Pomeramian, whither thee?

Down the path of Brad Anders?

 

"Son_of_Kurgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Down the path of Brad Anders?

Taking a remedial Econ Class ;-)

-T

 

Tom Schulenburg wrote:
> Taking a remedial Econ Class ;-)

Taking spin classes from coach Kunich so he won't need a 12 anymore ?

 

Tom Schulenburg wrote:
>
> "Son_of_Kurgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Down the path of Brad Anders?
>
> Taking a remedial Econ Class ;-)

Naw. I spoke with him a bit ago. He said he was more than a little dissappointed when he found out
that some professional economists can't apply their own functional definition of free trade and by
their own admission are unaware of the foundational definition. He admitted he was wrong in thinking
he could make a difference in the level of the Pacific by taking a leak in it -- it's just too big.
It's an ocean of ignorance out there and he said he was seeking a new approach.

So for starters he said he was in the process of writing a book called _Dictionaries for Dummies_
for guys just like you. He also said you should beware if you decide to take a remedial class
from your "colleagues." He did a little research and found out the curriculum at your house goes
like this:

ECON101A Economics for Anarchists ECON101B Economics for Gangsters ECON101C Economics for Barbarians

So he said it is no wonder you're messed up and he understood your difficulties in light of that. He
said his money is on Friedman, not usenet schlocks.

Friedman, _Capitalism and Freedom_ (pp14-15):

Despite the important role of enterprises and of money in our actual economy, and despite
the numerous and complex prob- lems they raise, the central characteristic of the market
technique of achieving co-ordination is fully displayed in the simple ex- change economy
that contains neither enterprises nor money. As in that simple model, so in the complex
enterprise and money- exchange economy, co-operation is strictly individual and vol-
untary provided: (a) that enterprises are private, so that the ultimate contracting
parties are individuals and (b) that indi- viduals are effectively free to enter or not
to enter into any par- ticular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly voluntary.
It is far easier to state these provisos in general terms than to spell them out in
detail, or to specify precisely the institutional arrangements most conducive to their
maintenance. Indeed, much of technical economic literature is concerned with pre- cisely
these questions. The basic requisite is the maintenance of law and order to prevent
physical coercion of one individual by another and to enforce contracts voluntarily
entered into, thus giving substance to "private". Aside from this, perhaps the most
difficult problems arise from monopoly -- which inhibits effec- tive freedom by denying
individuals alternatives to the particu- ]ar exchange -- and from "neighborhood effects"
-- effects on third parties for which it is not feasible to charge or recompense them.
These problems will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter. So long as
effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the market
organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with
another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is protected from coercion by
the seller because of the presence of other sellers with whom he can deal. The seller is
protected from coercion by the consumer because of other consumers to whom he can sell.
The employee is protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for
whom he can work, and so on. And the market does this impersonally and without
centralized authority. Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is pre-
cisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a
particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free
market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. The existence of a free market does not of
course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary, government is essen- tial both
as a forum for determining the "rules of the game" and as an umpire to interpret and
enforce the rules decided on.

Maybe checkout your dictionary for words like: coercion, private, free[dom], law, order,
interference, rules. You can do it!

 

