• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

US Citizens: Please vote tomorrow

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Yes, I think the logical, fact-based efficiency argument - that is used all over the place as a justification for policies - falls down in the face of what seems 'natural'. If we were really influenced by such arguments, and not just using them because they happen to suit us at certain times, all countries would drive on the same side of the road, use the same currencies, speak the same language, have the same electrical plugs, eat the same foods, etc. Maybe some people want this, but not me. I hate the idea, no matter how efficient it would be.
I quite like some old pubs that just have ‘light ale’ and ‘dark ale’ .. a simple uniformity that saves the havoc choice sets upon me. As a template for everything the world over, nah.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
Worst thing about a single global language would be losing my cast iron excuse for never listening to the mother in law.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Going back to the ASI for a moment, what I just can't get past is the "pro-growth" part.

Belief in infinite and endless growth seems to me to be the economic equivalent of the perpetual motion machine.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
Going back to the ASI for a moment, what I just can't get past is the "pro-growth" part.

Belief in infinite and endless growth seems to me to be the economic equivalent of the perpetual motion machine.

I don't think pro-growth is the same as infinite and endless growth, but in general economic growth is better than economic contraction. Market economies generally contract and expand and are cyclic, despite the hubris of certain central bankers and politicians who a few years ago claimed to have ended "boom & bust". One thing is clear to me, the freedom to succeed can only have any meaning if we are also free to fail. What is most definitely wrong is the idea which some seemed to believe in prior to 2008 that infinite credit can create infinite wealth.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Going back to the ASI for a moment, what I just can't get past is the "pro-growth" part.

Belief in infinite and endless growth seems to me to be the economic equivalent of the perpetual motion machine.

It is. But everyone wants to kick the can down the road. Politicians more than anyone.

I read a summary once where the assumption was made that 3% annual GDP started just before the building of the pyramids and continued. Various reasonable calculations were involved. In any case, had that been the case, by current times humanity would have used up all resources of the earth, the nearby planets and the entire solar system and a bit beyond at least. Sure maybe efficiencies undreamed would have been found, maybe more power sources we can't conceive of, but in any case, in terms of raw resources perpetual 3% growth is not always going to be possible. And not at all without humanity leaving earth.

So is humanity like a pathogenic virus-like infection of the earth or something else. Well, it isn't going to reach those conclusions in my lifetime or several more. So I like progress better than regress. Let the party roll on.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
It is. But everyone wants to kick the can down the road. Politicians more than anyone.

I read a summary once where the assumption was made that 3% annual GDP started just before the building of the pyramids and continued. Various reasonable calculations were involved. In any case, had that been the case, by current times humanity would have used up all resources of the earth, the nearby planets and the entire solar system and a bit beyond at least. Sure maybe efficiencies undreamed would have been found, maybe more power sources we can't conceive of, but in any case, in terms of raw resources perpetual 3% growth is not always going to be possible. And not at all without humanity leaving earth.

So is humanity like a pathogenic virus-like infection of the earth or something else. Well, it isn't going to reach those conclusions in my lifetime or several more. So I like progress better than regress. Let the party roll on.

Because you like it? Materialism, as we priveleged Westerners know it is not sustainable. There will be many dragged screaming into the future of resource scarcity.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
I don't think pro-growth is the same as infinite and endless growth, but in general economic growth is better than economic contraction. Market economies generally contract and expand and are cyclic, despite the hubris of certain central bankers and politicians who a few years ago claimed to have ended "boom & bust". One thing is clear to me, the freedom to succeed can only have any meaning if we are also free to fail. What is most definitely wrong is the idea which some seemed to believe in prior to 2008 that infinite credit can create infinite wealth.

How do neoliberals propose the boom-bust cycle be avoided? How do they propose crashes, contractions and recessions be managed?

(Not necessarily asking you specifically @JJB70; this is just a general question following from your post).
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
How do neoliberals propose the boom-bust cycle be avoided? How do they propose crashes, contractions and recessions be managed?

(Not necessarily asking you specifically @JJB70; this is just a general question following from your post).

For me I don't, economies grow, economies contract, markets go up and markets go down. Corrections and people feeling the consequences of bad decisions are an essential component of the market IMO. If I am a small government libertarian type I extend that to the market too and I have no sympathy for the sort of corporate welfare that tries to protect failing and failed companies. Of course I prefer growth but attempting to interfere in things causes more harm than good IMO.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,386
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
Going back to the ASI for a moment, what I just can't get past is the "pro-growth" part.

Belief in infinite and endless growth seems to me to be the economic equivalent of the perpetual motion machine.

If you're feeling ambitious, Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Resource 2" is interesting reading.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
If you're feeling ambitious, Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Resource 2" is interesting reading.

Sounds like the title of a post-apocalyptic sci-fi sequel.

