|
|
#31
10-19-2007, 11:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So what? In the area of energy policy government hasn't had a stellar performance. When the Democrats took control of Congress I believe oil was around 60 bucks a barell. I said by energy companies with both fists because everything that the Democrats wanted to do tended to drive up the price of oil. Now oil is north of 85 bucks a barell. Bush would like to see more suppyly come to market. In no way do the ideas of the Nobel Prize winning economist validate the approach the Democrats have nor do his ideas state that Bush's ideas are worse than the ideas the Democrats have. He's saying his ideas are better than Bush's. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was trying to make a statement on energy policy, nor was I trying to make a particular point about Bush, although I do of course believe that he is deserving of a Nobel Prize for idiocy. I just know how much people around here like to talk about the free market, so I thought the article was relevant. [/ QUOTE ] And the Nobel Prize winner stated the following: "Markets work well with goods that economists call private goods" like cars or other consumer durables, Maskin said in his office at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. So no problem with free markets for private goods. The Bush "free market orthodoxy" is fine apparently. "The market doesn't work very well when it comes to public goods," said Maskin, a slight, soft-spoken 57-year-old who lives in a house once occupied by Albert Einstein. So the Nobel Prize Winner is discussing public goods when he rejects the Bush "free market orthodoxy." He further states about specific public goods: "How do we ensure in the case of public goods that they are provided at all, and that they are provided at the right level, taking into account citizens' preferences?" he said. A clean environment, for example, is not a private good in that "my enjoyment of it doesn't preclude yours," he said. "So the theory of mechanism design asks what sort of procedures or mechanisms or institutions could be put in place which allow us to choose the right level," he said. A "clean environoment" and energy go hand in hand. The energy sector that effects the environment has all kinds of government laws and regulations associated with it. It can hardly be construed as something that operates in free market. Part of the Bush "free market orthodoxy" regarding public goods associated with the environment are to loosen regulations and government restrictions in various areas to increase supplies of energy related products like oil. The regulations and government retrictions are a product of the Democratic party basically as they are supported by the environmental lobbies. Only an idiot would draw the conclusion that the current state of affairs in energy policy that relates to public goods is somehow a product of Bush "free market orthodoxy." What Maskin is stating is that the Bush "free market orthodoxy" is not a way to change the policy related to the public goods associated with energy. However, it's also not an endorsement of the current government regulations and restrictions that exist either. You seem to be implying more or less that Maskin is endorsing the current state of affairs. Not my take at all. I realize you like to post links without doing too much thinking though. 
|
|
#32
10-19-2007, 11:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand you're not opposed to fairytale governments? [/ QUOTE ] I prefer the fairytale of a functioning minimalist state over the fairytale of a functioning non-state, like the vast majority of economist (and by vast I mean 99% and more).
|
|
#33
10-19-2007, 12:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ] 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?
|
|
#34
10-19-2007, 01:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And public production and consumption may generate social costs and benefits. [/ QUOTE ] It's totally awesome how you totally not understand the concept of externalities. [/ QUOTE ] Public actions don't have externalities? natedogg
|
|
#36
10-19-2007, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
[ QUOTE ]
Different definitions of efficiency. Mainstream economics uses a much stronger definition of efficiency; one that is less controversial than Rothbard's (i.e. if markets meet the standards of efficiency set by mainstream economists, this is a much stronger defense of the view that markets are efficient than Rothbard's; conversely, one could argue that markets meet Rothbard's standard, but that is not good enough). [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In its statement with the award, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said the market's efficiency may be undermined because consumers are not perfectly informed , [/ QUOTE ] The issue with the "stronger" definition of efficiency (which is in reality weaker) is that Rothbard understands that informational barriers must exist while mainstream economists work on models where it either doesn't or has been minimized to unrealistic levels. Until such levels of information can be accomplished in reality mainstream economics definition of efficiency will be weak and Rothbard's strong.
|
|
#37
10-19-2007, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
[ QUOTE ]
Read what I wrote again. 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? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, much better, thanks. I didn't catch that key "if" the first time around.
|
|
#38
10-19-2007, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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? [/ QUOTE ] What does the balance of trade have to do with mercantilism?
|
|
#40
10-19-2007, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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? [/ QUOTE ] What does the balance of trade have to do with mercantilism? [/ QUOTE ] I think our ideas of what constitues mercantilism are pretty far apart here. My understanding was a system aimed at creating a favorable balance of trade, with the intention of concentrating capital in the country.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
