« Emotional and Ethical Dwarfs | Main | Cowen on money» Russell Roberts
March 15, 2008
Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set
Don Boudreaux
Here's a letter that I sent today to the New York Times:
Like Gail Collins, I was unimpressed with George Bush's speech yesterday to the Economic Club of New York ("George Speaks, Badly," March 15).
But I disagree with Ms. Collins that "in times of crisis you would like to at least believe your leader has the capacity to pretend he's in control." A defining characteristic of this economy that produces such enormous abundance for us all (and yes, despite the current downturn, it continues to produce prodigiously) is that no one is "in control." Indeed, no one could possibly be "in control." A far greater danger to Americans' prosperity than a President with a poor speaking style and a penchant for standard-fare political shenanigans is the spread of the belief that economic salvation lies in having someone "in control."
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Remember, no one knows, no one has ever known, and no one can possibly know, all that is necessary to make even the ubiquitous commercial-grade pencil. It's astonishing how prevalent is the view that economies are "run" by people pulling levers -- or should be, or could be, run by people pulling levers. This misconception is the economics equivalent of the belief that the earth is flat, or that volcanoes won't erupt if they are fed a sufficient number of virgins.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Economics, Myths and Fallacies | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/27130286
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set:
Comments
Ready for those ideological weeds.
Roundup at the ready!
This is a categorical shot at the whole idea of government management of the economy via the FED, industrial policy, managed trade, etc.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 15, 2008 3:21:14 PM
"penchant for standard-fare political shenanigans "
That's the same sort of pot shot that the reporter took at the Pres for admitting he doesn't "control" people's lives.
Posted by: jpm | Mar 15, 2008 5:15:35 PM
It would have been better to mention the "shenanigans" rather than make just another blind accusation. This president has really taken it for standing by his decisions. The latest "tax rebate" is a typcial "political shenanigan", Government drug insurance for seniors is typical, there have been others, but by and large the stereotypical has been a bursted dam of unfounded accusations by the drivebys.
The stereotypical white shrimper boots that Don always wears is a fairly accurate description of Don's analytical abilities lately.
Posted by: jpm | Mar 15, 2008 5:27:15 PM
Not to nitpick... but you misspelled your own name!
Posted by: Adam | Mar 15, 2008 6:05:41 PM
" A defining characteristic of this economy that produces such enormous abundance for us all (and yes, despite the current downturn, it continues to produce prodigiously) is that no one is "in control." Don Boudreaux
This is an oft repeated sentiment here at Cafe Hayek that seems based on presumption with no foundation in historical fact. In truth it seems contradictory to the facts.
First you claim that "no one" is in control. But if some one did try to control this economy it would be bad for it.
How do you know this?
Were there past examples when some one DID control or even tried to control this economy on which you make this claim?
When were they? What disasters for our economy followed?
Were FDR's policies examples of control causing havoc? I'd argue the decades following were quite prosperous indeed.
The whole presumption that policy doesn't matter fails to explain the variance in our own economy through time and the variance of world economies from North Korea to Argentina to Ireland to Norway.
Yes no "One" is in control but policy matters!
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 6:33:02 PM
Addendum;
If Social Security or the Tax code or the Clean Air Act or the GI Bill are not examples of control then I suspect they have no effect on the economy. This would be good to know because it would bode good for the idea of universal health.
On the other hand if they are examples of control (ill advised as you might claim) then you are stuck explaining our continued prosperity in spite of them. I really think the supposition is logically and factually flawed and the opposite position far from being a flat Earth equivalent.
It would really be helpful to have some sort of experimental control. Something like an economy actually run on minimalist government intervention. But I can't even think of any we could use as an example. So again I'm not sure what the claim is based on.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 6:45:58 PM
Or to put it another way - if no government agency can plan at all then the only solution is Anarcho-Capitalism. Minarchists advocate government in 'national defence' and 'justice' but why would you want Guvmint in the two areas where weaponry are most likely to be concentrated? Why can't there be militias and mercenaries instead? Why can't people defend themselves and their families with their own weapons? I believe Plato pointed out the good people don't need laws and bad people will find ways around the law. Just as dangerous criminals don't care if they're illegally carry a gun. I think Anarcho-Capitalists are right - you can't draw the line between having Guvmint and being a Libertarian.
Posted by: Gil | Mar 15, 2008 7:28:54 PM
"Were FDR's policies examples of control causing havoc? "
muirgeo
The Great Depression, maybe? Both he and Hoover thought they could control the economy. Hoover and the Fed caused the depression that began in 1929 by their actions. Of course there would have been a normal recession, but government actions worsened the situation into a depression. Don't forget that the economy got better after FDR's death, probably as a direct result of consumer confidence in the economy again and the confidence of investors that with FDR dead the government wouldn't nationalize their efforts.
Of course policy matters. That is never the argument on this blog. The argument is ALWAYS: "which policies should we have?" The policies argued for over and over tirelessly against those that think they should be in control are the following:
1. Strong property rights, which of course covers security. Prosperity could not happen if individuals did not feel secure in their person and property, nor would they labor so hard if they couldn't keep what's theirs.
2. The government oversteps itself almost always when it deviates from 1. Mainly because the government really isn't 'good' at anything the way private individuals are, so can only be good at things that share very broad support and can be easily coordinated.
Of course, those in office think that coordination is easy- just pass a law forcing coordination. But this doesn't work the way the markets work because there is no mechanism to which the government can respond to changing circumstances, i.e., when prices aren't there to transmit information to EVERYONE, very little can be done in response to changing demands, supply, etc.
Hope this helps your understanding, muirgeo.
Posted by: Ken | Mar 15, 2008 7:32:46 PM
muirduck is hopeless.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 15, 2008 7:41:01 PM
FDR presided over the longest depression in US history...the....longest....depression....in....US....history.
Minarchists advocate government in 'national defence' and 'justice' but why would you want Guvmint in the two areas where weaponry are most likely to be concentrated?
Maybe minarchists don't so much 'advocate' it as much as will allow it, as most discussion with people over libertarian/free market policies after everything else is handled, inevitably boil down to those things. Basically, without a state, who will protect us from foreign state.
Personally, I would be OK with militias.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 15, 2008 9:26:51 PM
Muirego,
I second the earlier comment: Go read about the Great Depression to see what happens when somebody tries to control the economy. Hoover with his "engineering" approach and FDR with his "I'll try anything to get me re-elected" approach.
Posted by: Mace | Mar 15, 2008 9:29:40 PM
Well played Don. In fact, just the opposite of the NYT's "conventional wisdom" is positively true. The more the government tries to control the economy the worse the results. President Bush (or Obama or McCain or whoever) could give lofty speeches and hopeful statements and make promises galore. In reality, the President of the US cannot make the economy better but can certainly screw it up by trying to make it better.
Posted by: tiger | Mar 15, 2008 9:41:27 PM
muirgeo --
Well, the Soviets tried controlling their economy, as did the Chinese and the Cubans. The first two economies took off when they substantially abandoned the effort. Cuba's is stagnant. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe's economy show what happens when the government tries to take control.
Now, it's plausible to assert that these countries just weren't running their economies the right way. But, I have yet to see an example of a thriving economy that is centrally managed -- do you have one?
If you want another example of the idiocy that results when the government tries to "control" the economy, read up on Schechter v. U.S. and the National Industrial Recovery Act. FDR and his brain trust did not have the benefit of watching the Soviet economy collapse.
Posted by: Chris | Mar 15, 2008 10:11:28 PM
Don, Don, Don,
Sigh. Your letter to the SSR NY Times assumes that they understand how absurd it is to think that someone could, let alone should, be "in control".
