Right Wing Ideology Fails in Economics As Well

other said:

I think you just pinned-down the definition of "political hack"

Click to expand...

I don't think he leans in any particular direction,but he is an advocate of typical market interference. JMK is his hero,so it's not entirely his fault.

EvilNixon said:

Krugman is a brilliant economist,but he lets his personal biases get in the way of facts...

Click to expand...

Brilliant how? The guy actually said that the Fed should create a bubble to replace the dot-com bubble. Is that brilliant economics?

Wessexman said:

Well it is a case of what is good for the individual is bad for the group. There are advantages for an individual company of having lower taxes, it can undercut the competition, but large corporations in general require a lot of taxes from population to support them.

Click to expand...

I would say that depends on the type of business. All businesses are not created equal when it comes to things like requiring taxpayer subsidies to be economically viable or making large demands on public infrastructure. Internet commerce is one area that's grown tremendously without much if any support from government. In fact, it's probably grown bigger and faster than it would have if government had stuck its nose in the tent.

Ahlevah said:

I would say that depends on the type of business. All businesses are not created equal when it comes to things like requiring taxpayer subsidies to be economically viable or making large demands on public infrastructure. Internet commerce is one area that's grown tremendously without much if any support from government. In fact, it's probably grown bigger and faster than it would have if government had stuck its nose in the tent.

Click to expand...

Do you know how the internet came about? Even aside from that if by internet commerce you mean places that sell only from websites, well they'd be very much dependent on state-supported transportation networks because they'd be selling to all over the country, perhaps even beyond, from one spot.

Ahlevah said:

Internet commerce is one area that's grown tremendously without much if any support from government.

Click to expand...

Are we going to skip right past the fact that the original architecture for the internet was created and developed by the DoD? ARPANET?

In fact, it's probably grown bigger and faster than it would have if government had stuck its nose in the tent.

Click to expand...

If we want to go another step further www and http were both created by CERN who is highly subsidized.

Ahlevah said:

I would say that depends on the type of business. All businesses are not created equal when it comes to things like requiring taxpayer subsidies to be economically viable or making large demands on public infrastructure. Internet commerce is one area that's grown tremendously without much if any support from government. In fact, it's probably grown bigger and faster than it would have if government had stuck its nose in the tent.

Click to expand...

You are incapable of separating government from markets, on a large scale. And by you, I mean, humans in general.

It's not even just roads and internet, it's the entire market itself preserved through bloodshed in world wars, in anti-terrorist operations, but beyond that in things like funding R&D in all sectors of the economy, it's the education our potential employees received via government, in some cases fed and clothed by government, the air we breath, the enforcement of laws which enable us to effectively compete without violence, etc.

Woudl you have been born had your parents been exposed to the lead-levels that China had no issue with domestically? But even if we did away with all government today, it would not be free of the influence of government, it's a zero sum game. Besides, you may be a slave right now, had we not had a central government with balls to shut down the ignorant south. Slavery = freedom right?

Looking at government as some monolithic team of idiots is not realistic. A government in an authoritarian regime is entirely different, from top to bottom, than our representative democracy.

Free markets by themselves are irrelevant. Free markets coupled with a strong, representative government, is what catalyzed the massive increase in prosperity (and the virigin land and abundant resources and irrelevant treatment of of Native Americans). The thing that makes government in the U.S. so monumentally important is that to some degree, it's an extension of our collective will, tempered with politics, debate, corruption, do-gooders, etc. It's basically a vertically integrated firm of the populace, who found it kind of hard to defend their borders and compete with their neighbors without coordination.

Austrians can't justify a firm, no wonder they can't justify government, it's the same thing.

Mach said:

[..] It's not even just roads and internet, it's the entire market itself preserved through bloodshed in world wars, in anti-terrorist operations, but beyond that in things like funding R&D in all sectors of the economy, it's the education our potential employees received via government, in some cases fed and clothed by government, the air we breath, the enforcement of laws which enable us to effectively compete without violence, etc.

Click to expand...

All those are examples of things where government does more harm than good, and the free market (i.e. individuals acting in their own self-interest without the institutionalized violence of the state) would do things much better.

Alex Libman said:

All those are examples of things where government does more harm than good, and the free market (i.e. individuals acting in their own self-interest without the institutionalized violence of the state) would do things much better.

Click to expand...

They are actually just examples of how things are in reality.

