Really? Which welfare states are you talking about? The US can afford to do it because of the massive amount of capital accumulation due to the free market. During that time, poverty was being reduced. See the Milton Friedman tv miniseries Free to Choose. The earlier one is better. So no, these welfare states don't reduce poverty any more than when the market was freer.
When is poverty lowest? When is welfare highest?
You know you're inconsistent when you say empirical evidence is the end all and be all of debates and then promptly ditch it when it doesn't suit your point.
Dang! Those were my exact words.
The point isn't that Somalia is successful by African standards. The point is that despite not having a state, the standard of living is rising. Really, it's because of it and not in spite of it. This flies in the face of your position, that people would be poorer without the government. Well, they are actually richer without one. Like I said, you are inconsistent. You pick and choose when it suits you.
Friedman is a monetarist who told Pinochet to invest in public infrastructure and pension bonds.
You can either watch the Free to Choose miniseries or not. Milton Friedman makes my point. If you choose to not try and learn then that is your choice.
The problem with you picking and choosing is that you rely only on correlation. You have no theory to intrepret the data you see. Others in this thread have addressed your specific sources. I have no need to do this when others have done so. I do not pick and choose. You do. You are the hypocrite.
Besides, why debate me when you could watch debates with Milton Friedman. Oh, I know why, because you are intellectually lazy.
No one is advocating running up 200% inflation and 50% tariffs, like Chile in 1973. The differences between Austrians and everyone else aren't that extreme.
This is a response to Mustang's graphs:
How is "poverty" defined in that study? I'm assuming in purely relative terms since the global maximum (of welfare spending) occurs during the stagflation crises (i.e., one of the worst economic periods in U.S. History).
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Has to be absolute poverty. Relative poverty is like 20-30%.
It says it's from Census Bureau data. As you noted, even during high unemployment and slow growth, poverty was lowest in the mid 70s.
As I said, kids playing with powerful guns... :)
mustang19:You're not the trolling type. I get that now.
But apparently you've just implied that you are the trolling type.
So how about you answer my question - why should I go back to talking about the argument, when you don't seem to be playing fair?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos, ya got me.
Anything else?
Who, the statisticians you referred to? The CPI is more or less set by the central bank inflation target. More than a few of them agree that monetary policy wasn't great in the 1970s and that inflation targeting works better.
mustang19: As I said, kids playing with powerful guns... :) Who, the statisticians you referred to? The CPI is more or less set by the central bank inflation target. More than a few of them agree that monetary policy wasn't great in the 1970s and that inflation targeting works better.
No, economists mining reams of data looking for correlation nuggets which they polish into causation pearls (of stupidity). All without giving a smidgen of thought about their (faulty) methodology. 99% of quantitative economic research studies (ones with formulas, numbers, and charts) over the last few decades (including the ones you've been refering to here) is utter pseudo-scientific crap -- an embarassment to the human intellect, yet well paid for by central bankers and central planners far and wide.
EDIT: Bob Wenzel explains this much more eloquently in his recent speech at the NY Fed.
99% of quantitative economic research studies
I'll agree that quantitative studies are flawed, and that UI increases unemployment if you ignore the multiplier. If that is the end of the discussion, so be it.
A lot of people use theory the wrong way. Theory doesn't prove anything, even tautologies. Theory proves a fact holds under certain assumptions, and it's up to us to determine whether these assumptions hold in the real world.
As an Austrian economist, none of this is relevant to you, however. Like you said, value is subjective. Whether or not government programs create jobs is irrelevant as long as you hold that holding a gun to a person's head to pay taxes is immoral. I actually agree with you there. In fact, not only would it be illegal for me to hold a gun to your head for any reason besides self defense, but the death sentence isn't allowed for tax evasion.
If what you were trying to ask is, "do you support the government putting people in jail to pay for public goods?", then I do agree, and we can discuss the observable effects of these public goods. Alternatively, if you can propose a system that does not involve the use of force, we can talk about that. Lastly, you can argue that public goods don't exist and I will burn my dictionary.
From reading Rollback (I'll check to see where he got the source from), I can tell you that from 1900 to about 1965, the poverty level declined from 90% of the population to around 10%. From 1965 to 2009 (give or take a year - can't remember exactly), welfare spending per recipient quadrupled, yet poverty stagnated.
From reading Rollback (I'll check to see where he got the source from), I can tell you that from 1900 to about 1965, the absolute poverty level declined from 90% of the population to around 10%. From 1965 to 2009 (give or take a year - can't remember exactly), welfare spending per recipient quadrupled, yet poverty stagnated.
Maybe those values are in nominal terms.
The data in the chart above is from the HHS.
ed: I noticed .gov links aren't parsing; very funny.
aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/apa.shtml#ftanf2
Lastly, you can argue that public goods don't exist and I will burn my dictionary.
