If philosphy forum was a nation......

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

krazy kaju
 
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 06:31 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
A perfect example of using empty words with no meaning while providing no evidence or arguments.

The only reason you view communism and free market capitalism as idealistic dreams is because of incessant government propaganda, half-truths, so-called "common logic," and outright lies being poured into your brain. Tell me, the Great Depression was caused by Hoover's laissez faire, correct? And communism isn't possible because everyone can't earn the same wage, right?

I never claimed that Mises was needed to show the errors of Marxian thought, but he was the first one to conclusively show that Marxism and Marxist-Leninism were inefficient economic systems.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 07:30 pm
@krazy kaju,
Quote:

The only reason you view communism and free market capitalism as idealistic dreams is because of incessant government propaganda, half-truths, so-called "common logic," and outright lies being poured into your brain.


Does this go for anyone who holds the belief that communism is an idealistic dream? Because I also hold the same belief, but I don't think it is due to 'outright lies being poured into [my] brain'.

See, I think communism (as Marx envisioned it) is an idealistic dream because he based his entire philosophy on the ideals of Hegel's systematic philosophy. The idea that the fluctuation between thesis and antithesis eventually has to come to an end with a perfect synthesis. Marx felt that this perfect synthesis was coming with the rise of the proletariat.

His philosophy is an idealistic dream, because any philosophy based entirely on ideals is a dream. Humanity has shown that we cannot conform fully to ideals because of our imperfections. It is the inevitable battle between Rationality and Emotion that bars us from reaching the perfection of ideals. We wear the lack of complete rationality around our neck like a prisoner shackled to to the floor. As David Hume so eloquently pointed out: Reason is a slave of the passions.

(disclaimer: I am definitely not an expert on either Marx or political philosophy.)
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 13 May, 2008 07:42 pm
@krazy kaju,
Quote:
A perfect example of using empty words with no meaning while providing no evidence or arguments.


Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Criticism of communism, and absolute rejection of communism, should not have been a terribly difficult path to go down prior to Mises. I think history shows that Communism was opposed prior to Mises publishing.

I respect Mises and his school of thought; anarcho-capitalism is not entirely unknown to me. However, he is the school man running numbers and marking arguments. No matter how much we may enjoy the notion of absolute, laissez-faire capitalism, the notion is an ideal and unrealistic. We might go so far as to accept the economic premises of these schoolmen, as we often do, and I think we should. However, broad generalizations about failed systems is useless - both hyper capitalism and communism ultimately fail. Don't all systems? This is because conditions change. Instead, we should look at whatever value and wisdom might be in our vast array of failed systems. If we seem to find ourselves going to the capitalist book, great, whatever works. In time, we will trend elsewhere.

Quote:
The only reason you view communism and free market capitalism as idealistic dreams is because of incessant government propaganda, half-truths, so-called "common logic," and outright lies being poured into your brain.


Ah, I get it - you can see through the veil of lies, but not poor ole me. Maybe, but that has nothing to do with why I view communism and free market capitalism as idealistic dreams. My logic has a lot in common with many, but few overall. People are quick to set up extremes. Try the middle.

Quote:
Depression was caused by Hoover's laissez faire, correct?


I don't think Hoover's policies so much caused the depression as they did nothing to help the situation. But then again, Hoover wasn't the laissez fairre guy laissez faire guys sometimes want others to mistakenly think he was.

Quote:
And communism isn't possible because everyone can't earn the same wage, right?


If you mean that greed will ultimately be a factor in the fail of any attempt at communism, yes. But that's true for everything.

Quote:
I never claimed that Mises was needed to show the errors of Marxian thought, but he was the first one to conclusively show that Marxism and Marxist-Leninism were inefficient economic systems.


They are not just inefficient, they are impossible. Mises or not, a communist state, in any fashion I can imagine, is not practical.
 
krazy kaju
 
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 04:51 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
de Silentio wrote:
Does this go for anyone who holds the belief that communism is an idealistic dream? Because I also hold the same belief, but I don't think it is due to 'outright lies being poured into [my] brain'.

