Irontruth wrote: The problem I have with a Keynes vs Hayek debate is that elements of both are correct and trying to establish one as correct and the other incorrect is to miss the truth of the problem entirely.
The problem I have with all "pure free market" philosophies is that the market isn't rational, which is a fundamental requirement for a successful free market. The reason it isn't rational is because humans aren't rational. Behavioral experiments show us that humans don't think rationally when it comes to money. Numerous experiments show us that humans routinely make bad decisions that are not in their best interest. Not just regularly, but predictably and reliably.
That of course means that government control isn't ideal either, because you still have irrational humans in control. It's the same problem, but with fewer actors.
And to me, the more actors, acting independently, the better. (the problem with gov'ts is not only fewer actors, but that those actors tend to act together to a good extent) To use a metaphor, the present is a clearing, with the future being a choice of innumerable paths out of said clearing. We cannot see very far down any of the paths; most of us can only see a small percentage of the total paths at all. Better to have millions of people independently choose which path they want, and have a better chance of someone choosing an incredibly good path, then to have a few choose a couple of paths for everyone to go down.
KahnyaGnorc wrote: Irontruth wrote: The problem I have with a Keynes vs Hayek debate is that elements of both are correct and trying to establish one as correct and the other incorrect is to miss the truth of the problem entirely.
The problem I have with all "pure free market" philosophies is that the market isn't rational, which is a fundamental requirement for a successful free market. The reason it isn't rational is because humans aren't rational. Behavioral experiments show us that humans don't think rationally when it comes to money. Numerous experiments show us that humans routinely make bad decisions that are not in their best interest. Not just regularly, but predictably and reliably.
That of course means that government control isn't ideal either, because you still have irrational humans in control. It's the same problem, but with fewer actors.
And to me, the more actors, acting independently, the better. (the problem with gov'ts is not only fewer actors, but that those actors tend to act together to a good extent) To use a metaphor, the present is a clearing, with the future being a choice of innumerable paths out of said clearing. We cannot see very far down any of the paths; most of us can only see a small percentage of the total paths at all. Better to have millions of people independently choose which path they want, and have a better chance of someone choosing an incredibly good path, then to have a few choose a couple of paths for everyone to go down. To extend the silly metaphor: Better unless you want to get somewhere, in which case a whole bunch of people wandering around on their own isn't the best approach.
thejeff wrote: KahnyaGnorc wrote: Irontruth wrote: The problem I have with a Keynes vs Hayek debate is that elements of both are correct and trying to establish one as correct and the other incorrect is to miss the truth of the problem entirely.
The problem I have with all "pure free market" philosophies is that the market isn't rational, which is a fundamental requirement for a successful free market. The reason it isn't rational is because humans aren't rational. Behavioral experiments show us that humans don't think rationally when it comes to money. Numerous experiments show us that humans routinely make bad decisions that are not in their best interest. Not just regularly, but predictably and reliably.
That of course means that government control isn't ideal either, because you still have irrational humans in control. It's the same problem, but with fewer actors.
And to me, the more actors, acting independently, the better. (the problem with gov'ts is not only fewer actors, but that those actors tend to act together to a good extent) To use a metaphor, the present is a clearing, with the future being a choice of innumerable paths out of said clearing. We cannot see very far down any of the paths; most of us can only see a small percentage of the total paths at all. Better to have millions of people independently choose which path they want, and have a better chance of someone choosing an incredibly good path, then to have a few choose a couple of paths for everyone to go down. To extend the silly metaphor: Better unless you want to get somewhere, in which case a whole bunch of people wandering around on their own isn't the best approach. Except no one knows WHICH path gets you there. So, the more paths traversed, the better chance someone discovers a path that gets you where you want to go.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Only if you can actually agree on where it is you want to go. Otherwise you have a bunch of people wandering around with no direction. To bring this back around to climate change, there is simply no possible way to take any sort of meaningful action without national direction, that is explicitly political. I don't want to turn this into a statist vs. non-statist thing, but there is a reason we use a federal government, because it has numerous advantages in these exact sorts of situations.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thunderspirit wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: Yes, that's what he said. It's "the tinfoil hat paranoid view." He simply spelled "libertarian" correctly. I'm no advocate of Randian thinking — Ayn Rand is to politics as L. Ron Hubbard is to religion — but that's a little harsh. Libertarian is no more a dirty word than liberal or conservative.
