tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.comments2022-11-18T00:26:42.739-08:00Ozymandias' MirrorRafihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13370636307930198653noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-58070825769784281022010-05-15T18:26:30.385-07:002010-05-15T18:26:30.385-07:00Heil Fuehrer Obama!Heil Fuehrer Obama!EconomicsJunkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15435636526402661557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-2405895810394000432010-04-22T21:08:32.640-07:002010-04-22T21:08:32.640-07:00An appropriate quote to place at the end of that l...An appropriate quote to place at the end of that list of new parasites being stood up to sap the productive people America of their wealth.Philippehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02017335087113307504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-76191603959663926642009-09-02T10:08:22.573-07:002009-09-02T10:08:22.573-07:00http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090813_Re...http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090813_Reform_would_cut_costs_for_the_already_insured.htmlAaron Spectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871428245399484504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-63912191084391993902009-07-20T09:57:10.651-07:002009-07-20T09:57:10.651-07:00it's just symbolic, in more ways than one.it's just symbolic, in more ways than one.Rafihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13370636307930198653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-43451621812899902502009-07-20T09:09:12.056-07:002009-07-20T09:09:12.056-07:00And whats you issue with this aside from it being ...And whats you issue with this aside from it being a marketing photo op?Aaron Spectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09871428245399484504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-20126561734666983062009-07-15T20:36:37.374-07:002009-07-15T20:36:37.374-07:00very nice breakdown.very nice breakdown.EconomicsJunkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15435636526402661557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-50865163811217826822009-07-06T14:41:37.158-07:002009-07-06T14:41:37.158-07:00Where do you draw the line with externalities? Tha...Where do you draw the line with externalities? That looks like quite a slippery slope, nevermind the fact that governments are inferior to individuals in adjusting to a dynamic marketplace.<br /><br /> As far as crime goes, you need rule of law and protection of property rights to facilitate trade. Pretty much the main point of this post was actually showing how the weaker those two things get the more impoverished and subject to corruption/crime the people become. Not the other way around.Rafihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13370636307930198653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-53082922267192075322009-07-06T14:27:19.653-07:002009-07-06T14:27:19.653-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rafihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13370636307930198653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-79962004628685275562009-07-06T14:08:30.881-07:002009-07-06T14:08:30.881-07:00How about externalities? In some cases there could...How about externalities? In some cases there could be benefits that are impossible, or at least too logistically difficult, for a free market to capture.<br /><br />In this case, for example, improving an individual's education might benefit the entire community (lower crime, more trade?). However, the school can't convince everyone in the community to shell out for that guys education, because each member of the community would get almost all of the benefits without contributing himself (the "free rider problem"). <br />Again, I agree that governments make messes of things, but in some cases couldn't gov't inefficiencies outweigh gains from eliminating externalities / free rider problems?jahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16574888015233888867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-54739433928457341392009-07-06T13:59:23.299-07:002009-07-06T13:59:23.299-07:00You are right, after I posted my comment I realize...You are right, after I posted my comment I realized that there theoretically could be a scenario where the government spends money in such a way that it actually boosts productivity. <br /><br />Nevertheless, I would still not be for a tax hike. Not because of a moral issue, even though there may be one, but simply because of an economic issue. Government is structured in such a way that it is slow to act and does not anticipate market conditions in the future. This is like, by definition how politicians operate. They only see as far as the next election. Their "time preference" is focused on the short term. An entrepreneur is trained to look at the long term, bigger picture. He will make decisions that take into account current market conditions as well as the future, to the best of his ability. Whether or not he makes an accurate forecast is irrelevant. He is free from bureaucracy and is able to make dynamic changes with his money on the fly. This allows him to *adapt* in a much swifter fashion than the heads of a government committee. <br /><br />In other words, I wouldn't want the government involved in "making education better" because even if you could prove it to me that in the short term they could actually deliver a profitable service, there is little to no chance the service will stay profitable in the intermediate term, let alone the long term.