I think I get libertarian economics now

[dblack]

Also, I find it telling that you find the idea of solving problems without coercion funny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great majority reject the libertarian presumption. End of story.

For a majoritarian, sure, that's the end of the story. Feel free to ignore the rest.

For a believer in republican democracy, sure, I believe it.

If your conception of a republican democracy rests on majority rule as the final word, we don't have enough common ground to have much of a discussion. It's more a question of aim at that point.

Majority rule with minority rights. "majoritarian" does not work for you they way you want.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Also, I find it telling that you find the idea of solving problems without coercion funny.

Sorry, bud: rule of law outweighs rule of man.

 

[dblack]

Also, I find it telling that you find the idea of solving problems without coercion funny.

Sorry, bud: rule of law outweighs rule of man.

Stow the @fakey horseshit. You wouldn't know rule of law of it sat on you.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The problem I see with libertarians is that they completely disregard all macroeconomy. They treat all interactions at microeconomic level. I've heard little in the way of how to treat :

...

I don't disregard macro economics. I just don't believe government should have the power to manipulate the economy.

Well, precisely. The simplest example I can think of as a libertarian failure : externalities.
If a factory pollutes a river, who would be in charge of regulating its activites ? What would stop them from polluting?
And how would they pay for degrading a public good ( since they don't actually own the river )?

It sounds like you've been talking to radical anarchists. Libertarians, in the main, don't reject the role of government in protecting the commons.

More like radical libertarians... they reject any government intervention whatsoever.
And that is just for starters, that still leaves monopolies, oligopolies and systemic failures to deal with:
How would a libertarian society deal with partial coverage and skyrocketing prices fueled by the combination of insurance companies and healthcare companies? Health care is quite innelastic, and insurance companies just dampen competition .

A libertarian society would solve the problems without resorting to coercion.

So I've heard but without any proof whatsoever.
Robert P Murphy has gone at lengths on how such a society would work. But precisely because I watched his videos I reached the conclusion of my first post: he disregards the cyclic nature of macroeconomy, ... ah, and of course , the rise in the level of private debt. We've already had two world crisis because of de-regulation and massive private debt. He somehow believes that wouldn't happen in a libertarian society... weird.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Also, I find it telling that you find the idea of solving problems without coercion funny.

Sorry, bud: rule of law outweighs rule of man.

Stow the @fakey horseshit. You wouldn't know rule of law of it sat on you.

I know you hate the rule of law, but there it is. Your libertarianism is the flip side of communism, is as unworkable, and there you have it.

 

[dblack]

I don't disregard macro economics. I just don't believe government should have the power to manipulate the economy.

Well, precisely. The simplest example I can think of as a libertarian failure : externalities.
If a factory pollutes a river, who would be in charge of regulating its activites ? What would stop them from polluting?
And how would they pay for degrading a public good ( since they don't actually own the river )?

It sounds like you've been talking to radical anarchists. Libertarians, in the main, don't reject the role of government in protecting the commons.

More like radical libertarians... they reject any government intervention whatsoever.
And that is just for starters, that still leaves monopolies, oligopolies and systemic failures to deal with:
How would a libertarian society deal with partial coverage and skyrocketing prices fueled by the combination of insurance companies and healthcare companies? Health care is quite innelastic, and insurance companies just dampen competition .

A libertarian society would solve the problems without resorting to coercion.

So I've heard but without any proof whatsoever.

Or they wouldn't. Or, perhaps, they just wouldn't solve them to your satisfaction. It's that frustration with the inability to control others that drives people to seek government action in the first place, but I contend that that is immoral.

Robert P Murphy has gone at lengths on how such a society would work.

Yes. I won't indulge that request. It begs the question, assuming the premise that such problems are the responsibility of government and that any alternative to government control must supply a solution in its stead.

 

[dblack]

Also, I find it telling that you find the idea of solving problems without coercion funny.

Sorry, bud: rule of law outweighs rule of man.

Stow the @fakey horseshit. You wouldn't know rule of law of it sat on you.

I know you hate the rule of law, but there it is. Your libertarianism is the flip side of communism, is as unworkable, and there you have it.

...and now the fakester tilts into full orwellian mode. No takers here.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well, precisely. The simplest example I can think of as a libertarian failure : externalities.
If a factory pollutes a river, who would be in charge of regulating its activites ? What would stop them from polluting?
And how would they pay for degrading a public good ( since they don't actually own the river )?

