Socialist USA!

[PJABBER]

As are most.

Sadly true.

I asked for theory and fact. I get more boasting. But I should expect no less from a man who spends most of his time posting the opinions of others.

Again with the theory. Perchance you protest too much?

While I appreciate the suggestion, you would be misguided. I've read thinkers from Turgot to Rothbard to Marx to George. Almost all had very excellent points. My conclusions, however, are my own.

While you pretend to insight, thus far all I have seen is reference after reference to abstractionists. Do you believe that the world really exists or is it all just a construct?

Again, I find this argument to be very dubious, given your own posting history.

My posting history is an amusement.

Coase's major weakness was that in any real world there are transactional costs and that these costs rise exponentially with the complexity and size of the contracting.

Take it further, grasshopper. All theorizing fails in moving from the observable finite to some place along the merry path to the infinite. Matters not whether you postulate economics or physics, you reach a problem state where the exception overwhelms the rule.

It matters not, however, because you've already recognized information asymmetry which means you surely understand that just as you believe central planning would never be perfectly efficient, neither can markets.

I don't buy into the "perfection" of anything. I find that I am most right when I argue the exception rather than the rule.

I suggest you make that argument to Amused who was the benefactor in this transaction.

Honestly, I'd rather hang with Amused than with you.

Orwell was not just a Socialist in Catalonia.

Orwell, whom I admire greatly, had well lived life before he joined the fighting of the war. The Communists couldn't decide if he were a fascist or a fellow traveler. Like most men who have lived rather than just studied, he was a complexity. Perhaps you should read more of his works?

They are most certainly not memories. The fact that you've simply not investigated the literature does not imply its absence. Also, verbage is not a replacement for argument.

Ever the dreamer, the resurrector of lost causes, of historical detritus. The literature is staid and not popular. It influences few, even such as I that have a passing curiousity of the arcane.

Your own pithy commentary reflects little insight into truth but a great amount of attention to irrelevance. I come here not to argue but to illuminate and reflect.

Clever argument. You are now equating the Libertarians and Anarchists in Catalonia to the Nazis while the former were fighting the fascists. Perhaps you do not grasp the experience in Catalonia.

Do you not grasp the essential similarities? The cause does not matter. The explanation does not matter. In the end, all were fighting for the same thing if they were fighting for such causes.

Only those who fought for the combatant next to them, friends, family, the most basic right to live without the corruption of causes and movements and philosophies fought for something worth dying for. All else was and is meaningless, a mere waste of men and ammunition where each were expended against their twin.

Understand that war is both personal and impersonal. It expends lives in the hope that others will profit. Sometimes there is a strange justice to it, more often than not there is none.

When you have the conflagration of such a civil war, a battle between two twins of authoritarianism intermixed with the outlier of anarcho-syndicalism, little is gained by the mutual destruction. No matter which party dominated the outcome, all lost. In fact, I might conjecture the very closeness of these in intent will always ultimately result in war. Much as the conflict between the Big-Endians and the Little-Endians is inevitable.

Actually, Chinese economic intervention into Hong Kong has been quite minimal. It also doesn't account for the trend that started under British rule.

The transfer was long in coming. What trend are you referring to?

A long-winded appeal to authority under the implicit assumption that I have not seen the world.

Ah, therein lies the rub. Our world views are based in both the experience of ourselves and others. How much of the world have you seen that you dare to have certainty?

Is this entirety of your argument? Given the verboseness of your reply, I would suggest you conduct some introspective investigation.

Yourself you rely on the views of others and mimic their insights. Some introspection on your part would seem more than equally called for.

This is again, not a convincing argument.

What would convince a theoretician? We speak different languages.

You mean instead of being measured as a unit of work? Does Capitalism in some way see man as more than the value of his labor or capital?

Capitalism as a theoretical model or as a means of expressing individualism? You seem absolutely locked into a false construct. I look to transaction and to willing exchange of labor and goods as one of the purest expressions of community. The more you interpose a false dynamic the more you make the transaction onerous and vile.

Will there be a factual argument anywhere in your post, or should I accept your authority as supreme?

By fact you mean reference to some theoretical, learned authority who's opinion you would find more valuable than mine own as it was written long ago and admired and cursed by many. In such a case, my authority is supreme.

I very strongly recognize the power of the individual. As do many Libertarian Socialists. The fact that you must construct the false dichotemy of Socialism = slavery as Capitalism = freedom suggests a limited understanding of my so called "miserable life." A clever retort.

Are you claiming to be a libertarian socialist? Such a broad and misleading term. Could you be a bit more specific?

I don't equate broad economic theories with either slavery or freedom, just that certain implementations result in the great loss of individualism, which I value most, while recognizing there is a need for social contracts to achieve gains otherwise impossible. The broader the adherence to collectivism, the more likely we will see death and misery. All in the name of a good cause, of course.

The more you eschew to the collectivized perspective, the more you live a miserable life. Everyone knows this. But some must take a while to come to that realization.

Hardly, I've never seen a more convoluted argument that basically boils down to "trust me, I'm older."

Do you always argue with 12 year olds? Why start now?

 

[werepossum]

I don't know how you can even reasonably say that. Even if every income class joined the military in the same proportion, you have stated...



...

So if we believe that every income class joins in the same proportion, there will still be a lot more lower, working, and middle class recruits in the military than rich recruits as a simple matter of demographics (there are fewer rich people than lower, working, and middle class people). By your own admission, nearly 50% of the population pays no income tax, while the families of the richest recruits will be paying most of the tax burden. They will also be the least represented in the military. Are you starting to connect the dots? Given that ~50% of the population pays no income tax, you are left with a lot of recruits that came from families that pay no income tax that are getting paid by the fewer families that pay the majority. Is this logic tough to grasp?

