Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

I was explaining something about how "Americans" talk. Explaining to someone how their own culture works can easily come across as insulting.

Anyway, those cases are different. If "it only works in theory" is concluded on the basis of a claim that is itself in dispute, "it only works in theory" isn't an argument against a claim produced by a theory.

"It only works in theory" is used when a claim is known to be true or false. "Communism only works in theory" is about pointing to the poor record of Communism as a governing philosophy. Communism doesn't work is known to be true*. But the people noticing that Communism doesn't work can't find (or can't be bothered to find) holes in Communist theory (to the extent that they're aware of it). So they dismiss the theory by pointing at its poor real-world track record, while acknowledging that the theory may not have any flaws that they can see. They know the flaws are there but can't point to them, such that, if they only knew the theory and didn't have the advantage of the real-world testing of it, they might think that Communism worked.

*Everyone grant this for the moment; it's beside the point.

Ahh! I understand (re the condescending point!)

But your description there just seems to be of unconcerned idiots. Maybe communism IS great, and it's just been employed by flawed people (in the same way jet engines are entirely functional, but not if you give it to an idiot to assemble). Citing a track record but not ascertaining the fault in the theory leaves enormous doubt as to whether there IS a problem with the theory at all. No theroy, beyond perhaps abstract physical laws, pop from the book to being without going through layers of activity, most cruicially of all human incompetence. Some might argue that this itself is a flaw in some plans - that one should assume human incompetence, and any plan that relies on its absence in inherently flawed. Well, maybe, but then say that!

If no one can actually come up with a reason (I've still not watched the video, but here we go: "But the vast majority of companies earn enough money that they never have to choose only to employ people worth $8/hr and not less, and therefore, whilst there will be some exceptions, the reasons given in the argument are, whilst not invalid, not relevant due to the scarcity of their occurence") then it suggests there isn't a flaw, or at least not one anyone here is capable of ascertaining. In which case, arguing against it is like arguing about one's favourite colour.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Ignorance can be a virtue when somebody is seriously proposing that our lives and our family's lives depend on knowing everything in the world. In short, the proposal is impractical. People should obviously educate themselves as much as they can. But proposing a world in which everybody must know everything at peril of death is just silly.

You didn't really answer my question. The upshot of your critique of Libertarianism is that you cannot have a system that relies on people knowing everything about everything (which isn't what Libertarianism is, btw - it does not requirre that, people simply need to know their own desires, but that's not really relevant) which rather suggests that something else will tell people that instead. People won't need to know if a certain type of bleach is dangerous - they will have to trust that someone else is right. I assume that is the state. Well, how far does that reach? Drinking bleach vs not drinking bleach is a relatively simple one (though I'd argue that one should be entirely entitled to do so, knowing the risks of course). What about a preference for a healthy food over an unhealthy food? iOS over Android? One type of art over another? Where does the individuals inability to know all things about all things cease to be of importance in a world where people are demanded to trust a central entity on what they can and cannot consume?

 

[equippedwithtowel]

You didn't really answer my question. The upshot of your critique of Libertarianism is that you cannot have a system that relies on people knowing everything about everything (which isn't what Libertarianism is, btw - it does not requirre that, people simply need to know their own desires, but that's not really relevant) which rather suggests that something else will tell people that instead. People won't need to know if a certain type of bleach is dangerous - they will have to trust that someone else is right. I assume that is the state. Well, how far does that reach? Drinking bleach vs not drinking bleach is a relatively simple one (though I'd argue that one should be entirely entitled to do so, knowing the risks of course). What about a preference for a healthy food over an unhealthy food? iOS over Android? One type of art over another? Where does the individuals inability to know all things about all things cease to be of importance in a world where people are demanded to trust a central entity on what they can and cannot consume?

Does it need to go farther then lead or botulism to be a salient point?

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

If no one can actually come up with a reason (I've still not watched the video, but here we go: "But the vast majority of companies earn enough money that they never have to choose only to employ people worth $8/hr and not less, and therefore, whilst there will be some exceptions, the reasons given in the argument are, whilst not invalid, not relevant due to the scarcity of their occurence") then it suggests there isn't a flaw, or at least not one anyone here is capable of ascertaining. In which case, arguing against it is like arguing about one's favourite colour.

This exact point (using firms such as McDonalds and WalMart as two examples) was mentioned numerous times in this thread.

 

[Gotchaye]

Ahh! I understand (re the condescending point!)

But your description there just seems to be of unconcerned idiots. Maybe communism IS great, and it's just been employed by flawed people (in the same way jet engines are entirely functional, but not if you give it to an idiot to assemble). Citing a track record but not ascertaining the fault in the theory leaves enormous doubt as to whether there IS a problem with the theory at all. No theroy, beyond perhaps abstract physical laws, pop from the book to being without going through layers of activity, most cruicially of all human incompetence. Some might argue that this itself is a flaw in some plans - that one should assume human incompetence, and any plan that relies on its absence in inherently flawed. Well, maybe, but then say that!

If no one can actually come up with a reason (I've still not watched the video, but here we go: "But the vast majority of companies earn enough money that they never have to choose only to employ people worth $8/hr and not less, and therefore, whilst there will be some exceptions, the reasons given in the argument are, whilst not invalid, not relevant due to the scarcity of their occurence") then it suggests there isn't a flaw, or at least not one anyone here is capable of ascertaining. In which case, arguing against it is like arguing about one's favourite colour.

Well, economics is complicated. It wouldn't be surprising if it were hard to point out where a particular theory goes wrong. I think you underestimate the usefulness of track records.

