Stock markets are how you get out of an investment

The reality is that the stock markets do not do the job of supplying businesses with capital anymore. So why are they used as savings mediums when they serve no further social or economic purpose?

Imagine there was no stock market. Any investment must thus be held forever. Anyone who invested in IBM back in the day would still hold those IBM shares. They’d be hugely wealthy of course, but couldn’t sell off some portion of their IBM stock because there is no market in secondary stock.

Well, no, not really, because anyone who invested in IBM back in the day, directly with new stock issues, is now dead. Their estate could not pay any tax upon that stock value, because the stock could not be liquidated to pay the value. Actually, contrary to the above para, they’d not be rich and there would be no inheritance tax to pay either. For there is no secondary market. It’s not possible to sell IBM stock thus there is no value to it.

Given this world what is the required return to invest in a new stock issue? Higher than today’s perhaps? The cost of capital is higher, society is poorer.

Hmm.

This is even before we get to the idea that perhaps savers would like to diversify their portfolios. Or that there are people for whom a stream of income in the form of dividends is a good idea.

Or, even, the basic savings problem itself. I – to use I to mean the rational human being – know that I will work for some portion of my life. I damn well hope that I’ll have some decades of Golden Years in which I will be consuming those savings. I want to be able to consume the capital of those savings of course, not just the income from them. As the lifetime savings hypothesis insists, I want to smooth my income over my life,. That does mean being able to consume the saved capital in my retirement. But how can I consume the capital if I cannot sell any portion of it? There is no secondary market? I would only be able to consume the income from my savings. At death, my total savings would be whatever my peak amount of savings was.

For I’d not have been able to, in the absence of a market in secondary savings, sell any of my capital.

Hey, pretty good for my inheritors, obviously. But then as the Senior Lecturer would insist, we shouldn’t be allowed to pass on capital anyway, should we?

Sigh. The fool still can’t grasp that the point of a stock market is to allow people to sell investments.

51 comments on “Stock markets are how you get out of an investment

  1. I wonder how he intends to get rid of stock markets. If I had any shares in Apple and I wanted to get rid of them, and I happened to meet someone down at my local coffee shop who wanted to buy them, could I, you know, sell them? If the coffee shop becomes famous as a place to go to buy or sell shares, isn’t that a stock market?

    What he seems to object to is the large and efficient stock market we have. Replacing it with artisanal stock marketing is obviously a good idea (and I love the fact that CNN has been referring to artisanal mining in Congo. You can imagine what that is).

  2. I could be mistaken but….
    Stocks are a token of investment in [company], and as such have already fulfilled their purpose in raising capital for [company], whether they’re sold through a stock market or directly. So that’s where their usefulness for raising capital ends, by definition.
    Any “job” a stock market has in this is purely as an intermediary, so a stock market can never be “responsible” for the raising of that capital. It might mismanage it, but the primary responsibility for investor engagement will always lie with [company], either through actual worth, or hype, or…

    The secondary market runs primarily on the *percieved* value of the original stock. But any value lost or gained there has no impact on the capital raised by the issue of the stock. So a stock market *can’t* have a “job” there when it comes to raising capital for [company], as at this stage it is acting as an intermediary between traders in *existing* stock.

    I may be but an egg, but I think the egregious professor got his wires crossed and confused two distinct and separate functions of a single service provider.

  3. “Sigh. The fool still can’t grasp that the point of a stock market is to allow people to sell investments.”

    I can still remember my jolt of pleasure when I worked that out for myself. I was fourteen. Gawd he’s dim.

  4. Deep and liquid capital markets are how we overcome time inconsistency in investment horizons.

  5. The cvnt wants to shut down markets, all markets and of course advertising. The curajus state then deals with satisfying all our material needs.

    Wonder if he’s ever stood in a soviet queue or tried to buy the only food available (being tinned fish) from a saleslady in a soviet shop then visited the cashier with the sales chit and returned to the saleslady with the paid docket – 3 queues in all, like fvcking Grace Brothers in are You being Served. I have.

    Cvnt

  6. I can’t help feeling a better response to his ravings would ignoring them. He is so obviously a total bellend and a supreme imbecile.

    The only reason I can think of for continuing with Ragging on Ritchie is if you know it annoys him. In which case fair enough.

    Still, your gaff, etc…

  7. @Grikath, May 11, 2018 at 3:40 pm

    +1

    Also, should company wish to raise more capital they don’t go to stock market for the money, they sell more shares (rights issue) directly to investors.

  8. You missed the rather obvious point that stock markets do not supply businesses with capital & never have done. If you buy any new issue stock – share or loan – you write the cheque to whoever’s running the issue. Absolutely nothing to do with the stock market, whatsoever.
    As you do say, stock markets are the vehicle by which those who have invested can liquidate the investment.