While I concede that the rich also enlist, the 50% of families who don't pay income taxes will have much greater representation creating, in effect, a transfer of wealth from the richer families to the poorer ones (after all, your pay in the military is not dependent on you or your family's tax contributions).

The military is neither more nor less a transfer of wealth from rich to poor than is any human endeavor, all of which tend to transfer wealth from rich (resource owners) to poor (employees) and back to rich. Your admittance into the military has no relationship to your socioeconomic class, nor does your advancement. A Rockefeller trust fund child O3 MOS 113B earns exactly the same as the Honduran immigrant O3 MOS 113B commissioned at the same time, even if that Honduran immigrant has eleven children and is otherwise desperately poor. Your analogy cannot stand.

 

[BigDH01]

Again with the theory. Perchance you protest too much?

This is a non-response.

While you pretend to insight, thus far all I have seen is reference after reference to abstractionists. Do you believe that the world really exists or is it all just a construct?

Am I studying a construct when I examine the consequences of different economic paradigms? I asked you about HK in order to extract some study and information from you regarding Friedman's jewel of non-interventionism. It was summarily dismissed.

My posting history is an amusement.

Humorous at that.

Take it further, grasshopper. All theorizing fails in moving from the observable finite to some place along the merry path to the infinite. Matters not whether you postulate economics or physics, you reach a problem state where the exception overwhelms the rule.

Theorems such as Coase's form the underlying economic theory behind economic liberalism. Are you suggesting that your own beliefs are undermined?

I don't buy into the "perfection" of anything. I find that I am most right when I argue the exception rather than the rule.

Although less useful in the real world.

Honestly, I'd rather hang with Amused than with you.

No doubt.

Orwell, whom I admire greatly, had well lived life before he joined the fighting of the war. The Communists couldn't decide if he were a fascist or a fellow traveler. Like most men who have lived rather than just studied, he was a complexity. Perhaps you should read more of his works?

Doesn't make much sense considering he went to Catalonia to fight the fascists.

Ever the dreamer, the resurrector of lost causes, of historical detritus. The literature is staid and not popular. It influences few, even such as I that have a passing curiousity of the arcane.

A proponent of classic liberalism is telling me that my political and economic philosophy is unpopular in the mainstream. Not sure if I should be pleased or insulted.

Your own pithy commentary reflects little insight into truth but a great amount of attention to irrelevance. I come here not to argue but to illuminate and reflect.

I would say you come in an attempt to bask in your own glory.

Do you not grasp the essential similarities? The cause does not matter. The explanation does not matter. In the end, all were fighting for the same thing if they were fighting for such causes.

Only those who fought for the combatant next to them, friends, family, the most basic right to live without the corruption of causes and movements and philosophies fought for something worth dying for. All else was and is meaningless, a mere waste of men and ammunition where each were expended against their twin.

Understand that war is both personal and impersonal. It expends lives in the hope that others will profit. Sometimes there is a strange justice to it, more often than not there is none.

When you have the conflagration of such a civil war, a battle between two twins of authoritarianism intermixed with the outlier of anarcho-syndicalism, little is gained by the mutual destruction. No matter which party dominated the outcome, all lost. In fact, I might conjecture the very closeness of these in intent will always ultimately result in war. Much as the conflict between the Big-Endians and the Little-Endians is inevitable.

A large portion of the region had fallen under Anarchism. It was practiced in these regions not just as an abstract philosophy, but a way of life. They were later defeated by the fascists. They were hardly authoritarian, and to suggest as such is to desecrate their sacrifices. They were closer to obtaining personal liberty than we are today, but it matters little if you believe this freedom was not worth what they chose to sacrifice for it.

The transfer was long in coming. What trend are you referring to?

The trends I had asked you to investigate.

Ah, therein lies the rub. Our world views are based in both the experience of ourselves and others. How much of the world have you seen that you dare to have certainty?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the lesson you learned in life that tells me that only after having visited x number of countries or y number of years do my beliefs become valid. Surely, you have seen enough of the world that your beliefs ARE certain, while others are not. At least, that is the logical conclusion to make about someone who asks others how THEY can be certain.

Yourself you rely on the views of others and mimic their insights. Some introspection on your part would seem more than equally called for.

Again, this is a disingenuous argument from a man who posts as you do.

What would convince a theoretician? We speak different languages.

Facts, and I agree.

Capitalism as a theoretical model or as a means of expressing individualism? You seem absolutely locked into a false construct. I look to transaction and to willing exchange of labor and goods as one of the purest expressions of community. The more you interpose a false dynamic the more you make the transaction onerous and vile.

Or one of the purest expressions of power. Although I'm not surprised that you have no knowledge of Socialist thought that promotes a market and exchange of goods, I highly suggest you look for Socialist thoughts beyond examining centrally planned economies. It is not myself locked into a false construct.

By fact you mean reference to some theoretical, learned authority who's opinion you would find more valuable than mine own as it was written long ago and admired and cursed by many. In such a case, my authority is supreme.

And your attempt to befuddle me with vocabulary beyond your grasp has finally succeeded. I can only surmise that you attempt to claim superiority to theory and knowledge found in books that you obviously haven't read. After all, how much of the world have THEY seen that they can be certain?

Are you claiming to be a libertarian socialist? Such a broad and misleading term. Could you be a bit more specific?

How is it misleading? Any cursory investigation into the literature of Libertarianism would reveal a strong Collectivist past. Outside of the United States, Libertarian Socialism is a redundant label.

I don't equate broad economic theories with either slavery or freedom, just that certain implementations result in the great loss of individualism, which I value most, while recognizing there is a need for social contracts to achieve gains otherwise impossible. The broader the adherence to collectivism, the more likely we will see death and misery. All in the name of a good cause, of course.

Finally, something I can at least partly agree with. Although I would hardly call Socialist implementations such as the Soviet Union collectivist given their propensity to maintain strict power structures and without making the cursory attempt at dismantling the state.