To take an extreme case, "it only works in theory" is a decisive objection in something like mathematics, although it's never put this way. You can have a very long and beautiful proof that no one can find the slightest problem in, but, if the conclusion of the proof is a universal statement, someone finding a clear counterexample to the statement has just blown the whole thing up. In that case, there's no doubt at all that the theory goes wrong somewhere, even if no one has any idea where the mistake is.

Lots of other fields are much messier, of course. But it's still going to be the case that it makes sense to test theories in the real world. If a theory has a very poor record of predictions, then that's a reason to reject it, even if nobody can figure out exactly why it's doing so badly. That's been an enormously fruitful approach in the sciences.

 

[CyclopsRock]

This exact point (using firms such as McDonalds and WalMart as two examples) was mentioned numerous times in this thread.

Great? I was specifically arguing against a person that said "it's ok in theory but not in practice." I wasn't attempting to give a holistic defence by following that avenue of exploration. It was an academic sideline, if anything.

Well, economics is complicated. That's been an enormously fruitful approach in the sciences.

And I think therein lies the problem. Those two statements are almost incompatible. Given the huge number of variables in an economy (your first sentence), there is a lot of data out there for one to argue one position over another - but the "it's ok in theory but not in practice" relies on an objective knowledge of the result (your second sentence) and this is almost always impossible in economics. If one turns up to a debate on liberalism with the argument "libertarianism is wrong because, although it looks good on paper, libertarianism wrong" then, well, we're not learning much!

 

[CyclopsRock]

Does it need to go farther then lead or botulism to be a salient point?

Well, when offered as an alternative, I think it's important. The exitence of flaws in Plan A does not necessitate that Plan B is superior! I've said numerous times that I'm not an anarchist, Randian nutter, so I don't feel too obligated to defend libertarianism to the hilt (given that I support the central spending on healthcare and education), but I think the argument against it presented by EV there - ie that people cannot be expected to know everything and therefore will make incorrect decisions in a market - suggests that the alternative is that someone else make those decisions instead. My query - for the sake of Plan B - was about how far that goes. It's not a black and white issue - bleach might be, though even that isn't entirely. But what about alcohol? Drugs? Cigarettes? Unhealthy food? Technological products? If one cannot be expected to make their own decisions, someone else has to, and I think that requires a supportive explanation before it can be presented as super to Plan A, as it were.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Great? I was specifically arguing against a person that said "it's ok in theory but not in practice." I wasn't attempting to give a holistic defence by following that avenue of exploration. It was an academic sideline, if anything.

Well, you responded to me about this distinction in the first place, even though I explicitly stated that his argument falls apart when large firms like McDonalds and WalMart are taken into account because their revenue far exceeds what they are paying their workers.

You're basically arguing semantics, regardless

 

[Gotchaye]

And I think therein lies the problem. Those two statements are almost incompatible. Given the huge number of variables in an economy (your first sentence), there is a lot of data out there for one to argue one position over another - but the "it's ok in theory but not in practice" relies on an objective knowledge of the result (your second sentence) and this is almost always impossible in economics. If one turns up to a debate on liberalism with the argument "libertarianism is wrong because, although it looks good on paper, libertarianism wrong" then, well, we're not learning much!

I think this is broadly true. It still works when some people make very firm economic claims. If the theory itself has no ability to account for the failed prediction, that's a big problem. This is relevant to lots of things people have said about the financial crisis and austerity. I don't think it's very persuasive (or necessary) with respect to libertarianism writ large.

 

[SouthernDragon]

...a government that gives its people the objective best solution to all problems and desires...

The political spectrum is not 0-1. We can disparage pure command economies and entirely free market economies in favor of gradients along the scale that make sense of that country at that specific point in time.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

That's a nice assertion. I see no reason to think it's true. What's your basis for thinking that a large number of jobs would be created at $6/hour while few jobs now at $10/hour would start paying less?

The minimum wage is a pretty terrible way of helping poor people. Stuff like a negative income tax or even a universal basic income are much better at accomplishing what the minimum wage is trying to do. The first would have the government supplement the income of poor people by a certain amount. The other would be a blanket, livable if meagre wage paid to every single person of working age in the country. Obviously one is more radical than the other; we already have an ersatz negative income tax called the earned income tax credit, whereas the second would require a drastic overhaul of the welfare state and taxation.

The way the politics have worked out on this issue is unfortunate. Many of the people who have sufficient knowledge of economics to help poor people don't give two shits about them. And many who are sincerely concerned about the poor are economically illiterate. So we get counter-productive policies like a minimum wage instead of stuff that will actually help people.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you're not going to either country anytime soon, so this is merely an academic distinction.

I'm studying economics right now, angling for an academic life, and I'm fascinated by the question of how Somalia's anarchy has affected their economy. I'd love to have the opportunity to do some field research there.

Your citation of Sweden as a model economic example amongst your exhortations in favor of libertarianism is quite precious, and a good example of beloved internet phrase "cognitive dissonance."

I do hope you realize that Sweden has a far more generous social safety net than Canada or the United States as well as a much more, shall we say, enthusiastic approach to state economic control & intervention while remaining significantly distinctive from the kind of centrally planned economy that characterizes socialism.

There are other factors beyond their macroeconomic approach that influence the socioeconomic status of the average Swede, of course, absolutely zero of which have anything to do with the kind of libertarian idealism you can read all about on www.learnliberty.org

I don't think anyone is unaware that Sweden has a very generous social welfare state. This particular libertarian-sliding-into-neoliberal-technocrat thinks they should be a model for the world, but I never had much of a problem with the welfare state. But even the hardcore libertarian can take solace in the fact that their generous social services are funded in large part by sound free-market policies.

