The second you make that a dogma you're in trouble. No, the market is not always a better way of solving social problems than government.
To say that altruism doesn't exist is just laughable. I'd love to hear you elaborate on that.
Do you believe in the free market?
- Thread starter rcoobc
- Start date
The second you make that a dogma you're in trouble. No, the market is not always a better way of solving social problems than government.
To say that altruism doesn't exist is just laughable. I'd love to hear you elaborate on that.
I had an article by the Economist from a few years back that suggested that, but I can't seem to find it. Financial services, healthcare, pharmaceuticals and aviation were the top ones anyway.
If I made it dogma, I would probably be an anarchist. But I'm not. Altruism doesn't exist, I thought this was fairly settled science? Didn't Richard Dawkins bring out the selfish gene in the 80s or something?
The selfish gene has nothing to do with morality. It's an evolutionary theory, not one about good, bad, evil or morals.
Economic theories aren't really concerned with it anyway.
Economic theories aren't really concerned with it anyway.
The economists I read about are nothing like Ben Bernanke. Not many people take as much flack as he does from them.
This is not a valid argument. The fact that banks still take some risks even with regulation does not in any way mean that regulation does nothing. It should go without saying that regulation will be ineffective if someone wilfully decides to ignore the rules and break the law. But that is not an argument against regulation any more than "people still steal" is an argument against having laws against theft.
Hey, I've got an idea: let's remove the Department of Education!
How will the land value tax by itself pay for everything that the government provides?
www.economist.com/news/britain/21578666-britains-youth-are-not-just-more-liberal-their-elders-they-are-also-more-liberal-any
We are utterly, indescribably fecked.
what is Bill gates doing then. What selfish motive does his work in Africa have?
It is a fair argument that regulation does not work though.
"No, you see, everyone else is exactly as sociopathic as I am, they just hide it better." - battlecry of the Libertarian.
So you agree then, that the market is not always the best way to solve social problems?
You're going to have to elaborate further here.. Science can't "settle" that altruism doesn't exist, just like it can't "settle" that free will doesn't exist. It might be philosophically incoherent, but I don't see why. People do altruistic things all the time, at least by my definition of altruism.
If this generation votes Boris Johnson as PM, I'm disowning the feckers.
idiocracy is coming sooner than the movie suggested.
Regulation works better than no regulation at all. In fact, the solution just might be more regulation.
As long as it works, which we have seen on numerous occasions it does not, even more of it.
Depends on the regulation though. Some regulations are good and necessary (and work insofar as they correct the shortcomings of the market), others are bad and unnecessary. It's a word like socialism in that respect.
For example, in a country with a privatized health care system, is making sure that insurance companies don't deny children the right to health care because of preexisting conditions a good regulation? I dare say it is. I've come across Ayn Rand types who think that that's a bad idea though (because they know that once they concede that point, their philosophy falls like a house of cards).
For example, in a country with a privatized health care system, is making sure that insurance companies don't deny children the right to health care because of preexisting conditions a good regulation? I dare say it is. I've come across Ayn Rand types who think that that's a bad idea though (because they know that once they concede that point, their philosophy falls like a house of cards).
How so? In my opinion, and in the opinion of most economists who aren't libertarians or Ben Bernanke, the financial crisis came about because of too weak regulation, as opposed to too much. Otherwise you might as well say that having a blood alcohol driving limit doesn't work because sometimes people go way over and crash.
Free market is not a symbiotic being, it is people.
Regulation is not entity of good, it is people.
soylent green is people.
Regulation is not entity of good, it is people.
soylent green is people.
People aren't entirely good, otherwise there would be no need for concepts of justice and punishment.
And the Department of Energy! You know, the people who are responsible for the country's nuclear weapons. Screw that.
Well, it wouldn't. That is part of the point of why it is the only legitimate form of taxation.
The selfish gene is basically applied game theory, so it has everything to do with economics. I never said anything about morals, I don't believe in them. Morals don't exist and any social theory that tries to enforce a moral paradigm (which most do) is doomed to fail.
To be fair, Bernanke is an idiot, so fair enough.
You haven't told me what regulation does though. Bankers are better placed than anyone else in the economy to get away with breaking regulations. They can breach regulations and be fined billions, which are paid for from taxpayer dollars which are provided to cover their losses - how in the world does this make sense to you? If you think that is good, then I probably have nothing to say to you because you are probably an idiot.
