Greed is Good (Fodder for a broad discussion of economics :))

[jafs]

I need an example.

[MediumTex]

I need an example.

For decades, the federal government screwed regular Americans by enforcing a monopoly in the telecommunications industry.

If you wanted to go into the telecommunications industry, you had to be able to both compete with the monopolistic single provider, AND you had to be able to deal with the coercive force of the U.S. government that would have sought to put you out of business and finally put you in jail if you persisted in your attempts to compete with the single state-sanctioned provider.

Once the federal government got out of the phone company monopoly business, however, it wasn't that the government just applied its coercive force somewhere else in the industry, it stopped providing coercive force altogether when it came to telecommunications, and this removal of coercive enforcement of monopolistic practices created a golden age for telecommunications, laying the groundwork for cordless phones, affordable pager and cellular phone service, and, of course, the internet.

[jafs]

I don't know much about that, but a quick google search seems to indicate that it was a federal lawsuit against AT&T that resulted in breaking up the monopoly of telephone service by them.  And, actually, there had been a number of such cases brought against them over the years.

Of course, I generally agree with vigorous enforcement of anti-trust regulations, which seem to have been pretty much forgotten these days.  But that's clearly a use of force, isn't it?

[jafs]

I've been thinking about your WWII comment, and it seems to me that there are a lot of substantial differences between then and now:

Women entered the workforce during the way, and then left when the men got back.
In 1950 or thereabouts, we had about half as many people living here as we do now.
During that era, many companies paid decent wages/benefits, including db pension plans.  And CEO's made 30-50x/annual salaries.
You could raise a family on one income.
Cars/appliances were made to last, and could easily be fixed for many years.

None of that would apply today, and so whatever worked then wouldn't necessarily work now, I think.

[Pointedstick]

I don't know much about that, but a quick google search seems to indicate that it was a federal lawsuit against AT&T that resulted in breaking up the monopoly of telephone service by them.  And, actually, there had been a number of such cases brought against them over the years.

Of course, I generally agree with vigorous enforcement of anti-trust regulations, which seem to have been pretty much forgotten these days.  But that's clearly a use of force, isn't it?

Let me help:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System
The Bell System was the system of companies, led by the Bell Telephone Company and subsequently by AT&T, which provided telephone services to much of the United States and Canada from 1877 to 1984, at various times as a monopoly. On December 31, 1984, the system was broken up into independent companies by a U.S. Justice Department mandate.

The colloquial term Ma Bell (as in "Mother Bell") was often used by the general public in the United States to refer to any aspect of this conglomerate, as it held a near complete monopoly over all telephone service in most areas of the country, and is still used by many to refer to any telephone company.

The government broke up old Ma Bell after having previously granted them a nationwide monopoly. It was the government that originally granted them the unfair monopoly. They didn't have to do any nitty-gritty regulatory management of of prices or wages or hours or compensation packages or anything else like that. All they had to do was stop giving them a monopoly and let the market just do its thing, and I think it is fair to say that it did.

[jafs]

That's what I read.

But I saw references to a number of lawsuits by the government against At&T to break up the monopoly.  So they may have had some role in creating it, but they also played a part in dissolving it.  And, actually, I didn't see anything about the government helping establish the monopoly, except for regulatory and tax laws being more lenient in certain areas.

So the argument would more likely be that government should vigorously regulate and enforce those regulations to prevent monopolies.

It would be the same today, wouldn't it?  The government would have to actively enforce anti-trust regulations against, say, Wal-Mart.  On their own, with the pursuit of profit as the end goal, many businesses will try to corner the market and force competitors out.

[Pointedstick]

This approach was invented by an Austrian economist by the name of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who named it "Argumentation Ethics." The idea is that you can derive a logically consistent framework for, well, basically everything, by building up a set of axioms that cannot possibly be refuted, because disagreeing with any one of them causes one to contradict oneself or a previously-accepted axiom upon which it rests. It's pretty brilliant, and terribly seductive to people who have logically-ordered minds. It's exactly the way they (we; guilty as charged, since I'm an engineer) want the world to work.

However, some of the conclusions that are generally reached using this approach are at odds with the way the world actually seems to work--as it is with basically every branch of economics, of course.

Can you name some of these?

Here's one. With no government borders or labor market regulations, individuals and firms will naturally be free to do business on the most economically efficient grounds. Companies will outsource production to the cheapest labor market that meets the needed level of per-worker porductivity, and consumers will purchase goods from the cheapest source for the desired quality level. If this results in all manufacturing jobs leaving the country, that is the most efficient outcome, and the only moral one, since it is bereft of coercive force. No problemo. All is well in Anarcho-Capitopia.

