Frank on Fannie and Freddie

by Russ Roberts on February 2, 2010

in Government intervention in housing, Housing, Hubris and humility, Man of System

Barney Frank doesn’t know what to do:

“I’ve said we should abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form and come up with a whole new system of housing finance,” said Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat and the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. “I can’t say when. And I don’t have any idea what that new system will look like. No one, I believe, knows. All we really know is that we need something new.”

Here’s an idea. Why not let people of who want to borrow money to buy a house convince the people who lend the money that there’s a good chance that the money will get paid back. Creative, no? It’s called voluntary exchange. Or a market. Or normal. Fannie and Freddie were abnormal. We don’t need a “new system.” The old system didn’t work because you, Barney Frank, and others, tried to steer it. Let’s have NO SYSTEM that you figure out and control and steer. Let’s let the housing market emerge that has the built-in feedback loops of profit and loss.

Here is some suggested reading for Mr. Frank:

From Hayek’s The Fatal Conceit:

The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.

From Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments:

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in
his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed
beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer
the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to
establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard
either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which
may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the
different members of a great society with as much ease as the
hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does
not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other
principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon
them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every
single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether
different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress
upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same
direction, the game of human society will go on easily and
harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If
they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably,
and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of
disorder.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • MichaelSmith
    Russ asked:

    Why not let people of who want to borrow money to buy a house convince the people who lend the money that there’s a good chance that the money will get paid back. Creative, no? It’s called voluntary exchange. Or a market. Or normal.

    But Russ, didn't you get the memo that the left has been circulating? We've already tried what you are suggesting. It was tried under Bush.

    The financial markets of the United States, including the mortgage market, have been fully deregulated. All the regulations were gutted by Bush and the mortgage and financing markets are now shining examples of laissez-faire capitalism.

    So Fannie and Freddie can no longer be part of the government -- Barney Frank is just behind the times, and now that we've converted to laissez-faire capitalism, Frank has no hope at all of establishing any new government-sponsored or government-run mortgage programs.

    I'm very surprised at you, Professor, for not being better informed. Did you not realize that George W. Bush, that free market champion, convinced Congress to repeal the following major banking and finance laws:

    The Federal Reserve Act of 1913

    Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933

    Banking Act of 1935

    Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950

    Bank Holding Company Act of 1956

    Fair Housing Act of 1968

    Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970

    Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974

    Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975

    Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

    International Banking Act of 1978

    Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978

    Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980

    Depository Institutions Act of 1982

    Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987

    Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989

    National Affordable Housing Act of 1990

    Crime Control Act of 1990

    Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1991

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991

    Housing and Community Development Act of 1992

    RTC Completion Act of 1993

    Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

    Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

    Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994

    Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996

    Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999
    .
    International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001

    Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

    Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit Act of 2002

    Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003

    American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003

    All this was repealed -- it was in all the papers.

    So you see, from about the middle of 2003 forward, the mortgage market was totally de-regulated and completely laissez-faire.

    The Securities and Exchange Commission was dissolved, as was the Federal Housing Authority, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office, the Federal Home Loan Board, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Agency, the Federal Housing Finance Board, the Federal Reserve System, the Multifamily Housing Office -- all of those agencies, dozens of them, too many to list, Bush dissolved them all. Tens of thousands of federal employees were fired and sent home.

    We returned to a gold standard. That’s why you no longer carry and use that ridiculous fiat money!

    That’s why we have the current economic crises, Professor: too much laissez-faire! When will you free marketers admit that free markets like the one we’ve had for housing since 2003 just don’t work?
  • Tom P
    Much of this discussion doesn't seem to be about the housing market, so thank you for bringing attention back to the original topic.

    I'm not American and so bring a different (probably ignorant) perspective to the discussion. But how can you describe the US mortgage market as laissez-faire when Fannie and Freddie continue to exist? As per Russ's original post, I simply don't see why they're needed. In most other countries, such institutions don't exist - and yet here in the UK for example we have a very active housing market with a high percentage of home ownership, with banks lending money to home-owners and making their profits or losses accordingly. I suspect I feel about Fannie and Freddie a bit like most Americans feel about the UK National Health Service - a completely mad idea, andd the solution is clearly abolition, but most politicians and voters don't see things that way...
  • txslr
    You are very correct.

    The U.S. housing and residential finance markets have been the object of intense regulation and government meddling for decades. In fact, the standard financing instrument - the ubiquitous 30-year mortgage - was an invention of the government. The periodic squealing about the repeal of Glass-Steagall on this board and elsewhere arises only because it is just about the only bit of regulation that was repealed, and those who are bent on blaming the fiasco on government deregulation have nothing else to hang their hats on.

    At some point in U.S. history a myth arose that widespread home ownership was good for civic virtue and hence some sort of public good. This justified the federal government's wholesale involvement in housing markets and in home financing markets with the stated objective of increasing the rate of home ownership, particularly among the less well-off or historically disadvantaged. This latest adventure is the largest but not the first disaster to arise from this meddling, having been preceded by the Savings and Loan debacle by several decades.

    What I find interesting is that, while politicians are loathe to leave the markets to clear without tampering, I don't sense that the voters feel that strongly about it. Other then the mortgage interest deduction, I don't think that there is much in the federal attempts to manage these markets that would cause the voters to complain if they were abandoned.
  • MichaelSmith
    Tom P, none of the legislation I listed above was repealed. None of the Federal government departments I listed have been closed or dissolved. All of the mountains of regulations and agencies and rules and controls and entities like Fannie and Freddie still exist.

    I was just making a joke to point out what all would have to be repealed and dismantled to get us to actual laissez-faire -- and to show how ridiculous it is for the left here in America to claim that laissez-faire capitalism is the cause of our problems.
  • Obviously you weren't being outrageous enough, so don't forget the "/sarcasm" tag.
  • vidyohs
    Gawd! It is good to be free, eh?
  • Randy
    A couple of other points that Hayek makes in "The Road to Serfdom".

    1. The best of motives may generate a good plan, but not necessarily a good practice.

    2. The best socialists never get anything done because they don't have the knowledge or the will to take the harsh actions necessary to actually carry out the plan. But they set the stage for the "the worst" who, though still lacking in knowledge, do have the will to carry out harsh actions. Barney says he doesn't know what needs to be done, just that something must be done. And there it is...
  • Tex
    Yeh, like Lenin, Stalin and Moa. They never got anything done because they couldn't "take the harsh actions necessary to actually carry out the plan."

    Jeeze.
  • Randy
    Like MWG says. Hayek points out that the likes of Stalin and Hitler were preceded by intellectuals, ineffective intellectuals, who at least seemed to believe in their own good intentions, ala Barney Frank. The term "best" socialists is of course inaccurate in practice. I used it only to set up the reference to what Hayek calls "the worst".

    The Road to Serfdom is an extraordinarily good book, by the way. Easily among the very best I've ever read. I can't believe I just now got around to reading it.
  • MWG
    I think you missed this part:

    "But they set the stage for the "the worst" (like Lenin, Stalin and Mao) who, though still lacking in knowledge, do have the will to carry out harsh actions."

    Jeeze.
  • Tex
    Well, thank God the "best" of the Hayekians have not yet fully set the stage for the "worst" of the Hayekians to carry out their harsh actions and do their damage.
  • You really don't get it.
  • Randy
    Those who consistantly lie assume that everyone lies, likewise, those who seek power via human exploitation assume that everyone does.
  • MWG
    Yes, all those power hungry "Hayekians" looking to exert power over others through the use of the state...
  • Tex
    No, no, MWG. "looking to exert power over others through the use of ideology to free private capital owners from any constraints beyond an imperfect market place"
  • MWG
    Ah yes, and at your end of the spectrum is the old "people-must-be-forced-to-be-free" ideology.
  • gobbledygook.
  • Tex
    I apologize for going over your head, Sam. ;)
  • Oh, that was just a little payback. I understand the leftist sentiment underlying your charge.
  • carpeweb
    OK, I'm all for markets. Everyone who has commented approvingly -- and who has never taken any subsidy from the government -- take a bow. The rest of you, I assume, are rushing to give back what you've taken (and not just your mortgage interest subsidies ...).

    Yes, this is a horrible mess. But, let's have a little less self-congratulation (from the audience) on our fine virtues, shall we? It's gross.

    The corollary of "Barney Frank is an idiot" is not "Russ Roberts is a genius" -- after all, it's not hard to shoot a sitting duck. (Note: Russ might be a genius, but criticizing a politician doesn't get him -- or us -- to that level.) The corollary might be "the rest of them are idiots too, but we elected them, so we're the real idiots".

    The harder question is: why focus on this particular "government intervention" and not all the rest? Let's not forget that this particular government intervention seemed to work quite well. I agree that the disaster is a good reason to consider not reinventing it, but aren't we more likely -- or at least equally likely -- to suffer from the perverse unintended consequences of some ongoing intervention? What percent of the tax code would we "reform" if we eliminated the mortgage interest deduction?
  • russroberts
    Actually. being in "favor of markets" has become a code word for failing to understand how we supposedly got in this mess. I was just trying to remind people that some problems solve themselves.

    The particular solution of Fannie and Freddie is going to cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

    And you're right. Barney Frank is not an idiot and I am not a genius. But Barney Frank should be help accountable. That doesn't look like it's going to happen so I think it's important that people understand his professed world view.
  • carpeweb
    Hi Russ,

    I hope you realize that my "idiot/genius" remarks were directed at your audience of commentators more so than at your original point.

    If "in favor of markets" is code for what you say it means, I might need to plead guilty. Maybe I don't understand "how we supposedly got in this mess" -- but is that the same as not understanding "how we actually got in this mess"? In other words, reasonable minds seem to have a number of views of the "root causes".

    My support of markets, however, does not extend to the belief that those who "win" in markets actually have any higher moral worth than those who don't. It seemed to me (and maybe I didn't read enough comments) that a number of your audience members feel differently (about themselves, mostly).

