tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post1455743401656164804..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Robert Murphy Should have Read his MisesLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-54310981900417438392013-09-30T16:19:26.762-07:002013-09-30T16:19:26.762-07:00This is where I respond with a reductio ad absurda...This is where I respond with a reductio ad absurdam to which you reply "straw man" and continue on... P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-49983304218066192512013-09-30T07:02:32.872-07:002013-09-30T07:02:32.872-07:00"I don't think your statistical reference...<i>"I don't think your statistical references do anything but justify my position, sure protectionism helps those who it's intended to help. But it's still at the expense of everyone else."</i><br /><br />False. The industrialisation and higher real per capita GDP in the UK benefited all members of society in the long run.<br /><br />As for India, if it had been allowed to impose its own tariffs and improve productivity of textile production, it too would have benefited.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-90915884744820987802013-09-30T06:52:56.319-07:002013-09-30T06:52:56.319-07:00I don't think your statistical references do a...I don't think your statistical references do anything but justify my position, sure protectionism helps those who it's intended to help. But it's still at the expense of everyone else. Britain helped its own industry but hurt its no industry workers. It also hurt India's industry and population. Seeing this as a good thing is where we differ in opinion. It's not a moral approach. It's not even a utilitarian one. It seems like a purely nationalistic mentality. But social democrats usually do go towards collectivism.P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76940057800310281932013-09-28T07:26:50.847-07:002013-09-28T07:26:50.847-07:00"yet you cannot grasp that there can be no &q...<i>"yet you cannot grasp that there can be no "empirical evidence" if you can't narrow the field of variables in your test. It's merely your interpretation of statistics and history vs someone else's differing view. you claim yours is right, he claims his is right. you cannot prove or falsify any of it."</i><br /><br />That is plainly ridiculous. Of course you can narrow "variables": e.g., those associated with the success of British cotton textile industry during the industrial revolution, as I have argued in the post above.<br /><br />The argument is not just some subjective or unprovable "interpretation of statistics and history vs someone else's differing view" at all. <br /><br />Statements can be proven inductively. Even a counterfactual can be given a high degree of probability inductively. <br /><br />If you think the proof offered is apodictic, that is just a straw man argument.<br /><br />You don't even get apodictic truth in the natural sciences (e.g., evolution and the heliocentric theory of the solar system are only extremely probable), so saying you can't get it in economics is hardly some kind of refutation of my position.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76991805716487924972013-09-28T06:49:42.578-07:002013-09-28T06:49:42.578-07:00you stubborn, stubborn man(? i can't know this...you stubborn, stubborn man(? i can't know this). you work so tediously to refute apriorism, yet you cannot grasp that there can be no "empirical evidence" if you can't narrow the field of variables in your test. It's merely your interpretation of statistics and history vs someone else's differing view. you claim yours is right, he claims his is right. you cannot prove or falsify any of it. that is the basis of this and i would guess just about all economic arguments.<br /><br />I think you should make your next post not about apriorism but whatever you think is positive about the empirical method to economics. because currently i'm convinced its nothing more than stubborn belief in an obviously fallible, or worse, entirely fallacious, system of guess work. before you focus on refuting another's method, at least justify your own.<br /><br />It's like the goal was never to know the truth, only to convince the reader.P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76029560561356533762013-09-27T12:43:22.289-07:002013-09-27T12:43:22.289-07:00"Protectionism has been recognized for centur...<i>"Protectionism has been recognized for centuries to be good for a few at the expense of the many, yet still peddled by demagogues, special interest groups, and intellectuals alike. I didn't think you would want me to do work to prove this to you. Or that you would question it at all. "</i><br /><br />On the contrary, the empirical evidence shows that protectionism can produce either positive effects or negative effects.<br /><br />The industrialisation of many nations has been strongly aided by infant industry protectionism, e.g., even Britain during its industrial revolution:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/06/early-british-industrial-revolution-and.html<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/06/industrial-policy-brief-comment.html<br /><br />Japan:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2012/04/industrial-policy-in-meiji-japan.html<br /><br />And East Asian industrialization generally in <br />South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan after 1960.<br /><br />The case for universal free trade is just another neoclassical and Austrian myth:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/01/mises-on-ricardian-law-of-association.html<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-90633343758165123562013-09-27T10:26:38.743-07:002013-09-27T10:26:38.743-07:00No I'm suggesting you set up a straw man in Mi...No I'm suggesting you set up a straw man in Mises and I prefer to think I provided a reduction ad absurdam. You haven't disproven that intervention begets intervention. <br /><br />As for the cronyism, what is the FDA? USDA? EPA? Every regulatory body in the united states is a cronyism-driven, competition-inhibiting protection racket run by big business. Protectionism has been recognized for centuries to be good for a few at the expense of the many, yet still peddled by demagogues, special interest groups, and intellectuals alike. I didn't think you would want me to do work to prove this to you. Or that you would question it at all. <br /><br />Is this a case where apriorism meets empiricism and fails to meet your approval?P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-86368407120489307892013-09-27T06:00:00.921-07:002013-09-27T06:00:00.921-07:00(1) Your statement 1 attributes a straw man argume...(1) Your statement 1 attributes a straw man argument to me ("So if one person says a hundred wrongs and only a few that are correct, you ignore the correct ones because of the person's habit?").