| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
I remember back in school they taught us that Britain brought itself to economic ruin by winning two world wars. If only they had lost!
Remember that in competition, marginal advantage conquers all.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I think it would be an interesting challenge for Mick to find a country that brought itself to ruin by liberalizing its trade policy and deregulating its economy. |
Clearly I cannot do that since my argument is -- in the case of mature countries -- no government will ever ruin its economy. However I suppose I could launch a new(ish) theory by claiming that Third World countries are constantly ruining themselves by being forced to follow liberal policies. The evidence is that developing countries eg Britain in the 17th Century, Germany in the nineteenth, China in the twentieth, require (careful) Protectionism. This is because in competition, marginal advantage conquers all.
But of course I venture this with great caution because, as I constantly point out, we don't know what would have happened if these countries had acted otherwise; and economic science is not scientific enough to generate sufficient examples across the board to overcome this barrier-to-rationalism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | This is because in competition, marginal advantage conquers all. |
Every nation is possessed of some marginal advantages, but only a free market can find them.
It is no trouble at all to find countries ruined by collectivist policies. It is not so easy to find even one where liberalization resulted in reduced GDP. You claim that Africa is rife with such examples.
Name one.
All I want is one country that became more free, less regulated, and more open to trade, in which, subsequently, unemployment increased and economic output decreased.
Just one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Name one country that has benefited from the free market. But of course you'll have to show it was the free market.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ReformedSciolist
In: Johannesburg
|
|
|
|
I attended uni for 8 years in a very English setting. Overall it was an excellent experience and I believe I learned a hell of a lot - not necessarily all content, but more importantly to think and to do so critically. I often disagreed totally with the conclusions of my lecturers; but by the time I was done I felt comfortable in doing so as I had reasons and not just because I was otherwise. At times there was no doubt too that the lecturers concerned were peeved that anyone could criticise their particular choice of hobby-horse. I recall a well-known historian telling us that we were a waste of his time and that in order to get the opportunity to research and write he had to teach us. Funny thing is, I actually did well in his course.
Some courses were lacklustre - English (which was all literature) was very much bumf; History was too localised and liberal for my tastes. I've forgotten most of the Philosophy I learned; but then again I think much more clearly today than I did even at the apex of my studies. Law was, well, law; and Classics were probably along with Phil my favourites.
Did I forget to mention that I drank copious amounts of Black Label and Russian Bear?!
_________________
Yrs,
S
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Name one country that has benefited from the free market. But of course you'll have to show it was the free market. |
I don't have to. I haven't asked you to identify a country that was harmed by the free market. I have asked you to find just one country in Africa where a decline in GDP was immediately preceded by a liberalization of trade policy. Establishing cause and effect is a secondary matter. First, we just want some data.
To be precise...
A Datum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Well done, Ishmael! It's taken some time but you've finally twigged that left-right arguments are by definition couched in terms that do not permit of rational decision-making. That is what makes them essentially religious.
But notice, having half the population espousing left wing beliefs and half the population espousing right-wing ones is (unlike religious schisms) good for the polity.
Obviously Applied Epistemologists just chortle from the sidelines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| But notice, having half the population espousing left wing beliefs and half the population espousing right-wing ones is (unlike religious schisms) good for the polity. |
But they don't. 45% of the nation believes in a centrist mixed economy with a slight leaning to the working class; 45% believes in a centrist mixed economy with a slight leaning to the middle class. To call these positions left and right wing is to fall into a semantic trap.
If you look at what politicians in Britain have done in the last fifty years - as opposed to what they say - there is no difference between the parties.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Grant illustrates the point well. Each individual 'translates' the political divide into a form that he himself can believe in. Applied Epistemologists would immediately recognise that Grant has incorporated two concepts into his argument that do not in fact exist in the real world: "the working class" and "the middle class". These entities self-evidently exist to Grant but he would mysteriously find them just beyond the kind of definition necessary for any rational, eg statistical, exercise.
| If you look at what politicians in Britain have done in the last fifty years - as opposed to what they say - there is no difference between the parties. |
Notice this is itself a completely unevidenced claim. Grant probably believes it to be self-evidently true but of course he has not actually performed the necessary statistical exercise himself, nor has he had access to anybody else's.
Actually, given that the parties have adopted different policies on a systematic basis over a period of time, there probably is a measurable difference in outcomes but what those outcomes were, which sectors of the population benefited from them and whether these past outcomes could be used as an indicator of future performance (eg knowing who to vote for in an election on a rational basis) is rather beyond our current skills.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| "the working class" and "the middle class" |
| Notice this is itself a completely unevidenced claim. Grant probably believes it to be self-evidently true but of course he has not actually performed the necessary statistical exercise himself, nor has he had access to anybody else's. |
Ever since WW2 about 40% of the economy has been spent by the state and about a third of the populace employed by the state. The fact that this figure has only ever fluctuated by a few per cent either way means that it's a nonsense to talk about right-wing and left-wing politics in Britain. A true right-wing government would chop the 40% state in half and abolish welfare payments. This will never happen because too many people - both working class and middle class - rely on the nipple of state funding.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| given that the parties have adopted different policies on a systematic basis over a period of time |
What different policies?
Consider Thatcher. She is now presented by the media as an extreme right-winger who decimated government spending. In fact spending - in real terms - rose during her eleven years in office. There was no reduction in spending. The best you can say is that she stopped spending rising as high as it might have done - possibly.
I agree with you that it doesn't matter who you vote for, but that's because the electorate is not presented with a genuine choice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You ask...and then promptly give an example
| The best you can say is that she stopped spending rising as high as it might have done - possibly. |
One weeps, one really weeps. Can't you see, Grant, that is an example of a systematic distinction between left and right at that particular moment in British history (it's the other way round at other junctures)? What we don't know was whether she was correct to do so. You will please note that we still don't know now that we are faced with a similar set of circumstances.
| I agree with you that it doesn't matter who you vote for |
I have never said that. It is almost invariably the case that it is patently obvious who one should vote for at any given election. Usually it is the governing party unless they have run out of steam or are otherwise displaying signs of distress.
| but that's because the electorate is not presented with a genuine choice. |
What Grant means is that Grant is never presented with a genuine choice in a way that Grant would like. Of course it is is true in a mature democracy, since both parties are seeking the support of the same marginal constituency, that what is on offer will not be very different but then again in a mature democracy one can be certain that both parties will be offering rational policies. It is only their respective supporters who believe the other party is offering irrational ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Still waiting for my datum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
My position is that there can never be any datum, Ishmael, I thought we had at least established that. Your actual request illustrates the point
| I have asked you to find just one country in Africa where a decline in GDP was immediately preceded by a liberalization of trade policy. |
Given that that there are some thirty countries, that you have not specified any particualr time period for the decline (would six months suffice?), nor for how long 'precede' applies and that no two people would agree what constituted 'a liberalization of trade policy' then it is absolutely certain that
a) a left-wing person could come up with such a country and
b) a right-wing person could demonstrate that no country qualified or
c) vice versa, these things tend to swing in the wynd.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
You're just making excuses for your inability to even swing at the ball.
Shall you challenge me to do the opposite? I should have no trouble finding increases in GDP and employment following a reduction in trade barriers and regulation. India anyone? I know that's not in Africa but you were the one who brought up Africa and for me to go there, some research would be required -- and you know how I hate research.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
