Okay let's do everything in here instead of the rando thread. Even if in the future, somebody wants to respond to a post on the government/market topic in the rando thread, just quote it and do it here instead
02-26-2015 04:54 PM
#1
| |
|
*** The official market and government thread ***Okay let's do everything in here instead of the rando thread. Even if in the future, somebody wants to respond to a post on the government/market topic in the rando thread, just quote it and do it here instead |
02-26-2015 05:23 PM
#2
| |
|
Nobody is that wealthy. No groups of megacorporations are that wealthy. The Chamber of Commerce isn't that wealthy |
02-26-2015 05:46 PM
#3
| |
None of that changes the fact that rules need to be enforced. | |
| |
02-26-2015 07:08 PM
#4
| |
|
Private entities enforce their own rules. We have this for most aspects of our society already. |
02-26-2015 09:53 PM
#5
| |
|
It should be noted that I don't know where I stand on the level of hawkishness or dovishness the US government should have on foreign relations. I certainly think hegemony is important, but that it should come at the hands of enterprise. There's no better way to get people on your side then to increase their prosperity and freedoms. I also think that because there is an assumption that the only international security forces are state ones, it suggests that they need to have no absence of strength. I am unsure if the US government should focus on militaristic expansion or just defense while promoting capital expansion. |
02-27-2015 12:14 AM
#6
| |
I think that in a stateless society that many new forms of insurance would step up in a big way to better accomplish the tasks we depend on government for today. I also think in such a world, humans would have fewer barriers between actions and consequences, and would become much stronger and more productive for it. I'll go into that later in this thread, but for now I'd like to make an easier market vs. state point. | |
Last edited by Renton; 02-27-2015 at 12:19 AM. | |
02-27-2015 01:00 AM
#7
| |
|
Great post. I want to address this one line. |
02-27-2015 01:57 AM
#8
| |
Yeah all taxes hit the poor pretty hard, I would agree with that. I'm actually being slightly dishonest when I say something like "consumption taxes hit the poor harder," because I'm kind of pandering to people who aren't capable of looking past the first layer on any economic issue. Clearly, they more directly affect the poor than the rich. | |
02-27-2015 02:52 AM
#9
| |
Skipped a lot as no time to read all and post. But wuf, what you're saying doesn't stack up. You'll end up with lawless ghettos populated by the one while the wealthy elite live in self exposed exile in their pretty policed prisons. | |
| |
02-27-2015 02:53 AM
#10
| |
One = poor | |
| |
02-27-2015 05:46 AM
#11
| |
| |
Last edited by Jack Sawyer; 02-27-2015 at 07:53 AM. | |
02-27-2015 04:56 PM
#12
| |
|
Like I said, the optics looks like your position is right. To the lay, macroeconomics is intuitive, but to macroeconomics PhDs, it's not |
02-27-2015 05:07 PM
#13
| |
|
We can't have a productive discussion then. How would you know if my argument doesn't stack up when you admit to not even reading or understanding my argument? |
02-27-2015 05:33 PM
#14
| |
Tragedy of the Commons? | |
| |
02-27-2015 05:37 PM
#15
| |
I read your posts wuf, just not the thread at the time of posting. I have since but it wasn't relevant to what we were discussing. | |
| |
02-27-2015 05:50 PM
#16
| |
| |
02-27-2015 06:10 PM
#17
| |
| |
| |
02-27-2015 06:45 PM
#18
| |
|
We're using the term differently. You're calling "lawless" a state of wrong behavior. I'm calling "lawless" a state of ineffective mandates. Most of what goes on in society is not that affected by the reach of the law. Think of the internet or dating or going to friends homes or how you work with coworkers. It's all general market behavior. |
02-27-2015 07:38 PM
#19
| |
I'm thinking of lawless as a place where the law doesn't protect me. | |
| |
02-27-2015 08:38 PM
#20
| |
|
I disagree with the premise. Risk of punishment is not a main deterrent. It certainly is a deterrent to some degree, but we have it in market behavior normally. |
03-06-2015 01:57 PM
#21
| |
| |
03-06-2015 03:13 PM
#22
| |
|
I never said higher enforcement creates more crime. Tangentially, it probably does by way of criminalizing more activity, but what I said was different. |
03-07-2015 04:17 AM
#23
| |
What data are you referring to? You're not saying that where there's less laws (fewer things that are illegal) there's less crime, right, so what are you saying? What's an example of a macro or micro level community, where there's less crime that in its peers due to less regulation or enforcement? | |
| |
03-07-2015 05:57 AM
#24
| |
The state police forces are not effectively protecting citizens, yet at extreme financial cost. This egalitarian view of public service is pure fiction. Governments impoverish all people, especially the poor, to cover the costs of the services they provide. The private sector would do police much more cheaply and effectively, because it would have to in order to remain competitive in the market. | |
Last edited by Renton; 03-07-2015 at 06:03 AM. | |
03-07-2015 08:54 AM
#25
| |
I don't see any proof of any of this. Are you absolutely certain you're not mistaking implementation flaws in your reference system for inherent flaws in any system? Either way, I didn't say anything about effectiveness, I see safety as a basic inviolable right and I don't see it guaranteed by the market. | |
