5 ms·

> You'll do massive economic damage that harms the poor if you price control or subsidise any commodity, including water. That depends on how it is done, Venez

by jlg23 10y ago

> You'll do massive economic damage that harms the poor if you price control or subsidise any commodity, including water. That depends on how it is done, Venezuela showed how not to do it. I think a good option is to also provide commodities by non-profit companies run by the state and then use their costs plus a profit margin as a cap for commercial competition. If water, electricity and basic foods become too expensive people suffer and one finally will face revolts - which pure commercial entities are not necessarily incentivized to prevent (just pulling out of a market when the suffering becomes too great might be more cost efficient for them).

aminok 10y ago
Venezuela did enough damage where it becomes obvious that intervention fails. Just because the damage done by intervention is not apparent, doesn't mean it's not there. It's the hidden damage, that is caused by milder forms of authoritarian intervention, like that seen in mixed economies, that is the most dangerous, because it is not diagnosed and cured so it continues sapping the economic growth of the country for decades on end. >one finally will face revolts - One should not be cowed into instituting authoritarian measures. If there is a law-and-order issue, that should be dealt with directly by punishing violent protest.
- dpark 10y ago
  So the "most dangerous" interventions are the ones that are so subtle we can't see the damage they cause? I would have thought the most dangerous interventions were ones that tanked the economy and caused widespread poverty and desperation. But yeah, slightly reduced economic output sounds worse. I do love the untestable nature of this assertion, too. The underlying claim here is that all interventions cause economic damage, even if we can't detect it. This is analogous to claiming that microwave ovens increase the risk of cancer, even though we can't detect it.
  - aminok 10y ago
    Yes exactly. They are allowed to continue hurting the economy for decades. >I would have thought the most dangerous interventions were ones that tanked the economy and caused widespread poverty and desperation. But yeah, slightly reduced economic output sounds worse. The compounding effect of slightly reduced economic growth adds up to a lot over the long term. Much more than a big one or two year drop in GDP. You can do the math and see what I mean. >The underlying claim here is that all interventions cause economic damage, even if we can't detect it. To clarify, you probably can detect it but like all economic phenomena, we don't have absolute proof that so-and-so economic policy was the cause of the damage. We only have a reasonable cause to believe it is the cause. The problem is that the majority of the electorate are not well-versed in economics so unless the damage is extremely obvious they're not going to react properly and correct the harmful policy..
    - dpark 10y ago
      Decades of sightly reduced economic output is worse than violent revolution? Really? Do you not place much value on human life?
      - aminok 10y ago
        There are better ways to prevent violent revolution than instuting socialist policies. Three decades of 2% lower per year economic growth adds up to 80% of the base year's GDP. I imagine that at a much lower cost, you could prevent revolution. And you're totally misunderstanding my position. I am arguing for economic development because it is the most effective means of saving and enriching human life.
        dpark 10y ago
        2% lower growth is huge. I'm pretty sure this isn't something that would go unnoticed for decades. You're arguing that minute interventions have enormous effects that everyone is just to incompetent to measure and so wet need to appeal to beliefs rather than data.
        10y ago
  - duaneb 10y ago
    > This is analogous to claiming that microwave ovens increase the risk of cancer, even though we can't detect it. To be fair, the control group would be difficult to say the least. The same is true with the economy. So yea, it's very possible there are behaviors we can't detect.

by jlg23 10y ago

aminok 10y ago

Venezuela did enough damage where it becomes obvious that intervention fails. Just because the damage done by intervention is not apparent, doesn't mean it's not there. It's the hidden damage, that is caused by milder forms of authoritarian intervention, like that seen in mixed economies, that is the most dangerous, because it is not diagnosed and cured so it continues sapping the economic growth of the country for decades on end. >one finally will face revolts - One should not be cowed into instituting authoritarian measures. If there is a law-and-order issue, that should be dealt with directly by punishing violent protest.

dpark 10y ago
So the "most dangerous" interventions are the ones that are so subtle we can't see the damage they cause? I would have thought the most dangerous interventions were ones that tanked the economy and caused widespread poverty and desperation. But yeah, slightly reduced economic output sounds worse. I do love the untestable nature of this assertion, too. The underlying claim here is that all interventions cause economic damage, even if we can't detect it. This is analogous to claiming that microwave ovens increase the risk of cancer, even though we can't detect it.
- aminok 10y ago
  Yes exactly. They are allowed to continue hurting the economy for decades. >I would have thought the most dangerous interventions were ones that tanked the economy and caused widespread poverty and desperation. But yeah, slightly reduced economic output sounds worse. The compounding effect of slightly reduced economic growth adds up to a lot over the long term. Much more than a big one or two year drop in GDP. You can do the math and see what I mean. >The underlying claim here is that all interventions cause economic damage, even if we can't detect it. To clarify, you probably can detect it but like all economic phenomena, we don't have absolute proof that so-and-so economic policy was the cause of the damage. We only have a reasonable cause to believe it is the cause. The problem is that the majority of the electorate are not well-versed in economics so unless the damage is extremely obvious they're not going to react properly and correct the harmful policy..
  - dpark 10y ago
    Decades of sightly reduced economic output is worse than violent revolution? Really? Do you not place much value on human life?
    - aminok 10y ago
      There are better ways to prevent violent revolution than instuting socialist policies. Three decades of 2% lower per year economic growth adds up to 80% of the base year's GDP. I imagine that at a much lower cost, you could prevent revolution. And you're totally misunderstanding my position. I am arguing for economic development because it is the most effective means of saving and enriching human life.
      - dpark 10y ago
        2% lower growth is huge. I'm pretty sure this isn't something that would go unnoticed for decades. You're arguing that minute interventions have enormous effects that everyone is just to incompetent to measure and so wet need to appeal to beliefs rather than data.
        10y ago
- duaneb 10y ago
  > This is analogous to claiming that microwave ovens increase the risk of cancer, even though we can't detect it. To be fair, the control group would be difficult to say the least. The same is true with the economy. So yea, it's very possible there are behaviors we can't detect.