RE: why Iraq? here's one theory
Interesting. A Neo-Marxist Conspiracy Theory, from an economist's perspective, "It's all about OIL(Euro's)." My degree is in Political Science, with an emphasis on International Relations. What we learn in the Social Sciences is that things tend to be "over-determined," many not one cause. I think the conflict with Iraq falls within this description. I am sure that economics plays SOME role, but not the dominant role. I would posit that Saddam Hussein's actions since 1980 provide all the justification necessary for apprehension and care necessary, by his neighbors and the United States, without recourse to discussions of "Langley and Washington" and geo-strategic analyses of oil. His invasions of Iran and Kuwayt suggest the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad is an expansionist one. The continued flouting of UN Resolutions suggests that the belligerence of the regime has not abated. We might debate the merits of preemptive action, on moral andpractical grounds, butI do not think it is necessary to advance a "Big Finance-Big Oil" basis to for discussion or opposition. To me, it seems, this is merely "No Blood For Oil" tarted up in academese. It is a non-starter when chanted on a street corner and it isn't much more convincing when advanced in a news group. "1. The Real but Unspoken Reasons for the Iraq WarW. Clark ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), 10:36pm Fri Jan 31 '03 (Modified on 10:39pm Fri Jan 31 '03)Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq is actually an OIL CURRENCY war. The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. (This is a long essay)The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth"
RE: going on about 'statists'
Title: RE: going on about 'statists' Two questions: 1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific? 2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state we, so there must be some other necessary distinction. As to 1) all I can say is that Medieval Iceland doesn't exist anymore, nor do I remember any classes explaining the great contributions Medieval Iceland made to world culture, whereas I DO seem to remember a number of advances made by mixed economy nations, such as Britain, the United States, Germany, and France. This brings to mind the problem I see with many Libertarians and Libertarian/Anarchists. The examples they choose of good states/societies generally demonstrates the fallacy of the arguments their proponents advance. Rothbard admires Medieval Ireland and laments its inability to deal the bad, centralized, militaristic English. Well, my response is that societies that can not deal with their neighbors and prosper, probably were not very good societies. Medieval Icaland may have been a nice place, what did it accomplish? As to 2) I thought it fairly obvious that we were discussing the State not state and society... If I must I say the state is that entity that has the legitimate authority for the use of proactive violence. In a number of societies, generally those considered Western we have that distinction between Civil/voluntary society and the state. I would give my definition for the essential characteristic of the state. I simply argue that an all encompassing state or a non-existent state provide bad outcomes. In fact, I would argue that the absence of the state leads, more often than not, to the creation of the all encompassing state. As the anarchy of no state leads to the Chaos of no state, examples, Beirut 1975 until 1990 (?) Somalia 1992 to present. When no state exists we have the Hobbesian world of the war by all against all. To escape that disaster, what generally emerges is an authoritarian state, to quell the chaos. It makes the trains run on time and that's what people will accept rather than the freedom of anarchy. So, I come back to the point, we need to debate at the margins about the proper mix of me and us in society and the state's role in this intermediation. Personally, I accept that Libertarian domestic polices are often the best. But only from a Utilitarian view point. They work and work well for most people, however, as a basis for society, they would be abject failures. Their needs to be an us that can restrain the various me's that make up a society. -Original Message- From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: going on about 'statists' --- Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... A world with the all inclusive Corporatist State or NO state would all be equally horrific. So, we debate at the margins of the middle ground for the best mix of us and me that works best. Two questions: 1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific? 2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state we, so there must be some other necessary distinction. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: cost of subsidizing a prodigal son
And why do our politicians persist in throwing good money after bad when it is so obviously counterproductive? Is NOT intuitively obvious. As a Zionist, albeit a supporter of the Oslo Process, I would ask why the support of Israel is so obviously counter-productive? Can you name any ARAB/African nation that has supported the US consistently for the last 54 years? Various REGIMES have, until their overthrow, but almost no nations, Somalia under Barre, but not his predecessor, Ethiopia under Haile Selassee (sp.), but not Mengistu, Egypt under Farouk, but not after Nasser, Iraq in the 1950's but not after the Ba'ath Revolution. All of which points out that Israel represents a functioning, liberal democracy, with strong human rights guarantees for ALL its citizens, unlike its neighbors. So, why is it so obviously counterproductive to provide support for Israel? The story highlight the connection between domestic politics and international relations, to an extent. Israel's biggest supporters, in the last 15-20 years have been REPUBLICANS, though Jews tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, so even this is not amenable to a simplistic Marxian Dance with the one what brung you analysis. -Original Message-From: Alypius Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:14 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Fw: cost of subsidizing a prodigal son In my opinion, here is another fine example of domestic political expedience triumphing over economic rationality. Of course, money isn't everything, but one also has to ask: what will we ultimately have to show for our national investment? And why do our politicians persist in throwing good money after bad when it is so obviously counterproductive? Might this be an example of the special interest influence we were discussing a few days ago in the median voter thread? ~Alypius http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.htmlSince 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person. This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel, argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of Maine.These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of
RE: What is a market?
