On January 31 2010 03:40 Scooge wrote: Instead of writing 2000 words in the OP you could have just linked a couple of books or articles on neoliberalism. It's a very well known subject by anyone interested in economics. I don't know why you would present the OP as something new or something people aren't familiar with.
You know full and well next to no one from TL would read that.
Frankly I skimmed the OP (and I doubt I'm alone in that) so it's not like a lot of people read the badly written, condescending alternative.
You argument is "I didn't read it... ergo its not like many people did"
I thought the OP was overly symplistic and in some places just plain wrong, but it served as a useful starting point nonetheless.
Does anyone honestly think it is a good thing to compete with sweatshop workers in terms of pay/productivity?
If you think international trade is a question of 'competing with sweatshop workers' then you don't understand how it works. Sorry. In the same way that if someone tells me the sun orbits the earth, I can conclude they don't understand how it works. I'm not making assumptions.
International trade is one of those rare things, a win win situation. It's a net gain for both parties. Yes, there are situations where the trade can be detrimental but they are rare and the reasons behind the failure are more complicated then the ones you suggest. In the vast majority of cases, free trade is good.
Free trade is always good for the consumer. There are several models which help represent the overall gains and losses from trade. In a large price setting country like the USA there should almost always be a tariff on any imported goods. There is a net gain, despite a consumer loss, because of increased domestic production (and possibly an increase in efficiency due to economies of scale) and the tariff fee.
Some of Paul Samuelson's work, particularly the Heckscher–Ohlin model, can be used to calculate optimum tariffs. Of course as a Canadian (a small, price taking country) the last thing I want is a protectionist United States, but there is plenty of economic evidence supporting protectionist theory and opposing completely free trade.
On January 31 2010 03:40 Scooge wrote: Instead of writing 2000 words in the OP you could have just linked a couple of books or articles on neoliberalism. It's a very well known subject by anyone interested in economics. I don't know why you would present the OP as something new or something people aren't familiar with.
You know full and well next to no one from TL would read that.
Frankly I skimmed the OP (and I doubt I'm alone in that) so it's not like a lot of people read the badly written, condescending alternative.
You argument is "I didn't read it... ergo its not like many people did"
I thought the OP was overly symplistic and in some places just plain wrong, but it served as a useful starting point nonetheless.
It was worded badly, but yeah.
I said he should link articles or books (that are better written, more informative and accurate) rather than write his huge post. Someone replied no one would read the articles, and I replied I doubt anyone read the huge OP to begin with.
The only difference between the two approaches would be the OP wouldn't have that feel-good feeling of being superior to people he talks down to.
On January 31 2010 03:40 Scooge wrote: Instead of writing 2000 words in the OP you could have just linked a couple of books or articles on neoliberalism. It's a very well known subject by anyone interested in economics. I don't know why you would present the OP as something new or something people aren't familiar with.
You know full and well next to no one from TL would read that.
Frankly I skimmed the OP (and I doubt I'm alone in that) so it's not like a lot of people read the badly written, condescending alternative.
You argument is "I didn't read it... ergo its not like many people did"
I thought the OP was overly symplistic and in some places just plain wrong, but it served as a useful starting point nonetheless.
It was worded badly, but yeah.
I said he should link articles or books (that are better written, more informative and accurate) rather than write his huge post. Someone replied no one would read the articles, and I replied I doubt anyone read the huge OP to begin with.
The only difference between the two approaches would be the OP wouldn't have that feel-good feeling of being superior to people he talks down to.
Yeah, you have a brilliant point. 19 pages in you think nobody read the OP.
And the only thing you've contributed this entire time is saying discussion threads should just have links to books on the topic. GJ dude. Excellent contribution.
3) If privatization and deregulation is so beneficial why was Naomi Klein (in the 'Shock Doctrine' ) able to find so many (well-researched) examples, in a variety of countries, where such programs resulted in impoverishment for the majority of the population and only benefited small business elites? Why was it necessary for many of the countries who pushed such programs to kidnap and torture trade unionists and others who opposed such measures and why were the measures often introduced in very undemocratic ways (ie in Chile after a military coup)?
