tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post8653178919799287373..comments2023-12-24T16:36:39.633-05:00Comments on V = I·R: What is really wrong with socialism?Anarchist Chossidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04129716759837282565noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-20989491762545071262010-05-23T20:54:34.158-04:002010-05-23T20:54:34.158-04:00so?so?Mornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-55047998498566999112010-05-23T19:22:52.442-04:002010-05-23T19:22:52.442-04:00Also, a bear just died in a forest somewhere.Also, a bear just died in a forest somewhere.Anarchist Chossidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129716759837282565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-34548024451336143532010-05-23T18:04:41.103-04:002010-05-23T18:04:41.103-04:00Read Defending the Human Spirit by Rabbi Dr. Warre...Read <i>Defending the Human Spirit</i> by Rabbi Dr. Warren Goldstein.<br /><br /><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=goYsA6Bk4XUC&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=vulnerability+principle+jewish+law&source=bl&ots=v-_W9VxPsu&sig=4A3yb9hjkI1TYFYpkHjl1rYibqg&hl=en&ei=G6b5S47mDJSMNrSqudQF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=vulnerability%20principle%20jewish%20law&f=false" rel="nofollow">On Google Books</a>.<br /><br />You'll like it.Anarchist Chossidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129716759837282565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-63783075095352543252010-05-23T17:57:36.481-04:002010-05-23T17:57:36.481-04:00Ok. Fine. I reread it.I was wrong. So I can be mod...Ok. Fine. I reread it.I was wrong. So I can be modeh that the government providing services is not the most economically efficient way for things to happen. However, to me, there is always this problem of neglecting the poor. That is why there needs to be social security and things like that. We have already gone in circles with the charity argument, so I don't want to start it again. I just want to share an excerpt of a haskamah on the frum economics book <br /><br />I was impressed by...the author's knowledge of both economics and halakhik economic and social norms...in particular his convincing demonstration of the role of imitatio Dei in modifying the imperatives of efficiency and profit - R. Ahron Soloveichik<br />Normally I don't read economics books for fun, but maybe I will read this one...Mornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-36837752601824077712010-05-23T16:04:33.591-04:002010-05-23T16:04:33.591-04:00Why do you assume Mises talks about those industri...Why do you assume Mises talks about those industries only? How about service industries such as banking, Internet, TV, cell phones (the connection, not the gadgets), hair cutting, mechanic shops, babysitting, shaddchanus, advertisement (a huge industry), travel (again, not producing the taxis or airplanes themselves, but the service provided), kashrus certification, etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />All those things would be much worse if provided by the government for exact same reasons that Mises listed. In order to achieve maximization of excellence in any service, you need competition between multiple providers. The market establishes prices, showing entrepreneurs how much in demand (and supply) a particular business is; competition drives the prices down and quality up.<br /><br />Just like the government has no idea what kind of mp3 players the public needs, it has no idea what kind of TV service the public needs — and nobody has any way of knowing without the market assigning values through people choosing to send checks to particular companies providing particular services and not to others.<br /><br />I don’t buy the “if you’re already providing those service” argument, because a) I don’t believe the government should be providing any services except law and protection, b) it’s similar to saying “if you’re already eating pork, might as well eat cheeseburgers too”. According to e, the Rebbe was against such an approach (that was one of his meta-scruples).<br /><br /><br />How do you know that garbage collection and other services (or, for that matter, police, army, the courts, the law-making, etc.) are doing well, without anything to compare them to? I know US postal service sucks, because I can compare it to private postal service. Why wouldn’t private garbage collection agencies be feasible?<br /><br /><br />Soviet education is an enigma for me. I am trying to figure out what contributed to its excellence. I think it has more to do with Russian culture, but I admit to being puzzled by it. A similar service, medicine, was much-much worse, despite the level of doctors being comparable.<br /><br /><br />Anyway, the main thesis of your argument — that Mises’s logic doesn’t apply to services — is wrong.Anarchist Chossidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129716759837282565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-79542010040067910762010-05-23T13:53:54.413-04:002010-05-23T13:53:54.413-04:00I guess I am not just saying this about education,...I guess I am not just saying this about education, medicine, and charity. I am saying this about any service - as opposed to business or craft. It actually makes a lot of sense the more that I think of it. The government provides garbage collection, sewage control, water filtration/conduction, and education. Those are all services (the actual water is free). With the exception of education, they're all going pretty well. But maybe that is because of dumb American culture. After all, Russian public education is excellent.<br />Services are not included in Mises' theory. If you are already providing all of these things, you might as well provide medicine also. It is also a service. Whether or not it works well will, again, probably depend on the culture. <br />Of course you can still make the initial argument in the post. But Mises is out.Mornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-24633826097268191662010-05-23T13:42:55.678-04:002010-05-23T13:42:55.678-04:00Okay, so that was just me being confused. I confab...Okay, so that was just me being confused. I confabulated that thing about salaries - the book talks about s and d reasons for teachers having low salaries. Pretend that never happened.