tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post2773177855905238773..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Three things I don't understandEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-36991923612698415652012-10-03T07:08:50.168-04:002012-10-03T07:08:50.168-04:00The painful irony is that your solution is actuall...The painful irony is that your solution is actually what reduces people's degree of freedom. <br /><br />Most people would not consider working in a sweatshop to be a "good" option. So what does it mean when somebody chooses to work in a sweatshop? It means that it is their "best" option. Because if they truly had a "better" option then they definitely would have chosen it. Therefore, the owner of the sweatshop increased his employees degree of freedom. <br /><br />Then liberals come along and strive to force owners of sweatshops to provide better conditions and more benefits for their employees. Liberals are such idiots. If they truly believe it's economically feasible to pay employees more money and give them more benefits then all they have to do is to start their own factories. <br /><br />Why should they do this? Because it would give people more options. It would increase people's freedom. But instead of doing this they are happy to try and get sweatshops shut down...which would take the "best" option away from people. <br /><br />If you truly want to help people...you give them "better" options. If you truly want to screw people...you take away their "best" options.<br /><br />Here are the fundamental concepts involved...<br /><br />1. Everybody wants more for less <br />2. Competition forces producers to do more with less (aka "resourcefulness")<br />3. Resourcefulness allows us to overcome scarcity <br />4. Abundance gives people a greater degree of freedom<br /><br />You don't give people a greater degree of freedom by wasting limited resources. Allowing people to vote on the 538 congresspeople who are allowed to determine which government organizations receive 1/4 of our nation's revenue is pure idiocy. It has absolutely no basis in economic fact. It is simply a vestigial trait left over from 1000 years ago when barons decided that the king truly did not have divine authority. <br /><br />If you want to give people a greater degree of freedom then you should advocate that taxpayers be given the freedom to seek more for less in the public sector. This will force government organizations to do more with less...which will lead to greater abundance which will provide everybody with a greater degree of freedom. Xerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-88016320749860414132012-10-03T06:05:49.720-04:002012-10-03T06:05:49.720-04:00We SOLVE the free-rider problem by forcing people ...We SOLVE the free-rider problem by forcing people to pay taxes. It's ignorant to be unaware that very basic fact...<br /><br />"Nevertheless, the classic solution to the problem of underprovision of public goods has been government funding - through compulsory taxation - and government production of the good or service in question. Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is. When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship." - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policyXerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-30459618266693948482012-10-03T05:33:48.842-04:002012-10-03T05:33:48.842-04:00You are assuming a degree of freedom that many peo...You are assuming a degree of freedom that many people do not have. They are therefore unable to exercise their rational choices. I think that a rational way for the real taxpayers, the consumers, the workers, the renters, as well as the businessmen and landlords, et al., to choose which gov't organizations to support is through voting. What a concept! :)Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-11043199187314381772012-10-03T05:27:26.538-04:002012-10-03T05:27:26.538-04:00"The bottom line is...you cannot say that a g..."The bottom line is...you cannot say that a government organization is truly successful and then turn around and say that taxpayers would not choose to give it their taxes. Well...you can...but that would simply reveal how ignorant/irrational you are."<br /><br />Yes, this is known as the 'free rider' problem.<br /><br />Seriously, I can't believe you are calling me ignorant.Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-31052363493242998922012-10-03T03:11:17.277-04:002012-10-03T03:11:17.277-04:00They choose which gov't organizations their ta...They choose which gov't organizations their taxes go to by choosing who they give their money/labor to. This is known as ethical consumerism...<br /><br />"The first step in taking our power back is taking our money out of all the commercial banks and moving it into credit unions or community banks. Corporations didn't get big on their own...they got big because we pay them. So change your phone company...put your money where your heart is." - <a href="http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2012/02/tax-choice-strategy-for-occupy-movement.html" rel="nofollow">Occupy Wall Street Supporter</a><br /><br />It's not a new concept...<br /><br />"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Joshua 24:15<br /><br />Of course, nobody would stop tenants, employees and customers from giving their own money to government organizations. Xerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-50625753343729766442012-10-03T00:19:47.121-04:002012-10-03T00:19:47.121-04:00Xerographics: "Allowing taxpayers to choose w...Xerographics: "Allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to is the only logical and rational way to gauge success/failure in the public sector."<br /><br />But who are the taxpayers? Not necessarily those who send in their money, right? Landlords pass taxes on to tenants, businesses pass taxes on to employees and customers. How do tenants and employees and customers choose which gov't organizations their taxes go to?Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-49239384434856268602012-10-02T18:04:19.244-04:002012-10-02T18:04:19.244-04:00No it doesn't. It completely acknowledges the...No it doesn't. It completely acknowledges the fact that neither the market nor the government has a monopoly on failure. The point of the public sector is to succeed where the private sector fails and vice versa. <br /><br />But how do we determine whether the public sector is truly succeeding where the private sector is failing? Allowing the government itself to evaluate its level of success would be as absurd as allowing business owners to determine how much revenue they receive. Yet, that's exactly what you advocate. <br /><br />Allowing taxpayers to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to is the only logical and rational way to gauge success/failure in the public sector. However taxpayers spend their taxes in the public sector will reflect the extent of failure in the private sector and success in the public sector. However consumers spend their money in the private sector will reflect the extent of failure in the public sector and success in the private sector.<br /><br />Here are the possible outcomes...<br />1. Both sectors succeed at supplying the same exact good/service...consumers pay for private education and taxpayers pay for public education<br />2. Only one sector succeeds at supplying a good/service. Consumers do not give any of their money to private healthcare while taxpayers give a large portion of their taxes to public healthcare<br />3. Neither sector succeeds at supplying the same exact good/service. Can't think of an example...but it seems logically possible. The outcome would be that neither consumers nor taxpayers would give their money to the public/private organizations trying to supply this good/service.<br /><br />The bottom line is...you cannot say that a government organization is truly successful and then turn around and say that taxpayers would not choose to give it their taxes. Well...you can...but that would simply reveal how ignorant/irrational you are. <br /><br />Do you honestly believe that success itself only matters? For example...perhaps you are very extremely successful at picking your nose...therefore people should pay you to pick your nose? People would not pay you to pick your nose because there's no demand for your boogers. Does the government produce boogers or does it produce things that people actually demand? <br /><br />And in case you missed it...in no way shape or form am I arguing that taxes be voluntary. If I was then I would be an anarcho-capitalist. But do you know how you can tell that I'm not an anarcho-capitalist? You can tell because I already told you that I am a pragmatarian. Taxes would not be voluntary but taxpayers would choose which government organizations they gave their taxes to. The result would be that the actual demand for public goods would determine the supply of public goods.Xerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-21266494841846769752012-10-02T17:27:55.199-04:002012-10-02T17:27:55.199-04:00This kind of reasoning completely ignores public g...This kind of reasoning completely ignores public goods and market failures.Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-4529046930529457062012-10-02T17:17:12.786-04:002012-10-02T17:17:12.786-04:00The minimum wage/immigration/taxes point was actua...The minimum wage/immigration/taxes point was actually the most interesting to me of all of those - thank you.<br /><br />Yes, if you try to reconcile the two via a partial equilibrium explanation it doesn't seem to make sense.<br /><br />If you try to reconcile the two via a general equilibrium explanation it does.<br /><br />Often, libertarians will try to smack down basic "the demand curve slopes down" analyses for immigrants by making an appeal to general equilibrium effects. Fine. Then they should apply the same logic to minimum wages.<br /><br /><br />I don't know what Card has said about the partial equilibrium implications of his studies to say whether Bryan is accurately characterizing the issue. What I will agree with Bryan on is that they don't seem to be reconcilable through partial equilibrium thinking (but I should probably look at this closer). Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-60568401950497356702012-10-02T17:13:55.908-04:002012-10-02T17:13:55.908-04:00Not sure I follow you. I don't have special kn...Not sure I follow you. I don't have special knowledge.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-12640509683759312012-10-02T16:23:37.438-04:002012-10-02T16:23:37.438-04:00Regarding point number #2..."moving jobs arou...Regarding point number #2..."moving jobs around" vs "creating jobs"...the difference is painfully clear. Jobs in the private sector were created as a result of demand while jobs in the public sector were not. Now...not sure where the confusion is. Perhaps we have different definitions of "demand"? <br /><br />Perhaps you think that people voting for more public sector jobs reflects demand? But this would imply that you don't believe that actions speak louder than words. Is that really the case? Do you really not see the value in people putting their money where their mouths are? <br /><br />True demand is based on sacrifice...aka spending. If you truly want something then you'll spend your money to purchase it. As Henry David Thoreau said, "The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it." In the private sector if you exchange a portion of your life to create a job that there's truly a demand for...then other people will voluntarily exchange a portion of their lives for the products/services that you are supplying. <br /><br />Without knowing how much of their own lives people would sacrifice for what they want...there's no way to truly know how resources should be distributed. Therefore, any distribution not based on personal sacrifice reflects a misallocation of limited resources. Misallocating limited resources is not how we overcome scarcity. The abundance that we all want and value depends on putting limited resources to their most productive uses. And the idea of one use of a limited resource being more productive than another use only makes sense if we are able to accurately convey what are true priorities are.