I'm sorry. I was reading your questions and took them seriously until I read this. I'll engage in ad hominem here and just say that Naomi Klein is the most BS leftist w*o*e (fill in the blanks) on the face of the earth. Her backtalking Milton Friedman is one of the most disgusting things I've come across in my entire life.
To answer your questions I'll just take a shortcut and claim that free market reforms have been successfull where they have been applied. This includes Sweden, USA, India, China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and so on.
I don't get how you can't see that some of your examples are just kind of... irrelevant. If a nation has a state controlled railway infrastructure and then sell it to a company, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the company will perform good.
That said, I don't think there is any one perfect system. And I really don't think there are that many people who believe in total deregulation and laissez-faire. What most people should be able to agree on is that concentration of power is bad.
Besides, the finance industry was already regulated. There were already thousands of regulators on Wall Street and yet they couldn't see it coming. So what makes you think that further regulation would do any good? It might seem the most easiest solution; but does it actually work?
Can you actually make any arguments to refute Naomi Klein's research apart from misogynist hate?
As to your other point: the free market purists often claim that private companies are always more efficient than government. I was providing an example to prove them wrong.
And you and many others are missing the point- people like storkhwaiting and I are not saying that there should be no free markets, just that they need to be balanced by government regulation and that privatizing certain industries is not always the best option and can actually impoverish countries. The Friedman chicago school and it's adherents are extremists who believe that everything should be privatized and deregulated and having been pushing these policies for years and now it has become a lynchpin of conservative ideology.
You bring up South Korea as an example of successful free market reform but actually it's been successful precisely because it didn't take the reform too far by privatizing all its government industries and deregulating everything else. Because the SK government retained control of its power, rail and other infrastructures, it has been able to provide these services at very reasonable prices and build up higher-quality infrastructure. Trade protectionism and government interference were key factors in allwoing such companies as Samsung, LG and Hyundai to develop into the globally-competitive companies they are today. If the SK government had thrown everything open immediately as the Chicago school would have wanted these companies would have been crushed by their foreign competitors before they had a chance to grow.
As for your last point it's become well-known that the 'regulators' on Wall street were actually doing very little regulation and were way too cosy with the compaines they were supposed to be policing.
Exactly. So obviously regulation fails. Why do you think it would work if you hire more of them?
And you misreprsent Friedman & Co. For example, they do not support privitization of the legal system. Further, I'll explain the fallacy behind this:
"As to your other point: the free market purists often claim that private companies are always more efficient than government. I was providing an example to prove them wrong."
The example you were providing was that of a government giving away a monopoly on railway infrastructure to a private company. Now, nobody would say that it's a guarantee that the private company will perform better than the government did. Private companies go bankrupt all the time because a lot of them are bad.
You're misrepresenting the claim by providing a bad example in an unatural situation. The claim is that the free market will, if left alone, in the long run lead to a more efficient solution than a government-based one. This is not the same as saying that any private company will outperform a government-based company.
Regarding South Korea; you can't say that the economic success happened because the government did not do certain things. What I can say however, is that the success as of late (~95 to 2010) has been a result of extensive free market reforms. I mean; just because a government may succeed in something, it does not logically follow that free market theory is therefore false.
Regarding Klein; I'm not a misogynist and my statement was not in the least misogynistic.
But sure; I'll give you something to think about. These are not very long videos and since you asked I hope you find the time to watch them (~8 minutes):
And please do watch and write down statements made from Naomi Klein and compare them to the actual facts. In my eyes, lying factually about, and distorting the heritage of, a dead man is disgusting.
*The regulation of the US financial system failed not because regulation is bad per se but because many of the regulators were far too chummy with the banks involved and the laws had been weakened by successive governments (including the repeal of Glass-Seagall).
*Friedman & co. believe in privatizing almost everything, including core functions of government such as schools, hospitals, power infrastructure, transport infrastructure, prisons etc.
