|
|
On May 28 2012 21:33 AdrianHealey wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 16:27 GreenManalishi wrote:
Tariffs CAN be optimal in specific cases. The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model explains exactly that at a very basic level.
Essentially, tariffs are optimal domestically if the utility derived from the increase in domestic production and the revenue from the tariff outweigh the consumer loss due to the higher prices. Tariffs can also be used to develop a domestic industry that relies on economies of scale by protecting it and creating artificial scarcity in its market. This is actually quite common, since many industries require 'industrial clusters,' some protectionism can result in a multiplicative increase in domestic output.
Taiwan in the early 1990s is an example of this in regards to microchips. You are merely proving that if you subsidize (a tarrif is a special kind of subsidy) something initially, it might be competitive later. That is true, but that doesn't mean that it is actually a net benefit. Because whilst you are doing this, you are harming consumers and/or producers and are shifting resources to an industry that is not competitive on it's self and away from industries that would be competitive on it's self.
The effects of the introduction of a tariff in a large, price-setting nation, is that in the short run the global price of the good falls, and in the long run foreign production of the good falls. This means that immediately, the domestic production of that good increases to meet the increase in domestic demand, which can be calculated by taking the size of the tariff and the price elasticity of the good.
Here is a quote from Yoshitomo Ogawa's "The structure of optimal tariff rates in a large country with market power," Economic Theory , Vol. 33, No. 2 (November 2007), pp. 271-283
Under the optimal tariff structure, the import tariff rate on each good is inversely proportional to the absolute value of the own-price elasticity of the corresponding foreign country's export.
Maybe not the most clear, I just searched JSTOR for "optimal tariff rate" and "large country" and this was the first hit that came up. Essentially, the effects of tariffs are fundamentally different for large and small nations. For small nations, raising tariffs has no affect on the global price or production of a good, so unless the consumer loss is going to be compensated by increased domestic production, there is never an economic argument for tariffs. In a large nation however, since global prices and demand change to reflect the tariff, the optimal tariff rate will be > 0 if price elasticity is < 1.
|
On May 28 2012 15:58 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 15:08 kwizach wrote:On May 28 2012 14:07 Vegetarian wrote:On May 27 2012 12:34 kwizach wrote:On May 27 2012 07:51 Vegetarian wrote:On May 27 2012 01:57 kwizach wrote:On May 26 2012 20:15 Epocalypse wrote:On May 26 2012 13:17 kwizach wrote:
I said bailouts and regulations. The sector's doing much better now - the bailout of the auto companies was a success.
While currently it may seem that American auto-companies are successful I question the ability to compete in the emerging hybrid market. The way I see it american motor companies are still stuck in an area of the market (the SUV) that will continue to be unsuccessful on international and domestic markets. Well, so far, they've been successful. Why not simply remove tariffs and let the Japanese produce cars way better, and far cheaper than we can. That way we can allocate the funds put into American auto industry somewhere better. Define successful so far... as in they haven't bankrupted yet? What are their profits like? "We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." - Winston Churchill I'm not sure what tariffs and taxes have to do with what we were discussing, but 1. those tariffs are helping save jobs and 2. Churchill's quote is not an argument, so there's really nothing to say here except that government intervention in the economy is a vital part of the history of most modern societies and that intervention is only possible because of the money raised by taxes. Now, regarding your question, a link was provided to you by someone else to show how well the auto industry has been doing since the bailout. Given your response to that poster, I don't really see how you can be convinced. If the auto industry was doing bad, you'd be saying "see? it's proof the bailouts were a bad idea", but since it's doing well you're saying "it won't last". No amount of evidence will do against this line of reasoning :-) 1. The goal of an economy is not to save jobs, it is to increase standard of living. Tariffs do the opposite of this as they force the entire society to pay more for a given product than they would have to absent the tariff. Obviously this is detrimental to the economy as money that could be used to purchase other products and create jobs in other industries is instead wasted subsidizing noncompetitive companies that would not exist in a free market. This is not beneficial to an economy and ignores the most basic concept of comparative advantage which is the whole reason trade exists in the first place. Further, a basic understanding of economics tells us