Atlas Shrugged

Naz_st · 18-09-2014 12:41pm

I take your point, and it reinforces the general Libertarian point that "some regulation" leads to yet more regulation and a host of other unintended consequences. Which is why you can go from the simple idea of "Government should regulate to add warning messages to Cigarettes", which sounds innocuous and good in theory, to the reality of Quangos and bans and taxes and criminal prosecutions and so on and so on.

However, the counterpoint also seems true. The idea that because regulation leads to inefficiency, bureaucratic layers, barriers to entry, and ever more regulation, that not regulating in the first place is a better idea, and in this case there would follow some form of self-regulation or market-based regulation. Again, in theory I can follow the logic. But in practice I suspect, in this case for example, you would not have warning messages on cigarettes or any of the host of educational initiatives that have led people to understand the dangers of smoking.

Not sure where I stand on this one, I find it a genuinely interesting issue.

Sort of reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote:
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is"

Permabear · 18-09-2014 12:52pm

This post has been deleted.

marienbad · 18-09-2014 1:49pm

So as I asked you already , what would you do in regard to cigarettes in a Randian world ?

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 2:10pm

No they do not remove all the danger from nicotine addiction. Nicotine by itself is still pretty bad for you. Which the nicotine industry is trying to hide once again, just like they initially did when they found out inhaling smoke is bad decades before it became common knowledge, and worked hard to repress THAT information.

But that was probably also caused be regulations or something, because a completely unfettered industry cannot do anything that is not in everyone's best interest: the tragedy of the commons does not exist for most libertarians.

In fact, in stead of making governmental regulations, we should just sort it out by good ole libertarian-approved lawsuits, which are a completely different way of penalizing an industry financially than fines because of freedom!

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2014 3:08pm

The term "free markets" appears regularly in economic and political debate, with 99% of people seemingly having few or no comprehension difficulties. When the BBC publishes a story entitled "Cuba expands free-market reforms," most readers will immediately grasp that it deals with reducing the role of the state in the Cuban economy and giving greater freedom to private enterprise. Similarly, when we read a headline such as "Socialist MEPs attack McCreevy over free market policies," few of us will have difficulty grasping what the socialist MEPs are complaining about.[/QUOTE]
You're attempting to sidestep the main argument of my post here, ignoring nearly all of it, and cherry-picking part of a sentence, to put it out of context, and change what was being debated - here is my post again, since it's a few pages back now:

Your examples here of using the term 'free markets', with the definition "reducing the role of the state in the [] economy and giving greater freedom to private enterprise", does nothing to contest my point, that arguing against a policy by using the term 'free markets', is either meaningless or a circular-argument/begging-the-question.

Deciding when we want government to 'reduce it's role in the economy' and 'give greater freedom to private enterprise', is again a question that has to be decided as a part of policymaking - so when you use 'free markets' (with that definition) as an argument against a policy (i.e. as part of an argument for trying to decide when 'government should reduce its role' etc.), then you're again making a circular argument and/or begging the question.

A: "For policy 'X', should government reduce its role and give greater freedom to private enterprise?"
B: "Yes, because 'free markets'. (i.e. Yes, because government should reduce its role and give greater freedom to private enterprise)"

Permabear · 18-09-2014 3:56pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 18-09-2014 4:09pm

This post has been deleted.

marienbad · 18-09-2014 4:11pm

So are you saying cigarettes sugar and perhaps heroin should be on sale to all and sundry including 10 year olds ?

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 4:17pm

..aaand we go off the deep end into pretend-land.

I never said we should. I merely point out that if you let businesses do what they want, they tend to do things such as hide important information about the effects of some products or ditch responsibility for the results of their actions. The efforts of the tobacco industry to suppress the results of studies into the effects of smoking are a really good example of this.

But like I said, in Libertarianism, the tragedy of the commons does not seem to exist.

Permabear · 18-09-2014 4:29pm

This post has been deleted.

Karl Stein · 18-09-2014 4:32pm

No but 'the state' (human beings) should try to reduce the harm it causes.

Permabear · 18-09-2014 4:36pm

This post has been deleted.

