View Single Post
Old 11-05-2008, 09:58 PM   #17
anderson
Awfully Cavalier
 
anderson's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dappertutto, come un Capo
Posts: 28,364
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $631110
My Mood


anderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud of
anderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud ofanderson has much to be proud of
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradyLady12 View Post
I hardly consider those places ideal for such studies.


It had to be done by govt because it was a monopoly created by govt.
Monopolies, true ones or coercive ones, are a creature of govt.

Back in the day, there were telephone poles and wires everywhere. To have competition would have meant too many of those everywhere and been unwieldy. So it was granted a market which barred entry by the govt in exchange for regulated prices. It was claimed that breaking it up would lead to an explosion in choices in technology; that this would happen faster. That did happen. Not my idea of a standstill. However, it may have happened sooner had it not been made a monopoly too.

I have never ever heard a critique of laissez-faire leading to standstills unless it's a command and control type economist who prefers a political economy which suits his idea of how to organize and control society. Very anti-liberty.

Again, sounds like it's a standstill from a welfare view or I don't like how the market is shaping up pc wise. Therefore it's not working.

BTW Laissez-faire IS libertarian economics. You need to cite your sources so they can be challenged. You merely asserting this as truth here.


It just sounds like egalitarianism to me. No one ever has the same opportunities and even if they did, not everyone will avail themselves of them. I have plenty of lazy students with poor work ethics who want to earn a grade without earning it.

Really though, that's life.


May I ask what economists you have studied? Or what school of thought you're from?
Other than your argument of the US being wealthier than these other countries (and New Zealand has a high GDP per capita) what invalidates these from being the basis of empiric studies of the effects of Laissez-faire?

I work in telecoms regulation The issue to me isn't whether the government created the monopoly to begin with. We have to deal with the way things are today. Cost of entry in the telecoms market is extremely high and so that's one more reason why regulation is needed in this sector. Deregulation has been tried (in the UK for instance) and left customers bleeding. My contention is that there was hardly any innovation in the telecoms sector UNTIL governments decided to regulate (on a continual basis). My second contention is that markets need this regulation because:
  • A lot of markets are well defined and require a high cost of entry
  • People are greedy and cartel deals are common
  • The burden of asymmetric information falls harder on the party in demand than the party in supply.
These are all reasons why Laissez-faire would not work.

As for which economists I've studied, I have read a variety from Chomsky to Friedman, but I don't really consider myself to belong anywhere. I just try to make sense of things (and usually not doing a good job of this)

As a last point, I don't think your lazy students have anything to do with the basis of my argument about schooling.
__________________
<iframe width="460" height="166" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/112763180&color=1b00ff&auto_play=false&show_artwork=false">
</iframe>
  anderson is offline Reply With Quote