Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

does the government have too much control over the economy?

Page 5 of 5 [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Feb 2008, 7:42 pm

Anubis wrote:
When resources can be reclaimed/recycled properly, yes, restricting resource extraction will be unneccessary. But at the same time, poachers will hunt animals to extinction, and it is folly not to stop them from wiping species off the face of the planet.

Ok, and I might put endangered species on that list due to insufficient measures to deal with the property rights of animal use and possible environmental externalities of extinction.
Quote:
In all foresight, species MUST be preserved. They will be extremely valuable in the future. It is obvious to anyone with foresight that the value of preservation outweighs the value of short to medium term economic growth.

Why MUST they be preserved? I really don't see that as a necessity, certainly the loss of a species can screw things up a bit but have we died from a lack of dodos? Growth builds upon growth.
Quote:
And that efficiency should not be put before humanity.

Economic efficiency is inherently related to people. To make your claim you really have to make more distinctions as I could easily say that humanity and efficiency go hand in hand.



Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 137
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

03 Feb 2008, 7:52 pm

It is obvious that we are on completely different frequencies here.

Without foresight and valuing precious resources, humanity might just end up falling into a hole that not even the most innovative methods can dig the human race out of.

Humanity and efficiency... you just don't grasp the meaning of humanity. I think I'll just kill 300 people in secret and be done with detractors who are just making this whole process inefficient. No-one will know at all, and profits will be increased ten times! Screw those people, efficiency and profits are worth more than any sense of humanity and dignity.


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Feb 2008, 9:12 pm

Anubis wrote:
It is obvious that we are on completely different frequencies here.

Possibly, but how would that be different. I doubt we are using the best defined premises to logic off of.
Quote:
Without foresight and valuing precious resources, humanity might just end up falling into a hole that not even the most innovative methods can dig the human race out of.

Ok, absolutely true, but how does that exclude capitalism?
Quote:
Humanity and efficiency... you just don't grasp the meaning of humanity. I think I'll just kill 300 people in secret and be done with detractors who are just making this whole process inefficient. No-one will know at all, and profits will be increased ten times! Screw those people, efficiency and profits are worth more than any sense of humanity and dignity.

Well, murdering 300 people is illegal, and technically I would doubt that it would be economically efficient since murder is a significant externality. Humanity and dignity are somewhat subjective terms, so we really would have to define things in order to effectively analyze or critique the relationship between efficiency and profits and those other 2 variables. I would say that there will be more of a tendency for dignity and humanity to go in hand with profits and efficiency.



Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

03 Feb 2008, 11:22 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Why MUST they be preserved? I really don't see that as a necessity, certainly the loss of a species can screw things up a bit but have we died from a lack of dodos? Growth builds upon growth.


Do some reading up on ecology. Many species are very important in ecosystem stability, and each ecosystem is important the the stability of the biosphere and the climate, and the stability of the biosphere and the climate are very important for human survival.

The reluctance of "mainstream" economics to embrace Ecological Economic principles is one of the reasons I have little respect for "mainstream" economics.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Feb 2008, 12:36 am

Odin wrote:
Do some reading up on ecology. Many species are very important in ecosystem stability, and each ecosystem is important the the stability of the biosphere and the climate, and the stability of the biosphere and the climate are very important for human survival.

A rather meaningless answer. I already recognized that other species were important, however, importance and MUSTs are different. An important thing is one that should be kept but that is still subject to trade offs, and thing we MUST do, is one that cannot be traded ever under any circumstances. The question is still an economic one and a philosophical one, not an ecological one for ecology only deals with the extents of the externalities and what trade-offs are acceptable.
Quote:
The reluctance of "mainstream" economics to embrace Ecological Economic principles is one of the reasons I have little respect for "mainstream" economics.

Yeah, and I see no reason for mainstream (no quotes necessary if it actually is the mainstream) economics to accept ecological economics. Ecology merely provides economics a means to measure the impact of an externality, but is not necessary as something within the methodology itself.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

04 Feb 2008, 10:39 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
...
Humanity and dignity are somewhat subjective terms, so we really would have to define things in order to effectively analyze or critique the relationship between efficiency and profits and those other 2 variables. I would say that there will be more of a tendency for dignity and humanity to go in hand with profits and efficiency.


You've sold me, AG. I now see the light! Humanity and dignity were also "subjective terms" when slavery was considered an acceptable capitalist practice. But slavery was a very efficient means of production. Ending slavery resulted in massive economic disruptions and inefficiencies - government interference in the market of the south resulted in the massive uncompensated loss of productive assets, which was an affront to the property rights of the plantation owners that negatively affected the economy. The so-called (subjective) rights of the slaves were clearly external to a smoothly operating system that made cotton fabric affordable to the public.




<sarcasm=off>



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Feb 2008, 12:00 pm

monty wrote:
You've sold me, AG. I now see the light! Humanity and dignity were also "subjective terms" when slavery was considered an acceptable capitalist practice. But slavery was a very efficient means of production. Ending slavery resulted in massive economic disruptions and inefficiencies - government interference in the market of the south resulted in the massive uncompensated loss of productive assets, which was an affront to the property rights of the plantation owners that negatively affected the economy. The so-called (subjective) rights of the slaves were clearly external to a smoothly operating system that made cotton fabric affordable to the public.

Well, the major question with slavery is whether or not slaves are people. If slaves ARE people then slavery could not be the most efficient system as otherwise these people would gladly sell themselves continually into slavery. If slaves aren't then you are absolutely right, slavery was a very efficient system and continuing to hold slaves would not be a bad idea, the real question falls down to whether or not slaves are people equal to others. Humanity and dignity are subjective terms really though, ask a slave holding southerner whether or not slavery reflected well on humanity and dignity, and he would probably whole-heartedly agree that it did and that his slaves were like his family, but ask anyone today and they would think the idea is horrific, so yes, it does seem subjective there.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

04 Feb 2008, 12:08 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
monty wrote:
You've sold me, AG. I now see the light! Humanity and dignity were also "subjective terms" when slavery was considered an acceptable capitalist practice. But slavery was a very efficient means of production. Ending slavery resulted in massive economic disruptions and inefficiencies - government interference in the market of the south resulted in the massive uncompensated loss of productive assets, which was an affront to the property rights of the plantation owners that negatively affected the economy. The so-called (subjective) rights of the slaves were clearly external to a smoothly operating system that made cotton fabric affordable to the public.

Well, the major question with slavery is whether or not slaves are people. If slaves ARE people then slavery could not be the most efficient system as otherwise these people would gladly sell themselves continually into slavery. If slaves aren't then you are absolutely right, slavery was a very efficient system and continuing to hold slaves would not be a bad idea, the real question falls down to whether or not slaves are people equal to others. Humanity and dignity are subjective terms really though, ask a slave holding southerner whether or not slavery reflected well on humanity and dignity, and he would probably whole-heartedly agree that it did and that his slaves were like his family, but ask anyone today and they would think the idea is horrific, so yes, it does seem subjective there.


No, the real question is whether economic calculus is amoral. Even if slaves are considered people, that was not a real concern to the people crunching the numbers. If anything can arbitrarily be declared as irrelevant to efficiency, then it is amoral (and if unchecked, corrosive to any moral system).



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

04 Feb 2008, 12:17 pm

monty wrote:
No, the real question is whether economic calculus is amoral. Even if slaves are considered people, that was not a real concern to the people crunching the numbers. If anything can arbitrarily be declared as irrelevant to efficiency, then it is amoral (and if unchecked, corrosive to any moral system).

Um.... yeah, economic calculus IS amoral. If economic calculus were anything BUT amoral then we could hardly consider it good economic calculus. Frankly, anything can and should be able to arbitrarily be considered irrelevant, otherwise we have a biased, loaded system, which is a bad thing for any practice. It is not corrosive to necessarily any moral system, and frankly, by your logic, everything but a theocracy(or some other blatantly moral government) is a corrosive force to morality by having different values.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

04 Feb 2008, 2:29 pm

Anubis wrote:
Quote:
But, I don't see why it must be called wrong either. The fact that all parties agree to this seems to indicate that everyone there has considered it right.

Ok, I was gone for a while, I think I got everything.


They don't always though.

Sometimes the workers have no other choice but to settle into a low-income job. I don't call that wilfully agreeing. Rather "work or live in worse conditions". In a way that might satisfy your views more... a secure and relatively comfortable populace reduces crime rates. There will still be the greedy and plain nasty/psychotic, but far fewer people will resort to theft, illegal drugs, and violence.
Chief executives being paid large salaries, is all good and well. But when just as hard-working people at the bottom can hardly support their family on a subsistence income, that is bound to cause problems.


Reaching way way back...
Zomg. People make their choices to maximize their quality of life. :roll: We must insulate them from reality?
Other than that, you have employed numerous utilitarian justifications, which respect nothing of people's rights. :?

