Libertarians fail so hard at economics I can't even

[gavinfielder]

"Prices transmit information, and people need information, so government shouldn't interfere with prices"

Are you kidding me? As if information were the vital function of the price system. You're stretching it, billy. Trying to ascribe an argument for deregulation to this is ridiculous. This guy is explaining the most rudimentary economics (really, econ 101 is an overstatement) and putting faulty moral reasoning on it to suit his partisan agenda, and I'm guessing his colleagues call him an economist.

How do people go to a university of economics and come out with something that a high school student could do better (and should know better)?

 

[Kushinator]

The Austrian school does not have a coherent understanding of the modern firm (they cannot incorporate the Coasian theory of the firm into their framework). Hence, their ability to understand economic outcome is limited at best.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

"Prices transmit information, and people need information, so government shouldn't interfere with prices"

Are you kidding me? As if information were the vital function of the price system. You're stretching it, billy. Trying to ascribe an argument for deregulation to this is ridiculous. This guy is explaining the most rudimentary economics (really, econ 101 is an overstatement) and putting faulty moral reasoning on it to suit his partisan agenda, and I'm guessing his colleagues call him an economist.

How do people go to a university of economics and come out with something that a high school student could do better (and should know better)?

Although this kid looks like he's about 12, he's correct. Milton Friedman had the best example of this with a pencil:

Look at this lead pencil. There’s not a single person in the world who could make this pencil. Remarkable statement? Not at all. The wood from which it is made, for all I know, comes from a tree that was cut down in the state of Washington. To cut down that tree, it took a saw. To make the saw, it took steel. To make steel, it took iron ore. This black center—we call it lead but it’s really graphite, compressed graphite—I’m not sure where it comes from, but I think it comes from some mines in South America. This red top up here, this eraser, a bit of rubber, probably comes from Malaya, where the rubber tree isn’t even native! It was imported from South America by some businessmen with the help of the British government. This brass ferrule? [Self-effacing laughter.] I haven’t the slightest idea where it came from. Or the yellow paint! Or the paint that made the black lines. Or the glue that holds it together. Literally thousands of people co-operated to make this pencil. People who don’t speak the same language, who practice different religions, who might hate one another if they ever met! When you go down to the store and buy this pencil, you are in effect trading a few minutes of your time for a few seconds of the time of all those thousands of people. What brought them together and induced them to cooperate to make this pencil? There was no commissar sending … out orders from some central office. It was the magic of the price system: the impersonal operation of prices that brought them together and got them to cooperate, to make this pencil, so you could have it for a trifling sum.

That is why the operation of the free market is so essential. Not only to promote productive efficiency, but even more to foster harmony and peace among the peoples of the world.

When you're at the store shopping for a pencil, you look at quality, and price. When quality is equal, you go for the cheapest. When you buy the cheaper, same quality product, you're telling the other pencil producer that they need to somehow optimize their pencil making process to meet or exceed their competitors.

When the government comes in, and say, uses price control to protect the US pencil market by setting a mandatory $1 per pencil floor, many people who wanted pencils may forgo it for use of a pen, a marker, or simply fewer pencils. This leaves more pencils on the shelf, less pencils in the hands of consumers, and less money in the pockets of pencil makers.

The information communicated through the free market is vital to all business worldwide, and is the fundamental basis of capitalism.

 

[NeverTrump]

the fact that they need to make a youtube video or point to one to prove their point is telling.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

the fact that they need to make a youtube video or point to one to prove their point is telling.

Yeah, because we couldn't possibly find any liberal or statist youtube videos. Is that really your contribution to this thread?

 

[the_recruit]

... and I'm guessing his colleagues call him an economist.

Of course he's an economist. Look at that tweed suit.

