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.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (2629)	10/12/2006 12:14:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

I asked for clarification on the ‘too far’ concern. Did you mean that Phelps just didn’t interpret Hayek and Rand correctly or that he is wrong about how far freedom should be allowed to express itself? You argued that he did not represent Hayek accurately and you argued the merits of more freedom with consideration of consequences. Thank you. That gets to a point I had missed earlier. I mainly meant that Phelps had not correctly interpreted Hayek (I didn't comment on his interpretation of Rand). I'm not sure whether I disagree with Phelps about the importance of freedom because I'm not sure exactly what relative importance he places on freedom. If all he is saying is that freedom is not absolute in the sense that there is never any case where even the most minute loss of freedom is worth even the most enormous gain in any other area, than I agree. If he is however saying that we should support a level of freedom far lower than what Hayek's writings would suggest than I would disagree. Quite a few people think we should reduce economic freedom (or at least support proposals that would decrease economic freedom, they may not actually think their proposals reduce freedom), to increase economic equality. I find the idea distasteful, but I could see how some people could support it if you look at the economy in a static sense, and there are cases where I would support, at least to a limited degree, somewhat distasteful ideas or actions in order to achieve a great practical benefit. However reducing economic freedom tends to lower economic efficiency and growth, and in the long run the poor will often be worse off in an absolute sense even if there is more equality. I suggested that in the circumstance of building a model (like an economic model) we should be able to offer a clean model (one that incorporates the purity of the principles upon which it is founded). You responded that you aren't a model builder. I asked you if I had misunderstood your interest in the topic of economic systems. At first I thought you meant a much more general model, of different values and their relationships. It would be almost as if you asked me to make my own philosophical model or series of models, in similar (if perhaps far less detailed or extensive) way to what Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Descartes did. A creation of a metaphysical and/or ethical model. An economic model might be more limited but would still be a very ambitious undertaking. I'm not a model builder here either. I haven't and don't plan to (and probably couldn't) create from scratch the kind of general economic models ideas of Smith, Bastiat, Ricardo, Menger, Say etc. or the kind of detailed mathematical models that many modern economists create or use. You probably aren't really asking for any of those types of models, but if your not, what are you asking for?