patrick.net

Honest Abe says

An individual may use force in the defense of aggression, he may not initiate force.

Tat is trying to test your reasoning skills with a tough question.

I believe Tat is asking what you think the government's role should be regarding issues like polution--where the marginal utility to the creator of the pollution far outweighs his marginal cost. The marginal cost of pollution is spread out amongst other members of society whereas the marginal benefit goes to the factory owner. Should the government force the full cost to society of externalities on the creator of the pollution? Isn't pollution from a nearby factory an infringement of your private property rights, if you own land next door? Should the government protect your private property rights, or should the government let the factory owner dump as much waste in the local drinking water as he likes, in the name of a free market?

thank you--you said it better than I

Yes, government should protect property rights. And why you are connecting the free market to pollution? The free market is simply a voluntary supply and demand interaction. One party wants something, the other party has it, and they agree to an exchange. Pollution is a tangential issue that is probably a violation of the law...which is not necessarily directly related to the free market.

I'm sure you will acknowledge that there are millions of daily transactions that comprise the free market that have nothing to do with pollution.

And shouldn't we all be concerned with the big picture? Rather than discussing minutia to "test my reasoning skills", the reasoning skills that are suspect are the reasoning skills pf our "public servants" in Washington DC - who are running our country into the ground. Free markets work and are self correcting, property rights work, capitalism works. It's not capitalism and sound money that is crushing America. Its the fault of too much government, too much intervention, too many entitlements, too much intervention, too much creeping socialism, too much paper money and too much dependency on the Nanny State...MOMMY !!

Honest Abe says

Free markets work and are self correcting,

But they really aren't self correcting in every case. That's the point of the discussion. You say pollution is against the law--why? Isn't that the Nanny State government telling me how to run my plant? Why can't I run my furnace how I want to run it to be as competitive as possible?

A free market certainly wouldn't have limits on how I can run my business. And it wouldn't be self correcting either. Someone who wants to buy my product in CA. wouldn't care if I'm polluting the air in Virginia.

tatupu70 says

And it wouldn’t be self correcting either.

free markets are one big race to the bottom. Those who can enclave themselves away from the sociological and ecological disaster are all for it. See China for 1.3 trillion people living this experiment of unregulated capitalism.

Also the tax-exile "Save our Homes" homesteads on the Florida panhandle like our friend Karl Denninger's. They are still militantly mouthing the "drill baby drill" mantra through gritted teeth as the tar mats coat their boats in the marina or dockside. That wasn't in the script, like a glitch in the Matrix.

Troy says

tatupu70 says

And it wouldn’t be self correcting either.

free markets are one big race to the bottom. Those who can enclave themselves away from the sociological and ecological disaster are all for it. See China for 1.3 trillion people living this experiment of unregulated capitalism.
Also the tax-exile “Save our Homes” homesteads on the Florida panhandle like our friend Karl Denninger’s. They are still militantly mouthing the “drill baby drill” mantra through gritted teeth as the tar mats coat their boats in the marina or dockside. That wasn’t in the script, like a glitch in the Matrix.

Not to quibble too much but I think you meant 1.3 billion people in China. The whole world doesn't contain 1.3 trillion people yet. Maybe you're confusing our national debt with global polulation. LOL

simchaland says

Maybe you’re confusing our national debt with global polulation. LOL

yup, waaaaay too much arguing on the internet for this kid

Some pollution is acceptable, for example your car. Gross pollution would not be acceptable, to anyone, and would be subject to the pollution law - whatever that is.

Of course we need government, and teachers and cops and roads, and airports. What we don't need is a cradle to grave Nanny State, so everyone can be happy. Competent adults don't need constant and excessive government micro-management, regulation and intrusion into every aspect of their personal and business life. Government mismanagement, along with excessive deficit spending, with a fiat currency, results in a crushing debt load on the country and it's taxpayers. That is a recipe for fiscal and societal destruction, in case you haven't noticed.