* I agree that selling off a government infrastructure monopoly to a private company is a bad idea, but that's exactly the kind of practice that Friedman & co. constantly advocate! No matter how often it ends up impoverishing countries and how much the private companies abuse the government monopolies they buy up, the Chicago school keeps try to push for their privatization. I'm afraid you seem to be arguing against your same team here.
* Why can't I say that South Korea's economic success hinged on the fact that they didn't completely deregulate and privatize their economy? It's commonly accepted that the success of such companies as Samsung and LG's hinged on the protection the SK government provided.
Again you're missing the point and building straw men. I'm not arguing that countries should never open up their economies in order to grow, I'm saying that a certain amount of government regulation and not privatizing certain industries is necessary to prevent complete exploitation by private companies like the debacle that happened in Iraq. After the occupation the US government gave private companies huge, lucrative contracts to carry out rebuilding with no regulation. Many of these companies did substandard work or simply sub-contracted it out to other firms leaving hospitals and schools i a shoddy and unfinished state. This was pure Friedman-esque capitalism in action (Rumsfeld, Bremer and other Neocons were Friedman acolytes) and it was an abject failure.
*That interview is a fluff piece, a neolib throwing a few softball questions to another neolib doesn't prove much. The Shock Doctrine is full of statistics and quotes that have actually been researched and this Friedman disciple never tries to tackle any of the substance of the book.
Here's a reply from Klein to some of the Cato Institute's attacks:
Despite his later protestations, Milton Friedman openly supported the war when it was being waged. In April 2003, Friedman told the German magazine Focus that “President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA.” Asked about increased tensions between the U.S. and Europe, Friedman replied: “the end justifies the means. As soon as we’re rid of Saddam, the political differences will also disappear.” Clearly this was not the voice of anti-intervention. Even in July 2006, when Friedman claimed to have opposed the war from the beginning, he remained hawkish. Now that the U.S. was in Iraq, Friedman told The Wall Street Journal, “it seems to me very important that we make a success of it.”
All of this has nothing to do with my book, however. In The Shock Doctrine, I describe the invasion and occupation of Iraq as the culmination of Friedman’s ideological crusade because he was America’s leading intellectual favoring the privatization of the state – not because he personally supported the war, which is irrelevant. For more than five years Iraq has been the vanguard of this radical privatization project. Private contractors now outnumber U.S. soldiers and corporations have taken on such core state functions as prisoner interrogation.
3) If privatization and deregulation is so beneficial why was Naomi Klein (in the 'Shock Doctrine' ) able to find so many (well-researched) examples, in a variety of countries, where such programs resulted in impoverishment for the majority of the population and only benefited small business elites? Why was it necessary for many of the countries who pushed such programs to kidnap and torture trade unionists and others who opposed such measures and why were the measures often introduced in very undemocratic ways (ie in Chile after a military coup)?
I'm sorry. I was reading your questions and took them seriously until I read this. I'll engage in ad hominem here and just say that Naomi Klein is the most BS leftist w*o*e (fill in the blanks) on the face of the earth. Her backtalking Milton Friedman is one of the most disgusting things I've come across in my entire life.
To answer your questions I'll just take a shortcut and claim that free market reforms have been successfull where they have been applied. This includes Sweden, USA, India, China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and so on.
I don't get how you can't see that some of your examples are just kind of... irrelevant. If a nation has a state controlled railway infrastructure and then sell it to a company, there's no guarantee whatsoever that the company will perform good.
That said, I don't think there is any one perfect system. And I really don't think there are that many people who believe in total deregulation and laissez-faire. What most people should be able to agree on is that concentration of power is bad.
Besides, the finance industry was already regulated. There were already thousands of regulators on Wall Street and yet they couldn't see it coming. So what makes you think that further regulation would do any good? It might seem the most easiest solution; but does it actually work?
Can you actually make any arguments to refute Naomi Klein's research apart from misogynist hate?
As to your other point: the free market purists often claim that private companies are always more efficient than government. I was providing an example to prove them wrong.