that tariffs most certainly are not saving jobs. When you subsidize a company or a specific industry you divert money from other profitable sectors of the economy. The money has to come from somewhere and therefore there is always an unseen cost that you have to account for. When capital is diverted in order to subsidize one company the cost of capital increases and the supply of it decreases for other companies. First of all, the economy itself does not have a "goal", as someone else pointed out. Second, tariffs can have both positive effects (for example, protecting an industry and the jobs attached to it) and negative effects (for example, other countries start imposing tariffs on the goods we export) - in addition to consumers having to pay more for a foreign product. The positive effects can certainly sometimes outweigh the negative effects, meaning tariffs have a net beneficial impact on a country's economy and on the well-being of its citizens. A "basic understanding of economy" will tell you that tariffs have saved jobs in the past and have helped countless countries develop their own industries which would initially not have been able to compete with other countries' if it wasn't for them. Of course, the negative effects can very well outweigh the positive effects as well. Saying tariffs are necessarily and automatically bad in every situation is, however, contrary to what can be directly observed in the economic history of both the US and the rest of the world. On May 27 2012 07:51 Vegetarian wrote:
2. Government intervention in the economy has never been shown to be beneficial. If you actually look at the history of modern societies you will see that the countries that intervened most in their economies had the lowest standards of living. Where, the countries that had the lowest taxes and freest markets experienced the highest levels of growth and the highest standards of living. After all, the United States became the most powerful economy in the world during the period that it had no income tax and the fewest regulations on the market. Sorry, that's just not true. There are plenty of examples (including long periods of history, as others have pointed out) of government intervention in the economy being very beneficial. I know that fans of the Austrian school have a tendency to disregard reality, but to argue that government intervention has never been beneficial is taking it to another level. 1. The idea that tariffs can be beneficial is a common fallacy espoused by those who lack a basic understanding of markets and how they function. In capitalism markets attempt to make the most efficient allocation of resources so as not to waste resources, for that would lead to a lower standard of living. Trade occurs in the market because people have different skill sets which allow them to produce a product or offer a service better than someone else. Instead of everyone farming their own food, making their own clothing, building their own homes, ect, people tend to have one specialty while trading for everything else. Obviously trade is beneficial and allows for a better allocation of resources as people are only spending time doing what they do more efficiently than others. Internationally trade often occurs because a company or companies in one country, for whatever reason, can produce a product a service more efficiently than companies a different country. A tariff is sometimes imposed when foreign companies become much more efficient at producing a product or service. If it isn't clear to you yet, a tariff defeats the entire purpose of trade. By imposing an added cost on an import from a country that is able to produce a product more efficiently that country is no longer reaping the benefits of trade. They are instead stubbornly subsidizing a company that has shown it can not compete with foreign companies. This means that as these companies continue to operate they are wasting the economies resources doing something that another company can do better. When this same phenomenon occurs between companies located within the same geographical boundaries the government does not step in to "save" the jobs of a company that is losing market share to a more efficient company. The less efficient companies fail and their employees are hired by more efficient competitors. That is how capitalism works. Do you think an economy would succeed if all it did was subsidize any company that began to fail? What you just did here is paraphrase what you had already said in your first post and what was already posted by Epocalypse on the last two pages of this very thread, while ignoring what I had written in my reply to you. Again, no, a "basic understanding of markets and how they function" does not lead one to the conclusion that tariffs are intrinsically bad in every possible situation and in every possible aspect. No need to give me a lecture on comparative advantage either, I studied Ricardo just like you did, and you're completely missing my point. I'm not defending protectionism as opposed to free trade. I am very much in favor of free trade. What I am saying is that in some very specific cases, tariffs can have and have had a net positive effect - for example, sometimes, for nascent or struggling industries which are temporarily unable to compete with foreign industries without tariffs but that eventually will be able to. In those specific cases, not having the tariffs at any point would lead to the domestic industries never getting a chance to develop and become competitive (or maintain themselves long enough to redevelop and become competitive again). Tariffs can sometimes help save/create both short-term and long-term jobs. Let me emphasize this again: I am NOT in favor of protectionism. I'm simply pointing out that it can happen that tariffs are beneficial to the well-being of the citizens of a country (more precisely, to the people with jobs and the industries that benefit from them). On May 28 2012 14:07 Vegetarian wrote:
