Walter E Williams – Economics of Liberty
Excerpts frοm thе address “Thе Entrepreneur Aѕ American Hero,” delivered bу Dr. Walter E Williams, John M. Olin Distinguished Professor οf Economics, George Mason University. More videos аnd information οn issues οf liberty іѕ available аt www.LibertyPen.com
@freezazoid
Umm, This line of reasoning is not an line of reasoning against cash being produced by serving one’s fellow man, it is an line of reasoning against the thought that cash is a certificate of ANYTHING..
If we said that cash was a certificate of “work” or “earning”, it would be just as easily falsified by the occurence of finding cash on the ground, or being given cash.
@Aphoresis : not just the word “benefit”. I probably by no means would have noticed if he’d just said that. It’s the “serve ones fellow man” that bugged me. And besides that, he even says that the grocer wont sell to you unless you’ve served your fellow man. I could go quietly a bunch of cash and go into the shop and buy stuff… I did the OPPOSITE of serving my fellow man, and the grocer subdue will except the cash. You know why? BECAUSE IT’S NOT A FREAKIN CERTIFICATE OF SERVING YOUR FELLOW MAN!
@freezazoid
You have been shown both by reference to extremely common everyday language and even English lexicons that the term “Benefit” fits what it is Williams is describing here. If you want to maintain your case you must offer evidence that proves that “Benefit” is used preeminently today to refer to Charity or Slavery, a task which i believe will be hard.
@aussieconservative : the problem is: Webster’s isn’t the final word… it gives you direction to how the word has been used in the past. More commonly the word “serve” connotes and brings on descriptions of charity or slavery… you’re right not always. but w.e.w. even said something like.. “your grocer will question if you’ve served your fellow man before he sells groceries”…. that’s ridiculous… A dollar is not a certificate of serving ones fellow man. it’s a certificate of work/assets/value
@freezazoid this is a classical model of the bastardisation of the English language. To SERVE is; to be in the benefit of; work for OR to be useful or of benefit to; help. the term itself does not imply slavery indeed in the examples used it implies payment. I mow your lawn – benefit rendered, repair your roof – benefit rendered or lecture your children economics – benefit rendered and in turn you give me dollars – payment rendered. indeed why would anyone make the presumption this is greed.
@aussieconservative : You’re missing the point: “serving ones fellow man” isn’t the main motivation behind econ. You don’t start a business to help people… charity work is done that way. You start business’ so you can make profit. People getting “served” is the natural bi-product of wanting to increase your income or assets. “serving people” is for slaves. promotion your labor and thoughts is for the businessman. why would anyone even want to look at it like you’re “serving people”?
@freezazoid and if you just inherited persons dollars then your father must have done something for persons dollars. perhaps dad was a bum then grandpa must have done something for persons dollars. If you won the cash playing the lotto then you made a high risk investment of about 7 dollars that has the probability of resulting in you losing your entire 7 dollar investment and fortunately you didn’t. Should we bemoan that individuals excellent fortune.
@freezazoid serving is not part of the businesses direct intention it happens irrespective of whether the individuals that negotiate a business want to serve thier fellow man or not. it is not the intention but it is nevertheless the outcome. you must have done something for persons dollars.
@LibertyPen furthermore shitload of coconuts is not going to upshot in a high price. The fact that there is such a high supply means that others will also have coconuts and there will be competition in the market. You also didn’t define the product that the other guy is promotion. it could be a shape dealer. if he is tiresome to buy diamonds with coconuts he will certainly be ‘serving his fellow man’. i see no real flaws in walter williams analysis but i see plenty here.
@Aphoresis : It’s not the best terminology! “serving” has a general and wide range of definitions.. but it’s mostly used referring to charity and helping.. which is GREAT! I like helping people. But that’s not the footing of why people set up businesses. He makes it sound like the sole function for owning 100′s of acres of corn is to help people. Business’ are for products that can be traded for other products or labor… that’s all. There’s no humanity involved. But humanity is really cool.
@freezazoid
The analogy is fine, your problem is with a terminology far more expansive in reach than this analogy.
Have you ever seen a sign that read: thank you for your benefit?
The sign is ofcourse referring to the fact that i have “given them benefit” (another common phrase ) or in other words, allowed them to “serve” me.
I know there are groups of people that worship the notion of selfishness and see Free Enterprise as nothing but an expression of this but the term fits.
Fine. Eliminate taxation and regulation, and then we have free enterprise. Till then we have slavery. Take away the welfare that politicians, teachers, and all gov workers receive and then we can talk about free enterprise. If the president gets welfare, then everyone else should too, and get JUST AS MUCH! PS- TS is knowledgeable, in a way, but he is an off-shade of brown, not black. Some people are more equal than others.
