Thanks for the thoughtful response. You're obviously more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am, but I do have a few questions for you:
1) Regarding your argument about transportation being a prerequisite to economies of scale, didn't certain aspects of industrial capitalism and mass production predate the introduction of modern transportation infrastructure? If I'm remembering correctly, Marx identified the nascent stages of industrial capitalism as early as the late Medieval period with the introduction of linen weaving in Lyon and Flanders. This "factory system" managed to thrive despite the complete absence of government-subsidized transportation. Does this mean that bigger producers can sustain a viable business model absent government infrastructure networks?
2) If private sector actors recognized the benefits of a government-subsidized transportation system, doesn't it stand to reason that they could have raised private capital for big infrastructure projects?
3) Finally, I think you're minimizing the importance of subsidies to local communities in the Deneen post I link to above. Some of these environmental regulations are undoubtedly small - getting rid of plastic bags, for example - but others strike me as pretty significant. I mean, you have the German government subsidizing household solar power production throughout the country. Zoning restrictions literally prevent larger retailers from opening franchises in small German towns. These are non-trivial concessions to local concerns that require significant government intervention. Are all of these subsidies countervailing measures aimed at minimizing harm from other regulatory interventions? Or do they reflect the fact that local economies frequently aren't sustainable without their own network of subsidization?
Right, but we're stuck with both. So it's tough to test Carson's hypothesis - that local production would flourish in a truly free market - because we're never going to get rid of our massive, government-subsidized transportation infrastructure.
Wait, somebody read that book out loud? With all the asides about strippers, tar heroine, murdering casino heirs and how hot the author's wife is? I demand a copy of that audio tape. Like, right now.
Obviously, the GOP is not going to suddenly become the party of black people or whatever. But incremental changes in the right direction should be encouraged, in part because they presage more serious reform.
Actually, Andy Smith, the GQ article makes a pretty interesting point about helmets and padding. It turns out that physical conditioning has decisively won the arms race against headgear, so the marginal increase in protection afforded by helmets is totally outweighed by the speed and intensity of the modern game. The author actually suggests getting rid of helmets entirely, if only to make players and coaches more cognizant of on-field head injuries.
1) What I meant to convey is that football organizations won't acknowledge the concussion problem. Obviously, many former players recognize the danger of head injuries from personal experience.
2) I think the real problem is that players simply aren't aware of the risks involved. Until football organizations actually recognize the problem, athletes simply don't know what they're getting into.
A systematically racist society? Really? Is there residual racial resentment in America? Absolutely. Does the legacy of historically racist policies and institutions continue to hold back minority achievement? Undoubtedly. But a systematically racist society? I think that's an absurd overstatement.
1) For campaign finance reform to be effective, I don't think it can be incremental. Scandinavian countries don't have limits on political contributions; they publicly fund elections through political subsidies.
2) You say Scandinavian countries do a better job of delineating between business and government. Well, how do they do that? One possible explanation is that publicly funded campaigns leave a lot less room for business to influence the political process.
That all said, this post was more thinking out loud than a blueprint for reform.
Also, would you rather have a bunch of uppity liberals from Cal or Emory or Harvard win UK's tournament? Or some fine fellows from the Old Dominion pull an upset?
Just out of curiosity, Jason, how did you get from a history PhD to the Cato Institute? Do they typically recruit scholars from the humanities, or are you an exception?
Well, Jaybird, a friend of a friend has several anonymous sources within the local Masonic lodge who reliably inform me that Obama is, in fact, a third-level initiate.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Deep Inside of a Parallel Universe”
OK, so I have some issues with this post. But that's a great Sliders reference.
On “Big is beautiful (and inevitable)”
Kevin -
Thanks for the thoughtful response. You're obviously more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am, but I do have a few questions for you:
1) Regarding your argument about transportation being a prerequisite to economies of scale, didn't certain aspects of industrial capitalism and mass production predate the introduction of modern transportation infrastructure? If I'm remembering correctly, Marx identified the nascent stages of industrial capitalism as early as the late Medieval period with the introduction of linen weaving in Lyon and Flanders. This "factory system" managed to thrive despite the complete absence of government-subsidized transportation. Does this mean that bigger producers can sustain a viable business model absent government infrastructure networks?
2) If private sector actors recognized the benefits of a government-subsidized transportation system, doesn't it stand to reason that they could have raised private capital for big infrastructure projects?