2. My second point actually is true and if you disagree I would encourage you to search for an example of a government intervention in any economy that you believe was beneficial. And, I am certain I will be able to explain to you why it was not. Give me a break, we've already had this debate with aficionados of the Austrian school countless times in this thread and in the Republican nominations thread and it always ends the same way, namely with them grasping at straws to deny any credit to government intervention and rewriting history. These straws often include fallacies, such as pointing out instances of government intervention having a detrimental effect in order to support the claim that all government interventions have a detrimental effect (see the discussion we had here on what followed the Great Depression). Be my guest and reply to those earlier posts if you want to. You can also tell me about how government intervention had no positive effect whatsoever on any East Asian economy from the early 1960s to the 1990s, if you'd like. 1. My intention was not to ignore part of your post. Your post just highlighted what I believe to be a clear misunderstanding of markets so I took the time to explain them to you. In this post you again display that ignorance of markets when you argue that tariffs can be beneficial in specific cases. Since it seems like you are tired of being lectured I will only ask you a question. How can a central planner determine that market signals are wrong and a specific industry should be invested in for future prospects that the entire market of private capital did not deem worthy of investment. And just as a follow up because I am genuinely curious, how do you go about measuring the effect on an economy when the central planner is incorrect and an industry is subsidized to no future economic gain?
Instead of claiming I misunderstand how markets work, how about you start addressing what I wrote? I just gave you an example of a specific case where tariffs can be beneficial, and you chose to ignore it - again. A basic understanding of markets will tell you that tariffs can indeed be beneficial in specific cases, as I just showed you. It's interesting to see your last sentence directly points to exactly the kind of fallacious arguments I mentioned were put forward by Austrian school economists: because they are unable to defend their claim that all government intervention is negative, they will look for examples of government intervention being negative and ignore/distort the instances where it clearly isn't. In this case, that
central planners can be incorrect and subsidize an industry to no future economic gain is therefore irrelevant. What is relevant is that central planners can be correct and subsidize/protect an industry that will later make economic gain on its own. It can happen, and it has.
On May 28 2012 15:58 Vegetarian wrote:
2. Here you appear to be making arguments against people you have debated with in the past. Unless you are accusing me of some of these things I don't see how its relevant to our discussion. You do mention government intervention having some unknown positive effect on East Asian Economies in the second half of the 20th century. Are you aware of the Japanese housing and stock market bubble, or the South Korean financial crises of the 1990s? How do you explain these events? I will gladly respond to your earlier posts if you quote them here, the thread is just to big for me to sift through.
It is relevant to our discussion because you are posting in an already-existing thread. It is getting quite tiring to having to repeat what has already been discussed and argued in this thread on countless occasions each time a new Austrian school and/or Ron Paul supporter discovers the thread. If you're sincerely interested in discussing this, rather than having us reinvent the wheel each time it would be more fruitful to build on the discussions that have already happened and the arguments/studies that have already been presented.
Now, regarding your reply to me mentioning the development of East Asian economies between the early 1960s to the 1990s, let me point out that you just committed the exact fallacy I pointed out, namely that instead of addressing what is clearly considered as a positive role of governments in the development of these economies, you have tried to look for examples of government intervention yielding negative results. My position is not that government intervention can necessarily only yields positive results, therefore your rebuttal is a fallacy.
