Atlas Shrugged

Permabear · 18-09-2014 04:59PM

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2014 05:59PM

Your statement here relies on a quirk in your definition of 'free markets', you define it as, "reducing the role of the state in the [] economy and giving greater freedom to private enterprise", which frames it as the state having control and granting it to private enterprise, allowing you to pick on that for rhetorical effect by 'playing dumb'.

So, (tedious as it is to have to do this and repeat myself a third time, when it seems hard to miss the point of my post) I'll redefine it in a way that doesn't imply the state having control in the beginning, but which is otherwise exactly the same - so, your definition of free markets, is the same as:
"the state should have a less of a role in the economy than private enterprise, which should have greater freedom"

Again, with that definition, this is still a circular argument and begging-the-question.

Deciding when government 'should have less of a role in the economy than private enterprise, which should have greater freedom', is again a question that has to be decided as a part of policymaking - so when you use 'free markets' (with that definition) as an argument against a policy (i.e. as part of an argument for trying to decide when government 'should have less of a role in the economy than private enterprise, which should have greater freedom'), then you're again making a circular argument and/or begging the question.

A: "For policy 'X', should government have less of a role in the economy than private enterprise, with private enterprise having greater freedom?"
B: "Yes, because 'free markets'. (i.e. Yes, because government should have less of a role than private enterprise, with private enterprise having greater freedom)"

Permabear · 18-09-2014 06:16PM

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2014 06:19PM

Even though I think the right regulation and enforcement is possible (and I'd argue for reforms going well beyond that), what is the solution that you propose for dealing with this problem?

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2014 06:27PM

Your presentation of the BBC story and that definition of 'free markets', was in reply to this post, where I present the exact same argument as the post you have just replied to, showing that use of the term 'free markets' to oppose policy, is typically done in a circular/begging-the-question type way - so this has been the same string of discussion the entire time:

You've been twisting and turning for a couple of pages now, trying to evade what I've said there, by cherry-picking and playing-dumb in your interpretation of what I've said, and I've taken every definition of 'free markets' given or implied by you, and have shown that they all have the same problem of being circular and/or begging the question.

Is there any definition of 'free markets', which is not fallaciously circular like this, when used to oppose a policy? If so, be glad to see it defined here, so can put this to rest.

Brian Shanahan · 18-09-2014 08:59PM

I've read a book recently (unfortunately I can't put my hand to it and have forgotten its name, bad with names, me) which showed how closely the tobacco causes cancer-denial and climate change-denial groups were. Often times the same "experts" were trotted out for the climate change deniers as the tobacco is good for you crowd, and the exceptions were usually because the "expert" had died in the mean time, and what happened there was that his successor in the "free market institute" (said institute having the same research integrity and usefulness as Iona) was the one trotted out instead.

I'll update on the book when I find it, it was a fascinating read (got me through a few nights of doing call backs at bingo).

KomradeBishop · 18-09-2014 09:15PM

^^ Merchants of Doubt?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

I've researched the Libertarian think-tank networks a bit too, and they also overlap with many of the climate-change-denying and tobacco-causes-cancer-denying think-tanks; they're all a part of a similar network, putting out similar manufactured 'research'/propaganda, and usually have a fairly similar set of groups/people/corporations funding them.

PopePalpatine · 18-09-2014 09:42PM

I was watching Grand Prix: The Killer Years last night on BBC4. Just because fatal crashes happen, should safety regulations be done away with, because "ah sure, Senna would have died anyway."

magicbastarder · 18-09-2014 10:18PM

Can someone enlighten me (and in the process bear with my repetitive questions about the 'rational animal' theory in old school economics); but isn't the notion of completely free markets is based on the idea of both buyers and sellers being rational and in possession of full information? In that the decisions made are not made from a position of ignorance, and the advantage in such situations in real life is on the supplier side?

Brian Shanahan · 18-09-2014 11:35PM

That's the bunny. A recommended read to anybody interested in the sheer mendacity of "private enterprise" special interest groups, including libertarian and Randoid think-tanks.

Brian Shanahan · 18-09-2014 11:46PM

Yes, that is the base assumption of all models upon which all "free-market" theories are built.

It's like the neo-classicists have ever heard of Daniel Kahnemann and Amos Tversky, the two men who have more than most tried to put economics on a scientific, rather than the neo-classicals preferred voodoo, basis with their incorporation of sociology and psychology into their work on economic theory.

Valmont · 19-09-2014 09:00AM

No, it isn't. The Austrian school of economics rejects the precept of perfect knowledge.

5uspect · 19-09-2014 09:08AM

From my understanding they don't actually use models? It sounds like the economic equivalent of postmodernism.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 11:08AM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 11:19AM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 11:40AM

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 19-09-2014 12:13PM

Econometrics is not synonymous with 'modelling' in economics - a lot of it is synonymous with modelling based on flawed 'linear/equilibrium' theories though.
You can do modelling with flawed theory/models that try to selectively pick data from reality to fit the model/theory, or you can model with theory/models, that adapt to fit/explain the data gathered in reality; the former is pseudoscience, the latter aspires to become more scientific.

