Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in For Whose Benefit?

Re: For Whose Benefit?

LowcountryJoe — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:58:15 -0000

In muirgeo's defense, Libertarians expect all outsiders to make mystical high-powered arguments to dare question the magical perfection that this L-word ideology supposedly is.

Mystical? It seems that all we ask is for someone to make the arguments – one at a time – as to why legislation is needed in almost all aspects in our adult lives; this goes for legislation that has already been established, legislation up for consideration, and all legislation that will be thought up in times to come. You are damned right that the arguments ought be high-powered, as most Libertarians take their liberty-centered ideology very seriously.

Then, lo and behold, a great many Libertarians repeat ho-hum simple assertions that only they really understand - all taxes are 'theft', all government evil, natural rights are natural and obvious, etc., and suddenly expect the debate is now closed.

Well, apparently the debate isn’t closed because we are still discussing the matter and on a blog conducted by two economists who either are libertarian or have libertarian sympathies.

I know of very few Libertarians who have concluded that all government is evil and that all taxation is theft. However, you will probably find unanimous opinion that at the current size & scope of government and the current magnitude of taxation, we are approaching evil, if not reached it, and have long since subjected ourselves to thievery by people who claim to represent us.

Now, as to natural rights, are you suggesting that there’s a possibility that they’re unnatural? The answer seems obvious to me.

Apparently Libertarians must think "we have the world all figured out, our ways are true, now it's time apply these obvious truths to society at large".

Guilty, as charged. It is the responsibility of the person who holds libertarian beliefs to persuade others that s/he is correct because this ideology that we share of liberty-centered principles are that damned important to pass along. Are you suggesting that the opposition to libertarian views don’t also believe that their ways are true? If so, I might be persuaded that this is the case…quests for power over others can cause some people to do strange things though, admittedly, I do not understand any of it.

Listen to the way in which Libertarians talk about lumping everything that goes wrong in the world as 'Socialism' and expect that this a hard-hitting argument.

Nope, the buzzword is ‘paternalism’ not ‘socialism’ and it can be a hard-hitting argument to reasonable and mature people. But, on the other hand, apparently the argument is not hard-hitting enough for many people. There are still far too many people on this planet that believe that the individual should not be sovereign and that individuals need to be subjected to the control of the do-gooders who will look out for his or her best interests. I happen to believe that everything that is approached with this mind set does eventually go wrong…certainly there are some things in the world that ‘go wrong’ by human standards and that are caused by nature.

It's more like listening to Christian types who blame any and all failings on 'Satan' such that their religion is perfect.

Replace the word ‘Satan’ with the words ‘unfairness’ or ‘greed’ or ‘market-failure’ and you will have described what it is like for me to listen to the paternalists.

I can empathise with the concept of the minimalist government but full-on Anarchist Libertarianism types are off with the fairies.

If this is indeed a true statement from you, you will have concurred with the gist of my replies

Re: For Whose Benefit?

John Dewey — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:42:32 -0000

muirgeo: "If the true message of the Medicare part D, the Billy Tauzins ... the picture would change."

What picture would change, Muirgeo?

Are you implying that corporations are evil for employing lobbyists? Every interest group - labor, environmentalists, retirees - employs lobbyists.

Are you suggesting that the Libertarians who post here favor government transfers such as medicare Part D? Based on what you have posted, I would think you more than they would favor such transfers.

Are you blaming Libertarians for the perceived unethical practice of Congressmen and other government officials working for private enterprise after leaving office?

What exactly is your solution for government officials who seek employment? Unfortunately, Congressmen vote on legislation that affects just about every private and public employer.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

save_the_rustbelt — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:35:22 -0000

If cliches had economic value this blog would be one of the world's largest economies.

Those of us who are connected to reality know there are winners and losers from expanded trade, and eventually the losers will appear at the ballot box and threaten trade expansion (like, right now).

Those who think being glib and tossing cliches will protect trade expansion may be disappointed.

(For the best silliness in the country, listen to CNBC, especially when the market is volatile. One of the Pepsodent geniuses told Joe Scarborough yesterday that a couple of factories closed in the midwest and that sparked a movement against trade.)

Re: For Whose Benefit?

muirgeo — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:34:54 -0000

Perhaps Muirgeo would prefer to ride a horse than drive a car. At what point in history would he like to stop? And remember the further back you go the shorter you live.

