Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[rong]

It technically is a monopoly. The monopoly on violence. The government uses this monopoly to structure everything else how it sees fit, so when the government owns the highway, it has a monopoly on the highway.

This is irrelevant to the point I was making. And anyway, technically, it it state run. It is run by the state, therefore it is state run. Why aren't you calling it what it is? (DYSWIDT?)

Morally: because you're the one with the resources. The guy who kills the meat gets to do with the meat what he chooses. If it isn't structured like this, civilization falls apart. You use your resources to support your family. Why would it better for you to not have that option? Morally? Really? Morality doesn't side with the capitalists.

Socially and economically: because it makes the world a better place. Meritocracy drives abundance and prosperity, regardless of if you "earned" the merits or "just have" the merits. Macroeconomics is counter-intuitive. We may think that helping the poor with things like wage floors or price caps on goods helps them, but macroeconomics says otherwise. It isn't even that macro says it doesn't help them, but that it actually hurts them. I don't really even understand it that well, but I'm not going to tell economists at large that they're wrong about economics. Maybe an easy way to visualize it is that when regulations make it hard to have a job without a car (which ours very much do), it undercuts the poor since they have to waste so much of their resources on a car. Sociably, no. Economically yes. You could possibly make it cheaper and more efficient, I give you that. But more expensive and given to everyone can be sociably better than cheaper and more efficient.

It is important that people pay for what they have with the resources they have. Not doing this is what the Soviet Union tried to do. Socialism in the West is not any different whatsoever. We are just lucky that only some aspects of our society have embraced the ideology; whereas the USSR embraced it for all aspects of its society. Funny, but health care over here is pretty good yet people don't pay for what they use. Which demonstrates my point perfectly. There is no reason not to have a mixture of both.



Profit is essential to driving abundance and innovation. There are no known exceptions. That is bullshit! Some people do things for other reasons than profit. And anyway, this is irrelevant. You can still have some things given to everyone for free and have plenty of innovation across the board. A little bit of free at point of use and paid for via tax doesn't destroy everything.



The reason I keep mentioning food is because it is equally as essential to life as the other things you mentioned (more than most of them, actually), yet it is not heavily influenced by the state and it works better than every one of your examples. So the question is "what gives?" How can it be that government ownership is better for essentials when the facts show that markets are better?

Food stumps me for a good answer. I need to think about that.

[rong]

The last line was snarky, I retract the last line.

Also, I've not idea if that road would create a monopoly. But it certainly could. Which is the point.

[rong]

Go ask the poor homeless fuck on the streets of new York, find one who fell through the cracks, and ask him how his private health care compares to my state provided health care.

[wufwugy]

Go ask the poor homeless fuck on the streets of new York, find one who fell through the cracks, and ask him how his private health care compares to my state provided health care.

City homeless exists because of government policies. Their skills are far below the demand needed in a city, they live on government property, and they are disincentivized to use their skills in the first place. Homelessness begins to disappear as you get more rural for these reasons.

Poking holes in the system does nothing because each element is built many layers deep on the foundation of dysfunction.

Morally? Really? Morality doesn't side with the capitalists.

Please reconsider what I said. Socialism does not have the moral high ground here. According to the moralism that socialists claim is their high ground, the right thing would be for you to let others decide what to do with the resources you have or acquire.

Sociably, no. Economically yes. You could possibly make it cheaper and more efficient, I give you that. But more expensive and given to everyone can be sociably better than cheaper and more efficient.

This has been tried. It produced horrible results. Society is dependent on its economy in order to function. Additionally, sacrificing efficiency for distribution is stagnation. The further in the future we get, the more harm sacrificing efficiency does. Treating things like public goods helps us right now and a couple years in the future, but because it ends innovation, it makes things further in the future worse. If we sacrificed efficiency for the public good back in the 80s, there would probably be no personal computers, no smart phones, no internet, and no forum debates.

It needs to be abundantly clear that the backbone of communism is sacrificing efficiency for distribution of a "public good". Russia became a hellhole after it adopted this.

Funny, but health care over here is pretty good yet people don't pay for what they use. Which demonstrates my point perfectly. There is no reason not to have a mixture of both.

Actuaries don't agree. Everybody on Medicare thinks it works very well, but the actuary profession at large says it does not. Economists are less specific on healthcare than actuaries, but they mostly also say it is not nearly as effective and resilient as current recipients claim.

I don't know much specifically about UK healthcare, but I do know that it doesn't hold a candle to what an economically sound approach does. The country closest to this approach is Singapore. Its healthcare is several times cheaper yet just as effective.

It should also be noted that socialist healthcare systems rely on the capitalist ones for much of their technological advancements.

That is bullshit! Some people do things for other reasons than profit. And anyway, this is irrelevant. You can still have some things given to everyone for free and have plenty of innovation across the board. A little bit of free at point of use and paid for via tax doesn't destroy everything.

That's not me talking, that's consensus among economists.

[rong]

You just dodged questions in order to continue stating your dogma. I think this conversation is done.

I agree that long term capitalism would be expected to provide more growth, Greater innovation and greater efficiency. However it comes at a short term cost. Which is the less received by those at the bottom of the food chain whilst we wait for progress to make it cheaper so that more people can afford it.

I don't think that cost is acceptable in some areas, you do.

[wufwugy]

You just dodged questions in order to continue stating your dogma. I think this conversation is done.

I agree that long term capitalism would be expected to provide more growth, Greater innovation and greater efficiency. However it comes at a short term cost. Which is the less received by those at the bottom of the food chain whilst we wait for progress to make it cheaper so that more people can afford it.

I don't think that cost is acceptable in some areas, you do.

You can show me the questions if you like. I responded to the one I saw.

As for the short/long term cost thing, that's probably accurate. The short term wouldn't last that long, and the long term is ultimately what we're trying to make better, since the long term today is the short term a few years from now. Iceland is a good example that some like to use for why the short term pain of jailing fraudsters that the rest of the world supposedly didn't jail only caused them extra pain for a short period of time but by now they're already doing better than most of the rest of the world.

[rong]

Pricing once in a market is a very different decision than whether or not to enter the market in the first place.

[Renton]

But more expensive and given to everyone can be sociably better than cheaper and more efficient.

You've said a lot of things on the last page that I'd like to reply to, but this quote seems to encapsulate your argument so I'll just focus on it for now.

That quote is correct for a few types of resources, most of which aren't scarce. Air, for example, would be sociably better if it were given to everyone. I think an ultra-capitalist dystopia where only land owners have the right to free air (and the technology to exclude air to others) would definitely suck.

