Is Friedman Right?

[Sefarst]

In an email debate I'm having right now, I was sent the following youtube clips as evidence AGAINST Friedman and my own side (I've been asked to defend certain aspects of libertarian philosophy). To me, these videos SUPPORT Friedman's arguments, but for some reason my opponent refuses to agree with me and views these videos as the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.

This particular strain of our debate coincided with a couple other debates I've been having around here, such as the one with Francesca in the "Obama wants to end the Bear/Bull Cycle" thread, so I decided to run it past the rest of you and see what your opinions are.

Do you agree with the guy in the audience asking the question or do you agree with Friedman? Why?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ev_Uph_TLLo&feature=related

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iPqdRqacpFk&feature=related

Thanks.

[mrbaracuda]

Can you provide some background about Friedman for the foreigners please? :)

[Sefarst]

Can you provide some background about Friedman for the foreigners please? :)
He was considered the leading "right-wing" economist in the US until his death in 2006. He won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on market elasticities and was a staunch advocate of free trade and free markets. He described himself as "Republican with a capital 'R' and libertarian with a lower case 'l'." He also wrote several books about Capitalism and his belief that the more government is involved the less freedom we have.

[Ziggurat]

If they think that about Friedman, there's no point talking to them. It's one thing to disagree about the consequences of various policies, or even about priorities (freedom versus equality, for example). But when you cast your opponents as motivated by evil, well, there's just no conversation to be had.

[JoeEllison]

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx, but he sucked up to the powerful instead of the weak, so he garnered support. His entire philosophy was based on false premises, and everyone who agreed with him was either stupid or self serving.

[fuelair]

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx, but he sucked up to the powerful instead of the weak, so he garnered support. His entire philosophy was based on false premises, and everyone who agreed with him was either stupid or self serving.
At least that seems to invalidate what the poster above you said!!:)

[Ziggurat]

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx

Yes, because as we all know, attempts to create libertarian utopias have led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

[Puppycow]

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx, but he sucked up to the powerful instead of the weak, so he garnered support. His entire philosophy was based on false premises, and everyone who agreed with him was either stupid or self serving.

You always seem to resort to insults of a personal nature. You also make very sweeping statements about a man who won a Nobel prize for his work in economics and is considered a giant in his field. Are you capable of civil and reasonable discussion without immediately questioning the morality of those who hold different opinions? :)

[mrbaracuda]

He was considered the leading "right-wing" economist in the US until his death in 2006. He won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on market elasticities and was a staunch advocate of free trade and free markets. He described himself as "Republican with a capital 'R' and libertarian with a lower case 'l'." He also wrote several books about Capitalism and his belief that the more government is involved the less freedom we have.

Thanks! :) Ever heard of a guy who's last name is "von Miese"? The description sounds like him, although I don't know much about von Miese either.

You always seem to resort to insults of a personal nature. You also make very sweeping statements about a man who won a Nobel prize for his work in economics and is considered a giant in his field. Are you capable of civil and reasonable discussion without immediately questioning the morality of those who hold different opinions? :)

I think his.. let's just call it disapproval of certain things on the right are influencing his answers greatly. ;)

[brodski]

Yes, because as we all know, attempts to create libertarian utopias have led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Marx himself did not associate himself with dictators, Friedman OTOH...

[brodski]

You always seem to resort to insults of a personal nature. You also make very sweeping statements about a man who won a Nobel prize for his work in economics and is considered a giant in his field. Are you capable of civil and reasonable discussion without immediately questioning the morality of those who hold different opinions? :)
When this "great man" gave governmental advice to Augusto Pinochet, and then tried to lecture the world on freedom you have to question both his morality and his sense of irony.

[Cain]

Yes, because as we all know, attempts to create libertarian utopias have led to the deaths of tens of millions of people.

This is a terrible argument.

When this "great man" gave governmental advice to Augusto Pinochet, and then tried to lecture the world on freedom you have to question both his morality and his sense of irony.

And Friedman compared himself to a doctor advising someone on how to cure a sick patient. Monetarists and rational expectationists nearly drove Keynesians out with their mat and models in the 70s and 80s. When their policies were actually implemented (and did succeed as planned) reality came crashing down again. The problem with Milton Friedman is that people tread on his academic credentials in order to support capitalism in general when his popular writings and lectures are much more basic. "I'm not a conservative; I'm a believer in freedom!" :rolleyes:

Friedman's academic work/predictions are captured in the old joke about the seven economists lost in the mountains. One of them takes out a map, checks the compass, looks at the sun, and finally declares "I know where we are!" They others excitedly ask him to explain. He points and says, "You see that mountain over there? According to my calculations, we're on top of it."

Most of his fans (and the first clip-- I did not bother to check out the second one) do not care about what he has to say about M1, M2 blah blah blah. Instead they're more interested in the interaction between his moral arguments (absence of interference) and his view of human nature (rational self-interest), and how these come together to support a regime of strong private property rights with a lot of talk about incentives thrown in.

I do think personality wise libertarians naturally tend to side with the overdog, but there are a few hard-core, populist free-market types who actually care about the poor, lower-middle class, will take the initiative to criticize corporations, dropping bombs, and so on. Most of these, in my experience, tend to be Georgists (or geo-libertarians), however.

And its' Von Mises.

[egslim]

But when you cast your opponents as motivated by evil, well, there's just no conversation to be had.
What are the motivations attributed to Friedman that you consider evil?

Because if you were referring to: "the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.", that would just be rational self-interest - assuming he was either part of that upper class or received benefits from them in exchange for taking that position.

[RandFan]

What are the motivations attributed to Friedman that you consider evil?

Because if you were referring to: "the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.", that would just be rational self-interest - assuming he was either part of that upper class or received benefits from them in exchange for taking that position. I don't see how self-interest translates into keeping down the lower classes and corrupting society. Help me with that one please?

From my POV, one can have self interest and not care if the lower classes advance or whether or not society is corrupt.

[RandFan]

When this "great man" gave governmental advice to Augusto Pinochet, and then tried to lecture the world on freedom you have to question both his morality and his sense of irony. Why? Are dictators not to be talked to under any circumstance? If it could improve the lives of the Chilean people would it not be immoral not to talk to Pinochet?

[RandFan]

Marx himself did not associate himself with dictators, Friedman OTOH... You are literally making a guilty by association fallacy. Is there any evidence that Friedman was indifferent to the suffering caused by the dictators? Was he personal friends with the dictators or was his association more professional?

BTW, this is also ad hominem poisoning the well. Freidman may very well have been an evil friend of dictators but that does not invalidate his contributions to economics that one him the Nobel Prize.

[egslim]

I don't see how self-interest translates into keeping down the lower classes and corrupting society. Help me with that one please?
Corruption benefits a few, at the expense of the rest of society. For those who benefit it is obviously in their self-interest to maintain or expand such corruption.

Similarly, it is in the self-interest of the upper class to maintain or improve their position. And many of the ways to do so are by keeping down the lower classes. Examples include taxation that burdens the lower incomes (income tax, as opposed to capital gains tax), stopping government expenditure that benefits the poor (like free education), and often maintaining government corruption - because the upper class has the financial means to practice and hence benefit from it.

Basically I expect the upper classes to use their superior financial means and economic position to advance their position as much as possible within the legal limits, regardless of any detrimental effects on society as a whole. Which is why I support an elaborate regulatory system to prevent such detriments, with measures in place to punish those who cross it. And that's the opposite of the libertarian position.

[balrog666]

Corruption benefits a few, at the expense of the rest of society. For those who benefit it is obviously in their self-interest to maintain or expand such corruption.

Similarly, it is in the self-interest of the upper class to maintain or improve their position. And many of the ways to do so are by keeping down the lower classes. Examples include taxation that burdens the lower incomes (income tax, as opposed to capital gains tax), stopping government expenditure that benefits the poor (like free education), and often maintaining government corruption - because the upper class has the financial means to practice and hence benefit from it.

Basically I expect the upper classes to use their superior financial means and economic position to advance their position as much as possible within the legal limits, regardless of any detrimental effects on society as a whole. Which is why I support an elaborate regulatory system to prevent such detriments, with measures in place to punish those who cross it. And that's the opposite of the libertarian position.

:boggled::boggled::boggled::boggled:

By definition, it is in the self-interest of *EVERYONE* to maintain or improve their position. Unless you think economics is a zero-sum-game, none of the rest of that nonsense follows.

[Ziggurat]

Because if you were referring to: "the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.", that would just be rational self-interest - assuming he was either part of that upper class or received benefits from them in exchange for taking that position.

That is no more just rational self-interest than murdering old ladies and stealing their wallets is.

[Sefarst]

For those who want to criticize Friedman, please be specific. If there's something in the video your don't agree with or something in Friedman's theories and writings you don't like, point it out. Otherwise I'll assume you're just full of a bunch of hot air.

