Libertarians' Economic Theory Is a Fiction

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2014 1:13 AM GMT
    NYT: And the reason can be summed up in one word: phosphorus.

    As you’ve probably heard, the City of Toledo recently warned its residents not to drink the water. Why? Contamination from runoff of phosphorus from farms.

    A few years ago, Libertarians suggested that oppressive government regulation had reached the point where citizens might want to “march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp.” And the source of rage? A ban on phosphates in dishwasher detergent. After all, why would government officials want to do such a thing?

    Smart libertarians have always realized that there are problems free markets alone can’t solve — but their alternatives to government tend to be implausible. For example, Milton Friedman famously called for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration. But in that case, how would consumers know whether their food and drugs were safe? His answer was to rely on tort law. Corporations, he claimed, would have the incentive not to poison people because of the threat of lawsuits.

    Huh?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/opinion/paul-krugman-the-libertarian-fantasy.html?_r=0
  • jjguy05

    Posts: 459

    Aug 12, 2014 3:47 AM GMT
    woodsmen said

    Smart libertarians have always realized that there are problems free markets alone can’t solve — but their alternatives to government tend to be implausible. For example, Milton Friedman famously called for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration. But in that case, how would consumers know whether their food and drugs were safe? His answer was to rely on tort law. Corporations, he claimed, would have the incentive not to poison people because of the threat of lawsuits.



    Exactly. Makes absolutely no sense. In areas where we don't have regulations or government checks, companies already do whatever they want and are hurting people. The possibility of lawsuits doesn't deter them. And note the irony: libertarians want to flood the court system with lawsuits. Isn't that government? Doesn't that cost taxpayers' money? And what laws would the courts enforce in a lawsuit, if there are none? This is where the libertarian ideology falls apart. Like all by-the-book ideologies, it just doesn't add up in practice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2014 8:05 AM GMT
    jjguy05 said
    woodsmen said

    Smart libertarians have always realized that there are problems free markets alone can’t solve — but their alternatives to government tend to be implausible. For example, Milton Friedman famously called for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration. But in that case, how would consumers know whether their food and drugs were safe? The same way it does now, through the free market. Currently the FDA inspects 6% of food producers, not food produced and less than 1% of those who import food into the United States. I always find it interesting when people use the FDA to justify big government when they don't even have a basic understanding of what they are talking about. The majority of food inspection is carried out by third party firms, not employed by the government. As for the FDA's record when it comes to Drugs and medication try checking with those people who took Viox or Fen-Phen, Oh wait, never mind because they died before those and many drugs approved by the FDA were pulled off the market. His answer was to rely on tort law. Corporations, he claimed, would have the incentive not to poison people because of the threat of lawsuits This is rather a gross misrepresentation of what Friedman actually said. Friedman pointed out that private society the tort system COULD provide at least as much assurance as the FDA can. Prior to 1962 the FDA had much less power than it now has and people weren't dropping like flies. prior to 1962 one of the worst drug mishaps in the U.S. was the tragic deaths of 107 (mostly children ) from Elixir Sulfanilamide. Economists Sam Peltzman and Dale Gieringer have shown that this and other tragedies prior to 1962 are insignificant compared to the death toll post 1962 FDA. In 1996, alone, 106,000 hospital patients died from complications of FDA approved drugs. We aren't even talking about the untold numbers who die from the massive FDA delay of drugs and devices or the medicines that are never brought to market because of the costly and lengthy process of approval ( which when actually looked at has an abysmal record for approving unsafe drugs and pulling them from the market far too late). Of drugs approved by the FDA between 1987 and 1983 73% of them had already been approved for use abroad. It has been estimated that premature deaths annually far exceeds 50,000 because of the current expensive and protracted FDA processes..





