QuoteThe EU's Emissions Trading System Isn't Working
By Alexander Jung
In the perfect world of economic liberals, every commodity has its price. Limited supply makes goods more expensive and vice versa. That's how markets work -- at least in theory.
In practice, things often look different, and this is especially true when it comes to emissions trading, a business subject to a very different mechanism: laws dictated by the European Union.
Economists have generally praised the trading scheme as a nearly ideal instrument for reducing harmful carbon dioxide emissions. In this system, businesses purchase pollution permits, with prices determined according to supply and demand, in an efficient and self-regulating process. Companies that invest in environmentally friendly technology need to buy fewer certificates, or may even have some left over to sell.
But for the last half year, prices for CO2 certificates have dropped almost continuously, decreasing by about half, to around €8 ($10.60) per metric ton. Not even the closure of eight German nuclear power plants in 2011, and the resulting increase in demand for coal power, has done much to lastingly reverse the trend.
Michael Kröhnert, an emissions trader in Berlin, refers to the plunging prices as a slaughter. And he fully expects it to continue. "The spiral is spinning downward," he says.
'The System Isn't Working'
Analysts at Swiss bank UBS even go so far as to warn that this creeping decline could escalate into a true crash. "The trading system isn't working," is their scathing conclusion. The emissions trading system, once so highly acclaimed, seems to be producing nothing more than hot air.
The EU is alarmed. The European Parliament's Industry Committee plans to vote later this month on whether Brussels should reduce the number of carbon certificates it provides. A vote in favor would see the EU auctioning off 1.4 billion fewer credits than planned during the next trading period from 2013 to 2020. The cut of roughly 8 percent, it is hoped, will push prices back up.
Yet this type of market intervention reveals the system's central design flaw: Politicians determine the total amount of CO2 that industry in the EU may emit, a limit that applies years into the future, without any way to know how the economy -- and thus the demand for trading certificates -- will develop during that period.
Five years ago, when Europe was experiencing an economic boom, Brussels was generous in providing businesses with free certificates for the trading period from 2008 to 2012; companies were forced to buy only a small portion of their emissions credits. But soon afterwards, many businesses were forced to scale down production as the financial crisis, and then the debt crisis, took hold in Europe. Germany consumed less energy -- 4.8 percent less in 2011 -- and industry as a whole required a lower number of certificates than expected.
Steel company Salzgitter AG, for example, ended up with a surplus of around 7.5 million certificates between 2008 and 2010, according to a study by British environmental organization Sandbag, while ThyssenKrupp's surplus amounted to about 6 million. Far from being an additional cost factor, say critics, emissions trading has become a source of income for such companies.
Losing Purpose and Incentive
Companies can sell their certificates, or they can stockpile them to be used during the next trading period. The fatal flaw is that this glut of certificates not only depresses prices, it also reduces the incentive to invest in modern energy technology.
With the certificates so cheap, generating power from environmentally harmful fuels becomes even more of a good deal than usual -- which explains why brown coal consumption increased by nearly 4 percent in 2011, bucking the general trend.
Even more paradoxical, CO2 prices are so low partly because of the billions Germany spends on renewable energy. This decreases the demand, and with it the price, for emissions certificates. That in turn allows coal, a notorious danger to the climate, to be more competitive. In other words, emissions trading isn't stopping climate change, but actually speeding it up.
It's also putting Germany's finance minister in a tight spot. Wolfgang Schäuble of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) planned to use revenue from the sale of certificates to establish, by 2015, a fund that would finance projects in thermal insulation and other areas. Schäuble's team assumed a price of €17 per certificate when making their calculations. But with certificates now being traded at €10 below that price, the project could come up short by billions of euros.
Bit by bit, the business of emissions certificates is losing its purpose and incentive. In hindsight, it's clear that introducing a CO2 tax -- another alternative discussed initially -- would have been more feasible and more effective. Another option would have been to establish limits and then tighten them every year. A battle raging between the EU and the rest of the world over the decision to require airlines flying to or from Europe to purchase carbon certificates is not exactly generating extra support for emissions trading. For the EU, at this point, it's become purely a matter of saving its prestigious project.
Shortly before Christmas last year, the European Parliament's Environment Committee voted to reduce by 1.4 billion the number of certificates sold. If the Industry Committee, the European Parliament as a whole and the Council of the European Union now follow that recommendation, it will serve as a clear signal that something many people have feared for years has come to pass: From now on, Brussels plans to play the role of a central bank, issuing and collecting emissions certificates as it pleases. Should it do so, the EU would run the risk of its timing being perpetually out of step. And the market forces that were originally meant to establish appropriate prices would be on the outside looking in.
Translated from the German by Ella Ornstein
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,815225,00.html
how shocking
Although I cannot help but laugh, I feel inexplicably sad about the collapse of this synthetic market.
Isn't it ultimately a good thing that the price of certificates is naturally going down?
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2012, 08:45:20 AM
Isn't it ultimately a good thing that the price of certificates is naturally going down?
You don't have to read the whole article, Sheilbh excellenty bolded the important parts.
I still don't get it. Assuming that EU gave out enough certificates to assure the level of pollution is deems acceptable, then isn't the cheap price of the certificates helping assure that a good thing? It indicates that the cost of compliance is not that high, and it also indicates that further gains can be made at a reasonable cost if there is a desire.
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2012, 08:52:15 AM
I still don't get it. Assuming that EU gave out enough certificates to assure the level of pollution is deems acceptable, then isn't the cheap price of the certificates helping assure that a good thing? It indicates that the cost of compliance is not that high, and it also indicates that further gains can be made at a reasonable cost if there is a desire.
What it indicates, to me, is that the whole thing is FUBAR. Since the certificates are dirth cheap, it means everyone has way more than needed, so they can merrily go around smoking as much pollution, and earn extra profit from doing so.
Considering that the "we are teh doomed global warming is manmade" crowd hasn't got any more silent over recent years, I wager that the certificates are not in abundance because suddenly all factories are going on solar and windmills as large as major cities.
So they defeat their own purpose, and help maintain the bad condition they officially seek to reduce.
Of course, the whole thing was a scheme to begin with, an excellent opportunity for Appear Like Doing Something, while Creating An Artifical Market For Our Pals
What the jude said. The object of the excercise is to limit emissions, not to maintain a high price for permits.
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2012, 08:58:36 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2012, 08:52:15 AM
I still don't get it. Assuming that EU gave out enough certificates to assure the level of pollution is deems acceptable, then isn't the cheap price of the certificates helping assure that a good thing? It indicates that the cost of compliance is not that high, and it also indicates that further gains can be made at a reasonable cost if there is a desire.
What it indicates, to me, is that the whole thing is FUBAR. Since the certificates are dirth cheap, it means everyone has way more than needed, so they can merrily go around smoking as much pollution, and earn extra profit from doing so.