<br /><br />All this is libertarianism 101...it was the point of Bastiat's Parable of the Broken Window. It's really basic stuff so it constantly surprises me when you fail to acknowledge this straightforward argument. You certainly don't have to agree with it...but you don't even seem to be aware of it. If you are aware of it then I must have missed it. If that's the case then please link me to your post where you acknowledge that resources can only be efficiently allocated by allowing consumers to consider the opportunity costs of their spending decisions.<br /><br />The thing is...libertarianism 101 is a prerequisite for pragmatarianism 101...<br /><br />As a pragmatarian I have absolutely no problem with the creation of jobs in the public sector...as long as taxpayers can choose which government organizations they give their taxes to. How they spend their taxes in the public sector will allow resources to be distributed according to actual demand. This is simply because taxpayers will have the opportunity to put their own taxes where their mouths are. Xerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-12575066187850163052012-10-02T16:21:56.866-04:002012-10-02T16:21:56.866-04:00If you don't understand Bryan Caplan or libert...If you don't understand Bryan Caplan or libertarian discussions of immigration vs. the minimum wage, what about <a href="http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2005/05/infinite_contra.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a> by Bryan Caplan on immigration and the minimum wage? Josiah Neeleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04408537831149151396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-72884346571880417412012-10-02T16:18:34.048-04:002012-10-02T16:18:34.048-04:00I'm still not completely sure I understood you...I'm still not completely sure I understood your point. All dat fancy university book-learnin's got you writin' officialese 'stead of simple American.<br /><br />Is the core of your complaint this: "Bryan implies that non-libertarians are oblivious to problems presented by social democracy, republicanism and other forms of governmental systems, which is wrong"?Watooshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16255104522543797858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-17888866077127842412012-10-02T13:51:27.672-04:002012-10-02T13:51:27.672-04:00"economics circa the mid-1960s - the heyday o..."economics circa the mid-1960s - the heyday of Keynesianism and of the related heady belief in the policy prowess of the best and the brightest"<br /><br />Uh.... I don't claim to be an expert; I just lived through that period. Anyhow, "The Best and the Brightest" was a David Halberstam history (1972) describing how very bright people in the Kennedy administration had brought about the Viet Nam War. The title was reasonazbly ironic, it's come to be a label for self-styled intellectuals with good intentions who produce tragic results. In the nature of things the well-intention fools are generally political liberals.<br /><br />It's important to note that NO ONE IN THE WORLD IN THE 1960'S DESCRIBED THE KENNEDY OR JOHNSON ADMINISTRATIONS IN SUCH TERMS. There were people credited with being bright, certainly, even some described as brilliant. But the notion of the nations leaders then being a political elite eventually destroyed by its arrogance and educated incapacity is a very modern notion.<br /><br />So when Bordreaux takes his slap at the "heady belief in the policy prowess of the best and the brightest" he's being ahistorical. What it boils down to is "the 1960's, when people I dislike ran the government." That's him; it isn't the voice of God.mike shupphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383379836883992742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-36244307696809337372012-10-02T13:23:14.571-04:002012-10-02T13:23:14.571-04:00The work for A Treatise on Probability was done ac...The work for <i>A Treatise on Probability</i> was done actually earlier than 1921, Daniel Kuehn. It was done in 1907-1908. Keynes only found time to expand on it after World War I, because other things kept him busy. Dr. Michael Emmett Brady has stated before that uncertainty/ambiguity affects decision-making (individual and collective) in the public AND private sectors. Otherwise, pretty good post!Blue Auroranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-41001513163886343922012-10-02T12:12:05.275-04:002012-10-02T12:12:05.275-04:00I am extrapolating a little on that, and thinking ...I am extrapolating a little on that, and thinking about some things said over at Bob's blog too. Sorry for the confusion.<br /><br />There is a not so subtle allusion to the robustness problems libertarians associate with non-libertarians in the second half of the post. That this is something he would find relatively questionable or lacking among non-libertarians makes me feel like he is overestimating how successfully libertarians have handled this.<br /><br />It is not all on the surface - sorry if that was confusing.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-8441682870858972002012-10-02T12:05:15.685-04:002012-10-02T12:05:15.685-04:00I don't understand your point on Bryan's p...I don't understand your point on Bryan's post with regard to robustness. All he said is that all social systems sometimes fail and so simply pointing out that outcomes won't be perfect under a libertarian society is no argument. Why is that like saying that he doesn't care about robustness?prometheefeuhttp://prometheefeu.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-36603786949845908802012-10-02T12:01:02.772-04:002012-10-02T12:01:02.772-04:00Tender?
