Economics Questions

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

Phi est aureum — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:39:20 GMT

No, that is not what I'm saying. To be clear, I can't judge whether someone enjoys their present situation over a previous situation. I can say that, economically, the majority of people would be worse off, in the sense that there will be a smaller supply of goods to go around, the goods that are available will be more expensive and of reduced quality, and unemployment will be more widespread, and so will higher taxation. Who knows, maybe the majority feels a psychic gain from knowing that they suffer like everyone else.

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

myhumangetsme — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:22:07 GMT

Buzz Killington:
What the hell does "citizens" mean if you can't look at what people vote for?

The majority of citizens in virtually every country are not voters in the political system. Judging voters as if they represent the actual opinions of all citizens is nonsense. No one would confuse the votes of Representatives and Senators with being the opinion of the people either.

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

Buzz Killington — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:49:55 GMT

So are you saying only 49 percent of the population is negatively impacted by socialism?

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

Buzz Killington — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:48:55 GMT

Banning something must lead to a decrease in utility (unless you ban something that doesn't exist or no one would choose to purchase, like small pox pancakes) because the individuals who would have purchased that item must now choose their second choice, thus decreasing their utility. Socialism leads to terrible results, like economic chaos, falling standards of living, the erradication of personal liberty and the gross dysfunction of society so it's likely that everyone except the bureaucrats (and probably only the top bureaucrats at that) would suffer extreme losses in utility.

But the voters still choose it. That's my point. Most people are too ignorant to make their own decisions.

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

Buzz Killington — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:47:39 GMT

Why don't you move to North Korea?

Not enough market. I'm considering moving to Singapore.

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

gravyten577 — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:30:46 GMT

Why are people responding to this thread like it is serious? Are you trying to win a magic flying car

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

Phi est aureum — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:17:14 GMT

Sure, and the majority of individuals comprising various countries may demonstrate a gain in utility from adopting national socialism, where foreign imports are heavily discouraged through prohibitively high tariffs. But the < or = 50% - 1 that did not vote to adopt national socialism may not see a gain in utility from having fewer choices. So it can, AGAIN, only be said that a countries sees gains in utility from the adoption of national socialism if it is assumed that the individual is irrelevant and essentially nonexistent. That is, if you ignore that less than or equal to fifty percent of the population less one.

Also of note is that the utility gain enjoyed by the greater than or equal to fifty percent plus one is a sort of economical utility, like a gain in fuel efficiency, a decrease in prices that allows for more goods to be purchased, or longer lasting vehicles. Mercantilism does not lead to anything like this. In fact, it leads to the opposite. The utility gain can only be psychic. In other words, the majority gets a psychological benefit from knowing that consumers in general suffer from less choices, higher prices, lower quality, etc, while a few sees gains (those in the protected industry).

You have said nothing new or profound, nor do you have a "point" about utility theory. You have just demonstrated the implicit fact that collectivist theory holds up when it is assumed that nations act and individuals do not. As you might phrase it, "reality bans" collectivist theory except as is explained by Austrians and libertarians, and so does logic.

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

gravyten577 — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:04:27 GMT

Alright alright, screw banning fast food, that would greatly lower national social cohesion, but I still have a point about utility theory. Admit it.

Why don't you move to North Korea?

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

Meistro — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:00:39 GMT

Banning something must lead to a decrease in utility (unless you ban something that doesn't exist or no one would choose to purchase, like small pox pancakes) because the individuals who would have purchased that item must now choose their second choice, thus decreasing their utility. Socialism leads to terrible results, like economic chaos, falling standards of living, the erradication of personal liberty and the gross dysfunction of society so it's likely that everyone except the bureaucrats (and probably only the top bureaucrats at that) would suffer extreme losses in utility.

In relation to this is that even those who rob suffer a decrease in utility from theft, since they would no doubt prefer to live in a world without theft. i.e. it's better to be random joe schmo in libertopia than a criminal warlord in modern Africa.

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

Buzz Killington — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:30:51 GMT

No, you do not. A nation cannot have utility gains or losses, because a nation cannot act. Only individuals can have utility gains or losses.

The majority of individuals comprising various countries have chosen to adopt socialism. Happy?

Still waiting on a reply to my previous post, btw.

I did reply to it.

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

Buzz Killington — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:28:41 GMT

You show me a majority of citizens (not voters) in a given country who "decided" to adopt socialism and I'll show you a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.

What the hell does "citizens" mean if you can't look at what people vote for?

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

Meistro — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:06:35 GMT

Banning fast food wouldn't solve the issue of obesity because over eaters could still over eat on other food; what's required is a better understanding of health and nutrition and a culture of physical fitness.

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

Phi est aureum — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:17:57 GMT

I still have a point about utility theory.

No, you do not. A nation cannot have utility gains or losses, because a nation cannot act. Only individuals can have utility gains or losses. Again, you only have a "point" if it is assumed that individuals do not act, are irrelevant, and essentially nonexistent.

Still waiting on a reply to my previous post, btw.

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

myhumangetsme — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 01:59:57 GMT

Buzz Killington:
If libertarians believe in demonstrated preference, then what about countries that decide to adopt socialism instead of voting for capitalism?

You show me a majority of citizens (not voters) in a given country who "decided" to adopt socialism and I'll show you a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.

Re: Demonstrated Preference and "Ex Ante Utility" fallacious

Buzz Killington — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 01:38:26 GMT

Alright alright, screw banning fast food, that would greatly lower national social cohesion, but I still have a point about utility theory. Admit it.