4 ms·

Free market dogma usually does hold up. Communism and Socialism is such a perniciously appealing idea: 'just let the government control everything and everythi

Free market dogma usually does hold up. Communism and Socialism is such a perniciously appealing idea: 'just let the government control everything and everything will be fair - take stuff from rich people and give it to the poor!'. Young people have a really have a hard time with the paradox: It's easy to understand an authoritative, centralized system that controls everything and 'maximizes efficiency'. It's hard to understand how independent agents, working in a loosely collaborative 'free market' can actually provide much better efficiency in most scenarios. Most nations had to go through some heavy duty socialism to realize that it doesn't work very well - and it will be ongoing: teachers and professors aren't a fan, and they push socialist ideals for the 20 years or so of your education, and it all seems cozy from inside an academic setting. It's usually not until people have responsibility, i.e. children or management, or a small business (even consulting) do people start to clue in. Yes - there are some hardcore people - like those at the Chicago school etc. who think that basically there should almost be 'no government' but they are not that common. Even Republicans usually expand government. Since the dawn of the USA... government has really never receded - it's only grown it's share of the economy - so the 'driving voice' that's needed is that of 'free markets with decent regulation', I think. And moral and benevolent leadership. Anyhow. I write too much :)

quadrangle 10y ago
Um, DOGMA usually does not hold up, period. Your straw-man argument there is nothing more than: "you think MY dogma is stupid? Let me tell you how stupid the opposing dogma is!" and expecting people to think that because other dogma is bad that your dogma is good. Now, if I was actually arguing or believed some anti-market dogma, it wouldn't be a straw-man here. But I fully agree that markets are valuable, are easy to over-regulate, and that there are many aspects of market freedom that are positive. I'm just not dogmatic about it. Dogma is what leads people to insist that things are a certain way because their dogmatic model says so rather than base their beliefs on evidence, etc. But anyway, communist and socialist dogma may be wrong because they are dogmatic, but here's one thing I know for certain: your description of their dogma is completely wrong. Dogmatic communists and socialists don't believe what you just wrote in describing them.
- edblarney 10y ago
  You are misusing the term 'straw man'. Also, dogma is: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." There is not that much 'free market' dogma (i.e. free markets are perfect, and always good) in mainstream American society. There is a lot of socialist dogma in mainstream society. Communist dogma would indicate that capitalism is inherently wrong (as an absolute truth) and this is promoted quite a lot. Socialist dogma would indicate that mostly free markets are incompatible with the wellbeing of society. Socialist dogma pervades European elitist thinking and popular sentiment, so much so, that any contradiction of their 'dogmatic beliefs' is considered 'far right wing'. Watch 5 Hollywood films: the 'evil bad guy' while be an old white banker or business man 3 out of 5 times. American pop culture goes out of their way to vilify business (unless it's startups). There are obvious hints of dogma in this.
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    I'm not misusing straw man. You argued against things I wasn't saying. That's a straw man. You tried to defend that free market dogma by attacked arguments about communism and socialism that nobody but your straw man was mentioning. You are now continuing to make more straw men. None of the rest of your comment is actually addressing anything I was saying, just arguing with some image you have of people who you think believe certain things. Note that I happen to think your perspective is really skewed here — the vast majority of power in our society is vested in capitalist interests, the media and government and lots more are very much capitalist or capitalist-apologist, and truly dogmatic free-market ideologies (it doesn't matter whether there's a great-man behind some dogma, just the idea that the authority is some idealistic free-market theory, that's authority enough to be called "dogma" — it's super rampant, enough that it's easy to run into believers constantly.
_andromeda_ 10y ago
First of all, you're mostly spot on. Kudos for this. >Young people have a really have a hard time with the paradox It explains why many people feel they're entitled to a job and government ought to 'create' jobs. It is incredibly perplexing just how many people don't understand that they aren't entitled to anything! The concept that you have to provide value for someone else so that you can get compensated eludes more people than it should. It is no wonder employers find themselves trying to explain such simple facts to fresh graduates that think they're entitled to jobs. Many of them (employees) don't understand that once they're on-boarded into a business, they immediately become liabilities until they can provide more value than they're receiving in form of compensation (heck, it isn't even compensation at this stage because compensation implies some form of quid pro quo). >Yes - there are some hardcore people - like those at the Chicago school etc. who think that basically there should almost be 'no government' Actually, the Chicago school isn't as 'hardcore' as you might think. We, the Austrians, are the ones who think that a society can exist without conventional government. It may come as a surprise to you but based on your statement - so the 'driving voice' that's needed is that of 'free markets with decent regulation' - you yourself fit the description of what many would consider the Chicago school which essentially maintains that a government that is small in size, mildly favors laissez-faire, has minimal regulations and pumps in money into the economy in smaller doses would suffice. If you're interested in learning more about these and more thoughts, check out a book called: Democracy, The god That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

