radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (11/26/85)
> Even the most obtuse reader of this newsgroup must be aware, by now, of > the many points of contention between libertarians and socialists: if you > missed one of them you can always catch it on the next round. The points > of similarity are less often talked about... > > [ Detailed exposition of narrow-mined attitudes of both sides] > > ----- > Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,hplabs,intelca}!qantel!gabor On the whole, I quite agree. The discussions in this newsgroup become a bit boring after the 27th rehash of whether private law-enforcement is feasible or whether state ownership inevitably leads to tyranny. I think the problem is that people are taking the net.politics.THEORY bit too literally. Any real discussion of basic issues requires a deeper background in moral philosophy than is possible in this forum. But is it really necessary to argue about whether the last vestiges of conventional government can be eliminated, when the present government is at least an order of magnitude larger than a "minimal state"? So I propose an incremental approach. For starters, there has recently been controversy, in Canada and, I think, the US, about the decision to phase out import quotas on men's and women's shoes. A boring issue? Maybe, but it's many decisions like this that could eventually bring about some approximation of a "libertarian society". So do any "socialists" out there want to defend shoe quotas against the libertarians (me included)? If not, perhaps you'd like to give a list of what current state interventions you oppose also. Then we'd have something to agree on... Radford Neal PS: In Canada, the quota on men's shoes will be phased out faster than that on women's shoes. Seems to me like a clear violation of our shiny new Charter of Rights...
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (12/05/85)
> >So do any "socialists" out there want to defend shoe quotas against the > >libertarians... > > Heavens, no. Our trade dilemma is, however, a perfect example of > the failure of our government's dogmatic non-interventionist philosophy > and scatter-shot interventionist practice. > > One way to compete successfully with "Japan, Inc" might be to adopt > a "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em" attitude. The Japanese seem > to have found a way to maintain a healthy business climate within > a larger fabric of national economic planning. The US "free market" > philosophy is not merely a myth--it is totally out of sync with > the reality of the highly interdependent international marketplace. > By which criterion, incidentally, both new-line libertarianism and > old-line socialism equally miss the mark. > > ken perlow I assume you favor the government developing an "industrial strategy" or some such to deal with the "highly interdependent international marketplace". Such policies take money away from people and/or industries which are not favored by the planners and use it to subsidize the favored industries. Note that they do not, initially at least, *create* any wealth. It is therefore not at all obvious that they would help the economy. The only way they *can* help the economy is if the planners are better at making investment decisions than private investors are, or if private investors have somehow been directed into less profitable ventures by other government interventions. The first does not seem particularly likely, especially given the large amount of pork-barrel politics which will be laid over the planner's decisions before they are implemented. The second is certainly true to some extent - e.g. mortgage interest deducibility in the US channels investment into homes rather than industry. The solution is obvious. Does anyone know of any studies showing that Japan's MITI or other planning agencies have actually helped them? Just because they're there doesn't mean they are responsible for Japan's prosperity. Radford Neal
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/07/85)
>/* berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) / 1:02 pm Dec 4, 1985 */ > . . . But the wealth of >a nation consists to a large extend of the sum of the >wages. . . Ultimately, the wealth of a nation consists of the goods and services it consumes (both actual and potential), weighted according to consumers preferences. The sum of the wages is a measure of the overall wealth of a nation only to the extent that it approximates the above. Michael Sykora
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/07/85)
>/* gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) / 5:19 pm Dec 6, 1985 */ > . . . Such a >planning body would not make *better* decisions than the private sector >does now, but it could make *more optimal* decisions. >Today's investors >make contradictory and piece-meal decisions, each trying to maximize his >own profits often to the detriment of the larger economic climate. But >don't take my word for it, ask your banker. You appear to be ignoring much basic economic theory. But don't take my word for it, read Adam Smith. >ken perlow ***** ***** Michael Sykora
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (12/09/85)
>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 7:09 pm Dec 7, 1985 */ >On the other hand, I can give examples where regulation has been >successful. The U.S. securities industry is perhaps the best example. >This regulation should in fact be extended: to dealers in gems, >precious metals, and similar investments. A lot of innocent people >have lost a lot of money in scams in these areas recently. One point you may not have considered is that it is often better to have no regulation than inadequate regulation. By "inadequate," I mean regulations that significantly less than was originally (and, perhaps, still is) claimed. The problem such inadequate regulations cause is that they instill a false confidence in the public that the regulations do in fact accomplish what was intended (and to more or less the extent that was intended). The public will then act on this belief, with potentially dire consequences, due to the inadequacy of the regulations. It could, of course, be argued that the problem lies not with the regulations, but with those politicians who deceive the public regarding the efficacy of the regulations. Alas, as you indicated in your posting, "we are talking pragmatics here," and such occurrences are commonplace, because they are politically pragmatic, i. e., such schemes are easy to pull off. The point I am making is that too often people think -- "there ought to be a law" -- without considering carefully whether the law in its proposed form is likely to improve the overall situation. >Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Michael Sykora P.S. -- Another consequence of regulations is that regulations tend to take decisions out of the hands of individuals. One wonders whether even the ostensible benefits of many regulations are worth the (opportunity) cost of human capital not developed as a result of the existence of these regulations.