The nonletter part of you post would have made a far better letter to the editor.
Posted by: happyjuggler0 | Mar 15, 2008 10:17:39 PM
On the other hand if they are examples of control (ill advised as you might claim) then you are stuck explaining our continued prosperity in spite of them. I really think the supposition is logically and factually flawed and the opposite position far from being a flat Earth equivalent.
I'm no fan of corporate subsidies (in fact, I hate them) but by using your own argument you must think they're a good thing, otherwise you'd have to explain our continuing prosperity in spite of them. Has every single economic policy been good for the economy? If not, you're stuck explaining our continued prosperity in spite of them.
I've been trying to quit smoking these past couple weeks. If I were to apply Muirgeo's logic, I should instead smoke even more. Clearly, since I'm still alive, all those cigarettes must have been good for me. Surely the diet & exercise couldn't explain how increasingly healthy I've been lately.
I quit last year for a few months. I felt better after quitting. If the economy improving after FDR stops messing with it somehow proves that FDR's policies were good for the economy, then it follows that all those years of smoking caused me to be healthier after quitting. Facts are facts, after all.
Well, the Soviets tried controlling their economy, as did the Chinese and the Cubans. The first two economies took off when they substantially abandoned the effort.
Don't you see, Chris? Like with FDR, the success that follows the abandonment of the policies is what proves they were good policies! Just like FDR!
Posted by: Hans Luftner | Mar 15, 2008 10:30:05 PM
Keep your virgin daughters away from Murthaduck. He sounds like he's getting ready to feed the volcano.
Posted by: brotio | Mar 16, 2008 12:35:27 AM
Chris:
I suspect muirduck will have nothing to say about the Soviet Union, Cuba or Zimbabwe.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 16, 2008 2:51:21 AM
muirgeo,
This blog is called "Cafe Hayek" for a reason:
http://www.econlib.org/Library/Essays/hykKnw1.html
In this simple sentence, Hayek demolishes central planning on any level:
But those who clamor for "conscious direction"—and who cannot believe that anything which has evolved without design (and even without our understanding it) should solve problems which we should not be able to solve consciously—should remember this: The problem is precisely how to extend the span of out utilization of resources beyond the span of the control of any one mind; and therefore, how to dispense with the need of conscious control, and how to provide inducements which will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do.
Posted by: Grant | Mar 16, 2008 3:22:26 AM
“The stereotypical white shrimper boots”
Thibodeaux would call those Delcambre Reeboks.
Posted by: macquechoux | Mar 16, 2008 7:36:43 AM
FDR presided over the longest depression in US history...the....longest....depression....in....US....history.
Posted by: Sam Grove
Sam,
What year did the Depression begin? Who was the president at the time?
When did it end? Who was president?
Finally, who is being intellectually dishonest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gdp20-40.jpg
Which party basically controlled politics the 30 years leading up to the Depression.
He presided over the Depression because the people realized how screwed up the policies were that lead to it. His policies lived on long after his death and we prospered for decades after. That's completely counter to the idea that planning doesn't help or that it makes things worse. Your reply is simply intellectually dishonest and still ignores the facts.
And of course the comments above that show the posters inability to think in any shades of grey are not even worth my commenting on.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 16, 2008 8:21:50 AM
Muirgeo, please list the exact policy that will turn the economy around. You seem to have the easy button from Staples. I can tell you it won't be tax rebates (advocated stupidly by both parties).
Posted by: mcwop | Mar 16, 2008 9:53:27 AM
Finally, who is being intellectually dishonest?
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 16, 2008 8:21:50 AM
You have been dishonest, muirgeo. Would you like a recap of some of the prior posts that you have trolled around here with? Then of the threads you've ducked from?
Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 16, 2008 10:29:55 AM
Finally, who is being intellectually dishonest?
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 16, 2008 8:21:50 AM
You have been dishonest, muirgeo. Would you like a recap of some of the prior posts that you have trolled around here with? Then of the threads you've ducked from?
Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 16, 2008 10:29:56 AM
I've never seen anyone try and make a serious argument that the Depression ended in 1933, after the New Deal kicked in. But that is the argument you have to make if you're going to say that central planning fixed the economy.
Arguing that the Depression ended in 1933 seems a bit like arguing that World War II ended in 1940. Never mind ending, it had barely begun.
Posted by: Adam | Mar 16, 2008 10:45:47 AM
"....and yes, despite the current downturn,...."
The more I thought about this the more I was dismayed by it.
So the current horrific economy with its attendant lose of productivity and prosperity is not a problem? It's written off on a whim. The desperation of the current economy is hardly recognized when other well read economist predicted exactly this 3 years ago based on sound objective principles. But apparently if we tinker something much worse may come our way.... again like what? Another Great Depression? I mean what could be worse then what we currently have?
It appears a lack of tinkering has once again brought our economy to the brink.... but that's OK? Tinkering could cause something much worse... were is the evidence?
And please anyone who can't differentiate "tinkering" from a communist revolution.... grow up...... don't bother.
Nope all the evidence I can find suggest "good tinkering" is much better then the Herbert Hoover approach. But of course history has a way of repeating itself.
One more thing. If the current "downturn" were occurring during a democratic administration I'm certain the howling would be horrific and unbearably. The claims would be that the bad economy was a result of tinkering..... like when Carter in 4 short years caused economic collapse that was certainly all a result of his tinkering. Yes indeed a president has little effect on the economy unless 2 conditions prevail. He is laissez faire and it is good or he is democratic and it is bad. Too bad the contrary conditions seem to better fit the facts of history.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 16, 2008 10:53:26 AM
I didn't say the depression began under FDR, but he is now credited with its duration.
BTW, the government entity, which set the policies that fomented the depression, was created in 1913. It's charge was to 'smooth out' the economy and avoid the businesses cycles which had been blamed by the ignorant on capitalism.
Yes,I'm talking about that 'laissez faire' economy, as you put it, which was actually being burdened with increasing government intervention in the form of the FED (among others), chartered by congress in 1913, and was supposed to prevent the depression, instead, brought it on with easy credit. They probably thought they were growing the economy.
Smoot-Hawley was another government intervention during that great 'laissez faire' period...as you put it.
FDR was voted in because he was a consummate politician and had capable speech writers.
He is well remembered for the same reason and also due to a sycophantic press which help write the popular, if erroneous, history as most people today know it.
He also was the man in place during a war, and wartime leaders are always fondly remembered in a militaristic nation. It's part of the national greatness thing.
We already have gone over the prosperous period after the war, which you only want to credit FDR's policies with, apparently no other factors were extant during that period which could account for that prosperity.
Is popular history your forté?
Here are some links for your reading pleasure.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 16, 2008 11:26:13 AM
I didn't say the depression began under FDR, but he is now credited with its duration.
BTW, the government entity, which set the policies that fomented the depression, was created in 1913. It's charge was to 'smooth out' the economy and avoid the businesses cycles which had been blamed by the ignorant on capitalism.
Yes,I'm talking about that 'laissez faire' economy, as you put it, which was actually being burdened with increasing government intervention in the form of the FED (among others), chartered by congress in 1913, and was supposed to prevent the depression, instead, brought it on with easy credit. They probably thought they were growing the economy.
Smoot-Hawley was another government intervention during that great 'laissez faire' period...as you put it.
FDR was voted in because he was a consummate politician and had capable speech writers.
He is well remembered for the same reason and also due to a sycophantic press which help write the popular, if erroneous, history as most people today know it.
He also was the man in place during a war, and wartime leaders are always fondly remembered in a militaristic nation. It's part of the national greatness thing.
