Liberals Don't Understand Economics

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Which is why Democrats are at least more respectable then libertarians. At least they understand what social liberalism does to family/civic institutions. [/quote]

No. Libertarians understand that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Okay, perhaps that’s the NRA, but the idea is the same. No fault divorce doesn’t cause people to get divorced; people’s fucked up attitudes cause divorce. Gay rights don’t cause people to turn gay; hell, I don’t know what causes people to turn gay. Mass availability of contraceptives doesn’t cause people to have casual sex…

I think you get the point.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What is a Libertarian? He’s the guy that stands before America with no further plan than:

“I’m going to work to tear down entitlements and welfare for good!”

“Ok…what about the poor and the working lower/middle class?”

“They’ll just have to not do stupid stuff, or starve”

Dabba wrote:
I just have to point out this mega-sized strawman here. Again, I’ve never EVER heard a libertarian say anything along these lines[/quote]

Me neither. Not outright. Well, perhaps from Randians.

However, that’s the only conclusion libertarians leave me with. You see, whenever a libertarian and myself agree on the burden of an oversized/overcentralized entitlement state, I bring up the social aspect. In times past a strong civic spirit could be found scattered throughout this nation. Little Platoons. An associational life, if you will. Whatever you want to call the concept, it was as an anti-centralizing mechanic. And it is the only thing that will usher in a realistic decentralization.

Committed families. Neighbors who knew each other. Community. Much less job competition with 3rd world labor (outsourced and illegally here) expecting mere 2nd world wages. These things are formed from a sense of belonging, time, and place. Those things in turn are born of a rather common culture; norms, morals, obligations, loyalty, limits, a sense of duty, and yes…even law. Furthermore, those things are best learned in an intact home, reinforced by a community with expectations of behavior for it’s denizens (they know your name!). Today? Hollowed out. Where we once softened the excesses of Market and State through the buffer of a civic life, today we’re left with the Market-State and Welfare-State.

So, I bring all this up to the libertarian, and you know what? I’ve never had one disagree. Ever. So, I ask them “What ever shall we do to rectify this situation?” They, “Dismantle the welfare state, of course.” Me, “How do you intend to sell that to a people who no longer have the safety net of family and community as our forefathers once did?” They, “By dismantling the welfare state.” Me, “No, look, how are you going to get the people to vote for your agenda. What will you tell the single mothers in poverty, with absentee fathers. A single mother who probably doesn’t even know her neighbors. In fact, is most likely suspicious of them for all the crime in her community? What will they feed their children?” They, “They can eat the welfare state?”

And it doesn’t even have to be an impoverished woman. It could be the middle class man who sees the possibility of a sudden health issue wiping him out financially. Or, any other such crises. Where are the civic safety nets?

And the libertarian agrees, again. “Yeah, yeah, that’s an issue. But somehow, someway, we’re still going to sell it to the American people. Down with the entitlement state! Once it’s down, the people will pick up the scattered family/community pieces out of necessity!” In short? The plan is to starve them into prudence and self-governance.

Oh, and as much as I hate it, the welfare state is helping the poor as we speak. Forgotten elderly, fatherless children, the ill, the displaced laborer…

What exactly do you libertarians plan to replace it with? Or, do you guys really think you’d be allowed to tear down the welfare state with nothing left in it’s place? It’ll never happen.

Ah, but I forget myself. The economically sensible thing to do is to abort the poor, talk up the legitimacy of elderly euthanasia (“Who wants to be a burden?! AmIright?”). All, while hoping that our wealth, and the advances of science-savior, will buy ourselves unimaginably long life through the vampiric creation-destruction of human life in a test tube before our own runs out. Like I said, monsters.