<br /><br />It seems to me to be the same old thing - if the government was as efficient as the marketplace then it wouldn't be government anymore. That's my problem with Obama's "public choice" plan. He says he just wants to offer a competitive plan but anyone with half a brain can see that if it was really competitive it wouldn't need to be government. What would that add?Rafihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13370636307930198653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-76668060676241306032009-07-06T13:44:22.082-07:002009-07-06T13:44:22.082-07:00Just to add a by-the-way: as far as I understand, ...Just to add a by-the-way: as far as I understand, most economists would agree that:<br />a) such a set of circumstances (and net effects), in certain situations, is possible;<br />and b) thus, gov't should sometimes intervene in markets.<br /><br />Not that this fact is of supreme importance (and by the way, I wouldn't include Boudreaux in "most economists"), but it's not irrelevant either.jahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16574888015233888867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-69788725924361676292009-07-06T13:40:16.646-07:002009-07-06T13:40:16.646-07:00Right. So first of all that's one reason why I...Right. So first of all that's one reason why I think blindly maximizing gdp is crazy. If we sat around paying each other to get degrees we could have infinity gdp.<br /><br />Also you are right that Congress is filled with people you wouldn't want managing a garage sale.<br /><br />But I don't know what you mean by "So the idea that Congress can somehow diminish economic freedom (raising taxes) to produce wealth through education is silly." Imagine a state. Say, New Jersey. Say the NJ legislature raises the state corporate tax from x% to x+3%. So NJ's "Economic Freedom" score drops a point. And, if they waste that money GDP per capita will fall. But let's say they set up a quasi-governmental committee and give them the cash to improve schools, and the QGC succeeds. GDP per capita in NJ now rises above the level it was at before the tax hike. These are *possible* circumstances, right? If I could guarantee that the net effect would be an increase in gdp-p.c., would you be in favor of the tax hike?jahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16574888015233888867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-8766693927181410382009-07-06T12:58:43.971-07:002009-07-06T12:58:43.971-07:00I'm going to question that premise on conceptu...I'm going to question that premise on conceptual grounds. If you don't have economic freedom then it doesn't matter how educated you are - the layers of bureaucracy and limitations on trade won't let you maximize much, if anything. Education may play a larger role once you have already established a "free trade zone" like the 50 states and then given them some time to start producing. You yourself even said "given certain minimum requirements". So the idea that Congress can somehow diminish economic freedom (raising taxes) to produce wealth through education is silly. The only way the educated could produce is if they possessed economic freedom after they graduated! Or are we now just going to pay for each other to go to school so that we have an alphabet of acronyms after our surnames, because the more acronyms we have the more wealth we will be able to produce? <br /><br />Secondly, I love how you are asking very good questions and forcing me to clarify myself, but come on. Congress creating a better education system? Congress? Really? You'll never spend someone else's money as carefully as you'll spend your own, and that applies all the more so to Congress who seeks power, fame and prestige.Rafihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13370636307930198653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-33288860117788542212009-07-06T12:19:50.609-07:002009-07-06T12:19:50.609-07:00Well, what I meant was as follows: If it is true t...Well, what I meant was as follows: If it is true that education plays a larger role in wealth-creation than economic freedom (given certain minimum requirements) then, if your goal is to maximize wealth, you would be in favor of Congress raising taxes to create a better education system, right?jahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16574888015233888867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-50499558917176824662009-07-06T12:08:24.129-07:002009-07-06T12:08:24.129-07:00Well I would think we want to maximize production ...Well I would think we want to maximize production so that people can distance themselves from the natural state of poverty, for one. <br /><br />The other point you mention makes sense. As the division of labor increases and becomes more specialized, there will be a need for more specialized training. An economy that is strictly agricultural will need less education than an economy that produces innovative technologies and mechanized production. But we all start from the same point, and what I took from this map was the implication that if other countries' governments stopped interfering in their citizens' affairs then the people would become more educated over time. You can't spend money on education if you're stuck in a state of poverty and the government is holding down free trade, no?Rafihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13370636307930198653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-9281269377020067932009-07-06T11:55:10.428-07:002009-07-06T11:55:10.428-07:00Also, I think the correlation between the average ...Also, I think the correlation between the average years of schooling a country's adults have and per capita GDP is stronger than the correlation between p.c. GDP and the country's economic freedom index... So then what?jahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16574888015233888867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-13115080675867779852009-07-06T11:28:00.183-07:002009-07-06T11:28:00.183-07:00Why do we want to maximize total gdp?Why do we want to maximize total gdp?jahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16574888015233888867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-59431068639708108072009-07-06T10:58:15.576-07:002009-07-06T10:58:15.576-07:00*capitalism
