I asked what abut Game Theory undermines the Austrian school?[/quote]
Economics is not a game. There are no strategies to winning – in fact, it doesn;t even make sense to consider such a thing.
So long as all parties can freely enter into an exchange there is always a net gain by all parties. People only enter into a transaction because they perceive that they will be better off because of it. For example, if I though exchanging my $10 for a movie theater ticket would not make me better off I would not enter into the exchange.
[quote]Fiction wrote:
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]
True, but I think both sides of the issue have points of merit.
For example, there are certainly people who will not put in the effort required to succeed, or who will persist in making poor decisions with respect to their own futures.
At the same time, as I’ve been arguing for years, making it easier for those who do want to contribute to the economy do so, is good.
I believe that making it easier for people to become life-long law abiding taxpayers, instead of entitlement recipients, is better for the economy and the nation as a whole.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Economics is not a game. There are no strategies to winning – in fact, it doesn;t even make sense to consider such a thing.
So long as all parties can freely enter into an exchange there is always a net gain by all parties. People only enter into a transaction because they perceive that they will be better off because of it. For example, if I though exchanging my $10 for a movie theater ticket would not make me better off I would not enter into the exchange.[/quote]
If it’s not a game, how come we have the concept of cheating to contend with?
[quote]vroom wrote:
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.
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]
I do not discount it at all, but if you look at this case you see why government corruption is so frightening. They want to forbid other people by law to test more.
If a private company tries to pull that off it loses all of its customers and goes bankrupt. If government does it, it wants more money to fix the problem.
So an engineer, a scientist, and an economist were stuck on a deserted island. Their plane had crashed and all they had to eat was a crate full of canned foods. Unfortunately, they had no can opener. So they decide to try to brainstorm how to get at the food.
The engineer describes how they could use some old logs and rocks to construct a can-opener machine to get at the food. The scientist describes how he might be able to use some fungi and seaweed to concoct a type of acid that could perhaps get at the food without ruining it. Then it’s time for the economist…
[quote]vroom wrote:
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.
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]
This is something I agree with.
IF man made global warming is real, that is probably one of the few things that a government should play a role in.
[quote]orion wrote:
I do not discount it at all, but if you look at this case you see why government corruption is so frightening. They want to forbid other people by law to test more.
If a private company tries to pull that off it loses all of its customers and goes bankrupt. If government does it, it wants more money to fix the problem.
[/quote]
Well, I’m not arguing that government is saintly or that any particular policy is good.
Not allowing a company to voluntarily test all of their product seems criminal to me.
Honestly, I don’t comprehend how the government can LEGALLY stop someone from testing their own products for safety prior to deciding to sell it to consumers.
Perhaps they prefer the model that has a peanut company knowingly ship out suspect goods?
Somebody out there in policy land needs swift kick in the ass!
I asked what abut Game Theory undermines the Austrian school?
Economics is not a game. There are no strategies to winning – in fact, it doesn;t even make sense to consider such a thing.
So long as all parties can freely enter into an exchange there is always a net gain by all parties. People only enter into a transaction because they perceive that they will be better off because of it. For example, if I though exchanging my $10 for a movie theater ticket would not make me better off I would not enter into the exchange.[/quote]
Don’t make critiques when it is evident that you have no conception of what game theory entails.
[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]
Idiotic comment. How about the paint in your child’s school? How about the paint in your newly bought house? How about the paint in your working place? The issue is not whether you will or will not use it but if others in your surroundings will use it or not.
I know a bunch of chemicals are bad for you and I don’t use them, but I still can’t avoid them because I encounter those substances almost everywhere coming from other people using them. Being educated and health conscious I can easily avoid poisoning myself, but it’s harder to avoid being poisoned by morons, ignorants or greedy piece of shit even if you live in total autarcy (pollutants are spreading in the environment…)
[quote]Fiction wrote:
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.
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]
I guess it depend on what type of economics you are talking about. The economics I am interested in, it the economics that provides a basic cost-benefit analysis of public policy. Anyone that votes should understand economics at this level.
I have no interest in (at this point) micro economics. I’ve also listened to some lectures by Rothbard that went through the history of countries going of the gold standard and economic effect this had on each. Very specific and very detailed, but not necessary for average voter to understand.
Same on the great depression. Same as it would be of little benefit for most to read through the farm bill. I have and wouldn’t recommend it. It can be very simply explained and understood without knowing all the details.
