Econ 101 for Presidential Candidates (and VN) - CATO

#226
#226
SpaceCoastVol said:
I have no problem with immigration. But for sake of argument, let's open the doors wide and free to any and all mooslim immigrants from the middle east that want to come here. Good idea, no?
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be all? You create extreme positions for us, as if this is what we are arguing. There is middle ground. For example, if they have a job opportunity lined up and they pass a vetting process, why shouldn't we let them in?
 
#227
#227
n_huffhines said:
Yes, as long as you don't hurt anybody, you should be allowed to do pretty much what you want.
Click to expand...
So what if I then kill 190 people? Pretty sure I would kill myself along with them so would it still be cool with you if my FO and I are stoned? Or just unfortunate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#228
#228
n_huffhines said:
Why does it have to be all? You create extreme positions for us, as if this is what we are arguing. There is middle ground. For example, if they have a job opportunity lined up and they pass a vetting process, why shouldn't we let them in?
Click to expand...
That's not what 88 is arguing.
 
#229
#229
SpaceCoastVol said:
So what if I then kill 190 people? Pretty sure I would kill myself along with them so would it still be cool with you if my FO and I are stoned? Or just unfortunate?
Click to expand...

Why would it be cool with me? The law isn't going to stop you from being a dip****.
 
#231
#231
n_huffhines said:
Yes, as long as you don't hurt anybody, you should be allowed to do pretty much what you want.
Click to expand...
So then who "pays" when I fly into a mountain and kill 200 people? Especially when it could have been prevented.

You assume that everyone under anarchy will act responsibly. That is laugh out loud funny. But then when as a result of that irresponsibility people die, it is just unfortunate fallout of someone being a dip****.

Like communism, this idea is great in theory, but the problem is that when you introduce humans into the equation it gets messy. Hence the need for .gov. And I HATE government. Well I hate what it has become anyway, but it is a necessary evil. Immigration has to be regulated or we get hundreds of 9/11s. Or school shootings. Or Pulse nightclubs. Or stoned pilots or bus drivers killing hundreds of people. Or.....

You cannot put the genie back in the bottle once someone dies.
 
#232
#232
Vol8188 said:
It's not. Huff and I don't agree on immigration. But he still presented you with an interesting question that you ignored.

Why would you not support the system he described?
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with that. But they must be vetted. In depth. No documentation, hit the road Mohammed.
 
#234
#234
SpaceCoastVol said:
So then who "pays" when I fly into a mountain and kill 200 people? Especially when it could have been prevented.
Click to expand...

Who pays in this scenario under our current government?

If there were no regulation and no law against drunk flying and an American Airlines pilot flew his plane into a mountain, killing 200 people, then American Airlines would pay for it. That would be one hell of a class action law suit, which is exactly why American Airlines would and does self-regulate, with or without a law against drunk flying.
 
#235
#235
n_huffhines said:
Who pays in this scenario under our current government?

If there were no regulation and no law against drunk flying and an American Airlines pilot flew his plane into a mountain, killing 200 people, then American Airlines would pay for it. That would be one hell of a class action law suit, which is exactly why American Airlines would and does self-regulate, with or without a law against drunk flying.
Click to expand...
The point is that the .gov regulates that kind of thing so it's less likely to occur. It is illegal to fly/drive drunk. An extremely high percentage of people that have my job appreciate what they have and do not press to test that law. But in the anarchists' world, you depend on everyone to exercise responsibility. That's laughable. So the question would then be, how many airplane crashes would be acceptable? How many more car fatalities would be acceptable? If you think that number would go down because of the taboo of driving and drinking would be lifted, you are delusional. So how many would be acceptable in your eyes?


And the question about 'paying' is really a moot one because the ones that really pay are dead. Forever. Congratulations.
 
