Or unless we're willing to embrace governments and regulations that are bigger than strictly local?
Iceland, for instance, has strictly and successfully regulated their commons and their fish stocks are being harvested sustainably. In my own youthful home turf the shellfish and lobster fisheries have been strictly regulate by provincial and federal (statist) intervention and are not in danger of extermination.
Meanwhile the fisheries that exist in deep international waters like tuna for instance which cannot be regulated by any one government (essentially a libertarian ideal) teeter on the brink of commercial extinction (with actual extinction powdering her nose in the wings). The response of the unfettered markets; some kinds of tuna flesh are worth an absolute fortune now assuring that even though the amount that can be harvested is decreasing that decreased amount is still worth extracting.
I take no joy in this at all. In economics I hew in the libertarian direction more often than not. But there are some fields where statist intervention seems to be not merely unavoidable but desperately necessary.
Goldberg is smart, and funny. The problem is that he's a rock solid advocate of republican party "conservatism" so he throws out some absolute knee slapper tropes.
But that doesn't mean he can't be smart or funny.
As to the actual meat of your post, yes I agree. I suppose you could say that the Communism vs Capitalism war is over (Communism lost) but the Socialism-Libertarian debate is ongoing.
Well what is it that you propose Freddie? What is the third way? The man(woman) who finds a way to break our economic system out of the prison of the Command Economy-Market Economy spectrum will be a giant, lauded in history and society for all time. What is the third way?
I don't disagree Mike but we have also seen CRA's become captive to large clients with the same result but no government interference. Arthur Anderson for instance.
I suppose that's true Freddie, though it does bear noting that if someone invented a new system of distribution, Capitalism, Communism and then something new, Newism lets call it, the world would beat a path to his door. Fame, fortune and acclaim would be theirs for the taking. Why hasn't someone done this yet? What is the third way?
Don't worry Bob. Though I fear I may regret it I have added Voegelin (who I shall from now on refer to affectionately as "The Kraut") to my reading list.
Do you know if The Kraut had anything to say about east Atlantic fisheries? I’d be surprised, he’s a philosopher after all, but then again Germans are a pragmatic bunch.
Freddie, I hesitate to point this out, but there are hungry and impoverished people in the Scandinavian countries.
I will agree, heartily, though that if we were more like the Swedes in government and populace then we'd probably be better off... thing is I don't think we're like them.
So the question is as I'm hearing it: "I acknowledge that libertarians don't have a solution to this example, I also acknowledge that the states involved solved this problem with government power but imagine instead that the states involved were immoral and didn't solve the problem. What would you do then?" In the context of North America if the governments involved were immoral on this issue I personally would vote against them. In the context of a non-democratic state like China I suppose it'd be an issue of either revolution or war? Fortunatly for us China's acid rain falls in the Pacific or on China though I do hear the Chinese are eager to clean the issue up simply because the fix isn't immensly hard.
The sentiment and intentions are 100% noble Freddie and I salute you for them. But we're dealing in economic systems, not sentiment. The road to hell is paved in good intentions, noble sentiment and life insurance salesmen.
It's funny Jay, I'll give you that, but your hand ain't an answer unless there’s meaning on your palm that I’m missing.
How, without invoking either a government or a government like entity, would you deal with say the Atlantic fisheries for one example. In the absence of a government forcing those scrubbers over the smoke stacks what would have been the ideal method of dealing with acid rain?
Only one reason Nob, nowhere near the only one. As to pricing externalities the problem is I have not heard nor read any scheme yet for dealing with the commons that sounds even remotely believable.
There are definitely some areas where the markets fail horribly. I wouldn’t count health care necessarily into that category because it’s a murky issue though certainly there is a salient point that when it is ones life one is bargaining with the potential exists to distort the relative power of the entities involved to the point where the market can’t function.
Still I’d say the jury is out on healthcare. We’ll have to see what the countries that have a largely privatized healthcare system end up looking like when they approach Western levels of economic development. Still there are some fields where the markets fail unambiguously; I’m amused by my unconscious irony in saying fields since they’re an example. I’m referring of course to the tragedy of the commons. I’ll illustrate with a quick anecdote from home in eastern Canuckistan.
When I was just a pup I read in the history books about the days when the cod was so thick in the North Atlantic that you could lower a basket over the side and then pull it up full of fish. Even in my own youth I can remember fishing with my Grandfather (I hated it, manual labor, ick!!) for the swimmy buggers. But in that same era when I was growing up the market discovered that if you lower a huge whopping dragger over the back of a big factory fishing trawler you could sweep up all the fish (and everything else) you wanted! Better yet you could do this with a lot fewer workers than long-lining, trawl lining or even with traditional nets. Fish were as cheap as dirt, maybe cheaper. The government didn’t involve itself much; this was kind of before environmentalism took hold very hard I guess. Certainly there were no government subsidies of the fishing or much else government involvement a libertarian could blame. We all of course know how this story ends, turns out that baby fish like the bottom of the ocean to be not churned up into a wreck. Turns out that even big ecosystems like the Atlantic notice when you sweep all the life out of the water like a broom. The waters of Eastern Canada today are as empty as George Minor’s brain or Dick’s conscience. The great factory trawlers rust in heaps outside the emptied out fishing towns. I hear they’ve about done in the tuna now as well and are hard at work on the other fish stocks.