"Precious Pup" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Tom Schulenburg wrote:
> >
> > "Son_of_Kurgan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Down the path of Brad Anders?
> >
> > Taking a remedial Econ Class ;-)
>
> Naw. I spoke with him a bit ago. He said he was more than a little dissappointed when he found out
> that some professional economists can't apply their own functional definition of free trade and by
> their own admission are unaware of the foundational definition. He admitted he was wrong in
> thinking he could make a difference in the level of the Pacific by taking a leak in it -- it's
> just too big. It's an ocean of ignorance out there and he said he was seeking a new approach.
>
> So for starters he said he was in the process of writing a book called _Dictionaries for Dummies_
> for guys just like you. He also said you should beware if you decide to take a remedial class
> from your "colleagues." He did a little research and found out the curriculum at your house goes
> like this:
>
> ECON101A Economics for Anarchists ECON101B Economics for Gangsters ECON101C Economics for
> Barbarians
>
> So he said it is no wonder you're messed up and he understood your difficulties in light of that.
> He said his money is on Friedman, not usenet schlocks.
>
>
> Friedman, _Capitalism and Freedom_ (pp14-15):
>
> Despite the important role of enterprises and of money in our actual economy, and
> despite the numerous and complex prob- lems they raise, the central characteristic of
> the market
technique
> of achieving co-ordination is fully displayed in the simple ex- change economy that
> contains neither enterprises nor money. As in that simple model, so in the complex
> enterprise and money- exchange economy, co-operation is strictly individual and vol-
> untary provided: (a) that enterprises are private, so that the ultimate contracting
> parties are individuals and (b) that indi- viduals are effectively free to enter or not
> to enter into any
par-
> ticular exchange, so that every transaction is strictly
voluntary.
> It is far easier to state these provisos in general terms than
to
> spell them out in detail, or to specify precisely the
institutional
> arrangements most conducive to their maintenance. Indeed, much of technical economic
> literature is concerned with pre- cisely these questions. The basic requisite is the
> maintenance of law and order to prevent physical coercion of one individual by another
> and to enforce contracts voluntarily entered into, thus giving substance to "private".
> Aside from this, perhaps the most difficult problems arise from monopoly -- which
> inhibits effec- tive freedom by denying individuals alternatives to the particu- ]ar
> exchange -- and from "neighborhood effects" -- effects on third parties for which it is
> not feasible to charge or
recompense
> them. These problems will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter. So long
> as effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the market
> organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with
> another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is protected from coercion by
> the seller because of the presence of other sellers
with
> whom he can deal. The seller is protected from coercion by the consumer because of other
> consumers to whom he can sell. The employee is protected from coercion by the employer
> because of other employers for whom he can work, and so on. And the market does this
> impersonally and without centralized authority. Indeed, a major source of objection to a
> free economy is pre- cisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they
> want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most
> arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. The existence of
> a free market does not of course eliminate the need for government. On the contrary,
> government is essen- tial both as a forum for determining the "rules of the game" and as
> an umpire to interpret and enforce the rules decided on.
>
>
> Maybe checkout your dictionary for words like: coercion, private,
free[dom],
> law, order, interference, rules. You can do it!

No need to. I agree with Friedman 100%. The quote that started the whole Econ debate said something
to the effect of - some things are good in moderation (Like Free Enterprise) until taken to the
extremes (Like slave trade). This is a perfect example of a need for the government to come in and
establish the "rules of the game".

-Tom

 

> No need to. I agree with Friedman 100%.

No you don't; not even close. You are willfully ignorant of the foundational aspect of what the
"free" in free trade and free enterprise means. Friedman isn't ignorant of the meaning -- free to
him means uncoerced. Free trade clearly to him means individual liberty in pursuing transactions and
he says so in black and white and writes entire books on the matter. Shooting someone in the head
with a bullet to eliminate the competition is not "free enterprise" because it takes away the
freedom to live of the other individual. A slave does not have individual liberty in pursuing
transactions.

The same goes for Adam Smith when he laid the foundations for free trade/enterprise in The Wealth of
Nations. That text is to a large degree a manifesto on standing up for the little guy and making
sure the little guy has individual liberty -- but I'm pretty sure you and your "colleagues" have
never cracked that book open or else you wouldn't be claiming what you claim. Anarchy and
gangsterism was never part of the definition of free trade to Smith, and it isn't to Freidman, Sen,
and anyone else who has the slightest clue. Maybe you'd like to take up an argument with Friedman on
whether or not free enterprise leads to slavery. My money is on Friedman. You'd get sliced and diced
into little bitty pieces.

Like John Hicks said:

The liberal, or non-interference, principles of the classical (Smithian or Ricardian) economists
were not, in the first place, economic principles; they were an application to economics of
principles that were thought to apply to a much wider field. The contention that economic freedom
made for economic efficiency was no more than a secondary support.. .. What I do question is
whether we are justified in forgetting, as completely as most of us have done, the other side of
the argument.

Now you have probably not "forgotten the other side of the argument" (the foundational aspect of
individual freedom/liberty in free trade/enterprise); you likely never knew.

> The quote that started the whole Econ debate said something to the effect of - some things are
> good in moderation (Like Free Enterprise) until taken to the extremes (Like slave trade). This is
> a perfect example of a need for the government to come in and establish the "rules of the game".

Before you comment you should first learn what the words mean. Saying "free enterprise leads to
slavery" is pure crockery. Only someone who doesn't know what the words mean could say such a thing.
All you have to do is open the books and learn. The sky doesn't turn black just because you close
your eyes. The need for remedial studies is yours. It is all there in black and white, you need not
rely on usenet postings.

