| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 27 2018 02:30 RvB wrote: For the same reason we still have agricultural subsidies, tariffs etc. Laws and policy aren't solely based on economics. Wouldn't basing policy on economics be a centrally planned economy to begin with? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10876 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On February 27 2018 02:56 Big J wrote: Wouldn't basing policy on economics be a centrally planned economy to begin with? I'm not sure what that means, under the prevailing view of economics most people prefer to replace central planning with markets, even within corporations or other managed institutions. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6272 Posts
On February 27 2018 02:56 Big J wrote: Wouldn't basing policy on economics be a centrally planned economy to begin with? No I don't see why. Abolishing all tariffs or reducing regulation is economic policy but not central planning. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 27 2018 03:13 RvB wrote: No I don't see why. Abolishing all tariffs or reducing regulation is economic policy but not central planning. What's your pricing system for determining the correct level of tariffs or regulations? My point is that by trying to maximize some variable(s) like overall money, national gdp, "economics" or whatever you choose, you are falling back into the central-planning trap. Which I believe is dangerous and wrong, because people are not interested in maximizing collective economic numbers or something like that. The economy has to work for everyone individually. On February 27 2018 03:13 RvB wrote: No I don't see why. Abolishing all tariffs or reducing regulation is economic policy but not central planning. What's your pricing system for determining the correct level of tariffs or regulations? From your comment I am assuming you believe the current levels are "wrong in general". So, not just "wrong to you". | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On February 27 2018 03:38 Big J wrote: What's your pricing system for determining the correct level of tariffs or regulations? My point is that by trying to maximize some variable(s) like overall money, national gdp, "economics" or whatever you choose, you are falling back into the central-planning trap. Which I believe is dangerous and wrong, because people are not interested in maximizing collective economic numbers or something like that. The economy has to work for everyone individually. What's your pricing system for determining the correct level of tariffs or regulations? From your comment I am assuming you believe the current levels are "wrong in general". So, not just "wrong to you". Are you against maximizing social welfare in general or are you displeased that your preferred measure of social welfare often isn't the one being used? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
The point of democracy is to give everyone a vote, which is a currency that every individual holds equally one piece of, for political decisions. The reason to have market economies is that everyone can determine what their efforts are worth to other people in relation to all other efforts that are being traded between individuals in your society. The reason to have capitalist market societies is so that you have a clear rule who can trade what (property) and a universal measure of price levels (currency). So there are already all sorts of pricing systems and ideals of pricing systems, all with their theoretical and practical flaws. Those flaws and ideological thoughts exist within a static society, much more so in an ever-changing society (life and death, migration). And you can introduce all sorts of further pricing systems, like polls. But you will always have to answer the same question: To what purpose did you introduce those pricing systems? If you argue that the purpose to have a free, democratic, market society is because it is more productive than communism by some measure, then I believe you will end up in exactly that type of authoritarian state at some point. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
That doesn't technically protect you from political authoritarianism because some states are smart enough to embed market systems in otherwise authoritarian countries, Singapore being the prime example probably. Even those states are however much less bloody and much more pragmatic and rational about it than any other authoritarian state that relies on force, violence or terror. The worst thing that happens to you is that you're subject to supervision and market forces which is a lot less bad than the worst things we've come up with | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 27 2018 05:38 Nyxisto wrote: The reason why pricing exists is because the pricing system is the best available system to aggregate the preferences of individuals and other actors and as such it produces the most rational estimation of how to organise production and consumption. There is no planner omniscient enough to reign in the complexity of the global (or even any local economy) and so here we are. I believe it is the other way around. Pricing systems, regardless of which ones, exist because there is no way around them. Because you are just physically bound to serve your own interests and the way to achieve that is by putting your interests against the interests of others. You can do that by force or by consent, with the later being the option that most people believe works better for them (and often by their own, altruistic needs they believe it works bettter for others as well). The later option is what makes up for the very essence of societies and which comes down to pricing, regardless of which trading/decision system you are using and what currency/weight you hold within the system. We are eternally condemned to work on the rules for our pricing systems, because we lack a "god-given pricing system of pricing systems" - or in other words an optimization variable - that we could follow. And I believe, that the fastest way to screw up your systems is by believing you have found such a variable and by putting all effort behind its maximization. On February 27 2018 05:38 Nyxisto wrote: That doesn't technically protect you from political authoritarianism because some states are smart enough to embed market systems in otherwise authoritarian countries, Singapore being the prime example probably. Even those states are however much less bloody and much more pragmatic and rational about it than any other authoritarian state that relies on