2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets

[pvn]

[ 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 ]


I understand completely that you can oppose “free market orthodoxy” without agreeing with his method of opposing it. He has provided his method of opposition. You have stated that you oppose free market orthodoxy. So I am confused. What exactly is "free market orthodoxy" and what would be your method of opposing it (if any).

This is very important PVN as your future Nobel prize is at stake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read what I wrote again. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I said if what Bush champions is "free market orthodoxy" than I oppose "free market orthodoxy". The point being that I what bush is championing, regardless of whether someone wants to call it "a pony for every child" or "pushing old ladies down in the street". The name is not the thing, what bush is championing is NOT "free market orthodoxy" even though somebody with some fancy prize might call it that.

Better?

[Felz]

[ 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 ]

Of course there is a correct number (see Samuelson condition). The problem is that it's hard to find that correct number, even for the market.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ] Because mainstream economics does not judge the content of preferences (normatively many might believe in your substantive moral view that no preference is inherently better than another, but this is not presupposed; the 'official statement', is that preferences are taken as a given for scientific reasons, although one could argue that they aren't doing it for scientific reasons), they are able to come up with a 'correct' number here in principle (see link at bottom). The only way we can argue that the generated number is incorrect is in fact to deny the very premise you wish to assert (that no preferences are inherently better than another), by arguing, for example, that people's views on public goods are not mere preferences, or that some preferences shouldn't be taken into account.
individual valuations

However, one can certainly make an argument that the political process isn't very likely to lead to this number being realized.

[West]

[ 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.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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?

[tame_deuces]

[ 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.

[tomdemaine]

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.

[tame_deuces]

[ 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.

[bobman0330]

[ 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 ]

I'm not going to check the numbers, but I'd bet that the Bush Administration has overseen a larger absolute negative balance of trade than any other government of any other country at any point in human history. And they haven't really worried about it. How could you possibly call them mercantilist?