The Poor Get Richer

Why do you guys so often allow muirgeo to become the center of attention at Cafe Hayek? Is there any possibility that his perception will ever be changed? Is there any possibility that he will ever change your views? So what's the point?

The answer to your rhetorical question is "no". Worse, he doesn't have a clear idea of what his own views are and he's incapable of understanding either himself or anyone else - let alone changing anything.

The answer to your your last question is that one way to pass the time while digesting an enormous Thanksgiving feast is to place a small laptop on your distended belly and toy with the village idiot.

Wow so we are looking at data from 2005 and showing how swimmingly things are going??

Is that because of Libertarian politics up to that point in time?

Now lets play the tape forward being as IT IS 2009... how'd things work out???

muirgeo,

You've been commenting here for years and you still have no idea what "Libertarian" means in the context of this blog. So, here's Radley Balko (articulate run-of-the-mill libertarian) describing libertarianism, Bush, and Kerry in 2004. Note the wide disparity between accepted libertarian actions and Bush's (hence the country's) actions:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136114,00.html

This should clear up quite a lot of confusion for you.

I ask over and over about libertarianism... like when. Tell me of a place and time of which you mean.

On what evidentiary basis do you all make the claim unfettered markets promote personal liberty?

I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean by libertarianism. I'm not sure why you think it leads to maximization personal freedom or even increased market efficiency.


You guys can NEVER:

-point to a successful libertarian society. (Historical or current)

- explain why if it is so efficient it is so rare. Hell what happened to self emergence?

- never can explain how a libertarian society WOULD NOT lead to a small minority owning all the land and thus lead to serfdom

- never explain how you would get to a libertarian society WITH OUT use of force since almost no one desires it.


Answer those question reasonably and you'll have addressed things I've never seen addressed in the years I've been blogging here.

I understand why people like the idea of libertarian philosophy ( I voted libertarian in 1988). I don't understand why any rational thinking person doesn't see the real world conflicts I mentioned above as posing insurmountable obstacles to its implication.

Once again....it promotes liberty and efficiency through the direct reward of individual effort. It's not a difficult concept. On the flip side, how can you possibly make the case that a group of government bureaucrats can POSSIBLY make better decisions than the collective opinions of the public? Answer: you can't. Throughout history, there has NEVER been a successful centrally planned economy. Ever. Why would you want to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again?

muirgeo,

I'm trying to focus tightly on one specific statement of yours. Because we don't agree about much, if we want progress we need to pin things down and move step by boring step. So:

"Is that because of Libertarian politics up to that point in time (2005)?"

You've just written that there's never been a libertarian society, never can be, etc. so that would probably mean that our society doesn't ascribe to many libertarian policies. I linked to the Balko piece because it shows how a run-of-the-mill libertarian would be so disaffected by Bush's actions and policies, that he would be UNABLE TO RECOMMEND HIM OVER KERRY. In it, he cited lots of evidence about how Bush was counter-liberty. So, Balko agrees with you. We don't have a very libertarian society and the party of Goldwater has almost no connection to Goldwater. How is it that the libertarian policies of the 2000s lead to the crash (re-read the Balko piece if you find yourself straying). And don't give me some retarded shit about Greenspan. Most of this board would call a central bank a criminal usurpation of power.

That's exactly right. Anyone that thinks the U.S. has recently practiced libertarianism is either dishonest, blind, or purely a fool. The phrase "compassionate conservatism" is nothing more than liberalism hiding behind a conservative persona. A Libertarian would not have introduced the (until now) largest entitlement program since the Raw Deal of the 1930s, the Prescription Drug Program. And no Libertarian would have gone a full first term without vetoing a single spending bill. The 2000s were a lot of things, but Libertarian isn't one of them.

Yes but I can point to many policy changes that progressives would NOT support and libertarians would support that ultimately set the tone for the economy.

So the argument was that policy changes were MORE in the direction of libertarian principles and further away from progressive principles.

