Phatscotty wrote:yes, birth control pills are now "medical care" and "women issues". Heck, they even had some political plant get in front of a phony congressional hearing and say "I know a girl who died because she couldn't get birth control"
This is about the left making the 2012 election about social issues, and we are already seeing just how far they are willing to bend perception in an attempt to make it reality. Except that phat f*ck keeps showing people how they cram the rabbit into the hat backstage, foiling the elitists plans!
Birth control pills are regularly prescribed for medical issues other than as contraceptives. And, incidentally, are covered by most insurance, including insurance plans provided by religious instituions.
WHICH IS WHY THIS IS A MOOT ISSUE!
EXCEPT, this is the requirement that the Roman Catholic Church wants to change!!!!
So, it is exactly the issue.
Prove it.
Everything I've read indicates that the Catholic Church had to change their position banning all contraceptive use precisely because of those medical issues that it is used for. They currently allow contraceptives for medicinal purposes because it's taken for a reason that is not designed to block natural conception. You need to provide proof that they want to change this policy back to a complete ban. Otherwise, it's just more empty rhetoric from you (which is what I expect).
All I know is that every woman I know that used birth control for health reasons is Catholic. And she's not going to prove it... no point there NS.
And, for the fifth time - THIS IS A MOOT POINT!
Religious freedoms and government mandates are NOT moot points TGD. Player's point was that the Catholic Church is actively working to change their tenants to ban all contraceptives, even for medical uses, which is something I want proof of. And I know several women who have used birth control for medical purposes and they are not Catholic.
The moot point is that no one is seriously trying to make the Catholic Church pay for anything it doesn't already pay for. This is a straw man argument used by conservatives because they can't differentiate their economic policies and ideas from the president's. So they have to make up nonexistent social issues. Guess what? You hear anything from the Catholic Church lately? No? Why not? Because Obama exempted them already. All you hear from now is Rick Santorum, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the right wing talk show hosts. You don't hear anything anymore from the Catholic Church. And that's what is pissing me off so much about this crap. I don't want the Catholic Church to be used to elect Protestants who hate Catholics and all they stand for. Am I exagerrating? Sure. But it's ridiculous. And yeah, Santorum is a fake Catholic.
Lootifer wrote:Oh that's right, the Free Market removes barriers to entry as well, how silly of me (directed at both NS and BBS).
What do you mean?
Free market increases likelyhood of crony capitalism, or at the least less-than-state-efficient allocation fo resources in markets that have high barriers to entry,
How does the free market increase the likelihood of crony capitalism?
(re: underlined, for example...?)
Lootifer wrote:Arguably in this case the (condoms, not contraception in general, contraception supply likely has significant barriers to entry due to it being a medication) barriers to entry are rather low so free market allocation would work fine.
Thats not to say I have the slightest beef with the state giving out condoms; nothing about it is unsustainable and the unintended consequences that BBS always craps on about are small (oh no i got a condom handed to me rather than deciding to use condoms all by my little ole self, f*ck MY RATIONAL DECISION MAKING SECTION HAS BROKEN IRREPAIRABLY!?!?!?!?!). I think the social consequences cause the state model to come out on top /shrug.
Hey, if you want to enable crony capitalists to use the state in order to increase their revenues at the taxpayers' expense, then go ahead.
Firstly in markets that have high entry requirements (examples being: regulatory requirements: pharmaceuticals; capital intensity: power industry; natural monopoly: passenger trains) the easiest way to profit maximise is to ensure barriers remain in place so competition is minimised and they are free to [giving benefit of the doubt here] pseudo-exploit their position. I havent heard anything to suggest that as long as these high barriers to entry exist that exploitation of market power is unsustainable.
And secondly what is stopping a well run state from creating genuine competition in the bids from private players in the rubber market? You beef is with an opaque shoddily run state (aka US government); what's this got to do with idealist arguments...? [hipster]insert swarmy git remark citing how you argument is some logical fallacy[/hipster]
Off-T: seriously logical fallacies can get fucked, ad gofuckurself.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Lootifer wrote:Firstly in markets that have high entry requirements (examples being: regulatory requirements: pharmaceuticals; capital intensity: power industry; natural monopoly: passenger trains) the easiest way to profit maximise is to ensure barriers remain in place so competition is minimised and they are free to [giving benefit of the doubt here] pseudo-exploit their position. I havent heard anything to suggest that as long as these high barriers to entry exist that exploitation of market power is unsustainable.
