- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Professor Javier Milei explains why the neo-classical economic model is flawed. CPAC.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:31 am
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:31 am
Javier Milei CPAC.
I was blown away by this. This man is incredibly intelligent.
I was blown away by this. This man is incredibly intelligent.
quote:
Generally, when a model fails to align with reality, we adjust or discard the model. However, in the neoclassical framework, when there's a discrepancy, they tend to blame 'reality' for causing 'market failures.' This originates from studying the normative aspects of competitive equilibrium – existence, uniqueness, and stability.
The problem arises with normative analysis through Pareto analysis. Pareto optimality suggests that improving someone's situation without worsening another's is a Pareto improvement. When these opportunities are exhausted, we reach a Pareto optimum, leading to the definition of 'market failures' – non-convexities, externalities, public goods, asymmetric information, and the Prisoners' Dilemma.
All these definitions enable state intervention and the advancement of statist and socialist agendas.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 9:51 am
5
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:48 am to The Baker
Full transcript.
quote:
"Long live freedom! [Applause] It seems that what was initially perceived as a neighborhood phenomenon has significantly expanded. First and foremost, I am deeply grateful for this invitation. Regarding today's conference and its impact, I previously spoke at Davos where I emphasized the danger the West faces due to the rise of socialist, statist ideas. Today, I will focus on the technical foundations that underpinned the political perspectives I shared at that conference. I will discuss how neoclassical economics and its view on market failures facilitate the progression of socialism, ultimately hindering economic growth and the fight against poverty. The crux of this issue lies in a methodological conflict between theoretical models and real-world scenarios. Generally, when a model fails to align with reality, we adjust or discard the model. However, in the neoclassical framework, when there's a discrepancy, they tend to blame 'reality' for causing 'market failures.' This originates from studying the normative aspects of competitive equilibrium – existence, uniqueness, and stability. The problem arises with normative analysis through Pareto analysis. Pareto optimality suggests that improving someone's situation without worsening another's is a Pareto improvement. When these opportunities are exhausted, we reach a Pareto optimum, leading to the definition of 'market failures' – non-convexities, externalities, public goods, asymmetric information, and the Prisoners' Dilemma. All these definitions enable state intervention and the advancement of statist and socialist agendas. To illustrate this, consider the transition from candles to light bulbs. If interventionists had their way, we'd still be using candles instead of enjoying modern lighting. This is how socialism can negatively impact our lives. We need to move beyond the Pareto optimum and embrace progress. The market is a process of social cooperation where property rights are exchanged voluntarily. Since exchanges are voluntary, the concept of 'market failures' becomes irrelevant. The foundations of the market include private property and minimal state intervention. The price system, emerging from these exchanges, acts as an information transmitter and coordination mechanism. Private property and free markets facilitate economic calculation, debunking the feasibility of socialism. Socialism lacks private property and market mechanisms, leading to inefficiency and distortion. Competition, not in the neoclassical sense of perfect competition, but as free entry and exit, is crucial. Adam Smith's concept of the division of labor and social cooperation underlines the inefficiency of socialist ideas. Smith showed how specialized labor significantly boosts productivity. However, without demand, the division of labor can't be fully realized. Despite any personal differences, market participants must cooperate, promoting peace and undermining socialism. Successful businessmen in a capitalist system benefit society by providing quality goods at better prices, creating jobs, and fostering progress. Entrepreneurs are the bedrock of prosperity. Now, let's address the neoclassical dilemma within economic growth theory. Historical data shows that from the Christian era to 1800, GDP per capita was relatively constant. However, from 1800 onwards, it increased over 15 times, and the global population grew from 800 million to 10 billion. This period also saw a dramatic decrease in extreme poverty, from 99% to 5%. Neoclassical theory criticizes monopolies, yet this period of monopolistic structures brought immense well-being and poverty reduction. The neoclassical analysis is flawed because it oversimplifies and fails to consider future impacts and the entire economy. Monopolies, according to neoclassical theory, produce less and charge more. However, monopolistic profits can spur consumption, production, and employment in other sectors. Saving these profits leads to investment and growth. Even if a monopolist hoards wealth, it reduces the money supply, lowering prices and benefiting the population. Interventions in the name of social justice, unlimited democracy, and populism often harm the economy. Countries like Argentina, once among the world's richest, have fallen drastically due to excessive regulations and state interference. Capitalism, contrary to accusations of hyper-individualism, is not only more productive but also fair. The market, as a discovery process, creates wealth during production. Those who discover or create new value rightfully own it.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 9:50 am
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:54 am to The Baker
Did they publish a transcript of his speech? I looked and found nothing.
ETA - that transcript does not match what he says. I looked at the opening and closing remarks and they don't match. Is that a summary?
ETA - that transcript does not match what he says. I looked at the opening and closing remarks and they don't match. Is that a summary?
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 9:58 am
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:56 am to The Baker
The right really needs intellectuals like him. Guys we had in the past like Milton Friedman really helped conservatives with their messaging
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:57 am to The Baker
not surprised he knows so much about finance
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:59 am to The Baker
Dude’s hair is straight out of the 70s.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 11:36 am to The Baker
quote:
Neoclassical theory criticizes monopolies, yet this period of monopolistic structures brought immense well-being and poverty reduction. The neoclassical analysis is flawed because it oversimplifies and fails to consider future impacts and the entire economy. Monopolies, according to neoclassical theory, produce less and charge more. However, monopolistic profits can spur consumption, production, and employment in other sectors. Saving these profits leads to investment and growth. Even if a monopolist hoards wealth, it reduces the money supply, lowering prices and benefiting the population.
Hmmm.. I am not sure I agree with his assessment here.... it is however thought provoking.. Also I don't think he sufficiently addresses the fact that monopolies tend to choke competition and innovation..
