DISQUS

OK, Jesse

So you DO understand the difference (maybe?). It just didn't seem that way in your previous answer.

BTW, Denmark is a very capitalist country with a vibrant private sector. Let's not call it "socialist". A welfare state? Yes. But not socialist. There is a difference in most respects. And, if you search out info, you'll see Denmark has some kinks in the armor and have had to address some of the overgenerosity of their benefits.

Anyway,

Denmark's "free" institutions that you mention are not "free" at all. They pay heavily in income taxes...50% and higher. It's not "FREE".

As for what Will thinks about it, I don't know. You'll have to wait for him to answer.

This is a little speculative:

"As such, these policies all lower the distortions of imposing a minimum wage by lowering the number of people who would be on and outside of the margin created by the distortion."

Not so sure you're drawing accurate conclusions.

And I have read you're site. You strike me as a liberal...I used to be one. ;) Sorry, nothing to take offense to. If you aren't just say so. As for me, I'm libertarian for the most part. No secret. But I'm totally nonpartisan.

You are surprised because you don't understand the argument you are trying to oppose.

If you reread what Will has said and look more closely at many liberalization arguments in general, you will see something you probably never noticed before:

Direct subsidies of some kind to targeted demographics are not the same as interfering in the labor through price controls and other distorting policies that can backfire. Some free market thinkers oppose both...others leave room for some specific subsidies while still opposing minimum wage laws.

Debates about minimum wage are not about "wanting to help vs. NOT wanting to help the poor" as many liberals like to think. That's what Will meant by "signaling"...and empty misguided signaling at that.

Something I've noticed through the years is that most Modern American Liberals (social democrats) do not distinguish between different kinds of intervention. It's all the same to them because they don't think about market forces (or think they matter). Therefore, the difference between a negative income tax and a variety of income supplements...as proposed by Friedman and Hayek (for example)...and minimum wage laws are often not different to garden-variety liberals in terms of how they conceptualize what exactly these very different measures MEAN to labor markets.

Think about it.

BTW, Denmark has very flexible labor markets....something whose details you should look into.

Muirgeo,

You know what really bothers me every time I read your posts? The way you jump around from topic to topic like a kid with ADD and baselessly accuse people of things that you cannot prove....or can easily be disproven.

And you do this all the time.


You can't seem to stay on topic and discuss policy in a concentrated and thoughtful way while leaving personal innuendos far away from the discussion...where they belong.

And again, (and AGAIN), you accuse libertarians, bluntly or through implication, of holding positions that they DO NOT HOLD. There are so many articles written by libertarians that run contrary to what you say that I would be embarrassed, if I were you, to make such claims when a quick perusal of a few common sites shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

Boudreaux articles covering what you accuse him of not being concerned with or covering:

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/04/shug...
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/07/casi...
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/10/boudre... (podcast)

So, besides the nonsensical and false implication that you make, you then go on to minimize the importance of this debate on minimum wage...which really doesn't speak to the matter raised by Will. You don't think this is important? Just say so. You don't care? Just say so.

You want to change the subject and get on the Freddie/Fannie/Subprime mess? Just say so. But be honest and do realize that in doing so, you are preaching to the choir even though you'd like to believe you're not.

Then there's this whopper:

"Minimum wage is a flea on the elephants back but some how it's the big issue for libertarians worried about poverty rates. But of course they don't want to discuss the "deregulatory" fiascos because that doesn't support their world view.

It is AN issue. AND it's the issue of this thread....not all threads. Here's where your duplicitous and dishonest streak comes through.

You see libertarians, like the good and thoughtful Will Wilkinson, talking about poverty and the poor ALL THE TIME. Yet, you have the gall to accuse him and others of not caring. That's a poor argument and a dishonest one. If you don't like the WAY people like Will approach helping the poor, then just say so and be honest about it. And while you're at, give constructive criticism and be precise about it and give it some thought and stay on topic. Jumping from issue to issue and treating them as one for some broad brushed and thoughtless meta-critique reflects poorly on you. That's a content-based approach that doesn't take the infantile, cheap and sleazy approach of attacking people's motivations and character.

Complaining about the economy in general doesn't do much. Neither does conveniently pinning on whatever you're aimlessly babbling about...like here:

"those deregulatory handouts and transfers of wealth NOT minimum wage are what's hurting the worker, his wages and the American economy in general."

That makes no sense as a general statement. You make cause-effect assertions with nothing to back it up. As it stands, that statement could be interpreted to mean several different things. And it not clear at all.

If you look, you can find it too.

