Capitalism, Government and the Good Society

Рет қаралды 38,153

11 жыл бұрын

A Liberty Fund event at Butler University on April 10, 2013.
Russ Roberts - Host/Moderator, Hoover Institution Fellow
Guest Participants:
Michael Munger - Professor of Political Science, Duke University
Robert Skidelsky - Emeritus Professor of Political Economy, Warwick University
Richard Epstein - Professor of Law, New York University
Produced by Emergent Order
emergentorder.com/

Пікірлер: 94

@ManuelBTC21 8 жыл бұрын

Behold the unicorn. Pure Gold by Mike Munger 1:05:36

@michaelfresco2769 5 жыл бұрын

I love Unicorns

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

1:09:32 But didn't you hear Munger? "I concede NOTHING!!!" . in all sincerity, this panel was great. i love Munger: his sense of humour, his brevity and lucidity, and his humility are so refreshing. Russ is such a great fulcrum that always tries to see both sides. and Lord Skildelsky :-) is brilliant. i'm currently reading his [and his son's] book "How much is enough", and it is quite inspiring to me personally on how to reign in materialism and aim for the things in life that really matter.

@PrinceRules64 10 жыл бұрын

I see, makes sense now! Thanks a lot. You did an excellent job mediating, by the way. Some very interesting points raised.

@Malthus0 11 жыл бұрын

Mike Munger comes on 7:34, Skidelsky at 21:53, Richard Epstein at 37:41 The panel discussion is at 52:24

@St4lis 11 жыл бұрын

"You are all a bunch of socialists" - Ludvig von Mises

@ec0n1n0thuman 11 жыл бұрын

Mungers comment at 1:33:00 is BRILLIANT!

@Thunder9987999 11 жыл бұрын

Robert Skidelsky! One of my favorite Keynesians.

@RussRoberts1759 10 жыл бұрын

He says "Greenspan's famous cri du couer in Congressional testimony..." A cri du couer is a passionate plea or expression.

@SpencerOller 11 жыл бұрын

I love Skidelsky's socks

@PrinceRules64 10 жыл бұрын

Very helpful, thank you for that, however there is one specific part that still confounds me, and apparently the transcript writer too, perhaps you can help us? At 1:22:08 Mr Michael Munger begins with a line which the audience seems to understand... if I've understood correctly he's referring to the words of the American Economist Mr Alan Greenspan, however he uses a phrase (sounds like a loanword) which I do not recognise...

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

[2] I definitely see the validity of your last sentence. But I also see the usefulness of being able to steer markets. It's why I'm personally ambivalent on these issues currently. . I'm curious if you meant that downturns are not inevitable? Aren't business cycles -- or "fluctuations" if you prefer -- inherent to any economy? Are you suggesting that resources could ever be perfectly allocated [so as not to create a slowdown of growth]? Or else how are we defining "downturn"?

@XMarcioGomes 11 жыл бұрын

Is it possible to subtitle this video? I'm brazilian and it's hard to understand all these ideas only from listening. Some terms are technical and complex.

@JohnAnonymous 11 жыл бұрын

"When you half the amount of stuff, you also half the number of jobs." What you fail to recognize IMO, is that work is not an end in itself, it's *stuff* we need. So if we need/want less stuff, we can also work less. Sure, if certain people simply loose a job and can't get to work anymore, then that's a bad thing, but if we all would work e.g. 50% from what we do now and still be able to buy the stuff we want, that would be a good thing.

@LeviDanielBarnes 10 жыл бұрын

"The microeconomy left to itself is not stable." 1:42:40. If Skidelsky can teach that to the libertarians, the whole conversation will have been worthwhile.

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

interesting thing about your second point: Epstein talked about how there are certain things that you basically need a "benevolent" monopoly for -- channels of communication being a great example. the question then becomes the difficult one of: how do we keep these monopolies from exploiting their power? right?

@enjolraslechimiste 11 жыл бұрын

This is an arguable point. When someone says "We've never tried policy X, so how can we say it doesn't work?", it's not meaningful. We have tried policy X to some degree, always; no implementation of a policy will ever be 100%. If a philosophy requires 100% implementation or it will not work at all, the philosophy is flawed.

@RussRoberts1759 10 жыл бұрын

If you go to EconTalk dot org and scroll down (or search the archive) you will find "highlights" which are essentially a transcript.