Will check out what's available online from the author, not sure I'll get round to buying/reading the actual book. Thx.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
What is considered as 'wealth' changes as time goes on. If people lived hooked up to computers in a simulated world being fed from intravenous drips, I think there would probably *still* be rich people who wanted more, and poor people who didn't have the need or aptitude for becoming rich. The rich people would use more 'MIPS' and therefore energy.
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,983
Location
Riverview FL

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
I have never seen any libertarian or anybody that might be labelled as a neoliberalism speak against the right of a free people to choose who will govern them. I regularly hear people who wrap themselves in a flag of democracy and serving the public good say things intended to marginalise people and divide the people into "us" and "them".

Your remark deserves commenting. Here are some remarks by two leading neoliberals:

"Liberalism and democracy, although compatible, are not the same . . . the opposite of liberalism is totalitarianism, while the opposite of democracy is authoritarianism. In consequence, it is at least possible in principle that a democratic government may be totalitarian and that an authoritarian gov- ernment may act on liberal principles . . . [in] demanding unlimited power of the majority, [democracies] become essentially anti-liberal".
Source, Hayek, Studies in philosophy, politics and economics 1967

"In Modern times there have of course been many instances of authoritarian governments under which personal liberty was safer than under democracies. I have never heard anything to the contrary of the early years of Dr Salazar’s early government in Portugal and I doubt whether there is today in any democracy in Eastern Europe or on the continents of Africa, South America or Asia (with the exception of Israel, Singapore and Hongkong), personal liberty as well secured as it was then in Portugal".
Source: Letter to Times of London from F. A. von Hayek in support of Pinochet’s defensor pacis (July 11, 1978), responding to a letter by reader William Wallace accusing Hayek of favoring authoritarian governments

"LUCIA SANTA-CRUZ: “There is reference in your work to the apparent paradox of dictatorships that may be more liberal than a totalitarian democracy. But it is also true that dictatorships have other character- istics which contradict freedom, even if it is understood negatively as you do.”
HAYEK: “Evidently dictatorships posegrave dangers. But a dictatorship may limit itself (se puede autolimitar), and if self-limited it may be more liberal in its policies than a democratic assembly that knows of no limitations. I must admit that it is not very probable that this may happen, but even so, in a given moment, it may be the only hope. Not a sure hope because it may always depend on the good will of an individual and one can trust in very few individuals. But if it is the only opportunity in a given moment, it may be the best solution in spite of all. But only if the dictatorial government visibly leads to a limited democracy.”

In the same interview, Hayek is reported to have said: “Democracy has a task which I call ‘hygienic,’ for it assures that political processes are conducted in a sanitary fashion. It is not an end in itself. It is a rule of procedure whose aim is to promote freedom. But in no way can it be seen in the same rank as freedom. Freedom requires democracy, but I would prefer temporarily to sacrifice, I re- peat temporarily, democracy, before having to do without freedom, even if temporarily.”—El Mercurio (unattributed translation) Sunday, April 19, 1981
As quoted in The Road From Mont-Pelerin, Mirowski, Plehwe, 2009

"I don’t believe in democracy in one sense. You don’t believe in democracy. Nobody believes in democracy. You will find it hard to find anybody who will say that if, that is democracy interpreted as majority rule. You will find it hard to find anybody who will say that at 55% of the people believe the other 45% of the people should be shot. That’s an appropriate exercise of democracy. . . . What I believe is not a democracy but an individual free- dom in a society in which individuals cooperate with one another".
Source: Milton Friedman quote from The Corporation (www.thecorporation.com)

I guess my point is, any curious member of society who wishes to understand the history and sources of modern thinking would benefit from a study of neoliberalism.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
(...). Neoliberalism is just a label people give to a bogey man (bogey person?) they don't like, it's like labelling anything that is seen as a threat to you're own chosen nirvana as socialism, communism, fascism, Islamism or any of the other bogey labels used to frighten people.

Neoliberalism just a label?

Here's Milton Friedman, in an article he called "Neo-liberalism and its prospects", from 1951:

https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/Farmand_02_17_1951.pdf

In other words, decades ago, neoliberals used the "label" themselves. Then came a period when neoliberals insisted that this "label" was invented to denigrate them. And in 2016 we were full circle when Adam Smith Institute insisted to be called neoliberals. I think all this underlines my point: Studying neoliberalism is rewarding for every curious member of our society.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
"the opposite of liberalism is totalitarianism, while the opposite of democracy is authoritarianism."
Too many labels! I would guess that there's no such thing as pure versions of any of these concepts, so this 'arithmetic' is all a bit academic.
 

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,148
Location
Singapore
Whether something is a label doesn't mean it is baseless. Political beliefs such as socialism, communism, fascism, nationalism etc are all very real, they're also used as labels. Sometimes correctly, other times as a result of lazy stereotyping or as an effort to discredit peoples views. And it is one of those oddities of life that there is a form of inverse relevance at play as often those who take on labels are far removed from what they profess to be (like the old joke that any country with the word "Democratic" in its name was an authoritarian dictatorship). The term neoliberal in today's world appears to be another of those terms thrown around loosely. I'd also point out that libertarianism is not interchangeable with neoliberal. Libertarianism can mean almost anything and libertarians can be both left and right leaning on some policies, libertarianism certainly isn't synonymous with neoliberalism.