The more you eschew to the collectivized perspective, the more you live a miserable life. Everyone knows this. But some must take a while to come to that realization.

I grow fairly tired of the implication that I should simply bow to your wisdom as if it is beyond reproach. This is not a valid argument, it is an attempt to justify your position by appealing to authority which I must trust you to have. It doesn't appeal to me on either account.

Do you always argue with 12 year olds? Why start now?

I'm starting to wonder the same thing.

 

[BigDH01]

The military is neither more nor less a transfer of wealth from rich to poor than is any human endeavor, all of which tend to transfer wealth from rich (resource owners) to poor (employees) and back to rich. Your admittance into the military has no relationship to your socioeconomic class, nor does your advancement. A Rockefeller trust fund child O3 MOS 113B earns exactly the same as the Honduran immigrant O3 MOS 113B commissioned at the same time, even if that Honduran immigrant has eleven children and is otherwise desperately poor. Your analogy cannot stand.

Except in this case the rich have no choice but to pay, you know, the opposite of your completely fair voluntary market.

The fact that all members of the military are paid the same regardless of their socioeconomic class and that the top taxpayers will be vastly outnumbered by those of lower classes is kind of crucial to my argument. It is refreshing to see that you understand that much anyway, even if you haven't connected the logical dots.

 

[werepossum]

Except in this case the rich have no choice but to pay, you know, the opposite of your completely fair voluntary market.

The fact that all members of the military are paid the same regardless of their socioeconomic class and that the top taxpayers will be vastly outnumbered by those of lower classes is kind of crucial to my argument. It is refreshing to see that you understand that much anyway, even if you haven't connected the logical dots.

Not touching your dots, dude, 'cause it's pretty obvious that they are acid.

 

[boomerang]

Could they be broke because much of the health care dollars spent in this country that would otherwise shore up care and coverage for the people on Medicare and Medicaid are being squandered by our current health care system?

What if instead of having gobs of health care dollars wasted on insurance companies, medical billings people, insurance brokers, large pharmaceutial profits, and benefits plan managers the money paid for doctors, hospitals, nurses, and medical supplies instead?

Insurance companies would be replaced by the government. Ditto for insurance brokers. Benefits plan mangers would be replaced by the government. Under the scenario you deem to be better, the costs are just shifted. They still exist. Your assumption is that the government can do it better and cheaper despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. I would point again to Medicare and Medicaid. See, we are going to go around and around in this circle. Now you know why I glossed over the health care issue. I'll indulge you but the important stuff is at the end of the post.

Costs can always be reduced by rationing care. It's simple math. Other countries do it cheaper - you bet. Rationed care by its very nature is less expensive to provide. Simple math also tells us that you can't add 40 million people to the health care roles and save money. Especially in conjunction with providing supposed better care for all. It will be worse care for 90% of the folks and better care for 10%. Socialism? You bet.

M & M are broke because the government has little to no concern for the costs of the plans. The government feels it has an obligation to provide more and more and more to both justify it's growth and to protect the way of life it provides for bureaucrats - to touch on just a few points. If the funding runs low, they bury the costs, pass it on to the next Congress, print money, borrow money, etc.

Here's two of the reasons health care has come to the forefront in this country.

The unions are on the ropes. They've promised their members the moon for many decades and have pretty much been able to provide it. But time has caught up with them. Their very existence is threatened. They are big contributors to this administration and Democrats in general. Andy Stern, the head of the SEIU has publicly stated that their union expects a big return on their investment in Obama. Obama is doing everything in his power to make good on that investment. The Progressive movement is very much dependent on union dollars and the sheep that provide those dollars.

The insurance companies are driving the health care debate to probably a greater degree. The baby boomers are going to be switched over from private health care to public health care in droves in the very near future. Insurance companies are extremely concerned about this. Our leader rails against the very insurance companies that are also big contributors. It's all smoke and mirrors. He knows it's in his and the Democrat parties best interest for health insurance companies to both thrive and profit. Why do you think he's not pushing for a public option? He knows the end result.

What you're seeing is nothing new. Politicians trying to walk that fine line between keeping the electorate happy and the people who pull their strings.

My prediction is that health care is dead. The votes are not there. It will then die because the Dem majority in Congress will not compromise. Having the majority puts the ball in their court. They can share the ball or take their ball and leave. They're not going to share. They could start over but they won't. The Republicans will be blamed. It's the same old Washington we've seen for years and years.

You'll not see the shift to a more Socialistic society either. Both because socialized medicine is the cornerstone and the nation as a whole is not ready for it. Oh, and then there's all those guns.

Here's the important stuff. There is no avoiding the economic meltdown on the horizon. The piper has been piping and the piper must be paid. That, is the greatest obstacle we have to overcome. We could work together to soften the blow, but it's just too much fun to stay polarized and fling poo at each other.

You use the term "what if". There's nothing wrong with having dreams and aspirations. But wishing to have a bandage for a cut while a semi truck is bearing down on you at the speed of light is misguided. Deal with the semi and the cut may just heal on its own.

 

[PJABBER]

This is a non-response.

As is yours, so we are even, except that none has gained for the exchange.

Am I studying a construct when I examine the consequences of different economic paradigms?

Of course you are! All models that claim "economic paradigm" are bound to be false, or maybe, to be a bit more polite, inaccurate for not allowing externalities to play a substantive role in the modeling.

I am arguing here for the dominance of externalities and randomness, which cannot be projected with accuracy and thus cannot be captured/forecast in other than the abstract. The actuality of an externality, the commonality of such events, posits that they be considered, however, randomness is not friendly and is thus not adequately modeled to great effect in economic theory.

Your studies are artifices. Your models are false representations to one extent or another. Yet you claim certainty that one is better than another, one more valid than another, one more capable of forecasting and predicting than another. Sheesh, use a Magic 8 Ball and you will get a greater likelihood of accuracy.