When you have a mindset that is fixated on the idea of the state as nothing but a brute club of force, "harsh" is kind for the kind of criticism such a viewpoint deserves.
That is randian thinking. While technically a Libertarian isn't necessarily an Ayn Rand disciple, Randism is pretty much the driving force behind Libertarian thought these days.
Randists like to think of themselves as mondern day John Galts, when they actually are self-absorbed narcissistic divas.
Actually, we have a Federal Government to conduct foreign policy and to prevent states from enacting protectionist policies against each other (the reason for the Commerce Clause). Later, with the 14th Amendment, ensuring that the states didn't violate individual rights was added to the responsibility. (There are a few minor powers, like the patent office and the ability to set up a postal service, but those three are the major ones).
As for government and force, what does the government do that is not carried out by force, whether confiscatory (taxes, fines, penalties) or confinement (arrest for activities, including vile ones that deserve imprisonment, but also include, say, not following the confiscatory laws)?
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
KahnyaGnorc wrote: Actually, we have a Federal Government to conduct foreign policy and to prevent states from enacting protectionist policies against each other (the reason for the Commerce Clause). Later, with the 14th Amendment, ensuring that the states didn't violate individual rights was added to the responsibility. (There are a few minor powers, like the patent office and the ability to set up a postal service, but those three are the major ones).
As for government and force, what does the government do that is not carried out by force, whether confiscatory (taxes, fines, penalties) or confinement (arrest for activities, including vile ones that deserve imprisonment, but also include, say, not following the confiscatory laws)?
Building roads and bridges. Printing money. Creating National Parks. Building the ships that comprise the Navy and employs thousands of skilled workers. Creating monuments. I can go on like this for awhile.
Squeakmaan wrote: KahnyaGnorc wrote: Actually, we have a Federal Government to conduct foreign policy and to prevent states from enacting protectionist policies against each other (the reason for the Commerce Clause). Later, with the 14th Amendment, ensuring that the states didn't violate individual rights was added to the responsibility. (There are a few minor powers, like the patent office and the ability to set up a postal service, but those three are the major ones).
As for government and force, what does the government do that is not carried out by force, whether confiscatory (taxes, fines, penalties) or confinement (arrest for activities, including vile ones that deserve imprisonment, but also include, say, not following the confiscatory laws)?
Building roads and bridges. Printing money. Creating National Parks. Building the ships that comprise the Navy and employs thousands of skilled workers. Creating monuments. I can go on like this for awhile. All those made possible by force, whether it is money taken by force or land taken by force.
KahnyaGnorc wrote: Squeakmaan wrote: KahnyaGnorc wrote: Actually, we have a Federal Government to conduct foreign policy and to prevent states from enacting protectionist policies against each other (the reason for the Commerce Clause). Later, with the 14th Amendment, ensuring that the states didn't violate individual rights was added to the responsibility. (There are a few minor powers, like the patent office and the ability to set up a postal service, but those three are the major ones).
As for government and force, what does the government do that is not carried out by force, whether confiscatory (taxes, fines, penalties) or confinement (arrest for activities, including vile ones that deserve imprisonment, but also include, say, not following the confiscatory laws)?
Building roads and bridges. Printing money. Creating National Parks. Building the ships that comprise the Navy and employs thousands of skilled workers. Creating monuments. I can go on like this for awhile. All those made possible by force, whether it is money taken by force or land taken by force. As are the few things you actually want the federal government to do.
And everything the state or local governments do.
It's also not entirely clear how the land is taken by force. Admittedly most of the national park land was taken by force from the previous inhabitants when the US claimed it, but other than that, the vast majority of it was not. And given that, using that definition, the private land was also taken by force - often by the government and then distributed to private actors.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
And we created that government because we needed it. We tried doing without much of a government, the Articles of Confederation were a massive and utter failure. Heck even the idea that we're not a democracy is fully wrong. We're a Republic with a representative democracy, they aren't mutually exclusive terms.