The quote is also correct for 100% inelastic resources. For example, if in the far future the atmosphere was polluted with some deadly contaminant, and each living person on the planet required one iodine pill per day to avoid getting sick from it, then that would be an appropriate item to socialize. The reason has nothing to do with everyone needing it, and everything to do with the fact that there would pretty much no competing alternative use for iodine in the market, and no need for anyone to use more than one per day.

The thing is, there really are no purely inelastic resources. I had to bend over backwards to contrive an example of one. Almost every scarce resource in the economy has alternative uses of varying levels of value or urgent need to people. Water, for example, is fairly inelastic, as everyone needs a couple of liters of it per day to survive, but it is a resource with thousands of alternative uses, some of which are vital to a functioning economy. Free water is far more likely to be squandered, while priced water is more likely to be conserved. Thus, it is a very bad idea to socialize water to a large extent, other than making sure everyone gets the necessary two liters. This argument is lost on all well-meaning socialists who believe water should be a basic right of citizens to have. And the socialists are currently winning this battle. Private water is practically non-existent in developed countries, and it shows. Shortages are emerging all over, with California being in a really bad one, currently.

Healthcare is elastic as well, but in a different way. When you're having a heart attack, you need bypass surgery, there is often no feasible alternative. When you have cancer, you need chemotherapy. The elasticity with healthcare demand comes because our behavior has an effect our likelihood of getting sick. People who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer. Obese people are more likely to get diabetes or heart disease. Regulating risky behavior sort of comes with the universal healthcare package, and that's one of the many reasons I am against it. If the state could just give out the free healthcare and leave it at that, I would have less quarrel with it. But that's not ECONOMICALLY feasible for them is it? The economics express themselves regardless of whether you have a free-market, socialist, or even communist-based system.

[rong]

I'm sure there's middle ground here.

For example, say top quality free health care to anyone under the age of 18. That ensures all kids get it, which ties in with my thoughts on ensuring equal opportunities in terms of social mobility.

What s you're thoughts on that kind of watered down free health care?

[Renton]

There aren't many negatives with that type of system, other than the redistribution and perhaps the minor distorted incentives for poor people to have more children. It's kind of a non-problem though. A lot of private charity gets thrown at sick children already, and children are statistically very unlikely to get expensively sick. The huge majority of healthcare needs are for elders, and the watered down healthcare we have for them in America is a total disaster that is likely to crash the economy in my lifetime.

There's also the simple practical issue that the state doesn't directly allocate resources from tax category A to benefit category A. The taxes just go into the pool that they spend from and they practically always run a deficit. The amount a government spends is directly related to what they take in taxes, multiplied by some sort of debt factor that is essentially how much debt they're comfortable adding to the next taxpaying generation. This is such a universal certainty at this point that I'm not sure reform is even possible.

[wufwugy]

It should also be noted that reforms should be gradual. Fully reforming healthcare should probably take 50 years or something. It would have to start with zero changes to people who have already been given assurances that are relatively needed. You can't much change Social Security for people who have been taxed for it all their lives, but you can do that for the young who have not.

[rong]

I found thus interesting
https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/03/w...rent-in-japan/

[Renton]

I found thus interesting
https://agenda.weforum.org/2015/03/w...rent-in-japan/

Japan's GDP hasn't gone up since 1995, so I'm not sure they're a good example of distributive policy leading to economic prosperity.

[rong]

I didn't think they helped my argument. I just though it was interesting and relevant enough for the thread.

[Renton]

Yeah, not all is bad in Japan either. They've always had <5% unemployment, and a lot of their GDP stagnation probably is related to their declining and aging population. It's just a very mixed bag country. Depression and suicide is high there, the economy isn't growing, and the currency is declining pretty hard. I think its enough bad things happening there to estimate with reasonable accuracy that their policies aren't doing them many favors.

[rong]

Thinking more, if we take the assumption that a privatised health care system leads to Greater innovation then what I want is for the rest of the world to do that while we keep a free at point of use state run system. That way innovation continues around the world which we can take advantage of yet we still get the benefits of our existing system.

But that makes me feel mean because I strangely Carr about everyone else.

[Renton]

Yeah, you're getting it for free in the U.K. for now, but your debt to GDP ratio is like 80% and ever rising. You're also locked in a several year recession with the rest of Western Europe. You're paying for free healthcare in the same manner that the U.S. has been paying for its wars, by burdening your children with a shitty economy. It's not free healthcare at all. Everyone in your country, including the poor, is paying dearly for it. In seen and unseen ways.

I'm not sure if you're implying that a pro-capitalism position lacks empathy for others. If you are, I would certainy take issue with that. It bothers me tremendously that the left thinks it has a monopoly on concern for poor people. I'm deeply concerned for poor people. Real, actual poor people, as in the kind that are probably less than 0.5% of the populations of the U.S or U.K but are a majority of people in India or Indonesia. I'm also concerned with the lower quintile income people of first-world countries, and I feel that the welfare state has entrenched them in a perpetuating cycle of victimhood and (relative) poverty.

The welfare state in America, along with its supporters, has convinced a significant percentage of the population that they are victimized by rich (especially white [especially male]) people, that they must fight an uphill battle to secure any ends for themselves, and that they probably shouldn't even try. And shockingly, that actually has an effect on people's behavior. There was a poll recently that asked people if they would consider voting for a socialist presidential candidate. Nearly 50% of the country said they would. Nearly 30% of conservatives said they would, and over 70% of people between 18-28 said they would. In the country that supposedly hates socialism more than any other. The state is a self perpetuating behemoth, ruining people's lives and all the while convincing them that all they need is a little more state. There just wasn't enough previously, that's why the shit didn't work. This is how Greece just elected its new communist PM.

[rong]

Yeah, you're getting it for free in the U.K. for now, but your debt to GDP ratio is like 80% and ever rising. You're also locked in a several year recession with the rest of Western Europe. You're paying for free healthcare in the same manner that the U.S. has been paying for its wars, by burdening your children with a shitty economy. It's not free healthcare at all. Everyone in your country, including the poor, is paying dearly for it. In seen and unseen ways.

You can see we was trundling along quite nicely with average say 4% growth and debt to gdp ratio of aound 40% which I believe is within acceptable boundaries, all this with our lovely free at point of use health care provided to everyone.

It's not the NHS that has caused all our problems, it was a bunch of people working in the financial services industry. Now you can blame all sorts of things for why the whole 2008 financial crisis happened, but it wasn't free healthcare.

As for the shitty economic environment here, that's got a lot to do with the governments policy of austerity which I shan't go on about any more because I think I've done it to death.