On the subject of Pinochet, Friedman said, "Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system ... the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system." He was invited by a private foundation to visit Chile and lecture on the principles of economics. At no point was he an advisor to Pinochet.

American economists have also been invited to countries like Zimbabwe, Russia, China, etc. to lecture and to advise on improving the economy.

[Ziggurat]

Marx himself did not associate himself with dictators, Friedman OTOH...

Marx merely spawned history's biggest mass murderers.

Did Friedman encourage Pinochet's political repressions? Nope. Did he help him gain power? Nope. All he did was encourage free-market policies. Which faired much better for the people than dictatorships which adopt command economies. And which arguably helped create Chile's peaceful transformation out of that dictatorship. What a criminal he must be.

Your smear attempt reveals more about you than Friedman.

[Sefarst]

Thanks! :) Ever heard of a guy who's last name is "von Miese"? The description sounds like him, although I don't know much about von Miese either.
Absolutely, one of the brainchildren behind the Austrian School of Economics.

[Beerina]

Milton Friedman was as bad as Marx, but he sucked up to the powerful instead of the weak, so he garnered support. His entire philosophy was based on false premises, and everyone who agreed with him was either stupid or self serving.

Please elucidate the false premises, and the inaccuracies of his worldview.

A quick tour around the world, and through history, shows a strong correlation between economic freedom (not anarchy) and general prosperity.

[egslim]

By definition, it is in the self-interest of *EVERYONE* to maintain or improve their position.
Sure. The difference between lower and upper classes is that the latter by definition have superior means to do so.

Unless you think economics is a zero-sum-game, none of the rest of that nonsense follows.
Economics can be a negative, zero or positive-sum game.

[egslim]

That is no more just rational self-interest than murdering old ladies and stealing their wallets is.
Free market theory assumes rational self-interest, as far as I know it makes no mention of justice whatsoever. Which is the point, rational self-interest for one person can result in tremendous injustice to others.

To their credit, libertarians do oppose murder and support property rights. I'm not allowed to take your posessions without your permission. That is good, but insufficient.

Suppose I create a pension fund. People put their money in, I invest it and pay myself a handsome wage plus a bonus proportional to the yearly gain. That encourages me to take high risks, increasing my bonus. Unfortunately, because of the high risk the fund went bust during the credit crunch. Fortunately (for me), I still have much of the money I made.

No murder was commited, and the people who put their money in did so voluntarily. Too bad they lost everything, including their pensions. The point is that one has to commit neither murder nor theft to rob old ladies. Without comprehensive regulation it can be done legally in a libertarian society. And without the prospect of punishment it would be in my rational self-interest to do so, regardless of how immoral it is.

[Sefarst]

Free market theory assumes rational self-interest, as far as I know it makes no mention of justice whatsoever. Which is the point, rational self-interest for one person can result in tremendous injustice to others.

To their credit, libertarians do oppose murder and support property rights. I'm not allowed to take your posessions without your permission. That is good, but insufficient.

Suppose I create a pension fund. People put their money in, I invest it and pay myself a handsome wage plus a bonus proportional to the yearly gain. That encourages me to take high risks, increasing my bonus. Unfortunately, because of the high risk the fund went bust during the credit crunch. Fortunately (for me), I still have much of the money I made.

No murder was commited, and the people who put their money in did so voluntarily. Too bad they lost everything, including their pensions. The point is that one has to commit neither murder nor theft to rob old ladies. Without comprehensive regulation it can be done legally in a libertarian society. And without the prospect of punishment it would be in my rational self-interest to do so, regardless of how immoral it is.
The interesting part is that just the OPPOSITE is happening right now. The wealthy bankers and member of the upper class loaned money to members of the lower class who took risks with it and were unable to pay it back. As a result, those banks and upper class individuals are losing A LOT of their money.

In the case of your pension fund example, it's the responsibilities of the two parties engaged in the fund to outline acceptable and unacceptable levels of risk. Should your pension fund manager violate that contract, he will quickly lose all the money he made. Part of investing means taking on risk. Sometimes things don't go your way and you seem to be advocating that we protect people from their own bad decisions.

Now, to those who were attacking Friedman earlier, I'm still waiting to hear a specific argument.

[Ziggurat]

Free market theory assumes rational self-interest, as far as I know it makes no mention of justice whatsoever.

That's fine. Except you're still left with the attribution of evil motives to Friedman. That "free market theory" does not concern itself directly with the notion of justice or evil does not mean you and I should not. The accusation against him is more than just that his policies will inadvertently lead to harm: the accusation is that he intends harm. Claiming that libertarianism doesn't address the issue of social justice doesn't solve the problem with the accusation against him. How can you not recognize this?

[Ziggurat]

Economics can be a negative, zero or positive-sum game.

Sure. And the best way to get filthy stinking rich in a free market is to engage in lots of positive-sum transactions.

[brodski]

Marx merely spawned history's biggest mass murderers. really, and do you blame Nietzsche for the Holocaust too?


Did Friedman encourage Pinochet's political repressions? Nope. Did he help him gain power? Nope. tell me, how did Marx do these things, in regimes which weren't even dreamed of until decades after his death?


All he did was encourage free-market policies. Which faired much better for the people than dictatorships which adopt command economies. And which arguably helped create Chile's peaceful transformation out of that dictatorship. What a criminal he must be.[


Your smear attempt reveals more about you than Friedman. It is not a smear attempt, its a simple statement of fact, Friedman preached that economic freedom and personal/political freedom where inseparable, when this theory was put to the test he chose political repression and economic liberty over Democracy, and his principles be damned. For someone who tried to paint economics as a moral choice, that seems, odd, at best.

[Ziggurat]

tell me, how did Marx do these things, in regimes which weren't even dreamed of until decades after his death?

Ideology has consequences in the real world. Marx created the ideology that was used to excuse and justify more deaths in the 20th century than any other ideology. And it has produced disaster and misery every single time it has been tried. I make no claim that Marx intended these results. But that's still what his works produced.

It is not a smear attempt, its a simple statement of fact, Friedman preached that economic freedom and personal/political freedom where inseparable, when this theory was put to the test he chose political repression and economic liberty over Democracy, and his principles be damned.

How so? Did he help Pinochet become a dictator? No, he did not. He did not choose political repression over democracy, because that was never the choice available to him. He chose the lesser of the evils which were available: dictatorship with economic freedom over dictatorship without economic freedom. And that is the right choice, and it is the moral choice, given the constraints he could not change. He never claimed that it was optimal, quite the reverse.

[balrog666]

Ideology has consequences in the real world. Marx created the ideology that was used to excuse and justify more deaths in the 20th century than any other ideology. And it has produced disaster and misery every single time it has been tried. I make no claim that Marx intended these results. But that's still what his works produced.



How so? Did he help Pinochet become a dictator? No, he did not. He did not choose political repression over democracy, because that was never the choice available to him. He chose the lesser of the evils which were available: dictatorship with economic freedom over dictatorship without economic freedom. And that is the right choice, and it is the moral choice, given the constraints he could not change. He never claimed that it was optimal, quite the reverse.


I think the point there about intentions versus consequences is key.
And I would normally think that, to rationalists, intentions are irrelevant when one understand consequences.

And this discussion of Pinochet is ridiculous. Does any one here not think that, in general, the application and exercise of economic freedom necessarily produces political freedom?

[Sefarst]

really, and do you blame Nietzsche for the Holocaust too?

I am an avid reader of Nietzsche's and a fan of his work, but I DO think he holds a small amount of responsibility when it comes to the Holocaust. He did, however, warn the Germans in his writings that the political climate of the day was ripe for tyrants.

tell me, how did Marx do these things, in regimes which weren't even dreamed of until decades after his death?

To defend Marx to a degree, I don't hold him responsible for the outcomes of communism. Many Communists I speak with, though, tell me that there has never been a true Communist society (though one pointed to hippy communes as a possibly "pure" communist society).

It is not a smear attempt, its a simple statement of fact, Friedman preached that economic freedom and personal/political freedom where inseparable, when this theory was put to the test he chose political repression and economic liberty over Democracy, and his principles be damned. For someone who tried to paint economics as a moral choice, that seems, odd, at best.
This is ridiculous. He chose nothing of the sort. The Phil Harmonic Orchestra recently played in North Korea, is that an endorsement of Kim Jong Il and his Communist dictatorship? I would say certainly not. They are musicians and they felt they were doing something positive and performing basically a goodwill mission. The same can easily be said for Friedman who, as an economist, gave a lecture in Chile about economics. He said he did not condone Pinochet's regime and believed the military junta should end, but his purpose for being there was a very simple one: to spread knowledge about economics.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Much as some people here are critics of Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine", I think she does make a case, in spite the hype she surrounds it with, that Milton Friedman's ideas result in a pretty crappy world when put into practice.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Communism is clearly a failed economic system. I think both laissez-faire capitalism and communist economics are not well fit with human nature. Regulated capitalism is.