How does a rent-seeking organization maintain an effective restriction on competition? With the authority of the state. By colluding with regulatory agencies and by indirectly bribing politicians, crony capitalists can increase the start-up costs of competitors, impose legal yet arbitrary barriers to trade, or even grant themselves monopolies backed by the state.
That is crony capitalism in its finest form. It is the exact opposite of a free market because crony capitalism requires the power of the state. The state requires many well-intended people to appeal to politicians, so that the state has the "legitimate" authority to control this, "fix" that, etc.
The current high entry requirements of those examples are strongly influenced with the collusion of "big business" and the regulatory agencies. If competition can't be restricted legally, then another method is used in order to increase the start-up costs of the competition. It is not in the state's interest to break up its monopolies on regulatory agencies.
Lootifer wrote:And secondly what is stopping a well run state from creating genuine competition in the bids from private players in the rubber market? You beef is with an opaque shoddily run state (aka US government); what's this got to do with idealist arguments...? [hipster]insert swarmy git remark citing how you argument is some logical fallacy[/hipster]
Off-T: seriously logical fallacies can get fucked, ad gofuckurself.
Not much could stop them, and it depends because you're being vague. Still, that "genuine" competition provides great opportunities for crony capitalists to take advantage of this well-intended form of "genuine" competition. And, it depends on the private property rights, but again, your question is too vague.
I'll admit that the formal and informal institutions can mitigate the effects of crony capitalism.
Parts of my ideal government is something like B.S. Frey's FOCJ, or very low start-up costs of business in Hong Kong (pre-PRC).
Phatscotty wrote:....Then neither is the contraception methods, supplies, or the consequences of what goes on in other people's bedroom.
Exactly why you cannot truly object to this medical service being part of insurance.
The people who do object are those wanting to dictate behavior and to claim that their payments for employment give them the right to make very personal decisions for people they employ.
About like years ago when the boss pretty much told you to go to church.. or else. In fact, I can remember those days, to some extent.
WUT?
How about no insurance or individuals pay for someone else's contraception? Insurance providers, even religious ones, already have to provide contraceptive if it's used to treat medical conditions, so the only thing being achieved in this legislation is higher insurance costs and an assault on religion and the first amendment.
Actually its defending the first amendment and religious beliefs by empowering employees to make their own decisions regardless of the religious beliefs of their employers.
More importantly, all the said religious groups need to do to avoid such legislation is not accept federal funding, though I may be wrong. If you suggest they are entitled to federal support but not legislation, that seems a bit.....well...a bit nightstrike.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk Too much. I know.
And, sorry to point this out, providing contraceptive care universally has not been an imposition on religion to any realistic extent where it has been implemented. At least as far as I know, but I'm open to suggestions.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Phatscotty wrote:....Then neither is the contraception methods, supplies, or the consequences of what goes on in other people's bedroom.
Exactly why you cannot truly object to this medical service being part of insurance.
The people who do object are those wanting to dictate behavior and to claim that their payments for employment give them the right to make very personal decisions for people they employ.
About like years ago when the boss pretty much told you to go to church.. or else. In fact, I can remember those days, to some extent.
WUT?
How about no insurance or individuals pay for someone else's contraception? Insurance providers, even religious ones, already have to provide contraceptive if it's used to treat medical conditions, so the only thing being achieved in this legislation is higher insurance costs and an assault on religion and the first amendment.
Actually its defending the first amendment and religious beliefs by empowering employees to make their own decisions regardless of the religious beliefs of their employers.
What? I can only speak for myself, but can you explain this sentence beginning with "Actually" and ending with "employers."
AAFitz wrote:Actually its defending the first amendment and religious beliefs by empowering employees to make their own decisions regardless of the religious beliefs of their employers.
Do you know what the first amendment states? It says "Congress shall make no law..." It says nothing about what employers or providers may or may not do. The first amendment regulates the federal government, not businesses.
AAFitz wrote:More importantly, all the said religious groups need to do to avoid such legislation is not accept federal funding, though I may be wrong. If you suggest they are entitled to federal support but not legislation, that seems a bit.....well...a bit nightstrike.
