The alliance of bastards: central planners, do-gooders and population control

[ikalugin]

Makes a thought full face.

Maybe the reason why majority does not take libertarian views seriously is not because of some grand keynesian conspiracy, but because the theories supporting those views are by large unscientific?
That would certainly be the simpler way to explain things I think.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Wait, slow down, I need to write this down I already know how to ruin myself, but I didn't know there was more than one way.

Take your time, you don't look like a gambling man and the other 2 are slow ways

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Makes a thought full face.

Maybe the reason why majority does not take libertarian views seriously is not because of some grand keynesian conspiracy, but because the theories supporting those views are by large unscientific?
That would certainly be the simpler way to explain things I think.

That makes way too much sense. You should be ashamed.

[Skybird]

Consdering Keynes' esoteric collection of assumnptions and daring claims - that by his own material can be shown to finally necessarily end in disaster, and he knew it! - as more scientific, is absurd. It is right the strength of the Austrian thinking that it does refuse this kind of distraction. and if that is no argument for you, then you still cannot work around this simple fact that I have mentioned repeatedly now: that the Austrrians have pridcted the crisis correctly and sinc elong time, whziole your scientific oh su soperiuor mainstream economy theories all more or less got surprised and poverrolled by it, and warned of it not at all, even were braindead enough to claim that it could not happen and and that the spending frenzy on credit could run for just about ever.

I stay with empiriy here. And empoiry shows that the reason of argument in the Austrian concept is more, MUCH more in line with the way in which economic history and the destruction of our money went on. And to not reject empiry but to deal with it is basic part of good scientific methodology.

They Keynesian, "scinetific" model has only led to constant inflating of money, its devaluation, inbcreaisng spending madness by states and governments, and a tyrannic rule of the fractional reserve system that under Keynes was led to new dominating heights.

But go on, continue to believe in your holy grail of stimulus programs and state-regulated stimulation, and more action by the state to stimulate demand! The state knows so much better what people must demanded and must want and must buy. And once the economy has been successfully ruined, the state then knows what they must not want, and must not demand and must not buy!

The primary incentive for people to learn is pain, and I think you guys still do not feel enough pain. My only fear is that once you start to be bothered you just will do what habit dictates you: to demand as a cure more of what has caused the pain in the first.

States do not solve problems. They create them, and they create them the more the stronger the states - or their meta-organisation on supranational level - become. especially you should know that, ikalugin, more than most others here.

[ikalugin]

States do not solve problems. They create them, and they create them the more the stronger the states - or their meta-organisation on supranational level - become. especially you should know that, ikalugin, more than most others here.

I know many instances where the state actually decreases transaction costs and fixes market failures. Thus strong state in some form must exist (if only to combat market failures), it's measure is dependent on a specific economy.

p.s. pure free, non regulated market does not lead to effective distribution of resources due to transaction costs/market failures.

[Skybird]

Sigh...

Okay, spill even more oil into the fire in order to extinguish it, and see what happens.

We have a proverb in German: wer nicht hören will, muß fühlen.

Think of it as Karma, self-made and inescapable.

[ikalugin]

I think it is carma to think that non regulated market would work, as it assumes that corporate entities would not seek to create additional friction via semi rational behavior and breaking the rules, and then ask why people don't take you seriously.

[Betonov]

Thinking a not regulated market would work is like setting up a campsite fire in the middle of summer drought without lining it with stone.

Businesses don't care about hurting the people and laws when these laws are (somewhat) enforced. Imagine them when they have free reign.

I have no intention of moving back to feudalism, be it under nobility or business.

[Skybird]

Your criticism aims at monopolism. Monopolism that has the state as its ultimate master and at the top of the food chain.

Have a free market and a civil model with no state and local population being responsible itself for the immediate regional details of how to organise itself. Then you have people who trade and give and take according to the values they themselves attribute to things - and nobody, not even comrade state or the party, can know better then these people what value they attribute to any service or commodity on offer.

They will either be shortsighted and follow the pied pipers trying to establish monopolies (so that in the future they can dictate the prices and conditions and thus avoid the free market competition) by making very attractive offers to lure people intop buying jzst form them and thus ruining their competitiors; or people/market participants will be clever and respect the longtime perspective and diversify their selling/buying behavior, in order to prevent that somebody could gain a monopolist status: they will do business with not as little but a smany people possible.

In any case, that population get that free amrekt and that monopolism that it deserves and has helped to build by its own behaviour.

THAT is karma.

You defend a system of "Staatsgläubigkeit" that time and again, whereever it has raised its head in history, failed and left disaster, ruin and pushed people into collective poverty ans misery, and dictatorial regimes. That state is no guarantee and protector against monopolists. It is the biggest monopolist of all! A mononopolised breaker of rules that has monopolised the right to make the rules that it runs on its own behalf, a monopolised enforcer of rules that escapes the rules on its own behalf, a monopolised robber who claims to protect private property and legalises the open or hidden expropriation of private property.

You, a Russian (=ex-Soviet, so to speak), should know that better than anybody. But apparently Russia today is very successful again to teach people obedience to the state and strong belief in its honesty and regulatory competence. And lets face it: Putinism is anythign but a free, liberal state model.

You are being fooled, ikalugin. Dont allow to be corrupted so cheaply! Is the history of your country telling you nothing? A history of serfdom and bondage, for always, since always, and since before?