On May 28 2012 16:14 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 15:24 kwizach wrote:On May 28 2012 14:25 Vegetarian wrote:On May 28 2012 10:38 kwizach wrote:
The ideas of Austrian economists can and have been defeated - in fact, their analyses about our contemporary world are still being defeated today.. I am curious how you came to this conclusion. How do you explain the following video of Ben Bernanke's analysis of the economy prior to the recession: + Show Spoiler +In contrast here is a video of a prominent Austrian economist analyzing the economy during the same period: + Show Spoiler +I was under the impression that the Austrian school predicted and explains the current economic crises while the other economic schools of thought did not see any problem in the economy prior to the recession that their models failed to predict or explain. In the very first video you quoted, the journalist says at 0:45 "we have so many economists coming on our air and saying "oh this is a bubble and it's going to burst"". Are you telling me every single of these economists belonged to the Austrian school? Since the answer is obviously no, you have your answer: there were economists from both sides who recognized there was a housing bubble. This "impression" of yours was wrong. I'd also like to add that when you have a tendency - like economists from the Austrian school do - to constantly announce things are about to go wrong, if things eventually do go wrong it is not evidence that you were right in your analysis. For example, Peter Schiff has been predicting a major inflation and currency crisis since 2009 (here's a quote from him: "I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it’s going to run out of control or it’s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we’re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It’s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it’s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment"). Of course, this crisis is nowhere to be seen, but you can bet that if there is one day an inflation crisis - for completely different reasons than those he put forward - he will be shouting "I TOLD YOU SO" and fans of the Austrian school will be proudly digging up his videos and articles from 2009 when, in reality, his analyses were completely off the mark. Yes the majority of them were from the Austrian school. Can you point to a Keynesian that saw any of this coming? It is telling that Ben Bernanke who is supposed to be at the forefront of economic thought, was so clueless about the economy in 2006. Shouldn't this tell you that there might be something wrong with the way he analyzes the economy?
Sorry, but you're going to have to provide me with a source indicating that the majority of economists who announced there was a housing bubble were Austrian school economists, because that's quite obviously rubbish :-) Since you're asking for someone affiliated with Keynesianism that "saw any of this coming", I'll oblige you: here's a 2002 paper by Dean Baker on the housing bubble.
You are trying to equate the analysis of every non-Austrian school economist with the Bernanke's 2006 comments. It's a ridiculously fallacious attempt at discrediting non-Austrian school economic models and theories.
On May 28 2012 16:14 Vegetarian wrote:It is kind of amusing when you try to discredit Peter Schiff for being correct about the economy by claiming he was bound to be right eventually. Further, I don't see how you don't see a financial crises coming when we have 10% inflation and 20+% unemployment measured the way the government used to calculate it: http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
Again, when you predict something is going to happen, it eventually happening is not evidence that your economic models are correct. There are several Marxist economists who predicted the housing bubble, so according to your logic this would validate Marxist theory. How would you then reconcile Marxist theory and Austrian school theory being intrinsically valid simultaneously? The truth is that Peter Schiff being correct about a housing bubble happening does not mean that his analyses of the bubble and of the economy in general are correct or that the models he uses have more validity than everyone else's (and, as I said, he wasn't even the only one to foresee it happening). His prediction of an inflation crisis is as clear an example as it gets that his models have led him to reach a completely wrong conclusion. You "shadow stats" source in no way indicates he was right, since he was talking about the "usual" numbers going through the roof, and they certainly haven't.
On May 28 2012 21:26 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 14:07 Vegetarian wrote:
1. The idea that tariffs can be beneficial is a common fallacy espoused by those who lack a basic understanding of markets and how they function. In capitalism markets attempt to make the most efficient allocation of resources so as not to waste resources, for that would lead to a lower standard of living. Trade occurs in the market because people have different skill sets which allow them to produce a product or offer a service better than someone else. Instead of everyone farming their own food, making their own clothing, building their own homes, ect, people tend to have one specialty while trading for everything else. Obviously trade is beneficial and allows for a better allocation of resources as people are only spending time doing what they do more efficiently than others.
Internationally trade often occurs because a company or companies in one country, for whatever reason, can produce a product a service more efficiently than companies a different country. A tariff is sometimes imposed when foreign companies become much more efficient at producing a product or service. If it isn't clear to you yet, a tariff defeats the entire purpose of trade. By imposing an added cost on an import from a country that is able to produce a product more efficiently that country is no longer reaping the benefits of trade. They are instead stubbornly subsidizing a company that has shown it can not compete with foreign companies. This means that as these companies continue to operate they are wasting the economies resources doing something that another company can do better. When this same phenomenon occurs between companies located within the same geographical boundaries the government does not step in to "save" the jobs of a company that is losing market share to a more efficient company. The less efficient companies fail and their employees are hired by more efficient competitors. That is how capitalism works. Do you think an economy would succeed if all it did was subsidize any company that began to fail?
2. My second point actually is true and if you disagree I would encourage you to search for an example of a government intervention in any economy that you believe was beneficial. And, I am certain I will be able to explain to you why it was not. I've already made these points but they don't try to refute them, they just assert the invalidity of them. Therefore they have conceded the argument.