[quote]Dabba:

All I see are big spending so-called “conservatives” that usually happen to be socially conservative as well.[/quote]

They lost their senses and became Bush-Conservatives and Ron Paul-“Conservatives.”[/quote]

Sloth, this post makes you sound like one of those old people who talk about the good old days of the 1950s and “Leave it to Beaver.” You are very naive. Let me just take apart one of your arguments. I’ll do an easy one - this idea of knowing your neighbors. In the days of Leave it to Beaver, once a person started working for a company he or she was there for life. You worked at a company for 30-40 years, usually in the same location, then you retired. You died shortly thereafter. You bought a house and lived there until you died.

Today, the idea of working for one employer for life is laughable. Companies downsize and outsource all the time. Most people work for smaller companies with limited opportunities and benefits, so they change jobs. Some form their own businesses, which most would acknowledge is a great thing. If you still work for one of the mega multi-national companies, expect to be transferred to different job locations several times during your career. One of those transfers will likely be overseas. The workforce must remain mobile. It is natural that someone will not form strong ties with a neighbor they may not see in two years.

In addition to the need for mobility is time. In Leave it to Beaver world, you worked 9:00 to 5:00 and had weekends off. Today, if you work from 9:00 to 5:00 and have weekends off you have a part-time job. We have less time to socialize with people. Most people would rather spend their free time with families, which is a good thing, or with close friends that they’ve managed to remain in contact with over the years. This is also a good thing. I’d rather have a few close friends that I visit a few times a year and otherwise communicate with by email than try and strike up a friendship with a neighbor who may not even be here next month.

What changed? Well, in Leave it to Beaver days, the US was the world’s only economic superpower. The former USSR was a military superpower, but obviously its economy sucked. Europe was devastated after the war and needed to be rebuilt. Japan, too, was war torn. China was but a Third World country whose population road on bicycles, if they were lucky to have a bicycle. The US faced virtually no global competition. I hope I don’t need to educate you on today’s global economy.

Sure, we can try to somehow go back to Leave it to Beaver days. Companies could stop outsourcing work and return manufacturing to the US. Get ready to pay double what you pay now for a pair of shoes. Of course, most overseas operations exist in order to sell goods in that particular country - also known as exports. So closing down overseas operations will kill the export market. And we can pass laws that prevent companies from transferring employees and downsizing employees. After suffering a major economic depression, the US will re-emerge as a Third World nation. But hey, I’ll get to know my neighbors real well. We’ll all be living in boxes, and we’ll be able to talk to each other all day since we’ll all be unemployed. They’ll be lots of trust among neighbors since we’ll need to take turns standing guard against looters. Casual sex will disappear, too. As homeless people, we’ll all stink too bad to be able to even get close to one another.

There’s no way of going back to Leave it to Beaver. Anyone who understands economics knows this. Welcome to the future, Sloth.
[/quote]

I’ll try to make a suitable reply later. Some of what you’ve brought up, I actually raised (outsourcing) myself. So, this isn’t so much a refutation of my beliefs, but an admission that the libertarian dream was slain by Capitalism itself. So, as you say, there may very well not be a return of community civic life. However, in this you’ve provided a solid case for the continued existence of the welfare state. Because humanity on the whole wants it’s safety nets. And, if all capitalism will leave a man with is alienated, distant, consumer-strangers for neighbors…we’re going to look ouside of our communities for security. That’s just life.

Further, as multinational markets and companies get bigger, and bigger, and bigger, so will the governments and laws to regulate them. Welcome to the future…Global Market-Government. Where power and wealth will continue to centralize under the dominion of fewer and fewer hands both in the government and in the market. With wealth becoming increasinly concentrated, the welfare will have to get bigger and bigger. Think of it as paying for social stability. Trying to buy off a potential revolution, if you will.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
However, that’s the only conclusion libertarians leave me with. You see, whenever a libertarian and myself agree on the burden of an oversized/overcentralized entitlement state, I bring up the social aspect. In times past a strong civic spirit could be found scattered throughout this nation. Little Platoons. An associational life, if you will.[/quote]

…And which libertarians object to this exactly?