 

[gavinfielder]

Although this kid looks like he's about 12, he's correct. Milton Friedman had the best example of this with a pencil:

Look at this lead pencil. There’s not a single person in the world who could make this pencil. Remarkable statement? Not at all. The wood from which it is made, for all I know, comes from a tree that was cut down in the state of Washington. To cut down that tree, it took a saw. To make the saw, it took steel. To make steel, it took iron ore. This black center—we call it lead but it’s really graphite, compressed graphite—I’m not sure where it comes from, but I think it comes from some mines in South America. This red top up here, this eraser, a bit of rubber, probably comes from Malaya, where the rubber tree isn’t even native! It was imported from South America by some businessmen with the help of the British government. This brass ferrule? [Self-effacing laughter.] I haven’t the slightest idea where it came from. Or the yellow paint! Or the paint that made the black lines. Or the glue that holds it together. Literally thousands of people co-operated to make this pencil. People who don’t speak the same language, who practice different religions, who might hate one another if they ever met! When you go down to the store and buy this pencil, you are in effect trading a few minutes of your time for a few seconds of the time of all those thousands of people. What brought them together and induced them to cooperate to make this pencil? There was no commissar sending … out orders from some central office. It was the magic of the price system: the impersonal operation of prices that brought them together and got them to cooperate, to make this pencil, so you could have it for a trifling sum.

That is why the operation of the free market is so essential. Not only to promote productive efficiency, but even more to foster harmony and peace among the peoples of the world.

When you're at the store shopping for a pencil, you look at quality, and price. When quality is equal, you go for the cheapest. When you buy the cheaper, same quality product, you're telling the other pencil producer that they need to somehow optimize their pencil making process to meet or exceed their competitors.

When the government comes in, and say, uses price control to protect the US pencil market by setting a mandatory $1 per pencil floor, many people who wanted pencils may forgo it for use of a pen, a marker, or simply fewer pencils. This leaves more pencils on the shelf, less pencils in the hands of consumers, and less money in the pockets of pencil makers.

The information communicated through the free market is vital to all business worldwide, and is the fundamental basis of capitalism.

"Information" is used here in an abstract sense, really to only explain the price mechanism.

Ok. I jumped the gun then. This is just some half-bit propagandist failing to convey the real substance behind it.

The price mechanism should absolutely be defended in general, that's not really in question. It's still not an adequate argument for deregulation in general, but I understand the intellectual basis now that you made the connection.

 

[beerftw]

"Information" is used here in an abstract sense, really to only explain the price mechanism.

Ok. I jumped the gun then. This is just some half-bit propagandist failing to convey the real substance behind it.

The price mechanism should absolutely be defended in general, that's not really in question. It's still not an adequate argument for deregulation in general, but I understand the intellectual basis now that you made the connection.

dont know about deregulation in general,but protectionism and the regulations produced by such have historically been shown to be utter failure,when capitalisms price equalization function is disrupted,so is capitalism itself.

 

[Kushinator]

dont know about deregulation in general,but protectionism and the regulations produced by such have historically been shown to be utter failure,when capitalisms price equalization function is disrupted,so is capitalism itself.

Really? Explain how the Asian Tigers tigers came to be. The U.S. was no stranger to protectionism during its formative years. Sounds like you have the propensity to spew right wing rhetoric given the opportunity.

 

[beerftw]

Really? Explain how the Asiae n Tigers tigers came to be. The U.S. was no stranger to protectionism during its formative years. Sounds like you have the propensity to spew right wing rhetoric given the opportunity.

please explain to me how protectionism has succeeded in a capitalist society?????capitalism runs off of free trade and competition,in which protectionism blocks both of those in order to protect profits of the existing which in turn blocks capitalisms free market mechanisms.this in turn causes lower to no economic growth outside of govt spending due to anti competitive behavior,thus protectionism doesnt work foran economy,unless you count individual companies prospering at the expense of the nation a vctory.

second those asian tigers are rated among the most free nations economically,and have less protectionism and regs than the united states.

 

[Kushinator]

please explain to me how protectionism has succeeded in a capitalist society?????

You have been given historical examples, and yet there is the need to double down on your error?

capitalism runs off of free trade and competition,in which protectionism blocks both of those in order to protect profits of the existing which in turn blocks capitalisms free market mechanisms.this in turn causes lower to no economic growth outside of govt spending due to anti competitive behavior,thus protectionism doesnt work foran economy,unless you count individual companies prospering at the expense of the nation a vctory.

Adorable! Are we to believe in perfectly competitive markets are anything other than textbook examples to explain basic macroeconomic concepts? Protecting infant industries has been a vital tool for emerging economies for centuries. This is simply a matter of fact (although there have been examples of poorly instituted protectionist policy, e.g. Brazil's processor push).

second those asian tigers are rated among the most free nations economically,and have less protectionism and regs than the united states.