And you and many others are missing the point- people like storkhwaiting and I are not saying that there should be no free markets, just that they need to be balanced by government regulation and that privatizing certain industries is not always the best option and can actually impoverish countries. The Friedman chicago school and it's adherents are extremists who believe that everything should be privatized and deregulated and having been pushing these policies for years and now it has become a lynchpin of conservative ideology.
You bring up South Korea as an example of successful free market reform but actually it's been successful precisely because it didn't take the reform too far by privatizing all its government industries and deregulating everything else. Because the SK government retained control of its power, rail and other infrastructures, it has been able to provide these services at very reasonable prices and build up higher-quality infrastructure. Trade protectionism and government interference were key factors in allwoing such companies as Samsung, LG and Hyundai to develop into the globally-competitive companies they are today. If the SK government had thrown everything open immediately as the Chicago school would have wanted these companies would have been crushed by their foreign competitors before they had a chance to grow.
As for your last point it's become well-known that the 'regulators' on Wall street were actually doing very little regulation and were way too cosy with the compaines they were supposed to be policing.
Exactly. So obviously regulation fails. Why do you think it would work if you hire more of them?
And you misreprsent Friedman & Co. For example, they do not support privitization of the legal system. Further, I'll explain the fallacy behind this:
"As to your other point: the free market purists often claim that private companies are always more efficient than government. I was providing an example to prove them wrong."
The example you were providing was that of a government giving away a monopoly on railway infrastructure to a private company. Now, nobody would say that it's a guarantee that the private company will perform better than the government did. Private companies go bankrupt all the time because a lot of them are bad.
You're misrepresenting the claim by providing a bad example in an unatural situation. The claim is that the free market will, if left alone, in the long run lead to a more efficient solution than a government-based one. This is not the same as saying that any private company will outperform a government-based company.
Regarding South Korea; you can't say that the economic success happened because the government did not do certain things. What I can say however, is that the success as of late (~95 to 2010) has been a result of extensive free market reforms. I mean; just because a government may succeed in something, it does not logically follow that free market theory is therefore false.
Regarding Klein; I'm not a misogynist and my statement was not in the least misogynistic.
But sure; I'll give you something to think about. These are not very long videos and since you asked I hope you find the time to watch them (~8 minutes):
And please do watch and write down statements made from Naomi Klein and compare them to the actual facts. In my eyes, lying factually about, and distorting the heritage of, a dead man is disgusting.
*The regulation of the US financial system failed not because regulation is bad per se but because many of the regulators were far too chummy with the banks involved and the laws had been weakened by successive governments (including the repeal of Glass-Seagall).
*Friedman & co. believe in privatizing almost everything, including core functions of government such as schools, hospitals, power infrastructure, transport infrastructure, prisons etc.
* I agree that selling off a government infrastructure monopoly to a private company is a bad idea, but that's exactly the kind of practice that Friedman & co. constantly advocate! No matter how often it ends up impoverishing countries and how much the private companies abuse the government monopolies they buy up, the Chicago school keeps try to push for their privatization. I'm afraid you seem to be arguing against your same team here.
* Why can't I say that South Korea's economic success hinged on the fact that they didn't completely deregulate and privatize their economy? It's commonly accepted that the success of such companies as Samsung and LG's hinged on the protection the SK government provided.
Again you're missing the point and building straw men. I'm not arguing that countries should never open up their economies in order to grow, I'm saying that a certain amount of government regulation and not privatizing certain industries is necessary to prevent complete exploitation by private companies like the debacle that happened in Iraq. After the occupation the US government gave private companies huge, lucrative contracts to carry out rebuilding with no regulation. Many of these companies did substandard work or simply sub-contracted it out to other firms leaving hospitals and schools i a shoddy and unfinished state. This was pure Friedman-esque capitalism in action (Rumsfeld, Bremer and other Neocons were Friedman acolytes) and it was an abject failure.
*That interview is a fluff piece, a neolib throwing a few softball questions to another neolib doesn't prove much. The Shock Doctrine is full of statistics and quotes that have actually been researched and this Friedman disciple never tries to tackle any of the substance of the book.