| |
03-07-2015 10:09 AM
#26
| |
Look at the tax burdens of socialist nations for proof. Look at their inflating currencies. You can't effectively distribute scarce resources which have alternative uses without allowing people to bid for the resources to serve their own subjective needs and desires. It is well-intentioned to speak of inviolable rights, but it cannot be denied that safety can only be provided though the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses. How many police officers is enough to guarantee safety for 300 million people? One million? Two million? Clearly if we had 100 million police officers, then that'd be better than two million. What amount of safety must be guaranteed? What murder rate is acceptable? | |
Last edited by Renton; 03-07-2015 at 11:24 AM. | |
03-07-2015 12:54 PM
#27
| |
|
That isn't a causal link I would put that much credence to. Maybe I would if I really wanted to focus on one small aspect, but that's not important here. |
03-07-2015 02:36 PM
#28
| |
You're contradicting yourself. It's exactly because of these many significant factors that we can't expect crime rates to be equal in different cities depending on one factor alone. | |
| |
03-07-2015 04:41 PM
#29
| |
|
Which is the whole reason why I said it's wrong to claim high enforcement has results of lower crime. I was not proposing a causal link; instead I was saying that a different proposed causal link is not supported by the evidence. |
03-08-2015 12:38 PM
#30
| |
I haven't seen any data for or against, 2 cherry picked US cities hardly qualify as such. Anyway, this discussion started from you claiming such conclusions can be drawn despite the lack of other know factors: | |
| |
03-08-2015 02:19 PM
#31
| |
Healthcare in the U.S. is a corrupt hybrid of market and government and is likely worse than either. Please do not think what we do in the U.S. is even remotely free market. | |
03-08-2015 03:38 PM
#32
| |
Sorry it took a while to respond, had to digest a couple things for a bit. | |
| |
03-08-2015 04:08 PM
#33
| |
No time to point by point, i'll just say a few short bits: | |
03-08-2015 04:21 PM
#34
| |
|
To the claim that law enforcement reduces crime, it can be counter-claimed that certain effects would be seen. We can put this line of discourse to bed by this point IMO. |
03-08-2015 04:49 PM
#35
| |
|
Sumner's post on the economic philosophy for the best tax structure. |
03-09-2015 03:39 AM
#36
| |
I'm in a hurry so just a couple quick comments. | |
| |
03-09-2015 06:19 AM
#37
| |
| |
03-09-2015 07:14 PM
#38
| |
|
Just pointing out that I appreciate this dialogue. |
03-09-2015 07:32 PM
#39
| |
|
Neither can government. Markets have proven to be far more effective at achieving egalitarian outcomes. |
03-12-2015 09:33 PM
#40
| |
|
Something I would like to add is that better and worse government policy exists. Sometimes it sounds like market proponents don't think that. I think the reason why is because we think that even the best government policy is nothing compared to a standard free market. |
04-02-2015 06:25 PM
#41
| |
|
reading the slides to a recent caplan speech, found a quote i love: |
04-23-2015 06:05 PM
#42
| |
|
The foundations of every science is tautology and assumption. |
04-23-2015 06:14 PM
#43
| |
Holy fuck no. | |
| |
04-23-2015 06:18 PM
#44
| |
Your last paragraph is modelling, not science. Modelling is a tool used by science, but a science must use the scientific method. The only tool that can accurately craft assumptions to reality. We've talked about this before. Economics doesn't meet the mark on this. So while all the other kids at science school are running around building models with assumptions, Economics can't keep up because it doesn't have legs because a true science must stand on the scientific method. | |
| |
04-23-2015 06:21 PM
#45
| |
Fuck, science is so untautological it doesn't even hold "reality is reality" as a tautology. http://www.gizmag.com/3d-hologram-un...eriment/33546/ | |
| |
04-23-2015 06:28 PM
#46
| |
|
I'm happy you said this, because I think it cuts into the disconnect. |
04-23-2015 06:37 PM
#47
| |
Yes, but mathematics is not a science. Mathematics is logic which is tautological and assumption heavy and ideal and pure. | |
| |
04-23-2015 06:41 PM
#48
| |
And rationality is used in economics, in my opinion, because you can't possibly go forward without it. That's not a huge boon to its efficacy in creating results. | |
| |
04-23-2015 06:43 PM
#49
| |
And it's why I like Behavioral Economics. Because they look like their trying to model people first. How do they act, how do they choose and how can we model it? | |
| |
04-23-2015 06:50 PM
#50
| |
You know what, there is a great set of books which you might find interesting on the math and science relationship by Henri Poincare. Guy was considered the last man the understand the whole of human knowledge on math and science. | |
| |
04-23-2015 07:00 PM
#51
| |
|
The scientific method is still an assumption. |
04-23-2015 07:03 PM
#52
| |
| |
04-23-2015 07:04 PM
#53
| |
And what do you mean by the scientific method is an assumption? | |
| |
04-23-2015 07:13 PM
#54
| |
The assumptions I can think of are: | |
| |
04-23-2015 07:16 PM
#55
| |
|
I meant it similarly to how every use of the scientific method has backed the existence of gravity, but we still have to assume all sorts of things to take calculations using gravity as veracious |
04-23-2015 07:21 PM
#56
| |