  9. Stock markets provide a very good guide to the value of a company and its long term prospects. Companies can be measured against each other to set industry benchmarks. Shorting signals that something could be wrong.

    All this and more allows banks and other institutions to set interest rates |(ie risk premiums) on loans and bonds which companies do need for long term investments and working capital. Interest rates can even be tied to the share price.

    Anyway, we know that stock markets are generally a good thing and that we need them, otherwise they wouldn’t have sprung in to existence.

  10. “I could be mistaken but….
    Stocks are a token of investment in [company], and as such have already fulfilled their purpose in raising capital for [company], whether they’re sold through a stock market or directly. So that’s where their usefulness for raising capital ends, by definition.”

    I find it easier to think of stocks as like a bank loan where you use the company itself as ‘security’, in much the same way as when you take out a mortage to buy a house, the house is the security for the loan. The share dividends are the interest payments. The main differences being that the interest rate is more flexible, and the capital amount of the loan is (usually) never paid off.

    If you went to the bank to take out a £1m loan to start a company, you only get given any cash on taking it out, so you could argue that this is the only bit that “raises capital”. However, that mortgage is still sat there – the bank’s continual forbearance in not asking for their money back constitutes their continuous active participation in and contribution to your enterprise. While you’re using their resources, they can’t. Their daily acquiescence in that is what you’re paying those dividends for. While being paid the money of a loan is a one time shot, the loan exists continually until it is repaid.

    Any investor making a loan is going to want it back at some point. (Otherwise there’s no point in having the money.) But that’s going to be very inconvenient for a long-term enterprise like a company. So they have a scheme where a different investor can take over. The first investor gets their money back, and the second investor puts their money in. While they could both deal separately with you, it’s easier and cheaper for them to deal directly with one another. This is a stock exchange.

    Thus, the role of a stock exchange in ‘raising capital’ is to keep it raised when the original investor wants their money back. It raises a new loan simultaneously with the termination of the old one. From your point of view, it looks as if nothing happens, financially. But actually it is in effect two balancing transactions to both raise and lower capital, cancelling out.

  11. “…the bank’s continual forbearance in not asking for their money back constitutes their continuous active participation in and contribution to your enterprise. While you’re using their resources, they can’t.”

    One could, of course, argue that with fractional reserve banking the money lent has been magicked into existence by credit creation & are not the bank’s resources at all. Thus no opportunity cost.

  12. “One could, of course, argue that with fractional reserve banking the money lent has been magicked into existence by credit creation & are not the bank’s resources at all.”

    One could. Not sure one would be right, though. 🙂

    It’s always the borrower that creates money – it is after all a promise to repay, so only the person making the promise can be said to create money. If you take out a loan from a bank, you sign a loan agreement, which turns the loan contract itself into money.

    The bank then simply exchanges this illiquid form of money for a more liquid form, without creating any. All fractional reserve does then is to dilute the liquidity to the minimum needed. When the savings of many people are pooled, the liquidity can be shared so bank credit is only provided with the minimum necessary. However, none of its value is made up. It’s all backed by the illiquid loan agreements in the vault.

    Shares are slightly different, in that you’re not borrowing with the intention of paying back something that doesn’t yet exist, but selling ownership of something that, with the capital now available to it, already has considerable value. It’s a bit of a subtle distinction, though, and not essential to understanding the basic principle.

  13. NiV reminds me of the late Professor Hawking – knowledgeable in one area (Physics), but totally barking in another (Politics).

    Just replace Physics with Economics and Politics with ‘Minority “Rights”‘.

  14. I don’t think there’s any doubt I’m “knowledgeable” in the other area as well – you just don’t agree with the conclusions I draw from that knowledge.

    Which with politics is fair enough. We’re all entitled to our own opinions!

    Thanks, anyway. 🙂

  15. “I don’t understand or I don’t like a certain thing, therefore that thing serves no purpose”.

  16. Tony,

    What’s the purpose in such utterances? You know already they has absolutely no effect, other than to make you look like a bad-tempered and ill-mannered 8-year-old. Is that really the best you can manage?

  17. BiS: “One could, of course, argue that with fractional reserve banking”

    One could indeed argue that, but that doesn’t mean one would be right. Banks are constrained by capital ratios, and there is an implicit cost to them.

  18. @NiV

    Tony’s utterance, whilst lacking sophistication, is a growing trend. For years we on the right have tried to reason with you on the left, as if arguments might work, as if it might be possible to use logic and the real world as evidence to explain why your economic ideas are barking mad. Above all, to extend the courtesy of thinking that if we are reasonable to you, you will be reasonable back.

