Penn Jillette's counterintuitive commentary

[elbe]

No it does not work that way.

It doesn't really matter how it actually works. A broad statement was made (Spending more, taxing more, higher deficits) and I pointed out that a different, though broad, statement was more accurate (Spending more, taxing less, higher deficits). If you want to properly represent how reality works, don't use overly broad statements.

 

[mhaze]

Okay, well, my disagreements are on the framing of the question, and the premises, but I don't care to detour. Not sure it would lead anywhere meaningful.

Check this out - Reason TV, short video on the problem. I present it as a parallel to Penn's commentary. Opinions?

"We are spending 24 times the inflation adjusted cost of the New Deal...3 times the cost of WWII...reckless spending is what got us into this mess...is more spending really the answer?".

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/75966/

 

[Hittman]

Unfortunately, the point is that I don't have complete freedom to sell my abilities and talents anywhere, because the marketplace is not infinite. If there are only two employers in town, and both hate homosexuals, and I'm homosexual, then my freedom is restricted, and not by government.

If there are only two employers in town you need to move to a bigger town. And that's not a realistic scenario.

Then there's the unintended consequences. I know of a couple of very unbigoted employers who avoid hiring mintorities because they're afraid they won't be able to dipline or fire them if they need to. Given our current legal climate that's a very realistic fear.

Unless of course they own all the food and they choose, of their own free will, not to sell any of it to me. Or, perhaps, they will sell me some, but only if I agree to work 60 hours per week in their vineyards, while they retain the right to terminate my employment for any cause.

A desperate, nonsense scenario.

The only road to fixing the problem is/would have been serious cuts in government. Like 20% across the board.

That would be a good start, but I'd like to see it go much further than that. We have entire departments that could be eliminated, and others that could be paired down to 20% of what they are now.

 

[mhaze]

....That would be a good start, but I'd like to see it go much further than that. We have entire departments that could be eliminated, and others that could be paired down to 20% of what they are now.

No argument from me on those counts.

The idea of 20% is to start carving into entitlements...

20B foriegn aid
100B for 1000+ overseas military bases
etc.

I can see 20% pretty easy ... we don't need 227 bases in Germany.

 

[Meadmaker]

A desperate, nonsense scenario.

In our world today, and in most of the countries where people are reading this today, you are forunately correct. But can you seriously say that this scenario is nonsense? That it has not happened? That it will not happen again?

Ireland, 1847. Quite a lot of people were quite literally starving, and many more would have had they not had the option of moving to America. Meanwhile, Ireland, throughout the potato famine, was a net exporter of food.

The people who owned the food decided, of their own free will, not to sell it to the starving people in their midst. And who can blame them? The starving people didn't have any money.

 

[GreyICE]

In our world today, and in most of the countries where people are reading this today, you are forunately correct. But can you seriously say that this scenario is nonsense? That it has not happened? That it will not happen again?

Ireland, 1847. Quite a lot of people were quite literally starving, and many more would have had they not had the option of moving to America. Meanwhile, Ireland, throughout the potato famine, was a net exporter of food.

The people who owned the food decided, of their own free will, not to sell it to the starving people in their midst. And who can blame them? The starving people didn't have any money.

Well more accurately, the farms were British owned and British operated. The farmers did not own their land, or the produce of their land, and this was enforceable by British guns. They continued to give their food to the British for their 'reward' of being able to feed their own families by the produce of their own lands.

The British saw no benefit in giving the food to the people who were not their farmers and starving, and saw great benefit in the actual starvation (nothing like the threat of kicking the tenant off their land DURING A FAMINE, eh?).

The Great Famine was a genocide by most modern definitions of the word. The British deliberately attempted to prevent the actions of non-British citizens to save Irish lives. Genocide - deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

So your scenario is a bit off, even if the thrust of your point is not.

 

[mhaze]

Well more accurately, the farms were British owned and British operated. The farmers did not own their land, or the produce of their land, and this was enforceable by British guns. They continued to give their food to the British for their 'reward' of being able to feed their own families by the produce of their own lands.

The British saw no benefit in giving the food to the people who were not their farmers and starving, and saw great benefit in the actual starvation (nothing like the threat of kicking the tenant off their land DURING A FAMINE, eh?).