It sounds like you've been talking to radical anarchists. Libertarians, in the main, don't reject the role of government in protecting the commons.

More like radical libertarians... they reject any government intervention whatsoever.
And that is just for starters, that still leaves monopolies, oligopolies and systemic failures to deal with:
How would a libertarian society deal with partial coverage and skyrocketing prices fueled by the combination of insurance companies and healthcare companies? Health care is quite innelastic, and insurance companies just dampen competition .

A libertarian society would solve the problems without resorting to coercion.

So I've heard but without any proof whatsoever.

Or they wouldn't. Or, perhaps, they just wouldn't solve them to your satisfaction. It's that frustration with the inability to control others that drives people to seek government action in the first place, but I contend that that is immoral.

Robert P Murphy has gone at lengths on how such a society would work.

Yes. I won't indulge that request. It begs the question, assuming the premise that such problems are the responsibility of government and that any alternative to government control must supply a solution in its stead.

Well, not to my satisfaction, nor by looking at what happens with "free" capitalism in historical records.
So, interfering with trade is immoral, but letting someone starve to death is more moral ?
I've heard people argue that Roosevelt prolonged the great depression by puting in place regulations. Maybe it was so, what such arguments forget is that the crisis was created by rampant PRIVATE debt, and as Steeve Keen has brilliantly pointed out: you can't get out of a recession by cutting spending.

So there you have it a perfect example of what happens under unfettered capitalism... and by the by debt bubbles are more the norm than the exception in capitalism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Also, I find it telling that you find the idea of solving problems without coercion funny.

Sorry, bud: rule of law outweighs rule of man.

Stow the @fakey horseshit. You wouldn't know rule of law of it sat on you.

I know you hate the rule of law, but there it is. Your libertarianism is the flip side of communism, is as unworkable, and there you have it.

...and now the fakester tilts into full orwellian mode. No takers here.

Because you are completely incompetent in defending your libertarian belief.

Get on you insane and boring idiot.

 

[dblack]

A libertarian society would solve the problems without resorting to coercion.

So I've heard but without any proof whatsoever.

Or they wouldn't. Or, perhaps, they just wouldn't solve them to your satisfaction. It's that frustration with the inability to control others that drives people to seek government action in the first place, but I contend that that is immoral.

Robert P Murphy has gone at lengths on how such a society would work.

Yes. I won't indulge that request. It begs the question, assuming the premise that such problems are the responsibility of government and that any alternative to government control must supply a solution in its stead.

Well, not to my satisfaction, nor by looking at what happens with "free" capitalism in historical records.
So, interfering with trade is immoral, but letting someone starve to death is more moral ?

I'd say both are immoral. Moreover, they're unrelated issues. You seem to be implying that the only way to prevent starvation is to interfere with trade. If so, would you care to make that case more explicitly?

 

[CultureCitizen]

A libertarian society would solve the problems without resorting to coercion.

So I've heard but without any proof whatsoever.

Or they wouldn't. Or, perhaps, they just wouldn't solve them to your satisfaction. It's that frustration with the inability to control others that drives people to seek government action in the first place, but I contend that that is immoral.

Robert P Murphy has gone at lengths on how such a society would work.

Yes. I won't indulge that request. It begs the question, assuming the premise that such problems are the responsibility of government and that any alternative to government control must supply a solution in its stead.

Well, not to my satisfaction, nor by looking at what happens with "free" capitalism in historical records.
So, interfering with trade is immoral, but letting someone starve to death is more moral ?

I'd say both are immoral. Moreover, they're unrelated issues. You seem to be implying that the only way to prevent starvation is to interfere with trade. If so, would you care to make that case more explicitly?

Not exactly. To be more precise I would say that there are certain ocasions in which market failures lead to massive starvations. It is then moral to have the government step in ( well , it's that or an angry mob... after all raising in arms when I am starving to death should also be a choice in a free society ) . Markets have created famines before... just take a look at the havoc Monsanto has caused in India.

... regarding income innequality: you can't have increasing returns on corporations with stagnant wages for a long time, because the result is a debt bubble which will eventually burst. And increasing inequality is the norm in capitalism due to the network effect caused by large corporations.

So there you have it in a nutshell : why a libertarian society can't possibly work.

Some readings : here
Free markets and famine in Niger | Jeevan Vasagar
Monoculture and the Irish Potato Famine: cases of missing genetic variation

although to be fair colonialist governments have also caused famines. Arguably the Irish potato famine was made worse due to grain import laws.

 

[dblack]

A libertarian society would solve the problems without resorting to coercion.

