6 ms·

or that the market is stooooopid

by craigyk 13y ago

coldtea 13y ago
I hear that that's a heresy in some parts of the world that believe in the non-scientific "free market" cargo cult.
- logicchains 13y ago
  Yes, support of the free market is non-scientific in the sense that Mainland China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea and similarly non-'free market' countries are much wealthier than historically pro-market countries like Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong. /s
  - 1ris 13y ago
    You are so scientific you don't even bother to reason about cause and effect.
    - logicchains 13y ago
      Neither did the parent comment, so why am I the one you're calling out on it?
      - 1ris 13y ago
        I can't see how the parent comment postulates a causality.
        logicchains 13y ago
        It makes the implicit claim that people interacting freely will lead to worse outcomes under some metric then people interacting under the constraint that actions contravening some centrally determined directives result in punishment via violence or the threat thereof.
        coldtea 13y ago
        No, you make that implicit claim. But if you want me to make MY claims explicit, here we go: The so-called "free market" is a buzzword. There haven't been any such thing observed in actual life. From the US to Germany to Hong Kong and Brunei (all on the top 20 of "economic freedom"), markets thrive on heavy subsidies, tons of protections, and heavy military and diplomatic action to win favorable deals for exports and secure cheap resources. All available means are used under this system, from corrupting politicians to pass favorable laws to direct imposing of "banana republics" in development countries for commercial benefit. Heck, even patent laws and copyright is a kind of state protectionism against competition. In all, existing economies have very little to do with "free agents" competing freely in a fair unskewed marketplace. (I didn't even have to mention things such as the $1 trillion bailout and the Detroit bailout here). Free market economics are based on made-up ideal notions that go against what actual human societies do, not just in regard to how real markets function, but also in their fundamental laws and models, like "supply and demand". Of course in more refined academic economic research you can find criticisms against such naivety, but at the level of "free market" proponents and policy advisors, even at the highest circles, all that is forgotten.
        logicchains 13y ago
        While no 'true free market' has existed in real life, it nevertheless exists as a fairly clearly specified theoretical construct against which actual markets can be compared. Those countries in the top 20 economic freedom list all have markets closer in various ways to this theoretical 'true free market' than other countries. They also generally have higher levels of economic development, hence the suggestion of a correlation between market freedom and economic development.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Being richer doesn't mean the free market did it (as the other commenter here noted). If you don't bother checking other factors at play (like a history of having undemocratic regimes and having started from far poorer conditions), then so much for using science /s Not to mention that you can be filthy rich and not by using a "scientific system" in any sense. A king is not richer from a peasant because he is more scientific -- just because he has the power, and a family heritage.
    - logicchains 13y ago
      If you look at all world's countries in terms of GDP per capita[1] and economic freedom[2], the countries with higher GDPs per capita have higher degrees of economic freedom, and conversely the countries with the lowest degrees of economic freedom have lower GDPs per capita. This is obviously not perfectly scientific, but I don't have the time to describe the whole theory of developmental economics in a HN post. 'Filthy rich' in the sense that a king is rich is different from a nation being rich in an economic sense. The wealth of a country, measured by GDP, is a measure of productivity. A king has the ability to purchase many things, but he's not rich in the sense of economic productivity, in fact his economic productivity may well be zero. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_f...
      - coldtea 13y ago
        >If you look at all world's countries in terms of GDP per capita[1] and economic freedom[2], the countries with higher GDPs per capita have higher degrees of economic freedom, and conversely the countries with the lowest degrees of economic freedom have lower GDPs per capita. Actually, in the top 20 list we can see Qatar, Brunei and Kuweit(basically rich due to oil), Singapore (where the state owns most infrastructure, from telcos to the "media company", cars are heavily taxed, as in $100,000 for a 10 year licence to drive one, and the state subsidies the citizen's housing), Norway, Denmark and Sweden (which, by Us standards are "socialist"), and other not quite the role models of a "free market". Also, in the index for "economic freedom", the US is 18th and 12th (in the two different rankings), below Bahrain and Chile -- seems that "economic freedom" is shortcode for "rich corporations are allowed to do whatever they like, including corrupting local power elites". In any case, they hardly make the case for the "free market".