    But it’s been a waste of time. The left spews bile and hatred , hypocrisy and dogma. The shroud waving, the virtue signalling, the “relative smartphone poverty”, the “because, reasons” excuses when some on the left do exactly the same as some on the right but the former are exonerated while the latter condemned.

    So it’s dawning on the right that it’s just not worth engaging with the left any more. They already live in a universe of their own making. They won’t listen and can’t be changed.

    People like you could stand in a field of cows and insist you were surrounded by horses and no discussion or explanation or appeal to logic, reason or sanity could get you to change you view.

    So Tony is just saying the above more succinctly.

    And I agree with Tony.

  19. And to clarify, NiV, we’ve stopped caring what you think of those who don’t agree with you.

    You want to accuse us of being heartless because we think it’s no hardship on a child not to have a smartphone and don’t see why we should work to pay taxes so the government can buy one for the ungrateful brat, go ahead. Accuse away. We’ve stopped trying to explain that it doesn’t make us monsters. Those explanations are never listened to anyway.

    We just don’t care what you think any more.

  20. “Tony’s utterance, whilst lacking sophistication, is a growing trend.”

    Granted. But my question wasn’t about why you would want to, but why you would give in to the temptation when you knew it made you look like a stupid, petulant 8-year-old having a tantrum? How do you think that advances your cause?

    “For years we on the right have tried to reason with you on the left…”

    This is another common idiocy – I’m not on the left! If you can’t even tell the difference between a libertarian and a socialist position, what on Earth makes you think your arguments on other political topics will be taken seriously?!

    “as if arguments might work, as if it might be possible to use logic and the real world as evidence to explain why your economic ideas are barking mad.”

    My economic ideas are virtually identical to our host Tim’s and the ASI’s! Either you’ve misread what my ideas actually are, (presumably because you’re still labouring under the insane delusion that I’m a socialist,) or you disagree with Tim and the ASI on the virtue of free markets. Do you?

    “Above all, to extend the courtesy of thinking that if we are reasonable to you, you will be reasonable back.”

    I already tried that. I got about 500 comments worth of continuous abuse, invective, and insult in return, until in the end I gave up on being polite. Hardly any of you have tried to be reasonable to me, and there are enough of you who don’t and won’t to poison any attempt at a reasonable discussion. Tony here certainly never has. But if you want to give it a go, feel free. I’m game.

    “But it’s been a waste of time. The left spews bile and hatred , hypocrisy and dogma.”

    Yep. And you know how that makes them look. So why copy them, and spew bile, hatred, hypocrisy, and dogma of your own at me?

    It’s not like I actually dislike you…

    “So it’s dawning on the right that it’s just not worth engaging with the left any more.”

    Agreed. But it’s the moderates in the middle that you wind up alienating. The left tries to portray the right as selfish, callous, hate-filled bigots, to justify their control over society. They justify authoritarian control of speech by pointing to right-wing “hate speech”. They justify authoritarian anti-discrimination laws by pointing to right-wing anti-minority bigotry. And there are a lot of people in the middle who don’t like the idea of censorship and control, but are reluctantly forced to concede the point when they see the examples you set. You hand them all the justifications they need to seize power on a silver platter.

    Largely, this is because you insist on attacking the wrong targets. Instead of fighting the left, you instead spend your time attacking the minority groups they use as cover. Instead of explaining how the right can offer alternative effective free-market solutions that would serve those minorities better than the erroneous theories of the left, you instead dismiss them and tell them they deserve it. While few women support the radical feminists, for example, you’ll make no friends among them if you respond by taking the extreme opposite position of chaining them to the kitchen sink, barefoot and pregnant. “Opposing the left” doesn’t justify taking illiberal and immoral positions against minorities. But you’re so insistent on doing it that it arouses the suspicion that “opposing the left” is simply a convenient excuse to continue holding those positions.

    “People like you could stand in a field of cows and insist you were surrounded by horses and no discussion or explanation or appeal to logic, reason or sanity could get you to change you view.”

    Logic, reason, and sanity *can* get me to change my view, if you can provide any – but dogmatic assertion, vehement insistence, and insult leave me entirely unmoved. In all our discussions I’ve made every attempt to provide *evidence* and *logical argument* for what I say. The *best* response I got to that was that all statistics about society are produced by social scientists who are all leftists and therefore nothing they say can be trusted! Doctors, medical researchers, endocrinologists, neurologists, and psychologists are all victims of a worldwide conspiracy to force them to conform to a politically correct consensus. And nobody here has (or needs) any evidence for this because “it’s just obvious”, like “2+2=4” is.

    How can I argue with that in any way you’d understand?

