A frequently held position is that the best results can be achieved by allowing the free market to operate, and attempts by government to correct it in the interest of fairness simply make matters worse instead of better. This is a very typical conservative economic philosophy. On the other hand, because of a pre-existing condition, I was never able to get health insurance until the Affordable Care Act was passed, and without insurance I would never have been able to get the surgery I needed six years ago. (I realize that what is good for me might be bad in general, but I would like to see some proof that this is the case.) Would the free market have mandated, for instance, warning labels on cigarettes, or even putting ingredient information on canned goods? This view is called "free market fundamentalism" and it doesn't seem to me to be supported by the evidence.
Is there good reason to believe this? If so, what is it?
28 comments:
The Law
Apparently conservatives are backing away from this FMF position.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/the-return-of-conservative-economics/
bmiller,
Do you support this definition of legal plunder?
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
If so, does it extend to the decisions on who can use your body and who can't?
Would drafting people be legal plunder?
"Would drafting people be legal plunder?"
No, but it would be involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the 13th Amendment.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen
bmiller,
I thank you for revealing the bankruptcy of Bastiat and his ilk:
You compare the nation, perhaps, to a parched tract of land, and the tax to a fertilizing rain. Be it so. But you ought also to ask yourself where are the sources of this rain and whether it is not the tax itself which draws away the moisture from the ground and dries it up?
The proper source of the metaphorical rain is evaporation from the swamp and the ocean, where the water is so plentiful that soil is in need of drying or seems to never run out.
Government
“Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
So you prefer anarchy? Good luck with that!
The term 'free market fundamentalism' seems to be used ambiguously here. What is being rejected by fundamentalism? Is it intervention in the interest of fairness, as suggested in the first sentence, or is it intervention in the form of regulation as suggested by talk of food labelling in the penultimate sentence, or perhaps both? Does anyone in the US advocate rejection of both? I don't think anyone in politics in the UK would do so. And what constitutes the 'best results' evidence of which might support such a policy? How is this criterion to be made anything but subjective?
Free market fundamentalism and controlled market fundamentalism strike me as polar positions along an axis of opinion on which we stand. To argue for one or the other is an attempt to move the status quo in one direction or the other, not to establish either pole as policy.
So you prefer anarchy? Good luck with that!
Guess actually reading the essays are too much work. It might be interesting to have a thoughtful discussion of the arguments for and against limited government, but alas, it won't happen here.
bmiller,
Guess actually reading the essays are too much work.
Just pointless. They are pretty naive and silly.
It might be interesting to have a thoughtful discussion of the arguments for and against limited government, but alas, it won't happen here.
Certainly not as long as Bastiat is your standard for thoughtful discussion.
David Brightly,
The term 'free market fundamentalism' seems to be used ambiguously here. What is being rejected by fundamentalism? Is it intervention in the interest of fairness, as suggested in the first sentence, or is it intervention in the form of regulation as suggested by talk of food labelling in the penultimate sentence, or perhaps both?
At the very least, the former implies the latter. There is no fairness if sellers are allowed to lie to you about what you are buying.
I think Victor's sense of 'fairness' here is in relation to equality or otherwise of incomes, say, rather than the honesty of individual transactions. Interventions such as income redistribution to ensure the former can exist independently of interventions regarding weights and measures, say, that ensure honest trading.
David Brightly,
I don't now anyone who thinks equality of incomes is achievable or even desirable (noting that some compensation is grossly unproportionate to value added is not the same as expecting equality of income). Income redistribution merely means that those who most benefit from the rules out society has laid out are the ones offering the most support to the system that favors them.
Oops!
Veterans for Peace. Where are you? The US is accelerating the Climate Apocalypse by sending billions worth of combustibles to Ukraine guaranteed to pollute and guaranteed to build more to replace those. Rinse and repeat.
"Would the free market have mandated, for instance, warning labels on cigarettes, or even putting ingredient information on canned goods?"
You go to the grocery store to buy a can of corn. Corporation #1 provides a can from recycled aluminum, a label of recycled paper printed on ink made from plant material. They provided all the nutritional information and the can cost $0.98. Corporation #2 put their corn in an aluminum can with a label that reads "CORN" and cost $0.87. Which would you choose? Would you like to be able to choose?
Grocery store #1, five miles away, offers only from corporation #1. Grocery store #2, seven miles away, offers only from corporation #2. Grocery store #3, 15 miles away, offers from both. Which do you choose? Would like to be able to choose? Perhaps it's just too complicated for people to have freedom and that’s why they vote for the Democratic Party.
The best way to stop smoking is not with warning labels (good grief, would you like to see all the warning labels on the ladder I use about twice a month?). The best way to stop smoking is to raise the taxes on smokes to $50 a pack. This hurts the marginalized who usually have less income and do most of that smoking out there and find some relief from life by lighting one up. This also helps the marginalized to help them have better health by encouraging/forcing them to quit.
In my area, the poor can go to the local Indian Gaming (gambling) Casino and buy smokes without taxes. They also can throw their paycheck away on the slots and help support a marginalized people with their traditional native culture.
I don’t know the answer to this, just wondering: did eating disorders and obesity decrease after nutritional information became mandatory on the packaging?
And while I’m in the mood to discuss the topic: I’m self-employed. I don’t trust big corporations or big government. The Affordable Care Act was just plan stupid.
I probably would be dead by now without it.
I'm thankful you are alive Victor and thankful for people and technology that restored your health.
David Duffy,
"Would the free market have mandated, for instance, warning labels on cigarettes, or even putting ingredient information on canned goods?"
You go to the grocery store to buy a can of corn. Corporation #1 provides a can from recycled aluminum, a label of recycled paper printed on ink made from plant material. They provided all the nutritional information and the can cost $0.98. Corporation #2 put their corn in an aluminum can with a label that reads "CORN" and cost $0.87. Which would you choose? Would you like to be able to choose?
What makes the information on the can from Corporation #1 reliable? What to prevent Corporation #2 from putting the same information on their can and still underselling?
Perhaps it's just too complicated for people to have freedom and that’s why they vote for the Democratic Party.
Love of freedom is the best reason to vote for the Democratic Party.
David Duffy,
I don’t know the answer to this, just wondering: did eating disorders and obesity decrease after nutritional information became mandatory on the packaging?
As long as government subsidies support high-fructose corn syrup (aka "the farmers"), the obesity epidemic will continue.
With all the impulsives of human nature and a culture that encourages those desires, the reason for obesity is subsidies to corn farmers? Being no fan of government subsidies, I will let that explanation as well as the other comments speak for themselves.
Human nature will buy less, and eat less, when prices rise. The subsidies on corn (and hence corn syrup) push down the price of sweetening not just candy and sugared drinks, but bread, pasta sauce, and a whole host of other items. If the cost of sugar goes up, sugar consumption will go down, responding to the same human nature that you feel is causing the epidemic.
"A recently published study in the journal Nature Neuroscience found that neurons in the part of the brain that control the fear response may also be responsible for the tendency to overeat fatty, sugary foods."
This seems plausible to me. Full article here.
All of the impulses of human nature can be traced to survival. Sugar provides a lot of energy in a small package. Rape, suspicion of people outside your tribe (racism...), violently taking others possessions, I'm sure it can all be found in the brain. The explanation is plausible, and useless in forming a civil society.
Useless? I'd have thought it was knowledge that legislators might want to take into account, surely?
"Unless" is always a fair question.
I think the goal of farm subsidies is to have a stable food supply. I'm a skeptic but understand. Most of the corn grown in the United States is fed to livestock. We do like our prime rib. The second greatest use of corn is for ethanol to supplement gasoline, a complete waste of energy and would disappear without government subsidies.
Portions are used for human consumption and some of that is turned into addictive sugars.
On a personal level, Mrs Duffy and I love a grilled corn on the cob, roasted on my barbecue. My favorite is Mexican style. I know I should save the cob to put it into my mulch pile for my vegetable garden. Alas, most of the cops end up in the landfill.
Post a Comment