"The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.16.04.45.00.816336@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 07:58:05 +0530, John Galt wrote:
>
>>
>> "The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2008.05.16.02.04.50.537934@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> 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_.
>>
>> You're suggesting that people will be happy with declining individual
>> wealth
>> as long as they see in the newspapers that societal wealth is growing?
>>
>> Seriously?
>
> NO. I am disputing your assertion that individual wealth is measured in
> disposable income. You are assuming that we all have this fascination
with
> disposable income; that it equates to individual wealth.
We may be splitting hairs here, but that's not quite what I meant.
Disposable income gives the SENSE of individual wealth, which may or may
not
be demonstrable on paper. BUT, since people are not likely to be convinced
that the paper is more im****tant to them than the emotion, the point is
somewhat moot, I'd argue.
> Some individuals
> do not agree. But I seem to have hung myself with my own noose here. I
> earlier claimed that individual wealth was the ability to command the
> labor of others and that would infer that disposable income is indeed
the
> measure of individual wealth. I know what I said was wrong because it
is
> possible to be wealthy or poor without any others to command. I
normally
> state it as the labor foregone OR the command of labor. My bad.
>
> But bottom line is that individual wealth is individual. I have said
many
> times that it is actually the amount of leisure regardless of how it
> arises. But, here again, that is my individual assessment.
Sure. Not everyone values leisure. I don't. I like toys. If my company
gave
me a choice bewtween an extra weeks vacation and a raise of a week's wage,
I'd take the wage. Hell, I have five weeks of vacation already that I
rarely
use.
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> You're suggesting that people will be happy with less money to spend
next
>> year than they do this year?
>>
>> Seriously?
>
> Absolutely! I have less disposable income this year than last and I am
> much happier than I was last year. It isn't even close. That is not
> necessarily true for other people and obviously not true for you. But
> this is the broader point I am trying to make. It is strange that many
of
> the same people that claim that there is no such thing as a "common
good"
> will typically try to claim that disposable income is the defining
metric
> of wealth or happiness or goodness.
Obvously everyone has different circumstances. If I were a single guy, I
can
see having less and being happier. However, with a family and one kidlet
left home, I'm happier when I can afford to give her more op****tunity.
Since
I travel on business, this usually translates to dragging them along so
they
can see cool places while I do whatever it is I have to do for work.
For example: We were living in India for a year (mid 06 to mid 07), and
had
a great driver. A driver can make or break an expat's experience in a
chaotic place like India. Anyway, the driver is getting married in
November,
and wants us to be guests of honor at his wedding. Well, being a guest of
honor at a Hindu wedding in a village is not an op****tunity that pops up
every day, so we want to go. It's not cheap, but because of disposable
income, we get to do it.
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Hm? If you ask Joe Sixpack what his first responsibility is to, you
think
>> he's going to say something OTHER than his family? (Assuming you're not
>> going to cloud the question by dragging in a military attack on the
US.)
>>
>> Sorry. Lessons learned from life. If I don't take care of my own,
nobody
>> else will, and if they try, they won't do a particularly good job as I
>> see
>> it.
>
> But what if we had national health insurance like in Canada this year
but
> your disposable income (after your share of NHI) was 1% less and the
> quality of care was better than what you had last year. You would have
to
> agree I think (based on what you've written) that your family was better
> off because of it though your disposable income is less.
Well, you're phrasing your question carefully to dictate a response. At
1%,
my disposable income would actually increase and I'd get health care. No
brainer. 3% would be a push.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> How about one where the vast majority of the increase in personal
wealth
>> flows to the upper 1% of wages earners, while wealth growth is slightly
>> negative to the other 99%?
>
> You are just doing the same thing again in that you are insisting on
your
> one particular measuring stick. Societal wealth is not measured with
that
> particular stick but for _YOU_. You can assign all the other metrics a
> weight of zero and make yours a weight of one and then you can get where
> you want to be. The problem is that you have then abandoned the concept
> of societal wealth. And you are back to your claim that all that matters
> is your particular metric.
Actually, my claim is that the majority of Americans will look at it the
way
I do. There is very little sense of community responsibility left among
Americans. Even charity is done at arms length, by writing a check instead
of actually DOING anything for anyone. Thus, I have to conclude that the
majority will judge as "better" any policy decision which improves *their*
own personal lot, and that the definition of "lot" is usually financial.
>
> My position is that disposable income can, in fact, decrease for the
> majority while societal wealth is increasing. That can be so if the
> longevity, health, and happiness and general freedom of the majority
> increases in spite of the decrease in disposable income.
I think that view, to some extent, ignores who we are. "Protestant Work
Ethic" is in our DNA. This isn't Sweden, and never will be.
JG
>>
>> 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
>
|