[Renton]

It's definitely not healthcare that's totally to blame, but the post-war generation is beginning to die off and that's accounting for a sharp rise in NHS spending as well as medicare in the U.S. It's likely to become a pretty big problem.

[wufwugy]

Capitalism works out of helping others. People don't buy products or services unless they think they're better for them. Capitalism is the empathic system, if there truly is one. Socialism is the one that mandates products and services based on the ideals of the controlling powers. That sounds selfish to me.

I'd like to clarify that the financial sector didn't cause the recession. Several other modern countries did the exact same stuff and didn't have such calamitous effects. The one thing they all share in common is central banks that were targeting a growth level. These countries has stable money while the ones where money collapsed ended up having huge recessions. Most of the central banks of the West are still operating on monetary regimes of meager growth. The BoE has been much better than the rest of the EU, and the results have been great in comparison.

[rong]

Giving freedom to thrive or rot as opportunity and chance allow does not equate to empathy.

[wufwugy]

Giving freedom to thrive or rot as opportunity and chance allow does not equate to empathy.

I'm not the biggest fan of claiming that capitalism is empathic. I think that kind of statement is wrought with holes. But if we're using this frame, there are two points to make here

(1) What's more selfish: allowing people the freedom to choose or coercing conformity? Capitalism is the former and socialism is the latter. Even if socialism has a heart of gold and means only the best, it is still the latter. And even if capitalism is hard and brutal, it is still the former.

(2) Let's pull a logical tactic out of the hat the left often wears: Just like "institutional racism" is somehow a thing, "institutional empathy" can now be a thing. The way the left finds "institutional racism" is data-mining any statistics that show ethnic disparity in outcomes and laying the blame on some form of racism. Likewise, we can examine what capitalism does for societies compared to socialism and determine which creates more "institutional empathy".

Historically, there is no competition. Capitalism beats the piss out of socialism. Its streets are safer, people are more prosperous. By a ton. Theoretically, capitalism is the mechanism by which products and services are made better for cheaper costs. Over time, this creates a more prosperous, safer, advanced society with people who find it much easier to engage empathy.

One of the economics professors who blogs at econlog (I forget who, but I think it was David Henderson), has briefly commented on some long-term friends he's had who grew up in Soviet bloc countries under strict socialism. He claims they are weirdly selfish. One of his examples comes from playing beach volleyball with them over the years. They consistently would make any questionable calls in their own favor (like if the ball hits right next to the line but nobody could tell if it was in or out). It wasn't that they would sometimes call it in their favor, but that without question they would call it in their favor. He thinks that this anecdote could be representative of the type of mentality that socialism fosters. The rationale is that because socialism cares fuckall about merits and everybody is granted what they are determined to "need" based on some abstract disassociated ideal, maybe the people have to take every tiny win they possibly can. They have no freedom to be better (and none to be worse), and the society this creates may be one of ultra entitled selfishness. This is just one guy's anecdote, not any known social or economic theory.

[Renton]

The end-game of capitalism is likely a world where all of the essentials for life support are cheap enough for practically anyone to afford. Shades of this can already be seen in many third-world countries where hunger is rare and basic healthcare and medicine is dirt cheap. I caught a parasite in Cambodia and bought anti-parasitic drugs over the counter for like $0.75. In America I would have paid at least 100x more and needed a prescription. I don't doubt that proponents of the welfare state have the best intentions for the poor, but the welfare state is not the Robin Hood fantasy that it is made out to be. In many cases the state robs the poor to prop up the middle class. Empathy for poor people isn't even a politically popular sentiment to have. Nearly all of the entitlement agendas are in service to the middle class, while being misleadingly framed as class warfare.

I don't know enough about UK policy so I'll just cite US examples of this. Social Security is a regressive program, disproportionately benefiting the middle class at the expense of the poor. The tax takes a larger percentage of low incomes and the budget depends on the poor having a lower life expectancy than average. They're now trying to raise the retirement age to sharpen this effect even more.

The minimum wage is in many ways also anti-poor and anti-minority. It essentially props up the wages of the lower income people who already have jobs at the expense of those who are looking for a job. It also encourages hiring discrimination by reducing the number of people who can be hired for low-skill work. If I'm an employer and I *kind of* don't like blacks, with no minimum wage I'm probably still going to hire them if the price is right. If I'm forced to pay a higher-than-market wage and I have a stack of applications of people of all colors, I'm obviously going pick the non-blacks first.

The newest welfare agenda sought after in the US by the democrats is free university education. This is clearly a middle class subsidy that will in many ways be a reverse robin hood. The children of poor people in the U.S. are far less likely than average to even graduate high school, much less go to college. The taxes to pay for free college will come out of their pockets all the same.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Are there scales where certain socioeconomic systems provide advantages?
Within most households / businesses, there is a whole lot of sharing and community property going on. Within small neighborhoods, there is a similar feeling of shared goals and economic same-ness that spurns a less capitalistic pattern of trade within the group.


How does a state-level capitalistic system intersect with these smaller socialisms?

Are these consequences good for the growth of said economic sectors?

***
What causes poorness?

Is it a personal choice?
Are there any extenuating circumstances whereby a 'great person' could find themselves destitute?
Are there any extenuating circumstances whereby a 'worthless person' could find themselves wealthy?

Is it fair to have a society with punishments and rewards based on factors which are beyond the control of its members?

[Renton]

Are there scales where certain socioeconomic systems provide advantages?
Within most households / businesses, there is a whole lot of sharing and community property going on. Within small neighborhoods, there is a similar feeling of shared goals and economic same-ness that spurns a less capitalistic pattern of trade within the group.




How does a state-level capitalistic system intersect with these smaller socialisms?


Are these consequences good for the growth of said economic sectors?

There's a very simple reason why those social constructs work well and the state works poorly. It has nothing to do with scale, and everything to do with consent. They're all voluntary contracts. That said, there is a such thing as a dis-economy of scale that larger states suffer from more than smaller states and communities do. It also can exist with large corporations.

To say that those constructs are "less-capitalistic" betrays a basic misunderstanding of capitalism. Collaboration is an essential aspect of capitalism, and people who are part of a coalition have a big competitive advantage over lone wolves.

What causes poorness?

Is it a personal choice?
Are there any extenuating circumstances whereby a 'great person' could find themselves destitute?
Are there any extenuating circumstances whereby a 'worthless person' could find themselves wealthy?

Is it fair to have a society with punishments and rewards based on factors which are beyond the control of its members?

This is the question that hung me up the most when I was a liberal. I thought that distributive policy was necessary to smooth out the variance of being born into any of a range of wealth states. I thought that the state afforded greater social mobility to the poor. I also benefitted from some of these programs personally, going to a decent public school and having much of my tuition paid for by a state scholarship program.

