Libertarianism versus Anarchism

Sunn

asdasd:As we have seen you have no clue how any industry works, in fact you have no clue how any kind of business works. This indicates to me that you are a posh boy, or a perennial student.

You seem hell bent on labelling people you don't know, it adds nothing to your argument, this has been a number of times you have mentioned it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would you want a doctor who has just done an 80 hour week operating on you in A&E
You framed the question as if it was a 'part time dustman' operating on your brain. It's not a part time 'dustman' It's a surgeon who also does other things.
We are all part time 'dustmen', we clean our own houses (unless you pay servants to clean your house for you)

I'd love to know where the anarchist society is going to get all the high-level resources needed to train so many people in so many different things. Again, this is more pie-in-the-sky dreaming without any solid economic basis.

What 'high level resources' are they?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

I take it you've never been inside a cutting-edge medical training facility?

I've been inside medical department of NUI Galway. There was nothing there that couldn't be provided in an anarchist society.

What happens to all the people in your society who don't have the intelligence or motivation to be architects or surgeons?

They train as something else.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The shortage of surgeons is partly to do with the closed shop 'college of surgeons' that limits entrants to the profession, and it's partially down to the huge cost in paying the salaries of surgical teams in hospitals which makes them very expensive to provide.

I am not saying that everyone can be a surgeon, or everone can be a physicist, but it is true that not everyone who has the ability and the desire to be a surgeon are able to access that career in the current system, and therefore it is logical to assume that if there were more opportunities for training and employment, there could be more surgeons than there currently are.
You say it is inefficient to have highly trained surgeons working fewer hours than they can be induced to under the current system. I say it is inefficient to have intelligent and hard working people spending all their working lives in menial jobs. Anarchists would try and give people the opportunity to train and educate themselves to achieve their potential.

Not everyone would take up that opportunity, You keep saying that physicists would be forced to work in the farms, I never said that, you're inventing things to argue against. I've said this several times, but i'll say it again. The work that nobody wants to do would be divided up amongst the community. The farms would be run by the people who chose to live in farming syndicates. The physicist would probably choose to live near a university/research collective. The surgeon would probably choose to live near a medical/hospital syndicate. Seeing as there are so many people (in your own analysis) who are only capable or motivated enough to do low skilled jobs, there should be no shortage of people who volunteer to join the rural collectives and produce food.

In a libertarian society, access to be education would be limited to those who are either exceptionally gifted (and win scholarships to private colleges) or come from well off families who can afford the fees for their children. (and not just university education, primary and secondary schools would be fee paying institutions too) The people in the middle are then essentially 'assigned' through lack of qualifications, to a life in low paid low skilled jobs (and their children will continiue that path)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

The shortage of surgeons is partly to do with the closed shop 'college of surgeons' that limits entrants to the profession, and it's partially down to the huge cost in paying the salaries of surgical teams in hospitals which makes them very expensive to provide.

This is where I absolutely agree with you. First time on this thread. I dont, in fact, think that Surgeons are all the smart. It is, after all, a handy job ( i.e. one for people with good hands). The mechanism for getting to be a surgeon is far too complex, is there a need for a general medical degree? Could we train people to be heart surgeons who dont know anything about Herpes, or how it is spread.

the answer is, of course we can. We could have para-surgeons.

I dont think Doctors that smart either. It is rote learning. A GP merely needs to remember a lot of data, not an analytical mind... Generally if they are not giving pills, they send you on to a specialist. that does not need the seven years. It needs two years and an expert system on their iPhone. And dont lets talk about pharmacy.

As for law. Also rote learning. Why a general law degree and then specialize. Why not have para-legals learn family law only, and argue in those courts ( which could just be a room) with a similar trained judge.

Compare the intelligence( and I am showing a scinetific/engineering bias here) in any of these jobs - largely rote based - with the guys in Google writing Google maps, a far from trivial exercise particularly when you look at their directions technology, and the brilliant performance.

now who gets paid more? Compare the law salary to the engineers.

The problem with anarchism is not that people won't do the work you think they won't do - you are confusing the existing pay structure, and assuming a status to intellectual pursuits which only exists among intellectuals or the college educated ( I wrote about how I was - jokingly - told I was probably going to end up in an office, when I was a construction worker. That was a genuine insult ).