But here's the part that's inexplicable via this approach: when a nation's manufacturing jobs all disappear, the low-skill proletariat is usually either unable to adjust and find new jobs at all, or else not quickly enough. In this state, without a government welfare program to provide them necessities or the funds (stolen from someone else) to procure them, these people will become sufficiently desperate to precipitate a communist revolution.

This violent revolution will be stridently opposed on the basis that it is violent and coercive, which it is. But there will be no understanding of why it happened or the circumstances that provoked it.

[MediumTex]

That's what I read.

But I saw references to a number of lawsuits by the government against At&T to break up the monopoly.  So they may have had some role in creating it, but they also played a part in dissolving it.

It would be the same today, wouldn't it?  The government would have to actively enforce anti-trust regulations against, say, Wal-Mart.  On their own, with the pursuit of profit as the end goal, many businesses will try to corner the market and force competitors out.

I would say that if you simply cleaned up the trade deal process, it would help a LOT.

Elizabeth Warren explains it in clear and concise terms in this 2015 editorial:

LINK

[jafs]

That's what I read.

But I saw references to a number of lawsuits by the government against At&T to break up the monopoly.  So they may have had some role in creating it, but they also played a part in dissolving it.

It would be the same today, wouldn't it?  The government would have to actively enforce anti-trust regulations against, say, Wal-Mart.  On their own, with the pursuit of profit as the end goal, many businesses will try to corner the market and force competitors out.

I would say that if you simply cleaned up the trade deal process, it would help a LOT.

Elizabeth Warren explains it in clear and concise terms in this 2015 editorial:

LINK

I glanced at it briefly, and the main point seems to be that we aren't "enforcing" the trade agreements, even if they're good ones.  So, again, any government action that might be effective would involve the use of good regulations/trade agreements, and the enforcement of those.

[MediumTex]

That's what I read.

But I saw references to a number of lawsuits by the government against At&T to break up the monopoly.  So they may have had some role in creating it, but they also played a part in dissolving it.

It would be the same today, wouldn't it?  The government would have to actively enforce anti-trust regulations against, say, Wal-Mart.  On their own, with the pursuit of profit as the end goal, many businesses will try to corner the market and force competitors out.

I would say that if you simply cleaned up the trade deal process, it would help a LOT.

Elizabeth Warren explains it in clear and concise terms in this 2015 editorial:

LINK

I glanced at it briefly, and the main point seems to be that we aren't "enforcing" the trade agreements, even if they're good ones.  So, again, any government action that might be effective would involve the use of good regulations/trade agreements, and the enforcement of those.

So are we in agreement that one way of solving the problems you have identified would be to clean up the trade deal process, first by enforcing the provisions in existing agreements that protect American workers, and second, by entering into future trade deals that make it easier to protect the interests of American workers?

[jafs]

I would say that if you simply cleaned up the trade deal process, it would help a LOT.

Elizabeth Warren explains it in clear and concise terms in this 2015 editorial:

LINK

I glanced at it briefly, and the main point seems to be that we aren't "enforcing" the trade agreements, even if they're good ones.  So, again, any government action that might be effective would involve the use of good regulations/trade agreements, and the enforcement of those.

So are we in agreement that one way of solving the problems you have identified would be to clean up the trade deal process, first by enforcing the provisions in existing agreements that protect American workers, and second, by entering into future trade deals that make it easier to protect the interests of American workers?

Sure, that's an approach I like.  I'm just not sure it's enough by itself, and it clearly involves government force to do that.

[MediumTex]

If anyone is curious about how changes in the minimum wage may affect the unemployment rate, here is an interesting chart.

Note how in almost every case, an increase in the minimum wage is followed by an increase in unemployment.

As the real minimum wage falls due to inflation, note how the unemployment rate tends to fall as well.

[img width=500]https://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress ... n-2013.png[/img]

It's no mystery that when employers are allowed to hire cheaper labor, they do, and when they are prohibited from hiring cheap labor, they don't.  Pretty simple.

[jafs]

That chart doesn't show what you claim it shows at all.

If you look at it, you find that when minimum wage was high in 1970 or so, unemployment was low.  Then as it fell, unemployment increased.  And then, again as it peaked, unemployment was low, and as it fell, unemployment increased again.  It's only in the last few years that the seem to go together in the way you present.

That's looking at the overall rate - if you look at the 16-24 rate, the relationship is even rockier. with huge peaks and valleys unrelated to the minimum wage.

[MediumTex]

That chart doesn't show what you claim it shows at all.

If you look at it, you find that when minimum wage was high in 1970 or so, unemployment was low.  Then as it fell, unemployment increased.  And then, again as it peaked, unemployment was low, and as it fell, unemployment increased again.  It's only in the last few years that the seem to go together in the way you present.

That's looking at the overall rate - if you look at the 16-24 rate, the relationship is even rockier. with huge peaks and valleys unrelated to the minimum wage.

Maybe the real takeaway is that raising the minimum wage in the midst of a weak economy (early 1990s and late 2000s) makes an already weak labor market even weaker, while raising it in a strong economy such as the late 1990s doesn't do too much damage because there is already upward pressure on wages due to the economy's strength.

Since, however, it's usually only when the economy is weak that the politicians REALLY want to find ways to put more money in poor people's pockets, I would say that raising the minimum wage is not the right tool for the job.

Personally, I'm fine with a minimum wage as long as we as a society are comfortable with the low end jobs that it removes from the economy.  In some industries, the minimum wage has probably been an important contributor to certain types of automation.  If you've got some $4.00 an hour work you need to get done, automation or offshoring are really your only legal options.

[moda0306]

I must be ignorant of history, because I've never heard of a case where a country became anarcho-capitalistic and the proletariat revolted. Please enlighten me.

What's the best example of an anarcho-capitalist country?  That's a sincere question.

Probably a peaceful nomadic tribe where anyone could leave if they wished, and that didn't force abusive tribal rituals on folks. 

I wonder if there's a flaw in that model... whatever could it be...

[MediumTex]

I must be ignorant of history, because I've never heard of a case where a country became anarcho-capitalistic and the proletariat revolted. Please enlighten me.

What's the best example of an anarcho-capitalist country?  That's a sincere question.

What would we call Chile under Pinochet's rule?

[Libertarian666]

I must be ignorant of history, because I've never heard of a case where a country became anarcho-capitalistic and the proletariat revolted. Please enlighten me.

What's the best example of an anarcho-capitalist country?  That's a sincere question.

There isn't one, which is why the original statement about revolutions in an anarcho-capitalist country was absurd.

[Xan]

Well someone's got to ask the obvious follow-up question...

If the idea that revolutions in an anarcho-capitalist society is absurd because there are no examples, isn't the idea of a stable anarcho-capitalist society absurd as well?  Because there are none of these either.

I believe that was tech's point when he posted that question in response to the revolution assertion.

[moda0306]

I believe I posted this mini-analysis of AC (anarcho-capitalism) in our Proving Morality thread, or one of the other 'shart-tastic thread hijacks on a similar topic.


If a societal structure has never truly existed in the history of time, this induces me to conclude one of two things:

1) It's inherently undesirable to the vast majority of people, or

2) It's desirable in theory, but is so fragile that they collapse due to internal failures or external forces.

I really don't see how something inherently desirable and robust would not exist to some degree at this point.  Even if it's morally perfect, it's functionally a failure.  So at the very least one must be honest about this.

For instance, I feel that nomadic, peaceful people that live in some sort of equilibrium with nature is arguably as close to "morally" pure of a society as you can get from a Kantian "rights-based" perspective.  It doesn't make any broad private claim on public resources, force folks with the threat of violence, etc.  Perhaps they don't invent the cure to polio, but they don't kill each other, force each other, or alter our eco-system in gross ways.  You can disagree with me that this is a "moral" society.  But you probably won't disagree with me much on what a failure that type of society has been from a utilitarian perspective of the folks involved.  I can fully admit that this is a functional failure for a society in the modern world.

i don't know that anarcho-capitalism is ever, or has ever, been proposed as a "lets do it all now" solution to any problem, its more of the unobtainable ideal that we should strive to move towards, (by what ever small degree our unenlightened monkey societies can manage.) like most great philosophical systems it doesn't exist in any pure form, not because it is undesirable or wouldn't work under ideal conditions, but because human nature as it currently stands isn't even close to up to the task.. but unlike some, or many other systems, it has a plausible understanding of the direction (enlightened) that we should be moving in. For examples, the unalienable rights in the US constitution were a big step in the right direction, the US is far from anarcho-capitalist but human history wise, it is a move in that direction that doesn't involve going back to living as primitive tribes..(who outside of very remote areas have been plenty savage to their neighbors)

[Libertarian666]

I believe I posted this mini-analysis of AC (anarcho-capitalism) in our Proving Morality thread, or one of the other 'shart-tastic thread hijacks on a similar topic.


If a societal structure has never truly existed in the history of time, this induces me to conclude one of two things:

1) It's inherently undesirable to the vast majority of people, or

2) It's desirable in theory, but is so fragile that they collapse due to internal failures or external forces.

I really don't see how something inherently desirable and robust would not exist to some degree at this point.  Even if it's morally perfect, it's functionally a failure.  So at the very least one must be honest about this.

For instance, I feel that nomadic, peaceful people that live in some sort of equilibrium with nature is arguably as close to "morally" pure of a society as you can get from a Kantian "rights-based" perspective.  It doesn't make any broad private claim on public resources, force folks with the threat of violence, etc.  Perhaps they don't invent the cure to polio, but they don't kill each other, force each other, or alter our eco-system in gross ways.  You can disagree with me that this is a "moral" society.  But you probably won't disagree with me much on what a failure that type of society has been from a utilitarian perspective of the folks involved.  I can fully admit that this is a functional failure for a society in the modern world.

You forgot the third option:
3. It is desirable for most people but the ones who have all the power don't like it, so they make sure to brainwash the others to think that it would be undesirable.

No, no, don't thank me. It's my pleasure.

[MediumTex]

Just in a broad philosophical sense, why do people speculate about AnCap utopia any more than Communist utopia?

We don't live in any kind of utopia.

It's like a mental salve that creates a feeling of well-being.

[jafs]

Just in a broad philosophical sense, why do people speculate about AnCap utopia any more than Communist utopia?

We don't live in any kind of utopia.

I think there's some sort of natural desire to imagine a world that works much better than the one we live in, and utopian ideas come from that desire.  Kant showed that our moral ideas are ingrained in us somehow, and don't come from experience.  So we live in an imperfect, dissatisfying world but have a feeling/sense that it should/could be better.

Also, I agree that socialist/communist idealists are very similar in essence to anarcho-capitalist ones - they all feel strongly that their system is more moral and works much better than what we've got now.  The systems are very different, of course.

thinking about it and maybe putting in some small effort to live accordingly, beats just letting random chance or some other guys harebrained notions lead the direction we move in...

"Fighting leads to killing, and killing gets to warring. And, that was damn near the death of us all. Thunderdome: two men, hand-to-hand, no jury, no appear, no parol. Two men enter, one man leaves."

[Jack Jones]

On a slightly related topic, I've noticed that there don't appear to be any true libertarians remaining on this forum (or they're very silent).  Maybe it's the Trump influence, but it seems like the traditional libertarian views of small government, open borders, free trade, etc. has completely been abandoned.  And that's fine, but it's been striking to watch.

I tend to be on the libertarian side of issues, but I'm against open borders.

Sure, if we lived in some sort of libertarian utopia without welfare programs, then yeah, why not, come join the party. But, if we're redistributing wealth to help our fellow citizens and anyone is allowed to come in and receive aid, then we're not just helping our fellow citizens, are we?

Right, exactly. I can't imagine a functional anarcho-capitalist society; the very idea seems to ignore what we know about human nature.

unlike some other ideas i would argue that anarcho-capitalist ideals and its strength, is that they are not "against human nature", but a realistic understanding of the (truly rare) best of human nature, it doesn't ignore human nature it just makes it obvious how truly far we are from the goal.

it seems to me that Communism, the opposing Utopian ideal, lacks the same understanding and demands behavior that while it sounds great, is largely contrary to the way people relate to the world. A society of enlightened individuals might very well make Communism work, (true Communism not the real world Communism) but it totally lacks the path to becoming an enlightened society because the real world intervenes and it becomes the real world communist society (USSR, north Korea) ....tyranny doesn't promote enlightened behavior..

[WiseOne]

On a slightly related topic, I've noticed that there don't appear to be any true libertarians remaining on this forum (or they're very silent).  Maybe it's the Trump influence, but it seems like the traditional libertarian views of small government, open borders, free trade, etc. has completely been abandoned.  And that's fine, but it's been striking to watch.

You're right.  The consensus on the forum departs from the libertarian view in this regard.

In the libertarian ideal world, there would be no taxpayer funded subsidies of anyone - citizen, permanent resident, or immigrant.  Thus the thinking goes, this would automatically limit immigrants to those willing and able to support themselves without help, and it would also stop them from draining resources from those already here. 

So let's say you can stop the food stamp, WIC, and subsidized housing programs, dump all "tenant's rights" laws and end rent stabilization, end free public schooling, end Medicaid, and make it harder to default on debt (like, declaring bankruptcy means wage garnishment until debts are paid off).  Would the issues with illegal immigration go away?  I don't see how.  There would have to be constant downward pressure on wages (and accompanying deflation) until the U.S. standard of living drops to the world average.  The libertarian argument for this is that immigrants create new demand for services.  That's only true if their skill set (and income potential) is the same on average as the average U.S. worker.  That's not likely. 

I'm forced to conclude that controlling immigration is, unfortunately, a prerequisite for maintaining a higher than average standard of living.  Forget culture, race etc issues - those are just side bluster.

[jafs]

People are always the problem, regardless of systems, it seems to me.

The more enlightened people are, the better all systems work.

But, systems also influence people and have an effect on how they operate.