Avarice567 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Less so Norway, because it has oil. Still though, all these countries should be failing. How do they have better education than us too? I want in-depth, statististcal stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avarice567 Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 I ask because I got into a debate with a pretty knowledgeable Fin. His arguments against the free-market were lack of perfect information, second best, and 'market failure'. To his credit, that's more than most liberals are capable of coming up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubtingThomas Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 By what measure do you believe that they are successful? It's hard to compare tax farms with so little to go on. [] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 well if the lack of "perfect" (whatever that means) information of all the people that are involved in attempting to pursue their self-interest in the best possible way is the problem, then how the hell is that solved by giving a much much smaller amount of people, who will have even less information of what every individuals at every point in time prefers, the power to overrule personla dicisions and force them to pursue whatever the rulers think is best for them?I have no idea what the other two mean tbh. never heard of "second best" and I can't even imagine what he means with "market failure". Imo the trick (even in practical economical debates), just find out where the logical problem is by comparing what the person perceives as "the problem" to how it is "solved", 9 out of 10, it's obvious how the "solution" must lead to an even worse scenario than free markets. (the other 1 out of ten is usually an arbitrary example, that seems to work, because of the exact time-frame it analyses, so there it's usually a good start to simply ask what came before, that lead to that "necessity")idk, I never quite feel like having to study all the history, if people bring forth arguments its them that need to make sure they're logically consistent and often a few moments of thought will reveal that they are not, even if one has absolutely no clue about the history or facts.Hope that helps, even if it doesn't directly answer your request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avarice567 Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 Oh, and externalities. He also mentioned externalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avarice567 Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 I looked up second best and market failures in wikipedia. Turns out there's actually theory around these two concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnarcoB Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 What could be the unseen consequences of growing up in a cocoon where there is little incentive to risk anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 The fact that these regions haven't collapsed into a Mad Max wasteland is not the proper metric for economic success. What matters is what would have occurred had the State not destroyed various markets for the last several hundred years. Compared to the world that would have been, the current situation is a filthy sewer pit. As for the perfect information issue, what source of economic information is superior to markets? Markets are just people voluntarily trading goods. What could, other than voluntary trade, supply superior information about consumer preferences and productive capacity? There are no externalities. There are property rights violations. Markets that tolerate the violation of property rights are not free. If there are no property rights violated, then it's not a problem. Externalities is an illusion, a non-issue. Likewise, markets cannot fail. They either are free, in which case people are voluntarily trading property, or they are not free. Markets have no purpose, other than to allow consumers and producers to find one another. What statists mean by "market failure" is that voluntary trade does not produce the results that a small, powerful segment of the population wants. So they violate property rights (i.e., aggress on others) to achieve those results, and then labels anyone who dares to complain as "selfish" or "unpatriotic" or some other nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annabelle Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I'd love to see Stef use standard terms more often. Theory of the second best Perfect information Information asymmetry Market failure Externalities One could probably spend a few weeks following links from the above. Lots of interesting food for thought. There's no need to be scared of thinking done by people who have come to different conclusions, if they are intellectually honest and lay out their logic for you to follow. You should be able to see where their value system differs from yours, leading you in different directions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I agree Annabelle, I pretty much enjoyed looking up those terms and things (my first crash with Keynesianism), though I have to say (and maybe I'm just being arrogant here) that after 5 Minutes I lost most of my interest in it, as it seemed clear that a lot fo key-terms used were being vague or non-sensical, so following the links for weeks wasn't for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribuck Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Why are scandinavian countries so successful I think much of the explanation is that since WW2 Scandinavian countries have had relatively little involvement in global warfare. Either they have small military budgets, or they have average-sized military budgets but mostly spend the budget locally rather than on blowing up stuff in another continent. In either case, the economic benefit of a few percent per year adds up to a lot if you compound it for decade after decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annabelle Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I agree Annabelle, I pretty much enjoyed looking up those terms and things (my first crash with Keynesianism), though I have to say (and maybe I'm just being arrogant here) that after 5 Minutes I lost most of my interest in it, as it seemed clear that a lot fo key-terms used were being vague or non-sensical, so following the links for weeks wasn't for me. Yeah, I wasn't suggesting spending weeks on end looking at them. [] That would get a bit dry! My broader point though was that a lot has been said and thought about these issues. Just because we might not agree with scholars' ultimate conclusions doesn't mean we can't get a lot out of their work. I personally would like to see Stef map out the economics/philosophy landscape in detail (rather than largely dismissing it), and then show where his work fits in: how it relates to and differs from other theories. Right now I think he keeps his work so separate from the rest of philosophy, that someone who has just discovered philosophy through his stuff doesn't have a good point of reference for approaching the rest of the field, or debating with others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRobin Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I