So deregulation like getting rid of Glass Steagal, Greenspans non-enforcement tone and massive tax cuts libertarians would support while progressives would. There are many more a lot of which where Supreme Court decisions that consistently favored corporations over individuals. So no there wasn't a full on libertarian society but a push more in that direction then in the progressive direction.

And things are further complicated because as you get more concentration of wealth you get more concentration of power and infiltration of the government by people with money who now make non-libertarian (think TARP) decisions that you won't claim as yours.

But ultimately libertarian policies result in wealthy people controlling both the economy and policy.

But indeed many of the worse policies like the Iraq war and government cronyism we might both agree on as being bad.

After the tax cuts were enacted, gross tax receipts skyrocketed, setting a record in 2006. Let me translate for you. In 2006, Uncle Sam collected more money than ever, in the history of the United State, since Day 1. The problem is that it also spent much more on those very same alleged "safety nets" that are actually going broke and sending us to the poor house. Tax policy has a HUGE affect on business activity (yes, some level of taxation is necessary), but a growing welfare state is proven to be the road to national bankruptcy. Period.

muirgeo: The only way to win is not to play.

"...ultimately libertarian policies result in wealthy people controlling both the economy and policy."

Probably. Can you point to any time in history when this has not been true? And do you seriously believe that it is not true under our current Progressive regime? So the question is what do the wealthy people who control the economy and the policies do? And we come around again to the need for a limited government. Its the only way to stop the exploitation.

P.S. I would much rather work for a rich libertarian capitalist than a rich progressive exploiter. The capitalists pay better and don't try to tell me how to live my life.

Amen!

"-point to a successful libertarian society."

I can no more point to a successful "libertarian society" than you can point to a successful social democracy. What I can do (as has been done many times in the past) is point you to places that have opened their markets and that have deregulated and have seen major increases in their standard of living.
-Hong Kong
-Singapore
-Taiwan
-Estonia
-Chile, etc, etc...

I've given you the data in the past, you can look it up to try and prove me wrong if you want.

"- explain why if it is so efficient it is so rare. Hell what happened to self emergence?"

By your reasoning slavery and totalitarianism are the most "efficient" as for thousands of years they were the norm.

"- never can explain how a libertarian society WOULD NOT lead to a small minority owning all the land and thus lead to serfdom"

It's not our responsibility to prove a negative. You made the claim, so you prove it.

"- never explain how you would get to a libertarian society WITH OUT use of force since almost no one desires it."

All libertarians wish to do is interact and trade with each other. It requires force to enforce trade restrictions and all the other restrictions YOU desire.

"Answer those question reasonably and you'll have addressed things I've never seen addressed in the years I've been blogging here."

This was my favorite part of you whole idiotic comment as it says a lot about you. You, and all of us in the comment section of Cafe Hayak, are mere guests and can be banned any time the real bloggers want.

First of all 3 of those countries are more like city-states. They all have universal health care and in no way are set up as libertarian societies or economies.

The rest of the questions remain unanswered. There are no libertarian societies because they don't work, no one wants them and they are inequitable and inefficient.

Also logically they would lead to accumulation of property by a minority and ultimately serfdom. All of history , slavery and serfdom and totalitarianism ARE out growths of NOT having a government to by the people to protect their interests against the elites. Libertarianism has no answer to this problem.

By inequitable, I assume you are talking about equality of outcome vice equality of opportunity. And therein lies the rub....redistribution of wealth is by definition is itself inequitable because it falsely rewards those that don't provide equal inputs. Simple as that.

The reason why there are no libertarian societies is because there are always those who want to use force upon others, and there are fools like you who support them.

"First of all 3 of those countries are more like city-states."

Irrelevant.

"They all have universal health care..."

Yea? So? Chile also has privatized social security. What's your point? You're an idiot if you're arguing these places have grown economically due to universal healthcare.