I'm a Political Scientist by schooling A Political Scientist has made a nice point about Markets and Economies. The MARKET always exists, one's economy may or may NOT take cognizance of the Market. A market is the interplay of supply and demand for various goods. It always exists... Islam may or may not recognize interest. Which is a concomitant of a supply and demand for money. The result may be slow or no growth of the economy, OR a societal equivalent that may or may not be as efficient as interest, e.g., pledges of one's first-born, or vassalage, or support on issues of the day, or monetary gifts to the lender, to reward him for his altruism To me a market is the interplay of supply and demand. The economy is how government and society deal with this interplay. -Original Message- From: fabio guillermo rojas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 1:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is a market? A pure market economy exists where all economic activity is voluntary for all persons in the economy. There are neither restrictions nor imposed arbitrary costs on peaceful and honest human action. I am trying to think about cultures that don't have the economic institutions that Western countries have. For example, if the people of one nation voluntarily adopted Islamic law and did not charge interest, voluntarily, would that be a market? Basically, I want to get beyond voluntary interaction and try to think about the institutions you need in order to have Western style markets. So if people abolish interest rates, they're abolishing one of the key market mechanisms. Although it's voluntary, it's certainly missing something important. Fabio
RE: economic history question
That was certainly Bismarck's theory when he introduced them to Germany in the 1870's. It was a part of an effort to undermine the Social Democratic Party in Germany. -Original Message- From: Gray, Lynn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: economic history question Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray
RE: economic history question
We need data! -Please it is fairly obvious the question being asked here. If you want to differentiate in one's answer that's understandable, but otherwise the question is straightforward. -Original Message- From: John Perich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 12:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economic history question There are a lot of abstractions that it'd help to qualify in that last statement. For instance: which government programs (FDR's right-to-work packages? LBJ's war on Poverty)? Whose calls for the U.S. to abandon capitalism? What is a safety net [...] for capitalism as a whole? We need data! -JP From: Gray, Lynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: economic history question Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 10:08:41 -0500 Would it be safe to say that the introduction of govt programs such as unemployment insurance had an impact in quieting the calls for the US to abandon capitalism and take up socialism? In other words did these types of govt programs serve not only as safety nets for individuals in need but also for capitalism as a whole? Lynn Gray -- I'm never gonna work another day in my life. The gods told me to relax; they said I'm gonna be fixed up right. I'm never gonna work another day in my life. I'm way too busy powertrippin', but I'm gonna shed you some light. - Monster Magnet, Powertrip _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
RE: long-lasting cars
Sure, the technology exists... HOWEVER, would YOU buy one? It would cost a great deal, after all, this is only one of two-three cars that you'll ever HAVE TO buy, so the car will cost more, because of materials and design, and because the manufacturer will lose many repeat customers. Further, look at the car styles of the 1980's, do you want to be driving a Yugo or a Cabriolet now? Think of the styles of the 1950's would you have wanted to drive one in the 1970's? So, would consumers really want to buy one? In short, you invest in a house, do you want to invest in a car? -Original Message- From: Gustavo Lacerda (from work) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: long-lasting cars Claim: auto manufacturers won't make cars that last long (say, 20 years of reliable operation) because they would make less money that way. Your opinion? Is the technology for reliable vehicles feasible for mass production? Would there be enough demand for such vehicles (i.e. the profit margin per vehicle is big enough to offset the loss due to fewer sales)? Gustavo
RE: growth in the past 20 years
That is one of the tenets of of paradigms... The various groups talk past one another, as they have differing foundational concepts and vocabularies. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: growth in the past 20 years I recently found this exchange over the same subject--I think it is very interesting to see how people on opposite sides simply talk past each other... -JA Are global poverty and inequality getting worse? March 2002 ROBERT WADE VS MARTIN WOLF http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleViewT2.asp?Accessible=yesP_Articl e=10242