Here's a reply from Klein to some of the Cato Institute's attacks:
Despite his later protestations, Milton Friedman openly supported the war when it was being waged. In April 2003, Friedman told the German magazine Focus that “President Bush only wanted war because anything else would have threatened the freedom and the prosperity of the USA.” Asked about increased tensions between the U.S. and Europe, Friedman replied: “the end justifies the means. As soon as we’re rid of Saddam, the political differences will also disappear.” Clearly this was not the voice of anti-intervention. Even in July 2006, when Friedman claimed to have opposed the war from the beginning, he remained hawkish. Now that the U.S. was in Iraq, Friedman told The Wall Street Journal, “it seems to me very important that we make a success of it.”
All of this has nothing to do with my book, however. In The Shock Doctrine, I describe the invasion and occupation of Iraq as the culmination of Friedman’s ideological crusade because he was America’s leading intellectual favoring the privatization of the state – not because he personally supported the war, which is irrelevant. For more than five years Iraq has been the vanguard of this radical privatization project. Private contractors now outnumber U.S. soldiers and corporations have taken on such core state functions as prisoner interrogation.
I promised myself I wouldn't go back to this thread, but this overwhelmingly naive PoV has this response that, as of today, still has not been responded to.
On January 31 2010 01:32 theSAiNT wrote: I haven't had time to read all the replies but I hope somebody with some training in economics has come out to correct the misguided OP. If not, I could point out the major flaws and suggest some simple undergraduate textbooks.
Not to sound condescending but it has always struck me as a bit presumptuous that people with no formal education in economics will debate the subject with vocal conviction. After all, I do not argue with doctors on their prescriptions or debate with engineers how best to build their bridges or correct accountants or lawyers in their job. Yet it seems that every man on the street will happily lecture me about economics.
Economics is a very, very soft science. It's certainly nothing like engineering or biology, and it's quite disingenuous of you to infer otherwise. Any moderately well-read person is capable of understanding the subject well enough to discuss the real world implications of economic policy. Perhaps instead of lecturing people on their perceived faults, you could be adding something to the conversation?
On January 30 2010 23:29 sc4k wrote: It seems to me that you either try to have bright, educated thinking people who deal in 'country management' (government) to decide where the country's money for public services goes, and have to pay a price for that which is corruption and bloated inefficiency; or you have the common man deciding where he thinks his money should be spent and being preyed on by adverts, propaganda and a general lack of time to think about the issues in any level depth.
Also, I think one reason I have issues with the ideas of big corporations running everything is that I doubt you will be able to FOI them much. Sure, if you can expose a scandal in a private company, the offenders will lose their job because it's bad for business. And, it's always possible that whistleblowers will be purged and silenced when you are dealing with government shenanigans. But I expect that government (at least in the UK) is far more transparent than private corporations; and therefore less capable of getting away with ripoffs and scandals.
So can someone address those issues from a economist, free-market or whatever perspective?
Yes. In a free market, you expect people to be the least informed on each issue so they can at least select a company that does the service for them. I.e., you want a new plasma TV, you go to radioshack or someplace. Consumer -> Entrepreneur. The entrepreneur acts on decentralized price controls that are subject to everyones evaluations on products and services available in the market. His incentive is to provide something better than others in the market can, more efficiently, etc.
The key problem here is 'be(ing) the least informed'. Without a high standard of learning, a human being is in no way capable of being a rational actor in today's world. This becomes a problem as free market policy actively works against equality as actors in the system in the first place. With privatization of schooling, the divide between privileged and disadvantaged will continue to grow. Then follows the divide between rich and poor. You can see where I'm going with this. If everyone is not given an equal opportunity to succeed, the system is broken from the start.
"Oh thats just bad government, if we get the right people in..." You're not going to get the right people in, ever. The state is a scum institution. It is flame to moths. Sociopaths and thieves of all kinds love the legitimized power they have. The ones who buy them out may be evil, but they're utilizing the cash that's there to be used, because the peons think it's been stolen from them for their own good. Because it's necessary. Yeah it certainly is necessary, necessary for the scum to have a good time maybe.