Don't worry about it too much. You can't get tenure by claiming that you can't beat randomness. Fight the machine, though, by catching up on some reading -

Wild Randomness - a very short introduction for the layperson and a recommendation to further consider the research of Rama Cont

Randomness in Economic Theory - lots of good references

Modeling Economic Randomness: Statistical Mechanics of Market Phenomenon has some nice references to classic studies

I asked you about HK in order to extract some study and information from you regarding Friedman's jewel of non-interventionism. It was summarily dismissed.

Are you referring to this

The Hong Kong Experiment

Or this?

Hong Kong Wrong

Humorous at that.

By far, I am the funniest poster here.

Theorems such as Coase's form the underlying economic theory behind economic liberalism. Are you suggesting that your own beliefs are undermined?

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Economic liberalism stems from the Enlightenment. Coase builds on others as does everyone else.

My beliefs are not based so much on theory as on practice. I am open to discussion but the proofs an academician may offer mean little to me.

It is nice when something seems to describe reality, but as I asked before, how well does it deal with randomness and exception?

Happily, I am not plagued by doubts in my core understanding and thus can function quite well in the real world. Not so sure I would fare as well in your little niche of academia, though. You have my sympathy.

Although less useful in the real world.

Whatever.

Doesn't make much sense considering he went to Catalonia to fight the fascists.

Like the communists would understand a guy like Orwell! Maybe the university educated pseudo anarcho-syndicalists would, but most of them union boys were kinda non-intellectual, if you know what I mean.

A proponent of classic liberalism is telling me that my political and economic philosophy is unpopular in the mainstream. Not sure if I should be pleased or insulted.

He he he.

I would say you come in an attempt to bask in your own glory.

Nah, I come here for YOU to bask in my glory.

A large portion of the region had fallen under Anarchism. It was practiced in these regions not just as an abstract philosophy, but a way of life. They were later defeated by the fascists. They were hardly authoritarian, and to suggest as such is to desecrate their sacrifices. They were closer to obtaining personal liberty than we are today, but it matters little if you believe this freedom was not worth what they chose to sacrifice for it.

I am quite familiar with the widely various factions that fought in the Spanish Civil War and, like I said, I was interested enough in the local impacts to walk the land and visit some of the sites.

I think you are much too romantic about the goals of the locals. Maybe if you were describing the International Brigade you might be right, but that war, like most, was not much about grand ideas as affiliations and identifications for most caught up in it.

Having said that, the utter diversity of political and special interest groups that were engaged was extraordinary. Hence my interest. I like complexity, it makes my days go by just that little bit faster.

The trends I had asked you to investigate.

A meaningless response. How can I respond, should I care to?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the lesson you learned in life that tells me that only after having visited x number of countries or y number of years do my beliefs become valid. Surely, you have seen enough of the world that your beliefs ARE certain, while others are not. At least, that is the logical conclusion to make about someone who asks others how THEY can be certain.

Certainty is illusory. But we must live our lives as best we can and it helps to have a grounding.

I admit mine is based on experience, while yours seems based in study and in theory, those are all you bring to the discussion thus far. As I said, we can each be highly functional in the worlds we occupy but utter failures should we cross into another's.

Again, this is a disingenuous argument from a man who posts as you do.

And how do I post? I am but a little mouse gnawing on the internets. Check out my avatar should you not believe me.

Facts, and I agree.

Facts? Mine are of direct observation while yours are a reflection of others, n'est ce pas?

Or one of the purest expressions of power. Although I'm not surprised that you have no knowledge of Socialist thought that promotes a market and exchange of goods, I highly suggest you look for Socialist thoughts beyond examining centrally planned economies. It is not myself locked into a false construct.

You do protest too much! Goddamn socialists always say only true believers can know the inner mysteries of their slimy economic theories. I will have no truck with theory when history provides such a clear guide!

And your attempt to befuddle me with vocabulary beyond your grasp has finally succeeded. I can only surmise that you attempt to claim superiority to theory and knowledge found in books that you obviously haven't read. After all, how much of the world have THEY seen that they can be certain?

Again with the book knowledge. I am modestly well read, formally educated here and abroad, well experienced in many cultures and have practiced many professions, drink coffee from a cup and not a saucer, fail to smoke my cheroot to the bitter end. What more do you want?

How is it misleading? Any cursory investigation into the literature of Libertarianism would reveal a strong Collectivist past.

Is this what your professors are teaching you?

Outside of the United States, Libertarian Socialism is a redundant label.

Having lived and studied extensively overseas and participated in many discussions, I can assure you that this is just not so.

Finally, something I can at least partly agree with. Although I would hardly call Socialist implementations such as the Soviet Union collectivist given their propensity to maintain strict power structures and without making the cursory attempt at dismantling the state.

The Soviets would have disagreed with you and then shot you for your impertinence.

I grow fairly tired of the implication that I should simply bow to your wisdom as if it is beyond reproach. This is not a valid argument, it is an attempt to justify your position by appealing to authority which I must trust you to have. It doesn't appeal to me on either account.

My, my. Sensitive are you?

You have accused me of mimicking others more learned than I and you have accused me of only expounding my own thoughts and making no reference to established and accepted thinkers. Which is it going to be?

I make no claim to any authority. I am a simple wanderer who has alit here for the moment.

I'm starting to wonder the same thing.

We should revel in the certitude of our respective youths for too soon the pressing of our mortality will cause us to doubt the very firmament which supports us.

Or something like that.

:awe:

 

[BigDH01]

As is yours, so we are even, except that none has gained for the exchange.

No argument there.

Of course you are! All models that claim "economic paradigm" are bound to be false, or maybe, to be a bit more polite, inaccurate for not allowing externalities to play a substantive role in the modeling.

I am arguing here for the dominance of externalities and randomness, which cannot be projected with accuracy and thus cannot be captured/forecast in other than the abstract. The actuality of an externality, the commonality of such events, posits that they be considered, however, randomness is not friendly and is thus not adequately modeled to great effect in economic theory.

