>
Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Home Members List Top Posters Arcade Casino Toolbar
Go Back   Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards > The Razor > Politics and Religion Forum
Mark Forums Read rel="nofollow">Mark Forums Read
Register All Albums FAQDonate Calendar

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-05-2008, 09:46 PM   #16
BradyLady12
Give me liberty!
 
BradyLady12's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Where there are Rays of sunshine
Posts: 24,072
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $478285
My Mood


BradyLady12 gets itBradyLady12 gets itBradyLady12 gets itBradyLady12 gets it
BradyLady12 gets it
Quote:
Originally Posted by anderson View Post
a) Most notable example is probably New Zealand in the 80s. I will have to brush up, but I believe countries in both Africa and South America had a healthy dose of "graduate student libertarianism" injected in them in the 80s.
I hardly consider those places ideal for such studies.

Quote:
b) The break up of ma bell was the result of a government sanction. One of the biggest critiques of laissez faire is that it leads to economic standstills (as a result of imperfect competition leading to lack of incentive to improve).
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.

Quote:
c) My question about public schooling wasn't out of personal belief, but rather whether or not libertarianism is fundamentally flawed if everyone is not afforded the same opportunities at birth. I am sure there are tons of flaws with current implementation of public schooling.
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?
__________________
"In government, the scum rises to the top."~ Hayek
  BradyLady12 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2008, 09:58 PM   #17
anderson
Awfully Cavalier
 
anderson's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dappertutto, come un Capo
Posts: 28,363
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
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Template-Modifications by TMS
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.