What makes those people bad, or evil? I assume you would argue they are just that way to begin with, and that is where the true political divide is. A socialist will argue that, in time, the nature of humans can improve, because the majority of the problems in the world are a result of our own carelessness and lack of perspective. People are not good or bad, they become one or the other as a result of their experiences, modified only to a minor degree by genetics. For someone with an open upbringing and ample knowledge of life and the world as a whole, there is little reason to wish to impact anyone else negatively. On the other end of the spectrum, authoritarian treatment and superstition generally lead to perpetuation of the fucked-up, violent, and xenophobic status quo.
It's a bit late for me, so I'll expand more on this if it's not making complete sense. Hopefully, I'll also have some time to respond to a very coherent post a few pages back by Zato-1 that has gone without notice.
If you think international trade is a question of 'competing with sweatshop workers' then you don't understand how it works. Sorry. In the same way that if someone tells me the sun orbits the earth, I can conclude they don't understand how it works. I'm not making assumptions.
International trade is one of those rare things, a win win situation. It's a net gain for both parties. Yes, there are situations where the trade can be detrimental but they are rare and the reasons behind the failure are more complicated then the ones you suggest. In the vast majority of cases, free trade is good.
No. But way to frame your opinion as if it's scientific fact.
What is scientific fact? If you define it as 'a consistent theoretical model supported by a large body of empirical evidence' then yes, my 'opinion' is quite close.
People have been thinking about international trade for a very long time. The literature is vast and the theoretical basis for it is well understood by economists. The most basic idea underpinning it all, the theory of comparative advantage, goes back to Ricardo in 1817, and some might argue, even further.
Your OP shows a complete failure to grasp this most crucial concept.
On January 31 2010 04:04 GreenManalishi wrote:
Free trade is always good for the consumer. There are several models which help represent the overall gains and losses from trade. In a large price setting country like the USA there should almost always be a tariff on any imported goods. There is a net gain, despite a consumer loss, because of increased domestic production (and possibly an increase in efficiency due to economies of scale) and the tariff fee.
Some of Paul Samuelson's work, particularly the Heckscher–Ohlin model, can be used to calculate optimum tariffs. Of course as a Canadian (a small, price taking country) the last thing I want is a protectionist United States, but there is plenty of economic evidence supporting protectionist theory and opposing completely free trade.
You're absolutely right. Optimal tariffs are actually a relevant theoretical argument for considering barriers to trade and are a subject of considerable debate. I've always agreed more with authors like Krugman and Obstfeld who would argue that they would have a relatively small effect. However, I think there's a recent 2006 paper by Broda and others that looks more closely at the empirical effect.
Having said all that, policy debates on tariffs are never presented as being driven by optimal tariffs. That mechanism is the exploitation of market power by domestic producers and 'monopoly' is a dirty word to policy makers and people like the OP. Invariably, the arguments are in the vein of 'we need to protect jobs against sweat shops' which are alarmist and wrong.
On January 30 2010 23:29 sc4k wrote: It seems to me that you either try to have bright, educated thinking people who deal in 'country management' (government) to decide where the country's money for public services goes, and have to pay a price for that which is corruption and bloated inefficiency; or you have the common man deciding where he thinks his money should be spent and being preyed on by adverts, propaganda and a general lack of time to think about the issues in any level depth.
Also, I think one reason I have issues with the ideas of big corporations running everything is that I doubt you will be able to FOI them much. Sure, if you can expose a scandal in a private company, the offenders will lose their job because it's bad for business. And, it's always possible that whistleblowers will be purged and silenced when you are dealing with government shenanigans. But I expect that government (at least in the UK) is far more transparent than private corporations; and therefore less capable of getting away with ripoffs and scandals.
So can someone address those issues from a economist, free-market or whatever perspective?