See, I think communism (as Marx envisioned it) is an idealistic dream because he based his entire philosophy on the ideals of Hegel's systematic philosophy. The idea that the fluctuation between thesis and antithesis eventually has to come to an end with a perfect synthesis. Marx felt that this perfect synthesis was coming with the rise of the proletariat.

His philosophy is an idealistic dream, because any philosophy based entirely on ideals is a dream. Humanity has shown that we cannot conform fully to ideals because of our imperfections. It is the inevitable battle between Rationality and Emotion that bars us from reaching the perfection of ideals. We wear the lack of complete rationality around our neck like a prisoner shackled to to the floor. As David Hume so eloquently pointed out: Reason is a slave of the passions.

(disclaimer: I am definitely not an expert on either Marx or political philosophy.)


I'm not an expert on Hegelian philosophy, I rather approach Marx from an economical perspective.

Marx's original ideas like the labor theory of value have already been given up, even by modern Marxists (or at least the ones who have an inkling of knowledge about economics).

Modern derivatives of Marxism fail in their belief in some kind of centralized economic calculation. This is simply impossible. Economics is not a science of math or grand equations, but of individual action which cannot be represented or predicted by anyone, especially any kind of centralized economic committee (whether it be a socialist planning board, syndicalist trade unions, progressive regulators, or parecon "voters").

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Criticism of communism, and absolute rejection of communism, should not have been a terribly difficult path to go down prior to Mises. I think history shows that Communism was opposed prior to Mises publishing.

I respect Mises and his school of thought; anarcho-capitalism is not entirely unknown to me. However, he is the school man running numbers and marking arguments. No matter how much we may enjoy the notion of absolute, laissez-faire capitalism, the notion is an ideal and unrealistic. We might go so far as to accept the economic premises of these schoolmen, as we often do, and I think we should. However, broad generalizations about failed systems is useless - both hyper capitalism and communism ultimately fail. Don't all systems? This is because conditions change. Instead, we should look at whatever value and wisdom might be in our vast array of failed systems. If we seem to find ourselves going to the capitalist book, great, whatever works. In time, we will trend elsewhere.



I'd be thrilled if you could find an experimental or a theoretical example of "hypercapitalism" failing.

Quote:
Ah, I get it - you can see through the veil of lies, but not poor ole me. Maybe, but that has nothing to do with why I view communism and free market capitalism as idealistic dreams. My logic has a lot in common with many, but few overall. People are quick to set up extremes. Try the middle.
Sorry about that, I was a bit pissed off when I wrote that due to several outside reasons. Actually, I'm pretty much pissed off all the time, but that's beyond the scope of the topic.

In any case, how is the "middle" any better than true capitalism? Hasn't "the middle" led us into the multiple recessions we've experienced since the foundation... of, well... the modern nation state? In other words, haven't the top-down monetary expansions, taxes, regulations, and tariffs been the originator of many of mankind's disasters?

Quote:
I don't think Hoover's policies so much caused the depression as they did nothing to help the situation. But then again, Hoover wasn't the laissez fairre guy laissez faire guys sometimes want others to mistakenly think he was.
Actually, anti-laissez faire propagandists have blamed Hoover's "laissez faire policies" on the Great Depression.

The actual causes were government inspired, not the fault of the market. Monetary expansion reached epic proportions in the 1920s, and both Mises and Hayek actually predicted the Great Depression. What made the depression an actual depression (in the modern sense of the word) were Hoover's increased taxes, regulations, and the huge tariffs he imposed right after the stock market crash.

Quote:
If you mean that greed will ultimately be a factor in the fail of any attempt at communism, yes. But that's true for everything.
Actually, I was parodying the myth that communists believe in equal wages for everyone.


P.S. Mises's magnum opus: Human Action
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 03:30 am
@krazy kaju,
Quote:
I'd be thrilled if you could find an experimental or a theoretical example of "hypercapitalism" failing.


Chile and Argentina.

Makes me sad, too. I like Milton Friedman. Too bad about those fascist states.