force, violence or terror. The worst thing that happens to you is that you're subject to supervision and market forces which is a lot less bad than the worst things we've come up with You are just focusing on one specific technical implementation of possible pricing systems, which is the capitalist market system. The states you describe lack the democratic pricing process. Which doesn't matter too much in the view of many capitalist beliefers, from the 18th century to Milton Friedman, as they believed the capitalist pricing system to be universal and superior to any other pricing system. I personally don't believe that. I believe that when given the chance, the former middle classes that see their wealth and their children's chances dimming, will put their democratic eggs in the baskets of Trump and Brexit and Orban and the AfD and Chavez and 5-stars. And if nothing works, they will exit your pricing systems. They will turn away from your international system, your democratic system or your capitalist market system or all of them. Many probably have allready done so. And then what? Tell them they are all stupid and don't know what's good for them? Putin? Facebook? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
You can democratically demand that everybody ought to get an equal share of this or that, but that won't change the reality that resources are scarce and must be distributed efficiently if you don't want to impoverish your nation. If people have to vote for 5-star movements and want to be governed by clowns for a decade then I guess they'll have to do it. Apparently we have short term memories as a species and need to go through the same tired revolutions and upheavals every three generations. I don't worry about the AfD this much tbh because the vision of society that the AfD has is scratched of the cover of a lifestyle magazine from the 50s. It's dead and at best coming back in zombie form for a while, but we're not going to send women back to the stoves or all foreigners out of the country or whatever just because the AfD wishes it to be so. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On February 27 2018 08:08 Nyxisto wrote: Then they'll have to live with the consequences of their decision I guess. You can practice as much democracy as you want, you're not going to change the laws of physics. The market economy is inherently better at processing information than any other system we have (see Yuval Noah Harari's latest book for a broader discussion of this issue) Pure neoliberalism. No politics, just the Holy Laws of Economy... | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
When we do things well we produce more stuff, many people get a piece of the cake, and people who behave badly are discouraged from doing so. When we do things badly we produce fewer stuff, fewer people get to benefit, and people who behave badly even benefit. You can argue about what kind of systems we ought to put in place, but you can't just tell me that democracy magically makes the whole question obsolete. Especially not because the last part of that equation is missing in way too many democracies. People who make terrible decisions do not get punished for them. Instead they punish their neighbour, some immigrant, or whoever they decide to take it out on. If we were to vote everyday on the food distribution from next week on, I'd start stockpiling tomorrow. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Life is just not as simple as negative freedom fetishists believe it is. Zero is as arbitrary of a number as any other. What matters is not, what regulations you impose. What matters are the systems to get and improve those regulations. Good results are achieved by good processes. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
On February 27 2018 13:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Damn Italy... don't go crazy like the USA. Europe is supposed to be the modern nations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdhQzXHYLZ4 Many commentators would say that italian politics are going crazy for decades now. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18269 Posts
On February 27 2018 13:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Damn Italy... don't go crazy like the USA. Europe is supposed to be the modern nations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdhQzXHYLZ4 You're looking to the country that voted for Berlusconi a number of times and might even do it again for political guidance? You truly are doomed over there across the pond. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
that being the context and J.O. being a liberal poster child, gives you the following: the clip was a propaganda piece designed to 'help' Democrat's allies across the pond. and @the dudes with a free market fetish: do realize that humans are a commodity. in a self regulating free market(no regulatory state) not only that there will be nothing from stopping humans from killing each others to increase their own value, but also it'll be ... desired. + Show Spoiler + BigJ here will want some state involvement which will have him lose the 'libertarian' argument and Nyx will go for the hippie route with humans+empathy/innate collaboration inclinations etc which will lose him the 'free' argument. that makes them both not only wrong but also fronting the same argument, one that starts with/relies on some form of pre-existing moral/ethical value, either innate or acquired, to support it. PS:their argument in a nutshell: humans will be regulated but everything else will not. yay for freedom! and yay for libertarianism!. Edit: in case it still hasn't clicked for you - what the natives are doing right now, in countries with immigration/immigrants issues, is trying to uphold their monetary value but get denied because ... <reasons>. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On February 27 2018 20:08 xM(Z wrote: dude, you're not getting the context. US is/was to large for its own good for a while so they did what greed dictated and split in two(see the W vs E Roman empire as example here): a part of the world(from US's influence sphere) is republican controlled(jewish leaning+US military) and the other democrat controlled(arab leaning+US espionage services). What the hell did I just read? | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
RSL Revival
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Gerald vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
ByuN vs TBD
Rogue vs MaxPax
ShoWTimE vs TBD
CranKy Ducklings
Escore
RSL Revival
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
