tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post8063276597268076535..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: It wasn't just your commenters that presented a problem...Evanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-81076688376493321152011-12-23T11:02:21.398-05:002011-12-23T11:02:21.398-05:00www.tokojati.com
pusat mebel
jati jepara berkua...www.tokojati.com<br /><br /><a href="http://tokojati.com" rel="nofollow">pusat mebel <br /><br />jati jepara berkualitas </a><br /><a href="http://tokojati.com" rel="nofollow">pusat mebel <br /><br />jati jepara berkualitas </a><br /><a href="http://tokojati.com" rel="nofollow">pusat mebel <br /><br />jati jepara berkualitas </a>Toko Jati Mebel Jeparahttp://tokojati.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-12482615846991263522011-12-22T23:00:01.880-05:002011-12-22T23:00:01.880-05:00You speak of life during World War 2, and the regi...You speak of life during World War 2, and the regime put in place back then.<br /><br />You say it was necessary. Sure, perhaps the alternative was much worse.<br /><br />But life was more than a little bit uneasy. New apartment construction stopped during wartime. Families shared apartments with multiple other families. Food and other supplies were rationed. Everyone tightened their standard of living to just above poverty level. Deep impoverishment may not describe it, but it was certainly close to poverty. All this happened not in some part of the Third World, but the industrial powerhouse of United States during the war.<br /><br />More than that, let's look at what the word "tyranny" means. The Greek tyrants weren't unpopular. They were charismatic and very much had popular support. But they assumed a scope of powers much wider than previous leaders and used/abused them to a greater degree. During wartime US, there was also strict regimentation. Jailing of newspaper editors who disagreed with the war. Power of the executive to override other parts of the government for wartime purposes. Let's not pretend it was not a kind of tyranny.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong; it may have been the lesser evil, but let's just concede life then was under a kind of evil nonetheless. Wartime US, as a strongly state-controlled economy, temporarily had some of the negative features of permanently state controlled economies.Prateek Sanjaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-77035344097487196742011-12-22T21:27:30.190-05:002011-12-22T21:27:30.190-05:00Prateek Sanjay:
It is refreshing that you do not ...Prateek Sanjay:<br /><br />It is refreshing that you do not agree with the reading that Daniel and I are making - it is, indeed, a hard sell to any thinking person.<br /><br />However I think you still ought to recognize that the pedagogy matters. Just to quote the piece in question again:<br /><br />"[...] complete or near-complete state control of the economy <b>has proven to be a sure recipe for deep impoverishment and brutal tyranny</b>, while historical periods that have been close to laissez faire – that is, much closer to laissez faire than is America at the dawn of 2012 – have produced nothing remotely of the sort."<br /><br />If we take the first part I have highlighted to mean "complete or near complete control of the economy, even during emergencies (such as the war footing of American economies during WWII), we see once again that the Austrian perspective suggests placing artificial restraints on democracy that limit its ability to respond to crises.<br /><br />This is not tantamount to declaring an eternal emergency (ala Egypt) or leveraging a "War on Terror" for political purposes - and I note that in a democracy (and in Egypt) the use of such policies for repression is not taken lightly by the political and popular segments of society.<br /><br />There is also the gap in the logic from "historical periods that have been close to laissez faire" to "have produced nothing [like tyrannies]." Here Don Bordreaux is being vague about the timescale and the mechanisms needed to go from America in the 19th Century, which "have produced nothing [like tyranny]" to America at the dawn of 2012," which apparently is yet "closer," despite the continuity of many modes of thinking (political and otherwise) and beliefs in the U.S. throughout that period.<br /><br />It almost suggests that only our storied American forebeards were hard enough to make a go of laissez faire.Edwin Herdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05040978095707760636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-10283618632940325912011-12-22T13:32:12.019-05:002011-12-22T13:32:12.019-05:00Lord Vader,