Considering that the "we are teh doomed global warming is manmade" crowd hasn't got any more silent over recent years, I wager that the certificates are not in abundance because suddenly all factories are going on solar and windmills as large as major cities.
So they defeat their own purpose, and help maintain the bad condition they officially seek to reduce.
Of course, the whole thing was a scheme to begin with, an excellent opportunity for Appear Like Doing Something, while Creating An Artifical Market For Our Pals
Sorry, it still makes no sense to me. If your argument is that the overall pollution level was set too high, and really isn't achieving the goal of cutting pollution, then just say this outright. I don't need to hear the socialist conspiracy theories, we get plenty of that horseshit from Republicans anyway.
Quote from: DGuller on February 17, 2012, 08:52:15 AM
I still don't get it. Assuming that EU gave out enough certificates to assure the level of pollution is deems acceptable, then isn't the cheap price of the certificates helping assure that a good thing? It indicates that the cost of compliance is not that high, and it also indicates that further gains can be made at a reasonable cost if there is a desire.
The Trading system isn't working because the product is basically free. The Trading system isn't working because it does not stimulate further cuts. The Trading system is doing harm since it gives license to increase emissions over and above the expected level since an increase in emissions will only cost a few carbon credits which provide political cover for the increase. So any real cut elsewhere might have a corresponding increase somewhere else.
The basic problem is that large industrial units that are capable of operating in the market like factories and refineries were cutting emissions fast well before kyoto because they were trying to cut power bills.
It's good, yes, but it didn't solve the problem it was supposed to solve.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 09:01:49 AM
What the jude said. The object of the excercise is to limit emissions, not to maintain a high price for permits.
Exactly. Whining about low price of permits is exactly what a socialist conspirator would do, as that would indicate that the certificates are a tool to cripple the energy sector rather than cut pollution.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2012, 09:01:49 AM
What the jude said. The object of the excercise is to limit emissions, not to maintain a high price for permits.
But if you are having a surplus of certs, you are not limiting a god damn thing.
Quote from: Viking on February 17, 2012, 09:03:48 AM
The Trading system isn't working because it does not stimulate further cuts.
The trading system wasn't intended to stimulate further cuts. It was intended to allocate emissions rationally under a dictated cap.
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2012, 09:04:08 AM
But if you are having a surplus of certs, you are not limiting a god damn thing.
OK, this is a fair point. Because of the economic downturn there is less demand for permits. Unfettered market emissions are under or close to the regulatory cap.
But this is a function of the supply of permits issued by the EU, not a failure of the trading system. The trading system is operating perfectly.
As far as I'm aware, emissions trading was invented by Enron. I remember reading about it when I worked there and thought at the time it was pretty evil and would ultimately fail to reduce global emissions, if not actually encourage the richest, worst polluters to do it without financial or legal repercussions.
It encourages companies to pollute in the same way a car registration fee encourages people to buy cars. :mellow:
Quote from: Brazen on February 17, 2012, 10:11:06 AM
As far as I'm aware, emissions trading was invented by Enron. I remember reading about it when I worked there and thought at the time it was pretty evil and would ultimately fail to reduce global emissions, if not actually encourage the richest, worst polluters to do it without financial or legal repercussions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program
Not to my knowledge. The SO2 program in the USA was the basis for the european and all other trading schemes for the simple reason that it worked.
I agree with the Guller-Yi positions.
The market is working exactly as designed. The permit supply is set exogenously by government fiat. If the supply was set too high, that is a problem with the governmental decision making process, not the trading market. This is a classic case of shooting the messenger.
Quote from: Viking on February 17, 2012, 11:07:33 AM
Quote from: Brazen on February 17, 2012, 10:11:06 AM
As far as I'm aware, emissions trading was invented by Enron. I remember reading about it when I worked there and thought at the time it was pretty evil and would ultimately fail to reduce global emissions, if not actually encourage the richest, worst polluters to do it without financial or legal repercussions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program
Not to my knowledge. The SO2 program in the USA was the basis for the european and all other trading schemes for the simple reason that it worked.
Right. Enron came up with the idea for the electricity wholesale market.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 17, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
I agree with the Guller-Yi positions.
The market is working exactly as designed. The permit supply is set exogenously by government fiat. If the supply was set too high, that is a problem with the governmental decision making process, not the trading market. This is a classic case of shooting the messenger.
Yeah, i am surprised that so many on this board are so totally ignorant of economic principals. Market pricing is a mechanism, not an objective. If a slow economy allows companies to meet emission targets without high costs, they can invest capital that would have been spent reducing emissions on improving other efficiencies. That's not failure. That's success.
In related news, I read that the EU and it's airline companies face various punitive measures from what is by all intent and purposes the rest of the world, after the EU insists on taxing airplanes via indulg... carbon emission permits after their entire flight path, upon take-off or landing on European soil. Needless to say this does not bode well with stuff like a New York - Paris flight.
China flat-out refused it's airlines to pay the sin-repention tax without getting permission from their own government first, and the big gathering of nations (including the USA) which will happen in Moscow on this topic will look into their trade treaties with the EU in general.
The EU is a magnificent idea, the only road forward for the nations on the continent, but I can't help thinking that it has become something like medieval China, collapsing under the weight of it's own bureaucracy
I'm on the EU's side on this one. It's not that much different from an airport tax, and it would only add around 2-3 euros per ticket.
I don't know much about emission certificates markets but I thought the whole idea was the government created a pool of them that had a fixed size, this total fixed size represents how much "total emissions for all the covered industries/emission types" is desired. My understanding is companies that go over their emissions allowance and exhaust their supply of credits have to pay some sort of penalty.
As long as the total supply of the certificates is such that it represents some decrease in total country-wide emissions prior to the issuing of the certificates, I fail to see how the price point of the certificates being low or high would necessarily impact total emissions country-wide. Yes, it may mean that some buyers will buy a bunch of them and pollute very heavily--but since the pool is fixed size that obviously means someone else isn't going to be able to do that.
Now, if the penalty for going over the emissions limits for your site (assuming you've done this and exhausted any credits you have) is extremely minor I can see how the credit system may not be substantially lowering emissions. However, as long as the penalty for going over is somewhat significant it will force those polluters to meaningfully increase the price of their product which will have its own limiting effect on emissions long term.
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
In related news, I read that the EU and it's airline companies face various punitive measures from what is by all intent and purposes the rest of the world, after the EU insists on taxing airplanes via indulg... carbon emission permits after their entire flight path, upon take-off or landing on European soil. Needless to say this does not bode well with stuff like a New York - Paris flight.
China flat-out refused it's airlines to pay the sin-repention tax without getting permission from their own government first, and the big gathering of nations (including the USA) which will happen in Moscow on this topic will look into their trade treaties with the EU in general.