@tripzero0 11 жыл бұрын

That's factually untrue. We have had no less frequent downturns since we left the classical gold standards and the length of the downturns has actually increased slightly. Christina Romer has done work on this. It's worth checking out.

@CapitalismPrevails 11 жыл бұрын

Agreed

@Octavius1922 11 жыл бұрын

I'm in the front row! :-D

@4HITMAN7 11 жыл бұрын

We have tried policy X to some degree, the free market and it worked, we also tried government control it failed.

@KhEntertain 10 жыл бұрын

EconStories English subtitle may help a lot to reach non-native English speaker.

@LarryReynolds591 8 жыл бұрын

Here's the transcript: www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/09/capitalism_gove.html

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

That is certainly a fundamental question. As long as humans have incomplete knowledge, aren't "clusters of errors" inevitable? Isn't that precisely what anarchists want? How would you describe their goals/theories? I hear what you're saying, as I definitely lean towards limited government, but I also believe in collectively providing for "the basics". Like I said, I'm pretty ambivalent currently -- I need to study it further for sure. . P.S. did you see my other questions/comments? [2 & 3]

@niclab47 10 жыл бұрын

Is there a correlation between Duke University and A coal spill on the Dan River in North Carolina executed by Duke Energy and enabled by Patrick Lloyd McCrory!

@e7venjedi 10 жыл бұрын

Really? How do you think they are going to overcome the security issues? How do you keep the hackers from messing everything up?

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

Well governments and other organizations provide for some of the basics, but I agree with you. Permit me a few questions to clarify what you said. - you mention countries "getting in the way"... of what? of a global collective? - what did you mean by "sub-collectives that pull resources"? - do you have any favorite resources for learning about what you're talking about? I'd like to dive into these ideas. I've been thinking a lot about ways we can organize to take care of ourselves.

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

I think the counter-point is that on a gold standard, you have more severe "downturns". The business cycle goes through bigger highs and lows more often [then the real debate begins: on whether that is better for society as a whole]. Skidelsky sets out as his first [of 3] "purpose" of government, that it should try and stabilize the cycle somewhat.

@dachickenman Жыл бұрын

What's the empirical evidence that, on a gold standard, you have more severe downturns?

@tripzero0 11 жыл бұрын

Yes, gold is a constraint. But to me, the more interesting question is why the cluster of errors that lead to the cycle, not the question of whether or not the state can cake over the cycle, prolong it or whatever else they think they can do. No one, not even anarchists are advocating that markets do whatever they want. To me, if there is a role for the state, it is to protect property. Not to encourage housing or manipulate the price or supply of money when they want.

@JohnAnonymous 11 жыл бұрын

Ok, I think that's fair criticism. I might have been to blunt here. I agree that you have to place it in context, but is that what governments do? Seems to me they simply try to 'boost aggregate demand' (with money they either borrow, print of take out of the economy in the first place). What's the point in that? I think a decent safety-net for the poor is fine (which will boost their demand), but beyond that I don't see a need for any more boosting.

@Stonegoal 10 жыл бұрын

The first guy was thinking of government as a sheriff.

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

[1] Must be nice to know all the facts. We mortals can only hope to reach your heights of omnipotence someday. . Note that you talked about frequency and length, but not severity, or how "harsh" the troughs are, which was my point. Indeed, the panel even argued that making downturns more gradual [and thus longer as well] is precisely how you can stabilize the "natural" business cycles so that citizens aren't set back or wiped out by shocks. -->

@tripzero0 11 жыл бұрын

But maybe we should ask the long term unemployed if they would rather prefer a sharp but short downturn and then go back to work rather than stagnating as unemployed for 5 years. Now wouldn't that be an interesting poll?

@rsobies 11 жыл бұрын

Walter Block is missing in this discussion

@ookaspear 11 жыл бұрын

Im not necessarily defending the quote, but I think you might not understand supply and demand. First of all, demand also includes ability to purchase, not just the desire or need. So it comes down to the context. Is demand just the desires of the population, or the ability for the population to fulfill there desires (and needs). If we look at the latter, than "maintaining demand" is essentially the same thing as "having the correct supply".

