Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Libertarian, Free-Market Blog "MarginalRevolution" In Support of White House Torture
Yeah, their argument is that given that the feds are going to torture people to prevent American deaths--and really, can any libertarian be for American deaths? isn't it unlibertarian to blow up a building?--then it makes sense to allow trained professionals, under the direct supervision of the Cabinet, carry out the electroshocks, waterboarding, and mock child-execution. After all, if you're going to torture people, you want it to be in the open, with Hillary Clinton watching. You don't want some CIA goon doing it in a foreign country.
Ha ha, fooled you! Alex and Tyler would never advance such an argument. No, the closest you'll ever see is that in back-to-back posts, they support government bailouts of banks and government provision of health insurance. Man those guys are hardcore. It's great that we've got free marketeers in higher education, to combat the socialism being peddled in our elite universities.
Ha ha, fooled you! Alex and Tyler would never advance such an argument. No, the closest you'll ever see is that in back-to-back posts, they support government bailouts of banks and government provision of health insurance. Man those guys are hardcore. It's great that we've got free marketeers in higher education, to combat the socialism being peddled in our elite universities.
Comments:
The Blackadder Says:
Perhaps they don't see bank bailouts or a public option as being the moral equivalent of torture.
You've testified before Congress, right? Did you tell them that the only moral thing for them to do was to disband immediately?
Perhaps they don't see bank bailouts or a public option as being the moral equivalent of torture.
You've testified before Congress, right? Did you tell them that the only moral thing for them to do was to disband immediately?
# posted by 
: August 25, 2009 at 11:33 AM
: August 25, 2009 at 11:33 AM 
What's wrong with Cowen and Tabarrok? Do they really believe this stuff or are they just that desperate to receive the occasional bone from the NYT? With friends like these...
# posted by : August 25, 2009 at 11:49 AM
: August 25, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Blackadder: So what you're saying is, since Bob didn't tell Congress to disband, he's really no different from Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama?
You have a point. Neither of the above has ever told Congress to disband either.
You have a point. Neither of the above has ever told Congress to disband either.
# posted by : August 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM
: August 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM
In this scenario, the public option at least has a raison d'etre, although whether it actually fulfills its purpose is an open question.
Doesn't sound like a full endorsement of the public option.
Doesn't sound like a full endorsement of the public option.
Do you know, in all of the various intellectual circles in which I have moved, no one but no one ever uses the term "hardcore" except Rothbardians. No one ever claims to be a "hardcore" Oakeshottian, or Collingwoodian, or Lawsonian, or accuses others of not being "hardcore" enough. If anyone did make such a claim or charge, they would be looked at like... well, like they were a member of some sort of nutty cult.
Whatever, Gene. People use "hardcore" to talk about pornography all the time. Drop your false, scurrilous attacks.
Personally, I think that Tabarrok and Cowen do something that I don't think economists should do - at least in their (our, I guess...) position as economists. They declare certain possibilities to be "politically infeasible", and then conclude that "this option is the best politically feasible choice."
Really, what Cowen was saying was "If we didn't do this bailout, we would have done a much bigger one. Given those two choices, this bailout was good." As far as that goes, I have to say that his conclusion does in fact follow from his premise. If the bailout we got was the smallest feasible one, then it was the best choice available.
Of course, I think his premise is not guaranteed at all. It's certainly technically possible not to have a bailout at all. The trick is playing the political cards right so that this actually happens. But playing political cards is not an economist's job. An economist's job should be to tell the truth. And the truth is that a world with no bailout at all is better than a world with the bailout we got.
Same goes for Tabarrok's piece. He's assuming that, at some point, government is going to require everyone to have health insurance, therefore a public option is good because it helps limit market power. Of course, an even BETTER option would be not to give the insurance companies a guaranteed market to start with.
Effectively, what Tabarrok and Cowen are arguing is "If we're going to be cutting off fingers, we should cut off people's pinkies, because they are the least useful."
Really, what Cowen was saying was "If we didn't do this bailout, we would have done a much bigger one. Given those two choices, this bailout was good." As far as that goes, I have to say that his conclusion does in fact follow from his premise. If the bailout we got was the smallest feasible one, then it was the best choice available.
Of course, I think his premise is not guaranteed at all. It's certainly technically possible not to have a bailout at all. The trick is playing the political cards right so that this actually happens. But playing political cards is not an economist's job. An economist's job should be to tell the truth. And the truth is that a world with no bailout at all is better than a world with the bailout we got.