The problem ( one of many) is that nobody is going to do the Office work, with the exception of geeks who enjoy it.

There will be a rush to be a bin man, or a post man, if status and money are the same as working for being a Dentist, or in David Brent's office. We would get our exercise for free.

Take dentistry - unlike a GP the dentist is generally the first and last point of call - effectively he is the surgeon and the GP. I think dentistry more complex, therefore.

it is however, a ****e job. I mean, how could you enjoy it? Other peoples teeth. If the easy, less pressured outdoor jobs got the same status then dentistry would lose out.

So the system needs to persuade people to become dentists. Not binmen.

We do that now with more money. I am sure the Soviet Union - which did function, after all, however badly - did the same. Or if not money, other inducements in lieu - better housing etc.

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You cant blame that on our provision of free education. All one has to do is look at Scandanavian countries or Germany and see that a lack of fees when entering into university level education is not resultant in laziness and lack of appreciation of the oppurtunity granted. The Irish problem is a combination of something specific to our culture, what im not sure, a certain type of anti-intellectualism not present in a lot of Northern European cultures and probably broader societal problems which are not accounted for in your simple binary model of free education vs fee paying education. Also, are many of those people who go to college and piss around and do nothing exactly the ones who went to fee-paying secondary schools? In my experience this is much more often the case, as its generally people who have a sense of entitlement to something they dont deserve (people with grossly rich parents who spoil them) that tend to utterly fail at life when unleashed into the world.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

By guaranteeing economic freedom in 1864, Sweden fostered a period of rapid industrialization and entrepreneurship.

The implimentation of protectionism via tariffs started in 1816. The tariffs where dropped and the market progressively liberalized from 1830 until around 1857. In 1880 the free market experiment ended and protectionism was re-enacted in response to american competition in agriculture. In 1892 further protectionist tariffs and gov subsidies where set up around industry esp engineering, consequently leading to high growth. None of this can be described as ''liberal'' economic policy.

All of the country's most rapid economic growth occurred before the socialists began imposing the welfare state in the 1930s.

The speed of economic development is always higher during industrialization, developed nations invariably experience lower rates of growth. Moreover, 1946-1969 saw great economic and social development, very low unemployment - this period is known as the post war boom. Sweden ranked 3rd place in per capita GDP by 1970.

The ultimate turning point—the ultimate failure of Childs' so-called "middle way"—is generally agreed among economists to be 1975. After the mid-1970s, the percentage growth in GNP per employed person in Sweden fell below almost any other OECD nation, and continued at a dismally low level for a generation.

LOL - (Some free advise) - Lying will always get you into trouble.

From 1976-1982 the ''liberal'' moderate party where in power, privatization and deregulation were enacted. The liberals took power again from 1991-1994. The crisis of the 1990s was not ''caused'' by a comprehensive social welfare system seeing as the economy had performed optimally under successive tax hikes. What actually caused the crisis was sub-prime lending, eventually cumulating in a vast credit bubble. Liberalization of the financial sector ? - hmmm, I wonder who did that. The crisis that ensued caused massive unemployment and put great pressure on the welfare system. Bourgeoisie propagandists responded ''as they do'' by blaming the (welfare state) for the crash that they caused. Like all crashes - the upper class are provided with an excuse to push their liberal agenda and appropriate public assets at ''friendly'' rates, what were once tax burdens now transform into sites of investment and profitability.

By the early 1990s, Swedish government expenditure amounted to over 60 percent of GNP, double what it was in 1960. Despite the fact that the U.S. and Swedish tax burdens were roughly equal in 1960, Sweden's tax burden had risen to 55 percent of GNP in 1990, while the United States' tax burden was 29 percent.

The US embraced Keynesian policy during the 1960s, which began in the new deal era. Had the US not embraced economic liberalism under Regan their tax's would undoubtedly be higher. Incidentally, the period of economic liberalism in the US also proved to be a complete disaster - rising productivity coupled with stagnating wages and reduced social expenditure. Living standards for the majority declined while profits soared for the appropriating class's. A success for the proponents of economic liberalism youl find

Overall, Sweden fell from being the second-wealthiest country in the world in 1970 to being in 18th position today.

