About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

December 14, 2011 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 14 December 2011

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment218

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (218)

Login to comment or vote

Griff

liberal and socialist economics from The PI community on kiwi blog

priceless

would that we would see the same maturity of thought from the maori community. Getting past pure gimme you owe to rationally (somewhat) debate economics
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 12:07pm
Weihana

# Falafulu Fisi (1,468) Says:
December 15th, 2011 at 7:45 am

So, what’s your evidence that the theory can’t be right if it is extended outside of that limited domain? You have none, haven’t you?

You are shifting the burden of proof. It is you who advocates a purely laissez-faire capitalist economy based on the premise that the invisible hand is always effective at producing socially desirable outcomes. Your evidence didn’t prove this and only proved it within a limited domain. The onus is not on me to disprove your faith that the principle can be extended beyond such limitations.

How the fuck to do you (or the Govt) know that the theory doesn’t work (if its widened further from its limitations)?

Because we live in the real world and not some libertarian fantasy-land. It appears to be your position that the free market works without regulation. But this is self-contradictory as the notion of “free” implies regulation to guard against actions which are not free (e.g. violence and fraud). But these are not the only examples of where one’s action may impinge on the freedom of others. Noise pollution for instance is an example where one’s freedom is infringed. This too requires regulation by some authority since, like violence and fraud, pollution isn’t guarded against by self-interested transactions where that transaction doesn’t include the affected party.

You have referred me to a libertarian website where the solution, as far as I could gather, was to go to court to resolve each individual dispute according to common law principles. This is great, but also highly impractical. I do not need a scientific study to prove that having every dispute go to court (as opposed to just ringing noise control) is expensive and unaffordable. All I need is some common sense, something libertarians clearly lack.

Weihana said…

I do not require a citation in order to make an argument which is justified by its own logical construction and based on common observation.

No, you do require a refutation…

I have provided a refutation by citing an example that contradicts your theory. Your counter argument (according to the libertarian website you referenced) that all such minor disputes be settled in court according to common law principles is ridiculous.

Weihana said…

Tax evasion is a revenue collection problem.

Well, the reason is obvious. People are taxed more than they’re morally required to contribute.

I agree with you that the higher the taxation rate, the higher the incentive to dodge tax. But it does not therefore follow that people should pay no tax other than what they voluntarily want to contribute, in which case they will provide essentially nothing. Also, the size of a country’s shadow economy can also be influenced by how tax is collected, what measures are taken to enforce the tax laws and the cultural attitudes towards tax evasion.

Does a rich person get a preferential treatment simply because he pays more tax?

In a system where people voluntarily contributed tax to the government then it’s highly likely that he would get preferential treatment as large contributions to government would be a corrupting influence on those institutions of government which relied on rich beneficiaries to keep them alive.

Government institutions, especially the judiciary, is supposed to be impartial. It cannot be impartial if it has to run like a business and conduct itself in a populist manner that will attract funds from the public rather than acting in an objective manner according to principle even though that may be unpopular.

I asked you a question, in my previous post but you didn’t answer. Do you want to voluntarily pay more tax so Govt can run programs to help the poor?

No I do not. Not simply for selfish reasons (though I’m not denying being selfish) but because the system only works if everyone contributes. In any case I think the government already spends enough on the poor. I tend to think progress is less about throwing more money at problems and more about figuring out how that money can be spent more wisely to create the right incentives. In some cases the money shouldn’t be spent altogether: the war on drugs for instance does not help the poor and in fact harms them considerably.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 2:08pm
Falafulu Fisi

Weihana said…
Your evidence didn’t prove this and only proved it within a limited domain.

So, what is a proof to you then? Is General Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics being proven?

State your case, Then lets roll.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 2:15pm
pollywog

Is General Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics being proven?

What’s that got to do with the price of eggs in China ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 2:30pm
Weihana

Falafulu Fisi,

Generaly Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been proven, yes. They are also incompatible with each other. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 2:50pm
Falafulu Fisi

But they work on a limited domain only, exactly as the Minority Games paper on Invisible Hands that I quoted you before.

