Free-Market Regulation

[2Parties]

Like I keep saying: it doesn't matter. This isn't me being uninquisitive, I just happen to be talking about rights, all rights, so the type of rights isn't relevant.

If you want to have an actual discussion where you may learn something I guess it isn't relevant.

A negative right would be "You have the right to not be enslaved" A positive right would "You are guaranteed health care." The negative right requires nothing of anyone else. The positive right of "you are guaranteed health care" violates "you have the right to keep what you earn" because some people would be enslaved to provide your "right" to health care.

I mean a credible nation, based on the context, what could I mean except essentially every nation on the planet?

Zimbabwe, North Korea?

I can tell that your reasoning seems to stem from your hatred for the status quo, so a natural response for most people who do so is to question the legitimacy of every aspect of the status quo.

Actually my reasoning comes from my opposition to falsehoods, lies, and evil.

Do you even understand what it would entail to not enter it? It means you would have to at the very least leave your country immediately. You would in fact be hypocritical to live in a country that provides you with benefits of civilization while not holding yourself obligated to the social contract. And don't bother looking for a nation that would allow you live in such hypocritical terms; again, no credible nation (read every nation) would allow it. In fact the only truly non-hypocritical way of removing yourself from the contract is if you wanted to live completely off the grid like the uni-bomber. Yes, he could say he removed himself from the social contract.

Just because you believe (and governments obviously) believe in the mythical god known as the "social contract" does not make it valid or right.

 

[namaan]

If you want to have an actual discussion where you may learn something I guess it isn't relevant.

Believe it or not, I actually did read up on positive vs. negative rights before posting. So no dice.

A negative right would be "You have the right to not be enslaved" A positive right would "You are guaranteed health care." The negative right requires nothing of anyone else. The positive right of "you are guaranteed health care" violates "you have the right to keep what you earn" because some people would be enslaved to provide your "right" to health care.

No, your right to not be enslaved requires everyone else to not enslave you. And being guaranteed healthcare equally requires everyone else to provide for you. Hence, as far as this paper is concerned (I'm starting to sound like a broken record in saying this), Positive vs. Negative rights is more semantics than anything else.

Zimbabwe, North Korea?

Exactly? These are credible nations as far as how I have defined credible nations in earlier posts. It shouldn't be a surprise to you that I'm using a definition for a 'credible nation' that is very specific to the paper.

Just because you believe (and governments obviously) believe in the mythical god known as the "social contract" does not make it valid or right.

But of course. But then I guess you have no trust in just about anything (especially science) you have ever read since that would require you to have an empirical approach; an approach that says that you trust observations (i.e. real, working governments around the world as you admit) over logic games and inferences.

 

[2Parties]

Believe it or not, I actually did read up on positive vs. negative rights before posting. So no dice.

No, your right to not be enslaved requires everyone else to not enslave you. And being guaranteed healthcare equally requires everyone else to provide for you. Hence, as far as this paper is concerned (I'm starting to sound like a broken record in saying this), Positive vs. Negative rights is more semantics than anything else.

I really don't believe it. You clearly do not understand the difference between positive and negative rights. Requiring someone not (negative) to enslave you does not violate their rights unless you believe in positive rights. Clearly you believe in some positive rights. If you didn't you would recognize the distinction.

But of course. But then I guess you have no trust in just about anything (especially science) you have ever read since that would require you to have an empirical approach; an approach that says that you trust observations (i.e. real, working governments around the world as you admit) over logic games and inferences.

Your entire OP is nothing more than a logic(?) game and inference. My observations, while logical, have everything to do with real world experience and knowledge.

 

[namaan]

Fine.

I won't argue. Beyond this point lies cyclic logic and rationalization.

But damn...human nature kicks in ... :long sigh: ...ok, so that would be called the Straw Man fallacy...'winning' an unrelated argument to bolster your position on the central argument...though I distinctly remember saying that the distinction itself is unimportant. Let's just agree to disagree on whether this distinction is important or not (no you did not convince me).

Your entire OP is nothing more than a logic(?) game and inference.

I know. Well, not entirely, but in part, yes. I would have to actually be psychotic (instead of the 'playful' psychosis implied in my signature) to argue that an entire argument can be based on empiricism alone. As with most things, there should be a balance between empirical and inferred thinking when presenting an argument.

 

[Limey]

Ther e isn't. People confuse the economic spectrum (from command to laissez faire) with political economy. Capitalism is prone to crisis. This is encouraged by human failings that generate market concentration problems. Government regulations then becomes a vital aspect of the reproduction of profit. The US, for example, has been largely reliant on her military sector to maintain stability: from the generation of innovation (describing basic market failure in technological progress) to demand managment.

There's no such thing as demand management.

If the "war" on (some) drugs doesn't prove that, nothing does.

I have no idea what that bolded sentence means.