RE: Skeptical Inquirer-article address
There has been soomething of a misunderstanding regarding paradigm shift, the paradigm shifts not whent he old practioners ae all dead, that CAN happen, but when an influential majority/plurality accepts the new paradigm. The old paradigm still exists, in some cases they old paradigm's practioners are simply exiled from science. Their worldview is simply NOT accepted as science. So, change need not occur at a glacial pace. -Original Message- From: Technotranscendence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 9:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Skeptical Inquirer-article address On Monday, February 25, 2002 8:11 PM john hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not so sure I understand what D. McCloskey's piece is saying. When he remarks that, The result of reading 44 pages of hundreds of scientific results from the front line of applied economics was mainly that I believed surprisingly little of it, I am reminded about the old saying that new paradigms arise in science not because scientists become convinced, but because the advocates of the old paradigms grow old and die and are thus replaced by younger practitioners of another school of thought. I'be heard this bantered about a lot in philosophy of science circles, but, in one paradigmatic case, Lavoisier's oxygen hypothesis did eventually win over Priestly. In a more recent example, many doctors are now convinced that bacterial infection (by H. pylori) causes ulcers -- at least, a good portion of them. This was not the consensus a decade ago and around a decade before that, it was seen as outlandish -- except by a handful of researchers. (See Paul Thagard's 1999 book _How Scientists Explain Disease_ for an in depth examination of this particular case as well as some cogent thoughts on philosophy of science. I reviewed his earlier work _Conceptual Revolutions_ in 1996. That review is online at http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Concept.html) I think the claims of people going to their graves holding onto refuted ideas are a bit exaggerated. I'm sure one can find examples of such, but are there any decent studies of this? If it were true, change in any field would be at a crawl, since no one who has an established position would ever give way and only newcomers would ever come up with new positions. Prima facie, this is not what happens in most fields. In fact, it would seem the opposite is typically the case. People tend to change often -- and sometimes for, IMHO, faddish reasons. I bet the reason for the idea that people take their beliefs to the grave is probably more because of a few high profile cases, such as Einstein and his view of quantum physics. What probably happens is this. Most of us aren't part of debates outside our respective fields. I.e., we're laypeople with respect to them. So, we mostly see the high profile characters, especially the ones who make a splash -- like an Einstein or a Hawking. We don't have a context into which to put this. So, when someone sees Einstein going to his grave believing that quantum physics are fishy, it becomes easy to accept the view that people -- even geniuses -- wedded to outmoded theories. This doesn't refute the view, but it might explain should there be no confirming evidence. Cheers! Daniel Ust http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
RE: Paradigm shifts
Well I'd respond by saying that the cause of ulcers is NOT a paradigm shift... the GERM THEORY OF DISEASE is a paradigm shift. The move from Newtonian Phsyics to Einsteinian Physics is a paradigm shift... The cause of ulcers is what Kuhn would call normal science. We assume that something, not bad air or or evil spirits cause ulcers. The ulcer debate is WITHIN an accepted paradigm. Most science is that sort of science. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 9:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Paradigm shifts Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC) writes: There has been soomething of a misunderstanding regarding paradigm shift, the paradigm shifts not whent he old practioners ae all dead, that CAN happen, but when an influential majority/plurality accepts the new paradigm. The old paradigm still exists, in some cases they old paradigm's practioners are simply exiled from science. Their worldview is simply NOT accepted as science. So, change need not occur at a glacial pace. Note, one example I used was Priestley. He was eventually won over to Lavoisier's oxygen hypothesis. He was not exiled or even self-exiled from the community of chemists. My point was that key players often do change to the new paradigm -- i.e., that the whole model of some people holding on tooth and claw to outmoded ideas is an overgeneralization and might not be supported by a thorough study. Even if I mean what Joe states above, this kind of disproves the model that theory change happens only in neophytes. In any field, most of the people who change their views are people who are already established in that field. Granted, there are cases where an outsider comes and does the changes. The H. pylori is one such instance, but it kind of proves my point. The researchers were not gasterenterologists, but