What federal funding are they receiving? But even if they are, it's irrelevant to what rights you have. The federal government cannot pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Phatscotty wrote:With a smaller government, crony capitalism would not be able to prosper and thrive.
Or a better one.
Here ya go:
How does a rent-seeking organization maintain an effective restriction on competition? With the authority of the state. By colluding with regulatory agencies and by indirectly bribing politicians, crony capitalists can increase the start-up costs of competitors, impose legal yet arbitrary barriers to trade, or even grant themselves monopolies backed by the state.
That is crony capitalism in its finest form. It is the exact opposite of a free markets because crony capitalism requires the power of the state. The state requires many well-intended people to appeal to politicians, so that the state has the "legitimate" authority to control this, "fix" that, etc.
BigBallinStalin wrote:How does a rent-seeking organization maintain an effective restriction on competition? With the authority of the state. By colluding with regulatory agencies and by indirectly bribing politicians, crony capitalists can increase the start-up costs of competitors, impose legal yet arbitrary barriers to trade, or even grant themselves monopolies backed by the state.
Hey I never claimed the current state (esp in 9 our of 10 current forms) is effective. Im a cynic.
But you fail to mention other ways to maintain effective restriction on competition that fall under the anti-trust stuff. And the problem is a lot of the anti-trust is a grey area science (much like tax, many loopholes and endless legalese) and combining anti-trust laws with the free-market companies are incentivised to find and exploit (and then stay hush hush) holes in anti-trust laws.
Crony capitalism (CC from now on) is incumberants using whatever they can to profit maximise. It's not just exploiting the state.
Most of the examples of non-state CC is using marketing to take advantage of ignorant players in the market. The old sawdust in the gearbox technique.
But there are others where there is genuine, non-state produced, barriers that impede competition... Lets use the telecoms example: assume a deregulated marketplace; each new player into the market has to either rent their infrastructure off an existing player or build their own. On one hand you have no gain in competition from any new entrant (because theyre essentially a price taking middle man) or you have a massive drop in system efficiency from having two sets of infrastructure, are you honestly suggesting the gains from competition will outshine a genuine least-cost model?
Having pesonally worked with a least cost model that has almost perfectly matched real life free-market outcomes when tested via hindcasting (argh jesus that sounds like player...) I find it very hard to believe that these free market efficiency gains will outstrip well run state services.
Not much could stop them, and it depends because you're being vague. Still, that "genuine" competition provides great opportunities for crony capitalists to take advantage of this well-intended form of "genuine" competition. And, it depends on the private property rights, but again, your question is too vague.
I'll admit that the formal and informal institutions can mitigate the effects of crony capitalism.
Parts of my ideal government is something like B.S. Frey's FOCJ, or very low start-up costs of business in Hong Kong (pre-PRC).
I mean the government asks for bids to provide services (say condom supply in this thread), market participants submit bids, government evaluates bids and selects "best" (best being least cost or some other efficient objective function) bid and contract is signed. Ideally contracts would be short to stimulate competition, and the procurment process thin and transparent.
Doctors are then given the nod to provide scripts for condoms at a subsidised price to the consumer, with the government making up the shortfall as per the contract signed above.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Night Strike wrote:It is not the government's jobs to allocate resources to businesses. That's called communism (state-planned economies). The "crony" in crony capitalism comes from big businesses being allowed to use the government to carve out exemptions for themselves and regulations to stifle their competitors. If the government did as is outlined in the Constitution, its only interactions in the private market would come from protecting patents, regulating interstate commerce, and prosecuting those who do abusive actions (unsafe work places, contract violations, etc.).
Government regulations INCREASE barriers to entry in the marketplace, which is why the big businesses tend to go ahead and support them in order to drive out their smaller competitors.
Briefly: Why shouldnt it be if said allocation of resources can be shown to be more efficient than free market outcomes? (my definition of efficient includes social consequences, uninteded consequences and heaps of other stuff which is, of course, subjective, but im not arguing that point, this is has become an ideals argument rather than a detail specific one).
Would you fore-go a more efficient solution just because the constitution says?
