Ninja Economics

[NinjaEdit]

Australia has a significantly higher minimum wage, but we aren't suffering.

[magma]

Yeah, I don't get why the pro-free market view is often all or nothing and any problems that arise can be attributed to the system being not free enough. At that point you're essentially interested in how an economy should work instead of what economics is suppose to be about and learning how the economy does work.. in reality, here and now.

It seems to almost willfully ignore the fact that an economy at its most fundamental is made up of human beings rather than computers and as such, will ALWAYS be slightly illogical and imperfect. Individuals will be selfish. Individuals will make mistakes. Individuals will act on whims and fancies. Individuals will ALWAYS 'pollute' the pure green pastures of capitalism. Pure capitalism can never be achieved; the only thing the theory does is afford people a simplistic pseudo-high-minded mantra they can repeat for the rest of their lives without having to think about the real world, much like a fundamentalist dogma.

[Genevieve]

It seems to almost willfully ignore the fact that an economy at its most fundamental is made up of human beings rather than computers and as such, will ALWAYS be slightly illogical and imperfect..

Nope, that's what Austrian school economics is based on. And perfect central economic planning can't take into account each individual's economic wants, needs and actions. People not being computers (that's libertarian lingo) makes government action too complex for central economic planning, since decent planning requires knowledge of all the variables, which are lacking. This is why Austrians don't believe empiricism lends itself to economics the way it does to physics.

So sorry, but you still have not done your homework on libertarianism, the way you haven't over 2 years ago. And I don't think you want to, because you don't give a shit. Which is respectable enough. People can care whatever they want to care about, but you seem overly confident in your capabilities to criticize it, despite your total lack of understanding of it.

[magma]

I don't give a shit about Sharia Law either. It's about as likely to be introduced.

Can you give an example of a country where Libertarianism has been effectively (i.e. perfectly) introduced?

[Genevieve]

I don't give a shit about Sharia Law either.

Yeah, and that's what makes you as unqualified to debate it. I'm glad we agree.

[magma]

It's true, I do tend to avoid arguments about religion because you can't get around faith with logic. I think I'll regard Libertarianism as a religion from now on. Enjoy your faith in impossible perfection.

[Genevieve]

It's true, I do tend to avoid arguments about religion because you can't get around faith with logic. I think I'll regard Libertarianism as a religion from now on. Enjoy your faith in impossible perfection.

You are a child.

[Muncey]

Nope, that's what Austrian school economics is based on. And perfect central economic planning can't take into account each individual's economic wants, needs and actions. People not being computers (that's libertarian lingo) makes government action too complex for central economic planning, since decent planning requires knowledge of all the variables, which are lacking. This is why Austrians don't believe empiricism lends itself to economics the way it does to physics.

Why are you going on about perfect central economic planning lol? I fully agree with the argument that no Government can fully account for everybody due to lack of information and the fact we are human but how is that an argument for this religious like belief that the free market will work best? True free markets seem to be the opposite side of the same coin as perfect central planning in my opinion, both are essentially some theoretical utopian society that I don't see how it would work in reality.

[magma]

It's true, I do tend to avoid arguments about religion because you can't get around faith with logic. I think I'll regard Libertarianism as a religion from now on. Enjoy your faith in impossible perfection.

You are a child.

No, just a pragmatist with less patience for ideologue bores than I once had.

[Genevieve]

Nope, that's what Austrian school economics is based on. And perfect central economic planning can't take into account each individual's economic wants, needs and actions. People not being computers (that's libertarian lingo) makes government action too complex for central economic planning, since decent planning requires knowledge of all the variables, which are lacking. This is why Austrians don't believe empiricism lends itself to economics the way it does to physics.

Why are you going on about perfect central economic planning lol? I fully agree with the argument that no Government can fully account for everybody due to lack of information and the fact we are human but how is that an argument for this religious like belief that the free market will work best? True free markets seem to be the opposite side of the same coin as perfect central planning in my opinion, both are essentially some theoretical utopian society that I don't see how it would work in reality.