So I've heard but without any proof whatsoever.

Or they wouldn't. Or, perhaps, they just wouldn't solve them to your satisfaction. It's that frustration with the inability to control others that drives people to seek government action in the first place, but I contend that that is immoral.

Robert P Murphy has gone at lengths on how such a society would work.

Yes. I won't indulge that request. It begs the question, assuming the premise that such problems are the responsibility of government and that any alternative to government control must supply a solution in its stead.

Well, not to my satisfaction, nor by looking at what happens with "free" capitalism in historical records.
So, interfering with trade is immoral, but letting someone starve to death is more moral ?

I'd say both are immoral. Moreover, they're unrelated issues. You seem to be implying that the only way to prevent starvation is to interfere with trade. If so, would you care to make that case more explicitly?

Not exactly. To be more precise I would say that there are certain ocasions in which market failures lead to massive starvations. It is then moral to have the government step in ( well , it's that or an angry mob... after all raising in arms when I am starving to death should also be a choice in a free society ) . Markets have created famines before... just take a look at the havoc Monsanto has caused in India.

... regarding income innequality: you can't have increasing returns on corporations with stagnant wages for a long time, because the result is a debt bubble which will eventually burst. And increasing inequality is the norm in capitalism due to the network effect caused by large corporations.

So there you have it in a nutshell : why a libertarian society can't possibly work.

Some readings : here
Free markets and famine in Niger | Jeevan Vasagar
Monoculture and the Irish Potato Famine: cases of missing genetic variation

although to be fair colonialist governments have also caused famines. Arguably the Irish potato famine was made worse due to grain import laws.

I can't say I really understand the concept of a "market failure". Perhaps because I don't imbue the term with any special meaning (thus no special purpose) outside a venue for trade. The only way a market can "fail" is if it prohibits willing partners from trading.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dblack yes, our really don't understand.

That is the point.

 

[CultureCitizen]

So I've heard but without any proof whatsoever.

Or they wouldn't. Or, perhaps, they just wouldn't solve them to your satisfaction. It's that frustration with the inability to control others that drives people to seek government action in the first place, but I contend that that is immoral.

Robert P Murphy has gone at lengths on how such a society would work.

Yes. I won't indulge that request. It begs the question, assuming the premise that such problems are the responsibility of government and that any alternative to government control must supply a solution in its stead.

Well, not to my satisfaction, nor by looking at what happens with "free" capitalism in historical records.
So, interfering with trade is immoral, but letting someone starve to death is more moral ?

I'd say both are immoral. Moreover, they're unrelated issues. You seem to be implying that the only way to prevent starvation is to interfere with trade. If so, would you care to make that case more explicitly?

Not exactly. To be more precise I would say that there are certain ocasions in which market failures lead to massive starvations. It is then moral to have the government step in ( well , it's that or an angry mob... after all raising in arms when I am starving to death should also be a choice in a free society ) . Markets have created famines before... just take a look at the havoc Monsanto has caused in India.

... regarding income innequality: you can't have increasing returns on corporations with stagnant wages for a long time, because the result is a debt bubble which will eventually burst. And increasing inequality is the norm in capitalism due to the network effect caused by large corporations.

So there you have it in a nutshell : why a libertarian society can't possibly work.

Some readings : here
Free markets and famine in Niger | Jeevan Vasagar
Monoculture and the Irish Potato Famine: cases of missing genetic variation

although to be fair colonialist governments have also caused famines. Arguably the Irish potato famine was made worse due to grain import laws.

I can't say I really understand the concept of a "market failure". Perhaps because I don't imbue the term with any special meaning (thus no special purpose) outside a venue for trade. The only way a market can "fail" is if it prohibits willing partners from trading.

Markets fail when resource allocation is not efficient.
As is healthcare is a market failure in America. Two similar hospitals with similar levels of service offer two completely different prices for the same procedure even in the same city.
One of the causes of market failures are inequality.

Botom line : libertarians overvalue the power of markets and have a blind spot for the other aspects of economy.

 

[dblack]

Or they wouldn't. Or, perhaps, they just wouldn't solve them to your satisfaction. It's that frustration with the inability to control others that drives people to seek government action in the first place, but I contend that that is immoral.
Yes. I won't indulge that request. It begs the question, assuming the premise that such problems are the responsibility of government and that any alternative to government control must supply a solution in its stead.

Well, not to my satisfaction, nor by looking at what happens with "free" capitalism in historical records.
So, interfering with trade is immoral, but letting someone starve to death is more moral ?