Sorry bud, but I think you’re dreaming if you really think that businessman and mom and pop were sitting around a campfire singing songs together in the past. Everyone acts in their own self-interest. What made this country great was that it catered to this self-interest in the least destructive way so far invented (by decentralizing power, so to speak). This doesn’t mean that people abandon their sense of community or values, it just means that they, more often than not, do what is best for them. What excesses of the market are you talking about?

Well first of all, you will explain in economic terms how the welfare state corrupts and creates a cycle of poverty itself. This has been done already many times and I think a lot of people actually understand this. It is not enough to simply adhere to the libertarian “non-aggression axiom”, I agree with that. The fact is, it’s just not enough for most people to say that government is a violent, coercive institution and for that reason alone it should be limited. Again, I think you miss the link between the growth of government as a CAUSE to the social ills that you speak of. It is not a black and white relationship. I don’t think one need to be super religious or socially conservative necessarily to be compassionate and help their neighbors, although I do think social conservatives are more likely to be compassionate.

Imagine how much money people would have to spare without the high taxes, inflation and waste that comes from government. I’m seeing charity as a good option here.

Only in Sloth fantasy-world. The welfare state creates an almost permanent class of underlings for which there is hardly an escape from. What is the solution to this? Why…capitalism of course! All the better if people want to help each other out and have a better sense of community (this tends to happens naturally when the government is limited), but when the ills of big government are left behind the free market itself will fill the void.

What do you mean by, “nothing left in it’s place”? You don’t think private charity works as a way to help the genuinely disadvantaged? The free market is left in it’s place. In any event, the opportunities that will arise in the welfare state’s absence will be enormous.

Abort the poor? What is your obsession with straw?

Look, the fact is is that however good of a social restraint and communitarian construct religion was at one point, it is NOT coming back. Sorry. For better or for worse, the human race has largely abandoned its strong religious roots and has developed a new mode of thought. And it is this exact moment which defines you as a conservative and me not. You look to the past and see the solutions as being just as applicable today as they were then. I look at the past and see the solutions FOR THAT TIME. There needs to be new solutions for today.

Gee, maybe that whole “They HAVE to be socially conservative to be able to stand the ravages of the market!” thing isn’t so strong of a link after all.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll try to make a suitable reply later. Some of what you’ve brought up, I actually raised (outsourcing) myself. So, this isn’t so much a refutation of my beliefs, but an admission that the libertarian dream was slain by Capitalism itself. So, as you say, there may very well not be a return of community civic life. However, in this you’ve provided a solid case for the continued existence of the welfare state. Because humanity on the whole wants it’s safety nets. And, if all capitalism will leave a man with is alienated, distant, consumer-strangers for neighbors…we’re going to look ouside of our communities for security. That’s just life.

Further, as multinational markets and companies get bigger, and bigger, and bigger, so will the governments and laws to regulate them. Welcome to the future…Global Market-Government. Where power and wealth will continue to centralize under the dominion of fewer and fewer hands both in the government and in the market. With wealth becoming increasinly concentrated, the welfare will have to get bigger and bigger. Think of it as paying for social stability. Trying to buy off a potential revolution, if you will.[/quote]

Why do you believe that capitalism is the reason why there are huge companies that dominate their fields? Why do you believe that consumerism is a product of Capitalism? Have you ever taken the time to go a bit more in-depth with economics then what you hear on the news?

You and MikeTheBear should sort it out first. He made a defense of big multi-nationals on the basis of “consumer welfare,” ie cheaper prices. So according to him I’m right, but it’s a benefit for to us. Now, you disagree with him on their very formation.

And, of course Capitalism creates consumerism. C’mon. I mean, marketing and advertising are there for a reason. Look at the average debt. We’re increasingly restless consumers instead of savers.

Neither of you has answered the question. What replaces the welfare state. “The free market!” isn’t an answer guys. Neither is charity since Dabba, at least, says the old social conservative values aren’t coming back. Which then leads me to put it like this–if those old ‘social conservative’ values aren’t coming back, duty and obligation to family and community, what exactly are you going to replace the welfare state with. The Free market isn’t an answer.