 

[Yoritomo]

To presume anything about anyones ideology without first discussing the myriad intricacies of their own beliefs and hopes is silly. Only the young and inexperienced fit in buckets because they lack the experience to contemplate nuance and humility in the face of being incorrect about their assumptions.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

I'm studying economics right now, angling for an academic life, and I'm fascinated by the question of how Somalia's anarchy has affected their economy. I'd love to have the opportunity to do some field research there.

Do some anthropology or sociology as well. Economists are terrible scholars.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Do some anthropology or sociology as well. Economists are terrible scholars.

Way ahead of you!

 

[Zaptruder]

Libertarians espouse the maxim of personal responsibility... in order that they may shirk any social responsibility.

Both are important. Both are necessary for successful living and for successful societies.

 

[diffusionx]

I don't think highly of libertarianism. It does strike me as a lazy ideology, a way to sound principled without putting too much thought into anything. Really, it should've been put to rest after thalidomide.

How far are you into your economics study? This Econ 101 stuff is basically right-wing propaganda. The reality is far more nuanced and complex, as we can see in this discussion. There is also a significant social element here, the S-D graph is just a model and models cannot capture everything.

It's not even about minimum wage vs. no minimum wage. I can see both sides of the issue, and generally I'm not in favor of the minimum wage. I'd rather see a much more generous safety net than a minimum wage - but that's not the deal on the table, right? It's not like Republicans are out there offering to exchange universal health care for minimum wage abolishment (which is funny, because both would end up being a huge boon to businesses).

The political debate in this country tends to be about how much we should cut from granny's social security in order to give rich people and military contractors more money. In that context, minimum wage is popular and relatively easy, even Dubya signed a MW increase.

 

[Diatribe1974]

Here's the principals of Libertarianism in a nutshell:

"What a person does in the privacy of their own home, either by themselves or with other consenting adults, as long as no one in that home (or outside of it) is hurt, then it is no one's business what they're doing."

This covers drug use, religion (or lack thereof), sexuality, whatever. We believe that the federal government is there to protect us from foreign threats and outside providing the basic skeletal framework that forms the basic union that forms this country, that much of the rules & laws are kept at a state & local level. We believe in free market capitalism in that you rise & fall on your own merit and that no one is too big to fail. Want to be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Go right ahead and rise to the top! But be warned, if you crash and burn, that unless another private citizen (or private collection of people) comes forth to save your butt, don't expect the government to intervene, others will use your demise as an example of what not to do. We are socially liberal (i.e. maximum freedoms) and fiscally conservative (don't have the money? Don't spend what you don't have then!)

 

[Freshmaker]

You didn't really answer my question. The upshot of your critique of Libertarianism is that you cannot have a system that relies on people knowing everything about everything (which isn't what Libertarianism is, btw - it does not requirre that, people simply need to know their own desires, but that's not really relevant) which rather suggests that something else will tell people that instead. People won't need to know if a certain type of bleach is dangerous - they will have to trust that someone else is right. I assume that is the state. Well, how far does that reach? Drinking bleach vs not drinking bleach is a relatively simple one (though I'd argue that one should be entirely entitled to do so, knowing the risks of course). What about a preference for a healthy food over an unhealthy food? iOS over Android? One type of art over another? Where does the individuals inability to know all things about all things cease to be of importance in a world where people are demanded to trust a central entity on what they can and cannot consume?

I'm more curious as to how the population would obtain all this knowledge if a great percentage of the population was locked out of proper schooling because they couldn't afford a private school.

 

[maharg]

The minimum wage is a pretty terrible way of helping poor people. Stuff like a negative income tax or even a universal basic income are much better at accomplishing what the minimum wage is trying to do.

I don't feel like you'll get a lot of argument from people who currently support minimum wage that there are better ways of dealing with poverty. But, in meagre defence of it as a practical instrument, the problems with price floors in general are seen as a necessary evil because the commodity we're talking about here is people. When there was no minimum wage, many people were paid wages that were effectively below what we'd now consider a liveable wage to do hard work that left them no opportunities to better their lot in life.

Basically the goal of a minimum wage is not to ensure that everyone can be employed at once while making a liveable wage, it's an effort to make exploiting people in that particular way illegal so that, rather than basically live under wage slavery conditions, people use government services to get back on their feet.

It's not perfect, but it's also not something that can be simply dismissed by just posting a picture of a supply/demand graph.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

To presume anything about anyones ideology without first discussing the myriad intricacies of their own beliefs and hopes is silly. Only the young and inexperienced fit in buckets because they lack the experience to contemplate nuance and humility in the face of being incorrect about their assumptions.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I don't think highly of libertarianism. It does strike me as a lazy ideology, a way to sound principled without putting too much thought into anything. Really, it should've been put to rest after thalidomide.



How far are you into your economics study? This Econ 101 stuff is basically right-wing propaganda. The reality is far more nuanced and complex, as we can see in this discussion. There is also a significant social element here, the S-D graph is just a model and models cannot capture everything.

It's not even about minimum wage vs. no minimum wage. I can see both sides of the issue, and generally I'm not in favor of the minimum wage. I'd rather see a much more generous safety net than a minimum wage - but that's not the deal on the table, right? It's not like Republicans are out there offering to exchange universal health care for minimum wage abolishment (which is funny, because both would end up being a huge boon to businesses).