Quote:
Sorry about that, I was a bit pissed off when I wrote that due to several outside reasons. Actually, I'm pretty much pissed off all the time, but that's beyond the scope of the topic.
It's cool.

Quote:
In any case, how is the "middle" any better than true capitalism? Hasn't "the middle" led us into the multiple recessions we've experienced since the foundation... of, well... the modern nation state? In other words, haven't the top-down monetary expansions, taxes, regulations, and tariffs been the originator of many of mankind's disasters?
The "middle" is always preferable - extremes always fail. I'm not so sure pragmatic economic policy has led us into multiple recessions. I'm not so sure nations states make pragmatic economic policy - at least not very often.

As for the originator of man's disasters, this is greed. But many of the things you name have also been harmful. But then again, irresponsible application of free market economics also leads to disaster.

Quote:
Actually, anti-laissez faire propagandists have blamed Hoover's "laissez faire policies" on the Great Depression.
Like I said, Hoover wasn't what I would call a laissez faire policy maker.

Quote:
The actual causes were government inspired, not the fault of the market. Monetary expansion reached epic proportions in the 1920s, and both Mises and Hayek actually predicted the Great Depression. What made the depression an actual depression (in the modern sense of the word) were Hoover's increased taxes, regulations, and the huge tariffs he imposed right after the stock market crash.
The most significant government economic intervention to date - the later part of Hoover's term in office. Remember, extremes do not work.

Quote:
Actually, I was parodying the myth that communists believe in equal wages for everyone.
A silly belief indeed, however noble.
 
krazy kaju
 
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 04:06 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Chile and Argentina.

Makes me sad, too. I like Milton Friedman. Too bad about those fascist states.


Friedman isn't the best example of a free market economist.

But didn't the authoritarian regime of Chile fall due to massive deregulation of the market (following Hayek's hypothesis that markets and gov't tyranny cannot exist side-by-side)?

Quote:
It's cool.


I usually come off as a huge ******* on the internet which I am not in real life, so yeah. Just a warning. Smile

Quote:
The "middle" is always preferable - extremes always fail.


Care to explain the recurring business cycles caused by the belief in the "middle" in regards to market vs. government?

Quote:
I'm not so sure pragmatic economic policy has led us into multiple recessions. I'm not so sure nations states make pragmatic economic policy - at least not very often.


"Pragmatic economic policy" is another example of the need for government to be perfect. Laissez faire capitalism takes into account the fact that humans make mistakes. If an individual business makes a mistake, it goes out of business, which is a good thing since it allows for resources such as capital and labor to be reallocated appropriately.

On the other hand, when the government fails, it does so on a massive scale causing harm to everyone forced under the rule of that government.

Quote:
As for the originator of man's disasters, this is greed.


Ayn Rand disagrees.

Quote:
But many of the things you name have also been harmful. But then again, irresponsible application of free market economics also leads to disaster.


Yet you fail to provide examples...

Quote:
The most significant government economic intervention to date - the later part of Hoover's term in office. Remember, extremes do not work.


I don't believe that mentioning the failure of socialism is a good example of laissez faire capitalism failing.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 04:49 pm
@krazy kaju,
Quote:
Friedman isn't the best example of a free market economist.


Why, because he made allowances for government operated parks? Honestly, you may not be much of a fan, you may prefer other classical liberal economists, but Friedman is one the best known and most respected among that company.

Quote:
But didn't the authoritarian regime of Chile fall due to massive deregulation of the market (following Hayek's hypothesis that markets and gov't tyranny cannot exist side-by-side)?


Right, massive deregulation. And sure, tyranny was no small factor. But the bottom line is that these examples are the only ones we have. Otherwise, capitalism has never been tried. I don't mind that position except that capitalism is about the economy. The economic policies employed by these regimes were blatant laissez faire with total disregard for pragmatic concerns - and for their inability to examine particular circumstances, and dogmatic application of capitalism, the economies collapsed.

Quote:
Care to explain the recurring business cycles caused by the belief in the "middle" in regards to market vs. government?


Sure. We refuse to look for a middle path and instead chase extremes and special interests which cause our economy untold woe.