"...and in no way are set up as libertarian societies or economies."

um... you've argued on many occasions that the US has followed "libertarian" policies since Reagan. According to the Frazer institute's Economic Freedom of the World Hong Kong and Singapore are numbers 1 and 2. Chile also ranked better than the US at #5. So compared to the US... they are.

You've been busily commenting all over the Cafe, except in direct response to these questions posed to you by Steve_O:

Why do you need the taxpayers to fund your credit operation? Why can't you create your own bank, muirbank, where you give out credit to poor people at low interest? Why must you rob me to feel good about yourself?

Quack... Quack... Quack...

Steve_O, who I'm sure is a fine upstanding gentleman, is not me I'm afraid.

Oops! Sorry Robert!

Answer those question reasonably and you'll have addressed things I've never seen addressed in the years I've been blogging here.

your inane questions have been asked and repeatedly answered by many patient souls on this very blog over the years that you have polluted it.

If you are dissatisfied with the answers, find another blog to pollute.

They've been answered similar to how you just answered them. Not too helpful.

And I think most reasonable people wouldn't consider them inane.

I think you don't think. Inane is about right, in this case.

well, you just can't get no satisfaction.

You response was much better than mine...

Oh, thanks. Every once in a while I still have a go, but mostly I've learned not to attempt to reason with people as dumb as the heal of my shoe. At least he didn't spread his mental diarrhea to Horowitz's blog and we can still enjoy reading and learning from the original posts and comment section there.

Actually, he did. But please keep on coming by.

May I come, too, if I promise to behave myself?

He's not confused, he's a lower partisan member of the political class with illusions of being a higher member.

We'll see how he talks when his trips to hinterlands become unaffordable.

He truly believes that his vote has more significance than electing captains of amusement park water rides.

Confusion would be an improvement.

I see you've thrown in the towel and faced reality, Sam. Eloquently as always, of course.

Hmm... what major political event happened between 2005 and 2009?

I'll give you a hint: There was a Congressional election in 2006. The Republicans lost. Shortly thereafter, the economy crashed.

Coincidence? You decide.

"Coincidence? You decide."


I decide that's about as stupid a thing ever said. Well right up there with thinking you're a self made rugged individualist.

Do you actually know any of these people personally on this board? I hope so, because you spend so much time attacking their personal traits that you must be intimately familiar with them. Please tell me that you do. Otherwise, the casual observer might be tempted to see that your arguments are so weak that they can only be defended through the use of ad hominem attacks on others. OK, so which is it?

Oh, that's right, Yasafi!

I forgot! In your little world, the President is King, and the Congress is irrelevant!

Oh, and (unlike you) I do understand that correlation isn't causation, but I just couldn't resist twisting your nipples!

How do the wealth trends of the American poor compare to that of the European poor? Also, libertarians must be disappointed that America's oversized and intrusive government is not perpetuating the plight of the poor. It makes the libertarian philosophy an even tougher sell.

Well, speaking for myself, I am disappointed that America's intrusive and oversized government IS perpetuating the plight of the poor. Although the poor are getting wealthier over time, obviously they are not getting as wealthy as fast as they could under optimal economic conditions, without political power blocks manipulating a powerful political class into granting them enormous favors at the expense of the less powerful, i.e. the poor and general public.

Either way, I am not sure why that would make the libertarian philosophy a tough sell and even more so, why it would make good economics a tough sell.

Excellent rebuttal.

Great post, Cliff.

Libertarianism is a tough sell because it insists on self-reliance, and that's scary to many (most).

Imagine poor, insipid little Yasafi having to face the world without His Holiness: The Divine Prophet Algore I, or at the very least - The Obamessiah telling him what he must do for today, and how much liberty he will (be allowed) need this afternoon. I doubt he'd last a day before having a breakdown.

Absolutely bro. I need my good government, my community and the social ties that bind us. You however, picture yourself a rugged individualist... but you're too chicken to actually live like one... on an almost hourly basis you ask for help from the government.