they managed to persuades, according to Thagard's book, over 90% of gasterenterologists that bacterial infection is a major cause of ulcers. This doesn't seem to fit the Joe's model. The less than 10% who disagree with the H. pylori hypothesis are probably not marginalized or exiled outside of modern medicine. The fact, however, that 90% accept the case seems to show the willingness of experts to change their opinions. Since this happened in less than 20 years, I doubt this is because the old timers clung to the old view -- ulcers are caused by stomach acid alone and the best treatment is antiacids -- while only newcomers embraced the new view -- H. pylori causes many ulcers and the best treatment for these are antibiotics. This doesn't mean that paradigm shifts don't happen in the way Joe means. I just think they are a lot less numerous and that the model is overused, especially to explain [away] changes in complex fields. It's easy to overlook the details in many cases, such as the change from the phlogiston to oxygen hypotheses and the current models of the stomach ulcers. Cheers! Daniel Ust http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
RE: Organ shortage - a tragedy of the commons
Among the participants in the cooperative the organs still remain a common pool. How do you allocate differing body parts? Well, there are medical criteria NOW for transplants that could be used. The need for the organ, plus one's health, plus one's compliance with the various regimes of pre-treatment all can advance one up or donw a transplant list, PLUS the one vital factor, organ compatibility. Organs are NOT carburetors, they won't just fit anyone! As an aside, my wife has had FOUR kidney transplants, so she and I have some familiarity with this area. Also, the incentives to provide good organs in this market seems weak. Those with high quality organs benefit much less from this arrangement than in a market. I am at a loss as to what this means. We are not talking about an exchange program here. Anyone that needs an organ transplant will NOT have healthy organs. I don't get on a kidney transplant list becasue I don't like my current kidney function, but because I have lost kidney function. The idea proposed is that before one can become eligible to RECEIVE a transplanted organ, one must have acceeded to be willing to DONATE an organ. Though that idea has some flaws, too. It runs afoul of a free-loader problem. If I have diabetes I might well want to become an organ donor. I won't be able to donate, very much if anything, upon my death, but I would be eligible to RECIEVE a lot, kidneys, livers, pancreas, hearts, a host of things diabetes damages. -Original Message- From: John-charles Bradbury [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 3:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Organ shortage - a tragedy of the commons Indeed the policy is essentially as efficient as pricing organs. Please explain further on this point. Certainly, it is better than the current situation, and the political objections are minimized. But I don't think its efficiency properties rival market efficiency. Among the participants in the cooperative the organs still remain a common pool. How do you allocate differing body parts? Also, the incentives to provide good organs in this market seems weak. Those with high quality organs benefit much less from this arrangement than in a market. JC
RE: The Economics of Military Stop-Loss Policies
Well, now there IS a difference... If I have enlisted to serve the informed consumer OUGHT to know that contract extension IS possible. It happened in Desert Shield/Storm and it has happened before, in short the buyer ought to be aware of this situation, when enlisting. I suspect if you ask a recruiter he/she would tell you it IS possible. -Original Message- From: Strobl Maj Michael R [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:55 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: The Economics of Military Stop-Loss Policies Good Point. Contracts normally require a period of active service and a period of inactive service. Within the timeframe of the total contract (active + inactive time), service members can be stop-lossed. This will extend their active time but not their total committment. More relevant to this discussion however: Service members can also reach the end of their TOTAL contract time and still be forced to remain on active duty beyond the original/total contract length. These individuals are the draftees. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Economics of Military Stop-Loss Policies --- Strobl Maj Michael R [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The military's current stop-loss policy prevents certain service members from leaving the service at the end of their normal enlistment contract. Question: when one enlists today, is it clear in the contract that the enlistee may be subject to stop-loss? Was stop-loss in the contract in the past, when those now subject to that policy enlisted? If the stop-loss policy was not in effect, and if the contract did not provide for this policy, then yes, it acts as a draft. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
RE: Enron- a case for less gov't?