Your studies are artifices. Your models are false representations to one extent or another. Yet you claim certainty that one is better than another, one more valid than another, one more capable of forecasting and predicting than another. Sheesh, use a Magic 8 Ball and you will get a greater likelihood of accuracy.

Don't worry about it too much. You can't get tenure by claiming that you can't beat randomness. Fight the machine, though, by catching up on some reading -

Wild Randomness - a very short introduction for the layperson and a recommendation to further consider the research of Rama Cont

Randomness in Economic Theory - lots of good references

Modeling Economic Randomness: Statistical Mechanics of Market Phenomenon has some nice references to classic studies

You will receive no argument from me if you are asserting that humans act irrational and often in defiance of their own self-interest. But then, I'm not the one claiming to be a classical liberal and I don't treat actors as little utility maximizing automatons. One of my favorite fields is behavioral finance.

Are you referring to this

The Hong Kong Experiment

Or this?

Hong Kong Wrong

More like poverty, income inequality, housing, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Hong_Kong]and housing again[/URL], and for all that the per capita GDP (PPP) is still less than the US.

Frankly, looking at the region, the Singapore Model has done better, although it suffers many of the same problems.

By far, I am the funniest poster here.

Wouldn't go that far.

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Economic liberalism stems from the Enlightenment. Coase builds on others as does everyone else.

And the idea that private parties can enter into contractual agreement in at least a Pareto-neutral manner is quite vital for the most hardcore classical liberals. Of course, it's not true in any real world scale.

My beliefs are not based so much on theory as on practice. I am open to discussion but the proofs an academician may offer mean little to me.

And in practice, the benefits of whatever economic system you're proposing (since apparently you've undermined most schools of liberal economics) are what?

It is nice when something seems to describe reality, but as I asked before, how well does it deal with randomness and exception?

In classical liberal economics, written off as imperfections in the market.

Happily, I am not plagued by doubts in my core understanding and thus can function quite well in the real world. Not so sure I would fare as well in your little niche of academia, though. You have my sympathy.

It's hard to believe you're not plagued by doubts when you describe yourself as a classical liberal and then proceed to attack the models upon which is it understood.

Whatever.

For real?

Like the communists would understand a guy like Orwell! Maybe the university educated pseudo anarcho-syndicalists would, but most of them union boys were kinda non-intellectual, if you know what I mean.

Orwell was a member of POUM (Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista). I'm assuming you can translate enough of that to realize why what you just said made no sense.

Nah, I come here for YOU to bask in my glory.

And left me drowning in your...

I am quite familiar with the widely various factions that fought in the Spanish Civil War and, like I said, I was interested enough in the local impacts to walk the land and visit some of the sites.

Given your posts, I doubt you are that familiar. At least no more familiar than the average Georgian is with Sherman's March.

I think you are much too romantic about the goals of the locals. Maybe if you were describing the International Brigade you might be right, but that war, like most, was not much about grand ideas as affiliations and identifications for most caught up in it.

Having said that, the utter diversity of political and special interest groups that were engaged was extraordinary. Hence my interest. I like complexity, it makes my days go by just that little bit faster.

So the locals enacted their version of Anarchism/Communism/Socialism or not?

A meaningless response. How can I respond, should I care to?

Judging by the rest of the post, I wouldn't bother.

Facts? Mine are of direct observation while yours are a reflection of others, n'est ce pas?

You are not the only human capable of observation.

You do protest too much! Goddamn socialists always say only true believers can know the inner mysteries of their slimy economic theories. I will have no truck with theory when history provides such a clear guide!

Anyone can understand the theory, although most never try.... like yourself. My disagreement with Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, and Friedman doesn't not preclude me from understanding their theory. Your excuse is just that.

Again with the book knowledge. I am modestly well read, formally educated here and abroad, well experienced in many cultures and have practiced many professions, drink coffee from a cup and not a saucer, fail to smoke my cheroot to the bitter end. What more do you want?

Anything of substance?

Is this what your professors are teaching you?

My degree is in an unrelated field.

Having lived and studied extensively overseas and participated in many discussions, I can assure you that this is just not so.

I guess I'll take your word for it.

The Soviets would have disagreed with you and then shot you for your impertinence.

Thank you for proving my point.

My, my. Sensitive are you?

Bored mostly.

You have accused me of mimicking others more learned than I and you have accused me of only expounding my own thoughts and making no reference to established and accepted thinkers. Which is it going to be?

It is not their thought that I desire, for I already have it. I desire at least an inkling of enlightenment that tells me you've assimilated a belief system that makes sense when tested in the rigors of the world. Instead you've laid claim to a belief system and then proceeded to attack its theoretical foundations based on your worldly experience. This is fine, but then why do you make claim to it? You then proceed to attack a political/economic model you haven't attempted to understand.

I am quite aware of the limitations of my beliefs, having simply selected, formulated, and modified the best ones of all that I am capable of understanding. Alas, we both live in the world we have and not the one we want.

 

[PJABBER]

You will receive no argument from me if you are asserting that humans act irrational and often in defiance of their own self-interest.

Yikes, am I that obtuse? I am not talking about human behavior at all! I am talking about wars, floods, famine, locust plagues!

But then, I'm not the one claiming to be a classical liberal and I don't treat actors as little utility maximizing automatons.

I know you are not a classical liberal, you've stated so before. As to the deindividualizing that you claim not to engage in, at least credit that the systems you purport to support, do.

One of my favorite fields is behavioral finance.

Hey, me too! Practitioner from a long time back, mostly trading psychology. Amazing what you can learn in kindergarten!

More like poverty, income inequality, housing, and housing again, and for all that the per capita GDP (PPP) is still less than the US.

Frankly, looking at the region, the Singapore Model has done better, although it suffers many of the same problems.