#237
#237
n_huffhines said:
Why would it be cool with me? The law isn't going to stop you from being a dip****.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. I am subject to random breathalyzers and drug screening. You propose removing those safeguards and letting me do what I want when I want. Are they 100%? Nope. But they are enough deterrent to prevent what could potentially be tragic in a very high percentage. People are killed in droves by drunk drivers and random stops are frowned upon. I guess the kill rate is acceptable if it is one or two at a time.
 
#240
#240
SpaceCoastVol said:
The point is that the .gov regulates that kind of thing so it's less likely to occur. It is illegal to fly/drive drunk. An extremely high percentage of people that have my job appreciate what they have and do not press to test that law. But in the anarchists' world, you depend on everyone to exercise responsibility. That's laughable. So the question would then be, how many airplane crashes would be acceptable? How many more car fatalities would be acceptable? If you think that number would go down because of the taboo of driving and drinking would be lifted, you are delusional. So how many would be acceptable in your eyes?


And the question about 'paying' is really a moot one because the ones that really pay are dead. Forever. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

You don't believe the companies would have policies against drinking on the job? And you believe passengers would fly with companies known for drunk pilot crashes?

Free markets work.

As for your emotional "they're already dead" garbage at the end, laws don't prevent people from driving drunk. Only punish them after the fact. So it's no more beneficial than a company policy
 
#241
#241
Vol8188 said:
You don't believe the companies would have policies against drinking on the job? And you believe passengers would fly with companies known for drunk pilot crashes?

Free markets work.
Click to expand...
Where do free markets exist? Off the top of my head I can't think of any true free markets.
 
#242
#242
n_huffhines said:
Support this. You're talking about the economics but arguing against the experts. They will teach you in econ 101 that you are wrong. Did you miss that class?


Yes, as long as you don't hurt anybody, you should be allowed to do pretty much what you want.
Click to expand...

Who decides when toes are stepped on?

You? ... I don't think so.
I call it aggression when you tell me and others already doing it that we "don't have the right" to collect taxes to build roads, hire police, etc. We're going to keep on doing it, living in the real world in the Republic of the United States of America.

Those who don't like it are too small a faction, living in various academia dreamlands, to give any credence to. They may attempt to change the original chosen course of our ship of state by whatever means, but that'd be like rowing a boat in front a a battleship at full ahead.

So it's the anarcho/libertarians who're stepping on our toes. And it's not we didn't have a few Economics courses, so that if we just studied we'd understand.

One of the best descriptions of economic theory I ever heard was quoted here in the political forum recently. It went something like, "This theory, that theory..you have all kinds of economists claiming they have the correct theory. What we, as consumers, have to understand is that economists work is much like weather forecasting. It may or may not occur as predicted"

So, who are the authors of your Econ 101 textbooks? What school of thought do they espouse? Are they actually from your Econ 101? Or, are they something you picked up elswhere, like a Polysci 101 course? I'll wager there's other's out there, contemporary with the ones your professor chose, that will hold differing viewpoints. Just as worthy of Econ 101.
 
#243
#243
Orangedogsrule said:
Who decides when toes are stepped on?

You? ... I don't think so.
I call it aggression when you tell me and others already doing it that we "don't have the right" to collect taxes to build roads, hire police, etc. We're going to keep on doing it, living in the real world in the Republic of the United States of America.

Those who don't like it are too small a faction, living in various academia dreamlands, to give any credence to. They may attempt to change the original chosen course of our ship of state by whatever means, but that'd be like rowing a boat in front a a battleship at full ahead.

So it's the anarcho/libertarians who're stepping on our toes. And it's not we didn't have a few Economics courses, so that if we just studied we'd understand.

One of the best descriptions of economic theory I ever heard was quoted here in the political forum recently. It went something like, "This theory, that theory..you have all kinds of economists claiming they have the correct theory. What we, as consumers, have to understand is that economists work is much like weather forecasting. It may or may not occur as predicted"

So, who are the authors of your Econ 101 textbooks? What school of thought do they espouse? Are they actually from your Econ 101? Or, are they something you picked up elswhere, like a Polysci 101 course? I'll wager there's other's out there, contemporary with the ones your professor chose, that will hold differing viewpoints. Just as worthy of Econ 101.
Click to expand...

