Flint
Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Sir Toejam:
Quote | and now I'm confused. a true free market system IS a laissez faire system. |
You have proposed a definition here. I would argue that an unregulated market would very quickly become an oligarchy. Free markets require continuous competition. Competition is unnatural and must be enforced. This calls for rather extensive regulation, since it's in the vested interest of the primary economic actors to circumvent such regulation and suppress competition. The result, in evolutionary terms is called an "arms race". It never ends. The primary actors keep finding ways to circumvent competition, the regulators keep stuffing a cork in it.
Quote | what's hard to miss, is my shock that you would actually propose the value of a true free market economy in the face of the utter failure of laisez faire economics throughout history. |
What baffles me is that what I've written could be interpreted as support for such a system. It's not a workable system. Rules are the rule! Anything resembling a free market requires continuous focused regulation. But regardless of the regulation (i.e. no matter how pervasive, how biased or directed, how micromanaged) people will STILL act in their perceived self-interest.
Quote | the same is true of pure democracies, or pure communism. they fail because of the nature of humans, not because in principle the theories or models are flawed, but because they can't take into account the variability and vagaries of human behavior. |
I don't know if this is very defensible, because of both the variation in such systems, and the malleability of human nature. I'm willing to agree that there ARE limits and boundaries to human nature, and that systems pushing the envelope are dubious. Consider: marriages are pretty close to pure communism, but they work. Small towns, deciding things by voice vote at town meetings, are pretty close to pure democracy, but they work. Why? I have my theories, of course, but this question is important. I suggest (as a proposal, not a doctrine) that people as a species evolved in groups large enough to constitute communities (people are gregarious), but small enough so that everyone in the group knew everyone else. In such an environment, morality was important; social status was critical. Social, political, and economic systems were workable in 200-member groups that are NOT workable in 200-million person nations.
Quote | greed is NOT good. this is a myth. |
And THIS is a Doctrine! Greed isn't necessarily bad; context matters. Personally, I think greed is a given. Any practicable market regulation must assume greed. But it can easily be argued that unregulated greed ultimately results in a net loss for the community.
Quote | just like a true democracy, a true free market economy would NOT result in a better standard of living, or a better set of products, than a regulated economy would. |
We're back to battling opinions here. I think "pure" democracy would self-destruct very quickly. I think a "pure" free market would do the same. The "invisible hand" presumes unrestricted competition. When competition doesn't happen, economic benefits become polarized.
Quote | Funny, but I've heard your exact same arguments before; economists and politicians using them were often termed "Social Darwinists". |
Not quite so funny, your ignorance of the subject has resulted in a serious misunderstanding. Ignorance has that effect. "Social Darwinsim" has historically made the bogus claim (by the "haves") that there is a biological justification for the economic and social status quo. Of course, there is no such justification. Economic circumstances have no biological component.
Quote | Oh, and if you want to ever discuss anything with me ever again, or avoid having me hound YOU on every thread, I highly suggest you stop taking this debate to other threads. |
Where direct parallels exist, I will point them out. I hope I've made my point: you've been rather reflexive in dismissing those not knowledgeable in your field, and equally reflexive in dismissing those MORE knowledgeable in THEIR fields. This doesn't reflect well on you.
Quote | How could you possibly understand the value of a classic education if you never had one? |
What do you consider a "classic education"? I'm quite curious. I'd certainly be willing to compete with you in terms of total degrees, total number of degress in different disciplines, total number of areas studied, total number or credit hours, and so forth. I was a "professional student" for *decades*. But perhaps you're equating a "classic educuation" with what YOU studied?
Quote | calling me a creationist is really a form of projection, there Flint. |
I pointed out that the technique you are using is a quintessential creationist technique. Of course I expect your response to be a combination of denial and accusation. That's ANOTHER creatinist technique. What would be dazzlingly NON-creationist would be to say "Maybe you know more about what YOU studied than I do, since I didn't study it." Of course, creationists dismiss knowledge as irrelevant...
Quote | show me any time in history where a true laisez faire economy ever produced a stable and viable result. |
A true laissez faire economy would be extremely unstable, if it were ever attempted. To my knowedge, it never has been. What's amusing to me is that I'm considered a far-left winger on the Ayn Rand-inspired forums, for my insistence that regulation is an absolute necessity. Depressingly, I've never found anyone sophisticated enough to discuss what sorts of regulation are appropriate, what regulatory limits might be imposed, what enonomic consequences might derive from various types of regulation, and so on. Nonetheless, I'm convinced that the KIND of regulation matters. We might wish to discuss this, once the necessities are dispensed with. Meanwhile, real-life politicaians have little choice but to deal with these questions, and do so daily.
Quote | show me any economic periodical that espouses the virtues of a free-market educational system over a public one, and provides data to support such an argument. |
This is a confusing request. I'm not trying to equivocate here, I'm trying to say something. Early in American history, in the days where the frontier was real, education was totally unregulated. Of course, the quality varied with the capabilities of the instructor(s). Whether or not the students of those schools were "better educated" than the students who went through the Eastern Establishment schools is impossible to quantify. Then as now, I would expect the best of either system to far exceed the worst of either system.
But moving up to the present, you still find this a problematical issue. In inner cities, where public schools are battleground day care centers, education is a happy accident. You can easily find home-schooled and private-schooled students who have won national science awards, won national science-fair trophies, won national (you name it - chess competitions, spelling bees, etc.). With even LESS effort, you can find home-schooled students who can't find their ass with both hands. Indeed, the argument against free-market educational systems is that the variation in their success is unacceptably wide. Which is why I supported such systems, but with regulation. I proposed that they be like the college system, where accreditation matters. My unabashed goal is to allow each child to maximize his/her potential. My observation is the public schools for the most part (with exceptions at both extremes) hew to the mundane median; private schools occupy the extremes. I quite sincerely don't know how to inspire both public and private (and home) schools to do a uniformly outstanding job.
Quote | You may have studied some economics texts, but your knowledge of history appears astoundingly bad. |
Accusations like this are hard to credit without any concrete illustrations. All I can say is, I studied both political and economic history extensively, MANY credit hours. I like to think I learned something in those courses. If my knowledge is "astoundingly bad" in comparison to yours, how much political and economic history have YOU studied? If I said that your knowledge of biology were "astoundingly bad" (never having studied it myself), would you feel personally remiss? Or would you dismiss my ignorant conclusions for what they'd be?
Quote | I can only conclude that this is the result of that "lack of classical education" that you espouse as a virtue. |
And I espoused this where?
Quote | stil there Flint? or are you busy trying to invade yet other threads with this? |
No, I'm still taking you seriously and trying to answer you rationally.
Quote | remember, it wasn't me who got mad that folks disagreed with me |
Yes it was, and yes I remember. I haven't become angry at anyone yet. I'm still trying to communicate, rather than taking my ball and going home.
Quote | so who is acting like the creationist? |
so far, YOU have been. In spades. But as I say, I haven't given up.
|