quadrangle 10y ago

Um, DOGMA usually does not hold up, period. Your straw-man argument there is nothing more than: "you think MY dogma is stupid? Let me tell you how stupid the opposing dogma is!" and expecting people to think that because other dogma is bad that your dogma is good. Now, if I was actually arguing or believed some anti-market dogma, it wouldn't be a straw-man here. But I fully agree that markets are valuable, are easy to over-regulate, and that there are many aspects of market freedom that are positive. I'm just not dogmatic about it. Dogma is what leads people to insist that things are a certain way because their dogmatic model says so rather than base their beliefs on evidence, etc. But anyway, communist and socialist dogma may be wrong because they are dogmatic, but here's one thing I know for certain: your description of their dogma is completely wrong. Dogmatic communists and socialists don't believe what you just wrote in describing them.

edblarney 10y ago
You are misusing the term 'straw man'. Also, dogma is: "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." There is not that much 'free market' dogma (i.e. free markets are perfect, and always good) in mainstream American society. There is a lot of socialist dogma in mainstream society. Communist dogma would indicate that capitalism is inherently wrong (as an absolute truth) and this is promoted quite a lot. Socialist dogma would indicate that mostly free markets are incompatible with the wellbeing of society. Socialist dogma pervades European elitist thinking and popular sentiment, so much so, that any contradiction of their 'dogmatic beliefs' is considered 'far right wing'. Watch 5 Hollywood films: the 'evil bad guy' while be an old white banker or business man 3 out of 5 times. American pop culture goes out of their way to vilify business (unless it's startups). There are obvious hints of dogma in this.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  I'm not misusing straw man. You argued against things I wasn't saying. That's a straw man. You tried to defend that free market dogma by attacked arguments about communism and socialism that nobody but your straw man was mentioning. You are now continuing to make more straw men. None of the rest of your comment is actually addressing anything I was saying, just arguing with some image you have of people who you think believe certain things. Note that I happen to think your perspective is really skewed here — the vast majority of power in our society is vested in capitalist interests, the media and government and lots more are very much capitalist or capitalist-apologist, and truly dogmatic free-market ideologies (it doesn't matter whether there's a great-man behind some dogma, just the idea that the authority is some idealistic free-market theory, that's authority enough to be called "dogma" — it's super rampant, enough that it's easy to run into believers constantly.

_andromeda_ 10y ago

First of all, you're mostly spot on. Kudos for this. >Young people have a really have a hard time with the paradox It explains why many people feel they're entitled to a job and government ought to 'create' jobs. It is incredibly perplexing just how many people don't understand that they aren't entitled to anything! The concept that you have to provide value for someone else so that you can get compensated eludes more people than it should. It is no wonder employers find themselves trying to explain such simple facts to fresh graduates that think they're entitled to jobs. Many of them (employees) don't understand that once they're on-boarded into a business, they immediately become liabilities until they can provide more value than they're receiving in form of compensation (heck, it isn't even compensation at this stage because compensation implies some form of quid pro quo). >Yes - there are some hardcore people - like those at the Chicago school etc. who think that basically there should almost be 'no government' Actually, the Chicago school isn't as 'hardcore' as you might think. We, the Austrians, are the ones who think that a society can exist without conventional government. It may come as a surprise to you but based on your statement - so the 'driving voice' that's needed is that of 'free markets with decent regulation' - you yourself fit the description of what many would consider the Chicago school which essentially maintains that a government that is small in size, mildly favors laissez-faire, has minimal regulations and pumps in money into the economy in smaller doses would suffice. If you're interested in learning more about these and more thoughts, check out a book called: Democracy, The god That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe