Socioeconomic Theories

[WizardofOz]

To continue a discussion about various socioeconomic theories that started around here.

I invite any of those interested in continuing this discussion...

:e4e:

 

[resodko]

couldn't we talk about something more interesting, like golf or badminton?

 

[Christian Liberty]

To continue a discussion about various socioeconomic theories that started around here.

I invite any of those interested in continuing this discussion...

:e4e:

I was mostly in line with your answer about free markets but I did want to comment on this:

The government. I can never argue in favor of actual anarchy because of hypotheticals like the ones you are presenting. There will always be a need for a neutral/objective arbitrator.

This was more or less my argument when I was a minarchist. While I believed anarcho-capitalism was the moral system, I was convinced it was impossible.

But then I thought, why do we assume that government is a neutral or objective arbitrator?

 

[WizardofOz]

I was mostly in line with your answer about free markets but I did want to comment on this:

This was more or less my argument when I was a minarchist. While I believed anarcho-capitalism was the moral system, I was convinced it was impossible.

But then I thought, why do we assume that government is a neutral or objective arbitrator?

I'll argue the same in regard to police and the military.

Can we trust private arbitration? I can argue both sides of this one. I private arbitrator is in the business of being neutral and objective. They would be out of business if their reputation were ruined due to being exposed as corrupt.

But having government controlled courts doesn't seem like a bad alternative.

 

[The Berean]

CL, what is your definition of "free markets"?

 

[Jose Fly]

WoOz,

From what I can tell, your hypothetical system isn't all that different. There's still a gov't, taxes, elections, and public services.

Is that accurate?

 

[WizardofOz]

WoOz,

From what I can tell, your hypothetical system isn't all that different. There's still a gov't, taxes, elections, and public services.

Is that accurate?

This is likely where CL and I differ. He seems to lean toward anarcho-capitalism where (just about) everything is privatized.

I lean toward minarchism where courts, law enforcement and military are still legitimate government functions.

I know from the last GOP primaries we were both Ron Paul supporters. I am all for any move in that direction. We can see what works and how far it should go. I realize that without practical implementation this is all socioeconomic idealism.

But I would start by saying that taxes are too high and that the economy (and society) will be more efficient and prosperous when people keep more of the money they earn. We spend far too much on the military for starters and I think every budget should be balanced by law. I would eliminate the federal reserve banking system.

I am on the fence with public schools as I would personally have to first be able to keep more of the money I earn before I could afford any private education for my kids and believe education is the key to any society that wants to be successful in the future.

Those are just a few starting points...

 

[drbrumley]

CL, what is your definition of "free markets"?

Exchanges free of government. I buy a newspaper from the paper boy, I exchange my commodity for his commodity. He gets my money, I get his newspaper. We both do this because we expect to gain.

 

[WizardofOz]

Exchanges free of government. I buy a newspaper from the paper boy, I exchange my commodity for his commodity. He gets my money, I get his newspaper. We both do this because we expect to gain.

When the government is involved, the $5.00 put in isn't going to be anywhere near $5.00 coming out.

A large government kills economic efficiency.

 

[rexlunae]

What a shock, life sucks for women and children in sub-saharan African third world country.

BUt the interesting thing is, for that poor and backward region of the world, Somalia is actually better off than most other places in that area.

I'm wondering where you're getting this idea. In addition to the consequences to women and children, which have been nasty, they have also created an unprecedented industry in piracy, and spawned the Al-Shabbab terrorist group which is an al Qaeda affiliate and has perpetrated attacks on civilians both at home and in neighboring Ethiopia.

Speaking of Ethiopia, far from being a backward den of suffering, it is something like the fifth largest economy in Africa, and growing pretty rapidly. All three of Somalia's land neighbors (Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti) have been beating the international average for GDP growth. It's hard to know how things are in Somalia due to its lack of economic metrics since the government fell, which raises the question, what makes you think things are so wonderful there?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG/countries/1W-ET-SO-DJ?display=graph

Also, of these countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, and Somalia), Somalia is the only one that people really seem to be making semi-credible bids to secede from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland

 

[quip]

When the government is involved, the $5.00 put in isn't going to be anywhere near $5.00 coming out.

A large government kills economic efficiency.

Fair enough, though in a free-market society there still needs to be some form of impartial mediation to ensure/enforce fair trade, practices and safety. The private sector cannot be left to police (buy) itself lest we invite some level of tyranny.

 

[rexlunae]

Exchanges free of government. I buy a newspaper from the paper boy, I exchange my commodity for his commodity. He gets my money, I get his newspaper. We both do this because we expect to gain.

Who guards that safety of this market? How do you know that someone will not shoot both of you and take his paper and your money? Who makes sure that they kid selling the paper isn't inflating prices by hiring goons to shoot anyone else trying to sell them?

The problem is, these libertarian models of markets never take into account the maintenance of the market itself. It's like contemplating the efficiency of a car without taking into account friction. And when you neglect this feature of the markets, you actually get a chilling effect on trade because the market isn't safe.

The slogan of free markets is often represented as laissez faire. It should be caveat emptor.

 

[WizardofOz]

Fair enough, though in a free-market society there still needs to be some form of impartial mediation to ensure/enforce fair trade, practices and safety. The private sector cannot be left to police (buy) itself lest we invite some level of tyranny.

Yes, I would still leave the courts as a government function. They would determine if mediation is required.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm wondering where you're getting this idea. In addition to the consequences to women and children, which have been nasty, they have also created an unprecedented industry in piracy, and spawned the Al-Shabbab terrorist group which is an al Qaeda affiliate and has perpetrated attacks on civilians both at home and in neighboring Ethiopia.