[Pardalis]

Much as some people here are critics of Naomi Klein's book, "The Shock Doctrine", I think she does make a case, in spite the hype she surrounds it with, that Milton Friedman's ideas result in a pretty crappy world when put into practice.

That's like a creationist blaming Darwin for Nazi Germany.

ETA: although the same can be said about those who compare Marx with what happened with communism.

[Darth Rotor]

To me, these videos SUPPORT Friedman's arguments, but for some reason my opponent refuses to agree with me and views these videos as the smoking gun that Milton Friedman and libertarians seek (or "sought," in the case of Friedman) to create a corporate upper class whose goal is to keep down the lower classes and to corrupt society.

Insofar as Friedman being right:

Kinky Friedman was right.

Milton Friedman is now a self serving sharpshooter who is no longer accountable for what he does or says.

Kinky for President 2008, why the hell not? Write in is an option.

DR

[fishbob]

Insofar as Friedman being right:

Kinky Friedman was right.

Milton Friedman is now a self serving sharpshooter who is no longer accountable for what he does or says.

Kinky for President 2008, why the hell not? Write in is an option.

DR

Kinky has my vote.
Unless I run out of beer before the election.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's like a creationist blaming Darwin for Nazi Germany.

ETA: although the same can be said about those who compare Marx with what happened with communism.Nonsense. What the heck does Darwinism have to do with fascism? That is just the Bible apologists trying to justify their claim evolution theory would result in X but we have Y so evolution is false. It's totally a straw man.

[admitted oversimplification] But put Libertarian views into practice and you actually get greedy people acting to defraud others if there is no regulation to stop them. Because there are enough people with a greedy nature that the Libertarian model fails. For example, the market forces are distorted by advertising. You don't get the best product as long as the people selling the crummy product can get people to buy stuff based on false or misleading advertising. So how does the Libertarian model deal with that? Not well.

Shermer argues in his latest book along with a few other Libertarians that monopolies are inefficient and the market forces will take care of them on their own. But what that leaves out of the equation is concentration of wealth. That is not the same as monopolies. The way the 'market forces' correct concentrated wealth is with violent overthrow. That is what has happened time and time again in history.

Concentrated wealth also leads to concentrated political power and that leads to corruption and cronyism. Again, that is what we see in practice. Fascism is not what we see when we plug evolution theory into a computer simulation model.

Why does the communist economic system fail? One, because it requires a lot of control and human nature again is that power corrupts. Another reason is human nature is less motivated with the reward system of 'to each according to need'. [/admitted oversimplification]

So your analogy isn't even close.

[Sefarst]

Nonsense. What the heck does Darwinism have to do with fascism? That is just the Bible apologists trying to justify their claim evolution theory would result in X but we have Y so evolution is false. It's totally a straw man.

Darwinism was bastardized by the Nazis (modern neo-Nazis included) as a justification for the wholesale slaughter of what they considered to be "lesser" races, i.e. those less fit to survive.

[admitted oversimplification] But put Libertarian views into practice and you actually get greedy people acting to defraud others if there is no regulation to stop them. Because there are enough people with a greedy nature that the Libertarian model fails.

Enough people? Everyone is greedy. Think about how many times per day you have to defraud people. How often do you do it? You would be surprised by the amount of business transactions that occur without contracts, the operate purely on the trust of the other party because everyone recognizes that goodwill is very valuable. People will do what's in their self-interest though, the secret is that most people realize its not in their best interests to screw people over all the time.

For example, the market forces are distorted by advertising. You don't get the best product as long as the people selling the crummy product can get people to buy stuff based on false or misleading advertising. So how does the Libertarian model deal with that? Not well.
The Libertarian model doesn't say that there shouldn't be anyone verifying the claims of companies, they just think that it doesn't need to be the government doing it. There are plenty of consumer advocacy groups in this country.

Shermer argues in his latest book along with a few other Libertarians that monopolies are inefficient and the market forces will take care of them on their own.

Monopolies actually are inefficient, should you look at the graphs a monopolistic market. Its impossible for a monopoly to operate without creating deadweight loss. A good example of market forces breaking up a monopoly is US Steel which controlled over 2/3 of the market in 1911 when the government tried to break it up, claiming it violated Anti-Trust law for being a monopoly. US Steel won the case, but were eventually out-competed. Today they produce less than 10% of the steel in this country.

But if you look around today, you see that the only true monopolies in place are those put into place BY THE GOVERNMENT.

But what that leaves out of the equation is concentration of wealth. That is not the same as monopolies. The way the 'market forces' correct concentrated wealth is with violent overthrow. That is what has happened time and time again in history.

This is ridiculous. It's not the having of wealth that matters, its how you got it that can lead to violent overthrow. If you're a hereditary monarch who taxes working people to death so you can build palaces for yourself, you're going to cause resentment.

Why does the communist economic system fail? One, because it requires a lot of control and human nature again is that power corrupts. Another reason is human nature is less motivated with the reward system of 'to each according to need'. [/admitted oversimplification]

Partially. I think mostly it has to do with the fact that it leads to dictators in the large scale for a very simple reason. When you concentrate the needs of a large group of people into the hands of the few, when you tell them a small group of people at the national level can take care of providing them with food, electricity, water, transportation, medicine, education and every other individual need, you have centralized power. If you're an individual sitting at the head of this government and you have control over what the people need to survive, that's a level of power that's very hard to walk away from.

[Sefarst]

Milton Friedman is now a self serving sharpshooter who is no longer accountable for what he does or says.
He's also dead, so I'm not sure how self-serving he is.

[Pardalis]

So your analogy isn't even close.

See here:

[admitted oversimplification]

That was exactly my point.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...The Libertarian model doesn't say that there shouldn't be anyone verifying the claims of companies, they just think that it doesn't need to be the government doing it. There are plenty of consumer advocacy groups in this country.And what, they are going to fix the problems by some counter advertising? What enforcement would they be using against big bucks false advertising, for example?


...Monopolies actually are inefficient, should you look at the graphs a monopolistic market....[snip] Your point? Did I say I disagreed? No.

...But if you look around today, you see that the only true monopolies in place are those put into place BY THE GOVERNMENT. This is some bizarre, knee jerk, 'government is evil' statement that doesn't even make sense. Just which monopolies would you be referring to here?



...This is ridiculous. It's not the having of wealth that matters, its how you got it that can lead to violent overthrow. If you're a hereditary monarch who taxes working people to death so you can build palaces for yourself, you're going to cause resentment. Could you cite an historical example, because otherwise I don't have a clue what you are on about here.


...Partially. I think mostly it has to do with the fact that it leads to dictators in the large scale for a very simple reason. When you concentrate the needs of a large group of people into the hands of the few, when you tell them a small group of people at the national level can take care of providing them with food, electricity, water, transportation, medicine, education and every other individual need, you have centralized power. If you're an individual sitting at the head of this government and you have control over what the people need to survive, that's a level of power that's very hard to walk away from.I do not advocate a strong government. I advocate regulation against propaganda and false advertising and against concentration of media ownership so we can maintain informed citizen involvement in government.

[Skeptic Ginger]

See here:



That was exactly my point.And your specific objection to my oversimplification was?

[Richard Masters]

When this "great man" gave governmental advice to Augusto Pinochet, and then tried to lecture the world on freedom you have to question both his morality and his sense of irony.

I'm not going to take an absolutist position on Friedman, but spending one hour with Augusto Pinochet doesn't strike me as association in the way you appear to mean it.

Friedman and [l]ibertarianism run against many of the things that Pinochet did. You can't logically fault Friedman for advice he did not give.

Chile is one of the strongest economies in Latin America today, and China is becoming a superpower. Both accepted and put into practice Friedman's advice.

[Richard Masters]

That's fine. Except you're still left with the attribution of evil motives to Friedman. That "free market theory" does not concern itself directly with the notion of justice or evil does not mean you and I should not. The accusation against him is more than just that his policies will inadvertently lead to harm: the accusation is that he intends harm. Claiming that libertarianism doesn't address the issue of social justice doesn't solve the problem with the accusation against him. How can you not recognize this?

Very well put.

[Richard Masters]

[admitted oversimplification] But put Libertarian views into practice and you actually get greedy people acting to defraud others if there is no regulation to stop them. Because there are enough people with a greedy nature that the Libertarian model fails. For example, the market forces are distorted by advertising. You don't get the best product as long as the people selling the crummy product can get people to buy stuff based on false or misleading advertising. So how does the Libertarian model deal with that? Not well.

But libertarianism is not mutually exclusive with regulation. I do agree, however, that market forces are distorted by advertising.


You don't get the best product as long as the people selling the crummy product can get people to buy stuff based on false or misleading advertising. So how does the Libertarian model deal with that? Not well.

[l]ibertarianism isn't perfect, but it is not much different regarding misleading advertising than what we currently have. How does the libertarian model deal with it? Word of mouth, a savvy entrepreneur who knows a certain product is crappy and advertises a better one, private certification agencies, contract law, etc.


