Deregulation in parts of Europe went well; I generally read of Scandinavia being described as an example. We are perhaps too used today to post-deregulation government, which is typically much more transparent than it used to be.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
Low corporate taxes, high sales taxes. Also, their incoming center-right government slashed income taxes to fight a recession.
I suspect that an important factor is cultural homogeneity; among policymakers left and right (i.e., not this forum) there is still a broadly New Keynesian sort of ideology to drive policy responses, even in the United States. But nobody on the left would trust a right-wing government to cut taxes in a recession only temporarily; they'd suspect (and probably correctly) that the government is planning to starve the beast. And nobody on the right would trust the left-wing advocating fiscal stabilization as a recession response; they'd suspect (and probably correctly) that the temporary spending programs will turn out to be permanent. Mankiw and Krugman are a lot more similar than their writing would suggest - both have advocated inflation and income tax cuts as a first-best policy response.
But Sweden has contrived to avoid this conflict. Norway too, but Norway is funded by oil so it doesn't matter if they mess up anyway. Singapore is the other typically-named country in this context, but it's an authoritarian and culturally distinct city-state so it doesn't count either.
Deregulation in parts of Europe went well; I generally read of Scandinavia being described as an example. We are perhaps too used today to post-deregulation government, which is typically much more transparent than it used to be.
On the other hand the starting point was much less "free" if we're talking about which nations I think we are talking about.
Its just like the laffer curve. Just because going one way works one time, doesn't mean going the same way works this time.
Yeah, I don't think there's a first-world nation anywhere that would be able to reap uncontested benefits from sweeping nationalization or deregulation. We are all pretty close to the optimum on the 'regulatory Laffer curve', so to speak.
I seem perennially alone in suggesting that the current regime of welfare-state capitalism is actually pretty decent in delivering long-run growth and employment, and that we are unlikely to move the system in any direction except further refinements toward, well, welfare-state capitalism. Sweden is merely furthest ahead in that regard. The US just executes the idea really, really badly, but the idea works.
Well, for a start, it'd be nice if Bernanke started following his own damn advice and stopped contracting the money supply in a recession. That's Herbert Hoover levels of stupid right there.
The US could probably have shrugged off its numerous policy faults if not for this, really.
I know I wasn't entirely clear in my OP, and I'm still not quite able to put the intuitive argument that I have in my head into a really well-formed paragraph or four (which may be evidence of its falsehood, and which is one reason I originally posted this in H&A), but one thing I should add is that libertarians in the vein of Brink Lindsey would not be libertarians who I would intuit as making the naturalistic fallacy, given that he uses libertarian ideas to advance a separate agenda, and does not consider libertarian policy goals as being innately good and ideal.
Well, for a start, it'd be nice if Bernanke started following his own damn advice and stopped contracting the money supply in a recession. That's Herbert Hoover levels of stupid right there.
The US could probably have shrugged off its numerous policy faults if not for this, really.
Can you show me on this picture where the bad man contracted the money supply?
Can you show me on this picture where the bad man contracted the money supply?
He is most likely talking about the ending of the term facilities or the new 1T line of liquidity swaps with the ECB. (wherein the U.S. would be buying Euro's for dollars). But frankly I am not sure enough on the effects of the liquidity swaps within the U.S. market (whether or not those dollars really are supply)
Edit: Or he is talking about MZM which is typically considered a better measure than M2.
The Fed starting paying interest on reserves to neutralize the QE expansion back in 2008. In fact, it paid more than the market interest rate (as measured by return on Treasury bills). This (1) made the expansion pretty useless (2) incentivized banks to hoard even more money.
Scott Sumner is a big advocate of the idea.
It's no use tossing money into the system if you encourage people to stuff it into mattresses. Paying interest on reserves is severely contractionary in the short run and inflationary in the long run, and they did this to respond to a recession? It's all very WTF.
ronya on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I don't think that one need necessarily have "the state of nature" or something akin to it in mind to be committing a naturalistic fallacy. One can be preferring something for its own sake without a conscious preference for nature, and be committing a naturalistic fallacy. That is, "nature" doesn't have to be in mind for a naturalistic fallacy to be made.