I'd say both are immoral. Moreover, they're unrelated issues. You seem to be implying that the only way to prevent starvation is to interfere with trade. If so, would you care to make that case more explicitly?

Not exactly. To be more precise I would say that there are certain ocasions in which market failures lead to massive starvations. It is then moral to have the government step in ( well , it's that or an angry mob... after all raising in arms when I am starving to death should also be a choice in a free society ) . Markets have created famines before... just take a look at the havoc Monsanto has caused in India.

... regarding income innequality: you can't have increasing returns on corporations with stagnant wages for a long time, because the result is a debt bubble which will eventually burst. And increasing inequality is the norm in capitalism due to the network effect caused by large corporations.

So there you have it in a nutshell : why a libertarian society can't possibly work.

Some readings : here
Free markets and famine in Niger | Jeevan Vasagar
Monoculture and the Irish Potato Famine: cases of missing genetic variation

although to be fair colonialist governments have also caused famines. Arguably the Irish potato famine was made worse due to grain import laws.

I can't say I really understand the concept of a "market failure". Perhaps because I don't imbue the term with any special meaning (thus no special purpose) outside a venue for trade. The only way a market can "fail" is if it prohibits willing partners from trading.

Markets fail when resource allocation is not efficient.
As is healthcare is a market failure in America. Two similar hospitals with similar levels of service offer two completely different prices for the same procedure even in the same city.
One of the causes of market failures are inequality.

Botom line : libertarians overvalue the power of markets and have a blind spot for the other aspects of economy.

That's an imaginary line. Libertarians value liberty.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well, not to my satisfaction, nor by looking at what happens with "free" capitalism in historical records.
So, interfering with trade is immoral, but letting someone starve to death is more moral ?

I'd say both are immoral. Moreover, they're unrelated issues. You seem to be implying that the only way to prevent starvation is to interfere with trade. If so, would you care to make that case more explicitly?

Not exactly. To be more precise I would say that there are certain ocasions in which market failures lead to massive starvations. It is then moral to have the government step in ( well , it's that or an angry mob... after all raising in arms when I am starving to death should also be a choice in a free society ) . Markets have created famines before... just take a look at the havoc Monsanto has caused in India.

... regarding income innequality: you can't have increasing returns on corporations with stagnant wages for a long time, because the result is a debt bubble which will eventually burst. And increasing inequality is the norm in capitalism due to the network effect caused by large corporations.

So there you have it in a nutshell : why a libertarian society can't possibly work.

Some readings : here
Free markets and famine in Niger | Jeevan Vasagar
Monoculture and the Irish Potato Famine: cases of missing genetic variation

although to be fair colonialist governments have also caused famines. Arguably the Irish potato famine was made worse due to grain import laws.

I can't say I really understand the concept of a "market failure". Perhaps because I don't imbue the term with any special meaning (thus no special purpose) outside a venue for trade. The only way a market can "fail" is if it prohibits willing partners from trading.

Markets fail when resource allocation is not efficient.
As is healthcare is a market failure in America. Two similar hospitals with similar levels of service offer two completely different prices for the same procedure even in the same city.
One of the causes of market failures are inequality.

Botom line : libertarians overvalue the power of markets and have a blind spot for the other aspects of economy.

That's an imaginary line. Libertarians value liberty.

Well if it is imaginary , then tell me : what went wrong in 1930? what allows Monsanto to patent seeds and starve people to death? how do you cope with the power of big corporations? What about the subprime MBS were they not a product of "free trade" coupled with a ton of corruption ?

I think it is naive to think they will self-regulate just by eliminating government intervention.

 

[dblack]

I'd say both are immoral. Moreover, they're unrelated issues. You seem to be implying that the only way to prevent starvation is to interfere with trade. If so, would you care to make that case more explicitly?

Not exactly. To be more precise I would say that there are certain ocasions in which market failures lead to massive starvations. It is then moral to have the government step in ( well , it's that or an angry mob... after all raising in arms when I am starving to death should also be a choice in a free society ) . Markets have created famines before... just take a look at the havoc Monsanto has caused in India.

... regarding income innequality: you can't have increasing returns on corporations with stagnant wages for a long time, because the result is a debt bubble which will eventually burst. And increasing inequality is the norm in capitalism due to the network effect caused by large corporations.

So there you have it in a nutshell : why a libertarian society can't possibly work.