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 4:38pm

You seem to require me to feel businesses are completely evil in order to deal with my objections, and to completely ignore the one about the tragedy of the commons.

Remind me: what is it again that prevents businesses from engaging in practices that yield them financial gains in the short term, even if it is against the general best interest and even their OWN best interest in the long term?

Permabear · 18-09-2014 4:43pm

This post has been deleted.

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 4:44pm

The state could reasonably require products to state clearly how much of it is in a product if it can cause health problems - like we do with sugar.

What we do not do yet with e-cigs, and should, is to stop companies from marketing them as harmless, healthy options. it should clearly state that they are best used as aids to get rid of nicotine addiction altogether.

But of course companies will just do that of their own free will any moment now. Any... moment....

Karl Stein · 18-09-2014 4:45pm

If they follow the public health multi-pronged model used to drastically reduce the harm caused by tobacco then there's every chance they will reduce the harm sugar causes.

With diabetes, caused by lifestyle, on the rise you can be sure that the medical profession will begin to push 'the state' (human beings) to take action.

Permabear · 18-09-2014 4:49pm

This post has been deleted.

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 4:52pm

So if there had been even less regulation of the banks this would not have happened?

How odd: it seems that the banks did indeed keep lending irresponsibly, even though it was well known that the results would be bad for everyone in the long run. There was little or no regulation for sub-prime mortgages.

Then, when they collapsed, they did something even more reprehensible and scared the government into bailing them out. This worked, because the government was too afraid to let them fail: they feared the economic consequences of the vacuum that would follow.

Your solution: less regulation! Because regulation = a kind of government interference = being able to take risks because you can count on a bailout!

But the banks knew no such thing: a lot of banks failed globally, and one in ireland got nationalized and pretty much ceased to exist as a company.

Once again the libertarian train derails the moment we investigate just how much enlightened self-interest can be expected of a for-profit organization... tragedy of the commons, anyone?

20Cent · 18-09-2014 4:53pm

Instead of pointing out the obvious problems with the current system it would be useful if a libertarian were to tell us how issues such as harmful products and drugs would be delt with in a libertarian system?

Vivisectus · 18-09-2014 4:56pm

...and all this would be solved if only we could do away with those pesky calorie signs, and we could expect these figures to dramatically improve!

Just like the persistence of road-deaths shows that seatbelts are just useless.

Permabear · 18-09-2014 4:59pm

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2014 5:59pm

Your statement here relies on a quirk in your definition of 'free markets', you define it as, "reducing the role of the state in the [] economy and giving greater freedom to private enterprise", which frames it as the state having control and granting it to private enterprise, allowing you to pick on that for rhetorical effect by 'playing dumb'.

So, (tedious as it is to have to do this and repeat myself a third time, when it seems hard to miss the point of my post) I'll redefine it in a way that doesn't imply the state having control in the beginning, but which is otherwise exactly the same - so, your definition of free markets, is the same as:
"the state should have a less of a role in the economy than private enterprise, which should have greater freedom"

Again, with that definition, this is still a circular argument and begging-the-question.

Deciding when government 'should have less of a role in the economy than private enterprise, which should have greater freedom', is again a question that has to be decided as a part of policymaking - so when you use 'free markets' (with that definition) as an argument against a policy (i.e. as part of an argument for trying to decide when government 'should have less of a role in the economy than private enterprise, which should have greater freedom'), then you're again making a circular argument and/or begging the question.

A: "For policy 'X', should government have less of a role in the economy than private enterprise, with private enterprise having greater freedom?"
B: "Yes, because 'free markets'. (i.e. Yes, because government should have less of a role than private enterprise, with private enterprise having greater freedom)"

Permabear · 18-09-2014 6:16pm

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2014 6:19pm

Even though I think the right regulation and enforcement is possible (and I'd argue for reforms going well beyond that), what is the solution that you propose for dealing with this problem?

