eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (07/22/85)
I always hate to see absurd statements on the net, especially when they originate from someone who has earned my highest respect in the past. > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > There are some things I'm proud to have a "profound ignorance" of, because I'd > suspect my intellect was disintegrating if I "understood" them. Such as > Reagan's voodoo economics and libertarianism. But go ahead, Sykora, explain > it. I don't think you can do much more than wave your hands Anyone who has taken econ101 should recognize the advantages of a free market. Indeed, if you accept the axioms, the libertarian conclusions are inescapable. You may or may not be profoundly ignorant (economically), but our government often is, and the consequences are disastrous. I would never be "proud" of ignorance. Let me try to present some thoughts in an organized manner. 1. Comparing libertarianism with Reagan's economics is unjustified, Although his policies *are* more libertarian than Mondales. Coincidently, they are, in many ways, preferable (e.g. breaking unions, reducing import restrictions, reducing subsidies, simplifying taxes, etc). In some ways they are worse. I shall save discussions of Mondale economics vs Reagan foreign policy, lesser of two evils, for a future article. In the meantime, don't judge libertarian concepts by a republican president. 2. If libertarianism is inescapable, why do *some* intelligent educated people (such as yourself) question it. The reason is the "if". None of the axioms are entirely true, and some are blatantly false. One axiom which can never be true is: "individuals are moral". Even if you began with a moral, perfectly free society, any immoral mutant would have selective advantage in this unconstrained world, and would have more descendants, etc. Libertarians freely agree to legislation prohibiting murder and rape, but fraud and unsafe products can be equally damaging to society. Sykora's quality assurance companies that would spring up suffer from the same temptations. Kickbacks, bribes, and inappropriate competitive practices may make these companies as bad as the ones they are monitoring. I'm sure Godel would tell us we have to jump outside the system to combat criminal business practices. So I reluctantly accept government control agencies (EPA, FDA, etc). With this exception noted, the immorality of the individual doesn't threaten the validity of free markets. Indeed, it supports them. Laziness (the most common form of robbery) is never rewarded in a free market. If the theory doesn't convince you, compare the productivity of existing countries, or China now vs China earlier. 3. Other axioms are affected by mean education level, and the technology available to the society. You cannot have "knowledge of the market" without telecommunications, and you cannot "buy/provide the good/service you chose to" without an adequate transportation network. You cannot "know what is best for you" without some education. Witness the thousands of drug addicts. So I reluctantly accept some programs supporting education. A third world country often violates so many of these axioms, that communism or socialism may be the only viable form of economics. As the citizens advance technologically and intellectually, capitalism becomes viable. Libertarianism may not be an ideal system, but it is more viable today than it was a century ago, and it will be more viable a century from now. 4. the axiom measuring the "state of the society" is necessarily subjective. Let me consider the economic state of a society. I know, other factors affect happiness, but humor me. If each person has assets equivalent to $a[i], how is the society doing? Socialists are more concerned with the variance, while libertarians are more concerned with the mean. Does this make one philosophy "cruel" or "self-centered" or "intrinsicly immoral". I don't think so. Personally, my function is something like: average log(a[i]+1). This increases with increasing productivity, and (holding the mean constant) it increases with decreasing variance. I used things like Webber's law (humans perceive things logrithmatically), and other handwaving tricks to justify this subjective and simplistic formula. Others may have a formula: minimum a[i]. Nobody should do without!! To them, a socialist country where everybody has $15 is better than a libertarian country, where the average person has $60, but some people in the slums only have $5. How can I argue against this value judgment? If your formula has these properties, it violates an essential axiom, and you will never like pure libertarianism. However, it is not wise to remain "ignorant" about libertarianism. Often (pushing the above analogy to its limits), it costs $17 to live. My own personal opinion is, free economies are *so* much more efficient, that a few (well thought out) programs could give the people in the slums $10, without severely disrupting the system. So I reluctantly accept intelligent social programs (that is, I will, if I ever see any). 