The reason libertarianism is a tough sell is because everyone knows it results in concentrations of power and wealth. It was servitude for most. Working 70 hours a week with no benefits and no work place safety. If you spoke out you were blacklisted by all the employers.

You don't have a clue of WTH you're talking about.


Now get this through your thick head... YOU ARE NOT A RUGGED INDIVIDUALIST. You only think you are... you've convinced yourself you are but in fact you are a dependent little peon who has it a lot better then he deserves yet feels no obligation in return. Simply selfish and shortsighted and with no reasonable historical perspective either.

OK, take your own advice by getting this through your own thick head. There are winners and there are losers in EVERY system. However, there is only one system in which those that deserve to win actually DO. That is, they system that rewards effort and ingenuity vice sloth. If I have to point out which system that is, then there is absolutely no hope for you. If you want to fall back on the leftist catch-all of social or economic "justice", you will be in further danger of losing the high ground because there is no way to logically argue that it's moral to forcibly confiscate the fruits of one's labor and give to another that did not participate in kind. The fatal flaw of Socialism is that it completely ignores human nature by distorting or outright removing incentives. It's really not so complicated.

Muirgeo,

I am NOT a rugged individualist. I have a family, friends, and a community that I am deeply embedded in and rely on in times of trouble (and to whom I am a source of help if they need it). I belong to a synagogue and I give to charity. What the hell this has to do with libertarianism is the question du jour. The answer is "nothing." Your understanding of libertarianism is a caricature with no resemblance to the beliefs of 90% of the libertarians I know.

I would have gladly produced more recent data if it were available. That 2005 data was released last week. It's the best we have. But you know what? I'm willing to bet the trends are all pretty much the same when the 2008 or 2009 data is released. Care to put your money where your keyboard is?

Here's some more recent data Mr. Horwitz,

http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/images/2...

And this;

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/AL...

The annual Household Food Security report showed that in 2008, families in 17 million households -- 14.6 percent of US homes -- had difficulty putting enough food on the table at some point during the year, an 11 percent increase over 2007.
The figures "represent the highest level observed since nationally representative food security surveys were initiated in 1995," the USDA said.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/images/2...

You are the one claiming things are getting better for the poor. Is that because of FDR or Ronald Reagan? Is it because we enacted social safety nets or because we cut taxes, freed up trade and cut regulations?

The difference between 2005 and now is stark. If you are going to take credit for the 2005 results I think you get to claim the 2009 results as well.

I can show you a graph of home ownership and wealth concentration and one of economic collapse. The evidence suggest policy matters. And it also suggest pushing too much towards free markets DOESN'T help the poor or even the overall economic efficiency as a whole.

http://online.wsj.com/media/home-ownership_c_20...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_n5ROGN0Id8Q/SwqTxQV5A...

http://www.cbpp.org/archiveSite/3-27-08tax2-f2.jpg

Prof Horwitz said, "I would have gladly produced more recent data if it were available."

But you cannot derive the eternal laws of economics from its ever changing data, what never changes from what constantly changes.

Rather than more data, how about more logic.

Question, Muirgeo; Do you figure that it is better for working people to pay 40% of their wages directly to the politicians than it was for them to work 12 hour days? Okay, I can see that it is a bit better. The net dollar effect is equivalent, but I'm not as tired as those workers who came before me. But why 40%? Are you seriously going to insist that it requires 40% of my earnings for one breed of expoiters to "protect" me from another? Because I don't buy it. I think they take as much of the "surplus" as they possibly can. I think that they should do what I pay them to do for 10% - and that anything over 10% is exploitation.

Oh but Randy... the lives of the average person are so improved that the 40% tax is totally worth it. But again , yes we can do better but as much by decreases taxes ass avoiding accumulations of massive excess wealth and power.

The power is wielded by the political class, and yes, the accumulation of power is massive and excessive. Your attention has been diverted from this accumulation of power by those in power so that you will attack those that the political class wishes to exploit.

