[quote]dhickey wrote:
Complex but very predictable when it comes to economics. What events do you think cannot be explained by economics?
[/quote]
You think the moon launch was predicted by economics?
What you are describing is the somewhat predictable results of various events… not the prediction of events, technology inventions, or just plain natural events outside the scope of human decision making.
[quote]vroom wrote:
There is more to life than a free market…
[/quote]
This is a strawman argument.
Without a free market goods and services would not exist above what some higher authority decided was necessary to produce. Everything would have to be produced by the dictate of Der Fuhrer – and only by taking away from productive citizens. In this regard the free market is more efficient because it relies on the information provided by prices and profit to direct productivity whereas government is incapable of calculating this because it only takes by force what it deems necessary.
The government cannot answer the question of whether or not consumers are satisfied nor do they have to.
Vroom, economics isn’t just about money. It includes feelings, emotions, and takes into account human presence.
So, yes, I think economics does clearly explain why we went to the moon. There was a demand that we ease the people’s fears and bring them a sense of nationalism. The government supplied us a big ass rocket.
See?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Vroom, economics isn’t just about money. It includes feelings, emotions, and takes into account human presence.
So, yes, I think economics does clearly explain why we went to the moon. There was a demand that we ease the people’s fears and bring them a sense of nationalism. The government supplied us a big ass rocket.
See?[/quote]
LOL. Look, it explains it, after the fact, but it does not PREDICT it.
This is an important distinction.
[quote]vroom wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The Human Action axiom is one of those ideas I believe very strongly in; it leads to some very profound judgments when rigorously analyzed.
Did you guys find a new religion recently?
The idea that people act to maximize their “utility” in some way is not new.[/quote]
No, it isn’t new but the method of analysis that utilizes it practically is.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is a strawman argument.[/quote]
I don’t believe so. You attempt to describe the free market as the be all end all so I’m pointing out it is merely a potential component in the be all end all.
Hold on there Tex. Do you think there is only one market and this it in its entirety must be free of all regulation?
Heck, there can’t even be an efficient market unless there are some rules in place to engender a little bit of mutual trust between participants.
There are situations that a free market will not address on it’s own. For example, if global warming is an significant issue, we could be causing a calamity that nobody is aware of.
I’m not interested in whether or not this is so, just that the market can be blindsided by issues. The free market is just an efficient exchange mechanism. It’s an efficient decision process when the participants are aware of all the issues involved.
Hidden issues are problematic. Which ones they are can be left to political argument…
I don’t think anyone is trying to argue that free markets are inefficient or that they are bad. They are the most efficient means we have discovered for making decisions amongst known or believed information.
Unfortunately, therein lies it’s weaknesses. It isn’t any more perfect than it’s participants.
I haven’t proposed that the government should.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You think the moon launch was predicted by economics?
[/quote]
Economics cannot predict outside of the realm of human action.
It is not the moon launch that needed to be predicted but rather what are the over all consequences of diverting resources from the private sector to do achieve it?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Economics cannot predict outside of the realm of human action.
It is not the moon launch that needed to be predicted but rather what are the over all consequences of diverting resources from the private sector to do achieve it?[/quote]
No, you don’t get off that easily. I’ve been beaten with the stick of letting the free market make ALL of the decisions all morning.
Economics and the free market do not make ALL decisions. They instruct us as to how and why people react to various situations.
So, yes, the so-called consequences.
Now, let’s say nobody realizes that lead paint is bad for people. It’s shiny, looks nice, provides a lot of utility to the consumer. Free markets supply this crap by the bucket load and everyone is happy.
Woohoo, free markets rock!
The problem is, some smart-ass scientist comes along and finds out how damaging lead paint can be. Hmm. What to do. The scientist, and later some government officials, have information the market does not.
Should the market be left to operate “efficiently” while oblivious to this issue or should regulation be enacted that forces the market away from poisoning the populace with lead?
This is the essence of conflict between free markets and policy decisions. Neither one trumps the other. Neither one is perfect.
In fact, I agree, often governments suck big time ass. However, they do act on information or policy that the free market is not yet taking into account.
Strive for good government.
[quote]vroom wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is a strawman argument.
