• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory

Is Metropolis Mentork's sock puppet?

Mentork said:
Because if the government doesn't do it [teach people under the poverty line to read] then nobody else will.
Click to expand...

This is absurd.

Metropolis said:
We are libertarians. We don't care what other people do. As long as it is not hindering our body/life, then we are fine. If little Martha wants to whore herself out, go for it!
Click to expand...

This is worse than absurd - it is sick.

Mentork said:
i challenge you to a Reverse Debate, with the topic "should America turn socialist".

I will argue for capitalism, and you will argue for socialism.

I'll even let you pick who goes first.

Do you accept?
Click to expand...

Hmm... Given Mentork's interest in reverse debates, has it occurred to anyone that he is holding one with himself right now? Perhaps Metropolis is a sock puppet created to represent a grotesque caricature of extreme libertarianism. Perhaps Mentork, unable to respond to the OP about GE Theory, needed an easy whipping boy to argue with instead.

Think about it: Would anybody in their right mind seriously endorse parents whoring their 12-year-old daughter out, provided only that she says that she "wants" to do it? That is quite insane.

Also, if Metropolis is really a libertarian, how do you account for this:

Metropolis said:
Socialism is a nice idea, however, it can only work for a small community. You would need something with a small population in order to have a fully functionable system. Which is where Capitalism has it's strong-hold, and dominance - It works best when there are more people.
Click to expand...

No real libertarian would say that. Of course, socialism has never worked on any scale. During the sixties, there were lots of communes set up by a dozen or so hippies and they all failed miserably. Every true libertarian knows this.

Has anybody noticed that my original post, Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory, has been completely sidetracked by the pasting in of a 100-year-old photo and then by endless debates between Mentork and Metropolis about child labor? Maybe that was the plan.

Let's see if we can get this thread back on track. Any comments contrasting GE Theory to my Axiomatic Economics?
 
If Drug dealers became legal businesses, and listed the risks to the potential buyers - What would you say?
Click to expand...

I'd say the same thing as I've been saying...

...nor is the child capable of making that determination for themself.

Even if drugs were legalized and regulated a child still does not possess the ability to engage in informed consent, as such their "awareness" of the potential risks is negligible - much the same as it is for alcohol or cigarettes. Why such a simplistic, well-established concept is so hard for you to grasp is beyond me.
 
We've ran around this circle for the past four pages.

I say one thing - I get called a nihilistic anarchist. I say another, and then I am called an untrue libertarian. I say something else, and I am automatically an extreme libertarian.

I simply feel that children are capable of way more than you guys think they are. Sure, some are vulnerable and weak - But, others are strong headed and know what they need/want to do. They are just like adults.

And, to sit here and base my morals, and what I think is right and to throw it into a law - That's not cool, nor is that what I stand for. For instance, I hate any form of fat. I think it's absolutely disgusting. And, I will starve myself to not get fat. However, that does not translate to whether or not obesity should be illegal and fat-camps should be set up. Not at all. I believe that we should be free to express ourselves, free to be ourselves, and free of being held back. If Tim wants to get fat, why should I care? He's not hurting me. He's hurting himself. And, if I don't eat for three days, why should you care? Everyone is responsible for their actions and should be ready to accept whatever consequence that they may face.

Responsibility. Independence. Liberty.

And, if that's not Libertarian - Then, I am afraid I have wasted quite a few years finding a political label I feel comfortable enough in.
 
Re: Is Metropolis Mentork's sock puppet?

Onion Eater said:
Hmm... Given Mentork's interest in reverse debates, has it occurred to anyone that he is holding one with himself right now?
Click to expand...

Forum Rules said:
12. Multiple accounts of the same user are forbidden.
Click to expand...

Here

Are you accusing me of braking forum rules?
 
We've ran around this circle for the past four pages.

I say one thing - I get called a nihilistic anarchist. I say another, and then I am called an untrue libertarian. I say something else, and I am automatically an extreme libertarian.

I simply feel that children are capable of way more than you guys think they are. Sure, some are vulnerable and weak - But, others are strong headed and know what they need/want to do. They are just like adults.

And, to sit here and base my morals, and what I think is right and to throw it into a law - That's not cool, nor is that what I stand for. For instance, I hate any form of fat. I think it's absolutely disgusting. And, I will starve myself to not get fat. However, that does not translate to whether or not obesity should be illegal and fat-camps should be set up. Not at all. I believe that we should be free to express ourselves, free to be ourselves, and free of being held back. If Tim wants to get fat, why should I care? He's not hurting me. He's hurting himself. And, if I don't eat for three days, why should you care? Everyone is responsible for their actions and should be ready to accept whatever consequence that they may face.

Responsibility. Independence. Liberty.

And, if that's not Libertarian - Then, I am afraid I have wasted quite a few years finding a political label I feel comfortable enough in.
Click to expand...

You are creating a false dichotomy between protecting children and liberty - the two are not mutually exclusive nor is it accurate to claim that children are just like adults. They lack the experience and judgment necessary to make competent life decisions just as they lack the will power to avoid being coerced, as such we have a moral obligation to safeguard them from dangerous and illicit activities.

