|
Libertarians (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
I almost want libertarians to win... it'd be so ing amazing how ed this country would be.
I bought some old BDUs today and some nice combat gloves, I got my gas mask, and I am getting a rifle, so I say let the retards win. I am ready to fight them on my land.
WILD WILD WEST. |
BUG OUT BAG, BRO. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
BUG OUT BAG, BRO. |
At least here we have legit reasons for having bug out bags... :p |
|
|
| Swamper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
I almost want libertarians to win... it'd be so ing amazing how ed this country would be.
I bought some old BDUs today and some nice combat gloves, I got my gas mask, and I am getting a rifle, so I say let the retards win. I am ready to fight them on my land.
WILD WILD WEST. |
NOU turning violent? Was killing the FSA not enough for you? When will the madness end? |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
:o
Seriously though, its like these guys want to revert to how it was in the 1870s in the western US. Some elements of the tea party advocate that the highest authority should be the county sheriff!!! |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
A) Please provide a source for a study on this. |
With regards to the "irrationality of the market", the Nobel Prize for Economics was awarded in 2001 and 2002 to those who undermined the principles of free information and human judgement that are required for market rationality. The extraordinary number of cognitive / huerisitic biases that indelibly affect rational human judgement has been thoroughly established. The problems with modelling preference, utility and other concepts that make rationality meaningful have long been known. If you'd like a 500 page book, written by a Nobel Prize winner on this very subject, I can highly recommend this one.
With regards to the oscillations of the market, in the "long-run" (however that is defined) then negative feedbacks should smooth-over egregious economic trends as predicted by neo-classical theory, but in the "short-run" (which can last for periods of many years) there is fairly compelling evidence that positive feedback mechanisms hold a stronger influence. Like other chaotic systems, small initial differences snowball into large and irreversible discrepancies at later times (see, for example, the "Sugarscape" simulation). It's no secret that - against the prediction of rational economic theory - a strong economic climate leads to higher rates of investment, a weak economic climate leads to lower rates of investment and that small initial difference can lead to huge (and irrational) vacillations like bubbles or depressions (see here maybe). The positive-feedback mechanism of "reflexivity has been cited as an explanation for this.
Another other reason for market oscillation (that neo-classical economics is notoriously hopeless at modelling) is that of time, and the production lags associated with it. In times of increased demand, a firm has three options on how to respond with increased supply:
- To draw on existing inventory / reserve stock (small-scale / short-term).
- To increase production within existing capacities (i.e. to tell the factories to produce as much as they can) (medium-scale / medium-term).
- To expand their production frontier (i.e. build more factories) (high-scale / long-term).
The trouble is that the time it takes for a company to respond to an increase in demand may be on the order of years, by which time the demand conditions have changed. This problem is exacerbated further by the presence of other firms who are doing exactly the same thing, meaning that we are constantly vacillating from an excess of demand to an excess of supply (which price changes should reflect). Even in principle, an equilibrium state can never be reached because supply-side factors can never be responsive enough.
Speaking of equilibrium states, whether or not they exist is an open economic question, but what is clear is that such states are meaningless as the sheer complexity of economies precludes it (indeed, there are suspicions that the market is actually most efficient with resource allocation and production in states of extreme disequilibrium). Even if you removed all the things that neo-classical economics is terrible at modelling (time, exogenous shocks etc.), a decent-sized economy would take about 4.5 quintillion years to reach an equilibrium state, which makes the concept fundamentally meaningless. There may be attractor points in various markets (as in all chaotic systems), but these change rapidly and there is little decent evidence to suggest that economic activity is best explained by vacillations around a single equilibrium point.
| quote: | | B) If the market is irrational, does that mean that the state is not irrational? |
No, but at least the state is accountable to the public and can make judgements that serve the public interest. Besides, I'm not suggesting a solution in which the state in the sole economic actor (a la communism), because - as you suggest - the state is no less susceptible to bouts of irrationality than the market is. I'm rather suggesting the state act as a sector of the economy (as in Keynesian theory) that exists primarily to react to market excess rather than to forge an autonomous economic path. In this sense, I would advocate a system where, for example, the state would run budget deficits in times of recession and surpluses in times of growth. Production is still mostly determined by market forces, the government is simply providing negative feedback that the market can't provide itself.
| quote: | | C) I assume your stabilizing force is the state. Are you saying that with one, we will never see obscene peaks and troughs? You know, like the one that we just went through in the last decade. |
The state and central banks etc. yes. The reason, as I said above, is that such organisations provide the negative feedback that is absent (or unduly slow) in a free-market economy. The bank, for example, can constrain or expand money supply in times of growth or recession respectively. The government can increase or decrease its discretionary spending. You will still see peaks and troughs, but they will be less severe than in the absence of such moderating forces. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the last decade, but it's an example irrational excess on the markets (housing, financial etc.) leading to economic collapse because massive deregulation and decreased tax revenue has constrained the capacity of the state to adequately intervene. Potential tax revenues that could have been used to stimulate investment and demand are instead being sat-upon by the wealthiest individuals and corporations, who are (irrationally) scared to make any large investments in the current economic climate. There are parallels here with the gross inequality which preceded Great Depression that you can read more about here.
| quote: | | D) In regards to "equilibrium"; say you are selling apples and people want to buy them and both agree on a price; what would you call that? |
A highly oversimplified model that in no way resembles the complexity of the real-world economy? That is, neo-classical economics in a nutshell?
| quote: | | Let's say the state comes in and changes that price and forces you to sell it for this new price; what would you call that? |
That's not what I'm advocating at all. Hope that helps. |
|
|
| Meat187 |
I'm not sure what's my political orientation, especially since these terms seem to mean something completely different in the US. :conf:
However, I distrust democracy as a whole, think that having the government regulate certain things is retarded and a violation of personal freedom. Then again I also don't trust the market as the ultimate solution to problems.
Maybe I'm a pessimistic anarchist? :) |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
... |
Thanks for taking the time to respond! :) |
|
|
| djnitride |
When I was young I thought libertarians could save the world. Was a registered member of the party and did quite a bit of donation / political action type stuff.
Then I realized when you don't regulate anything you give control to multinational corporations who only have one purpose: get as much money as they possibly can.
While the government may not be the most noble/efficient of organizations, I would much rather have electable officials calling the shots at the end of the day than some hotshot billionaire CEO with no respect for most of humanity. I know, special interests and lobbying essentially control politicians anyway but usually they can't do anything too extreme without massive public outcry. Politicians can be just as bad but I feel sticking your head in the sand and saying regulation is the root of all evil is plain ing stupid. There is good regulation and bad regulation and it is our job to know the difference.
TLDR: Libertarianism doesn't look so hot when you are not doing drugs :haha:
EDIT:
Yes I know Libertarians are a bigger platform covering more things than just regulation. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
Maybe I'm a pessimistic anarchist? :) |
Wait, we have the same political orientation!?
I wonder if fast-paced happy music does that to people :p |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Wait, we have the same political orientation!?
I wonder if fast-paced happy music does that to people :p |
Its probably the concussions from the fast paced kick drums and giant speakers. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Its probably the concussions from the fast paced kick drums and giant speakers. |
Yeah, that could be it as well :D
Although I'm not sure this would make me optimistic (which would definitely be delusional) or more of an anarchist (which would probably be even more delusional) :p |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
I've shifted from Libertarian (college years) to Fascist (late twenties). :P
I'm still unsure where I stand with regards to the role of central banks and governments in the Economy.
:D |
|
|
|
|