We already have gone over the prosperous period after the war, which you only want to credit FDR's policies with, apparently no other factors were extant during that period which could account for that prosperity.
Is popular history your forté?
Here are some links for your reading pleasure.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 16, 2008 11:26:42 AM
Sorry, that didn't work out.
Here are the three links:
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 16, 2008 11:32:58 AM
Hoover was an interventionist. The idea that he sat back and did nothing as the Depression started is just incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Great_Depression
During the 1932 campaign, FDR criticized Hoover for being too interventionist. I can't find the cite right now, I'm afraid.
The idea that GWB's presidency has been non-interventionist is bizarre. Just look up the rate at which the US national debt has been growing. And no, it's not because of tax cuts - the Treasury actually took in more money after the tax cuts than it had projected it would before they kicked in.
Posted by: Adam | Mar 16, 2008 11:47:57 AM
Here we go:
www.ccs.in/lssreader/23lssreader.pdf
See page 65 (it's a short document, it starts at page 62) for the details on FDR's criticism of Hoover as too interventionist.
Posted by: Adam | Mar 16, 2008 11:52:26 AM
As a link:
http://www.ccs.in/lssreader/23lssreader.pdf
Posted by: Adam | Mar 16, 2008 11:52:56 AM
Quoting Hoover: The U.S. "had abandoned the laissez faire of the 18th century" and new emphasis placed on "social and economic justice." "We have learned that the impulse to production can only be maintained at a high pitch if there is a fair division of product...by certain restrictions on the strong and the dominant."
After the depression hit, The Nation wrote of Hoover: "What Mr. hoover is really trying to do, apparently without knowing it, is to create a Supreme Council of the National Economy in the United States, and it will be interesting to see how far he can go in our topsy-turvey capitalist economy. He is right in wanting a planned economy."
In other words, Hoover was a progressive.
All this from Thomas Woods 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 16, 2008 12:25:41 PM
So the current horrific economy with its attendant lose of productivity and prosperity is not a problem?
It is a problem, but there is little the president can do about it. The Fed (who is most able to do anything) is trying. President's have little control over the economy, especially in terms of immediacy. The Fed has the controls.
Posted by: mcwop | Mar 16, 2008 12:35:50 PM
The FED controls one thing, the issuing of credit via monetary expansion. The FED does not control the economy, but does affect it.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 16, 2008 1:08:45 PM
Said the Mighty muirduck:
So the current horrific economy with its attendant lose of productivity and prosperity is not a problem?
1. Define "horrific economy".
2. Productivity is at an all time high.
3. Prosperity is at an all time high.
In short, you're spewing nonsense out of your ducky rear.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 16, 2008 1:54:02 PM
Sam:
What do you think of the Bear Stearns bailout? This def reeks of administration toadyism.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 16, 2008 1:54:39 PM
What's new?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 16, 2008 2:28:34 PM
"Were there past examples when some one DID control or even tried to control this economy on which you make this claim?"
Japanese industrial policy regarding multipe industries make the point that markets are smarter than governments.
First, the government-driven, next generation computing initiatives have produced little to no value.
I also believe that the Japanese government also tried to hold Honda down.
I could go on and on...
Posted by: Chris O'Leary | Mar 16, 2008 4:17:51 PM
Sam just saying that the fed has the greatest affect compared to the office of president.
Posted by: mcwop | Mar 16, 2008 4:49:47 PM
I think the ethanol promotion is quite illustrative.
The problem with government 'management of the economy is that it creates incentives other than attainment of the stated goal. Rather than satisfy consumers, producers instead seek to affect the 'management' process in their own behalf.
Watching progressives promote government involvement in ethanol while simultaneously complaining about corporate subsidies should enlighten any impartial observer into the schizophrenic nature of proggresive sentiment.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 16, 2008 4:50:03 PM
Sam:
Progressives are a mentally afflicted lot.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 16, 2008 4:55:47 PM
The seven members of the (FED) board are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.[23] Members are selected to terms of 14 years (unless removed by the President), which are generally limited to one term.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 16, 2008 5:14:44 PM
I'm glad that the ethanol subsidy has arrived on this table. If you need some education on the subject, here's a great start:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/
wew/articles/08/Big%20Corn%20and%20Ethanol
%20Hoax.htm
Posted by: True_Liberal | Mar 16, 2008 6:14:34 PM
seriously. stop talking to him.
Posted by: shawn | Mar 16, 2008 7:10:14 PM
"Nope all the evidence I can find suggest "good tinkering" is much better then the Herbert Hoover approach. But of course history has a way of repeating itself."
-muirgeo
I truly don't understand this sentence. Hoover was a born tinkerer. Trained as an engineer, he saw the economy as something to be controlled through the levers of power. His ascendancy to the presidency proved to be a disaster once he got his hands on those levers. FDR proved to be little better, except he did make everyone feel better by being a fantastic speaker. Most of FDR's policies were wasting effort like paying people to dig holes, then have other fill them in. This adds nothing to any economy, yet people were busy, making them feel were working. They weren't. Busy work is not value added. In fact, these programs distracted people from otherwise valuable labor.
I don't understand the following sentence either:
"One more thing. If the current "downturn" were occurring during a democratic administration I'm certain the howling would be horrific and unbearably."
The last recession began in November 2000, during the Clinton presidency, yet I don't recall any of the 'horrific and unbearably [sic]" howling.
Having read many of your posts you seem to think that democrats are heroes while republicans are demons. Do you really think that? Do you not realize that growth occurred in the 80's and 90's was due to split government and partisan politics stopping the trash that lives in each party? Both parties suck. The democrats are just as bad as republicans.
And this:
"The desperation of the current economy is hardly recognized when other well read economist predicted exactly this 3 years ago based on sound objective principles."
Desperation? Really? Hyperbole always weakens an argument. The unemployment rate is at 4.8% (http://www.bls.gov/cps/, it's right there in the upper right hand corner). In other words we're still at full employment. And gas consumption, a good indicator of economic strength, has pushed the price of oil to higher levels over the last few months. This indicates that consumers are still traveling and consuming. We are not in a recession (don't forget this means two consecutive quarters of negative growth before you start talking).
Also, predictions mean very little. You can always find someone who predicted current events. What really matters is consistency of predictions. I know a lot of people that have been predicting gloom and doom my entire life. Sometimes they're right, but they are almost always wrong. Meaning they're predictions are meaningless. Life today is better than five years ago and much better than 20 years ago. Paul Ehrlich comes to mind when I hear 'predictions'.
Posted by: Ken | Mar 16, 2008 7:51:22 PM
muirgeo --
The subprime problem is partially the result of government tinkering in the Community Reinvestment Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act, which gave banks a huge incentive to make loans to low income people without inquiring too closely into their ability to repay the loans.
Posted by: Chris | Mar 16, 2008 7:51:41 PM
"or that volcanoes won't erupt if they are fed a sufficient number of virgins"
What !?!? How else would you explain the rising number of volcanic eruptions since the sexual revolution ?
Posted by: Jason Rennie | Mar 16, 2008 9:11:33 PM
So the subprime shenanigans are coming home to roost for Bear Stearns. Too bad they're being bailed out by JP Morgan/Feds. Really stupid. I think every single person and corporate entity should suffer for that stupidity.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 17, 2008 12:00:22 AM
Don,
Go back and read it again. I'm pretty confident that Collins was referring to Bush being in control of 'his faculties'. She nor any other columnist has any expectation that he could effect economic remedies. Bush is extraordinarily out of touch and the economy is clearly his weakest domestic area.
I was stunned by the quotes, especially given his audience. What vexed Collins was that Bush doesn't even bother to dignify himself anymore...