<br />But that is not the point. You still have not responded to the main point, which is that Mises talks about industries where you have raw material, entrepreneurs, and products. Education medicine, and most especially charity fall completely outside of his theory.Mornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-80337538236753183782010-05-23T13:38:20.143-04:002010-05-23T13:38:20.143-04:00Teachers do not turn out products that can be sold...<i>Teachers do not turn out products that can be sold for a profit. Neither do doctors.</i><br /><br />That is such a ridiculous statement. Incredibly. Teachers don’t turn out any products. They provide services that are valued by individuals who are willing to pay for them (my mother paid for my tutors in Russia and for my grandmother’s doctors in Israel). So do Internet service providers, or people who check for kashrus of food, or people who shine shoes, or people who cut hair. There is absolutely no difference in terms of how these things work in a free-market economy.Anarchist Chossidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129716759837282565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-27599583849048221392010-05-23T13:35:14.286-04:002010-05-23T13:35:14.286-04:00Salaries are not only an indication of value, but ...Salaries are not only an indication of value, but also of supply. Remember, supply and demand? Bread is in high demand, but it’s also in high supply, which is why its cost is lower than diamonds, which may be in lower (or equal) demand, but they are also in a much more lower supply.<br /><br />I.e., if a particular teacher demands high salary, he can be easily replaced with another teacher who can work for a lower salary. On the other hand, a baseball player is much more difficult to replace. But the fact that baseball players are paid more is lav davka indicative of any “value” that society assigns to them.<br /><br />Education is not different at all in this way. All factors of the market obey the laws of supply and demand.<br /><br />Garbage collectors get paid more than teachers, because presumably fewer people want to collect garbage.Anarchist Chossidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129716759837282565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-32200363062227503302010-05-23T13:29:52.537-04:002010-05-23T13:29:52.537-04:00My point is that you can not compare education to ...My point is that you can not compare education to some normal industry like shoemaking. In fact, that is why teachers always have low salaries. They are always petitioning for higher salaries and complaining that their salaries indicate that their jobs are not valued by society. <br />I had forgotten about this, but several months ago I was randomly looking through a book called Economic Public Policy and Jewish Law, by Aaron Levine. Okay, I can't find where he says it. Teachers do not turn out products that can be sold for a profit. Neither do doctors. Charity organizations do the exact opposite - they must be not for profit. Comparing these industries to entrepreneurship seems absurd. It is like saying that because you can make lemonade from lemons you can make deskade from desks. Or whatever. <br />Just wait to hear how people in yimot hamashioch sniff over 21st century values. The Muslims were using paper before most Europeans could write.Mornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-30705553931165458652010-05-23T11:39:15.354-04:002010-05-23T11:39:15.354-04:00subscribingsubscribingJust like a guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14680468025321981540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-16955013155785284812010-05-23T04:35:41.485-04:002010-05-23T04:35:41.485-04:00I think the argument is that just like it’s a bad ...I think the argument is that just like it’s a bad idea for the government to have monopoly in shoe business or agriculture, it’s a bad idea for the government to have monopoly in education, medicine or charity.<br /><br />Obama’s goal is to spread the wealth — to decrease inequality between classes of people. But, as we see from the presented model, that is a bad idea. We want there to be inequality. Since not everyone is a successful interpreneur, we don’t want everyone to have the same amount of money to have to do business with. We want Steve Jobs to have more money than a produce of an inferior product, because Steve Jobs makes a better product (as evidenced by the fact that people buy his product more than his competitor’s which gives him the money to produce more products; so, in essence, the public is voting for him to keep doing what he’s been doing).<br /><br />Re: eliminating poverty: http://mises.org/resources/3086 (Libertarian view.)<br /><br />Also: http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=subject&ID=6<br /><br /><br />A lot of medieval Muslim states also cut off people’s hands for stealing and stoned women for sexual promiscuity. In fact, many modern Muslim states still do.Anarchist Chossidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129716759837282565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-924316815185498346.post-35154950052603901212010-05-23T01:51:47.561-04:002010-05-23T01:51:47.561-04:00Oh, now I get it. In hachi nami. But socializing h...Oh, now I get it. In hachi nami. But socializing healthcare and providing welfare and social security are not shown to be bad according to this model. Unless I am missing something. <br />This just says that it is silly for the government to be in control of all (or many) (or any) of the industries. I think that Obama would agree. Besides, isn't that communism? <br />Socializing healthcare may just be a necessary evil (necessary from a moral perspective and evil from an economic perspective). And social security just has to do with the question of who is better at giving charity? Government or private charities? It has nothing to do with Mises' idea. Actually, a lot of the medieval Muslim states had social security systems in place. It is just a new idea for barbaric Europeans.Mornoreply@blogger.com