If we assume that your position that the government handing out condoms is sustainable is factual, where does that stop? You could make that argument for many items that cost very little on their own. Yet, what happens when all of those sustainable actions add up to an unsustainable system? Just because the government can print more money doesn't mean they have unlimited resources. That's why we should reject ALL government handouts, whether they are sustainable or even beneficial on their own in a vacuum.
Rofl, that's up there with one of the most retarded statements i've ever seen posted, congrats.
Oh and I was waiting for the slippery slope argument to show up. But sorry we only accept fallacies if they have an "ad-" at the beginning.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
BigBallinStalin wrote:How does a rent-seeking organization maintain an effective restriction on competition? With the authority of the state. By colluding with regulatory agencies and by indirectly bribing politicians, crony capitalists can increase the start-up costs of competitors, impose legal yet arbitrary barriers to trade, or even grant themselves monopolies backed by the state.
Hey I never claimed the current state (esp in 9 our of 10 current forms) is effective. Im a cynic.
But you fail to mention other ways to maintain effective restriction on competition that fall under the anti-trust stuff. And the problem is a lot of the anti-trust is a grey area science (much like tax, many loopholes and endless legalese) and combining anti-trust laws with the free-market companies are incentivised to find and exploit (and then stay hush hush) holes in anti-trust laws.
Crony capitalism (CC from now on) is incumberants using whatever they can to profit maximise. It's not just exploiting the state.
Lootifer, whatever happens to your emotions, please keep in mind that I love you, I respect you, and it's not my intention to make you angry. Written communication can't reveal how I joke around, or poke fun, but that's all it is--just having fun, while not intending harm. When in doubt, just remember I'm not here to aggravate you. [/end bromantic introduction].
"Crony capitalism" Your definition doesn't make much sense. If a capitalist reduces his costs and can sell his products for a lower price, thus maximizing his profits, then according to your definition, he's a crony capitalist because he's using whatever he can in order to maximize profits. It really depends on the means, which I describe as rent-seeking.
Anti-trust laws Anti-trust laws should be repealed because they cause more harm to the consumer. With a government like the US so susceptible to rent-seeking, then forget it. Besides, the laws use arbitrary criteria, the neoclassicists of IO use unrealistic equilibrium models, and almost all of the cases are business v. business because the main motivation is simply to beat down competition by means of using the anti-trust laws (which unfortunately is done at the expense of the consumers).
Hey, another thing about anti-trust laws: if you sell too high, you get slammed for price gouging! If you sell at market price, you get slammed for price collusion! If you sell below market price, you get slammed for predatory pricing! What a joke!
To save my time, see:
Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure by Dominick Armentano Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko If you want, I'll send you 10-20 page economics articles about it.
Lootifer wrote:Most of the examples of non-state CC is using marketing to take advantage of ignorant players in the market. The old sawdust in the gearbox technique.
Sure, fraud should remain illegal, and sure, there are morally bankrupt decision-makers in charge of some amount of businesses. Nevertheless, if they can't use the state in order to defend themselves from the repercussions of competition via rent-seeking, then it isn't crony capitalism. Of course, we have different meanings for this word, but I think we've got the same meaning at this point.
Lootifer wrote:But there are others where there is genuine, non-state produced, barriers that impede competition... Lets use the telecoms example: assume a deregulated marketplace; each new player into the market has to either rent their infrastructure off an existing player or build their own. On one hand you have no gain in competition from any new entrant (because theyre essentially a price taking middle man) or you have a massive drop in system efficiency from having two sets of infrastructure, ...
To keep it simple, it depends on how you want to define the market, how narrow you wish to restrict the geography, and how you examine the substitutes or competitors' products of the various products offered by the already entrenched business (to name just a few factors). For your example, you could focus on physical infrastructure, assume that there are no substitutes, no transaction costs (or arbitrarily set one), maybe have prices and other forms of information as given, while throwing in some constants to get rid of pesky things like changes over time, innovation, and entrepreneurship, etc., and then we can fit competitors into the category of price-takers. Okay, so we simplified things beyond what's happening in the real world, let's continue:
If we're talking about cable TV, there's substitutes like satellite dishes (but wait, I hope that cable company doesn't get too cozy with the municipal authorities in order to establish legal barriers to trade remove the blight of satellite dishes from the community, so that social welfare is increased. Maybe the municipal authorities hire a company which uses least-cost modeling to justify the banning of satellite dishes! Just pulling your leg, Lootifer).