Posted by: Steve H. | Mar 17, 2008 12:41:48 AM
I'm pretty confident that Steve H. is Muirgeo.
Posted by: jpm | Mar 17, 2008 12:56:11 AM
"In other words, Hoover was a progressive."!
I s'pose you came to that conclusion because the Wiki article primarily glosses over his mining career and prefers to talk about his term as president.
Perhaps it was more interesting to hear H. Hoover turned the near-broke mining companies into highly profitable ones. Another of his methods was to sack the local labour and import cheaper Italian labour. Or did you know that he became the highest salaried employee in the world at the time?
Then again the article did mention he supported 'public and private cooperation'. How is this particularly different from a Libertarian arguing for a minimalist government and that 'welfare can be replaced by charit'y? Apart from signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act it's hard to see what Hoover did to prolong the Great Depression. After all, the 'New Deal' type of activities, I believe, were pretty much present during the 1987 stock market but these rules and regulations didn't start up another Great Depression.
Posted by: Gil | Mar 17, 2008 2:31:09 AM
Gil:
I suggest you read up more on Hoover. He was a big pusher of socialist practices in the 1920s. He laid the foundations for the New Deal.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 17, 2008 3:16:48 AM
"Desperation? Really? Hyperbole always weakens an argument. The unemployment rate is at 4.8% (http://www.bls.gov/cps/, it's right there in the upper right hand corner). In other words we're still at full employment."Ken
Ken,
Quote their employment numbers, their inflation numbers, their debt numbers, and lets stop tracking things like M3. When you do so and you believe this is a perfectly reasonable economy you really have shown an inability for independent critical thought or maybe just plain partisanship
Oh just heard Greenspan is calling this the worst economic crisis since WW2. The words Randian Bastard come to mind.
Predictions aren't always reliable but if I had to look for economic legitimacy Nourial Rabeini seems to have more credibility then our "genius" president and those economist on which his economic policy is based.
I'm convinced a major transformation in economic policy thinking is in the works as the current thinking is a recipe for long term failure. Planning and tinkering will definitely have a place in creating a strong competitive market. The invisible hand......YOU'RE FIRED!!!... well or at least demoted.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 9:13:45 AM
We now have three, and the future pamphlet is building.
-----
If you are advocating a free market system say for schools you need to show one that works.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 10, 2008 7:24:41 PM
or:
"Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 11:29:41 AM"
or
Planning and tinkering will definitely have a place in creating a strong competitive market. The invisible hand......YOU'RE FIRED!!!... well or at least demoted.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 9:13:45 AM
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 17, 2008 9:32:53 AM
Such as?
" At the same time he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility."
This one doesn't sound too Socialist to me. Could it be he believed there should be certain government programs that give people certain opportunities for education and help out poor people? Who knows? Maybe hardship and strife in poverty is the moral hangover for previous licentious behaviour and people shouldn't be arbitrarily bailed out? Eh.
Posted by: Gil | Mar 17, 2008 9:57:12 AM
Many wealthy people participated in the progressive movement. Back then the eugenics movement was also a fad with progressives.
Progressives may have changed in many regards, but they still take the attitude that armed might can be used to manage and improve society.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 10:56:05 AM
Apart from signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act it's hard to see what Hoover did to prolong the Great Depression.
I didn't say Hoover prolonged the Great Depression. It BEGAN under Hoover.
The prolongation charge belongs to FDR.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 10:59:47 AM
The invisible hand......YOU'RE FIRED!!!... well or at least demoted.
The bestest straw man slayer ever!
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 11:00:34 AM
Pretty bad when you fire yourself.
How does one become so incompetent and/or stupid as to give over his personal decisions to a government lackey.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 17, 2008 11:36:58 AM
Off topic here, but for some stunning science community and newspaper hypocrisy check this article out:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5621678.html
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 17, 2008 11:40:32 AM
Vidyohs,
The fact that you think there is some hypocrisy here is more based on your poor and simple understanding of climate change science then on any real hypocrisy of the experts who do actually know what they are talking about.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 12:07:50 PM
So speaks the idiot that just fired himself.
But muirduck, your so-called experts all agree that global warming is caused primarly by man's activities.
In your ignorant stupor didn't you note not one mention of anything but natural causes for the weather anomalies described in the article?
From my superior viewpoint that smacks of hypocrisy.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 17, 2008 12:15:10 PM
Any news coverage of weather anymore MUST include some mention of global warming, just as any discussion of rising prices/inflation MUST exclude any discussion of the printing press.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 12:40:17 PM
Which party basically controlled politics the 30 years leading up to the Depression.
You should know by now that I don't care about 'party' affiliation. By playing good cop/bad cop with the GOP and Dem parties, the oligarchy has kept the people divided into opposing factions thereby perpetuating their rule.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 12:49:12 PM
Some thoughts on the Bear Stearn bailout.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 1:38:29 PM
The invisible hand says "you're hired, here's your raise for all your hard work and increasing the bottom line!". Slaying muirduck's straw armies.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 17, 2008 2:06:20 PM
You should know by now that I don't care about 'party' affiliation. By playing good cop/bad cop with the GOP and Dem parties, the oligarchy has kept the people divided into opposing factions thereby perpetuating their rule.
Posted by: Sam Grove
Sam,
You may be right. But I still have faith that of the two the Democratic party is significantly better and I'd like to see them in charge for a bit before I give upon them as well.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 2:26:41 PM
Muirgeo, the Dems took both houses, and have basically accomplished nothing despite a weak president. Weren't they elected to get us out of Iraq? Why are we still there? Both parties are totally bankrupt right now. Less government power is better.
Posted by: mcwop | Mar 17, 2008 2:50:17 PM
mcwop,
The Republicans have called a filibuster on a record number of bills. And the President has vetoed almost anything of significance. The idea that the democratic party has done nothing with it's majority is intellectually dishonest. Lets re-judge them after their next 8 years of dominance.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 3:02:36 PM
But muirduck, your so-called experts all agree that global warming is caused primarly by man's activities.
In your ignorant stupor didn't you note not one mention of anything but natural causes for the weather anomalies described in the article?
Posted by: vidyohs
Of course they do claim the warming is man made. Likewise they don't deny natural cycles exist. They only realize natural cycles do not explain current trends and are being dwarfed by man made influences. The evidence is clear for anyone who has truly looked at it.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 3:06:22 PM
The invisible hand says "you're hired, here's your raise for all your hard work and increasing the bottom line!". Slaying muirduck's straw armies.
Posted by: FreedomLover
But "freedom"lover you ignore the facts. You are right the productivity pie has expanded due to the hard work of American workers. But all the gains have been to the most wealthy with basically none for the middle class.
Which class do you fall into? "freedomlover??? that name is a joke. You're supporting a return to servitude. I'm assuming you don't fall into the top 1% of income earners. I'm guessing your republican loyalty is based more on the social wedge issues they use to get people like you to vote FOR them and against your own better interest.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 3:13:06 PM
You're supporting a return to servitude.
A return? RETURN?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 3:30:09 PM
...the productivity pie has expanded due to the hard work of American workers.
Increased wealth (or "productivity pie", in an alternate universe), in large part, is due to the risk taking of entrepreneurs. Employees take significantly less risk than their employers. What do you suppose the appropriate return for risk is, comrade?
I'll help you. First, go to the dictionary and look up the word "risk". Then, go and misunderstand some deep discussion about risk/reward and come here and vomit some incoherent nonsense about it. The more incoherent, the better.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 17, 2008 5:00:33 PM
"Likewise they don't deny natural cycles exist."