    Barney Frank seems to get more press, but he doesn't have more votes than the other representatives, does he? We agree on holding him accountable, but what about equal scoundrels? Accountability would seem most appropriate in proportion to actual voting, not in proportion to actual media quoting. It seems to me that the failure in this case -- regardless of "root causes" -- is quite bi-partisan and certainly not a personal failure of any one representative who happens to make himself an easy target. In my view, it also demonstrates the failure of bi-partisanship, but that's a longer story unrelated, I think, to your points.

    Best regards,
    Jim
  • yetanotherdave
    I for one do not hold the belief that those who "win" in markets have higher moral worth. Neither have I have seen such idiotic sentiments expressed or implied here at the cafe, so I have no idea who you're referring to.

    I agree Barney has only one direct vote, but as Financial Services Committee chairman he has influence beyond simply voting, so it seems reasonable for his accountability to get extra emphasis. That said, you are absolutely correct that this is a totally bi-partisan created mess and many others need to be held to account as well.
  • Tex
    Wow. You don't see many subtle, well-argued entries like this one on this site.

    I can't seem to find anything I disagree with in this one, except for the absence of the mandatory name-calling, disparagement, dismissals, and vitriol directed at opposing views. ;)
  • Tex
    And when regulation failed, or was never attempted, due to "reforms" and gutting of regulatory agencies implemented by the Bush , Clinton and Reagan administrations, what was the cost to taxpayers of AIG, the bank failures, the failures of rating agencies, the abuses of private mortgage sellers and brokers, the failure of savings and loans (in the 1980s) to name a few.

    This dwarfs the cost of Fannie and Freddie.
  • You are aware, I hope, that the regulatory budget expanded greatly under Bush.

    Do you have any citation about the "gutting" of regulatory agencies?
  • Tex
    You cite me the evidence that Bush greatly expanded the regulatory budget and then I'll give you the examples of gutted agencies.
  • From the Heritage Foundation, with links:

    Regulation by the Numbers
    The rhetoric is alarming, but it does not fit the facts. Far from shrinking to dangerously low levels, regulation has actually grown substantially during the Bush years. By almost every measure, regulatory burdens are up.[10]

    Tracking year-to-year changes in regulatory burdens is no easy task. Unlike on-budget expen­ditures, there is no single bottom line figure to report. Yet a number of measures together can provide a fair picture of what is happening in the regulatory world.[11]

    From the Mercatus Center:During both of his terms, President George W. Bush presided over the largest dollar increase in regulatory spending. His 2002 and 2003 regulatory budgets were among the 10 biggest annual increases in regulatory spending in the last 50 years.

    And a pdf document.

    There's lots more from a google search.

  • Two of the citations here are NOT from the Heritage.
    See where it says "From the Mercatus Center"?

    The second one is from the Mercatus Center and the third one, the PDF link is from yet another source.

    And I went to some slight pains to grab the source code so those Heritage links could be pursued further if you were interested.

    I provided three different citations from three of many links that were near the top of the search results. I'm not interested in spending a lot of time finding source that meet unidentified criteria.

    I am not on a mailing list for the Heritage Foundation and I have no particular interest in the Heritage Foundation other than that reference appearing on the first page of the Google search.

    Now why don't you do a search and show me how the regulatory agencies "were gutted" under the Bush administration.
  • carpeweb
    I'm not a fan of Heritage -- hey, I'll show my colors, even if I don't know exactly what they are.

    But, I'm even less a fan of ad hominem (ad affiliationum?) arguments. Even if I'm not a Heritage fan, I won't condemn a source I haven't read. The point of understanding bias isn't to reject hearing the opinion, is it? Using Heritage on the basis of a high Google page rank seems as reasonable a starting point as any. Arguing about the "obvious bias" of sources rather than about actual data seems like a tragic ending point.

    I wasn't a fan of Bush, either, but it seems to me this path leads to the usual "our guy isn't as terrible as your guy was" arguments. Yes, I can see that in the Obama administration (as I've seen it in the past three regime changes). We'll never know what I would have disliked about a McCain administration.
  • Tex
    "I won't condemn a source I haven't read"

    For the record, I've read lots of Heritage pieces. Virtually all of them come from the same narrow range of ideological roots. No surprise considering the origins of Heritage, it's purposes, and where the get their money.
  • Tex
    My apologies, carpe. I mistook the immediately previous post as a response from Sam to my earlier post.
  • Then you read way more Heritage than do I. But where they get their money shouldn't matter so much as whether their are citing accurate sources in this particular case. That's why I grabbed several sources and referred you to the Google search.

    Not knowing what sources are acceptable to you, I did no filtering by source whatsoever, just grabbed a few to post. Next thing I know, you are accusing me of being some kind of right wingnut.

    You showed colors that you would likely be reluctant to admit, especially to yourself.
  • Tex
    Follow the money, Sam, follow the money.

    I proudly display my colors! But I don't accept the characterizations of people who say "blue is red" and "green is pink" if you get my drift.
  • Here's the situation.

    You claimed that "regulatory agencies were gutted under Bush".

    I countered with the observation that regulatory budgets grew under Bush.

    You challenged me to provided verification.

    I provided three sources and a link to a Google search with MANY other sources to support my claim.

    You have attacked me and suggested I'm some kind of nut case, that is, you engaged in ad hominem.

    What you have not done is provide any verification of your claim that "regulatory agencies were gutted under Bush".

    If this is some kind of pissing contest, you have yet to hit the target.

    I proudly display my colors! But I don't accept the characterizations of people who say "blue is red" and "green is pink" if you get my drift.

    The color I've been thinking of is "intellectual dishonesty".
  • Tex
    It's not enough to cite an opinion from Heritage. Send me the links to the two cites: [10] and [11].
  • There's three references there. I've got other things to do.

    Try the variety of links in this Google search
  • Tex
    Heritage. Right. You certainly range far and wide in your quest for knowledge. I bet you listen to Rush, what Glenn Beck and Bill, and worship Sarah Palin.
  • Only the first one was heritage and I only grabbed it because I'm lazy and it was near the top of the search results.

    The list is long and you didn't give me criteria for "acceptable" sources.

    Do I have to do all the effing work or are you merely displeased that you've not got any verifiable citation the other way?
  • You certainly range far and wide in your quest for knowledge. I bet you listen to Rush, what Glenn Beck and Bill, and worship Sarah Palin.

    Nope, nope, nope, and nope.

    Who are you , Mr. Assumption?

    Anyhow, thanks for showing us your colors.
  • Tex
    I've shown my colors long before this post, Sam. In fact, I showed them when I first walked in the door of the Cafe.

    Pray tell, where do you turn for information about the real world?
  • Here and there.
  • Tex
    "Hear and There" I've missed that periodical. Can I find it at the Libertarian Science Reading Room or on the rack at the Hayek Cafe? :)
  • Tex
    Exactly, carpe.

    And what percentage of invention in the economy in, say, the tax code as one example, benefits entrenched business interests and high income individuals (e.g., Buffet; why is the effective tax rate of very high income individuals so much lower than that of middle income taxpayers?)?

    I'm in a position to know from years of directly relevant experience in DC re the tax code, and I can tell you it's a huge percentage. Even many of the tax benefits that benefit middle income taxpayers were put there by business for their benefit, like the mortgage interest tax deduction by homebuilders and mortgage lenders.

    I know, the Hayekians will respond that all these criticisms are evidence of why we need to get the nasty government out of the economy. It is not.

    The fact is that economic power and political power are fungible. As such, corporations with access to huge sums of revenue for lobbying and campaign contributions (esp. after the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United) and individuals with high wealth have a great advantage in the political arena over middle income individuals and small business.

    Nevertheless, the political arena is much more open to to the influence of middle income and small business than is the marketplace, thanks to the expansion of the franchise over the last 90 years.
  • The fact is that economic power and political power are fungible. As such, corporations with access to huge sums of revenue for lobbying and campaign contributions (esp. after the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United) and individuals with high wealth have a great advantage in the political arena over middle income individuals and small business.

    Well, DUH!
  • Randy
    "...the political arena is much more open to to the influence of middle income and small business than is the marketplace, thanks to the expansion of the franchise over the last 90 years."

    The expansion of the franchise? Really? All the voting block power in the world isn't going to do me any good once corporatism is firmly established. Once the state is deciding who has the right to produce, they will necessarily decide also what I can buy, who I can buy it from, what job I have to do, and who I have to do it for. Political behavior doesn't limit monopoly. It affirms it, and writes it in stone.
  • Tex
    You've ignored my examples of reform movement policies empowered by and implemented by the govt., the most powerful of which has been the repeated expansion of the franchise since the founding of the republic. I recommend ready Gordon Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution (a Pulitzer Prize winner). He addresses this and many other issues relevant to this discussion.
  • Randy
    I disagree that what you call an expansion of the franchise is really an expansion. Easy to show the benefit to some preferred class of a political action, and just as easy to ignore the cost.
  • Tex
    That first sentence is amazing, Randy. An expansion is not really an expansion? Where is Orwell when you need him?
  • Tex
    No, Randy, I refer to your statement that "an expansion of the franchise is not really an expansion"

    This implies that when property ownership was dropped as a requirement for the right to vote, when territories were granted statehood, when black men were given the vote by constitutional amendment after 600,000 American died winning them liberty and the franchise, when women won the franchise by constitutional amendment, when blacks were finally assured of the right to vote in the 1965 Civil Right Act, when 18-20 year-olds were enfranchised by constitutional amendment, when DC was give the right to vote in presidential elections, these were not expansions of the franchise.

    Why did all these groups work so damn hard over the past 200+ years for the right to vote, and in what way did this not expand the franchise?