Oh, yes, since everything the government does is via force, the stuff it is supposed to do, whether it is foreign policy on the federal level or policing at the state and local levels, is done via force. This is ultimately why government should be kept on a tight constitutional leash, because of the force it can wield. And, yes, a certain level of taxation, and other confiscatory acts of force, is required for governments to do their constitutional duties. It should be kept low, simple, and uncorrupted (none of which it is today)
Force is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is dangerous.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
KahnyaGnorc wrote: Actually, we have a Federal Government to conduct foreign policy and to prevent states from enacting protectionist policies against each other (the reason for the Commerce Clause). Later, with the 14th Amendment, ensuring that the states didn't violate individual rights was added to the responsibility. (There are a few minor powers, like the patent office and the ability to set up a postal service, but those three are the major ones).
As for government and force, what does the government do that is not carried out by force, whether confiscatory (taxes, fines, penalties) or confinement (arrest for activities, including vile ones that deserve imprisonment, but also include, say, not following the confiscatory laws)?
You keep reading government as an iron collar imposed on us. Democracy however is government operated by the consent of the governed.
Democracy of the people, by the people, for the people.
Or do you actually prefer the older system of rule by the strongest local warlord?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LazarX wrote: Or do you actually prefer the older system of rule by the strongest local warlord? Well, they are an admitted anarchist libertarian.
Krensky wrote: LazarX wrote: Or do you actually prefer the older system of rule by the strongest local warlord? Well, they are an admitted anarchist libertarian. Technically, I think this one is a minarchist, so at least he acknowledges that some minimal government is necessary. It's only the complete crazy types willing to make the "do away with government entirely (and somehow don't expect some local warlord to step in)" thing.
LazarX wrote: KahnyaGnorc wrote: Actually, we have a Federal Government to conduct foreign policy and to prevent states from enacting protectionist policies against each other (the reason for the Commerce Clause). Later, with the 14th Amendment, ensuring that the states didn't violate individual rights was added to the responsibility. (There are a few minor powers, like the patent office and the ability to set up a postal service, but those three are the major ones).
As for government and force, what does the government do that is not carried out by force, whether confiscatory (taxes, fines, penalties) or confinement (arrest for activities, including vile ones that deserve imprisonment, but also include, say, not following the confiscatory laws)?
You keep reading government as an iron collar imposed on us. Democracy however is government operated by the consent of the governed.
Democracy of the people, by the people, for the people.
Or do you actually prefer the older system of rule by the strongest local warlord? Nah, that would be an anarchist (since that is what would inevitably follow any true implementation of anarchy).
True democracy would allow half-plus-one of the electorate tyrannize the half-minus-one (plus the non-electorate), which is why the U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Government force that locks up murderers, thieves, and the like is good force, but force nonetheless. Government force that defeated the axis powers and economically squeezed the Soviets into collapse was good force, but force nonetheless.
Government force that makes it harder for entrepreneurs to run small businesses, more expensive and unreliable for someone in the South to keep their place cool and livable in the summer, or punishes a rural tradesman because he needs a big ol' truck to haul his equipment 30 miles to service his customer . . . bad force.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
KahnyaGnorc wrote: LazarX wrote: KahnyaGnorc wrote: Actually, we have a Federal Government to conduct foreign policy and to prevent states from enacting protectionist policies against each other (the reason for the Commerce Clause). Later, with the 14th Amendment, ensuring that the states didn't violate individual rights was added to the responsibility. (There are a few minor powers, like the patent office and the ability to set up a postal service, but those three are the major ones).
As for government and force, what does the government do that is not carried out by force, whether confiscatory (taxes, fines, penalties) or confinement (arrest for activities, including vile ones that deserve imprisonment, but also include, say, not following the confiscatory laws)?
You keep reading government as an iron collar imposed on us. Democracy however is government operated by the consent of the governed.
Democracy of the people, by the people, for the people.