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

Right. But they were discussing when the appropriate situations are for that intervention. Not whether or not there should be any. Besides that though, I still don't get what your issue was in your original comment.

@St4lis 11 жыл бұрын

"a lot of them [economists] work for private organizations and aren't as disinterested as they claim" - Robert Skidelsky But if they worked for a government organization they would be benevolent angels?

@tripzero0 11 жыл бұрын

Severity is a well taken point. But I see no correlation with a gold standard as a cause nor do I see downturns as "natural". Maybe you agree on the later point and that's why you put "natural" in quotes. In fact, the notion of "natural" downturns I find rather extreme. Markets are not as robust as some schools would have you believe. And they are not as fragile as the Keynesians would believe. They can only be as robust as price signals are to determine proper allocation of resources.

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

51:48 "if you're trying to find why it is that *THE STATE HAS FAILED* in both Europe and the U.S...." you may want to revisit Russ' summary at 5:20 as well; it seems to be talking about your issue. or perhaps Munger at 1:23:04 ? if not, what specifically did you and the other 24 people [at least] think that they missed/should've talked about?

@jacobdorsey 10 жыл бұрын

On their website econtalk.org econtalk.org/archives/2013/09/capitalism_gove Here is a transcript of the entire video

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

[1] By natural I meant to imply the cycles if they are completely free. If we were just letting the [free] market do whatever it wanted -- like letting a forest grow unregulated. . As for the gold standard, I think the argument is that it more or less takes away some tools of the gov't [eg. inflation?] to shape the cycles -- which for better or worse, makes the economy more stable.

@JasonSmith-eo2hu 11 жыл бұрын

dafuq? econ stories has another video?

@nickecage686 11 жыл бұрын

Why no one brings up the depression of 1920, I will never know... Great debate

@graysonhill 11 жыл бұрын

I would disagree with the idea that burdens like regulation cannot be part of the reason for the collapse. If you build up a structure that is just strong enough to maintain its weight up to a certain point, but you have built it poorly and with shoddy materials, making a mistake at the top of the structure will not just flatten the top floors. It will collapse the entire structure. Skidelsky seems to think that because policies + failures are not linear and concurrent, they aren't connected.

@ArkadiSharkov 11 жыл бұрын

0:26:44 - He said "butt" huehuehuehuehue

@avizee36 10 жыл бұрын

Richard Epstein reminded me of a young Thomas Sowell.

@SeanBoyle 10 жыл бұрын

13:15 Sounds a little like a labor union.

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

huh, that's fascinating that you heard that. i didn't think he was implying that at all. i saw it more as a general caution to be aware of who pays a particular economist's bills, and the possible conflicts of interest therein. IE. if an economist is something of a [social?...] scientist, one would hope they aren't personally financed by institutions/organizations they are "studying". the analogy being a drug tester's salary being paid by a pharmaceutical company...

@mechengineer4life 10 жыл бұрын

At 1:01:30 the market suffers from lack of information...what and a board or commission of gov't officials doesn't!!! My goodness that is weapons grade stupid. The whole reason Soviets couldn't produce food/iron/etc with anything like the West's efficiency of inputs was precisely because decisions like when to plant/harvest and what smelting processes to use were all left to the planners not smaller diffuse actors.

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

[2] They talk about this on Econtalk every once in a while. You could try this podcast for a better explanation than mine: econtalk . org/archives/2008/05/meltzer_on_the.html 18 and 40 minute marks are of particular note. All I'm saying is it's not black and white. Can you recommend any succinct outlines of Romer's ideas?

@matthewcook7097 10 жыл бұрын

If a quarter of all British lighthouses were run by the state, how could a knowledge of how state lighthouses work be unknowable? Mill may well have been wrong about the infeasibility of private lighthouses, but his other option was in daily operation - it was not an "unseen pig".

@4HITMAN7 11 жыл бұрын

Ammm the guy that was defending keynes. Listen to the whole video not just what he said at 51:48. The panel was discussing non government intervention vs government intervention

@tripzero0 11 жыл бұрын

Where are the Austrians?

@graysonhill 11 жыл бұрын

You know all that, how? In fact, quite a few industries have voluntary organizations that benefit all of the participants. Co-operatives, for example. Moreover, if you've ever spent any time on the board of a non-profit, you'll find that most of the income you derive from things other than operations comes directly out of the pockets of wealthy people -- most of whom make their money via capitalism. (The ones who didn't inherited from those who did.)