    Were they all deluded and simply pawns of the established order?
  • Randy
    Orwell? You refer to exploitation as "expansion" and then have the cajones to call me Owellian?
  • Randy
    And that should have been a reply to Tex, of course...
  • yetanotherdave
    Allowing people to keep more of their own money is not a subsidy. A subsidy is a grant by government to a private person or company. Describing a tax break as a subsidy implies that the money in question belongs to the government rather than the tax payer.
  • carpeweb
    "allowing people to keep more of their own money" certainly *is* a subsidy if we don't allow all people to "keep" it equally. We grant this "allowance" only to people who have mortgages. That's not equal; ergo, it *is* a subsidy. C'mon! It does not imply that the money "belongs" to the government. A subsidy is simply a diversion of resources toward a favored activity. This certainly diverts resources -- and don't try to tell me that people don't benefit from it. If they didn't, we wouldn't have such high home ownership rates.
  • yetanotherdave
    See my reply above - I wrote it before I saw this post.

    A subsidy is definitely NOT simply a diversion of resources. Not equal does not equal subsidy. Words have meaning and using language properly is important to prevent distortion of issues. You are using the word subsidy to mean something it does not.

    Note, I am not debating your larger point. It may very well have some merit - I wish you would state it more effectively.
  • Tex
    I gotta agree with carpe on this one. What is the effective difference between the govt giving you a grant to mine coal and a tax credit to do so? The money's all coming out of the same pot, the general revenue fund.

    Denying that these are fundamentally different simply allows one to avoid the pegorative "govt subsidy" for the neutral "tax incentives" for the housing industry, mortgage sellers, mortgage brokers, homeowners, oil producers, families with kids, married couples...
  • yetanotherdave
    "The money's all coming out of the same pot, the general revenue fund."

    Sounds like you see it as the government's money. That's a very dangerous bias.

    As a practical matter, not going into the pot (tax break) has a similar effect as coming out of the pot (subsidy). I don't know what a pegorative is, but at least to me "tax incentive" is every bit as pejorative as "subsidy" - both methods are often (always?) abused in attempts at behavior modification. I am not defending tax breaks. Personally I would like to end ALL tax incentives AND subsidies.
  • Tex
    Right! If I get the government to cut my taxes but keeps yours the same and shifting the tax burden to you, that's certainly not a subsidy from my perspective.
  • yetanotherdave
    Of course, the "Bush tax cuts" had the effect you describe - they shifted more of the tax burden to the highest wage earners even though tax rates were reduced for everybody.
  • Tex
    What's your evidence for the claim that the Bush tax cuts "shifted more of the tax burden to the highest wage earners".
  • yetanotherdave
    Look here: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

    You can see the acceleration of the highest earners share starting in 2004 (Remember the cuts for the highest earners were very small in 2001; their rates weren't reduced significantly until the middle of 2003).
  • yetanotherdave
    Nor from mine since I know the definition of the word!

    Duh!
  • carpeweb
    Apparently you don't "know" the same definition as I "know" ... yippee, now we've devolved to semantics, which I just love ...
  • yetanotherdave
    I don't see how using a term incorrectly (as in applying a nonexistent definition to a word) is semantics. Of course, I could be wrong - I only consulted 3 dictionaries to make sure I hadn't missed an alternate definition. I found no instance where a tax break (i. e. allowing people to keep their own money) would meet any of the definitions. If you have a reference with such a definition please share it.
  • Tex
    Here's one: http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/tax+subsi...

    Here's another: (scoll down to the Brittanica entry)

    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:gg7eOBCffKE...

    A third: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561539566/tax...

    And finally, Wikipedia: Under "Subsidy", first sentence in subsection Types of Subsidies
  • yetanotherdave
    I didn't consult those sources (obviously) for word definitions. They do indeed describe the term the way you use it, so maybe I need to eat some crow. In contrast, Dictionary.com, Merriam Webster and American Heritage (IMO better and more respected dictionaries) do not include any such definition, so maybe it will be a very small serving on the side. Very interesting, thank you.
  • Tex
    HA! Well said, Dave. You're welcome.

    I have eaten crow on several occasions and recommend a merlot to accompany it. It cuts the foul taste.
  • yetanotherdave
    It's not my first serving either, but I usually have an imperial stout along with. I'll try the merlot!
  • vidyohs
    Reforming the tax code is no goal. Elimination, now that is a goal.
  • yetanotherdave
    And a good and worthy goal at that!
  • Mark
    Hear Hear! I would encourage Mr Frank to take the same approach that Democrats have done on health care: look at what Canada does and replicate it! No deduction of interest and no government subsidized purchasing of mortgages.

    The housing market is a great example of an efficient market - in every city there are hundreds of sellers and hundreds of buyers and hundreds of units. There is no reason save embedded political expectations for government financial intervention.
  • Tex
    Re the quote from Adam Smith:

    "The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in
    his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed
    beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer
    the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to
    establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard
    either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which
    may oppose it."

    "The man of system..." Smith is talking about ideologues of all stripes. Why don't his words apply as readily to Hayekian ideologues as to Communists, radical Islamists, Christian fundamentalists, Creation "scientist", and left wing ideologue knee-jerks who seek to impose their own "ideal plans" on the society?

    And how DOES it apply to the pragmatic advocate of mix economies who is not so "enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it", but instead is willing, through democratic institutions, to compromise and accommodate "the great interests [and]... the strong prejudices that may oppose it"?

    Smith is making an agrument against inflexible ideology, not one for social Darwinism and laissez faire capitalism.

    Pragmatic advocates of a mixed economy do not "consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other
    principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon
    them". In fact, they actively recognize and accommodate the truism that "in the great chess-board of human society, every
    single piece has a principle of motion of its own". But they do not concede that those "principles of motions" are beyond the reach of human intention to guide, any more than Newton believed that the effect of gravity was beyond the reach of human intention to shape.

    A crucial element of human progress has been our ability to discover the laws that govern our world and to invent ways to pursue our intent within the constraints of those laws.
  • vidyohs
    I first read this lazy, illogical and dismissive tripe back at 2:48PM this afternoon and I had to resist the urge to comment then, but I held off to give others a chance and to see if others see in this tripe what I did. And, they did.

    "A crucial element of human progress has been our ability to discover the laws that govern our world and to invent ways to pursue our intent within the constraints of those laws.".......Well, this is really pretty, Tex, care to tell us what wisdom it is supposed to provide? Does it mean we have invented ways of having markets and relationships without having to worry about the constraints of gravity, or the speed of light, of tides in the ocean, of the severity of the winds, the cold of winter, or the heat of summer? Or was it that lovely gobbledygook that muirduck and DK love to spout?

    So you're so lazy, illogical, and dismissive that you equate the freedom in the ideas of Hayek to the oppression of communism, socialism, radical Islamists, Fundamental Christianity, and the redundant "left-wing ideolouges". Can a person be too strong in asserting the ideas and rights of freedom, and does that detract from others in any way? How does that work, that if I am free that some how makes some one else less free?

    "pragmatic advocate of mix economies", Wow! Just exactly what do you or your pragmatic advocate of mix economies propose to mix with economic freedom, and not put that freedom to degeneration?

    "instead is willing, through democratic institutions, to compromise and accommodate "the great interests [and]"......Now why would any intelligent person want to sacrifice freedom to any democratic institution, why would a freedom lover want to compromise and accommodate "the great interests" if those great interests eliminate freedom?

    Yeah I am a freedom ideolouge, gotta confess it.

    "Smith is making an agrument against inflexible ideology, not one for social Darwinism and laissez faire capitalism.".....Really! You really think laissez faire capitalism is an inflexible ideology? Now that takes some convoluted lack of brain work. Laissez faire capitalism, a system of free wheeling experimentation, innovation, invention, ever changing in random ways, unpredictable, and uncontrollable is an inflexible ideology! Who-da-thunk it.

    All those free people in the world and the others that want to be free, are just plain damn scary to you, Tex, aren't they. Like Bill Clinton you seem to have this concept that we Americans just have too damn much freedom.

    Do you equate the freeman to an ideolouge for an unreasonable belief, is that what you're about? If I want you and me to be free am I somehow suggesting a sort of evil to be foisted on you?

    "But they do not concede that those "principles of motions" are beyond the reach of human intention to guide,"......IMHO most everyone here on this Cafe understood that long ago, it is a common theme here that our lives are not beyond the reach of human intention to guide and that is a major bone of contention between us and those who would assert the privilege of doing the guiding.....it is why we say laissez faire, fools, laissez faire.
  • Tex
    I know, I know. "Fantaticism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of dissent is no virtue."

    Vidyohs, you are Exhibit A in my argument about Hayekianism.
  • vidyohs
    And, proud to be, for sure.

    So, again we do the disingenuous thing, eh Tex?

    Fanaticism in being free and staying free is definitely no vice. And tolerance of those who would take that away is definitely no virtue, it is stupidity.

    After all, Tex, what form does a legitimate dissent to freedom take, from where could it possibly come?

    As I asked above, freedom just scares the hell out of you doesn't it. You can't handle it yourself so you don't want others to have it either.

    Do you ever walk down stairs without having a death grip on the hand rail?
  • Tex
    God, you're full of it.
  • vidyohs
    Hey dipshit, muirduck already has the designation of Village Idiot here on the Cafe.

    You wrote the silly-ass stuff above, now try and explain it or admit that you're full of crap.

    I'll ask again.

    If this is not true then explain how it is so:

    "Fanaticism in being free and staying free is definitely no vice. And tolerance of those who would take that away is definitely no virtue, it is stupidity."

    "After all, Tex, what form does a legitimate dissent to freedom take, from where could it possibly come?"

    You came trampling into the Cafe talking about restricting freedom, that freedom is an ideology equated to communism, radical Islam, Left wing loonies; and, complaining how your neighbors won't fix your baler because they are republicans.

    Tell us all what a legitimate dissent to freedom is. And, why the hell anyone of any kind of character would tolerate it if it could actually be identified?

