Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes at it's fine when it comes to holidays but what about pensions and mortgages etc? I think the government should work to oblige companies to minimise the search costs involved. Because companies sure won't do it by themselves.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes but even though they wanted the future reward more, they weren't able to stop themselves from eating the crisps! Humans have weaknesses and failings and not being able to stop eating a bowl of crisps placed in front of them is one of them. And therefore they had to have the bowl of crisps removed, thus reducing their options.

silverharp

taconnol wrote: »

Yes at it's fine when it comes to holidays but what about pensions and mortgages etc? I think the government should work to oblige companies to minimise the search costs involved. Because companies sure won't do it by themselves.

Well here is another example buying a car. You could legislate that there should only be 10 models and 5 colours , sure who'd want any more choice then that? On the flip side I enjoy the choice as a consumer and when buying a car its down to buy a couple of car rating magazines. I make an informed choice. As regards financial products I see no difference. It is possible to buy good information and to be honest anyone commiting 100K to 500K on a particular product ought to do their own due dilligence and buy in some help if needed

taconnol wrote: »

Yes but even though they wanted the future reward more, they weren't able to stop themselves from eating the crisps! Humans have weaknesses and failings and not being able to stop eating a bowl of crisps placed in front of them is one of them. And therefore they had to have the bowl of crisps removed, thus reducing their options.

the problem is you reduce the learning experience. I'd prefer to have made the mistakes I have made along the way and learn as I go then to have most hazards taken out of my path. Plus in many situations the choice is not so clear or the legislation is being used to cover up a more fundamental legislative problem or policy.

Macha

silverharp wrote: »

Well here is another example buying a car. You could legislate that there should only be 10 models and 5 colours , sure who'd want any more choice then that? On the flip side I enjoy the choice as a consumer and when buying a car its down to buy a couple of car rating magazines. I make an informed choice. As regards financial products I see no difference. It is possible to buy good information and to be honest anyone commiting 100K to 500K on a particular product ought to do their own due dilligence and buy in some help if needed

That depends on the quality of information available, which is why I said that I think the government has a role in reducing the search cost.

silverharp wrote: »

the problem is you reduce the learning experience. I'd prefer to have made the mistakes I have made along the way and learn as I go then to have most hazards taken out of my path. Plus in many situations the choice is so clear or the legislation is being used to cover up a more fundamental legislative problem or policy.

It's not like none of the economists in question had never been in that situation before, so the idea of a learning experience is a moot one. The point was that they knew what the consequences of them choosing to eat the whole bowl of crisps was but they weren't able to stop themselves. This is called "being human".

silverharp

taconnol wrote: »

That depends on the quality of information available, which is why I said that I think the government has a role in reducing the search cost.


It's not like none of the economists in question had never been in that situation before, so the idea of a learning experience is a moot one. The point was that they knew what the consequences of them choosing to eat the whole bowl of crisps was but they weren't able to stop themselves. This is called "being human".

The problem is that a government regulation to standardise products would stiffle innovation and or give a regulatory advantage to larger firms with all the usual problems that causes, regulation capture etc.

as for the crisps example its set in a very limited context. There are no regulation costs, there will not be corruption to the the bowl back on the table, there will not be a black market in crisps and the host is unlikey to produce a main meal with a lower utility then the crisps. The real world gets very muddy very quickly, tax breaks to build hotels? tax breaks for ethanol or even pensions? they are all government nudges but of dubious benefit and or prone to unintended consequences

Macha

silverharp wrote: »

The problem is that a government regulation to standardise products would stiffle innovation and or give a regulatory advantage to larger firms with all the usual problems that causes, regulation capture etc.

I didn't say anything about standardising products. I'm talking about standardising information about products.

silverharp wrote: »

as for the crisps example its set in a very limited context. There are no regulation costs, there will not be corruption to the the bowl back on the table, there will not be a black market in crisps and the host is unlikey to produce a main meal with a lower utility then the crisps. The real world gets very muddy very quickly, tax breaks to build hotels? tax breaks for ethanol or even pensions? they are all government nudges but of dubious benefit and or prone to unintended consequences

Erm, I (and the book) was just trying to demonstrate the concept that limitless choice is not always the most desirable scenario because humans are not flawless.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Argh no I have not once said that they should reduce the number of products on offer. I have said, now for the third time, that the government should minimise the search cost involved. I'm talking about any complex product, not just financial products.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The paradox of choice, as Barry Schwartz describes it, is the phenomenon of how too much choice can be paralysing, disappointing and ultimately lead to poor decision-making.