What messure are you using ?. If your referring to GDP nominal then naturally larger economies will rank higher - for instance, China and India rank higher than Sweden although their populations experience massive poverty ect.

BTW - My sourcing on Sweden is from prof Ha Joon Chang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang

Whats yours ? Not the psudo academic quacks over at mises.org I hope.:D

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

headmuzik

Just a small correction to something Kama had said:

"Anarcho-syndicalism is the system in which interlocking labour unions compose the economy, governed by worker-self-management, and instituted by direct action. The Wobblies and the WSM go here."

The WSM are anarcho-communist, not syndicalist.

I want to commend yourself, akrasia and synd for continuing to engage with DF and the others, I have read through much of this but I don't have the motivation to myself.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

Synd, I see no point in responding point-by-point to an "analysis" that claims, among other things, that the New Deal happened in the 1960s

I never claimed that the new deal ''originated'' in the 60s, the point made was that embrace of Keynesian economic policy began with the new deal and lasted through the 60s until Regan came to office. This in response to your idiotic allusion that progressive taxation thwarts economic progress. The US enjoyed sustained growth and rising living standards under Keynesian policy - compared to the later period of economic liberalism. BTW - your trivial attempts to divert attention from the complete refutation of your fallacious argument are self evident.

Free advice - lying to cover up previous lies always makes the situation worse.

and that ignores the huge role of Sweden's disastrous monetary policies in precipitating the recession of the 1990s.

De-regulation of the financial sector, squarely within the realm of (liberal economic policy). As all are aware, crackpot economic liberalism is also what caused the current crisis.

I'm not surprised to learn that you're basing it all on Wikipedia, either.

The wiki link was to Ha's bio and had absolutely nothing to do with the actual argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang Alternatively you can visit Cambridge's website.

Your accusations of wiki usage based on my informal linking an authors bio is a clear indication of intellectual and argumentative bankruptcy.

My source on Sweden Kicking away the ladder p39-42 - Ha Joon Chang

Now, for a second time cite your source - and answer my question (are you using nominal GDP to measure national wealth?)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

DF, again you aren't making an argument, you're doing what you complained earlier 'omg research funded by someone massive conspiracy leftist fallacy'. Its quite possible to read and appreciate someone, even if you disagree with their ethos and assumptions.

First you went 'your just getting it from wiki', then 'look at the cover', then 'he's biased'. None of these are anything even resembling a refutation.

Have you read the book, or just looked at the cover? If you wish to advance libertarian/classical liberal dogma, refuting the case studies in this book would be immensely helpful in arguing against proponents of protectionism, as it is now viewed as classic academic work.

Please cite a source or sources for your views on Swedens economic development, rather than denigrate others. Calling a source tendentious does not an argument make.

Please reply to synds query on nominal GDP.

silverharp

synd wrote: »

......De-regulation of the financial sector, squarely within the realm of (liberal economic policy). As all are aware, crackpot economic liberalism is also what caused the current crisis.

So the Fed had nothing to do with it , Fannie and Freddie , deficit spending by the Bush administration. what you call economic liberalism I'd use a term like corporate fascism. Krugman that great Keynesian obviously was thinking along the lines of Greenspan


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a "double dip," a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble

Kama

silverharp wrote:

what you call economic liberalism I'd use a term like corporate fascism

Can we elaborate on this? By corporate facism, do you mean the fusion of government and business power, Keynesian interventionism, what? Following the Mussolini quote?

Genuinely curious in this point; what Leftists see as laissez-faire, and critique (as in Chang) for it's hypocritical application (see our current rainy-day Keynesian converts) has heavy State involvement, is anything but an 'unregulated' economy, etc. I'd be fascinated to hear what the libertarian analysis resembles.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

Thanks for offering a reference, DF!

Since you haven't read the book, and are hence incapable of refuting any of its points, whether empirical or theoretical, its hard to take seriously your opinions on it. You don't know what it argues, you can't know whether it's a 'serious academic work', not having read it, so your argument seems to amount to that it must be wrong due to having conclusions that you don't share. Perhaps a slavish addiction to 'preconceived notions' aren't a Leftist monopoly?

Again, if you want to say its a pig-headed ignorant un-academic work, read it, and do so from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. If you can't be bothered, then understandably your opinion on the book will be less valued.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

You seem hell bent on labelling people you don't know, it adds nothing to your argument, this has been a number of times you have mentioned it.