Defence economics separates into numerous schools of thought. Standard analysis has focused on liberal political economy where, by referring to 'limited government' and the importance of accountability, the analysis is restricted to the military-industrial complex. This suggests that fears are deliberately exaggerated in order to justify overexpenditure (i.e. a military burden that is inconsistent with the delivery of the 'national security' public good). Whilst there may well be evidence in support of that approach (e.g. Iraq and WMDs), it certainly cannot be used to understand the importance of the military sector for the US's post-WW2 economy.

First, we have to refer to the limitations of a static approach to economics. Technical progress is an integral aspect of the study of economic result. Here, we can refer to how the US has deliberately used public-private alliances (e.g. even the market concentration levels of the arms production industries have been manipulated by the government) to escape from market failures. By supporting R&D and creating spin-off technologies, US economic growth has been reliant on her military burden.

Second, we have to refer to straight-forward Keynesianism (such as the results achieved by Reagan). Unlike the UK (where there was genuine economic change as Thatcher tried to introduce economic principles based on Friedman and Hayek), we have a simple attempt to manipulate the level of aggregate demand. The only dilemma is whether straight-forward Keynesianism can explain the benefits from the US's obsessive military expenditure levels. For example, linking post-Keynesian 'cost-plus pricing' analysis with neo-Marxism, its possible to argue that the US has avoided periods of stagflation through its military expenditure

 

[Limey]

Words to the wise...Limey is a hard core Soviet communist.
I've dealt with him before.

Haven't a clue who you are. Given I'm not a Marxist (instead adopting a market socialist framework based around aspects of institutionalism and neoclassical economics), you clearly do not know me either

 

[Oddball]

But I know who you are, Scucca.

And yes, you are a flaming Soviet communist.

 

[Limey]

But I know who you are, Scucca.

And yes, you are a flaming Soviet communist.

You clearly do not. I'd never support the state capitalism employed by the Soviet Union, nor am I a Marxist (although it is true that Marxist theory is often compatible with orthodox economics: see, for example, efficiency wages and also transaction cost theory). I haven't a clue who you are, but try to get my stance correct. I'm a market socialist who, given an institutionalist understanding of economics, acknowledge the coercion within the labour contract. A free market, to eliminate that coercion, would require a radical change in property rights. The analysis, however, does have similarities with Austrian analysis. For example, the efficiency gains from socialism are focused on the analysis into knowledge originating from Hayek

 

[Toro]

Defence economics separates into numerous schools of thought. Standard analysis has focused on liberal political economy where, by referring to 'limited government' and the importance of accountability, the analysis is restricted to the military-industrial complex. This suggests that fears are deliberately exaggerated in order to justify overexpenditure (i.e. a military burden that is inconsistent with the delivery of the 'national security' public good). Whilst there may well be evidence in support of that approach (e.g. Iraq and WMDs), it certainly cannot be used to understand the importance of the military sector for the US's post-WW2 economy.

First, we have to refer to the limitations of a static approach to economics. Technical progress is an integral aspect of the study of economic result. Here, we can refer to how the US has deliberately used public-private alliances (e.g. even the market concentration levels of the arms production industries have been manipulated by the government) to escape from market failures. By supporting R&D and creating spin-off technologies, US economic growth has been reliant on her military burden.

Second, we have to refer to straight-forward Keynesianism (such as the results achieved by Reagan). Unlike the UK (where there was genuine economic change as Thatcher tried to introduce economic principles based on Friedman and Hayek), we have a simple attempt to manipulate the level of aggregate demand. The only dilemma is whether straight-forward Keynesianism can explain the benefits from the US's obsessive military expenditure levels. For example, linking post-Keynesian 'cost-plus pricing' analysis with neo-Marxism, its possible to argue that the US has avoided periods of stagflation through its military expenditure

Military procurement is a minor part of the US economy, and the military research budget is a rounding error on the government's balance sheet. The research budgets of the defense industry likewise pale compared to the research budgets of, say, the semiconductor industry, of which almost all is manufactured for consumer products.

The US military ain't the driver nor the innovator of the US economy. Sorry.

 

[Toro]

Words to the wise...Limey is a hard core Soviet communist.
I've dealt with him before.

Haven't a clue who you are. Given I'm not a Marxist (instead adopting a market socialist framework based around aspects of institutionalism and neoclassical economics), you clearly do not know me either

Are you a student or a professor?

 

[Oddball]

He's all yours, Toro.

My patience for Soviet communists, cynically trying to cower behind the rubric of "market socialism", is next to nonexistent.

 

[Limey]

Are you a student or a professor?

Neither, SME consultant

 

[Limey]

Military procurement is a minor part of the US economy, and the military research budget is a rounding error on the government's balance sheet.

What % of US GDP is spent on education?

The US military ain't the driver nor the innovator of the US economy.

That the military sector is used as a counter-cyclical device is supported by both empirical evidence and specific case study. That the military sector has provided key spin-off technologies is also a matter of fact (and recognised by the slow Europeans as they attempt to bridge the gap between US and EU R&D expenditures). You could attempt to suggest that there is a level of confusion between the two. For example, a basic Keynesian model wouldn't sit comfortably with an endogeneous growth model (based on those spin-off effects)

 

[namaan]

Now now guys, let's play nice. If the poster's opinion matters, might I suggest we not focus on how anyone identifies themselves (or how we presume they identify themselves)? Or the more cliched way to put it would be "let's not judge a book by it's cover". IMHO, most any argument (especially if it's highly inferred) is partly true and partly false. So no need to outright discredit a person's entire brain -_-

Speaking of which, @2Parties, I was thinking about the 'credible nation' definition

I mean a credible nation, based on the context, what could I mean except essentially every nation on the planet?

Zimbabwe, North Korea?

Exactly? These are credible nations as far as how I have defined credible nations in earlier posts. It shouldn't be a surprise to you that I'm using a definition for a 'credible nation' that is very specific to the paper.

I guess if I had to define it in terms of this OP, I would say a credible nation is one that has a centralized governmental institution (the White House in our case), that indirectly defines and maintains the terms of the social contract. I say indirectly because I doubt that any nation has a constitution that directly states the social contract. But it is never-the-less implied through things like the draft, taxation, bill of rights, etc.

Given this definition, North Korea would definitely be a credible nation because they have such an authoritative form of government. But you may have a point with a country like Zimbabwe since that country has been swinging far too close to anarchy recently. And there are other such countries that are all too familiar with anarchy, but to be honest, you shouldn't think I like this definition in the first place. But there's only so much ground I can cover in a single OP, so I decided to stick with the narrow one. I mean if anyone has a better term for what I'm trying to go for when saying 'credible nations', I'd be glad to hear it.

 

[Toro]

What % of US GDP is spent on education?

I have no idea.

But the military is not the main driver of technological progress in America.

That the military sector is used as a counter-cyclical device is supported by both empirical evidence and specific case study. That the military sector has provided key spin-off technologies is also a matter of fact (and recognised by the slow Europeans as they attempt to bridge the gap between US and EU R&D expenditures). You could attempt to suggest that there is a level of confusion between the two. For example, a basic Keynesian model wouldn't sit comfortably with an endogeneous growth model (based on those spin-off effects)

I didn't say that there were no beneficial spin-offs to military technology spending. Nor did I say that military spending is not counter-cyclical. What I'm saying is that the total amount of spending on R&D procurement by the military is dwarfed by spending in the private sector. Ergo, it is not the military that drives neither the economy nor technological progress in the United States. Not even close.

 

[Anikdote]

But the military is not the main driver of technological progress in America.

ARPAnet seems a direct assault on that argument.

...of course the counter argument would be that the DoD created an unusable framework that was made usable by those who created http and www protocals.... I tend to believe as technology moves away from "objects" (vehicles, machines of various types) and becomes more cognitive (cloud technologies, webapps) -- we'll become less and less reliant on spin off's from military spending.

 

[Toro]

But the military is not the main driver of technological progress in America.

ARPAnet seems a direct assault on that argument.

There was economic growth before the Internet. There's also economic growth off the Internet.

Of course, it was private enterprise that commercialized the Internet.

 

[Anikdote]

Of course there was, for pre-digital era examples I could refer to the jeep and aeronautic developments, or radar/sonar technologies. It's difficult to deny the military's impact on our economy.

 

[Toro]

Of course there was, for pre-digital era examples I could refer to the jeep and aeronautic developments, or radar/sonar technologies. It's difficult to deny the military's impact on our economy.

Nobody is denying that. What is being denied is that it is the primary or even a major driver of the economy.

Take a look around you. Walk around your house and outside and view every thing. Every single thing you see that is man-made is a result of technology somewhere. Then ask yourself, how much of that is because of the military?

With the exception of war, the military has always been a minor player in the American economy. Silicon Valley has had many, many times more impact on the US than the American armed forces.

 

[Toro]

To further what I've been arguing, here are the patent statistics for the United States.

All Technologies (Utility Patents) Report

There have been 4.38 million patents granted by the US government. Of that, 3.58 million patents, 82%, have been granted to corporations. 67,000, 1.5%, have been granted to governments.

If you look down the site, you will see a list of the corporations which have been granted the most number of patents. Those companies listed account for about 2 million patents granted, or 55% of all the patents filed by corporation. Ranking top to bottom, there is the Navy, the Army, Boeing, NASA, Hughes Aircraft, Rockwell, the Air Force, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, McDonnell Douglas. Those are the major military companies on the list. They accounted for 53,918 patents, or 1.2% of the total patents issued by the government.

1% of the patents filed does not drive the US economy.