7 ms·

> You'll do massive economic damage that harms the poor if you price control or subsidise any commodity Source? Is it possible the unfathomably complex econom

by freyr 10y ago

> You'll do massive economic damage that harms the poor if you price control or subsidise any commodity Source? Is it possible the unfathomably complex economic machine will simply adapt to the subsidy? If the subsidy was limited to a couple liters per person per day (e.g., sufficient to ensure survival), could this be less reckless than letting people die of dehydration?

aminok 10y ago
>Source? This is logical extrapolation, and it's more or less validated by empirical evidence. It's not scientifically proven because we're dealing with incredibly complex phenomena where there are always potential confounding factors, but a reasonable case can still be made based on real world events. See Venezuela for an extreme example of the consequences of interventionism. The theory that intervention does harm is based on the fact that this complex system we know as an economy exists the way it does because of carefully weighted decisions of millions of people, each trying to meet their own needs in the most efficient manner available to them that does not cause harm to others (since harmful action is generally illegal in a market economy [there are edge cases of courses, like misleading advertising]). That carefully wrought symphony of welfare-maximizing human interaction is crudely disrupted by authoritarianism any time a legislature signs a law in effect that forces millions to act a certain way, that they otherwise would not have, or refrain from engaging in some voluntary interaction that they otherwise would have engaged in. An authoritarian intervention to force several million to do some action to benefit several other million is going to have innumerable unintended consequences, that could not possibly be a net positive for the world.
- pron 10y ago
  Whoa, authoritarianism? Who said anything about authoritarianism? All prosperous economies are quite heavily regulated. You sound like that messianic group in the 40s and 50s of Milton Friedman, Mises, Hayek and friends who believed that the market solves everything. No one is proposing communism; no need to dig up the politics of the Mont Pelerin Society.
  - aminok 10y ago
    All regulations on voluntary market activity are a form of prohibition, where engaging in some voluntary activity is punished by prison sentences or expropriation of wealth. That is textbook authoritarian intervention. Just because it is popular and the most powerful countries do it does not mean it is not authoritarian. I don't believe that markets will solve everything but I do believe that the best chance we have to solve problems is through voluntary market action as opposed to authoritarian action.
    - dpark 10y ago
      > That is textbook authoritarian intervention. It's really not. It's not authoritarian when a democratically elected government creates regulations that it's citizens want. That's just governance. Otherwise every law a government passes is authoritarian, in which case the word is meaningless.
      - aminok 10y ago
        Any law that punishes a voluntary action is authoritarian, whether it has a democratic mandate or not. Not all laws punish voluntary action. For instance, a law against theft is not authoritarian.
        dpark 10y ago
        Theft is a voluntary action. The thief is taking an action of their own volition. Your definition is flawed and meaningless.
        aminok 10y ago
        I should clarify, when I say "voluntary action", I mean mutually voluntary or consensual action, where no one's person or property is violated. The idea of being free to act in any way other than violating the rights of others (though violence, theft, etc) is a pretty widely accepted principle of a free society.
fpoling 10y ago
My childhood was during the last years of Soviet Union. I saw first hand how incredible was damage from price control and government distributing food and basic necessities. Everything disappeared. Often in shops there was only empty shelves and when thing came one has to spend hours in a queue. It is so sad watching Venezuela going the same path with the same disastrous results.
- pron 10y ago
  There's a vast continuum between the Soviet Union and modern Western economies, all heavily regulated. It's not a binary choice. Food, in particular, is subsidized in most prosperous countries. Today we know that both Soviet-style communism and Hayek-style free-marketism have the annoying tendency to result in people starving, which is why both approaches have been rejected by Western countries, that, in general, try to aim at some middle ground.
  - aminok 10y ago
    >Today we know that both Soviet-style communism and Hayek-style free-marketism have the annoying tendency to result in people starving It's very annoying when people make bold statements like this without any evidence or factual support. Please provide some examples of free market economics leading to people starving. >which is why both approaches have been rejected by Western countries, that, in general, try to aim at some middle ground. I don't know if you know this but Sweden was the most free market economy in the world from 1870 to 1950. After it adopted social welfarism in the 1970s, its growth stagnated. It fell from being the third richest country in the world to the 17th. Imagine how much higher its standard of living would be today if it had maintained the rate of economic development it had in the early 20th century. You assume that since Western electorates have chosen a particular path, it is the optimal path. I see that as hubristic.
    - dpark 10y ago
      > Please provide some examples of free market economics leading to people starving. In a completely free market, how does someone without money not starve? > I don't know if you know this but Sweden was the most free market economy in the world from 1870 to 1950. After it adopted social welfare is in the 1970s, its growth stagnated. I have no idea if this is even remotely true, but I'll assume for a moment that it is. Does the fact that Sweden adopted welfare not tell you something about the consequences of their free markets? The free market was just so awesome that they passed welfare for all the rich Swedes who didn't need it?
rglovejoy 10y ago
>Source? Any recent news from Venezuela.
rpgmaker 10y ago
> Is it possible the unfathomably complex economic machine will simply adapt to the subsidy? Not only possible: it happens all the time. There are very few industries in the US that aren't subsidized by the govt one way or another. Agriculture and oil being one of the best examples.
- aminok 10y ago
  We can safely assume, based on some sensible and self-evident axioms, that the adaptation is less economically optimal than the actions that would have been taken absent the authoritarian intervention.