Ah, yes. That's the key. :)

where? take you're blinders off.

If we are gonna talk about honesty, democratic transparency and transfer programs I suggest we include fed/treasury policy... that being to privatize profit and socialize losses to the benefit of those on top.

We do. We're the only ones in fact. But nobody listens. Mainstream policy, Left and Right, simply doesn't go there. They simply make excuses for the fundamental flaws in Fed Reserve policy and blame its mistakes on each other.

Muirgeo,

How do you continually see the real logic of people like WIll, Boudreaux, Russ Roberts (and me and others on this site) right in front of your face and then continually let it pass right over your head?

It's almost comical.

Consider WW in this very posting:

Why not suppose instead that when taxes on the wealthy rise, the wealthy become more interested in controlling the government?

None of this not to say that various individuals and corporate interests do not try their damndest to use the government to enrich themselves; they most certainly do.

...rent-seeking is a largely a zero-sum game that puts some rich people at odds with other rich people (and the rest of us). The billionaires...are trying to put other billionaires out of business. Etc....

The straightforward implication is that the more power the government has to pick winners and losers, the more power rich people will have relative to poor people. The incentive to capture is a function of the value of the thing captured, not of the the means to do it.

That last bold quote is the bottom line of the causal paradigm...yet you never address it. WHY? (if you respond to this, please answer that question at the very least.)

The way you say things, this construct seems to totally escape you.

Look at what you present...the Great Depression, bailouts, Wall St.

None of these things are really the same thing as what Will is talking about.

Moreover, as far as those things are concerned, sometimes it's really just a matter of the government provoking bad results from bad policy:

Cheap credit is double edged sword. And bad Fed policy is not always crafted with the rich in mind. Sometimes, it's just bad and when it is, it can create problems that would never get baseless calls for some kind of generic legislation if the bad policy to didn't provoke dangerous behavior in the first place.

Will,

Why are you moving back to Iowa? Are you leaving Cato or something?

awesome post. I agree 100% with every word.

What I find most telling in the way you discuss this latest episode in dimly stupid partisan warfare is the continued feature of detachment that allows libertarians to view the two mainstream monoliths honestly and without the silly attacks by one side on stereotypes and preconceived motivations of the other.

Partisan politics is like love: it makes otherwise bright people into total idiots.

BTW,

You seem to be confusing Jefferson's real positions on limited government and individual liberty with your desire for social democratic populist mob rule.

Muirgeo,

Jefferson is the clear and obvious libertarian in that debate. Libertarians were passing that video clip around in glee as they finally watched the real paradigm that libertarians see given a platform.

Moreover, Adams is stunned to see Jefferson supporting (am I am paraphrasing):

A system of government that creates a space in which no power exists at all. Jefferson smiles, Adams looks at him like he can't be serious.

I blogged it here. With Video in the comments.

It's sad but I think the Adams (and more extreme Hamilton) won that debate in implementation. Jefferson's side is merely referred for cheap support from America's lingering sense of the good in people being protected from the powerful.

In the end, Jefferson never really got what he wanted from the Constitution and felt it gave too much room for the government to assume power over things it was never intended to have.

The irony is to watch this failure get turned back against and blamed by political elements like you onto those people who best represent Jefferson's position....the libertarian-minded.

The paradigm from the founders that seems to dominate now is something murkily between Adams and Hamilton....while the libertarian paradigm is still more like the original Democratic-Republicans vs. The Federalists.

Moreover, Jay J,

Take Brad DeLong. He seems somewhat knowledgeable about Hayek and gives him his due. But even he when feeling the need to break the chains of Hayek's points never seems to really disprove him. He seems to wander and poke strange critques that give the impression of making a point to a charitable audience but he never really, truly does. It's weak.

Jay J,

I have often seen that discussing Hayek with people are inclined to find him "inconvenient" doesn't yield much. Even when the poster is mature, patient and good natured (as I try to be), in the end, the ultimate response always seems to be something along the lines of:

"Well, OK, Hayek's right...but so what? It's so basic. We can't just limit ourselves there. There's got to be more."

Well, I say that if Hayek is right on a most fundamental level, then and you admit it then you need to re-assess your biases and let go...like I did. Hayek was one of the people that turned me from a wishy-washy sorta-market-friendly liberal into a true classical liberal.

But getting back to discussing the merits of Hayek's views, I simply don't see how trying to work around Hayek...as many do...while acknowledging that is right yields any good.