Some readings : here
Free markets and famine in Niger | Jeevan Vasagar
Monoculture and the Irish Potato Famine: cases of missing genetic variation

although to be fair colonialist governments have also caused famines. Arguably the Irish potato famine was made worse due to grain import laws.

I can't say I really understand the concept of a "market failure". Perhaps because I don't imbue the term with any special meaning (thus no special purpose) outside a venue for trade. The only way a market can "fail" is if it prohibits willing partners from trading.

Markets fail when resource allocation is not efficient.
As is healthcare is a market failure in America. Two similar hospitals with similar levels of service offer two completely different prices for the same procedure even in the same city.
One of the causes of market failures are inequality.

Botom line : libertarians overvalue the power of markets and have a blind spot for the other aspects of economy.

That's an imaginary line. Libertarians value liberty.

Well if it is imaginary , then tell me : what went wrong in 1930? what allows Monsanto to patent seeds and starve people to death? how do you cope with the power of big corporations? What about the subprime MBS were they not a product of "free trade" coupled with a ton of corruption ?

I think it is naive to think they will self-regulate just by eliminating government intervention.

You're missing the point. I'm not a Republican market worshipper. I don't think freedom always produces ideal outcomes. I just don'l like bullying.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Not exactly. To be more precise I would say that there are certain ocasions in which market failures lead to massive starvations. It is then moral to have the government step in ( well , it's that or an angry mob... after all raising in arms when I am starving to death should also be a choice in a free society ) . Markets have created famines before... just take a look at the havoc Monsanto has caused in India.

... regarding income innequality: you can't have increasing returns on corporations with stagnant wages for a long time, because the result is a debt bubble which will eventually burst. And increasing inequality is the norm in capitalism due to the network effect caused by large corporations.

So there you have it in a nutshell : why a libertarian society can't possibly work.

Some readings : here
Free markets and famine in Niger | Jeevan Vasagar
Monoculture and the Irish Potato Famine: cases of missing genetic variation

although to be fair colonialist governments have also caused famines. Arguably the Irish potato famine was made worse due to grain import laws.

I can't say I really understand the concept of a "market failure". Perhaps because I don't imbue the term with any special meaning (thus no special purpose) outside a venue for trade. The only way a market can "fail" is if it prohibits willing partners from trading.

Markets fail when resource allocation is not efficient.
As is healthcare is a market failure in America. Two similar hospitals with similar levels of service offer two completely different prices for the same procedure even in the same city.
One of the causes of market failures are inequality.

Botom line : libertarians overvalue the power of markets and have a blind spot for the other aspects of economy.

That's an imaginary line. Libertarians value liberty.

Well if it is imaginary , then tell me : what went wrong in 1930? what allows Monsanto to patent seeds and starve people to death? how do you cope with the power of big corporations? What about the subprime MBS were they not a product of "free trade" coupled with a ton of corruption ?

I think it is naive to think they will self-regulate just by eliminating government intervention.

You're missing the point. I'm not a Republican market worshipper. I don't think freedom always produces ideal outcomes. I just don'l like bullying.

Well nor do I . But people ( specially reps ) tend to forget the bullying can come from both the government and large corporations. People with two much power tend to abuse it.
Sometimes some freedom has to be given away to have a working society.

 

[dblack]

7

I can't say I really understand the concept of a "market failure". Perhaps because I don't imbue the term with any special meaning (thus no special purpose) outside a venue for trade. The only way a market can "fail" is if it prohibits willing partners from trading.

Markets fail when resource allocation is not efficient.
As is healthcare is a market failure in America. Two similar hospitals with similar levels of service offer two completely different prices for the same procedure even in the same city.
One of the causes of market failures are inequality.

Botom line : libertarians overvalue the power of markets and have a blind spot for the other aspects of economy.

That's an imaginary line. Libertarians value liberty.

Well if it is imaginary , then tell me : what went wrong in 1930? what allows Monsanto to patent seeds and starve people to death? how do you cope with the power of big corporations? What about the subprime MBS were they not a product of "free trade" coupled with a ton of corruption ?

I think it is naive to think they will self-regulate just by eliminating government intervention.

You're missing the point. I'm not a Republican market worshipper. I don't think freedom always produces ideal outcomes. I just don'l like bullying.

Well nor do I . But people ( specially reps ) tend to forget the bullying can come from both the government and large corporations. People with two much power tend to abuse it.
Sometimes some freedom has to be given away to have a working society.

Corporations have no power to bully anyone, unless government does it on their behalf. Economic power is not coercive.