Difference between revisions of "Free Market Double Standards 4.0"

From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "<!-- you can have any number of categories here --> Category:UnlearningEcon Category:Humor Category:Free Market <!-- 1 URL must be followed by >= 0 Other URL and Old ...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<!-- you can have any number of categories here -->
 
<!-- you can have any number of categories here -->
 
[[Category:UnlearningEcon]]
 
[[Category:UnlearningEcon]]
−
[[Category:Humor]]
+
[[Category:Free Market Double Standards|40]]
−
[[Category:Free Market]]
+
 
<!-- 1 URL must be followed by >= 0 Other URL and Old URL and 1 End URL.-->
 
<!-- 1 URL must be followed by >= 0 Other URL and Old URL and 1 End URL.-->
−
{{URL | url = http://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/free-market-double-standards-4-0/}}
+
{{URL | url = http://web.archive.org/web/20150416060103/https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/free-market-double-standards-4-0//}}
 
<!-- {{Other URL | url = }} -->
 
<!-- {{Other URL | url = }} -->
 
<!-- {{Old URL | url = }} -->
 
<!-- {{Old URL | url = }} -->
 +
{{Old URL | url = http://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/free-market-double-standards-4-0/}}
 
{{End URL}}
 
{{End URL}}
 
{{DES | des = The fourth hilarious collection of examples of self-contradiction by free marketeers. | show=}}
 
{{DES | des = The fourth hilarious collection of examples of self-contradiction by free marketeers. | show=}}
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
{{Text |
 
{{Text |
 +
Welcome to the newest edition of my ‘free market double standards’ series! Strap yourselves in and enjoy the ride – this one actually contains a couple of contradictions in economic theory, but since I consider the free market  a neoclassical construct, and it’s my blog, it’s OK.
 +
 +
1. Dimishing Marginal Utility is an important cornerstone of economics. But increases in production and consumption are always desirable, no matter the stage of development.
 +
 +
2. Cantillion effects are an argument against government spending, but not capital controls or large firms.
 +
 +
3. Keynesianism is stupid and wrong! Wait, no it isn’t. I didn’t say it was.
 +
 +
4. We need monetary stimulus, but no capital controls to keep it in the domestic economy.
 +
 +
5. Capitalism is too complex and fraught with insider information to regulate. This is why we need more capitalism.
 +
 +
6. Aggregates are meaningless. But not the aggregates I constructed. They are better.
 +
 +
7. I champion individual responsibility. But when banks exploit government guarantees/policies by blowing up the economy, it’s the latter that’s to blame.
 +
 +
8. We need to encourage businesses to invest by reducing taxes and regulations. But let’s also increase their costs by raising interest rates.
 +
 +
9. Consumer sovereignty! But consumption taxes are the best (presumably because they are regressive).
 +
 +
10. The government should enforce property rights, and should pay for it with taxation. Taxation is theft.
 +
 +
11. The government is sufficient to punish/prevent things as pervasive and complex as force, fraud and theft. A single regulation? They don’t have the capacity or insight!
 +
 +
12. High tax rates punish success, but we should increase tuition fees.
 +
 +
13. As Austrian economists, we will side with market monetarism, but not Keynesians saying similar things.
 +
 +
14. Economics is the study of how we allocate scarce resources, but the fact that the economy is ultimately constrained by scarce resources does not factor into it.
 +
 +
15. The division of labour is a phenomenon that allows people to work together to produce far more than any one person could. But it’s all my income, I earned it!
 +
 +
16. All people have their own, valuable and useful local knowledge. But allowing experts to evaluate products like drugs for poisonous characteristics undermines this process.
 +
 +
17. Intellectuals are unaccountable, imperious, have big egos and value verbal beauty over logic or evidence. As such, they shouldn’t be allowed to comment so much on society. Except me. (HT to Daniel Kuehn)
 +
 +
18. Initiating force is bad. But allowing some to claim ownership of land and deny it to others by force, despite not having produced it, is fine.
 +
 +
19. The historical context of money matters. Well, not if history conflicts with my theories…
 +
 +
20. The market is the best judge of risk. But ignore what it’s saying about government debt levels, we need austerity NOW!
 +
 +
21. Justice is historical and depends on what actually happened. Capitalism is just. (Admittedly, probably borne more of ignorance than contradiction).
 +
 +
22. Perfect competition is defined as a state where everybody is a price taker. But there is still a price, despite the fact that nobody made it.
 +
 +
23. Raising taxes on the rich will achieve nothing because they will avoid it. But it will simultaneously destroy the economy, don’t do it!
 +
 +
24.
 +
 +
We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had much.
 +
 +
- John Kenneth Galbraith
 +
 +
Or maybe not.
 +
  
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 13:03, 3 October 2020

Retrieved from "http://critiques.us/index.php?title=Free_Market_Double_Standards_4.0&oldid=134331"