|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I propose we begin by understanding why this specific function, i.e. mass transportation, has been fairly uniformly chosen by peoples all over the world as a good candidate for gov'ts to sustain.
It's a good question. I think the answer is that it's a byproduct of other government functions that people care about more, namely security and safety agents (like police). Roads in most of history have been private, but as government power expanded, the "need" for them to traverse their territory without hindrance increased. Example: cops can speed down public roads but if they do that on private roads it could become a bigger problem.
I thought you were saying, "Gov't roads are bad, mkay. Free market roads would be much better."
So you have a general statement, "Free markets maximize resource mobility and incentivize innovation, which leads to greater wealth creation than immobile resources and disincentivizing innovation." (Or something like that, yeah? I'm paraphrasing as best I can.)
Sounds great, BTW. Not kidding. This seems like a broadly true statement to me.
The specific is when you apply that general statement to, in this example, roads. There is no evidence that this general statement should hold true for all things. There isn't even the assertion that it should, only that it tends to. So we're left with a vacuum of predictive power in this case. Not because there is no predictive power in the statement, I don't see that as being the case here, vs when we're talking S&D plots, but because we have some reason to believe that we're dealing with a special case in roads. The ubiquity of state-run roads can't be ignored. This is not a local phenomenon, but a global one.
I agree. I have tried to argue that the case that roads (more accurately, transportation) are different than markets like food has not been made; instead rationalizations for political or normalcy purposes (in a subconscious way) have been made. Here's an example: education used to have no government intervention and it functioned. Today is has tremendous government intervention and it functions (though there are some striking problems that are most likely caused by the intervention, like rate of tuition price increase). Yet, the argument I get presented with from others is that education is *unique* and requires government intervention up the yazoo, yet no coherent reason is ever given. The argument appears to me to stem from an emotional, political rationalization.
@ bold: that is a load of pure horse shit, man. A complete misuse or misunderstanding of the scientific process. It is the opposite of science, in fact, to make a general statement and search for examples which affirm it. Science is about making specific statements and searching for examples which disprove them.
He's basically describing brainstorming, and while this is a useful tool in the mind of anyone facing creative obstacles, it is a tiny piece of the scientific process. I hazard to say that it is a pre-scientific process which gives way to testing the hypothesized statements generated in this way.
Seriously. How could GPS exist if this were true? How could microwave ovens exist if this were true? Science does not look at QM and say, wow, that's really complex, let's make some unconfirmed statements about it and leave it at that.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, you're right. We should let it dictate our economic policy. We should definitely NOT check to see if it's a duck-impersonating water foul, or perhaps a new species of duck with different habitat, mating and feeding habits. That'd be silly. A duck is a duck.
Take it up with Taleb. He could be wrong. Though I agree with him. But it could be confirmation bias.
I see the problem in some stuff. Economists spending (wasting) time studying the minimum wage is one of them. The body of literature is still inconclusive and I posit will remain inconclusive to infinity and beyond. I believe the economy is sufficiently complex that econometric analysis fails most of the time. Instead, what I think we should be doing regarding the minimum wage is using reason to come up with ways in which it *could* not cause deadweight loss (in S&D models, it causes deadweight loss), and then go from there. But that's not what economists have been doing. One set who support the minimum wage politically structure the studies such that they can inevitably get the result they want, another set that dislikes it for political reasons does the opposite, and another studies it without bias yet, like the others, still doesn't use sophisticated enough techniques to achieve conclusive results (because they don't know how). The whole thing is a mess and I think it's indicative of some serious problems in professional economics.
Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit, and really they're just doing science badly. Which, well, that's probably what it is. So many economists have blinders on when it comes to things that run up against their emotional, political views. I'm an odd cat in that my political views drastically changed due to studying economics. I used to be to the left of Bernie Sanders but now I'm to the right of Milton Friedman.
|
Reply With Quote
