- 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
re: Professor Javier Milei explains why the neo-classical economic model is flawed. CPAC.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 4:01 pm to Foch
Posted on 2/25/24 at 4:01 pm to Foch
quote:
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.
I totally agree with him. Greed is good. All free markets are based on greed by both producer and consumer. The result is benefit for both.
quote:
Socialism is evil and less preffered than Capitalism due to its disregard for private property.
That's true.
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
He's right. And he doesn't stop the competition that monopolies will incur. It's govt that stops competition.
Everything he said is exactly from Milton Friedman.
1
Posted on 2/25/24 at 4:51 pm to Foch
quote:
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.
Belloc’s arguments in favor of the principles of subsidiarity should be championed by anyone worried about the increasingly totalitarian dictates of the distant, reigning bureaucracy in Washington D.C.
And as you indicate, capitalism is not perfect, just less evil than the remedies offered to “perfect” it.
The problem with Belloc’s distributist model is it ignores the historical reality that it’s ideal world in which the peasant farmer owned the patch of land he farmed would not be possible without the widespread wealth created by the Industrial Revolution.
“The laissez-faire economists were the pioneers of the unprecedented technological achievements of the last two hundred years. They demolished the prestige of Mercantilism, paternalism, and restrictionism. They exploded the superstitious belief that labor-saving devices and processes cause unemployment and reduce all people to poverty and decay...
It is a distortion of facts to say that the factories carried off the housewives from the kitchens and nurseries and the children from their play. These women had nothing to cook with and to feed their children. These children were destitute and starving. Their only refuge was the factory. It saved them, in the strict sense of the term, from starvation...
The truth is that capitalism has poured a horn of plenty upon the masses of wage earners which render their life more agreeable. How uneasy an American worker would be if he were forced to live in the style of a medieval lord and to miss the plumbing facilities and the other gadgets he simply takes for granted…” Human Action: Ludwig von Mises
This post was edited on 2/26/24 at 8:14 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 4:52 pm to Zach
quote:
Everything he said is exactly from Milton Friedman.
What is Friedman's relevance beyond his role as a pied piper of sorts for other Capitalism over faith believers?
Posted on 2/25/24 at 4:58 pm to Foch
quote:
What is Friedman's relevance beyond his role as a pied piper of sorts for other Capitalism over faith believers?
If you would read him you would know. But you can remain a moron.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 5:05 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
Comparing him to Milton might be fair, given the influence he had on Chile in the 1970s, but Milei is much more in line with Milton's son David.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 5:14 pm to Zach
Foch sounds like a keynesian tbh. The man just doesn't understand how human nature works and how it actually makes the system work to produce the best product when unhindered.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 5:28 pm to Foch
This isn't a religion discussion ya weirdo. Live within the world. Render to Caesar that which is Caesar. Do better.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 5:30 pm to Richleau
quote:
Foch sounds like a keynesian tbh
IMO Keynesianism is why we are in the mess we are in.
Truly excited to see what Milei can do in Argentina.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 5:31 pm to Richleau
quote:
This isn't a religion discussion ya weirdo. Live within the world
To say that religion has no role in economics is truly to live within the world. You are very simple.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 5:35 pm to Foch
…sigh. Take care man. You don’t seem to really understand anything of what you read. Like I said, poisoned mind/poisoned tree.
Your kids deserve a better stalwart.
Your kids deserve a better stalwart.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 7:54 pm to frogtown
1 of the biggest problems of his critique is that neoclassical econ theory is not really trying to model reality. It is basically a theory of rationality it's & implications. It does allow falsifiable predictions which is a great strength. Further, a lot of his pts are correct, but have proved intractable for modelling.
I would actually add that IMO a flaw is that it relies on people, firm's etc attempting to maximize expected utility. Research has shown that people are pretty bad at knowing what will make them happy.
I would actually add that IMO a flaw is that it relies on people, firm's etc attempting to maximize expected utility. Research has shown that people are pretty bad at knowing what will make them happy.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 7:55 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:28 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
The problem with Belloc’s distributist model is it ignores the historical reality that it’s ideal world in which the peasant farmer owned the patch of land he farmed would not be possible without the widespread wealth created by the Industrial Revolution.
I appreciate your sincere response, some here don't approach this with nuance and instead see a critique their second religion and start screaming "commie/socialist".
