• Is economic conservatism being sold like a religion?
    144 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Noble;36039429]What he said isn't a mistake, a monopoly could hardly exist without government intervention.[/QUOTE] You still haven't told us or shown sources explaining how this comes about. When a government actively stops monopolies forming, how can monopoly form due to government? If you're going to make such statements, you need sources (and yes, [B]you[/B] need sources, you bring the claim, you bring the sources).
[QUOTE=hexpunK;36040487]You still haven't told us or shown sources explaining how this comes about. When a government actively stops monopolies forming, how can monopoly form due to government? If you're going to make such statements, you need sources (and yes, [B]you[/B] need sources, you bring the claim, you bring the sources).[/QUOTE] Here's a short read, check the section on government-created monopolies. [url]http://www.enotes.com/monopoly-reference/monopoly[/url] Here's more reading on government-created monopolies [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-granted_monopoly[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_monopoly[/url] Here is a decent post about how monopolies form as well [url]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_form_a_monopoly[/url]
I would only agree that free Market is equally as disgusting as religion.
[QUOTE=znk666;36043718]I would only agree that free Market is equally as disgusting as religion.[/QUOTE] the market gave you the computer you typed that from
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36045889]the market gave you the computer you typed that from[/QUOTE] The market doesn't labor, so no.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36039027]they pile up[/QUOTE] What is your point? I just said piled up debt isn't bad. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36045889]the market gave you the computer you typed that from[/QUOTE] The government invented the Internet. Oh no! Also the government paid for probably 99% if not 100% of the phone and cable lines that it's carried on. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] The computer was invented by the government too for that matter.
I think that a lot of the time in America that POLITICS in general is sold like a religion.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36051727]What is your point? I just said piled up debt isn't bad.[/QUOTE] That would be true if interest rates didn't exist [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36051727] The government invented the Internet. Oh no! Also the government paid for probably 99% if not 100% of the phone and cable lines that it's carried on. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] The computer was invented by the government too for that matter.[/QUOTE] the market is responsible for bringing the computer into the average person's home
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36038772]First of all, we don't need to have a balaced budget. There's an unwarranted stigma against deficits and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them.[/QUOTE] Yeah, no need to worry about the debt, it's not like other nations will follow the example of Russia and China and stop utilizing the dollar as a reserve currency in trade because of our abuse of the printing presses.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36051727]The government invented the Internet. Oh no! Also the government paid for probably 99% if not 100% of the phone and cable lines that it's carried on. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] The computer was invented by the government too for that matter.[/QUOTE] no single entity invented the internet, it was a joint project from governments, private companies and universities.
[QUOTE=Noble;36054350] the market is responsible for bringing the computer into the average person's home[/QUOTE] It's also responsible for sweat-shops, starvation, water shortages, wars and countless other problems. Slavery was responsible for many good things but that doesn't make it acceptable.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36056152]It's also responsible for sweat-shops, starvation, water shortages, wars and countless other problems[/QUOTE] and you think governments are innocent of those things?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36056182]and you think governments are innocent of those things?[/QUOTE] when did he ever say that?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36056182]and you think governments are innocent of those things?[/QUOTE] No, but neither is the recent concept of a 'free market' responsible for all advances made since it's introduction. It contributes hugely to many problems, which clearly outweigh the unprovable benefits.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36056152]It's also responsible for sweat-shops, starvation, water shortages, wars and countless other problems. Slavery was responsible for many good things but that doesn't make it acceptable.[/QUOTE] I'm having a hard time following you here. The "Market" (from your wording you treat it as a singular entity which it is not), cannot declare war on other nations. The closest thing to war the "market" can inflict is in the form of private military contractors, which are contracted by the government. Remember its congress and the executive that gets us into wars, and manages to stay in a state of unsustainable war while piling on debt year after year. Not some so called singular entity known to you as the "market". Blaming water shortages and famine on the "market" instead of nature. I don't see how this makes sense. Sweat-shops, although they indeed have deplorable conditions, are far better than alternatives. Sweat-shops are the intermediate step between an agricultural civilization and a fully developed, industrialized civilization like the US. If you legislate it such that all companies must provide adequate working conditions and health-care and all the shebang a first world worker is accompanied to, you would drive up the price of labor so much that many companies will choose to relocate. This in turn creates unemployment, forcing many laborers to revert back to a more agricultural lifestyle, or worse, turn to more illicit activities such as child prostitution, prostitution, human trafficking, drug dealing, etc.
