From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 05:31:45 MST
--> Max M
>
> Reason wrote:
>
> > http://www.mises.org
> >
> > Read the daily article for a few weeks; it should improve your
> > understanding of non-State-centric economics no end.
>
> My understanding of economics is not the problem here. And here you go
> again doing exactly what I said was the problem. Economics is a
> "science", but not a very exact one. It shares the same problems as
> psychology with human nature.
Actually, the chief problems in economics today, IMHO, have little to do
with human nature. The various sides have pretty much the same view on human
nature. The rational actor in economics is fairly well understood. The
important arguments are really over what constitutes a resource, and what
the fundamental model of a working economy looks like. That and the fact
that supporting the wrong model brings short term benefits to the political
appointees who advocate it (at the expense of everyone else).
> The free market is ideologically inspired in large part by natural
> selection. But that does not mean that natural selection is a natural law.
Hardly. If it's inspired by anything, it's the concept of true plural
democracy. Multiple answers to every question can be selected, and the
majorities cannot dominate the minorities.
> We as humans don't have to follow a system like that. Gene therapy ie.
> is pretty Lamarchian to me! Nor does it mean that a free market as
> policy is a natural law.
A free market would seem to be more natural than a managed market. Markets
start free, and get unfree when states stick their noses in.
> Nor does it mean that a real Libertarian society would be one people
> would be happy to live in.
>
> > trots out frosted Iceland c900-1200 again
>
> > That looked pretty Libertarian to me. Three hundred years is a nice
> > long stable society in my book.
>
> I don't know the history of Iceland, but it could be argued that what
> works in a small closed island society isn't exactly applicable to the
> larger world. Besides, a sample of one isn't that much.
True, which is sad. Human nature seems to dictate that societies of kings,
dictators and powerful majorities are the most stable point. Still, go look
up the Iceland one. Here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/klassen/klassen14.html.
It's a good illustration of how breaking the governmental monopoly on
services into a competing marketplace can bring enormous benefits to a
society. It is an interesting comparison between that and the early USA, in
which a similar strategy was attempted -- fairly successfully to start
with -- on a much larger scale. That only lasted until the Civil War,
unfortunately.
> My fear is that a Libertarian society will turn out more like Somalia.
Google on wireless telecommunication networks in Somalia. I think you'll be
surprised at what you find.
> > The very fact that you speak of an "implementation" is a problem.
>
> The fact that you think there can be an economy without an
> implementation, without policy, is a problem.
Gah! This is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. An economy exists
whether or not anyone tries to implement one. Put five people in a room with
one water cooler, and you already have an economy.
> > Economies are not implemented; or at least ones that succeed are not.
>
> Not if you believe that there should be a completely free market no. But
> you have yet to give any kind of proof that this is a good idea. Or even
> that it can exist and be stable.
Well, ok. Why do you think it it's a bad idea? More to the point, why do you
think the present system of managed markets is a success? It's very easy to
point to isolated markets A and B in the same goods and point out that the
more free of those two markets is more successful. Stock certificates, for
example. Compare France and the US. Electricity generation and delivery --
there's a good one. US cities used to have multiple electricity companies in
the early 1900s before the state took them over. Used to be cheaper back
then. Not to mention what happens during "deregulation". Everyone must have
heard of the recent California energy thing, something that would never
occur in a free market.
> We are intelligent human beings. Why should we not be able to do better
> than natural selection? Even in a completely free market there will be
> concentrations of power that will take care of the implementation for
> us. But then we won't have any say in the matter.
>
> > They just happen; an economy is self-organization in planned action
> > and distribution of resources. The most efficient economies are those
> > that are left alone by the State.
>
> Efficient by what meassure? The argument becomes circular right around
> here. We should have a better economy for the economys sake.
Efficiency is somewhat axiomatic, yes. Either you want efficiency (i.e. you
get more for less when you trade), or you want other things. Most people
want efficiency.
> I do believe that what we have that approaches a free market is a good
> way of distributing resources fairly. And it's pretty good for the
> economy. But the economy is only a mean to an end, not the end in itself.
>
> A free market is not! a silver bullet that would solve every problem
> the most efficient way if we just let it run it's course.
Hurm. Well, IMHO, it'll help solve the problems that people are willing to
pay resources to solve. A free market means you get more for less -- so you
can solve more problems with X resources. Why should any other type of
problem (the ones that people are not willing to pay resources to solve) be
solved?
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:08 MST