More to the point, the question can be rephrased as a matter of rights. Robert Nozick used the following analogy: Suppose we have 26 males, A thru Z, and 26 females, A1-Z1. Each one wants to marry someone of a lower letter, i.e. everyone's first pick is A*, followed by B* etc. If each is allowed to marry and are free to marry whomever will marry them, A will pair with A1 ... and Z with Z1. Now, Z and Z1 may consider themselves horribly cursed because they are each each other's last pick. Were they however unfree? Nozick argued that if a resulting inequality or lifestyle choice was caused entirely by the free use of each individual's property within their rights, then any limiting of other's choices is exactly the same as the marriage example: choices get limited, but provided each individual had the right to act as they did, the result is just.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

05 Feb 2008, 3:18 pm

monty wrote:
The so-called (subjective) rights of the slaves were clearly external to a smoothly operating system that made cotton fabric affordable to the public.

You've made similar comments before which show you do not understand the concept of an externality. An externality is not something you can just ignore in economic analysis, as you have seemingly assumed. It is essentially a "side effect" of an economic transaction that affects people other than those directly participating in the transaction. One example is immunization- there is the normal transaction between a doctor and patient, but this also affects other people because when more people are immunized, disease will not spread through the population and so even people who were not vaccinated will have reduced risks of contracting an illness. Another is pollution- a factory produces something to sell, and in doing so causes pollution which affects people who did had no economic dealings with the factory. Attempting to correct for externalities, according to most economists, should be the one of the main roles of government in the economy. Thus, most economists would advocate that government subsidize things with positive externailities (like vaccination) while taxing things with negative externalities (anything that causes pollution).


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 137
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

05 Feb 2008, 4:46 pm

twoshots wrote:
Anubis wrote:
Quote:
But, I don't see why it must be called wrong either. The fact that all parties agree to this seems to indicate that everyone there has considered it right.

Ok, I was gone for a while, I think I got everything.


They don't always though.

Sometimes the workers have no other choice but to settle into a low-income job. I don't call that wilfully agreeing. Rather "work or live in worse conditions". In a way that might satisfy your views more... a secure and relatively comfortable populace reduces crime rates. There will still be the greedy and plain nasty/psychotic, but far fewer people will resort to theft, illegal drugs, and violence.
Chief executives being paid large salaries, is all good and well. But when just as hard-working people at the bottom can hardly support their family on a subsistence income, that is bound to cause problems.


Reaching way way back...
Zomg. People make their choices to maximize their quality of life. :roll: We must insulate them from reality?
Other than that, you have employed numerous utilitarian justifications, which respect nothing of people's rights. :?

More to the point, the question can be rephrased as a matter of rights. Robert Nozick used the following analogy: Suppose we have 26 males, A thru Z, and 26 females, A1-Z1. Each one wants to marry someone of a lower letter, i.e. everyone's first pick is A*, followed by B* etc. If each is allowed to marry and are free to marry whomever will marry them, A will pair with A1 ... and Z with Z1. Now, Z and Z1 may consider themselves horribly cursed because they are each each other's last pick. Were they however unfree? Nozick argued that if a resulting inequality or lifestyle choice was caused entirely by the free use of each individual's property within their rights, then any limiting of other's choices is exactly the same as the marriage example: choices get limited, but provided each individual had the right to act as they did, the result is just.


Are you talking to me?


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

06 Feb 2008, 12:14 pm

Orwell wrote:
You've made similar comments before which show you do not understand the concept of an externality. An externality is not something you can just ignore in economic analysis, as you have seemingly assumed.


No, I understand the idea of an externality - it is a cost (or even a benefit) that is external to the market exchange. A factory pollutes the water and causes health problems for people living downstream, which is not accounted for in the price of the goods they sell, and the affected people experience an uncompensated, involuntary loss.

Ideally, an economic analysis would account for that, and a government would restrict the "freedom" of the factory to profit at the expense of the people downstream (or institute compensation at the expense of the factory). In practice, externalities generally go un-internalized. Economic actors continue to pursue their self-interest to the detriment of others.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Feb 2008, 12:20 pm

monty wrote:
Ideally, an economic analysis would account for that, and a government would restrict the "freedom" of the factory to profit at the expense of the people downstream. In practice, externalities generally go un-internalized. Economic actors continue to pursue their self-interest to the detriment of others.

Well, it does not have to be the government, just remember the ideas of Ronald Coase on property rights. Really though, it is difficult to properly internalize externalities because internalization involves subjective preferences, so I might describe most externalities to be imperfectly internalized as even human dislikes due to externalities are a partial internalization. Frankly, in some cases, especially the less standard economics cases, I would argue that this tendency on economic actors is not necessarily a bad thing as heavily tattooed bikers can arguably present a negative externality, but I would really hate to see a government try to correct that one.