Debates
26 Jan 09
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo far, it looks as if they don't know what to do... or even why the markets behave the way they do. If the government could actually control them the correct way (accurately predict the outcome) ... I would be all for it.
I'm drifting away from Libertarianism on economic issues. Talk to me about how much the government should try to control markets.
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungRegulate, not control. It's a subtle distinction, which governments also tend to misunderstand, but there it is. Oh, and of course they regulate the behaviour of people, not the markets themselves. They aren't sorcerers, last I heard.
I'm drifting away from Libertarianism on economic issues. Talk to me about how much the government should try to control markets.
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by lepomisEconomic systems tend to be chaotic (in the physical sense of the word), therefore impossible to predict accurately. Economic systems generally do not equilibriate.
So far, it looks as if they don't know what to do... or even why the markets behave the way they do. If the government could actually control them the correct way (accurately predict the outcome) ... I would be all for it.
In any case I agree with Bosse de Nage, the government should set up transparent, simple and fair rules and enforce them to ensure fraud, misleading and exploitation, which prevail in unregulated markets, are minimized.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's simple really. Allow corporations to go awry via corruption and then implode within, after which they turn to government, whom are dependent upon corporate money, to ask that the tax payers bail them out. Of course what is government going to do? After all, they need their sugar daddys.
I'm drifting away from Libertarianism on economic issues. Talk to me about how much the government should try to control markets.
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis is just wrong. The empirical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory that economics systems are chaotic systems, but instead stochastic and trend-stationary. The only papers that found some tenuous evidence of chaos, are those that test it against linear models. Economic models have long left that stage.
Economic systems tend to be chaotic (in the physical sense of the word), therefore impossible to predict accurately. Economic systems generally do not equilibriate.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by PalynkaBut can markets, as such, be controlled?
This is just wrong. The empirical evidence is overwhelmingly against the theory that economics systems are chaotic systems, but instead stochastic and trend-stationary. The only papers that found some tenuous evidence of chaos, are those that test it against linear models. Economic models have long left that stage.
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungEconomic systems are human contrivances. No modern economic system can exist without coercive government intervention such as, at a minimum, making contracts legally enforceable and a mandatory currency.
I'm drifting away from Libertarianism on economic issues. Talk to me about how much the government should try to control markets.
Government as the collective decision making of society should act to maximize the welfare of the people so long as basic human rights are protected. So the government should control markets sufficiently to enhance overall utility (keeping in mind the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility) so long as such intervention does not contravene Fundamental Rights.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is odd, you seem to be advocating social liberalism here.
Economic systems are human contrivances. No modern economic system can exist without coercive government intervention such as, at a minimum, making contracts legally enforceable and a mandatory currency.
Government as the collective decision making of society should act to maximize the welfare of the people so long as basic human righ ...[text shortened]... minishing Marginal Utility) so long as such intervention does not contravene Fundamental Rights.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungClassical liberalism is in fact libertarian. Modern social liberalism tends to be leftist, that is collectivist, attempting to equalize economic and social outcomes via government control, regulation or manipulation of economics, mostly by taxation and redistribution (Robbing Peter to pay Paul).
I'm drifting away from Libertarianism on economic issues. Talk to me about how much the government should try to control markets.
One problem is that inside and outside libertarian thought there is the notion that libertarian equals anarchy, and it is true that some die hard libertarians advocate just that. INHO, a sensible libertarian ideal is a minimum of government rules (regulations) designed to minimize force and fraud, and to make contracts enforceable.
Good point on the difference between regulate and control. Control would be almost impossible, given the degree of "chaos" in economic markets. The so called chaos in free markets is an aberration. It is chaotic in that it is not entirely predictable, largely due to the massive variables involved, most of them dynamic and not static.
Governments, and people tend to want to think they are in control, when they essentially aren't and cannot be, without negative consequences. The chaos of free people and free markets acting in their own best interests is natural, right and just, and in the long term leads to better outcomes for all involved, including society in general.
A minimalist control of economics by minimizing force and fraud, is possible, however attempting to arrive at social outcomes by forcing individuals, corporations or other entities to act outside of their own best interests is doomed from the start, and history is littered with the failures of such attempts.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by normbenignIn fact, laissez faire policies ignore significant externalities which are borne by society. Any society necessarily "forces" individuals to act in ways besides their own interests, but that is a necessary outcome of the Social Contract. Besides people are often willing to act besides their own interests anyway, so why should what is adjudged collectively good be sacrificed to a platitude?
Classical liberalism is in fact libertarian. Modern social liberalism tends to be leftist, that is collectivist, attempting to equalize economic and social outcomes via government control, regulation or manipulation of economics, mostly by taxation and redistribution (Robbing Peter to pay Paul).
One problem is that inside and outside libertarian thoug ...[text shortened]... terests is doomed from the start, and history is littered with the failures of such attempts.
You mention corporations, but corporations are completely artificial entities which society allows to be created merely because society has collectively judged that they fulfill a useful purpose. But if society feels that these entities should be tightly regulated or even abolished, where is the injustice in that?
If governmental laws or regulations do not directly interfere with a Natural Right, then it is within the legitimate purview of society to organize its economic system as the majority deem fit.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by normbenignSo how do you prevent Prisoner's Dilemmas in your minimalist government?
Classical liberalism is in fact libertarian. Modern social liberalism tends to be leftist, that is collectivist, attempting to equalize economic and social outcomes via government control, regulation or manipulation of economics, mostly by taxation and redistribution (Robbing Peter to pay Paul).
One problem is that inside and outside libertarian thoug ...[text shortened]... terests is doomed from the start, and history is littered with the failures of such attempts.
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignWow! That's a lot to chew on, especially as none of it can be found in any reasonable histories.
Classical liberalism is in fact libertarian. Modern social liberalism tends to be leftist, that is collectivist, attempting to equalize economic and social outcomes via government control, regulation or manipulation of economics, mostly by taxation and redistribution (Robbing Peter to pay Paul).
One problem is that inside and outside libertarian thoug terests is doomed from the start, and history is littered with the failures of such attempts.