What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

Todd Graham wrote:“The key insight of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is misleadingly simple: if an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it.

My internet provider is complete garbage--overpriced and under-performs on the advertised speeds. However, there is no other provider in my area. Likewise, my sister takes a prescription medication that has no "generic version" so she gets charged incredible amounts of money for it even with insurance.

You can say we "benefit" from these transactions in a sense that we can't survive (in her case, literally) without taking part in them, but really we're just getting fucked for not having other options.

reboot wrote: Then they (the businesses) probably shouldn't exist at all, philosophically speaking? We are speaking against welfare to individuals, but isn't it also a form of corporate welfare as it exists today?

Sure, so who is the enabler there?

reboot wrote: I'm not arguing for raising or lowering the current minimum wage per se, but that there is a good reason for the existence of a minimum wage. Not all companies/economic activities provide a net social gain, even if they produce a net profit under current laws.

What is debatable there is the word "good". No doubt there is a reason, but the value is subjective. I may agree with you, but I can't say there is no debate.

reboot wrote: Not all companies/economic activities provide a net social gain, even if they produce a net profit under current laws.

No argument from me there. Much of it is crap in my view. I choose not to buy any of it if I feel that way.

"You are all so dumb."
- Adam Burch

Gonna go out on a limb and guess that no one who has posted to this thread has ever read The Wealth of Nations (the unabridged version) or has any credentials as an economist. People who hold Friedman in high esteem are often just half retarded, but misinterpreting Smith is just an annoyance. Before we tarnish Smith's name, let's not forget how he summarized The Wealth of Nations and the infamous "invisible hand":

“In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the
far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great
body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple
operations; frequently to one or two. But the understandings of
the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary
employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a
few simple operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always
the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert
his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients
for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally
loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes
as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to
become.

The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable
of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of
conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently
of forming any just judgment concerning many even of
the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests
of his country he is altogether incapable of judging; and
unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise,
he is equally incapable of defending his country in war. The
uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of
his mind, and makes him regard, with abhorrence, the irregular,
uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier.

It corrupts even the
activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his
strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment,
than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own
particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense
of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every
improved and civilized society, this is the state into which the
labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily
fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.”

And stop quoting Friedman from Wikipedia, Todd. He's not relevant - it's called corporate welfare, and that will exist so long as corporations exist.

Who's next? Ayn Rand?

The obvious answer to the OP's question is Sanders, assuming we exclude candidates like Supreme.

Brian Scoggins wrote: And the issue I was teasing out was our apparently slavish beliefs that (1) every employer has the right to say, to all employees "market 'says' the price is too high, so I have to pay you less" while that same employer sends bonuses to the upper management; and (2) that where prices are somehow reflects the value we place on a product. The point with my printer example was that people come on here, constantly, and say how they never pay retail prices for climbing gear, as if fucking over the people that have made improving our sport their lives' work is somehow laudable. There are a lot of shit brands out there that capitalize on our pathological need to get a bargain. But going with the shit brand that has "undercut the competition" as the entirety of their differentiation scheme (vis a vis ClimbX and Mad Rock before them) causes everyone's quality to drop to compete with them. In the milk example, you really think the dude taking a $9 a gallon loss on milk is stoked that he got your business? 1 of 2 things is gonna happen in that scenario. Either everybody stops drinking milk, or everybody gets used to higher prices than the mainland. Again, the cost of labor, materials, etc, sets a *minimum* price on goods, consumer value sets a *maximum*. Together they create a range. Both are open to negotiation. I can make a compelling argument for why you should value my labor more. You can make a compelling argument for how intangibles associated with my position add value that aren't reflected in my wage. But the fact still remains: I cannot, sustainably, accept wages lower than what I can negotiate my cost of living down to, and you cannot, sustainably, pay higher wages than you can negotiate your product value up to.

There is a third option, and it's the most common option of the three. Some people still buy the milk at $12 a gallon because they are rich, lazy, dumb, whatever, which allows the company enough sales to keep selling it, but the vast majority of people go to Costco down the street and pay $5.05 for the same product.

There are economic drawbacks to being cheap, but as with everything else in this entire thread "the market dictates." Just as employers are free to offer as little money for a job as they can get away with, consumers are free to offer as little money for a product as they can get away with, and both are linked actually. The more disposable income a household has, the more likely the family is to shop at Bob's Grocery instead of Costco.

reboot wrote: True, but if the government has to provide earned income credit, discounted/free health care & other forms of welfare to raise the effective wage of a significant portion of population to be livable, wouldn't it be better for the businesses utilizing these cheap labor to pay for them directly? The problem has always been that poor individual welfare has a cost on the collective. So what do you do? Let the poor & sick just die? Even if one is heartless enough for that, the more likely scenario is they are not going to play by the rules & exact chaos on the society.