Posted by: Bill Koehler

No Bill I'd prefer to drive a plug in electric car that I could independently charge with my own solar panels. I can't find any on the market except the ones GM makes that mysteriously will only go 25 mph. I suggest watching Who Killed the Electric Car if you've not seen it.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

muirgeo — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:30:54 -0000

Posted by: Nick

Nick,

I've heard one theory that that Black plaque killed so many Serfs/workers in Europe it lead to a relative worker shortage giving the serfs more power and eventually resulted in revolts against their Lords. Shortly there after came the rise of the Renaissance and indeed the Industrial revolution, the rise of middle classes and of representative democracies.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

Isaac Crawford — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:28:08 -0000

"In fact, the fact that so many people like yourself believe the boloney you believe as stated above is because of the power of the oil industry to control the message and the debate confusing the lay people who are unfamiliar with and do not read the peer reviewed publications."

Oh really, is that a "fact?" Funny, because by most estimates the GW crowd outspends the "oil industry" in these sorts of things by about 50:1. The reason that many people (myself included) are so skeptical about manmade disaster scenarios are because the more one digs, the weirder the "science" gets. Hanson over at NASA just had to revise his figures for the last 6 years because someone found a systematic error in the data. This would have been found sooner if HE ALLOWED ANYONE ELSE TO PEER REVIEW HIS METHODS! This is the most often used data set and God only knows what else is wrong with it. i suggest you cruise over to http://climatesci.colorado.... to see some peer reviewed holes to be poked in disaster scenario manmade global warming hysteria.

Isaac

Re: For Whose Benefit?

muirgeo — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:25:45 -0000

Muirgeo, your mistakes run deeper than simply economics, they are endemic to a whole vision of the world, a set of deeply flawed and irrational philosophical presuppositions.

Posted by: Lee Kelly

Well tell that to Thomas Jefferson. I don't deny you may be right and he may be wrong. I simply stated still believe in constitutional democracy. I just think it's been subverted by a corrupt mingling of corporate greed and public corruption. They did say democracy requires an informed public but even their the corporate media has seized control of the publics information and minds to propagandize them into complacency.

If the true message of the Medicare part D, the Billy Tauzins and the pictures of childrens bodies regularly ripped apart from Iraq got out the picture would change.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

John Smith — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:24:31 -0000

Muirgeo keep posting dude!!!

Those who are slinging insults are obviously unable to formulate an intellectual response and therefore resort to mud slinging.

And those that pepper there response with personal insults are just angry because everyone does not arrive at the same conclusion as them.

I have never encountered a discussion where personal insults have changed another’s position.

Whatever happened to the adage “attack the position not the person”? Perhaps we are all watching too much political gobbledygook or there are future politicians in training. Lol (hmmmm… did I just insert a smear?)

Re: For Whose Benefit?

Isaac Crawford — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:18:29 -0000

" I thought it was nice growing up with a mom who didn't have to work and who didn't farm me away to kinder care."

Funny, my mother is pretty happy to live in a time when women have the opportunity to work if they want to. When she applied for medical school in 1969 at UND, she was told that they had more applicants than positions and that they weren't going to approve any women or (American) Indians. Now that opportunities exist, more women decide (yes decide) to go out and work. There is no one holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to work. If one went without cell phones, cable tv, internet, use a B&W tv instead of a color one, only had one (older) car, lived in a smaller house, didn't use modern (and pricey) dental/health care, gave up the wide choices of food and food quality, and lived very close to their relatives, the mother could very easily stay home instead of working. Not coincidentally, you'd also be living much like we did in the 70's. The vast majority of women do not want to live like that, so they CHOOSE to work. High enough paying jobs to tempt women into the workforce were mighty scarce back in the 70's...

Isaac

Re: For Whose Benefit?

muirgeo — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:17:37 -0000

Speaking only subjectively, it was during that late 1970's that my family stopped buying veal cutlets and started buying chicken cutlets.

Posted by: The Dirty Mac

Well the 70's definitely provided a bump in the road. Paying off a costly war and realizing your countries oil source is unlimited will do that to economies when poorly planned.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

muirgeo — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:13:06 -0000

Wrong again. When "jobs are shipped out overseas", the productivity of those workers overseas increases.

Posted by: SaulOhio

I meant the NET productivity of workers or if you must the productivity per worker.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

muirgeo — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:11:05 -0000

Posted by: SaulOhio

Well the fact is I read Science, Nature , Geophysical research Letters, EOS and other peer reviewed articles on the issue. There is nothing in these journals to support your claim above. In fact, the fact that so many people like yourself believe the boloney you believe as stated above is because of the power of the oil industry to control the message and the debate confusing the lay people who are unfamiliar with and do not read the peer reviewed publications.

See I can say with confidence that you can't cite ONE peer reviewed science journal article that supports your claim. NOT ONE and I could cite many that refute it.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

John Dewey — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:07:14 -0000

Nick: " if you want to spread your ideas you'll occasionally have to interact with a person who is not yet as enlightened as you, and might even have to help them to understand your reasoning"

Nick, have you been reading this blog for any time at all? IMO, most of us have patiently tried to help Muirgeo understand our reasoning. He/she has shown little inclination to accept ideas that conflict with his/her own view of the world. But worse, as Lee Kelly and others have pointed out, Muirgeo does not argue fairly.