Your turn! Let’s keep rolling.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 2:52pm
Weihana

Falafulu Fisi,

Indeed, and outside that domain they are likely to be wrong or incomplete. The same is true of Newton’s laws. They seemed to describe everything and were highly successful until we looked a little further and found out that in some situations they are highly inaccurate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 2:56pm
Falafulu Fisi

You’re dodging the bullet. Do both Quantum Mechanics & General Relativity be regarded as valid even though they only work on certain domains? And again, don’t try and evade and give ambiguous answer so as to shield yourself.

How about the Minority Games (MG) of the Invisible hands? Can it be regarded as valid? Can the MG be dismissed because of its incompleteness?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 3:01pm
Weihana

Point is these theories are very good within the limits of their assumptions. For Newton’s laws of motion they are very good at low velocities. Not so good at very high velocities. General Relativity is really good on large scales. Not so good at small scales.

The invisible hand is a very good theory… where players are equally capable of modifying their actions, something which doesn’t apply when people receive different levels of education, have differing standards of health, differing incomes with which to seek legal redress etc.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 3:01pm
Weihana

Falafulu Fisi,

I have never suggested that the invisible hand is not a valid theory. What I have objected to is the assumption that it works in all situations thus justifying a purely laissez-faire capitalist economy as always achieving socially desirable outcomes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 3:02pm
Manolo

Weihana, the catch is on what you define as socially desirable outcomes.
Nazism and communism have a very clear idea of the outcomes they wanted for the people. Look at their tragic failure and the millions killed in the process.

We’re all different, hence inequality is unavoidable.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 3:10pm
Weihana

Manolo,

Just as well I don’t desire Nazism or Communism then eh. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 3:22pm
Falafulu Fisi

Weihana said…
What I have objected to is the assumption that it works in all situations

Can you point out of where have I suggested that it works in all situations? Are you putting words in my mouth or you’re just doing your usual wordsmithing trick just for the sake so you appear to be debating?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 15, 2011 6:01pm
Weihana

Falafulu Fisi (1,487) Says:
December 14th, 2011 at 5:56 pm

“…free markets without regulations work perfectly as Adam Smith said 2 hundred years ago.”

Works perfectly indeed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 16, 2011 2:16am
Falafulu Fisi

Weihana, do you have a PhD in words Semantic bullshit? I’m Serious? You know and everyone knows that there is no such thing as perfect. If you knew that fundamental fact before hand, then why you think it is such a big deal of saying that the free markets works perfectly? There’s only one answer. You’re arguing from a position of ignorant, where you revert back to your usual tactics of playing word semantics bullshits.

If someone says that Quantum Mechanics works perfectly which is the main accepted conclusion for the everyday Joe? Would you start arguing on the semantics? Why and How?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 16, 2011 8:06am
Weihana

…a “position of ignorant”? Just get off the boat eh? 🙂

Lighten up Falafulu.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 16, 2011 1:56pm
wat dabney

“What I have objected to is the assumption that it works in all situations thus justifying a purely laissez-faire capitalist economy as always achieving socially desirable outcomes.”

Capitalism/free-markets = prosperity for everyone prepared to work for a living.

But the real justification for Capitalism has nothing to do with the high standard of living it produces and everything to do with individual liberty.

There is no moral justification to use coercive force to bring about some invented “socially desirable outcome.” Especially when the inevitable result is simply legalised thuggery.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 16, 2011 2:06pm
Falafulu Fisi

Weihana, I have transferred the debate to the “16th General Debate thread”, since this thread is quiet and not current. Lets make it as a rolling debate, ie, move it to the current GD thread of the day.

Here is my question to you on the “GD 16 Dec” thread. Don’t reply here but reply on the GD thread I lined to. See you on that thread.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
December 16, 2011 2:18pm

More comments:

‹
1
2
3

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Read the author line

Doubly revolting »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
A Written New Zealand Constitution?
No Minister
Daily review 22/11/2024
The Standard
Do the KCs believe in democracy
Utopia
More young offenders will get boot camp, bus drivers will get some protection – and there’s relief for southern farmers
Point of Order
Sowell says
Hompaddock
New Zealand government urged to back ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders without equivocation
The Daily Blog
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d