The EU is a magnificent idea, the only road forward for the nations on the continent, but I can't help thinking that it has become something like medieval China, collapsing under the weight of it's own bureaucracy
Jet fuel is tax free and that's a massive distortion of the transport market in favor of airlines as every other transportation mode is taxed heavily. Introducing some kind of price for carbon emissions of aircraft makes sense to level the playing field. We should ban Chinese airlines from the EU if they are not willing to play by our rules. It's not like Beijing gives a fuck for what we think is proper either when setting policy (e.g. intellectual property protection, ownership rights etc.).
Your kneejerk anti-EU reflexes are probably what's to be expected of one of Orban's subjects though.
So the moral choice when facing irregularly high taxes on a sub-division of a sector, is to raise taxes on the rest of that sector, ha? :hmm:
Quote from: Zanza on February 18, 2012, 01:47:14 PM
Your kneejerk anti-EU reflexes are probably what's to be expected of one of Orban's subjects though.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.icanhascheezburger.com%2Fcompletestore%2F2008%2F8%2F3%2Fohnoyoudidn128622973596752390.jpg&hash=498fdecb66b3565bb283ec686ccc1ecf05e801fc)
Cheap stuff is bad. I see that clearly now.
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
The EU is a magnificent idea, the only road forward for the nations on the continent, but I can't help thinking that it has become something like medieval China, collapsing under the weight of it's own bureaucracy
You crazy bastard nations were better off, stronger, more robust, wealthier, when you were all fighting over some damn fool crown, colony or at the whim of a bored emperor. ;)
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
The EU is a magnificent idea, the only road forward for the nations on the continent, but I can't help thinking that it has become something like medieval China, collapsing under the weight of it's own bureaucracy
The problem was allowing any member state to remain independent. We realized that shit doesn't work in like a decade, and we fixed it. You guys are still chugging along with your confederation of crap, a "superstate" that can't even protect its constituents' rights in Hungary and appears more and more to be merely a vehicle for the advancement of German banking and manufacturing interests.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 18, 2012, 09:54:47 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
The EU is a magnificent idea, the only road forward for the nations on the continent, but I can't help thinking that it has become something like medieval China, collapsing under the weight of it's own bureaucracy
The problem was allowing any member state to remain independent. We realized that shit doesn't work in like a decade, and we fixed it. You guys are still chugging along with your confederation of crap, a "superstate" that can't even protect its constituents' rights in Hungary and appears more and more to be merely a vehicle for the advancement of German banking and manufacturing interests.
It's not like our superstate could protect its constituents' rights either, or at least cared to. Took us almost 200 years to succeed, more or less.
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
The EU is a magnificent idea, the only road forward for the nations on the continent, but I can't help thinking that it has become something like medieval China, collapsing under the weight of it's own bureaucracy
The massed EU bureaucrats thing is a bit of a myth. The EU employs less people than can fill up a premiership football stadium. Only around 25,000 IIRC.
Quote from: Tyr on February 19, 2012, 08:49:33 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2012, 11:36:00 AM
The EU is a magnificent idea, the only road forward for the nations on the continent, but I can't help thinking that it has become something like medieval China, collapsing under the weight of it's own bureaucracy
The massed EU bureaucrats thing is a bit of a myth. The EU employs less people than can fill up a premiership football stadium. Only around 25,000 IIRC.
A large portion of the bEUreaucracy (see what I did there?) are translators, anyhow.
Collapse under the weight of bureacracy could refer to the volume and intrusiveness of rules and regulations as well as the number of staff.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2012, 11:41:19 AM
Collapse under the weight of bureacracy could refer to the volume and intrusiveness of rules and regulations as well as the number of staff.
Yeah I didn't mean the number of people, that's usually the lesser problem. Their influence on stuff they shouldn't have influence on is the problem.
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2012, 02:33:46 PM
So the moral choice when facing irregularly high taxes on a sub-division of a sector, is to raise taxes on the rest of that sector, ha? :hmm:
It's a clear policy choice to make CO2 emissions more expensive. And when you make such a policy choice, it's both rational and moral to make the taxes as general as possible and not to have exceptions for special interests.
I am pretty sure the Chinese airlines did not refuse to pay this because of bureaucracy, so I don't see how that is relevant.
China is right to resist European attempts at extraterritoriality. They had enough of that a hundred years ago, and Europe doesn't really have any leverage to apply to China anyways.
Quote from: Zanza on February 19, 2012, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2012, 02:33:46 PM
So the moral choice when facing irregularly high taxes on a sub-division of a sector, is to raise taxes on the rest of that sector, ha? :hmm:
It's a clear policy choice to make CO2 emissions more expensive. And when you make such a policy choice, it's both rational and moral to make the taxes as general as possible and not to have exceptions for special interests.
Yeah but how sensible a policy is that? I am happy to know that the central comittee knows whats best and manufactures a grand plan to get us there, history shows that central planning and governmental stearing of the economy has produced wonders, and free economies of history can not possibly stand up to the wonders of what happened when a few people set their mind to run the organic and complex subject of the economy.
That said, while I appreciate that alternate energy sources can compete better if CO2 is taxed to high heavens (in case of airplanes, I guess we are looking at solar sails, huge moving wings with feathers, and nuclear drives), I am not sure it is to Europe's competitive advantage, as a whole, to overtax the only economically viable source of transportation and industrial engergy.
Because, I would gess, all these efforts mean fuckall to Gaia if the US, China, and India, keep smoking CO2 like it's nobodies business.
Quoteand nuclear drives
Oh man.
Quote from: WikiBecause such an aircraft's range would not have been limited by liquid jet fuel, it was theorized that nuclear-powered strategic bombers would be able to stay airborne for weeks at a time.
:mmm:
Quote from: Tamas on February 19, 2012, 12:57:28 PMYeah but how sensible a policy is that? I am happy to know that the central comittee knows whats best and manufactures a grand plan to get us there, history shows that central planning and governmental stearing of the economy has produced wonders, and free economies of history can not possibly stand up to the wonders of what happened when a few people set their mind to run the organic and complex subject of the economy.
That said, while I appreciate that alternate energy sources can compete better if CO2 is taxed to high heavens (in case of airplanes, I guess we are looking at solar sails, huge moving wings with feathers, and nuclear drives), I am not sure it is to Europe's competitive advantage, as a whole, to overtax the only economically viable source of transportation and industrial engergy.
Because, I would gess, all these efforts mean fuckall to Gaia if the US, China, and India, keep smoking CO2 like it's nobodies business.
That tired argument again? Not everybody is participating so we should not do anything either? :zzz
It is the argument of potentially sacrificing strategical advantages for zero effect. Except for the dubious moral one. Where we limit our industry and economic growth, then, since limiting our consumption is just out of the question, buy consumer goods made in Asia using Gaia-killing procedures and technologies.
What strategical advantage do we give up if we make Chinese aircraft pay a carbon tax? :hmm:
I, as you well know, am talking in general.
But, according to the International Herald Tribune article I read, European airlines and trade treaties may very well suffer because of this one particular step.