Ummm muirduck, not too sure about that.
However be that as it may, from my superior intellectual viewpoint, while some may recoginize that natural cycles do exist, none claim those as the cause of global warming.
Those natural causes are dismissed in the overwhelming (to the dishonest them) evidence that Mom's SUV causes more harm or change that El Nina or El Nino combined.
But, to snag a fool so idiotic as to fire himself, hey that isn't hard.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 17, 2008 5:05:18 PM
You're supporting a return to servitude.
A return? RETURN?
Yes, Sam. Haven't you heard of Karl Marx's theory of alienation of the worker from his product and that workers are exploited by capitalists? It seems that workers produce all the value, but receive only a portion of it. Capitalists, on the other hand, are mere parasites who take a disproportionate share of the value but create none of it. In this world, the receipt of remuneration for your labour means that you're in servitude. Servitude = employment. Thus, we all need to wait for handouts from the government because none of us want to be in servitude and being a parasitic capitalist should just be illegal. It makes total sense...if you're an idiot.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 17, 2008 5:06:55 PM
Ahh, I posted this to the wrong blog:
Here ya go muirduck.
23 WAYS TO BE A GOOD DEMOCRAT - THIS ISN'T SO HARD -- EVEN A CAVE
MAN CAN DO IT....
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion
on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and
governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding
Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the
hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal
funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected
by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected
by Soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being
homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of
Federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth
graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about
sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but
loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than
actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his
own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain
parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports
certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are
too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are
more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison
and Alexander Graham Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but
racial quotas and affirmative action are not.
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a
very nice person.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't
worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been
in charge.
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in
jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag
queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally
protected, but that manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the
Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
21. You have to believe that what is offered for sale is best decided by central
planning and regulation than decided by customer preferences.
22. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast,
right wing conspiracy.
23 . You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the
day off on Christmas Day ..........but it's not okay to say "Merry
Christmas."
Ready to vote???
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 17, 2008 10:45:55 AM
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 17, 2008 5:07:52 PM
Ahhhh Tsk Tsk muirduck, thou shalt lie and thou shalt be chastised.
My little intellectual Chihuahua, President Bush did not use the veto until just last year, some 6 years into his presidency.
As a matter of fact conservatives wail because they have watched him sign bill after bill that prove he is not a conservative at heart. I believe, without double checking, President Bush's first veto was of that stupid aid bill for poor, middle class, and some wealthy children.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 17, 2008 5:15:26 PM
The world would be a better place if we could have an equal distribution of copies of I Pencil. That might be the only government program I would be at all tempted to support. Of course, being government, they would probably do that poorly as well.
Posted by: Yahoo Answerer | Mar 17, 2008 6:04:23 PM
The world would be a better place if we could get an equal distribution of copies of I Pencil. This might be the only government program I would be tempted to support. Of course, being government they would probably do that poorly too.
Posted by: Yahoo Answerer | Mar 17, 2008 6:06:18 PM
Yes quite. For that matter what any New Deal programs necessarily prevented recovery? Is there any proof that the New Deal placed any more burdens than a modern business owner? Or would a modern business owner look at the taxes and regulations of the '30s and prefer them over modern day ones?
P.S. It'd fun to come up with 20 Quirks of Conservatives but it'd probably be the mirror equivalent of those 20. But find #1 humorous - hate C.P. but love abortion. Pfff! I s'pose vidyohs & co are going to say 'replace abortion justification against a foetus with a 5-year toddler and you'll be arguing for infanticide. I prefer 'how about arguing the case with a 20-year old man' and you'd find yourself arguing for a cradle-to-grave welfare state. If a living person doesn't have any positive claim to another person's goods even if it's a life-or-death situation then why should a foetus be any exception? Indeed to me most Conservatives seem to fall into the 'life begins at conception and ends at birth'.
P.P.S. I'm pro-capital punishment for violent crimes.
Posted by: Gil | Mar 17, 2008 6:06:52 PM
Gilduck,
Most private employers want a man to stop drinking snorting smoking or injecting at least 8 hours before reporting for work.
I suggest that you consider that rule before posting comments. It would vastly improve your coherency.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 17, 2008 6:25:14 PM
Which class do you fall into? "freedomlover??? that name is a joke. You're supporting a return to servitude. I'm assuming you don't fall into the top 1% of income earners. I'm guessing your republican loyalty is based more on the social wedge issues they use to get people like you to vote FOR them and against your own better interest.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 3:13:06 PM
Solidly upper-middle class. I don't obsess about the rich like you do. I'll never be a millionaire, although maybe by the time I'm 50 I might get to a $1 million net worth. I'm a solid social and economic libertarian, the only reason I vote GOP is because they're less socialist then the Democrats. Try again ducky.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 17, 2008 7:33:54 PM
A return? RETURN?
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 3:30:09 PM
Right Sam, we're already there. IN fact the 1913 ratification of the income tax was the beginning of the 100 year master plan. Only 5 years to completion.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 17, 2008 7:34:52 PM
MuirGeo,
Of all the disappearing acts that you've pulled-off on the CafeHayek threads, the one below is where I'm going to draw the line.
Yes, see we have something in common. Actually we have a lot in common but often different solutions. But I plead ignorance as to what alternative there is to the Fed. I've read about Milton Friedmans fix (set parameters for interest rate changes and steady monetary growth) that seemed to make sense but from what I've heard some claim it was largely responsible for the stagflation of the 70's.Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 11, 2008 1:44:48 PM
Where did you read that Milton Friedman advocated for setting parameters on interest rates? It is true that he advocated for steady monetary growth (within a 3%-5% gowth in M2 if IIRC) but I am not aware of where he discussed setting parameters for interest rates. You could be correct...but I want to know where you read it. By the way, and you should know because it has been explained to you, the federal Reserve does not set market interest rates...they set a target rate and they set the overnight lending rate that member banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve District Banks at.
Explain from where it was you heard that the ideas about Milton Friedman's "fixes" that led to the stagflation of the 70s. You wrote it and claimed it so pony up.
Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 17, 2008 8:38:43 PM
Muirgeo give me the number of the bill that the Dems put forward to remove troops from Iraq. Not vailed threats to cut funding, but an actual bill. Prove me wrong.
How much you want to bet we are in Iraq even when Obama is President?
Posted by: mcwop | Mar 17, 2008 10:02:46 PM
This is all I can find Muirgeo they put it in a bill and withdrew it.
“There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action,” said Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who was unsuccessful last week in his push for a withdrawal of combat troops by spring. “Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/washington/23cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Wow that is some tough standing up to the chimp. I have a lot of faith in the Dems (end sarcasm). Both parties suck.
Posted by: mcwop | Mar 17, 2008 10:10:25 PM
I believe this article about Friedman's thoughts on monetary policy is relevant here (link at end):
In July 1985, Milton Friedman delivered the presidential address at the Western Economic Association on the topic "Economists and Economic Policy," which was published in the January 1986 issue of Economic Inquiry. He stated that his many years in advocating a monetary "rule," under which the central monetary authority would increase the money supply at a constant annual rate regardless of changing economic conditions, had been a waste of time. The reason, he said, is that there is no basis for thinking it would ever be in the interest of those who managed the government monetary system to follow such a rule:
"Most of my own work dealing with public policy has had the same character of proceeding as if I were addressing governmental officials selflessly dedicated to the public interest. I have attempted to persuade the Federal Reserve System that it was doing the wrong thing and it ought to adopt a different policy. This time was ill-spent because the public-interest characterization of government is basically flawed.... We do not regard a businessman as selflessly devoted to the public interest. We think of a businessman as in business to improve his own welfare, to serve his own interest.... Why should we regard government officials differently? They too aim to serve their own interest, and in government as in business we must try to set up institutions under which individuals who intend only their own gain are led by an invisible hand to serve the public interest. The Federal Reserve System puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people and it is so constructed that it has been in their self-interest to pursue a policy which, I believe, has been very harmful for the public rather than helpful.... Clearly, it was not in the self-interest of the Federal Reserve hierarchy to follow the hypothetical policy [of a monetary rule]. It was therefore a waste of time to try to persuade them to do so."