Same goes for Tabarrok's piece. He's assuming that, at some point, government is going to require everyone to have health insurance, therefore a public option is good because it helps limit market power. Of course, an even BETTER option would be not to give the insurance companies a guaranteed market to start with.
Effectively, what Tabarrok and Cowen are arguing is "If we're going to be cutting off fingers, we should cut off people's pinkies, because they are the least useful."
'Personally, I think that Tabarrok and Cowen do something that I don't think economists should do - at least in their (our, I guess...) position as economists. They declare certain possibilities to be "politically infeasible", and then conclude that "this option is the best politically feasible choice."'
So economists are only allowed to give advice about some make-believe dream world, and are never allowed to deal with reality?
"An economist's job should be to tell the truth."
So Tabarok and Cowen were lying? Dealing with the real situation instead of one's fantasies now counts as "avoiding the truth"?!
So economists are only allowed to give advice about some make-believe dream world, and are never allowed to deal with reality?
"An economist's job should be to tell the truth."
So Tabarok and Cowen were lying? Dealing with the real situation instead of one's fantasies now counts as "avoiding the truth"?!
Blackadder said:
You've testified before Congress, right? Did you tell them that the only moral thing for them to do was to disband immediately?
No, I told them to cut income taxes and issue leases for oil drilling, if they wanted to reduce the dollar-price of oil.
I certainly didn't say, "Given that you are going to prohibit something, I'm glad it's oil drilling in ANWR and not selling diapers."
You've testified before Congress, right? Did you tell them that the only moral thing for them to do was to disband immediately?
No, I told them to cut income taxes and issue leases for oil drilling, if they wanted to reduce the dollar-price of oil.
I certainly didn't say, "Given that you are going to prohibit something, I'm glad it's oil drilling in ANWR and not selling diapers."
Gene said:
So economists are only allowed to give advice about some make-believe dream world, and are never allowed to deal with reality?
I'm confused Gene. You and Stu Morgenstern ripped on Jonah Goldberg for being a wuss in one of your LRC articles (before you realized how evil and nutty we were). It was something like, you were in his apartment and sat on his couch, and then started talking about marginal tax rate reductions.
So is it OK for you to rip others for being wussy wonks who take "political realities" as a given, but not OK for Lucas to raise the same objection?
Or are you now renouncing that earlier article?
And btw, do materialists refer to other materialists as "hardcore"? I don't know, but I just wonder if it even makes sense to call someone a hardcore Collingwoodian. E.g. I don't think even Friedrich was a hardcore Hayekian. What would that mean? He was adamantly ambivalent?
So economists are only allowed to give advice about some make-believe dream world, and are never allowed to deal with reality?
I'm confused Gene. You and Stu Morgenstern ripped on Jonah Goldberg for being a wuss in one of your LRC articles (before you realized how evil and nutty we were). It was something like, you were in his apartment and sat on his couch, and then started talking about marginal tax rate reductions.
So is it OK for you to rip others for being wussy wonks who take "political realities" as a given, but not OK for Lucas to raise the same objection?
Or are you now renouncing that earlier article?
And btw, do materialists refer to other materialists as "hardcore"? I don't know, but I just wonder if it even makes sense to call someone a hardcore Collingwoodian. E.g. I don't think even Friedrich was a hardcore Hayekian. What would that mean? He was adamantly ambivalent?
Bob, I have absolutely no interest in trying to reconcile or explain differences in pieces I write at different times -- what I wrote then was what I thought then, what I write now is what I think now.
When I hear Rockwell boasting as to how Rothbard was "absolutely consistent" throughout his career, I think, "Ah, his intellectual growth stopped at 25, did it?"
When I hear Rockwell boasting as to how Rothbard was "absolutely consistent" throughout his career, I think, "Ah, his intellectual growth stopped at 25, did it?"
Gene, granted, you can change your mind. However if you have any brain whatsoever you can explain why you've done so.
# posted by : August 25, 2009 at 10:34 PM
: August 25, 2009 at 10:34 PM
"Gene, granted, you can change your mind. However if you have any brain whatsoever you can explain why you've done so."
Yes, I could do so... and I could spend the evening plucking out my toenails. I said I had no interest in doing so. I'd rather spend my time working out what I think now then doing history of thought on myself.
Yes, I could do so... and I could spend the evening plucking out my toenails. I said I had no interest in doing so. I'd rather spend my time working out what I think now then doing history of thought on myself.
Bob, I have absolutely no interest in trying to reconcile or explain differences in pieces I write at different times...