The Great Famine was a genocide by most modern definitions of the word. The British deliberately attempted to prevent the actions of non-British citizens to save Irish lives. Genocide - deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

So your scenario is a bit off, even if the thrust of your point is not.

Moreover, Meadmaker argues (essentially) for greater indivudual liberty thru more government, but Ireland is an example of the opposite.

 

[Beerina]

Because LFC has been proven to fail. It needs regulation.

Well, it's not failure as a rocket fails to launch and explodes. Therefore it may be a failure as in sub-optimal.

Therefore, to judge failure, one must have an objective, measurable standard that is tested for in, ideally, a repeatable, double-blind study. That can't be the case here, obviously. But you can at least do objective measurements of things like longevity, average health, average quality of live, amount of entertainment available, whatever.

Of course, such studies would be incorrect if one were to pick only studies known to show results that tout personal political philosophies. So that's why it's good to just use things like average life span, average health, average calories available or consumed, and so on.


Hmmmm. I wonder what studies of that sort of thing over last century's hundreds of "economic experiments" show?


I wonder. I'm feeling kind of lazy, hey, that kind of sounds like "laissez", doesn't it? Hah Hah. I made a funny.


Anyhoo, Almo, since you're so sure LFC is a failboat, can you point to such studies that show massively regulated capitalism, i.e. socialism, or fascism, for that matter, are better at producing longevity and quality of life?


I'm sure you have such info, for no honest person would ever make a statement like yours, at least on a skeptic board, without knowing the answer. I'll wait.

 

[Meadmaker]

Anyhoo, Almo, since you're so sure LFC is a failboat, can you point to such studies that show massively regulated capitalism, i.e. socialism, or fascism, for that matter, are better at producing longevity and quality of life?

Seems to me like you are guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Is there any choice somewhere in between laissez faire capitalism and socialism or fascism? (I am assuming that your use of i.e. was a deliberate attempt to equate massively regulated capitalism and socialism.)

 

[Meadmaker]

Moreover, Meadmaker argues (essentially) for greater indivudual liberty thru more government, but Ireland is an example of the opposite.

I don't think so. First of all, British government policy in the 17th and 18th centuries certainly created the conditions for disaster in 19th century Ireland, but the actual systems in place at the time of the famine were, I'm fairly certain, pretty much dominated by the free market. There weren't any laws preventing Irish people from owning large farms, it's just that they didn't have any money. Landlords held large tracts of land they had inherited or purchased, and they set the conditions for the tenant farmers, which conditions basically amounted to work your butt off and give me most of what you make, and I'll let you keep just enough to avoid starvation, which is a better deal than the other folks are getting.

I think starvation is kind of the ultimate loss of freedom, and so I think there would have been more freedom had exports of grain been kept in Ireland and distributed by government policy. I'm sure they could have found a way to keep everyone getting along, even if the residents of the manor house might have had a somewhat reduced standard of living under such a policy.

 

[mhaze]

I don't think so......

I do, and I have studied this Irish issue a bit. But having said that, there is a wider issue that you seem to have missed which is important.

"Laisse Fair Capitalism" does not condone the ganging up of capitalists with governments to restrict the freedom of the individual. This is in fact sort of an evil bastardization of capitalism. I am sure you will agree that this is what happened in Ireland, and what was happening in many of the other examples you have cited of problems with capitalism. So you may when arguing against capitalism, actually be arguing against bastardized versions, and would then find capitalists in agreement with you. If it was properly understood.

Beerina's argument is with the large mix of governments in historical existance, all imperfect realizations of a concept or realizations of a mixed model, those with large components of capitalism did in fact fare better. It's not possible to argue against this with something like equal opportunity for gays. This is only an advocacy that gays be included in the equal rights grouping as required for (minorities, women, families, etc). It's quite irrelevant in the design or conceptualization of an entire society.

Further I suggest that historically, cultural and thereofore legal anti-gay issues were the product solely of the State. This can be understood by thinking of a king in medieval Europe being concerned about how he can get the largest number of babies and hence the largest number of foot soldiers for his next campaign. From such economic and political realities come laws, cultural and religious imperatives which by nature are relatively long lasting.