I think Belloc's intent is that decentralized or broadly shared ownership (vs centralized ownership) is the ultimate good that should be pursued. His background in Europe and friendship with many English (particularly Chesteron) gave him a view of English feudal society before Henry VII oversaw the creation of the oligarchy class with his dissolution of small scale land contracts maintained via monasteries and abbeys.
I think it is unfair to assume that he pines for a make believe world. Look up Mondragon for a real world example of how employee coops can and should be more widely encouraged.
He, like me, would be as disgusted by socialists seizing property as he would be by modern corporations racing to find harmful ways to max EBITDA.
Ponder one if the running jokes of our day "you'll own nothing and like it". Surely there are those on the left who are very guilty of pushing for policies that would deprive you of ownership.
For the unbridled Capitalists, how about some intellectual honesty. Does Monsanto want farmers to own their own seeds in 2024? Does john deere want them to own their won equipment and be capable of fixing it independently? Does the "_____ as a service" point to the future to come where the tools you use for trade, leisure, or needs are only available to you on a contract basis?
What evil awaits us as people own less and less property? As business interests, working with that allegedly disinterested/benign laissez-faire model, move to limit competition? Will an AI managed workforce that seeks shareholder gains over actual long term health work in a rational way that benefits any real portion of society? At a certain point, the net benefit of good numbers for 401ks diminishes.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 8:59 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:43 pm to Richleau
quote:
Render to Caesar that which is Caesar. Do better.
If you are not a person of faith then your disagreements with me and my position are understandable as is your mistaken understanding of what it means to "render to Caesar".
You can criticize those who would push for ungoverned Capitalism without worshipping at Keynes' tomb.
Was it a net good for women to enter the work force? Seems to have worked out well for those cheerleading Milei, but not so well for families, children, or society.
Was it good for rampant off-shoring of manufacturing to take place in the 70s/80s/90s, thereby taking meaningful work from large swaths of society who are not fit to code, manage, or participate in an advanced tech/service economy? Sure, consumers have their cheap goods and materialism drives their need for more. Is this really a net win for our society?
I've just discussed two places where an "ism" very much kept Capitalism in check and at least held down the invisible hand.
Call it faith or call it chauvinism, the desire to keep women out of the workforce helped ensure a family wage for much of our country's post IR history.
Re: off-shoring, Patriotism used to matter to producers and consumers. Materialism won and so did the race for the "best" option as presented by the invisible hand.
As nothing unites our country and people beyond the adoration of status and love of material things, the abuses will only grow and your real ownership of anything will decrease.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:49 pm to The Baker
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.
Sounds like he likes to play monopoly.
Seriously though is he advocating for monopolies?
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:56 pm to Pezzo
quote:
Sounds like he likes to play monopoly.
Seriously though is he advocating for monopolies?
this is not new among economists. Take a natural monopoly - that is an industry with a monotonically declining cost curve. That means that avg cost per unit goes down as production goes up. Hence, a monopoly is the most efficient way of producing it. Ex. is something like garbage pick up or mail delivery. The OBV problem is lack of competition which means the monopolist takes the majority of the surplus from the transaction. Crudely there are 2 ways to deal with this. 1. let the monopoly be & put in price controls; 2. break up the monopoly.
It's wrong & weird to think economists just consult Neo-classical theory...
Hell, multiple nobel prizes in economics have been given to economists that have spent their careers showing the NCT does not square with reality.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 8:58 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 8:59 pm to Foch
Your equitation of society's current ills boiled down to the fault of capitalism as opposed to the programs like the Great Society, Federal Income Tax, Abortion etc. is incredibly short sighted.
You are simply proving his point that a bad economist can not possibly understand the world because they can not conceive of markets that aren't displayed before you currently.
It's the typical Mathusean response, to never take human ingenuity into account.
Government pushes toward welfare destroyed the family unit as we saw with the Great Society. That is not a free market force driver. That is a Government force driver just as Friedman talks about with inflation. The only cause of inflation is government overspending, that's it.
As to globalism, in many respects, a globalized market operating on free trade is prosperous for all nations that choose to engage in that opportunity. While we saw factories take a hit, we saw the rise in other jobs thanks to technology. The phones, the tvs, the many luxuries in life that you bemoan as they aren't made in the states is not do to capitalism running from the States. No, it is only do to government intervention, taxation, that pushes companies to go outside the States to make cheaper products that are affordable to the world.