Also, you misunderstand the nature of taxation. All taxes are an exploitation of the productive class as a whole. The burdens of taxation are borne primarily by those on the lower levels of the productive class. Study your history. It has never been otherwise. The only thing new is the propaganda.

I agree. We could probably get by with less taxes for most people especially if we tax extreme wealth.

Do you realize since Reagans policies have been enacted the top 0.05 % of income "earners" now take home the equivalent of about $1,000,000,000,000 dollars a year EXTRA then they did before Reagan.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_n5ROGN0Id8Q/SwqTxQV5A...

That graph makes my jaw drop. If only all of America understood it and its implications.

Do you realize that the top 5% of all wage earners pay almost 40% of all taxes? Does that not make your jaw drop? The progressive income tax is straight out of the "fertile mind" of Karl Marx. I would much rather have a flat tax of around 20% for everyone than this abortion of a tax code that we currently have. Every citizen MUST have some skin in the game. Otherwise, every loser in town will vote for the bureaucrat that promises the most freebies. We're seeing that play out before our very eyes.

muirgeo, being a doctor and all, aren't you in that top 0.5%? The income bound is only $597,584 for the household; If you're not there, all you need to do is marry another doctor.

Since you make so much money, how about you freely donate some of those crumbs to us plebs? Or how about you stop extorting your patients (which, according to you, is the only way you get paid as much).

"We could probably get by with less taxes for most people especially if we tax extreme wealth."

Taxing productive behavior is absurd. We should tax political behavior, that is, tax those who exploit.

Well and I'd argue that we are talking about the same thing. These guys on Wall Street have owned the politicians and set up a casino finance system that is purely extractive far more then it is productive.

Now for the honest person who earns massive sums of money making candy bars or computers most of them aren't so concerned with extreme wealth and seem to be OK with putting back into the system that allowed for their success.

I think we are getting closer. I won't argue that there is no political behavior in boardrooms. But then again, its the politicians who have all the guns and write all the regulations. So how do we tax political behavior in the statehouse and in the boardroom? It actually seems rather simple to me. Minimal government. Give a government just enough resources with which to punish exploitive behavior, without giving them enough to promote and participate in exploitive behavior. Afterall, the extremely wealthy that you so fear would not be able to exploit without the support of the politicians. Marx understood this well. He spent hundreds of pages in "Capital" describing the role of politicians in the exploitation of workers. If he were alive today he would no doubt spend hundreds of pages describing the incentives that politicians set up to gain a share in modern exploitation systems. Reset the playing field to one of pure competition and the exploitation ends. A corporation that attempts to exploit simply loses all its best employees to the competition, or the CEO gets shot in a back alley. And a government with resources limited to what it needs to stop exploitation is a government without the resources needed to set up its own exploitation systems.

Right, Randy. In Muirdiot's world that would be the producers. He gets the roles of producers and politicians confused.

brilliant.

"...you are a dependent little peon who has it a lot better then he deserves yet feels no obligation in return."

Ah, I see. So in your view the productive class is made up of peons who are dependant on the political class. That's interesting, because the way I see it, it is quite obviously the other way around.

Question; If what you say is true, and the producers are dependant on the politicians, then why is it that the producers pay all the taxes?

By the way, this has nothing to do with "rugged individualism". This is a class struggle. And as for historical perspective, ala Marx, its time to end the exploitation of the political class.

Randy we're on the same side... you just don't have a rational working solution.

Actually, I do. Its called no taxation without representation. Technically, it would consist of shared offices, with anyone who recieves 20% of the vote allowed to share the office, and with no vote counted unless all the representatives for that vote agree. The result would be to enable representatives of the productive class to hold power, and to grant them a veto over the exploitative whims of the political class. The resulting body of law would be an agreement, not manipulation and exploitation.