Or do you actually prefer the older system of rule by the strongest local warlord? Nah, that would be an anarchist (since that is what would inevitably follow any true implementation of anarchy).
True democracy would allow half-plus-one of the electorate tyrannize the half-minus-one (plus the non-electorate), which is why the U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Government force that locks up murderers, thieves, and the like is good force, but force nonetheless. Government force that defeated the axis powers and economically squeezed the Soviets into collapse was good force, but force nonetheless.
Government force that makes it harder for entrepreneurs to run small businesses, more expensive and unreliable for someone in the South to keep their place cool and livable in the summer, or punishes a rural tradesman because he needs a big ol' truck to haul his equipment 30 miles to service his customer . . . bad force. That's a very simplistic view of democracy. And describing the U.S. as a republic not a democracy essentially puts us all in the same place as East Germany's "Republic", the "Republics" of the Soviet Union and my favorite the Congo Democratic Republic.
A Democracy that allows unlimited tyranny on or by the minority is a democracy not long for this world.
Describing governent as solely an incarnation of force pretty much is callling it an instrument of thuggery, whether you approve of the ends or not.
When I was a Board Member of NJPIRG, I had quite a few conversations with the local Libertarians whom as you might guess did not approve much of our local activities, which included suing (AND WINNING) on Exxon. Libertarians tend to believe that the magic hand of self interest can and should be used to replace all regulatory functions currently overseen by government agencies. None of them however would explain how this magic hand of theirs would come to be given the history that forced the creation of these agencies in the first place.
Ayn Rand was a big thing among the Rutgers libertarians at my time there as you might guess. In fact it was at the suggestion of one of them who was a dorm acquaitance of mine that I slogged through The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged over a weekend. (and I really had to flog myself to finish the second book)
To be fair though, The Fountainhead is MUCH better as a movie.
thunderspirit wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: Yes, that's what he said. It's "the tinfoil hat paranoid view." He simply spelled "libertarian" correctly. I'm no advocate of Randian thinking — Ayn Rand is to politics as L. Ron Hubbard is to religion — but that's a little harsh. Libertarian is no more a dirty word than liberal or conservative.
Dear Penthouse Gygax Magazine,
You'll never believe what happened to me when our GM loot-dropped the Rand of Vecna on our party of 1st-level PCs...
East Germany and the country formerly known as Zaire are/were both nations, so by your logic, calling the U.S. a nation is also putting them in the same place. The United Kingdom is a Kingdom, so is it on the same level as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?
Athens was a democracy that lasted a decent amount of time with tyranny of the majority (of Athenian citizens, that is).
You are conflating force with thuggery, not I. There is an intersect of force and thuggery, but the is a lot of force out there that is not thuggery. (Although, government CAN be an instrument of thuggery, see Putin's Russia)
Listen, if a car company ignores a fatal flaw that ends up killing and/or harming people, whether drivers, passengers, or bystanders, nail their ass to the wall. Same with a drug sold with a covered-up side effect.
Finally, I am not an Objectivist, a Randian, or even a Ronulan (although the son is more appealing to me than the father). I like some things Ayn Rand said (two examples: that the individual has been the smallest and most oppressed minority in history, and that racism is amongst the worst form of collectivism) and disagree with others (I am not an atheist, but I am a supporter of private charity, something Ayn looked down upon, as, again, two examples).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote: thunderspirit wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: Yes, that's what he said. It's "the tinfoil hat paranoid view." He simply spelled "libertarian" correctly. I'm no advocate of Randian thinking — Ayn Rand is to politics as L. Ron Hubbard is to religion — but that's a little harsh. Libertarian is no more a dirty word than liberal or conservative.
Dear Penthouse Gygax Magazine,
You'll never believe what happened to me when our GM loot-dropped the Rand of Vecna on our party of 1st-level PCs... My favorite Rand would be the Robotech character (The red-haired biker guy fighting the invid)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ray, Genesis Climber MOSPEADA, Inbit.