Then again, I do not see the matter as market vs government.

Quote:
"Pragmatic economic policy" is another example of the need for government to be perfect. Laissez faire capitalism takes into account the fact that humans make mistakes. If an individual business makes a mistake, it goes out of business, which is a good thing since it allows for resources such as capital and labor to be reallocated appropriately.

On the other hand, when the government fails, it does so on a massive scale causing harm to everyone forced under the rule of that government.


Hey, I'm all for eradicating government.

Quote:
Ayn Rand disagrees.


Good. Rand was a fool, a bigot and probably non-literate (not illiterate, mind you, but non-literate).

Quote:
Yet you fail to provide examples...


No. Chile and Argentina - irresponsible applications of free market economics. They may have had tyrannical governments, but much of this tyranny is expressed in their irresponsible application of free market economics. Had the leaders been responsible, I think Friedman's advice would have been ultimately helpful to those economies.

Quote:
I don't believe that mentioning the failure of socialism is a good example of laissez faire capitalism failing.


You're right, and if I had suggested otherwise you would have made a useful point with this statement.

Instead, I'm agreeing with you about the Hoover administration. Of course, Hoover's earlier laissez faire policies did not work either, now did they? And while Hoover was employing laissez faire policies, the Great Depression was still predicted by economists. No wonder. Extremes fail.
 
krazy kaju
 
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 07:13 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Why, because he made allowances for government operated parks? Honestly, you may not be much of a fan, you may prefer other classical liberal economists, but Friedman is one the best known and most respected among that company.


Actually, Friedman believed that the existence of a central bank was desirable and that wealth redistribution schemes are good. He also fell for the common Keynesian fallacy that consumption is what drives the economy, he called for more monetary expansion during economic downturns, and he believed that trust-busting was good.

I respect him as a great monetarist and mostly libertarian economist and thinker, but his beliefs are far from what true libertarians from the Misesian tradition believe.

Quote:
Right, massive deregulation. And sure, tyranny was no small factor. But the bottom line is that these examples are the only ones we have. Otherwise, capitalism has never been tried. I don't mind that position except that capitalism is about the economy. The economic policies employed by these regimes were blatant laissez faire with total disregard for pragmatic concerns - and for their inability to examine particular circumstances, and dogmatic application of capitalism, the economies collapsed.
Actually, the Chilean and Argentinian economies never collapsed due to laissez faire capitalism. You'd really have to provide evidence for that one.

Both governments used "shock therapy" to end what would've become huge disasters in their nations, and it worked.

Quote:
Sure. We refuse to look for a middle path and instead chase extremes and special interests which cause our economy untold woe.
I don't think you understand that the "middle path" you're speaking about necessarily implies Keynesian economic thinking which has already been tried and shown to be impractical.

Quote:
Good. Rand was a fool, a bigot and probably non-literate (not illiterate, mind you, but non-literate).
Calling a philosopher a fool and a bigot isn't a very mature thing to do (although I've probably done the same).

What about Adam Smith? Ricardo? Menger? Mises? Bastiat? Hayek? Those are only a handful of economists who understood the use of self interest and how it drove the economy to create a net-benefit for everyone.

Quote:
No. Chile and Argentina - irresponsible applications of free market economics. They may have had tyrannical governments, but much of this tyranny is expressed in their irresponsible application of free market economics. Had the leaders been responsible, I think Friedman's advice would have been ultimately helpful to those economies.
Monetarism isn't necessarily perfect nor is it a good example of laissez faire capitalism. For example, Bernanke is widely considered a monetarist but he has essentially been the cause of the mess we are in now (due to the monetarist belief that we need radical monetary expansion to prevent possible recessions).

Also, calling an economy with a large amount of government intervention similar to the US laissez faire is unfair.

But I will play with you on this one:

CHILEAN PER CAPITA GDP COMPARED TO AVERAGE SOUTH AMERICAN PER CAPITA GDP GROWTH
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Chile_GDP.jpg

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/images/aninat2.gif

http://www.converger.com/eiacab/chilegdp.gif

http://images.businessweek.com/mz/05/34/0534_25busout_b.gif

As for Argentina, see this about their supposed "free market" reforms.

Quote:
You're right, and if I had suggested otherwise you would have made a useful point with this statement.

Instead, I'm agreeing with you about the Hoover administration. Of course, Hoover's earlier laissez faire policies did not work either, now did they? And while Hoover was employing laissez faire policies, the Great Depression was still predicted by economists. No wonder. Extremes fail.
WOW. You're still following the old policy that the Great Depression was the fault of laissez faire economics?

First of all, the Great Depression was caused by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, higher taxes, higher wage rates, more union control, and large government intervention in general. Had the market been allowed to operate, the economy would've rebound rather quickly (NOT after 1945).

Secondly, the stock market crash of 1929 was a market correction, if anything. The Fed had been pumping a huge amount of new credit into the economy, distorting what ventures seemed to be profitable for businesses.

Let me lay this out as basically as possible. The Fed lowers the interest rates below market levels, thus printing a large amount of money when it loans out to banks. Banks then lower their interest rates below market level and allow businesses (and now individuals) to take loans much easier.

You never take a loan to save, but to spend. As such, this new credit is used almost exclusively to spend, which temporarily creates higher aggregate demand. Businesses and individuals use the credit on capital goods (i.e. factories, houses, machinery, etc.). The greater demand for these goods raises the prices for them and increases the labor allocated to them (and increases aggregate demand, as mentioned).

When the newly injected credit suddenly dries out, you have a market correction. The previous growth was unsustainable, as it did not represent the actual spending/saving ratios of consumers. Thus, it seems that consumers all of a sudden "save more," when in reality they're simply don't have access to easy money as before, causing a significant downturn in aggregate demand, which causes businesses to lose money on the ventures they set out to use their loan money out in the first place.

To avoid the market correction, more and more and more credit needs to be injected... which would, in turn, result in a flight from the currency as inflation increases and a much, much worse correction.

That is what essentially happened in the US. The Fed had been happily inflating away until it realized that it needed to protect America's gold-exchange standard (not an actual gold standard, FYI). This caused the market correction in the form of the stock market crash, as business ventures that seemed profitable in the wave of unsustainable spending were liquidated.

Long story short, the Great Depression was due to government intervention while the stock market crash of 1929 was due specifically due to central bank manipulation.

A perfect modern day example is the housing market. The housing market is much more volatile since there are many more individuals than businesses taking out low-interest loans. So when the Fed lowers interest rates below the market level, spending on housing increases exponentially, creating a bubble as a result. All of a sudden, it becomes profitable to start building a huge supply of houses. But when the new credit dries up and banks are forced to hike their rates to protect their money supply, the spending on housing drops radically, which concludes the bust, or the "burst" of the "bubble."

In one sentence: central banks create an unsustainable rate of spending my consumers which creates an unsustainable rate of growth, called a boom, which is promptly followed by a bust when spending/saving ratios return to their normal levels.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 08:38 pm
@krazy kaju,
Quote:
Actually, Friedman believed that the existence of a central bank was desirable and that wealth redistribution schemes are good. He also fell for the common Keynesian fallacy that consumption is what drives the economy, he called for more monetary expansion during economic downturns, and he believed that trust-busting was good.
Though he also called for the end to the Federal Reserve. And his negative income tax scheme was vastly different than.

His differences with the 'purer' sorts the more traditional libertarian thinking were pragmatic, compromises rooted in the realization that the world is not a purely free market place, and that treating the world as such is silly.

Quote:
I respect him as a great monetarist and mostly libertarian economist and thinker, but his beliefs are far from what true libertarians from the Misesian tradition believe.


Sure, there were a few differences - central banking, for example. But even his central banking policy is rooted in fundamentally libertarian thought. Same is true of his position on trust busting - they shouldn't exist anyway, so let's get rid of them.

Quote:
Actually, the Chilean and Argentinian economies never collapsed due to laissez faire capitalism. You'd really have to provide evidence for that one.
You can disagree if you like, I'm not going to debate basics of modern history with you. The debate you hope to have here is one that only fantatic libertarians take up, the rest of the world isn't emotionally attached to the extent that we have to be dishonest with ourselves.