    You lock-step loonies are a great source of amusement, watching you do the Disingenuous Dance is entertaining.

    Yeah! Yeah ! Yeah! Spread a little lie here, shift a little truth there, shake your bullshit all around, and do the get-down socialist boogie! Yeah! Yeah! Yeaaaaaaaaaah!

    Tip, Tex. You gotta sing that last one.
  • Tex
    Vidyohs, have you tried electro-shlock therapy for this condition?
  • "The man of system..." Smith is talking about ideologues of all stripes.

    Not all stripes. Men of SYSTEM! What does that MEAN?

    It may be a peculiarity of men of system that they can't conceive of non-system. Or, to put it another way, those who are attached to imposed order believe that any other form of order is chaos.

    But in the end, it is the collapse of imposed order that produces chaos.

    As we see through the lens of history, political orders induce a corruption in the social order that eventually undermines the foundations of civilizations.
  • danielkuehn
    RE: "Not all stripes. Men of SYSTEM! What does that MEAN?"

    "Men of system" has gone from being an insight to a buzzword on here. What it "means" to you guys now is anyone that disagrees with you. Someone says something and one of you inevitably pipe up with "oh! man of system! man of system!". What Smith meant has been irrelevant on here fore quite a while now.
  • What it means?

    There is only one system, there may be different labels and different ideas about how it could be, but there is only one system: political hierarchy of power.

    Different ideologies hope to alter various manifestations of the system, but the core always remains the same, and with but one goal, political control of resources.

    You are perhaps given to lay great significance on labels such as socialism, etc. but in the end the system always ends up as an oligarchical hierarchy.

    for some reason, Marx thought the market was the system, so attempts to impose the Marxist template destroyed the things that let complex markets work and addressed not at all the evils of the real system and made it even worse.
  • Tex
    By "system" Smith meant hermetically sealed intellectual systems of thought, or ideologies, like Hayekianism.

    The rest of your post is gibberish.
  • Methinks1776
    Oh, I get it!! When you insult people who don't agree with YOU, it's perfectly normal discourse. Only when YOUR nonsense is challenged is it considered a vitriolic attack on anyone who disagrees with "Hey Yakian" views.

    If everyone who reads this blog loses about 60 IQ points, you'll suddenly start making sense.
  • Tex
    I'm sorry, Me. What have I said that has so insulted you?
  • Methinks1776
    not me, Tex. Sam.
  • Tex
    "Gibberish" is an insult? You all can dish it out but you can't take it, heh?

    In the future, I'll be more careful with your tender sensibilities.
  • Methinks1776
    "Gibberish" is an insult? You all can dish it out but you can't take it, heh?

    That's exactly what I was saying to you since you decided to elect yourself the politeness police in the following post:

    Why is it necessary to disparage with such vitriol the opinions and evidence of those you disagree with? This site is rampant with this type of rhetoric

    We've already had this discussion, I believe. To refresh your memory with regard to my position: I don't care what tone you take (I enjoy sarcasm and my sensibilities and I can never be described as "tender") but I will call you out if you hold yourself to a different standard than you demand of others.
  • danielkuehn
    You've been talking a lot about "Hayekians", and I think I sorta know what you've meant by that - and I tentatively concur - but what do you think of Hayek himself? There is quite a bit of common ground between Hayek and Smith, in my opinion, and while a lot of self-styled Austrians and libertarians tend to frustrate me I personally wouldn't dismiss Hayek that easily. He has some major intellectual blindspots, and if I had to choose between Hayek and Smith obviously I'd choose Smith. But I hope you're not implying that Hayek himself was simply ideology. He was certainly an ideological guy, but I think his insights transcended that.
  • Tex
    DK, 'm not disparaging Hayek. By "Hayekian" I mean the dogmatics who cite Hayek, esp those on this site, and categorically reject the theory and insights of alternate schools of economic thought.
  • I don't interpret it that way. Men of system believe they can create, comprehend, apprehend, and manage the human ecology.

    It seems that no matter how large and powerful the beast gets, many believe that they can keep the political system from getting out of hand.

    You appear to be a man of the existing system, that it will succeed in carrying us through the maelstrom ahead by the ability of smart men in positions of power doing the right pragmatic things.

    I don't get that "Hayekians" (whatever that means) are such "men of system". "Hayekians" don't aspire to design and impose human ecologies, unlike communists and other collectivists.

    I've never thought of myself as Hayekian and if anybody asked, it's not a lable I would suggest, I haven't really read Hayek, except for a few bits here and there.

    I have no system, nor I am interested in designing, or imposing a system, a human ecology. I merely oppose those who aspire to do so.

    I just don't think the current order will sustain.
  • The rest of your post is gibberish.

    Of course it is, so don't bother yourself about it.

    As for the rest, you seem to live interesting times.

    Stay close to the fence, you might have to hop back over.
  • Clever trying to pass freedom off as an "imposed plan" of inflexible idealogues.

    So, by your logic, is Smith an inflexible idealogue? How about yourself? Or is it just anyone who disagrees with you?

    Similarly, you confuse physical laws of the universe with the dynamics of human behavior. They're not the same thing.
  • Tex
    "Freedom" as an imposed plan is an oxymoron. In fact, it's not any kind of "plan". It's a state of being.

    I've endorsed Smith's words, so obviously, I'm not saying he's an ideologue. I'm saying he's criticizing ideologues. Are you dyslexic?

    I guess you're not aware that Adam Smiith came out of the scientific tradition of Newton and applied that tradition to the study of human behavior seeking the laws that govern it.
  • danielkuehn
    Also from Adam Smith:

    "To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them, or to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed."
  • Tex
    Yes. "The obligation to build party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire..." This is exactly the kind of real world pragmatism I refer to in my earlier post.

    I weary of the Hayekians trotting out and distorting Smith to support their ideology.

    Thanks for an excellent quote, DK.
  • danielkuehn
    Thanks.

    Yes - and note Don's response to me: Smith believed that competition helps to keep banks honest.

    Well of course he believes that! I do too! That's why I'm such a fan of Adam Smith! Nobody demolishes protectionism and opposition to competition like Smith does!

    Somehow the observation that competition is not a panacea and some (not all) communitarian remedies are consistent with human liberty gets conflated into opposition to competition. I don't get it.





  • Randy
    "Somehow the observation that competition is not a panacea and some (not all) communitarian remedies are consistent with human liberty gets conflated into opposition to competition. I don't get it."

    You can't turn off history. We've heard it all before. They are cyanide pills covered in honey. Hayek explains it far better than I do, so I'll just refer you to him.
  • danielkuehn
    RE: "You can't turn off history. "

    I couldn't agree more. I wish people on here would pay more attention to history.
  • Tex
    I agree.

    The primary constraint must be through competition, but there's role for govt as well.

    Yes, often, legislators and regulators are captured by the regulated and then we are returned to a laissez faire system that is vulnerable to abuse by those who have market power sufficient to mitigate or avoid the restraints of competition.

    But on important occasions, after these abuses become too intolerable to endure, the abused exert themselves, throw the rascals out, and push through reforms that curb these abuses.

    That is, until a later generation forgets the lessons of this history, the reforms are undermined by the persistent efforts of the targets of reform, and the cycle begins again.
  • Randy
    Hayek would I think respond that power concentrated in the state is a whole 'other breed of dangerous compared to the power that can be concentrated in the hands of individuals, especially if the individuals are allowed to face real competition. In short, either you are focused on the wrong threat, or you support the threat.
  • Tex
    Obviously, I'm not talking about "power that can be concentrated in the hands of individuals" (though I would accept the proposition that individuals of great wealth and those with direct control of politically active corporations do represent a significant threat, but not as much as a govt unconstrained by constitutional and democratic means, which does not describe our democratic republic.)
  • then we are returned to a laissez faire system that is vulnerable to abuse by those

    Citation requested of when we ever returned to a laissez faire system.

    I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.
  • yetanotherdave
    Am I understanding you correctly? I think you're saying that (legislators and regulators captured by the regulated) = (a laissez faire system)
  • Tex
    I'm saying the capture of legislators and regulators leads to policies that free the "capturers" to eventually repeat market abuses similar to those that led to regulation in the first place, which in many if not most cases, originally occured in unregulated, laissez faire markets.

    The "capturers" may claim they are virtuous and only seek economic efficiency, but their economic interest lead them to replicate the original (or similar) abuses, unless the fundamental structure of competition in that market has changed, or been changed by govt intervention, (and stays changed) in a way that prevents those abuses, and stays changed.
  • yetanotherdave
    So, basically, you're saying government regulations do not work to curb the abuses that inspired them.
  • Tex
    Are you impaired in some way?

    I said govt intervention often does work until, with time, the regulators are captured by the regulators who gut the law or regulations.
  • yetanotherdave
    You're asking if I'm impaired - that's funny! Have you read your posts?

    So you're saying regulations only work temporarily, after which time they don't work any more. IOW saying "basically, they don't work."
  • Methinks1776
    Yes, often, legislators and regulators are captured by the regulated and then we are returned to a laissez faire system that is vulnerable to abuse by those who have market power sufficient to mitigate or avoid the restraints of competition.

    Not often. Always. It is nonsensical to say that we are "returned to a laissez-faire system" by the capture of regulators. This comment shows a profound lack of understanding of "laissez-faire". It is regulation that destroys competition. I'm surprised that Danny K, as a card-carrying economist, didn't call you out on this (okay, I'm lying about being surprised).

    But on important occasions, after these abuses become too intolerable to endure, the abused exert themselves, throw the rascals out, and push through reforms that curb these abuses.

    The "abuses" via regulatory capture are never curbed. They morph into something different, but they are not curbed. Why not? Because regulators and the industry players they regulate are co-dependent. The people hurt by regulations - the customers - are usually the net losers of any "reform" to curb "abuses".
  • danielkuehn
    Doesn't THAT sound eerily familiar?
  • Tec
    Indeed. But I think the point is lost on most of our friends here because they only read economics and know (or care) little about history.
  • and know (or care) little about history.

    That's a big assumption on your part.

    Lot's of people know some history, the question is whether one knows anything of the real history as opposed to the "official" history.
  • Tex
    OK, I'll bite. When did you have your last history course and what is the last history book you read? Since I acknowledged that you guys read economics books, economic history courses and books don't count.
  • I'm a LONG time out of school, but I've been reading some history regarding WWI and WWII in the past few years.

    There has been a lot of revisionism since the release of WWII documents from their secrecy classification.

    And of course it is well known that the U.S. had taken sides well before official involvement.

    And.

    Remember the Maine. Ooh, the Spanish American war where public sentiment was turned to war with the claim that Spain sunk that ship, but which is now known to have been the result of a boiler explosion.

    The U.S. also killed many thousands of Phillippinos as part of an effort to keep that nation under U.S. rule after the defeat of Spain.
  • Methinks1776
    How dare anyone make disparaging remarks about anyone with a different opinion!

    eh, Tex?
  • Tex
    Don's response is a pretty typical response from the ideologues: construct a straw man that is irrelevant to the real debate, knock it don't and claim victory.
  • danielkuehn
    Don's funny - usually he's very fair and good. He's had a lot of strawmen lately, though. He seemed to assume that I don't think competition provides market discipline. I'm not sure where he came up with that. And he was accusing those engineers on the other post of saying that we should halt all school choice policies.

    Usually he's very fair but he's been making some wide-ranging accusations recently. I'm not sure why. Maybe things are getting stressful at work.
  • Tex
    Good to know. Thanks.
  • sandre
    some (not all) communitarian remedies are consistent with human liberty gets conflated into opposition to competition


    What are those?
  • Don Boudreaux
    Daniel: The Smith quotation you cite shows merely that Smith disapproved of paper money circulating among the general public. For Smith, paper money is appropriate only for "dealers." Your implication that Smith was skeptical that competition can work to keep banks honest is disproved by para. 106, chap. 2., bk. 2 of the Wealth of Nations (about twelve paragraphs below the one you cite):

    "If bankers are restrained from issuing any circulating bank notes, or notes payable to the bearer, for less than a certain sum, and if they are subjected to the obligation of an immediate and unconditional payment of such bank notes as soon as presented, their trade may, with safety to the public, be rendered in all other respects perfectly free. The late multiplication of banking companies in both parts of the United Kingdom, an event by which many people have been much alarmed, instead of diminishing, increases the security of the public. It obliges all of them to be more circumspect in their conduct, and, by not extending their currency beyond its due proportion to their cash, to guard themselves against those malicious runs which the rivalship of so many competitors is always ready to bring upon them. It restrains the circulation of each particular company within a narrower circle, and reduces their circulating notes to a smaller number. By dividing the whole circulation into a greater number of parts, the failure of any one company, an accident which, in the course of things, must sometimes happen, becomes of less consequence to the public. This free competition, too, obliges all bankers to be more liberal in their dealings with their customers, lest their rivals should carry them away. In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so."
  • danielkuehn
    I'd also note that it's his understanding of liberty that I'm highlighting as much as his views on bank regulation.

    He makes a very important point that while some action considered in isolation may be a violation of human liberty, it's not appropriate to consider it in isolation. The free actions of individuals have to be considered in the context of the involuntary impact that they have on others. And in some circumstances, the [classical] liberal position would be to restrain individual liberties that threaten the liberty of others in this way. That was my main point.

    Too often on here, crass, 19th century anarcho-libertarianism tries to claim the mantle of "classical liberalism" with some very illiberal justifications.
  • Randy
    "...while some action considered in isolation may be a violation of human liberty, it's not appropriate to consider it in isolation. The free actions of individuals have to be considered in the context of the involuntary impact that they have on others."

    Propaganda. Not because it is not true, but because it is imprecise. To say that individuals can form voluntary organizations to protect their lives, liberties, and property is one thing, but your statement leaves open the idea of a collective "interest" which takes precedence over the interests of individuals.
  • Tex
    Of course, there are times when the interests of society (a "collective") "takes preference" over the interests of individuals. For example, in WWII when the need to fight Hilter and Japan required conscription, when the state's requirement of tax revenue takes preference over individuals' desire to evaid paying taxes, when individuals' preference to prevent minorities from voting, when individuals' interests in protecting their "property" falls to govt's prohibition against slavery, when govt. protects the society's need for some level of clean water and air against the externalities produced by individuals' pollution, when govt regulates the quality of drinking water delivered by private individuals.

    Only a few legitimate examples.
  • Randy
    Where do you draw the line? I draw it at my interests. And I have no interest in making sacrifices for those who claim to represent people like me, but treat me as nothing but an element of their policy. The state either protects my life, liberty, and property, or it does not. The massive modern exploitive state does not.
  • What a mess to address.

    After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, there was no lacking of volunteers to man the armed forces, there were lines of them at recruiting stations across the country. They actual imposed the draft to regulate the influx of volunteers.

    That's why FDR went to such great lengths to bait the Japanese into attacking the U.S.

    We've already gone over the conscription argument previously. I do not grant, ever, the right of the collective to require individuals to serve as killers and cannon fodder.
  • Tex
    My god, Sam. Are you really arguing the larger question?

    Even if I were to concede your claims about WWII, which I don't, I can cite examples throughout history. But I'll limit myself to the slam-dunk examples of Vietnam, Korea and the North during the Civil War.

    And a related example I had overlook: the military's incarceration of deserters and, on the battlefield, their execution.
  • Another one.

    So, to fight the NAZIS to keep them from "taking over" the world, we allied with the USSR, which collective agency was dedicated to "taking over" the world and killed even more people than did the NAZIS?
  • Tex
    Another what? How does this post bear on what we're discussing?

    Also, you're showing your weakness in history. There are legitimate, strong doubts whether we would have won WWII, and if so, at what enormous cost, if we and the Brits had not allied with the USSR against Hitler.

    Sam, you're wearing my out with these, in the spirit of civility I'll say, non-meritorious questions and statements.
  • Another what?

    A challenge to the contention that the U.S. HAD to get involved in WWII to stop the NAZIS. Germany got into war with Russia. There was no way they would get out of that without serious losses and no way Germany could defeat Russia.

    I concede that you are well versed in the propaganda, this does not make you exceptional.
  • Tex
    You're projecting, Sam. I never said I was exceptional.

    And, again, you're demonstrating your--absense of knowledge--about history. The Germans invated Russia after damn near knocking the British out of the war. And a major reason they did not knock the Brits out of the war before we intervened was because of FDR's Lend Lease program. And the Lend Lease played a crucial role in breaking the German momentum at Stalingrad and Moscow.

    Without confronting the Germans with a two-front war, there's no certainty the Germans would have been defeated, and there's good reason to believe that the Nazi regime would not have collapsed without the combined efforts of the us, the Brits and the Russians.

    And in case you've forgotten the German ally, the Japanese, attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

    Now you've revealed yourself as not only a Hayekian but also a WWII isolationist.

    Where do you stand re denial of the Holocaust?
  • Until I can find my references, perhaps you'd care to read what a historian has to say on the matter: Truncating the Antecedents by Bob Higgs
  • Yes, we're all familiar with lend-lease, etc. It was Britain that first declared war on Germany and Germany and Russia had a treaty going for a while.

    But helping the soviets against Germany left us with a much stronger opponent after the war than otherwise would have been the case.

    And in case you've forgotten the German ally, the Japanese, attacked us at Pearl Harbor.

    Japanese war strategists calculated that the U.S. had 600 times the war production capacity of Japan. Japan was eager to negotiate with the U.S. but FDR would have none of it. He pressured the Dutch to cut off oil supplies to Japan, and actually supplied material aid to China. Not so much arguing that was bad, but that it belied the supposed neutrality of the U.S.

    The Japanese eventually decided that was with the U.S. was inevitable, so they attacked PH in hopes of forestalling U.S. entry into the Pacific arena.

    Towards the end of the war, Japan attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender (they wanted to keep their emperor), but Truman continued FDR's policy of unconditional surrender. Let them keep their emperor any way.

    Without confronting the Germans with a two-front war, there's no certainty the Germans would have been defeated, and there's good reason to believe that the Nazi regime would not have collapsed without the combined efforts of the us, the Brits and the Russians.

    Certainly that's what we are supposed to believe.

    I don't know why you think you are telling me anything I'm not already aware of. I grew up on WWII movies and TV shows, and I was fed the same history in school that you've been fed.

    Where do you stand re denial of the Holocaust?

    I fully accept evidence establishing the holocaust. There's no doubt about it.

    What is not so well understood is that the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other undesirables played no role in U.S. entry into the war.

    What is incredible is that the extermination of several tens of millions of individuals by the communist regime in the USSR doesn't get near the play that the NAZI sponsored extermination gets.

    In act, I don't think I ever heard anything about the Soviet exterminations in my government approved history lessons.
  • Randy
    I'm with you on this one Sam. I don't think American involvement in WWII was at all necessary. But the thing here is, we don't have to justify our view. People like us didn't get millions of people killed or injured. Only those who did have any need to justify their actions. But they don't. And all the "history" lessons and rationalizations are really nothing but an avoidance of responsibility.
  • The thing is, Tex, I'm already familiar with that side of the story. That's the version pretty much everybody that remembers their Government approved history knows.

    I remember a lot of my school taught history pretty well.

    The victor always has a self flattering account of history.

    You are aware, are you not, that about %70 of WWII was on Germany's Eastern front with the USSR?

    Seems like the USSR got the better part of that alliance.
  • Tex
    Since you ducked the question, I take that it's been quite a while since you took a history class (what was it, where?) and you haven't read a history book in a long time, right?
  • Yup, two years is a long time.
    But I keep the books for reference.