Germans and Russians - these two really should know it better. But especially these two seem to fail more in learning the lessons of history. I cannot understand this. Maybe it has become kiond of a hbait to always fall back ointo the same historical patterns. If so, then the deities may have mercy with all of us.

[ikalugin]

My argument has nothing to do with monopolistic markets or economies, but thanks for the strawman.

History tells me that without a strong unified state there is no Russia.

[Skybird]

Yes, I have perfectly understood that yopu are a fan of strong state identity. Russia is there, fine. Its just that it is not en par in civil rights, wealth and innovations with other states. Enlightenment and renniassance passed it by. The industry is extremely backwardly and uncompetitive until today. And for Putin's idea that strength only is to be defined militarily while economically being extremely vulnerable, your beloved Russia is already paying a terribly high price. Russia lost the cold war due to economic collapse and mismanagement. And it is about loosing this confrontation tody as well. Corrupt elites back then - corrupt elites today. And it goes like that back to the first Czars.

When the only thing strong in your country is the state and the military, while economy and finances are a mess, you have the perfect sowing ground for dictatorship growing once again. And it does. Putin is the evidence. The Kremlin is the biggest monopolist of all.

[ikalugin]

I see, so you hand wave my economics argument and now attempt to dodge the response to your faulty historic one. Ok.

[Skybird]

No. I simply think that history has overtaken your "economic argument" (I would call it a mere claim only) already several decades ago, and that in an uncontrolled drive of romantic sentiment you hopelessly overestimate the economic and financial strength of your country . Sorry.

Russia is not as weak as many in the West think. But it also is by far not as strong as Russians are made to believe by their state propaganda.

And there I am once again: with that statement ^ I once again sit between all chairs and will collide with everybody here. .

The cracking loud sound you inevitably will hear sometime in the coming months, or two years at max, will be you impacting down there, on that hard surface that marks the ground of reality.

Four years is the utmost maximum that I think is possible for Russia holding out the finmcial drain it curently suffers due to the state reserves being consumed and investors fleeing the money and Russian wealth also conducting a massive excodues from Russia and its banks. Two years probably is much more realistic. Even for the attempt to retaliate against the EU by changing the gas trafficking, away from the Ukraine territory and in the future transporting it only to Turkey and leave the rest to the EU dealing with the Turks, several y<ears of coinstruciton work and 3 dozen billiuon Euros in investments by Russia would be needed to be invested.

That your economy is in that pitiful sate, is not due to free markets. Free markets have not driven Russia against the wall, but the state-regulated economy system of central planning - almost as intense now like ti was during Soviet times. And during soviet times, not wealthy public supply was administred by the state, but lack. The cold war ended because Russia had to quit, could not afford it anymore.

They say Germans know how to do quality, and are good engineers, especially cars. I ask you this:

There were two German states, and in both lived German engineers of same intelligence and creativity. But in the one state with less state regulation of economy for some time the German engineers designed and produced hundreds of different car models, cars that were wanted in all the world and were seen as superior in quality in all the world, and in the other German state with plenty of centralised, state-regulated planning, German egineers build only two car models, the trabant and the Wartburg, that all world was laughing about, and nobody outside the company of poor brothers that the Warsaw Pact was, wanted them.

Think of it. There is a reason why planned economie never are competitive against non-planned economies, or why the US and Europe could outlast the Warsaw Pact in the arms race. And it has been like that since long before the Soviet Union and communism arriving as a state ideology. When you go through the history books, time and again you will see that free trade and less regulation meant more wealth and commercial activity. As a general rule, it is a simple fact. Since at least 3000 years. Wise kings encouraged free markets, and their realms blossomed. Stupid kings wanted to control and press more taxes, and ran into financial troubles due to trade and their economies hitting rock bottom. Napoleon even also did not understasnd this, like you. Compared to its size, France never played the economic role in Europe of that time, that it should, have played, In the end England outlasted Napoleon - for reasons of superior economic structures that financed them even when the times were grim.

As usual in this context of military power, finances and economic systems, and countries rising and falling for these reasons, I recommend Nigel Kennedy's formidable bestselling book "The rise and fall of the great powers. Europe 1500-1980s", the most accessible book on this matter I ever stumbled over.

[ikalugin]

You would notice that all of successful western economies during the cold war had ample government intervention in them, with de facto establishment of welfare state in most places.

Thus your post cold war euphoria is misplaced, as is your purposeful derailment of the topic away from the simple fact that pure non regulated free market is not going to be efficient in the real world. Why do I call it a fact, because market failure exists, as do transaction costs.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Makes a thought full face.

Maybe the reason why majority does not take libertarian views seriously is not because of some grand keynesian conspiracy, but because the theories supporting those views are by large unscientific?
That would certainly be the simpler way to explain things I think.

Bingo! It's the same as when we are talking about historic materialism, also an ideology-based theory their followers saw as an accurate, scientific explaination for everything. It also makes sense when you compare Marx and Hayek: both are still regarded among economists for their analyses; not for the philosophies which derived from them.

Although I still refuse to use the term libertarian for the proponents of the "the market will solve all our problems"-crowd. Especially when regarding your location, I think in our historic tradition, libertarianism has much more to do with Bakunin or Makhno, than with Ron Paul or Mises.