    “And to clarify, NiV, we’ve stopped caring what you think of those who don’t agree with you.”

    If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t respond so emotionally!

    And do you think I’m bothered by what *you* think of *me*?

    “You want to accuse us of being heartless because we think it’s no hardship on a child not to have a smartphone and don’t see why we should work to pay taxes so the government can buy one for the ungrateful brat, go ahead.”

    Now where on Earth did you get the idea I thought that?

    “We’ve stopped trying to explain that it doesn’t make us monsters. Those explanations are never listened to anyway.”

    So much so, apparently, that you refuse to listen when I tell you that I agree with you on that!

    There’s a whole lot of ‘never listening to explanations’ to go around, apparently!

  21. @NiV

    I read

    “Granted. But my question wasn’t…”

    Then I stopped reading.

    Watched a bit of rugby on the TV, scratched my balls, then wrote this.

    Just so you know.

  22. “Then I stopped reading.”

    Which demonstrates just how fucking stupid you are.

    You expect any respect for admitting that you didn’t even read the argument you claim to be opposing? That your opposition to it is entirely blind and ignorant? You think that’s smart?!

    (I suspect it has rather more to do with being incapable of answering, so claiming not to have read it is a bit of face-saving. But whatever.)

    Just so you know… 🙂

  23. @Gamecock.

    There’s a high-pitched whining on this discussion thread. Can’t quite make sense of what it is. Any ideas?

  24. It’s the sound of reality, filtering in through the mental walls you’ve erected…

    🙂

  25. @ NiV

    Logic, reason, and sanity *can* get me to change my view

    You were told that the statistics you were claiming backed up your argument that most people didn’t care about Tranny’s in the Ladies toilet didn’t actually support your argument but you didn’t change your mind about that.

    As a reminder, people, when questioned further, had concerns about Tranny’s in positions of power (policeman etc). It’s the revealed preference not the expressed ones that shows what people think.

    The study specifically asked these questions to uncover this. You chose to ignore it because it didn’t fit your narrative.

  26. “You were told that the statistics you were claiming backed up your argument that most people didn’t care about Tranny’s in the Ladies toilet didn’t actually support your argument but you didn’t change your mind about that.”

    Which argument was you talking about? As I recall, it was claimed that most people objected to it (women in particular), and would inevitably rebel. The statistic was presented to show that this assertion was incorrect and most people in British society didn’t object.

    There were, of course, lots of other arguments floating around at the time, some of which might or might not have been supported. I first want to check whether we’re talking about the same thing.

    “As a reminder, people, when questioned further, had concerns about Tranny’s in positions of power (policeman etc). It’s the revealed preference not the expressed ones that shows what people think.”

    True, but you have to be careful about assuming what their preferences reveal.

    So for example, I’d similarly have reservations about TGs in public-facing roles regularly involved in conflict situations like the police or teachers: not because I have any concerns about the TGs themselves and what they might do or are capable of doing, but because I’d have serious concerns about their vulnerability in such roles. False accusations, assaults, targeted bullying, and similar conflicts are already an issue for such professions – I shudder to think what an additional visible vulnerability like being TG could bring on!

    So given that even *I* would question the wisdom of TGs in such roles (at least at this relatively early stage of integration into mainstream society), what *exactly* do you think the preferences expressed reveal? Why do you suppose the survey designers picked police and teachers as their representative public-facing roles, rather than jobs like shop assistant, receptionist, salesperson, or nurse? Or MP or CEO?

    And my sincere thanks for taking the discussion seriously! I’ve no intention of ignoring it “because it didn’t fit [my] narrative”. Finding things that don’t fit our respective narratives is the entire point of having a reasoned debate about it, rather than a mindless slanging match.

  27. You can’t search for comments on the blog so it’s difficult to find the exact article without going through many old topics.

    To answer your question:

    what *exactly* do you think the preferences expressed reveal?

    I think they reveal that when asked if they minded TG people in the toilet they said ‘no’ because that’s what’s expected of them. Probably not expecting to encounter them anyway as the number of them in the population is vanishingly small.

    When asked about TG in positions of power, they say they don’t want it because they are more likely to encounter them.

    I don’t think the average man/woman care that a TG person might be targetted (your concern) – they just don’t want to have to deal with them when it comes to something important (which it generally is when the police are involved).

    Most of your other example occupations are not positions of power. However there were examples cited of people not wanting TG nurses near them:

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/898458/NHS-transgender-latest-news-Justine-Greening-NHS-cervical-smear-male-nurse

    It’s another example, like everything being racist, where the freedom to rationally discuss these things has been taken away by draconian thought laws.

  28. It is very aggravating that you can’t search comments here; this cannot be inadvertent although the rationale escapes me.