But anyways, I’ll wait for you two to work out the other issue first.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You and MikeTheBear should sort it out first. He made a defense of big multi-nationals on the basis of “consumer welfare,” ie cheaper prices. So according to him I’m right, but it’s a benefit for to us. Now, you disagree with him on their very formation.

And, of course Capitalism creates consumerism. C’mon. I mean, marketing and advertising are there for a reason. Look at the average debt. We’re increasingly restless consumers instead of savers.

Neither of you has answered the question. What replaces the welfare state. “The free market!” isn’t an answer guys. Neither is charity since Dabba, at least, says the old social conservative values aren’t coming back. Which then leads me to put it like this–if those old ‘social conservative’ values aren’t coming back, duty and obligation to family and community, what exactly are you going to replace the welfare state with. The Free market isn’t an answer.

But anyways, I’ll wait for you two to work out the other issue first.[/quote]

Larger family units?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You and MikeTheBear should sort it out first. He made a defense of big multi-nationals on the basis of “consumer welfare,” ie cheaper prices. So according to him I’m right, but it’s a benefit for to us. Now, you disagree with him on their very formation.

And, of course Capitalism creates consumerism. C’mon. I mean, marketing and advertising are there for a reason. Look at the average debt. We’re increasingly restless consumers instead of savers.[/quote]

I’m not sure that I necessarily defended big multi-nationals. What I said was that big multi-nationals are no longer the bastions of stability they were in the 1950s up through the '70s, even early '80s. Back then, you got a job with IBM you were there for life, and got a nice pension when you retired. Back then, everything in an office was made by IBM. IBM was so big it became a cultural icon. Remember HAL the computer from 2001: A Space Odyssey? “HAL” is one letter off from “IBM.” Funny, because I can’t remember the last time I used a piece of IBM equipment. During the mid-90s I still remember using the term “IBM-compatible” to differentiate between Apple computers and the rest of the computer world, but today, it’s just “PCs” and “Macs.” Other companies came in offering cheaper products that performed just as well, if not better, and Big Blue could not compete. To survive, Big Blue had to something to survive. Good-bye lifetime employment and a nice pension. I currently work for a big multi-national and my job was threatened by outsourcing, which I did not think was possible given what we do.

[quote]Neither of you has answered the question. What replaces the welfare state. “The free market!” isn’t an answer guys. Neither is charity since Dabba, at least, says the old social conservative values aren’t coming back. Which then leads me to put it like this–if those old ‘social conservative’ values aren’t coming back, duty and obligation to family and community, what exactly are you going to replace the welfare state with. The Free market isn’t an answer.

But anyways, I’ll wait for you two to work out the other issue first.[/quote]

The answer is that personal responsibility replaces welfare.

But again I’m not sure we’re on the same page. I never said that old ‘social conservative’ values would never or could never come back. What I said was that it makes no sense to try to force these values back through legislation. Want to make divorce more difficult? The result will be a decrease in marriages, not more. I actually think that the old ‘social conservative’ values are coming back to an extent, they just don’t look the same as they once did. The modern economy has made it a necessity for both parents to work in the majority of instances. Nevertheless, I see parents really making an effort to be there for their kids as much as they can. And it’s not always the mom. I work from home and have lots of flexibility, so I always volunteer at my daughter’s school. I’m not the only dad there. And there are lots of moms there, too - busy professional moms. I remember an instance where one mom had to go to work at 4:00 a.m. to deliver a baby, spent the entire day practicing OB/GYN, but still made an effort to attend an evening event at school despite being completely exhausted. No, the world won’t look like Leave it to Beaver with mom staying home and dad working, but I think people see the value of being active in their kids’ lives, and the effort is being made to come as close as possible to having one parent at home. It’s too bad that you only see the negative of one parent families who can’t be there for their kids. I see something completely different.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

The answer is that personal responsibility replaces welfare.

