Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, no. I can agree that what he's calling "free market orthodoxy" (which is actually nothing of the sort) is bogus without embracing his particular solution to the problem.

I think in a sense, he's right, though. Taxes can allow a "more efficient provision of (so-called) public goods" if you just adopt the same mindset that the bureaucrat does; something I want is not provided at the level I personally would like in a market allocation, I can apply coercion and force to get the predetermined "correct" number of units produced, therefore, this must be a good thing.

The problem (ignoring the moral implications) is that there is no "correct" number - no one person's preference is inherently better than another.

[/ QUOTE ]

We shouldn't be ignoring moral implications, so we can stop right there. Though no one person's 'preference' may be inherently better than another, that still doesn't mean that there isn't a 'correct' number.

Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, no. I can agree that what he's calling "free market orthodoxy" (which is actually nothing of the sort) is bogus without embracing his particular solution to the problem.

I think in a sense, he's right, though. Taxes can allow a "more efficient provision of (so-called) public goods" if you just adopt the same mindset that the bureaucrat does; something I want is not provided at the level I personally would like in a market allocation, I can apply coercion and force to get the predetermined "correct" number of units produced, therefore, this must be a good thing.

The problem (ignoring the moral implications) is that there is no "correct" number - no one person's preference is inherently better than another.

[/ QUOTE ]

We shouldn't be ignoring moral implications, so we can stop right there. Though no one person's 'preference' may be inherently better than another, that still doesn't mean that there isn't a 'correct' number.

[/ QUOTE ]

The moral implications makes PVN's case all the stronger. if no persons preference is bgetter than any others than the only correct number can be the number that is arrived at through voluntary transactions between consenting people with no outside influences forcing them to do one thing or another.

Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, no. I can agree that what he's calling "free market orthodoxy" (which is actually nothing of the sort) is bogus without embracing his particular solution to the problem.

I think in a sense, he's right, though. Taxes can allow a "more efficient provision of (so-called) public goods" if you just adopt the same mindset that the bureaucrat does; something I want is not provided at the level I personally would like in a market allocation, I can apply coercion and force to get the predetermined "correct" number of units produced, therefore, this must be a good thing.

The problem (ignoring the moral implications) is that there is no "correct" number - no one person's preference is inherently better than another.

[/ QUOTE ]

We shouldn't be ignoring moral implications, so we can stop right there. Though no one person's 'preference' may be inherently better than another, that still doesn't mean that there isn't a 'correct' number.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, good. Let's talk about moral implications.

I don't think I have the "correct" number of cars. I'm going to use force to get you to buy me another car. I really need the car, trust me, I just told you that I don't have the correct number.

What do you think of the moral implications of that?

Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobel economics winner says market forces flawed

commentary

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Professor Eric Maskin, one of three American economists to receive the award, said that he "to some extent" takes issue with free-market orthodoxy championed by U.S President George W. Bush and some other western leaders.

[/ QUOTE ]

If what Bush champions is "free market orthodoxy" then I agree, I am opposed to "free market orthodoxy."

[/ QUOTE ]

From an outside viewpoint I think it largely is yes.

Anyway I don't think his 'design' can be used as an argument for or against anarcho-capitalism.

I read up on bits of it and is clear it is a design where a specific outcome is desired from the get-go, so it does not seem applicable to an AC standpoint which probably has no desire to have 'specific outcomes' defined from the start.

Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
 

[ QUOTE ]
The moral implications makes PVN's case all the stronger. if no persons preference is bgetter than any others than the only correct number can be the number that is arrived at through voluntary transactions between consenting people with no outside influences forcing them to do one thing or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

The standard condition for optimal provision of public goods uses the pareto concept. Which in a nutshell is entirely based upon the premise of purely voluntary transactions.

Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The moral implications makes PVN's case all the stronger. if no persons preference is bgetter than any others than the only correct number can be the number that is arrived at through voluntary transactions between consenting people with no outside influences forcing them to do one thing or another.

[/ QUOTE ]

The standard condition for optimal provision of public goods uses the pareto concept. Which in a nutshell is entirely based upon the premise of purely voluntary transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I remeber of my economics degree Pareto is about assigning ownership to everything then letting people get on with it through free trade. I'm all for that. I take it you're opposed to government then?

Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
 

George Bush is pretty god damn far from advocating anything like free market othordoxy. Mercantilism is the worst most twisted bastardisation of capitalism you can get.

Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
 

[ QUOTE ]
From what I remeber of my economics degree Pareto is about assigning ownership to everything then letting people get on with it through free trade. I'm all for that. I take it you're opposed to government then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not opposed to government as such, I'm a statist. I'm opposed to the way government is run in reality though.

Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
 

[ QUOTE ]
George Bush is pretty god damn far from advocating anything like free market othordoxy. Mercantilism is the worst most twisted bastardisation of capitalism you can get.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I didn't say my view - I said outside view. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

To give some perspective on what I mean: Anarchists around my parts are very rarely capitalist, they are almost always leftist. They tend to hate the US, and they tend to put an = between the US and the dangers of capitalism. They oppose capitalist forces with largely the same arguments that AC opposes the state. If somebody had explained AC to them, I am fairly certain they would get nightmares.

Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From what I remeber of my economics degree Pareto is about assigning ownership to everything then letting people get on with it through free trade. I'm all for that. I take it you're opposed to government then?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not opposed to government as such, I'm a statist. I'm opposed to the way government is run in reality though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand you're not opposed to fairytale governments?