    Exactly. Makes absolutely no sense. In areas where we don't have regulations or government checks, companies already do whatever they want and are hurting people. The possibility of lawsuits doesn't deter them. And note the irony: libertarians want to flood the court system with lawsuits. No, they don't want to flood the court system, actually prior to 1962 there were relatively few tragedies caused by unsafe drugs and therefore few people suing over it. Ever wonder who it is that makes the huge money in the court room? In Class action suits? Isn't that government? Doesn't that cost taxpayers' money? Never heard of Tort Reform? Looser pays for frivolous lawsuits? And what laws would the courts enforce in a lawsuit, if there are none? Smaller government doesn't mean no government. Such uninformed intellectual dishonesty undercuts whatever argument you may have been trying to make This is where the libertarian ideology falls apart. Completely unlike Progressivism, Socialism and Communism.) Like all by-the-book ideologies, it just doesn't add up in practice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2014 5:05 AM GMT
    O FFS, Not Professor Douchenozzle again.

    I will thank the Krug for some good press for libertarians (though he didn't intend for it to be good).

    No one's detergent killed lake Erie in days of yore. There were a hell of a lot more (and worse) things than just phosphates being dumped in that poor lake.

    His stupid column has already been overtaken by events. Toledo has lifted its water ban. The initial tests performed showed slightly elevated levels of toxins, but six other sites were tested and no harmful levels were detected.

    This represented at worst an inconvenience, and not, as white Liberals had hoped, a major health crisis/hazard.

    Back to the Idiot Professor: We all will do well to recall his completely looney piece published on or about Sept. 14, 2001, "After the Horror."

    This Nobel laureate of an economist actually suggested that the destruction of the WTC would inject economic stimulus into downtown Manhattan, and indeed the entire NYC metro region.

    Seriously? This the age-old Broken Windows Fallacy which every person even remotely interested in econ knows by heart.

    I'm glad Dr. Dick had a pleasant experience at NJ DMV. Yes, that agency has been downright lovely for the past few years. Why? Because it was partially fucking privatized, you dingbats. The new administrators put in place an efficient and reasonable check-in process, which has reduced long lines and frustration.

    Krug knows this full well - or at least he should - the guy says and writes some stupid-ass things sometimes, I have doubts as to what he actually knows about anything.





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 13, 2014 5:41 AM GMT
    jjguy05 said
    woodsmen said

    Smart libertarians have always realized that there are problems free markets alone can’t solve — but their alternatives to government tend to be implausible. For example, Milton Friedman famously called for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration. But in that case, how would consumers know whether their food and drugs were safe? His answer was to rely on tort law. Corporations, he claimed, would have the incentive not to poison people because of the threat of lawsuits.



    Exactly. Makes absolutely no sense. In areas where we don't have regulations or government checks, companies already do whatever they want and are hurting people. The possibility of lawsuits doesn't deter them. And note the irony: libertarians want to flood the court system with lawsuits. Isn't that government? Doesn't that cost taxpayers' money? And what laws would the courts enforce in a lawsuit, if there are none? This is where the libertarian ideology falls apart. Like all by-the-book ideologies, it just doesn't add up in practice.


    Turn off Rachel Maddow, and back away from your TV.

    "[W]hat laws would the courts enforce... if there are none?"


    Who gave you the idea that libertarians are opposed to laws? Libertarianism is not anarchy.

    There is a difference between mere "law," and observation of the Rule of Law.

    See "Planning and the Rule of Law," ch 6 of FA Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.

    [url]http://books.google.com/books?id=eTve6XEUbYIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+road+to+serfdom&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aW_rU-IEy6DIBKuSgIgE&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20road%20to%20serfdom&f=false[/url]

    I've posted it, because white Liberals seem to have a problem finding and reading actual books. It is a few pages short in this link.

    You are to read it now. Do not post a single word about this subject until you have read this chapter.

  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 16, 2014 3:34 PM GMT
    Neo-liberal economics is more a less "a fiction" in the sense that it's trenchantly Utopian. The belief that somehow deregulating the markets and making the markets free somehow correlates with making individuals free is a lie. Neo-liberalism/Anarcho-capitalism (whatever you so wish to call it) would simply lead to the tyranny of huge co-orperations. I find it very amusing when neo-liberals complain about the power of the state yet want to increase the power of the markets. Giving power to the markets is as morally contentious as giving power to the state.