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2014 6:27pm

Your presentation of the BBC story and that definition of 'free markets', was in reply to this post, where I present the exact same argument as the post you have just replied to, showing that use of the term 'free markets' to oppose policy, is typically done in a circular/begging-the-question type way - so this has been the same string of discussion the entire time:

You've been twisting and turning for a couple of pages now, trying to evade what I've said there, by cherry-picking and playing-dumb in your interpretation of what I've said, and I've taken every definition of 'free markets' given or implied by you, and have shown that they all have the same problem of being circular and/or begging the question.

Is there any definition of 'free markets', which is not fallaciously circular like this, when used to oppose a policy? If so, be glad to see it defined here, so can put this to rest.

Brian Shanahan · 18-09-2014 8:59pm

I've read a book recently (unfortunately I can't put my hand to it and have forgotten its name, bad with names, me) which showed how closely the tobacco causes cancer-denial and climate change-denial groups were. Often times the same "experts" were trotted out for the climate change deniers as the tobacco is good for you crowd, and the exceptions were usually because the "expert" had died in the mean time, and what happened there was that his successor in the "free market institute" (said institute having the same research integrity and usefulness as Iona) was the one trotted out instead.

I'll update on the book when I find it, it was a fascinating read (got me through a few nights of doing call backs at bingo).

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2014 9:15pm

^^ Merchants of Doubt?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

I've researched the Libertarian think-tank networks a bit too, and they also overlap with many of the climate-change-denying and tobacco-causes-cancer-denying think-tanks; they're all a part of a similar network, putting out similar manufactured 'research'/propaganda, and usually have a fairly similar set of groups/people/corporations funding them.

PopePalpatine · 18-09-2014 9:42pm

I was watching Grand Prix: The Killer Years last night on BBC4. Just because fatal crashes happen, should safety regulations be done away with, because "ah sure, Senna would have died anyway."

magicbastarder · 18-09-2014 10:18pm

Can someone enlighten me (and in the process bear with my repetitive questions about the 'rational animal' theory in old school economics); but isn't the notion of completely free markets is based on the idea of both buyers and sellers being rational and in possession of full information? In that the decisions made are not made from a position of ignorance, and the advantage in such situations in real life is on the supplier side?

Brian Shanahan · 18-09-2014 11:35pm

That's the bunny. A recommended read to anybody interested in the sheer mendacity of "private enterprise" special interest groups, including libertarian and Randoid think-tanks.

Brian Shanahan · 18-09-2014 11:46pm

Yes, that is the base assumption of all models upon which all "free-market" theories are built.

It's like the neo-classicists have ever heard of Daniel Kahnemann and Amos Tversky, the two men who have more than most tried to put economics on a scientific, rather than the neo-classicals preferred voodoo, basis with their incorporation of sociology and psychology into their work on economic theory.

Valmont · 19-09-2014 9:00am

No, it isn't. The Austrian school of economics rejects the precept of perfect knowledge.

5uspect · 19-09-2014 9:08am

From my understanding they don't actually use models? It sounds like the economic equivalent of postmodernism.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 11:08am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 11:19am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 11:40am

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 19-09-2014 12:13pm

Econometrics is not synonymous with 'modelling' in economics - a lot of it is synonymous with modelling based on flawed 'linear/equilibrium' theories though.
You can do modelling with flawed theory/models that try to selectively pick data from reality to fit the model/theory, or you can model with theory/models, that adapt to fit/explain the data gathered in reality; the former is pseudoscience, the latter aspires to become more scientific.

All economic theories make statements, which can be used (in part or in whole) to form a model, for making (very limited) predictions, and for testing those predictions against real-world events.

The historical problem with economic modelling, is that it has been based on 'linear/equilibrium' models, when economies are 'dynamic/disequilibrium' systems instead.
If you take weather modelling as an analogy, a 'linear' model would be like modelling clouds moving in straight lines, a 'dynamic' model takes into account, that the weather is an extremely complicated dynamic system, and with clouds moving chaotically.

