The intro & a link to my April Project Syndicate column: expressing my annoyance at the London Economist's belief that laissez-faire is still the proper policy in an economy rife with externalities...
Not related: GPT isn't auto-correctionmon steroids. Auto-correct works. It's history's most awesome lorem ipsum generator. I really, so far, am not seeing the productivity improvement that doesn't amount to, 'well, I was writing crappy stuff anyway so now it goes way faster.'
The amount of dead horse-beating involved in trying to get it to work without error reminds me of crypto in that it will be real money someday.
"The underlying claim appears to be that while market failures caused by externalities are bad, the
potential consequences of government policies aimed at correcting them are worse." This is not just neoliberalism; it is George Stigler's version of it.
The Economist reminds me of XKCD comic #793, with the arrogant physicist saying: "You're trying to predict the behavior of [complicated system]? Just model it as [a simple object] and then add some secondary terms to account for [complications I just thought of.]" It's neoliberalism and bien pensant all the way down. That's why I stopped reading it 20 years ago.
It was recently pointed out to me that the reign of the free market from the 1980’s to 2006 brought us the derivatives crisis. This brought the current era of financial repression which we are living through in order to pay it down. Prior to this, the other era of financial repression for the US was from the 1930’s through the 70’s. This came complete with confiscation of gold, capital controls, interest rate controls, and high marginal tax rates. Again this was to clean up the mess of the Roaring 20’s and the resulting Great Depression (as well as the War). Perhaps completely liberalized markets in the era of fiat currency was not a good thing. I suppose the government is the one who places boulders and canals to channel the flow of the River of Money, allowing it to fill some areas, and making a void of others. If planned with enough wisdom, this could be beneficial for all.
There is nothing wrong with "globalization," "deregulation" and "financialization" that ~ zero structural deficits (achieved through higher progressive low dead-loss taxes and spending according to NPV>0), Pigou taxes and subsidies (including for R&D), FAIT, immigration that massively recruits world talent, and cost-benefit analysis of regulations (including of S&L regulations) would not cure. I don't read the Economist that much anymore, but I am not aware that they had been holding out for these tweaks to what folks call "Neoliberalism," which by no stretch of the imagination could be called "laisses faire."
That said, I understand you to be preaching to the Progressives and like Matteo Ricci have adopted the garb of their wise men.
Good piece Brad.
Not related: GPT isn't auto-correctionmon steroids. Auto-correct works. It's history's most awesome lorem ipsum generator. I really, so far, am not seeing the productivity improvement that doesn't amount to, 'well, I was writing crappy stuff anyway so now it goes way faster.'
The amount of dead horse-beating involved in trying to get it to work without error reminds me of crypto in that it will be real money someday.
elm
elon musk is a real boy now
"The underlying claim appears to be that while market failures caused by externalities are bad, the
potential consequences of government policies aimed at correcting them are worse." This is not just neoliberalism; it is George Stigler's version of it.
The Economist reminds me of XKCD comic #793, with the arrogant physicist saying: "You're trying to predict the behavior of [complicated system]? Just model it as [a simple object] and then add some secondary terms to account for [complications I just thought of.]" It's neoliberalism and bien pensant all the way down. That's why I stopped reading it 20 years ago.
... and I'm so glad you wrote.
It was recently pointed out to me that the reign of the free market from the 1980’s to 2006 brought us the derivatives crisis. This brought the current era of financial repression which we are living through in order to pay it down. Prior to this, the other era of financial repression for the US was from the 1930’s through the 70’s. This came complete with confiscation of gold, capital controls, interest rate controls, and high marginal tax rates. Again this was to clean up the mess of the Roaring 20’s and the resulting Great Depression (as well as the War). Perhaps completely liberalized markets in the era of fiat currency was not a good thing. I suppose the government is the one who places boulders and canals to channel the flow of the River of Money, allowing it to fill some areas, and making a void of others. If planned with enough wisdom, this could be beneficial for all.
There is nothing wrong with "globalization," "deregulation" and "financialization" that ~ zero structural deficits (achieved through higher progressive low dead-loss taxes and spending according to NPV>0), Pigou taxes and subsidies (including for R&D), FAIT, immigration that massively recruits world talent, and cost-benefit analysis of regulations (including of S&L regulations) would not cure. I don't read the Economist that much anymore, but I am not aware that they had been holding out for these tweaks to what folks call "Neoliberalism," which by no stretch of the imagination could be called "laisses faire."
That said, I understand you to be preaching to the Progressives and like Matteo Ricci have adopted the garb of their wise men.