Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

LowcountryJoe — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:15:10 -0000

No restraints on selling defense related items to China?

Selling major weapons systems to a country like China -- a country that postures violence on its neigbors from time to time -- is probably not a good idea. But then companies that already have lucrative defense contracts with the Pentagon (and the Armed Forces Appropriators in congress who secure the budgetary monies) would likely not want to do any selling to countries that fit that kind of template for fear that the gravy-train of garaunteed contract revnue would vanish.

Then again, our Federal government sells surplus F-16s to Pakistan even though they and India posture violence on each other from time to time. Does an F-16 qualify as a major weapon system that shouldn't be traded? By itself, it is not a weapon; it is just a means of delivering weapons and taking out other delivery systems.

Isn't it interesting, though, that the last line of defense for a protectionist to use is defense and security issues. Because once that loophole has been established as the sole remaining impediment to free trade, everything that can be traded suddenly becomes tied to national interests, security, and defense. It is the vicious little loophole that keeps breeding more loopholes.

Side questions: does anyone here really believe that nuclear weapons can ever be containeed to just the governments that have them now? What is the total cost of containment and the associated enforcement costs of containing these types of weapons? Is the cost worth it? Are the United States excessively burdened with this cost? Would an expanded United States -- through aggressive campaining (advertising) of our openess; using Article IV sections 3 & 4 of our constitution -- be more effective at world peace than say the United Nations would be? I know that this is crazy talk but you all knew that someone would fill the Duck's void!

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

FreedomLover — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:07:42 -0000

Duoist:

It's all in the name of "compassion". As if evolution cares for such a thing. The more welfare we do, the more we hinder our own natural progress.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

a Duoist — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:08:55 -0000

Has anyone ever done some rigorous work in delineating the amount of corporate welfare versus the amount of human welfare in the U.S. budget? And isn't the argument for both strands of welfare made in terms of the recipient's 'helplessness' in the face of more powerful, competing, and uncaring forces? If this is true, then isn't all welfare the manifestation of a determinist's world-view, one which finds itself even in the 'Comments' section of 'Cafe Hayek'?

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Richard Pointer — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:51:55 -0000

I just wish someone would go through the logic of the HO model with this kid and show him that Marxism was mathematically disproved long ago. Capital and Labor can have the same interests depending on the resource allocation.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Kent Gatewood — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:46:51 -0000

No restraints on selling defense related items to China?

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Sam Grove — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:22:12 -0000

Are there not two kinds of economists; those that advise the government how to manage things and those that advise government to lay off?

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

mcwop — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:25:43 -0000

LowcountryJoe I have no problem with gay marriage at all, but marriage should be a religious/cultural ceremony and private contract. Government should not regulate marriage. For government, regulating marriage is their way of combining incomes that are subject to higher marginal rates.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Gil — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:55:49 -0000

Not the mention the LP was knee deep when it revealed its Rothbardian policy on children. I can't help this was parodied in Simpsons Halloween episode 11 part 2.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

FreedomLover — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:49:47 -0000

I'm a little-L libertarian. I say YES to anarcho-capitalism now!

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Gamut — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:05:19 -0000

I definitely agree. Though the amount of work that I don't get done while I read all these comments does carry a hefty price tag. Thank you, and curse you for being so engaging all the time.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

babinich — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:57:46 -0000

Don,

You and your crew have done more to enlighten folks from all over the world free of charge than just about anyone else of this God forsaken marble.

Free, that's right free for you and me. They give of their time for our benefit.

Special mention goes out to Arnold Kling's site (I know it's not "his" but you know what I mean) and Econobrowser.

Keep up the good work!

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

LowcountryJoe — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:48:08 -0000

- legalization of gay marriage;

I do not have a problem with gay marriage. But I do see where a new definition of marriage may potentially lead. If same-sex couple would be allowed to be formally married -- and be eligible to survivor benefits under the Social Security system as it is in place now -- then what is to stop children from marrying their terminal ill parents to keep the benifits flowing? "Rediculous!", you say; perhaps. But if marriage is to no longer retain its traditional meaning, expect the slippery sloped laywers to fight for anything that any potential new legislation does not specifically prohibit.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Sam Grove — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:57 -0000

John, it's a bit of a joke about libertarians being pro-corporation.