@PrinceRules64 10 жыл бұрын

I don't think so. I mean of course it's possible, but at 2hrs running time with (fast) talking throughout it's not really practical. But if you refer to specific timestamps and contexts maybe kind commenters can help you? :)

@tripzero0 11 жыл бұрын

Skidelsky doesn't observe the results of liberty in a Hayekian society from a Hayekian perspective rather from a Keynesian perspective. In a Hayekian perspective, there would be less economic downturns because the state could not cause them by manipulating interest rates.

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

Hmm, i remember them saying that it's hard to pin down how to perfectly separate private greed, recklessness, and lack of ethics on the one hand and perverse incentives/moral hazard from the government on the other. Who was on "pro-government side" and who was not?... They all believe that government has a role to play -- this panel was discussing what that role should be.

@JohnAnonymous 11 жыл бұрын

"State action to maintain a level of demand, that is consistent with a reasonable utilization of resources." God, this is so completely backwards. The level of demand can never be wrong, only the level of supply can be off. Because that's what good economy is supposed to do: Provide everybody with everything they need to be able to leed a reasonably good life. If we decide that we can do with half of what we have today, that would be great because you can do twice as long with the same stuff!

@e7venjedi 11 жыл бұрын

[3] This is why I said "the real debate begins: on whether that is better for society as a whole". There are many ideas for tackling "the problem of the unemployed". And as I'm sure you're aware, any choice will have unintended consequences -- I like the water balloon analogy: that when you squeeze one side, it bulges on the other. Not to mention there is more than one factor affecting any economic issue. . 2. b. what are your views on "homo economicus"? i see it basically as a fantasy/myth.

@TheEternalTimeTravel 10 жыл бұрын

Tear down the wall!

@BioStock08 11 жыл бұрын

This whole idea of increasing "Demand." by governmental spending is riddiculous. Demand never goes down. People don't stop wanting things when they have no money, They don't stop wanting things when they do have money and most cases. The Governement creates demand as much as it creates lust, or laziness.

@CarterColeisInfamous 10 жыл бұрын

1:34:00 its an ecosystem

@4HITMAN7 11 жыл бұрын

The whole rhetoric from the pro government side was that the market has failed.

@55jonesc 11 жыл бұрын

I have to say I felt a little sorry for Robert Skidelsky being the only Keynesian on the stage. plus a hostile audience, and he's 74! I would have like to see a quantified amount of government (like a % of GDP) then they could argue where to put the slider.

@JohnAnonymous 11 жыл бұрын

"...but I also believe in collectively providing for "the basics"." Well, such a collective doens't exist now, because of the fact that there are different countries. So we have sub-collectives that pull resources. Why can't those sub-collectives be even smaller, and why does it have to be within an specific geographical area? It doesn't of course (think about insurrance companies). People should be allowed to choose their own big or small sub-collective, or no collective at all.

@Dgfrmxon 11 жыл бұрын

But the people who give money away have less of it than the people who try to hold on for the sake of compound returns. It's the same reason why good traders eventually trade more than bad traders - the bad ones run out of money. To be sustainable, philanthropy has to spur even more philanthropy (pay-it-forward) at a greater rate than whatever returns the market is delivering. That is difficult to do - nigh impossible. We conclude that philanthropy will decline as a fraction of the economy.

@KeeganIdler 10 жыл бұрын

I will never understand how anyone can support moral hazard. Regardless of your political beliefs, why would you ever support backing risk by government? The extent to which many economists ignore this basic destabilizing factor is astounding.

@paulangeli9710 9 жыл бұрын

I couldn't agree more with you. It seems so clear yet so few understand the dangers of our government.

@jimzheng4912 9 жыл бұрын

Keegan Idler What about the more fundamental problem of inequality? Are we going to rely on the goodwill of greedy capitalists to donate to charity? Or do we need the iron hand of government to redistribute wealth accordingly? Based on Rawls's theory of justice, I think inequality is the main issue. I think relying on the beneficence of capitalists is just misunderstanding psychology (just look at the proverbial stanford prison experiment). I think we need government. Perhaps, we should be helping government to improve its efficiency and effectiveness instead of abusing it all the time. You wouldn't harshly censure a bad child, or beat it with a stick, would you? I don't think so. I think we should talk with government about improving its ways instead of attaching it all the time.