@andrewthejones : Plus… I reckon your explanation of “dollars” is way better than W.E.W. I’ll quote you: “Every dollar represents a certain amount of labor.”
W.E.W. analogy about the grocer questioning whether you’ve served your fellow man or not before he sells you the groceries is dumb and reeks of socialism to me. But that’s just my opinion. W.E.W. logic is intact… his analogies are not.
@andrewthejones EXACTLY!!!!! Finally someone who gets what i’m saying. The “serving ones fellow man” is an indirect consequence of wanting to trade your goods/services with others. “Laboring to trade” is a FINE term…. I personally as a laissez-faire capitalist don’t like the term “serving ones fellow man”. It sounds like humanity. I’m all for charity and serving people…. I just don’t reckon that’s what free-trade is all about. I’ve taken a lot of shit for not liking W.E.W. wording.
@freezazoid
he served his fellow man indirectly by laboring for the surplus coconuts. The ones in the market who want the coconuts don’t have to work for them directly, someone has already worked for them. A common exchange of currency is trading labor for labor. Every dollar represents a certain amount of labor.
@econogate It’d by no means happen; they’re both black.
@freezazoid : I honestly don’t get why everyone’s hating on me. I’m a huge fan of W.E.W. I just reckon his analogy is off. Economics doesn’t revolve around “Serving Ones Fellow Man”. Adam Smith would agree with me, Milton Friedman would agree, Ayn Rand would agree, Hayek and the whole Austrian School of Econ. would agree and any excellent economist would agree. The gorgeous part about it is our fellow man DOES get help in a “self serving” business environment. It’s a wonderful bi-product.
@BBCater : Umm yeah… if you didn’t inspect the veggies for insects you’d be renowned as promotion a terrible product. but you didn’t do that because you sought after to continue promotion your product… you did it for moral purposes. Fine, in a free market you can do that. Most people sell splendid products because they make cash promotion splendid products. And when did I ever say I sought after the gov. to get involved in business?
@freezazoid You use “book logic” to justify a position against something you’ve by no means tried. Honestly – with your mentality, I wouldn’t WANT you owning a business. You’re so obviously selfish and self-serving that you suppose everyone else is JUST LIKE YOU.
Drop your jaded, despise-your-parents mind-set, and realize that your NEIGHBOR has FAR MORE interest in your well-being than your local politician does… even if he’s an asshole. Trust in government is a lack of self-determination – period.
@freezazoid No – that’s the mind-set of a non-capitalist against capitalism by equating achievement with self-benefit. I own 2 businesses. I used to own 4. EVERY endeavor I’ve ever undertook was on the thought that society (my community) would benefit from the products that I produced. My first business was a farm. I can assure you that I by no means thought of my bottom-line when I inspected the insects and parasites that threatened my crops. I thought of the PRODUCTS that were threatened by them.
@latrans67 : no capitalism is about serving oneself… and if you do that a byproduct is that others get what they want to (also by serving themselves.) When I’m hungry I don’t first reckon “how can I serve my fellow man… and maybe this will get me food”. No I reckon “how do I get food”. you have it backwards. Someone else getting benefit from me is just a byproduct of capitalism.
@freezazoid Is this a problem of reading comprehension? Did I not state if you do not have a product that serves a need of your fellow man you get nothing for it? My point is that capitalism is about serving a need of someone else that results in making cash, if you serve no need they do not give you cash. Reckon of it as a barter system, it doesn’t matter how much you want his item if he doesn’t want yours. The financial system is just a complex barter, but you have to serve a need.
@latrans67 : If no one sought after a coconut? You’re missing the point… Coconut was just meant to represent something that people want… it’s an analogy. Even if you were to take it literally it makes no difference. So no one wants his coconuts. So he has plenty of food for himself. What’s your point?
@cooks1234 Your line of reasoning is irrational, it’s not the come forth being discussed. The discussion is about the core ideals of economics, and the core logic behind what economics is all about. So to talk about the benefits of trading coconuts are the premises for the line of reasoning; you’re attempting to add an unideal situation (crime) into the hypothesis. That is irrational, to inject the possibility of theft into an line of reasoning about virtues of monetary trade.
@MrGrevy His right intention is a genuine concern for people. That’s excellent economics. Look at the basic language of economics: the production and trade of goods and services. Goods, meaning products, but they’re called ‘goods’ as in something that is excellent. And services, as in to serve one’s fellow man. Our most basic scenery is described by economics, what we demand, and what we make, and what we buy and what we consume. Normative economics teaches the virtues of competitive industry.