There are certain ideas and principles which should be self-evident to anyone with half a brain, this happens to be one of them. The problem with arguing against someone who refuses to accept an axiom is that it didn't require any sort of logic to arrive at said axiom in the first place, therefore making it quite difficult to effectly explain the why of your position when one should only need to explain the what. I would urge you in the strongest possible terms that it's possible to maintain your libertarian inclinations without allowing children the latitude to make determinations which they cannot effectively comprehend. Quit while your behind...
 
Ethereal said:
You are creating a false dichotomy between protecting children and liberty - the two are not mutually exclusive nor is it accurate to claim that children are just like adults. They lack the experience and judgment necessary to make competent life decisions just as they lack the will power to avoid being coerced, as such we have a moral obligation to safeguard them from dangerous and illicit activities.

There are certain ideas and principles which should be self-evident to anyone with half a brain, this happens to be one of them. The problem with arguing against someone who refuses to accept an axiom is that it didn't require any sort of logic to arrive at said axiom in the first place, therefore making it quite difficult to effectly explain the why of your position when one should only need to explain the what. I would urge you in the strongest possible terms that it's possible to maintain your libertarian inclinations without allowing children the latitude to make determinations which they cannot effectively comprehend. Quit while your behind...
Click to expand...

Thinking it over - I do see the logic in not allowing anyone under the age of 13 to do as they want. However, I am still pretty firm on children (well teens) over the age of 13 to make decisions for themselves.

I am 16 years old - I have ran my own business for two years, and, in the stages of creating another one. I have taken on the responsibility of having staff members, having deadlines, - having to be professional 100% of the time. And, to have the government tell me that I am not old enough to make decisions, is just a kick in the face. I've made it farther than some adults have and I still get treated like I am 5. Pathetic.
 
Thinking it over - I do see the logic in not allowing anyone under the age of 13 to do as they want. However, I am still pretty firm on children (well teens) over the age of 13 to make decisions for themselves.

I am 16 years old - I have ran my own business for two years, and, in the stages of creating another one. I have taken on the responsibility of having staff members, having deadlines, - having to be professional 100% of the time. And, to have the government tell me that I am not old enough to make decisions, is just a kick in the face. I've made it farther than some adults have and I still get treated like I am 5. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Thus is the nature of our society. In the interests of efficiency we must establish standards. Sometimes standards can be admittedly arbitrary but we do not possess the framework to deal with things of this sort in a case by case nature. Now that you have revealed your age to me I feel less disturbed by your position (I thought you were a paedophile or something) but the fact remains that a just society requires laws to function properly and sometimes these laws can and do marginalize certain people. For instance, I would trust Jeff Gordon to break the speed limit without crashing his car but does this mean we should develope concurrent traffic laws for the Jeff Gordons of the world or do away with traffic laws entirely? Just remember that pragmatism does not have to preclude principle.
 
Scucca said:
"As a tool of capitalist hegemony the doctrine of general equilibrium is very useful. It assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible, because the market is part of human nature and the most efficient form of economic organisation. The theory, therefore, has a role in legitimising, capitalist hegemony" (Reglar).
Click to expand...

Scucca said:
"This article evaluates the performance of contemporary capitalism relative to that of a hypothetical alternative designated ‘profit-oriented market socialism.’ In most respects, profit-oriented market socialism would closely mimic contemporary market capitalism. The major difference would be that most profits and interest generated by the operations of publicly-owned business enterprises would be distributed to the general public as a social dividend proportional to household wage and salary income rather than in proportion to household financial assets. The basis of the comparison is a small-scale but comprehensive computable general equilibrium model" (Yunker, 2007).

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have one:

You have approvingly quoted from Reglar and Yunker in different threads. But these two men seem to have very opposite views of GE Theory. The former thinks that it "assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible." The latter sees it as the basis for a central planner to "mimic contemporary market capitalism" while retaining for himself the authority to distribute the social dividend - hardly a "little role in economic life."

How do you reconcile these two views?

Onion Eater said:
Cristobal Young writes:

“General equilibrium theory – the mathematical analysis of a market economy as a whole – has its roots in the late 19th century works of Leon Walras and Vilfredo Pareto… However, the project failed to attract much following and soon faded into dormancy.

“It was the end of the Great Depression, ironically, that saw a tremendous revival of the General Equilibrium (GE)/Welfare economics project. In the US, a loose grouping of devout socialists were busy detailing the elegance of the market equilibrium. The leaders of the GE revival – Oskar Lange, Abba Lerner and Abram Bergson – were cutting-edge mathematical economists and true believers in Soviet-style central planning…

“The GE framework, given sufficient mathematical complexity, is actually a grand narrative on the fragility and implausibility of perfect market equilibrium. Successive mathematical torturing has outlined an extensive list of unlikely conditions required to demonstrate general market efficiency. Mark Blaug has nicely summarized a partial inventory: ‘perfectly rational, omniscient, identical consumers; zero transaction costs; complete markets for all time-stated claims for all conceivable contingent events, no trading at disequilibrium prices; no radical, incalculable uncertainty…; only linearly homogenous production functions; no technical progress requiring capital investment, etc’ (Blaug, 1997, p. 5)…

“For an economic system that failed to satisfy such assumptions, there seemed a need for government intervention. General equilibrium theory provided a sort of checklist for market critics.”
Click to expand...

