Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Name five economic reasons that go against

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 4:16:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

Harmful Monopolies only arise when the government intervenes. Monopolies are not always bad. A general store is a geographical monopoly, which arises because it is too costly to supply said good or service in that geographical location. If others competed the few people who are willing to supply the goods and services would end up out of business, and the demand could not be met without traveling outside of said region.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 5:46:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

This should be fun:

1. They make the a priori assumption that people are rational actors.

2. They assume that self-interest is the optimal approach to economics, failing to account for market share, unequal market share and bargaining leverage, the scourge of poverty, et al.

3. So far as I know, their plans have never been implemented in full. Less radical variations of libertarian economics--Reagonomics--have been tried for the past three decades, and have been a massive failure.

4. Their worship of free markets is comparable to a theology.

5. Their ideology almost requires them to deny that there is any such thing as a market failure, and precludes them from acknowledging genuine threats--e.g., climate change--because government intervention would contradict the notion that the government is always, without a doubt, inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 7:56:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First, let me start off by saying that I am a right/libertarian leaning individual on economic matters who generally favors limited government and free markets, but I am not a purist because of some weaknesses I see:

1.) I think that market failure is more prevalent than most libertarians would like to admit.

2.) Related to the first point, there is also a lack of admission that in some cases of market failure, further government intervention can increase efficiency (carbon taxes for instance).

3.) Exaggerating negative effects of policies like minimum wage and high marginal tax rates. No doubt these policies, ceteris paribus, reduce productivity and employment, but the effects are not as large as libertarians often like to believe.

4.) Inflation alarmism is quite rampant on the libertarian side. This is one area libertarians just need to admit they were wrong. Inflation did not take off. If anything, the federal reserve has been too tight the past few years.

5.) Focusing too much on the negative, unintended consequences of social welfare policy while ignoring some of the positive consequences.

Again, I see far more problems with statist, left wing economic ideas than libertarian, right wing ones, but I see problems with both. I still lean to the right economically, but these are real shortcomings.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 9:54:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 5:46:08 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

This should be fun:

1. They make the a priori assumption that people are rational actors.

2. They assume that self-interest is the optimal approach to economics, failing to account for market share, unequal market share and bargaining leverage, the scourge of poverty, et al.

3. So far as I know, their plans have never been implemented in full. Less radical variations of libertarian economics--Reagonomics--have been tried for the past three decades, and have been a massive failure.

4. Their worship of free markets is comparable to a theology.

5. Their ideology almost requires them to deny that there is any such thing as a market failure, and precludes them from acknowledging genuine threats--e.g., climate change--because government intervention would contradict the notion that the government is always, without a doubt, inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful.

By the way, compare this with my own list. I offered five criticisms of my own economic ideology.

Yet, progressivedem, who wrote the above, claims that he has a far more nuanced view of the world than me.

This thread suggests the opposite is true. I don't think progressivedem would be able to offer a comparitive, honest criticism of progressive economics (and, no, saying that they are not left wing enough is not an honest criticism).

A nuanced progressive would be able to acknowledge that left wing economists underestimate markets, overstate the costs of inequality, and understate the costs of high taxes and regulations. You can prove to all of use you are nuanced here.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 2:59:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 9:54:56 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/12/2014 5:46:08 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

This should be fun:

1. They make the a priori assumption that people are rational actors.

2. They assume that self-interest is the optimal approach to economics, failing to account for market share, unequal market share and bargaining leverage, the scourge of poverty, et al.

3. So far as I know, their plans have never been implemented in full. Less radical variations of libertarian economics--Reagonomics--have been tried for the past three decades, and have been a massive failure.

4. Their worship of free markets is comparable to a theology.

5. Their ideology almost requires them to deny that there is any such thing as a market failure, and precludes them from acknowledging genuine threats--e.g., climate change--because government intervention would contradict the notion that the government is always, without a doubt, inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful.


By the way, compare this with my own list. I offered five criticisms of my own economic ideology.

Yet, progressivedem, who wrote the above, claims that he has a far more nuanced view of the world than me.

This thread suggests the opposite is true. I don't think progressivedem would be able to offer a comparitive, honest criticism of progressive economics (and, no, saying that they are not left wing enough is not an honest criticism).