I don't think most people who commit the naturalistic fallacy have a desire to get back to a state of nature, I think the naturalistic fallacy is more focused on specific goods or services and is not generally applied constantly across the myriad sets of things that a person is inclined to care about.
I think you need to define your terms and show your work.
I don't think that one need necessarily have "the state of nature" or something akin to it in mind to be committing a naturalistic fallacy. One can be preferring something for its own sake without a conscious preference for nature, and be committing a naturalistic fallacy. That is, "nature" doesn't have to be in mind for a naturalistic fallacy to be made.
I don't think most people who commit the naturalistic fallacy have a desire to get back to a state of nature, I think the naturalistic fallacy is more focused on specific goods or services and is not generally applied constantly across the myriad sets of things that a person is inclined to care about.
I think you need to define your terms and show your work.
Eh, it's half-baked and I don't have a lot of investment in the idea. Which is one of the reasons I put this topic in H/A.
Loren Michael on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
I'm just curious what you think the naturalistic fallacy is, and why you think that applies to libertarians especially.
I solidly put myself in the camp of a libertarian and I totally detest of large government from the perspective of incetivized inefficiency. The larger and more complex the government is the less efficiency can be achieved in terms of the tax payer getting bang for their buck.
This stance does not take into account the reality that the US government (who many with similar stances would argue is too big) provides more value for the tax revenue than most every other government on the planet.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
This stance does not take into account the reality that the US government (who many with similar stances would argue is too big) provides more value for the tax revenue than most every other government on the planet.
If by value you mean firepower.
Otherwise, I'm not even sure how you'd measure value/tax dollar. Are you referencing a systematic study of some kind?
enc0re on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
This stance does not take into account the reality that the US government (who many with similar stances would argue is too big) provides more value for the tax revenue than most every other government on the planet.
If by value you mean firepower.
Otherwise, I'm not even sure how you'd measure value/tax dollar. Are you referencing a systematic study of some kind?
This stance does not take into account the reality that the US government (who many with similar stances would argue is too big) provides more value for the tax revenue than most every other government on the planet.
If by value you mean firepower.
Otherwise, I'm not even sure how you'd measure value/tax dollar. Are you referencing a systematic study of some kind?
I'm just curious what you think the naturalistic fallacy is, and why you think that applies to libertarians especially.
...and I'm applying it in a way that may be mistaken, but... I don't think so yet. Libertarians who justify freedom--in the sense of no government--who justify that kind of freedom as being an intrinsic good are, I think, committing such a fallacy. Insofar as they are advocating a state of nature--though not necessarily in all contexts--as being good in and of itself. They don't use the language of "nature" to justify it, but I don't believe that's necessary to commit the fallacy.
This stance does not take into account the reality that the US government (who many with similar stances would argue is too big) provides more value for the tax revenue than most every other government on the planet.
If by value you mean firepower.
Otherwise, I'm not even sure how you'd measure value/tax dollar. Are you referencing a systematic study of some kind?
Well we do get an aweful lot of firepower.
Then again we spend 20 times what russia does
I doubt you're 20 times safer.
Unfortunately, this comparison requires a baseline that simply doesn't exist.
There's no way to know how safe either population would be without that spending, and there's no empiricl unit of "safeness" to measure it with.
This stance does not take into account the reality that the US government (who many with similar stances would argue is too big) provides more value for the tax revenue than most every other government on the planet.
If by value you mean firepower.
Otherwise, I'm not even sure how you'd measure value/tax dollar. Are you referencing a systematic study of some kind?
I read an article... let me find it.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
...and I'm applying it in a way that may be mistaken, but... I don't think so yet. Libertarians who justify freedom--in the sense of no government--who justify that kind of freedom as being an intrinsic good are, I think, committing such a fallacy. Insofar as they are advocating a state of nature--though not necessarily in all contexts--as being good in and of itself. They don't use the language of "nature" to justify it, but I don't believe that's necessary to commit the fallacy.
Claiming something, like freedom, to be intrinsically good is not committing the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy as originally employed by G.E. Moore was a pejorative term for people who drew evaluative conclusions from non-evaluate premises: for instance, such-and-such is pleasant, ergo, such-and-such is good. But it does not apply to anyone who claims something, like freedom, to be good.
Posts
You can't make a factual sentence in there without at least linking the politicians with the beliefs that motivate their actions.
I suspect that an important factor is cultural homogeneity; among policymakers left and right (i.e., not this forum) there is still a broadly New Keynesian sort of ideology to drive policy responses, even in the United States. But nobody on the left would trust a right-wing government to cut taxes in a recession only temporarily; they'd suspect (and probably correctly) that the government is planning to starve the beast. And nobody on the right would trust the left-wing advocating fiscal stabilization as a recession response; they'd suspect (and probably correctly) that the temporary spending programs will turn out to be permanent. Mankiw and Krugman are a lot more similar than their writing would suggest - both have advocated inflation and income tax cuts as a first-best policy response.
But Sweden has contrived to avoid this conflict. Norway too, but Norway is funded by oil so it doesn't matter if they mess up anyway. Singapore is the other typically-named country in this context, but it's an authoritarian and culturally distinct city-state so it doesn't count either.
On the other hand the starting point was much less "free" if we're talking about which nations I think we are talking about.
Its just like the laffer curve. Just because going one way works one time, doesn't mean going the same way works this time.
I seem perennially alone in suggesting that the current regime of welfare-state capitalism is actually pretty decent in delivering long-run growth and employment, and that we are unlikely to move the system in any direction except further refinements toward, well, welfare-state capitalism. Sweden is merely furthest ahead in that regard. The US just executes the idea really, really badly, but the idea works.
Not sure about what the political aspects look like.
The US could probably have shrugged off its numerous policy faults if not for this, really.
Can you show me on this picture where the bad man contracted the money supply?
Edit: Or he is talking about MZM which is typically considered a better measure than M2.
Scott Sumner is a big advocate of the idea.
It's no use tossing money into the system if you encourage people to stuff it into mattresses. Paying interest on reserves is severely contractionary in the short run and inflationary in the long run, and they did this to respond to a recession? It's all very WTF.
I think you need to define your terms and show your work.
Eh, it's half-baked and I don't have a lot of investment in the idea. Which is one of the reasons I put this topic in H/A.
This stance does not take into account the reality that the US government (who many with similar stances would argue is too big) provides more value for the tax revenue than most every other government on the planet.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
If by value you mean firepower.
Otherwise, I'm not even sure how you'd measure value/tax dollar. Are you referencing a systematic study of some kind?
Okay, yeah, that's more or less it.
Well we do get an aweful lot of firepower.
Then again we spend 20 times what russia does
I doubt you're 20 times safer.
...and I'm applying it in a way that may be mistaken, but... I don't think so yet. Libertarians who justify freedom--in the sense of no government--who justify that kind of freedom as being an intrinsic good are, I think, committing such a fallacy. Insofar as they are advocating a state of nature--though not necessarily in all contexts--as being good in and of itself. They don't use the language of "nature" to justify it, but I don't believe that's necessary to commit the fallacy.
There's no way to know how safe either population would be without that spending, and there's no empiricl unit of "safeness" to measure it with.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I read an article... let me find it.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Claiming something, like freedom, to be intrinsically good is not committing the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy as originally employed by G.E. Moore was a pejorative term for people who drew evaluative conclusions from non-evaluate premises: for instance, such-and-such is pleasant, ergo, such-and-such is good. But it does not apply to anyone who claims something, like freedom, to be good.