Young seems to agree with Yonker though, while they agree that central planning is the inevitable result of economists' acceptance of GE Theory, Young see this as a bad thing and Yonker sees it as a good thing.

My view:

In the context of GE Theory, the conditions required for capitalism to be efficient are implausible in practice, though conceivable in theory. The former implies that the free market is, in practice, always inefficient. The latter implies that a central planner can mimic how capitalism would work if it were efficient while the "profits and interest generated by the operations of publicly-owned business enterprises would be distributed to the general public as a social dividend."

In the context of GE Theory, there is no way around this dilemma without getting impaled on one or the other horn. Either we live with a system that can never be efficient in practice or we have an efficient system but renounce private property rights and put distribution of the "social dividend" in the hands of a central planner.

Far from being "a tool of capitalist hegemony," acceptance of GE Theory is the death of capitalism. Our only compensation is that, like a condemned prisoner who gets to choose the firing squad or the hangman, we get to choose inefficiency or tyranny.

Scucca said:
Socalism versus Capitalism?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have never asked that question. I am unrelenting in my defense of capitalism. When faced with a dilemma "in the context of GE Theory," I invented Axiomatic Economics. As Hannibal Barca said, "we will either find a way, or make one." The same goes for libertarians; we will never accept socialism.

REFERENCES

Blaug, Mark. (1997) “Ugly Currents in Modern Economics” in Policy Options, 18, 3-8.

Reglar ("The Descent of Political Economic Theory: Keynes, Keynesian economics, from bastardised Keynesianism to Neo Liberal Hegemony")

SSRN-The Politics, Mathematics and Morality of Economics: A Review Essay on Robert Nelson`s Economics as Religion by Cristobal Young

Yunker (2007, A Comprehensive Incentives Analysis of the Potential Performance of Market Socialism, Review of Political Economy, Vol 19 Issue 1, pp 81-113)
 
Scucca said:
Reglar ("The Descent of Political Economic Theory: Keynes, Keynesian economics, from bastardised Keynesianism to Neo Liberal Hegemony") puts it nicely:

As a tool of capitalist hegemony the doctrine of general equilibrium is very useful. It assumes that the normal condition of society is for the state to play as little a role in economic life as possible, because the market is part of human nature and the most efficient form of economic organisation. The theory, therefore, has a role in legitimising, capitalist hegemony.
Click to expand...

Last Sunday (21 Sept 08) I sent Scucca the following private message:

Onion Eater said:
Who's Reglar?

For someone who writes post after post obsessing over the quality of my references, you don't make much of an effort to fully reference your own posts. Who is this guy and what journal is this from?

Reglar ("The Descent of Political Economic Theory: Keynes, Keynesian economics, from bastardised Keynesianism to Neo Liberal Hegemony")

Incidentally, locating references in such august journals as the Review of Political Economy is only half of being an academic. The other half is actually reading them and noticing important points like, Reglar and Yunker have exactly opposite views of GE Theory.

I contrasted them at http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/35966-cutting-gordian-knot-ge-theory-6.html but I guess you didn't think that reconciling your two conflicting views was important to establishing your credibility at Debate Politics.
Click to expand...

I wait for a reply.

Scucca said:
Extensive references then! Any chance of something from the American Economic Review, Economic Journal or Journal of Economic Literature? Just for the crack!
Click to expand...

Given Scucca's fawning admiration of the American Economic Review, the Economic Journal and the Journal of Economic Literature, I was sure that I would find that Mr. Reglar had an extensive track record with these august journals. Otherwise, Scucca would never have referenced him. Unfortunately, they seem to know nothing of a "Mr. Reglar."

Scucca said:
You had a reference section without any substantial references. Come on, put some effort in it!
Click to expand...

Indeed. Just for the crack!
 
Onion Eater said:
“The only danger, to a mixed economy, is any not-to-be-compromised value, virtue, or idea. The only threat is any uncompromising person, group, or movement. The only enemy is integrity.”

Source: Any Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1967, pp. 228-232.
Click to expand...

“There are no atheists in foxholes and no ideologues in financial crisis” – Ben Bernanke.

If a crisis isn't the time to fall back on one's ideology, then when is the time?

Actually, a crisis is like a fist fight. That's no time to be devising new, untried tactics - one just fights the way one has trained and it either works or it doesn't. The time for after-action analysis is after the action, not during it.

I offer a new ideology, one that cuts the Gordian knot of GE Theory, avoiding getting impaled on either horn of the dilemma that the socialists have presented us with. Any comments?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom