|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 9:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| atwood wrote: |
You ought to try reading the newspaper and seeing what's happening in the real world.
I'd like to see you defend yourself from something as simple as your house catching on fire. |
Uh huh, so you're of the belief that the government can protect you from your house catching fire?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| I'd like to see you defend yourself from something as simple as your house catching on fire. |
Yep. That's why we need a massive, centralized, unaccountable federal bureaucracy. It's the only way to fight small house fires.
I always appreciate the success of communities in the U.S. which actively avoid contact with the federal (and often local) government. Though to hear some speak of it, such simple communities are utopias of myth and legend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| my contention is that every successful one has a central government. |
| Quote: |
| but some people do seem to claim causation from correlation |
Indeed. |
So prove me wrong. This is the trouble with arguing with ideological extremists, their systems have never been actually implemented. Do you have any proof for any of your claims that can be quantified? |
How about you prove yourself right? If a central government is required for success, then prove it. Use data and statistics and blah blah blah. Come on then. |
Here are some studies.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st215.pdf
"Over some range of taxation, the provision of government goods and services makes private economic activity more productive. For example, America�s current level of productivity would not be possible without the infrastructure, protection of property and educational level of the workforce we have. Thus, up to some level, reducing private goods by a dollar yields more than a dollar increase in total output. Beyond some point, especially when taxes are used mainly for transfer payments, they reduce incentives to produce enough that they lower the rate of economic progress. Then, reducing private goods by a dollar yields less than a dollar increase in total output."
Basically shows that up to the optimal rate, increasing taxes increases economic output.
http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iso/ragnar.torvik/worldeconomy7.pdf
Explains the resource curse in terms of institutional strength, basically countries with strong institutions (ie central governance among other things) do better than those without it when they have an abundance of natural resources.
Here are two studies. They are not the most directly related to the question at hand, perhaps, but they do serve to illustrate some points. Anyways, it's hard to find an exact data set in ten minutes with google. I know, numbers and data, blah blah blah they have nothing on your logic.
I just found two more, http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/34441/1/126342.pdf
http://cdi.mecon.gov.ar/biblio/docelec/fmi/wp/wp04217.pdf
They both detail the relationship between government social spending with human development.
Last edited by Leon on Mon May 21, 2012 10:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| my contention is that every successful one has a central government. |
| Quote: |
| but some people do seem to claim causation from correlation |
Indeed. |
So prove me wrong. This is the trouble with arguing with ideological extremists, their systems have never been actually implemented. Do you have any proof for any of your claims that can be quantified? |
How about you prove yourself right? If a central government is required for success, then prove it. Use data and statistics and blah blah blah. Come on then. |
Here are some studies.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st215.pdf
"Over some range of taxation, the provision of government goods and services makes private economic activity more productive. For example, America�s current level of productivity would not be possible without the infrastructure, protection of property and educational level of the workforce we have. Thus, up to some level, reducing private goods by a dollar yields more than a dollar increase in total output. Beyond some point, especially when taxes are used mainly for transfer payments, they reduce incentives to produce enough that they lower the rate of economic progress. Then, reducing private goods by a dollar yields less than a dollar increase in total output."
Basically shows that up to the optimal rate, increasing taxes increases economic output.
http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iso/ragnar.torvik/worldeconomy7.pdf
Explains the resource curse in terms of institutional strength, basically countries with strong institutions (ie central governance among other things) do better than those without it when they have an abundance of natural resources.
Here are two studies. They are not the most directly related to the question at hand, perhaps, but they do serve to illustrate some points. Anyways, it's hard to find an exact data set in ten minutes with google. I know, numbers and data, blah blah blah they have nothing on your logic. |
I confess, I'm really just not willing to put in the effort to tackle this topic with you just now (perhaps another time). You have provided a couple links, fair enough. But to debate it properly (ie. to "prove" it, if such a thing is possible) would be a massive undertaking, beyond the scope of this little thread.
But rest assured, such studies do exist. It's pretty well the main subject that libertarians and free market (Austrian etc.) economists deal with. There are a massive number of articles and studies published about it. The late Murray Rothbard does an excellent and exhaustive job covering the history of the US. You can find most of his works for free on mises.org or on Lew Rockwell's website. If you're ever interested, feel free to check it out. Of course there are many other serious scholars who write about this issue as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| my contention is that every successful one has a central government. |
| Quote: |
| but some people do seem to claim causation from correlation |
Indeed. |
So prove me wrong. This is the trouble with arguing with ideological extremists, their systems have never been actually implemented. Do you have any proof for any of your claims that can be quantified? |
How about you prove yourself right? If a central government is required for success, then prove it. Use data and statistics and blah blah blah. Come on then. |
Here are some studies.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st215.pdf
"Over some range of taxation, the provision of government goods and services makes private economic activity more productive. For example, America�s current level of productivity would not be possible without the infrastructure, protection of property and educational level of the workforce we have. Thus, up to some level, reducing private goods by a dollar yields more than a dollar increase in total output. Beyond some point, especially when taxes are used mainly for transfer payments, they reduce incentives to produce enough that they lower the rate of economic progress. Then, reducing private goods by a dollar yields less than a dollar increase in total output."
Basically shows that up to the optimal rate, increasing taxes increases economic output.
http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iso/ragnar.torvik/worldeconomy7.pdf
Explains the resource curse in terms of institutional strength, basically countries with strong institutions (ie central governance among other things) do better than those without it when they have an abundance of natural resources.
Here are two studies. They are not the most directly related to the question at hand, perhaps, but they do serve to illustrate some points. Anyways, it's hard to find an exact data set in ten minutes with google. I know, numbers and data, blah blah blah they have nothing on your logic. |
I confess, I'm really just not willing to put in the effort to tackle this topic with you just now (perhaps another time). You have provided a couple links, fair enough. But to debate it properly (ie. to "prove" it, if such a thing is possible) would be a massive undertaking, beyond the scope of this little thread.
But rest assured, such studies do exist. It's pretty well the main subject that libertarians and free market (Austrian etc.) economists deal with. There are a massive number of articles and studies published about it. The late Murray Rothbard does an excellent and exhaustive job covering the history of the US. You can find most of his works for free on mises.org or on Lew Rockwell's website. If you're ever interested, feel free to check it out. Of course there are many other serious scholars who write about this issue as well. |
I agree, I had more free time than normal today, but finding studies like this, and reading through them, is kind of time consuming and exhausting. I am very interested in these sorts of questions, so I don't really mind, but I don't want to devote too much more time to it. On a whim, I recently checked out Hayek's The Road to Serfdom from the library, so I guess I'll be reading one of the more serious works pretty soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I agree, I had more free time than normal today, but finding studies like this, and reading through them, is kind of time consuming and exhausting. I am very interested in these sorts of questions, so I don't really mind, but I don't want to devote too much more time to it. On a whim, I recently checked out Hayek's The Road to Serfdom from the library, so I guess I'll be reading one of the more serious works pretty soon. |
Alright, well fair play - if you're actually going to read Hayek, then I guess I gotta give your links a try as well 
(whenever I get some spare time) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I so love a happy ending!
Seriously, I would love to go out for a beer with Comm, Kuros, Visitorq and anyone else on this thread! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I agree, I had more free time than normal today, but finding studies like this, and reading through them, is kind of time consuming and exhausting. I am very interested in these sorts of questions, so I don't really mind, but I don't want to devote too much more time to it. On a whim, I recently checked out Hayek's The Road to Serfdom from the library, so I guess I'll be reading one of the more serious works pretty soon. |
Alright, well fair play - if you're actually going to read Hayek, then I guess I gotta give your links a try as well
(whenever I get some spare time) |
I've read some of the Hayek, and he seems to allow for much more government than you do.
Some quotes that I thought were very reasonable.
"To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition."
"The functioning of a competition not only requires adequate organization of certain institutions like money, markets, and channels of information- some of which can never be adequately provided by private enterprise-"
"neither the provision of signposts on the roads nor, in most circumstances, that of the roads themselves can be paid for by every individual user. Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of farming, or of smoke and noise of factories be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the substitutions of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function."
"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
" "In no system that could be rationally defended would the state just do nothing."