I don't find any of your responses address specific points, or go beyond what I believe is just propoganda you promote. In short, you aren't really debating anything, you're still just reiterating your rhetorical position.

In fact, if we just assume that every response you intend to make is of the general form:

1. Government does more harm than good, the free market does everything much better.

Then we don't actually need to read your responses, and you don't even have to respond. How's that for an efficient system?

-Mach

Ahlevah said:

Freedom: The right to sell my labor, a good, or a service for a mutually agreed upon price; the market's ability to meet demand; the profit motive's ability to drive effort and innovation...

Click to expand...

You equally have the right to shape and change your government. In some ways, you have more control over it than you do specific companies or industries.

... and common sense: I look around the world and see what systems have worked and which ones have not, which ones are but utopian pipedreams, and which ones best accord themselves with human nature. Free-market capitalism is the one that best meets the needs and wants of humanity. That's not to say that it's perfect. It's not, because we're still talking about humans and their personal foibles. I think with rights come responsibilities, and some people are not good at upholding their end of the bargain. But, all in all, I think it provides the greatest good to mankind.

Click to expand...

Well wait, why do you write off socialist states that ALSO have free markets?

I would argue they better meet the needs of a larger number of people while allowing for all the benefits of capitalism, save the ability to be 10000 times richer than the next guy down instead of 100 times richer. That freedom is not one I'm particularly interested in defending.

Mach said:

[...] I don't find any of your responses address specific points, or go beyond what I believe is just propoganda you promote. In short, you aren't really debating anything, you're still just reiterating your rhetorical position. [...]

Click to expand...

You are still failing to understand that I don't have to prove anything - you do. You are the one advocating for aggression against me! I don't need you, you need me!

Repeating myself from another thread --

Alex Libman said:

Your main error is in misattributing the burden of proof, which must always be on the seller, not the buyer. When a vacuum cleaner salesman comes to your door, do you have to prove to him to his satisfaction that you don't want to buy his product? Of course not! The same applies to the alleged "divine right of governments" to initiate aggression - the burden of proof for whatever "moral imperative" they claim must be on them!

Click to expand...

I don't have the time to debunk every single economic fallacy you socialists can come up with, but I've gradually been knocking them down, one at a time.

Agent_Grey said:

You equally have the right to shape and change your government. In some ways, you have more control over it than you do specific companies or industries.

Click to expand...

How so? Even in the US, one can only vote for politicians every few years. The two currently viable parties have few differances. They then have to oversee massive beauracracies that are so large that the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. And then, the decisions apply to everyone. Meanwhile with business, I can choose to spend my money or try to obtain employment at a certain locale or not whenever I choose, and have resources. There are few affected outside of the transaction. There are sometimes negative externalities, but they are far outweighed by the ones produced by the vast majority of government regulations and programs. The government is not nearly as reactive

Agent_Grey said:

Well wait, why do you write off socialist states that ALSO have free markets?

I would argue they better meet the needs of a larger number of people while allowing for all the benefits of capitalism, save the ability to be 10000 times richer than the next guy down instead of 100 times richer. That freedom is not one I'm particularly interested in defending.

Click to expand...

How are they able to better provide for people by taking over 1/2 of the average Joe's income?

DrunkenAsparagus said:

How so? Even in the US, one can only vote for politicians every few years. The two currently viable parties have few differances. They then have to oversee massive beauracracies that are so large that the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. And then, the decisions apply to everyone. Meanwhile with business, I can choose to spend my money or try to obtain employment at a certain locale or not whenever I choose, and have resources. There are few affected outside of the transaction. There are sometimes negative externalities, but they are far outweighed by the ones produced by the vast majority of government regulations and programs. The government is not nearly as reactive

Click to expand...

So it has to be instant gratification if it doesn't count?

And I've never bought entirely into the whole "voting with your dollars" concept. It sounds good on its face, but we know the reality of the world. Big businesses that do unconciounable things can conceal their behavior, stamp out bad reputation with advertising, and doesn't answer to all consumers equally, since not all consumers are in a place to purchase or not purchase each and every comodity the market has to offer.

How are they able to better provide for people by taking over 1/2 of the average Joe's income?

Click to expand...

Ask the average Joe. These countries tend to do well in terms of people contentment or even outright happiness with their systems. They do not see massive emmigration or brain-drain. They are not places of squalor or suffering or oppression that American conservatives would have us believe they are.

Anikdote said:

Are we going to skip right past the fact that the original architecture for the internet was created and developed by the DoD? ARPANET?

