EPTThe US debt (proper debate) - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
Skimming the paper, though, there's some epistemological cheating going on. Even if we grant the claim that economics should be an 'a priori science', our claims about the nature of the human brain are strictly empirical ones in the domain of cognitive science. Claims like: 'Action and reason are congeneric and homogeneous; they may even be called two different aspects of the same thing. That reason has the power to make clear through pure ratiocination the essential features of action is a consequence of the fact that action is an offshoot of reason' (6) are, at least, at odds with contemporary research in moral psychology - mechanically, how people make ethical choices. I suspect it's inconsistent with more than that, but I'm only using examples I know things about. Edit: As I keep going, I see why philosophy departments ignore this completely. Mises' reply to Hume, which is according to your author vastly superior to Kant's, completely misses the point. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On July 27 2011 01:23 BestZergOnEast wrote: I am very much for real. Norway and Sweden may have less crime than America, but do they have more wealth? They also collectively have less than 10% the population of the United States. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On July 27 2011 01:13 BlackFlag wrote: Are you for real?! Norwegen and Sweden stand much better than America, have much less debt, less crime, are better in nearly everything because of their welfare-state. The USA dominated the world because Europe destroyed each other, and the Soviet-Union sucked. The USA just were the only one left. Not to mention, Norway and Sweden are pretty laissez-faire as these things go. Sweden, Denmark and Canada, to name a few, are arguably more laissez-faire than the US. Pretty free markets is not inconsistent with a strong social safety net, despite what both liberals and conservatives in the US will tell you. | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
On July 27 2011 01:23 BestZergOnEast wrote: I am very much for real. Norway and Sweden may have less crime than America, but do they have more wealth? I think it's worth noting here, that the measure by which we rate a country's success, GDP, is flawed. If a country spends more on health care per capita (implying people are less healthy, overall), the higher the GDP. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png) Same goes for law enforcement and other social problems. How does that make sense? The more time, energy and money we spend fixing things that shouldn't be broken in the first place, the better our success? | ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
On July 27 2011 01:23 BestZergOnEast wrote: I am very much for real. Norway and Sweden may have less crime than America, but do they have more wealth? In addition to what others have said about this, wealth isn't a goal in itself. It's a means to an end. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
On July 27 2011 01:31 Bibdy wrote: I think it's worth noting here, that the measure by which we rate a country's success, GDP, is flawed. If a country spends more on health care per capita (implying people are less healthy, overall), the higher the GDP. Same goes for law enforcement and other social problems. How does that make sense? The more time, energy and money we spend fixing things that shouldn't be broken in the first place, the better our success? Using GDP as a measure of a country's success is silly. Use GDP/capita at least, please. Also, your list doesn't really prove your point. On the top I see a lot of rich, successful countries. On the bottom, I see a lot of not so rich and successful countries. Moreover, there's probably a strong correlation between health care spending and health care outcomes, especially if controlled by ethnicity. | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
Edit: I've taught intro logic at a university. I've marked those exams. Because of this, I'm unwilling to take on faith that these things follow, given how good people are at logic. | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On July 27 2011 01:23 BestZergOnEast wrote: But of course the choice wasn't between starving to death and working in a factory. After all, not everyone in the entire economy could be a factory worker. Force implies violence; if you would like to indict nature for the fact that man is born naturally hungry but it is clear that no one was forced to work in a factory (aside from by God or nature) and saying they were is misleading. But we are in agreement here, since yes people had to do something to accumulate wealth or starve, as is the case in every society ever. But while you are right in saying (in this, very bizarrre sense ofthe word) that people were "forced" to go to the factory they also "chose" to go to the factory in the rational sense of the word, that is of their own volition uncoerced by others. So you are wrong in saying they did not choose to go the factory. Of course they did! How else did they get there, by magic? Were they taken in the middle of the night when they were sleeping and chained to the factory? Life became better because of capitalism. Because market competition demanded it. Because individuals acting in their own economic self interest, only trying to make their life better, only trying to enrich themselves, as a side effect made everyone's life better. That's the beauty of capitalism... a new industry springs up, you have jobs, subsidiary industries... it's merely coincidence of course that people who never saw a dime now have a dollar. Technology definitely improves things, but a lot of technology is developed only because of the market economy. I am not talking specifically about America, when I talk about industrialization. I am talking about industrialization when I talk about industrialization. So no, I'm not wrong, since as you just admitted industrialization happened earlier in Europe. The "trickle down" economics criticism is just a left wing buzz word. Doesn't mean anything. It's sloganeering, not the remarks of a serious analysis. On your first paragraph, as I said before, you are ignoring everything social sciences ever said. "Force" and "Violence" are much more than just physical beatings. | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