I take "obtuse" to mean stupid...Tender? <br /><br />I take "obtuse" to mean stupid (perhaps wrongly?). I think I can write one sentence complaining about that. I was simply pointing out that I didn't think you made a good argument - an argument I couldn't take seriously. You certainly seem intelligent to me, I just am not obligated to consider everything you say to be a serious rebuttal. You're spilling an awful lot of ink over this point (and now here I am spilling even more). If I'm wrong that obtuse means stupid, then great. If I'm not wrong, I'm gonna tell you not to call me stupid.<br /><br />re: <i>"My guess is that you are just seeing what you want to see."</i><br /><br />This is kind of where I'm coming down with you... except what keeps bugging me about what you're missing is that Krugman is so well known for this. Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-32598370543567854852012-10-02T11:57:08.662-04:002012-10-02T11:57:08.662-04:00So, where do you get all of your special knowledge...So, where do you get all of your special knowledge that average people don't have?Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-58259622116578273452012-10-02T11:54:36.029-04:002012-10-02T11:54:36.029-04:00"Since Krugman spends a great deal of his tim..."Since Krugman spends a great deal of his time writing about these public choice problems (just not calling them that), it seems hard to argue that he misses the point. He just doesn't cite the same literature Don does."<br /><br />Yes. We are clearly talking about 2 different Krugmans. I read Krugman regularly but can't remember him making public choice problems a central part of his arguments. My guess is that you are just seeing what you want to see. Though you can post links if you have any.<br /><br />Otherwise, I really AM NOT interested in having a conversation with you. I mean, one minute you say you can't take me seriously. The next you get tender titted because I say you're being obtuse? Good grief, guy. No thanks.Dee Williamsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-69758892869079351622012-10-02T11:51:33.215-04:002012-10-02T11:51:33.215-04:00People in general do not understand those on the o...People in general do not understand those on the other side of an argument. It is a good idea for people to state their opponents' views such that their opponents say that they have got it right. That is far from the rule in political speech, where people state their opponents' views as broadly as possible, to the point of absurdity, if they can.<br /><br />IMX, people tend to propose simplistic policies, without regard to systemic effects. Their critics often look further and raise systemic objections. Typically, though, when the critics make counter-proposals, they are also simplistic and short-sighted. Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-37894227212350545712012-10-02T11:49:11.246-04:002012-10-02T11:49:11.246-04:00I know what libertarians say. That's the whole...I know what libertarians <i>say</i>. That's the whole problem.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-38114460810930744562012-10-02T11:48:05.976-04:002012-10-02T11:48:05.976-04:00At this point I don't know what to do but copy...At this point I don't know what to do but copy and paste what I wrote in the earlier comment about blackboard economics.<br /><br />If that is not clear, then I'll just agree with you using your exact words: Don is <i>"clearly talking about how economists advocate policies based on "black-board economics" without regard for the actual institutional or information limitations policymakers face."</i><br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />re: <i>"NOW, understanding Don that way, do you honestly think it is wrong to say that both Delong and Krugman believe that if we simply replaced the bad policy makers (Republicans) with good policy makers (people they agree with) that we would have better policy?"</i><br /><br />For the millionth time, yes. I think it is wrong to say that. I don't know how much clearer I could be, Dee.<br /><br />I might not phrase it the way you do here. "Better" is a low bar. Don probably thinks Ron Paul, in exactly the same institutional framework, would still probably do "better" than Obama. I think the same in reverse.<br /><br />But that doesn't get to the main point. The main point is that Keynesians have a history of agreeing with Coase on this point.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-6541366620232363382012-10-02T11:43:15.955-04:002012-10-02T11:43:15.955-04:00Whether you want to take the view seriously or not...Whether you want to take the view seriously or not, I believe that it is the view held by most libertarians of Keynesians. Think Hayek and Mises. Knowledge is dispersed among the entire population and cannot reside with the technocrat. The Keynesian is a central planner who is fatally conceited and does not understand that part of reality. Isn't there a book about that? Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-74878822969469078962012-10-02T11:41:18.712-04:002012-10-02T11:41:18.712-04:00"I'm saying both... "
Alright then...."I'm saying both... "<br /><br />Alright then.<br /><br />"I don't think you're going to make any headway tarring him as someone who trusts wise men in authority."<br /><br />And I don't think you're going to make any headway misreading Don's original post. Do you honestly think the point he was trying to make was that Keynesians must totally trust wise men in authority? If so, then I agree with you that Don is crazy and both Krugman and Delong have become well known for criticizing those in authority.<br /><br />Of course, that isn't what Don was talking about. He was pretty clearly talking about how economists advocate policies based on "black-board economics" without regard for the actual institutional or information limitations policymakers face. In other words, these "black-board economists" believe that the only impediment to making good policy is not having good policy makers. <br /><br />NOW, understanding Don that way, do you honestly think it is wrong to say that both Delong and Krugman believe that if we simply replaced the bad policy makers (Republicans) with good policy makers (people they agree with) that we would have better policy?Dee Williamsnoreply@blogger.com