    NiV and I disagree about gender dysphoria. But I’m not going to tell him to fuck off* because a) that’s rude and should be reserved for Richard Murphy or DNR Retard and b) as an extension to that, he’s obviously far too smart to be thus dismissed. My main problem with the whole debate is in people saying because they feel like they are of the opposite sex, they are of the opposite sex. Inasmuch as that insistence has no deleterious effects, then live and let live. But experience tells us that rejection of reality almost always does have some negative effects (be it market forces, crime incidence, suitability for various jobs etc.) and that we are still working out where to draw the line vis-à-vis gender dysphoria, with Chesterton’s Fence standing as a warning against precipitate change. But NiV and I can have at least a civil debate about these things.

    * NiV: if I did ever tell you to fuck off, sorry

  29. BiCR

    +1

    And particularly given that none of us agree or disagree as a matter of course, a lot depends on the subject matter.

    “But experience tells us that rejection of reality almost always does have some negative effects”

    Men (with or without their danglies having been sawn off) taking the piss at women’s sports? Utterly bonkers, obviously. I’m not sure even NiV approves of that….

  30. “You can’t search for comments on the blog so it’s difficult to find the exact article without going through many old topics.”

    Yes, I found exactly the same problem. I did have a quick search to see if I could find the conversation you was referring to. I found one where I’d referred to the BSA survey, but it obviously wasn’t the one you meant.

    “I think they reveal that when asked if they minded TG people in the toilet they said ‘no’ because that’s what’s expected of them.”

    It’s always a possibility on any survey. Although if so, why would they not give the “expected answer” on the policeman question? While surveys on controversial subjects are always subject to potential distortions, the question is always: in the absence of reliable evidence, which way should we assume the distortions go? Isn’t it just as likely that in the past, when alternative sexualities were socially disapproved, that people said they didn’t like LGBTers, even if they didn’t care or actually sympathised with them, because that’s what was obviously expected of them? Nobody would have wanted to admit to “supporting perverts” in public – was the social consensus in the past not subject to exactly the same distortion?

    At best, you can argue that we really don’t know what people’s real opinions are, because when they’re socially controversial people lie about it. You certainly can’t argue that we know people are opposed, because the means used to discredit the statistics work on anything else we might use to judge society’s views.

    It also raises the question of falsifiability – if any collection of statistics that conflicts with the hypothesis can/will be dismissed as the survey subjects lying, the hypothesis is not falsifiable. Whatever results the survey shows, we would always reach the same conclusion. How would a survey have to be done to satisfy you? Do you insist on that same standard for *every* survey – including ones with conclusions you like? Have you never accepted *any* survey?

    However, given that there were other questions where the public gave answers at variance with the ‘bien pensant’ trend (like on pornography), I’m inclined to think there was something else behind it. Given that the figures for “Should suitably qualified transgender people be employed as … police officers” were “Definitely should” 43%, “Probably should” 32%, “Probably should not” 10%, “Definitely should not” 5%, I’d say even allowing for the differences in rate, the majority is still generally in favour.

    “Probably not expecting to encounter them anyway as the number of them in the population is vanishingly small.”

    Quite so. It’s a vanishingly small problem.

    “When asked about TG in positions of power, they say they don’t want it because they are more likely to encounter them.”

    It’s possible people might think so. If asked whether you’re more likely to ecounter someone who is TG, or who is both TG and a police officer, a lot of people could think the latter is more likely. It’s called the conjunction fallacy. I’ve not seen any evidence that this is the explanation here though, so it’s speculative.

    “I don’t think the average man/woman care that a TG person might be targetted (your concern) – they just don’t want to have to deal with them when it comes to something important (which it generally is when the police are involved).”

    I’m guessing that’s because that’s your view?

    Is there a particular reason for that? What do you think they’re going to do any differently?

    “Most of your other example occupations are not positions of power.”

    They were described as “public-facing” in the survey – “positions of power” is your own interpretation. But we don’t actually know what particular characteristic of these two jobs triggered the reaction. As I said above, I’d have reacted differently to them because they’re jobs that involve dealing with conflict situations. Other people might see other characteristics as being significant.

    I have a suspicion that a wider range of jobs were in the survey, and that these were the only two that gave significant results. Why ask about police and teachers? They don’t exactly go together, do they?

    “It’s another example, like everything being racist, where the freedom to rationally discuss these things has been taken away by draconian thought laws.”

    Agreed. I fully support people’s right to hold opinions counter to social norms, and to discuss/debate them. The same rule has to apply whether it is homosexuality or homophobia that society disapproves of.