All human interactions can be divided into two realms: (1) voluntary, free, economic, and (2) coercive, aggressive, political. Each of us stands before a choice: Which realm of human interaction will I employ as means toward reaching my subjectively valued ends?
The benign descriptor "public" in "public goods" is nothing but an Orwellian doublespeak -- a screen meant to cover the fact that someone's ends have been attained through human interactions from the 2nd realm. The equivocation between a public company such as IBM (1st realm) and a "public good" (2nd realm) is mind-boggling.
The faulty pseudo-scientific studies, showing how 2nd realm ("public") interactions produce more of X than 1st realm ("private") ones, only exist to throw further dust in the eyes of the moral human agent. Today's economists surrounding the parasitic politician, are yesterday's priests surrounding the parasitic king -- both paid to burn the heretics questioning the 2nd realm interactions of their masters.
The beauty of Austrian Economics is that it proves that the moral (1st realm) is also the BEST for producing the most of what each of us subjectively values the most.
Perhaps you should burn your dictionary.
You forgot 3) the "I didn't pay my legal agency fees and now they're trying to take my stuff" realm. Nothing voluntary about that.
Those parasitic roads and parasitic medicaid abortions parasitic children's healthcare are really nice for some people, though.
I think I'll just cross out the public goods entry and put "parasitic statist lies", thanks.
If what you were trying to ask is, "do you support the government putting people in jail to pay for public goods?", then I do agree, and we can discuss the observable effects of these public goods.
That was option 1.
Alternatively, if you can propose a system that does not involve the use of force, we can talk about that.
That was option 2.
We're on option 3.
mustang19:You forgot 3) the "I didn't pay my legal agency fees and now they're trying to take my stuff" realm. Nothing voluntary about that.
Nope, that's still realm #1, voluntary. You're mixing "voluntary" with "I get to do whatever I want whenever I want, voluntary contracts with other humans be damned."
By your logic, the restaurant refusing to give you a second pizza (you are very hungry, you see) when you are only willing to pay for one, is also outside the 1st realm.
Nope, that's still realm #1, voluntary.
Not unless I voluntarily hand over my money to the LA when they come demanding it.
You're mixing "voluntary" with "I get to do whatever I want whenever I want, voluntary contracts with other humans be damned."
Yep. If you don't like living in the US, you're free move to another country. Just like you're free to leave an LA's turf at any time.
No, because the restaurant isn't using force against me.
mustang19:Not unless I voluntarily hand over my money to the LA when they come demanding it.
What is the basis on which they are demanding that you give them your money?
I don't know. Probably whatever basis they feel they can legally get away with.
ed: Before this goes further off the deep end, let me get to the point. Policing is a coercive institution. Every (workable) idea for a society involves police. I'm not saying they're a bad thing. I'm saying that they're necessary.
mustang19:I don't know. Probably whatever basis they feel they can legally get away with.
Then you got yourself a property conflict. Both sides would be well within the 1st realm if they decide to resolve it in arbitration/court, or let their defense agencies resolve it for them through arbitration/court. If not, at least one party of the conflict has decided to move onto the dark side (2nd realm). Still, no need to invent a third option.
Policing is a coercive institution. Every (workable) idea for a society involves police. I'm not saying they're a bad thing. I'm saying that they're necessary.
Defense, a sense of safety is a good demanded by humans, just like food. One could say that food would be even more neccessary (demanded) than safety, yet we don't conclude that therefore it must be provided by a 2nd realm monopoly.
Still, no need to invent a third option.
Now that you've admitted you're not proposing a coercionless hippydom, we're on the same page.
Back to discussion options 1 and 2?
Defense, a sense of safety is a good demanded by humans, just like food. One could say that food is even more necessary (demanded) than safety, yet we don't conclude that therefore it must be provided by a 2nd realm monopoly.
In some circumstances, I do. If it's a choice between watch people starve and take money from Bill Gates, I'll do the second.
mustang19:In some circumstances, I do. If it's a choice between watch people starve and take money from Bill Gates, I'll do the second.
Your subjective values, your choice. Austrian Econ only teaches you that you'd get more bellies filled by following the ethics of leaving Bill Gates alone or asking him to help feed the hungry voluntarily (as he seems to be already doing without the threat from your gun).
The morals most of us share (don't rape, don't steal, don't kill, help a fellow human in need) are endowed to us by our ancestors as a result of human and social evolution. Societies following unproductive norms smothered themselves into evolutionary oblivion either by literally killing each other or spending too much time and energy on inefficient conflict resolutions and not enough on peaceful division of labor and production. The wisdom of your genes is whispering to your subconscious that voluntary cooperation with a fellow human would yield you more of what you want than killing him and taking it away from him by force. You catch more flies with honey.
The political parasites from the 2nd realm have a vested interest in perpetuating the Hobessian myth that your fellow human being is your enemy -- that if it weren't for their oh-so-neccessary protection racket, your fellow neighbor is going to sneak up on you at night and slit your throat without blinking. You find the parasites existence -- your deal with the 2nd-realm devil -- necessary purely because of this fear. Grow some balls. Don't give into it.