You'll come around eventually. The facts are all there, you can do the research. I'm sure one day you will.

Quote:
I don't think you understand that the "middle path" you're speaking about necessarily implies Keynesian economic thinking which has already been tried and shown to be impractical.
Aha! You have to remember that I don't trust governments enough to handle anything at all, much less the economy. But if we are going to have governments run things, well...

Quote:
Calling a philosopher a fool and a bigot isn't a very mature thing to do (although I've probably done the same).
Calling Rand a philosopher isn't a very mature thing to do. Surprised

She thought homosexuality was "immoral and disgusting" - from some speech she gave in the mid '70's, look it up if you like. That's bigotry.

Quote:
What about Adam Smith? Ricardo? Menger? Mises? Bastiat? Hayek? Those are only a handful of economists who understood the use of self interest and how it drove the economy to create a net-benefit for everyone.
I respect them. Rand is a very different animal.

Quote:
Monetarism isn't necessarily perfect nor is it a good example of laissez faire capitalism. For example, Bernanke is widely considered a monetarist but he has essentially been the cause of the mess we are in now (due to the monetarist belief that we need radical monetary expansion to prevent possible recessions).

Also, calling an economy with a large amount of government intervention similar to the US laissez faire is unfair.
Right, it is a little unfair. As I've said the examples are not perfect, but they are the closest available. If we cannot even look to these examples, we have nothing to consider.

It's like communism. True communism has never been applied, but we can look at the attempts to find many errors in the general theory of communism.

Quote:
But I will play with you on this one:
But I will not oblige you. If you disagree with me, that's cool. And I'll respect your opinion on the matter, but I'm not going to engage the topic for reasons explained above.

Quote:
WOW. You're still following the old policy that the Great Depression was the fault of laissez faire economics?
WOW! You need to slow down when you read what I write.

Just in case you missed the other posts, I'm agreeing with you about the Hoover administration. The Depression was the result of horrible government regulation, ect.

Hoover began his administration with laissez faire styled policy, but soon moved towards excessive government control, trying franticly to fix what he could not change and, as a result, prolonged the misery of the depression.
 
krazy kaju
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 11:50 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Though he also called for the end to the Federal Reserve. And his negative income tax scheme was vastly different than.

His differences with the 'purer' sorts the more traditional libertarian thinking were pragmatic, compromises rooted in the realization that the world is not a purely free market place, and that treating the world as such is silly.


Actually, if you have read Friedman's works, you can see that he was a supporter of a central banking system with fiat currencies and opposed the gold standard on the basis that it is "impractical" (without giving any explanation as to why).

And his support of wealth redistribution schemes like the guaranteed income and serious trust-busting was solely due to his upbringing in the Chicago School which has always held some odd views on the subject.

Only because one economist views something as pragmatic doesn't mean that it is. You want to know who to thank the current mess for? Well, you can start looking at Friedman's monetarist buddies like Bernanke and Greenspan.

Quote:
Sure, there were a few differences - central banking, for example. But even his central banking policy is rooted in fundamentally libertarian thought. Same is true of his position on trust busting - they shouldn't exist anyway, so let's get rid of them.
Because government monopolies on currency are fundamentally libertarian and destroying competitive businesses that provide valuable products only because they are so competitive is also a fundamentally libertarian ideal.

Quote:
You can disagree if you like, I'm not going to debate basics of modern history with you. The debate you hope to have here is one that only fantatic libertarians take up, the rest of the world isn't emotionally attached to the extent that we have to be dishonest with ourselves.


Since when are government enforced monopolies, a fiat currency, lots of red tape, and high tariffs, quotas, and taxes considered libertarian?

Stop kidding yourself.

Quote:
You'll come around eventually. The facts are all there, you can do the research. I'm sure one day you will.
Are you talking about the research I laid out right infront of your nose that shows how the Argentinian economy was anything but libertarian while Chile's economy exploded after it implemented "shock therapy?" Right.

One day you'll come around when you do the research.

