On Fri, 16 May 2008 06:49:11 +0530, John Galt wrote:
>
> "The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.05.15.18.46.30.24064@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:23:30 +0530, John Galt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2008.05.15.14.56.16.801976@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:23:56 -0700, orangatang1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 15 May, 05:09, Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>> On May 14, 8:48 pm, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > "Harold Burton" <hal.i.bur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>news:hal.i.burton-B2640D.21395514052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > In article
>>>>>> > >
<88ec7336-1eba-4980-9600-28c2a4d6e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>> > > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > >> Friedman was an issue dodger just like all the remaining
****lls
>>>>>> > >> at
>>>>>> > >> GOP
>>>>>> > >> "thank" tanks like Hoover, Heritage, Am. Enterprise, the
Chicago
>>>>>> > >> School, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > >> Friedman would never address the land issues raised by the
>>>>>> > >> Georgists
>>>>>> > >> and he'ld never touch the "free markets w/o free speech" issue
>>>>>> > >> either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > >> When you dodge issues that are fundamental to your field you
are
>>>>>> > >> a
>>>>>> > >> fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > Care for some cheese with that whine?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > Yeah, and let us know when you win a Nobel Prize.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > It's also a classic straw man. "I'll decide what issues should be
>>>>>> > fundamental to 'your field', so I can criticize you when you
don't
>>>>>> > address
>>>>>> > them."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > Love the sound of leftards whining.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Well, there are plenty (a substantive majority, even) who are
free
>>>>>> > marketers
>>>>>> > and have no quarrel with Friedman. The head of Obama's economic
team
>>>>>> > is from
>>>>>> > U of Chicago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > That said, there are indeed those who exist on the political
fringe
>>>>>> > that
>>>>>> > have no idea how intertwined human behavior is with economic
needs,
>>>>>> > and are
>>>>>> > thus doomed to criticze men like Friedman ad infinitum (and for
the
>>>>>> > rest of
>>>>>> > us, ad nauseum) based on some Cliff Notes they read about him on
>>>>>> > some
>>>>>> > fringe
>>>>>> > socialist/communist/anarchist site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > JG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> he never had one success. but, he had lots of disasters. of course,
>>>>>> you are a chanter, reality is not one of your stronger suits:)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
fully
>>>>>> fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> critical thought. The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
>>>>>> individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
>>>>>> requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful
or
>>>>>> the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
>>>>>> unim****tant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
>>>>>> appealing to the less intellectually curious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and
their
>>>>>> practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For
example,
>>>>>> in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
>>>>>> decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
>>>>>> will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
>>>>>> prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
>>>>>> speak
>>>>>> out against it are simply sidelined.
>>>>>> ROBERT HENDERSON- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of attacking Dr Friedman's reputation why not share your
>>>>> vision of a successful economy?
>>>>
>>>> My own version of a successful economy is an economy in which
>>>> general quality of life is continually rising. The GDP says just
about
>>>> nothing in this regard.
>>>
>>> Good observation.
>>>
>>> Is there *any* metric which actually measures real quality of life
(which
>>> I
>>> would define as a LOCAL equation, mean income after tax less mean
>>> (average
>>> food + average rent + average utilities + average anything else which
has
>>> to
>>> happen monthly) necessities?
>>
>> You are looking at individual wealth as opposed to societal wealth.
>
> Yea, I am, since that's essentially what matters.
NO. That seems to be what matters _TO_YOU_.
> If a society is full of
> people who feel that their disposal income is rising, then they're
happy.
NO. If people say they are happy then they are happy. It is not up to
you to tell them what makes them happy.
> Disposable income can rise because wages increase, taxes fall, the cost
> of goods falls, or because the goverment picks up the tab for something
> they are used to paying for (which is opposed to "taxes fall").
If disposable income is a measure of freedom or of security or of other
things that people hold dear then it is a good indicator of overall
"goodness". That is true enough. But why not just measure the overall
goodness and blow off the religious orthodoxy.
> In your societal discussion below, ISTM that skew enters the picture.
> Societal wealth can increase while individual wealth decreases for the
> majority of the population.
Let me say that I do not believe that the claim you have made can be true
unless you select some very strange metrics. When we look at the actual
metrics chosen by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Intelligence_Unit
I do not see how your claim can ever be correct. You can certainly select
different metrics, but I do not see how you can do so in such a way as to
sup****t the statement you have made. Perhaps you can illustrate.
>
> And
>> in a populated society individual wealth is anywhere and everywhere the
>> labor you can save yourself or the freedom you gain by commanding the
>> labor of others. Societal wealth, on the other hand, is the freedom
>> from harm, discomfort, and toil and the liberty that is shared among
>> all. There are two ways to achieve this societal wealth in a populated
>> society (there may be more but I do not know of them):
>>
>> 1. Technological advance and capital development 2. The division and
>> specialization of land and labor
>>
>> But the measurement of success is not the measurement of these things
>> directly. For the measurement of success we must turn to more direct
>> indicators of societal well being.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life
>>
>> There is and will be much disagreement over the weight assigned to the
>> various measurements of "infant mortality", "longevity", "happiness",
>> and the like. But these are the things that actually represent the
>> quality of life; the success or failure of economic policy.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
|