5. To Sykora: It is refreshing to read articles from someone who understands economic theory. I wish there were some econ101 requirement for senators and representatives. However, I must remind you that many opponents have valid points. Implying that free markets can combat fraud, criminal business practices, or discrimination is idealistic, and turns people away from the many valid libertarian policies. We, as a society, cannot afford this. Let's use the power of free markets, without expecting miracles. -- I never know what to put in these damn .signature files. Everybody expects me to be clever, or profound, or cute, or funny. I just can't take the pressure any more. They're out to get ... Doctor? ... Hey, where are you going? My session isn't over yet!!! Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/24/85)
In article <262@ihnet.UUCP> eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) writes: >Anyone who has taken econ101 should recognize the advantages of a free >market. Indeed, if you accept the axioms, the libertarian conclusions >are inescapable. You may or may not be profoundly ignorant (economically), >but our government often is, and the consequences are disastrous. Perhaps so, but there seem to be two conflicting uses of the word "free" here. If you take "free market" to mean something like a classical economy, then you do indeed get the benefits claimed. But libertarians seem to me to be quite consistent in equating "free market" with uncontrolled market. THe historical rather plainly shows that markets tend to drift away from perfect competition towards monopolies and oligopolies as a result of natural forces, unless there are restraining forces to oppose this. In some industries, these forces exist naturally. This is not the case, however, in most manufacturing industries. Hence, there seems to be a contradiction here; you can't have classical free markets and uncontrolled markets at the same time. >2. If libertarianism is inescapable, why do *some* intelligent educated >people (such as yourself) question it. The reason is the "if". >None of the axioms are entirely true, and some are blatantly false. >One axiom which can never be true is: "individuals are moral". >Even if you began with a moral, perfectly free society, any immoral mutant >would have selective advantage in this unconstrained world, and would have >more descendants, etc. Libertarians freely agree to legislation prohibiting >murder and rape, but fraud and unsafe products can be equally damaging to >society. Sykora's quality assurance companies that would spring up suffer >from the same temptations. Kickbacks, bribes, and inappropriate >competitive practices may make these companies as bad as the ones they >are monitoring. >So I reluctantly accept government control agencies (EPA, FDA, etc). >With this exception noted, the immorality of the individual doesn't >threaten the validity of free markets. Indeed, it supports them. >Laziness (the most common form of robbery) is never rewarded in a free >market. If the theory doesn't convince you, compare the productivity >of existing countries, or China now vs China earlier. I note that this passage employs the double usage of "free" I noted above. As a result, it is vulnerable to criticism based on the historical record. People can in fact work to distort the free market, and make it less so. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "Better get used to those bars, kid."
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/24/85)
In article <262@ihnet.UUCP> eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) writes: > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh > > There are some things I'm proud to have a "profound ignorance" of, because > > I'd suspect my intellect was disintegrating if I "understood" them. Such as > > Reagan's voodoo economics and libertarianism. But go ahead, Sykora, explain > > it. I don't think you can do much more than wave your hands > > I always hate to see absurd statements on the net, > especially when they originate from someone who has earned > my highest respect in the past. Arggh! Nailed by my own excess of hyperbole! Let me be a bit more explicit as a way of making amends. (And thanks for the compliment....) Libertarianism, Reaganomics, etc. that I disparage are bundles of ideas and promises that I consider inconsistent, irrational, and representative only of very narrow class interests. Some of the ideas they espouse (such as free markets) are wonderful and good. But the rest of the bundle doesn't fit. Unbridled free markets would probably bring about a multitude of problems, for example, but libertarians want to remove all the constraints. To profess to believe or "understand" these systems without satisfactory answers to the serious problems is evidence (in my opinion) of optimism (at best), credulity, or cynical trickery. You and I are mostly agreed on the specifics of what's good and bad about Libertarianism and Reaganomics. I'll cite portions of the remainder of your note that we agree upon. > Anyone who has taken econ101 should recognize the advantages of a free market. > > 2. If libertarianism is inescapable, why