Steve Keen - who both predicted and modeled the economic crisis before it happened (the only person to do both together, prior to the crisis) - is working on the software program Minsky, for creating dynamic models of economies - and this can be used to input and test economic theories/models on a macroeconomic scale (this is based on 'macroeconomic accounting' - simply tracking the creation, flow, and destruction of money - which all economic theories have to respect, as it's just basic accounting), and to compare their limited predictions, to real world data:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsky_%28economic_simulator%29

Here's an extremely good article from Steve Keen, on economic modelling:
businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/1/14/resources-and-energy/blame-it-bad-weathermen

The main purpose of rejecting the whole idea of economic modelling, is pretty much to try and reject the idea of actually testing an economic theory against real world data ("No models? Great, we don't have to make and test any predictions, that can falsify our theories!") - which is necessary for the survival of theories which don't apply to reality.

KomradeBishop · 19-09-2014 12:27pm

The people thanking my posts seemed to understand perfectly well.

This is a good example, of why I can't take many Libertarian posters seriously - it is very very hard, to fail to see, that I am arguing that there is no "definition of 'free markets', which is not fallaciously circular [], when used to oppose a policy", and it is equally very very hard, to fail to see, how you are trying to avoid dealing with that argument and sidestep it.

Other Libertarian posters will play-along though - they know you're making a deliberate effort, to miss the point of the argument and try to spin discussion away from that, and they play along with it - zero skepticism among each other, yet I doubt many others who have kept up reading the thread, have failed to see that.

Would be great if any free-market poster, could answer this: "Is there any definition of 'free markets', which is not fallaciously circular like this, when used to oppose a policy? If so, be glad to see it defined here, so can put this to rest."
Here I give an example, of a fallaciously circular definition:
boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92225449&postcount=746

Mark Hamill · 19-09-2014 1:09pm

So, governments doing what companies want is bad, therefore we should just let companies do what they want?

Permabear · 19-09-2014 2:14pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 2:37pm

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 19-09-2014 2:39pm

You're presenting it as a choice between 'bad regulation' and 'complete deregulation' - which is a false dichotomy; no reason we can't have good/effective regulation, it existed before (especially in the several decades prior to 1980).

William K. Black was a regulator during the Savings & Loan crisis in the US, through the 80's and early 90's, and he helped put thousands of fraudsters in prison - the management of the Federal Home Loan Board at that time (though politically chaotic, due to a deregulatory Reagan government, and a general atmosphere hostile to regulation) helped to stop that crisis from turning into one as big as the one we have today, by limiting the growth of banks engaging in 'control fraud'.

He wrote a whole book about the crisis, which gives a very clear picture of how to put in place effective regulation, and how that is hampered politically:
amazon.com/The-Best-Way-Rob-Bank/dp/0292721390

A political atmosphere which promotes deregulation, leads to the passing of laws that erode and hamper regulators ability, to do their job effectively - that's the kind of political environment countries have been in, since around the late 70's.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 2:47pm

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig · 19-09-2014 3:03pm

Mod:

Give this 'you thanked that post' stuff a rest.

KomradeBishop · 19-09-2014 3:25pm

Ehh...the entire point of his post, was to use your false dichotomy, to show the absurdity of your deregulation argument.

You're perfectly aware of this though of course - since pretty much no poster can miss that, given it's so blindingly obvious - you're just engaging in the usual 'skip/dance', where you deliberately miss the point of what peoples have said, so you can skip away from every challenging argument; it gets very boring.

mewso · 19-09-2014 4:30pm

Is there a Libertarian scenario where it wouldn't have happened then? Is this not implying that with the political will and effective legislation it may not have?

Permabear · 19-09-2014 4:38pm

This post has been deleted.

mewso · 19-09-2014 4:46pm

It seems a tad defeatist to write off politics in that way but thanks for the answer Permabear. I was genuinely curious.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 5:05pm

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding · 19-09-2014 5:23pm

Would it not be more accurate to say "The root cause of the financial bubble, and the financial collapse that followed, was financial institutions engaging in risky behaviour and designing new method of doing business designed to avoid regulation put in place to stop them doing exactly what they tried to do because this behaviour is/was likely to cause a financial collapse, as it indeed did. These financial institutions then tried to justify this behaviour by blaming the state institutions, such as the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank holding interest rates at low level, which made it more difficult for them to make large profits"...?

MrP

Atlas Shrugged

Comments