My links were to two of Freidman's Hong Kong commentaries. The first which I sort of thought was what you were referring to, the second his recognition that the "ideal" no longer was.

Wouldn't go that far.

Really? Who better?

And the idea that private parties can enter into contractual agreement in at least a Pareto-neutral manner is quite vital for the most hardcore classical liberals. Of course, it's not true in any real world scale.

Why wouldn't a theoretician like yourself seek a Pareto optimal outcome? The real world is Pareto inefficient, but hey, go for the gold!

Pareto was intellectually and even sentimentally attached to liberalism (the old fashioned kind) but came to doubt himself. He overcompensated with the turn to the precursors of fascism. As so many did. I wonder which side of the Spanish Civil War he would have come down on?

And in practice, the benefits of whatever economic system you're proposing (since apparently you've undermined most schools of liberal economics) are what?

See, you keep trying to get me into that little box you have where everything gets tied up neat and tidy.

I certainly have been championing autarky.

Should I accept Greenwalk-Stiglitz? Would that make you happy? What would one small step matter?

Whither socialism, indeed! He he he.

In classical liberal economics, written off as imperfections in the market.

Hence, I should accept government interventionism? :sneaky:

It's hard to believe you're not plagued by doubts when you describe yourself as a classical liberal and then proceed to attack the models upon which is it understood.

C'mon, I said before, the models are not complete, lots of work to be done. I won't be doing that, don't care for the math, but you could if you get pointed in the right direction, I bet.

Orwell was a member of POUM (Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista). I'm assuming you can translate enough of that to realize why what you just said made no sense.

And you think you have?

First, gain a better understanding of the era here -

Fundación Andreu Nin

Given your posts, I doubt you are that familiar. At least no more familiar than the average Georgian is with Sherman's March.

Sigh. More so than you, in this case.

Anyone can understand the theory, although most never try.... like yourself. My disagreement with Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, and Friedman doesn't not preclude me from understanding their theory. Your excuse is just that.

Oh, I've had my fill of theory, but it has been a while. This endless back and forth reminds me why I chose to turn my back on the abstractionists.

My degree is in an unrelated field.

Singular? Is there a hope your education comes from independent study and not the "guidance" of the misguided?

Bored mostly.

Me, too, but it is late and the amusement wanes.

It is not their thought that I desire, for I already have it. I desire at least an inkling of enlightenment that tells me you've assimilated a belief system that makes sense when tested in the rigors of the world. Instead you've laid claim to a belief system and then proceeded to attack its theoretical foundations based on your worldly experience. This is fine, but then why do you make claim to it? You then proceed to attack a political/economic model you haven't attempted to understand.

I find the desire for validation meaningless. I've claimed an honest attraction to a school of thought and used a phrase familiar to you merely to distinguish an approach, fully recognizing the inadequacy even as I lay claim.

IMO, the critical difference is in what can and cannot be implemented - all the rest is mere dreaming.

I am quite aware of the limitations of my beliefs, having simply selected, formulated, and modified the best ones of all that I am capable of understanding. Alas, we both live in the world we have and not the one we want.

Insight comes from a recognition of limitations and a desire to surmount the inadequacies which impose them.

To my mind, having an inclination toward intellectual curiosity engenders a general dissatisfaction. Most are content to mute or deflect the impulse, or, without strong will, are early suppressed by those who would find the curiousity annoying or bothersome. Some scratch the itch by seeking like minds to tussle with. With luck, they are rewarded and this gives rise to ever greater impetus.

It is funny that much of this discussion circled around George Orwell. We are fortunate that he was so capable of documenting his journey through such interesting times.

For the life of me, I cannot think of another writer like him in the present.

 

[BigDH01]

Yikes, am I that obtuse? I am not talking about human behavior at all! I am talking about wars, floods, famine, locust plagues!

From your own link...

“Either they truly ignored the risk of a fall in the housing market or they pretended everything was fine, in order to sustain the bubble and profit from it while it lasted,” says Cont. Ignorance probably played the larger role, he thinks. Rating agencies, like investors and regulators, rely on relatively simple models to forecast the risk associated with future market movements. Those models often assume a “mild randomness” of market fluctuations. In reality, Cont argues, what visionary mathematician Benoît Mandelbrot calls “wild randomness” prevails: risk is concentrated in a few rare, hard-to-predict, but extreme, market events

Or even better...

Investors in financial markets rationally pursuing individual profit, then, can produce outcomes that are globally negative. Doesn’t that contradict classical economic theory? “Both theory and empirical facts do tend to show that, on the financial markets, the Invisible Hand does not always lead to welfare-improving general outcomes,” Cont replies.

I would firstly question the rationality of those individuals, but more importantly I recognize that Cont is suggesting if humans independently behave in utility-maximizing ways, we are not necessarily better off for it.

I know you are not a classical liberal, you've stated so before. As to the deindividualizing that you claim not to engage in, at least credit that the systems you purport to support, do.

That you cannot fathom a Socialist system beyond the Soviet Union is not my problem.

Hey, me too! Practitioner from a long time back, mostly trading psychology. Amazing what you can learn in kindergarten!

So you are now, once again, telling me you are a practitioner in a subject that necessarily undermines classical economic theory.

My links were to two of Freidman's Hong Kong commentaries. The first which I sort of thought was what you were referring to, the second his recognition that the "ideal" no longer was.

Friedman was wrong in the sense that he ignored very real problems with his system and that in a similarly sized nation, in a nearby region, there was a much more planned economy that produced results that were just as good and in many ways better than HK. That's right, I was able to look at Friedman's economic theory and determine it did not produce better results in the real world.

Really? Who better?

I'm sure a quick search would be revealing.

Why wouldn't a theoretician like yourself seek a Pareto optimal outcome? The real world is Pareto inefficient, but hey, go for the gold!