Quote from: Zanza on February 19, 2012, 03:13:16 PM
What strategical advantage do we give up if we make Chinese aircraft pay a carbon tax? :hmm:
Well, if they don't pay it, then Europe is left looking feeble and helpless.
Quote from: Zanza on February 19, 2012, 02:06:56 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 19, 2012, 12:57:28 PMYeah but how sensible a policy is that? I am happy to know that the central comittee knows whats best and manufactures a grand plan to get us there, history shows that central planning and governmental stearing of the economy has produced wonders, and free economies of history can not possibly stand up to the wonders of what happened when a few people set their mind to run the organic and complex subject of the economy.
That said, while I appreciate that alternate energy sources can compete better if CO2 is taxed to high heavens (in case of airplanes, I guess we are looking at solar sails, huge moving wings with feathers, and nuclear drives), I am not sure it is to Europe's competitive advantage, as a whole, to overtax the only economically viable source of transportation and industrial engergy.
Because, I would gess, all these efforts mean fuckall to Gaia if the US, China, and India, keep smoking CO2 like it's nobodies business.
That tired argument again? Not everybody is participating so we should not do anything either? :zzz
That's actually a pretty good argument, tired or not. Carbon dioxide pollution is a pollution that affect the whole world, not just surrounding areas of the polluter. Tackling that pollution alone is like unilateral disarmament: the less enlightened side gets an advantage, and uses that advantage to expand and cancel out the gains.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2012, 11:41:19 AM
Collapse under the weight of bureacracy could refer to the volume and intrusiveness of rules and regulations as well as the number of staff.
QuoteYeah I didn't mean the number of people, that's usually the lesser problem. Their influence on stuff they shouldn't have influence on is the problem.
Except the EU is good for this, it drastically reduces bureaucracy.
Without the EU you would have dozens of different bodies like the "European Banana Industry Association" and "The Alliance of European Bread Makers" all agreeing lots of complicated rules and regulations and standards amongst each other.
International standards just make sense. The EU consolidates things a lot.
Yeah, but the Alliance of European Bread Makers isn't likely to make a rule that only bread made in France can be labeled as 'bread', and that all other countries have to call their bread 'imitation loaf'.
Fuck the EU.
Quote from: Milton Friedman
The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest extent possible and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.
So you've given up reasoning and are down to quoting and soundbites now? We get it, you're a freak libertarian type of guy in a place where there are almost none. Get over it.
Quote from: The Larch on February 20, 2012, 04:41:29 AM
So you've given up reasoning and are down to quoting and soundbites now? We get it, you're a freak libertarian type of guy in a place where there are almost none. Get over it.
I spotted it on facebook and it fits the point I was trying to make :P
I have not given up reasoning, but I think you are getting a personal angst toward me because I keep voicing my opinion that your country's design is broken somewhere if you face such big unemployment. :P
Quote from: Tamas on February 20, 2012, 04:53:17 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 20, 2012, 04:41:29 AM
So you've given up reasoning and are down to quoting and soundbites now? We get it, you're a freak libertarian type of guy in a place where there are almost none. Get over it.
I spotted it on facebook and it fits the point I was trying to make :P
I have not given up reasoning, but I think you are getting a personal angst toward me because I keep voicing my opinion that your country's design is broken somewhere if you face such big unemployment. :P
No, I berate you because you're basically a clueless ideologically driven ignoramus that for some reason I can't fathom feels entitled to lecture people on libertarian bullcrap applied to places you don't have the foggiest idea about from behind your IT desk. If you talk about Hungarian stuff or IT stuff I won't bat an eyelid, you're the expert. If you start mouthing off about "comfy welfare states like Spain" I'm going to call you on it because it's plain and simple that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Like lack of knowledge is stopping most people here :P
And my hyperbole was on a base supplied by what you Spaniards told here about the rigid and uneven laws concerning employment, plus the news coming of needed cuts of government spending. "too much welfare" is hardly the most impossible conclusion on these, altough wording it "state intervention" might have been better at keeping you calm :P
The Larch is a lusty Spaniard. There is no way to head off his rage, but it is a fleeting thing.
Then he writes sonnets about windmills.
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2012, 11:05:16 PM
Yeah, but the Alliance of European Bread Makers isn't likely to make a rule that only bread made in France can be labeled as 'bread', and that all other countries have to call their bread 'imitation loaf'.
Fuck the EU.
I strongly support the geographic food name thingy (the term escapes me), lets local areas profit from their heritage. And its not like it goes to such crazy extents as French bread can only be made in France, it tends to be applied pretty logically, just makes sure for instance that Kendel keeps control of its famed mint cake and the like.
I do believe such laws are spreading beyond the EU too.
Quote from: Tyr on February 20, 2012, 09:48:41 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 19, 2012, 11:05:16 PM
Yeah, but the Alliance of European Bread Makers isn't likely to make a rule that only bread made in France can be labeled as 'bread', and that all other countries have to call their bread 'imitation loaf'.
Fuck the EU.
I strongly support the geographic food name thingy (the term escapes me), lets local areas profit from their heritage. And its not like it goes to such crazy extents as French bread can only be made in France, it tends to be applied pretty logically, just makes sure for instance that Kendel keeps control of its famed mint cake and the like.
I do believe such laws are spreading beyond the EU too.
Those laws are foolish and utterly evil, and are usually spread through corruption.
Quote from: Tyr on February 20, 2012, 09:48:41 AM
I strongly support the geographic food name thingy (the term escapes me), lets local areas profit from their heritage. And its not like it goes to such crazy extents as French bread can only be made in France, it tends to be applied pretty logically, just makes sure for instance that Kendel keeps control of its famed mint cake and the like.
I do believe such laws are spreading beyond the EU too.
In practical terms, however, finding real, good, cheap
baguette/
pain (bigger
baguette) outside of France is almost impossible so no law is needed. :P
Quote from: Tamas on February 20, 2012, 04:32:43 AM
Quote from: Milton Friedman
The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest extent possible and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.
What an excellent quote to demonstrate the problems with Libertarianism. The total refusal to see that coercion can come from non-state entities. Through out the history of the US tyranny has not come from the government, but from individuals. Millions of people lived in a state of chattel slavery. Not slaves of the government, but slaves owned by private individualism. It was the concentration of government power that freed them.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2012, 10:29:17 AM
Quote from: Tamas on February 20, 2012, 04:32:43 AM
Quote from: Milton Friedman
The fundamental threat to freedom is the power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of such concentration of power to the fullest extent possible and the dispersal and distribution of whatever power cannot be eliminated — a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement.
What an excellent quote to demonstrate the problems with Libertarianism. The total refusal to see that coercion can come from non-state entities. Through out the history of the US tyranny has not come from the government, but from individuals. Millions of people lived in a state of chattel slavery. Not slaves of the government, but slaves owned by private individualism. It was the concentration of government power that freed them.