Shermer argues in his latest book along with a few other Libertarians that monopolies are inefficient and the market forces will take care of them on their own. But what that leaves out of the equation is concentration of wealth. That is not the same as monopolies. The way the 'market forces' correct concentrated wealth is with violent overthrow. That is what has happened time and time again in history.

Does concentration of wealth follow from free-market ideas?

Concentrated wealth also leads to concentrated political power and that leads to corruption and cronyism. Again, that is what we see in practice. Fascism is not what we see when we plug evolution theory into a computer simulation model.

But you are assuming that from free-markets comes concentrated wealth. Here is what a left-libertarian has to say.

The chief substantive difference between distributists and left-wing free marketers, it seems to me, involves not so much our sympathies or goals as our understanding of causality. To take much distributist rhetoric at face value, it seems to imply that the present concentration of wealth and capital emerged from laissez-faire and is the natural result of a free market, and that some form of state intervention is necessary to prevent wealth from being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. The left-wing free marketer, on the other hand, sees the natural tendency of the market as egalitarian and decentralist, and sees the present day system of corporate power and concentrated wealth as the result of massive state intervention on behalf of the wealthy and powerful.The left-wing free marketer says the same thing his radical free market ancestors said:remove all state subsidies to big business, and all special privileges protecting it from competition, and the market will operate as dynamite at the foundations of corporate power; let the dynamite of the market operate, and we will see a decentralized economy of small-scale industry producing for local markets, with widespread cooperative ownership and self-employment.

http://distributism.blogspot.com/2007/09/libertarianism-and-distributism.html

[Sefarst]

And what, they are going to fix the problems by some counter advertising? What enforcement would they be using against big bucks false advertising, for example?

They could run a consumer advocacy site and it would be consumers' responsibility to research their purchases.

Your point? Did I say I disagreed? No.

Then you agree with most of the Libertarians who say government regulation should not be in place against monopolies?


This is some bizarre, knee jerk, 'government is evil' statement that doesn't even make sense. Just which monopolies would you be referring to here?

Where I live, there are plenty of government sanctioned monopolies [Georgia Power being perhaps the best example]. For another example, look at the history of AT&T and the Kingsbury Commitment back in 1913.


Could you cite an historical example, because otherwise I don't have a clue what you are on about here.

See above.

I do not advocate a strong government. I advocate regulation against propaganda and false advertising and against concentration of media ownership so we can maintain informed citizen involvement in government.
Concentration of media ownership, i.e. a media monopoly? So you DO have a problem with monopolies?

[Skeptic Ginger]

But libertarianism is not mutually exclusive with regulation. I do agree, however, that market forces are distorted by advertising.

[l]ibertarianism isn't perfect, but it is not much different regarding misleading advertising than what we currently have. How does the libertarian model deal with it? Word of mouth, a savvy entrepreneur who knows a certain product is crappy and advertises a better one, private certification agencies, contract law, etc.

Does concentration of wealth follow from free-market ideas?

But you are assuming that from free-markets comes concentrated wealth. Here is what a left-libertarian has to say.Totalitarianism doesn't follow a communist economic system necessarily either, and right wing dictators don't have to follow capitalism but we sure supported a lot of them in the name of capitalism.

What I am suggesting is that regardless of the pure economic principles, Libertarianism (aka laissez faire capitalism) and communism, there are certain qualities of those two economic systems that combined with human nature don't do well when put into practice. One is all individualism and one is no individualism. What has worked the best is what the Western world has really done, that is, put a combination of the two into practice. Unfortunately some of our leaders were not so concerned that we established mirror governments and economic systems in the countries we were taking advantage of. That, I believe, was the result of the power inequality but that's another subject.

Some things do best as community sourced despite the belief by a lot of capitalists that the government can't do anything better than the market can. If you look at the actual evidence, countries with national health care provide a better standard of care for less money than we do in this country. You can argue ad nauseum that this reason or that aspect accounts for the difference rather than the nationalized/privatized variables, (no sense doing that here, there are other threads on the subject). But the evidence right now is that the nationalized systems do better per dollar spent.

We are doing quite well with government sourced police and fire. Sherman argued with me that he wouldn't mind private police services like Blackwater. Well I would, and who polices the police when the guy hiring them decides to bully someone else? It just is totally unworkable unless you have some kind of arbitration and that would be a mess. Bush has privatized all number of things and the result has been departments with all sorts of stuff outsourced to cronies and Bush will doers. How does having private sources of government services being the cronies of the President serve the public better than a government source which is accountable to the public?

It may not be inherent in the economic system, but privatizing everything lends itself all too well to cronyism and lack of oversight.

Obviously some things are better served in the private market. But the blanket myth that the government can't provide certain public services and that private markets are always more efficient is just that, a myth.

I can give you an example where the market produces a bad product. With insurance of all kinds the best product is profit for the insurer, not the best product for the ultimate consumer. That hasn't been working very well at all lately since some company has sold its consulting services to some of these companies and advised them to cut back on paying claims rather than increasing market share.

[RandFan]

Corruption benefits a few, at the expense of the rest of society. For those who benefit it is obviously in their self-interest to maintain or expand such corruption.Henry Ford believed it was in his best interest to increase the wages of his workers. He was right.

There are many such examples. Many wealthy individuals fight corruption because they don't want to live in countries like Mexico where the wealthy have come to believe that it really is a zero sum game.

I'm not saying that corruption doesn't exist in America. I'm saying that it is much less endemic and more importantly that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

[Skeptic Ginger]

They could run a consumer advocacy site and it would be consumers' responsibility to research their purchases. Never effective enough to counter the massive capital sunk into advertising and there would never be adequate funding. It is better if we have government oversight of false advertising. This has lapsed significantly under Bush's polices favoring letting the market take care of itself.


Then you agree with most of the Libertarians who say government regulation should not be in place against monopolies?


Where I live, there are plenty of government sanctioned monopolies [Georgia Power being perhaps the best example]. For another example, look at the history of AT&T and the Kingsbury Commitment back in 1913.


See above.


Concentration of media ownership, i.e. a media monopoly? So you DO have a problem with monopolies?What you are describing as bad monopolies have all been worsened by our current government's policy of deregulating everything and letting market forces act. The outcome has been poor.

When utilities were government sponsored monopolies like AT&T, the promise was if we stopped regulating them and let the market forces work instead, things would be fine. My private utilities, cable, phone, and Internet costs have continually gone up, products change on a regular basis specifically to make it difficult for the consumer to compare services and the companies now are in the habit of forcing people to either pay a few extra hundred dollars up front or commit to 2 years of service. It is a mess.

My regulated utilities, power, gas and garbage are run by semi private companies, water and sewer are run by the city, have only risen by as much as the cost for the products, in fact our water, sewer and garbage rates remain incredibly low.


Keep in mind here that people seem to want to lump me into some socialist category just because I advocate some government run services and more regulations not less. That doesn't mean I don't think the free market works for most things, because I do. Like I said, I think regulated capitalism works just fine. We had more of that under 8 years of Clinton and we did pretty well in this country. Bush and his 6 years of unrestrained Republican control favoring letting business keep its own house have had terrible results. If you look at their policies, they have refused to enforce regulations as a way of ignoring the balance of powers and they have outsourced tons of government services to the private sector but mostly to cronies. We are certainly not better off.

[Sefarst]

Never effective enough to counter the massive capital sunk into advertising and there would never be adequate funding. It is better if we have government oversight of false advertising. This has lapsed significantly under Bush's polices favoring letting the market take care of itself.

I'm not sure if you've noticed or been reading Randi's Swift, but his loudest complaint in the last few months has been the government's inability to stop false advertising. From Airbourne to Head On to Kinoki Foot Pads to Trudeau's books. And, worse yet, in many other countries, government subsidies are given to Homeopathy and acupuncture.

What you are describing as bad monopolies have all been worsened by our current government's policy of deregulating everything and letting market forces act. The outcome has been poor.

Deregulating everything? Where are you living? We have seen more and more regulation in the last few decades, most recently Bush proposed broad new sweeping powers for the Federal Reserve to regulate the money supply.

When utilities were government sponsored monopolies like AT&T, the promise was if we stopped regulating them and let the market forces work instead, things would be fine. My private utilities, cable, phone, and Internet costs have continually gone up, products change on a regular basis specifically to make it difficult for the consumer to compare services and the companies now are in the habit of forcing people to either pay a few extra hundred dollars up front or commit to 2 years of service. It is a mess.

We're talking about efficiency of resources, not cheapest prices. The increase in prices is more to the result in the increase in fuel costs and overall inflation.

My regulated utilities, power, gas and garbage are run by semi private companies, water and sewer are run by the city, have only risen by as much as the cost for the products, in fact our water, sewer and garbage rates remain incredibly low.

Anecdotal.

