Fallacies about Pro-Market Viewpoint

Post Reply New Topic

Those who have espoused the virtue of the economic market free of government control have often been accused of favoring the rich, caring little about the working poor, and desiring a policy of "benign neglect" for the nation's economic and social ills. This is, however, is likely nothing more then a misunderstanding of perspective.

First, as to the charge of those espouses free-markets of catering to the rich; For the record, "the rich" as they are, like all other groups in society, consists of many specific individuals with strengths and weaknesses. It would be an error to assume the rich as a group understand the economics that got them wealthy. Indeed,

The Republican party of the 19th century was generally regarded as "pro-business" (Abraham Lincoln was, after all, a corporate lawyer) but those businesses often advanced viewpoints, like many businesses of today (although today's businesses have less justification) that protectionism will would help save US corporations from losses. Corporate US farmers of today get massive subsidies from the federal government at the objection from free-market economists.

(1)(Basic Economics by Sowell)

As to charges of ignoring the less well off, the issue of perspective becomes paramount. "Economists is the study of scarce resources which have alternate uses. -Lionel Robbins(1)" All resources are scarce, there cannot be distributed in an unlimited fashion. Those who are critical of socialist schemes are critical because they believe they are less efficient uses of total resources and hence produce more harmful results. It is not that free-market economists desire less for their fellow man (in fact, in many cases, their vision allows them for a more hopeful less top-down approach), but that it is far more efficient for men to be allowed to use their own resources then to have some centralized source attempt to dictate it for them (however compassionate that source may think it self).

Last edited by jimservo on 23 Jul 2007, 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Most people I think who criticise the economic free market are normally just criticising our current system; our system is however not an economic free market.

I would also say that what you have said JS is very analytical/technical/economic etc... and doesn't really deal with the experiences that people living in a system have.

For me the human experience is the most important thing, technical arguments about efficiency are irrelevant, we should be maximisin the quality of human experience, not efficiency or any other technical bla blas.

double

Last edited by rideforever on 23 Jul 2007, 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The technical facts about reality have to deal greatly with the perceived aspects, as what people experience is to some extent a function of what happens. These technical facts become crucial in arguments about society because we can legislate changes in reality but we cannot legislate perception.

To me, given that human perception cannot be directly legislated and that it cannot be regarded properly in anything but a technical manner, we MUST view things in terms of technical aspects to a great extent. Logic, statistics, and facts are crucial to understanding and understanding is crucial to proper action. Once we have the technical aspects of reality hammered down it is up to the individual to maximize the quality of their experience.

Isn't a completely technical analysis (without comment on human feelings and things) very aspie ?

What I was saying is that when you are making decisions about the world then you have to work backwards from where you want to be. And where I want to be is not in an efficient economy or [insert technical something here] ... I want to be a world where the quality human experience is very high. Now from this we can work backwards and make technical choices perhaps.

This doesn't seem to be being done. If I switch on the TV right now there will be the BBC 10 o'clock news talking about interest rates, the economy, takeovers, etc... No thought or voice is given to the quality of human experience.

......Oh, Fallicies! My bad.

Last edited by Ragtime on 23 Jul 2007, 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A technical analysis is very much an organizational trait. It is what accountants, economists, and any other group that works with the framework of organizations deals with. It is also something that tends to be used by aspies, but really, such a comment ignores how these analyses are so commonly used, as they pervade almost all organizational actions, such as the scripts used in call centers, the appeals done by politicians, etc.


Quality human experience is not a goal that is very easy to quantify, and to logic through this we must make assumptions and thus be logically analytical, but in order to make the technical choices we must engage in some level of technical analysis, something at the heart of most technical aspect


Because it isn't easily broken down in quantifiable. You are asking for people to give you a broad description of something that is very specific. They give you technical data because that is something that they can do and that can be understood to others. The news is not about how grandma smith feels about her granddaughter's wedding, it is information about society, which must be impersonal and thus will be more technical outside of the selected excitements or dramatizations hand-selected by them to boost ratings and stir up the audience. The fact of the matter is that we live in a world that has found that technical analysis is the best way to get things done.

Hehe. Ironically, one of the things that caused my shrink doubt I had Asperger's was that I was too much of an abstract thinker. To be honest I tend in that direction (although that isn't an elimination factor).