Sorry, I'm drunk and I forgot to answer this bit.
And yes, I would agree with that, somewhat. The market is the best way to solve social problems, but there's nothing to say that in a free market that a centralised company, in certain markets, wouldn't emerge. Like I said, I'm not anarchist. I believe that nation-states of some sort would emerge regardless, but that does not mean I agree with regulations that aren't effective and ill-conceived.
Bill Gates is doing a great thing. And I never said he was selfish. However, all sciences point to organisms behaving in self-interested ways. Not selfish, but self-interested. There is a very big difference between selfish and self-interested. Most left-wing people still haven't fully understood this.
well rephrase the question as self interested then rather than avoid it.
Not sure what you ideological dig was for other than to show your ignorance.
Not sure what you ideological dig was for other than to show your ignorance.
I thought the answer to your question was implied. Yes, Bill Gates is acting in a self-interested, but generous, manner.
You're chatting shit mate. People have a variety of attitudes, from extreme selfishness to extreme generosity. We can conceptualize way beyond our basic instincts. And peoples actions are dictated by the society they live in, more than anything else.
How does that legitimize it? If anything, it proves how ridiculous the idea of only having that form of tax is.
I'd rather be an idiot than a libertarian. At least idiots base their idiocy on reality, whereas libertarians base it on... yeah, you get the picture.
Like I said, it's established science that people act in self-interest - it's genetic. Society, culture, language, love etc are all genetic strategies for self-preservation. Extreme selfishness or extreme generosity, as you put it, are just different manifestations of that self-interest.
As for the LVT, it's quite simply the most efficient form of taxation. It's very difficult to avoid, it creates good outcomes by solving the problem of land in-elasticity and it would be enough to fund the key functions of government and also fund a decent welfare program (which would take the form of a citizens dividend). Look it up.
This is somewhat pedantic, but I really dislike the word 'libertarian'. I'd consider myself a liberal, in the classical sense. And if you want to remain ignorant because of some silly bias, then fair enough!
Andrew, at the end of the day you cited Ron Paul as an authority on the financial crisis over actual economists, so somehow I think I'm not the one who came out of this looking ignorant.
This conversation is starting to get boring, though.
This conversation is starting to get boring, though.
Thats incorrect. The theory is based on an abstraction of reality - so its already a subset of reality and then has the caveat - ceteris paribus - all other things being equal as a convenient get out clause. Studying theory may help in finding real world solutions or looking at possible outcomes but should never be the basis of ideological dogma which I assume you are in support of.
As to Free Markets what do you consider as a Free Market - give me an example.
The term Free Markets has no real basis or meaning other than as a political soundbite.
Richard Dawkins, the biologist who wrote the selfish gene is a lefty who himself says that we can conceptualize beyond that genetic self interest, which as I said, has nothing to do morality or economics. There's a reason who peoples views, attitudes and behaviors vary so wildly.
And I did look it up, I still don't see how it will raise enough money without fecking everything over. People who might own land but make little money for example will be fecked over. People who make vast amounts of money but own very little land will pay practically nothing. That's not progressive, taxing various levels of income at different levels is much more progressive.
When the context is that he saw something all of these other people couldn't, yes. Particularly when you said right before that that the economists I was talking about were wrong, on the basis of... what expertise?
Many people saw the financial crisis coming. Very few serious economists thought it would have (or did have) anything to do with too much regulation. If Ron Paul is an authority on anything it would be medical matters, and even then he said that if someone is dying and has no health insurance, they should be allowed to die.
Many people saw the financial crisis coming. Very few serious economists thought it would have (or did have) anything to do with too much regulation. If Ron Paul is an authority on anything it would be medical matters, and even then he said that if someone is dying and has no health insurance, they should be allowed to die.
The theory of gains from trade explained how countries would be able to trade those goods or services which they had an absolute or comparative advantage. So this brilliant theory why was it so so poor in reality when a country such as the USA which has a higher capital employed per worker than China was importing capital intensive goods - ergo the Leontief Paradox.
Bernanke like Greenspan is a monetarist. It's all pretty pathetic, its like using a little sticking plaster to stop an arterial bleed - they are not dealing with the real issue which is fractional reserve banking and the way it eats away at society.