I will take "labelling" as a criticism from left wingers when we stop hearing terms like bourgeois, capitalist etc. to describe the opposition. My theory on left wing agitation amongst Ireland's elites depends on a "class analysis", and that is quite simple: - the children of the elites in Ireland are anti-capitalist because Ireland is not really a capitalist controlled society. The ruling classes are what the English call the Establishment - High level State, Managerial, and Professional. Some members of this class have - since 1968 - being fooling themselves on their radicalism. Their kids are getting even more delusional.

I am hell bent on destroying those cartels. Asdasd is a class warrior.

My "politcal theory" as to why the sons and daughters of the managerial elites would be anti-capitalist is simple - it deflects the light from the actual ruling classes.

asdasd

Originally Posted by headmuzik View Post
I want to commend yourself, akrasia and synd for continuing to engage with DF and the others, I have read through much of this but I don't have the motivation to myself.

Lol at the comerades piling in. Was this thread posted on Faux-Radical-Anarcho-Syndicalistcom? Headmusik has all of 8 posts. There are people in this thread not seen elsewhere on the site.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Kama wrote: »

Can we elaborate on this? By corporate facism, do you mean the fusion of government and business power, Keynesian interventionism, what? Following the Mussolini quote?

Genuinely curious in this point; what Leftists see as laissez-faire, and critique (as in Chang) for it's hypocritical application (see our current rainy-day Keynesian converts) has heavy State involvement, is anything but an 'unregulated' economy, etc. I'd be fascinated to hear what the libertarian analysis resembles.

in terms of the collapse the US is going through now the Austrian analysis is that the Fed is at the centre of this (as a tool of gov policy). As its mandate is to promote economic growth it has an incentive to underprice interest rates and issue too much credit. As these are important signals to the market, they can be misinterpreted by the market which leads to mal investment. The logical policy choice after dot com was to let the recession happen and not try pump up another bubble as Krugman was recommending in 2002, had that happened the US would have been well into a recovery by now.
The regulation side of the fence is hugely flawed as well. Given that the large money centre banks could steer the regulators they effectively neutralized it.

Synd tried to imply that things only went bad from the Regan era (keep you data set short enough and you can prove anything) The Austrians would go back to the creation of th Fed as a reasonbale year 0 on this , the next milestone was the new deal that prolonged the depression and the next one was the US coming off the gold convertability in the early 1970's

I posted this in the economics forum a while back , its a good analysis of the 1921 Depression you never heard of v the 1929 one that was extended due to the new deal policies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

so the Centre for Business and Policy Studies is acceptable, but the centre for Economic and Policy Research is too 'left wing' to take seriously?
Lars Magnusson is a prominent Mercantilist. Are you aware that this line of economic thought is now widely accepted as outdated and largely debunked?
(indeed, Adam Smith devoted a large portion of the wealth of nations to criticising it)

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

we experienced 'true growth' for about 5 minutes before it developed into a bubble overheated and turned into the worst economic crash of any country this side of argentina

Also, The Irish economy started to develop from traditional phase, to modern only after we joined the E.U, partially because we had access to the single market, but we also received billions and billions of pounds in development aid to build the infrastructure needed to sustain industry, and to protect our vulnerable farming industry from international competition and the fluctuations in global food prices through the CAP.

Sunn

asdasd wrote: »

I will take "labelling" as a criticism from left wingers when we stop hearing terms like bourgeois, capitalist etc. to describe the opposition. My theory on left wing agitation amongst Ireland's elites depends on a "class analysis", and that is quite simple: - the children of the elites in Ireland are anti-capitalist because Ireland is not really a capitalist controlled society. The ruling classes are what the English call the Establishment - High level State, Managerial, and Professional. Some members of this class have - since 1968 - being fooling themselves on their radicalism. Their kids are getting even more delusional.

I am hell bent on destroying those cartels. Asdasd is a class warrior.

My "politcal theory" as to why the sons and daughters of the managerial elites would be anti-capitalist is simple - it deflects the light from the actual ruling classes.

I have no idea what you are talking about? Ireland isn't a capitalist society?


Unfortunately it seems your idea is simple and I think asdasd needs to have a word with himself.