My general opinion now is that the social programs put in place to help poor people are framing a dichotomy that isn't entirely true. That it's either the way things are, or poor people have no opportunity to advance in our society. The truth is that the very existence of the public institutions preclude private alternatives from existing. Better private schools. Cheaper private healthcare. A more efficient transportation system. Cleaner, more abundant energy. The state is likely to slow or outright prevent all of these advances. Sometimes in the name of social justice, other times for no good reason at all.

Capitalism is all about leveraging resources into larger and larger gains. There's this myth that capitalism "needs" destitute people to exploit to benefit the rich. It actually needs valuable people. The system needs highly-trained competent people who produce at ever-increasing levels to continue to grow the economy. This simply doesn't square with the notion of 1% of people having all of the stuff and the remaining 99% being uneducated malnourished peasants.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I may just not be getting it, but I feel like you dodged the questions. I can talk to your first two paragraphs, but after that, I feel like you changed topics on me. Please help me correlate your answers back to my questions.

***
I kind of see where you're coming from with the voluntary contract, thing. I appreciate that it re-characterizes my question away from arbitrary size onto a collective of individual decisions to have un-quantized trade (sharing).

I am still curious over the broad advantages to this decision. Mostly, I'm curious about the "line" where the decision to quantize trade (capitalism) becomes advantageous.

What are the factors at play?

I don't think it's a misunderstanding of capitalism to say there are communities inside which money is completely unnecessary. The system of trade is left unquantized - not capitalistic. Please correct me if my understanding of capitalism is at odds with yours.

[Renton]

I may just not be getting it, but I feel like you dodged the questions. I can talk to your first two paragraphs, but after that, I feel like you changed topics on me. Please help me correlate your answers back to my questions.

***
I kind of see where you're coming from with the voluntary contract, thing. I appreciate that it re-characterizes my question away from arbitrary size onto a collective of individual decisions to have un-quantized trade (sharing).

It wasn't my intention to dodge your questions. I felt like the questions in the first box I quoted (re: scale) were a bit ill-conceived.

Households share property largely because children aren't yet fit to make economic decisions, and because people value being in relationships more than having absolute autonomy over their stuff. It's voluntary mutual benefit unless you're one of the children (you can't choose where you grow up) or unless you're in a shitty relationship. Basic economics are at play here.

Businesses have social constructs because they are formed based on a hierarchy of responsibility levels with ownership at the top. Everyone involved is a voluntary participant in this, and that is why it works. States would be fantastic if anybody could opt out, and this is largely why smaller states or more local forms of government are more effective.

Small neighborhoods aren't that dissimilar to to the economic advantages of cooperation in business. There are forms of mutual benefit that don't involve exchanging currency. A neighborhood that mutually agrees to keep nice lawns benefits by having an increased property value. If one of them wants to opt out, he's perfectly able to in a free society, and there are some economic disadvantages to this. It is immoral for the other members to use force to compel him to mow his lawn, but there are non-aggressive ways to motivate him. They can exclude him from the social benefits of being in the community.


Now for the second quote box:

Poorness is sometimes caused by bad choices. I would guess it is largely due to being born to poor parents though, so in that way it is caused by other people's choices. Obviously it is possible for a 'great person' to lose everything. Life is full of risk, and even leading a risk-averse life is not without risk. I don't know what a 'worthless' person is. I guess a social parasite like a non-functioning drug addict would qualify? I don't understand the value of these questions. Our wealth is tied to our choices and to our circumstances.

Is the free market fair? The first two definitions on dictionary.com are "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice," and "legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules." Certainly under those definitions a world where people of all levels of fortune are treated the same, i.e. not rewarded or penalized in any way, could be called fair. I would say being born in poor conditions is unfortunate, not unfair. Having a health catastrophe at age 25 is unlikely, not unjust. If you start a business that doesn't work out and forces you into bankruptcy, I wouldn't say you suffered any bias, you just made a bet that didn't pan out. Why is it fair to take from others to benefit these people?

I don't think it's a misunderstanding of capitalism to say there are communities inside which money is completely unnecessary. The system of trade is left unquantized - not capitalistic. Please correct me if my understanding of capitalism is at odds with yours.

I think I kind of covered this earlier in the post, but one more thing. The form of trade of which you speak may not be capitalistic, but it is economical in the sense that it is people acting on incentives. I think there are also a lot of ways in which capitalism enhances the value of non-monetary social constructs.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think I kind of covered this earlier in the post, but one more thing. The form of trade of which you speak may not be capitalistic, but it is economical in the sense that it is people acting on incentives. I think there are also a lot of ways in which capitalism enhances the value of non-monetary social constructs.

This is exactly what I'm curious about.
Within an overriding framework of capitalism, there are pockets where other economic systems enhance value.
(I assume the opposite is true, as well.)

I'm interested in how these systems blend, and where each offers advantages.

***
I asked this:
Is it fair to have a society with punishments and rewards based on factors which are beyond the control of its members?
(Although, I wish I had asked, "Is it just?" rather than, "Is it fair?")

You interpreted it as this:
Is the free market fair?

I don't see them as the same question. I am not stipulating any particular market strategy (or whatever).

[MadMojoMonkey]

We largely agree that children (so... everyone) is born into a socioeconomic setting that is not by their choice.
The early, some would say "formative," years of a person's life are set against this backdrop.

I think we can agree that there are dramatic differences in the public education system based on the economics of the local region.
At the very least, I think we can agree that the number and quality of economic opportunities that are presented across different economic profiles vary dramatically.

So we agree that the system we revere as being open to, or even encouraging, social mobility has its flaws.

Which seems to imply that we agree that, while there are individual exceptions, most people enter their adult life with a certain amount of financial acuity, and that this is (at least for many) beyond their control.

So I'm back to the question, is it just to have a legal system which rewards and punishes citizens based on circumstances that are largely beyond their control?
If no: What are the perils of attempting to address this systemic injustice?

[Renton]

This is exactly what I'm curious about.
Within an overriding framework of capitalism, there are pockets where other economic systems enhance value.

Maybe you should elaborate on what these pockets are. Did you mean when someone enters into a relationship, it enhances their value? Okay, I can get behind that, but again, consent is crucial to the equation. I don't believe it can be stated that there are pockets within a capitalist framework wherein coercion enhances value.

I asked this:
Is it fair to have a society with punishments and rewards based on factors which are beyond the control of its members?
(Although, I wish I had asked, "Is it just?" rather than, "Is it fair?")

You interpreted it as this:
Is the free market fair?

I don't see them as the same question. I am not stipulating any particular market strategy (or whatever).