Krensky wrote: Ray, Genesis Climber MOSPEADA, Inbit. Grew up partly on Robotech, so that chimera of anime has a special place in my heart of stone, as we minarchists tend to have. :p
KahnyaGnorc wrote: Irontruth wrote: The problem I have with a Keynes vs Hayek debate is that elements of both are correct and trying to establish one as correct and the other incorrect is to miss the truth of the problem entirely.
The problem I have with all "pure free market" philosophies is that the market isn't rational, which is a fundamental requirement for a successful free market. The reason it isn't rational is because humans aren't rational. Behavioral experiments show us that humans don't think rationally when it comes to money. Numerous experiments show us that humans routinely make bad decisions that are not in their best interest. Not just regularly, but predictably and reliably.
That of course means that government control isn't ideal either, because you still have irrational humans in control. It's the same problem, but with fewer actors.
And to me, the more actors, acting independently, the better. (the problem with gov'ts is not only fewer actors, but that those actors tend to act together to a good extent) To use a metaphor, the present is a clearing, with the future being a choice of innumerable paths out of said clearing. We cannot see very far down any of the paths; most of us can only see a small percentage of the total paths at all. Better to have millions of people independently choose which path they want, and have a better chance of someone choosing an incredibly good path, then to have a few choose a couple of paths for everyone to go down. To completely avoid the metaphor, the problem is that more actors doesn't solve the issue of boom/bust cycles, it actually exacerbates them. The more actors with fewer limits, the higher the highs and lower the lows. More regulation is a stifling force on both those directions.
The trick is finding the middle ground where we can have highs and lows to allow the market to sort itself out, but avoid the bubble/bust cycle that is very destructive.
A pure free market does not solve it.
Irontruth wrote: To completely avoid the metaphor, the problem is that more actors doesn't solve the issue of boom/bust cycles, it actually exacerbates them. The more actors with fewer limits, the higher the highs and lower the lows. More regulation is a stifling force on both those directions.
The trick is finding the middle ground where we can have highs and lows to allow the market to sort itself out, but avoid the bubble/bust cycle that is very destructive.
A pure free market does not solve it.
Or to put it another way, boom /bust cycles are how the market solves problems. We see it in the natural world as well as economics. It's often perfectly stable over the long term, just really unpleasant for those on the bust end of the cycle.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
You seem to have some limitations on your understanding of the word democracy that don't fit any definition of the word, I know this is very standard libertarian practice, but it would really help if you stated the definition of the words you're using so we can all understand and work from the same basis.
Squeakmaan wrote: You seem to have some limitations on your understanding of the word democracy that don't fit any definition of the word, I know this is very standard libertarian practice, but it would really help if you stated the definition of the words you're using so we can all understand and work from the same basis. Actually he seems to be using the older definition of democracy. Probably one the founders of the US would have understood.
Direct democracy without any constitutional protections - mob rule, basically. Probably extending to representative democracy, but without any of the checks and balances built into any functioning version.
You're right though. It's a silly semantic argument. Definitions of words change over time and arguing using an outdated version while others are using a different one is a pointless rhetorical trick.
thejeff wrote: Irontruth wrote: To completely avoid the metaphor, the problem is that more actors doesn't solve the issue of boom/bust cycles, it actually exacerbates them. The more actors with fewer limits, the higher the highs and lower the lows. More regulation is a stifling force on both those directions.
The trick is finding the middle ground where we can have highs and lows to allow the market to sort itself out, but avoid the bubble/bust cycle that is very destructive.
A pure free market does not solve it.
Or to put it another way, boom /bust cycles are how the market solves problems. We see it in the natural world as well as economics. It's often perfectly stable over the long term, just really unpleasant for those on the bust end of the cycle.
I will agree that government interventionism does suppress the booms. It does blunt the lowest of the lows, but it also slows and weakens the recovery thereafter, making the misery of a single moment less, but the aggregate sum of misery throughout the bust cycle more. Government interventionism also tends to help well-connected firms who should have weakened or died during the bust period ("too big to fail" and all that), while hurting those smaller, more vibrant companies that would have benefited from the well-connected companies' fall (largely, the companies' customers). Simply put, they try to repeal the laws of economics and have only the creative part of creative destruction, and that doesn't work.