The political debate in this country tends to be about how much we should cut from granny's social security in order to give rich people and military contractors more money. In that context, minimum wage is popular and relatively easy, even Dubya signed a MW increase.

I'm aware that there's more nuances to the debate, but I ain't going to write a dissertation for neogaf.

As for the deal on the table, while not quite as politically popular, the EITC and negative income tax have some significant elite boosters. An Obama administration more concerned with helping poor people than scoring political points wouldn't find it very hard to expand the program.

I don't feel like you'll get a lot of argument from people who currently support minimum wage that there are better ways of dealing with poverty. But, in meagre defence of it as a practical instrument, the problems with price floors in general are seen as a necessary evil because the commodity we're talking about here is people. When there was no minimum wage, many people were paid wages that were effectively below what we'd now consider a liveable wage to do hard work that left them no opportunities to better their lot in life.

Basically the goal of a minimum wage is not to ensure that everyone can be employed at once while making a liveable wage, it's an effort to make exploiting people in that particular way illegal so that, rather than basically live under wage slavery conditions, people use government services to get back on their feet.

It's not perfect, but it's also not something that can be simply dismissed by just posting a picture of a supply/demand graph.

If it were the minimum wage or nothing, I'd absolutely support it. But there are such blindingly obvious substitutes for it that work so much better I can't help but let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this situation. The EITC runs under the radar, and it's much more efficient. It would take very, very little political capital to expand it. I can't help but view the amount of debate and negotiation on the minimum wage as a tragic waste.

 

[Synth_floyd]

It's not lazy but it is either naive or self-serving. If you remove all government regulations then people will use the resulting power vacuum to get as much power as they can and will do all they can to keep as much power as they can.

 

[diffusionx]

I'm aware that there's more nuances to the debate, but I ain't going to write a dissertation for neogaf.

I get that, but here's the thing - the nuances are what matters. Econ 101 graphs are so simplistic as to be virtually useless.

As for the deal on the table, while not quite as politically popular, the EITC and negative income tax have some significant elite boosters. An Obama administration more concerned with helping poor people than scoring political points wouldn't find it very hard to expand the program.

Obama has expanded EITC.

 

[maharg]

I think you're vastly underestimating the political capital that would need to be expended in order to establish a serious negative-tax/minimum-income policy in the US. Even the democrats in congress would probably pan it as a boondoggle.

 

[pigeon]

As for the deal on the table, while not quite as politically popular, the EITC and negative income tax have some significant elite boosters. An Obama administration more concerned with helping poor people than scoring political points wouldn't find it very hard to expand the program.

I agree with you about a negative income tax being superior to raising the minimum wage, but come on now. This is just politically inattentive. Obama DID expand the EITC in the stimulus bill, and repeated the extension in the fiscal cliff deal. In both cases, Republicans fought aggressively against the expansion. And let's not forget the Making Work Pay credit that the GOP killed, forcing it to be replaced by the payroll tax holiday which they then also killed. If the Democrats are fighting for raising the minimum wage now, it's not because they haven't already tried more efficient solutions, it's because the Republicans have blocked those solutions. If you'd prefer a better solution, go vote Democratic! And tell some people about the negative income tax while you're at it.

 

[Gotchaye]

The minimum wage is a pretty terrible way of helping poor people. Stuff like a negative income tax or even a universal basic income are much better at accomplishing what the minimum wage is trying to do. The first would have the government supplement the income of poor people by a certain amount. The other would be a blanket, livable if meagre wage paid to every single person of working age in the country. Obviously one is more radical than the other; we already have an ersatz negative income tax called the earned income tax credit, whereas the second would require a drastic overhaul of the welfare state and taxation.

I certainly agree re: a universal basic income. A negative income tax is a little problematic to the extent that it isn't effectively a universal basic income; it still has the problem that there can be lots of people working and yet not making very much money. It's a whole lot easier to mobilize support for a minimum wage.

But, aside from that, the graph doesn't establish the point I was questioning. I've acknowledged already in this thread that the minimum wage probably has some negative effects. The issue, even limiting ourselves to micro analysis, is whether those outweigh the good. Yeah, the minimum wage probably reduces surplus. But, depending on what those curves really look like, it might provide more surplus to classes of people that we want to help more. We're not choosing among all possible policies. We're choosing among politically feasible policies. Practically everything that makes the working class and poor better off and which is politically feasible should be pursued. And to move on to macro analysis, obviously it isn't as simple as an intersecting supply and demand curve make it seem, and it's not inconceivable that a higher minimum wage is better for everyone, long-term (I'm not arguing that it is, just that it's easy to tell a macro story where this is true).

 

[equippedwithtowel]

Here's the principals of Libertarianism in a nutshell:

What a person does in the privacy of their own home, either by themselves or with other consenting adults, as long as no one in that home (or outside of it) is hurt, then it is no one's business what they're doing.

This covers drug use, religion (or lack thereof), sexuality, whatever. We believe that the federal government is there to protect us from foreign threats and outside providing the basic skeletal framework that forms the basic union that forms this country, that much of the rules & laws are kept at a state & local level. We believe in free market capitalism in that you rise & fall on your own merit and that no one is too big to fail. Want to be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? Go right ahead and rise to the top! But be warned, if you crash and burn, that unless another private citizen (or private collection of people) comes forth to save your butt, don't expect the government to intervene, others will use your demise as an example of what not to do. We are socially liberal (i.e. maximum freedoms) and fiscally conservative (don't have the money? Don't spend what you don't have then!)