That's the same end result I want. I want the productive class to have more say in how things are done or better yet being one and the same with the political class.

"...one and the same with the political class."

That was Marx's short term objective as well, politicization of the workers. In my opinion, it was also his mistake, and an enormous mistake at that. The problem is that productive behavior and political behavior are diametrically opposed. The productive person is a creator and a trader who treats other individuals with respect. The political person is a manipulator and an exploiter who treats other individuals as tools to be used in the achievement of objectives designed by the elite. In other words, to make a productive person political would be to destroy everything that makes him what he is - which is exactly what happened in those parts of the world foolish enough to give it a try. What I propose is the exact opposite - to make the political class productive - in other words, to eliminate the political class by replacing it with productive civil servants who do what they are paid to do, and only what they are paid to do.

Ahhhh.....but the producers ARE dependent on the politicians. Try opening and operating ANY business without getting 600 different permission forms (in the form of licenses and tax treatment manifestos, etc.) from the government.

Classic Stockholm Syndrome. The politicians hold producers hostage and Muirpid wants the producers to feel a sense of loyalty, love and dependence on the pols when they "graciously" remove the barriers to production that they erected in the first place. And....um....most do because they get extra rations if they show the pols loyalty.

Try opening a business where there is no government. Please Methinks you rugged individualist. Please,please, please go to Somalia and let us know how it goes. Put your money where your mouth is or.... as I suspect stay here and complain about our government institutions (which no doubt need improvement) while you make more money then and accumulate more wealth then 99.9 % of people in al of history while you bitch and whine about having to give something back.

I just bet you are too chicken to go start your business where there is no government.

OK! I see where you've wandered off the beaten path. You believe that libertarianism means NO government vice minimal government. That's not what anyone here is saying. Government's only function is to prevent anarchy. Why would it be so hard to open a business under that scenario? Answer: it wouldn't. All government has to do is to keep this guy's shop from getting robbed or destroyed. Otherwise, it lets the chips fall where they may. As for Somalia, there actually IS a government, a very CORRUPT one that is as likely to loot a business as any pirate yet is too weak to perform its one and only function...maintaining order.

Everything Randy said flew over your empty head as surely as the sun rose in the East this morning. Your stupidity has almost ceased to astound me.

And, by the way, would love to see Horwitz, Boettke, Rizzo, Ebeling, and O'Dricscoll bring their "loosesly defined economics" over here, where they can't control the debate, and just sit back and watch the slaughter.

Although, that Nikolaj fellow over there, that they're all ganging up on, is a real economist, dare I say, better than they, and driving them nuts. So I don't know why they're so worried about me.

Here’s the latest of what’s happening to Nikolaj over at Austrian Economists blog.

He was challenging Prof Rizzo’s assertion that economics should be loosely defined.

It should be loosely defined, according to one of Rizzo’s supporters, Ebeling, to keep the Austrian School from being “dogmatic” and “closed-minded”…and keep it open to debate and differences of views…”

Peter Boettke liked that. “Well put Richard --- thank you,“ he said.

O’Driscoll likewise informed us that “Mises arrived at his views by challenging and being challenged. (I never would have guessed) It is by that process, and only that process, that we come closer the truth. It is the process… that defines science.”

But not at the Austrian Economists blog, nor at ThinkMarkets, where, not surprisingly, a “loose definition” of science includes browbeating or just banishing your critics.

As you might have guessed, I have been banished again from Austrian Economists and have been long gone from ThinkMarkets.

Now, Nikolaj, their only other critic, is getting the treatment.

O’Driscoll had told us that “Any truly good professor is happy when a student rises to intelligently question something he has said,” but found it “disquieting” when Nikolaj did so, and most intelligently, in fact, too intelligently, to suit these professors.

Nikolaj's relentless logic especially aroused Prof Horwitz’ ire.

“Have you even READ *Economics of Time and Ignorance* Nikolaj?, Horwitz demanded.

