A few things ...

vimothy

yurp
What you are ignoring here (and I'm surprised given your interest in economics) is the fact that, while anyone can technically/legally run for office in the U.S., only a privileged elite can afford to do so, and within that elite, there is a subset of the even-more-elite who both have the wealth necessary to fund a political career AND the sort of social clout, historical political ties, and association with certain key institutions (ivy league schools, socialite circles and clubs, etc.) that are necessary to make running for any sort of office on the state or national level worth the money you'd spend doing it. Of course, this same superelite tends to be one-in-the-same thing as the "ruling class" elite that owns all of our major industries. These are the people the stock market sets its financial watch to.

There is no "ceteris paribus" when you talk about the people who run for office in the U.S. For every Rudy Giuliani, you have 15 Bloombergs. The "selectorate" isn't really "selecting" their candidates, they're just choosing among the superelites who bothered running that term.

Tell it to Bueno de Mesquita -- my point was simply that there are less people ("idiots") in a government than in "the market", i.e. there is more chance that the market will be able to arrive at better solutions more readily because although both are populated with idiots, there's more of them in the market. If you want to get the Complete Works, then you need a lot of monkeys, surely. Ok?
 

vimothy

yurp
Two questions from an economics n00b:

1) in what way are we measuring/defining 'efficiency', in the sense it's used here?

Mr Tea, have a look at this:

Entry on Efficiency, from the CEE:

To economists, efficiency is a relationship between ends and means. When we call a situation inefficient, we are claiming that we could achieve the desired ends with less means, or that the means employed could produce more of the ends desired. Less and more in this context necessarily refer to less and more value. Thus, economic efficiency is measured not by the relationship between the physical quantities of ends and means, but by the relationship between the value of the ends and the value of the means.

2) what's an 'anti-market' when it's at home?

Bid'ah, or at least, I've never heard it used before. (Unless it's something to do with Braudel? Braudel wasn't an economist and anti-markets is not a term that I've ever come across in the literature).
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Tell it to Bueno de Mesquita -- my point was simply that there are less people ("idiots") in a government than in "the market", i.e. there is more chance that the market will be able to arrive at better solutions more readily because although both are populated with idiots, there's more of them in the market. If you want to get the Complete Works, then you need a lot of monkeys, surely. Ok?

That may have been your point, but it's not exactly what you said.

And no, I don't think there are fewer idiots in government than there are in the market (per volume). Quite the opposite. I think some of the stupidest people I've ever met are members of the superelite from which our candidates spring fully formed.

I don't think the math here makes any sense--because there are fewer people in government that means there must be fewer idiots in gov than in the general population. In terms of literal number, yes, but giving a few idiots that much power ends up having far more of an effect on the population at large than the powerless idiots are able to have.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Good word but should be ideologgorrhea no? If you're gonna nick it might as well get it right.

If I may stick my oar in here, I'd say it should be ideologorrhoea - one G, and an OEA at the end.

[/pedantry mode]

Edit: d'oh, you beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
N

nomadologist

Guest
It's logorrhea in US spelling, just like "diarrhea"...we also say "fetus" not "foetus"
 

vimothy

yurp
That may have been your point, but it's not exactly what you said.

Please -- that's exactly what I said:
Given that you've started with a population of idiots and further narrowed this population to a very small fraction, given that you don't have faith in people's ability to identify and solve their own problems full-stop, why do you think that a committee of people with self-interests and winning coalition members' interests to satisfy, who are based many miles away and in a completely different environment and context, would be best able to make decisions on your behalf?​
And,
Whoever they [i.e. the government] are drawn from, they are going to have to serve the interests of the people who put them in power (i.e. the "winning coalition"). But whether you take that to be a fairly contructed percentage of the total population, or an exclusive elite, or even a combination of the two, it's clear that if you think that most people are idiots in any case then it doesn't matter.

What matters is that there's less idiots in the government, so it's going to take them a lot longer to write Shakespeare.​
And no, I don't think there are fewer idiots in government than there are in the market (per volume). Quite the opposite. I think some of the stupidest people I've ever met are members of the superelite from which our candidates spring fully formed.

Right and that's fucking marvelous, I'm very happy for you and your thoughts. I hope you have a wonderful life together. However, I was actually talking to Gavin. Not only that, but you're agreeing with me! Yes, imagine that. If there's more idiots in the government than the general population by percentage, then it makes more sense to devolve problem solving to the less stupid set, i.e. not the government, which is precisely what I was arguing for.

I don't think the math here makes any sense--because there are fewer people in government that means there must be fewer idiots in gov than in the general population. In terms of literal number, yes, but giving a few idiots that much power ends up having far more of an effect on the population at large than the powerless idiots are able to have.