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 17, 2008 10:10:54 PM
Muirgeo,
Direct from Obama's website, and I expect him to execute this exacly or he goes into the same bucket as W:
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
I wonder what the probability is that he implements the al Queda "clause" from the above promise, when it is 16 months later and our troops are still there. Of course Hillary, and a bunch of other Dems, along with most repubs voted to have them there in the first place. Dumb government in good need of a neutering.
Posted by: mcwop | Mar 17, 2008 10:21:12 PM
mcwop:
You're knee-jerk attitude re: Iraq does not do credit to Hayek.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 17, 2008 10:44:21 PM
The question I have for mcwop is: should the United States have allowed the Iraqis to invade and occupy Kuwait -- from the time of Iraq's invasion of that country on August 2, 1990?
Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 17, 2008 11:11:07 PM
I think that question should have been thrown entirely to the UN.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 18, 2008 12:39:39 AM
muirduck, there is zero hard evidence for human-caused global warming. It can only be found in models which predict a certain level of warming and over the last century (100 years) there has been 0.5 degrees more warming than the models predict. The conclusion is that it MUST have been caused by people. Not that the models might be wrong. Not that the temperature measurements might be high by 0.5 degrees.
On that weak evidence lunatics like you would have us impoverish ourselves while the indians and chinese pollute anyway.
Posted by: Russ Nelson | Mar 18, 2008 1:34:11 AM
"Most private employers want a man to stop drinking snorting smoking or injecting at least 8 hours before reporting for work."
What's that got to do with anything? Might Libertarians be surprised that drug use may not be necessarily wonderfully accepted in a Libertarian society?
Posted by: Gil | Mar 18, 2008 3:51:04 AM
I think that question should have been thrown entirely to the UN.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 18, 2008 12:39:39 AM
Sam, I'm assuming that your reply was a reply to my earlier post at 11:11 PM. The question was brought before the UN Security Council with mutiple resolutions. Those resolutions passed and were adopted. The consequences of those resolutions were carrier out. There were follow up resolutions after the cease-fire. Those resolutions were systematically not complied with and further consequences and resolutions were carrierd out and adopted. Long, ugly history on this topic that somehow cannot be honestly summed up just with a "Bush lied, kids died."
Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 18, 2008 5:30:20 AM
What's that got to do with anything? Might Libertarians be surprised that drug use may not be necessarily wonderfully accepted in a Libertarian society?
Posted by: Gil | Mar 18, 2008 3:51:04 AM
There are several things that are not "wonderfully accepted" in our society; it doesn't mean that they are illegal, either. Some examples include racist statments against sub groups and most types of pornography (both protected by the first amendment), neighbors that do not upkeep their property and create eyesores for those in the neighborhood, and picking one's nose.
Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 18, 2008 6:10:06 AM
Lowcountryjoe,
I have a lot more replies to respond to being in the minoity. I spend enough time and post more then my share so I'm not avoiding anything.
Friedmans monetary policy is described in Capitalism and Freedom. I don't remember if he specifically talks of parameterized interest rates but he does suggest adjustments to monetary policy be made by pre-planned arrangements independent of human subjectivity.
I do not know where I read about his monetary policy causing the stagflation of the 70's so I can't reference it. I think the claim was that he influenced monetary policy suggesting the inaction of the 30's caused the depression with resultant over- action causing stagflation in the 70's. I think the claim is likely unjsut.
I wouldn't argue that to be true or valid based on a little further research. In fact, I found many claims that his views of monetary policy were vindicated by the stagflation of the 70's.
One other note of my recent brief research on the issue seems that it's hard to pin stagflation of the 70's solely on any policy of Jimmy Carters..... as many here seems to like to claim.... also with no references.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 7:19:26 AM
Russ,
The scientific evidence supporting the claim of man made climate change is in far less dispute among its experts then say the Hayekian model of economics is by experts in its respected field.
In other words, there is far more reason for an objective observer of facts to conclude man made warming is real and significant then for such an observer to assume a liberal economic system would be most efficient. And the fact of the former is the reason ideologues of the later deny the evidence on climate change. Inconvenient truths need to be attacked or ignored.
You are simply guilty of dis-believing facts that implicate a weakness in another unfounded belief of yours. The very fact of man-made warming calls into question your economic beliefs. It's a lot for one ego to accept...maybe with time....if you're not too old... you too can see the light and the truth. Hang in there and keep an open mind.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 7:43:37 AM
FreedomLover, it is not a knee jerk reaction, but one that has evolved. In the beginning I was mixed about the whole invasion feeling that it was not worth the economic cost. Now I definitely have concluded it is not worth the economic cost.
With that said, we are there and have to stay until the country stabilizes. We made the mess, and have to clean it up. It will cost us big time, and is a stealth tax increase of epic proportions. The Democrats are full of crap thinking they will pull out, and that is why they have not done so yet. Plus they are addicted to the military spending as much as the Republicans.
And all this comes back to the fact that the government has been granted too much power to easily partake in military forays that make zero economic sense.
Both parties are currently bankrupt of ideas.
Posted by: Mcwop | Mar 18, 2008 8:36:54 AM
muirduck, I notice that I explained, simply, why the science is wrong, citing exactly why, whereas you simply assert, without explanation, that the science is good. Perhaps you have no fucking clue of what you are talking about, which you have amply demonstrated in the past.
Posted by: Russ Nelson | Mar 18, 2008 8:51:52 AM
Muirduck,
I know for a Teacup Chihuahua intellect it is hard to read and comprehend, but I'll give you the link again.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5621678.html
Get your mother to help you with the big words and search very very carefully and find on of the weather anomalies in the article that is attributed to man and not to natural cycles.
Then ask your mother why that is so in this instance and not in others.
Seems an admission of past hypocrisy, does it not.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 8:53:00 AM
search very very carefully and find any of the weather
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 8:55:29 AM
In other words my little Teacup Chihuahua, the writers of that article forgot to vet it through your experts and thus gave away the game.
They wandered off the reservation so to speak and told the truth that intelligent people have always known.
Mother Earth can be a bitch and she will do what she is going to do, and we little peoples here are powerless to do one damn thing about it.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 8:59:10 AM
Russ,
You citing something doesn't make it true.
You want to have a cite-off?
Be right back. I'm going to the latest issue of Science and see what I can get for you. Now be prepared. You'll need to cite an equally legitimate source that supports your belief.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 9:53:48 AM
LCJoe
I think, once referred to the UN, the matter should have been left up to the UN. Finding that the UN is a paper tiger regarding international aggression, we should have withdrawn from the UN (never too late), tell them to find another location, good-bye and good riddance.
Global warming is way off topic here.
Muirgeo, read the effing article regarding Friedman and monetary policy.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 18, 2008 10:15:07 AM
vidyohs,
Coincidentally my mother happens to be right here by me. And she recommends not relying on lay journals for scientific issues. Seems she's a little more scientifically fundamental then yourself. But she did laugh at the Teacup Chihuahua reference and then asked me if you were a teenager. I said no he's a grown man on a government pension.