Click to expand...

Yeah. :2razz:

Notice I said "Internet commerce." Somehow, I have a problem giving DARPA and CERN credit for creating companies like Amazon.com., Yahoo, and Google. It took entrepreneurs to see the potential of the Internet and create whole industries around it. Much of the infrastructure was installed by private telecommunications companies. Realize I'm not saying private industry doesn't benefit from government-funded research or social infrastructure. In fact, I've previously made the same contention in other threads. I recently mentioned Boeing's appropriation of dual-use technology in its commercial airplane business, courtesy of DoD-funded research dollars. It's simply a question of degree, which was my original point.

I suppose you can take virtually any publicly-funded infrastructure or R&D and call it corporate welfare. I just happen to believe that private industry is more efficient at growing the economy and improving the living standards of citizens, who, ultimately, are the source of all government funds.

Ahlevah said:

Yeah. :2razz:

Notice I said "Internet commerce." Somehow, I have a problem giving DARPA and CERN credit for creating companies like Amazon.com., Yahoo, and Google. It took entrepreneurs to see the potential of the Internet and create whole industries around it. Much of the infrastructure was installed by private telecommunications companies. Realize I'm not saying private industry doesn't benefit from government-funded research or social infrastructure. In fact, I've previously made the same contention in other threads. I recently mentioned Boeing's appropriation of dual-use technology in its commercial airplane business, courtesy of DoD-funded research dollars. It's simply a question of degree, which was my original point.

I suppose you can take virtually any publicly-funded infrastructure or R&D and call it corporate welfare. I just happen to believe that private industry is more efficient at growing the economy and improving the living standards of citizens, who, ultimately, are the source of all government funds.

Click to expand...

So do I. However large corporations and many medium sized ones in our economies are hardly worthy of the name private entreprise. They are almost entirely creatures of the state. A relatively low state system would be quite different. Needless to say they are not great things to argue from for those like Alex. Plus obviously a social conservative and decentralist like myself must recognise the opposition of corporate-capitalism to much of what I stand for.

Mach said:

Looking at government as some monolithic team of idiots is not realistic.

Click to expand...

Says who? :2razz:

Mach said:

Free markets by themselves are irrelevant. Free markets coupled with a strong, representative government, is what catalyzed the massive increase in prosperity (and the virigin land and abundant resources and irrelevant treatment of of Native Americans).

Click to expand...

I would say free markets supported by a strong but limited government, not the monstrosity we've built that's set to go another $9 trillion in the hole over the course of the next few years. That's before we face the unfunded liabilities of programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And I think Phil Gramm was right: American's have become a nation of whiners, with a "collective will" that encompasses a sense of entitlement in virtually every aspect of human existence.

Wessexman said:

[L]arge corporations and many medium sized ones in our economies are hardly worthy of the name private entreprise. They are almost entirely creatures of the state.

Click to expand...

So what would you say, for example, about a company like Netflix? It meets a need very efficiently, and has invested heavily in video-on-demand technology. It was founded by an entrepreneur who initially wasn't taken very seriously by almost everyone. What fate would the system you advocate serve up to a company like this one?

Agent_Grey said:

So it has to be instant gratification if it doesn't count?

Click to expand...

Having functional control over one's life counts. With the government it's like two guys trying to drive a car from the back seat, and they're always fighting over whose turn it is to hold the broomstick, and you're the third guy gagged in the trunk!

Agent_Grey said:

And I've never bought entirely into the whole "voting with your dollars" concept. It sounds good on its face, but we know the reality of the world. Big businesses that do unconciounable things can conceal their behavior, stamp out bad reputation with advertising, and doesn't answer to all consumers equally, since not all consumers are in a place to purchase or not purchase each and every comodity the market has to offer.

Click to expand...

So - don't buy stuff from companies that conceal their behavior. Free market entities can't get a penny from you unless you agree to give it to them. The main reason people don't pay more attention to consumer activism is because they're brainwashed by the government and distracted with the democracy circus. They can advertise, but they can't silence voices to the contrary, or even control their article on Wikipedia! No company can abuse its customers and stay in the business for long!

Agent_Grey said:

Ask the average Joe. These countries tend to do well in terms of people contentment or even outright happiness with their systems. They do not see massive emmigration or brain-drain. They are not places of squalor or suffering or oppression that American conservatives would have us believe they are.

Click to expand...