That's the theory. (It's actually your theory, since I don't think Mises ever concluded anything like that, but moving on.)
We can test it empirically, if you want.
Not the trolling example, but the thesis, "can welfare and foreign aid reduce poverty?"
And don't start arguing with me whether or not the government should make some wierd tax exemption for the fraction of Bill Gates' non donated income that goes to foreign aid and welfare. Above and beyond his foundation already being tax deductible.
How about this empirical test: What % of your daily human interactions would you say are from the 1st realm vs the 2nd? Why?
99% second realm, since the government is constantly holding guns to my head and I just don't see them.
The other 1% is posting on Mises.
Alright, done with this round. Maybe we'll start another one next time. As always, pleasure chatting.
If I were to answer the question literally, all of my personal interactions on a given day in this statist Obammunismuslimerrorismgrandmakiller society are voluntary. Including voting.
Take care, Z.
The morals most of us share (don't rape, don't steal, don't kill, help a fellow human in need) are endowed to us by our ancestors as a result of human and social evolution.
Oh, and not to get all new age spiritual on you, but precivilized societies didn't really have much in the way of private land ownership.
mustang19: The morals most of us share (don't rape, don't steal, don't kill, help a fellow human in need) are endowed to us by our ancestors as a result of human and social evolution. Oh, and not to get all new age spiritual on you, but precivilized societies didn't really have much in the way of private land ownership.
I understand. The concept of property evolved (and persists) to enable division of labor => less time spent hunting/gathering, more bellies full.
I ain't no communist, if that's what you're saying. There's a middle ground there. It's boring as hell at times, but it gets bellies obese.
mustang19:Autolykos, ya got me. Anything else?
Yes. Do you think you accomplished what you set out to accomplish?
No, but I did spread my heresy to Bloom.
Orks: 0
Chaos Space Marines: 1
mustang19:No, but I did spread my heresy to Bloom. Orks: 0 Chaos Space Marines: 1
How do you figure? I don't think you did even that.
And what did you set out to accomplish here anyway?
Whatever forum I post on nowadays, I have a primary and secondary objective. The primary objective is to make more people disagree with each other. The secondary objective is to add ban screens to my scrapbook. Getting more Reddit hits is tertiary.
mustang19:Whatever forum I post on nowadays, I have a primary and secondary objective. The primary objective is to make more people disagree with each other. The secondary objective is to add ban screens to my scrapbook. Getting more Reddit hits is tertiary.
Glad to see that you're really outing yourself as a complete troll now. Too bad it didn't work so well here.
What kind of Reddit hits are you talking about?
The ones that I'll show you if you can get the first post on Page 9.
Best Mises article ever.
The astonishing popularity of Rebecca Black's "Friday" video — which became the YouTube meme of all memes in the course of a wild six weeks — has mystified many critics. Was it shared and watched so wildly because it was so bad? Certainly the overwhelming judgment on the part of viewers is that it is atrocious — and yet it is hard to know what that means, since 85 million people not only watched the video but also downloaded the song, bought the ring tone, and devoured every available bit of news about the singer and the song. Using the principle of "demonstrated preference," this music video ranks as the most popular in human history. "Friday" beautifully illustrates the sheer banality of a life spent in this prison-like system, and the prospect of liberation that the weekend means. Partying, in this case, is just another word for freedom from state authority. A child-like dream of Friday and what it represents for kids trapped in public school, kids who are transported around on tax-funded buses and ordered around by tax-funded propagandists for the state, is a plausible allegory for the plight of all people imprisoned in state-controlled environments.
The astonishing popularity of Rebecca Black's "Friday" video — which became the YouTube meme of all memes in the course of a wild six weeks — has mystified many critics.
Was it shared and watched so wildly because it was so bad? Certainly the overwhelming judgment on the part of viewers is that it is atrocious — and yet it is hard to know what that means, since 85 million people not only watched the video but also downloaded the song, bought the ring tone, and devoured every available bit of news about the singer and the song.
Using the principle of "demonstrated preference," this music video ranks as the most popular in human history.
"Friday" beautifully illustrates the sheer banality of a life spent in this prison-like system, and the prospect of liberation that the weekend means. Partying, in this case, is just another word for freedom from state authority.
A child-like dream of Friday and what it represents for kids trapped in public school, kids who are transported around on tax-funded buses and ordered around by tax-funded propagandists for the state, is a plausible allegory for the plight of all people imprisoned in state-controlled environments.
mustang19:The ones that I'll show you if you can get the first post on Page 9.
You mistake me for someone who cares about playing your little games.
The forum won't parse .gov sites, but it'll parse links to Fox. Check it out some time, Auto. Great news source.
I'm not sure there is a rule against trolling per se here. So, you can go on as long as fish swim your way. Your honesty is appreciated, however latent and however unsurprising the case may be.