Well rhetorically that might be true,...Lord Vader,<br /><br />Well rhetorically that might be true, but the reality is there isn't anything close to the type of planning and grain extraction there was then. Even if some people clearly have different perspectives on the whole economy than others.Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02228934208444865712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-81943853916414100292011-12-22T11:09:40.762-05:002011-12-22T11:09:40.762-05:00Daniel's edit:
"What I'm saying is t...Daniel's edit:<br /><br />"What I'm saying is that Don treats government as a single spectrum where you can have more of it or less of it, and on that spectrum Krugman is between Don and Kim Jong Il."<br /><br />He did not say any such thing.<br /><br />He said the opposite.<br /><br />He said linear logic does not - DOES NOT - apply to this world.<br /><br />He didn't support the very line of reasoning you attribute to him. He criticised it. Why don't you reread his post and respond again?Prateek Sanjaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-85749800438888323872011-12-22T07:59:03.766-05:002011-12-22T07:59:03.766-05:00Warren,
Whether you're closer to "war co...Warren,<br /><br />Whether you're closer to "war communism" or the mythologized 19th century laissez-faire or not depends on where you live, your profession, etc.Lord Vaderhttp://lordvader.empire.sith.jedisuck.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-32716032351858872282011-12-22T07:20:28.644-05:002011-12-22T07:20:28.644-05:00Since Daniel quoted me post above (aw shucks!), I&...Since Daniel quoted me post above (aw shucks!), I'd better point out that the line "Bordreaux makes the points me makes" should read "Bordreaux makes the points HE makes." Not very elegant, but I hope everybody got a chuckle out of the way I managed to mangle it :)Edwin Herdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05040978095707760636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-43389130049740687742011-12-22T06:36:07.606-05:002011-12-22T06:36:07.606-05:00That's Prateek, Warren :)
Mr. Prateek Sanjay:...That's Prateek, Warren :)<br /><br />Mr. Prateek Sanjay:<br /><br />There are two problems. One, who is "you guys?" Bordreaux makes the points me makes, and I don't see us misrepresenting them (however subtle his manipulations may be here). He is choosing to highlight a total non-issue (outside of the most airy towers of academics, anyway) and trying to drum up support for a political scheme by making it appear that we might be on the cusp of a North Korean-style dictatorship if we do not follow his (unrelated) prescriptions.<br /><br />Secondly, it is quite clear that he is distorting the issue when he states that current government (which is actually trending more towards minimal government, at least thus far) in the United States is "closer" to North Korea's example than to America of the 19th Century.<br /><br />As Daniel says, there is no simple continuum of economic freedom that completely describes America and North Korea; economic freedom is usually categorized as a feature of freedom more generally. Trying to smash the topic of freedom into a little box labeled "economic policy" ignores that there are preconditions for a free market economy, and there are more general preconditions for the whole condition of freedom.<br /><br />Movement towards a freer market economy in a free society is possible as preconditions are met, but attempting to cure North Korea or to stave off totalitarianism with market prescriptions is not guaranteed to work (to put it mildly): North Korea is structured such that a free economy cannot work, and America is structured such that there will always be vigorous opposition to any policy that limits somebody's economic freedom (and more besides).Edwin Herdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05040978095707760636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-62720945946399154292011-12-22T03:07:14.917-05:002011-12-22T03:07:14.917-05:00Patreek,
Hmm you know I just re-read the article ...Patreek,<br /><br />Hmm you know I just re-read the article and I think your right. My apologies for the misplaced rant, but I'd remembered being irked by it in my less careful reading over my lunch. No need to type with such apparent exasperation either, Patreek, its the internet and while some of us are not trying to contribute to the conversation, like that one anon poster who drops by writing so many obscene profanities, it was not my intention to make such an embarrassing mistake. <br /><br />My bit about Krugman, etc. was just saying "hey, Patreek we all agree that drinking Water is a good idea here." for purposes of the record. Again, apologies.Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02228934208444865712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-65139318302037619872011-12-22T02:17:19.086-05:002011-12-22T02:17:19.086-05:00I am sure Boudreaux SAID THE VERY OPPOSITE.