Your points have been refuted. You've chosen to stop replying, so you have conceded the argument, not us.
|
On May 29 2012 01:38 frogrubdown wrote:
The Law of Identity does not conflict with any remotely interesting propositions. The idea that Capitalism's superiority is a necessary truth is a bad joke.
What do you mean by "interesting" propositions?
Have you heard of Godel? It's been proven that not every truth has a proof. It takes misguided faith to deny this, not to assert it. Or, to take simpler examples, consider any proposition about an unobserved swath of the universe from 1 million years ago. There are facts about what went on there and true propositions concerning those facts, but there are no proofs of these propositions..
No I haven't heard of Godel. Your example is very abstract but provides no concretes. Maybe you can give one concrete example to better my understanding of Godel's position and what angle you're coming from. When I get that I will tie it into my argument. I'll provide you with my Axioms and I'll provide you with the facts of reality that necessitate Capitalism as the only social system consistent with man's identity as a rational being.
What are your Axioms btw?
(but we stray from the main topic of the thread and have turned it into a philosophical discussion)
So... more importantly I'll only address your questions/comments, frogrubdown, when you actually add something to the discussion of the thread instead of jumping in and trying to snipe a particular person. Who do you support Romney or Obama and why? To do this is simple so don't use it as an excuse to avoid my answer.
|
On May 29 2012 02:23 AdrianHealey wrote:
As someone who is also generally in favour of free market capitalism, Ayn Rand is not someone I would casually throw out there in an online discussion. Although there is some relevance to her neo-Aristotelean framework, it is not like her ideas aren't controversial even within the pro free market capitalism movement...
Unfortunately they are controversial, even among pro-capitalists, because they are misunderstood. But that doesn't make them wrong. What it does help, by throwing them out there, is discovering who is honest in their approach vs who is dishonest. Meaning, those who would outright attack her without challenging her premises(as has been done already in this thread) vs those who attempt to challenger her premises and discussing that instead of just slandering her.
|
On May 29 2012 03:50 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 01:38 frogrubdown wrote:
The Law of Identity does not conflict with any remotely interesting propositions. The idea that Capitalism's superiority is a necessary truth is a bad joke. What do you mean by "interesting" propositions?
I mean contingent propositions. Even if capitalism is actually superior to collectivism, this is clearly at best a contingent truth since different societies or species could have different reactions than we do (e.g., they could be less selfish and could have minds capable of solving the economic calculation problem). Since no necessary truth conflicts with any contingent truth, the Law of Identity does not conflict with the proposition that collectivism is the best political system.
Show nested quote +
Have you heard of Godel? It's been proven that not every truth has a proof. It takes misguided faith to deny this, not to assert it. Or, to take simpler examples, consider any proposition about an unobserved swath of the universe from 1 million years ago. There are facts about what went on there and true propositions concerning those facts, but there are no proofs of these propositions..
No I haven't heard of Godel.
You're joking, right? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/
Your example is very abstract but provides no concretes. Maybe you can give one concrete example to better my understanding of Godel's position and what angle you're coming from. When I get that I will tie it into my argument. I'll provide you with my Axioms and I'll provide you with the facts of reality that necessitate Capitalism as the only social system consistent with man's identity as a rational being.
The example is unrelated to Godel's examples. You can't just dismiss the example as not concrete (whatever that is supposed to mean in this context). You can either argue that there are no true propositions about such unobserved parts of the universe and adopt an extreme anti-realism, or you can argue that we can "prove" things about them. If you instead accept these points, then you've already accepted that there are unprovable truths.
What are your Axioms btw?
It's a shame summer just started. Next time I'm in the philosophy lounge I look forward to telling everyone about the time I was asked about my "Axioms" (with a capital 'A' no less!).
(but we stray from the main topic of the thread and have turned it into a philosophical discussion)
So... more importantly I'll only address your questions/comments, frogrubdown, when you actually add something to the discussion of the thread instead of jumping in and trying to snipe a particular person. Who do you support Romney or Obama and why? To do this is simple so don't use it as an excuse to avoid my answer.