People know all that. It's still a philosophy that completely ignores the advantages conferred by a strong centralized state with heavy market involvement, and involves ridiculous misunderstandings to the supposed advantages of abandoning that.


Without strong public schools how are you going to ensure a large and well educated workforce?
Would you destroy social security for the elderly?
Without a social safety net workers will fall out of the system and not return, this is beneficial how?
What's to stop a bank from engaging in fraudulent practices and hurting individual citizens?
Do Bill Gates and Steve Jobs also not need thousands of workers who must to be guaranteed a living wage so they can contribute to the consumer economy?
Is a privately run police department really going to be able to effectively police a major american city with only private funding?
Who is going to enforce product standards so our Kraft peanut butter is not infested with botulinum?
The libertarian paradise is actually a plutocratic hell-hole waiting to happen

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

To presume anything about anyones ideology without first discussing the myriad intricacies of their own beliefs and hopes is silly. Only the young and inexperienced fit in buckets because they lack the experience to contemplate nuance and humility in the face of being incorrect about their assumptions.

Right on, man.

 

[ProudClod]

how?

It's simply good business.

Let's say it costs $5 dollars to produce Product A (manufacturing, packing, delivery, promotion, etc.), and it sells for $10. Let's say all producers of Product A (let's call them Oligarchy X) get together in an evil bid for power and decide to unanimously change the price of Product A to $20. Because prices increases without cost, the additional revenue is pure profit. Assuming there is no regulation, or legal barrier of entry into product A's market, the overzealous Oligarchy X's pricing of Product A would actually be creating an incredible market opportunity for newcomers into the business. New producers of Product A would get rich selling it for $10. Or $15. Or even $19. Oligarchy X would then be forced to lower their prices to remain competitive, or to convince consumers that their version of Product A is of higher fidelity, enough so to justify the price discrepancy. How long would a pricing fixing agreement last in these conditions? Probably not long at all.

It may not happen instantly, but any half-decent businessman would understand the value of entering Product A's market if its prices across the board were arbitrarily inflated to boost profits.

The problem occurs when, in order to sell Product A, you need approval of Govt Agency Y. In this system, someone with enough money could lobby, contribute to political campaigns, and flat-out bribe their way into achieving and maintaing a monopoly/oligopoly. This is where business in America has failed. No one can compete with Standard and Poor's, Fitch, or Moody's because they managed to lobby the right people, contribute to the right campaigns, and bribe their way into a non-competitive market.

 

[maharg]

Alright, now let's say we're talking about diamonds and one company has managed to buy every diamond mine in the world and there are no more easy diamond mines to be found. There might be a few places where diamonds can be dug up, but they're incredibly expensive to mine (unstable ground, extremely hard soil, permafrost, whatever) and the big company that owns the existing mines is perfectly happy to buy the land up and sit on it (which means it's far more valuable to them than it is to a potential competitor). Meanwhile, they've managed to run a successful worldwide ad campaign to convince people that both used and artificial diamonds are not only worth anywhere near as much, but also an insult to give to a loved one.

Where's the competition?

 

[ProudClod]

Alright, now let's say we're talking about diamonds and one company has managed to buy every diamond mine in the world and there are no more easy diamond mines to be found. There might be a few places where diamonds can be dug up, but they're incredibly expensive to mine (unstable ground, extremely hard soil, permafrost, whatever) and the big company that owns the existing mines is perfectly happy to buy the land up and sit on it (which means it's far more valuable to them than it is to a potential competitor). Meanwhile, they've managed to run a successful worldwide ad campaign to convince people that both used and artificial diamonds are not only worth anywhere near as much, but also an insult to give to a loved one.

Where's the competition?

Sorry, was too inebriated to respond properly the first time. Plus, doesn't help that I know little about the diamond industry.

But, here I go again. I don't really see what the problem is in this scenario. Although buying every diamond mine in the world is a pretty ridiculous task, the consequences would be fairly unsubstantial. A monopoly in diamonds doesn't really hurt the consumer at all. Nobody has to buy diamonds. If people choose to buy them, they do so in a symbolic gesture of their wealth and status. Or because they're idiots who fell for a good marketing campaign. But neither of those things make the monopoly inherently bad. Nor do they disprove the efficacy of a free market.

 

[The Librarian]

In Sweden, there is no minimum wage. Their average salary is higher than Canada and USA. Minimum wage hinders the market, shoots down the less skilled worker (that it is supposed to help). See the videos about minimum wage on www.learnliberty.org

I can't you believe you just used Sweden to try to argue in favor of libertarianism.

 

[bomma_man]

Do some anthropology or sociology as well. Economists are terrible scholars.

Everyone should have to do economics and sociology in high school, it would make a world of difference to the quality of the electorate.

 

[antipod]

In Sweden, there is no minimum wage. Their average salary is higher than Canada and USA. Minimum wage hinders the market, shoots down the less skilled worker (that it is supposed to help). See the videos about minimum wage on www.learnliberty.org

While we do not have a minimum wage set by our government (or any local governments) here in Sweden, the minimum wage is highly regulated by the unions and the collective wage agreements.