Yes. In a free market, you expect people to be the least informed on each issue so they can at least select a company that does the service for them. I.e., you want a new plasma TV, you go to radioshack or someplace. Consumer -> Entrepreneur. The entrepreneur acts on decentralized price controls that are subject to everyones evaluations on products and services available in the market. His incentive is to provide something better than others in the market can, more efficiently, etc.
The key problem here is 'be(ing) the least informed'. Without a high standard of learning, a human being is in no way capable of being a rational actor in today's world. This becomes a problem as free market policy actively works against equality as actors in the system in the first place. With privatization of schooling, the divide between privileged and disadvantaged will continue to grow. Then follows the divide between rich and poor. You can see where I'm going with this. If everyone is not given an equal opportunity to succeed, the system is broken from the start.
"Oh thats just bad government, if we get the right people in..." You're not going to get the right people in, ever. The state is a scum institution. It is flame to moths. Sociopaths and thieves of all kinds love the legitimized power they have. The ones who buy them out may be evil, but they're utilizing the cash that's there to be used, because the peons think it's been stolen from them for their own good. Because it's necessary. Yeah it certainly is necessary, necessary for the scum to have a good time maybe.
What makes those people bad, or evil? I assume you would argue they are just that way to begin with, and that is where the true political divide is. A socialist will argue that, in time, the nature of humans can improve, because the majority of the problems in the world are a result of our own carelessness and lack of perspective. People are not good or bad, they become one or the other as a result of their experiences, modified only to a minor degree by genetics. For someone with an open upbringing and ample knowledge of life and the world as a whole, there is little reason to wish to impact anyone else negatively. On the other end of the spectrum, authoritarian treatment and superstition generally lead to perpetuation of the fucked-up, violent, and xenophobic status quo.
It's a bit late for me, so I'll expand more on this if it's not making complete sense. Hopefully, I'll also have some time to respond to a very coherent post a few pages back by Zato-1 that has gone without notice.
Governments attracts evil people because of the power entitled within. Psychopaths can get a badge and beat on people all day, sociopaths get a seat and can toy with peoples lives all day.
I don't ever make the argument for human nature because it can be whatever you want it to be. Objectively, it depends on all those things you said, and to prove any assertion like that is currently impossible. However you do see the difference between saying "man is x" and "the man who wants x will seek x"? I'm not making an inductive argument, I'm saying deductively, the man who seeks to exploit others will be drawn to positions of political power, since that is where he can exploit the most. The state provides an easy plataform for such power. Therefore, it will attract those that want it more than others. You think this is valid reasoning?
I did get a little carried away, when I said "you're never going to have x" I meant that "that's a terrible way to obtain x" due to the premises I've demonstrated in the above paragraph.
If you want a good trade, according to praxeology, you have to seek it voluntarily, or else it's not... it's not a trade. It's theft, duh. And theft is a misallocation of resources, which is always less "efficient" in satisfying all sides. The state only works with the second type of transaction, never with the first. Unless it's a voluntary type of government, lols, if that's not an oxymoron... well it is, but I divert.
Free trade is always good for the consumer. There are several models which help represent the overall gains and losses from trade. In a large price setting country like the USA there should almost always be a tariff on any imported goods. There is a net gain, despite a consumer loss, because of increased domestic production (and possibly an increase in efficiency due to economies of scale) and the tariff fee.
Some of Paul Samuelson's work, particularly the Heckscher–Ohlin model, can be used to calculate optimum tariffs. Of course as a Canadian (a small, price taking country) the last thing I want is a protectionist United States, but there is plenty of economic evidence supporting protectionist theory and opposing completely free trade.
'monopoly' is a dirty word to policy makers and people like the OP.
Ironically, the state that they support is the biggest and one true monopoly of all time... the one which can't be legitimately overthrown, cannot be seceded from, and has to either be watched for eternity, or left to grow to infinity. Damn. Walmart ain't nothing compared to this.