Have you read the book? I'm finding it a lot less dry than I thought it might have been. I'll reserve any other thoughts on it until I'm finished, but I feel like those things that I quoted are pretty much what others and I have mentioned to you before. I'm not quite sure where Hayek is compared to other Austrian economists, but he is one of the major ones, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Visitorq, I have a question, and I'm actually curious as to your answer: how would you solve the tragedy of the commons? It's quite clear that our fisheries are collapsing on a global scale; how would you address this? Personally, I think we need a lot more government intervention in that area if there's going to be any chance of fish being a food option in our old age. Do you really think that the problem would resolve itself without government intervention? I focus specifically on fisheries here, but the question could extend to the environment at large. Is there a libertarian solution, or would the approach be to just say that our fisheries are doomed anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Visitorq, I have a question, and I'm actually curious as to your answer: how would you solve the tragedy of the commons? It's quite clear that our fisheries are collapsing on a global scale; how would you address this? Personally, I think we need a lot more government intervention in that area if there's going to be any chance of fish being a food option in our old age. Do you really think that the problem would resolve itself without government intervention? I focus specifically on fisheries here, but the question could extend to the environment at large. Is there a libertarian solution, or would the approach be to just say that our fisheries are doomed anyway? |
This is directly on point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks, I'm a big fan of McCardle, though I don't always agree with her. I believe that's actually how Iceland manages their fisheries, and it was quite effective at bringing stocks up. In any case, wouldn't such plans require substantial government intervention in determining who owns a given share, etc.? I agree that solutions stressing stewardship are the best way to go, but they still seem to run counter to the free market ideology espoused by visitorq. Again, I'm just looking for a discussion on the topic, not an argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Thanks, I'm a big fan of McCardle, though I don't always agree with her. I believe that's actually how Iceland manages their fisheries, and it was quite effective at bringing stocks up. In any case, wouldn't such plans require substantial government intervention in determining who owns a given share, etc.? I agree that solutions stressing stewardship are the best way to go, but they still seem to run counter to the free market ideology espoused by visitorq. Again, I'm just looking for a discussion on the topic, not an argument. |
McCardle has been out for awhile. The guy who wrote that is one of the law professors who blog on Volokh Conspiracy.
One such private property mechanism would be the conservation easement. The genius of the conservation easement is that it runs with the land and binds future owners, but does not make the land public.
Global fishing stocks aren't simply a tragedy of the commons, they are a tragedy of the nations. We're talking about international economic zones. I don't know what could be done to establish anything legally enforceable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My grandfather actually had a conservation easement on his property. I don't think they have huge potential, however, as the owner takes a pretty big hit by toting one in place. Yes, your taxes are lower, but your land is rendered pretty worthless. It makes sense for people who bought cheap property awhile ago, or who have huge swaths, but on the whole I think they're best for people who already have a bunch of land that they can't do much with.
In any case, solutions like these make sense if you're talking about a given plot of land or sea, but what about clean water and clean air? Hailing from the land of GE, the rivers where I grew up were horribly polluted when my folks were kids, recovering when I was growing up, and are now nearing full recovery, in a lot of places. This has happened due to extensive government intervention. Now, I think I've made it clear here that I don't believe that the best solutions are either big government or no government, but how do you keep private enterprise from destroying public resources using private solutions? I don't see the incentive for private businesses to discontinue the use of rivers as dumping grounds without the threat of fines. Some might argue public pressure and the threat of boycotts, but that seems to be a serious roll of the dice.
| Quote: |
| Global fishing stocks aren't simply a tragedy of the commons, they are a tragedy of the nations. We're talking about international economic zones. I don't know what could be done to establish anything legally enforceable. |
Then we probably need to reconsider our laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| I'd like to see you defend yourself from something as simple as your house catching on fire. |
Yep. That's why we need a massive, centralized, unaccountable federal bureaucracy. It's the only way to fight small house fires.
I always appreciate the success of communities in the U.S. which actively avoid contact with the federal (and often local) government. Though to hear some speak of it, such simple communities are utopias of myth and legend. |
Well, how about some examples of such communities? And do they meet the needs (and wants) of most people, or are they only for a certain type of individual? Not everyone wants to live like the Amish. How large a population can they serve?
As for your hyperbole, nicely combined with a spin of my statements, I'd like to hear how you'd fight a house fire all on your lonesome. And don't cheat by relabeling it a "small" fire; I'm talking about the whole house is in danger of being engulfed in flames. And since you don't believe in government regulation, you wouldn't have insurance because state insurance commissions regulate (control) the insurance industry. Right?
Let's get away from all the armchair quarterbacking and leave the realm of the intellectual for the real world, where homes catch on fire, not to mention buildings and forests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Visitorq, I have a question, and I'm actually curious as to your answer: how would you solve the tragedy of the commons? It's quite clear that our fisheries are collapsing on a global scale; how would you address this? |
This is a pretty tough question (which I'll shoot at while you wait for visitorq). Generally, the Libertarian ideal is for a justice-enforcing government to hold people and businesses to account for damaging property owned by other people. Pollute the air on someone else's property and you'll be forced to compensate them for the damage caused.
But this fails twofold for international waters (and the fauna therein). They aren't directly owned by someone who can claim damages, and there's no governing body with the authority to mete out justice to victims.
I think the most logical and libertarian option (that is, the one involving least government) is to separate international waters into zones of economic use based on the size and proximity of nearby nations. From there, individual governments would manage the economic and ecological resources in their relatively fair share of ocean. It's not a great solution, and it would still require responsibility on the part of national governments, but I don't see any better options. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