Keep in mind here that people seem to want to lump me into some socialist category just because I advocate some government run services and more regulations not less. That doesn't mean I don't think the free market works for most things, because I do. Like I said, I think regulated capitalism works just fine. We had more of that under 8 years of Clinton and we did pretty well in this country. Bush and his 6 years of unrestrained Republican control favoring letting business keep its own house have had terrible results. If you look at their policies, they have refused to enforce regulations as a way of ignoring the balance of powers and they have outsourced tons of government services to the private sector but mostly to cronies. We are certainly not better off.
As I said, Bush is far from the deregulation hound you try to make him out to be. Bush engaged in protectionism to protect the steel industry in the US, new oversight committees have been created, and he bailed out Bear Stearns, to name a few things. The current financial crisis is a result of too much liquidity in the market compounded with some poor congressional legislation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure if you've noticed or been reading Randi's Swift, but his loudest complaint in the last few months has been the government's inability to stop false advertising. From Airbourne to Head On to Kinoki Foot Pads to Trudeau's books. And, worse yet, in many other countries, government subsidies are given to Homeopathy and acupuncture. Inability vs not willing to are too different things. This current administration has gutted regulatory enforcement as a means of getting around the balance of powers.


Deregulating everything? Where are you living? We have seen more and more regulation in the last few decades, most recently Bush proposed broad new sweeping powers for the Federal Reserve to regulate the money supply. I'm not for or against the current Federal Reserve actions per se, but to call these sweeping regulations when the changes were needed because of the industry's total meltdown without any regulations and oversight is a bizarre way to describe what is going on.


We're talking about efficiency of resources, not cheapest prices. The increase in prices is more to the result in the increase in fuel costs and overall inflation.What does this have to do with forcing up front payments or 2 year contracts and continual shifting of service "packages" to prevent cost comparisons from actually being done?



Anecdotal. Right, an anecdote which applies equally to every utility customer around. :rolleyes:


As I said, Bush is far from the deregulation hound you try to make him out to be. Bush engaged in protectionism to protect the steel industry in the US, new oversight committees have been created, and he bailed out Bear Stearns, to name a few things. The current financial crisis is a result of too much liquidity in the market compounded with some poor congressional legislation.I don't have the time to correct you on this nonsense. This administration has gutted regulatory bodies right and left. Look up the problem with Bush failing to appoint people needed to enforce regulations for a place to start. I already described the failure of OSHA to carry through on worker protection from TB that was in the final rule stage when Bush took office. Rummy went to town with private contractors for half of what the Pentagon has previously been in charge of.

[Sefarst]

Inability vs not willing to are too different things. This current administration has gutted regulatory enforcement as a means of getting around the balance of powers.

So if the government is unable to stop false advertising, but keeps demanding money for it, that is considered a good thing? Most people would consider that a waste. If I thought I could fly by waving my arms and stood in the street every day flapping like an idiot, would you admire my willingness despite my inability? Would you be willing to pay money for food for me that I may continue my arm flapping uninterrupted by work?

I'm not for or against the current Federal Reserve actions per se, but to call these sweeping regulations when the changes were needed because of the industry's total meltdown without any regulations and oversight is a bizarre way to describe what is going on.

But it is regulation. If you want to characterize the Bush administration as a hardcore deregulator, you would be almost completely wrong. Just the opposite has occurred during his administration.


What does this have to do with forcing up front payments or 2 year contracts and continual shifting of service "packages" to prevent cost comparisons from actually being done?

The companies expect fuel cost increases and inflation to occur. They have been occuring for quite some time now. These costs have been incorporated into their business models. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you talk about service packages, though.

Right, an anecdote which applies equally to every utility customer around. :rolleyes:

Not me, my water and sewage have actually increased by a substantial rate. Looking at my last bill, I'd calculate 9% increase per gallon in price since a a year and a half ago. My cable has only increased $2 (from $25 to $27), an increase of 8%. Hence why I emphasize that your calculations are only anecdotal. It depends on where you live as well as a dozen other factors. For instance, my water and sewage are more expensive because my area is currently in a bad drought.


I don't have the time to correct you on this nonsense. This administration has gutted regulatory bodies right and left. Look up the problem with Bush failing to appoint people needed to enforce regulations for a place to start. I already described the failure of OSHA to carry through on worker protection from TB that was in the final rule stage when Bush took office. Rummy went to town with private contractors for half of what the Pentagon has previously been in charge of.

From the environment to the economy, Bush has added more regulations. You barely provide any examples to the contrary here.

[Cain]

Sefarst,

You're full of crap. I do not know of any modern administration that has not increased regulation in some sectors of the economy while deregulating. For the Bush regime look at housing, mining, energy, "healthy forests," "clear skies." The general push for deregulation did get start a few decades back, specifically in the late 70s. The climate changed. There was actually a pretty good article in a recent issue of (I want to say) New York Times Magazine discussing Lewis Powell's infamous "memo" in the early 70s. Obviously you cannot just look at this President, or even the executive branch. The focus of the aforementioned article was the Supreme Court, but with Bush you wouldn't just look at the laws on the books but the agencies in charge of regulating industry, and the people in charge of running those agencies. Enforcement is a joke.

I'm sure we could find someone from Public Citizen (or the Heritage Foundation) all too willing to cite what Bush has done (or has not done). Of course Public Citizen will say it's an outrage, a new low, and Heritage will say Bush has not gone nearly far enough, but you're totally missing the big picture.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks Cain, I am a bit tired and I hate leaving those distorted views of the facts unanswered. It's not like all the conversation in political discussions right now isn't about how lack of regulation led to our current economic troubles in the financial markets. Again it boggles the mind how anyone can view that as the fault of too much regulation or the government acting too much as opposed to not enough.

[pbergeron]

... But put Libertarian views into practice and you actually get greedy people acting to defraud others if there is no regulation to stop them. Because there are enough people with a greedy nature that the Libertarian model fails. For example, the market forces are distorted by advertising. You don't get the best product as long as the people selling the crummy product can get people to buy stuff based on false or misleading advertising. So how does the Libertarian model deal with that? Not well.

...

How does regulation solve the greed problem, if the ones doing the regulating are themselves greedy?

What kind of business model is the one you cited? Wouldn't the customers themselves "regulate" the businesses?

Sure Company X may win the short-term battle by quickly selling products using saavy advertising methods, but this would be a horrible business model for a company looking to survive long term. It wouldn't take me very long to figure out that the product they convinced me into buying was crappy. Now they have lost my business and my trust.



...

If you look at their policies, they have refused to enforce regulations as a way of ignoring the balance of powers and they have outsourced tons of government services to the private sector but mostly to cronies. We are certainly not better off.

Is this admitting that those in our government are actually capable of being corrupt? How then is this supposed to convince me to want more government regulation? Someone has to enforce the regulation. Can the enforcer not be corrupt as well?


The entire issue here seems to be determining who we can trust. To think that the government is infallible and will only act in the best interest of the people is misguided. These people can be bought. It is like Sefarst says, EVERYONE is greedy.

[Mycroft]

Basically I expect the upper classes to use their superior financial means and economic position to advance their position as much as possible within the legal limits, regardless of any detrimental effects on society as a whole. Which is why I support an elaborate regulatory system to prevent such detriments, with measures in place to punish those who cross it. And that's the opposite of the libertarian position.


I think the logical disconnect is in looking at the upper classes as a single cohesive group that will act in concert to advance common interests rather than as the group of individuals that they really are.

I've never met a wealthy person who had any interest in keeping anyone else down.

[Mycroft]

Free market theory assumes rational self-interest, as far as I know it makes no mention of justice whatsoever. Which is the point, rational self-interest for one person can result in tremendous injustice to others.

To their credit, libertarians do oppose murder and support property rights. I'm not allowed to take your posessions without your permission. That is good, but insufficient.

Suppose I create a pension fund. People put their money in, I invest it and pay myself a handsome wage plus a bonus proportional to the yearly gain. That encourages me to take high risks, increasing my bonus. Unfortunately, because of the high risk the fund went bust during the credit crunch. Fortunately (for me), I still have much of the money I made.

No murder was commited, and the people who put their money in did so voluntarily. Too bad they lost everything, including their pensions. The point is that one has to commit neither murder nor theft to rob old ladies. Without comprehensive regulation it can be done legally in a libertarian society. And without the prospect of punishment it would be in my rational self-interest to do so, regardless of how immoral it is.

Rational self-interest would be for the people contributing to the pension fund (and who are depending on it for their retirement) to not hire managers who will put their money at high-risk. Friedman would have likely recommended a different fund where the manager was compensated differently.

Anyone who has followed recent news on the Bear Sterns collapse and buyout understands there are a lot of questions being raised about how investment bankers are paid, and rightly so, but none of that proves Friedman wrong.

[Mycroft]

But what that leaves out of the equation is concentration of wealth. That is not the same as monopolies. The way the 'market forces' correct concentrated wealth is with violent overthrow. That is what has happened time and time again in history.