The Friedman quote doesn't say that coercion comes only from government sources. Rather, it says that concentration of power is a threat to freedom, and therefore power shouldn't be concentrated more than necessary (though of course, even if among those who agree with this in principle, there's a lot of room to disagree about how much concentration of power is "necessary"), and proposes free economic markets as a means of lessening concentration of power in the government.
The founding fathers (with a few exceptions) would certainly agree that it was dangerous to concentrate too much power in the federal government. But when they came to the conclusion that the Articles of Confederation didn't concentrate enough power in the federal government, they replaced the Articles with the Constitution, which while still a federal system, gave far more power to the central government--in other words, they came to the conclusion that more concentration of power than provided for by the Articles was necessary.
The Freidman quote doesn't use any examples of coercion that aren't governmental.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2012, 10:52:16 AM
The Freidman quote doesn't use any examples of coercion that aren't governmental.
Maybe because Friedman was usually pushing the least-government-possible stance? Just maybe.
Quote from: Tamas on February 20, 2012, 12:27:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2012, 10:52:16 AM
The Freidman quote doesn't use any examples of coercion that aren't governmental.
Maybe because Friedman was usually pushing the least-government-possible stance? Just maybe.
Yes, and the reason creationists don't give credit to evolution is because they're pushing the "God did it" stance. I'm not sure how either of those things are much of a defense.
Quote from: Tamas on February 20, 2012, 12:27:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2012, 10:52:16 AM
The Freidman quote doesn't use any examples of coercion that aren't governmental.
Maybe because Friedman was usually pushing the least-government-possible stance? Just maybe.
So?
Quote from: Tamas on February 20, 2012, 12:27:04 PM
Maybe because Friedman was usually pushing the least-government-possible stance? Just maybe.
I don't think people understand the principle of an example. No matter how many examples given by someone they disagree with for tribal reasons, they will always insist that there are not enough.
Don't even try to counter such arguments. Ignore them, and focus on discussions with people who are actually interested in discussing, rather than merely declaiming.
:yawn: You are still going with this thing?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2012, 07:35:24 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 20, 2012, 12:27:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 20, 2012, 10:52:16 AM
The Freidman quote doesn't use any examples of coercion that aren't governmental.
Maybe because Friedman was usually pushing the least-government-possible stance? Just maybe.
So?
Since Friedman's public appearances has been mostly -or exclusively, I don't know- about his pet topic of reducing government interference in economics, it should come as no surprise to anyone that his quotes are found in the context of reducing government interference in economi.cs.
But of course you very well know that. You are just nitpicking because liberalism is not in the left's team which you have committed yourself to.
Quote from: Tamas on February 21, 2012, 02:37:40 AM
Since Friedman's public appearances has been mostly -or exclusively, I don't know- about his pet topic of reducing government interference in economics, it should come as no surprise to anyone that his quotes are found in the context of reducing government interference in economi.cs.
But of course you very well know that. You are just nitpicking because liberalism is not in the left's team which you have committed yourself to.
That may be true, but that just makes him an ideologue. And forgetting that humans have to eat, cloth themselves, and live somewhere, which in an advanced civilized society almost always means having someone wield an economic power over you, is a very textbook basic thing libertarians forget. This is also why their ideology, when not diluted with a dose of reality, is such a bunk.
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 08:37:40 AM
That may be true, but that just makes him an ideologue. And forgetting that humans have to eat, cloth themselves, and live somewhere, which in an advanced civilized society almost always means having someone wield an economic power over you, is a very textbook basic thing libertarians forget. This is also why their ideology, when not diluted with a dose of reality, is such a bunk.
What does anything you say here have to do with Friedman? He doesn't argue that people should not eat, clothe themselves, and live somewhere, even if doing so means that they must have economic interactions with others. He is arguing that, to maximize freedom, economic power should be dispersed as much possible, so that your scenario of having people wield economic power over others is minimized.
You are forgetting that Friedman's value here is not conformity, but freedom. Once they read what he actually says here, I think even textbook conformitarians will be able to grasp that.
WAD. :rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on February 21, 2012, 08:48:48 AM
What does anything you say here have to do with Friedman? He doesn't argue that people should not eat, clothe themselves, and live somewhere, even if doing so means that they must have economic interactions with others. He is arguing that, to maximize freedom, economic power should be dispersed as much possible, so that your scenario of having people wield economic power over others is minimized.
You are forgetting that Friedman's value here is not conformity, but freedom. Once they read what he actually says here, I think even textbook conformitarians will be able to grasp that.
Yes, he does say that in general, but his list of examples all includes government. If he was also concerned about abuse of economic power, then he might have snuck that in instead of one of the four government-related entities he mentioned.
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 08:59:04 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 21, 2012, 08:48:48 AM
What does anything you say here have to do with Friedman? He doesn't argue that people should not eat, clothe themselves, and live somewhere, even if doing so means that they must have economic interactions with others. He is arguing that, to maximize freedom, economic power should be dispersed as much possible, so that your scenario of having people wield economic power over others is minimized.
You are forgetting that Friedman's value here is not conformity, but freedom. Once they read what he actually says here, I think even textbook conformitarians will be able to grasp that.
Yes, he does say that in general, but his list of examples all includes government. If he was also concerned about abuse of economic power, then he might have snuck that in instead of one of the four government-related entities he mentioned.
Ok Raz. Jesus it's a fucking quote from somewhere and you attack it because it does not come with a complete disclaimer.
Also, two general things:
-it is very lazy to turn to the most idiotic Ryand lunacy when "debating" libertarianism. I am not throwing hippies and soviets at you in turn, do notice that.
-I am not convinced that "least government intervention possible" is a libertarian agenda. Or rather, it should not be. It is liberalism, but in this age, a "liberal" is a socialist with no balls.
Quote from: Tamas on February 21, 2012, 09:06:12 AM
-I am not convinced that "least government intervention possible" is a libertarian agenda. Or rather, it should not be. It is liberalism, but in this age, a "liberal" is a socialist with no balls.
The past is in the past. Political ideologies evolve along with the world and its conditions. If the ideology stays the same for 200 years, then it's either horribly ineffective, or horribly divorced from reality.
The old classic liberals were so successful in the past, that the need for them as a political force disappeared, and only the fringe is left that advocates that a good thing in excess is an even better thing. Now the biggest problems are the side effects of what has largely been a success, like for example pollution that can kill us all.
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 09:52:00 AM
Now the biggest problems are the side effects of what has largely been a success, like for example pollution that can kill us all.
That was CLEARLY avoided by industrialization via state control!
I think it is misguided to characterise classic liberalism as "least government intervention possible."
You have to remember that liberalism formed more or less as a reaction to absolutism (which meants "a whole lot of government intervention"), but it didn't call for dismantling of the state or reducing it to its bare functions. I don't think there has ever been a classic liberal who supported the nonsense modern day libertarians spout. If there ever was a political ideology reminiscent of Ayn Rand style lunatics, it's probably anarcho-syndicalism or catholic distributism.