    I don’t have a problem with people holding and expressing and arguing opinions I disagree with – so long as they don’t have a problem with me holding and expressing and arguing opinions they disapprove of in response. Arguing/disagreeing is fine. Constantly telling people to “fuck off” just because they’ve been persistent in expressing views you don’t like isn’t exactly the support for the free speech and open debate you all claim to want, is it?

    “NiV and I disagree about gender dysphoria. But I’m not going to tell him to fuck off* because a) that’s rude and should be reserved for Richard Murphy or DNR Retard and b) as an extension to that, he’s obviously far too smart to be thus dismissed.”

    Thank you! And I think the last couple of comments are very reasonable, too. Much better than Tony’s contributions!

    “My main problem with the whole debate is in people saying because they feel like they are of the opposite sex, they are of the opposite sex.”

    There are two separate aspects to this.

    One is the pure libertarian viewpoint that it doesn’t matter whether people’s beliefs are true, they still have a right to them. As an atheist, I have ‘views’ on religious beliefs – but I don’t think the fact that they’re all false (in my opinion) makes any difference. So long as they’re not imposing them on anyone else, they all have a right to worship whatever deity they like, practice whatever rituals and restrictions they like. So even if dysphoria was a delusion, it’s no different to allowing the Catholic Church to continue to operate, or for Jews to eschew bacon sandwiches.

    The other aspect is the scientific/medical one – which says that it isn’t simply a matter of “feelings”, it’s actually a matter of objective brain wiring. The brain developing in the womb can follow different patterns in each sex, in response to dihydrotestosterone (or its absence) released in the developing embryo. If there are mutations in the androgen receptors on the brain cells that block their response, the brain can develop according to a different pattern to the rest of the body. The anatomical differences are actually identifiable in brain scans.

    It’s like the difference between introverts and extroverts. There is an actual biological difference here as well – in this case it’s due to the differing responses to dopamine and acetylcholine – and with the appropriate stimulation it can be picked up in a brain scanner too. But it’s far easier to tell the difference by either observing the person’s behaviour, or simply asking them. If you accept that there’s an objective difference, and no particular reason for people to lie about it, few have any particular problem accepting self-reporting on this.

    It’s only when people are convinced a priori that there can be no biological difference that they turn to alternative explanations like subjects lying about it, or experiencing delusions. But do they also think introversion is a delusion? If not, what’s the difference?

    “But experience tells us that rejection of reality almost always does have some negative effects”

    Yes. Agreed.

    Although I’d argue that only allowing one single version of the truth, and outlawing by force any view of reality that doesn’t agree with the social consensus, almost always has even worse consequences.

    Humans are fallible. Throughout history, huge numbers of beliefs once considered incontrovertibly true have been overturned. So we allow all viewpoints on reality – both true and false – to fight it out in the arena of debate, and follow where the best evidence we can find leads. It’s still not perfect, but it’s better than all the alternatives we know of.

    It’s just as dangerous to outlaw viewpoints rejecting gender dysphoria as a medical phenomenon – I’m not for a moment suggesting we do. But if they want to be taken seriously, they’ve got to provide evidence to match the evidence put forward in favour of it. Vehement assertions that “it’s obvious” are not enough. Invitations to “fuck off” are definitely not enough. Thank you both for not doing that.

    “* NiV: if I did ever tell you to fuck off, sorry”

    For what it’s worth, I can’t remember you ever doing so. (I don’t keep track, since it doesn’t bother me anyway.) I appreciate the thought, though.

  31. “Men (with or without their danglies having been sawn off) taking the piss at women’s sports? Utterly bonkers, obviously. I’m not sure even NiV approves of that….”

    As I said on a previous occasion, the difference here is really about ‘testosterone’ or ‘no testostosterone’. Thus if you catch a TG girl before puberty and use puberty blockers to prevent muscular development, there should be no problem with them taking part in womens’ sports. Likewise, a TG man who has taken testosterone goes in with the men. Only the TG women who have been through puberty are an issue – and this is purely because of the testosterone, not their gender identity, and therefore perfectly legal to discriminate accordingly.

    Does that seem sensible to you?

  32. As a libertarian, I believe in the maximal application of free expression with the usual nose and fist swinging caveats. I have no animus against transgender individuals. But the insistence by some of the more implacable advocates that even to raise the issue of, say, persons with the musculoskeletal development of a man competing as a woman is intolerably bigoted is stunting the discourse. There may be a sensible accommodation, but it is not in the running at the moment. What would be considered a fringe position by most people outside the debate (who are thus not really framing it) is really quite unexceptional within it. It’s a bit like two strains of Islam debating whether it’s OK to throw homosexuals off tall buildings vs. merely jailing them and us standing around on the periphery saying, “no! you can’t do either of those things!” only to be howled down with shrieks of “Islamophobia!” If the mainstream is cowed into silence then absurdities will arise. El sueño de la razón produce monstruos.