What is it about "concentrated wealth" that needs correcting?

The issue isn't if a few people have a lot of wealth, the real issue is the availability of wealth to the masses. Starving people will revolt regardless of the relative wealth of the upper class, but if the average person is comfortable and well fed, then it doesn't matter how many Warren Buffets or Bill Gates you got running around with their tens of billions of dollars.


Concentrated wealth also leads to concentrated political power and that leads to corruption and cronyism.

I don't see how that necessarily follows. Certainly there can be corruption and cronyism with little concentration of wealth. Doesn't this have more to do with the rule of law in the society in question?

[Mycroft]

They could run a consumer advocacy site and it would be consumers' responsibility to research their purchases.


This seems to be a logical disconnect of libertarians.

Nobody has the time and resources to research every purchase they make.

Consumer advocacy groups can be fronts for paid advertising, industry shills, or motivated by a political agenda.

The truth is some degree of government oversight is necessary.

[IchabodPlain]

This seems to be a logical disconnect of libertarians.

Nobody has the time and resources to research every purchase they make.

Consumer advocacy groups can be fronts for paid advertising, industry shills, or motivated by a political agenda.

The truth is some degree of government oversight is necessary.

I also agree with this sentiment. False advertising and things of the like are issues of fraud, which are the government's business. Consumer advocacy groups can be very useful, but unfortunately, are often nothing more than a bunch of muckrakers.

[Sefarst]

Sefarst,

You're full of crap.

Cute. I'm glad we got that out of the way. Now onto your inane post...

I do not know of any modern administration that has not increased regulation in some sectors of the economy while deregulating. For the Bush regime look at housing, mining, energy, "healthy forests," "clear skies."

I don't believe I argued that Bush hadn't deregulated anything. If you would recall:

What you are describing as bad monopolies have all been worsened by our current government's policy of deregulating everything and letting market forces act. The outcome has been poor.

Deregulating everything? Where are you living? We have seen more and more regulation in the last few decades, most recently Bush proposed broad new sweeping powers for the Federal Reserve to regulate the money supply.

But it is regulation. If you want to characterize the Bush administration as a hardcore deregulator, you would be almost completely wrong. Just the opposite has occurred during his administration.

I'll save you the trouble and say that I accept your apology now. Please direct all further criticisms to Skeptigirl.

There was actually a pretty good article in a recent issue of (I want to say) New York Times Magazine discussing Lewis Powell's infamous "memo" in the early 70s. Obviously you cannot just look at this President, or even the executive branch.

Here's a good and more recent article from The New York Times in 2003 about Bush's new regulations. Skeptigirl, you should pay attention too, it refutes what you earlier said about deregulating everything.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E2D8113EF932A05751C1A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

The article explains very simply what you just said, Cain, and what I assume you thought I was unaware of.

I'm sure we could find someone from Public Citizen (or the Heritage Foundation) all too willing to cite what Bush has done (or has not done).
I'm sure we could. We can also find plenty of fiscal conservatives and businesspeople who are outraged by all of the new regulations he has introduced.


Thanks Cain, I am a bit tired and I hate leaving those distorted views of the facts unanswered. It's not like all the conversation in political discussions right now isn't about how lack of regulation led to our current economic troubles in the financial markets. Again it boggles the mind how anyone can view that as the fault of too much regulation or the government acting too much as opposed to not enough.


And what you obviously failed to realize (probably in the relief you felt in thinking that Cain was taking some heat off of you) is that his criticisms actually apply to YOU and not to me.

Thus, I still await any backup you want to give to defend your statements.

[Sefarst]

This seems to be a logical disconnect of libertarians.

Nobody has the time and resources to research every purchase they make.

Consumer advocacy groups can be fronts for paid advertising, industry shills, or motivated by a political agenda.

The truth is some degree of government oversight is necessary.
But the Libertarian argument is that there all ready is a check for people that have been defrauded and that is the lawsuit. Naturally, the criticism against this is that lawsuits are difficult and take a long time, which is true, but so is government regulation. We know it works, as it did largely in the case of big tobacco, but, indeed, it's slow.

The question becomes whether or not there is a net gain in letting the government handle it or in letting offended parties file suits?

[IchabodPlain]

The question becomes whether or not there is a net gain in letting the government handle it or in letting offended parties file suits?

That sounds like a false dilemma. Why could it not be both?

[Sefarst]

That sounds like a false dilemma. Why could it not be both?
I guess you could argue there should be both, however it sounds like punishing a company twice for one offense. If we assume lawsuits can get the job done alone or the government can get the job done alone, why would we need both?

Of course, you could be arguing that the most gain is only achieved when BOTH engage in punishment, but that seems like a different and morer complicated argument.

[Cain]

I love it when these lightweights come on postin' up a storm like they own the joint.

Cute. I'm glad we got that out of the way. Now onto your inane post...
I don't believe I argued that Bush hadn't deregulated anything. If you would recall:

I specifically took issue with your claim, "We have seen more and more regulation in the last few decades," which is just plain wrong, and you fail to defend. So as you see, you may have to wait on that apology.

Here's a good and more recent article from The New York Times in 2003 about Bush's new regulations. Skeptigirl, you should pay attention too, it refutes what you earlier said about deregulating everything.

Interesting. I reference an article that came out in the last two weeks, and you reach back 4+ years into the archives to find something "more recent." Um, you need to try to understand what others are saying before launching into a counter-argument. This is just passing advice to save you further embarrassment. You're welcome.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E2D8113EF932A05751C1A9659C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

The article explains very simply what you just said, Cain, and what I assume you thought I was unaware of.

Not really. I do not think you had a clue what I said. Also, the way the Sanger article characterizes the Bush administration is at odds with the general thrust of your postings. He's forced reluctantly forced into regulation because he faces election, political accountability. Do you recall what Bush did after winning the 2004 election? He got to the podium and gave a whole spiel about how he has "political capital" and intends to spend it. Spend it on what, you ask? Why, "reforming" Social Security of course!

I'm sure we could. We can also find plenty of fiscal conservatives and businesspeople who are outraged by all of the new regulations he has introduced.

Sure, but he was their guy in 2000 and 2004. They still voted for him, many enthusiastically because they know Mr. MBA from Harvard/Kennyboy is pro-business. Doctrinaire libertarians, market fundamentalists, are a different beast entirely. But you knew that already -- sort of, anyway.

[Arkayik]

It seems to me that Friedman said in the video (paraphrased) a free economy policed by a strong judiciary...

Beyond that, I think economists are not much better than weather forecasters. They are really only good as historians for rummaging through the entrails of the past. Given that, they are the worst type of historians, because they try to fancy it all up with impressive numbers...:boxedin:

It seems to me Economists are used in much the same way as religions, to justify otherwise unpalatable state behaviour...

[IchabodPlain]

I guess you could argue there should be both, however it sounds like punishing a company twice for one offense. If we assume lawsuits can get the job done alone or the government can get the job done alone, why would we need both?

Of course, you could be arguing that the most gain is only achieved when BOTH engage in punishment, but that seems like a different and morer complicated argument.

No, no, I am talking about an either/or situation, not punishing a company twice. I think this is necessary because you cannot simply entrust government or private citizenry to enforce something that can be so prevalent and pervasive such as faulty claims and/or products.

A regulatory agency can suffer from the same problems of cronyism and corruption, just like any advocacy group. Having both parties engaged in the testing, screening, and/or marketing ensures that maximum number of products are safe and verifiable.

Do you believe that false advertising and/or unsafe/faulty products are fraud? If so, do you believe then that it is an issue dealing with the rule of law?

[Sefarst]

I specifically took issue with your claim, "We have seen more and more regulation in the last few decades," which is just plain wrong, and you fail to defend. So as you see, you may have to wait on that apology.

Ah, I meant to say "years," hence why I only mentioned Bush rather than other presidents. I don't disagree that deregulation gained popularity in the 70's. My apologies.

Interesting. I reference an article that came out in the last two weeks, and you reach back 4+ years into the archives to find something "more recent." Um, you need to try to understand what others are saying before launching into a counter-argument. This is just passing advice to save you further embarrassment. You're welcome.

You didn't say it came out in the last two weeks and in the same breath you mention the memo from the 70's. So don't worry, I'm not the least bit embarassed, though its interesting that you'd rather nitpick over "recent."

Also, the way the Sanger article characterizes the Bush administration is at odds with the general thrust of your postings. He's forced reluctantly forced into regulation because he faces election, political accountability. Do you recall what Bush did after winning the 2004 election? He got to the podium and gave a whole spiel about how he has "political capital" and intends to spend it. Spend it on what, you ask? Why, "reforming" Social Security of course!

I all ready agreed that administrations do a little of both, regulating and deregulating. The article suspects political motivations (it's the New York Times) and it could largely be right as most of the decisions politicians make have political motivations. That doesn't change the results that his term has led to more regulation in several areas.