""Did you even READ Mario's Palgrave essay that formed the basis for his post at ThinkMarkets?"

This is the old Internet Runaround. It was not enough to demolish your adversary's arguments here, for they were not his best ones. His best are somewhere else, and, though it wasn't worth his time and trouble to post them here, it is supposed to be worth yours to go chasing after them.

In fact, Nikolaj did just that and found, not surprisingly, that the "best ones" elsewhere were worse than those here.

O’Driscoll chimed in on the same note:

“If you are going to comment on an article, you should read it. Mario's post references his article.”

And Horwitz again. “If you want to know what Rizzo thinks about these matters, click the damn link and read his Palgrave essay. How dense are you Nikolaj?

Seriously, what is so hard about clicking the link and reading the Palgrave entry and talking about THAT rather than your attempt to read into a blog post all kinds of nonsense and conspiracy-mongering that just isn't there? As you admit above, you are engaging in some free interpretation here to make Mario's argument fit your preconceptions about what AE is and about what you think Mario thinks.

Your final claims that question Mario's credentials to talk about AE and that suggest he's defining in a way to include his "friends" rather than being committed to some notion of truth are the sort of ad hominems I'd expect from someone who can't even take the time to read carefully.

If you couldn't read the file, then you should have had the decency to not have ranted the way you did. Mario (really any scholar) deserves better than an expost half-ass apology."

And this is the Horwitz who insists on absolute decorum and courtesy, from his adversaries.

But here he really gets down to it.

“Look, you're free to disagree with Rizzo's interpretation of the important research in AE in the last 25 years. What you're not free to do on this blog, especially when other commenters are complaining to me about it, is to continue to make ad hominem arguments against Rizzo. Argue on the substance and stop impugning his motives.

If you continue with this sort of behavior and others continue to complain, you will be asked to leave.

And let's be clear: if it happens, it's not because you disagree with Rizzo, it's because you can't find a way to disagree on the substance without attacking his character. It's the latter that will get you banished.”

Yes, let’s be clear. It is precisely because he disagrees with their eminences.

Nikolaj responded, “I understand your last comment as a threat that I am going to be banned if I continue criticizing Rizzo, and frankly, would not be surprised a lot by that.”

Don’t be. Take it from one who’s been there, and heard it all before.

Of course, Rizzo too has to take his bite out of Nikolaj:

“Btw, why is it that Mr. "Nikolaj" does not identify himself fully and clearly as the rest of us on this blog? Or at least *I* don't have the foggiest notion who is calling into question my qualifications to speak on this subject.”

But just so you won’t think Horwitz is being unfair, “I'm willing to poll the readership to see whether they think you are engaging in ad hominems. I'm willing to poll the readership to see if they think the accusations against you are signs of being out of arguments.

After all, you have continued to complain about others without offering much counterargument in return. Why should any of us think of YOU as having any authority here? I think there's plenty of good reasons to treat Mario as such. You? No evidence that I can see.”

Well, I’m still part of your readership, Professor, and if you’re polling me, I vote for Nikolaj, the only voice of reason in that discussion.

Prof Ebeling concluded,

“May we hope that in 2071, when the two hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Austrian School is celebrated, the Austrians of that time can look back at the marvelous growth and new directions of the School near the close of their century that we marvel at when we see what the Austrians of the 20th century have left us as a creative legacy to build on.”

God forbid!

Sure enough, blocked. And that's how they win their arguments over there.

This got through, though.

"Prof. Rizzo makes a good point. These numbers also support the alternative hypothesis that "If it were not for the welfare state, the poor would be doing much worse." And the policy conclusion for today that follows is more redistribution (to offset the gains from current and future economic growth to the rich).

How would you refute this competing hypothesis?"

Posted by: Will Luther | November 27, 2009 at 08:07 PM

There is only one way, the theory of redistribution that they will not allow over there:

The First Law of Thermodynamics:

For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.