But regarding the article my mom says there is nothing in it that contradicts man made warming. Natural cycles will often effect conditions on a short term basis but will not effect the larger man made trends. So when a La Nina occurs we might expect a relative cooling but the temperature was still far warmer then the long term averages.
Thanks Mom!!!
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 10:15:41 AM
"Just as any moron can destroy a priceless Ming vase, so the shallow and ill-educated people who run our schools can undermine and destroy from within a great civilization that took centuries of dedicated effort to create and maintain." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell
It isn't often one can see a genius like Dr. Sowell mention someone like muirduck 3 times in one paragraph.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 10:15:59 AM
The effing article.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 18, 2008 10:18:01 AM
OFF TOPIC..... who cares. Bandwidth is not a problem and your scroll down button is a few inches away.
Here you go Russ. This is the most recent scientific report on the subject in Science magazine. Interestingly living and exploring the Western mountain (particularly the Sierra Range) ranges I've personally observed these changes over the last 25 year. Want to discuss this article more Russ to see who's position it supports? Would you like to find one that supports your claims. Good Luck. I'll be waiting;
Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States
Tim P. Barnett, David W. Pierce, Hugo G. Hidalgo, Celine Bonfils, Benjamin D. Santer, Tapash Das, Govindasamy Bala, Andrew W. Wood, Toru Nozawa, Arthur A. Mirin, Daniel R. Cayan, and Michael D. Dettinger
Science 22 Feb 2008; 319: 1080-1083. 10.1126/science.1152538 (Science Express Reports)
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 10:25:07 AM
What of it Sam? It's a good article, thanks. And I've said before I claim ignorance on what is the best way to set up monetary policy. I also said Friedman's description sounded like it would work. But I found others who claim to discredit it. Again I am admitting ignorance on the subject. It's very complicated. But I would argue the current set up transfers wealth upwards.... and even the guys at the Mises site will agree with me on that.
Russ's current interview with Tyler Cowen is on monetary policy so that would be a good place to discuss this further. Again this may be an area of common agreement.
Chill with the hostility brother. Hey I got a great idea. My macs have great video-conferencing abilities. Do your computers? If so let's get together for a discussion and video conference over some beer. I'll show you I'm just a regular guy and that you don't need to hate.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 10:36:13 AM
Alright! Up to four and counting:
If you are advocating a free market system say for schools you need to show one that works.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 10, 2008 7:24:41 PM
or:
"Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 11:29:41 AM"
or
"Planning and tinkering will definitely have a place in creating a strong competitive market. The invisible hand......YOU'RE FIRED!!!... well or at least demoted."
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 9:13:45 AM
or
"Natural cycles will often effect(sic) conditions on a short term basis but will not effect the larger man made trends."
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 10:15:41 AM
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 10:52:50 AM
Onward toward communism, Vidyohs. It was lead by armchair revolutionaries then as now.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 18, 2008 11:04:57 AM
If you are advocating a free market system say for schools you need to show one that works.
There is a huge private school system out there, and I am pretty sure it works. In some cases at a much lower cost than public schools, and in some cases higher.
Posted by: Mcwop | Mar 18, 2008 11:53:14 AM
Which is to be expected. Not every public school acheives the same result for the same dollar spent. It's just a lot easier to sort out the bad schools from the good in a private system, and a lot easier to do something about the bad ones.
Posted by: Avatar300 | Mar 18, 2008 12:36:15 PM
What of it Sam?
It reveals the evolution of Friedman's thinking on monetary policy. His eventual conclusion is what matters, as it is based upon his experience with the actual behavior of policy implementers rather than the theoretical ideal of behavior he recommended.
The validity of his earlier theories were predicated on those implementing policy abiding by his advice. Obviously they didn't and so he changed his mind as to which mechanism should be in place rather than how it should be operated.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 18, 2008 12:58:25 PM
Money is a slippery subject because popular comprehension of it is pretty shallow.
And I apologize for the 'effing', but I posted that in response to a particular dialog and it seemed that the 'dialoggers' passed over it.
Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 18, 2008 1:02:31 PM
muirduck
Here I thought you to work hard to achieve your extreme level of stupidity and I would never have thought it was hiereditary. Seems I gave you credit where credit was not due.
"Coincidentally my mother happens to be right here by me. And she recommends not relying on lay journals for scientific issues. Seems she's a little more scientifically fundamental then yourself. But she did laugh at the Teacup Chihuahua reference and then asked me if you were a teenager. I said no he's a grown man on a government pension.
But regarding the article my mom says there is nothing in it that contradicts man made warming. Natural cycles will often effect conditions on a short term basis but will not effect the larger man made trends. So when a La Nina occurs we might expect a relative cooling but the temperature was still far warmer then the long term averages.
Thanks Mom!!!
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 10:15:41 AM"
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 2:39:22 PM
Here ya go muirduck,
A little reading for you and your mom that ought to keep you busy for awhile.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c
"Skeptical Scientists tell UN to have the courage to do nothing at conference"
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 3:38:58 PM
vidyohs:
There are no skeptical scientists. They are whack jobs funded by BIG OIL. The debate on Global Warming is DONE. Just accept it and get ready for some nice hefty carbon taxes. I hope you won't be too put off by 25% unemployment. But it's a small price to pay to protect Gaia.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 4:10:16 PM
When I try to argue "correlation does not equal causation, and besides what about the cooling trend from 1940-1970 while CO2 went up", all I get is "global warming debate is OVER, the IPCC issued its holy edict".
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 4:12:09 PM
Then they(GW religionists) bleat about melting ice caps, but they were melting during the medival warm period as well? The fact is that we have only been tracking hard-core data for a very short period of time, just a few decades in fact. How can any climate scientist be so arrogant as to make 100 year projections is beyond me. I have only one speculation, that their political ideology trumps their scientific method.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 4:17:06 PM
I am humbled, truly humbled. I did not know that about the skeptical scientists.
My bad.
So, do I need to apologize to the duck?
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 4:30:45 PM
The duck is obviously right about everything. In the New Order, he'd be appointed a commissar for sure.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 4:35:16 PM
Freedomlover,
Just think about how many times in our history scientific debate was "over" and "consensus" had been reached. If there weren't whack-job scientists like Galileo (for example), the earth would still be the center of the universe, it would also still be flat.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 18, 2008 4:35:50 PM
Methinks - but think of how much suffering was inflicted on dissenters back then. I derive no comfort knowing that GW will be debunked 50 years from now while I suffer.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 4:42:02 PM
Freedomlover, you know as well as I that as a politician, GW must pander to the public - regardless of what he may actually believe. The public has been bludgeoned by "green" this and "warming" that. How can on compete with Algore, the chicken hypnotist's, movie? Especially, when - as you pointed out - most products of the American school system can barely add single-digit numbers, let alone question statistics.
Plus, the suffering has become more tolerable. You won't be burned at the stake but you will still be shunned. Imagine how Milton Friedman felt his whole life.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 18, 2008 4:52:11 PM
Methinks by GW I mean global warming.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 5:19:15 PM
Thanks for clearing that up, Freedomlover. I feel like that guy who replied to your aversion to "PC" with a strong defense for the use of computers. You'll have to forgive me, I spent an entire day watching dancing lemmings as Bernanke decided that you and I should bear the risk of crappy mortgages and the market totally forgot that you can't inflate your way out of anything.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 18, 2008 5:47:56 PM
Methinks, we've been living in a bailout society since 1930.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 5:55:48 PM
BTW, for those that are interested, I am the lucky owner of a very informative CD made by a retired Shell Geologist. That gentleman put it together strictly to infrom on the past geological changes that have happened to our little Earth.