[Sefarst]

No, no, I am talking about an either/or situation, not punishing a company twice. I think this is necessary because you cannot simply entrust government or private citizenry to enforce something that can be so prevalent and pervasive such as faulty claims and/or products.

A regulatory agency can suffer from the same problems of cronyism and corruption, just like any advocacy group. Having both parties engaged in the testing, screening, and/or marketing ensures that maximum number of products are safe and verifiable.

Do you believe that false advertising and/or unsafe/faulty products are fraud? If so, do you believe then that it is an issue dealing with the rule of law?
I do believe it is an issue of fraud, however the legal issue is less clear to me. If a deliberate lie results in personal harm to a party, I support that person having grounds for a lawsuit. I support it in the civil sense, but not necessarily in the criminal sense.

[Mycroft]

But the Libertarian argument is that there all ready is a check for people that have been defrauded and that is the lawsuit. Naturally, the criticism against this is that lawsuits are difficult and take a long time, which is true, but so is government regulation. We know it works, as it did largely in the case of big tobacco, but, indeed, it's slow.

The question becomes whether or not there is a net gain in letting the government handle it or in letting offended parties file suits?

The problem with discussing ideologies is that people tend to end up talking extremes, such as in the videos that started this thread where the young student uses extreme examples to "disprove" Friedman, and Friedman counters by citing extreme examples in the opposite direction. In the real world policy makers can find a middle ground between letting die for lack of electricity and making the payment of utilities voluntary, etc.

Saying "there already is a check" is a weak argument if it can be demonstrated that a problem exists. Some problems may require more than one check.

In general I tend to have sympathy with libertarian ideas, but relying solely on the courts to address problems is just absurd. I don't want to go into litigation to protect basic rights and I don't want to see society paralyzed by excessive litigation. It just makes more sense to create regulations to head off the bulk of the problems and to reserve litigation for the most egregious abuses.

[IchabodPlain]

I do believe it is an issue of fraud, however the legal issue is less clear to me. If a deliberate lie results in personal harm to a party, I support that person having grounds for a lawsuit. I support it in the civil sense, but not necessarily in the criminal sense.

Why wouldn't you support the deliberate forwarding of false statements in the criminal sense?

[IchabodPlain]

The problem with discussing ideologies is that people tend to end up talking extremes, such as in the videos that started this thread where the young student uses extreme examples to "disprove" Friedman, and Friedman counters by citing extreme examples in the opposite direction. In the real world policy makers can find a middle ground between letting die for lack of electricity and making the payment of utilities voluntary, etc.

Saying "there already is a check" is a weak argument if it can be demonstrated that a problem exists. Some problems may require more than one check.

In general I tend to have sympathy with libertarian ideas, but relying solely on the courts to address problems is just absurd. I don't want to go into litigation to protect basic rights and I don't want to see society paralyzed by excessive litigation. It just makes more sense to create regulations to head off the bulk of the problems and to reserve litigation for the most egregious abuses.

Little off topic, but do you think someone can die from lack of electricity? Maybe he needed to be connected to an iron lung or dialysis machine?

[Sefarst]

The problem with discussing ideologies is that people tend to end up talking extremes, such as in the videos that started this thread where the young student uses extreme examples to "disprove" Friedman, and Friedman counters by citing extreme examples in the opposite direction. In the real world policy makers can find a middle ground between letting die for lack of electricity and making the payment of utilities voluntary, etc.

When discussing matters of principal, as Friedman was, I can understand the need to talk in extremes. The actual practical matter of the law though can be a different story. The libertarians have yet to have any real power in government and thus have yet to have to compromise on any issues.

Saying "there already is a check" is a weak argument if it can be demonstrated that a problem exists. Some problems may require more than one check.

That sounds more like a conflict of goals. Is the goal to have no companies and individuals making false statements or is the goal just to have a legal recourse for damaged parties? To the Libertarian, if you have been geuinely defrauded and harmed, sue. I think they see no reason to engage the government in the matter with public money.

In general I tend to have sympathy with libertarian ideas, but relying solely on the courts to address problems is just absurd. I don't want to go into litigation to protect basic rights and I don't want to see society paralyzed by excessive litigation.

I think you would get challenged on the idea that you have a basic right to not be lied to. And very often when the government goes after a company for false advertising, the matter ends up in court in anyway.

It just makes more sense to create regulations to head off the bulk of the problems and to reserve litigation for the most egregious abuses.
And that could be a valid argument, but, to me, I need to see just what difference would be. I spend a bit of time talking with Libertarians, sometimes arguing with them and other times agreeing with them. Normally, on technical issues like these, they tell me we still need some kind of cost-benefit analysis and I think that's what they would advocate here.

Why wouldn't you support the deliberate forwarding of false statements in the criminal sense?
For the same reason libel is considered a civil rather than a criminal offense. This isn't an opinion of mine that is set in stone, just my reaction to the idea. When evaluating false statements do we draw the line at material harm? I don't know.

[IchabodPlain]

For the same reason libel is considered a civil rather than a criminal offense. This isn't an opinion of mine that is set in stone, just my reaction to the idea. When evaluating false statements do we draw the line at material harm? I don't know.
This takes me back to my original question of is false advertising, which is defined as the deliberate forwarding of false statements of a product or service in advertising to gain a commercial advantage, fraud?

[Sefarst]

This takes me back to my original question of is false advertising, which is defined as the deliberate forwarding of false statements of a product or service in advertising to gain a commercial advantage, fraud?
Yes.

[IchabodPlain]

Yes.
I don't understand your position. If false advertising is fraud, do you not think defrauding someone should be a criminal offense?




Also, libel can be a criminal offense as well.

[Mycroft]

Little off topic, but do you think someone can die from lack of electricity? Maybe he needed to be connected to an iron lung or dialysis machine?

I'm sure he didn't die directly from lack of electricity, and I have no idea what news story was referenced in that 30 year old video, but it's easy to imagine any number of circumstances where someone who was sick and/or elderly could die from lack of heating, cooling, or power to live saving machinery.

Interestingly, decades later, we have laws making it illegal for power companies to shut off power during extreme weather or if there is life saving equipment in the home. Friedman made a valid point in saying that the failure that lead to the tragedy of the mans death was a failure of his friends and family who should have come to his aid and paid the electric bill so that he would live, but over time the lawmakers made rules that favored the point of view of the student.

I'm sure those laws were enacted from a sense of compassion, we want a safety net protecting the most vulnerable of us, but I think a strong argument can be made that Friedman is the one who really had the more compassionate answer. He placed the responsibility for that man on the people who should have loved him and cared for him, but the student (and ultimately society) placed responsibility for him on a faceless corporation.

I think Friedman's point of view is the more human.

[Mycroft]

That sounds more like a conflict of goals. Is the goal to have no companies and individuals making false statements or is the goal just to have a legal recourse for damaged parties? To the Libertarian, if you have been geuinely defrauded and harmed, sue. I think they see no reason to engage the government in the matter with public money.

I think you're making too much effort to phrase it in libertarian jargon. My goal is that the goods and services I buy are reasonably safe and reasonably close to what they are advertised to be. How that goal is accomplished I'm not too picky about. If I have a complaint, I'd rather my recourse be a regulatory agency which will act on my behalf with minimal effort on my part rather than needing to hire an attorney to pursue a civil suit.

I think one of the failings of libertarian thought is the idea that people will pursue legal redress. Most transactions are too small for the average person to bother.


I think you would get challenged on the idea that you have a basic right to not be lied to. And very often when the government goes after a company for false advertising, the matter ends up in court in anyway.


In this context I mean "rights" to mean whatever rights we choose to legally grant ourselves. I think it would get almost universal agreement that outright lying to sell products should be a no-no.

[Cain]

[quote]You didn't say it came out in the last two weeks and in the same breath you mention the memo from the 70's. So don't worry, I'm not the least bit embarassed, though its interesting that you'd rather nitpick over "recent."

I do not see how the following is impenetrable:
There was actually a pretty good article in a recent issue of (I want to say) New York Times Magazine discussing Lewis Powell's infamous "memo" in the early 70s.

I am willing to concede the limits of writing abilities, but that seems reasonably clear. As for "nitpicking," I cited specific examples, but focused more on the general shift toward deregulation in the last few decades. I mean, it's not even really arguable, which is why you didn't bother rebutting it in your response.

[Sefarst]

I don't understand your position. If false advertising is fraud, do you not think defrauding someone should be a criminal offense?

I'm torn on the issue. I'm aware of the slippery slope argument, that if we allow companies to get away from criminal liability with making false statements and defrauding people, why not con men as well? So I need to decide if I think a corporation lying to people to get them to buy something is the same as an individual lying to scam you out of something. The FTC believes there is a difference.

Also, libel can be a criminal offense as well.
I'm not sure about that in the United States. I've always been told its a tort. From the Wikipedia entry on "defamation":

Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state.