- Gabi*capitalism <br /><br />- GabiGabihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00435077073268682524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-62674025667048153292009-07-06T10:56:55.235-07:002009-07-06T10:56:55.235-07:00Imagine what would happen if we actually let capit...Imagine what would happen if we actually let capitilism run free! <br /><br />- GabiGabihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00435077073268682524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-82985212934088147952009-06-28T12:04:46.816-07:002009-06-28T12:04:46.816-07:00...all made possible by economic calculation in th......all made possible by economic calculation in the market system.<br /><br />As Goethe said "Double entry bookkeeping is one of the most beautiful discoveries of the human spirit..."EconomicsJunkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15435636526402661557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-86444759986011595602009-06-15T13:43:00.818-07:002009-06-15T13:43:00.818-07:00Exactly. When I point out the roots of left vs. ri...Exactly. When I point out the roots of left vs. right I am thinking of the ULTIMATE motivations of action, not the intermediate ones.EconomicsJunkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15435636526402661557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-54194890399776440702009-06-15T11:49:40.740-07:002009-06-15T11:49:40.740-07:00I see what you mean. It's basically a rationa...I see what you mean. It's basically a rationalization. "True, power is bad but it's ok when we have it because we are anti-power." Hmm...Rafihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13370636307930198653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-58293406118309255612009-06-15T10:20:59.045-07:002009-06-15T10:20:59.045-07:00"Progressives in the early 20th century nowad..."Progressives in the early 20th century nowadays gladly use centralized state power to redistribute wealth and trample over any opponent in their way." << Yes absolutely, but not because they admire strength and power per se, but ultimately because they felt pity for those who would be the recipients of the redistribution and because they (falsely) thought that state power would be the most appropriate means to help them.EconomicsJunkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15435636526402661557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-43168276538879808462009-06-15T10:14:00.666-07:002009-06-15T10:14:00.666-07:00I just commented on your blog and then realized th...I just commented on your blog and then realized that you had commented here. I think we are both getting close to defining the root causes of the two ideologies but we still haven't hit it quite yet. I absolutely agree with your basic conclusion though, that the ideologies are not formed based on a rational assessment of what kind of creature man is, but rather from emotional considerations. <br /><br />"Extreme left ideas are rooted in the feeling of pity for weakness. As a corollary that means pity for the poor, pity for minorities, pity for the elderly and the disabled, etc. This naturally means that left ideas oppose power and strength in general."<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence. Progressives in the early 20th century and nowadays gladly use centralized state power to redistribute wealth and trample over any opponent in their way. The one consistent thing in their ideology is, as you said, the pity (or guilt?) for the financially and physically weaker classes of society. That emotion can be traced through their actions since the Enlightenment.Rafihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13370636307930198653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331613828144340388.post-80082834397211920542009-06-15T00:32:27.428-07:002009-06-15T00:32:27.428-07:00I think the misunderstanding is this:
Statism vs....I think the misunderstanding is this:<br /><br />Statism vs. libertarianism are economic concepts of societal organization. As such they are objective and scientific.<br /><br />But left vs. right ideology emerges in the human mind and guides one's political actions and decisions. Whether one leans toward one or the other is mostly rooted in individual emotions. Thus it needs to be analyzed as such.<br /><br />Looking at it from that angle, it appears as though left and right can be characterized as follows:<br /><br />Extreme left ideas are rooted in the feeling of pity for weakness. As a corollary that means pity for the poor, pity for minorities, pity for the elderly and the disabled, etc. This naturally means that left ideas oppose power and strength in general.<br /><br />Extreme right ideas are rooted in admiration of strength. As a corollary this means admiration of military and the glorious nation state. It naturally comes with a general despise and/or outright hatred of weakness.<br /><br />Left and right ideas of moderate type can be placed anywhere inbetween those two extremes.<br /><br />Now, whether one supports state control of the economy depends on ones premises. If the overall mood is such that the economy should be regulated to curb the actions of the powerful successful industrial tycoons, for the supposed benefit of the weak and poor workers, then a leftist ideology is rather likely to support such policies, while a right wing one would lean toward rejecting it. (It is certainly fair to compare the current mood with this scenario.)<br /><br />If, however, the mood is such that the currently powerful and rich have attained their status by state means, and that free markets enable poor people to rise to the ranks of wealthy ones, then a leftist ideology may actually favor less government involvement. (This scenario can be more or less compared to the mindset that generally prevailed during the Age of Enlightenment.)<br /><br />My point being, left and right ideologies first and foremost emerge out of emotional considerations. How they stand on specific matters of public policy largely depends on the overall conditions and mood that prevails in public opinion.EconomicsJunkiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15435636526402661557noreply@blogger.com