I don’t believe so. You attempt to describe the free market as the be all end all so I’m pointing out it is merely a potential component in the be all end all.[/quote]
No, I do not believe the market is the be-all-end-all any more than I believe the gravitational field is the be-all-end-all. The market is an abstract concept that provides information about reality. There is no getting around that. Economic analysis just attempts to explain the consequences of a free market as well as an unfree market. Personally, I prefer a free one because I understand the complexity of making correct decisions.
Well the market is not some thing that can be touched or seen. It is the field of human interaction and there are various ways it can be abstracted and divided.
That said, I do not like regulation that does not come from the market itself; for example, I trust the IEEE community to regulate internet protocols and standards; I trust UFL to regulate industrial standards, etc.
If these agency were not efficient at what they do they would not exist in the free market. We cannot say the same of government because as you have pointed out in an other thread, we cannot opt out of their monopoly on coercion.
[quote]vroom wrote:
dhickey wrote:
vroom wrote:
The question you need to answer is whether there are ever policy objectives that should be attempted.
Arbitrary policy or policy to buy political favor? Policy that doesn’t even attemp to weigh cost benefit? I would say no.
Fuck off. If you want to pretend to discuss the issue at least answer a reasonable question.
[/quote]
It was too broad of question. Policy is good if it is good policy. I don’t what else to say. If you really care what I think of a specific policy, just ask.
You cannot have an efficient market with little freedom. Impossible on a large scale.
A free market is better for the nation as a whole. 99.999999% of us will be better off. A centrally planned economy always has and always will do more harm than good. I am not arguing any more than this.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If these agency were not efficient at what they do they would not exist in the free market. We cannot say the same of government because as you have pointed out in an other thread, we cannot opt out of their monopoly on coercion.
[/quote]
Human life will never be perfectly efficient.
In large groups we can achieve the benefits of specialization, but then we get inefficiencies due to conflict between members of the populace.
Societal evolution has lead to democracy… not anarchy. Perhaps with the advent of technology to allow one person to have a mini-factory that can supply all goods we can escape the need for large groups of society to cooperate. Either that, or when we progress to the point of being able to be self-sufficient in space.
Until then… we cannot opt out of government because we rely on the products of that government’s society.
[quote]vroom wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Complex but very predictable when it comes to economics. What events do you think cannot be explained by economics?
You think the moon launch was predicted by economics?
What you are describing is the somewhat predictable results of various events… not the prediction of events, technology inventions, or just plain natural events outside the scope of human decision making.[/quote]
I have lost a sense of where you are going on this thread. Economics does not predict specific innovations, but certainly predicts innovation.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
It was too broad of question. Policy is good if it is good policy. I don’t what else to say. If you really care what I think of a specific policy, just ask.[/quote]
It’s not too broad a question. So, fine, you admit that policy has a role to play in human society. Hence, you reluctantly admit that at times things will have an impact on a free market.
[quote]You cannot have an efficient market with little freedom. Impossible on a large scale.
A free market is better for the nation as a whole. 99.999999% of us will be better off. A centrally planned economy always has and always will do more harm than good. I am not arguing any more than this.[/quote]
Oh, really? How much freedom is required? Do you mean you can’t have a free market with taxation?
Nobody is arguing for a centrally planned economy! An economy is not centrally planned because there are some policy initiatives in place!!!
[quote]vroom wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Economics cannot predict outside of the realm of human action.
It is not the moon launch that needed to be predicted but rather what are the over all consequences of diverting resources from the private sector to do achieve it?
No, you don’t get off that easily. I’ve been beaten with the stick of letting the free market make ALL of the decisions all morning.
Economics and the free market do not make ALL decisions. They instruct us as to how and why people react to various situations.
So, yes, the so-called consequences.
Now, let’s say nobody realizes that lead paint is bad for people. It’s shiny, looks nice, provides a lot of utility to the consumer. Free markets supply this crap by the bucket load and everyone is happy.
Woohoo, free markets rock!
The problem is, some smart-ass scientist comes along and finds out how damaging lead paint can be. Hmm. What to do. The scientist, and later some government officials, have information the market does not.