 

[Opiate]

The reason why libertarianism is impracticable is as simple as this: http://www.cpsc.gov/onsafety/2011/06/the-new-crib-standard-questions-and-answers/

It is not possible for individual consumers to make good purchasing decisions in an unregulated market. Not possible, as in impossible. Why? Individual consumers cannot be experts in everything. They do not know--and cannot reasonably be expected to know--what a safe distance between slats in a baby crib is. They do not know--and cannot be expected to know--what ingredients in food or materials in goods are carcinogenic. They do not know--and cannot be expected to know--whether any given food they buy has been grown and stored safely until the point of sale. Nor would it even be desirable for every citizen to know these things. It would require economic standstill to require every individual in a society to become an expert in every conceivable topic that could negatively affect them or their family in terms of products that they consume. There would no longer be time for work if we all had to become scientists in every conceivable scientific field.

Not only that, even if we did all become experts in every conceivable subject impacting our safety with respect to products we buy, without regulation--i.e., without social planning--we would still be at the mercy of the sellers of those products concealing relevant information about them.

Libertarianism doesn't require more than a handful of seconds of critical thought to reject.

I would add two things to this.

1) This will only become increasingly true as time goes on. As recently as 100 years ago, a typical person could look around his room and understand how everything inside it worked. He would not have electricity, computers, a television, a DVD collection; much or all of the stuff would be things made by hand and for which the design would be readily understood. As time goes on, more information is produced and more things with more complex designs become increasingly common.

2) The reason we wouldn't trust a private, for profit entity to provide this information is that the incentives don't line up properly. Sometimes, incentives do line up: for example, a comfortable shoe is something a potential buyer can usually discern immediately when buying shoes, and thus it is in the company's interest to actually make a comfortable shoe because it legitimately increases their chances of a sale. By contrast, through most of the 1900s, the carcinogenic properties of cigarettes were not something a typical consumer would readily identify, and as such are not something that companies had a strong incentive to divulge. In fact, it was in the company's financial interest to not inform customers for as long as possible.

 

[Flatline]

You didn't really answer my question. The upshot of your critique of Libertarianism is that you cannot have a system that relies on people knowing everything about everything (which isn't what Libertarianism is, btw - it does not requirre that, people simply need to know their own desires, but that's not really relevant) which rather suggests that something else will tell people that instead. People won't need to know if a certain type of bleach is dangerous - they will have to trust that someone else is right. I assume that is the state. Well, how far does that reach? Drinking bleach vs not drinking bleach is a relatively simple one (though I'd argue that one should be entirely entitled to do so, knowing the risks of course). What about a preference for a healthy food over an unhealthy food? iOS over Android? One type of art over another? Where does the individuals inability to know all things about all things cease to be of importance in a world where people are demanded to trust a central entity on what they can and cannot consume?

The entire post is a big false equivalence. Empty vessel made a specific point and even gave an example in that post and you're just trying to muddy the waters with ridiculous comparisons. We know we can't drink bleach it's common sense and it's even in the label of the product, what we don't know is the study that says that a specific bleach product has been proven slightly cancerous when it comes in contact with skin. That's where the government is necessary to protects us from the greed and irresponsibility of corporations.

which isn't what Libertarianism is, btw - it does not requirre that, people simply need to know their own desires, but that's not really relevant

Here you don't even explain how what ev said is wrong, you're just saying he's wrong.

 

[Zaptruder]

Sorry, was too inebriated to respond properly the first time. Plus, doesn't help that I know little about the diamond industry.

But, here I go again. I don't really see what the problem is in this scenario. Although buying every diamond mine in the world is a pretty ridiculous task, the consequences would be fairly unsubstantial. A monopoly in diamonds doesn't really hurt the consumer at all. Nobody has to buy diamonds. If people choose to buy them, they do so in a symbolic gesture of their wealth and status. Or because they're idiots who fell for a good marketing campaign. But neither of those things make the monopoly inherently bad. Nor do they disprove the efficacy of a free market.

Words of a man without insight into how our reality *actually* works.

Who needs diamonds when they're expensive status baubles? No one.

Who could use diamonds if they were a cheap form of material? Plenty of people.

We invent uses for materials and objects befitting their economic justifiability. If diamonds prices are artificially high, beyond the worth of their material property, no one is going to bother innovating in the use of diamonds.

Of course, we do have alternative uses for diamonds, but the salient question is: What more uses could we have for this material with such interesting properties? It'd be difficult to answer in theory.

 

[Gotchaye]

Sorry, was too inebriated to respond properly the first time. Plus, doesn't help that I know little about the diamond industry.

But, here I go again. I don't really see what the problem is in this scenario. Although buying every diamond mine in the world is a pretty ridiculous task, the consequences would be fairly unsubstantial. A monopoly in diamonds doesn't really hurt the consumer at all. Nobody has to buy diamonds. If people choose to buy them, they do so in a symbolic gesture of their wealth and status. Or because they're idiots who fell for a good marketing campaign. But neither of those things make the monopoly inherently bad. Nor do they disprove the efficacy of a free market.

This is just nonsense. First, you're saying that monopolies aren't a problem to the extent that nobody "has to buy" the good in question. Second, that many people are willing to buy diamonds at a price that someone would be willing to accept in order to dig diamonds out of the ground but can't because a monopoly producer is able to prevent new entries, and so instead many fewer people buy diamonds at a much higher price, is textbook inefficiency. I have no idea how, after granting the possibility of the scenario, you can say with a straight face that that doesn't "disprove the efficacy of a free market", at least for perfect efficiency of the sort you were pushing earlier. I think you were probably still too inebriated to respond properly.

 

[Jasup]

I would like to argue... but this guy explains it so much better than I could : http://youtu.be/Ct1Moeaa-W8

Ok, let's assume that instead of burgers Al, Bob and Carl manufacture car parts for a corporate client. The contract is for 300 car parts per hour.