You know what the problem is though. They give food stamps etc out people people who aren't worth 15$ an hour and they in turn sell those to get money to buy alcohol / drugs. The problem isn't their work isn't worth the 15$ but that even if they get the 15$ they can't manage their money and you still have to give them more free crap to survive.

They need to fix the freebie system to stop them from wasting it.

Who Dat wrote: “In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations; frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging; and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war. The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, and makes him regard, with abhorrence, the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment, than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society, this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.”

Let's simplify this:

People specialize in some form of labor, and so only do one particular thing for their employment.

This makes their brains rot so they can't clearly understand the rest of society, or take care of themselves or their families. It makes them stupid so they can't make sensible choices in any area outside of their job tasks, including voting and serving in the military to defend the country.

The job they do breaks them physically so they have no energy to do anything else.

All this means they don't have the time, the intelligence or the energy to realize their full potential. (Or become the uniquelittle snowflake we all know they can be!)

If you know on ANY society in the whole of history that did not divide labor by specialization to be more effective at producing necessities, you let me know. Someone can build their own house, farm their own crops, cut their own firewood, make their own clothes, fetch their own water.... but they'd work so hard they would have no time or energy for anything more, and not have the means for it either. Society formed on the reality that task batching and specialization is the most effective means of production.

What you have posted could be accurate, for some individuals. But that does not mean it is true for most, nor does it mean anyone would be better off without job specialization. One day, when robots do all the laboring jobs, a viable alternative may be possible where we can all fully realize our own inner snowflake. Til then, work must be done to put food in the mouth. That does not stop anyone from thinking for themselves, or doing as they wish in their free time. What you have quoted has no place in reality because there is no other option but to perform work in order that we provide ourselves with, at a bare minimum, the essentials of life.

Who Dat wrote: it's called corporate welfare, and that will exist so long as corporations exist.

And if corporations don't exist it will go to individuals.
The fact of the matter is, it will exist so long as the Government has the power to re-distribute. Because that's who is doing it. Take away that power and then it won't happen any more.
Ask yourself how the f*&^ we got here. Where is that in the original intent of government?

20 kN wrote: There is a third option, and it's the most common option of the three. Some people still buy the milk at $12 a gallon because they are rich, lazy, dumb, whatever, which allows the company enough sales to keep selling it, but the vast majority of people go to Costco down the street and pay $5.05 for the same product. There are economic drawbacks to being cheap, but as with everything else in this entire thread "the market dictates." Just as employers are free to offer as little money for a job as they can get away with, consumers are free to offer as little money for a product as they can get away with, and both are linked actually. The more disposable income a household has, the more likely the family is to shop at Bob's Grocery instead of Costco.

Let me try a different approach, since its clear that you're not getting what I'm saying:

Do you think $5.05 for a gallon of milk (which, incidentally, is ~150% of what I pay here on the mainland) is pure profit?

If not, if some of that is cost, does Costco have the right to tell the dairy farmers to charge less for their product? If so, by how much? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

The only difference between the electric bill on the McDonaldsBot and the wage on the McDonalds worker is that nobody thinks consistently underpaying your electric bill is a sign of good character.

Mathias wrote: Let's simplify this: People specialize in some form of labor, and so only do one particular thing for their employment. This makes their brains rot so they can't clearly understand the rest of society, or take care of themselves or their families. It makes them stupid so they can't make sensible choices in any area outside of their job tasks, including voting and serving in the military to defend the country. The job they do breaks them physically so they have no energy to do anything else. All this means they don't have the time, the intelligence or the energy to realize their full potential. (Or become the uniquelittle snowflake we all know they can be!) If you know on ANY society in the whole of history that did not divide labor by specialization to be more effective at producing necessities, you let me know. Someone can build their own house, farm their own crops, cut their own firewood, make their own clothes, fetch their own water.... but they'd work so hard they would have no time or energy for anything more, and not have the means for it either. Society formed on the reality that task batching and specialization is the most effective means of production. What you have posted could be accurate, for some individuals. But that does not mean it is true for most, nor does it mean anyone would be better off without job specialization. One day, when robots do all the laboring jobs, a viable alternative may be possible where we can all fully realize our own inner snowflake. Til then, work must be done to put food in the mouth. That does not stop anyone from thinking for themselves, or doing as they wish in their free time. What you have quoted has no place in reality because there is no other option but to perform work in order that we provide ourselves with, at a bare minimum, the essentials of life.

1. Don't attempt to simplify The Wealth of Nations. It simply can't be done.

2. You appear to be taking the argument to the other extreme. People can, and do, find a happy medium. It's been done in the US and throughout Europe. Urban-dwellers often find it difficult to wrap their heads around this.

Ever been to Lancaster, PA? That's an extreme example.

