[quote]vroom wrote:
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.
Oh, so you’ve stopped buying products that produce CO2 gas then?
[/quote]
Why would I?
Because Thatcher was looking for a way to weaken the miners unions in the 80s?
Or because our sins tend to heat up even Mars and Venus?
Once you have seen the concept of original sin a few times, it tends to get old.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Human life will never be perfectly efficient.[/quote]
Nor would I argue such a thing.
[quote]
In large groups we can achieve the benefits of specialization, but then we get inefficiencies due to conflict between members of the populace.[/quote]
Yes, I agree conflicts happen. What I argue is not that what I propose will keep conflicts from happening but rather there is a better way to deal with conflict. The free market is such a way to deal with conflict. Look at all the people the get along now that have historically always been at war with each other. When people are free to choose and exchange civilization is much better off.
We can agree to disagree about the role government should or should not play in human affairs but the one thing we cannot disagree on is the role a market economy plays on social progress.
[quote]
Societal evolution has lead to democracy…[/quote]
Democracy is not a product “social evolution”; in fact, it is merely a product of dogmatic idealism. If you are told something enough you will eventually come to believe it. Ideas play a huge role in social progress as long as they are the correct ideas. The Marxists believed “social evolution” brought them Marxism – but to believe that it leads to human progress is downright incorrect. Only technological innovation can lead to social progress. Only a society of free people can efficiently advance technology.
[quote]
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]
I can tell you that as long as government has a say there will be no technology that is produced that will make mankind completely independent of its influence.
We have a tool at our fingertips that is an example. I await stricter regulation of the internet because darned if we should have access to information that the government doesn’t approve of.
[quote]vroom wrote:
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.
LOL. How many different ideologies do I need to argue with this morning?[/quote]
Just one.
I can hardly apologize for the fact that we have 200 years of thought to work with.
[quote]orion wrote:
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]
I’m not arguing that government is doing a good job.
However, I think you discount the notion of corruption in the business world because you are focused on corruption in government.
[quote]orion wrote:
Why would I?
Because Thatcher was looking for a way to weaken the miners unions in the 80s?
Or because our sins tend to heat up even Mars and Venus?
Once you have seen the concept of original sin a few times, it tends to get old.[/quote]
I should have put a smiley on it. Stop being an asshole. He suggested that if a scientist said lead paint was dangerous he’d stop buying it.
There are plenty of scientists discussing global warming as a problem… so why hasn’t he done something about it yet?
Either way, a large percentage of society is wrong, and that’s my point.
[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
Why would I?
Because Thatcher was looking for a way to weaken the miners unions in the 80s?
Or because our sins tend to heat up even Mars and Venus?
Once you have seen the concept of original sin a few times, it tends to get old.
I should have put a smiley on it. Stop being an asshole. He suggested that if a scientist said lead paint was dangerous he’d stop buying it.
There are plenty of scientists discussing global warming as a problem… so why hasn’t he done something about it yet?
Either way, a large percentage of society is wrong, and that’s my point.[/quote]
Bad example for you. You just pointed out the harm gov’t can do. Another made-up environmental scare. Bigger than global cooling, acid rain, and living under power lines put together.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Bad example for you. You just pointed out the harm gov’t can do. Another made-up environmental scare. Bigger than global cooling, acid rain, and living under power lines put together.
[/quote]
It’s not a bad example at all.
The fact you choose not to see is that the market is not the vehicle for deciding whether or not a policy is appropriate. I’m not arguing about the appropriateness of any particular policy.
By the way, from a country that lost a lot of lakes (or at least the fish in them) to acid rain, I’m not sure how this qualifies as a made up environmental issue.
Free markets is a good guideline to strive towards, but it’s not suitable as an overriding governing ideology.
[quote]orion wrote:
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]
Lol, yeah. Our politicians, promising goodies with other people’s money if only we’d vote for them, definitely don’t have the high ground. Nothing attractive about such a democracy. It’s sad, too. Our founders did try to warn us about this.
[quote]vroom wrote:
No, it attempts to describe what perfectly rational humans with perfect information would do if they always made the appropriate decisions as defined by math.
Fortunately, this is sometimes a good approximation. Unfortunately, at times people simply do not act in this manner at all.[/quote]
The reason that economics works is not because it assumes all people are rational all the time, it works because taking the long view…successful strategies are copied and implemented. If they are not, the agents using them will ultimately fail because they will not be as successful as their counterparts.