Currently, we're due for another recession in the next couple of years, and the economy hasn't recovered enough to handle it, like it hadn't recovered enough for the '37 recession.
Yeah, you only want to argue for the one extreme. Not interesting.
KahnyaGnorc wrote: thejeff wrote: Irontruth wrote: To completely avoid the metaphor, the problem is that more actors doesn't solve the issue of boom/bust cycles, it actually exacerbates them. The more actors with fewer limits, the higher the highs and lower the lows. More regulation is a stifling force on both those directions.
The trick is finding the middle ground where we can have highs and lows to allow the market to sort itself out, but avoid the bubble/bust cycle that is very destructive.
A pure free market does not solve it.
Or to put it another way, boom /bust cycles are how the market solves problems. We see it in the natural world as well as economics. It's often perfectly stable over the long term, just really unpleasant for those on the bust end of the cycle.
I will agree that government interventionism does suppress the booms. It does blunt the lowest of the lows, but it also slows and weakens the recovery thereafter, making the misery of a single moment less, but the aggregate sum of misery throughout the bust cycle more. Government interventionism also tends to help well-connected firms who should have weakened or died during the bust period ("too big to fail" and all that), while hurting those smaller, more vibrant companies that would have benefited from the well-connected companies' fall (largely, the companies' customers). Simply put, they try to repeal the laws of economics and have only the creative part of creative destruction, and that doesn't work.
Currently, we're due for another recession in the next couple of years, and the economy hasn't recovered enough to handle it, like it hadn't recovered enough for the '37 recession. Except when done well it does. Even when done badly, it's better. The history of panics and depressions in the US prior to the Great Depression is scary and devastating. Post war bust times have been much weaker, even including the 2008 Great Recession, and accompanied by much stronger overall growth.
Intervention can be done badly: bailing out connected firms as you suggest. A safety net for those worst affected and guarantees that prevent runs on the bank are the baseline and do far more than anything else. The better approach for the failing firms would be temporary nationalization, taking them over, spinning them back off as private companies and giving the stockholders (and as necessary creditors) a major haircut.
Better yet, preemptive action, first raising interest rates to cool off the housing market before the bubble gets too big, along with limiting the size of financial actors so they don't get "Too big to fail."
Because make no mistake, the main players in the 2008 crash were too big to fail. The consequences of just letting the market play itself out would have been far, far worse than anything we saw. No matter the "moral hazard" or "creative destruction" or any other buzzword.
We took about the worst possible way of dealing with the problem, but that was still better than doing nothing.
Yes, I use classical definitions to words, especially in the realm of politics, since altering definitions to words allow politicians and lawyers (including lawyers-in-robes, aka judges and justices) to mislead and manipulate more easily for power and control. This is similar to the "Living Constitution" doctrine, or, how I refer to it, the "Anything Can Mean Anything As Long As It Furthers My Ideology" doctrine, since I have yet to hear a proponent of that argue a definition change that doesn't go along with their ideology. Now, the Constitution has changed over time, 27 times (18 if you count the Bill of Rights as one change instead of 10) in fact, 11 of those written by Madison himself (Bill of Rights plus the 27th). Most of them were good changes (the 11 written by Madison, plus the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments as stand-outs there), others not so good (16th is God-awful and has allowed for the corrupt mess of a tax code we now have).
It is not a "rhetorical trick," but simply an extension of my beliefs.
KahnyaGnorc wrote: Yes, I use classical definitions to words, especially in the realm of politics, since altering definitions to words allow politicians and lawyers (including lawyers-in-robes, aka judges and justices) to mislead and manipulate more easily for power and control. This is similar to the "Living Constitution" doctrine, or, how I refer to it, the "Anything Can Mean Anything As Long As It Furthers My Ideology" doctrine, since I have yet to hear a proponent of that argue a definition change that doesn't go along with their ideology. Now, the Constitution has changed over time, 27 times (18 if you count the Bill of Rights as one change instead of 10) in fact, 11 of those written by Madison himself (Bill of Rights plus the 27th). Most of them were good changes (the 11 written by Madison, plus the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments as stand-outs there), others not so good (16th is God-awful and has allowed for the corrupt mess of a tax code we now have).