Hayek and Friedman were enjoying themselves indulging in philosophical arguments and developing scenarios to challenge people and highlight extreme possibilities in which it might be logically possible for authoritarianism to be more liberal than democracy. That is not the same as being against democracy or representative government. Friedman's comment above is indisputably right, the fact that a slight majority determine that it would be a great idea to murder the minority would not make such an action right simply because it was the result of a democratic decision. Hence the reason why democracy can become another form of tyranny, this never goes down well but it is a recurring theme that the most unpleasant governments often have wide support and represent a democratic consensus (and it is not all because the people have been conditioned by propaganda).

Hayek presented a hypothetical question of whether it would be better to sacrifice democracy to preserve freedom or sacrifice freedom for democracy, it is one of those arguments that can be taken to absurd extremes but there is an underpinning logic which is extremely challenging. I look around the world and see many, many countries where certain groups or minorities are presented as outsiders, wicked, outsiders, a threat from within etc and it doesn't need much of a leap of imagination to see where that could lead given that we can see what happens when such ideas underpin a government.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
Too many labels! I would guess that there's no such thing as pure versions of any of these concepts, so this 'arithmetic' is all a bit academic.

This is why social sciences are more demanding than natural sciences.

The fact that we have precision in natural sciences, is - however - not an argument to stop studying social issues, religion and philosophy, is it?

And as I noted previously, the literature on neoliberalism is already big and it’s growing.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Let me just throw in a more 'parochial' concept: the tragedy of the commons. If it isn't even possible for the people to share a resource without destroying it, it must have implications for what is possible in terms of government, the state and freedom of the individual.

In my local town there's one of these shared bike schemes which I thought was a fantastic idea when it was launched. But for reasons beyond my understanding, people vandalise and destroy the bikes or, with seeming impunity, smash off the solenoid-operated locks and steal them, riding them around in full view despite their distinctive appearance. Utterly pathetic.

But there's a weird undercurrent to it: instead of being angry at the people destroying the bikes, the locals seem to be more angry at the company attempting to run the scheme. The logic seems to be: if a company trusts people with valuable objects that aren't chained down, they must expect them to be vandalised. And then this makes the place look messy. How dare the company be so arrogant? And perhaps there's an element of anti-big business, too.

To me, this tiny example suggests that all the utopian concepts people dream up are flawed. If they're not explicitly factoring in the sheer selfishness, nastiness, vindictiveness, and warped priorities of a sizeable proportion of the population, then they cannot work. I don't even think that education or the social engineering of the BBC can do anything to change it.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
I work in the political field, in a particularly technical area involving matters of both environmental protection and safety. I'm actually a tree hugger (yes, libertarians can hug trees) but one of the things that never ceases to disappoint me is how so many politicians, government agencies and green NGOs claiming to be desperate to save people really don't give a toss about people as individuals.

Climate change is an example where democracy has been a terrible failure.

Humans seem (probably evolutionarily inclined) to weigh short term gains versus long term pains. When voters are asked to take short-term hits to cost of living, economic growth, and switching costs in order to move away from current environmentally damaging technologies and economies to more sustainable ones, they tend to vote with their short term pocket books -- and are easily persuaded by carbon industry money.

We might be (semi) rational in the short term, but we're irrational in the long term.

The best invention we seem to have to override this, to usher in complete paradigm cultural shifts, is religion.

Which logical types tend to hate because it's "irrational" -- but as a tool of social change, it's one the most powerful things we have.

And it's also why, if we're going to actually change world culture to combat climate change, I firmly believe it will be via a new religious revival, a la the spread of Christianity during the Dark Ages or the rapid expansion of Islam in the Middle Ages.

Democracy can't do it because it's too individualistic.

Frank Herbert understood this.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
Let me just throw in a more 'parochial' concept: the tragedy of the commons. If it isn't even possible for the people to share a resource without destroying it, it must have implications for what is possible in terms of government, the state and freedom of the individual.

In my local town there's one of these shared bike schemes which I thought was a fantastic idea when it was launched. But for reasons beyond my understanding, people vandalise and destroy the bikes or, with seeming impunity, smash off the solenoid-operated locks and steal them, riding them around in full view despite their distinctive appearance. Utterly pathetic.

But there's a weird undercurrent to it: instead of being angry at the people destroying the bikes, the locals seem to be more angry at the company attempting to run the scheme. The logic seems to be: if a company trusts people with valuable objects that aren't chained down, they must expect them to be vandalised. And then this makes the place look messy. How dare the company be so arrogant? And perhaps there's an element of anti-big business, too.

To me, this tiny example suggests that all the utopian concepts people dream up are flawed. If they're not explicitly factoring in the sheer selfishness, nastiness, vindictiveness, and warped priorities of a sizeable proportion of the population, then they cannot work. I don't even think that education or the social engineering of the BBC can do anything to change it.

The triumph of individualism has allowed for petty anarchy to go unchecked.

There was a time when such people would have been shouted at for being thieves and possibly locked up in the stocks in the town square to have fruit thrown at them.

We're so far removed from barbarism these days we forget it's the natural state to which humans revert.
 
Top Bottom