Anyway, there's the Internet from satellites which would compete with the Cable TV's services. The Cable TV's movie channels face competition in the form of mail from Netflix, Blockbuster, and whoever. There's opportunities for the established businesses to create value by mixing their product with the products of other services (Netflix inserted into the Cable TV movie channels)--hopefully, Netflix and the local Cable TV business don't get slammed with anti-trust laws for "collusion"! In short, the means of competition don't necessarily have to be the means of the already entrenched business.
There's also potential competition from a business which might run its TV lines alongside the entrenched cable TV business. The threat of that competition incentivizes the entrenched business to remain efficient--at whichever level its decision-makers perceive is best.
Efficiency for whom? The businesses? That's nice, but what about competition over time? How can a model predict future forms of competition? I say, let competition happen, so that the entrepreneurs and consumers can decide, learn, and continue or reject. (see below)
Lootifer wrote:are you honestly suggesting the gains from competition will outshine a genuine least-cost model?
Having pesonally worked with a least cost model that has almost perfectly matched real life free-market outcomes when tested via hindcasting (argh jesus that sounds like player...) I find it very hard to believe that these free market efficiency gains will outstrip well run state services.
I doubt the least-cost model's ability to forecast future competition and efficiency. It forecasts human action? Sounds like science fiction!
I think the least-cost model and its adherents are overlooking how the market process actually works, but I could be wrong... ehh, I don't think so, but hey: I would sincerely love for you to recommended me the best article or 50 to 100 page manual that explains the least-cost model. I'll write a 10-20 page article on it!
(*okay, that's enough for tonight, but most importantly, I'd really like to see something similar to your least-cost model. I googled for it, but you're the go-to guy, the man with the relevant knowledge of least-cost models, which I lack.)
"Crony capitalism" Your definition doesn't make much sense. If a capitalist reduces his costs and can sell his products for a lower price, thus maximizing his profits, then according to your definition, he's a crony capitalist because he's using whatever he can in order to maximize profits. It really depends on the means, which I describe as rent-seeking.
Let's use the term "political capitalism," which to me is the same as "crony capitalism," but it better conveys my meaning of "crony capitalism."
Eh my definition of CC here is merely the immoral, yet potentially sustainable, business strategies employed by many large (and small for that matter) companies. This includes all those good things from anti-competitive behaviour (governmental or otherwise) to planned obsolescence to good old fashioned fraud. Some are against the law, some are not, yet all are incentivised in a deregulated environment.
You should know by now that I, fundamentally, want/desire a deregulated environment; I just firmly believe that it's not possible in practice; why? 'cause we're all a bunch of cunts at the end of the day (and you want an off topic example? Internet Fuckwad Theory).
I cant tell if you are being satirical or not considering I posted a lightbulb in the other thread...
Anti-trust laws Anti-trust laws should be repealed because they cause more harm to the consumer. With a government like the US so susceptible to rent-seeking, then forget it. Besides, the laws use arbitrary criteria, the neoclassicists of IO use unrealistic equilibrium models, and almost all of the cases are business v. business because the main motivation is simply to beat down competition by means of using the anti-trust laws (which unfortunately is done at the expense of the consumers).
Hey, another thing about anti-trust laws: if you sell too high, you get slammed for price gouging! If you sell at market price, you get slammed for price collusion! If you sell below market price, you get slammed for predatory pricing! What a joke!
To save my time, see:
Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure by Dominick Armentano Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko If you want, I'll send you 10-20 page economics articles about it.
Ill try and take a look, but im lazy...
Looking deeper at the US anti-trust laws they (if im reading correctly) contain some pretty fucked up wording. Where we have things like: "agreements containing provisions that substantially lessen competition in a market" you guys have things like "[outlaw] every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and "[outlaw] any monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." which on the surface seem similar but in practice arent.
What I mean is our law puts the onus on the accuser to show that competition has actually been lessened where as the US version seems to bypass the actual lessening of competition aspect and jump right in: "screw the affect on competition (ie the purpose of the law), if I can show, under some interpretation, that you have ambition to monopolize a market then GG son, ur fucked". I.E. bypassing the whole innocent until proven guilty [of lessening competition].