do *some* intelligent educated > people (such as yourself) question it. The reason is the "if". > None of the axioms are entirely true, and some are blatantly false. > One axiom which can never be true is: "individuals are moral". > Even if you began with a moral, perfectly free society, > any immoral mutant would have selective advantage in this unconstrained world, > and would have more descendants, etc. > Libertarians freely agree to legislation prohibiting murder and rape, > but fraud and unsafe products can be equally damaging to society. > Sykora's quality assurance companies that would spring up suffer from the > same temptations. Kickbacks, bribes, and inappropriate competitive practices > may make these companies as bad as the ones they are monitoring. > I'm sure Godel would tell us we have to jump outside the system > to combat criminal business practices. > So I reluctantly accept government control agencies (EPA, FDA, etc). > With this exception noted, the immorality of the individual doesn't > threaten the validity of free markets. Indeed, it supports them. > Laziness (the most common form of robbery) is never rewarded in a free market. > If the theory doesn't convince you, compare the productivity of existing > countries, or China now vs China earlier. > > 3. Other axioms are affected by mean education level, > and the technology available to the society. > You cannot have "knowledge of the market" without telecommunications, > and you cannot "buy/provide the good/service you chose to" without > an adequate transportation network. > You cannot "know what is best for you" without some education. > Witness the thousands of drug addicts. > So I reluctantly accept some programs supporting education. > A third world country often violates so many of these axioms, > that communism or socialism may be the only viable form of economics. > As the citizens advance technologically and intellectually, > capitalism becomes viable. > > 4. the axiom measuring the "state of the society" > is necessarily subjective. Let me consider the economic state of a society. > I know, other factors affect happiness, but humor me. > If each person has assets equivalent to $a[i], > how is the society doing? > Socialists are more concerned with the variance, while libertarians > are more concerned with the mean. Does this make one philosophy > "cruel" or "self-centered" or "intrinsicly immoral". I don't think so. > Personally, my function is something like: average log(a[i]+1). > This increases with increasing productivity, and (holding the mean constant) > it increases with decreasing variance. I used things like Webber's law > (humans perceive things logrithmatically), and other handwaving tricks > to justify this subjective and simplistic formula. > Others may have a formula: minimum a[i]. > Nobody should do without!! > To them, a socialist country where everybody has $15 is better than > a libertarian country, where the average person has $60, > but some people in the slums only have $5. > How can I argue against this value judgment? > If your formula has these properties, > it violates an essential axiom, and you will never like pure libertarianism. > However, it is not wise to remain "ignorant" about libertarianism. > Often (pushing the above analogy to its limits), > it costs $17 to live. > My own personal opinion is, free economies are *so* much more efficient, > that a few (well thought out) programs could give the people in the slums $10, > without severely disrupting the system. > So I reluctantly accept intelligent social programs > (that is, I will, if I ever see any). > > 5. To Sykora: It is refreshing to read articles from > someone who understands economic theory. > I wish there were some econ101 requirement for senators and representatives. > However, I must remind you that many opponents have valid points. > Implying that free markets can combat fraud, criminal business practices, > or discrimination is idealistic, > and turns people away from the many valid libertarian policies. > We, as a society, cannot afford this. > Let's use the power of free markets, without expecting miracles. I disagree with the following two points (in parts). > 1. Comparing libertarianism with Reagan's economics is unjustified, > Although his policies *are* more libertarian than Mondales. > Coincidently, they are, in many ways, preferable > (e.g. breaking unions, reducing import restrictions, > reducing subsidies, simplifying taxes, etc). I specifically disagree with the idea of breaking unions. Unions are entirely compatible with the idea of a free market, and should be considered compatible with libertarian ideas of non-coercion. Indeed, the origin of a great deal of law concerning unions was to prevent physical coercion by employers against employees attempting to freely organize. Naturally, there is a fair amount wrong with unionization and laws concerning it today: but I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. > Libertarianism may not be an ideal system, but it is more viable today > than it was a century ago, and it will be more viable a century from now. Libertarianism is a bundle: I prefer to unbundle the ideas and present them separately. Some of the ideas and principles make good guidelines for efficiency, and are more viable today. But efficiency may not be the only goal, and there may be substantial undesirable side effects. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/27/85)