Now, even if the profit margins stay the same, as well as the productivity and the vages it would be stupid to fire Carl because of him costing more than he produces - without him the overall production wouldn't satisfy the demand of the client and the contract would be lost. Making less profit is still more profitable than making no profit at all.

 

[Ikael]

Libertarianism fails to address several issues:

- Information asymetry between the producer and consumer, seller and buyer

- Self perpatuating monopolies. See also: why Ordoliberalism was born in the first place. Seriously, ordoliberalism is libertarianism done right. Not that they would ever recognice it, though

- The fact that humans are rarely rational animals, even when making economic decisions (please do read "Thinking fast and slow" for more dettails)

- The ever present tragedy of the commons

- The very obvious, common sense fact that we humans are born defensless and thus need parental protection at least on the early stages of our lives, far more than any other animal of this planet

And these are just the first ones that came to mind in 5 minutes. Libertarianism, pretty much like any other "one size fits all" type of ideology based not on its practical repercussions and application in the real world but rather in a higher moral ground plane (seriously, what is up with all these people in dire need of feeling morally superior?) it is bound to crash and fail horribly, pretty much like its demonized communism did.

 

[Tawpgun]

Let me do what I want + Fuck you I got mine = Libertarianism.

They put as much misguided faith into human nature as communism.

 

[Hellraizah]

Ok, let's assume that instead of burgers Al, Bob and Carl manufacture car parts for a corporate client. The contract is for 300 car parts per hour.

Now, even if the profit margins stay the same, as well as the productivity and the vages it would be stupid to fire Carl because of him costing more than he produces - without him the overall production wouldn't satisfy the demand of the client and the contract would be lost. Making less profit is still more profitable than making no profit at all.

Yes, but you'll want to replace him with a more productive worker. To him, the result is the same, he loses is job.

 

[empty vessel]

Yes, but you'll want to replace him with a more productive worker. To him, the result is the same, he loses is job.

Why wouldn't you want to do that anyway?

 

[Jasup]

Yes, but you'll want to replace him with a more productive worker. To him, the result is the same, he loses is job.

I could do that before the rise of the minimum wage to gain more profit, so the result would be the same for him regardles.

Also, how would rise in productivity affect my profit if the demand for the service I provide stays the same? I can make the workers work less hours so that I can save on their salaries to get more profit, which would be a viable option. I could do that regardless the rise in minimum wage making my workers effectively make less money while I reap the benefits.

 

[ProudClod]

Words of a man without insight into how our reality *actually* works.

Who needs diamonds when they're expensive status baubles? No one.

Who could use diamonds if they were a cheap form of material? Plenty of people.

We invent uses for materials and objects befitting their economic justifiability. If diamonds prices are artificially high, beyond the worth of their material property, no one is going to bother innovating in the use of diamonds.

Of course, we do have alternative uses for diamonds, but the salient question is: What more uses could we have for this material with such interesting properties? It'd be difficult to answer in theory.

Perhaps I was too lenient on the scenario in my post. Fairly disappointing to see intelligent discussion devolve to hostility.

Let me spell this out for you: the hypothetical example discussed is absolutely absurd. It does not represent anything close to reality. In fact, in order to build such a wholesome monopoly, the system could not be a free market. It seems to me that it is you who does not have an insight into how reality (or economics) works. De Beers never amassed anything close to 100%. DeBeers, which only owns 40-50% of the diamond market, has utilized every possible anti-free market advantage available to them to reach such a level of control. Their relationship with the governments of Botswana and Namibia is an example of these tactics. If the market was truly free, and De Beers was unable to manipulate local governments, they would have never gained such control over the diamond industry. The hypothetical was talking about a near 100% monopoly (which, as I mentioned above, is absurd).

My response was a hypothetical one, to a purely hypothetical situation. If (and this will never happen in a free market) such a monopoly is achieved, it would be unfortunate on a purely intellectual level. The real world repercussions for an average consumer would be negligible. But once again, in case you are having a hard time understanding--such a monopoly has not existed, and cannot exist without some sort of the manipulation of central authorities (like governments).

 

[Flatline]

Perhaps I was too lenient on the scenario in my post. Fairly disappointing to see intelligent discussion devolve to hostility.

Let me spell this out for you: the hypothetical example discussed is absolutely absurd. It does not represent anything close to reality. In fact, in order to build such a wholesome monopoly, the system could not be a free market. It seems to me that it is you who does not have an insight into how reality (or economics) works. De Beers never amassed anything close to 100%. DeBeers, which only owns 40-50% of the diamond market, has utilized every possible anti-free market advantage available to them to reach such a level of control. Their relationship with the governments of Botswana and Namibia is an example of these tactics. If the market was truly free, and De Beers was unable to manipulate local governments, they would have never gained such control over the diamond industry. The hypothetical was talking about a near 100% monopoly (which, as I mentioned above, is absurd).

My response was a hypothetical one, to a purely hypothetical situation. If (and this will never happen in a free market) such a monopoly is achieved, it would be unfortunate on a purely intellectual level. The real world repercussions for an average consumer would be negligible. But once again, in case you are having a hard time understanding--such a monopoly has not existed, and cannot exist without some sort of the manipulation of central authorities (like governments).

That's what corporations do, they exploit every anti-free market or anti-consumer advantage to make as much profit as possible. That's why we keep trying to explain to you that the free market is a fantasy, governments aren't the only ones that manipulate this mythical "free market" corporations and especially banks do exactly the same probably even more so thanks to cartels and monopolies.