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36056235]No, but neither is the recent concept of a 'free market' responsible for all advances made since it's introduction. It contributes hugely to many problems, which clearly outweigh the [B]unprovable benefits.[/B][/QUOTE] the hell are you talking about
[QUOTE=LF9000;36056520]I'm having a hard time following you here. The "Market" (from your wording you treat it as a singular entity which it is not), cannot declare war on other nations. The closest thing to war the "market" can inflict is in the form of private military contractors, which are contracted by the government. Remember its congress and the executive that gets us into wars, and manages to stay in a state of unsustainable war while piling on debt year after year. Not some so called singular entity known to you as the "market".[/QUOTE] I'm fully aware the market is not a singular entity, my point is that people seem to believe 'the market' to be some sort of wise god, to which everyone (Including governments) must delegate their decisions. The actions of ANY country in the world today are based on economic objectives (often the intrests of certain parties), It's clear that governments of today take a back-seat when it comes to decision-making compared the the 'invisble hand' of the free market. [QUOTE=LF9000;36056520] Blaming water shortages and famine on the "market" instead of nature. I don't see how this makes sense. [/QUOTE] There is adequate arable land in the world to feed every person on the planet, that would be unprofitable thus we have huge numbers of cattle to satisfy the demands of consumers who can afford to pay extra. A considerable quantity of the worlds grains are fed to this excess of livestock and contributes directly to starvation. That's without getting into the fact that wealthy countries eat in excess of what is needed, to the point where it causes health problems in itself. Water isn't a difficult to obtain commodity, once the piping and water treatment facilities are in place it's cost is quite low. There are plenty of unnecessary buildings being built around the world, if that effort was used to build water treatment facilities and pipe networks water could easily be made available for most, if not all of the world's population. But once again this is less profitable than building leisure facilities for those who can pay more. [QUOTE=LF9000;36056520] Sweat-shops, although they indeed have deplorable conditions, are far better than alternatives. Sweat-shops are the intermediate step between an agricultural civilization and a fully developed, industrialized civilization like the US. If you legislate it such that all companies must provide adequate working conditions and health-care and all the shebang a first world worker is accompanied to, you would drive up the price of labor so much that many companies will choose to relocate. This in turn creates unemployment, forcing many laborers to revert back to a more agricultural lifestyle, or worse, turn to more illicit activities such as child prostitution, prostitution, human trafficking, drug dealing, etc.[/QUOTE] That is just outrageously untenable position, In what way is work in a sweat-shop 'far better' than agriculture? I've yet to see bars put on farmer's windows to prevent suicides. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36056736]the hell are you talking about[/QUOTE] The reasons generally put forth in support of a free-market (Efficient, No monopolies, profit motive).
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36057028]The reasons generally put forth in support of a free-market (Efficient, No monopolies, profit motive).[/QUOTE] those aren't unprovable
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36057557]those aren't unprovable[/QUOTE] -Well there [U]are[/U] other ways to motivate people than profit, I think you'd agree that someone who enjoys their job is more likely perform better(as do most modern theories of motivation.) No amount of money will cause people to put in all their effort if they don't enjoy what they do. -The system at the moment has it's share of monopolies, price-fixing and predatory MNC's. A true free market with no government interference would lead to price-fixing and market domination on a much greater scale. While the system of regulation tries to minimise these problems, it by no means eliminates them -Free markets may be more efficient, the problem is the definition of efficiency. If you can feed two people enough to survive or feed one person more than he needs which system is more efficient? It's clear that feeding two people is far more productive than feeding one too much. Free markets define efficiency in terms of the abstract concept of money, rather than maximum utility for given inputs. If everyone's allowed to make up definitions based on self-serving premises, then clearly burning everything is the most 'lavender' way of doing things. Free-market economies aren't some sort of ideal, they have serious problems and are arguably not economic at all. For all their benefits they are still far from a reasonable method of utilizing available resources.
I wasn't saying they were true, I was just responding to the claim that it's not possible to measure them.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36058244]I wasn't saying they were true, I was just responding to the claim that it's not possible to measure them.[/QUOTE] It can be measured, but there are too many other variables involved that any attempt at establishing causation is arguable.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;36034186]Maybe the Dems don't want to do it because the United States just got out of a recession, and because taxes hinder economic growth?[/QUOTE] Didn't the 50's have really high tax rates? You know, that decade with huge growth?
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36058475]Didn't the 50's have really high tax rates? You know, that decade with huge growth?[/QUOTE] Not exactly sure what happened in the 50s but perhaps there were higher rates because the government wanted to control that growth Raise in taxes = less disposable income. It's pretty much impossible for real GDP to grow when people have less money to spend.