On the surface this looks like a failure of the implementation rather than the philosophy.
To keep it simple, it depends on how you want to define the market, how narrow you wish to restrict the geography, and how you examine the substitutes or competitors' products of the various products offered by the already entrenched business (to name just a few factors). For your example, you could focus on physical infrastructure, assume that there are no substitutes, no transaction costs (or arbitrarily set one), maybe have prices and other forms of information as given, while throwing in some constants to get rid of pesky things like changes over time, innovation, and entrepreneurship, etc., and then we can fit competitors into the category of price-takers. Okay, so we simplified things beyond what's happening in the real world, let's continue:
If we're talking about cable TV, there's substitutes like satellite dishes (but wait, I hope that cable company doesn't get too cozy with the municipal authorities in order to establish legal barriers to trade remove the blight of satellite dishes from the community, so that social welfare is increased. Maybe the municipal authorities hire a company which uses least-cost modeling to justify the banning of satellite dishes! Just pulling your leg, Lootifer).
Anyway, there's the Internet from satellites which would compete with the Cable TV's services. The Cable TV's movie channels face competition in the form of mail from Netflix, Blockbuster, and whoever. There's opportunities for the established businesses to create value by mixing their product with the products of other services (Netflix inserted into the Cable TV movie channels)--hopefully, Netflix and the local Cable TV business don't get slammed with anti-trust laws for "collusion"! In short, the means of competition don't necessarily have to be the means of the already entrenched business.
There's also potential competition from a business which might run its TV lines alongside the entrenched cable TV business. The threat of that competition incentivizes the entrenched business to remain efficient--at whichever level its decision-makers perceive is best.
Efficiency for whom? The businesses? That's nice, but what about competition over time? How can a model predict future forms of competition? I say, let competition happen, so that the entrepreneurs and consumers can decide, learn, and continue or reject. (see below)
My example wasn't about retail service providers (Cable TV/Netflix etc) but the people who put the poles in the ground, the satalittes on the roofs, etc etc.
I completely agree that retail service providers operate in as free'er market as possible.
But lets open the scope nice and wide then and talk about the core suppliers who provide the BASE infrastucture from mr Consumer A who wants to talk, via any means, to ms Consumer B. Their voice and picture (if required) can be transported from A to B via a number of means: wires in the ground (telephoney or internet), wireless mobile networks (2G, 3G, etc), satelitte, some unknown future tech or a combination of these. However whatever route the consumer takes, if you - a new entrant into the telecommunication market - want to make an offer to Mr A and Ms B then you need supporting infrastructre to provide this. Now your two options are an agreement with an infrastructure provider, or you need to supply your own.
The former you leave this example because you dont enter the infrastucture market, you accept your price from those who do. Valid option, but not relevant to the example because you are the consumer, not the supplier. Other than existing (providing demand) and negotiations you have no impact on the supply side of the market. The free market can handle this nicely so no argument here.
The latter is where I want to focus. Any new entrant into this specific market (hardware than enbales communication between two parties) needs to build their own infrastucture; they need to literally dig cables into the ground, or build a comms tower, or rent/fly their own satellite in space or whatever. All of these share two very important attributes: very high [relative] capital costs and economic inefficiency through diseconomies of scale (the capital intensity of the infrastructure means one big one tends to be better than two small ones).
Now my argument rests on the economic inefficiency observed by either poor competition (no new entrants) or economic inefficiency (from wasted capital) will be roughly on par with inefficiencies as a result of state ownership.
Now you will now say "but how can you predict the future?!?". Im not, we did this. We have 2-5 suppliers of telcoms depending on where you set the scope. We also have the lowest quality and most exspensive telecommunications in the world. Nigeria has better internet than New Zealand.
I doubt the least-cost model's ability to forecast future competition and efficiency. It forecasts human action? Sounds like science fiction!
I think the least-cost model and its adherents are overlooking how the market process actually works, but I could be wrong... ehh, I don't think so, but hey: I would sincerely love for you to recommended me the best article or 50 to 100 page manual that explains the least-cost model. I'll write a 10-20 page article on it!
(*okay, that's enough for tonight, but most importantly, I'd really like to see something similar to your least-cost model. I googled for it, but you're the go-to guy, the man with the relevant knowledge of least-cost models, which I lack.)