I felt you were implying that a system where everyone voluntarily agrees to all exchanges of resources was necessarily one in which punishments and rewards are sometimes based on factors outside of the control of the actors. Did I jump to the wrong conclusion? Of course, this is what a capitalistic society is, and of course, that is true of capitalistic societies. And it is fair and just by a reasonable interpretation of the definitions of those words.

What are the perils of attempting to address this systemic injustice?

You need first to establish why it is unjust for two people to have different levels of wealth from birth. Not state it as a given. It is a fact of life that fortunes are distributed unevenly. Life is risk, the concepts are inseparable. And its not only with wealth. Some of us are born with favorable genetics. Two children may be born with enormous worldly wealth but one has shitty parents who don't hug him enough. He grows up to be a neurotic mess. Does the state need to enforce hugs as well?

If you want to make a case for states to subsidize the poor, it needs to be from a different point of view than social justice. An economic case needs to be made that this actually benefits society. At the very least it needs to benefit the poor people you mean to help. In most cases the anti-poverty measures even fail at that. In other cases, the programs simply increase the population growth of the poor by directly incentivizing single motherhood. If the aim is to even the playing field and smooth out the variance of being born, then the methods need to be subtle. The state is never subtle.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Maybe you should elaborate on what these pockets are. Did you mean when someone enters into a relationship, it enhances their value? Okay, I can get behind that, but again, consent is crucial to the equation.

Pockets can vary. A family sharing all resources. A company with a store room of paperclips and other supplies that are freely available to employees. Communities with parks or other building projects. Complicated "you scratch my back; I'll scratch yours" arrangements between businessmen or politicians.

All of these are exchanges of a good or service for an unspecified, non-capitalized amount. The economics of those interactions are, as you put it, based on the contractual agreement, perhaps unspoken or implicit.

I'm not sure informed consent is crucial. Which makes a world of difference. People are victimized by hidden information in personal and business dealings all the time. I'm not talking about someone lacking their own due diligence. So I see there is a boundary of trust involved in where the pockets extend.

Is that the only factor?

I don't believe it can be stated that there are pockets within a capitalist framework wherein coercion enhances value.

Arrest is coercion. Imprisonment is coercion. Wufwugy would likely argue that taxation is coercion.

I felt you were implying that a system where everyone voluntarily agrees to all exchanges of resources was necessarily one in which punishments and rewards are sometimes based on factors outside of the control of the actors. Did I jump to the wrong conclusion? Of course, this is what a capitalistic society is, and of course, that is true of capitalistic societies. And it is fair and just by a reasonable interpretation of the definitions of those words.

You jumped to the conclusion that I have any conclusions. I'm still asking questions. This topic is overwhelming. You have a massive head start on me.

I'm very much trying to acknowledge my ignorance of these matters. I'm trying to establish a baseline of sorts. As I was reading this thread, I felt like there's this often one-sided stance taken by various posters. I think you all make some good points. I'm struggling to piece a coherent picture of it all.

Frankly, if I put forth any opinion in this thread as far as a plan for society, I would almost definitely regret it within hours. If anything, it should be considered the idle musings of someone who's in over their head. I'm mostly trying to clear up some of my more mundane assumptions.

You need first to establish why it is unjust for two people to have different levels of wealth from birth. Not state it as a given. It is a fact of life that fortunes are distributed unevenly. Life is risk, the concepts are inseparable. And its not only with wealth. Some of us are born with favorable genetics. Two children may be born with enormous worldly wealth but one has shitty parents who don't hug him enough. He grows up to be a neurotic mess. Does the state need to enforce hugs as well?

That's a fair point. It's complicated, perhaps self-contradictory. I think it's unjust for people to be treated differently under the law for factors which are beyond their control. I believe it's an individual's right to seek wealth and share it with whomever they choose. There may be contradictions in there. Especially as pertains to raising a family.

Historically, what has been the counter to growing wealth disparity?

Actually, no. We're drifting off topic of the notion that a strictly capitalistic society has never been practiced. Within the society there are other socioeconomic nuances.

What the benefits of those nuances?
Is a single economic methodology truly viable on a worldwide scale?
Is the choice of an economic methodology a function of resource pressures, such as geopolitical stability or access to technology, etc.?

It seems like even within a chosen methodology (I don't know the right word), there will be pockets where other dynamics provide advantages.

If you want to make a case for states to subsidize the poor, it needs to be from a different point of view than social justice. An economic case needs to be made that this actually benefits society. At the very least it needs to benefit the poor people you mean to help. In most cases the anti-poverty measures even fail at that. In other cases, the programs simply increase the population growth of the poor by directly incentivizing single motherhood. If the aim is to even the playing field and smooth out the variance of being born, then the methods need to be subtle. The state is never subtle.

I really don't want to talk about subsidizing the poor. I agree that the case needs to be made that it benefits society in the long-term / big picture.

I'm intrigued by your point at the end, there.

[Renton]

Pockets can vary. A family sharing all resources. A company with a store room of paperclips and other supplies that are freely available to employees. Communities with parks or other building projects. Complicated "you scratch my back; I'll scratch yours" arrangements between businessmen or politicians.

All of these are exchanges of a good or service for an unspecified, non-capitalized amount. The economics of those interactions are, as you put it, based on the contractual agreement, perhaps unspoken or implicit.

I'm not sure informed consent is crucial. Which makes a world of difference. People are victimized by hidden information in personal and business dealings all the time. I'm not talking about someone lacking their own due diligence. So I see there is a boundary of trust involved in where the pockets extend.

Is that the only factor?

Only consent is crucial. Informed consent is preferred for a "perfect" economy, but it is not required. Say you're the owner of a plot of land rich with oil, and you have no idea. You go on for decades not knowing the true value of your land. I'm an experienced oil speculator who knows there's an excellent chance your land has oil, and I offer to buy your land without making you aware of my intentions for its use. We agree to an amount that is consistent with your (probably incorrect) valuation of the land. Then I find the oil and get rich from it.

Basically your post says that I victimized you here because I had hidden information. In reality I increased the wealth of the human race by tapping into a resource you had no idea about. Should I have been a good samaritan and said "dude, dig a well on your property, trust me"? Shouldn't I profit from the expertise I offered to this problem?

That's a fair point. It's complicated, perhaps self-contradictory. I think it's unjust for people to be treated differently under the law for factors which are beyond their control.

I couldn't agree more. I think the law should treat everyone the same as well. I think the misunderstanding is that you're relating "equal treatment under the law" with having an equal amount of stuff as everyone else. A wealth disparity can exist and the law still treat everyone equally.

Historically, what has been the counter to growing wealth disparity?

To paint in extremely broad strokes, unfettered capitalism likely increases the wealth of the rich more quickly than that of the poor. The problem with assessing this as a negative is that it ignores the fact that the entire pie which is the economy also grows. Basically the more stuff there is in the world (stuff being goods, offered services, capital instruments, collective knowledge, etc.), the richer we all are. So the poor person gets an ever-smaller slice of the pie in terms of radians, but an ever-larger slice in terms of area. The empirical data largely agrees with this.

Actually, no. We're drifting off topic of the notion that a strictly capitalistic society has never been practiced. Within the society there are other socioeconomic nuances.

What the benefits of those nuances?
Is a single economic methodology truly viable on a worldwide scale?
Is the choice of an economic methodology a function of resource pressures, such as geopolitical stability or access to technology, etc.?

I'm not a historian, but I'm sure there's a reasonable case to be made that traditional state functionality was important to pre-information age society. I think the changes that are being made just in my generation alone are momentous enough to warrant shedding many of our institutions. It is scarcely imaginable what innovations may emerge in the next 100 years to completely revolutionize how we organize our society.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not a historian, but I'm sure there's a reasonable case to be made that traditional state functionality was important to pre-information age society. I think the changes that are being made just in my generation alone are momentous enough to warrant shedding many of our institutions. It is scarcely imaginable what innovations may emerge in the next 100 years to completely revolutionize how we organize our society.

How has the game changed?

We may be in a new environment, but we still act the same as we always have.

http://cushmanlab.fas.harvard.edu/do...an_inpress.pdf

[Renton]

How has the game changed?

We may be in a new environment, but we still act the same as we always have.

http://cushmanlab.fas.harvard.edu/do...an_inpress.pdf

I think technology is interconnecting us in a way that will allow the market to handle a lot of things we previously thought not possible. Of course human frailty hasn't changed at all, but I don't think the institutions are doing a particularly good job at safeguarding us from that. It will express itself regardless of how we organize society.

[rong]

Succinctly put.

And the things I say should be state controlled, ie education, health care, basic infrastructure, tie in nicely with this question.

[Renton]

Succinctly put.


And the things I say should be state controlled, ie education, health care, basic infrastructure, tie in nicely with this question.

Assuming the question (in question) was "what are the perils of the state running these programs?"


I've already beaten the dead horses of healthcare and basic infrastructure into a bloody pulp in this thread, so I'll say a bit about public education.


I think we're going to have front row seats to view the perils of public education during the next 10 or 20 years. The internet is about to revolutionize education, and this is going to be a big problem for public education. We're still using the same 12-13 year primary/secondary + 4-6 year post-secondary template for education that has been in play for like 150 years. It's in the nature of state institutions to get put into place, added on to, even revised occasionally, but never ever removed. I believe we're going to soon discover that it shouldn't take 13 years to train someone to be a person, nor should it take 4-6 years to train them to be a scholar. But these institutions will have an incredible amount of inertia when millions of public sector jobs are at stake.

[rong]

^^^^ at mmm

[rong]

And a good response.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@Me: Actually, no. We're drifting off topic of the notion that a strictly capitalistic society has never been practiced. Within the society there are other socioeconomic nuances.

***
That's unfair. I brought up the relationship between wealth inequality and equal rights. I meant it as a side topic, but it has become the focus.

I'm confusing two concepts, I think.

I will continue on this line of questioning, if there are questions directed to me.

[Renton]

Arrest is coercion. Imprisonment is coercion. Wufwugy would likely argue that taxation is coercion.

I will reply to the other stuff when I wake up, but the anarcho-capitalist view is that coercive acts are only justified in response to coercive acts. That is, if someone is aggressive toward you or your stuff, then you (or your goons [or the state, by proxy]) have the right to reply with aggression yourself. Thus, in a minarchist state, people would only be arrested and jailed for crimes like theft, fraud, assault, rape, and murder. And taxation is certainly coercive and immoral from this perspective. I'm not that interested in having a broad "is taxation theft?" debate, though certainly I hope we can all agree that taxes generally suck and should be minimized, at the very least.

[wufwugy]

The power of choice that people have over their own circumstances that the vote gives them: +1 strength.

The power of choice that people have over their own circumstances that capitalism gives them: +1000 strength.



I think this my new go-to logic. I mean, most people claim democracy is good because the vote gives people power over their circumstances. So if something is better than the vote at doing that, then doesn't that mean that all pro-democracy people should become pro-that-other-thing people instead?

[wufwugy]

The power of choice that people have over their own circumstances that the vote gives them: +1 strength.

The power of choice that people have over their own circumstances that capitalism gives them: +1000 strength.



I think this my new go-to logic. I mean, most people claim democracy is good because the vote gives people power over their circumstances. So if something is better than the vote at doing that, then doesn't that mean that all pro-democracy people should become pro-that-other-thing people instead?

An adjunct to this is that my own personal theory is that the benefits people got from the democratic constitutional revolutions are in how the constitutions restrain government power. Before the US Constitution, it was legal for the government to do 100% of things. But then the operating difference became that some things are illegal for the government to do. The plaintext declares that our freedoms emerge from this regulatory restraint:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Before the US Constitution, it was legal for the government to do 100% of things.

Which government? There wasn't really a US government before the constitution. There was a provisional government. I understand they had laws, too.

I don't know how far back into history you have to look to find an ungoverned people. Do you know of any?

[wufwugy]

Which government? There wasn't really a US government before the constitution. There was a provisional government. I understand they had laws, too.

I don't know how far back into history you have to look to find an ungoverned people. Do you know of any?

I worded that weirdly, but I'm referring to every government I've read about. At least ones that arose after the classical Greeks. Unless I'm wrong, I think the revolution of the US Constitution was that it was the first state with an actual constitution with restraints on government.

I miiiiiight be wrong on this, but I don't think so: the constitutional revolutions overthrew monarchies with technically total legal power.

[a500lbgorilla]

Could this human frailty upset the economically understood functioning of markets?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

[Renton]

Could this human frailty upset the economically understood functioning of markets?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

It's an interesting story but is it a market failure? I would say that something like this would be far less likely to be possible today, but I've seen it compared with bitcoin. Honestly I'm not well enough educated about bitcoin to determine whether the comparison is fair.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's an interesting story but is it a market failure? I would say that something like this would be far less likely to be possible today, but I've seen it compared with bitcoin. Honestly I'm not well enough educated about bitcoin to determine whether the comparison is fair.

It certainly is an example of people participating in a marketplace.

[wufwugy]

Markets are like evolution. Extremely macro. Lots of survival of the fittest and not-survival of the not-fittest. Science is the same way. We don't judge a field based on some experiments that didn't go our way.

[a500lbgorilla]

Markets are like evolution.

No.

There is a distinct difference between systems with rules that change over time.



Rules-bound behavioral systems that change over time, like the meta game of poker for instance.

And actual natural evolution.

Science is the same way. We don't judge a field based on some experiments that didn't go our way.

Because they're a science, practicing the scientific method. Every experiment moves a scientific field forward. Economics is not a science, though.

[wufwugy]

No.

There is a distinct difference between systems with rules that change over time.



Rules-bound behavioral systems that change over time, like the meta game of poker for instance.

And actual natural evolution.



Because they're a science, practicing the scientific method. Every experiment moves a scientific field forward. Economics is not a science, though.

Markets are like this.

I think perhaps you're not understanding why I compare markets to evolution. Evolution is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time. The market is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time.

I'm confused on why you seem to disagree with this, so I don't have much more I can say.

[a500lbgorilla]

Markets are like this.

I think perhaps you're not understanding why I compare markets to evolution. Evolution is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time. The market is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time.

I'm confused on why you seem to disagree with this, so I don't have much more I can say.

Evolution is. Our explanation and understanding of Evolution is very strong. You can look into the furthest reaches of the biological world and find that we're close on the money. And our understanding of how it works in an incredible testament to what happens when brilliant minds with a lot of information apply the scientific method.

When you talk about markets, you aren't talking on the same level. I've made this point a dozen times in a dozen different ways. What you're talking about is some imagined system that has rules for how every step will unfold. Rules like, people will allocate their money based on their preferences and so each person will allocate his surplus of work to another whose work they need and will keep it from another whose work they don't need. And so the system will grow those works that are needed and shrink those works that are not.

What that is is playing imagination games with rules, it is not anywhere close to the same plane as what happens when people discuss the mechanism of evolution.

The first link I shared shows how you can craft rules to make systems 'evolve', the second was an example of how people playing under the constraints of rules can evolve (which is where markets fit in), and both of them are a far cry from natural evolution and our understanding of it.

Basically, the thing you're missing is how hard it is to be right. How hard it is to guess the future.

[a500lbgorilla]

As an aside, I was thinking about capitalism as the 'perfect' set of incentives to motivate workers and it strikes me as kind of like how bodybuilders become addicted to the iron once they start seeing results. For some, they get a taste of profitability and its cocaine like spell rewires them to want more, and more. But just like in body building, you need to get over that initial lethargy, that front-heavy sacrifice and investment before tasting those sweet results that drive so many to really run wild. Perfect with flaws, methinks.

[Renton]

I just don't think it is a failure. The tulip REALLY WAS worth that much. Intrinsic value is mostly a fantasy. Did anyone other than speculators suffer harm? Maybe some tulip farmers lost their jobs, but they were likely serfs who weren't profiting at all from the bubble anyway.

[a500lbgorilla]

What happened was a spectacle. People thought they found a new honey, and the same old ancient drives that dictate what you do when you find honey had them pumping up that bubble.

[Renton]

What happened was a spectacle. People thought they found a new honey, and the same old ancient drives that dictate what you do when you find honey had them pumping up that bubble.

Do you think speculators are this stupid, even in the 1600s? That there weren't shrewd ones who jumped ship early and made off rich? Any non-fool understands the risk involving in speculating during a possible bubble, and he accepts that risk or sells off. Yes there were apparently a lot of people who didn't see it coming, but I don't think its an inevitable consequence of lizard brain that bubbles happen. And finance has come a long way in 400 years. Also, the government has been directly responsible for the worst bubbles of the last 200 years, so again, I don't see a favorable comparison to market behavior in this regard.

[a500lbgorilla]

Do you think speculators are this stupid, even in the 1600s? That there weren't shrewd ones who jumped ship early and made off rich? Any non-fool understands the risk involving in speculating during a possible bubble, and he accepts that risk or sells off. Yes there were apparently a lot of people who didn't see it coming, but I don't think its an inevitable consequence of lizard brain that bubbles happen. And finance has come a long way in 400 years. Also, the government has been directly responsible for the worst bubbles of the last 200 years, so again, I don't see a favorable comparison to market behavior in this regard.

The bubble actually happened. Many someones fell on the stupid side of things.

[Renton]

The bubble actually happened. Many someones fell on the stupid side of things.

How do you know they were stupid? What if they they were making bets that had an 5/6 chance of winning X and a 1/6 chance of losing 4X? That's a perfectly profitable bet to make even if you lose big 1 out of 6 times.

[wufwugy]

Although Mackay's book is a classic, his account is contested. Many modern scholars feel that the mania was not as extraordinary as Mackay described and argue that not enough price data are available to prove that a tulip bulb bubble actually occurred

.

[a500lbgorilla]

.

Exactly what Economics is. An argument. Pick a side, if you want.

[wufwugy]

Exactly what Economics is. An argument. Pick a side, if you want.

The last thing we need to do is rehash this.

Just because economics is much more difficult to study than physics, doesn't mean what study we can do is hogwash. While it does mean there is more to debate (since there is more unknown), it doesn't mean that its inquiries require less rigor.

[a500lbgorilla]

The last thing we need to do is rehash this.

Just because economics is much more difficult to study than physics, doesn't mean what study we can do is hogwash. While it does mean there is more to debate (since there is more unknown), it doesn't mean that its inquiries require less rigor.

Economics is incredibly strong at argumentation. Models, while always wrong, are usually better than any other game in town. Economics stands above everyone else at what it's trying to do, but don't forget its short comings.

[wufwugy]

"Bubble" is a false narrative. Nobody has yet described what they really are, and the data show they're not real. Example: several western countries are still running strong on their "housing bubbles" that never collapsed. Another example: the "China bubble" is suppose to collapse every six months. It continually defies this prediction and provides no evidence suggesting it will do otherwise.

There is a dark streak in the western psyche that when something goes good, it's too good to be real. The Federal Reserve is not unshackled by this delusion either. It believed the Roaring 20s was a bubble that needed to be popped, and we got the Great Depression out of their lunacy.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm betting they were stupid because there's no reason to think they were smart.

http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psyc.../dp/006124189X

[a500lbgorilla]

It's like me saying that my lifting schedule is just like the 12 labors of Hercules.

[Renton]

I'm betting that they were stupid too because it was sixteen god damn hundred, but my point is that speculation during a possible bubble is not automatically stupid because the probability of the bubble bursting is not necessarily 1. As wuf mentioned, some of the housing "bubbles" have been inflating for a very long time now. In the same way, it is not automatically smart to take a position when a stock has dropped to 1% of its peak price. It can always go lower, and often it does.