Quote:
Aha! You have to remember that I don't trust governments enough to handle anything at all, much less the economy. But if we are going to have governments run things, well...
... they should handle as little as possible.

Quote:
Calling Rand a philosopher isn't a very mature thing to do. Surprised
Golly, I guess the majority of the intellectual community is very immature then.

Quote:
She thought homosexuality was "immoral and disgusting" - from some speech she gave in the mid '70's, look it up if you like. That's bigotry.
Then again she was an advocate of freedom of choice, unlike your socialist brethren who would imprison her for "hate speech."

Quote:
Right, it is a little unfair. As I've said the examples are not perfect, but they are the closest available. If we cannot even look to these examples, we have nothing to consider.

It's like communism. True communism has never been applied, but we can look at the attempts to find many errors in the general theory of communism.
Economics and empiricism don't mix well.

As already pointed out, Mises showed how and why "true" communism wouldn't work before "fake" communism was ever implemented. Hayek, together with Mises, showed how "fake" communism (e.g. socialism) wouldn't work either in their debates with Oskar Lange.

Quote:
But I will not oblige you. If you disagree with me, that's cool. And I'll respect your opinion on the matter, but I'm not going to engage the topic for reasons explained above.
"I'll ignore the evidence presented to me and just state that you're ignorant and that you'll come around when you look at the REAL evidence, which I also failed to supply."

Quote:
WOW! You need to slow down when you read what I write.

Just in case you missed the other posts, I'm agreeing with you about the Hoover administration. The Depression was the result of horrible government regulation, ect.

Hoover began his administration with laissez faire styled policy, but soon moved towards excessive government control, trying franticly to fix what he could not change and, as a result, prolonged the misery of the depression.
You implied that laissez faire policies were to blame for the stock market crash: Of course, Hoover's earlier laissez faire policies did not work either, now did they? And while Hoover was employing laissez faire policies, the Great Depression was still predicted by economists. No wonder. Extremes fail.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 01:04 pm
@krazy kaju,
Quote:
Actually, if you have read Friedman's works, you can see that he was a supporter of a central banking system with fiat currencies and opposed the gold standard on the basis that it is "impractical" (without giving any explanation as to why).

And his support of wealth redistribution schemes like the guaranteed income and serious trust-busting was solely due to his upbringing in the Chicago School which has always held some odd views on the subject.


I've read 'Capitalism and Freedom'. Friedman does break with traditional libertarian thought on some subjects, I'm not debating that point.

Quote:
Only because one economist views something as pragmatic doesn't mean that it is. You want to know who to thank the current mess for? Well, you can start looking at Friedman's monetarist buddies like Bernanke and Greenspan.


His views may not be pragmatic, however, he thought them to be pragmatic. That was his justification.

Quote:
Because government monopolies on currency are fundamentally libertarian and destroying competitive businesses that provide valuable products only because they are so competitive is also a fundamentally libertarian ideal.


Ah, the sarcasm. You may disagree with ole Milty, but your disagreement doesn't remove him from the pantheon of well respected libertarian-minded economists.

Quote:
Since when are government enforced monopolies, a fiat currency, lots of red tape, and high tariffs, quotas, and taxes considered libertarian?

Stop kidding yourself.


Haven't I already said that examples of pure free markets do not exist? Absolute libertarianism has never been implemented - Argentina and Chile are the closest examples available, like Cuba is the nearest to communism we have to look at. The examples are not perfect.

Sheesh, who are you kidding? I have to repeat myself over and over with you.

Quote:
Are you talking about the research I laid out right infront of your nose that shows how the Argentinian economy was anything but libertarian while Chile's economy exploded after it implemented "shock therapy?" Right.

One day you'll come around when you do the research.


This is why I don't want to engage this debate. Despite your negative assumptions about me, I have done the research. What I am not willing to do is pour over economic data in a debate with you about the economic data that is, ultimately, pointless. I just don't care enough to do so.

Again, I'll respect your view, that's all fine Kaju. But I'm just not interested in debating revisionist history.