    I shall however, concede. In a sense all ideological perspectives are utopian. All ideologies have one goal - in a sense - and that is to find freedom. Liberalism is the belief that freedom is found via freedom of speech and critiquing governments, this then developed into neo-liberalism that believes that deregulating the market makes people free. Communism is founded on the belief that the redistribution of wealth, direct democracy will find freedom. Feminism is the belief that society is founded on inequality between the sexes, and thus making both sexes equal will allow freedom to ensue.

    The only problem with this form of view is that all ideologies ultimately become pointless. Some people find freedom in the markets. Some people find freedom in marxism. Some people find freedom in anarchism. The resulting issue is when people believe that XYZ ideology can free everybody (some people do not suit in societies that have a hard-lined ideological view: communism, capitalism, et al), which is why statements like "the freer the markets the freer the people" are just categorical lies. It really should be "The freer the markets, the freer some people are" (However, Adam Smith will probably state that this just isn't catchy) - those some, of course, being the people who rule and dominate the markets themselves. The clear problem being that ideologies all strive to find freedom (in differing ways) even though freedom is not only an unobtainable goal but one which nobody can clearly define.

    Some people don't fit in certain types of societies, other people do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2014 3:42 PM GMT
    jaroslav123 saidNeo-liberal economics is more a less "a fiction" in the sense that it's trenchantly Utopian. The belief that somehow deregulating the markets and making the markets free somehow correlates with making individuals free is a lie. Neo-liberalism/Anarcho-capitalism (whatever you so wish to call it) would simply lead to the tyranny of huge co-orperations. I find it very amusing when neo-liberals complain about the power of the state yet want to increase the power of the markets. Giving power to the markets is as morally contentious to giving power to the state.

    I shall however, concede. In a sense all ideological perspectives are utopian. All ideologies have one goal - in a sense - and that is to find freedom. Liberalism is the belief that freedom is found via freedom of speech and critiquing governments, this then developed into neo-liberalism that believes that deregulating the market makes people free. Communism is founded on the belief that the redistribution of wealth, direct democracy will find freedom. Feminism is the belief that society is founded on inequality between the sexes, and thus making both sexes equal will allow freedom to ensue.

    The only problem with this form of view is that all ideologies are ultimately pointless. Some people find freedom in the markets. Some people find freedom in marxism. Some people find freedom in anarchism. The resulting issue is when people believe that XYZ ideology can free everybody (some people do not suit in societies that have a hard-lined ideological view: communism, capitalism, et al), which is why statements like "the freer the markets the freer the people" are just categorical lies. It really should be "The freer the people, the freer some people are" - those some, of course, being the people who rule and dominate the markets themselves.

    Some people don't fit in certain types of societies, other people do.

    One question: what have you been smoking?
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 16, 2014 3:45 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    jaroslav123 saidNeo-liberal economics is more a less "a fiction" in the sense that it's trenchantly Utopian. The belief that somehow deregulating the markets and making the markets free somehow correlates with making individuals free is a lie. Neo-liberalism/Anarcho-capitalism (whatever you so wish to call it) would simply lead to the tyranny of huge co-orperations. I find it very amusing when neo-liberals complain about the power of the state yet want to increase the power of the markets. Giving power to the markets is as morally contentious to giving power to the state.

    I shall however, concede. In a sense all ideological perspectives are utopian. All ideologies have one goal - in a sense - and that is to find freedom. Liberalism is the belief that freedom is found via freedom of speech and critiquing governments, this then developed into neo-liberalism that believes that deregulating the market makes people free. Communism is founded on the belief that the redistribution of wealth, direct democracy will find freedom. Feminism is the belief that society is founded on inequality between the sexes, and thus making both sexes equal will allow freedom to ensue.

    The only problem with this form of view is that all ideologies are ultimately pointless. Some people find freedom in the markets. Some people find freedom in marxism. Some people find freedom in anarchism. The resulting issue is when people believe that XYZ ideology can free everybody (some people do not suit in societies that have a hard-lined ideological view: communism, capitalism, et al), which is why statements like "the freer the markets the freer the people" are just categorical lies. It really should be "The freer the people, the freer some people are" - those some, of course, being the people who rule and dominate the markets themselves.

    Some people don't fit in certain types of societies, other people do.

    One question: what have you been smoking?


    Twinings tea and political theory. ;)