A nuanced progressive would be able to acknowledge that left wing economists underestimate markets, overstate the costs of inequality, and understate the costs of high taxes and regulations. You can prove to all of use you are nuanced here.

Nice ad hominem here.

You're suggesting that, because I won't confirm your specific bias--your specific criticisms--that somehow I'm not nuanced. It could just be that I don't agree with you.

Anyway, here's a fair criticism of Paul Krugman, whom I deeply respect. One, his support for globalization baffles me, and his arguments for it sound highly neoclassical. Second, he loves to toe the party line as much as he can. By his own admission, he didn't write about Dennis Kucinich in the 2008 election because he didn't think there was a "clear path to victory" for him. Third, Steven Keen was right. Fourth, his columns are highly anecdotal. No one has enough time to click on the links, darn it.

How was that?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 3:47:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

A Central Bank is needed to stabilize the economy
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 6:16:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 2:59:55 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 9:54:56 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/12/2014 5:46:08 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

This should be fun:

1. They make the a priori assumption that people are rational actors.

2. They assume that self-interest is the optimal approach to economics, failing to account for market share, unequal market share and bargaining leverage, the scourge of poverty, et al.

3. So far as I know, their plans have never been implemented in full. Less radical variations of libertarian economics--Reagonomics--have been tried for the past three decades, and have been a massive failure.

4. Their worship of free markets is comparable to a theology.

5. Their ideology almost requires them to deny that there is any such thing as a market failure, and precludes them from acknowledging genuine threats--e.g., climate change--because government intervention would contradict the notion that the government is always, without a doubt, inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful.


By the way, compare this with my own list. I offered five criticisms of my own economic ideology.

Yet, progressivedem, who wrote the above, claims that he has a far more nuanced view of the world than me.

This thread suggests the opposite is true. I don't think progressivedem would be able to offer a comparitive, honest criticism of progressive economics (and, no, saying that they are not left wing enough is not an honest criticism).

A nuanced progressive would be able to acknowledge that left wing economists underestimate markets, overstate the costs of inequality, and understate the costs of high taxes and regulations. You can prove to all of use you are nuanced here.

Nice ad hominem here.

You're suggesting that, because I won't confirm your specific bias--your specific criticisms--that somehow I'm not nuanced. It could just be that I don't agree with you.

Anyway, here's a fair criticism of Paul Krugman, whom I deeply respect. One, his support for globalization baffles me, and his arguments for it sound highly neoclassical. Second, he loves to toe the party line as much as he can. By his own admission, he didn't write about Dennis Kucinich in the 2008 election because he didn't think there was a "clear path to victory" for him. Third, Steven Keen was right. Fourth, his columns are highly anecdotal. No one has enough time to click on the links, darn it.

How was that?

Not what I had in mind.

I meant actual criticisms of progressive economics (not specific economists). And, again, calling them not progressive enough or too "neoclassical" is not what I had in mind.

I offered a few possible criticisms. Would you agree with any of the criticisms I offered? A nuanced progressive would.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 6:54:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 6:16:42 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/14/2014 2:59:55 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 9:54:56 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
At 2/12/2014 5:46:08 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

This should be fun:

1. They make the a priori assumption that people are rational actors.

2. They assume that self-interest is the optimal approach to economics, failing to account for market share, unequal market share and bargaining leverage, the scourge of poverty, et al.

3. So far as I know, their plans have never been implemented in full. Less radical variations of libertarian economics--Reagonomics--have been tried for the past three decades, and have been a massive failure.

4. Their worship of free markets is comparable to a theology.

5. Their ideology almost requires them to deny that there is any such thing as a market failure, and precludes them from acknowledging genuine threats--e.g., climate change--because government intervention would contradict the notion that the government is always, without a doubt, inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful.


By the way, compare this with my own list. I offered five criticisms of my own economic ideology.

Yet, progressivedem, who wrote the above, claims that he has a far more nuanced view of the world than me.

This thread suggests the opposite is true. I don't think progressivedem would be able to offer a comparitive, honest criticism of progressive economics (and, no, saying that they are not left wing enough is not an honest criticism).

A nuanced progressive would be able to acknowledge that left wing economists underestimate markets, overstate the costs of inequality, and understate the costs of high taxes and regulations. You can prove to all of use you are nuanced here.