It's a hyperbole. The argument itself boils down quite simply to the fact that central planners do not have the knowledge they require to centrally plan accurately since they lack much of the knowledge of the variables to make accurate decisions.

In a completely free an-cap society, economic downturn will exist as well. Perfection does not exist. But it'll be rectified better and more efficiently since players in the market can make more informed decisions about the allocation of resources and investment because interest rates and prices indicate where resources need to be allocated to. In a planned economy, central planners make decisions based on less individual knowledge than the cumulative knowledge possessed by every participant of the market.

Imagine 10 million people in an economy. In a free market, 10 million people make (thousands of) informed economic decisions every day for 10 million people (themselves). Each participant of that market is informed enough to make decisions that affect them. They may not be "perfect" decisions; but they are decisions in variables they have direct oversight over.

In a planned economy, 10 economic central planners make large invasive decisions for those 10 million people, that directly affect every facet of the market. But those 10 planners do not have as much cumulative knowledge as those 10 million people and thus, are in a worse position to direct the economy than they are.

[Muncey]

Yeah I get that, but why does it have to be perfectly free market vs perfectly central planning? Why can there be no middle ground with a Government that doesn't act like a central planner but steps in when required? I know the argument is that it effects the market and leads to other crises but that isn't always true.

Your argument for 10 economic central planners don't have better knowledge than 10 million people seems, again, based on theory or ideology and not reality. The central planners of South Korea have done a pretty decent job and their country is one of the most pro-green in the industrialised world. Central planning in the form of developmental state has had mixed success also. To deny central planning has been successful (as well as failed) would be like claiming free markets have failed (as well as been successful at times). Its the opposite side of the same coin, and fuck that coin.

Why is it okay for people/consumers to respond to the free market and that is considered best but when a public body/Government responds to the same indicators its always wrong and causes problems? Outside of central planning why is Government operations in the free market seen as always ineffective? Presumably you'd lose the word 'free' if Government gets involved but large corporations and corruption are surely much more ineffective than a good Government with good policies?

[OGLemon]

nvm don't care anymore

[karmacazee]

So basically, you're trying to say that capitalism isn't to blame for stuff like inequality because it isn't libertarian enough?

That's what socialists say about Russia and other communist economies, that they failed because they weren't truly communist or socialist.

it is a very pedantic argument that blames ideology for the failings of an economy, rather than examining the actual systems these economies are based on.


Out of interest, have you read the thomas picketty book Capital in the 21st Century?

The most comprehensive analytical, data based text on this very subject ever published, well worth a read.

[Muncey]

Out of interest, have you read the thomas picketty book Capital in the 21st Century?

The most comprehensive analytical, data based text on this very subject ever published, well worth a read.

Read the intro then had exams and haven't yet returned to it.. but for the lazy people who cba to read over 700 pages of economics:

[Genevieve]

Yeah I get that, but why does it have to be perfectly free market vs perfectly central planning? Why can there be no middle ground with a Government that doesn't act like a central planner but steps in when required? I know the argument is that it effects the market and leads to other crises but that isn't always true.

Each of my posts debating my positions and supporting anarcho-capitalism have been debated rationally. I've never just said "central planning is bad and I don't support it because it's not libertarian". I have explained why I am against central planning and in each criticism I've given fairly in depth responses rather than resorting to 'because it isn't libertarian'. So I think really unfair of you to just brush-off my views as ideological since I've never supported my views with the ideology itself. I've done it the other way around. My argument has never been "because it's not anarcho-capitalist enough" or "because people would then be less free".

On the other hand, your argument here is self-defeating. Saying that things shouldn't be black-and-white itself is a black-and-white statement and I could just as easily brush off your positions as ideologically centrist. But we would probably both agree that if we had a large cancerous growth in our stomach, that we would want all of it removed, not just half of it. So 'grey' isn't always favorable, sometimes absolutism is. And in each instance, I've given you arguments for why I support my absolutism in each case.