Oh thats right, he didnt even concede that capitalism aka the free market aka the free people are better at organizing themselves rather than st00pid democracy. but ofc he didnt... why would he, it would undermine every reason the state uses to justify itself
On February 01 2010 18:42 QibingZero wrote: Economics is a very, very soft science. It's certainly nothing like engineering or biology, and it's quite disingenuous of you to infer otherwise. Any moderately well-read person is capable of understanding the subject well enough to discuss the real world implications of economic policy. Perhaps instead of lecturing people on their perceived faults, you could be adding something to the conversation?
I'm sorry but I don't think you're right. How do you define 'any moderately well-read person'? Journalists and popular writers continue to get basic economics wrong. This thread is a case in point. There isn't a basic understanding of high school concepts let alone anything relevant to discussing policy.
Why do you have this idea that 'economics is a soft science' so reading the newspaper and some magazines qualifies you to be an expert? It's mind blowing.
'Lecture': An exposition of a given subject delivered before an audience or a class, as for the purpose of instruction. The OP is lecturing. I am not. But he does not understand his subject and therefore really isn't in a position to give instruction. I am merely pointing that out.
My addition to the conversation is simple and not really so unreasonable either. If you're interested in economics, do some reading. Pick up a popular economics book to start. I recommend Undercover Economist by Tim Harford, an editor of the Financial Times. Then have a look at some basic undergraduate texts and see how you go from there.
On February 01 2010 18:42 QibingZero wrote: Economics is a very, very soft science. It's certainly nothing like engineering or biology, and it's quite disingenuous of you to infer otherwise. Any moderately well-read person is capable of understanding the subject well enough to discuss the real world implications of economic policy. Perhaps instead of lecturing people on their perceived faults, you could be adding something to the conversation?
I'm sorry but I don't think you're right. How do you define 'any moderately well-read person'? Journalists and popular writers continue to get basic economics wrong. This thread is a case in point. There isn't a basic understanding of high school concepts let alone anything relevant to discussing policy.
Why do you have this idea that 'economics is a soft science' so reading the newspaper and some magazines qualifies you to be an expert? It's mind blowing.
'Lecture': An exposition of a given subject delivered before an audience or a class, as for the purpose of instruction. The OP is lecturing. I am not. But he does not understand his subject and therefore really isn't in a position to give instruction. I am merely pointing that out.
My addition to the conversation is simple and not really so unreasonable either. If you're interested in economics, do some reading. Pick up a popular economics book to start. I recommend Undercover Economist by Tim Harford, an editor of the Financial Times. Then have a look at some basic undergraduate texts and see how you go from there.
What's mind blowing is that you think you're smart enough to call other people stupid. HF with your undergrad courses. I'm sure they make you feel super special.
On February 01 2010 18:42 QibingZero wrote: Economics is a very, very soft science. It's certainly nothing like engineering or biology, and it's quite disingenuous of you to infer otherwise. Any moderately well-read person is capable of understanding the subject well enough to discuss the real world implications of economic policy. Perhaps instead of lecturing people on their perceived faults, you could be adding something to the conversation?
I'm sorry but I don't think you're right. How do you define 'any moderately well-read person'? Journalists and popular writers continue to get basic economics wrong. This thread is a case in point. There isn't a basic understanding of high school concepts let alone anything relevant to discussing policy.
Why do you have this idea that 'economics is a soft science' so reading the newspaper and some magazines qualifies you to be an expert? It's mind blowing.
'Lecture': An exposition of a given subject delivered before an audience or a class, as for the purpose of instruction. The OP is lecturing. I am not. But he does not understand his subject and therefore really isn't in a position to give instruction. I am merely pointing that out.
My addition to the conversation is simple and not really so unreasonable either. If you're interested in economics, do some reading. Pick up a popular economics book to start. I recommend Undercover Economist by Tim Harford, an editor of the Financial Times. Then have a look at some basic undergraduate texts and see how you go from there.
What's mind blowing is that you think you're smart enough to call other people stupid. HF with your undergrad courses. I'm sure they make you feel super special.
ur st00pidz lolololos u cantz giev instructionz Ok I swear this was the last meaningless post.
EPT
