Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (20888)	1/9/2005 10:02:43 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Respond to of 116555

Now you're making sense. ***** I have no problem with the various goals of socialist efforts. I want a clean environment, I want poor people to have a chance to have a better life, I want children to live in relative safety. The problem I have with the particular socialist programs undertaken by the government are never judged empirically. In fact they seem to be exempt, when housing affordability programs result in higher priced less affordable homes the activists think we need to re-double the efforts, expand the programs. When government anti-poverty efforts result in a dramatic increase of those living in poverty, people proclaim, "Just think how bad things would be without our effort!" They don't make the connection between the programs and the broadening of the problem, that the intention to do good is enough to excuse the result. Whereas, the market, only rewards that which works, government can and does go on rewarding that which doesn't work for a very long time, meanwhile needless suffering continues. ***** I submit to you that Monetarism, for all of it's perceived benefits as laid out by so eloquently by Milton Friedman, fails any empirical test. The initial appeal of Monetary Socialism is the way in which it creates a more vibrant economy, through the acceleration of future demand to the present, by growing debt levels faster than the growth of the economy. As we can see from this chart, Monetarist debt advocates like Ronald Reagan or both Bush Presidents, can even juice-up the economic magic by accelerating the process. home.pacbell.net But the periodic catastrophic failure of Monetary Socialism is also due to the fact that it grows debt levels faster than the growth of the economy, until the debt level can no longer be increased or even sustained. A typical socialist program, like public education, merely diverts some resources for a perceived public good. This may be costly and possibly inefficient, but it is sustainable. In my estimation, a system which is non-sustainable fails any and every possible empirical test. .

To: GraceZ who wrote (20888)	1/9/2005 10:37:55 PM
From: JBTFD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

<I have no problem with the various goals of socialist efforts. I want a clean environment, I want poor people to have a chance to have a better life, I want children to live in relative safety. The problem I have with the particular socialist programs undertaken by the government are never judged empirically. In fact they seem to be exempt, when housing affordability programs result in higher priced less affordable homes the activists think we need to re-double the efforts, expand the programs. When government anti-poverty efforts result in a dramatic increase of those living in poverty, people proclaim, "Just think how bad things would be without our effort!" They don't make the connection between the programs and the broadening of the problem, that the intention to do good is enough to excuse the result. Whereas, the market, only rewards that which works, government can and does go on rewarding that which doesn't work for a very long time, meanwhile needless suffering continues.> You make a good point here, but I think the situation is partly due to context. The resistance to revisit the effectiveness of a social program may very well be because of an awareness of the intent of neocons like Grover Norquist. They want to drown all government programs in the bathtub. They have said so publicly. And they are very effective at stripping programs of funding. So with this as a context it is not surprising to me that there is a resistance to revisit the effectiveness of any program. In republican speech to reform is to cut funding for. They want to reform social security. How much you want to bet the end result will include a cut in benefits?

To: GraceZ who wrote (20888)	1/9/2005 11:18:30 PM
From: NOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

funny that your examples of socialism gone awry rarely concern government intervention in the 'Free markets'.....

To: GraceZ who wrote (20888)	1/10/2005 12:23:47 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

The problem I have with the particular socialist programs undertaken by the government are never judged empirically. "Judge empirically" is precisely what the market did to classical liberal axioms such as “My right to pursue happiness stops at the limits where it inhibits your right to the same.”, which is a statement with no more inherent validity than saying that there is a just and fair price. The point is that the market itself undermined the philosophical underpinnings of classical liberalism, which by the by led to socialism, just as in a previous era the market undermined mercantilism, and before that feudalism. Whereas, the market, only rewards that which works, government can and does go on rewarding that which doesn't work for a very long time, meanwhile needless suffering continues. Here it is again - a clear statement of the dichotomy you asset between “the market” and government. Anyone can point to instances of government failure and assert that the “free market” would have done a better job, just as others can point to instances of “free market” failures and assert some government intervention is necessary. The problem is you have no real definition of the free market. It appears that you want to call that specific combination of government and private initiative associated with the classical period the “free market”, and, while asserting its superiority, restrict the market from developing other systems. If so, you are exhibiting the same “pretense to knowledge” that Hayek accused of all central planners.