You are speaking more gibberish. Come on back when you have properly educated yourself in regards to this subject.

 

[beerftw]

You have been given historical examples, and yet there is the need to double down on your error?



Adorable! Are we to believe in perfectly competitive markets are anything other than textbook examples to explain basic macroeconomic concepts? Protecting infant industries has been a vital tool for emerging economies for centuries. This is simply a matter of fact (although there have been examples of poorly instituted protectionist policy, e.g. Brazil's processor push).



You are speaking more gibberish. Come on back when you have properly educated yourself in regards to this subject.

yes please provide your examples of protectionism working,every example i have seen has been protectionism hindering growth,so you must have some awesome examples,now post them.

 

[Kushinator]

yes please provide your examples of protectionism working,every example i have seen has been protectionism hindering growth,so you must have some awesome examples,now post them.

You have been given the Asian Tigers; a most recent and accurate example. Infant industry protectionism has been in practice (it was even conceptualized by Alexander Hamilton) for centuries.

 

[austrianecon]

You have been given the Asian Tigers; a most recent and accurate example. Infant industry protectionism has been in practice (it was even conceptualized by Alexander Hamilton) for centuries.

And what happen to South Korea?

 

[ChezC3]

Protectionism and the arguments for or against when dealing with two developed nations or nations on relative equal footing undercutting their competition is one thing, but pitting fully developed countries with mature economies against those who are decades if not centuries behind requires a more realistic approach.

Of course if you are stuck in the ridiculously simple-minded school of thought that we must be in a race to the bottom for all aspects of doing business than there really isn't anything to argue about anyway...

 

[Mach]

I don't know anyone who really knows a particular industry that does not favor both removing a lot of crappy, damaging, terrifying regulations, and imposing a few better ones in their place.

It's dangerous to generalize regulation/de-regulation from either side. Same thing with "protectionism".

The most damaging thing I deal with on a daily basis in my industry is bad government regulation. I can solve all sorts of problems, but a lot of those problems are off-limits as a result of terrible federal regulations that are clearly absurd, and won't be changing any time soon. Worse, these days my global competition doesn't have such absurd regulations to deal with...thus, government regulation can often pick winners/losers even when they naively thought they would be "protecting workers" or other such nonsense. If your life isn't seriously impacted and dependant on navigating government regulation, I don't think you should believe your emotions when they tell you that you know how so-and-so fails hard to understanding free markets/regulations. This is why individual freedom is so critical to long-term market prosperity. The people who really know what's up, are not having to fight what amounts to the political machine that is purely out for its own selfish, power agenda, just to conduct free market activities with willing participants.

Think about it this way, at the very least. When you allow government to interefere significantly in the marketplace, it allows for BAD government intereference as well as GOOD interference. For every good regulation, you have how many bad ones that we don't bother changing, or don't have to support to update to keep pace with global business, that had unintended consequences, that were gutted by lobbyists and are just a drag now, etc. Broad Federal regulation is like building a giant public pool and prohibiting anyone from having a private pool. Sure it's kind of neat on some level to have a pool available, but just enough people piss in the pool to ruin it for everyone...and you can't do anything about it. Thanks but no thanks on most of it.

 

[imagep]

I don't know anyone who really knows a particular industry that does not favor both removing a lot of crappy, damaging, terrifying regulations, and imposing a few better ones in their place.

It's dangerous to generalize regulation/de-regulation from either side. Same thing with "protectionism".

The most damaging thing I deal with on a daily basis in my industry is bad government regulation. I can solve all sorts of problems, but a lot of those problems are off-limits as a result of terrible federal regulations that are clearly absurd, and won't be changing any time soon. Worse, these days my global competition doesn't have such absurd regulations to deal with...thus, government regulation can often pick winners/losers even when they naively thought they would be "protecting workers" or other such nonsense. If your life isn't seriously impacted and dependant on navigating government regulation, I don't think you should believe your emotions when they tell you that you know how so-and-so fails hard to understanding free markets/regulations. This is why individual freedom is so critical to long-term market prosperity. The people who really know what's up, are not having to fight what amounts to the political machine that is purely out for its own selfish, power agenda, just to conduct free market activities with willing participants.