Thank you for breaking down and analysing my comments one by one.

How do you feel about them ? Feel

Feel? You probably don't want to know that, but I to put it kindly feel as if I am being told to chase an illusion or perhaps delusion by those comments. Perhaps that you have developed some fool emotionalist philosophy and that you seek to inflict it on the rest of the world for whatever perverse tendencies drive you. For the most part, I do not appreciate such games.

In a Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell (if I quote him often it is only because I find him especially enlightening) he attempts to determine why people so often wind up generally agreeing with each other politically along such a broad spectrum of issues. He posits there are two basic "visions" (with points in between): The unconstrained and the constrained. While the former tend attach great importance to both individuals and society in "(t)he importance of general sincerity," with the latter are more ready to concede sincerity since they feel it is much more unimportant.

Hey chill man, I am just asking. And your answer is an important part of the problem/solution ... it feels like we are getting somewhere. Perhaps lots of people think that aiming for a 'better' world like I have described is an illusion, and that is something to talk about right there.

And I don't think I have developed any philosophy, but it has come to my attention that I can't make decisions about my own life on the basis of 'the system' or finances or anything technical (although they have theire part to play of course). Because I am a human being and I have feelings and they are just as big a part of decision making as anything else. And I am projecting this idea onto the world in our discussion.

Feelings, like I said, are not really discussed on TV when discussing global policy, in the UK and US, but in Scandi countries there is more respect for feelings I think.

It may be difficult to make sense of 'feelings' of 60 million people (UK) and translate that into public policy ... it's difficult with the usual numbers (growth, etc...) that are discussed. But what I am saying is that people's feelings seem to be laughed at when discussing public policy here, and they shouldn't be, because we are feeling beings.

Also this denial of feelings thing ... it's like there is an illusion that people are stronger tougher or above their feelings and these can be discarded when we talk about real man's stuff like economic markets, migration, growth ... but that's an illusion.

Thanks, that looks very interesting ... and relevant to the discussion I am have with AG.

You asked. My answer can reveal some things, but I wear my nature on my sleeve so to speak. I already made my opinion on the matter somewhat clear, I might go even deeper and state that the ideal world is inherently contradictory given that people want a natural utopia, even though such is unnatural.
I cannot make decisions without technical analysis, a conscious or unconscious analysis of relative value and strength. Feelings are an important part of our decision making, but most times they remain the hidden premise or the unspoken principle. The fact that they cannot be analyzed or to some extent fully understood by the one feeling them, just makes them harder to discuss.
To be honest, I cannot state one way or the other. I think that the scandi countries are somewhat more open and trusting as a culture, and given cultural differences, their methods may not really work. Given the fact that they use technical analysis relatively effectively really makes me wonder if we aren't the feelers though.
People are feeling beings, but feelings do not have epistemic validity though, and because of their inability to be analyzed, broken apart for truth and divided into understandable portions that allow for the technical aspects of the world to be dealt with just leads to difficulty, especially given that different groups believe that they are correct, and thus NEED analysis in order to establish truth.

I never stated that people were beyond emotion, however, emotion must be discarded to deal with these matters in a way that all can understand. All emotions appeal to is cultural tendencies, and personal biases, both of which are not truly effective methods of finding truth.

I think that George Lakoff wrote something somewhat similar in his book Moral Politics, I haven't read it though so don't take me as absolutely true on the matter. I think he wrote politics under the metaphor of views of the family, like nurturant parent and strict father. I think that the traits might be different but a similar division is described I think.

I have heard a phrase "the tyranny of good intentions." Part of the issue arises I think from, well intention, but short term thinking. For example, the fact the CEO of MegaCorp (who works in an office) makes 100x more then your neighbor (who work a blue collar job). So the idea of punishing him via high taxes seems fair not to mention politically attractive.* Yet the fact that this could cause the MegaCorp to decide to move his company and therefor cause your neighbor to lose his job is less considered and even if much farther down the line (especially for a politician dealing with constituents).

*The same people that support higher taxes for people who make more then them also tend to heavily underestimate the tax rates people higher incomes then them incur. Generally, when polled on what the "fair" rate of tax for the wealthy, the average from Americans is lower then the current average.