From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: "Whatever Works"  was: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:18:39 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <9204091433.AA09534@xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
>
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
>
>>Sure, what works is "correct", and what doesn't work is "incorrect". But,
>>mathematics, like much of life is experimental.
>
>  No kidding.  This is why I've advocated for libertarians, communists,
>  etc that they set up small experiments first as proof of concept
>  before they start telling us how 240-million-person nations ought 
>  to organize themselves.
>
Speaking only for myself, I consider the USA to be this greatly successful
social experiment.  I look at what is good about our society, and I find
at the root of it is tolerance and conscience, and a free market economy.
I look at where the experiment is having some problems, and for the most
part I see intolerance and govt intervention being part of the problem.  
I also see some areas of govt intervention which work, just to establish my 
credentials as a pragmatist.

We have all of human history to learn from, with its tyranny and wars.
We can choose to minimize these evils through limited govt, free trade
and strong defense, which the FF's did, btw.

>
>  I'm not saying it can.  All I'm saying is that the most successful
>  societal model, both in economic-prosperity terms, and in terms of 
>  abstract things like individual liberty and stability, is the modern,
>  mixed-market democracy.  This model has proven successful in a wide
>  variety of cultural and historical contexts.   So purely on the
>  basis of logical empiricism I am predicting that this will remain the 
>  dominant and most successful model in the years to come.   Those
>  who advocate alternatives, such as libertarianism or democratic
>  socialism bear the burden of proof for their approaches.

Successful compared to what?  Compared to central planning and statism,
it is no contest.  The question is to what extent we want or need
govt intervention, including wars on certain drugs, the entire obscene
tax code, $200 billion a year going to people who make over $50,000 
in annual income, etc etc.  I would argue that we can use a lot less
intervention of this kind, precisely because of the measurable effects.

>
>  It doesn't follow that the *US implementation* of it will be the best.
>  Maybe the Japanese, German, or French ones will prove better for the
>  conditions of, say, the year 2025.   What I'm saying is thay I'm 
>  putting my money on something like a free-market economic engine with
>  serious government involvement in regulation, infrastructure, edu-
>  cation, etc (as we have now) as opposed to some of the radical ideas
>  which get bounced around here on the net.
>
Let's not forget that we are culturally different than these others,
and that any social system that we devise must consider that fact.
Even if the Japanese were the most successful culture on earth, which
is now subject to debate, I know very few Americans who would choose
to be a part of that society.

In other words, we need to come up with our own solutions, remembering
that we are a society which is more oriented toward individualism than
any other.  Privatization may be more appropriate here than anywhere
else, for example.

>
>>Let's face it, your position boils down to "I'm alright, jack". And what
>>appears to you as "caution" may appear as recklessness to a planetary
>>climatologist or a schoolteacher in the south bronx.
>
>  People are often driven by desperation to extremes.  Their thinking is 
>  that "things are so bad now they can't possibly get worse".  But 
>  anyone who has studied history or done any world travel (I've done
>  both extensively) surely know just how much worse things can get.
>  The *vast* majority of US citizens are living like *kings and queens*
>  by historical or world standards.   
>
>  It is certainly unclear that planet-wide climatological issues would
>  be better addressed by communist or libertarian models. 

Considering the mess that the USSR is in, we may already have the data
we need.

>  Again, the 
>  most prosperous economies in the world, are also the ones with the
>  best-enforced environmental laws.

These economies also have the best tradition of common law and private
property, which put limits on polluters long before statutes are
written or even conceived.  I'm not claiming that all environmental
statutes are worthless or counterproductive, but many of them are,
and the EPA is a joke. 


   There's no inherent contradiction
>  between environmentalism and our model.  The South Bronx schoolteacher
>  is in a genuinely desperate situation.  But it is unclear WHAT sort
>  of government or economic scheme might address that situation given
>  that many of the problems he faces are due to individual CHOICES that
>  people in his community make (drugs, crime, pregnancy, etc).  If we
>  are going to choose an alternative based on problems like that, what
>  kind should we choose?   Saudi Arabia and Japan both have remarkably
>  low rates of crime and drug abuse.  So if I were chooing a system
>  based on problems like crime and drug abuse I would sooner pick
>  one of those than some of the untried extremist ideas proposed
>  on sci.econ.
>

This last sentence is laughable.  One of the reasons Saudi Arabia
and Japan have "low crime rates" is that crimes such as rape go 
unreported, and minor drug offenses are capital crimes.
Anyone want to volunteer?


--Al Date
Newsgroups: sci.econ