Your argument for 10 economic central planners don't have better knowledge than 10 million people seems, again, based on theory or ideology and not reality.

Or logic. The culumative knowledge of 10 million people will always be greater than 10 people.

The central planners of South Korea have done a pretty decent job and their country is one of the most pro-green in the industrialised world. Central planning in the form of developmental state has had mixed success also. To deny central planning has been successful (as well as failed) would be like claiming free markets have failed (as well as been successful at times). Its the opposite side of the same coin, and fuck that coin.

You're being every bit as absolutist as you claim that I am by saying that it's the central planning aspect of South Korea that has made it successful. Who is to say that it's not the free market aspects that made S. Korea grow and it was inhibited by its central planning?

Why is it okay for people/consumers to respond to the free market and that is considered best but when a public body/Government responds to the same indicators its always wrong and causes problems? Outside of central planning why is Government operations in the free market seen as always ineffective? Presumably you'd lose the word 'free' if Government gets involved but large corporations and corruption are surely much more ineffective than a good Government with good policies?

Because private entities are limited by market forces to make changes in the market. Government isn't, it uses non-market means to operate in and manipulate the market. Private entities are limited by price, interest rates and availability to operate within the market. Government uses legislation regardless of what market forces indicate to allocate resources to places that the market deems dangerous.

[DrGatineau]

I typed out a whole post but then accidentally went back and lost it all

Here's what I remember of it:

Genevieve, in response to the talk about the minimum wage, I agree that simply indexing minimum wage to inflation would just result in a net-zero gain in purchasing power for workers (in the long term), but what we've done over the past several decades in america is leave the minimum wage at an embarrassingly low level despite increases in inflation, GDP, worker productivity, and corporate profits.

If the minimum wage were indexed to productivity, it would have been $16.54 in 2012, and even higher today. Surely the workers should see some of that increase in their pocket instead of their employer's, no? I'd be willing to even meet half way (compared to today's minimum wage of $7.25) and make the minimum wage $11.90. Surely the increases in corporate profits could cover that. I doubt most employers, the big ones especially, would even notice.

There was a study a few months back that found that increasing the minimum wage to a modest $10.10 would lift 5 million people out of poverty and would result in the immediate loss of like 500,000 jobs (assuming that employers bore zero brunt of the increase - it would in reality be less jobs if they bore some of the brunt, and of course it would be zero jobs if they bore all of it). I cba to find the study but I think those are approximately the right numbers. That's a deal I'm willing to make. It's all about weighing the pros and cons. The minimum wage is going to have to go up at some point or else people will be living like animals. Maybe it would be a good idea to index it to inflation or productivity but only by like 50% or something, so that it doesn't stagnate like it is doing now, but workers still see an increase in the value of their paycheck.

Not to mention the stimulatory effects an increase in the minimum wage would have on the economy. That study also found that it would create approximately 100,000 jobs in the short-term, so the net job loss is really more like 400k, and that it would increase GDP by like $25 billion.

Here's an article about the study actually: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/0 ... 32723.html


Do you believe in the multiplier Genevieve? If more people have jobs, and more people can pay for more expensive goods, then capitalists will make more money, and will invest more of that money, and will then sell more goods, and make more profits, and be able to pay for more employees and higher wages, which will cause more people to be able to pay for more expensive goods, and capitalists to make more money, and to invest more money, and to........

This is why left-leaning people always say that when the middle and lower class does better, the upper class will do better as well. Economics is not a zero-sum game (in my opinion). The 1% doesn't seem to understand that they will actually make MORE MONEY if there is less inequality. Think of it as an "investment in aggregate demand."

[Muncey]

Each of my posts debating my positions and supporting anarcho-capitalism have been debated rationally. I've never just said "central planning is bad and I don't support it because it's not libertarian". I have explained why I am against central planning and in each criticism I've given fairly in depth responses rather than resorting to 'because it isn't libertarian'. So I think really unfair of you to just brush-off my views as ideological since I've never supported my views with the ideology itself. I've done it the other way around. My argument has never been "because it's not anarcho-capitalist enough" or "because people would then be less free".