You crack me up Gene. I had imagined several responses you would give to me, ranging from saucy to furious, but that was not one of them.
I must continue to refine my model of Callahan's mind. (It's tricky because it's a moving target.)
You crack me up Gene. I had imagined several responses you would give to me, ranging from saucy to furious, but that was not one of them.
I must continue to refine my model of Callahan's mind. (It's tricky because it's a moving target.)
Man Gene, I must confess that your position has disarmed me. I had a few tentative retorts, but they don't work.
E.g. I was going to say something like, "OK, but be on guard because if you ever accuse someone else of hypocrisy in their writings, I'm going to bring this thread up."
But that doesn't work! You could just say, "I have no interest in explaining my comments on August 25."
Curses, foiled again!
E.g. I was going to say something like, "OK, but be on guard because if you ever accuse someone else of hypocrisy in their writings, I'm going to bring this thread up."
But that doesn't work! You could just say, "I have no interest in explaining my comments on August 25."
Curses, foiled again!
Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok go to far on the pragmatist side when they start defending bank bailouts and government provision of health care.
Look, I want to take marginal steps towards liberty too, but this is getting to be insane.
Look, I want to take marginal steps towards liberty too, but this is getting to be insane.
# posted by : August 26, 2009 at 12:54 AM
: August 26, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Yes, Wilmot, that may be so, but I was not trying to defend these particular views. I was objecting to Lucas's view that economists should not try to deal with political reality in making policy proposals.
Hayek made the case that one of the jobs of a public intellectual is to CHANGE the playing field for thinking about what is politically possible -- on all sorts of levels.
E.g. at one time no one thought that it was politically possible to imagine ending the draft. Friedman changed that.
Ditto school vouchers. Etc.
Are Cowen and Tabarrok producing this sort of work?
I don't follow their work closely enough to say ...
E.g. at one time no one thought that it was politically possible to imagine ending the draft. Friedman changed that.
Ditto school vouchers. Etc.
Are Cowen and Tabarrok producing this sort of work?
I don't follow their work closely enough to say ...
Gene,
That's a fair assessment, but just addressing Cowen's qualifiers for what a good policy is, I think he shorts himself with - what I would assume - would be his more libertarian instincts by setting the bar rather low to show that the bailout was a good idea.
Saying that we haven't fallen off a cliff yet because the banks were bailed out and are now paying back their money isn't at all fair.
What quality are these banks at? Has the system evolved at all to be stronger and healthier without the glut of poor management and bad models that were in the system before? Do we really think that there is going to be any benefit that we see bloom because these banks were bailed out and other banks were not able to form in their place or buy their assets at the cheap to make something better in the next five or ten years?
There are too many questions that need to be answered for Tyler's post to seem as qualified as many want to make it seem. Like I say, I'm all for putting ideology aside and taking an objective look, but I think Cowen has a tendency to make opinions that simply spite his libertarian leanings to seem more objective as opposed to actually being more objective.
That's a fair assessment, but just addressing Cowen's qualifiers for what a good policy is, I think he shorts himself with - what I would assume - would be his more libertarian instincts by setting the bar rather low to show that the bailout was a good idea.
Saying that we haven't fallen off a cliff yet because the banks were bailed out and are now paying back their money isn't at all fair.
What quality are these banks at? Has the system evolved at all to be stronger and healthier without the glut of poor management and bad models that were in the system before? Do we really think that there is going to be any benefit that we see bloom because these banks were bailed out and other banks were not able to form in their place or buy their assets at the cheap to make something better in the next five or ten years?
There are too many questions that need to be answered for Tyler's post to seem as qualified as many want to make it seem. Like I say, I'm all for putting ideology aside and taking an objective look, but I think Cowen has a tendency to make opinions that simply spite his libertarian leanings to seem more objective as opposed to actually being more objective.
# posted by : August 26, 2009 at 4:34 AM
: August 26, 2009 at 4:34 AM
Gene,
I think my point makes more sense if you believe (as I do) that political "reality" is not a given. Rather, it is something that can be changed - and part of what can change it are statements from economists.
So, by Tabarrok and Cowen coming out and declaring these things to be "good ideas", they are changing the realm of the politically feasible to make it HARDER to get to the libertarian utopian dreamland.
So, while I wouldn't say that Tabarrok and Cowen were "lying", I also don't think that what they were saying was actually "true", because their premises were false.
But, I think we need to distinguish between a few different questions that an economist can be asked:
(1) As an economist, were the bailouts a good idea?