This has got to be the goofiest rhetorical ploy I've ever encountered on TL. You brought the incomparably shitty philosophy of Ayn Rand into this thread; you cannot complain when I point out how shitty it is. If you don't have any responses you should just say so because I won't play this absurd game.
|
On May 29 2012 03:02 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 21:33 AdrianHealey wrote:On May 28 2012 16:27 GreenManalishi wrote:
Tariffs CAN be optimal in specific cases. The Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Model explains exactly that at a very basic level.
Essentially, tariffs are optimal domestically if the utility derived from the increase in domestic production and the revenue from the tariff outweigh the consumer loss due to the higher prices. Tariffs can also be used to develop a domestic industry that relies on economies of scale by protecting it and creating artificial scarcity in its market. This is actually quite common, since many industries require 'industrial clusters,' some protectionism can result in a multiplicative increase in domestic output.
Taiwan in the early 1990s is an example of this in regards to microchips. You are merely proving that if you subsidize (a tarrif is a special kind of subsidy) something initially, it might be competitive later. That is true, but that doesn't mean that it is actually a net benefit. Because whilst you are doing this, you are harming consumers and/or producers and are shifting resources to an industry that is not competitive on it's self and away from industries that would be competitive on it's self. The effects of the introduction of a tariff in a large, price-setting nation, is that in the short run the global price of the good falls, and in the long run foreign production of the good falls. This means that immediately, the domestic production of that good increases to meet the increase in domestic demand, which can be calculated by taking the size of the tariff and the price elasticity of the good. Here is a quote from Yoshitomo Ogawa's " The structure of optimal tariff rates in a large country with market power," Economic Theory , Vol. 33, No. 2 (November 2007), pp. 271-283 Show nested quote +Under the optimal tariff structure, the import tariff rate on each good is inversely proportional to the absolute value of the own-price elasticity of the corresponding foreign country's export. Maybe not the most clear, I just searched JSTOR for "optimal tariff rate" and "large country" and this was the first hit that came up. Essentially, the effects of tariffs are fundamentally different for large and small nations. For small nations, raising tariffs has no affect on the global price or production of a good, so unless the consumer loss is going to be compensated by increased domestic production, there is never an economic argument for tariffs. In a large nation however, since global prices and demand change to reflect the tariff, the optimal tariff rate will be > 0 if price elasticity is < 1.
Of course, this is question begging for who's point of view the tarrif is 'optimal'. It definitely is not pareto optimal.
And it is question begging wether or not it is possible to make it kaldor-hicks efficient. That you can theoreticallly construct 'when' it would be a net benefit, does not mean it is practically feasible.
That paper looks at if from the pov of the government. Of course; raising tariffs is good for the government. But it will always hurt consumers. Raising a tariff, is hurting your population for the benefit of the government.
|
On May 29 2012 03:56 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 02:23 AdrianHealey wrote:
As someone who is also generally in favour of free market capitalism, Ayn Rand is not someone I would casually throw out there in an online discussion. Although there is some relevance to her neo-Aristotelean framework, it is not like her ideas aren't controversial even within the pro free market capitalism movement...
Unfortunately they are controversial, even among pro-capitalists, because they are misunderstood. But that doesn't make them wrong. What it does help, by throwing them out there, is discovering who is honest in their approach vs who is dishonest. Meaning, those who would outright attack her without challenging her premises(as has been done already in this thread) vs those who attempt to challenger her premises and discussing that instead of just slandering her.
Well; even if you consider her to be right on all issues, it is still a not to easy to comprehend philosophy. The fact that all Randians always say 'we'll; IF ONLY you would understand here!' at least indicates it is not that easy to comprehend.
Furthermore; this is an economics discussion, not an ethics one. To the extend that you can separate those; Rand was not an economist, so let's leave her out of this discussion.
|
why is Ayn Rand's philosophy shitty? I have seen her arguments but i havent seen a real counter argument against it yet, maybe you can present a counter argument to objectivism either here or PM? Also, why is it absurd to ask someone about their axioms? Im a mathematician so maybe theres a philosphy ediquate im missing or something. Religious people have extended axioms about god existing and what not. . . . right?
*edit* lol at the post above me. fuck i have bad timing, just pm me then plox
|
On May 29 2012 05:22 AdrianHealey wrote:
Well; even if you consider her to be right on all issues, it is still a not to easy to comprehend philosophy. The fact that all Randians always say 'we'll; IF ONLY you would understand here!' at least indicates it is not that easy to comprehend.