So it appears there could be some state that makes it a criminal offense, though I've never heard of it.

[Sefarst]

I think you're making too much effort to phrase it in libertarian jargon. My goal is that the goods and services I buy are reasonably safe and reasonably close to what they are advertised to be. How that goal is accomplished I'm not too picky about. If I have a complaint, I'd rather my recourse be a regulatory agency which will act on my behalf with minimal effort on my part rather than needing to hire an attorney to pursue a civil suit.

Then I guess the difference between you and Libertarian is that they ARE picky about how it gets done. Essentially, the cost of keeping your goods safe for you falls to people who aren't consuming those goods. But even as it stands now, if you are injured by some product and want compensation, the burden of getting that compensation still falls to you. On occasion, the government can "join" a lawsuit, but it still has to go through the same court system.

I think one of the failings of libertarian thought is the idea that people will pursue legal redress. Most transactions are too small for the average person to bother.

Absolutely true. But just as is the case with all lawsuits, if you don't care about getting compensation and can't be bothered to do it, then you shouldn't get compensation.

I don't necessarily want to go charging up to the courthouse every time I buy something and don't get what I expect either. But in principal I think they have a solid argument. They want to match costs to the actually involved parties. As it stands, I share in part of the cost that it takes to keep your goods safe and you share in the cost of keeping my goods safe. The Libertarian argues that people should all just worry about their own goods.

In this context I mean "rights" to mean whatever rights we choose to legally grant ourselves. I think it would get almost universal agreement that outright lying to sell products should be a no-no.
True, but is there a better way of accomplishing that goal, one that internalizes the costs of it?

[Sefarst]

Mycroft,

Interestingly, as part of the Libertarian platform, they say:


Protecting the rights and interests of victims should be the basis of our criminal justice system. Victims should have the right to be present, consulted and heard throughout the prosecution of their case.

In addition, Libertarians would do more than just punish criminals. We would also make them pay restitution to their victims for the damage they've caused, including property loss, medical costs, pain, and suffering. If you are the victim of a crime, the criminal should fully compensate you for your loss.


I think that's an interesting idea to consider. What if restitution became part of the sentencing at criminal hearings? As it stands, if someone attacks you and even if he is found guilty, you will still have to go through a separate hearing to sue them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is it about "concentrated wealth" that needs correcting?

The issue isn't if a few people have a lot of wealth, the real issue is the availability of wealth to the masses. Starving people will revolt regardless of the relative wealth of the upper class, but if the average person is comfortable and well fed, then it doesn't matter how many Warren Buffets or Bill Gates you got running around with their tens of billions of dollars.



I don't see how that necessarily follows. Certainly there can be corruption and cronyism with little concentration of wealth. Doesn't this have more to do with the rule of law in the society in question?If there was enough to go around, then I agree with you. But that isn't the case.

My belief is if we had taken the path a century ago to support decent wages and human rights then there would be a gazillion more customers for big corporations right now. But instead, corporations looked just at their gain, often using what amounted to slave labor. As people who had very little resisted, we helped right wing dictators suppress those people at the behest of corporate influence.

The result is rich and abject poverty. In this country what has been so successful is the success of the middle class. As long as people see a way to decent life, you won't have resentment toward concentrated wealth. But in the last 7 years we've seen immoral corporate exec profits and workers making less and less. Now we have all these home foreclosures and gas is becoming unaffordable to many people. Corporate execs are taking home millions while my retired neighbors lost a good chunk of their retirement income when Exxon ripped everyone off. They had bought the utility stock when it was a secure bet and the utility was bought up by Exxon. out of their control. That is the current trend.

That kind of unrestrained concentrated wealth is not good in the long run.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Give me an example of a successful Libertarian philosophy that was put into practice? If it is such a good idea, where is there an example of a country it was implemented in and was successful?

[Mycroft]

Mycroft,

Interestingly, as part of the Libertarian platform, they say:



I think that's an interesting idea to consider. What if restitution became part of the sentencing at criminal hearings? As it stands, if someone attacks you and even if he is found guilty, you will still have to go through a separate hearing to sue them.

It's a fine idea in principle and would be a great way to punish the white collar criminals of the world. If the person didn't have the means to make full restitution, we could sell him into servitude until his full debt was paid. :)

[Richard Masters]

Totalitarianism doesn't follow a communist economic system necessarily either, and right wing dictators don't have to follow capitalism but we sure supported a lot of them in the name of capitalism.

What I am suggesting is that regardless of the pure economic principles, Libertarianism (aka laissez faire capitalism) and communism, there are certain qualities of those two economic systems that combined with human nature don't do well when put into practice. One is all individualism and one is no individualism.

One places responsibility on the individual. The other tells the individual what to do.

What has worked the best is what the Western world has really done, that is, put a combination of the two into practice.

Libertarianism is not mutually exclusive with collectivism, either. Under a libertarian system, you are free to associate with whomever you want. This means that within a libertarian society you could create a hippie commune and grow "organic" produce. Nothing about libertarianism strictly enforces individualism.

Some things do best as community sourced despite the belief by a lot of capitalists that the government can't do anything better than the market can.

I agree, but this is hardly an argument against libertarianism.

We are doing quite well with government sourced police and fire. Sherman argued with me that he wouldn't mind private police services like Blackwater. Well I would, and who polices the police when the guy hiring them decides to bully someone else?

I would mind, as well, if Blackwater was in charge of policing the U.S. However, Blackwater is not subject to U.S. law. At least not in Iraq. Therefore, it's Blackwater is not relevant to a discussion about privatized police.

It just is totally unworkable unless you have some kind of arbitration and that would be a mess. Bush has privatized all number of things and the result has been departments with all sorts of stuff outsourced to cronies and Bush will doers.

Privatization is not synonymous with corruption. You seem to equate the two in the paragraph above.

How does having private sources of government services being the cronies of the President serve the public better than a government source which is accountable to the public?

Which particular government services are you referring to? As far as I know, private corporations are accountable to the public, unless they get subsidies from the government, in which case, they are not really private.

It may not be inherent in the economic system, but privatizing everything lends itself all too well to cronyism and lack of oversight.

Under Bush, maybe. But if you are talking about subsidized industries, then you are not really talking about private industries, but instead, government-subsidized monopolies.

Obviously some things are better served in the private market. But the blanket myth that the government can't provide certain public services and that private markets are always more efficient is just that, a myth.

Agreed.

I can give you an example where the market produces a bad product. With insurance of all kinds the best product is profit for the insurer, not the best product for the ultimate consumer.

If insurance is not valuable, then why buy it? In many cases, this is because the government demands it.

I pay for medical insurance because it is valuable. If I made more money a year, and I didn't have to go to a doctor to get controlled substances, thus reducing the overhead of a visit to a General Practitioner (and the GP's overhead of mailing out insurance claims, and etc.,) medical insurance would no longer be valuable to me. But part of the problem here is not the insurance company which as it turns out, gets my business partially due to regulation.

That hasn't been working very well at all lately since some company has sold its consulting services to some of these companies and advised them to cut back on paying claims rather than increasing market share.

Then someone else can step in and provide better service.

[Skeptic Ginger]

On the insurance thing, there is no market force (or at least it is imperfect) for the better service because the consumer in this case is the insurance shareholder. While there should be an insurance consumer, the employer instead buys the medical insurance. So the employer gets cheaper insurance, the insurance company maximizes profits, and the medical consumer gets a bad product.

Things get too convoluted in this situation (and in other situations) for market forces to be the best mechanism.

I'll address your other stuff later.

[a_unique_person]

Friedman is wrong.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/reserve-bank-shouldnt-have-to-go-it-alone/2008/04/07/1207420296241.html



The Government needs to do more to tackle this problem.
THE problem is that the Reserve Bank can have only one monetary policy. And it has chosen one that makes sense for Queensland and Western Australia, and not for the rest of us.
Take any data on the Australian economy, carve it up on a state basis, and you reach the same conclusion: the excess inflation the Reserve wants to stamp out exists only in Queensland and WA. In the south-east, inflation is not a big problem. Yet it is here that the main burden of higher interest rates will fall. If output except in farms and mining is to slow to 2% or less, as the Reserve implies, that will bring the south-eastern states to the brink of recession. Growth will slow to about 1%, and more people will lose their jobs.
As I have argued before, it is wrong to rely on interest rates alone to fight inflation. It is a job best done by all arms of government. Interest rate rises fall most harshly on low and middle-income battlers with little buffer against rising interest rates, who now risk losing their homes as repayments soar. They fall disproportionately on those — rich, middling and poor — who have bought a home recently. And they fall mainly on the south-east, when the real problems are in Queensland and WA, whose mining boom will shield them from the slump ahead.







Australia has an economy that is going in two directions, depending on which part of Australia you live in. The West and North are booming at a ridiculous pace, interest rates are going up and hurting the South East.


Another way to put it, would anyone ever expect interest rates to be set globally?