Speaking of Ethiopia, far from being a backward den of suffering, it is something like the fifth largest economy in Africa, and growing pretty rapidly. All three of Somalia's land neighbors (Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti) have been beating the international average for GDP growth. It's hard to know how things are in Somalia due to its lack of economic metrics since the government fell, which raises the question, what makes you think things are so wonderful there?

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG/countries/1W-ET-SO-DJ?display=graph

Also, of these countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, and Somalia), Somalia is the only one that people really seem to be making semi-credible bids to secede from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland

"Wonderful"? Strawman much?

http://mises.org/library/anarchy-somalia

 

[rexlunae]

"Wonderful"? Strawman much?

Not intentionally. You compared it to its neighbors favorably, which implies that it's doing fairly well.

http://mises.org/library/anarchy-somalia

Seems like a lot of cherry-picking to me. There are 1.1 million internally-displaced people and about 1 million living in the neighboring countries, which is about 20% of the total population. I'm going to speculate that these folks left their homes for a reason.

http://www.refintl.org/where-we-work/africa/somalia

 

[Jose Fly]

But I would start by saying that taxes are too high and that the economy (and society) will be more efficient and prosperous when people keep more of the money they earn.

Not exactly going out on a limb there.

We spend far too much on the military for starters and I think every budget should be balanced by law. I would eliminate the federal reserve banking system.

So when you say balance the budget, are you including the sales of treasuries?

I am on the fence with public schools as I would personally have to first be able to keep more of the money I earn before I could afford any private education for my kids and believe education is the key to any society that wants to be successful in the future.

Is your main beef that you don't have enough money right now?

 

[PureX]

This is likely where CL and I differ. He seems to lean toward anarcho-capitalism where (just about) everything is privatized.

I lean toward minarchism where courts, law enforcement and military are still legitimate government functions.

I know from the last GOP primaries we were both Ron Paul supporters. I am all for any move in that direction. We can see what works and how far it should go. I realize that without practical implementation this is all socioeconomic idealism.

But I would start by saying that taxes are too high and that the economy (and society) will be more efficient and prosperous when people keep more of the money they earn. We spend far too much on the military for starters and I think every budget should be balanced by law. I would eliminate the federal reserve banking system.

I am on the fence with public schools as I would personally have to first be able to keep more of the money I earn before I could afford any private education for my kids and believe education is the key to any society that wants to be successful in the future.

Those are just a few starting points...

I agree with most of these ideas to the degree that they are about 'cleaning up' our existing system of government. However, I suspect we might disagree on our ideas about the basic purpose of government. For example, I believe that one of the fundamental intentions of people establishing a government is to organize and pay for systems that protect the lives and freedoms of it's citizens. That doesn't just mean creating a military and a police force. It means establishing and paying for systems of disease control, systems for minding public health and safety, and it means establishing and paying for access to good reasonable health care for all citizens. What point is there in having an army to protect citizens from marauding invaders when they are being force to live and die in the streets of their own country for lack of money? That's simply irrational.

Secondly, I believe that one of the things we need protected from the most is our own greed and stupidity, which inevitably results in criminal exploitation if it is not kept in check by the force of law and by vigilant oversight. Free markets are not free. They are not fair. They are not interested in the welfare of the environment or the society in which they operate. A free market is a mindless and amoral method of commerce that rewards both greed and ruthlessness at the expense of pretty much everything else. And as such must be controlled and often forced to act against it's natural inclinations. A "free market" is just another name for commercial lawlessness. We establish governments specifically to establish laws of fairness, equality, and opportunity, not to eliminate it for the sake of greed.

Lastly, regarding collecting taxes as a means of helping the poor, old, and sick among us, and as a means of redistributing wealth, these are both essential to a healthy and productive society. One of the fundamental purposes of establishing government is to establish a mechanism for doing, collectively, what we will not do as individuals, but what we should do for and as a society. That means building roads that we personally will never drive on. It means providing for the old, sick, and unemployed even though we may never find ourselves among them. And it means paying the government to do all sorts of things that we don't agree with or want to pay for. In fact, that's an essential function of government: to make us do and pay for things that we don't want to.

 

[drbrumley]

Who guards that safety of this market?

We do.

How do you know that someone will not shoot both of you and take his paper and your money?

I don't know if anyone will. But by your same standard here, what's the difference now? How do you know that someone will not shoot both of you and take his paper and your money?

Who makes sure that they kid selling the paper isn't inflating prices by hiring goons to shoot anyone else trying to sell them?

The market does, cause if he is selling his papers at more than what the market will tolerate, he won't be selling his paper now will he?

The problem is, these libertarian models of markets never take into account the maintenance of the market itself. It's like contemplating the efficiency of a car without taking into account friction. And when you neglect this feature of the markets, you actually get a chilling effect on trade because the market isn't safe.

Rex, don't pretend that the free market doesn’t include all the information and tools available to consumers by consumer advocates, reviews, rating systems, retailers who distribute products, insurance companies, and all of a given company’s competition.

The slogan of free markets is often represented as laissez faire. It should be caveat emptor.

Fact is Rex, the free market is really society as defined as pretty much everyone except the state.

 

[genuineoriginal]

But then I thought, why do we assume that government is a neutral or objective arbitrator?

Why do we assume that government SHOULD be a neutral or objective arbitrator?

 

[drbrumley]

Why do we assume that government SHOULD be a neutral or objective arbitrator?

In what way should the government not be neutral or objective?