 

"Precious Pup" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > No need to. I agree with Friedman 100%.
>
> No you don't; not even close. You are willfully ignorant of the
foundational aspect of what the
> "free" in free trade and free enterprise means. Friedman isn't ignorant
of the meaning -- free to
> him means uncoerced. Free trade clearly to him means individual liberty
in pursuing transactions
> and he says so in black and white and writes entire books on the matter.
Shooting someone in the
> head with a bullet to eliminate the competition is not "free enterprise"
because it takes away the
> freedom to live of the other individual. A slave does not have individual
liberty in pursuing
> transactions.

No, the slaves do not.

However, their owners do.

The plantation owners bought and sold slaves at auction (the freest of markets), sold the cotton
produced by the slaves on the free market.

If one defines the market by the status of the slaves, then one could also say that until the
Emancipation Proclamation, the United States of America was an enslaved nation. That statement is
only accurate with respect to the slaves themselves, not to the country as a whole.

 

"Precious Pup" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> > No need to. I agree with Friedman 100%.
>
> No you don't; not even close. You are willfully ignorant of the
foundational aspect of what the
> "free" in free trade and free enterprise means. Friedman isn't ignorant
of the meaning -- free to
> him means uncoerced. Free trade clearly to him means individual liberty
in pursuing transactions
> and he says so in black and white and writes entire books on the matter.
Shooting someone in the
> head with a bullet to eliminate the competition is not "free enterprise"
because it takes away the
> freedom to live of the other individual. A slave does not have individual
liberty in pursuing
> transactions.
>
> The same goes for Adam Smith when he laid the foundations for free
trade/enterprise in The Wealth of
> Nations. That text is to a large degree a manifesto on standing up for
the little guy and making
> sure the little guy has individual liberty -- but I'm pretty sure you and
your "colleagues" have
> never cracked that book open or else you wouldn't be claiming what you
claim. Anarchy and
> gangsterism was never part of the definition of free trade to Smith, and
it isn't to Freidman, Sen,
> and anyone else who has the slightest clue. Maybe you'd like to take up
an argument with Friedman
> on whether or not free enterprise leads to slavery. My money is on
Friedman. You'd get sliced and
> diced into little bitty pieces.
>
> Like John Hicks said:
>
> The liberal, or non-interference, principles of the classical (Smithian or Ricardian)
> economists were not, in the first place, economic principles; they were an application to
> economics of principles that were thought to apply to a much wider field. The contention that
> economic freedom made for economic efficiency was no more than a secondary support.. .. What I
> do question is whether we are justified in forgetting, as completely as most of us have done,
> the other side of the argument.
>
> Now you have probably not "forgotten the other side of the argument" (the
foundational aspect of
> individual freedom/liberty in free trade/enterprise); you likely never
knew.
>
> > The quote that started the whole Econ debate said something to the effect of - some things are
> > good in moderation (Like Free Enterprise) until taken to the extremes (Like
slave
> > trade). This is a perfect example of a need for the government to come
in
> > and establish the "rules of the game".
>
> Before you comment you should first learn what the words mean. Saying
"free enterprise leads to
> slavery" is pure crockery. Only someone who doesn't know what the words
mean could say such a
> thing. All you have to do is open the books and learn. The sky doesn't
turn black just because you
> close your eyes. The need for remedial studies is yours. It is all there
in black and white, you
> need not rely on usenet postings.

The basic elements of an economic transaction involve a) A Seller/Producer,
b) A Buyer/Consumer, and c) Goods or Services being transacted.

You are absolutely correct in stating that slavery is not free enterprise. There is no freedom to
transact between the slave/producer and the slave owner/consumer

The "Slave Trade" is another matter. In this case, the slave is the good/service. Everything that
Friedman wrote about free enterprise can be applied to the relationship between the slave trader /
slave owner. Nowhere did he mention the state of the goods/services (slave.)

In case I failed to mention it, let me say for the record: Slavery is bad. Nothing good came out of
the slave trade. In no way do I support or condone the trafficking of humans. I do not, nor have I
ever claimed free enterprise leads to slavery.

The government has a role in free enterprise and that is to prevent things like the slave trade
taking place. As a country, the US government failed at that task for almost 100 years.