[/quote]

And, this just what, springs up overnight? What causes this personal responsibility?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You and MikeTheBear should sort it out first. He made a defense of big multi-nationals on the basis of “consumer welfare,” ie cheaper prices. So according to him I’m right, but it’s a benefit for to us. Now, you disagree with him on their very formation.[/quote]

I’m an individualist, I don’t care about anyone else’s opinion but my own! Seriously though, I didn’t even read his post. Will do after this.

People are self-interested naturally, but that is not consumerism. The real cause of the rampant consumerism we see is due to inflation. Why does inflation cause consumerism? Because the only way to combat rising prices is to run out to the store and buy something before the other guy does and the price goes up. Of course the main financier of consumerism is the government, who spends recklessly and in their desperation to make up the debt, print more money. There is also the attitude of entitlement that comes with the welfare state. It is my personal opinion that this contributes significantly to consumerism as well. This is due to peoples’ belief that, “We owe it to ourselves,” or simply an inflated sense of self-worth, so to speak.

If you study economics in more depth, you will learn that many things that you thought could only be explained socially or morally can, in fact, be explained in terms of their economic advantages.

That’s not what I said. I said RELIGION is not going to be the facilitator of compassion in the future. That doesn’t mean people can’t be compassionate or can’t rediscover “conservative” (I’m using that term very loosely) values again. That isn’t to say that I’m bashing religion or that I believe that it didn’t work. It did. But I’m trying to be realistic when I say that it isn’t on the comeback.

We have to find a way to convince the genuine, compassionate welfare statists that their method of compassion is fundamentally flawed and that the only way to do it is through voluntary cooperation. This has to be done by explaining the economic failure of welfare-ish policies.

Why isn’t the free market an answer? Why isn’t a system of voluntary exchange, protection of private property rights, and a system which coordinates the desires of millions everyday in a marketplace the answer to our problems? I thought you were a “decentralist”.

[quote]Dabba wrote:
If you study economics in more depth[/quote]

You keep saying this, but economis isn’t monolithic. Who to study? Keynes? The Austrians? Chicago School? Galbraith?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You and MikeTheBear should sort it out first. He made a defense of big multi-nationals on the basis of “consumer welfare,” ie cheaper prices. So according to him I’m right, but it’s a benefit for to us. Now, you disagree with him on their very formation.
[/quote]

I don’t disagree with their formation, IN A FREE MARKET. We do not have a free market, so there is good reason to be skeptical of business and to question whether these huge corporations could survive in a truly competitive market. If a huge multi-national was able to develop in a free market (and complete free trade) I would have no problem with it. In fact, if a company could get that large in a free market, I would applaud their ability to appeal to consumers so well.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:
If you study economics in more depth[/quote]

You keep saying this, but economis isn’t monolithic. Who to study? Keynes? The Austrians? Chicago School? Galbraith?[/quote]

I just get the feeling that you haven’t really taken a look at economics and that you’re completely forgetting that part of the equation. My personal recommendations would be the Austrians and the Chicago School as I’m sure you could have guessed. Of course, to truly get a firm grasp of it, you must study all of them to some degree. I didn’t mean to be offensive, for what it’s worth.

[quote]Dabba wrote:

Why isn’t the free market an answer? Why isn’t a system of voluntary exchange, protection of private property rights, and a system which coordinates the desires of millions everyday in a marketplace the answer to our problems? I thought you were a “decentralist”.

[/quote]

I am a decentralist. Hence, I’m not libertarian.

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:
If you study economics in more depth[/quote]

You keep saying this, but economis isn’t monolithic. Who to study? Keynes? The Austrians? Chicago School? Galbraith?[/quote]

I just get the feeling that you haven’t really taken a look at economics and that you’re completely forgetting that part of the equation. My personal recommendations would be the Austrians and the Chicago School as I’m sure you could have guessed. Of course, to truly get a firm grasp of it, you must study all of them to some degree. I didn’t mean to be offensive, for what it’s worth.[/quote]

Aha! And if in my studies I don’t favor the agruments of the Austrians or the Chicago School? What if I think the Mankiw’s or the Baseline Scenario guys make for better economic ‘science?’ Definitely not Austrians, these guys. Then, am I just picking the wrong economic schools?

