30 +0530, John Galt wrote:
<snip>
> 
> You are looking at individual wealth as opposed to societal wealth.

One is simply the sum of the other.

> And
> in a populated society individual wealth is anywhere and everywhere the
> labor you can save yourself or the freedom you gain by commanding the
> labor of others.

For sufficiently interesting values of "command".

> Societal wealth, on the other hand, is the freedom from
> harm, discomfort, and toil and the liberty that is shared among all. 
> There are two ways to achieve this societal wealth in a populated
society
> (there may be more but I do not know of them):
> 
> 1. Technological advance and capital development
> 2. The division and specialization of land and labor 
> 

Yup.

> But the measurement of success is not the measurement of these things
> directly. For the measurement of success we must turn to more direct
> indicators of societal well being.
>   
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life
> 

It becomes subjective, therefore "spinnable". Try this:
1) Television advertising modulates people's comfort level to
improve the impact of commercials.
2) Therefore, turning off the TV can measurably make people happier
3) But creating demand helps keep the real cost of material goods
relatively low.
4) Therefore, there is a trade space of uncertain warp and weave
between TV or no TV.

I tend to turn off the TV, but I might be creating negative 
externalities for other people by doing it. Indeed, I have been
on here for years talking about consumer fatigue. I think we are
in it up to our eyeballs.

> There is and will be much disagreement over the weight assigned to the
> various measurements of "infant mortality", "longevity", "happiness",
and
> the like.  But these are the things that actually represent the quality
of
> life; the success or failure of economic policy.
> 

And each of those will mire you in details forever. Improved
prenatal care actually inflates infant mortality figures - what
would have been a miscarriage is now an infant death. Yadda
yadda.

--
Les Cargilll
 




 50 Posts in Topic:
Re: Friedman's Folly
orangatang1@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-14 21:23:56 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"Mark M." <m  2008-05-15 07:58:40 
Re: Friedman's Folly
The Trucker <mikcob@[E  2008-05-15 07:56:18 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-15 23:23:30 
Re: Friedman's Folly
The Trucker <mikcob@[E  2008-05-15 11:46:32 
Re: Friedman's Folly
Les Cargill <lcargill@  2008-05-15 19:23:44 
Re: Friedman's Folly
The Trucker <mikcob@[E  2008-05-15 18:41:47 
Re: Friedman's Folly
Les Cargill <lcargill@  2008-05-16 01:15:06 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-16 11:16:39 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-16 06:49:11 
Re: Friedman's Folly
The Trucker <mikcob@[E  2008-05-15 19:04:53 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-16 07:58:05 
Re: Friedman's Folly
The Trucker <mikcob@[E  2008-05-15 21:45:03 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-16 11:02:33 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"Clave" <Cla  2008-05-15 22:53:35 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-16 12:58:36 
Re: Friedman's Folly
retrogrouch@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-15 22:59:16 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-16 13:04:11 
Re: Friedman's Folly
retrogrouch@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-16 08:10:11 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-16 21:33:11 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"Clave" <Cla  2008-05-16 18:33:58 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-17 07:34:20 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"Clave" <Cla  2008-05-16 20:40:01 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-17 09:28:22 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"Clave" <Cla  2008-05-16 21:19:39 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-17 11:17:54 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"Clave" <Cla  2008-05-16 23:11:41 
Re: Friedman's Folly
retrogrouch@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-16 08:14:07 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-16 21:39:06 
Re: Friedman's Folly
retrogrouch@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-16 11:51:12 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-17 00:27:59 
Re: Friedman's Folly
retrogrouch@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-16 11:53:31 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-17 00:33:29 
Re: Friedman's Folly
retrogrouch@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-16 12:27:59 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"Mark M." <m  2008-05-16 14:58:28 
Re: Friedman's Folly
Les Cargill <lcargill@  2008-05-16 19:41:05 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-17 06:50:50 
Re: Friedman's Folly
retrogrouch@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-16 22:16:01 
Re: Friedman's Folly
Les Cargill <lcargill@  2008-05-16 19:38:51 
Re: Friedman's Folly
Les Cargill <lcargill@  2008-05-16 19:35:46 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-17 06:52:58 
Re: Friedman's Folly
Les Cargill <lcargill@  2008-05-15 19:17:09 
Re: Friedman's Folly
retrogrouch@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-15 18:43:45 
Re: Friedman's Folly
Day Brown <daybrown@[E  2008-05-18 12:55:16 
Re: Friedman's Folly
The Trucker <mikcob@[E  2008-05-18 11:08:23 
Re: Friedman's Folly
Video61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-16 09:07:57 
Re: Friedman's Folly
retrogrouch@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-16 11:42:38 
Re: Friedman's Folly
sbm2006@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-16 17:09:16 
Re: Friedman's Folly
"John Galt" <  2008-05-17 06:54:35 
Re: Friedman's Folly
sbm2006@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-17 12:41:56 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Sun Jul 6 9:13:33 CDT 2008.