What ...I am sure Boudreaux SAID THE VERY OPPOSITE.<br /><br />What does he say? READ.<br /><br />"The world isn't always linear..."<br /><br />"...as a matter of logic, it does ***not*** follow that imposing more state control....move the west closer to...that we witness today in North Korea"<br /><br />Boudreaux did the exact opposite. He said that it is wrong and unfair to compare Kim Jong Il to Paul Krugman.<br /><br />He is condemning linear logic.<br /><br />He is condemning comparisons of western statism and communism.<br /><br />And you guys KNEEJERK and accuse him of making THE VERY POINT HE IS ACTUALLY CRITICISING.Prateek Sanjaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-9003944714608524012011-12-22T01:09:20.521-05:002011-12-22T01:09:20.521-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02228934208444865712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-28931024363582621092011-12-21T23:16:41.298-05:002011-12-21T23:16:41.298-05:00Daniel, he is not wrong when he says that capitali...Daniel, he is not wrong when he says that capitalism has never produced forced starvation and genocide.<br /><br />It's just a simple reminder that while we like to think that the worst of our problems today are allegedly unscrupulous insurance companies, who are supposedly the only thing standing between paradise and dystopia, the truth is that they are not the worst problems mankind faces. On the broader scheme of things, these are peacetime activities, and they can never succeed through genocide or starvation, because there will be no markets left.<br /><br />The undeniable symmetry is that on the scale of all the things that have done harm to mankind, capitalism leans strongly on the side of things that have done less harm than good. It is why even Karl Marx supported capitalism, which he saw as a liberation of peasants "from the idiocy of rural life".<br /><br />Anyway, Boudreaux said nothing about Krugman being closer to Kim Jong Il than him.Prateek Sanjaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-29649813282026085702011-12-21T22:11:42.895-05:002011-12-21T22:11:42.895-05:00capitalism vigorously pursued
what about the Sou...capitalism vigorously pursued <br /><br />what about the South, before the Proclamation?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-53582776188118458672011-12-21T22:03:54.790-05:002011-12-21T22:03:54.790-05:00"The problem I am highlighting - that I thoug..."<i>The problem I am highlighting - that I thought I highlighted quite clearly - is seeing government on a single spectrum, with "more" government and "less" government. Don admits there may be non-linearities in consequences, but he still puts Krugman closer to NK than him.</i>"<br /><br />Yes I got that this was your objection immediately. Even with all the intervention we have today our economy is driven primarily by markets, prices, and irreplaceable profit and loss. <br /><br />We're much closer to the nineteenth century than the total central planning of War Communism; even if its a political sin for Don to admit it. Compromises have been made in a lot of cases (since most people have values other than economic efficiency) and I'd imagine Daniel agrees that its probably gone a little too far, but the notion is still absurd even if made for a decent goal.Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02228934208444865712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-44524737323703650332011-12-21T21:50:40.279-05:002011-12-21T21:50:40.279-05:00"that is, much closer to laissez faire than i..."<i>that is, much closer to laissez faire than is America at the dawn of 2012 – have witnessed nothing remotely of the sort.</i>"<br /><br />I don't know.. Enclosures were pretty tyrannical and that was in developing the society closest to the laisezz-faire fantasy-land ideal that the world has ever seen.Warrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02228934208444865712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-25838250594921506382011-12-21T20:00:36.536-05:002011-12-21T20:00:36.536-05:00Daniel, I would add "hereditary monarchist&qu...Daniel, I would add "hereditary monarchist" to the list of problems with North Korea.<br /><br />For a gentle (and awesome) contrast with "hereditary" systems in a freer economy, please see <a href="http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/areas/finance/activities/documents/AdoptiveExpectations.pdf" rel="nofollow">this intriguing account</a> of "adoption" of heirs into "family companies" in Japan ("Adoptive Expectations: Rising Sons in Japanese Family Firms").<br /><br />Of course, there isn't any mechanism whereby the Japanese system could "only" work in a capitalist system. Remember Colonel Ghadaffi's "adopted" daughter? While it seems that Kim-Jong Un is the spitting image of his grandfather, one may also consider that if it had been a policy of North Korea to replace an unpromising heir, they could have done so by exactly the same system as employed in Japan, where closeness and filial love for one's parents need not be the precondition for succeeding them as the head of the household!<br /><br />Back to the important point, however. I read through the Cafe Hayek post in question asking myself the question: "Having given up this much ground, how will the commentator attempt to regain it?" My bet was on a simple, bleating insistence whereby Don Bordreaux would essentially nullify what he had said earlier.<br /><br />Like other commentators, I missed the insinuation that we are "much closer" to North Korea than to America at the beginning of the 19th Century (which wasn't a great place, either - especially with regards to robber barons vs. their workforces - don't these guys read any history? It was at least partly because we had an effective, i.e. non-laissez faire, democracy that kept the checks and self-sense of shame going to oppose total economic control by the wealthy).<br /><br />Here is the point where he claws back all that lost ground:<br /><br />"But we must never lose sight of this important asymmetry: complete or near-complete state control of the economy is proven to generate deep impoverishment and tyranny, while historical periods that have been close to laissez faire – that is, much closer to laissez faire than is America at the dawn of 2012 – have witnessed nothing remotely of the sort."<br /><br />Do you see it? Daniel does; I do as well.<br /><br />The line where Don Bordreaux says this:<br /><br />"But let’s be clear about one indisputable fact: capitalism vigorously pursued has never produced the atrocities – starvation, tyranny, and genocide – that are produced by statism vigorously pursued. Nothing remotely close."<br /><br />...is merely a feint. It is an arguable point designed to soften up the opposition while diverting attention from the categorical, and extremist, claims to follow.Edwin Herdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05040978095707760636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-19720148115202950892011-12-21T19:05:24.026-05:002011-12-21T19:05:24.026-05:00Comments are back at CafeHayek. No explanation.