Much like most understand the physics that govern their daily activities. At least to the point they can function in world governed by physics. We should all understant the economics that govern our world. Pretty simple at this level.
[quote]Fiction wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Debatable.
[quote]
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]
Absolutely disagree on infrastructure. Look up James J Hill and the Great Northern Railroad. More importantly, how they faired in comparison to the HEAVILY subsidised railroads. It is absolutely insane what gov’t gave to railroads in exchange for shitty track.
Most of the land in the Midwest was given to and sold by railroads. Most of the largest recipients failed. Burlington Northern Santa Fe is still chugging away and fairing quite well.
I have worked in Telecom for almost 10 years and have seen both publically funded and privately funded infrastructure. Telecom is heavily subsidised in some areas. There is a ridiculous amount of waste and poor decisions are most often made where heavily subsidised.
[quote]michezwick wrote:
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.
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]
If it weren’t for gov’t we would probably see a lot less high fructose corn surup in our foods. Real sugar would be much better choice, if we weren’t paying 10 times the world price.
Game theory basically proves that while everyone is acting in their own self-interest, it doesn’t necessarily mean there is a net gain.
Lets take advertising for example
There are two companies
If neither advertise, they both make 10Million Profit
If one advertises and the other doesn’t, the advertiser gets 20Million profit and the one who doesn’t gets 0 Million Profit
If they both advertise, they both get 5Million profit.
By definition of self interest (that is, each company is better off regardless of the other, if they advertise), both companies will decide to advertise (assuming no collusion), thus spending money INEFFICIENTLY, yet still in self-interest. Austrian School assumes a perfect free market, game theory proves otherwise
Honestly, I don’t comprehend how the government can LEGALLY stop someone from testing their own products for safety prior to deciding to sell it to consumers.
[/quote]
Well, this is the catch-22 with government. One of the reasons it can is because it’s been allowed to become so big and powerful (it is the law, unless you have tons of money to fight it), as people allow it to do more and of their thinking, educating, and decision making for them.
[quote]dhickey 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.
If it weren’t for gov’t we would probably see a lot less high fructose corn surup in our foods. Real sugar would be much better choice, if we weren’t paying 10 times the world price.[/quote]
I hope i’m not going too off topic, but is there anything you think government DOES do well–even with regards to the economy?
I have only been active on this forum a short time, but it seems there are a lot of guys (and I don’t mean this as a jab) who reflexively answer “less government” and “let the market work” as the solution to all problems. But to me it seems there should be a role at least in some cases.
Energy is one such case. If you consider that our national security is threatened because of all the oil we buy from countries in the world’s least stable region (the middle east), or if you’re one of the people who listens to 97% of climatologists who believe CO2 emissions are connected to global warming then it seems like government interference in the market is necessary.
[quote]michezwick wrote:
dhickey 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.
If it weren’t for gov’t we would probably see a lot less high fructose corn surup in our foods. Real sugar would be much better choice, if we weren’t paying 10 times the world price.
I hope i’m not going too off topic, but is there anything you think government DOES do well–even with regards to the economy?
I have only been active on this forum a short time, but it seems there are a lot of guys (and I don’t mean this as a jab) who reflexively answer “less government” and “let the market work” as the solution to all problems. But to me it seems there should be a role at least in some cases.
[/quote]
I am not taking this as a jab. This is exactly what I beleive. Less gov’t is a great solution to many problems. I will say that I am a bit torn on just how far to cut. There are an incredible problems with the FDA. I can’t honestly tell you whether they save more lives or cost more lives. Same with the SEC, USDA, FAA etc. Probably more harm than good. I don’t think we really have to explore those as near term soluitions.
Cutting spending, cutting taxes or a flat tax, eliminating protectionism would all be a really good start. This would provide the best band for the buck. Once people see that less gov’t is good gov’t we can start look at other programs to cut or alter.
It’s gov’t policy that keeps us dependant on foreign oil. If we were one of many countries that have no oil, this would not be incredibly bad. Being that we do have oil we could use to expand our market, but chose not to use it, is just plain silly.
It’s gov’t policy that created rolling blackouts in CA. I would say that energy is just way too important to put in the hands of gov’t. We can’t afford for them to fuck it up. We’ll end up with things like heavy ethenol subsidies coupled with bans on importing ethenol.
The comment about man made CO2 and global warming just ensured you will not be taken seriously here.