"What you have quoted has no place in reality because there is no other option but to perform work in order that we provide ourselves with, at a bare minimum, the essentials of life."
Thanks for reinforcing what Smith said. You seem to have missed the forest.

Tony:
I agree with the first half of what you said, but an important difference between a corporation and a government is that you have 0 control over a corporation; people may have 'some' control over their government.

Who Dat wrote: Tony: I agree with the first half of what you said, but an important difference between a corporation and a government is that you have 0 control over a corporation; people may have 'some' control over their government.

Corporations are a creation of government. They don't exist unless the state certifies them into existence.
The state on the other hand uses the implied or direct threat of violence to enforce every single action it takes. That means men and women with badges and guns.
Another distinction- with a corporation you can always boycott, organize boycotts and protests, provide a market for a alternative, and so on.
With the state if you do not comply people will come for you. And if you resist them enough, you will be killed and no one will be held accountable.
Which also brings me to another aspect of the state, zero accountability.
Democracy < Individual Rights. Democracy is 2 wolves and lamb voting on what's for dinner.

The state is force. Resist it.

Who Dat wrote: I agree with the first half of what you said, but an important difference between a corporation and a government is that you have 0 control over a corporation; people may have 'some' control over their government.

Second important difference:
A corporation has very little control over you but for what the government gives them, while the government has whatever control over you that they decree, and the list of decrees gets longer by the legislative season.

Mike Lane wrote:All transactions should be Voluntary. Period.

absolutely.

Poor folks may go to a "payday loan" business voluntarily but that is often because they can get a loan nowhere else.

Roy Suggett wrote:Poor folks may go to a "payday loan" business voluntarily but that is often because they can get a loan nowhere else.

If you are broke, the last thing you need is to borrow money.

You can't get out of a hole if you keep digging.

Mike Lane ... The state is force. And force is the opposite of liberty. My philosophy is basically this ... government is a collection of people ... who by their very nature are greedy and selfish ...1) hired to provide certain services to citizens without competiton and 2) hired to force citizens to do or not do things under threat of force and imprisonment. Because government has no competition for its services and can even kill us if we don't comply by their laws ... this is what separates government from the private business. The problem we see now is that government and business work hand in hand to 1) reduce competition for certain businesses at the expense of the consumer and 2) enhance the power of politicians over the citizenry. Crony capitalism, corporatism, socialism ... whatever you want to call it ... are the same thing ... government working with business to serve their ends, and reduce or destroy our freedoms. This is why our Founders had such inherent distrust of government ... they knew their history very well ... and that if man is given power over other men ... he will abuse it. Without. A. Doubt. Which is why I support politicians who want to reduce government involvement in our lives ... not expand it.

Who Dat wrote: an important difference between a corporation and a government is that you have 0 control over a corporation; people may have 'some' control over their government.

Seem to have it mixed up here. Corporations have virtually no control over you: you don't have to work for them nor purchase their products. Government, on the other hand, forces you by threat of jail or force to pay taxes to them and obey their rules.

Senior Hernandez wrote: If you are hungry the last thing you need is something to eat, eventually the hunger will go away.

Interesting. According to your logic I can then argue that if you are greedy the last thing you need is more money, eventually the greed will go away.

William ... you are exactly right. For example ... compare the DMV service with what you see in a supermarket. The DMV is a monopoly forced government service that delivers piss poor service to the masses. A supermarket is a beautiful example of thousands of corporations competing to make you happy ... why? Because they can make a small but collectively large profit selling you a product under no compulsion by the state. Ask... why are there 100 kinds of cereal in a US supermarket ... and 2 in a Venezuelan market? Does the US government mandate that many cereals? No... it is great example of the free market at work ... with those that customers want surviving and those that don't sell dying off. The beauty of the free market and creative destruction in one shopping aisle.

William Thiry wrote: Corporations have virtually no control over you

HOLY SHIT DUDE how many miles away from DC do you live and do you EVER read news? Most politicians are owned more than dogs are. WOW, nice life you must have to see the world in this light...

Todd Graham wrote:William ... you are exactly right. For example ... compare the DMV service with what you see in a supermarket. The DMV is a monopoly forced government service that delivers piss poor service to the masses. A supermarket is a beautiful example of thousands of corporations competing to make you happy ... why? Because they can make a small but collectively large profit selling you a product under no compulsion by the state. Ask... why are there 100 kinds of cereal in a US supermarket ... and 2 in a Venezuelan market? Does the US government mandate that many cereals? No... it is great example of the free market at work ... with those that customers want surviving and those that don't sell dying off. The beauty of the free market and creative destruction in one shopping aisle.

Amen brother. The DMV in PA was horrible. If it was a business and you had a choice, you would never go in there. However I do have to say in Colorado they do much better (to all the Coloradans who complain, just be glad you're not PA - yes it can get worse, much worse).