It is not a "rhetorical trick," but simply an extension of my beliefs.
That's a good idea, when interpreting old documents.
When discussing things with someone else, it's important to agree on what the words you're using mean, if you're interested in actually communicating. If not, carry on.
thejeff wrote: KahnyaGnorc wrote: thejeff wrote: Irontruth wrote: To completely avoid the metaphor, the problem is that more actors doesn't solve the issue of boom/bust cycles, it actually exacerbates them. The more actors with fewer limits, the higher the highs and lower the lows. More regulation is a stifling force on both those directions.
The trick is finding the middle ground where we can have highs and lows to allow the market to sort itself out, but avoid the bubble/bust cycle that is very destructive.
A pure free market does not solve it.
Or to put it another way, boom /bust cycles are how the market solves problems. We see it in the natural world as well as economics. It's often perfectly stable over the long term, just really unpleasant for those on the bust end of the cycle.
I will agree that government interventionism does suppress the booms. It does blunt the lowest of the lows, but it also slows and weakens the recovery thereafter, making the misery of a single moment less, but the aggregate sum of misery throughout the bust cycle more. Government interventionism also tends to help well-connected firms who should have weakened or died during the bust period ("too big to fail" and all that), while hurting those smaller, more vibrant companies that would have benefited from the well-connected companies' fall (largely, the companies' customers). Simply put, they try to repeal the laws of economics and have only the creative part of creative destruction, and that doesn't work.
Currently, we're due for another recession in the next couple of years, and the economy hasn't recovered enough to handle it, like it hadn't recovered enough for the '37 recession. Except when done well it does. Even when done badly, it's better. The history of panics and depressions in the US prior to the Great Depression is scary and devastating. Post war bust times have been much weaker, even including the 2008 Great Recession, and accompanied by much stronger overall growth.... While I agree there should be a safety net for those at the bottom, I disagree with pretty much everything else, especially any sort of "temporary" nationalization ("Nothing more permanent than a temporary government program" hence the quotes). I'd point to the '21 recession. It was the worst we've ever had, by far, much worse than the '29 one. It was also followed by the largest growth period we've had, with 20% real wage growth amongst the incredible metrics. Not only that, but the depths of the '21 were reversed very quickly.
The recession part of the so-called "Great Recession" wasn't that bad, the metrics during the recession were better than, say, the economy during the late 70's. It was the "recovery" that was, and still is, bad. Taking into account the near-record low labor participation rates (getting as low as before women were fully in the workforce), real unemployment is still very high . . . taking underemployment into consideration and it's higher still. (Youth and minority real unemployment is still close to 20%) Again, we've been unprepared economically for the next recession before, the '37 recession being a prime example. Hopefully, this time it won't take millions dead, severe supply shortages, and mass rationing (aka a World War) to recover.
Since I am not going to be in this thread much for the remainder of this weekend at least (I got code to write and games to play . . . also it is a beautiful day out for a walk), I would just like to post that it was pleasure and an honor to have this debate with people who have a sincere and deeply-held difference of opinion than myself in these matters. I hop it was as fulfilling and enlightening for you as it was for me.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
KahnyaGnorc wrote: This is similar to the "Living Constitution" doctrine, or, how I refer to it, the "Anything Can Mean Anything As Long As It Furthers My Ideology" doctrine, since I have yet to hear a proponent of that argue a definition change that doesn't go along with their ideology. You do know that the concept of a "Living Document" as applied to the Constitution dates from the Founding Fathers themselves? It's the specific reason that they put in a process of Amendment. That they were wise enough to realize that they could not forsee the extended future and allowed future generations to adapt the document to future circumstances... such as freeing blacks and American Indians from slavery, or the Internet. (yes we enslaved them too, mostly in California), giving women BACK the vote) and so on.