All economic theories make statements, which can be used (in part or in whole) to form a model, for making (very limited) predictions, and for testing those predictions against real-world events.

The historical problem with economic modelling, is that it has been based on 'linear/equilibrium' models, when economies are 'dynamic/disequilibrium' systems instead.
If you take weather modelling as an analogy, a 'linear' model would be like modelling clouds moving in straight lines, a 'dynamic' model takes into account, that the weather is an extremely complicated dynamic system, and with clouds moving chaotically.

Steve Keen - who both predicted and modeled the economic crisis before it happened (the only person to do both together, prior to the crisis) - is working on the software program Minsky, for creating dynamic models of economies - and this can be used to input and test economic theories/models on a macroeconomic scale (this is based on 'macroeconomic accounting' - simply tracking the creation, flow, and destruction of money - which all economic theories have to respect, as it's just basic accounting), and to compare their limited predictions, to real world data:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsky_%28economic_simulator%29

Here's an extremely good article from Steve Keen, on economic modelling:
businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/1/14/resources-and-energy/blame-it-bad-weathermen

The main purpose of rejecting the whole idea of economic modelling, is pretty much to try and reject the idea of actually testing an economic theory against real world data ("No models? Great, we don't have to make and test any predictions, that can falsify our theories!") - which is necessary for the survival of theories which don't apply to reality.

KomradeBishop · 19-09-2014 12:27PM

The people thanking my posts seemed to understand perfectly well.

This is a good example, of why I can't take many Libertarian posters seriously - it is very very hard, to fail to see, that I am arguing that there is no "definition of 'free markets', which is not fallaciously circular [], when used to oppose a policy", and it is equally very very hard, to fail to see, how you are trying to avoid dealing with that argument and sidestep it.

Other Libertarian posters will play-along though - they know you're making a deliberate effort, to miss the point of the argument and try to spin discussion away from that, and they play along with it - zero skepticism among each other, yet I doubt many others who have kept up reading the thread, have failed to see that.

Would be great if any free-market poster, could answer this: "Is there any definition of 'free markets', which is not fallaciously circular like this, when used to oppose a policy? If so, be glad to see it defined here, so can put this to rest."
Here I give an example, of a fallaciously circular definition:
boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92225449&postcount=746

Mark Hamill · 19-09-2014 01:09PM

So, governments doing what companies want is bad, therefore we should just let companies do what they want?

Permabear · 19-09-2014 02:14PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 02:37PM

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 19-09-2014 02:39PM

You're presenting it as a choice between 'bad regulation' and 'complete deregulation' - which is a false dichotomy; no reason we can't have good/effective regulation, it existed before (especially in the several decades prior to 1980).

William K. Black was a regulator during the Savings & Loan crisis in the US, through the 80's and early 90's, and he helped put thousands of fraudsters in prison - the management of the Federal Home Loan Board at that time (though politically chaotic, due to a deregulatory Reagan government, and a general atmosphere hostile to regulation) helped to stop that crisis from turning into one as big as the one we have today, by limiting the growth of banks engaging in 'control fraud'.

He wrote a whole book about the crisis, which gives a very clear picture of how to put in place effective regulation, and how that is hampered politically:
amazon.com/The-Best-Way-Rob-Bank/dp/0292721390

A political atmosphere which promotes deregulation, leads to the passing of laws that erode and hamper regulators ability, to do their job effectively - that's the kind of political environment countries have been in, since around the late 70's.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 02:47PM

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig · 19-09-2014 03:03PM

Mod:

Give this 'you thanked that post' stuff a rest.

KomradeBishop · 19-09-2014 03:25PM

Ehh...the entire point of his post, was to use your false dichotomy, to show the absurdity of your deregulation argument.

You're perfectly aware of this though of course - since pretty much no poster can miss that, given it's so blindingly obvious - you're just engaging in the usual 'skip/dance', where you deliberately miss the point of what peoples have said, so you can skip away from every challenging argument; it gets very boring.

mewso · 19-09-2014 04:30PM

Is there a Libertarian scenario where it wouldn't have happened then? Is this not implying that with the political will and effective legislation it may not have?

Permabear · 19-09-2014 04:38PM

This post has been deleted.

mewso · 19-09-2014 04:46PM

It seems a tad defeatist to write off politics in that way but thanks for the answer Permabear. I was genuinely curious.

Permabear · 19-09-2014 05:05PM

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding · 19-09-2014 05:23PM

Would it not be more accurate to say "The root cause of the financial bubble, and the financial collapse that followed, was financial institutions engaging in risky behaviour and designing new method of doing business designed to avoid regulation put in place to stop them doing exactly what they tried to do because this behaviour is/was likely to cause a financial collapse, as it indeed did. These financial institutions then tried to justify this behaviour by blaming the state institutions, such as the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank holding interest rates at low level, which made it more difficult for them to make large profits"...?

MrP

Atlas Shrugged

Comments