(2) As an economist, what would you recommend?
(3) If we had to choose between small bailouts now and big bailouts in the future, which would you recommend as an economist?
I have no problem if an economist answers (3) with "small bailouts now". But, that doesn't mean that the answer to (1) should be "yes", or that the answer to (2) should be "small bailouts now". My problem is that Cowen took the (true, correct, honest) answer to (3) and transformed it into a "yes" answer for (1).
I think my point makes more sense if you believe (as I do) that political "reality" is not a given. Rather, it is something that can be changed - and part of what can change it are statements from economists.
So, by Tabarrok and Cowen coming out and declaring these things to be "good ideas", they are changing the realm of the politically feasible to make it HARDER to get to the libertarian utopian dreamland.
So, while I wouldn't say that Tabarrok and Cowen were "lying", I also don't think that what they were saying was actually "true", because their premises were false.
But, I think we need to distinguish between a few different questions that an economist can be asked:
(1) As an economist, were the bailouts a good idea?
(2) As an economist, what would you recommend?
(3) If we had to choose between small bailouts now and big bailouts in the future, which would you recommend as an economist?
I have no problem if an economist answers (3) with "small bailouts now". But, that doesn't mean that the answer to (1) should be "yes", or that the answer to (2) should be "small bailouts now". My problem is that Cowen took the (true, correct, honest) answer to (3) and transformed it into a "yes" answer for (1).
Yes, I could do so... and I could spend the evening plucking out my toenails. I said I had no interest in doing so. I'd rather spend my time working out what I think now then doing history of thought on myself.
Okay, I'm probably too late and obviously Gene isn't interested in explaining himself anyway...But, I find his attitude rather mystifying. I mean, why bother writing articles, blogging, commenting on blogs and commenting on comments on blogs if you have no interest in anything other than working out your own thoughts for yourself? I guess I was under the silly assumption that anyone who spends as much time airing his thoughts in public as Gene does would actually be interested in perhaps influencing the thoughts of others or at the very least engaging others in thoughtful dialogue. If this is the case, then yes, it's reasonable to expect him to explain why his position on a given issue has changed.
Gene, if you're ahead of the rest of us on the road to intellectual enlightenment I'm sure we'd all be grateful if you'd explain how you got there. Is this really asking too much of you? If it is, I guess we should just ignore you as dialogue with you is impossible.
Okay, I'm probably too late and obviously Gene isn't interested in explaining himself anyway...But, I find his attitude rather mystifying. I mean, why bother writing articles, blogging, commenting on blogs and commenting on comments on blogs if you have no interest in anything other than working out your own thoughts for yourself? I guess I was under the silly assumption that anyone who spends as much time airing his thoughts in public as Gene does would actually be interested in perhaps influencing the thoughts of others or at the very least engaging others in thoughtful dialogue. If this is the case, then yes, it's reasonable to expect him to explain why his position on a given issue has changed.
Gene, if you're ahead of the rest of us on the road to intellectual enlightenment I'm sure we'd all be grateful if you'd explain how you got there. Is this really asking too much of you? If it is, I guess we should just ignore you as dialogue with you is impossible.
# posted by : August 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM
: August 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Dear anon,
Snark snark snark snark, snark snark. Snark snark snark. Snark snark snark snark snark; snark snark.
Back to you!
Snark snark snark snark, snark snark. Snark snark snark. Snark snark snark snark snark; snark snark.
Back to you!
As someone whose first introduction to economics was "Economics for Real People", I'm curious at what exactly this mention of Gene Callahan changing his mind amounts to? Is it his libertarian stance, or his Austrian economics?
I hope the latter. The book is for the big part recommendable, but, as someone who has resumed his studies into proper neo-classical economics, I have some quibbles about it.
Anyone has any link to whatever blog post documents the turning point? I'm curious.
I hope the latter. The book is for the big part recommendable, but, as someone who has resumed his studies into proper neo-classical economics, I have some quibbles about it.
Anyone has any link to whatever blog post documents the turning point? I'm curious.
# posted by : August 26, 2009 at 7:08 PM
: August 26, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Dear Gene,
It's nice to see someone use a semi-colon correctly. I guess I was all wrong about your unwillingness to engage others in meaningful dialogue.
Post a Comment
It's nice to see someone use a semi-colon correctly. I guess I was all wrong about your unwillingness to engage others in meaningful dialogue.
# posted by : August 26, 2009 at 8:04 PM
: August 26, 2009 at 8:04 PM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]