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:
If you study economics in more depth[/quote]

You keep saying this, but economis isn’t monolithic. Who to study? Keynes? The Austrians? Chicago School? Galbraith?[/quote]

I just get the feeling that you haven’t really taken a look at economics and that you’re completely forgetting that part of the equation. My personal recommendations would be the Austrians and the Chicago School as I’m sure you could have guessed. Of course, to truly get a firm grasp of it, you must study all of them to some degree. I didn’t mean to be offensive, for what it’s worth.[/quote]

Aha! And if in my studies I don’t favor the agruments of the Austrians or the Chicago School? What if I think the Mankiw’s or the Baseline Scenario guys make for better economic ‘science?’ Definitely not Austrians, these guys. Then, am I just picking the wrong economics?[/quote]

Well, then we can have an economic argument! I don’t expect you to agree with everything I do. Then you can actually have a justifiable economic reason when you say, “What will fill the void that the free market leaves?”. Seriously, if you don’t favor a free market school, then you are a progressive I guess. I implore you to find out what makes sense to you.

But, I do favor a free-market. Of course, according to the anarcho-capitalist if even one law exists, well, then there is no free market. A free-market would have such a scenario as a man who is an expert food & drug inspector (or contracts out such a service), expert police officer and soldier (or contracts that out, too), enviromental protection expert (contract that out, how?), expert Judge (contracts these out as well, I guess), so on and so forth. So, unless one has a high level of expertise in everything, or a lot of money, oh well. These folks, the anarchists, would say anything else wasn’t a free market. I’m curious as to what this science has defined as the free-market. Does it cease to exist with 1 law? Perhaps, the mere existence of two regulations? How many regulations before one is a facist or marxist?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
enviromental protection expert (contract that out, how?)[/quote]

Property rights, my friend, property rights.

What does it matter how an anarchist defines it? Are you an anarchist? I’m not so it doesn’t really matter. All we have to know are the specific policies that exist (or don’t exist). We take it on a case by case basis and examine it. I have no desire to pinpoint exactly where a free market begins and ends. All I can do is generalize about what is a free market and what isn’t. A system of private property rights, low regulation, low taxes, absence of central planning, yada yada… Currently we don’t do any of those things, so how can we legitimately call what we have capitalism? We have a market, but it sure as hell ain’t free.

[quote]Dabba wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
enviromental protection expert (contract that out, how?)[/quote]

Property rights, my friend, property rights.

[/quote]

Eh? The only thing that protects my property rights from polluters is the government. The only thing that protects what can’t be owned (the air, the ocean) is government. The market can’t possibly do this. In ultimate capitalism land my Legal Company would send some industry giant (or, a number of them) a notice. “My client breaths your harmful pollutants! While we recognize that industry is essential, your pollutants are at far too high of level. This agency demands recompense for all your waste ourr client has ingested and inhaled. And demands that implement such and such measures to rectify the situation for the future.” Mind you, I’d probably be middle-class in ultra-capitalism land. Therefore, I probably couldn’t afford one of them expensive high-Legal/Justice system companies. So, the greatly superior Legal/Justice system company of the industry sends back it’s reply. “Sirs, regretfully we disagree. Our levels are appropriate, and as such your client will not compensated.” That would be the end of that. Maybe I could send my Private Military company (the 2 mercenaries and a jeep value pack) to try and collect from the company? Then again, I’d imagine their Private Military would have a heck of a lot more resources.

Yeah, sorry, but I don’t feel like getting into the whole anarchy discussion thing today. Besides, I’m not arguing for anarchy anyways.

[quote]Dabba wrote:
Yeah, sorry, but I don’t feel like getting into the whole anarchy discussion thing today. Besides, I’m not arguing for anarchy anyways.[/quote]

I guess my point was that at least for someone, neither one of us are truly free-market supporters. Kind of comes back to who decides when a free-market, stops being a free-market.