I've placed in spoilers because my answers are not essential to the thread topic since neither candidate truly defends Capitalism.
+ Show Spoiler +
Rand defends her philosophy best, and she explains most concisely. So if you are truly interested in her ideas start with her works instead of getting second hand information from someone like me on the internet.
Define Philosophy: "The study of the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence."
"The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. This view serves as a base, a frame of reference, for all his actions, mental or physical, psychological or existential. This view tells him the nature of the universe with which he has to deal (metaphysics); the means by which he is to deal with it, i.e., the means of acquiring knowledge (epistemology); the standards by which he is to choose his goals and values, in regard to his own life and character (ethics)—and in regard to society (politics); the means of concretizing this view is given to him by esthetics." - Ayn Rand
I can sympathize with the view that it is difficult, only because philosophy as taught in school is a bunch of non-sense. It's difficult because it does not correspond to reality. An example: "How do you know what is moral? Because God said so..." This answer is anti reason because you have nothing to refer to that you know in reality. You can't point to a god, you can't reduce it to a fact. It has to be taken on faith; you have to quiet your mind, silence all the facts that tell you otherwise, and accept that something that you cannot prove is the dictator of morality. However, the right philosophy does not have the same problems as it is consistent with every fact you've ever learned without contradiction. Everyone holds a philosophy, it's the nature of the mind that makes it necessary and unavoidable. The difference is that you can let random ideas float around in your mind without connecting them, without questioning them, or you can organize them systematically in order to expel contradictions.
+ Show Spoiler +
Furthermore; this is an economics discussion, not an ethics one. To the extend that you can separate those; Rand was not an economist, so let's leave her out of this discussion.
Hehe, it should be a politics issue Obama or Romney. However in order to define politics one must first define ethics and so on. It's like in order to learn calculus first one must know algebra, first one must know arithmetic... and so on. The concept is "Hierarchy". That's the only reason ethics came up in the first place.
|
Great (and very long) article in todays New York Times that takes an in-depth look at the Obama administration's counter terrorism policy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY (if you get a message about reaching your article reading limit, just clear your browser cookies)
Some of the most interesting excerpts:
Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.
Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.
A phalanx of retired generals and admirals stood behind Mr. Obama on the second day of his presidency, providing martial cover as he signed several executive orders to make good on campaign pledges. Brutal interrogation techniques were banned, he declared. And the prison at Guantánamo Bay would be closed.
What the new president did not say was that the orders contained a few subtle loopholes. They reflected a still unfamiliar Barack Obama, a realist who, unlike some of his fervent supporters, was never carried away by his own rhetoric. Instead, he was already putting his lawyerly mind to carving out the maximum amount of maneuvering room to fight terrorism as he saw fit.
The day before the executive orders were issued, the C.I.A.’s top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, had called the White House in a panic. The order prohibited the agency from operating detention facilities, closing once and for all the secret overseas “black sites” where interrogators had brutalized terrorist suspects.
“The way this is written, you are going to take us out of the rendition business,” Mr. Rizzo told Gregory B. Craig, Mr. Obama’s White House counsel, referring to the much-criticized practice of grabbing a terrorist suspect abroad and delivering him to another country for interrogation or trial. The problem, Mr. Rizzo explained, was that the C.I.A. sometimes held such suspects for a day or two while awaiting a flight. The order appeared to outlaw that.
Mr. Craig assured him that the new president had no intention of ending rendition — only its abuse, which could lead to American complicity in torture abroad. So a new definition of “detention facility” was inserted, excluding places used to hold people “on a short-term, transitory basis.” Problem solved — and no messy public explanation damped Mr. Obama’s celebration.
The president’s directive reinforced the need for caution [with regards to drone strikes], counterterrorism officials said, but did not significantly change the program. In part, that is because “the protection of innocent life was always a critical consideration,” said Michael V. Hayden, the last C.I.A. director under President George W. Bush.
It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.
[...]But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.
Though President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican candidate, had supported closing the Guantánamo prison, Republicans in Congress had reversed course and discovered they could use the issue to portray Mr. Obama as soft on terrorism.