Those countries are experiencing temporary economic benefits from European integration, low birthrates, low corporate taxes, American military spending saving their butts throughout the 20th century, momentum from being the first to industrialize, some trade being left over from the colonial era, etc. Europe's beach party is about to come to a screeching halt. It has no future.

Ahlevah said:

So what would you say, for example, about a company like Netflix? It meets a need very efficiently, and has invested heavily in video-on-demand technology. It was founded by an entrepreneur who initially wasn't taken very seriously by almost everyone. What fate would the system you advocate serve up to a company like this one?

Click to expand...

I would have to look into it but I'd say it is efficient in a heavily gov't subsidised economy meaning it might be very different with relatively little gov't intrusion. You mentioned Amazon before, well that is efficient. It is efficient using gov't developed technology and gov't subsidised supply chains. Take that away and it would not be very efficient and the economy would look very different; it would be one based a lot more around local and regional self-sufficiency and smaller firms, including many more family firms.

Agent_Grey said:

Well wait, why do you write off socialist states that ALSO have free markets?

Click to expand...

To say that socialist states also have free markets is a sort of oxymoron. I associate European-style socialism with inefficient state-owned companies populated with militant employees represented by activist labor unions who end up acting like a bunch of crybabies and rioting whenever someone like Nicolas Sarkozy comes along and tires to introduce a little common sense.

So, basically, I don't write them off. It's just that if I wanted to live in France I'd move there. That's sound advice for any American who wants to emulate their system, the one Sarkozy is trying to put on a diet.

Ahlevah said:

To say that socialist states also have free markets is a sort of oxymoron. I associate European-style socialism with inefficient state-owned companies populated with militant employees represented by activist labor unions who end up acting like a bunch of crybabies and rioting whenever someone like Nicolas Sarkozy comes along and tires to introduce a little common sense.

So, basically, I don't write them off. It's just that if I wanted to live in France I'd move there. That's sound advice for any American who wants to emulate their system, the one Sarkozy is trying to put on a diet.

Click to expand...

It is a change of emphasis not really a change of the level state intervention. America has not really got much less state intervention than the likes of France.

Plus on a mostly unrelated note Sarkozy is one of the biggest political douches around. His conduct over the Lisbon treaty was vile.

Wessexman said:

Take that away and it would not be very efficient and the economy would look very different; it would be one based a lot more around local and regional self-sufficiency and smaller firms, including many more family firms.

Click to expand...

Well, could a family firm let me rent as many movies as I can see for ten bucks a month? How would a family firm give me the choice and value that an Amazon or Netflix do?

Ahlevah said:

Well, could a family firm let me rent as many movies as I can see for ten bucks a month? How would a family firm give me the choice and value that an Amazon or Netflix do?

Click to expand...

I don't know much about Netflix so I can't really talk about it.

A more distributist economy would be far better for social conservative values and associations, limited, decentralist gov't, society and economics and more rounded, creative work but it would not be able to produce to the levels of consumerist, corporate-capitalism. It would not want to. It would realise there is more to life than the production of material wealth. It would not be poor by any means, it just wouldn't go to the consumerist excesses we see today.

But the point is that this level of production and consumption is only facilitated by massive gov't intervention. If distribution was not so heavily subsidised then large and medium sized firms would never produce the massive supply runs they do now and which force them to cover massive market areas. So when you point out such things there is little difference between your position and the French social democrat who talks about the lose of job security or pay when state regulations that support such are taken away.

Wessexman said:

It is a change of emphasis not really a change of the level state intervention. America has not really got much less state intervention than the likes of France.

Click to expand...

Normally, we're not keen on government ownership of the means of production. We're used to having Amtrak and the Post Office, but that's about it. I don't think most Americans are comfortable owning big chunks of companies like AIG and Citigroup.

Ahlevah said:

Normally, we're not keen on government ownership of the means of production. We're used to having Amtrak and the Post Office, but that's about it. I don't think most Americans are comfortable owning big chunks of companies like AIG and Citigroup.

Click to expand...

Indeed but the differences between "Keynesianism" and neo-liberalism in terms of gov't intervention is small. They are about a change of emphasis. Neo-liberalism still sudsidised big business just as much, it just abandoned the efforts of trying to work out a harmonious relationship between big labour, big business and big gov't and decided to beat down big labour and make it subordinate to the other two.

My Netflix is at thepiratebay.org


(Intellectual property "rights" are an unnatural government construct, and I'm not under any contractual agreement not to download whatever the hell I want.)