If you're interested, you can check out a free ebook by Henry Hazlitt (reporter)

https://mises.org/library/economics-one-lesson

I don't know if he is ancap or Chicago school.

If you want ancap check out Walter Block's free ebook (Econ professor Loyola in New Orleans)

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Defending the Undefendable_2.pdf

A good economics book is Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics. He's more Chicago school and was a student of Milton Friedman. Anything Sowell writes is great. ( Stanford member of the Hoover Institute, his bio is to long to summarize)

Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy: Thomas Sowell: 9780465002603: Amazon.com: Books
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#244
#244
Orangedogsrule said:
Who decides when toes are stepped on?

You? ... I don't think so.
I call it aggression when you tell me and others already doing it that we "don't have the right" to collect taxes to build roads, hire police, etc. We're going to keep on doing it, living in the real world in the Republic of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

Let's talk about **** that's relevant to the conversation. The authority to tax and practice law enforcement have nothing to do with the conversation.

Those who don't like it are too small a faction, living in various academia dreamlands, to give any credence to. They may attempt to change the original chosen course of our ship of state by whatever means, but that'd be like rowing a boat in front a a battleship at full ahead.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem.

One of the best descriptions of economic theory I ever heard was quoted here in the political forum recently. It went something like, "This theory, that theory..you have all kinds of economists claiming they have the correct theory. What we, as consumers, have to understand is that economists work is much like weather forecasting. It may or may not occur as predicted"
Click to expand...

I agree that economic forecasting is very faulty, especially on the macro level. We don't know how to wisely spend money to stimulate the economy, but that doesn't mean that sound, consensus theories like supply and demand are suspect. That's like saying because we don't know much about black holes, we also can't be confident about our understanding of human biology.

So, who are the authors of your Econ 101 textbooks? What school of thought do they espouse? Are they actually from your Econ 101? Or, are they something you picked up elswhere, like a Polysci 101 course? I'll wager there's other's out there, contemporary with the ones your professor chose, that will hold differing viewpoints. Just as worthy of Econ 101.
Click to expand...

I a little of everything, from Hayek to Kanneman to Marx, but the arguments I am making now come from mostly conservative, free market economists. Like:

Gregory Mankiw was the text book king, who worked for the Bush administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mankiw

I've also read 3 books by Milton Friedman, who needs no introduction because you know him as top advisor to Ronald Reagan.

Buchanan, who is University of Tennessee alumnus and a nobel prize winner and was president of the Mont Pelerin Society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society

My own econ professor James Kearl wrote his text book. He worked for Reagan under Casper Weinberger.
 
#247
#247
Vol8188 said:
Huff, thoughts on Friedman's change involving immigration?
Click to expand...

I think his position is a bit misunderstood. He voiced concerns bout welfare benefits, and those are real concerns, but they are more of an argument against welfare than they are open immigration. He was fearful of open borders but supported the expansion of immigration.

I found this link where he clarifies his position in a letter to a colleague:

Immigration is a particularly difficult subject. There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite. Your proposal that someone only be able to come for employment is a good one but it would not solve the problem completely. The real hitch is in denying social benefits to the immigrants who are here. That is very hard to do, much harder than you would think as we have found out in California. But nonetheless, we clearly want to move in the direction that you are talking about so this is a question of nitpicking, not of serious objection.
Click to expand...

Interestingly. MF opined that illegal immigration is actually preferred to legal immigration.

Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.
Click to expand...

Friedman on immigration and the welfare state | Open Borders: The Case
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#248
#248
Vol8188 said:
You're claiming noone in the European Union is documented?
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit I see. I didn't even come close to saying anything resembling that.

If you would read news other than your local malls paper you would understand that the EU have allowed massive numbers of refugees and once they're in a member country they can freely move to any other member country. That was one of the leading reasons for BREXIT.....they wanted their country back.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top