or that the market is stooooopid

by craigyk 13y ago

or that the market is stooooopid

coldtea 13y ago

I hear that that's a heresy in some parts of the world that believe in the non-scientific "free market" cargo cult.

logicchains 13y ago
Yes, support of the free market is non-scientific in the sense that Mainland China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea and similarly non-'free market' countries are much wealthier than historically pro-market countries like Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong. /s
- 1ris 13y ago
  You are so scientific you don't even bother to reason about cause and effect.
  - logicchains 13y ago
    Neither did the parent comment, so why am I the one you're calling out on it?
    - 1ris 13y ago
      I can't see how the parent comment postulates a causality.
      - logicchains 13y ago
        It makes the implicit claim that people interacting freely will lead to worse outcomes under some metric then people interacting under the constraint that actions contravening some centrally determined directives result in punishment via violence or the threat thereof.
        coldtea 13y ago
        No, you make that implicit claim. But if you want me to make MY claims explicit, here we go: The so-called "free market" is a buzzword. There haven't been any such thing observed in actual life. From the US to Germany to Hong Kong and Brunei (all on the top 20 of "economic freedom"), markets thrive on heavy subsidies, tons of protections, and heavy military and diplomatic action to win favorable deals for exports and secure cheap resources. All available means are used under this system, from corrupting politicians to pass favorable laws to direct imposing of "banana republics" in development countries for commercial benefit. Heck, even patent laws and copyright is a kind of state protectionism against competition. In all, existing economies have very little to do with "free agents" competing freely in a fair unskewed marketplace. (I didn't even have to mention things such as the $1 trillion bailout and the Detroit bailout here). Free market economics are based on made-up ideal notions that go against what actual human societies do, not just in regard to how real markets function, but also in their fundamental laws and models, like "supply and demand". Of course in more refined academic economic research you can find criticisms against such naivety, but at the level of "free market" proponents and policy advisors, even at the highest circles, all that is forgotten.
        logicchains 13y ago
        While no 'true free market' has existed in real life, it nevertheless exists as a fairly clearly specified theoretical construct against which actual markets can be compared. Those countries in the top 20 economic freedom list all have markets closer in various ways to this theoretical 'true free market' than other countries. They also generally have higher levels of economic development, hence the suggestion of a correlation between market freedom and economic development.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Being richer doesn't mean the free market did it (as the other commenter here noted). If you don't bother checking other factors at play (like a history of having undemocratic regimes and having started from far poorer conditions), then so much for using science /s Not to mention that you can be filthy rich and not by using a "scientific system" in any sense. A king is not richer from a peasant because he is more scientific -- just because he has the power, and a family heritage.
  - logicchains 13y ago
    If you look at all world's countries in terms of GDP per capita[1] and economic freedom[2], the countries with higher GDPs per capita have higher degrees of economic freedom, and conversely the countries with the lowest degrees of economic freedom have lower GDPs per capita. This is obviously not perfectly scientific, but I don't have the time to describe the whole theory of developmental economics in a HN post. 'Filthy rich' in the sense that a king is rich is different from a nation being rich in an economic sense. The wealth of a country, measured by GDP, is a measure of productivity. A king has the ability to purchase many things, but he's not rich in the sense of economic productivity, in fact his economic productivity may well be zero. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_f...
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >If you look at all world's countries in terms of GDP per capita[1] and economic freedom[2], the countries with higher GDPs per capita have higher degrees of economic freedom, and conversely the countries with the lowest degrees of economic freedom have lower GDPs per capita. Actually, in the top 20 list we can see Qatar, Brunei and Kuweit(basically rich due to oil), Singapore (where the state owns most infrastructure, from telcos to the "media company", cars are heavily taxed, as in $100,000 for a 10 year licence to drive one, and the state subsidies the citizen's housing), Norway, Denmark and Sweden (which, by Us standards are "socialist"), and other not quite the role models of a "free market". Also, in the index for "economic freedom", the US is 18th and 12th (in the two different rankings), below Bahrain and Chile -- seems that "economic freedom" is shortcode for "rich corporations are allowed to do whatever they like, including corrupting local power elites". In any case, they hardly make the case for the "free market".