I am all for open exchange of ideas. But I confess that, after a certain point, the endless rehashing of the same unaccepted arguments gets a bit tiresome.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

Bill Koehler — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:01:01 -0000

Perhaps Muirgeo would prefer to ride a horse than drive a car. At what point in history would he like to stop? And remember the further back you go the shorter you live.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

Isaac Crawford — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 05:00:03 -0000

"So making workers compete against each other in unlimited numbers simply makes wages go down and down and down until at some point..... serfdom ensues." --Muirgeo

This of course assumes that there is no market for labor providing the necessary incentives for people to gain skills allowing them to change/improve their chances of competing. As was pointed out above, markets provide feedback, and while they are not perfect, when left to themselves the feedback is received very quickly. Being forced to change is painful, but it is necessary if you want to avoid poverty. Labor markets allow societies to benefit from humankind's greatest asset, the ability to change and adapt. Many people do not want to use that ability, but to all our benefit, they are forced to by market signals.

Isaac

Re: For Whose Benefit?

Nick — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 04:35:59 -0000

First I will state that I think the gratuitous insults about Muirgeo's posts are pretty juvenile. If you guys (and gals) want to sit around and talk in an echo chamber you have every right to do so, but if you want to spread your ideas you'll occasionally have to interact with a person who is not yet as enlightened as you, and might even have to help them to understand your reasoning (as Prof. Boudreaux did so well). Whether Muirgeo or anyone else is converted by Prof. Boudreaux's question I have no idea, but at least he is trying to help them think through the problem. That said:

"So making workers compete against each other in unlimited numbers simply makes wages go down and down and down until at some point..... serfdom ensues." --Muirgeo

I might agree except that the Industrial Revolution was brought about by (1) advances in technology, and (2) gains from trade made possible by those advances; that the Industrial Revolution more or less eliminated serfdom as the overwhelming status of humanity in pre-industrialized countries; and it seems to me that if the cycle of new technology and poor workers competing with one another will result in Lou Dobb's much dreaded "race to the bottom" one wonders how a combination of technology and trade could ever have lifted so many human beings from serfdom to middle and upper-classdom to begin with....

Re: For Whose Benefit?

Lee Kelly — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:14:44 -0000

"But right off I see somewhat of a conflict. The realities of climate change seem to be contrary evidence of the perfection of markets. Externalities could in theory put an end to the market once and for all. And it sure seems that economist get defensive over the subject of climate change." - Muirgeo

The "perfection of markets"?

Just becuase you are a closet utopianist, do not mistake everyone else for the same.

As far as I can tell, nobody here has ever advocated the theory that markets are perfect.

In fact, a free market is a response to the imperfection ubiquitous in all human social and institutional arrangements. In other words, it is presupposed that the market is imperfect, because no decision-maker is infallible. The free market deals with human fallibility with the equally imperfect feedback process of profits and losses, to correct decision-making.

There is no presumption that free markets are perfect, but more often the presupposition that they aren't perfect. The point is that no alternative to the free market is perfect either, so using the standard of perfection to decide between comepting social theories would get us nowhere.

The majority of libertarians I am aware of appreciate the market because it is self-critical i.e. it has a feedback mechanism which corrects unproductive and counterproductive behaviour. This is contrary to government, which has the extremely inefficient feedback mechanism of democratic reform.

Moreover, the corruptability of government power means that the vast majority of intervention from government has the effect of shielding businesses or groups from the feedback, feedback necessary to correct their unproductive or counterproductive behaviour. This will take the form of price controls, subsidies, tariffs, regulation, etc.

I am not surprised that you favour such intervention, since you seem to apply the very same "protectionist" policies to your own ideas. In other words, you continually ask that competing ideas pass higher standards than your own (tariffs?), and allow your own ideas to have many faults while not tolerating a single imperfection in competing ideas (subsidies?).

Muirgeo, your mistakes run deeper than simply economics, they are endemic to a whole vision of the world, a set of deeply flawed and irrational philosophical presuppositions.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

The Dirty Mac — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:02:12 -0000

"One last thing is our country truly better off now then 30 years ago. Then we were the king of trade with the biggest trade surplus, we had a far higher percentage of world GDP, income disparity was nothing like it is now and I don't remember talk about a collapsing dollar."

I don't have the time or inclination to access the stats, but I am pretty sure that the value of the dollar did effectively collapse during the 1970's. Speaking only subjectively, it was during that late 1970's that my family stopped buying veal cutlets and started buying chicken cutlets.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

Lee Kelly — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:08:40 -0000

Gil,

Since I do not agree with half of what you just wrote, your conclusion can't be true. I doubt you will find libertarians in such conclusive agreement on many other issues.