Do not blame the operator for navigating the road as laid out before him. Want to see those jobs return? Slash taxation on businesses and watch them flourish.
What you fail to realize is that the only mechanism that tampers with the prosperity of the free market is government intervention. The picking of winners and losers. That's where you see a disruption in progress as often times who the government taps to win is not who the market dictates will win. Mileil lays this out to you, calmly and still you can't comprehend it.
You could read Friedman and Hayek from cover to cover just as you could read the Bible cover to cover and still you'll never ascertain the meaning. I sincerely hope I am wrong in my estimation and that you will one day understand.
As to materiality, Go live in a cave then if you're so afraid to live in the world, which, yes, operates in the materiality of things.
You are like the frightened Nun in a nunnery. Praising God while missing the message of Jesus and being in the world, preaching to those you encounter. Think for a moment, Jesus, a carpenter, chose his church as the world. The material world. He didn't build a church.
As to who is your master in the world, well, that's up to you. It's like you've never understood the parable of the rich man.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
It has nothing to do with materiality, it has everything to do with what is your master in life. Jesus asked him to give up everything and he could not do so because that was his master. Meanwhile, Jesus accepts Zacchaeus who only gives up half.
Homework time for you. Think as to why.
Truly, I will pray for you that you will cast aside preconceived notion and will cease your rebellion. You're close to understanding, closer than most, but you still have much much to learn, as do we all.
You are simply proving his point that a bad economist can not possibly understand the world because they can not conceive of markets that aren't displayed before you currently.
It's the typical Mathusean response, to never take human ingenuity into account.
Government pushes toward welfare destroyed the family unit as we saw with the Great Society. That is not a free market force driver. That is a Government force driver just as Friedman talks about with inflation. The only cause of inflation is government overspending, that's it.
As to globalism, in many respects, a globalized market operating on free trade is prosperous for all nations that choose to engage in that opportunity. While we saw factories take a hit, we saw the rise in other jobs thanks to technology. The phones, the tvs, the many luxuries in life that you bemoan as they aren't made in the states is not do to capitalism running from the States. No, it is only do to government intervention, taxation, that pushes companies to go outside the States to make cheaper products that are affordable to the world.
Do not blame the operator for navigating the road as laid out before him. Want to see those jobs return? Slash taxation on businesses and watch them flourish.
What you fail to realize is that the only mechanism that tampers with the prosperity of the free market is government intervention. The picking of winners and losers. That's where you see a disruption in progress as often times who the government taps to win is not who the market dictates will win. Mileil lays this out to you, calmly and still you can't comprehend it.
You could read Friedman and Hayek from cover to cover just as you could read the Bible cover to cover and still you'll never ascertain the meaning. I sincerely hope I am wrong in my estimation and that you will one day understand.
As to materiality, Go live in a cave then if you're so afraid to live in the world, which, yes, operates in the materiality of things.
You are like the frightened Nun in a nunnery. Praising God while missing the message of Jesus and being in the world, preaching to those you encounter. Think for a moment, Jesus, a carpenter, chose his church as the world. The material world. He didn't build a church.
As to who is your master in the world, well, that's up to you. It's like you've never understood the parable of the rich man.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
It has nothing to do with materiality, it has everything to do with what is your master in life. Jesus asked him to give up everything and he could not do so because that was his master. Meanwhile, Jesus accepts Zacchaeus who only gives up half.
Homework time for you. Think as to why.
Truly, I will pray for you that you will cast aside preconceived notion and will cease your rebellion. You're close to understanding, closer than most, but you still have much much to learn, as do we all.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:03 pm to sweatyfreddy
Yea I guess that makes more sense to me now. And come to think of it most things we have now days are part of monopoly in disguise. Like all the brands of junk food on the shelves come from the same parent companies, but they wear different labels. Very deceptive, but it makes since why it’s all so cheap.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:20 pm to Richleau
If you are willing to call out contraception as one of the many causes for society's poor state than we do have much in common.
Still, you have not responded to my charge that the Capitalist proponents, without a bedrock understanding or agreement in what is ordered vs disordered, cannot fully point to there system as being the perfect way.
I have never once brought up government as the enforcing mechanism. You inferred that. I simply pointed out the ills of a system where the ties that used to bind (Catholic faith, the Christian faith, then Patriotism) all fell by the wayside as maximum efficiency was pursued.