I weep for the future

:mad:
 
Last edited:
N

nomadologist

Guest
Yes, we agree, there are idiots in office. The problem, however, is not that there aren't smart people who could take up political office, the problem is that these intelligent people are barred from access to political office by a system that favors idiots.

It is perfectly feasible to imagine a system of government where people who aren't multi-millionaires with hundreds of years of political connections could run for office. In this sort of system, I would have no problem trusting the government to make certain key decisions.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Yes, we agree, there are idiots in office. The problem, however, is not that there aren't smart people who could take up political office, the problem is that these intelligent people are barred from access to political office by a system that favors idiots.

It is perfectly feasible to imagine a system of government where people who aren't multi-millionaires with hundreds of years of political connections could run for office. In this sort of system, I would have no problem trusting the government to make certain key decisions.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
I also believe that the average person isn't an idiot, and given the opportunity to vote for someone whose policy decisions were intelligent and not already-bought by special interest groups they would do so.
 

turtles

in the sea
i'd be interested in vimothy's take on sovereign wealth funds, and the stake that such funds have recently acquired in distressed wall street banks (the heights of capitalism)

could it be that western-style capitalism is being hi-jacked (eclipsed) by the return of the State, in particular the Chinese State?
My first impression on reading about this was actually more along the lines of the State becoming more and more like just another corporation on the global market. Sovereign wealth funds as really just a further step down the complete hegemony of global corporate capitalism, rather than move in a different direction. Now governments are only another large corporation among many.

But that's only my rather uninformed first take on it. Worth starting a thread on, i think.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I also believe that the average person isn't an idiot, and given the opportunity to vote for someone whose policy decisions were intelligent and not already-bought by special interest groups they would do so.

Idiot or not, I think it's probably fair to say that the average person is probably spectacularly misinformed about a lot of things - surely you'd agree on this? It's certainly the case over here and I can't see it being much better in the US.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
Idiot or not, I think it's probably fair to say that the average person is probably spectacularly misinformed about a lot of things - surely you'd agree on this? It's certainly the case over here and I can't see it being much better in the US.

worse if anything.
 

dominic

Beast of Burden
My first impression on reading about this was actually more along the lines of the State becoming more and more like just another corporation on the global market. Sovereign wealth funds as really just a further step down the complete hegemony of global corporate capitalism, rather than move in a different direction. Now governments are only another large corporation among many.

But that's only my rather uninformed first take on it. Worth starting a thread on, i think.

we are now in a situation where the greatest accumulations of capital are occurring at the periphery of the system, whether in the commodity-exporting gulf states or goods-exporting China. China is not a "free market" in anything like the Western sense. The State intervenes to keep the Renminbi artificially low against the dollar, and therefore keep its manufactured goods hyper-competitive. The result is that China has been racking up gargantuan dollar reserves, as its workers toil as little more than slaves (certainly they are paid less than what a "free market" would allot them).

The Chinese state, however, thinks over the long term, unlike American elites. The Chinese central bank has in the course of this decade accumulated over a trillion dollars in reserves, which CIC will now be able to use to buy up American banks and corporations, to the extent that American political leaders fail to place restrictions on what the Chinese can and cannot buy in this country.

Of the major presidential candidates, John Edwards is only the one who pays lip-service to the notion of trade reform (and he's a smarmy snake-oil salesman). The rest are obviously in the pockets of the big corporations (though I will take Obama's empty hope over Clinton's Rubinonomics if I really must), which, oriented to the short-term (the fiscal year, if not the fiscal quarter), would rather make use of cheap Chinese labor or cheap component parts made in China, because it's more "efficient" and "profitable" than American-made parts . . . .

I could go on forever . . . .

The point is that America, the most "neo liberal" of all the advanced capitalist societies, is hell-bent on self-destruction. Hopelessly corrupt and without any inkling of the common good . . . . Per Hegel, what this country needs is an Enlightened State
 
Last edited:

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
You know how dumb the average guy in the street is? Well by definition half the buggers are dumber than that!

I think Bob Wilson said that.
 

Mr BoShambles

jambiguous
The point is that America, the most "neo liberal" of all the advanced capitalist societies, is hell-bent on self-destruction. Hopelessly corrupt and without any inkling of the common good . . . . Per Hegel, what this country needs is an Enlightened State

Interesting stuff Dominic. But i wonder what definition of the 'common good' you are employing? That of Americans; or that of everyone in the world? And indeed does/can such a thing as the 'common good' actually exist (either domestically or in the international sphere)? Public choice theorists would certainly argue not.
 
Top