• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Libertarians fail so hard at economics I can't even

Kushinator said:
You mean an economy that exports 54% of GDP and has very small deficits, public debt and unemployment??? IDK...
Click to expand...

I mean a country that got bailed out by the IMF. ;)

But I also question Government's ability to decide when a "infant industry" isn't one or when does costs to the state out weight national ego.
 
Last edited:
beerftw said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey kids, a meme!

The issue is do protectionists policies help or harm a nation that follows them. The answer is, it depends. Nations attempting to kick start new industries are usually benefited from some protectionism.

So your market evangelist religious doctrine has been proved false again.
 
Every single powerful industry was the beneficiary of help from the government: railroads (free land and free chinese labor), airplanes (army paying for most advancements, even hiring Wright brothers), automobiles (with creation of roads, highways etc.), computers (internet technology), aerospace technology, green technology, oil (highly subsidized).

To deny that the US has benefited from this is like denying you need oxygen to breathe.
 
yea, but you seem to forget where government gets the money to do all this... we all get so easily distracted by whats in front of us that we seldom notice the opportunity costs of our decisions. we all know government is inefficient at best and extremely wasteful at most of what it does, yet the prospect that an alternative to government solutions would likely be more productive is ridiculed... go figure.
 
skreetsmart said:
yea, but you seem to forget where government gets the money to do all this... we all get so easily distracted by whats in front of us that we seldom notice the opportunity costs of our decisions. we all know government is inefficient at best and extremely wasteful at most of what it does, yet the prospect that an alternative to government solutions would likely be more productive is ridiculed... go figure.
Click to expand...

You are assuming the private sector is more efficient. When 75% of business start ups fail within 3 years, that doesn't bode well for arguing that the private sector is more efficient. But alas I am not saying government is better at it, just that it is better at getting money to areas that need it more.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
You are assuming the private sector is more efficient. When 75% of business start ups fail within 3 years, that doesn't bode well for arguing that the private sector is more efficient. But alas I am not saying government is better at it, just that it is better at getting money to areas that need it more.
Click to expand...

It's 100% efficient a picking winners or losers.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Every single powerful industry was the beneficiary of help from the government: railroads (free land and free chinese labor), airplanes (army paying for most advancements, even hiring Wright brothers), automobiles (with creation of roads, highways etc.), computers (internet technology), aerospace technology, green technology, oil (highly subsidized).

To deny that the US has benefited from this is like denying you need oxygen to breathe.
Click to expand...

Oil wasn't subsidized until 1916. Long after the industry was in fact a giant.
 
austrianecon said:
It's 100% efficient a picking winners or losers.
Click to expand...

LOL, which means nothing. Who wins when McDonalds feeds many but poisons them? Who wins when Monsanto feeds billions but poisons them? Who wins when banks fail and get bailed out?

Oh wait somehow you will say this aint free market. LOL.
 
People have trouble understanding the difference between the simplistic assumptions of macro 101 and reality. It is what it is....
 
gavinfielder said:


"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)?
Click to expand...

What do you believe to be the vital function of the price system?
 
head of joaquin said:
Hey kids, a meme!

The issue is do protectionists policies help or harm a nation that follows them. The answer is, it depends. Nations attempting to kick start new industries are usually benefited from some protectionism.

So your market evangelist religious doctrine has been proved false again.
Click to expand...
The protected companies benefit, not necessarily the consumers or the nation as a whole.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Actually they were given free land as well...
Click to expand...


Wrong, wrong wrong. The Oil industry in the US started with Drake and Bissell (Seneca Oil) well in 1859. The owner of the land was Jonathan Watson and he become a millionaire overnight.
The industry boomed without subsidies under Astral Oil and Charles Pratt which ended up in Standard Oil under John. D Rockefeller.

The first Government subsidies to Oil and Gas took place in 1916 in which the Wilson Admin wanted to prepare for WW1 and they did this by offering tax benefits and land to oil companies.
History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century - Yahoo! News

Almost 60 years after the first oil well.. and I disagree with the term "fledgling".
 
JP Hochbaum said:
You are assuming the private sector is more efficient. When 75% of business start ups fail within 3 years, that doesn't bode well for arguing that the private sector is more efficient. But alas I am not saying government is better at it, just that it is better at getting money to areas that need it more.
Click to expand...