The thing about the USSR is hard to do in blog posts and you really need a mastery of Hayek to explain it properly. I won't try. Perhaps Will could. I can say one thing though, short-run pushes of growth don't mean anything. Keep in mind that post-war economies of any kind all had a "boom" of sorts. This falls right in line with what I have read about how these economies shifted back to normal economies and rode a wave of reconstruction and pent-up demand. Part of it was a mirage, part of was circumstances. But long, sustainable economies don't work this way. It takes time for the Fatal Conceit in any degree to rear its head.

Also, maybe some of my Austrian-leaning readers can help out the BHTV commenters in their discussion of economic planning.

Come on, man. YOU do it. ;)

Frankly, Will, I think we should be past this. Hayek was never refuted on these matters....just ignored. Why that doesn't matter is beyond me.

Yes.

It simply doesn't get it. It's amazing how many times it has been presented this hard nugget...both here and elsewhere and is still totally incapable of making any type of argument....good or bad...in response.

Your explanation still doesn't address the point I made. You and countless others have a habit of going after things you don't like with vague appeals to government action....regardless of whether government action can fix it to your liking or how exactly it could even go about doing it.

Mentioning lobbyists and government "failure" as a reason for CEO pay is simply a vague appeal to something you neither seem understand or are able to describe.

You are fixated on lobbyists and favored legislation....yet you never ever wonder if the very system of a large influence government is the problem as it places itself as a priced possession between interest groups fighting back and forth in a tug of war for favoritism. You simply ignore this dynamic.

It doesn't get this part. Muirgeo will gladly give government more power while believing the increase snooping around DC (like hungry bears on a food laden back porch) is a separate. It will never understand the irrationality in what it says.

Yes. Nice. I'm not a "supply-sider". I don't like the term. I'm simply a classical liberal who acknowledges that we all do better individually as well as a group (insofar as "a group" even matters) when we operate, work and live under less tax burden. The $80K household, from OK and MI to NYC and DC does better when it keeps more than $50-55K of its income....as does the $130-150K household...who are not "rich" by any means when they live in an expensive metro area. I'm sure Will can vouch for that. Corporations and small businesses also do better with lower tax rates.

After all, it's about individuals minding their own business and providing for the welfare and happiness of their families.

The huge burdens placed on our government budgets are self-inflicted by those people...just as many of the high costs we have to endure are rooted in the same source.

Arsonists make poor fire fighters.

Insofar as extravagant CEO is a "problem", it's not a public policy problem and it's definitely not a problem for those who are not involved....meaning pretty much everyone. It's a problem for the boardroom, not the public forum.

I really don't see how people can have the hubris to claim that THIS is an issue for government to deal with...let alone deal with in any constructive way that will not have adverse consequences on business practices with new incentive or behavioral problems.

Perhaps the government should put out its own fires that already burning before trying to start new ones.

will et al

remember what I said about Muirgeo in a previous post:

"Muirgeo talks out of both sides of its mouth. It likes to criticize libertarians for supporting things that they do in fact oppose and opposing things that they do in fact support. It also likes to conflate corporatism and free markets when criticizing free markets and separating them when trying to offer a hollow and hypocritical word of support for free markets.

In short, it is a duplicitous character that is not to be taken seriously."

Seriously, don't waste your time with it. It enjoys using libertarian-sounding critiques to attack libertarians for things they do not support and they libertarians, themselves, criticize while wanting more of what causes the things it criticizes. It has no lack of imagination. Sadly, it uses this imagination to tie logic into knots and then blame you for the false reality its twisted logic created.

Ask Caldwell how Hayek truly fits into economics today. Ask him what economists think of him who are driven by goals that conflict with Hayek's major life's work on information, knowledge, markets and the fatal conceit.

And if they think he's not as relevant, what empowers them to clearly think so.

And when I need to say who I'm like, I often say:

Kinda like that Will Wilkinson from Cato and Fly Bottle and Blogging Heads with splash of Bryan Caplan and Megan McArdle.

hehehe

;)

Good post.

Thanks, Will.

You provoked a rant by me. ;)

see here.

looks like it was a fun afternoon.

I wish I had a crowd like that to spend a saturday afternoon with from time to time. I'm usually stuck in that unfriendly crowd you describe.

My last two paragraphs above lead to an interesting question:

If the 2008 election were between Hamilton and Jefferson, who would you vote for?

I think there, the answer should be obvious for most people here. Does anyone believe that the absence of slavery would bother Jefferson or be part of his campaign platform? LOL. Of course not. But I think the issues he would be campaigning on would make us all smile.

Anyone disagree?