2007 Nobel Prize for Economics winner on free markets

[yukoncpa]

[ 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.

[Felz]

[ 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.

[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.

[tomdemaine]

[ 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 ]

We get it you're an expert of economics but you know way too much to bother wasting time educating us dunces. Can we just take that as read from now on without the need for these little pointless snipes?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobel economics winner says market forces flawed

commentary

[/ 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.

[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.

[moorobot]

[ 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, competition is not completely free
Somebody needs to brush up on his Rothbard.

[/ 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).

[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?

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

It's totally awesome that all you ever do is assert your way to (non)victory.

[West]

[ 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.