    I see you're another fellow impressed by authority.

    I'm sure your history class gave you a true, faithful, and unbiased account of history.
  • Tex
    Great! I want to get smart on what you've been reading. What's the title and author?

    You ducked my question about what history course you took and where. We're talking college level, not high school.
  • What kind of slam dunk example was the Vietnam war?

    the military's incarceration of deserters and, on the battlefield, their execution.

    Do you know how many deserters the U.S. executed during WWII?
    This is a benefit to the rest of us; HOW?
  • danielkuehn
    Then you must be misreading me. I certainly don't believe there are collective interests that can unilaterally claim precedence. I'm not even sure there is such a thing as a "collective interest" - but if there is and if it ever takes precedent over individual interest, that is the exception not the rule. And you HAVE to justify it in precise circumstances before you apply this admittedly imprecise rendition of it.


    Most of what I talk about involves a violation of individual liberties, not "collective interests" - when you think of government intervention into the economy, the environment, etc. - most standard market failure/externality arguments make the case on the basis of a violation of INDIVIDUAL rights that has occured. But, as Smith notes and I concur, these are few and far between. These are the rare circumstances. The logic is sound, but we should view anyone that applies this logic to everything under the sun skeptically. An argument needs to be made in each specific case.
  • Randy
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time, but I will commit your response to memory. Your original statement is the very beginning of the slippery slope. It is an argument that is not really needed, but is frequently used to justify all manner of interference by those who would speak in the name of the collective. It is propaganda.
  • danielkuehn
    If all you can say is that it's the beginning of a slippery slope, that's fine.

    Yours is the beginning of a slippery slope to anarchy, random acts of violence, and mob rule. So it must be propaganda.

    See how easy that is to just say? Now how convincing of a critique was that to you?

    Life is a slippery slope. As long as I stand against "all manner of interference by those who would speak in the name of the collective" I'm very comfortable with where I am.
  • Randy
    Propaganda is manipulation, a form of exploitation, and exploitation is an exercise of power. The individual has very limited power (even in anarchy). So, while it is possible for an individual to disseminate propaganda, such propaganda is of little consequence, while the propaganda disseminated by a collective can be, and very frequently has been, a significant threat to all. Better, I think, to confine the use of the term to the myths and rationalizations of the state and its acolytes. To apply the term even to those who resist said myths and rationalizations is just another instance of propaganda.
  • Tex
    The same insight, restraining "individual liberies that threaten the liberties of others", is reflected in classical liberal political theory as well, through Hume, Locke and Madison, and through them in the US Constitution. (The founders also read Smith and were influenced by him but not as a primary source.)

    "The People" of the Constitution, and "the people" who ratified it, temporarily ceded some of their natural liberty to the new federal govt in order "to secure the blessing of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." (Preamble)

    Among those concessions of liberty included (among others) the exclusive authority of the new government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, to tax, to declare war and conscript armies, and to protect the rights of minorities from infringement by majorities, including for example their right to practice the religion of their choice or no religion at all.
  • danielkuehn
    Start reading (by my count) fifty paragraphs above this paragraph you cite - Smith's discussion of the Scottish banks shows that he is indeed skeptical of the ability of competition to prevent banking crises. And who does Smith give a mark of approval in this particular instance? The Bank of England! One of those feared "central banks".

    As you ably point out, he also recognizes the important role that competition and profit and loss play in keeping banks honest. I recognize this role too - I hope you don't misunderstand me or think that I'm disputing the importance of competition in the stability and growth of an economy. I'm simply acknowledging (with Smith) that there are limits to what a market can do, and there are natural instabilities (look in his chapters on the revenue of the sovereign and you'll see similar considerations when it comes to public education and transportation infrastructure).

    I'm afraid this is turning into "dueling quotes" unnecessarily. I assure you, I don't need Don Boudreaux to tell me the power of competition or that Adam Smith was a fan competition. I'm not disputing either of those points. What I'm suggesting is that Smith recognized some natural instabilities and problems with the market that a lot of people gloss over when they consider him.
  • danielkuehn
    But CLEARLY none of those classical liberals agree with me on concerns about market failures and externalities. That's just stuff that defeated Keynesians dreamed up in the 70s!
  • Certainly, for the occasional perceived market failure, we need to have the consistent failure of political intervention.
  • Methinks1776
    Sam, we've had the discussion of the definition of market failure before, so I won't rehash it. I believe I agreed with you then as I still do now that government intervention to "fix" market failure is also a failure.

    David Friedman has a lot to say on the subject of non-government solutions to market failure. I'm sure he's not the only one either.
  • In any case, to have political authority available to "fix" the market means you have to have available and agency that can "fix" the market.

    That's when a lot of parties develop an interested in getting that agency to "fix" the market more to their liking.

    It's all downhill from there.
  • Methinks1776
    totally.
  • I forgot to end with "/sarcasm".
  • Methinks1776
    which just demonstrates how difficult it is to read tone in posts sometimes.
  • I'll try to be more outrageous in future.
  • Methinks1776
    LOL
  • danielkuehn
    Absolutely.

    This doesn't get discussed as much on here. I think you think it doesn't get discussed because I assume there's no such thing as government failure. On the contrary, I agree with you on that. Government failure is pervasive. I challenge you less on that precisely because it's not a point of disagreement between us.

    There is some difference I'm sure. I don't think the government is entirely incompetent and impotent. But I certainly don't disagree with the pervasiveness of government failure. Excellent point.
  • Methinks1776
    Classical liberals, even anarcho-capitalists like David Friedman, understand market failure better than you.

    What is rejected is your leftist definition of market failure - a failure of the market to produce an outcome you personally desire. What is also often rejected is your statist solution to market failures.

    You labour under the delusion that you and your fellow statists are the only ones who understand anything.
  • danielkuehn
    What does my personal desire have to do with my understanding of market failure. You'll have to explain that one.

    Often, I have no relevant "personal desire" for the question at hand. Carbon in the atmosphere? I have no idea how much carbon should be in the atmosphere. I have no idea if I'd even personally prefer it to be a little warmer. I have no frame of reference. But what I do know is that people are bearing costs of carbon that are not included in the price, which means that there will be more consumption of carbon in a market with complete property rights. It's the market with ideal property rights that is the standard for what is "optimal" or not. My personal desires have nothing to do with it.

    And again - you say I labour [sic] under the standard that I'm the only one that understands anything... could you explain that a little better? Or is that just another methinks throwaway line. I've never been under the impression that I'm the only one that understands these issues, so you're going to have to explain what you mean and how you know that.
  • Methinks1776
    What does my personal desire have to do with my understanding of market failure.

    After reading the rest of your inane post, I have the same question.

    You have no idea how much carbon is ideal but you are certain people are bearing costs and the costs are not reflected in the price. Yet, you are uncertain at what point carbon becomes a cost and what that cost is and, by extension of your vast ignorance on the subject of carbon, if forcing change in carbon consumption will even have an effect. But, you prefer everyone pay some price for carbon that you determine.

    This is idiotic even for you.

    With youthful arrogance you assume that because what I say flies over your head it's a throwaway line. I'll let you get back to chasing your tail.
  • Tex
    Why is it necessary to disparage with such vitriol the opinions and evidence of those you disagree with? This site is rampant with this type of rhetoric.
  • Methinks1776
    Tex from a previous post:
    But unfortunately, we're wasting our time trying to convinced most of these folks of anything (still, it's entertaining, isn't it). They are impervious to theory, logic, facts, or data that doesn't fit into their rigid Hey Yakian ideology.


    When you and your therapist figure out why you disparage with vitriol the opinions and evidence of the those you disagree with, you be sure to let us know. Perhaps then this site will be free of your rampant rhetoric.
  • Tex
    OK, I confess to disparagement but there's no vitriol in that statement.

    I'll try to do better, but considering the amount of disparagement and vitriol the non-Hayekians receive on this site, it's tough to resist. :)

    Civiltiy is next to godliness.
  • Methinks1776
    really? I thought there was a lot of vitriol in your post. I guess that just means that vitriol levels are subject to perception.

    There are always reasons and excuses for snark. Personally, I have a million of each. I'm not suggesting you refrain, just that you don't hold a double standard. Since you're pretty new, I also suggest that you learn the history of long-time posters' interactions before you comment on their exchanges. I think you'll agree that this is probably a good idea in private life - it's not a worse idea in comment sections.
  • Tex
    So let me get this straight.

    You're recommending that I no longer post on this site until I've read a sufficient number of posts over time so that I know enough about long-time posters' interactions that I can therefore have opinions, express them, and provide evidence and arguments for them???

    How long do I need to wait, Me?

    Why shouldn't I view this as an attempt to have me gag myself, on your advice, so you all don't have to consider contrary opinions?
  • Methinks1776
    Just to add....as a "Hey Yakian", as you put it, I wouldn't dream of ever preventing you or anyone else from expressing their opinion. Plus, I'm not the blog owner and have neither the right nor the ability to prevent anything. However, it's not particularly useful to comment on the tone of the comments - especially when you've exhibited the tone to which you object from the beginning and in light of the fact that you can't control others. So, my suggestion is to comment away and let the chips fall where they may.
  • Tex
    Well then, I thank you, Me, for returning to me my right of free speach.

    Two can play the snarky game. :)
  • Methinks1776
    Well then, I thank you, Me, for returning to me my right of free speach.

    Anything for you, Tex.

    Two can play the snarky game. :)

    Well, I'm a fan of it, personally. I'm fluent in sarcasm ;)
  • Tex
    LOL. We approach godliness.
  • Methinks1776
    Indeed! You can't take most things too seriously.
  • Methinks1776
    If that's what you think I recommended in my post, then I recommend that you reread that post more carefully. There's no need to gag yourself.
  • Tex
    Then by all means, Me, pray tell: what did you mean by that statement about not commenting on these interaction? Perhaps you mean I should offer random observations that do not participate in this dialogue.
  • Methinks1776
    I thought that was pretty obvious. Comments about the topic being discussed are more useful than observations about the interaction itself - especially since you interact in exactly the same way that you criticize.