@KeeganIdler 9 жыл бұрын

Jim Zheng yea, not related to my point but we can argue equality ethics and whether the veil of ignorance would change my position (on the other intricacies of policy, obviously I'm still going to be against backing risk). But so long as you realize this conversation is entirely tangential. 1) government is not controlable 2) the people that run it don't do it for our benefit. 3) the voting process only exacerbates the problem of special interest 4) even if you could, equality should not be the goal but rather greatest wellbeing of the poor. 5) wellbeing of society (especially the poor) arises from increases in capital 6) the rich spend only small amounts on consumption and keep most of their wealth invested in capital goods. 7) raiding the capital (the rich) only increases wealth for the poor minutely, and only short term We will start there. But think hard about the Stanford prison experiment before answering. Who is the government in that study? Think hard about the child metaphor you used. Who has the power to censure and beat with a stick? Is it us who are the parents, because if so I can't imagine how we could censure that behemoth of a child.

@Octavius1922 11 жыл бұрын

Ball State! Chirp Chirp!

@4HITMAN7 11 жыл бұрын

We don't have capitalism or free markets, so how can they talk about failure of capitalism and free markets?

@shootvideo68 10 жыл бұрын

All these theories about how to fix the current "problems" with spending, regulation etc are flawed. The point is, government should butt out during the good times and allow the market do its thing so the "problems" don't occur in the first place. Human nature is far too complicated to think we can just tweak some policy to manipulate the outcome we want. Un-intended consequences anyone?

@anewliberalism 11 жыл бұрын

Guys, what are you doing. Rap videos.

@RussRoberts1759 11 жыл бұрын

You talk about capitalism like it's a sentient being with feelings and desires. Capitalism doesn't "seek control" over anything. Capitalists do, of course, and in the right political system, politicians don't allow them to use the power of the state to control stuff. Real capitalism (not crony capitalism or corporate capitalism) is about voluntary bottom-up interactions--the choices we make as consumers, employees, managers, and investors about how to spend our time and money.

@CharlieRTH 11 жыл бұрын

Good, but needs more rapping.

@piprod01 11 жыл бұрын

When you half the amount of stuff, you also half the number of jobs. It's the reason recessions are pretty shit. Demand decreases, so do jobs. If you couple that with a society based on the assumption of full employment, it's pretty horrible to be unemployed. You can solve the problem by trying to increase demand, like Keynesians do. Or you can try to solve the distributional problem, which has a lack of political motivation because it's a step away from Capitalism.

@Donnievil 10 жыл бұрын

Skidelsky shows some bias with the claim that the Depression was a time of no intervention. Just a bit of counter-factual revision going on there!

@Dgfrmxon 11 жыл бұрын

You use the term "government", but ignore governance. We have corporate governance; powerful institutions that are non-governmental in the absolute sense of the state. Any entity sufficiently large to leverage monopoly or cartel power should also be termed "governmental" for this conversation. Am I concerned about coercive governmental power? Absolutely. But the threats come from the state itself, as well as industry decision-making circles. When they co-operate with each other it's worst.

@humanhiveanomaly 11 жыл бұрын

Not a fan of Epstein. A lot of declarative non sequiturs in his accusations of society. Though I might disagree with some of the points of Skidelsky's analysis, he had an excellent conclusion! This is why a solution of liberty cannot (logistically or paradoxically) be from the top down.

@cowboy1165 11 жыл бұрын

The final conceit....

@Vodka2389 11 жыл бұрын

These so called defenders of capitalism concede too much.

@LeviDanielBarnes 10 жыл бұрын

Epstein does not understand externalities. Surprising. 46:05

@CarterColeisInfamous 10 жыл бұрын

1:12:00 the administration sucks

@Dgfrmxon 11 жыл бұрын

0:13:00 I dislike the lighthouse analogy. That professional society organization basically hinges on philanthropy. The sailors at the time were able to accomplish this because they were not as cutthroat as what capitalism is today. It wasn't because of capitalism, it was a triumph of human nature OVER capitalism, and that's just not sustainable when capitalism seeks control over the money flow and even the information channels of the media. The same port town today would never buy in.