I’m not, but I frequently get called one. Since I’m opposed to socialism, that must mean I’m a capitalistk, right? Does being opposed to monarchy make you a democrat? Not necessarily — you could be many other things. The socialism/capitalism divide is a false dichotomy; there are many other choices. Hardly anyone gets called a “democrat” these days; that debate was settled a long time ago, and democracy won as the “best” form of government. People generally assume that you are a democrat because you’d almost have to be a raving lunatic not to support democracy. Why hasn’t capitalism won and the term fallen by the wayside like “democrat”?
Archive for the 'Economics' Category
What do environmentalists1 want? They want better, cheaper, cleaner energy (all good things). For a long time, I’ve held a grudge against environmentalists because while they want these things, they are also opposed to the one known way to get it – nuclear power. Now, maybe they have a principled stance here: it’s true that nuclear power can be dangerous, but more people die in coal mining accidents than from nuclear power plant accidents. Nuclear power could also leave a mess in some cases (a la Chernobyl), but it’s less dangerous than the amount of carbon dioxide we’re putting out, and less risky if properly engineered (as long as plants are designed fail-safe, we’re okay — see Three Mile Island). So, I’ve always been suspicious that what the environmentalists really want is to throttle technology and exert some kind of control over other people.
In what is very convenient timing, MarkCC has an introductory post about game theory here, and it looks like part of a series he’s starting. Very good. I’m going to be reading a couple books on game theory and politics very soon (they are sitting on my nightstand), but I wanted to order my thoughts before being educated. What I’m interested in is how to establish both economic and political systems that encourage and reward people for acting in a globally optimal way instead of locally optimal. At the same time, I value personal liberty above almost all else. Are both of these goals possible or forever contradictory? This is a common theme for me: balancing personal freedoms against enabling long-term thinking. For this post, I’ll talk about the simplest game I know of, and then apply two other games to politics and society. Continue reading ‘Game Theory, Politics and Society’
Jason Kuznicki has a yet another very good post up at positiveliberty.com. This time, it’s about how societies determine value. In general, I agree with the post, but I wanted to quibble about one thing (and I made a comment to this effect):
I’m skeptical of a carbon tax in particular because even if we could determine the properly discounted value of the amount of social harm that global warming will do to the largely unknowable preferences of our descendants, it hardly follows that paying money to our current government will make things any better. We might be able to inhibit the market preference for carbon-based fuels, sure. But does the government really deserve to be the beneficiary here? By my way of thinking, a larger government is likely to be a drain on our descendants, and not a help at all.
I confess — I’m bad at large-scale economics. I’ll never understand international monetary policy; I have a hard enough time at the national level. That being said, there are at least two things that annoy me.
Of recent annoyance is the subprime crisis; MarkCC has an excellent explanation from a while back. Essentially, both lenders and borrowers made bad decisions about who can afford what and the risks involved, and now much of the bank industry is teetering on collapse. Should the government help out? NPR has an analysis (also somewhat old). I agree with the sentiment there that this would be a ’subsidy for risky behavior’. The government should stay out of this — the people and institutions involved in this should face the consequences of their short-sightedness; taxpayers should not be left holding the bag on their irresponsibility. Happily, the current resolution seems like a private solution will be implemented. We’ll see.
The second thing is, of course, the “recession”. Economics on a national scale is really about confidence — and I want to know how much effect does the media have by harping about the recession have on that confidence? Is there any way to quantify this effect? I’m not a media-conspiracy theorist; in general, I think the media tries to be objective and impartial. But in many ways they cannot help but be biased towards making a fuss. As an example, look at how unemployment is reported. There are two distinct metrics for the labor force – “unemployment rate” and “jobs gained/lost”. Frequently these two run counter to each other. Here’s an alarmist CNN article titled “Job losses worst in 5 years”. Buried in there is the admission that unemployment is down. Of course, that metric is possibly deeply flawed; but you can bet that if it were reversed, they’d be reporting it the other way.
Ahh, well.