Nice ad hominem here.

You're suggesting that, because I won't confirm your specific bias--your specific criticisms--that somehow I'm not nuanced. It could just be that I don't agree with you.

Anyway, here's a fair criticism of Paul Krugman, whom I deeply respect. One, his support for globalization baffles me, and his arguments for it sound highly neoclassical. Second, he loves to toe the party line as much as he can. By his own admission, he didn't write about Dennis Kucinich in the 2008 election because he didn't think there was a "clear path to victory" for him. Third, Steven Keen was right. Fourth, his columns are highly anecdotal. No one has enough time to click on the links, darn it.

How was that?

Not what I had in mind.

I meant actual criticisms of progressive economics (not specific economists). And, again, calling them not progressive enough or too "neoclassical" is not what I had in mind.

I offered a few possible criticisms. Would you agree with any of the criticisms I offered? A nuanced progressive would.

There's your fallacy again. You're suggesting that I should be nuanced, but then claiming that "a nuanced progressive would agree with me!"

But I did criticize progressive economics. Krugman's position is pervasive among many progressives -- Brad DeLong, Robert Reich, et al. agree with him that barriers to trade are wrong. My position is that they're appropriate at times to counteract foreign markets driving down domestic wages.

But let's get back to your criticisms:

"A nuanced progressive would be able to acknowledge that left wing economists underestimate markets, overstate the costs of inequality, and understate the costs of high taxes and regulations. You can prove to all of use you are nuanced here."

1. No, actually, I think they overestimate markets. If you're familiar with Keynes's reference to Shakespeare's The Tempest, where he likened government regulation to steering a ship amid a terrible storm, you'll see my point. There is no getting around that I'm not convinced that efficient market theory is plausible--where people are rational actors, goods are almost infinitely substitutable, etc.

2. Next, they again understate income inequality -- though I think Robert Reich is spot-on. It literally is the worst threat to the domestic economy today. I've mentioned this to you on other threads, I believe. Productivity skyrocketed over the past thirty years, but wages ave stagnated. The top 1% own 23.5% of total income, more than the bottom 50% of income earners combined, and their incomes have increased since the recovery, while other's have gone down.

3. "Understate the costs of high taxes and regulations" -- again, I'm not going to budge on a position I know to be borne out by the facts.

But there's a key difference between my positions and libertarian positions. Libertarians start at "government is inefficient" and work backwards. I start at the facts and then choose my position from there. That's why you'll find that I'm, for instance, against rent and price controls, against uniform tariffs -- in spite of being skeptical about globalization -- and, by and large, opposed to the individual mandate in health care. (plot twist).

Is that better?
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 7:14:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 6:54:33 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:


There's your fallacy again. You're suggesting that I should be nuanced, but then claiming that "a nuanced progressive would agree with me!"

But I did criticize progressive economics. Krugman's position is pervasive among many progressives -- Brad DeLong, Robert Reich, et al. agree with him that barriers to trade are wrong. My position is that they're appropriate at times to counteract foreign markets driving down domestic wages.

But let's get back to your criticisms:

"A nuanced progressive would be able to acknowledge that left wing economists underestimate markets, overstate the costs of inequality, and understate the costs of high taxes and regulations. You can prove to all of use you are nuanced here."

1. No, actually, I think they overestimate markets. If you're familiar with Keynes's reference to Shakespeare's The Tempest, where he likened government regulation to steering a ship amid a terrible storm, you'll see my point. There is no getting around that I'm not convinced that efficient market theory is plausible--where people are rational actors, goods are almost infinitely substitutable, etc

The EMH, in my opinion, is useful albeit flawed.

However, you cannot get around the incredible success that markets have had in practice compared to government approaches.

.

2. Next, they again understate income inequality -- though I think Robert Reich is spot-on. It literally is the worst threat to the domestic economy today. I've mentioned this to you on other threads, I believe. Productivity skyrocketed over the past thirty years, but wages ave stagnated. The top 1% own 23.5% of total income, more than the bottom 50% of income earners combined, and their incomes have increased since the recovery, while other's have gone down.

Here's a great paper on how the left overstates income inequality:

http://www.brookings.edu...

Btw, the brookings institute is not at all a right wing institute.


3. "Understate the costs of high taxes and regulations" -- again, I'm not going to budge on a position I know to be borne out by the facts.

Unfortunately, for you, the facts are not what you think they are. There is pretty clear evidence of significant negative impacts of high taxes and regulations on employment and productivity.

Sometimes libertarians overstate these impacts, but they are still pretty significant in reality.


But there's a key difference between my positions and libertarian positions. Libertarians start at "government is inefficient" and work backwards. I start at the facts and then choose my position from there. That's why you'll find that I'm, for instance, against rent and price controls, against uniform tariffs -- in spite of being skeptical about globalization -- and, by and large, opposed to the individual mandate in health care. (plot twist).

Is that better?

Most libertarians start with the facts too and then realize that the facts are overwhelmingly in support of the proposition that markets are far superior to government in most cases.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 7:20:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"However, you cannot get around the incredible success that markets have had in practice compared to government approaches."

Of course not, and I wouldn't want to. I believe in the market economy. I want markets to be as free as they can be. But suffice it to say, I want more regulation than you would, and that's just going to have to remain a fundamental disagreement between the two of us.

"Here's a great paper on how the left overstates income inequality:

http://www.brookings.edu...

Btw, the brookings institute is not at all a right wing institute."

I did some research on the Brookings Institute, and you're quite right that it's not right-wing. By all accounts, it's non-partisan, though that doesn't mean they're aren't right-wing and left-wing members. I'll have to read the paper before I comment on it.

"Unfortunately, for you, the facts are not what you think they are. There is pretty clear evidence of significant negative impacts of high taxes and regulations on employment and productivity."

Again, I completely disagree, especially since we've had top tax rates of 91% that coincided with growth.

"Sometimes libertarians overstate these impacts, but they are still pretty significant in reality."

There's a big difference between "sometimes" and signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to never, ever, ever raise taxes under any circumstances, ever.

"Most libertarians start with the facts too and then realize that the facts are overwhelmingly in support of the proposition that markets are far superior to government in most cases."

If only this were true.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 9:59:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 7:20:23 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
"However, you cannot get around the incredible success that markets have had in practice compared to government approaches."

Of course not, and I wouldn't want to. I believe in the market economy. I want markets to be as free as they can be. But suffice it to say, I want more regulation than you would, and that's just going to have to remain a fundamental disagreement between the two of us.

Fair enough.


"Here's a great paper on how the left overstates income inequality:

http://www.brookings.edu...

Btw, the brookings institute is not at all a right wing institute."

I did some research on the Brookings Institute, and you're quite right that it's not right-wing. By all accounts, it's non-partisan, though that doesn't mean they're aren't right-wing and left-wing members. I'll have to read the paper before I comment on it.

Okay.


"Unfortunately, for you, the facts are not what you think they are. There is pretty clear evidence of significant negative impacts of high taxes and regulations on employment and productivity."

Again, I completely disagree, especially since we've had top tax rates of 91% that coincided with growth.

Again, correlation does not equal causation. And lack of correlation does not mean there is no effect.

Sure, we had 91% top tax rates. But, those were statutory rates. Actual rates paid were a good deal lower because the tax code was full of ways to avoid taxation. In fact, the time we had 91% tax rates, revenue as a share of GDP was LOWER than it is now.

We know, all else equal, taxes negatively effect incentives. So, we can conclude that there is some negative effect. I think this effect is easy to see when comparing countries in the EU to the USA. The EU used to grow faster than us back when they had similar tax rates. That reversed in the 1980s when we had big tax cuts and they didn't.


"Sometimes libertarians overstate these impacts, but they are still pretty significant in reality."

There's a big difference between "sometimes" and signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to never, ever, ever raise taxes under any circumstances, ever.

I agree with the TPP. It's not saying never raise taxes. It's saying that taxes, at current levels, are more than sufficient to cover basic government services.

Of course, if you want government to do a lot more, you need a lot more taxes. So, its understandable that some oppose the pledge.

But, the pledge is about a view that government is too big more than anything else.


"Most libertarians start with the facts too and then realize that the facts are overwhelmingly in support of the proposition that markets are far superior to government in most cases."

If only this were true.

It is true for me, and most libertarians I know (thought not all).

I haven't always been a libertarian/conservative. But, reality eventually mugged me.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 8:08:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

I think it's also important to note that these monopoly businesses would essentially control the ostensibly extremely poorly funded government by controlling economic activity in the country in question.

To answer your question, privatizing roads doesn't make any sense unless companies could charge "subscription fees" for roads...which becomes problematic because a company will have a monopoly on the road system in a region, and competition in such an environment is nonsensical and inefficient. This begs the question as to how different such a system would be in comparison to what we have now...without competition, a private company would have less incentive to fix potholes and etc.

Public education addresses a market failure, in that everyone benefits by receiving more education, but few would pay for it if it was not free.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 12:43:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 8:08:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

I think it's also important to note that these monopoly businesses would essentially control the ostensibly extremely poorly funded government by controlling economic activity in the country in question.

To answer your question, privatizing roads doesn't make any sense unless companies could charge "subscription fees" for roads...which becomes problematic because a company will have a monopoly on the road system in a region, and competition in such an environment is nonsensical and inefficient. This begs the question as to how different such a system would be in comparison to what we have now...without competition, a private company would have less incentive to fix potholes and etc.

Public education addresses a market failure, in that everyone benefits by receiving more education, but few would pay for it if it was not free.

But if a road is monopolized, that doesn't mean this monopoly is the only player in the market. If they aren't on their guard, and they don't fix their potholes, competition from below will provide people with better paved roads. It might be more expensive since the company isn't as productive as the monopoly's, but you can argue that safety/comfort are essential. People would be willing to switch over if it means gaining these utilities. Now, if the monopoly wants to stay on top, they'd take advantage of their low cost/high quality production by fixing those potholes and offering consumers inexpensive yet superior roads. That's fair practice, though.

Also, what is the reasoning/theory behind your conclusion to privatized education? Why would few pay for education in a post-industrial country like the USA? My argument would be that it would widen the gap between the rich and poor since the low/middle class will only be able to afford crappy education (or none at all) while rich will get elite education. This is really what one would call unequal opportunity, which would destroy American ideals like "rags to riches" and "work hard, play hard." The fact that education becomes privatized means that fewer people will subscribe to education (since people won't have the means to afford so much of it), meaning that education itself will be more prized by employers. If education's value increases because of privatization, then individuals will be willing to invest more into their children's education.

But in the end I still think that privatized education will do much more harm than good.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 12:47:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 4:16:14 PM, DanT wrote:
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

Harmful Monopolies only arise when the government intervenes. Monopolies are not always bad. A general store is a geographical monopoly, which arises because it is too costly to supply said good or service in that geographical location. If others competed the few people who are willing to supply the goods and services would end up out of business, and the demand could not be met without traveling outside of said region.

I'm not sure I see your point with General Stores being geographical monopolies... There are 2 in my town, and 5 in the town next to me. A long with every other store (we have lots of them.)
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 1:39:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 12:43:29 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 2/15/2014 8:08:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

I think it's also important to note that these monopoly businesses would essentially control the ostensibly extremely poorly funded government by controlling economic activity in the country in question.

To answer your question, privatizing roads doesn't make any sense unless companies could charge "subscription fees" for roads...which becomes problematic because a company will have a monopoly on the road system in a region, and competition in such an environment is nonsensical and inefficient. This begs the question as to how different such a system would be in comparison to what we have now...without competition, a private company would have less incentive to fix potholes and etc.

Public education addresses a market failure, in that everyone benefits by receiving more education, but few would pay for it if it was not free.

But if a road is monopolized, that doesn't mean this monopoly is the only player in the market.

Incorrect. That road is a local monopoly, and the company that owns the road is the only player in that market. Your statement contradicts the definition of monopoly...you're conflating local monopolies with monopolization of an entire market in an asset class.

This is how natural monopolies are formed.

If they aren't on their guard, and they don't fix their potholes, competition from below will provide people with better paved roads.

No they cannot. That specific road network is a monopoly that is not subject to competition. If that road network gets from point A to point B in a shorter distance than other road networks, then no amount of competition will change that. You also cannot build a competing road network directly adjacent to the existing road network, i.e. this is a severe barrier to entry.

It might be more expensive since the company isn't as productive as the monopoly's, but you can argue that safety/comfort are essential. People would be willing to switch over if it means gaining these utilities. Now, if the monopoly wants to stay on top, they'd take advantage of their low cost/high quality production by fixing those potholes and offering consumers inexpensive yet superior roads. That's fair practice, though.

All else being the same, a monopoly will run any competitors out of business by virtue of its competitive advantages/barriers to entry.

Also, what is the reasoning/theory behind your conclusion to privatized education? Why would few pay for education in a post-industrial country like the USA? My argument would be that it would widen the gap between the rich and poor since the low/middle class will only be able to afford crappy education (or none at all) while rich will get elite education. This is really what one would call unequal opportunity, which would destroy American ideals like "rags to riches" and "work hard, play hard." The fact that education becomes privatized means that fewer people will subscribe to education (since people won't have the means to afford so much of it), meaning that education itself will be more prized by employers. If education's value increases because of privatization, then individuals will be willing to invest more into their children's education.

But in the end I still think that privatized education will do much more harm than good.

I don't understand why you think we have a disagreement, when all you've done is to explain the logic behind my statement.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 1:55:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 1:39:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/16/2014 12:43:29 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 2/15/2014 8:08:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/12/2014 3:29:21 PM, ben2974 wrote:
libertarian ideology.

I can only bring a few things to the table at the moment. Obviously, we would experience monopolistic business practices, which hurts the consumer and and in the end all other firms that could compete in a regulated economy. Consumers could get less choice and higher prices. Income Inequality will soar due to the rich holding onto resources/assets in the long run. Innovation/R&D will be limited by the few monopolies that can afford investment.

I can't think of much at the moment >_>

Would public goods like roads/education be better off privatized?

I think it's also important to note that these monopoly businesses would essentially control the ostensibly extremely poorly funded government by controlling economic activity in the country in question.

To answer your question, privatizing roads doesn't make any sense unless companies could charge "subscription fees" for roads...which becomes problematic because a company will have a monopoly on the road system in a region, and competition in such an environment is nonsensical and inefficient. This begs the question as to how different such a system would be in comparison to what we have now...without competition, a private company would have less incentive to fix potholes and etc.

Public education addresses a market failure, in that everyone benefits by receiving more education, but few would pay for it if it was not free.

But if a road is monopolized, that doesn't mean this monopoly is the only player in the market.

Incorrect. That road is a local monopoly, and the company that owns the road is the only player in that market. Your statement contradicts the definition of monopoly...you're conflating local monopolies with monopolization of an entire market in an asset class.

This is how natural monopolies are formed.

If they aren't on their guard, and they don't fix their potholes, competition from below will provide people with better paved roads.

No they cannot. That specific road network is a monopoly that is not subject to competition. If that road network gets from point A to point B in a shorter distance than other road networks, then no amount of competition will change that. You also cannot build a competing road network directly adjacent to the existing road network, i.e. this is a severe barrier to entry.

It might be more expensive since the company isn't as productive as the monopoly's, but you can argue that safety/comfort are essential. People would be willing to switch over if it means gaining these utilities. Now, if the monopoly wants to stay on top, they'd take advantage of their low cost/high quality production by fixing those potholes and offering consumers inexpensive yet superior roads. That's fair practice, though.

All else being the same, a monopoly will run any competitors out of business by virtue of its competitive advantages/barriers to entry.

Also, what is the reasoning/theory behind your conclusion to privatized education? Why would few pay for education in a post-industrial country like the USA? My argument would be that it would widen the gap between the rich and poor since the low/middle class will only be able to afford crappy education (or none at all) while rich will get elite education. This is really what one would call unequal opportunity, which would destroy American ideals like "rags to riches" and "work hard, play hard." The fact that education becomes privatized means that fewer people will subscribe to education (since people won't have the means to afford so much of it), meaning that education itself will be more prized by employers. If education's value increases because of privatization, then individuals will be willing to invest more into their children's education.

But in the end I still think that privatized education will do much more harm than good.

I don't understand why you think we have a disagreement, when all you've done is to explain the logic behind my statement.

Wow, why didn't I think of that before. Damn, that wrecks the idea of having private roads. I did confuse the monopoly they had. I compared the incomparable...

For the education thing, I took your statement as it was. I didn't know the assumptions behind your statement so I guess I just laid my own understanding to see if it conflicted with your understand.