Comments on: Freedom http://stephenmonrad.com/blog/economicsidea/freedom/ The blog is about alternative economics and the book I am writing about my economic ideas. Mon, 12 Apr 2010 04:35:30 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Stephen Monrad http://stephenmonrad.com/blog/economicsidea/freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-734 Stephen Monrad Mon, 25 May 2009 14:20:57 +0000 http://stephenmonrad.com/blog/?p=313#comment-734 ClydeB You are right that I believe that government needs to play a bigger role in the economy. I don't, however, want politicians and bureaucrats making decisions about how work is done or how resources are allocated. The economy needs to be driven by the needs of individuals, and decision making needs to be decentralized. Politicians and bureaucrats need to provide a framework that makes the economy as a whole function better. What do I mean by function better? I believe that people are actually not well suited for taking large risks individually. The costs of losing big are simply too high. Having people live in poverty is bad for both the people in poverty and society as a whole. I also believe that luck is a big determinant of success. Hard work helps, but isn't enough on its own. You can work hard and still end up losing big. I'd like to see a system that rewards individuals for effort instead of results. It's tricky to do this and maintain productivity. However, I think it can be done. The reason I believe the government needs to intervene is because of the complexity of modern market systems. I don't believe the invisible hand that is supposed to sort everything out is strong enough to get the job done. More structure and guidance is needed in some form to produce good outcomes for unlucky people. ClydeB

You are right that I believe that government needs to play a bigger role in the economy. I don’t, however, want politicians and bureaucrats making decisions about how work is done or how resources are allocated. The economy needs to be driven by the needs of individuals, and decision making needs to be decentralized. Politicians and bureaucrats need to provide a framework that makes the economy as a whole function better.

What do I mean by function better? I believe that people are actually not well suited for taking large risks individually. The costs of losing big are simply too high. Having people live in poverty is bad for both the people in poverty and society as a whole.

I also believe that luck is a big determinant of success. Hard work helps, but isn’t enough on its own. You can work hard and still end up losing big. I’d like to see a system that rewards individuals for effort instead of results. It’s tricky to do this and maintain productivity. However, I think it can be done.

The reason I believe the government needs to intervene is because of the complexity of modern market systems. I don’t believe the invisible hand that is supposed to sort everything out is strong enough to get the job done. More structure and guidance is needed in some form to produce good outcomes for unlucky people.

]]> By: ClydeB http://stephenmonrad.com/blog/economicsidea/freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-729 ClydeB Sun, 24 May 2009 16:22:15 +0000 http://stephenmonrad.com/blog/?p=313#comment-729 Stephen, I take your question as being rhetoric, but I'll offer my two cents worth. Our inspired founding fathers said it best. I never read the documents they produced establishing our country without getting a new insight. FREEDOM. They were almost obsessed with assuring our freedon from excessive government. No other document I've read puts things in the precise terminology that they used. Limiting the power of government over the individual was paramount, leaving us free to speak, worship, gather together, move about, close our door and know that the government must stay on the otherside, for instance. They gave us the freedom to fail as well. The rule of law and the establishment of property rights encourages us to take risks that lead to either greater than normal success or the possibility of failure. When rules limiting risk are put in place, more of our freedom is compromised. It seems to be a thread in your posts to suggest or even propose a desire to have central authority over resources with the intent of equitable distribution. Am I wrong? Stephen,
I take your question as being rhetoric, but I’ll offer my two cents worth. Our inspired founding fathers said it best. I never read the documents they produced establishing our country without getting a new insight. FREEDOM. They were almost obsessed with assuring our freedon from excessive government. No other document I’ve read puts things in the precise terminology that they used. Limiting the power of government over the individual was paramount, leaving us free to speak, worship, gather together, move about, close our door and know that the government must stay on the otherside, for instance.
They gave us the freedom to fail as well. The rule of law and the establishment of property rights encourages us to take risks that lead to either greater than normal success or the possibility of failure.
When rules limiting risk are put in place, more of our freedom is compromised.
It seems to be a thread in your posts to suggest or even propose a desire to have central authority over resources with the intent of equitable distribution. Am I wrong?

]]> By: Stephen Monrad http://stephenmonrad.com/blog/economicsidea/freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-700 Stephen Monrad Thu, 21 May 2009 19:03:03 +0000 http://stephenmonrad.com/blog/?p=313#comment-700 Adam You make a fair point. I'll add links in the future. Adam

You make a fair point. I’ll add links in the future.

]]> By: Adam http://stephenmonrad.com/blog/economicsidea/freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-674 Adam Thu, 21 May 2009 14:30:23 +0000 http://stephenmonrad.com/blog/?p=313#comment-674 May I make a small methodological suggestion? When talking about people who believe certain things, or fit into a certain category, it's good practice to point to some examples. We all face the temptation to oversimplify so that it is easier to make the point we want to make; constraining ourselves to those things we can find at least some concrete examples of helps us resist this temptation. And in this day and age, it's so easy to find any number of examples of people making a particular category of argument in blogs, forums, or more formal sites with articles and essays. I know this isn't an answer to your question, just a nitpick :) May I make a small methodological suggestion?

When talking about people who believe certain things, or fit into a certain category, it’s good practice to point to some examples. We all face the temptation to oversimplify so that it is easier to make the point we want to make; constraining ourselves to those things we can find at least some concrete examples of helps us resist this temptation.

And in this day and age, it’s so easy to find any number of examples of people making a particular category of argument in blogs, forums, or more formal sites with articles and essays.

I know this isn’t an answer to your question, just a nitpick :)

]]>