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

The government is not better at getting money to areas that need it more. That very notion took an empire on par with the US and destroyed it.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
LOL, which means nothing. Who wins when McDonalds feeds many but poisons them? Who wins when Monsanto feeds billions but poisons them? Who wins when banks fail and get bailed out?

Oh wait somehow you will say this aint free market. LOL.
Click to expand...

Actually.. I'd say McDonalds and Monsanto is free market, just stupid consumers. Banks getting bailed out is not Free Market.. to say so is idiocy.
 
austrianecon said:
Actually.. I'd say McDonalds and Monsanto is free market, just stupid consumers. Banks getting bailed out is not Free Market.. to say so is idiocy.
Click to expand...

True enough, the bailout was not an example of the free market. McD's and Monsanto, while freely operating businesses, do generally degrade a nation's economic freedom index by making it more difficult for entrepreneurs to break into their markets.

Monsanto especially, with the FDA at its back. The FDA hasn't promoted free market agriculture in a long time.
...Oh wait, that applies to McDonalds too. "Meat" gets free passes.
 
austrianecon said:
Actually.. I'd say McDonalds and Monsanto is free market, just stupid consumers. Banks getting bailed out is not Free Market.. to say so is idiocy.
Click to expand...
Sorry I baited you with that one. What do you think benefits society more, McDonalds/Monsanto (free market choices) or banks (state sponsored)?
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Sorry I baited you with that one. What do you think benefits society more, McDonalds/Monsanto (free market choices) or banks (state sponsored)?
Click to expand...

Define benefit. Economically? Socially (which we'll end up arguing about)?
 
gavinfielder said:
I think the notion that economically beneficial and socially beneficial are two separate criteria is decidedly not beneficial for society.
Click to expand...

What I mean is specifically what is JP looking for.. I am not saying they are mutually exclusive but rather what is the priority to him. Does the egg come before the chicken or the chicken before the egg.
 
austrianecon said:
What I mean is specifically what is JP looking for.. I am not saying they are mutually exclusive but rather what is the priority to him. Does the egg come before the chicken or the chicken before the egg.
Click to expand...
(if he's gone for the night) I'm sure if he had to choose he'd pick socially beneficial. That's kinda the whole moral theme behind the MMT movement.
 
Kushinator said:
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.
Click to expand...

infant industry protectionism itself is a failure in almost every instance.the idea itself that a business cant survive without protection in free trade is hardly a valid idea,once again going back to arcane ideals never really proven valid,yet tried and tried again.in almost every instance,it leads to innefficient bussiness that requires further protection to survive its entire lifespan,due to the fact creating an innefficient industry protected against competition allows for a industry that isnt able to compete or survive without govt protection.



further i asked for your proof last post,and i get well wheres your proof??????your theory is already rejected by mainstream economics which should be enough to warrant the need for evidence,while even the more liberal economists who reject austrian school also reject protectionism.the very idea that the only way to compete is to be non competitive is laughable.


even further infant protectionism has shown to be a failre in once infant industries still requiring govt protection to this day,like railroad companies,airlines,farming,oil etc,some like oil are very profitable and recieve protection,whereas farming was profitable but made unprofitable by quotas,forcing out family farms over decades and allowing more corporate farms,who cant survive without being subsidized.

Why have most cases of infant-industry protection failed to generate benefits in terms of economic development? | Salamat Ali - Academia.edu

ill have to find the study,but i believe it was kreuger who studied empirical evidence on infant industry protectionism,and the evidence shown that countries that used those policies experience much slower growth than those who didnt practice it,simply because those countries that protected industriess protected non competitive behavior,which meant industries never matured.
 
head of joaquin said:
Hey kids, a meme!

The issue is do protectionists policies help or harm a nation that follows them. The answer is, it depends. Nations attempting to kick start new industries are usually benefited from some protectionism.

So your market evangelist religious doctrine has been proved false again.
Click to expand...


hmmm evidence shows it doesnt help any of those industries mature,but infact impedes growth and causes them to be uncompetitive,thats why we are subsidizing infants industries over a hundred years later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom