Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Economic Expirmentation

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 4:06:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Would you or would you not be supportive of the government selecting certain small areas to implement certain policies for observation of the results?

Why or why not?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 4:10:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
They've actually done this before: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't really care whether or not they do--but I'd certainly rather they spend tax dollars on this than the stuff they usually spend it on.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 4:18:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's a brilliant idea. Their are special zones in China where various policies are tried out, and it leads to startling success. Which raises the question...

Why limit the experimentation to just economic policy? Why not try different educational strategies and so forth?

Obviously there's a degree to which experimental results can be questioned, but empirics count for something a lot of the time.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:13:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yeah, what everyone else said, it can be useful, China has done it, etc.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:28:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, I would like entire states to implement economic strategies (e.g. North Dakota being a Libertarian Minarchy/Anarchy, NY being totally democratic socialist, Mississippi being neocon and socially conservative. Whichever state performs the best over the long term will be considered for policy proposals.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 9:37:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:13:31 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
Yeah, what everyone else said, it can be useful, China has done it, etc.

They did it because the government gets more revenue when the economy is semi-free than when it is repressed.
http://www.starmass.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 10:12:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It would be pretty cool. However, it would have to be a lasting change in order to fully understand it. Many economies would suffer before getting better in the transition.
kfc
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 5:13:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Imagine a government run by the scientific method.
No person decides on policy.
We decide on the results we want.
Then a built in system arranges it for us through experimentation to find the best way to achieve those results.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 5:37:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 4:06:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Would you or would you not be supportive of the government selecting certain small areas to implement certain policies for observation of the results?

Why or why not?

Abso-freaking-lutely.

One HUGE reason why I support power of the States. If the whole US decides to bank on, shall we say, how to handle healthcare(in a very stupid way that doesn't actually address the costs), then the whole nation could suffer tremendously from one mistake.

If different areas try different things, not only will we see what works and what doesn't, we'll have more opportunity for innovation, and damages will be limited to 'not the whole freaking population'.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 5:38:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 5:13:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imagine a government run by the scientific method.
No person decides on policy.
We decide on the results we want.
Then a built in system arranges it for us through experimentation to find the best way to achieve those results.

FREEDO, science wasn't made to make life better for people. Science was made so politicians could argue about global warming.

Duh...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:03:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 4:06:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Would you or would you not be supportive of the government selecting certain small areas to implement certain policies for observation of the results?

Why or why not?

I think this should happen, but on a state level in a ground-up fashion. State level solutions are aimed at solving the problem first and experimentation second, meaning that they are less likely to take on an experiment dreamed up by some arm chair economists with a map of America and some darts.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:04:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 5:13:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imagine a government run by the scientific method.
No person decides on policy.
We decide on the results we want.
Then a built in system arranges it for us through experimentation to find the best way to achieve those results.

Sounds horrible.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:05:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:04:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 5:13:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imagine a government run by the scientific method.
No person decides on policy.
We decide on the results we want.
Then a built in system arranges it for us through experimentation to find the best way to achieve those results.

Sounds horrible.

Why?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:33:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:05:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:04:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 5:13:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imagine a government run by the scientific method.
No person decides on policy.
We decide on the results we want.
Then a built in system arranges it for us through experimentation to find the best way to achieve those results.

Sounds horrible.

Why?

The scientific method revolves around a hypothesis that may or may not hold. To say you can aim for a certain set of results, but no person decides the policy (i.e. hypothesis) then you'll essentially end up implementing random policies.

Even worse, assume we want to change an environment A into environment A*. The machine picks hypothesis x as a mechanism. It isn't quite what we expected, so A ends up as A**. We still want A*, except now our hypothesis (y gets us to A*) has to account for taking place within A* and not A.

So, EVEN IF the mechanism y would get us from A to A*, it may not get us from A** to A*.

EVEN WORSE the federal government wouldn't be working with 50 equivalent labs. Mechanism x (say, increased sales tax) might get Texas from A to A* but won't get California from A to A*.

Now, consider instead the state trying this system. They don't come to the table with "let's figure out what policy should run the government above us" but instead "how do we remedy state-specific problems with different mechanisms."

When they "test" things for our government, they also are addressing their specific needs as opposed to being a sacrificial guinea pig.

Thus, states as "the laboratory of democracy."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:33:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:33:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:05:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:04:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 5:13:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imagine a government run by the scientific method.
No person decides on policy.
We decide on the results we want.
Then a built in system arranges it for us through experimentation to find the best way to achieve those results.

Sounds horrible.

Why?

The scientific method revolves around a hypothesis that may or may not hold. To say you can aim for a certain set of results, but no person decides the policy (i.e. hypothesis) then you'll essentially end up implementing random policies.

Even worse, assume we want to change an environment A into environment A*. The machine picks hypothesis x as a mechanism. It isn't quite what we expected, so A ends up as A**. We still want A*, except now our hypothesis (y gets us to A*) has to account for taking place within A** and not A.

So, EVEN IF the mechanism y would get us from A to A*, it may not get us from A** to A*.

EVEN WORSE the federal government wouldn't be working with 50 equivalent labs. Mechanism x (say, increased sales tax) might get Texas from A to A* but won't get California from A to A*.

Now, consider instead the state trying this system. They don't come to the table with "let's figure out what policy should run the government above us" but instead "how do we remedy state-specific problems with different mechanisms."

When they "test" things for our government, they also are addressing their specific needs as opposed to being a sacrificial guinea pig.

Thus, states as "the laboratory of democracy."

Fixed.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:46:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 4:10:07 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
They've actually done this before: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't really care whether or not they do--but I'd certainly rather they spend tax dollars on this than the stuff they usually spend it on.

Classic study. Too bad everyone seems to ignore it's results because it contradicts the common "single payer rules" narrative of the left.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 6:47:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:33:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:05:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:04:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 5:13:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imagine a government run by the scientific method.
No person decides on policy.
We decide on the results we want.
Then a built in system arranges it for us through experimentation to find the best way to achieve those results.

Sounds horrible.

Why?

The scientific method revolves around a hypothesis that may or may not hold. To say you can aim for a certain set of results, but no person decides the policy (i.e. hypothesis) then you'll essentially end up implementing random policies.

Even worse, assume we want to change an environment A into environment A*. The machine picks hypothesis x as a mechanism. It isn't quite what we expected, so A ends up as A**. We still want A*, except now our hypothesis (y gets us to A*) has to account for taking place within A* and not A.

So, EVEN IF the mechanism y would get us from A to A*, it may not get us from A** to A*.

EVEN WORSE the federal government wouldn't be working with 50 equivalent labs. Mechanism x (say, increased sales tax) might get Texas from A to A* but won't get California from A to A*.

Now, consider instead the state trying this system. They don't come to the table with "let's figure out what policy should run the government above us" but instead "how do we remedy state-specific problems with different mechanisms."

When they "test" things for our government, they also are addressing their specific needs as opposed to being a sacrificial guinea pig.

Thus, states as "the laboratory of democracy."

Why do people have a better shot at achieving scientific results and an unbiased automated process?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 11:21:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 6:47:04 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:33:11 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:05:59 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/29/2012 6:04:09 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/29/2012 5:13:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Imagine a government run by the scientific method.
No person decides on policy.
We decide on the results we want.
Then a built in system arranges it for us through experimentation to find the best way to achieve those results.

Sounds horrible.

Why?

The scientific method revolves around a hypothesis that may or may not hold. To say you can aim for a certain set of results, but no person decides the policy (i.e. hypothesis) then you'll essentially end up implementing random policies.

Even worse, assume we want to change an environment A into environment A*. The machine picks hypothesis x as a mechanism. It isn't quite what we expected, so A ends up as A**. We still want A*, except now our hypothesis (y gets us to A*) has to account for taking place within A* and not A.

So, EVEN IF the mechanism y would get us from A to A*, it may not get us from A** to A*.

EVEN WORSE the federal government wouldn't be working with 50 equivalent labs. Mechanism x (say, increased sales tax) might get Texas from A to A* but won't get California from A to A*.

Now, consider instead the state trying this system. They don't come to the table with "let's figure out what policy should run the government above us" but instead "how do we remedy state-specific problems with different mechanisms."

When they "test" things for our government, they also are addressing their specific needs as opposed to being a sacrificial guinea pig.

Thus, states as "the laboratory of democracy."

Why do people have a better shot at achieving scientific results and an unbiased automated process?

Well, again, what exactly is this "unbiased automated process?" Is it simply a random policy generating machine?

The scientific method is a tool you apply to a hypothesis to see how it fits the data, not one which can backward engineer a hypothesis from the data.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 11:25:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes. I am for this.

Make some areas anarchy or libertarian.

Others conservatives (my little children >:) )

And a few liberal/socialist areas

See which does better in 10 years. And they can invade eachother :-)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2012 11:31:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 11:21:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
Well, again, what exactly is this "unbiased automated process?" Is it simply a random policy generating machine?

The scientific method is a tool you apply to a hypothesis to see how it fits the data, not one which can backward engineer a hypothesis from the data.

Well...I'm not sure yet, exactly.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 3:21:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/29/2012 4:06:49 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Would you or would you not be supportive of the government selecting certain small areas to implement certain policies for observation of the results?
No.

Why or why not?
They have no right to do such a thing to people, and it won't work anyway, can't get adequate controls.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 3:25:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And they can invade eachother
Even worse, contaminating your samples.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.