Hrmm, eh im thinking along the lines of LRMC estimates, then applying this to a market model (game theory/stochastic/dynamic programming/etc) to solve for market behaviour. (google search terms: game theory and stochastic dual dynamic programming should turn up some interesting stuff)
That is in the strategic space you make decisions based on LRMC, but in operational space you need to make rational profit maximization decisions. LRMC determines your landscape, market model solves for actual outcomes in this landscape, your investments are then evaluated in terms of profit adequacy (law of averages applies here; sure there will be winners and losers but in the long term the average NPV of all options in a landscape should sum to equal 0 <- least cost assumption right here) and LRMC landscape is tuned if necessary (iteration).
Last edited by Lootifer on Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Night Strike wrote:It is not the government's jobs to allocate resources to businesses. That's called communism (state-planned economies). The "crony" in crony capitalism comes from big businesses being allowed to use the government to carve out exemptions for themselves and regulations to stifle their competitors. If the government did as is outlined in the Constitution, its only interactions in the private market would come from protecting patents, regulating interstate commerce, and prosecuting those who do abusive actions (unsafe work places, contract violations, etc.).
Government regulations INCREASE barriers to entry in the marketplace, which is why the big businesses tend to go ahead and support them in order to drive out their smaller competitors.
Briefly: Why shouldnt it be if said allocation of resources can be shown to be more efficient than free market outcomes? (my definition of efficient includes social consequences, uninteded consequences and heaps of other stuff which is, of course, subjective, but im not arguing that point, this is has become an ideals argument rather than a detail specific one).
Would you fore-go a more efficient solution just because the constitution says?
Yes, I would fore-go it. That's the whole point of having the rule of law and the Constitution that governs it all. Under the rule of law, you can't just go around doing things simply because some people think it's better for the government to do it. If it's that much more efficient for the government to run the program, then it needs to be written into the Constitution. That's why activities like printing money, foreign relations, patents, etc. are already explicitly allowed in the Constitution.
Lootifer wrote:
If we assume that your position that the government handing out condoms is sustainable is factual, where does that stop? You could make that argument for many items that cost very little on their own. Yet, what happens when all of those sustainable actions add up to an unsustainable system? Just because the government can print more money doesn't mean they have unlimited resources. That's why we should reject ALL government handouts, whether they are sustainable or even beneficial on their own in a vacuum.
Rofl, that's up there with one of the most retarded statements i've ever seen posted, congrats.
Oh and I was waiting for the slippery slope argument to show up. But sorry we only accept fallacies if they have an "ad-" at the beginning.
What's retarded about it? Under your argument, if it's cost-effective and sustainable, then the government should automatically do it. But you never explained what happens when a bunch of programs that are sustainable on their own all add together to become unsustainable.
Night Strike wrote:Yes, I would fore-go it. That's the whole point of having the rule of law and the Constitution that governs it all. Under the rule of law, you can't just go around doing things simply because some people think it's better for the government to do it. If it's that much more efficient for the government to run the program, then it needs to be written into the Constitution. That's why activities like printing money, foreign relations, patents, etc. are already explicitly allowed in the Constitution.
Now is where I say fair enough, if thats how you want to operate go right ahead; who am I to say how you should run your country
What's retarded about it? Under your argument, if it's cost-effective and sustainable, then the government should automatically do it. But you never explained what happens when a bunch of programs that are sustainable on their own all add together to become unsustainable.
I found your comment rather stupid because it is a very extreme perspective, and being a moderate that kind of blind idealism makes me shake my head.
And I work in strategy; I understand systemic thinking and how the relationship between the sum of the parts and the whole can be present a weird and wonderful dynamic (that kind of stuff is like strategy nerd porn!). But that's not to say that you can link the individual parts and assess their impact on the whole, the slippery slope argument only works if you blindly truck down a path, which is ironic considering your other comment.
Also sorry for being rude; my mother did teach me better than that.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
Lootifer wrote:I found your comment rather stupid because it is a very extreme perspective, and being a moderate that kind of blind idealism makes me shake my head.
an american moderate or a new zelandish moderate?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Lootifer wrote:I found your comment rather stupid because it is a very extreme perspective, and being a moderate that kind of blind idealism makes me shake my head.