Your argument that capitalism condones bad behavior on the part of individuals is not really that good. Segregation on public transport in the USA did not exist when those were privately owned. When the governments took over those transportation systems, then segregation crept in by law. And it's only really by law that you can have widespread discrimination and social injustice, isn't it? This does not hold a candle to the ocassional bigotry of an individual.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Your argument that capitalism condones bad behavior on the part of individuals is not really that good. Segregation on public transport in the USA did not exist when those were privately owned. When the governments took over those transportation systems, then segregation crept in by law. And it's only really by law that you can have widespread discrimination and social injustice, isn't it? This does not hold a candle to the ocassional bigotry of an individual.

You might want to retake a look at that history.

 

[Meadmaker]

"Laisse Fair Capitalism" does not condone the ganging up of capitalists with governments to restrict the freedom of the individual. This is in fact sort of an evil bastardization of capitalism.

Sure. However, "Animal Farm" described an evil bastardization of communism, but it was a good and accurate description of what inevitably happens with communism. It is inevitable that communism, when implemented, inevitably becomes an evil bastardization of communism.

I think the same thing inevitably happens with capitalism. Given unrestricted access to the economy, some people will win and some will lose. The winners will amass wealth, which they will use to amass power, including by using their influence with government to create an environment where they can amass more wealth and power.

I agree with Beerina that capitalism is better than the alternatives, but unregulated, capitalism inevitably turns into the sort of evil bastardization that you describe.

So, when trying to describe what course the government should take at this time, I think it is unhelpful to say that laissez faire capitalism is always the best answer, and therefore government should back off and get out. It's not that simple.

 

[GreyICE]

I don't think so. First of all, British government policy in the 17th and 18th centuries certainly created the conditions for disaster in 19th century Ireland, but the actual systems in place at the time of the famine were, I'm fairly certain, pretty much dominated by the free market. There weren't any laws preventing Irish people from owning large farms, it's just that they didn't have any money. Landlords held large tracts of land they had inherited or purchased, and they set the conditions for the tenant farmers, which conditions basically amounted to work your butt off and give me most of what you make, and I'll let you keep just enough to avoid starvation, which is a better deal than the other folks are getting.

I think starvation is kind of the ultimate loss of freedom, and so I think there would have been more freedom had exports of grain been kept in Ireland and distributed by government policy. I'm sure they could have found a way to keep everyone getting along, even if the residents of the manor house might have had a somewhat reduced standard of living under such a policy.

Uh, yeah, what? Are we discussing alternate history land?

Because the real Irish market was dominated by nothing resembling a free market. The Irish were kept as serfs on the land, with the rent conditions (they did not own their land or the produce thereof) leaving them in debt to land they could not leave. There is literally no way you have any understanding of Ireland during that time period.

The system was not free market, it was feudalism. And the government, the government? THE GOVERNMENT STARVED THE PEOPLE.

There have been examples of the government helping. That was an example of a government-sponsored genocide. This was not helpful.

And no, Britain has never owned up to what they did. I don't particularly think reparations or anything would be helpful, but when they want to understand their history, why they are hated, why people would blow them up and kill them to be free of their country... yes, it would help them to understand what they did in the past.

 

[mhaze]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZCe8Fw8vyM

 

[mhaze]

.....I agree with Beerina that capitalism is better than the alternatives, but unregulated, capitalism inevitably turns into the sort of evil bastardization that you describe.

So, when trying to describe what course the government should take at this time, I think it is unhelpful to say that laissez faire capitalism is always the best answer, and therefore government should back off and get out. It's not that simple.

I think it is unhelpful to assert that bastardization of the US Constitution under guise of "helping social justice" tilts in the direction of "progressive improvement" instead of collectivism and it's ensuing miseries. Yes this includes whatever regulations and laws against personal freedom advocated in stealth "greater good" mode.

 

[Meadmaker]

Uh, yeah, what? Are we discussing alternate history land?

Because the real Irish market was dominated by nothing resembling a free market. The Irish were kept as serfs on the land, with the rent conditions (they did not own their land or the produce thereof) leaving them in debt to land they could not leave.