I would. I was questioning why you subscribe to an economic model that in the case of large scale bargaining would almost certainly result in an outcome that was sub-optimal.

Pareto was intellectually and even sentimentally attached to liberalism (the old fashioned kind) but came to doubt himself. He overcompensated with the turn to the precursors of fascism. As so many did. I wonder which side of the Spanish Civil War he would have come down on?

Pareto efficiency itself does not tell us what distribution of conditions is better for society. I don't know how your segway informs us in this argument considering that Pareto efficiency has traditionally been used to promote free markets.

See, you keep trying to get me into that little box you have where everything gets tied up neat and tidy.

I, frankly, would have no idea where to put you. You claim to both be a classical liberal and then be a practioner of a science that goes a long way in discrediting it.

I certainly have been championing autarky.

Is that why you'd rather hang with a guy who received assistance from the government?

Should I accept Greenwalk-Stiglitz? Would that make you happy? What would one small step matter?

Nice strawman. Have I ever mentioned Greenwalk-Stiglitz?

Hence, I should accept government interventionism? :sneaky:

No, Libertarianism is a strong part of Libertarian Socialist belief.

C'mon, I said before, the models are not complete, lots of work to be done. I won't be doing that, don't care for the math, but you could if you get pointed in the right direction, I bet.

So now you accept the models and admit they are incomplete. I would pose that the models are built upon assumptions that can never exist in the real world, even Coase believed this.

And you think you have?

First, gain a better understanding of the era here -

Fundación Andreu Nin

Seriously? About

In memory of Nin, the Marxist theoritician, Socialist, revolutionary that give his life for the revolution fighting Stalinism and Fascism. So you're surfing a website now describing POUM and telling me it wasn't Communist (a site dedicated to the Marxist leader of said organization). It's insanity. The fact that Nin was executed by the authoritarian Soviets does not mean he or his organization wasn't Communist. In fact, given that they didn't want to set up Soviet-style leadership, I'd have to say they were far more Communist than the Soviets.

Oh, and the other leader of POUM, Maurin, you can find an interview he did with Trotsky here.

Sigh. More so than you, in this case.

I'm seriously doubting that.

Oh, I've had my fill of theory, but it has been a while. This endless back and forth reminds me why I chose to turn my back on the abstractionists.

Did they also grow tired of your fallacies?

Singular? Is there a hope your education comes from independent study and not the "guidance" of the misguided?

I have more than one, but none in a directly related field. I read at my leisure.

I find the desire for validation meaningless. I've claimed an honest attraction to a school of thought and used a phrase familiar to you merely to distinguish an approach, fully recognizing the inadequacy even as I lay claim.

It just seems odd that a practioner of behavioral finance would find attraction to such things.

It is funny that much of this discussion circled around George Orwell. We are fortunate that he was so capable of documenting his journey through such interesting times.

For the life of me, I cannot think of another writer like him in the present.

No disagreement there.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I mean that no third party biased the deal. Both parties are free to walk away and seek a better deal elsewhere. Therefore both parties receive something of more value than that which they give.

OK, so in other words, when you say "fair" you basically mean "'freely' and 'voluntarily' agreed upon" as opposed to something along the lines of "just" or "good" or "right"

I think where people will find your definition of "fair" to be confusing is that many people tend to think "fair" means that people get what they deserve (justice) and not merely "what the free market dictates".

The big issues are whether or not the free market always results in justice and wheter or not people are always truly free when they make agreements. I think that in a great many transactions, people are not (and cannot metaphysically be) 100% free.

For example, the peasant who takes a very low-paying job at a factory because there isn't any freely available land to farm or any other jobs may have "freely" chosen to take the job at that very low wage but his agreement to work it really wasn't as "free" as if he had numerous jobs and other options to choose from.

Yes, I am oversimplifying liberals' position, which is why I said "tend to think". Not being liberal on most issues, it would be difficult for me to really do justice to liberals' position on most things, but liberals tend to view unequal results as proof of biased circumstances. The problems with that are legion, but include a disincentive for the privileged group to try harder and an inability to remedy the supposed systemic bias without imposing the same systemic bias on someone else.

I think that that is true sometimes, especially when you talk about racial and ethnic disparities. On the otherhand, they start to have a more compelling point when they talk about the merit of CEOs earning gazillions of dollars compared to hard working blue collar workers earning low wagers.

Here you are conflating equality of outcome with fairness. Forcing one party to increase compensation may be desirable, but it is certainly less fair as you are intentionally forcing one person to give more (or accept less) than would be the case in a private deal. I don't disagree that minimum wage laws for instance provide a valuable service to society, but introducing a systemic bias in favor of one party is the very essence of unfairness. Again, there are benefits to society, but fairness is not one of them.

Let's make sure that your not confusing "fairness" with "justice", because you earlier defined "fairness" to be something along the lines of "'freely' and 'voluntarily' agreed upon".

I don't really disagree with what you're saying based on your definition of "fair" as I understand it but I suspect that at the same time you are also using "fair" to mean "just" or "right" or "good".

I certainly don't disagree that government coercion interferes with people's agreements or with what agreements they might make. However, the issues are not about whether things are "fair" but rather whether they are good and just. I think that's what we really want to debate.

If if you also use "fair" to mean "just" or "right" or "good" then it is as though you have, by definition, defined any "voluntary" agreement as necessarily being "just" or "right" or "good". I disagree that all "voluntary" agreements are instances of justice. That's where we and other people you would debate end up talking around one another without really getting anywhere.

But the real problem in remedying these types of "inequality" is that it requires empowering government to interfere in the employer-employee relationship. Due to human nature, the employer, the employee, the politician, and the bureaucrat will all seek to bend the relationship in the direction he or she each prefers.

Yes, but that doesn't always mean that the outcome of such regulation and government coercion is bad or undesirable.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Insurance companies would be replaced by the government. Ditto for insurance brokers. Benefits plan mangers would be replaced by the government. Under the scenario you deem to be better, the costs are just shifted. They still exist.

They wouldn't necessarily still exist, at least not on the scale they do now. Go watch that Frontline program I linked to, "Sick Around the World" and pay attention to the British hospital's billing department--it was just a single drawer in a desk if I remember correctly.

Certainly some bureaucracy and administration would be needed for socialized medicine, but it would be far less than the amount that we have today with our current system.

Regardless, the facts are pretty clear. The other nations are able to spend far less of their GDP and far less per person in terms of American dollars than what we are spending. Many also have more doctors per capita than the U.S. (so much for rationing).

Your assumption is that the government can do it better and cheaper despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. I would point again to Medicare and Medicaid. See, we are going to go around and around in this circle. Now you know why I glossed over the health care issue. I'll indulge you but the important stuff is at the end of the post.

The only "mountains of evidence to the contrary" that you have are Medicare and Medicaid, and I don't really know enough about them to accept your premise that they are inefficient.

In contrast, we have mountains of evidence to suggest that real socialized medicine does work and is better, and we have mountains of evidence to suggest that our current system is severely broken with no reason to believe that free market medicine would be any better and not worse.

Costs can always be reduced by rationing care. It's simple math. Other countries do it cheaper - you bet. Rationed care by its very nature is less expensive to provide. Simple math also tells us that you can't add 40 million people to the health care roles and save money. Especially in conjunction with providing supposed better care for all. It will be worse care for 90% of the folks and better care for 10%. Socialism? You bet.

The U.S. rations care too! Ever heard of insurance company death panels that rescind policies right before cancer treatment? When a working class person who has some assets that he doesn't want to lose in bankruptcy yet doesn't have health coverage forgoes treatment for something, is that not essentially rationing? We are pretty much already paying for the health care for the 45 million Americans (a number that is probably growing) who do not have insurance, at least when they suffer serious injuries and illnesses.

The difference is that the nations with the socialized health care are able to provide it more efficiently and much more honestly without also suffering the myriad social and economic problems I mentioned--a terrified populace, medical bankruptcies, and an economy burdened by insurance concerns.

M & M are broke because the government has little to no concern for the costs of the plans. The government feels it has an obligation to provide more and more and more to both justify it's growth and to protect the way of life it provides for bureaucrats - to touch on just a few points. If the funding runs low, they bury the costs, pass it on to the next Congress, print money, borrow money, etc.

If they are broke it is because money that would otherwise go to fund medicare and medicaid is being wasted by our current inefficient system which also squanders some of the Medicare and Medicaid money.

Here's two of the reasons health care has come to the forefront in this country.

The unions are on the ropes. They've promised their members the moon for many decades and have pretty much been able to provide it. But time has caught up with them. Their very existence is threatened. They are big contributors to this administration and Democrats in general. Andy Stern, the head of the SEIU has publicly stated that their union expects a big return on their investment in Obama. Obama is doing everything in his power to make good on that investment. The Progressive movement is very much dependent on union dollars and the sheep that provide those dollars.

It's become an issue because the tremendous amount of inefficiency in our current system has made health care very very expensive leaving the poor and the working class to either depend on the government or go without and leaving everyone else to foot the bill. In the meantime, all of those other problems--bankruptcies, a terrified populace, and the burden on businesses are only increasing.

The insurance companies are driving the health care debate to probably a greater degree. The baby boomers are going to be switched over from private health care to public health care in droves in the very near future. Insurance companies are extremely concerned about this. Our leader rails against the very insurance companies that are also big contributors. It's all smoke and mirrors. He knows it's in his and the Democrat parties best interest for health insurance companies to both thrive and profit. Why do you think he's not pushing for a public option? He knows the end result.

What you're seeing is nothing new. Politicians trying to walk that fine line between keeping the electorate happy and the people who pull their strings.

I suspect that if Obama could wave a magic wand and didn't have to worry about political expedience and remake our entire medical system all over he would choose real socialized medicine.

Instead all our politicians can do is to attempt band-aid reform. Instead of truly reforming the system they won't accomplish much other than to increase the percentage of GDP that we spend on it.

My prediction is that health care is dead. The votes are not there. It will then die because the Dem majority in Congress will not compromise. Having the majority puts the ball in their court. They can share the ball or take their ball and leave. They're not going to share. They could start over but they won't. The Republicans will be blamed. It's the same old Washington we've seen for years and years.

The health care issue is not going to disappear just because our politicians refuse to deal with it.

You'll not see the shift to a more Socialistic society either. Both because socialized medicine is the cornerstone and the nation as a whole is not ready for it. Oh, and then there's all those guns.

Yes, there are morons with guns! What they don't realize is that their dogmatic belief in the free market will result in their shooting themselves in the foot. I wonder if they will still support capitalism it has reduced them to a third world standard of living.

I think that one of two things will happen. The American people will wake up and reform their economy, which would also include implementing some form of socialized medicine, or we will become just another impoverished third world country. My money is on the later.

Our population is exploding and it's more difficult for a nation to lift itself out of poverty or to keep from falling into poverty when it has fewer resources per capita. So Malthusian forces combined with awful economic policy and a nation full of free market dogmatists who maintain their beliefs almost like a religion will condemn the United States into becoming an impoverished third world country. I tend to think that we are the next India, Brazil, or Mexico.

Here's the important stuff. There is no avoiding the economic meltdown on the horizon. The piper has been piping and the piper must be paid. That, is the greatest obstacle we have to overcome. We could work together to soften the blow, but it's just too much fun to stay polarized and fling poo at each other.

I agree, but probably for very different reasons.

I want to enact trade protectionism, more government regulation of banking and securities, and real socialized medicine along with programs that attempt to increase the populace's "rationality factor".

I suspect that your solution is for us to shrug off all government regulations and to adopt real capitalism.