Posted on 2/25/24 at 12:47 pm to deltaland
quote:
The right really needs intellectuals like him. Guys we had in the past like Milton Friedman really helped conservatives with their messaging
Ehhh...I can do without. I'll take a Belloc influenced view that rightly sees the damage of Capitalism (though I still prefer it to the left's alternatives). It is evil, though lesser.
Let's not worship at the alter of hyperindividualism and markets and forget what evils Capitalism promotes: usury, the materialist culture that has now trapped/captured women into the workforce, and the prioritization of profit over good.
I don't believe anyone who says they seek to "conserve" Western Christendom while they push for pure Capitalism. The two concepts are opposed.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 12:49 pm to klrstix
quote:
Also I don't think he sufficiently addresses the fact that monopolies tend to choke competition and innovation..
And are less sensitive to the labor pool's needs, thereby allowing them to completely abandon the fundamental western concept of a "family living wage".
Posted on 2/25/24 at 2:08 pm to Foch
quote:
And are less sensitive to the labor pool's needs...
I would expand that to say their sensitivity is more focused on their own perceived needs and their relative ability to influence the market in general towards that..
but yeah..
Posted on 2/25/24 at 2:37 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
Dude’s hair is straight out of the 70s.
Really needs a mustache to be real 70s. Maybe even a Joe Namath fu manchu.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 2:47 pm to klrstix
quote:
but yeah..
It would appear that you and I are in the minority on this allegedly "conservative" dominated board.
The socialist and the Capitalist both seek to reduce man to materialist needs or materialist potential as resources for economic extraction. There is a better way that conserves the dignity of a man and his role as the leader of the society which is the base building block for all society. The family.
"The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman. Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings. Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just."
"Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family."
RERUM NOVARUM
Posted on 2/25/24 at 3:12 pm to Foch
Someone has clearly never actually read any Adam Smith or if you have, gravely misunderstood it. It's simply the invisible hand put into practice, further, it's human nature to seek to enrich that which is familiar and local. Further, by doing so, across each country, competition yields the very best for each right thinking free-market loving nation.
Classical liberalism would state this is selfish and evil while also telling you human nature only exists outside their bubble. It's ridiculous and foolish and you should be ashamed that you do not understand these very foundational concepts.
Truly, your thinking are fruit from the poisoned tree and as such, by the free market of thought, should left rotten and valueless. Or choose to feed your children the same poisoned fruit and reap the rewards of such an enterprise. Your choice.
Classical liberalism would state this is selfish and evil while also telling you human nature only exists outside their bubble. It's ridiculous and foolish and you should be ashamed that you do not understand these very foundational concepts.
Truly, your thinking are fruit from the poisoned tree and as such, by the free market of thought, should left rotten and valueless. Or choose to feed your children the same poisoned fruit and reap the rewards of such an enterprise. Your choice.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 3:44 pm to Richleau
quote:
Truly, your thinking are fruit from the poisoned tree and as such, by the free market of thought, should left rotten and valueless.
People in this thread are praising the so-called "intellectual" leader of Argentina while he commends a monopoly based system.
Re: a poisoned tree being the basis for my thoughts, I will be quite happy to pass along to my children the steady belief that market efficiency is not the ultimate good, and that the "invisible hand" is not something to be regarded as holy.
You seem to hold that the market is what sets men free, when really it is the nourishing of their soul. Labor and market participation are factors there, but they are not the Holy ends that some in the Capitalist camp make them out to be.
You argue that competition yields what is best for each individual while rejecting the basis for my earlier arguement. The individual is not the concern but the family is. Inefficiency in markets can be/often is the better path to the greater good.
Optimized markets, as a goal or sole emds, do not conform to Christ's message.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 3:48 pm to Foch
quote:
the so-called "intellectual" leader of Argentina while he commends a monopoly based system.
How?
Posted on 2/25/24 at 3:51 pm to Foch
quote:
People in this thread are praising the so-called "intellectual" leader of Argentina while he commends a monopoly based system.
He says it is the better of two choices when the other choice is government involvement in the market.
That is the way I understood him.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 3:54 pm to Zach
He is cherry picking the good without any discussion of the shared values/ morality required to make a free and honest exchange possible. His arguements smack of greed is good.
Socialism is evil and less preffered than Capitalism due to its disregard for private property. Distributism is the way I prefer, as related by Belloc.
From the full transcript:
Socialism is evil and less preffered than Capitalism due to its disregard for private property. Distributism is the way I prefer, as related by Belloc.
From the full transcript:
quote:
Monopolies, according to neoclassical theory, produce less and charge more. However, monopolistic profits can spur consumption, production, and employment in other sectors. Saving these profits leads to investment and growth. Even if a monopolist hoards wealth, it reduces the money supply, lowering prices and benefiting the population
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 3:56 pm to frogtown
quote:
He says it is the better of two choices when the other choice is government involvement in the market.
But does he highlight what is required (a Christian ethos) to make it an equitable system?
We know he doesn't and won't.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 3:56 pm to The Baker
The guy makes it look easy.
Probably because it is that easy. We've just been programmed to buy into the 'don't shock the system!!' bullshite.
Meanwhile, we have open borders with drugs and thugs streaming over, topless trannies and random bags of coke at the White House, a sex crazed pedo grandfather who showered with his own daughter, overt corruption with Ukraine, a dystopian elitist class that does whatever the hell it wants as long as it pays homage to the Church of Militant Wokism....
But only spending what you can without going into stratapheric levels is 'problematic' for the system?
GFY
Posted on 2/25/24 at 4:01 pm to Foch
quote:
But does he highlight what is required (a Christian ethos) to make it an equitable system?
Equitable system?
He is talking about exchanges between private parties. You have the choice to participate or not.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News