Folks like muirduck will reject his information as being "shill for the industry", which will simply expose farther his idiocy and close minded socialist evangelical mindset.
Anyway, I am going to see if I can download it to my computer, e-mail it to my son, who can put it up on a website so that people can access it.
If there is any interest.
His information and conclusions pretty much paralell those of the Global Warming Skeptics out of England who did the rebuttal of the Goreicals inconvenient truth.
His information reveals that there was innumerable ice ages going back to the beginnings of our Earth, and they were fairly regular, with most being of less significance than the big ones we all know about where ice covered so much of the Earth's surface. However, they were true ice ages, none-the-less.
The gentleman I speak of was a guest at my sister-in-laws retirement party and had made copies to hand out to those interested in the truth.
It is a strange phenomenen that geologists (scientists) who are active, working, and researching are not to be believed in the looney left's eyes; but, geologists who are professors and who depend on working geologists for their updates of data are to be believed because they aren't paid by BIG OIL.
No No No, the professors and theorists are more trustworthy because they have only sold their soul to the federal grant, not the paycheck of BIG OIL.
Ah well, I still say retroactive birthcontrol is such an attractive solution to our leftist problems.
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 6:02:02 PM
Freedomlover, it still pisses me off every effing time. Draggin out the pain by preventing market clearing and encouraging poor choices just chaps my hide. Oh, the glory of socialism.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 18, 2008 6:02:40 PM
methinks - have you ever lived near poverty? that's the usual attack trotted out against those who argue for free markets.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 6:04:10 PM
I have a lot more replies to respond to being in the minoity. I spend enough time and post more then my share so I'm not avoiding anything...
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 7:19:26 AM
Thank you for finally replying. And while I accept your most recent answers -- namely the thinly veiled admission that you may have mis-read, mis-remembered, cannot find it now, my dog ate it, or what have you -- you have shown that ducking replies to straight forward questions a frequent behavior of yours.
Yes, you do post your fair share as you troll this site. Much of the time is it soundly rebutted. Occasionally you will make a point or argument that requires a concession or causes an enhanced debate. However, these instances, on balance, do not make up for the rehashing, the spamming, and the go arounds of previously settled debate that you've engaged in. We can only assume that these debates have been settled when you refuse to acknowledge posts and continue to duck questions.
You have avoided answering many questions in the past, muirgeo, so if you want to post here with less harrassment than you currently get -- an appropriate amount for a troll, in my not-so humble opinion -- then you should expect to spend enough time as it takes to see an argument, a debate, or topic be carried through in order to avoid the harrassment. Or, maybe you should just pick your battles (or, better yet, your words and 'facts') a whole lot more carefully than you currently do. The ducking of questions and inacurate 'factology' is equivelent to crap from a bull.
Posted by: LowcountryJoe | Mar 18, 2008 6:06:25 PM
vidyohs - for bigoted types, the source of the data is KING. The data itself is irrelevant to them. They do not apply the scientific method. If those 80% of IPCC climatologists can take me through the data, step by step and prove causality, fine. But they can't.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 6:07:37 PM
Did you say what I think you just did, my friend?
"methinks - have you ever lived near poverty? that's the usual attack trotted out against those who argue for free markets.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 6:04:10 PM"
Did you not mean argue against free markets?
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 6:13:33 PM
Methinks,
Do we agree then that name anything we today consider a social ill or a social problem we can lay firmly and justly at the doorstep of the socialist/communist/democrat/liberal/progressive?
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 6:16:47 PM
Freedomlover, near poverty? Are you kidding? As a child, I lived in the ghetto in (not near - in) the South Bronx. We were allowed to leave the Soviet Union with exactly nothing. Nada. As a student, I had to come up with all my living expenses and pay for school by working three jobs and living in roach motels you don't even want to imagine. I didn't crawl out of poverty until after college. Most of the progressives who claim to speak on behalf of the impoverished are condescending to the poor and are only motivated by a need to stroke their own egos. And most don't actually have any idea what it's like to be poor.
Oh, BTW, the family agreed that life in the ghetto was a vast improvement to life in the worker's paradise. The difference between a (basically) free market and the "planned" economy we had back home was the hope of something better. Thanks to the free market, every family member went from poverty and menial labour jobs to earning well above the national average.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 18, 2008 6:31:35 PM
vidyohs - what I meant was that for those that argue FOR free markets, poverty is usually thrown in their faces as "market failure" and proof of the inherent immorality of capitalism.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 6:31:56 PM
methinks - what can I say, but congratulations on your success from poverty. However, many Americans will be deaf, dumb and blind to what you said.
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 6:34:01 PM
LCJ,
I'll stay on a thread until people stop replying.
Ask vidyohs. I agreed to discuss property rights with him and I never left the discussion. It only ended when he was backed into a corner making some lame explanation of the difference between borders and property lines. Eventually, he tucked tail and yiped off...... afraid of a little Teacup Chihuahua.
So if you want to go into detail on any subject let me know. I like seeing a discussion through. Me and Sam have done so and we often end up at the same dead end.He knows of what I speak.
As far as your claim that such and such an issue is settled. I'd argue in economics unlike climate change almost nothing is settled. It's extremely complex and many of the best of experts admit to this.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 6:34:20 PM
Methinks,
Any government assistance along the way? Did you go to public school? Tuition assistance?
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 6:43:40 PM
A simple fact for thought on global warming.
5,000 year old vegetation has been found in multiple areas around the world in the paths of recently receding glaciers.
Please explain from the skeptic point of view.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 7:00:43 PM
muirgeo - if some government programs work, does that mean all of them do?
Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 18, 2008 7:38:05 PM
Do we agree then that name anything we today consider a social ill or a social problem we can lay firmly and justly at the doorstep of the socialist/communist/democrat/liberal/progressive?
we are in agreement.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 18, 2008 7:38:56 PM
Freedomlover, Thanks. my story is not uncommon for immigrants who import their poverty when they come here nor is it uncommon for native-born Americans with an ounce of motivation. Frankly, getting out of (relative - who are we kidding?) poverty is not hard in the United States. It's impossible in socialist paradises. And you're correct - the poverty pimps find xyz reasons why I "made it" and nobody else can possibly be expected to "make it" without their condescension.
Posted by: Methinks | Mar 18, 2008 7:56:00 PM
muirduck,
for one thing what you said here makes no sense in the English language at all.
WTF are you talking about?
"5,000 year old vegetation has been found in multiple areas around the world in the paths of recently receding glaciers.
Please explain from the skeptic point of view.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 7:00:43 PM"
God you are so ignorant.
Do you think, muirduck, my little teacup chihuahua intellect, that if green vegetation was in the "path" of a receding glacier it must have been growing on the glacier, or else ground to pulp by the receding glacier.
You see, dipstick, when something is in the path of another thing that means that it is going to get run over because it is in front of (in the path) of the thing.
Now, my little teacup Chihuahua intellect, would you be by some stretch trying to say green stuff was found in the "trail" of a receding glacier? if so, so f...ing what? What the hell would you expect?
But be that as it may, my little teacup Chihuahua intellect, paleoentology knows for a fact that the last major ice age with glaciers covering much of the North American and European/Asian continents was some 20,000 plus years ago.
A lot of things have been found in the "trail" of receding glaciers. Skulls of your ancestors were found there, we know they were socialist skulls because from the shoulders up the skull narrowed to a thin pinhead with a cranial capacity of about one centimete.
Disreali said, and I repeat, "Don't open your mouth when there isn't a brain behind it, muirduck."
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 18, 2008 7:59:32 PM
Before you ask:
A centimete is a dimension slightly less than a centemeter.
Thank you very much.
Posted by: