|
^^^ D&D has a Libertarian/Jrod containment thread if you want to browse that. Does a good job of showing the holes in that approach. There's also this example that kind of hits it home for me. Suppose you have 10 workers making 100 widgets a week. One of the workers comes up with a new process that improves production to the point where those same 10 workers are now producing 200 widgets per week. Supply side/Trickle down: The increase in widgets will cause the price to fall, which will boost demand/sales, which will increase profits, which will increase investments and worker pay, which will benefit society in general when the workers go out to use their increased pay. Blind spot: Price and supply of the product are not the only variables that affect demand. It's possible that widgets are going out of fashion (bell-bottom jeans) are becoming technologically obsolete (type-writers, new cell phone models, etc) or maybe people only ever want/need 1 or 2 widgets and don't need more (cars, houses, various medical services). Possible result: People do not buy any more widgets per week. The employer only needs half as many employees, so he fires 5 of the workers. Then he slashes the pay of the remaining 5 because, after all, he knows 5 guys (the ones he just fired) that would love to have that job. Although it's easier to make widgets now, he keeps the price the same since price isn't a big factor in the demand of widgets. Then he keeps the profits for himself, as there's no point in trying to expand capacity since demand is highly inelastic. Guess which one has happened way more throughout history. Also anyone who blames the 2008 financial crisis on regulation is really far gone, and it will take months/years of talking to this person to get them to change their mind. Also also people forming a group to pool resources and see how they can make money is good (corporation), but people forming a group to pool resources and see how they can make money is bad (unions). As for quick definitions... one-sentence versions would go something like this. Libertarianism: Freedom and voluntary action is ultimate, remove all regulation as it's all for the best anyway. Keyensian: Regulate poo poo that breaks, use taxes to provide services when things go south, ease up on taxes when things are rolling smoothly. For evidence, you can look at Canada's banking system compared to ours, or even ours from the 50's-ish? to the 80's. Long story short, having a heavily regulated finance sector helps prevent boom/bust cycles. Buried alive fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Sep 24, 2015 |
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
Spazzle posted:How is using logic and arguing from first principles really different from having a broad, poorly specified model? When it comes to Austrian ecnomics... Model: This evidence is contrary to our model, we need to refine it. Austrian: This evidence is contrary to our first principles. It must be false. Of course it's always possible to to go full tilt "the model cannot be wrong" and wind up in the same place as Austrian Praxeology, but generally the difference it that a model can be refined or even rejected outright if competing evidence is strong and clear enough.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 15:26
|
|