"Crony capitalism" Your definition doesn't make much sense. If a capitalist reduces his costs and can sell his products for a lower price, thus maximizing his profits, then according to your definition, he's a crony capitalist because he's using whatever he can in order to maximize profits. It really depends on the means, which I describe as rent-seeking.
Let's use the term "political capitalism," which to me is the same as "crony capitalism," but it better conveys my meaning of "crony capitalism."
Eh my definition of CC here is merely the immoral, yet potentially sustainable, business strategies employed by many large (and small for that matter) companies. This includes all those good things from anti-competitive behaviour (governmental or otherwise) to planned obsolescence to good old fashioned fraud. Some are against the law, some are not, yet all are incentivised in a deregulated environment.
You should know by now that I, fundamentally, want/desire a deregulated environment; I just firmly believe that it's not possible in practice; why? 'cause we're all a bunch of cunts at the end of the day (and you want an off topic example? Internet Fuckwad Theory).
I cant tell if you are being satirical or not considering I posted a lightbulb in the other thread...
Anti-trust laws Anti-trust laws should be repealed because they cause more harm to the consumer. With a government like the US so susceptible to rent-seeking, then forget it. Besides, the laws use arbitrary criteria, the neoclassicists of IO use unrealistic equilibrium models, and almost all of the cases are business v. business because the main motivation is simply to beat down competition by means of using the anti-trust laws (which unfortunately is done at the expense of the consumers).
Hey, another thing about anti-trust laws: if you sell too high, you get slammed for price gouging! If you sell at market price, you get slammed for price collusion! If you sell below market price, you get slammed for predatory pricing! What a joke!
To save my time, see:
Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure by Dominick Armentano Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko If you want, I'll send you 10-20 page economics articles about it.
Ill try and take a look, but im lazy...
Looking deeper at the US anti-trust laws they (if im reading correctly) contain some pretty fucked up wording. Where we have things like: "agreements containing provisions that substantially lessen competition in a market" you guys have things like "[outlaw] every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and "[outlaw] any monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." which on the surface seem similar but in practice arent.
What I mean is our law puts the onus on the accuser to show that competition has actually been lessened where as the US version seems to bypass the actual lessening of competition aspect and jump right in: "screw the affect on competition (ie the purpose of the law), if I can show, under some interpretation, that you have ambition to monopolize a market then GG son, ur fucked". I.E. bypassing the whole innocent until proven guilty [of lessening competition].
On the surface this looks like a failure of the implementation rather than the philosophy.
1) ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: mutual understanding of definitions
I agree. But, why does NZ seem to fare better than the US on this issue? The laws could be re-written, but <puts on moderate hat> that ain't gonna happen, so let's forget that constraint. <takes of moderate hat> <puts on BBS hat>
How can institutions which reward perverse incentives be removed or rendered unsustainable given that the vested interests stand much to lose? No idea, but this article by Weingast 1995 is interesting. Basically, he explains his theory of political federalism (or self-enforcing market-preserving federalism), and explains why and how economic development occurred to such vast proportions in China 1980-1995, UK 17th to 18th centuries, and US 19th to early 20th centuries.
Discretion over economic policy-making was limited to the States or local governments, but couldn't be applied at the national level, unless it was something truly serious. This mitigated the effects of rent-seeking beyond a local government's borders; thereby, enabling political competition where States varied in regulatory laws and public goods provision. Each State was enabled to decide the appropriate mix between regulation/property rights and some mix of public goods provision.
For the US, the Constitution provided the political foundation upon which the national government couldn't interfere in the States' economic policy choices (unless shit got truly real), and the State's couldn't regulate interstate trade due to the commerce clause (and other clauses) as understood and obeyed at that time. This lasted about 100 years, until the "Rise of Progressivism" began. Building blocks for this era began in 1900-1914 (see Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism).
This is probably why NS, PD, and others have such a boner for the US Constitution, and why many Libertarians and classical liberals do as well. Mega huge boners for the Constitution and the economic policies which were in play at that time.
(I'ma take some time looking at the rest of your post). But, regarding infrastructure and "free markets," I got one word(s) for you: Walt Disney World, and charter cities. Interesting stuff! <wiggles eyebrows>
)
Just pulling your leg, Lootifer). 