>/* Written 11:19 pm Jul 23, 1985 by umcp-cs!mangoe in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Re: Libertarianism, Mike vs Mike" ---------- */ >In article <262@ihnet.UUCP> eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) writes: > >>Anyone who has taken econ101 should recognize the advantages of a free >>market. Indeed, if you accept the axioms, the libertarian conclusions >>are inescapable. You may or may not be profoundly ignorant (economically), >>but our government often is, and the consequences are disastrous. > >Perhaps so, but there seem to be two conflicting uses of the word "free" >here. If you take "free market" to mean something like a classical economy, >then you do indeed get the benefits claimed. But libertarians seem to me to >be quite consistent in equating "free market" with uncontrolled market. THe >historical [record] rather plainly shows that markets tend to drift away from perfect >competition towards monopolies and oligopolies as a result of natural >forces, unless there are restraining forces to oppose this. In some >industries, these forces exist naturally. This is not the case, however, in >most manufacturing industries. Hence, there seems to be a contradiction >here; you can't have classical free markets and uncontrolled markets at the >same time. Please show us where the historical record indicates that markets tend to drift away from competition. In particular, the "restraining forces" you seem to imply might exist as a fluke seem to me to be quite ubiquitous. For someone who'd never heard of Consumer Reports, you sure seem to claim a lot of knowledge of history! > >I note that this passage employs the double usage of "free" I noted above. >As a result, it is vulnerable to criticism based on the historical record. >People can in fact work to distort the free market, and make it less so. Indeed they do! But their tools tend to be regulation, not natural market functions -- or hadn't you heard what happened to OPEC?
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (07/30/85)
In article <7800361@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >>Perhaps so, but there seem to be two conflicting uses of the word "free" >>here. If you take "free market" to mean something like a classical economy, >>then you do indeed get the benefits claimed. But libertarians seem to me to >>be quite consistent in equating "free market" with uncontrolled market. THe >>historical [record] rather plainly shows that markets tend to drift away >from perfect >>competition towards monopolies and oligopolies as a result of natural >>forces, unless there are restraining forces to oppose this. In some >>industries, these forces exist naturally. This is not the case, however, in >>most manufacturing industries. Hence, there seems to be a contradiction >>here; you can't have classical free markets and uncontrolled markets at the >>same time. >Please show us where the historical record indicates that markets tend >to drift away from competition. In particular, the "restraining forces" >you seem to imply might exist as a fluke seem to me to be quite >ubiquitous. Well, recall when US Steel had a monopoly in the steel industry? When Standard Oil was rapidly gobbling up all the oil companies in the country? When the railroads fought to destroy each other? And we mustn't forget Ma Bell. As an example where there ARE natural restraining forces, consider retail groceries. There are enough advantages to smaller chains and individual stores that allow them to compete successfully with larger chains (e.g. A+P, Safeway); in the Washington DC area, for instance, the market is dominated by a local chain. This is not a "fluke". But in the case of US Steel, things like local knowledge simply are not as important; steel is steel, in Indiana or Alabama. It seems that my anonymous opponent has forgotten what he was taught about monopolies in Econ 101. >For someone who'd never heard of Consumer Reports, you sure seem to >claim a lot of knowledge of history! All right, let's get down to the mat on this business of Consumer Reports. Again, it is conveniently forgotten that CU's biggest successes have involved getting *regulatory agencies* to do something. CU simply doesn't have the economic clout to go up against R.J. Reynolds without the backing of the government. >>I note that this passage employs the double usage of "free" I noted above. >>As a result, it is vulnerable to criticism based on the historical record. >>People can in fact work to distort the free market, and make it less so. >Indeed they do! But their tools tend to be regulation, not natural >market functions -- or hadn't you heard what happened to OPEC? Do I really have to remind you of how De Beers controls the diamond market-- without the use of any political power at all? Charley Wingate