The apparent concensus is the same kind of consensus consensus between physcists regarding the cause of the seasons. If we delve into deeper topics I am sure much disagreement would emerge.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

Gil — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:47:49 -0000

In muirgeo's defense, Libertarians expect all outsiders to make mystical high-powered arguments to dare question the magical perfection that this L-word ideology supposedly is. Then, lo and behold, a great many Libertarians repeat ho-hum simple assertions that only they really understand - all taxes are 'theft', all government evil, natural rights are natural and obvious, etc., and suddenly expect the debate is now closed. Apparently Libertarians must think "we have the world all figured out, our ways are true, now it's time apply these obvious truths to society at large". Listen to the way in which Libertarians talk about lumping everything that goes wrong in the world as 'Socialism' and expect that this a hard-hitting argument. It's more like listening to Christian types who blame any and all failings on 'Satan' such that their religion is perfect.

I can empathise with the concept of the minimalist government but full-on Anarchist Libertarianism types are off with the fairies.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

SaulOhio — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:44:15 -0000

Funny. The more I study the science of global warming, the more it looks to me like climate change is normal, and that it is hard, if not impossible, to determine wha portion of it we are responsible for.

"When jobs are shipped out overseas for "cheap labor" productivity per worker doesn't necessarily go up but cost do obviously go down. So making workers compete against each other in unlimited numbers simply makes wages go down and down and down until at some point..... serfdom ensues."

Wrong again. When "jobs are shipped out overseas", the productivity of those workers overseas increases. They often go from having "jobs" picking through garbage to salvage or working on subsistence farms to manufacturing things people in rich countries need. They help increase the supply of such goods, helping enrich everyone, including themselves.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

muirgeo — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:56:11 -0000

Funny, MOST Scientists are in overwhelming agreement about the reality of global warming and they cling to that but the fact that MOST economists are in agreement about things he doesn't want to hear leads him to cling to a few dissenting views. Crazy.

Posted by: John

This is perfect because I indeed couldn't believe global warming was that relevant. But on the other hand I had a hard time believing that such a consensus of scientist could be so wrong. I spent years studying the science and it soon became apparent that the scientific consensus was indeed consistent with the facts.

Now I find myself skeptical in the same way over mainstream liberal economists messages but thinking their is no way such a consensus could be wrong. So here I am learning as much as I can starting from almost zero.

But right off I see somewhat of a conflict. The realities of climate change seem to be contrary evidence of the perfection of markets. Externalities could in theory put an end to the market once and for all. And it sure seems that economist get defensive over the subject of climate change.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

muirgeo — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:31:14 -0000

After some thought I felt I should rephrase my question. Can some one explain to me the benefit of increasing productivity to the American worker as related to "free trade" policies.

Something seems to have changed after 1980 and this seems relevant to the prior post, "Tax Burden". So if you are the average American worker which part of the plot do you want to live in?

Also after some thought. When jobs are shipped out overseas for "cheap labor" productivity per worker doesn't necessarily go up but cost do obviously go down. So making workers compete against each other in unlimited numbers simply makes wages go down and down and down until at some point..... serfdom ensues.

Now mechanization makes productivity of the actually workers go up. In theory this could mean the same number of workers could actually keep their jobs, work less hours for the same pay and increase the competitiveness of their product and still have some left over to give the CEO a little raise. But of course this sort of situation doesn't happen when full employment is not met by outsourcing jobs to the billions of third world workers.

I know these are the uniformed rants of a simple laymen but I still keep looking at the graph and ask why are the experts telling me global warming is happening and also that the last 30 years have been better then the 30 before that. I thought it was nice growing up with a mom who didn't have to work and who didn't farm me away to kinder care.

One last thing is our country truly better off now then 30 years ago. Then we were the king of trade with the biggest trade surplus, we had a far higher percentage of world GDP, income disparity was nothing like it is now and I don't remember talk about a collapsing dollar.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

ben — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:17:20 -0000

To be fair, Muirgeo's thinking has developed since he or she has been on here. I believe she read the Road to Serfdom or Capitalism and Freedom, and since then her comments have been more pro-market, but she is reluctant to give up her conspiracy theories.

Now if she can just be convinced that corporations, while hating competition, can't do nearly as much about preventing it as she thinks, we'd have a libertarian on our hands.

Re: For Whose Benefit?

triticale — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:30:06 -0000

Muirgeo's posts are simplistic and error prone, but he isn't a fardling idiot. As shawn points out, he articulately states the common fuzzy thinking this blog serves to refute.

The world economy is not only not zero sum, it is not static. It has been a long time since low labor cost was Japan's competitive advantage, and I don't think it will be South Korea's much longer.