    I would expect an enlightened non-Hey Yakian to cotton on to that right away!
  • danielkuehn
    "Comments about the topic being discussed are more useful than observations about the interaction itself"

    Haha - "observations about the interaction" are like 90% of what you post Methinks! - I'm allowed to make this observation about the interaction because I haven't pledged any fidelity to staying on topic ;-)
  • Methinks1776
    Danny, you're starting to make Al Gore look like a genius.

    Tex will get no satisfaction from whining about the tone of comments because I don't care what he thinks about it.

    I can't dumb it down anymore than that for you. Sorry.
  • SheetWise
    "Danny, you're starting to make Al Gore look like a genius."

    Be careful here -- we need to maintain a point of reference.
  • danielkuehn
    Can you attempt to write a comment on here without calling people idiots? My God, Methinks - I think I moved past that in elementary school.

    I don't know how much carbon is "ideal". I don't think there even is a single "ideal" carbon level anyone can point to. The preponderance of evidence seems to suggest that a lot of people are involuntarily forced to bear costs of carbon consumption that they are not compensated for (they would be compensated for these costs in a market with complete property rights). Others enjoy benefits of carbon consumption that they don't have to pay for (many Russians are giddy over the prospect of climate change). The evidence suggests that on net the uncompensated costs exceed the uncompensated benefits. I don't recall ever forcing anyone to pay a price for carbon that I determine. Can you let me know where I said that? I do think that because everyone on Earth right now bears a cost (or benefit) of carbon consumption that they are not compensated for (unlike the consumption of, say, a loaf of bread, the costs and benefits of which are almost entirely incorporated into the property rights regime). Since everyone on Earth deals with these uncompensated costs and benefits, I think it's reasonable to come together as a community and discuss the prospect of compensating these costs and benefits. Not what I determine or what I know - but what we discuss.

    The alternative - your alternative - is far too anti-thetical to human liberty for my taste. The alternative is to let people continue involuntarily imposing costs (or benefits) on others, in complete violation of any standard of free exchange. Sorry, Methinks. I can't really countenance that.

    And notice I can say all that without calling you idiotic or arrogant.
  • Methinks1776
    I am unmoved by your your desperate attempts to convince myself and others that hair splitting, fence sitting, circular logic and tyranny rebranded as liberty arguments are anything but idiotic. If you then deduce that idiotic arguments are always made by idiots, then I suggest that this is a personal problem for you to explore with your therapist.
  • Tex
    DK, have you noticed that Hayekians repeatedly deny (or fail to recognize, or are unaware of) certain well-establish economic concepts such as "externalities" the "tragedy of the commons", market failures in supplying public goods, and the problem of "free riders", among others
  • MWG
    ...actually you could listen to 2-3 Econtalk podcasts posted by Russ and find each of these concepts discussed regularly... of course maybe not in the way you think they should...
  • Now you're fencing with straw men as none of these charges are true according to my experience with advocates of free markets, none have denied the existence of these issue and they have been addressed as well, not denied.

    Indeed, "tragedy of the commons" is often used to argue against having "commons".

    What market failures can you point to in providing "public goods".
    Many roads in the U.S. began as private roads.
    Shipping companies could have shared the costs of lighthouses, etc.

    Can you give more than 5 examples of public goods that can only be provided by coercing people into paying for them via taxation?

    Free riders; this is an issue that has been examined by free market scholars, as I have read, but being so unorganized and forgetful about certain kinds of details, I am unable to cite, suffice it to say the the problem of free riders tends to be outweighed by the cost of the "public" solution.
  • Tex
    "Indeed, "tragedy of the commons" is often used to argue against having "commons"."

    So this argument implies the privatization of oceans, rivers, fish and wildlife stocks, the atmosphere, national parks, highways...?

    5+ examples of public goods:

    * national defense/security
    * intellectual property
    * crime prevention thru police protection
    * the rule of law including law making, enforcement, prosecution and the courts
    * sharing MP3 files on the internet
    * this website
    * free over-the-air television and radio
    * clean air
    * highways
    * street lights

    I know you'll contest all of these so I won't bother to site more examples.
  • * national defense/security - 1

    * intellectual property - arguable, could be dealt with by common law

    * crime prevention thru police protection - heh, crime creation via prohibition. Never heard of private security, eh? Amyhow, I'll make this 2

    * the rule of law including law making, enforcement, prosecution and
    the courts - 3

    * sharing MP3 files on the internet - only government makes that possible?

    * this website - only government makes this possible?

    * free over-the-air television and radio - highly arguable and it's not free. I believe the Reason Foundation has published papers on this.

    * clean air - private property rights and common law

    * highways - a major source of air pollution is government subsidization of highways, can be provided privately

    * street lights - you are not seriously arguing that ONLY government can provide street lighting, are you?

    I'll grant only three of your examples as strong examples of public goods that might only be delivered by coercive taxation.

    Perhaps you missed the "ONLY" conditional in my request.
  • Tex
    * intellectual property - arguable, could be dealt with by common law

    Really? Explain to all the enterpreneurs who file for patents and copyrights each year that they don't need to go to all that trouble because the could rely on common law.

    That's 4.

    * sharing MP3 files on the internet - only government makes that possible?
    * this website - only government makes this possible?

    The definition of common goods does not require that only the govt can make it possible. Look it up.

    I'll be charitable and we'll split it.

    That's 5.

    * free over-the-air television and radio - highly arguable and it's not free. I believe the Reason Foundation has published papers on this.

    Why is is not free?

    * clean air - private property rights and common law

    Who has private property rights on air circulating in the atmosphere? If common law were sufficient to protect clean air, why didn't air pollution begin decreasing until after the Clean Air Act passed.

    That's 6.

    * highways - a major source of air pollution is government subsidization of highways, can be provided privately

    If the interstate highway system could have been built privately, why wasn't it and why did it suddenly happen after Ike got the Interstate Highway System through Congress?

    I won't even address the meritless claim that rural farm to market roads would ever be built privately.

    That's 7.

    * street lights - you are not seriously arguing that ONLY government can provide street lighting, are you?

    I'm bored now. I beat 5.
  • The definition of common goods does not require that only the govt can make it possible.

    But that was a condition I imposed in my request, so no, you didn't.

    Roads to farms were originally private, and farms were reasonably well served by railroads.

    Government provision of things that couldn't be provided otherwise does not argue for the efficiency of such provision, only the efficacy.

    This has distorted markets and creates a self serving argument.

    For instance, railroads suffered serious decline after government built roads everywhere. Now we get to subsidize rail service.

    Efficacious outcome.
  • Tex
    "The definition of common goods does not require that only the govt can make it possible. But that was a condition I imposed in my request, so no, you didn't."

    It was not a condition you imposed. Here's what you actually said:

    Cite me a reputable source for a definition of public goods that says the only the government can make it possible.

    "What market failures can you point to in providing "public goods"."

    Cite me the basis for your claim that farm roads were originally provide by the private sector.

    Also site me a definition that requires government provision of a public good has to be efficient not just efficacious.

    Until you do I still have plus 5 examples.
  • Cite me a reputable source for a definition of public goods that says the only the government can make it possible.

    Well, that's not what I actually said.

    Cite me the basis for your claim that farm roads were originally provide by the private sector

    Are you saying that the settlers reached the west and settled farms via government built roads?

    Also site me a definition that requires government provision of a public good has to be efficient not just efficacious.

    The word is "cite" and I'm not trying to claim that there is a definition that government provision of a public good has to be other than efficacious.

    As I take the position that government shouldn't be providing any service that could be better (more efficiently) provided by the market, then I am obviously keen to illustrate how government provision of such services is not in best interest of the people, given that provision of such goods and services will cost resources in either case

    If making an economic argument for provision of goods and services is of any utility, then the argument should be in favor of the highest utility.
  • Tex
    Sam, I thought you said you couldn't provide me with the Heritage cites because you have other things to do. But now here you are back at it.

    Me: "Cite me a reputable source for a definition of public goods that says the only the government can make it possible."

    You: "Well, that's not what I actually said."

    Sure you did. Go find it and send it to me to prove I'm wrong.

    Me: "Cite me the basis for your claim that farm roads were originally provide by the private sector."

    You: "Are you saying that the settlers reached the west and settled farms via government built roads?"

    You've got to be kidding. Those weren't private roads. Those were trails. You don't have any examples of private farm to market roads, do you.

    Me: "Also site me a definition that requires government provision of a public good has to be efficient not just efficacious."

    You: "The word is "cite" and I not trying to claim that there is a definition that government provision of a public good has to be other than efficacious. As I take the position that government shouldn't be providing any service that could be better (more efficiently) provided by the market, then I am obviously keen to illustrate how government provision of such services is not in best interest of the people, given that provision of such goods and services will cost resources in either case."

    Good for you. But your "keenness" has nothing to do with how "public goods" is defined.

    You lose and I'm done with you on this topic.
  • This is what I said: Can you give more than 5 examples of public goods that can only be provided by coercing people into paying for them via taxation?

    The other line was me QUOTING you.
  • yetanotherdave
    She didn't call anybody an idiot - she just decribed the content of your post as idiotic.

    See, others can split hairs, too.

    /snark

    Speaking of mulberry bushes, you should do more research - when you remove the computer models and "carbon drives water vapor" hypothesis that have been falsified, the remaining evidence clearly does not suggest that on net the uncompensated costs exceed the uncompensated benefits. At this point we cannot measure the climate impact of industrial activity through the "noise" of natural variation, yet you advocate a tax on carbon anyway.