Quote from: Martinus on February 21, 2012, 10:22:40 AM
I think it is misguided to characterise classic liberalism as "least government intervention possible."
You have to remember that liberalism formed more or less as a reaction to absolutism (which meants "a whole lot of government intervention"), but it didn't call for dismantling of the state or reducing it to its bare functions.
yet their states only held bare functions compared to the stuff we have today in many countries. Some of these are necessary because of the development we have seen. But all? Nah.
Quote from: Tamas on February 21, 2012, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 08:59:04 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 21, 2012, 08:48:48 AM
What does anything you say here have to do with Friedman? He doesn't argue that people should not eat, clothe themselves, and live somewhere, even if doing so means that they must have economic interactions with others. He is arguing that, to maximize freedom, economic power should be dispersed as much possible, so that your scenario of having people wield economic power over others is minimized.
You are forgetting that Friedman's value here is not conformity, but freedom. Once they read what he actually says here, I think even textbook conformitarians will be able to grasp that.
Yes, he does say that in general, but his list of examples all includes government. If he was also concerned about abuse of economic power, then he might have snuck that in instead of one of the four government-related entities he mentioned.
Ok Raz. Jesus it's a fucking quote from somewhere and you attack it because it does not come with a complete disclaimer.
Also, two general things:
-it is very lazy to turn to the most idiotic Ryand lunacy when "debating" libertarianism. I am not throwing hippies and soviets at you in turn, do notice that.
-I am not convinced that "least government intervention possible" is a libertarian agenda. Or rather, it should not be. It is liberalism, but in this age, a "liberal" is a socialist with no balls.
Yeah, here's the thing. Friedman is a bit notorious because of his relationship with Chile. I get the impression that he and other libertarians value economic freedom over political freedom, and really don't care that much about civil rights. They are concerned about government abuses, but really aren't interested in private abuses. In fact, if you reduce government who is going defend individuals against other individuals? Especially when those individuals are wealthy? Things like the Truck system, peonage, debt bondage, and even slavery are oppressive coercion that happen on the private scale. Libertarians don't show much concern about such things and are hell bent on the only things that can really combat them.
Pinochet was no doubt a brutal rightwing asshole. Who happened to replace a brutal leftwing asshole.
I am not aware of Friedman's students making him enact any of the political tyranny. They did build a functional economy there though, you gotta' give them that.
The only relevant thing I recall hearing from Friedman was refusing an accusation that he puts equality between economical freedom and political freedom. He said that the former was a requirement for the latter, and on that he is spot on.
Quote from: Tamas on February 21, 2012, 12:16:16 PM
Pinochet was no doubt a brutal rightwing asshole. Who happened to replace a brutal leftwing asshole.
I am not aware of Friedman's students making him enact any of the political tyranny. They did build a functional economy there though, you gotta' give them that.
The only relevant thing I recall hearing from Friedman was refusing an accusation that he puts equality between economical freedom and political freedom. He said that the former was a requirement for the latter, and on that he is spot on.
What brutal left wing asshole did he replace?
And no it's not spot on. Many European countries have less economic freedom then places like Singapore or Hong Kong, yet they seem fairly stable.
Quote from: Tamas on February 21, 2012, 12:16:16 PM
Pinochet was no doubt a brutal rightwing asshole. Who happened to replace a brutal leftwing asshole.
I am not aware of Friedman's students making him enact any of the political tyranny. They did build a functional economy there though, you gotta' give them that.
The only relevant thing I recall hearing from Friedman was refusing an accusation that he puts equality between economical freedom and political freedom. He said that the former was a requirement for the latter, and on that he is spot on.
I will let others deal with the idiocy of the statement that Pinochet replaced a "brutal leftwing asshole".
As for the second idiotic statement, China has a much greater "economic freedom" than the EU. You are an idiot. No wonder your country of fucking gypsy peasants who call themselves Hungarians elected someone like Orban.
Marty, are you able to disagree with someone without resorting to insulting them personally and then their whole country? I mean, I know it's Languish & all, but you let yourself get way too worked up sometimes.
Actually, I understand Tamas's libertarian stance. He comes from a country that had despotic regime that governed nearly every facet of human life. I'm a bit surprised that everyone isn't a libertarian in that place.
Quote from: derspiess on February 21, 2012, 01:27:28 PM
Marty, are you able to disagree with someone without resorting to insulting them personally and then their whole country? I mean, I know it's Languish & all, but you let yourself get way too worked up sometimes.
I mentioned before that the one trait Marty shares with grumbler is anything they disagree with is monumentally stupid, but on further reflection I think Marty can disagree civilly about things like TV shows and food.
Quote from: Martinus on February 21, 2012, 01:05:35 PM
I will let others deal with the idiocy of the statement that Pinochet replaced a "brutal leftwing asshole".
I will not get into fighting ancient leftist pantheons, so they can save their breath.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2012, 11:05:55 AM
I get the impression that he and other libertarians value economic freedom over political freedom, and really don't care that much about civil rights. They are concerned about government abuses, but really aren't interested in private abuses. In fact, if you reduce government who is going defend individuals against other individuals? Especially when those individuals are wealthy? Things like the Truck system, peonage, debt bondage, and even slavery are oppressive coercion that happen on the private scale. Libertarians don't show much concern about such things and are hell bent on the only things that can really combat them.
Those things may "happen" on a private scale, but they couldn't flourish without laws that bolster them. While I certainly don't want to be associated with his policies in anyone's mind, I have to say that Stephen Douglas was right when he said in the Lincold-Douglas debates that the southern slave system couldn't exist without the slave codes, so even though the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case threw open previously free territories to slavery, in practice slavery couldn't spread there without laws on the books to maintain it.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2012, 11:05:55 AM
Yeah, here's the thing. Friedman is a bit notorious because of his relationship with Chile.
:huh:
Uh, no.
He's "notorious" for being a Nobel-award winning economist, and one who has influenced several decades of economic thought.
Friedman AFAIK met Pincohet once and wrote him a 3 page letter. The letter said nothing that one couldn't figure out from reading MF's papers and op eds. He said Chile should deal with inflation by decreasing money creation and cutting government spending. What's the big deal?
Quote from: Tamas on February 21, 2012, 02:56:14 PM
I will not get into fighting ancient leftist pantheons, so they can save their breath.
The problem with Allende was how much the Soviets were willing to pump up a Marxist Chile, not Allende's "brutality". I've looked at a lot of Latin/South American history from a number of politically different sources and don't ever recall anyone mentioning that Allende was a brutal dictator. He busted up some strikes in '72, until that was declared illegal...which ended his strikebreaking.
If you want to talk about brutal left-wing dictators in Latin/South America, you can come up with considerably better examples than Allende.
I don't know much about Allende except him being a leftist holy cow. Lunatic is a better word maybe then? I remember reading a couple of personal accounts of the country during his rule. Didn't come up exactly positive but of course it could have been biased.
Quote from: Tamas on February 21, 2012, 03:46:52 PM
I don't know much about Allende except him being a leftist holy cow. Lunatic is a better word maybe then? I remember reading a couple of personal accounts of the country during his rule. Didn't come up exactly positive but of course it could have been biased.
I mean - I guess if you define "lunatic" as "someone who doesn't agree with me" then maybe?
He was a Marxist. I think people were right to assume that his policies would have caused problems down the line for Chile. Trying to make him into a tyrant in order to justify or mitigate Pinochet is probably taking it too far.
EDIT: And yes, I am fully aware I used to be a Pinochet supporter.
Allende was not a lunatic. He was a radical trying to further a radical agenda without broad-based political support.
Fair enough.
Pinochet is not an example you want to use if you want to maintain moral idealism. It is certain that he was a murderous thug. He wasn't in Assad's or Hussein's league, but a thug he was nonetheless.
At the same time, it is also nearly certain that Chile under him went in a much better direction that it would've gove with Allende at the helm. The economy was already in the dumps when he died, and in any case we now know that Marxism is never good news for the economy.
Good luck trying to calculate how much extra GDP is enough to justify a murder of one opposition activist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2012, 04:04:39 PM
Allende was not a lunatic. He was a radical trying to further a radical agenda without broad-based political support.
So Obama, basically?
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Pinochet is not an example you want to use if you want to maintain moral idealism. It is certain that he was a murderous thug. He wasn't in Assad's or Hussein's league, but a thug he was nonetheless.
At the same time, it is also nearly certain that Chile under him went in a much better direction that it would've gove with Allende at the helm. The economy was already in the dumps when he died, and in any case we now know that Marxism is never good news for the economy.
Good luck trying to calculate how much extra GDP is enough to justify a murder of one opposition activist.
I have no desire to use Pinochet as any kind of moral compass. He was brought up as "omg he is proof that Friedman was an evil fraud"
Quote from: Tamas on February 21, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Pinochet is not an example you want to use if you want to maintain moral idealism. It is certain that he was a murderous thug. He wasn't in Assad's or Hussein's league, but a thug he was nonetheless.
At the same time, it is also nearly certain that Chile under him went in a much better direction that it would've gove with Allende at the helm. The economy was already in the dumps when he died, and in any case we now know that Marxism is never good news for the economy.
Good luck trying to calculate how much extra GDP is enough to justify a murder of one opposition activist.
I have no desire to use Pinochet as any kind of moral compass. He was brought up as "omg he is proof that Friedman was an evil fraud"
I wasn't addressing you, though I can see how it can look like that since I posted after you.
Quote from: dps on February 21, 2012, 03:01:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2012, 11:05:55 AM
I get the impression that he and other libertarians value economic freedom over political freedom, and really don't care that much about civil rights. They are concerned about government abuses, but really aren't interested in private abuses. In fact, if you reduce government who is going defend individuals against other individuals? Especially when those individuals are wealthy? Things like the Truck system, peonage, debt bondage, and even slavery are oppressive coercion that happen on the private scale. Libertarians don't show much concern about such things and are hell bent on the only things that can really combat them.
Those things may "happen" on a private scale, but they couldn't flourish without laws that bolster them. While I certainly don't want to be associated with his policies in anyone's mind, I have to say that Stephen Douglas was right when he said in the Lincold-Douglas debates that the southern slave system couldn't exist without the slave codes, so even though the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case threw open previously free territories to slavery, in practice slavery couldn't spread there without laws on the books to maintain it.
These things don't require laws to bolster them. Just people with weapons to keep things under control, and no larger body to prevent it from happening. I suspect that slavery predated many of the slave codes. Hell, you have occasion now where slavery occurs illegally. The human trafficking trade is flourishing and is still quite illegal.
Yeah, slavery is still a thing today.
Wikipedia says there's about 30 million: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 08:59:04 AM
Yes, he does say that in general, but his list of examples all includes government. If he was also concerned about abuse of economic power, then he might have snuck that in instead of one of the four government-related entities he mentioned.
His main idea, in this snippet, is how, by "removing the organization of economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a reinforcement." The whole quote is a mere three sentences long! :lol:
You cannot expect Friedman, in every three sentences he wrote, to list all concerns about abuses of economic power!
Quote from: Tamas on February 21, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Pinochet is not an example you want to use if you want to maintain moral idealism. It is certain that he was a murderous thug. He wasn't in Assad's or Hussein's league, but a thug he was nonetheless.
At the same time, it is also nearly certain that Chile under him went in a much better direction that it would've gove with Allende at the helm. The economy was already in the dumps when he died, and in any case we now know that Marxism is never good news for the economy.
Good luck trying to calculate how much extra GDP is enough to justify a murder of one opposition activist.
I have no desire to use Pinochet as any kind of moral compass. He was brought up as "omg he is proof that Friedman was an evil fraud"
I don't recall saying the words "Evil" or "Fraud".
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2012, 08:31:00 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 21, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Pinochet is not an example you want to use if you want to maintain moral idealism. It is certain that he was a murderous thug. He wasn't in Assad's or Hussein's league, but a thug he was nonetheless.
At the same time, it is also nearly certain that Chile under him went in a much better direction that it would've gove with Allende at the helm. The economy was already in the dumps when he died, and in any case we now know that Marxism is never good news for the economy.
Good luck trying to calculate how much extra GDP is enough to justify a murder of one opposition activist.
I have no desire to use Pinochet as any kind of moral compass. He was brought up as "omg he is proof that Friedman was an evil fraud"
I don't recall saying the words "Evil" or "Fraud".
Apparently I can better express your thoughts than you can, then. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2012, 06:39:49 PM
These things don't require laws to bolster them. Just people with weapons to keep things under control, and no larger body to prevent it from happening. I suspect that slavery predated many of the slave codes. Hell, you have occasion now where slavery occurs illegally. The human trafficking trade is flourishing and is still quite illegal.
I agree with Raz. :huh:
Anyway, as a free market liberal (my closest political ideology is the so-called "soc-liberalism" or "social liberalism"), I gotta say that the "invisible hand of the market" myth, despite having been debunked (and constantly being debunked) countless of times, has more supporters than the most popular ideas of Marx and is equally bullshit.
Just as lack of checks and balances in political power leads to tyranny, lack of controls in free market leads to monopolization which is bad for everyone involved (except, short term for the monopolist). Not to mention, it erroneously assumes that economic efficiency is the only sensible criterion of judging social processes, which is also patently untrue.
Quote from: Jacob on February 21, 2012, 04:50:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2012, 04:04:39 PM
Allende was not a lunatic. He was a radical trying to further a radical agenda without broad-based political support.
So Obama, basically?
Or Thatcher, or almost any other politician.
I don't get the criticism and extreme reaction against Friedman :mellow:
Having said that I think it's weird that people still find an example in Chile.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 22, 2012, 05:24:04 AM
Or Thatcher, or almost any other politician.
:lol: Exactly. Allende's fate is an example of what happens when one tries to press a small political edge into a revolutionary mandate. The argument that Maggie fate is the same is an interesting one.
[/quote]I don't get the criticism and extreme reaction against Friedman :mellow: [/quote]
Ignorance and a desire to "score points," I think. Classical liberalism is pretty much the definition of the political center, but when tribal thinkers argue about politics, the political extremes are "all of us" and "all of them." Friedman is one of "them" and so tribal thinkers lump him in with Marx as an extremist.
Not that I agree with Friedman 100%, but at least I can accept his convincing arguments and reject only those I find unpersuasive.
QuoteHaving said that I think it's weird that people still find an example in Chile.
Using Chile as an example of Friedman's thinking is an act of desperation. To the tribal thinkers, Friedman is an extremist without any actual extreme views, so they have to exaggerate something he did say into an extremist position.
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2012, 07:25:22 AM
Ignorance and a desire to "score points," I think. Classical liberalism is pretty much the definition of the political center, but when tribal thinkers argue about politics, the political extremes are "all of us" and "all of them." Friedman is one of "them" and so tribal thinkers lump him in with Marx as an extremist.
Not that I agree with Friedman 100%, but at least I can accept his convincing arguments and reject only those I find unpersuasive.
I don't agree that classical liberalism's necessarily the political centre.
But I find the knocking down of a very important thinker because he's not 'one of us' disagreeable. As you say judge his arguments on the merits and acknowledge his importance and that he has made significant contributions. There's no point citing him like scripture if it's not part of a wider argument, but I think attacking him with similar zeal is just bizarre.
Edit: I'd especially dispute that Tamas's version of classical liberalism is the centre.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 22, 2012, 07:43:20 AM
I don't agree that classical liberalism's necessarily the political centre.
I should have noted that classical liberalism was practically the definition of the center of the classical political spectrum. You are correct that the modern 2D political "spectrum" doesn't have the same center.
If you are going to troll, you should do better then simply adopting Berkut's thing. I mean, you have enough unpleasant qualities that you don't needed to borrow those of other people.
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2012, 07:25:22 AM
:lol: Exactly. Allende's fate is an example of what happens when one tries to press a small political edge into a revolutionary mandate.
Bingo.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2012, 12:15:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2012, 07:25:22 AM
:lol: Exactly. Allende's fate is an example of what happens when one tries to press a small political edge into a revolutionary mandate.
Bingo.
I don't know if a military coup is the expected result of trying to, "press a small political edge into a revolutionary mandate.".
Quote from: Razgovory on February 22, 2012, 03:46:36 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 22, 2012, 12:15:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2012, 07:25:22 AM
:lol: Exactly. Allende's fate is an example of what happens when one tries to press a small political edge into a revolutionary mandate.
Bingo.
I don't know if a military coup is the expected result of trying to, "press a small political edge into a revolutionary mandate.".
In Latin America? Are you serious??
Oh, I thought this was meant in general.
The fact is that if GOP candidate came up today espousing core ideas of Milton Friedman in the 70s - negative income tax and rule-based central bank following counter-cyclical monetary policy - he would be pilloried by the entire field as an elitist closet liberal.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 22, 2012, 07:09:44 PM
The fact is that if GOP candidate came up today espousing core ideas of Milton Friedman in the 70s - negative income tax and rule-based central bank following counter-cyclical monetary policy - he would be pilloried by the entire field as an elitist closet liberal.
The Earned Income Tax Credit passed under a GOP House IIRC. I've never heard anyone propose abolishing it.
Not sure why you think Freidman's money supply rule would be pilloried by the entire field as an elistist closet liberal plan.
Not really counter-cyclical either. It's cycle-neutral.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2012, 08:38:42 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 22, 2012, 07:09:44 PM
The fact is that if GOP candidate came up today espousing core ideas of Milton Friedman in the 70s - negative income tax and rule-based central bank following counter-cyclical monetary policy - he would be pilloried by the entire field as an elitist closet liberal.
The Earned Income Tax Credit passed under a GOP House IIRC. I've never heard anyone propose abolishing it.
Not sure why you think Freidman's money supply rule would be pilloried by the entire field as an elistist closet liberal plan.
Not really counter-cyclical either. It's cycle-neutral.
The earned income credit doesn't really function as a negative income tax, though. It's effective function is to act as a government subsidy for low-income people to make babies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2012, 08:38:42 PM
The Earned Income Tax Credit passed under a GOP House IIRC. I've never heard anyone propose abolishing it.
It didn't. It passed under a Democratic controlled House and IIRC that was so every time is was expanded. What is definitely true is that prior to the Obama presidency, EITC had considerable of bipartisan support. But there have always been elements in the GOP that have opposed it (eg the infamous WSJ "lucky ducky" op-ed) and when Obama made EITC expansion part of the stimulus bill, opponents came out of the woodwork.
QuoteNot sure why you think Freidman's money supply rule would be pilloried by the entire field as an elistist closet liberal plan.
Because two of the four GOP candidates left have proposed moving to some kind of gold standard, and a third (Santorum) has proposed abolishing the dual mandate and auditing the Fed, which is in tension with Friedman's view that the Fed should actively and aggressively expand money supply to support growth when depression looms. The fourth- Romney - has advocating firing Bernanke based on Romney's opposition to QE, which is something that Friedman approved of doing in the proper circumstances.
QuoteNot really counter-cyclical either. It's cycle-neutral.
It's counter-cyclical in impact, because the effect is that the central bank's issuance of high powered money must expand during a depression and contract during a boom, in order to keep the broader monetary aggregates stable. (MF wanted to target M2).
Quote from: Razgovory on February 21, 2012, 08:31:00 PM
Quote from: Tamas on February 21, 2012, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 21, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Pinochet is not an example you want to use if you want to maintain moral idealism. It is certain that he was a murderous thug. He wasn't in Assad's or Hussein's league, but a thug he was nonetheless.
At the same time, it is also nearly certain that Chile under him went in a much better direction that it would've gove with Allende at the helm. The economy was already in the dumps when he died, and in any case we now know that Marxism is never good news for the economy.
Good luck trying to calculate how much extra GDP is enough to justify a murder of one opposition activist.
I have no desire to use Pinochet as any kind of moral compass. He was brought up as "omg he is proof that Friedman was an evil fraud"
I don't recall saying the words "Evil" or "Fraud".
Your words, for posterity:
Quote from: RazgovoryFriedman is a bit notorious because of his relationship with Chile. I get the impression that he and other libertarians value economic freedom over political freedom, and really don't care that much about civil rights.
YOu did not say evil or fraud, but what you said was fairly ridiculous because Friedman had no meaningful relationship with Chile, and he cared very much about civil rights. It's just that since he was, you know, an economist, he wrote a lot more about economics and how civil rights impacted his chosen field of study.