Lesvic's First Law of Economics:

For every action against the market, there is an opposite and more than equal reaction. And you know what that would be.

Here was Prof Horwitz' conclusion about redistribution.

"I also think redistribution attempts generally harm the poor over time."

Not generally, but always, and not over time but right from the start.

And they don't just harm the poor, whatever that might mean. They make them poorer, and not just in absolute but proportional terms.

Posted this at Prof Horwitz' blog.

Bet it gets deleted.

"Haven't read every word, so may be missing something, but afraid you're proving nothing.

For, if you could really show a rising standard of living for the poor, the Left would grab the credit for it, or, conversely, a declining standard of it, the Right would get the blame. For, as Mises pointed out, "Every historical experience is open to various interpretations and is in fact interpreted in different ways...History can neither prove nor disprove any general statement.'

There is no susbstitute for what Mises called the 'apodictic and incontestable argumentative power inherent in a praxeological demonstration."

But it can be of no use when buried beneath the rubble of data and the other distractions of a loosely defined economics."

Posted by: DG Lesvic | Nov 27, 2009 6:54:46 PM

Of course once the politicians get a hold of Steve's data, they will have no problem taking credit for all the improvements.

Subsequently they will propose even bigger government programs to continue the positive trend.

give it a few more years. That'll change. Has any country ever successfully implemented the strategy this one is currently implementing? Ever?

Exactly right!!! Things have changed. That data is from 2005.

So who gets the credit for the 2009 data???


WTH is the point of this post. Things are better for the poor WHY. Because we have a social safety net or because we deregulated the economy?

Because we deregulated the economy (somewhat).

Muir, Mmmmwwwwaaahhh,

I'm sure gap between Al Gore and rest of the population has widened. We have data on our side - practically all of the 900 billionaires are on our side. I like you - because you never ask the question - Cui bono?

How about taking the private jet to Exit Glacier next year. A trip to see the northern lights. We have to pass regulations to keep the proles out of Santa's backyard.

I was just going to write that. Give it a few years and progressives will put a stop to that.

What the lefties don't want you to know is that their social engineering is responsible for the current mess. Threaten lenders with legal action if they don't boost lending levels to subprime borrowers....yeah, that's the ticket! Get that home ownership rate up to give the illusion of "fairness", that way we can take credit for it without having to take the blame for the subsequent foreclosures that are inevitable. Then, we surely cant' let the "crisis" go to waste. We can get out of debt by tripling down on the debt, all in the name of "saving" the economy. Yeah, that IS the ticket! Oh boy! My very own slush fund for every Marxist-Socialist program we can think of. I'm so excited, I almost wet myself.

Again we did give it a few years. You guys are living in 2005 data. Did you miss the economic collapse. WTH!! Unreal! I know back in 2005 you were calling us economic Casandra's but come already, it's 2009.

Yeah the stock market was 10500 back then... where is it after your "few years".

Here's some data you might want to consider regarding libertarian vs progressive economic policy.

http://online.wsj.com/media/home-ownership_c_20...

http://media.npr.org/blogs/globalpoolofmoney/im...

Notice any trends there?

How bout this?

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/up...

Anything?


This?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarcerat...



How about poor farms and orphanages... you like those? You wanna bring them back. Or maybe we should bring back the 12 hour work day and the 7 day work week.

Do you guys ever read history because I sure as heck have no idea where you get your ideas from.

A lovely series of irrelevant charts and non-sequiturs. Keep trying, though. You might actually be able to make a point sometime.

Kaching! Since Reagan Revolution, economy has been working only for people like Al Gore, George Soros, Jeffrey Immelt, Bernie Madoff ( major democratic party campaign contributor ), Warren Buffet, Serge Brin, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates - all champions of unbridled markets.

Muir, you are so wonderful. Mmmmmwaaaaahhhhh!

If you have the 2009 Census Bureau data, I'm sure Steve Horwitz would be more than happy to incorporate it in his chart.