Given a choice between something $10 and $20 of the same value, a person will buy the $20 item because buying overly expensive things will undermine his chance for success.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
When it comes to economics, people are quite predictable. Economics if very simple. Logic and reason are required, but not much more than that.[/quote]
I think this is a bit simplistic. Yes, broad understanding of basic economic concepts are rather simple, but many ideas requires a level of sophistcation beyond the ken of average people.
Saying economics is simple is a disrespect to economics. It’s like saying physics is simple. It is…once you have studied all of the ideas for years and done rigorous lab work.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The question you need to answer is whether there are ever policy objectives that should be attempted. Is it appropriate for the government to declare war, build roads, advance research or do other tasks? Should there be rules of society that prevent businesses from releasing poisons into drinking water? Should there be police?[/quote]
These are not economic questions, they are:
Questions of value that need to be established by the culture and community of the society, and
Questions of policy on how to best implement said values.
They may involve elements of economics, but they are not strictly economic questions.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Economic inquiry has no reference to mathematics.[/quote]
Uh…have you ever taken an econ class?
Yes, and you have the free will to kick your boss in the head on money and take a poop on his head. Will you? I suspect not, but not because you don’t want to. Because you understand, at least to a degree, the consequences that action would have and you are not willing to pay the cost for the reward.
They fact that the vast majority of people operate in the same way is why economics can be operationalized.
I think people are getting away from the topic at hand. Economics does not equal social system. The two are distinct.
Economics provides a tool that can be utilized in order to achieve a hypothetical imperative, i.e. if I want X, the best way to do it is Y.
Economics does not define the good life or anything of the sort.
How about we rest on this notion…economics defines how the market operates. With this knowledge, we should work WITH the market rather than against it.
The free market is known to be a poor producer of a number of things, for instance, the free market is a very poor producer of pure scientific research, because pure science rarely has clear profit margins.
The free market also has difficulty building infrastructure like railways and the like because most independent businesses cannot afford to build something like that. However, this infrastructure can significantly aid in development.
Hopefully everyone can agree on this point.
[quote]Fiction wrote:
These are not economic questions, they are:
Questions of value that need to be established by the culture and community of the society, and
Questions of policy on how to best implement said values.
They may involve elements of economics, but they are not strictly economic questions.[/quote]
Exactly.
The “free market” is not the only factor to consider… or at least that’s a basic tenet of what I’ve been trying to argue today.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Exactly.
The “free market” is not the only factor to consider… or at least that’s a basic tenet of what I’ve been trying to argue today.[/quote]
Unfortunately people in our society (because of how the govt is structured) do not have values like personal responsibility.
People see values as results oriented, i.e. A number of people have jobs or B number of people have healthcare, not process oriented, i.e. X group is hardworking and Y is not, so X group has success and Y does not.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Exactly.
The “free market” is not the only factor to consider… or at least that’s a basic tenet of what I’ve been trying to argue today.[/quote]
Unfortunately people in our society (because of how the govt is structured) do not have values like personal responsibility.
People see values as results oriented, i.e. A number of people have jobs or B number of people have healthcare, not process oriented, i.e. X group is hardworking and Y is not, so X group has success and Y does not.
[quote]orion wrote:
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]
This seems less like a problem of too much government and more like a problem of poorly run government. After all if it weren’t for government regulation, the ground beef you eat probably wouldn’t only contain beef—if you know what I mean.
[quote]michezwick wrote:
This seems less like a problem of too much government and more like a problem of poorly run government. After all if it weren’t for government regulation, the ground beef you eat probably wouldn’t only contain beef—if you know what I mean.[/quote]
Its both. An excessively large government has the power to move on these sorts of irrational actions.
Don’t confuse Bush with a free marketer though, because he is anything but.
Game Theory pretty much proves the Austrian school wrong
[quote]shookers wrote:
Game Theory pretty much proves the Austrian school wrong[/quote]
Do tell.
[quote]shookers wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Theory[/quote]
I asked what abut Game Theory undermines the Austrian school?
[quote]Fiction wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Economic inquiry has no reference to mathematics.
Uh…have you ever taken an econ class?
[/quote]
Yes, which is why I can say math fails at predicting human action.