agree Annabelle, I pretty much enjoyed looking up those terms and things (my first crash with Keynesianism), though I have to say (and maybe I'm just being arrogant here) that after 5 Minutes I lost most of my interest in it, as it seemed clear that a lot fo key-terms used were being vague or non-sensical, so following the links for weeks wasn't for me. Yeah, I wasn't suggesting spending weeks on end looking at them. /emoticons/emotion-2.gif That would get a bit dry! My broader point though was that a lot has been said and thought about these issues. Just because we might not agree with scholars' ultimate conclusions doesn't mean we can't get a lot out of their work. I personally would like to see Stef map out the economics/philosophy landscape in detail (rather than largely dismissing it), and then show where his work fits in: how it relates to and differs from other theories. Right now I think he keeps his work so separate from the rest of philosophy, that someone who has just discovered philosophy through his stuff doesn't have a good point of reference for approaching the rest of the field, or debating with others. I'm not sure I agree here. I listened to quite some podcasts, where he brings up different schools of philosophy (like in the podcasts on metaphysics and epistemology) and explains his critique of them. Same with economics (though to a lesser extend, which is fine by me, since I didn't know much about economics anyway and now that I get some basic principles, I rather enjoy analysing other schools on my own )But I sure remember having heard a lot of podcasts about other models of though and the critiques of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Saw this floating around facebook: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waster Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I also always think this a tough nut to crack. I think we should unravel the assumptions in this question. What does failing and succesful mean in this context? What doest good education mean? Does these things mean the same towards an anarchist as towards a statist? Moreover. Succesful compared to what? Better education compared to what? I think this is a trick question. A loaded question which is actually a fallacy. So maybe that helps someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avarice567 Posted January 10, 2013 Author Share Posted January 10, 2013 My opponent mentioned how Finland was #1 in education. I retorted with the fact that Finland only comes out #1 on the PISA test, and that they've abstained from the TIMSS test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 no doubt the rest of the world has much to learn from Finland's non-authoritarian community-based education system, and no grades or competition which is in line with the evidence on better learning however it is not the be all and end all in is still centrally planned and not based on voluntarism, there are very few private schools and most kinds are illegal so it's government or almost tnothing so just because it was set up in some ways based on the reason and evidence available regarding good ways to educate, there is not a constant optimisation, who knows how long it will stay good for before it becomes decadent? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hjvk8aDqy8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avarice567 Posted February 10, 2013 Author Share Posted February 10, 2013 I guess the proper question is why are scandinvian countries bad models to replicate? Any good articles that shed light on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Perez Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 no doubt the rest of the world has much to learn from Finland's non-authoritarian community-based education system, This is simply false, although I can understand how it can fool most people - it fooled me before I moved and got established here. Finland is very authoritarian precisely because of the power of the community. I see it here every day, the subtelty of fellow slave attacks and passive aggression... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Perez Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 This whole international educational propaganda campaign is pretty funny. Finns are very knowledgeable in general, they will know several languages, have various skills... but they cannot think to save their lives. They will parrot this and that, have sophisticated conversations... but they cannot debate and question anything, especially if it comes from above or leads to certain emotions. (The expression of emotions is something very difficult here for people. I have heard somewhere that there is a study showing the very high level of emotional repression in children here... which of course explains much about the culture and stereotype.) I remember when I first came and watched the anti-smoking law come into force and, to my astonishnment, everybody stopped smoking at once right on the first day. There is very little challenge to authority here, especially maternal-type authority. I have also attended "libertarian" or "liberal" meetings and sometimes participate in online conversations. People's general handling of concepts sounds like they understand free market principles, but it only takes a debate, a look at the form of their arguments or, most importantly, an economic or personal interaction to see their big collectivist heart – fundamentally the legitimacy of the initiation of force – which is of course all thanks to education and the crimes of the parents. I don't think this is limited to Finland, of course, but this is a pretty homogeneous and special sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Perez Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 As of the competitiveness of this economy... meh... I have been an entrepreneur here for years, with a lot of advantage in terms of skills, and I am just shafted left, right and centre the moment that I want to grow; and I know others too. I know my example won't weigh too much in those statistics anyway, but it's not the only evidence there is. For example, some of the biggest and most monopolistic chains in the world (relative to the size of the country) are here... The way I often explain it is as if their particular history and cultural background had led these people to implement more advanced mechanisms of social organization that kind of resemble a free market; there are these negotiations between unions and employers that are extremely complex, for example, and that kind of represent a struggle to find an equilibrium that would otherwise come automatically in a real free market... but by god the average person has no freakin' idea what the free market is about! There will be a fancy hi-tech button-thing at the end of the counter for you to measure customer service but the assistant will still look at you from behind the counter as if you had come to ruin their day... There will be this or that innovation or improvement, but it is still imposed upon people following the same model that they obediently follow... And the welfare state produces drunks hanging around, students with macs at cafes... not competitiveness. I'd like to understand what these figures really measure, because the