My response is that without some oversight it is EASIER to cheat... That is not to say that the energy marketplace needs more government, but that government rules on corporate transparency are not bad. So, we need LESS regulation of energy, or cars, or the (insert favourite market place here) market, but not necessarily less scrutiny of corporations. It is not obvious that in a less regulated environment that corporations have an incentive to be more transparent... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 1:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Enron- a case for less gov't? Most media sources, and NPR in particular, are quick to blame the Enron problems on too free a market. The thought is the capitalism produces only greed and dishonesty. But, is this the case? I have reason to think that this scandal is a result of the gov't doing too much, and the market not being free enough. The gov't requires publically traded firms to be honest and upfront with their financial situation. This gives firms more of an incentive to cheat (if everyone is honest, the benefits of not being honest increase- this, I guess, is similar to the incentive to sell drugs brought upon by the prohibition of drugs) and consumers(investors) less of a reason to distrust firms (if the law says they must be honest, they must be). If corporations did not have to be open, there would be a market incentive for them to do so (why give your money to someone if you don't know if they can repay) and accounting firms would have even more of an incentive to be very honest and objective in their work. Corporations could gain a comparative advantage by being very transparent with their financials, where now, the only room for a comparative advantage (with regard to honesty and gaining investment) is through being extra sly in their dealings. Similar arguments could be used against other paternalist laws and gov't branches such as the FDA and OSHA. Thoughts? Jason
RE: monopoly justice vs free market justice
Francois-Rene Rideau wrote: This is a gratuitous statement, and unless you begin arguing it, hopefully with economic arguments (since this is Armchair Economists). I'll assume that you utter it out of the same blind religious superstition as the other people I've seen defend democracy.: Uh no, it's not economically based or will it be... this discussion left Economics when it began to address public policy choices, not simply monetary policy, benefit maximization, or even questions about drink prices, but began to substitute economic rationality as the basis for a discussion of societal issues in general. -Original Message- From: Francois-Rene Rideau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 8:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: monopoly justice vs free market justice [About private justice vs State justice] On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:20:06AM -0500, Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC) wrote: We all can see societies operate on the above principles, the Yanomami in the Amazon, various tribes in Papua-New Guinea, Lebanon circa 1975-1990, the Balkans, and Somalia 1992 to present. I don't know enough about the Yanomami and Guinean tribes, but I fail to see how you can account the Lebanese and Somalian problems to a private justice system, when there has precisely been political wars raging - wars for the political control on other people's lives - wars to kill as enemies people of different ethnic or religious obedience. The line and taking back 'too much' might raise an endless vendetta war. Hence everyone's interest in finding a peaceful agreement. is OBVIOUSLY untrue. In all these societies VENDETTA and war are the result of one side taking private justice. As if governments had eliminated vendetta wars! Mind you, they took vendetta wars to a whole new size. Letting aside WWI and WWII, just consider the recent Afghanistan event. A terrorist attack, itself explainable only because of resentment against the US government, has served as the pretense for a full-fledged war. The same usual illusion of States pretending to eliminate externalities, yet only concentrating them into a huge externality of ensuring there be a good government happens with States pretending to eliminate injustice, yet only concentrating injustice into its own huge administration. Plus, the line Both parties, as well as surrounding families, are interested in peace, and will thus seek a prompt agreement before court. is also obviously untrue The parties and their families ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PEACE, they are interested in survival, familial obligations, and power, hence WAR is often the preferable outcome rather than a court. As if war could bring durable survival and power! As economists, we know that freely agreed win-win exchanges of services is a much better strategy than the win-lose situation of plunder, or the lose-lose situation of war, be it only because the latter are so hazardous. The more commerce is developed, the less people have interest in war. If you want to continue doing trade with civilized people, you'll have to abide by all the court rulings that will raise a consensus on the need to enforce them. Anarcho-Capitalism is flawed in that it assumes a degree of rationality and benefit maximization that humans do not truly exhibit. The fatal conceit not just of socialism, but of any kind of statism, is to believe that governments somehow magically have more rationality and benefit maximization (of an altruistic kind, moreover) than citizens. The Public Choice theory showed how untrue this could be. Libertarians never ever claimed that citizens are magically rational and benefit-maximizing - they claim that government are no more such than them, and that things are better for citizens, whatever their objectives, when they are free to choose, with the feedback loop of responsibility directly guiding them into taking good decisions. Anarcho-Capitalists apply this line of reasoning to security and the justice system as well as all other goods and services people can expect to get from the society and the world. You might disagree, but don't claim Anarcho-Capitalism assumes what it doesn't assume - it only discredits you. A monopoly justice system, tied to democracy is superior to either private justice or system of justice based on authoritarian principles. This is a gratuitous statement, and unless you begin arguing it, hopefully with economic arguments (since this is Armchair Economists). I'll assume that you utter it out of the same blind religious superstition as the other people I've seen defend democracy. [ François-René ÐVB Rideau | ReflectionCybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] [ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ] Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it -- Richard Feynman