...Comments are back at CafeHayek. No explanation.<br /><br />IBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-61862524650722635332011-12-21T18:32:54.333-05:002011-12-21T18:32:54.333-05:00Samuel,
That is crux of Hayek's argument in ....Samuel,<br /><br />That is crux of Hayek's argument in ...Serfdom. This Boudreaux fellow is not saying anything much original here.Lord Vaderhttp://lordvader.empire.sith.jedisuck.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-52116951119089032752011-12-21T17:06:07.086-05:002011-12-21T17:06:07.086-05:00When you're worried about risk-aversion, seein...When you're worried about risk-aversion, seeing government on a single spectrum seems fairly reasonable. Hayek didn't, of course, but he was making an argument for sophisticated thinkers, not voters.Stravinskynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-15322929180100481012011-12-21T17:00:18.514-05:002011-12-21T17:00:18.514-05:00Come on guys. I would not contest that part of Don...Come on guys. I would not contest that part of Don's post and I have not contested that part. Don't act as if I have said "everything Don wrote is absolutely wrong". You all should know I would not contest that argument.<br /><br />The problem I am highlighting - that I thought I highlighted quite clearly - is seeing government on a single spectrum, with "more" government and "less" government. Don admits there may be non-linearities in consequences, but he still puts Krugman closer to NK than him.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-36778810352394787452011-12-21T16:52:21.836-05:002011-12-21T16:52:21.836-05:00What Stravinsky said. Normally I just take what yo...What Stravinsky said. Normally I just take what you write for granted and assume that you're being fair to the person you're talking about, <br />but I read Boudreaux's post, and he doesn't come close to saying--or implying-- what you're accusing him of. <br /><br />He says right here...<br /><br />"The world isn’t always linear, so as a matter of logic it certainly does not follow that imposing more state control over the economies of the west – say, imposing the amount of additional state control endorsed by “Progressives” such as Paul Krugman or even Harold Meyerson – would necessarily move the west closer either to the economic consequences or the political consequences (or both) that we witness today in North Korea (and that were everywhere the horrific results when states had such extensive power – e.g., Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia, and Castro’s Cuba)."<br /><br />Notice the whole "it certainly does not follow..." part? <br /><br />He then goes on to make the argument that capitalism, even at its worst, is a whole lot "safer", one might say, than full-on government control of the market. I would be surprised to find that you disagree with this. But even if you do, that's totally different from the argument you alleged he was making.Samuel Wonacottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-17774718182521252852011-12-21T16:44:14.146-05:002011-12-21T16:44:14.146-05:00You don't think the identification of "go...You don't think the identification of "government" as some homogenous blob that he says Krugman take a little of and Kim Jong Il takes a lot of might not be just the teensiest bit misleading and insulting?<br /><br />"Capitalism" and "government" aren't two distinct alternatives. Indeed, less government often means less economic freedom (that's why people like me support a lot of the government we support). The discussion of these issues is flimsy, and there's an attempt to score ideological points by using a really terrible dictatorship.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-15996880299164943352011-12-21T16:30:08.635-05:002011-12-21T16:30:08.635-05:00I'm not sure what about Boudreaux's post i...I'm not sure what about Boudreaux's post is bothering you. He seems to be saying that too much capitalism is a hell of a lot better than too much government, where the former is maybe 19th century USA and the latter is North Korea. That seems pretty uncontroversial.Stravinskynoreply@blogger.com