Think about it this way, at the very least. When you allow government to interefere significantly in the marketplace, it allows for BAD government intereference as well as GOOD interference. For every good regulation, you have how many bad ones that we don't bother changing, or don't have to support to update to keep pace with global business, that had unintended consequences, that were gutted by lobbyists and are just a drag now, etc. Broad Federal regulation is like building a giant public pool and prohibiting anyone from having a private pool. Sure it's kind of neat on some level to have a pool available, but just enough people piss in the pool to ruin it for everyone...and you can't do anything about it. Thanks but no thanks on most of it.

I think that most everyone would agree with you, including me, but everytime I ask for examples of bad regulations for specific industries that are holding back growth, it seems like no one can think of any.

 

[Mach]

I think that most everyone would agree with you, including me, but everytime I ask for examples of bad regulations for specific industries that are holding back growth, it seems like no one can think of any.

I doubt they work seriously in industry and have to navigate those regulations, or, they have delegated that function and they only get the earful from their "counsel", and they don't know the specifics (because they are efficient like that).
Some aspects of FLSA is an easy example. Computer programmers don't have to be paid over time. Someone who works on a computer and gets paid more, works from home on a flexible work schedule, has just as much creative involvement and intellectual reward in their career, they may have to be paid over time. So, just hire overseas labor, not only are they less per hour, no OT requirement. I mean, big software/IT firms love it, gives them innate labor advantage...winners and losers imagep, every time.

 

[Xerographica]

How do people go to a university of economics and come out with something that a high school student could do better (and should know better)?

Because it sure is easier to attack strawmen than ironmen......

 

[head of joaquin]

yes please provide your examples of protectionism working,every example i have seen has been protectionism hindering growth,so you must have some awesome examples,now post them.

Pssst: the US had protectionist policies for most of its history. It's done pretty well, hasn't it?

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Pssst: the US had protectionist policies for most of its history. It's done pretty well, hasn't it?

Nope.

 

[Kushinator]

And what happen to South Korea?

You mean an economy that exports 54% of GDP and has very small deficits, public debt and unemployment??? IDK...

 

[beerftw]

You have been given historical examples, and yet there is the need to double down on your error?



Adorable! Are we to believe in perfectly competitive markets are anything other than textbook examples to explain basic macroeconomic concepts? Protecting infant industries has been a vital tool for emerging economies for centuries. This is simply a matter of fact (although there have been examples of poorly instituted protectionist policy, e.g. Brazil's processor push).



You are speaking more gibberish. Come on back when you have properly educated yourself in regards to this subject.

the examples you have given are among the least protectionist countries in the world,south korea and hong kong have heavily shown distrust in protectionism believing it will lead to tariff wars,i even spent a good 20 minutes on google trying to find examples of the asian tigers protectionism,and all i got was page after page explaining the fears of the asian tigers of protectionism.


almost all mainstream economists reject protectionism,as it has historically been shown to be an utter failure,it is essentualy attempting to freeze an economy in place while expecting it to grow,while at the same time expecting its trade partners to have no ill effects to being stabbed in the back.during the depression the smoot hawley tariffs practically destroyed us exports for years,and it never regained itself until the second world war.

protectionism itself is an ideal from mercantilism which is the outdated and inneficient form of capitalism,its idea was that a trade surplus was good for a nation,but fails to aknowledge that maintaining a trade surplus meant your trading partners maintained a trade deficit.this inturn led to numerous wars over economics in europe,or an old saying when goods cant travel across borders armies will.

 

[beerftw]

Pssst: the US had protectionist policies for most of its history. It's done pretty well, hasn't it?

yes and those protectionist policies severely prolonged the depression and also created the robber barons,glad your proud of supporting the most oppressive era in american history while its most prosperous as well as the industrialized world occured after ww2 when most countries abandoned protectionism for free trade.

 

[Kushinator]

i even spent a good 20 minutes on google trying to find examples of the asian tigers protectionism

Perhaps it would do you good to spend more time on the subject. Infant industry protectionism is an established mechanism throughout the developing world. That you were not able to find a source to satisfy your intellectual and partisan bias is of no use to this discussion.