I am not naive enough to propose that we throw out free market principles, and have stated numerous times that it is the lesser evil. You take issue with me even calling it an evil. I believe due diligence is the responsibility of both parties in an arrangement and in a system of free exchange. I question whether the system will proceed as morality erodes and the entity on the other end of an agreement or bargain is driven by greed. Others in the thread went so far as to champion greed. This is not what the Christian message or God's Church teaches.
Do I sound idealistic? Yes. I don't pretend to silo off economic activities as being benign and outside the scope of morality and religion. I am confident that the faith handed down by the Apostles agrees with ny sentiments.
I see more and more a market that disregards just actions because of both Socialist interference and Capitalist tendencies.
Still, you have not responded to my charge that the Capitalist proponents, without a bedrock understanding or agreement in what is ordered vs disordered, cannot fully point to there system as being the perfect way.
I have never once brought up government as the enforcing mechanism. You inferred that. I simply pointed out the ills of a system where the ties that used to bind (Catholic faith, the Christian faith, then Patriotism) all fell by the wayside as maximum efficiency was pursued.
I am not naive enough to propose that we throw out free market principles, and have stated numerous times that it is the lesser evil. You take issue with me even calling it an evil. I believe due diligence is the responsibility of both parties in an arrangement and in a system of free exchange. I question whether the system will proceed as morality erodes and the entity on the other end of an agreement or bargain is driven by greed. Others in the thread went so far as to champion greed. This is not what the Christian message or God's Church teaches.
Do I sound idealistic? Yes. I don't pretend to silo off economic activities as being benign and outside the scope of morality and religion. I am confident that the faith handed down by the Apostles agrees with ny sentiments.
I see more and more a market that disregards just actions because of both Socialist interference and Capitalist tendencies.
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:27 pm to Foch
There will never be a perfect way kid. Ever. Why do you think Jesus was crucified? We are an imperfect being. We will always make mistakes, we are born with original sin thanks to Adam and Eve's interaction in the Garden.
You don't sound idealistic. You sound idiotic, like a child's conception of the world. As to Catholic faith being the tie that binds? You seem to be glossing over quite an ordinate amount of evil that generated under its banner.
We can not escape our own human nature. So off with you to go create Utopia, oh Foolish One. Where abundance is everywhere and we want for nothing. Oh wait, God tried that already, it was the Garden of Eden. How'd that turn out for humanity?
Serious question, how old are you? As I find it funny that regardless of the homework I provide to you, for you to simply think, you gloss over such valid points as if blinders to a racehorse.
Slow down. Think.
You don't sound idealistic. You sound idiotic, like a child's conception of the world. As to Catholic faith being the tie that binds? You seem to be glossing over quite an ordinate amount of evil that generated under its banner.
We can not escape our own human nature. So off with you to go create Utopia, oh Foolish One. Where abundance is everywhere and we want for nothing. Oh wait, God tried that already, it was the Garden of Eden. How'd that turn out for humanity?
Serious question, how old are you? As I find it funny that regardless of the homework I provide to you, for you to simply think, you gloss over such valid points as if blinders to a racehorse.
Slow down. Think.
This post was edited on 2/25/24 at 9:34 pm
Posted on 2/25/24 at 9:49 pm to Richleau
quote:
Serious question, how old are you?
None of your ad hominem attacks come off as serious, but to answer a direct question, late 30s.
quote:
So off with you to go create Utopia, oh Foolish One.
I do not seek Utopia, but do seek a laissez-faire model with a purpose that is not merely efficiency. To address one of your points though, you appear to to have blind trust and faith that the market will do what is "best" if left to its own ends. As discussed with monopolies and abusive labor practices, I disagree.
Desiring more ownership through small scale artisanship and employee owned coops is not complete "pie in the sky" thinking. Is it immediately practical in all sectors? No. Are there solid examples (Mondragon is Spain) of it working? Yes. Do I think there is room for such models to grow in the U.S.? Yes. Would it be a benefit to reexamine distributivist principles for curbing Capitalism's disregard for health of society's building blocks (the family)? Yes.
You missed entirely my point about "ties that bind". I contend that free markets work best when both sides share values. For a time, that meant Catholicism, then Christendom, and then Patriotism. As our common morality has eroded with modernism, laissez-faire Capitalism increasingly cannot be seen as the tide that raises all boats. It is an effective engine for answering and exacerbating the modern world's unquenchable thirst for material things.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News