[QUOTE=Jaehead;36058539]Not exactly sure what happened in the 50s but perhaps there were higher rates because the government wanted to control that growth Raise in taxes = less disposable income. It's pretty much impossible for real GDP to grow when people have less money to spend.[/QUOTE] That only applies to the middle and lower class It doesn't apply to the wealthy which is who was paying the really high tax rates in the 50s. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;36054350]That would be true if interest rates didn't exist [/QUOTE] What about interest rates? "Yeah interest rates don't matter because pancakes". That's your reply. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Derubermensch;36056016]Yeah, no need to worry about the debt, it's not like other nations will follow the example of Russia and China and stop utilizing the dollar as a reserve currency in trade because of our abuse of the printing presses.[/QUOTE] The US economy can handle debt greater than 100% of GDP. Cutting spending only makes the economy worse which makes the debt worse, so that's obviously not the answer.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36058853]What about interest rates? "Yeah interest rates don't matter because pancakes". That's your reply.[/QUOTE] what you're the one saying interest rates don't matter here
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36056152]It's also responsible for sweat-shops, starvation, water shortages, wars and countless other problems.[/quote] Sweat shops provide alternatives for people in third world countries from having to resort to prostitution and begging on the street. They choose sweat shops because they are the best possible alternative. What is the evidence for capitalism being responsible for starvation? If anything it reduces starvation because the profit motive drives producers to want to produce more food at a lower cost and to pass these savings on to consumers. On the other hand we can find examples of millions of people dying from starvation in the USSR and China with their planned economies. [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36058853] What about interest rates? "Yeah interest rates don't matter because pancakes". That's your reply.[/QUOTE] We seem to be having a miscommunication here so I'll just rephrase it, piled up debt is bad because it's not free money, you have to pay interest on it.
[QUOTE=Noble;36059254]Sweat shops provide alternatives for people in third world countries from having to resort to prostitution and begging on the street. They choose sweat shops because they are the best possible alternative. What is the evidence for capitalism being responsible for starvation? If anything it reduces starvation because the profit motive drives producers to want to produce more food at a lower cost and to pass these savings on to consumers. On the other hand we can find examples of millions of people dying from starvation in the USSR and China with their planned economies. We seem to be having a miscommunication here so I'll just rephrase it, piled up debt is bad because it's not free money, you have to pay interest on it.[/QUOTE] You don't pay interest on money you loan to yourself by printing it. Contrary to popular belief China doesn't own that much of our debt.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;36059825]You don't pay interest on money you loan to yourself by printing it. [/QUOTE] can you provide a source on that because as far as I'm aware the US government funds its deficits by selling treasury bonds?
[QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36057028]I'm fully aware the market is not a singular entity, my point is that people seem to believe 'the market' to be some sort of wise god, to which everyone (Including governments) must delegate their decisions. The actions of ANY country in the world today are based on economic objectives (often the intrests of certain parties), It's clear that governments of today take a back-seat when it comes to decision-making compared the the 'invisble hand' of the free market. There is adequate arable land in the world to feed every person on the planet, that would be unprofitable thus we have huge numbers of cattle to satisfy the demands of consumers who can afford to pay extra. A considerable quantity of the worlds grains are fed to this excess of livestock and contributes directly to starvation. That's without getting into the fact that wealthy countries eat in excess of what is needed, to the point where it causes health problems in itself. Water isn't a difficult to obtain commodity, once the piping and water treatment facilities are in place it's cost is quite low. There are plenty of unnecessary buildings being built around the world, if that effort was used to build water treatment facilities and pipe networks water could easily be made available for most, if not all of the world's population. But once again this is less profitable than building leisure facilities for those who can pay more. That is just outrageously untenable position, In what way is work in a sweat-shop 'far better' than agriculture? I've yet to see bars put on farmer's windows to prevent suicides. [/QUOTE] You know, cattle isn't just only for meat. There aree a lot of useful things made from cattle. because things made in sweatshops are far more valuable than veggies?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36038681]did you seriously just put economics on the same level as mathematics I'm sorry, but if [B]any[/B] field needs to be verified by empirical research, it's economics. I means seriously, how in the fuck can you say this with a straight face: What's the point in even doing a study then? It's only going to end up strengthening your belief in Austrian economics regardless of the outcome, so why not cut out the middleman? [url]http://lesswrong.com/lw/ar/awful_austrians/[/url][/QUOTE] It's a little difficult to reply to this when there are only claims to respond to. I'm certain you have evidence, but I need to be made aware of it, as I can't argue against claims, as claims aren't arguments. It may end up that I agree with your premises but disagree that it follows, or maybe I agree with everything. Can you explain the need for empirical research to validate many basic micro and macro economic concepts? It might be a good place to start on the laws on diminishing returns. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=WhatTheKlent;36057028]I'm fully aware the market is not a singular entity, my point is that people seem to believe 'the market' to be some sort of wise god, to which everyone (Including governments) must delegate their decisions. The actions of ANY country in the world today are based on economic objectives (often the intrests of certain parties), It's clear that governments of today take a back-seat when it comes to decision-making compared the the 'invisble hand' of the free market.[/QUOTE] Can you explain why a government is not prone to the same issues of market failure? I get the impression that you are claiming that government is a valid alternative to market issues, and I'm curious as to why the government would be a entity to make decisions. It's important to realize that any government and any market is just made up of people, so the main difference is those of incentives.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.