Honest Abe says

Government mismanagement, along with excessive deficit spending, with a fiat currency, results in a crushing debt load on the country and it’s taxpayers. That is a recipe for fiscal and societal destruction, in case you haven’t noticed.

believe me I have, which is why the current Republican party will NEVER get my vote for any national office. Well, I voted for Tom Campbell in 2000, and I hope he doesn't win the primary since my vote will again be drawn to him. If he were running against Feinstein again my vote for him would be a lock.

anyhoo, you're railing against a strawman version of socialism. I think the real-world versions of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Germany speak for themselves. Funny how you always avoid them in your rants.

Honest Abe says

Some pollution is acceptable, for example your car. Gross pollution would not be acceptable, to anyone, and would be subject to the pollution law - whatever that is.
Of course we need government, and teachers and cops and roads, and airports. What we don’t need is a cradle to grave Nanny State, so everyone can be happy. Competent adults don’t need constant and excessive government micro-management, regulation and intrusion into every aspect of their personal and business life. Government mismanagement, along with excessive deficit spending, with a fiat currency, results in a crushing debt load on the country and it’s taxpayers. That is a recipe for fiscal and societal destruction, in case you haven’t noticed.

OK Abe-we're starting to get somewhere. You relapsed back into your talking points at the end there though.

Do you agree then that free markets aren't always self correcting? That externalities exist and require government action to mediate?

No, I believe a truely free market will always self correct. The law of supply and demand works every time. Like when gasoline prices got too high, people responded by buying more fuel efficient cars, driving less, driving slower, filling their tires with more air. Demand dropped, prices came down. Notice the absence of government FORCE...people acted in their own best self interest.
The exact same thing happened in housing - which we are all aware of. Prices got too high, people stopped buying - prices came down. Notice the abesence of government FORCE...people acted in their own best self interest.

I can't think of any instance in which the free market is not self correcting - can you?

Honest Abe says

I can’t think of any instance in which the free market is not self correcting - can you

We just described one for you. Companies pollute the air in China or in Pennsylvania, but people in CA. don't care so they keep buying their products.

Nomograph says

Honest Abe says

I can’t think of any instance in which the free market is not self correcting - can you?

Water, electricity, roads, schools, health care, forestry, mining, drilling, waste management, transportation, etc… These all will self-destruct or completely monopolize. There are many more.
Regulation doesn’t evolve because of “freedom haters” or other such nonsense. Regulation evolves in response to free market failure.

Indeed. Market fundamentalists operate as if the uneven and suboptimal latter half of the 19th century did not exist.

When Norway found oil on their continental shelf in the 1960s, the state set the exploitation up such that the bulk of the net proceeds ended up in their Pension Fund, which now amounts to $400B vested in 1% of global equity right now (well, $400B until the big haircut today). To avoid needless domestic inflation and unsustainable dependence on an relatively ephemeral income, they do not touch the principal, they only tap a portion of the interest returns for current expenses.

The history of oil exploration and exploitation here in the Land of the Free was a big mess, often literally. Anybody actually believes in the free market fairy has a screw loose with this sordid history staring them in the face, unless they fetishize winner-take-all competition and widespread commercial ruin and economic coercion.

The sweetheart giveaway of natural resources was one of the bigger mistakes made in our economic history; Russia made a similar mistake with the fall of the Soviet order and the subsequent mass selloff of previously unprivatized natural resources and associated capital investment.

Even today, current leases in the GOM are lucky to yield just 40% of net to the state, half the rate the Norwegians collect from their oil production.

Honest Abe won't talk about the Norwegian Eurosocialist example because AFAICT it utterly destroys everything he thinks he knows about economics. I could be wrong about Norway, having never been there, but from some cursory research their managed economy looks rather damn solid.

Here is what I found out about Norwegian Eurosocialist mentality: (1) They think capitalism is "evil and stupid" (2) The present Deputy Leader, Audun Lysbakken, is a "self proclaimed revolutionary, socialist and Marxist" and (3) there was an "earlier connection to communist organizations around Europe."

Well, that's enough for me to say NYET to Norwegian Euro-socialism. I'll take American opportunity, liberty and freedom over that any day.