you want me to write a 600 page economic treatise on this forum? Go read Man, Economy and State. It's available for free on mises.org. They even have audio books format. | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On July 27 2011 01:23 BestZergOnEast wrote: I am very much for real. Norway and Sweden may have less crime than America, but do they have more wealth? I don't support your view on wealth. In the USA very few people have many, while in Scandinavia many people have a bit, while few are still damn wealthy. Also, Sweden, which doesn't have oil, is wealthy enough, but only has 30% debt (as i remember, I didn't look it up now) while the USA have nearly 100% and are struggling to not go bankrupt. So who's better off? | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On July 27 2011 00:44 BestZergOnEast wrote: You are correct that America benefited from it's geography but the devastaton of the European continent is a result of the theories on government that were in place at the time and having an imperial foreign policy (which America didn't in the time period we are discussing 1776-1914) doesn't make your economy stronger, since high taxes are necessary to pay for global empire. But your mistake is you are looking at the conditions of prosperity and then asking "okay, so what system was in place during this time of prosperity". That's like you have a basketball coach, and he spends years training his team, recruiting top talent, making his team #1. Then that coach dies, and some idiot comes in who doesn't know what he's doing. The team will still be incredible for a while, but over time it will fade from glory owing to mismanagement. If conditions were the same at factories than on the farm, why did people choose to go to the factories? I am not saying things were great during the industrial revolution, just that they were better than before. Standards of living skyrocket for the poor during this time period. Standard of living was "bad"? Compared to what? Today's life style? No shit sherlock. If life was the same @ the factory than on the farm then why did we see rapid increases in their standards of living? The reason why mainstream economists defend any and every state intervention in the economy is because you make a lot more money arguing for a minimum wage then you do against it. MiraMax : whether or not Hayek was a member of the Austrian school is supremely unimportant. If you want I will concede you are right. Hayek is a member of the Austrian school. Now prove your other assertions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War Going all the way back to 1776: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Liberty You need fewer bad analogies and better history. It doesn't really matter how the European continent was devastated, what matters is it weakened the industrial competition faced by the US. The rapid growth experienced by the United States is not something you can attribute strictly to economic policy. Developing nations such as Costa Rica make a strong case for the importance of democracy over lasseiz-faire policies. The industrial revolution was only made possible by investment in infrastructure by state governments in addition to advances in mechanics. (See History of the American Economy, 10th edition by Gary Walton, and Hugh Rockoff) You are making a very unsubstantiated claim I am not going to put much more effort into arguing with you if you just keep spewing ridiculous and inaccurate history. Wages for unskilled factory workers stagnated after 1850 for decades, despite increasing farm outputs and wages urbanization continued. This is a complex topic, a few reasons are, better access to goods, expectations of better social mobility/jobs and lack of mobility for immigrants. | ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
For example, from the passage quoted above: 'Action and reason are congeneric and homogeneous..' This isn't something that follows from 'human action is purposeful' in any way I can see quickly, so it has to be something that is also self-evidently true. However, as I suggest, while it may be true, it is at odds with a whole lot of data, and thus not obviously so. This is why I'm suspicious of appeals to deductive logic: I've not seen any used. Edit: Also, I get the impression that all social science is meant to be done a priori, according to Mises. How, then, are you talking about history? | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
It doesn't really matter how the European continent was devastated, what matters is it weakened the industrial competition faced by the US. The rapid growth experienced by the United States is not something you can attribute strictly to economic policy. I don't get why people make this argument. Western European GDP recovered to its pre-war levels within a decade, and yet both the US and Europe have managed to have pretty high and consistent growth since then thanks to essentially increasingly laissez-faire policies (especially relative to our good friend the USSR). So economic policy plays a much bigger role in explaining the wealth of Western nations today than the relative power of countries immediately following World War II. Not to mention places like China, Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam. | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
The industrial revolution was only made possible by investment in infrastructure by state governments in addition to advances in mechanics Do you and Mr. Walton hold this true for all industrial revolutions, or only the American one? Either way that's just laughable, like if the government hadn't given some money to a crony of theirs we'd never come up with mass production. Nigga Please! | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On July 27 2011 01:51 domovoi wrote: I don't get why people make this argument. Western European GDP recovered to its pre-war levels within a decade, and yet both the US and Europe have managed to have pretty high and consistent growth since then thanks to essentially increasingly laissez-faire policies (especially relative to our good friend the USSR). So economic policy plays a much bigger role in explaining the wealth of Western nations today than World War II. Not to mention places like China, Singapore, Hong Kong and Vietnam. Until the 80ies the economic policy was nowhere near "laissez-faire". It was pretty protectionistic (at least in parts) and very often had government-interventions (at least in Europe). Increase in living standards has much more to do with technology. And if the technological progress has to do, or was "provided" by capitalism is, at least, debatable. | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On July 27 2011 01:52 BestZergOnEast wrote: Democracy & laissez-faire are not in conflict. You can have both. Of course it seems likely that eventually democracy will undo laissez-faire (stupid rent seekers) but theoretically at least it seems they should be able to coexist. What else aside from economic policy (or more specifically a lack there of) do you attribute America's meteoric rise to the top? It can't coexist, because Laissez-faire capitalism always leads into fascism. Mark my words and look at European countries in 5-10 years. | ||
| ||