RE: Life Expectancy and Immigration
At some point there must be a cross-over point. If I live in Third Worldzania for 60 years, exposed to Typhus, Typhoid, Dengue Fever, malaria, Plague, TB, and have been mal-nourished, THEN I move to the US I doubt my life expectancy, AS COMPARED TO AMERICANS, will be all that great, whereas if my parents bring me to the US when I'm 2 then my life expectancy really ought to be that of the average American of my socio-economic class. -Original Message- From: Gray, Lynn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:28 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Life Expectancy and Immigration But they would only have their life span shortened considerably if they emigrated earlier rather than later in life. The 70 year old from the Congo will have his life expectancy increased much less by coming to the US than would say an infant (who would enjoy a lifetime of preventative care). Lynn -Original Message- From: Bahizi_P [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 4:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Life Expectancy and Immigration Country of destination would be the answer. Life expectancy has a lot to do with access to a myriad of services primary available in developed countries (where life expectancy is greater) such as: -medical services and treatment (Proper diagnosis and so on) -presence (or lack thereof) of highly and deadly contagious diseases -proper nutrition -proper mental health care (anxiety and stress due to environment, i.e. political unrest) Lifespan is also related to: -better information -and overall better quality of life The reverse would also true. A person going from a country with high life expectancy to one with a shorter lifespan and adopting the locals way of life, i.e. exposure to diseases, malnutrition, etc, would have their lifespan considerably shortened. My 2c worth. Pierre Bahizi [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Bryan Caplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Life Expectancy and Immigration Life expectancy varies widely between countries. When someone moves to a new country, what best predicts their lifespan? Country of origin? Or country of destination? -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He was thinking that Prince Andrei was in error and did not see the true light, and that he, Pierre, ought to come to his aid, to enlighten and uplift him. But no sooner had he thought out what he should say and how to say it than he foresaw that Prince Andrei, with one word, a single argument, would discredit all his teachings, and he was afraid to begin, afraid to expose to possible ridicule what he cherished and held sacred. Leo Tolstoy, *War and Peace*
RE: Only Economists Tell the Truth?
So, the question is in the LEVEL of inquiry firms are in it to make money-Firm Level the results of their actions maybe be No firm intends to push price to marginal cost-Industry Level? -Original Message- From: Alex Tabarrok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Only Economists Tell the Truth? I think Robin exaggerates the extent to which social science would be easier if we could just ask people why they do things. To be sure, there is a tradition in economics that survey results about intentions and ideas (as opposed to age and income!) are not to be trusted. I agree this tradition is overdone and am happy to see work such as Bewley's on why firms hold wages fixed etc. Much of economics, however, concerns effects which are no part of anyone's intention - hence Adam Smith's metaphor of the *invisible* hand. For macro effects of micro behavior there is no point asking people what they intend. No firm intends to push price to marginal cost, no firm intends to use inputs in just such a way that social value of those resources in alternative uses is minimized, no investor intends to impart his knowledge into prices - but this is what happens. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Austrian school and universalist economics
Well Physics has been attempting a comparable feat in Unified Field Theory, linking Quantum Mechanics and Einsteinian Macro-Level Physics for years, so good luck Economists! -Original Message- From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Austrian school and universalist economics Roger Garrison has made a very good cause for the Austrian school to remain a separate school. He classifies schools as being labour-based (Keynesian), money-based (Monetarists) and capital- based (Austrian). Pierre le Roux Austrian economics is not specifically capital-based, as there is much more to it, and has more fundamental features, but as a distinction from other schools of thought, indeed Austrian capital-goods theory has not been integrated into the mainstream and hence makes Austrian theory distinctive. As to one's approach to economics, is it not the best course to attempt to integrate the warranted theory from all schools to create a universalist school? Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Find a job, post your resume. http://careers.yahoo.com