If your point is that human nature makes people susceptible to making idiotic bets in either of these cases, I'm inclined to agree with that. But again, I don't consider it a limitation of markets. People are susceptible to drug addiction too, but that doesn't make drug prohibition any less of a disaster. Capitalism generally rewards profitable behavior and penalizes unprofitable behavior. What better answer to human frailty is there?

[a500lbgorilla]

If your point is that human nature makes people susceptible to making idiotic bets in either of these cases, I'm inclined to agree with that. But again, I don't consider it a limitation of markets. People are susceptible to drug addiction too, but that doesn't make drug prohibition any less of a disaster. Capitalism generally rewards profitable behavior and penalizes unprofitable behavior. What better answer to human frailty is there?

I don't consider it a limitation of markets or an expression of failure either. Just a feature.

And to the last question, I dunno, I'm still trying to get a full glimpse of our frailty.

[Renton]

Also re: not a science. Economics is not the only discipline that must rely on models and make judgments about probabilities that are less than 1. Try theoretical physics. Newton's laws aren't even provable. There's no such thing as an inertial reference frame. Cosmology isn't a science by your definition either. What about the life sciences that attempt to make sense out of unimaginable complexity? You've repeatedly cited psychology, which might as well be astrology compared to economics in the "is it a science?" department.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...is-a-scientist

Not really a rebuttal article, just an economist's pretty balanced take on the question.

[a500lbgorilla]

Newton's laws aren't even provable.

Newton was wrong. But for a wide range of natural phenomenon, he was close enough. And the trick is that we have a way for Nature to tell us this. Something we don't have in Economics.

Plus, I've already made this point. Models are always wrong, but usually better than anything else. If you're lucky enough to build your model on assumptions that are pretty well observed and steady, and if you're lucky enough to test all the consequences of your model against reality, then you're a science. But Economics is not so lucky.

[wufwugy]

Newton was wrong. But for a wide range of natural phenomenon, he was close enough. And the trick is that we have a way for Nature to tell us this. Something we don't have in Economics.

Plus, I've already made this point. Models are always wrong, but usually better than anything else. If you're lucky enough to build your model on assumptions that are pretty well observed and steady, and if you're lucky enough to test all the consequences of your model against reality, then you're a science. But Economics is not so lucky.

The thing is that while I'm okay with saying "sure" to this, I don't think this is the entirety of what's going on with your argument. Sometimes it sounds like you're saying "economics is really tough therefore economists don't know shit".

[a500lbgorilla]

The thing is that while I'm okay with saying "sure" to this, I don't think this is the entirety of what's going on with your argument. Sometimes it sounds like you're saying "economics is really tough therefore economists don't know shit".

Economics is really tough, therefore economists don't know shit.* They've a better sense than anyone not studying Economics, though.

Edit: Alright, I can't be so grandiose. They know some things. I'm pretty sure a lot of micro stuff is pretty solid.

*Let me put it this way: It's much easier to convince everyone that you're right, than to actually be right.

[a500lbgorilla]

Also re: not a science. Economics is not the only discipline that must rely on models and make judgments about probabilities that are less than 1. Try theoretical physics. Newton's laws aren't even provable. There's no such thing as an inertial reference frame. Cosmology isn't a science by your definition either. What about the life sciences that attempt to make sense out of unimaginable complexity? You've repeatedly cited psychology, which might as well be astrology compared to economics in the "is it a science?" department.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...is-a-scientist

Not really a rebuttal article, just an economist's pretty balanced take on the question.

PS I've seen this article before. Welcome to the world of argument. Every side can be fought for. It usually takes Nature to step in to settle the debate.

Look here, someone like me: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...-science-wang/

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. - Max Plank, a dude that was right in the face of a bunch of dudes that were wrong.

[wufwugy]

Look here, someone like me: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...-science-wang/

Sadly the first paragraph shows the author making at least two mistakes about macroeconomics. Then he goes to say macro isn't a science. He could be right, but we're not going to know that from people who get macro wrong.

Since he mentioned it a few times in the article, "forecasting" is not what macro does. To loosely quote from memory a macroeconomist, Scott Sumner, "If a model could predict a recession it would be changed so that the recession was no longer predicted". This means that recessions happening has no bearing on the veracity of macroeconomic claims. That's also assuming political policy is that which textbook economics might advocate in the first place, which is far from the case.

Macro uses the scientific method constantly. Every form of claim-making and discovery does. Some have just real shitty tools.

[a500lbgorilla]

Macro uses the scientific method constantly.

What is the scientific method?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Also re: not a science. Economics is not the only discipline that must rely on models and make judgments about probabilities that are less than 1. Try theoretical physics. Newton's laws aren't even provable. There's no such thing as an inertial reference frame. Cosmology isn't a science by your definition either.

The fundamental axioms of all fields are unprovable. What's your point?

It is a misconception that the goal science is to make "true" statements. Truth is beyond the realm of the scientific process. It never comes up. It's not that science is "unconcerned" with truth, so much as science is completely devoted to disproving false-hood. The notion that disproving falsehood is in any way logically linked with creating truth or finding truth is a non sequitur. Failure to prove statement false is not a proof that the statement is true. It's just an open door for another attempt to prove falsehood.

The goal of the scientific process is to make falsifiable statements and try as hard as we can to observe that they are false, and to report all experimental observations, without bias.

There is no such thing as an inertial reference frame?
SMH

***
@wufwugy: The intelligent things you have to say are all tainted by the knuckleheaded stuff you throw in when you get heated.

[MadMojoMonkey]

@wufwugy: The intelligent things you have to say are all tainted by the knuckleheaded stuff you throw in when you get heated.

Sorry, upon re-read... this sounds like I'm being rude. I don't mean it to be harsh.

I mean that I'm trying to get some understanding of what you're saying, wuf. Every time I start to think you have a consistent point, you thrown in some comparison or analogy that leaves me thinking that you're just pushing a half-baked idea that you don't really understand and that you overvalue.

So I'm torn over what you're saying. I know you're a brilliant guy. I want to learn what you're passionate about. It's always good to dig someone's brain when they're talking about what they love.

I want to learn from you, but I have a personal hang up about the vagueness of your analogies and metaphors. That could be my problem. :/

***
It's absurd to say, XXX is not a science. Science is a process, and can be used by anyone in any field. If you have kids, or once were one, then you know the process of scientific inquiry starts very early. The hypotheses may be unstated, but the experiments and conclusions are quite real. It's always been the case that old statements are discarded for new statements. All the old statements were wrong, and it stands to reason that all the current statements will be old statements someday.