3) Finally, I think you're minimizing the importance of subsidies to local communities in the Deneen post I link to above. Some of these environmental regulations are undoubtedly small - getting rid of plastic bags, for example - but others strike me as pretty significant. I mean, you have the German government subsidizing household solar power production throughout the country. Zoning restrictions literally prevent larger retailers from opening franchises in small German towns. These are non-trivial concessions to local concerns that require significant government intervention. Are all of these subsidies countervailing measures aimed at minimizing harm from other regulatory interventions? Or do they reflect the fact that local economies frequently aren't sustainable without their own network of subsidization?
On “In Defense of Capitalism”
No, I'm not that Will, but I look forward to your response. I hope my arguments aren't too redundant - I realize some of this is well-trod ground.
On “Big is beautiful (and inevitable)”
Right, but we're stuck with both. So it's tough to test Carson's hypothesis - that local production would flourish in a truly free market - because we're never going to get rid of our massive, government-subsidized transportation infrastructure.
On “In Defense of Capitalism”
Kevin Carson -
I put up a longer post addressing some of your comments:
http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/10/big-is-beautiful-and-inevitable/
On “Steele yourself for more embarassment”
This made my day.
On “What Poker Can Teach Us”
Wait, somebody read that book out loud? With all the asides about strippers, tar heroine, murdering casino heirs and how hot the author's wife is? I demand a copy of that audio tape. Like, right now.
On “Steele yourself for more embarassment”
Obviously, the GOP is not going to suddenly become the party of black people or whatever. But incremental changes in the right direction should be encouraged, in part because they presage more serious reform.
On “Bloodsport”
Dude, read the GQ article and then tell me the NFL's belated response is a good faith effort to grapple with head injuries.
On “But What Are You For? The Death of Modern Movement Conservatism”
More importantly: Did you a) ask my question or b) get me a job?
On “Bloodsport”
Actually, Andy Smith, the GQ article makes a pretty interesting point about helmets and padding. It turns out that physical conditioning has decisively won the arms race against headgear, so the marginal increase in protection afforded by helmets is totally outweighed by the speed and intensity of the modern game. The author actually suggests getting rid of helmets entirely, if only to make players and coaches more cognizant of on-field head injuries.
"
Sam M -
1) What I meant to convey is that football organizations won't acknowledge the concussion problem. Obviously, many former players recognize the danger of head injuries from personal experience.
2) I think the real problem is that players simply aren't aware of the risks involved. Until football organizations actually recognize the problem, athletes simply don't know what they're getting into.
On “I am shocked – shocked – to learn that black people aren’t all that jazzed on America”
A systematically racist society? Really? Is there residual racial resentment in America? Absolutely. Does the legacy of historically racist policies and institutions continue to hold back minority achievement? Undoubtedly. But a systematically racist society? I think that's an absurd overstatement.
On “If It Sounds Unbelievable, It Probably Is”
Good catch, Mark (and props to Ken, as well).
On “Our Northern European Future, continued”
I'd be interested to read that post, Mark.
"
Thanks for the suggestion, Dan.
"
A couple of points:
1) For campaign finance reform to be effective, I don't think it can be incremental. Scandinavian countries don't have limits on political contributions; they publicly fund elections through political subsidies.
2) You say Scandinavian countries do a better job of delineating between business and government. Well, how do they do that? One possible explanation is that publicly funded campaigns leave a lot less room for business to influence the political process.
That all said, this post was more thinking out loud than a blueprint for reform.
On “Free Trade and Taxes – Denmark Edition”
What, is it Denmark Day at the League or something?
On “Did Bill Ayers write Dreams From My Father?”
Agreed, but to lie so brazenly? I guess we'll see . . .
On “The Safe Zone”
"If I was a rock-ribbed Republican opposed to reading things that didn’t confirm my biases, why would I be reading TLoOG?"
Heh. That's a compelling point, Trumwill.
On “Kentucky”
Also, would you rather have a bunch of uppity liberals from Cal or Emory or Harvard win UK's tournament? Or some fine fellows from the Old Dominion pull an upset?
"
To be fair, I'm sure the team is very grateful for UK's hospitality.
On “Selling Out”
Cool.
"
Just out of curiosity, Jason, how did you get from a history PhD to the Cato Institute? Do they typically recruit scholars from the humanities, or are you an exception?
On “Another Conspiracy Theory Debunked”
Well, Jaybird, a friend of a friend has several anonymous sources within the local Masonic lodge who reliably inform me that Obama is, in fact, a third-level initiate.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.