Perhaps the original quote would have been more palatable if the author had said: Some things are
good in moderation, like free enterprise. The ability for sellers and buyers to freely transact any
good or service without the influence of outside agents is fine until it is taken to an extreme,
like the sale of illegal drugs. In this case it is necessary for the government to step in a
regulate/prevent, while still preserving the basic foundations of a free enterprise system.

I apologize for my harshness in earlier posts. My original post was meant as a helpful answer to
your question. I think that we may be arguing two different points. If you want me to stop
responding to your posts, just say so - no hard feelings.

-T

 

Tom Schulenburg wrote:
>
>
> You are absolutely correct in stating that slavery is not free enterprise. There is no freedom to
> transact between the slave/producer and the slave owner/consumer

Thanks. This is what I was trying to say right from the beginning.

> The "Slave Trade" is another matter. In this case, the slave is the good/service. Everything that
> Friedman wrote about free enterprise can be applied to the relationship between the slave trader /
> slave owner. Nowhere did he mention the state of the goods/services (slave.)

In a functional sort of way, that is true; just keep in mind that he "preachs" the concept of
individual liberty about as strongly as anyone ever has. I doubt anyone involved in this discussion
would disagree that the technical/functional development of Economics is vital, important, and
perhaps the place where the most growth in the field can and does occur. But the thing that makes
the *free* market so special as a quantum step in the evolution in civil society is the impressing
of individual liberty.

I just put it this way: there are markets and there are free markets. Slave trade can exist in
markets, but not free markets because the foundation of free markets *requires* individual liberty
(and the civil structure to ensure it). While (for example) things like the freedom of airport
neighborhood residents to sleep at night and the freedom of others to travel by jet planes at night
can be a point of contention in the balancing of freedom between individuals, the more basic rights
were not in serious question for Adam Smith when he laid the foundations for a more civil society
based on "free trade." Nor are these basic rights in question for the staunchest of modern free
marketeers like Friedman.

I don't think we've ever disagreed that the functional aspect of "how free is free" or "who is free
to do what" is a bit hazy when it comes to things like night time sound pressure levels near
residential neighborhoods and airports. Quiet nights and opportunity to travel can both be scarce
commodoties in contention.

Once again, some initial guidance from John Stuart Mill's 1859 essay _On Liberty_: "The only purpose
for which power can be rightfully excercised over any other member of of a civilised community,
against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

> In case I failed to mention it, let me say for the record: Slavery is bad. Nothing good came out
> of the slave trade. In no way do I support or condone the trafficking of humans. I do not, nor
> have I ever claimed free enterprise leads to slavery.

I never "read in" that you or anyone else thought that slavery was anything but an abomination. The
original trigger, and my counter contention, was about "free enterprise leading to slavery," which
at best is a wholly unfounded claim and quite counter to what some pretty bright people happen to
think. Incidentally and aside from the obvious moral issues, Smith wrote that slavery was plain old
economic nonsense (to top it all off) if the moral/civil issues were not enough by themselves.

> The government has a role in free enterprise and that is to prevent things like the slave trade
> taking place. As a country, the US government failed at that task for almost 100 years.

We agree and this just highlights a good part of what irked me about the original statement. For
some reason it seems popular to load all manner of blame and contempt upon "free markets" when
government failure can be at least as bad and perhaps far worse. I suppose I lump in successful
political rent seeking as a form of government failure. I don't know if that is technically
justified, but I do lump it there in any case.

> Perhaps the original quote would have been more palatable if the author had said: Some things are
> good in moderation, like free enterprise. The ability for sellers and buyers to freely transact
> any good or service without the influence of outside agents is fine until it is taken to an
> extreme, like the sale of illegal drugs.

Oh no. I feel another doping thread coming on.

> In this case it is necessary for the government to step in a regulate/prevent, while still
> preserving the basic foundations of a free enterprise system.

Yes, now we are agreeing much more. Despite what I've written about government failure, I'm no
anarchist. There are market failures where government intervention is called for. Political art
involves imposing the intervention in the most effective/efficient way. I suppose I find it a bit of
an irony that market solutions, via government response to market failures, can be quite effective
means because they recognize the concept of scarcity. For example, government issued pollution
credits (as a form of transferable scrip) are a market response to the market failure of pollution
(an "externality" or Friedman's "neighborhood effects").

> I apologize for my harshness in earlier posts. My original post was meant as a helpful answer to
> your question. I think that we may be arguing two different points. If you want me to stop
> responding to your posts, just say so - no hard feelings.

I appreciate this a lot and am now mollified.