Almost like when someone tells me Nixon was not a crook. Except in the case of respect for Nixon, I just laugh. In the case of this debate, I understand the other side fairly well, enough to respect the disagreement, so instead of laughing I explain that I do not care to engage the topic. There's no point.

Quote:
... they should handle as little as possible.


Right, but until every other nation adopts pure free trade policy, thhe government in question must do something - otherwise that government is doing a terrible disservice to the people - other nations will attempt to devour their neighbors.

Quote:
Golly, I guess the majority of the intellectual community is very immature then.


Right. If she is a philosopher, she is one of the worst examples thereof.

Quote:
Then again she was an advocate of freedom of choice, unlike your socialist brethren who would imprison her for "hate speech."


Like it or not, they are your brothers too. I'm not a socialist, necessarily.

The bottom line is that Rand was a terrible writer, and idiotic philosopher and a bigot. Bring me real scholars and I respect them. Rand is anything but deserving of respect as a scholar.

Quote:
Economics and empiricism don't mix well.


Empiricism is all we have. In the manner of taking whole examples (like Chile and Argentina, perhaps) - this practice may not be very useful for economics. But you cannot honestly suggest that economics and empirical knowledge do not mix well - empirical knowledge is essential.

Quote:
As already pointed out, Mises showed how and why "true" communism wouldn't work before "fake" communism was ever implemented. Hayek, together with Mises, showed how "fake" communism (e.g. socialism) wouldn't work either in their debates with Oskar Lange.


And there was a time when the leading schoolmen were reported to have already shown that the sun moves around the Earth. They wound up wrong. Not to say Mises and Hayek were wrong, but the debates of schoolmen do not determine the nature of reality.

And, just a wild guess, but I imagine that Hayek and Mises relied on empirical knowledge to make their points.

Quote:
"I'll ignore the evidence presented to me and just state that you're ignorant and that you'll come around when you look at the REAL evidence, which I also failed to supply."


Oh, boo hoo. Go cry somewhere else. My interest in economics only extends so far, and that interest definately ends before we get into pouring over economic data for the sake of a poorly defined debate.

Again, think whatever you like, I don't care. This one just doesn't concern me.

Quote:
You implied that laissez faire policies were to blame for the stock market crash: Of course, Hoover's earlier laissez faire policies did not work either, now did they? And while Hoover was employing laissez faire policies, the Great Depression was still predicted by economists. No wonder. Extremes fail.


Instead of making things up, read my posts.

Early in the Hoover administration, Hoover employed laissez faire policies. Despite these policies, economists predicted the Great Depression. Hoover's early laissez faire streak was not enough to overcome the looming depression. When Hoover began his campaign of government intervention, he just prolonged the Depression. Both extremes, laissez faire and government intervention, failed.
 
as0l0
 
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2008 07:48 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
excuse me for interrupting, and I'm sure this is a stupid question...but...why do we need economics?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 05:33 pm
@as0l0,
Quote:
excuse me for interrupting, and I'm sure this is a stupid question...but...why do we need economics?


Interruptions and questions are always welcome Smile

Economics comes from Greek roots meaning house and customs. While the study of economics is generally concerned with goods and services, we study these goods and service, their production, distribution, ect, because they are the preeminent concerns for a household.

Governments need economic policy because various entities (nations, businesses, ect) wage economic warfare and have for thousands of years.
 
as0l0
 
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2008 06:10 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Interruptions and questions are always welcome Smile

Economics comes from Greek roots meaning house and customs. While the study of economics is generally concerned with goods and services, we study these goods and service, their production, distribution, ect, because they are the preeminent concerns for a household.

Governments need economic policy because various entities (nations, businesses, ect) wage economic warfare and have for thousands of years.


Thanks for the reply Didymos, I've been looking forward to the answer. I think that's a very nice description of economics (really), but it sounds like something we could do without! A focus on economics as a primary goal seems to lead to 'efficiency for the sake of efficiency'. If economics were required in our ideal nation, would it be better to use economics to give just exactly what we need to further our more important goals (whatever they might be)?

I still question the need for economics though.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/21/2024 at 07:17:08