Omar

Partisanship isn't smart either. Not all Republicans are reactionary idiots: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/walter-olson/maryland-gay-marriage_b_2094675.html On this whole fiscal cliff problem: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.ca/2012/11/how-to-raise-tax-revenue-from-rich.html?m=1

By opening enforcement I think he means suing. I don't know how individuals could possibly gather enough money to sue, say, BP, but that's what I got out of it.

@Randox http://cafehayek.com...-the-goose.html

There are limits to lawsuits. In America, $20. I'll have to do more research on this, but I'm vaguely remembering a situation where someone's neighbor started building a factory that produced air pollution way back when. That someone successfully sued for the change in value of their property based on the air pollution. ______ The argument for a limited government comes down to a few basic principles, starting with individual responsibility, self reliance, and inalienable rights, and ending with a social contract in order to protect individuals from each other and external threats. The two basic competing views stem from ideas of individualism and collectivism. A good question separating the views can be summarized with "What outcome is fair?" The outcome is fair because the rules were fair. The outcome is fair because the beginnings/results were fair. Another question, "Is it moral to take from a has and give to a has not?" Anyhow, if you don't agree with a particular set of principles, it's near impossible to reconcile the policy differences. As much as I hate bringing it up, it's very similar to the abortion debate. The views are incompatible, and if there is such a thing as absolute truth, one side is right and the other is wrong. Without an absolute scale it's impossible to be certain which is which, other than the fact that I know I'm always right. 8-) Sometimes though the argument is between two policies which have the same result. More tax vs. less tax in light of Laffer curve for example I guess.

Cf. Your signature.

So if I litter, you want to be able to sue?

This whole argument that market failure isn't possible because it's a prisoner's dilemma doesn't work. Prisoners themselves use top-down solutions to the prisoner's dilemma (you talk, the gang kills you). Companies have to be *very* near-sighted in order to think that temporary gain as a free rider (since every one else will drop the agreement) will outweigh long-term gains through organized collective action.

Don't worry about it, I don't know much either. If this interests you though, find some good blogs and such. There's a "100 blogs for economics students" list out there. Donnie, what do you think about subsidies in agriculture? Europe is a great example of waste (so much milk/butter sitting in warehouses), but then again you don't want famine because of exogenous elements. Would be cool if someone who has a more center/left position could provide some insight.

Why do subsidies make prices higher? It runs counter to intuition; you'd think prices would drop.

Can you copy and paste that to the new thread? On my phone atm.

Any point on the continuum is up for discussion.

Made a new thread on government intervention, Donnie. Everyone who was discussing that is invited. Ginger is not.

In the 2012 election thread,(http://forum.tip.it/topic/310206-2012-us-elections-president-obama-re-elected/) Donnie made the claim that government intervention was never desirable. I got into a discussion with him, and then we were shooed away. This new thread is meant to resume this discussion. Feel free to port the discussion about private vs. public health care here as well.

Yeah his military argument was ridiculous but he has a pretty decent grasp on economics. You know, there *are* economists who believe a free market is best.

Donnie: http://www.economicshelp.org/dictionary/n/natural-monopoly.html Also, how do we deal with climate change and other such tragedies of the commons or prisonner's dilemmas without top-down rules?

I'm talking about markets where great economies of scale are possible. High initial production cost, marginal cost becoming smaller as production (q) increases. Say it costs a trillion dollars to start a phone company, and the marginal production cost is 10000/q. After a number of subscriptions, the first phone company can provide service for much cheaper than a new competitor, and this competitor will be unable to penetrate the market.

Do markets which converge towards a natural monopoly count as barriers to entry, Donnie?

Usually, but for examples of market failures you obviously have to look for the assumptions that aren't always true. If my model assumes consumers choose the bundle which minimizes their utility, I can make all kinds of predictions, but they won't reflect reality and that's what we're interested in.

Donnie, is it a bad idea to close the information gap in the market for food by imposing that nutrition facts be printed on them?

Not even biased though.

The way improvement happens in a capitalist system is through competition. The government isn't some god that can figure out the best way to do things, but when businesses compete with their each other, since innovation is rewarded by profits, the best (cheapest) way to provide the services you're paying the government for emerges.

Why would you declare war on the cartels when legalization of marijuana alone would probably take them out...?

Probably the same thing he achieved in the past 4 years. Nothing. A fair amount of economists, especially econometricians, think the stimulus helped. Some don't but some do. It's unfair to pretend you know everything about the economy to confirm your political alignment.

Yeah, because Romney is totally a small government guy...

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203922804578080684214526670.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno-wsj On the topic of first past the post...