    Idiotic is a kind description of that position.
  • yetanotherdave
    Sorry for going OT...
  • SheetWise
    "But what I do know is that people are bearing costs of carbon that are not included in the price"

    What are these costs, and how do you know that?

    "... which means that there will be more consumption of carbon in a market with complete property rights."

    What is "consumption of carbon"?
  • danielkuehn
    This mulberry bush again? Rising global temperatures and attendant climate changes, for one. And yes, there is some disagreement on the extent of those costs. But we know that any climatic changes - costs or benefits - are not incorporated in the cost for carbon.

    RE: "What is "consumption of carbon"?"

    Are you being sarcastic?
  • SheetWise
    "This mulberry bush again?"

    Your nursery rhymes add little to the discussion.

    "Rising global temperatures and attendant climate changes, for one."

    They would appear to be one and the same, but do you have any evidence?

    "And yes, there is some disagreement on the extent of those costs."

    We were talking about the costs of carbon not included in the price. Do you have any evidence that there is a cost?

    "But we know that any climatic changes - costs or benefits - are not incorporated in the cost for carbon."

    I don't know that there is a cost for carbon -- seen or unseen. I do know that the climate changes, but I don't see your point.

    "RE: 'What is 'consumption of carbon?' 'Are you being sarcastic?'"

    Not at all. I didn't know that carbon could be consumed in any negative fashion.
  • Tex
    A climate change denier! Why am I not suprised?

    Where do you stand on the flat earth question, the Copernican question, the tobacco and cancer question, the diet and obesity question, the Darwin vs creation science question, and the Holocaust reality question?

    OK, I went too far on that last one. I'd erase it if I hadn't already hit "post".
  • yetanotherdave
    SheetWise: "I do know that the climate changes"

    Tex: "A climate change denier!"
  • Daniel doesn't like to get too far from the fence.
  • indianajim
    Keynesians were going strong in the 1970s. If it wasn't for Coase, these central planning "economists" would have done even more damage; remember what Coase published in the mid-70s? Time to wake up:

    Coase, Ronald. The Lighthouse in Economics J.L. & Econ (1974): 357-376.
  • Methinks1776
    Things didn't improve in the 80's either. I still have my yellowing notes.
  • indianajim
    Thanks for posting Methinks1776, but don't tell this to Daniel unless you want to listen to him tell you that "you are wrong."
  • Methinks1776
    It is kind of amusing watching Danny treat every post like the essay section of a college exam.
  • danielkuehn
    While Coase is one of the greats, he hardly inaugurated the concern with market failures, nor does he define it.

    Going strong in the 70s? The very early seventies, perhaps. Certainly not by mid-decade, much less late-decade. It's not like they were purged from econ departments or anything, but I don't think you could describe it as "going strong".

    Anyway, the point being these externality and market failure concerns long pre-date even Coase.
  • indianajim
    Maybe you are a youngster, so let me tell you that I took undergrad intro to macro in 1976 and it was pure Keynesian. I'll wager my experience was unexceptional.

    Secondly, you seem to have totally missed the point on the reference to Coase's lighthouse paper; read it and maybe you will get it.
  • danielkuehn
    What point did I miss? I'm well aware of the paper.
  • indianajim
    I will not answer your question in deference to the following Biblical wisdom:

    ". . . neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." - KJV, Matthew 7:6
  • danielkuehn
    OK, I'm forced to conclude you either had no point or you realized you were mistaken in assuming I missed it.

    Either way, several times now over the last year you've "reminded" me that Coase had concerns about the ability of government to correct market failures as if that insight of his is something that I'm not aware of. I can assure you - you don't have to continually remind me this. I'm aware of Coase on property rights. I'm aware of Coase on government corrections. I'm aware of Coase on transaction costs. Indianajim doesn't have to be the constant tutor on this blog.
  • Methinks1776
    OK, I'm forced to conclude you either had no point or you realized you were mistaken in assuming I missed it.

    You'd have to read a lot into Indianajim's response to come up with that conclusion. I think the most obvious conclusion one could draw from his post is that you're a pig. :) :)
  • danielkuehn
    I'd think the same if he hadn't insisted so many times in the past that I missed his point. It's something he often thinks of me (usually accompanied with a comment on my age or something else like that).
  • danielkuehn
    What you were taught in undergrad is not what's going on in the field necessarily. The discussion occurs at more levels than an intro textbook. There's some lag in the material that gets into those texts.

    In terms of the actual debate going on among economists, and not what they were teaching to their freshman, the Keynesians were in retreat starting in the 70s. The New Classical School was already well established and gaining momentum. Stagflation in the early 70s poked major holes in the old understanding of Keynesianism, The Monetary History had been out for almost a decade and monetarists were gaining favor. I don't care what you learned as a freshman, your history is wrong. Of course there were still Keynesians around - there have been since Keynes and there always will be. But the seventies market the end of Keynesian dominance. This is very common knowledge.
  • indianajim
    Of course what is taught to undergrads matters. Vulgar Keynesianism was the mother's milk of the average US Congressperson judging from the average age there is about 61. This defunct model appears to me to be running the back of the minds of many; this is not surprising because the baby-boomers who got macro mostly got what I got (again, vulgar Keynesianisms). What you call "my history" is history and it matters.

    Your capacity to learn seems retarded by your self-assessment.
  • danielkuehn
    I agree with you - of course what is taught to undergrads matters. Did I ever say it didn't?

    I assume the fact that you're completely failing to address the points in my post, you've realized when monetarism and the New Classical school started to displace Keynesianism. You've remember the damage that stagflation did to Keynesianism. You've realized that my initial point about the 70s was absolutely right, and so now the only thing you can do is go off on a tangent about how undergraduate economic education matters: a point that I have never disputed.

    What exactly do you consider "vulgar Keynesianism"? Are you just talking about the national income accounts/pump up "G" version of Keynesianism? Because even in freshman macro that's really just a simple introduction that's moved past after the first couple of weeks, right? Isn't that your experience?
  • Tex
    I think he means all Keynseism.
  • Yes, that's what is being argued here; who inaugurated the concern with market failure.
  • danielkuehn
    You think that started with Coase? Well my whole point is you can go back at least to Smith on that one.
  • I have no idea who that started with. Coase is merely a name I have previously heard in the context of economics.

    I don't know how a smart fellow like you could miss my point.
  • danielkuehn
    You said: "that's what is being argued here; who inaugurated the concern with market failure". My point is that Coase is very important to that discussion - in my opinion he's made some of the most important contributions to economics of anyone. But he didn't "inaugurate the concern with market failure".

    If your point is who inaugurated it, as you seemed to suggest, then I didn't miss your point.

    If your point is something else then I don't understand and you're being very cryptic today so you might want to try to restate it.
  • Restated:

    Yes, that's what is being argued here; who inaugurated the concern with
    market failure. /sarcasm
  • danielkuehn
    Aha - the sarcasm was not immediately evident. Damn inability of the internet to communicate tone!

    I see you're in indianajim's "Daniel doesn't understand Coase's insights into externalities" club. Don't worry - I do. I'm not sure why he continues to think that the insight is lost on people or that the insight is inconsistent with continued concern about externalities and market failures.

    Indeed - I'd argue that you can't responsibly be concerned about market failures without Coase's insight into government remedies for externalities.
  • I see you're in indianajim's "Daniel doesn't understand Coase's insights into externalities" club.

    Actually, I am fairly certain that I am not qualified to make such a judgment.

    But, I don't see where he was claiming that such concern originated with Coase so much as that Coase brought the concern into greater view at the time.
  • danielkuehn
    Nobody - neither indianajim nor I - contested the idea that externality concerns predated Coase until you made your comment.
  • Ah, well, then I was thrown off by this comment: While Coase is one of the greats, he hardly inaugurated the concern with market failures, nor does he define it.
  • danielkuehn
    Yes, for some reason on here everyone assumes that a comment is always a challenge. I was just restating something I initially said before indianajim even started commenting. I didn't restate it because he contradicted it - I restated it because he started going off on my historical point about the ebb of Keynesianism, when this point was more what I wanted to emphasize with my Adam Smith quote.

    I really don't disagree with people all the time on here. Often I really am just making comments to add to the discussion.
  • danielkuehn
    RE: "But, I don't see where he was claiming that such concern originated with Coase so much as that Coase brought the concern into greater view at the time."

    I never said he did make that claim. He was making the point that Coase's concerns somehow cut into the Keynesian school of thought. You were the one that (I thought... before I realized it was sarcasm) was making the point that concerns with externality all started with Coase. I never thought or said that indianajim suggested such a thing.
  • A problem with government creation of market actors (a business) is that it never starts small and grows the business within the context of the market, but rather always attempts to produce a fully formed agent by design, and any additional growth of said agent is not in response to market forces, but more in the manner of a cancerous growth.
  • Great point. Why can't we test something on a smaller scale to see what happens? Often, though, the tests are already out there in some form or fashion, but we do a terrible job at recognizing them or analyzing the true results.
  • Economiser
    Most Americans recognize that government price controls for goods are harmful. Why is government price control for money accepted and encouraged?

    Interest rates are simply the price of money, and the government controls that price directly and indirectly, such as through the fed funds rate or through Fannie and Freddie buying and encouraging dubious mortgages. Where's the outrage?
  • CRC
    Do they? I'm not so sure.

    Most people I encounter think government should raise the minimum wage, put a price cap on any good or service they consider essential but is too high (e.g., insurance or health care, profits or someone else's income), prevent price gouging during natural disasters not to mention on mortgage, credit card or ATM rates and fees.

    I suspect most Americans love price controls and don't actually understand what their effects are.
  • Economiser
    No... it's the animal spirits.
  • indianajim
    Russ,

    Barney should read and learn from the above, but I think the following Biblical advice applies:

    "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." - KJV, Matthew 7:6
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: