You’ve done this before (the thread on minimum wage laws). You played the “you’re just too ideological” card and then (a) retreated from your initial position and (b) agreed that minimum wage laws are inherently self-defeating and that the government lacks the required information in order to effectively intervene in the labor market.
actually, you just never understood my original position. you kept jumping trying to make connections between my economic arguments and my political beliefs (you must be supporting the min wage if you don’t condem it with every breath!!!). really, i took the discussion as an indicator that you have no clue where i stand politically. its not your fault, i typically choose not to share them (politics are boring). but you should probably stop guessing.
anyways, hopefully as you complete your econ course work, you will find that your own political beliefs are actually irrelevant to analyzing the economic consequences of a particular policy action (and further that the consequences of most policies are harder to predict than you somtimes think). so they are often better left aside when analyzing (as opposed to preaching, when you can go all out)
if you really want to understand where i was coming from, check out my post on the first page (i doubt almost everything).
i don’t know why you think i had more than 1 hater of “statist cowards” in mind. if you think i was mocking everyone on this forum, you’re sorely mistaken.
anyways, the point of my post wasn’t to mock a political position at all (i actually love anarchists, contrary to popular belief), i was thinking more about how undue certainty in one’s position can breed an off putting attitude (dividing intellectual opponents into black and white groups for example when reality is much more complicated).
i thought that would be clear since the post begins by stating that i hate nuance. oh well. if you need to explain a satire, it hasn’t worked. i guess not all my posts can be winners.
I don’t see the equation of market forces and majoritarianism. I understand your point that the market will attempt to reflect the desires of the majority, simply because they are the largest segment of buyers, but you seem to be implying that in an actual free market, that niche providers would go away, which I disagree with. If Taco Bell had no copyright, you don’t think some brash upstart would start selling Bacon Club Chalupas, or something similar, to satisfy market demand?
I feel that your interpretation of the “state” as pan-global is false. There are many different “states” in the world, some of which allow their heads of state almost total freedom to act as they please. Does this disqualify them as “states”? No. I think we can both agree that a state is nothing more than a group/individual who has successfully claimed (in the eyes of the governed) the exclusive right to determine justice in a given territory. That definition can stand no matter how often the state leans on this privilege to justify the actions of its constituents.
You then admit that you do not support minimum wage laws:
And then go on to say:
The only thing you seem to support is extreme ambiguity, and you continuously play the “you’re too ideological” card whenever someone challenges your assertions.
The entire conversation can be found here: Card & Krueger
I’m more conservative than liberal, but neoconservatives bother me far more than Euro-style socialists.
Liberals, IMO, don’t do any damage to market anarchy. That is, if we didn’t have neocons like Sarah Palin, Reagan, and Jack Kemp tricking people into thinking corporatism=capitalism through their rhetoric, then there would only be capitalism and socialism with corporatism out of the picture, then more people would see that capitalism was right.
esuric, and my initial statement is still correct. under certain circumstances it is possible for a minimum wage to increase employment (at later points of the discussion you even seemed to agree with this assertion, you certainly never refuted it). of course, that doesn’t mean i think those circumstances characterize the majority of labor markets in the us or that even if they did that government officials would the incentives or information to competently set that minimum wage. not to mention that i am skeptical of using welfare gains or employment as the sole criteria for government intervention. for all these reasons, i typically do not support minimum wage laws. this all seems totally consistant to me.
and let me note that i never said “you’re too ideological” whatever that means (victim complex?). i said that you seem to start with your political conclusions and find your economic arguments by working backwards from there. and that is probably why you had (and apparently continue to have) a hard time believing that I can both dislike minimum wage laws (a political position) and still recognize that there are circumstances when they may increase employment (an economic argument). i think you will better understand this difference as you advance in your course work.
anyways, this really isn’t the place to re-hash this. I think I defended my arguments pretty well in the other thread. and they are still there for anyone to see if they care to look.
though really i am surprised that old discussion is still sticking with you. that was like 3-4 weeks ago. let it go, man.
ps*
and you take my last quote out of context. you make it sound like i was actually describing austrian economists in general. in fact, i was spoofing your ridiculous characterization of me and “neoclassical economists”. here is what you said.
<> This perfectly exemplifies the differences between a neoclassical economist and an Austrian economist. The neoclassical economist takes a quick snapshot of the market, reveals some imperfection, and then justifies government intervention (wage rigidity). The Austrian economist, on the other hand, realizes that the market is a process and that government intervention, in the long-run, is self-defeating.
You guys are just wusses. I prefer them’ moderators to be sharp and fierce, unlike in other fence sitting forums where the most minor dispute ends in bans to both sides, even without swearing, just because they can’t stand the heat of a debate and would rather have a sissy forum where everyone gets along and dance around the mod staff.
Plus LS is right, f00’s.
Okay I don’t completely agree with him either but he’s semantically right.
I’ll let it go once you stop playing this game. Also, I responded to your other comments on the minimum wage thread (here: Card & Krueger - #28 by Esuric). I don’t want to derail this thread entirely.
“Rothbardianism summed simply is that aggression is wrong. Do you or do you not agree with that.”
Boy, that sure sounds like you asking my views on it.
You’re not even reading my posts obviously. I said I’m not ok with random acts of aggression and I think the market would take care of this better than a state could. The point of anti-statism, for me, is to eliminate institiutionalized aggression, not “private” aggression.
What are you trying to get at with your 90% question?
Rothbardians aren’t necessarily anti-statists. They are anarcho-capitalists. There is a slight difference.
I’ve made complete sense, but your arrogant “holier-than-thou” attitude makes you blind to what I’ve been saying.
Liberty Student’s agressive and dismissive nature is made up by his wisdom and consistency. No doubt some of his posts are the best here. Although I try to be tolerant, and I believe minarchists have the same initial goal, I think we can all learn from Liberty Student that we shouldn’t be compromising with our ideals.
Yes, I know. I’m just trying to see what the “you’re either a free-marketeer or a statist” people think. Do they care that the insitute they support is named after someone who was a statist (according to black and white view they seem to hold) since he was not an anarchist?
The only thing you seem to support is extreme ambiguity
if you mean i support being humble in the face of a complex world, taking measured stances, and expressing doubt in the correctness of my own beliefs (and the beliefs of others) then that is a fair assessment.
the only thing i don’t understand is how you or liberty student might think that is a bad thing. shrug
ps* as far as i can tell i have never said “you’re too ideological” or anything like it. but i do wonder if you and ls are playing the “victim of a great internet injustice!” card in this thread. just a thought.
oh well. if you need to explain a satire, it hasn’t worked. i guess not all my posts can be winners. 