Gravity is a special story. When Newton proposed the theory of gravity, the scientists were looking for a way to prove it. Someone had the thought to use the four visible moons of Jupiter. They set about predicting the positions of the moons at a specific hour only for them to discover they weren't precisely there! Nature had disagreed with Newton's gravity! Except that someone postulated that the reason for the error was because the speed of light is finite and the Jupiter they saw was 8 minutes earlier than the Jupiter they calculated! | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 04-23-2015 at 07:24 PM. | |
04-23-2015 07:28 PM
#57
| |
"As science developed and measurements were made more accurate, the tests of Newton’s Law became more stringent, and the first careful tests involved the moons of Jupiter. By accurate observations of the way they went around over long periods of time one could check that everything was according to Newton, and it turned out to be not the case. The moons of Jupiter appeared to get sometimes eight minutes ahead of time and sometimes eight minutes behind time, where the time is the calculated value according to Newton’s Laws. It was noticed that they were ahead of schedule when Jupiter was close to the earth and behind schedule when it was far away, a rather odd circumstance. Mr Roemer, having confidence in the Law of Gravitation, came to the interesting conclusion that it takes light some time to travel from the moons of Jupiter to the earth, and what we are looking at when we see the moons is not how they are now but how they were the time ago it took the light to get here. When Jupiter is near us it takes less time for the light to come, and when Jupiter is farther from us it takes longer time, so Roemer had to correct the observations for the differences in time and by the fact that they were this much early or that much late. In this way he was able to determine the velocity of light.This was the first demonstration that light was not an instantaneously propagating material." | |
| |
04-23-2015 07:34 PM
#58
| |
| |
| |
04-23-2015 07:41 PM
#59
| |
Inertia is a good foil for rationality. Both look, at first glance, like tautological assumptions. One was preceded by experiment and observation, the other was used to move forward in analysis. | |
| |
04-23-2015 07:49 PM
#60
| |
|
You're right. Thousands upon thousands of PhD's who have dedicated their lives to this discipline are wrong. |
04-23-2015 07:52 PM
#61
| |
Scientists argued against evolution. | |
| |
04-23-2015 07:57 PM
#62
| |
http://et.worldeconomicsassociation....odgson_1_1.pdf | |
| |
04-23-2015 08:00 PM
#63
| |
| |
04-23-2015 08:02 PM
#64
| |
It means that experts can be wrong. It takes Nature to step in and settle the debate. | |
| |
04-23-2015 08:06 PM
#65
| |
|
Which you are not. The paper you even cited doesn't contest rational choice theory, but its limit in explanation of the world. I have always agreed with that and so do economists. It just happens that every time we talk about economics, somebody who is not an economist says "but people aren't rational", fulfilling the prophecy that laymen misunderstand the concept. |
04-23-2015 08:15 PM
#66
| |
"The value of rational choice theory for the social sciences has long been contested. It is argued here that, in thedebate over its role, it is necessary to distinguish between claims that people maximise manifest payoffs, and claimsthat people maximise their utility. The former version has been falsified. The latter is unfalsifiable, because utilitycannot be observed. In principle, utility maximisation can be adapted to fit any form of behaviour, including thebehaviour of non-human organisms. Allegedly ‘inconsistent’ behaviour is also impossible to establish withoutqualification. This utility-maximising version of rational choice theory has the character of a universal ‘explanation’that can be made to ‘fit’ any set of events. This is a sign of weakness rather than strength. In its excessive quest forgenerality, utility-maximising rational choice theory fails to focus on the historically and geographically specificfeatures of socio-economic systems. As long as such theory is confined to ahistorical generalities, then it will remainhighly limited in dealing with the real world. Instead we have to consider the real social and psychologicaldeterminants of human behaviour." | |
| |
04-23-2015 08:49 PM
#67
| |
|
Keep crushing those straw men. Keep playing creationist. |
04-24-2015 12:59 AM
#68
| |
I dont have any strong feelings towards believing economists or not. | |
07-24-2015 05:41 PM
#69
| |
|
Quote from Steve Forbes: |
07-24-2015 08:14 PM
#70
| |
|
A world without government would not be a world without law. Instead of the coercive and irresponsible legal system we have today, law would instead be a negotiation between affected parties. It would be about a million times cheaper since it would be consumed like insurance. |
07-24-2015 08:55 PM
#71
| |
There are so many assumptions to that, but I feel like we'd just be rehashing the same old points again and again. | |
07-24-2015 10:05 PM
#72
| |
|
This is a really strong point. However, I disagree with it. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 07-24-2015 at 10:17 PM. | |
07-30-2015 05:27 PM
#73
| |
|
All it took for the new CrashCourse economics series to dunk its head into entirely not-economics ideology was three episodes. Honestly I'm a little impressed it took that long, given the CrashCourse audience and the credentials of the hosts. |