The Compromising Facts of most Conservative Economic Philosophy

This is a long discussion that’s primarily centered around, not an objection to “conservative economics,” nor a definition of “conservative economics,” but an objection to Free Market Anarchist Political Economy.  So, it deals with clarifying misconceptions of basic Austrian views and understandings as well as explaining why individuals are ultimately the most able to achieve their ends cooperatively. 

dougavera:

I have recently gotten into quite a few discussions of which economic policy would be the best for our country in these trying times. This has always been an interesting discussion for me because I have a philosophy background that I feel assists me in seeing the realistic nature of theoretical points as well as the idealized nature. I am a post-Keynesian, a follower of Keynes, Kalecki, Khaldor and Minsky. In this view there are rejections of orthodox economics, namely the rejection of the axiom of reals, axiom of gross substitution and the axiom of ergodicity.

The Austrian school rejects those as well, since I know you’ll be explaining the distinction between the two and their underlying views in order to discredit the Austrian school.

Read More

The Free Market, A Coercive Economic System?

Just a quick response to the claim that the Free Market is included in the group “any coercive economic system.”

Read More

(Source: cartoonmovement.com)

Anonymous asked: Hello! Which economist's views do you agree with and/or respect the most, and why? I'm just curious because "free market" is fairly broad...

Thanks,
A curious student

I’d have to say Murray Rothbard.  Currently though, I haven’t read any books from him—only articles.  However, I’ve read Hayek (less Free Market).  And I don’t respect his views amass, even though he is considered a huge contributor to Austrian Economics.  I think there’s a moral problem with the assumption that an individual or group of individuals has a legitimate right to the property of another individual or group of individuals without the consent of the latter.  Hayek, among other Austrian economists, don’t hold that understanding—Rothbard does.  So for respect, I’d say Rothbard. 

For agreement, I haven’t read one thing I’ve disagreed with Rothbard on.  But, then again, I haven’t disagreed with Rockwell, Schiff, Woods, French, Hazlitt or DiLorenzo (just a few prominent economists that come to mind occasionally) so far.  As for writing styles, I’d say I prefer Rothbard, Rockwell, Hazlitt and Bastiat.

Anyway.

Later on I’ll post books I highly recommend people to read.  Through these, a much better understanding of personal and economic liberty will be achieved for the reader.  I urge you to consider the list to expand your education outside of “academia.”  I’m currently a college student.  There’s a great deal of knowledge available in universities;  don’t get me wrong.  But, they normally produce illiterate, close-minded know-it-alls, who steadfastly proclaim the ideologies and histories of the omniscient State.  But through basic logic, one can understand that their professions have a higher percentage of untruths than any others.

I don’t think the “‘free market’ is fairly broad…”  I think there are some that want a less freer (somewhat enslaved) market;  and there are some that want a fully enslaved market.  But the concept of a Free Market is pretty straight forward:

• Don’t tamper with the means of exchange
• No government regulations (Not to say there won’t be regulations. But regulations will be directly in the hands of the people.)
• Only voluntary, consensual funding (I don’t like the term “taxation”, since it is levied/imposed, by the use of force, thus not possibly being voluntary/consensual.  At least it cannot be by the dictionary definition.)
• People own their property;  none have a right to take property without permission

Those are pretty much the main tenets of a Free Market.  Everything I can think of falls into those categories.

If anyone has anything else to add, feel free to do so.

Hayek On Regulation

letterstomycountry:

The Crown Prince of the Austrian School of Economics elaborates on Regulation vs. Free Markets:

Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the substitution of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created, does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function.

Make sure you completely analyze the entire quote: Hayek is saying that, wherever possible, price mechanisms and competition are preferable to directly regulating human activity.  But he is also saying that there WILL be instances where the free market simply is incapable of preventing the harmful effects of certain modes of production and human activity, and that regulation of those modes of production and activities is therefore warranted.

This is something that I think most Liberals would agree with: Liberals and Progressives don’t care if Ipads are affordable or not.  They don’t believe the government should be in charge of making movie tickets less expensive, or regulating the size of basketballs.  We quite frankly just don’t care about that stuff.  At least I don’t.

What we are most concerned about are quality of life issues with regard to basic needs.  One thing that has a huge effect on EVERYBODY’S quality of life is the environment.  And it stands to reason that the environmental harm caused by industrial practices will not be curtailed without legal compulsion, because it’s simply more profitable.

For example: In the absence of a law proscribing the dumping of toxic waste into rivers, everybody’s going to do it.  Not even necessarily because it’s cheaper per se.  But because those who don’t will not be able to compete with businesses who ARE dumping toxic waste into rivers, since their operating costs are lower.  But if government proscribes dumping toxic waste into rivers across the board, then all businesses are on a level playing field.  The financial incentive to pollute no longer outweighs the incentive not to.

See I don’t think “regulation” is what prevents dumping toxic waste into rivers, or polluting the air.  I think that those are infringes on peoples’ rights if they harm people directly.  If a corporation dumps toxic waste into rivers and someone drinks from that river, that the corporation does not own, then that corporation has harmed the person’s life.  If they pollute the air and harm an individual by that, then they similarly should be prosecuted for infringing on one’s rights.

It was very nice to read what you say about regulations determining the size of basket balls and everything else, that don’t negatively affect someone else.  I just tend to believe regulations that are there to protect life, liberty and property, are unnecessary since when one infringes on the life, liberty and/or property of someone else, they have committed a crime against the person, whether a regulation is in place or not.

Also, who is to determine what standard these regulations are to be at?  Is it the corporations who select their puppet office-holder, run his election through their funding, have worked with him in the past, know he’s on “their” side?  Likely, that will be the case.  Then, the new corporate puppet public official will create regulation that assists in the growth of his buddies at the expense of other businesses.  He’ll put regulations in place that are somewhat effective yet expensive to maintain to bar entry into the industry;  rather than simply regulations that are cost-efficient and effective in reducing risk.  If he put the latter regulations, his corporate buddies wouldn’t be too stoked about his job and likely next time around, they’ll donate their funds to someone that’s more likely to assist their business growth.  Also, these regulations give the illusion that simply by following regulations you aren’t harming the life, liberty and/or property of someone else.  Simply following regulations should not allow individuals/corporations off the hook for violating human rights, even though currently it does—and forever it gives the illusion that by following regulations they’re doing “the right thing.”

(via corruptpolitics-deactivated2011)

Too many free-market advocates focus on individual benefits, rather than societal benefits.