by freyr 10y ago

aminok 10y ago

>Source? This is logical extrapolation, and it's more or less validated by empirical evidence. It's not scientifically proven because we're dealing with incredibly complex phenomena where there are always potential confounding factors, but a reasonable case can still be made based on real world events. See Venezuela for an extreme example of the consequences of interventionism. The theory that intervention does harm is based on the fact that this complex system we know as an economy exists the way it does because of carefully weighted decisions of millions of people, each trying to meet their own needs in the most efficient manner available to them that does not cause harm to others (since harmful action is generally illegal in a market economy [there are edge cases of courses, like misleading advertising]). That carefully wrought symphony of welfare-maximizing human interaction is crudely disrupted by authoritarianism any time a legislature signs a law in effect that forces millions to act a certain way, that they otherwise would not have, or refrain from engaging in some voluntary interaction that they otherwise would have engaged in. An authoritarian intervention to force several million to do some action to benefit several other million is going to have innumerable unintended consequences, that could not possibly be a net positive for the world.

pron 10y ago
Whoa, authoritarianism? Who said anything about authoritarianism? All prosperous economies are quite heavily regulated. You sound like that messianic group in the 40s and 50s of Milton Friedman, Mises, Hayek and friends who believed that the market solves everything. No one is proposing communism; no need to dig up the politics of the Mont Pelerin Society.
- aminok 10y ago
  All regulations on voluntary market activity are a form of prohibition, where engaging in some voluntary activity is punished by prison sentences or expropriation of wealth. That is textbook authoritarian intervention. Just because it is popular and the most powerful countries do it does not mean it is not authoritarian. I don't believe that markets will solve everything but I do believe that the best chance we have to solve problems is through voluntary market action as opposed to authoritarian action.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > That is textbook authoritarian intervention. It's really not. It's not authoritarian when a democratically elected government creates regulations that it's citizens want. That's just governance. Otherwise every law a government passes is authoritarian, in which case the word is meaningless.
    - aminok 10y ago
      Any law that punishes a voluntary action is authoritarian, whether it has a democratic mandate or not. Not all laws punish voluntary action. For instance, a law against theft is not authoritarian.
      - dpark 10y ago
        Theft is a voluntary action. The thief is taking an action of their own volition. Your definition is flawed and meaningless.
        aminok 10y ago
        I should clarify, when I say "voluntary action", I mean mutually voluntary or consensual action, where no one's person or property is violated. The idea of being free to act in any way other than violating the rights of others (though violence, theft, etc) is a pretty widely accepted principle of a free society.

fpoling 10y ago

My childhood was during the last years of Soviet Union. I saw first hand how incredible was damage from price control and government distributing food and basic necessities. Everything disappeared. Often in shops there was only empty shelves and when thing came one has to spend hours in a queue. It is so sad watching Venezuela going the same path with the same disastrous results.

pron 10y ago
There's a vast continuum between the Soviet Union and modern Western economies, all heavily regulated. It's not a binary choice. Food, in particular, is subsidized in most prosperous countries. Today we know that both Soviet-style communism and Hayek-style free-marketism have the annoying tendency to result in people starving, which is why both approaches have been rejected by Western countries, that, in general, try to aim at some middle ground.
- aminok 10y ago
  >Today we know that both Soviet-style communism and Hayek-style free-marketism have the annoying tendency to result in people starving It's very annoying when people make bold statements like this without any evidence or factual support. Please provide some examples of free market economics leading to people starving. >which is why both approaches have been rejected by Western countries, that, in general, try to aim at some middle ground. I don't know if you know this but Sweden was the most free market economy in the world from 1870 to 1950. After it adopted social welfarism in the 1970s, its growth stagnated. It fell from being the third richest country in the world to the 17th. Imagine how much higher its standard of living would be today if it had maintained the rate of economic development it had in the early 20th century. You assume that since Western electorates have chosen a particular path, it is the optimal path. I see that as hubristic.
  - dpark 10y ago
    > Please provide some examples of free market economics leading to people starving. In a completely free market, how does someone without money not starve? > I don't know if you know this but Sweden was the most free market economy in the world from 1870 to 1950. After it adopted social welfare is in the 1970s, its growth stagnated. I have no idea if this is even remotely true, but I'll assume for a moment that it is. Does the fact that Sweden adopted welfare not tell you something about the consequences of their free markets? The free market was just so awesome that they passed welfare for all the rich Swedes who didn't need it?

rglovejoy 10y ago

>Source? Any recent news from Venezuela.

rpgmaker 10y ago

> Is it possible the unfathomably complex economic machine will simply adapt to the subsidy? Not only possible: it happens all the time. There are very few industries in the US that aren't subsidized by the govt one way or another. Agriculture and oil being one of the best examples.

aminok 10y ago
We can safely assume, based on some sensible and self-evident axioms, that the adaptation is less economically optimal than the actions that would have been taken absent the authoritarian intervention.