LazarX wrote: KahnyaGnorc wrote: This is similar to the "Living Constitution" doctrine, or, how I refer to it, the "Anything Can Mean Anything As Long As It Furthers My Ideology" doctrine, since I have yet to hear a proponent of that argue a definition change that doesn't go along with their ideology. You do know that the concept of a "Living Document" as applied to the Constitution dates from the Founding Fathers themselves? It's the specific reason that they put in a process of Amendment. That they were wise enough to realize that they could not forsee the extended future and allowed future generations to adapt the document to future circumstances... such as freeing blacks and American Indians from slavery, or the Internet. (yes we enslaved them too, mostly in California), giving women BACK the vote) and so on. Also, re-read Marbury vs Madison some time.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
KahnyaGnorc wrote: You are conflating force with thuggery, not I. There is an intersect of force and thuggery, but the is a lot of force out there that is not thuggery. (Although, government CAN be an instrument of thuggery, see Putin's Russia) Absolutely I am... because when you use the term "force" with government, your private definition of things matches up with the kind of language used on extreme anarchist, and anarcho-libertarian sites, especially the kind that peddles the so-called "Sovereign Citizen" clause.
This is why I don't encourage people to use private definitions.. For one thing... they're pretty much useless in getting an exchange of ideas across a conversation. Another is the fact that someone else may have co-opted your privater terminology in a whole different context.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LazarX wrote: KahnyaGnorc wrote: This is similar to the "Living Constitution" doctrine, or, how I refer to it, the "Anything Can Mean Anything As Long As It Furthers My Ideology" doctrine, since I have yet to hear a proponent of that argue a definition change that doesn't go along with their ideology. You do know that the concept of a "Living Document" as applied to the Constitution dates from the Founding Fathers themselves? It's the specific reason that they put in a process of Amendment. That they were wise enough to realize that they could not forsee the extended future and allowed future generations to adapt the document to future circumstances... such as freeing blacks and American Indians from slavery, or the Internet. (yes we enslaved them too, mostly in California), giving women BACK the vote) and so on. In fairness, his "Living Constitution" doctrine isn't the same as the "Living Document" you're talking about. In fact, he actually mentions amendments.
He's talking about reinterpreting the Constitution to find "new", not specified rights or powers in the existing text rather than amending it.
A point of view with which I'd have some sympathy, if I was any kind of Constitutionalist. Since I recognize that throughout US history many of the rights in the Constitution have, despite clear language, been ignored. Even our modern understanding of Free Speech, for example, didn't really exist until the anarchists and birth control advocates fought for it in the 20s and various free speech movements in the 60s and 70s. And of course now, it's perverted to political bribery. The rights we have are the rights we can fight for and win. The Constitution is a tool in the fight, nothing more.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: KahnyaGnorc wrote: This is similar to the "Living Constitution" doctrine, or, how I refer to it, the "Anything Can Mean Anything As Long As It Furthers My Ideology" doctrine, since I have yet to hear a proponent of that argue a definition change that doesn't go along with their ideology. You do know that the concept of a "Living Document" as applied to the Constitution dates from the Founding Fathers themselves? It's the specific reason that they put in a process of Amendment. That they were wise enough to realize that they could not forsee the extended future and allowed future generations to adapt the document to future circumstances... such as freeing blacks and American Indians from slavery, or the Internet. (yes we enslaved them too, mostly in California), giving women BACK the vote) and so on. In fairness, his "Living Constitution" doctrine isn't the same as the "Living Document" you're talking about. In fact, he actually mentions amendments.
He's talking about reinterpreting the Constitution to find "new", not specified rights or powers in the existing text rather than amending it.
A point of view with which I'd have some sympathy, if I was any kind of Constitutionalist. Since I recognize that throughout US history many of the rights in the Constitution have, despite clear language, been ignored. Even our modern understanding of Free Speech, for example, didn't really exist until the anarchists and birth control advocates fought for it in the 20s and various free speech movements in the 60s and 70s. And of course now, it's perverted to political bribery. The rights we have are the rights we can fight for and win. The Constitution is a tool in the fight, nothing more. With his "private meaning" for things though, I've got problems following what he's trying to say.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
|