Here, I'm talking about basic human weaknesses, in this specific example, I'm talking about a bowl of crisps. Seriously guys, this isn't that hard to understand! The guys at the dinner party can't help themselves and keep eating the crisps, even though they don't want to ruin their appetites. So they ask their host to remove the bowl of crisps. What does this prove? That humans are not robots and that sometimes having too much choice is not what humans want, nor is it what's best for them in the long run.

Now the book in question does not advocate removing choice as such, but rather looks at liberal paternalism. But the point they are making above is still a valid one.

HavingCrack

I think a lot of the Libertarianism thats appearing online is from posters and bloggers who have become economically libertarian but are socially conservative eg still anti gay marriage, anti drugs etc. which are the opposite of a true Libertarian's views. Basically they want the freedom to do whatever they want as regards the economy but also want to stop those adults who want to smoke a joint as it doesn't fit with the social views.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I think that's the equivalent of me saying "Look, here's one place where a monopoly isn't acting the maggot, hence your previous analysis is wrong".

That's true, but on the other hand I was specifically comparing bad monopolies on a government vs private basis there, rather than arguing that all monopolies are necessarily bad - whereas it seems to me that part of the libertarian position is that government intervention is always harmful? Possibly that's just some libertarians, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nor do I see government intervention crushing the ability to do maths in, say, Singapore or Japan.

Once again the libertarian technique is to ignore all other possible explanations and variables, and come to the answer that government intervention is always the problem.

cordially,
Scofflaw

+1

Also, it seems that libertarianism is a very modern phenomenon in Ireland, despite being around for a long time. Presumably it is a product of people who have become successful in business and are currently paying high taxes. But, of course, they most likely benefitted from state subsidised education. Even if they didn't directly benefit from it, the people they employ to make money on their behalf probably did. At the very least, they must surely have benefitted from the stable democratic law abiding society which allows business to be conducted.

So not only does the libertarian view seem to automatically blame government for any perceived problem, it also ignores the fact that to get to the point where you can argue for libertarianism, you have to have lived in a society with medium-high levels of government intervention.

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But to whose definition of freedom? All very fine in theory, but at what point do you say "no, that's too free and is unfairly inhibiting the freedom of others, that should be prohibited?"

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Am, yes...if the state deems them of no value to society, and does not approve of them, then they should not be on the market...although, when you start looking at a lot of financial products that way, they all start looking like that..you'd rather financial institutions were free to rip off customers systematically, rather than have the government restrict certain products?

HavingCrack

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No I agree with you that no libertarian would believe the government shoudl stop gays from marrying but my point was that theres a significant proportion of conservatives masqerading as libertarians online especially on American websites. I amn't arguing that their viewpoint is correct just merely that this may account for the increase in libertarianism online if that makes sense

HavingCrack

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But to whose definition of freedom? All very fine in theory, but at what point do you say "no, that's too free and is unfairly inhibiting the freedom of others, that should be prohibited?"

Ah the age old question of anarchism!

Macha

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I know the paradox of choice is a different concept. But I was also trying to point out some other issues with total freedom of choice.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, I really liked it. I think I'll have to go back and read it again because they use a few complicated financial instruments (eg pensions/healthcare) to explain their argument & I dont' have a background in economics so I struggled a bit. I would definitely recommend it - it was an Economist book of the year for 2008

Akrasia

Scofflaw wrote: »

I suspect he's making the point that choice is not a reason in itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Exactly. There are a wide variety of situations where people don't necessarily want choice. We don't particularly want the 'choice' between two competing world darts championships, most consumers would prefer to have the best darts players competing against each other for one title instead (same for boxing)

I don't want a choice of bus companies that don't recognise each other's tickets, to take me to work, I want one good public transport network.

I don't want to be an employer and have to sift through dozens of different accrediting agencies for private universities in order to know which degrees and certificates are worthwhile, and which are worse than toilet paper.

As a student, I want to know that when I do a course, it will be recognised as legitimate course around the world and into the future.

I don't want a choice of ambulances to take me to a choice of hospitals if there is an emergency situation. I would much prefer one good service that has universal coverage

I don't want a choice of sewage companies, or street lighting companies, or dog wardens, or I don't want to go to a taxi rank and have 25 cars lined up, none of which I can trust as having minimum standards of competency or any come back if they rip me off.

Then there is the fact that people can not possibly have knowledge about the reputation of dozens of independent providers of services, so they're probably going to go with brands they recognise, so the dominent provider might very well be 'ACME sewage, ACME Taxis ACME schools etc (especially if you get double reward points for using multiple services.)

There may be competition in the market place and choices that people can make, but too much choice and no confidence in the quality of those choices may very lead people to stick to a brand they know thus creating monopolies of enormous power. (especially with no anti-trust regulations)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.