  33. “I have no animus against transgender individuals. But the insistence by some of the more implacable advocates that even to raise the issue of, say, persons with the musculoskeletal development of a man competing as a woman is intolerably bigoted is stunting the discourse.”

    Agreed.

  34. @NiV

    Perhaps this is more telling (from the BSA) report:

    However, the low levels of people with overtly stated
    prejudice against transgender people contrasts with the high proportions of transgender people who report facing regular harassment and intimidation found in previous research.

    I suggest there’s definitely some revealed behaviour there unless the TG folk are unlucky enough to always encounter people hostile to them.

    In terms of the statistics, yes, we can read different things into them. I stated my opinion of what they meant (after all, you did ask for my opinion).

    Your interpretation of the figures for the public facing jobs contrast with those of the report:

    The vast majority of people (82%) describe themselves as “not prejudiced at all” to
    transgender people. However, less than half of people say suitably qualified transgender
    people should definitely be employed as police officers or primary school teachers (43% and
    41% respectively).

    I’d also suggest that if there is not a clear majority in favour (expressed or otherwise) we shouldn’t force people to be accepting.

    The libertarian view at some point has to take account of the majority where there is some conflict between two sides.

    Taking the toilet example, unisex toilets are a libertarian way of solving the problem. Letting ‘men’ into the ladies isn’t *unless* you can reasonably demonstrate that people won’t be upset by it.

    This is more stringent than the majority, but we have a lot of laws that are linked to ‘distress’ to the recipient (anti-discriminatory laws in general) so I think that this issue should also be held to the same standard.

    If a woman feels distressed by a ‘man’ being in the ladies only toilet then it should be reported as a crime.

  35. NiV

    “Only the TG women who have been through puberty are an issue…

    Does that seem sensible to you?”

    Absolutely. Though haven’t we already lost that battle to the lunatic fringe? Weightlifters at the Olympics, Iranian basketball players! LOL – the examples are too numerous..

    “Thus if you catch a TG girl before puberty and use puberty blockers to prevent muscular development”

    And continuing to be sensible, one might suggest that we shouldn’t widely be encouraging children to entertain such ideas before they are fully mentally developed…

    [ ie, it was the placing of “Only” that perhaps illustrated your position. If, clinically, we accept your pre-pubertal argument (and I’m not qualified to have a view on that), than it should perhaps more logically have read “only the (very occasional) TG girls before puberty are not an issue. ]

  36. “It is very aggravating that you can’t search comments here; this cannot be inadvertent although the rationale escapes me.”

    Although occasionally irritating, I can see how it can be a feature..;)

  37. @ NiV

    Ah, forgot:

    Thus if you catch a TG girl before puberty and use puberty blockers to prevent muscular development

    This is sick stuff that even Josef Mengele wouldn’t have put his name to.

    There is no libertarian reason to let someone that lacking in understanding of the likely consequences f*ck around with their body in an unnatural way.

    By all means let them when they reach an age of legal responsibility (and I’m not talking about fringe cases where people don’t go through puberty until after 16/18).

    That’s not to say they can have it done on the NHS. I’m of the opinion that lots of elective procedures (IVF included) can be dropped from the NHS. It should be a patch up and sod off service.

  38. “Perhaps this is more telling (from the BSA) report:

    However, the low levels of people with overtly stated prejudice against transgender people contrasts with the high proportions of transgender people who report facing regular harassment and intimidation found in previous research.

    I suggest there’s definitely some revealed behaviour there unless the TG folk are unlucky enough to always encounter people hostile to them.”

    Perhaps, but there’s a much easier explanation. If 1% of the population are transphobic enough to harass/intimidate, and you meet about 100 people a week (go to work, go shopping, catch a bus, walk in the park, eat in a restaurant, drink in a pub, …) then the probability of escaping harassment for a week is 0.99^100 = 37%, and for a month it’s about 0.99^400 = 1.8%.

    I’m a bit surprised the writers of the BSA report didn’t think of that – they are supposed to be statisticians!

    “In terms of the statistics, yes, we can read different things into them. I stated my opinion of what they meant (after all, you did ask for my opinion).”

    That’s fair enough. Your interpretation certainly made me think about it a bit more, and I think you do have a point, although on balance I think I’ll stick with mine. But this is exactly the sort of comparison of views and arguments I was hoping for. I appreciate it.

    And these are extremely difficult “edge” cases that test the bounds and limits of the principles against one another. It would be surprising if we all agreed on them.

    “I’d also suggest that if there is not a clear majority in favour (expressed or otherwise) we shouldn’t force people to be accepting.”