On the other hand, your argument here is self-defeating. Saying that things shouldn't be black-and-white itself is a black-and-white statement and I could just as easily brush off your positions as ideologically centrist. But we would probably both agree that if we had a large cancerous growth in our stomach, that we would want all of it removed, not just half of it. So 'grey' isn't always favorable, sometimes absolutism is. And in each instance, I've given you arguments for why I support my absolutism in each case.

You have debated your points well but against what? What are you debating it against? Whos claimed central planning is better? I don't get why this is even the debate, its a debate you've either had at a previous point or just made up in your head... pure free markets vs pure central planning makes no sense to me because neither have ever or will ever exist in "absolutism". I never said that things shouldn't be black and white I was asking why you are arguing in such a black and white way? Its arguing why one system that has never and will never exist is better than another system that has never and will never exist. Yeah a cancerous growth in my stomach I'd like removed, ideally though I'd like to take some painkillers for a headache rather than trepanning. I'd agree 'grey' isn't always favorable, you seem to be talking like it is never favourable and isn't even worth talking about/debating/considering.

Or logic. The culumative knowledge of 10 million people will always be greater than 10 people.

That isn't logic, thats a made up assumption

"A camel is a horse designed by a committee". Cumulative knowledge can contradict, the ideas of a few great people may be much more efficient than the knowledge of 10 million clueless morons. Whether its a good thing or not thats sorta why modern democracy is the way it is, 10 million people vote to put in charge 10 people who can hopefully run a country. If we got everybody to chip in based on cumulative knowledge it'd be chaos.

You're being every bit as absolutist as you claim that I am by saying that it's the central planning aspect of South Korea that has made it successful. Who is to say that it's not the free market aspects that made S. Korea grow and it was inhibited by its central planning?

Have you studied South Korea? It was partly free market but it was the protection of Governments and funding that helped them get to an adequate size in order to compete on a global scale. Its quite well documented the huge part their Government played in supporting their industries. I'm not saying it was completely central planning, I'm saying its a good example of when central planning had worked very well for an economy. Most of the chaebols were very family orientated and they only took in outsiders from 2 main universities so that they were similar in ideas/thinking and their industries were heavily supported by the Government, Government officials could make or break any company they wished at that point. If you want to dispute the importance the South Korean Government played then it would be based on ideology, not Economics.

Because private entities are limited by market forces to make changes in the market. Government isn't, it uses non-market means to operate in and manipulate the market. Private entities are limited by price, interest rates and availability to operate within the market. Government uses legislation regardless of what market forces indicate to allocate resources to places that the market deems dangerous.

Fair play that was a genuine question; I don't really have anything to debate in that sense. Do you not think that Governments or public entities could operate in a market? Wouldn't private entities working in a free market place be able to manipulate the market also? Monopolies, cartels ect?

[OGLemon]

Imo growth in South Korea was largely pushed by cultural views of education and the room for growth of the economy after nearly 40 years of colonial rule + a devastating war.

[ehbes]

Imo growth in South Korea was largely pushed by cultural views of education and the room for growth of the economy after nearly 40 years of colonial rule + a devastating war.

And PSY

[Muncey]

Imo growth in South Korea was largely pushed by cultural views of education and the room for growth of the economy after nearly 40 years of colonial rule + a devastating war.

Definitely but the role the Government played in all aspects can't be underestimated, it was far closer to a central planned economy (even called 'The Five-Year Plans' - sound familiar?) than it was a free market. Its hard to see the South Korean example as anything but a success story for central planning, there was huge planning and huge Government action and huge Government protection within industries and individual companies and they supported a lot of institutions such as universities. All those aspects would have been blamed if it was a failed experiment (like Soviet Union, Maos China) but because its a success story; to try to avoid praising the central planning aspect and the role the Government played would be based on religious-like ideology.