Should the market be left to operate “efficiently” while oblivious to this issue or should regulation be enacted that forces the market away from poisoning the populace with lead?
This is the essence of conflict between free markets and policy decisions. Neither one trumps the other. Neither one is perfect.
In fact, I agree, often governments suck big time ass. However, they do act on information or policy that the free market is not yet taking into account.
Strive for good government.[/quote]
We didn’t need gov’t to ban lead paint. If the smart ass scientist tells me it’s bad to injest lead pain, I won’t use it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Nobody is arguing for a centrally planned economy! An economy is not centrally planned because there are some policy initiatives in place!!![/quote]
That depends on how many policies there are.
Sooner or later you approach a Sowjet style economy, see my thread about the UK.
There is no stopping at a few sensible policies, that would still be theft btw, once you start the process everyone will want to have a piece of the pie.
So, either you let go of the concept of democracy or redistribution, because one will invariably ruin the other.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
We didn’t need gov’t to ban lead paint. If the smart ass scientist tells me it’s bad to injest lead pain, I won’t use it.[/quote]
Oh, so you’ve stopped buying products that produce CO2 gas then?
Look, enough with the flippant comments. It’s an example of where the market, or it’s participants, don’t have the relevant information. It happens. If you don’t like the lead paint example – find another.
Additionally, if you don’t ban lead paint, you’ll find companies producing it from time to time, perhaps without even making anyone aware that they are. It would require a regulation to force people to even reveal the ingredients.
You’d never know if you were using it or not… so sorry you and your family suffered brain damage.
Regulation does not equate to a centrally planned economy. There are at times regulations, or policy decisions, which do make sense. This does not damage the market nor does it cause a net loss – assuming a civilized society in the first place.
[quote]orion wrote:
So, either you let go of the concept of democracy or redistribution, because one will invariably ruin the other.
[/quote]
But, redistribution is the legal way to buy votes!
[quote]dhickey wrote:
vroom wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Economics cannot predict outside of the realm of human action.
It is not the moon launch that needed to be predicted but rather what are the over all consequences of diverting resources from the private sector to do achieve it?
No, you don’t get off that easily. I’ve been beaten with the stick of letting the free market make ALL of the decisions all morning.
Economics and the free market do not make ALL decisions. They instruct us as to how and why people react to various situations.
So, yes, the so-called consequences.
Now, let’s say nobody realizes that lead paint is bad for people. It’s shiny, looks nice, provides a lot of utility to the consumer. Free markets supply this crap by the bucket load and everyone is happy.
Woohoo, free markets rock!
The problem is, some smart-ass scientist comes along and finds out how damaging lead paint can be. Hmm. What to do. The scientist, and later some government officials, have information the market does not.
Should the market be left to operate “efficiently” while oblivious to this issue or should regulation be enacted that forces the market away from poisoning the populace with lead?
This is the essence of conflict between free markets and policy decisions. Neither one trumps the other. Neither one is perfect.
In fact, I agree, often governments suck big time ass. However, they do act on information or policy that the free market is not yet taking into account.
Strive for good government.
We didn’t need gov’t to ban lead paint. If the smart ass scientist tells me it’s bad to injest lead pain, I won’t use it.[/quote]
Other companies might even gain market share by offering lead free products!
If a government has certain standards though, they might even try to stop you if you try to have a higher standard:
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture tests fewer than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. A beef producer in Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows.
Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well.
Oh, glorious government in action, where would we be without it?
Well, there might be safe beef for a start.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
So, either you let go of the concept of democracy or redistribution, because one will invariably ruin the other.
But, redistribution is the legal way to buy votes![/quote]
And did you notice with what disdain our politicians speak of countries where leaders buy other peoples votes with their own money, before the elections?
That always has me rolling on the floor.
[quote]orion wrote:
That depends on how many policies there are.
Sooner or later you approach a Sowjet style economy, see my thread about the UK.
There is no stopping at a few sensible policies, that would still be theft btw, once you start the process everyone will want to have a piece of the pie.
So, either you let go of the concept of democracy or redistribution, because one will invariably ruin the other.
[/quote]
LOL. How many different ideologies do I need to argue with this morning?