Progressives suppose that these corporate executives are ONLY interested in making money and are not motivated by any ideology.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

John Dewey — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:48:56 -0000

same grove: "If industry were interested in having a free market, the LP would've won decades ago."

If the LP were only interested in free markets - and if only industry executives and entrepreneurs could vote - perhaps the LP might have succeeded.

Industry executives I've known, with a few exceptions, are among the most conservative of all Americans. Many such men - and women - would be troubled by these LP positions:

- elimination of all drug laws;

- elimination of pornography laws;

- legalization of gay marriage;

- adoption rights for gay couples;

- legalization of prostitution;

- open immigration;

- sale and privatization of public parks, highways, and dams.

You may view all of these as free market issues. But to the conservative executives I've known, these issues are radically different from steel tariffs, consumer product standards, and medical licensing.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Methinks — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:25:39 -0000

Freedomlover, we're bright red over here with Hillary painting a hammer and sickle on the state seal. It's all relative.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Python — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:16:42 -0000

Freedomlover,

Please show evidence of Texas' move to the Democrat side in 20 years. I'd love to see the analysis.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Sam Grove — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:11:36 -0000

If industry were interested in having a free market, the LP would've won decades ago.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

FreedomLover — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:23:45 -0000

Methinks:

I've been reading lately that Texas is trending purple in the next 10 years and will be a solidly blue state in 20.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Methinks — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:20:00 -0000

My impressions of Texan's attitudes compated to New Yorkers' were formed in the days when I had to visit a lot during my oil days. I never lived there. So, my impressions may not totally reflect reality .

I don't know about the permits, Freedomlover. My current regulating body is Federal, so I would be equally effected everywhere in the country. My point is that attitudes here are so favourable to regulation than the seem to be in Texas.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

FreedomLover — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:09:42 -0000

Methinks:

So how many more permits do you need for the business you had in NY vs TX? Just wanting to quantify this. Obviously NY has much higher tax rates.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

John Dewey — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:56:30 -0000

methinks: "I'm in the Soviet Socialist Republic of New York and you're in Texas"

Oh, yeah. Worlds apart.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Methinks — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:18:46 -0000

John Dewey,

I did read your 10:44 post. We agree on the cause. I only meant that I think that once politics warps the environment and changes incentives, the way people think about business in general also changes. In addition to politics, I think human nature also leads us to believe that our business is somehow unique and deserves special treatment. Failures are blamed not on poor execution or pure dumb luck but on some "flaw" in the competitive system which only government can fix. This thinking is then passed on to the next generation of business "leaders".

Incidentally, I have run several of my own businesses, most in highly regulated environments, and I would love to sink or swim without the interference of government. However, in my experience, this attitude seems to be the exception rather than the norm. Then again, our different observations may be due to the fact that I'm in the Soviet Socialist Republic of New York and you're in Texas :)

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Fabio Franco — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:49:52 -0000

"Accuse them of doing what you do, curse them for being what you are."

-----Lenin

The Leftists continue to follow the master's strategy. To counter them we must unveil their farce.

Dan Klein did this when he wrote about Paul Krugman in Econjournalwatch.org. He unmasked a malicious, dishonest "scholar" with an exhaustive analysis of ALL of Krugman's articles and proved that the NYT columnist has a parallel agenda.

Now, who is this undergroundman who hides behind his "Notes"? Dostoevsky already had him pegged:

"I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my disease."

Well, the GMU docs understand your disease well. Listen to them and you will one day emerge out of the underground to see the light, and perhaps rid yourself of the blinding sickness called Leftism.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

FreedomLover — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:03:31 -0000

Randy:

Large pharmas have their own bureaucracy. The nature of any large corporate beast.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Randy — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:53:10 -0000

Gamut,

That's an interesting point, but I question the assumption that making researchers public servants is an advantage. They may get more money, but they also have to deal with the buracracy. Nor am I sold on the idea that subsidized education is an advantage - for the same reason.