Another example is air. Industry discovered back in the 80’s that if you put your smokestack high enough so that the pollution doesn’t rain down for a couple of states you’re in the clear. Acid rain came close to totaling the fresh water fish (the trawlers and draggers couldn’t fit up the rivers) in the northeast. In that case government actually did get involved and forced the polluters to install scrubbers and now thanks to the heavy hand of government acid rain is a minor issue and the fish stocks are recovering there.
Anyhow, suffice to say, when it comes to things that one person can’t (and shouldn’t) own then markets suck big time. Which is one reason I’m a neoliberal instead of a libertarian.
Ah, but Peter, part of the cause of the great depression was the Smoot-whasisname Harley? Protectionist movement that ignited trade wars and contributed to the depression so in a way WWII can trace it's roots back to diminished trade (among of course plenty of other causes).
Hey okay by me Greg. I'm certainly more inclined to believe in Big Bang than I am in God dun it. I just hadn't heard about any experiments that were done to validate the hypothesis. And yes, claiming CO2 isn't a pollutant is kindof stupid. As far as I can see both Mike and I used the terms Hypothesis and Theory correctly in our posts.
Meh, Climate Science probably deserves some of the mud getting slung it's way. How hard do we even push the Big Bang theory? Actually isn't it more of a Big Bang hypothesis? I haven't read anything about tests done to substantiate it though then again the sciences aren't my forte.
On “Before Resorting to Markets”
Or unless we're willing to embrace governments and regulations that are bigger than strictly local?
Iceland, for instance, has strictly and successfully regulated their commons and their fish stocks are being harvested sustainably. In my own youthful home turf the shellfish and lobster fisheries have been strictly regulate by provincial and federal (statist) intervention and are not in danger of extermination.
Meanwhile the fisheries that exist in deep international waters like tuna for instance which cannot be regulated by any one government (essentially a libertarian ideal) teeter on the brink of commercial extinction (with actual extinction powdering her nose in the wings). The response of the unfettered markets; some kinds of tuna flesh are worth an absolute fortune now assuring that even though the amount that can be harvested is decreasing that decreased amount is still worth extracting.
I take no joy in this at all. In economics I hew in the libertarian direction more often than not. But there are some fields where statist intervention seems to be not merely unavoidable but desperately necessary.
On “Wealth and moral character”
Goldberg is smart, and funny. The problem is that he's a rock solid advocate of republican party "conservatism" so he throws out some absolute knee slapper tropes.
But that doesn't mean he can't be smart or funny.
As to the actual meat of your post, yes I agree. I suppose you could say that the Communism vs Capitalism war is over (Communism lost) but the Socialism-Libertarian debate is ongoing.
On “Markets in everything ctd.”
Well what is it that you propose Freddie? What is the third way? The man(woman) who finds a way to break our economic system out of the prison of the Command Economy-Market Economy spectrum will be a giant, lauded in history and society for all time. What is the third way?
On “Before Resorting to Markets”
I was thinking more like entire life insurance salesmen but bones can work.
"
I don't disagree Mike but we have also seen CRA's become captive to large clients with the same result but no government interference. Arthur Anderson for instance.
"
So Nob you're saying... local governments are the libertarian solution to the commons?
"
I suppose that's true Freddie, though it does bear noting that if someone invented a new system of distribution, Capitalism, Communism and then something new, Newism lets call it, the world would beat a path to his door. Fame, fortune and acclaim would be theirs for the taking. Why hasn't someone done this yet? What is the third way?
"
Don't worry Bob. Though I fear I may regret it I have added Voegelin (who I shall from now on refer to affectionately as "The Kraut") to my reading list.
Do you know if The Kraut had anything to say about east Atlantic fisheries? I’d be surprised, he’s a philosopher after all, but then again Germans are a pragmatic bunch.
"
Freddie, I hesitate to point this out, but there are hungry and impoverished people in the Scandinavian countries.
I will agree, heartily, though that if we were more like the Swedes in government and populace then we'd probably be better off... thing is I don't think we're like them.
"
So the question is as I'm hearing it: "I acknowledge that libertarians don't have a solution to this example, I also acknowledge that the states involved solved this problem with government power but imagine instead that the states involved were immoral and didn't solve the problem. What would you do then?" In the context of North America if the governments involved were immoral on this issue I personally would vote against them. In the context of a non-democratic state like China I suppose it'd be an issue of either revolution or war? Fortunatly for us China's acid rain falls in the Pacific or on China though I do hear the Chinese are eager to clean the issue up simply because the fix isn't immensly hard.