<br /><br />(2) <i>"invariably come with government control, in universal healthcare"</i><br /><br />What examples of "cronyism" are thinking of?<br /><br />As for limits on competition, again what examples do you have?<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-45415338943965840272013-09-27T05:25:17.059-07:002013-09-27T05:25:17.059-07:00So if one person says a hundred wrongs and only a ...So if one person says a hundred wrongs and only a few that are correct, you ignore the correct ones because of the person's habit? I'd argue it's the opposite case for Mises, but regardless we all make errors, that's part of the human condition. Something Mises himself makes clear repeatedly.<br /><br />How does one avoid the cronyism and limits on competition that invariably come with government control, in universal healthcare? P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-69067166019367459812013-09-26T19:42:39.896-07:002013-09-26T19:42:39.896-07:00Ha ha.So,they get old Mises,wrong again and you ha...Ha ha.So,they get old Mises,wrong again and you have to correct the Doctors over at mises.org about their own ones again LK :)? Ah you have to send them a bill for all your educational work.It´s fair.Great post LK.Janhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13321416654318469280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-53481834642084190702013-09-26T13:33:13.024-07:002013-09-26T13:33:13.024-07:00(1) "I feel like you're reaching pretty ...(1) <i>"I feel like you're reaching pretty hard here. Mises said lots of things over a 50+ year writing career. If you want to search each of his books an essays up and down you'll certainly find contradictions, mistakes, and/or logical errors."</i><br /><br />And what is described above is a major contradiction/inconsistency, which shows us how Mises's drivel on this subject should not be believed.<br /><br />(2) <i>And I'm sure you're tired of dodging this question but what is it you advocate?</i><br /><br />The US ought to have a universal health care system, free at the point of delivery and funded by progressive taxation, just like every other civilised industrialised nation. The rich, or indeed anyone who wants to pay, can continue to have expensive privatised health care.<br /><br />But such a "universal" system doesn't entail strict nationalisation of course, since there are many different models (e.g., more market based systems like Germany or France).<br /><br />The evidence is perfectly clear that these universal systems delivered better health outcomes across the board and proper access for those who cannot pay.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-59715205961596179922013-09-26T12:20:30.868-07:002013-09-26T12:20:30.868-07:00I feel like you're reaching pretty hard here. ...I feel like you're reaching pretty hard here. Mises said lots of things over a 50+ year writing career. If you want to search each of his books an essays up and down you'll certainly find contradictions, mistakes, and/or logical errors. What he said was in no way critical to establishing Murphy's point. He's saying that this corporatist plan will inevitably fail as well and the calls for further reform will inevitably follow until nationalization happens. This is essentially the pattern Mises cites in "middle of the road leads to socialism". That's why he bothers to cite Harry Reid. <br /><br />And of course nationalization doesn't solve anything either it just brings an end to public debate over which petty changes are necessary and makes the whole process bureaucratic.<br /><br />And I'm sure you're tired of dodging this question but what is it you advocate? Obamacare?<br /><br />P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-51906391144201016022013-09-26T07:45:33.024-07:002013-09-26T07:45:33.024-07:00Well, no, Mises didn't support any kind of &qu...Well, no, Mises didn't support any kind of "socialism". <br /><br />Mises's extreme view that no command economy can work at all causes him to deny that there is any such thing as a mixture of a market economy and socialism. <br /><br />So his idea that "mixed economies" don't exist is just a bizarre consequence of his need explain the real world existence of the mixed economies after WWII and the fact that they worked well.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-10802683337819677832013-09-26T06:36:57.866-07:002013-09-26T06:36:57.866-07:00Yes, this is strange. So Mises would be in support...Yes, this is strange. So Mises would be in support of a form of market socialism? Perhaps it is too early and I have not yet had enough coffee but it seems plausible. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47509864057254378592013-09-26T01:15:45.607-07:002013-09-26T01:15:45.607-07:00"The notion of socialism as conceived and def...<i>"The notion of socialism as conceived and defined by all socialists implies the absence of a market for factors of production and of prices of such factors.”</i><br /><br />Interesting. Factors of production are the inputs to the production process -- so that includes, say, the fuel used to power a workplace. <br /><br />There are many socialists who recognise the need for commodity exchange. As market socialist David Schweickart observes it "has long been recognised that Mises's argument is logically defective. Even without a market in production goods, their monetary values can be determined." (<i>Against Capitalism</i>, p. 88) <br /><br />This is not a new notion. For example, Proudhon (who coined the term "scientific socialism") argued for a system in which co-operatives would sell each other the productions of their labour. So a coal-miners co-operative would sell their coal to a rail-workers association who, in turn, would charge other businesses to transport their inputs/outputs. <br /><br />Proudhon argued this from 1840 to 1865 and Mises was well aware that he existed...So much for "all" socialists! <br /><br />See <a href="http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI1.html#seci11" rel="nofollow">section I.1.1</a> of <i>An Anarchist FAQ</i> for more on this as well as my Proudhon Anthology <a href="http://www.property-is-theft.org" rel="nofollow"><i>Property is Theft!</i></a> (the introduction discusses Proudhon's ideas on socialisation, workers association and so forth and presents numerous quotes where he proclaims himself a socialist).<br /><br />Suffice to say, Mises had some strange ideas on what socialism and syndicalism are -- at best, you could argue that he, like most Marxists, sought to limit socialism to Marxism (in its social democrat and Leninist forms). However, that does not make his right, or accurate!<br /><br />Iain<br />An Anarchist FAQ<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com