Walking out of the Archives, the president turned to his national security adviser at the time, Gen. James L. Jones, and admitted that he had never devised a plan to persuade Congress to shut down the prison.
“We’re never going to make that mistake again,” Mr. Obama told the retired Marine general.
It is the strangest of bureaucratic rituals: Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.
This secret “nominations” process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia’s Shabab militia.
If you have time, read the full article, it's really quite interesting.
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY (if you get a message about reaching your article reading limit, just clear your browser cookies)
Or you can Google "NYT Clean" and get the bookmarklet, it works a lot faster than clearing your cookies. Since the NYT's way of preventing you from reading articles past the limit is just some simple Javascript the bookmarklet takes care of that in 1 click =)
|
That article truly shows the horror that Obama is capable of. I am glad the mainstream media - and not just the antiwar movement - is starting to pick it up.
|
That was a good article. I hope more people read it, if only to see that policy isn't black and white.
|
On May 29 2012 The New York Times wrote:
Though President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican candidate, had supported closing the Guantánamo prison, Republicans in Congress had reversed course and discovered they could use the issue to portray Mr. Obama as soft on terrorism.
The willingness of Congressional Republicans to turn a delicate national security/human rights issue into a political ploy is disgusting.
It's bad enough when they played with something as serious as the debt ceiling, but apparently even the safety of Americans isn't off-limits.
|
On May 30 2012 07:22 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2012 The New York Times wrote:
Though President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican candidate, had supported closing the Guantánamo prison, Republicans in Congress had reversed course and discovered they could use the issue to portray Mr. Obama as soft on terrorism. The willingness of Congressional Republicans to turn a delicate national security/human rights issue into a political ploy is disgusting. It's bad enough when they played with something as serious as the debt ceiling, but apparently even playing with the safety of Americans isn't off-limits.
Welcome to american politics where fighting the enemy is more important then saving your country and its people from ruin.
|
This is Romney's election to lose but the longer he allows Trump to take center statge the more bridges he burns. Also just give me 50.1% wtf was that?!
|
On May 30 2012 04:03 AdrianHealey wrote:
That article truly shows the horror that Obama is capable of. I am glad the mainstream media - and not just the antiwar movement - is starting to pick it up.
I'm sorry, do you not understand the necessity of shooting terrorist leaders?
Sure, it is morally wrong and in an ideal world we'd bring everyone in front of a court, let them have due process but in reality we aren't capable of doing so. The US isn't going to commit to large scale capture missions in countries like yemen, pakistan and somalia. We've all seen black hawk down. I consider the Bin Laden killing illegal, but under the circumstances justified. The same goes for the killing of al-awlaki. In the end, these people are putting civilians worldwide at risk, and some kind of reponse is demanded by citizens everywhere. The state has no value if it cannot protect its civilians from external threats.
Yes, you can obviously make the slippery slope 'argument', but you elect a president make these kinds of decisions, and I think Obama has done so well. He is obviously personally engaged in the process, and is at least struggles with the various options before he comes to a decision. That is a lot more than you can say for his predecessor and I don't think Romney would be better suited to make these decisions. Romney's foreign policy suggestions up to this point have been purely populist and cannot be taken seriously, and he doesn't strike me as a man of strong convictions.
|
|
|
On May 30 2012 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This is Romney's election to lose but the longer he allows Trump to take center statge the more bridges he burns. Also just give me 50.1% wtf was that?!
I wouldnt say he is in that good of a position honestly. I mean yes the polls look close but if you look at Romneys needed map to nomination it looks pretty hard to manage.
|
On May 30 2012 10:11 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 08:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
This is Romney's election to lose but the longer he allows Trump to take center statge the more bridges he burns. Also just give me 50.1% wtf was that?! I wouldnt say he is in that good of a position honestly. I mean yes the polls look close but if you look at Romneys needed map to nomination it looks pretty hard to manage.
There's certainly a chance Romney will win the popular vote but Obama still wins the electoral college, especially if turnout in the really conservative states is very high.
Assuming no shenanigans with the PA electoral votes, Obama needs just one of:
1) Virginia
2) Ohio
3) Colorado and Iowa
(that's assuming Romney wins FL, which I think is likely, and Obama wins NH and NV).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