Btw the fact that you consider a requirement for a true free market the end of third world corruption makes the ideology even more absurd.

 

[maharg]

De Beers has lost a significant amount of control over the last few years, but as far as I know they did have something approaching a real monopoly before this century began. They did not own all the suppliers of diamonds, but they exercised extreme control over almost all distribution of diamonds. And while the origin of their control came from state-relationships, their control outside of those particular states came from their overwhelming amount of supply and money. Similar situations can arise from companies moving into new categories, for example.

That aside, though, you haven't actually explained why such a situation is impossible sans government involvement. The situation arises naturally from scarcity. For example, consider radio frequencies. Without government involvement, how can you possibly say that a monopoly on the limited resource that is the usable radio spectrum can't arise? What would stop one company from buying it up or forcing competitors off the air through other means?

You and other libertarians treat the impossibility of a natural monopoly as axiomatic without ever bothering to actually prove the case. When faced with even a hypothetical scenario you just trot out "it's always the government" as if it answered anything at all.

 

[Gotchaye]

You and other libertarians treat the impossibility of a natural monopoly as axiomatic without ever bothering to actually prove the case. When faced with even a hypothetical scenario you just trot out "it's always the government" as if it answered anything at all.

An aside on this: there's a place for ideal theory. It's not wrong to talk about how things would be great if everyone did X, Y, and Z. But policy prescriptions don't follow straightforwardly from ideal theory.

Lots of libertarians seem to miss this point. ProudClod seems like a good example. I get the very strong impression that statements like "if the market was truly free, and De Beers was unable to manipulate local governments, they would have never gained such control over the diamond industry" are motivating policy preferences like "governments should get out of the diamond industry". He doesn't seem aware that he's doing ideal theory, given assertions that his theorizing is about how "reality" and "economics" work. If he's not actually intending to suggest anything about what real people should actually do, then I'm misreading him and I hope he makes that clear.

But that seems to me to be where the disconnect is. ProudClod is saying "in a perfect free market this wouldn't happen", where "perfect free market" is doing the same sort of work that "communist society" does in other sorts of ideal theory. It's a utopian ideal. Others are pointing out that even if you could magic this perfect free market into existence, it would not be stable given people as they are now and would rapidly give rise to authoritarian proto-states (perhaps arising out of large corporations) and mass exploitation. Bridging this gap is something that Communists have historically been a lot less lazy about than libertarians - they've actually come up with suggestions for achieving the transition to a stable utopia, even if dictatorships of the proletariat have not been very successful to date.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a libertarian actually attempting to work out how to make sure that, once we get rid of nearly all government, it doesn't come back. As a practical theory, it's no good to say that if a government crops up and ruins everything, then that's not really libertarianism's fault. It's absolutely a problem with practical libertarianism if perfect free markets last for all of five minutes before becoming hellish, even if the reason that they become hellish is that people stupidly decide to form something like a government. If much worse government than what we have now is the likely consequence of right now adopting the sorts of policies hardcore libertarians favor, then that's an excellent reason not to adopt those policies.

 

[maharg]

An aside on this: there's a place for ideal theory. It's not wrong to talk about how things would be great if everyone did X, Y, and Z. But policy prescriptions don't follow straightforwardly from ideal theory.

Lots of libertarians seem to miss this point. ProudClod seems like a good example. I get the very strong impression that statements like "if the market was truly free, and De Beers was unable to manipulate local governments, they would have never gained such control over the diamond industry" are motivating policy preferences like "governments should get out of the diamond industry". He doesn't seem aware that he's doing ideal theory, given assertions that his theorizing is about how "reality" and "economics" work. If he's not actually intending to suggest anything about what real people should actually do, then I'm misreading him and I hope he makes that clear.

But that seems to me to be where the disconnect is. ProudClod is saying "in a perfect free market this wouldn't happen", where "perfect free market" is doing the same sort of work that "communist society" does in other sorts of ideal theory. It's a utopian ideal. Others are pointing out that even if you could magic this perfect free market into existence, it would not be stable given people as they are now and would rapidly give rise to authoritarian proto-states (perhaps arising out of large corporations) and mass exploitation. Bridging this gap is something that Communists have historically been a lot less lazy about than libertarians - they've actually come up with suggestions for achieving the transition to a stable utopia, even if dictatorships of the proletariat have not been very successful to date.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a libertarian actually attempting to work out how to make sure that, once we get rid of nearly all government, it doesn't come back. As a practical theory, it's no good to say that if a government crops up and ruins everything, then that's not really libertarianism's fault. It's absolutely a problem with practical libertarianism if perfect free markets last for all of five minutes before becoming hellish, even if the reason that they become hellish is that people stupidly decide to form something like a government. If much worse government than what we have now is the likely consequence of right now adopting the sorts of policies hardcore libertarians favor, then that's an excellent reason not to adopt those policies.

I agree with all of this. And I'm, frankly, quite sympathetic to some degree of libertarian or anarchic notion of limited government. But I think that in the real world you have to recognize that a perfectly efficient market is also not necessarily a comfortable place to live.

 

[CLEEK]

Libertarianism is just the politics of selfishness. I've got mine, fuck you if you ain't got yours.

Smaller, more effective government is a great thing to strive for. But a cumbersome, big government is by far the better trade off if it gives you protection for the more vulnerable, consumer rights, employee rights, anti-trust laws, regulation that protects individuals, the economy, the environment, ensures equal justice and social security for all etc. None of which you'd get through Libertarianism