    Democracy is a factor, but libertarians don’t consider it the primary one. To take an extreme example, if the majority of Hitler’s Brownshirts are not in favour of Jews sharing their public spaces, should we force them to be accepting? Mill’s Harm Principle was specifically directed at “the tyranny of the majority”.

    Likewise, if a majority of the public don’t want to share their safe spaces with sexists, racists, transphobes, and homophobes loudly expressing their opinions, if we can’t reasonably demonstrate that the snowflakes won’t be upset by it, should we make them accept them nevertheless? I’d argue yes, but I can only do so consistently if I put the Harm Principle ahead of the Vox Populi.

    Do you see what I mean?

    “Taking the toilet example, unisex toilets are a libertarian way of solving the problem.”

    Agreed. Like on trains, for example.

    “Letting ‘men’ into the ladies isn’t *unless* you can reasonably demonstrate that people won’t be upset by it.”

    Would you likewise say that letting men into the men’s changing room isn’t on either, unless you can demonstrate that people won’t be upset by it? Because I know men who don’t like sharing a changing room with other men, either. At what threshold of ‘upsetness’ do we act? Does the same principle apply to not liking smokers in the same pub, or noisy kids in the same restaurant? Can I ban anyone I don’t like from any space I occupy, by claiming to be upset by their presence?

    I can certainly understand your feelings! I feel irritated by noisy kids, too, and want to make them just go away. But the underlying principle involved sets a tricky precedent…

    “This is more stringent than the majority, but we have a lot of laws that are linked to ‘distress’ to the recipient (anti-discriminatory laws in general) so I think that this issue should also be held to the same standard.”

    Agreed! But I’d hold them *both* to the Harm Principle.

    “If a woman feels distressed by a ‘man’ being in the ladies only toilet then it should be reported as a crime.”

    And if a snowflake is ‘distressed’ by a right-winger in their safe space…

    The Harm Principle is as it is for a good reason. We all have things we’d like other people to be made to stop, but they all have things they’d like to make *us* stop. You can’t have one without the other.

    “And continuing to be sensible, one might suggest that we shouldn’t widely be encouraging children to entertain such ideas before they are fully mentally developed…”

    That’s precisely why they use puberty blockers to delay irrevocable changes until they *are* mentally developed enough to make an informed decision. Puberty blockers are reversible. Puberty is not.

  39. What! Do you ever read this stuff back to yourself..!?

    As someone suggested earlier, you’re a whole load more readable / sensible on economics and money etc..:)

  40. “As someone suggested earlier, you’re a whole load more readable / sensible on economics and money etc.”

    I write just the same way on money and economics – and people who disagree with free market economics say much the same sort of things about it. I’ve come to the conclusion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

  41. “I see nothing intrinsically wrong with that explanation.”

    You agree with it, so I don’t expect you would. I think Richard Murphy probably would, though.

    “I think the macho willy waving against you is because of your view on TV/TS.”

    Absolutely!

    We live in different quadrants of the Nolan chart. I’m in the bottom-right quadrant – ranging from ‘Libertarian Capitalism’ down through ‘Individualism’. A lot of people here seem to be in the top-right quadrant, ranging from ‘Conservatism’ to ‘Traditionalism’, and a few spreading into the edges of ‘Nationalism’. We have a different political outlook, and can’t be expected to agree. But that doesn’t mean we can’t converse about it in a friendly way.

    “Read down a fair bit then it is all ad-hom TL;DR”

    Agreed. Mr Yan brought up my views on ‘Minority Rights’, I said it was just that people didn’t like my conclusions, Tony made his typically erudite contribution, and it all kicked off. Again.

    I regard it as another example of revealed preferences – lots of us seem to like arguing about it, judging by the time and effort we put into it, which I expect is why Tim seemed to be posting on the subject every other week for a while! It certainly wasn’t *me* who kept bringing the subject up.

    But I’m not offended if anyone wants to scroll past it and not participate. It’s obviously not to everyone’s taste.

  42. @NiV

    I didn’t say I agree.

    This is what made most sense and Murphy disagrees:
    “…Thus, the role of a stock exchange in ‘raising capital’ is to keep it raised when the original investor wants their money back…”

    @All Tip: when it becomes ad-hom, politely withdraw. It ruins thread.

    I’ve said my bit, no further comments unless LR or TW post then I might.

    @All
    Good Night, God Bless & Sleep well.

    P

  43. The questions on that site seem very simplistic (i was pretty much at the top of the chart, fractionally above and to the left of you, Pcar).

    I think Political Compass gets the perspectives / labelling better. And, although the same quadrant, I’m a lot more “balanced” on that one.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.