"
The sentiment and intentions are 100% noble Freddie and I salute you for them. But we're dealing in economic systems, not sentiment. The road to hell is paved in good intentions, noble sentiment and life insurance salesmen.
"
It's funny Jay, I'll give you that, but your hand ain't an answer unless there’s meaning on your palm that I’m missing.
How, without invoking either a government or a government like entity, would you deal with say the Atlantic fisheries for one example. In the absence of a government forcing those scrubbers over the smoke stacks what would have been the ideal method of dealing with acid rain?
"
Only one reason Nob, nowhere near the only one. As to pricing externalities the problem is I have not heard nor read any scheme yet for dealing with the commons that sounds even remotely believable.
On “Deploy the War Wagon!”
I'd be amused if I didn't suspect that the dough for this nonsense came from the feds.
On “Before Resorting to Markets”
There are definitely some areas where the markets fail horribly. I wouldn’t count health care necessarily into that category because it’s a murky issue though certainly there is a salient point that when it is ones life one is bargaining with the potential exists to distort the relative power of the entities involved to the point where the market can’t function.
Still I’d say the jury is out on healthcare. We’ll have to see what the countries that have a largely privatized healthcare system end up looking like when they approach Western levels of economic development. Still there are some fields where the markets fail unambiguously; I’m amused by my unconscious irony in saying fields since they’re an example. I’m referring of course to the tragedy of the commons. I’ll illustrate with a quick anecdote from home in eastern Canuckistan.
When I was just a pup I read in the history books about the days when the cod was so thick in the North Atlantic that you could lower a basket over the side and then pull it up full of fish. Even in my own youth I can remember fishing with my Grandfather (I hated it, manual labor, ick!!) for the swimmy buggers. But in that same era when I was growing up the market discovered that if you lower a huge whopping dragger over the back of a big factory fishing trawler you could sweep up all the fish (and everything else) you wanted! Better yet you could do this with a lot fewer workers than long-lining, trawl lining or even with traditional nets. Fish were as cheap as dirt, maybe cheaper. The government didn’t involve itself much; this was kind of before environmentalism took hold very hard I guess. Certainly there were no government subsidies of the fishing or much else government involvement a libertarian could blame. We all of course know how this story ends, turns out that baby fish like the bottom of the ocean to be not churned up into a wreck. Turns out that even big ecosystems like the Atlantic notice when you sweep all the life out of the water like a broom. The waters of Eastern Canada today are as empty as George Minor’s brain or Dick’s conscience. The great factory trawlers rust in heaps outside the emptied out fishing towns. I hear they’ve about done in the tuna now as well and are hard at work on the other fish stocks.
Another example is air. Industry discovered back in the 80’s that if you put your smokestack high enough so that the pollution doesn’t rain down for a couple of states you’re in the clear. Acid rain came close to totaling the fresh water fish (the trawlers and draggers couldn’t fit up the rivers) in the northeast. In that case government actually did get involved and forced the polluters to install scrubbers and now thanks to the heavy hand of government acid rain is a minor issue and the fish stocks are recovering there.
Anyhow, suffice to say, when it comes to things that one person can’t (and shouldn’t) own then markets suck big time. Which is one reason I’m a neoliberal instead of a libertarian.
On “Technical kerfuffles”
How about too much? It's a waste. Did you ever read Bloom County when they described the Drug War using hair tonic? Pure win.
On “The Mittens Come Off”
Ah, but Peter, part of the cause of the great depression was the Smoot-whasisname Harley? Protectionist movement that ignited trade wars and contributed to the depression so in a way WWII can trace it's roots back to diminished trade (among of course plenty of other causes).
On “The Next Culture War”
Hey okay by me Greg. I'm certainly more inclined to believe in Big Bang than I am in God dun it. I just hadn't heard about any experiments that were done to validate the hypothesis. And yes, claiming CO2 isn't a pollutant is kindof stupid. As far as I can see both Mike and I used the terms Hypothesis and Theory correctly in our posts.
"
Meh, Climate Science probably deserves some of the mud getting slung it's way. How hard do we even push the Big Bang theory? Actually isn't it more of a Big Bang hypothesis? I haven't read anything about tests done to substantiate it though then again the sciences aren't my forte.
On “Technical kerfuffles”
What a pity.
"
Damnit Jay! I was hoping that meme would stay dead.
"
Maybe it does Bob but if so I don't know what it is. Mainstream American Culture is an enormous hole in my personal knowledge.
"
I'm melting! What a world... what a world...
On “A Note on Athenian Pederasty”
Oh my god, I'm sorry Jason! Too early in the morning it seems.
On “Sexuality à la carte?”
Well I can't find the stupid study either way. Curse my feeble googling skills... if you have al ink Mike I'd be much obliged.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.