- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,141
- Reaction score
- 58,881
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I think that the mitigating factors need to be felt more by the individuals who make irrational decisions.
When it is less of a deciding factor, the moral hazard comes into play more and more.
We have to figure out how to keep the moral hazard at bay.
Yep. Immoral behavior will be a problem in any system. For me, the question usually comes down to, which system is best at limiting the damage of these types of choices. However, you are right, the same responses which limit damage for another usually limit damage for person making bad choices as well.
An example was the bank bailout.
The banks know the government will back them if they take hazardous risks, so they can over leverage themselves.
On top of that the good and punished with the bad, even though it isn't a particularly harsh deterrent.
BB&T bank was forced to take tarp funds even though they were well capitalized.
Our system has gotten a bit crazy.
I think its going to get worse as time goes on. As we get more technologically advanced, we become more dependent on things working as they should, all the time. The reason is that technology builds on other technology, which effectively makes more links in the chain. If any of those chains are broken, the whole thing could potentially fail.
As our technology gets more advanced (and fragile), so does our society. We are dependent on our lifestyle, as humans tend to be, and because of that, we will be forced to make these sorts of decisions. Banking is like that, we invent new monetary technology, however it all depends on the fundamentals. Since by nature it is more fragile than doing things the old way, we are forced to react more strongly to failures. The top bankers understood this, but I don't think most people really do. They just see it as unfair.
However, I don't think it is government's fault, they just happened to be in the position that had to make these sorts of decisions. The basis of the decision however is our common society.
Also, I am convinced that we would have less capacity to build or sustain these technologies without some sort of stabilizing control (government).
That is how I see it at least. For me, it is about which system has the most advantages.
I'd venture a guess that that hadn't worked out too well for most of us for a long time, hence the rising power for government. Long term self-interest causes big companies to become monopolies, which don't exactly benefit society any. Maybe that's where the "rational" part comes in in your statement, but it didn't stop people from doing it before the government forbade it.Long term rational self interest.
How is this to be accomplished? Human nature isn't going to change on its own. Somewhere, somebody is going to have to step in, and history has shown little hope for the great mass of people to try to think every decision through on their own--and arrive at the conclusion that they should do what's best for society, not merely themselves.Living examples can be great a motivator.
People need to feel more of the cause and effect of their choices.
I'd venture a guess that that hadn't worked out too well for most of us for a long time, hence the rising power for government.
Long term self-interest causes big companies to become monopolies, which don't exactly benefit society any. Maybe that's where the "rational" part comes in in your statement, but it didn't stop people from doing it before the government forbade it.
How is this to be accomplished? Human nature isn't going to change on its own. Somewhere, somebody is going to have to step in, and history has shown little hope for the great mass of people to try to think every decision through on their own--and arrive at the conclusion that they should do what's best for society, not merely themselves.
I'd venture a guess that that hadn't worked out too well for most of us for a long time, hence the rising power for government. Long term self-interest causes big companies to become monopolies, which don't exactly benefit society any. Maybe that's where the "rational" part comes in in your statement, but it didn't stop people from doing it before the government forbade it.
How is this to be accomplished? Human nature isn't going to change on its own. Somewhere, somebody is going to have to step in, and history has shown little hope for the great mass of people to try to think every decision through on their own--and arrive at the conclusion that they should do what's best for society, not merely themselves.
I think the two go hand in hand, honestly. Americans are used to buying a safe product and are used to making a safe product because we have regulatory mechanisms of accountability for products that cause injury.
They may go hand in hand, but the primary difference is in culture. Americans tend to be perfectionists and idealistic. We are pragmatic in wanting highest quality for the best buck. Chinese peasants don't typically buy many luxury items. They are pragmatic out of necessity.
For a simplistic example: I build bird houses. I do this out of love for birding and the natural world that I watch daily. I build my birdhouses well because I get satisfaction from a job well-done. If I build one for a friend, I am even more inclined to do a good job. I'm perfectionistic in my tendencies, and this is ingrained in me by my culture of a love for the world around me. I have had the luxury of not having to perform slave labor in order to exist. I had the choice of making my life better and the way I want it due to educational opportunities and the idea that my success or failure depends on my drive and my desires. I like excellence- I want to be excellent in my endeavors.
In China, the general population has not been encouraged toward individualism and accomplishment. They are like an ant colony. They work under a heavy governmental hand who tells them how many children they may have with the threat of violence. As an example of how the Chinese manufacturing mind works, I have a friend who is a purchasing manager for a company here who sells fiber-optic cable. They buy parts from a chinese manufacturer who sends X amount of parts per shipment. When my friend's company found that 33% of these parts were defective,, they contacted the Chinese manufacturer whose response was, in effect, "You ordered 1000 parts, you got 1000 parts, we don't guarantee the quality of each of these parts, and we will not replace the defective ones". In other words, you buy it, you're stuck with it". Those Chinese workers don't care about quality. If the government told them they must make quality parts, they might do so because they feared the government, but it wouldn't be because they care about quality. Americans care about quality as a general rule.
i think if what you said were actually true, then the japanese, german and presently south korean auto makers would not have been able to gain a foothold in the American auto market
We've never seen masses of people turning to the streets and demanding libertarian policies. Nor have outspoken libertarian parties ever had any electoral success outside of a small segment of true believers. The large-scale experiments with libertarian policies we have has only been possible when combined with a brutal dictatorship as in Chile.
Those libertarians who have managed to get into power through fair elections have been forced to moderate their policies. For instance even Margaret Thatcher did not dare to abolish the NHS although it would have been a top priority for a libertarian.
Libertarianism will never become popular. And how should we expect an ideology that patently leads to bad results for everyone but a small elite to win wide popular support?
Among non-libertarians there is a wide consensus that libertarian policies don't work. I disagree with that notion. I think the dangerous thing about libertarianism is that it is ruthlessly effective. It don't provide any good results for ordinary people and it is an outright disaster for the most unfortunate members of society. But that has never been the objective of libertarianism. If one sees an increase in wealth and privilege for the elite as the main objective of libertarianism then all those insane and anti-democratic policies associated with libertarianism suddenly makes sense - They are weapons in the class war waged by the elite against the rest of society.
I think libertarians in fact do take human nature into account; which is why we are libertarians and not anarchists.
Hard to say. They worked fine for the first 100 or so years
too many people have become addicted to entitlements and nanny state government which was the intent of the New Deal, Great Society etc. Dems created legions of addicts and going cold turkey would cause major upheavels as the parasites, the addicts and those who pander to them would revolt
I actually should be an anarchist, but I can't make that leap, and I don't know how others can. The principles of libertarianism work when you don't allow force or fraud. How can it ever work if you leave private companies the use of force? I don't trust them. I don't trust the government much either, but at least they are accountable to us. How exactly does a 3rd party company get control to use force against us? I can't see it working in the context of contract theory.
But of course, you get into the problems of vigilante justice (the first Death Wish was amazing on this subject, btw), and at times this can be better than the police. But do I trust it on a large-scale level? Hardly. It's just so hard to offer any other argument other than it being a necessary evil because we can't trust private citizens to enforce law.
Libertarianism will never become popular. And how should we expect an ideology that patently leads to bad results for everyone but a small elite to win wide popular support?
I think the Libertarian Party is just a distraction.
It would be my preference that they unite behind Ron Paul, and mobilize to take back the GOP, which was founded on many of the ideas that libertarians hold dear.
Anything other than that is going to be a hard and long fight.
Only a socialist would believe that individual freedom is a bad result.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?