Well, debt is the result of the free market, is it not? How did they go into debt? Were there laws that forced them into debt? Or was it the case that the only way they could get food was to agree to go into debt?

There is literally no way you have any understanding of Ireland during that time period.

Perhaps. It is my understand, based on very superficial research, that the government supported the "property rights" of the landlords. The landlords were free to do pretty much what they wanted. They owned the land. They could lease it out, as they chose, to their tenants. They could evict their tenants if they chose. They could sell their crops to whomever they wished, whether the customer was Irish or English.

Did the English government demand that Irish farmers export food? If so, that would not be a free market. If, on the other hand, they allowed landowners to sell to whomever they chose, that would be a free market.

I'll read a bit more, and if you wish to aid in my education, feel free to point me to a web site or two that would assist my comprehension.

 

[GreyICE]

Well, debt is the result of the free market, is it not? How did they go into debt? Were there laws that forced them into debt? Or was it the case that the only way they could get food was to agree to go into debt?

Perhaps. It is my understand, based on very superficial research, that the government supported the "property rights" of the landlords. The landlords were free to do pretty much what they wanted. They owned the land. They could lease it out, as they chose, to their tenants. They could evict their tenants if they chose. They could sell their crops to whomever they wished, whether the customer was Irish or English.

Did the English government demand that Irish farmers export food? If so, that would not be a free market. If, on the other hand, they allowed landowners to sell to whomever they chose, that would be a free market.

I'll read a bit more, and if you wish to aid in my education, feel free to point me to a web site or two that would assist my comprehension.

The landowners were the British and British appointed nobility. The people living on the land, aka the Irish were not free to sell their food, since the British took it all to pay the rents. The rents were the result of the British confiscating all the land.

This is nonsense Mead, nothing you are saying is based on any interpretation of history. If you want to write about how the Mugu-Bugus didn't sell to starving Mugu-Bugus because it was more profitable for them to sell to Unku-Womps, go right ahead! Just don't pretend you're talking about the Irish and the British.

Summary, since you missed it:

British enter Ireland
Depose all nobility, replace them with British or British-aligned nobility
Start charging rents on the land that are absurd
Famine kicks in, British move things like cattle over to Britain so starving Irish can't steal em.
British continue to export food from 'their' land during famine. Dead Irish not a concern.
British ask other nations not to offer aid to Ireland, blockade ports to try and prevent food-bearing ships from arriving in Ireland.
Irish flee and die in large numbers thanks to tyranny.

Fast forward 150 years:
British claim that it was all free markets, terrible tragedy, nothing they could have done.

 

[Gangularis]

Last century had hundreds of long-term economic experiments involving roughly 10 billion people, showing a direct correlation between amount of freedom, including economic freedom, and general wealth of nations.

The theory is this economic power derives from freedom since people can be secure in keeping the product of their own efforts. How hard would you run in a 100-m dash if your win was "taxed" away and awarded to someone else?

If it's required that I run for my survival, I don't see why I still wouldn't run to the best of my ability if i still got more out of it, even if I don't get the entire cake to myself, at the end of the race... Running in a marathon is optional. "Running", or rather, pushing yourself to make money, is not optional in our society, if you wish to survive. You still gotta run.. why not run at your best, even if the whole mountain isn't yours, when you reach the peak?

 

[mhaze]

If it's required that I run for my survival, I don't see why I still wouldn't run to the best of my ability if i still got more out of it, even if I don't get the entire cake to myself, at the end of the race... Running in a marathon is optional. "Running", or rather, pushing yourself to make money, is not optional in our society, if you wish to survive. You still gotta run.. why not run at your best, even if the whole mountain isn't yours, when you reach the peak?

Yes, in a collective society or one bent in that direction, there would be incessant barrages of propaganda for a person to do his best for "the common good" - that would be spiced with some minor treasures, such as the use of the local mogul's Dacha on the Black Sea, perhaps accompanied by a courtesan picked out for you. Of course if you didn't win, you might be found to suddenly have "gotten ill and had to be put in a sanitarium".

So unfortunate.