reality I see is completely different. There is a work ethic here that comes from the lutheran past, etc. so yes, people tend to be hard workers and productive, so maybe that compensates for what I see somewhere, someplace... It's like things are made to look free-market, advanced and pretty by a clever enough team of educated social engineers, politicians and industry leaders, but who are obviously not clever or sensitive enough to produce any fundamental, sustainable change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avarice567 Posted February 11, 2013 Author Share Posted February 11, 2013 As of the competitiveness of this economy... meh... I have been an entrepreneur here for years, with a lot of advantage in terms of skills, and I am just shafted left, right and centre the moment that I want to grow; and I know others too. I know my example won't weigh too much in those statistics anyway, but it's not the only evidence there is. For example, some of the biggest and most monopolistic chains in the world (relative to the size of the country) are here... The way I often explain it is as if their particular history and cultural background had led these people to implement more advanced mechanisms of social organization that kind of resemble a free market; there are these negotiations between unions and employers that are extremely complex, for example, and that kind of represent a struggle to find an equilibrium that would otherwise come automatically in a real free market... but by god the average person has no freakin' idea what the free market is about! There will be a fancy hi-tech button-thing at the end of the counter for you to measure customer service but the assistant will still look at you from behind the counter as if you had come to ruin their day... There will be this or that innovation or improvement, but it is still imposed upon people following the same model that they obediently follow... And the welfare state produces drunks hanging around, students with macs at cafes... not competitiveness. I'd like to understand what these figures really measure, because the reality I see is completely different. There is a work ethic here that comes from the lutheran past, etc. so yes, people tend to be hard workers and productive, so maybe that compensates for what I see somewhere, someplace... It's like things are made to look free-market, advanced and pretty by a clever enough team of educated social engineers, politicians and industry leaders, but who are obviously not clever or sensitive enough to produce any fundamental, sustainable change. Wow, this is all very interesting. It begs a more in depth analysis.Culd you be more precise in what you think the problem is? What about things like poverty, ability to excel economically, freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Perez Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'm still trying to understand it all, to be honest. Don't get me wrong, the quality of life here is excellent excellent, and there is plenty of room for freedom in many areas – especially if you are not from here – no poverty... Another quality I have seen in finns, contrasted with other nordic nations, is thrift. They are quite careful and balanced in the way that they utilise resources, there is very little pomposity or complaints, and even the architecture or design is known for its simplicity and efficiency... I just don't know what to think about the future of it all. People are definitely less overtly violent, spanking is banned, etc. but I have doubts about what will happen - being any positive or not – when recession hits because the sword of social ostracism looms so large everywhere, and people are easily made to obey. The problem is of course the way children are treated, which is horrible just like everywhere else. This is why I question that simply an absence of direct aggression towards children is enough to change things fundamentally. I have already contacted Stef about it and hope someday he will do a podcast or a study on the parts of the world that have been already parenting "peacefully", at least in comparison with other areas. I think that would be very useful for either the validation or correction of FDR's message. Maybe the more free-market tendency of these parts of the world is associated to that better treatment of children, or maybe it will all collapse again... In any case, I think a very important factor to consider is that, regardless of the more or less free market, these places enjoy a favourable ratio of resources per citizen, even if the resource is simply knowledge or skill - as in the Finnish economy particularly with all the IT, etc. And on top of that you have a strong social pressure making people relatively less corrupt, more ashamed... I often say that it is *shame* that makes this country run so relatively well – and not accidentally finns have countless words to refer to this emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summerstone Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 My understanding is that it boils down to: -TONS of oil revenue -small populations -little warfare spending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teunis Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Interessting picture. I though about it a bit. Actually the picture is turning reality arround. 1) Welfare created by respecting property right and adopting free market. 2) Excess food, production and welfare result in the state creating and offering citizens the welfare state. 3) Because of (1) the (2) is able to exist. 4) After (2) the free market gets limited and the property right are no longer completely protected. Thanks to the free market the welfare state survives but has a big impact on economy so that true growth does not happen overtime. Thats why your income hasnt risen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magenta Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Here is my response to every utilitarian argument for the state: Ugh, this person is saying that they support you being shot for disagreeing with them and the best response people have here is arguments of efficiency? Wake up! This person supports shooting you! There is a gun in the room. To carry on as if this is a humane conversation is to put a obfuscatory cloth of civility over the savage reality. Point out the gun in the room, this isn't a debate, this is a "fuck you" statement by the statist. He is communicating, "here is my opinion and I'll shoot you if you disagree, what do you think about that?" "Fuck efficiency, fuck polite discourse, you are proposing me being shot. Do you realize this? I'm not going to pretend to have a friendly chat with someone who supports killing me. I support your right to support (and therefore fund) welfare/nasa/whatever, do you support my right to NOT support (and therefore fund) welfare/nasa/whatever? Because if it is wrong for me to violently force you NOT to support it, then it is equally wrong for you to force me to support it and if you don't agree with this, our "conversation" is not really a conversation at all, it's a death threat and I will not be a part of it." If an armed thug breaks into your house and starts rifling through your drawers and says he'll shoot you if you resist, are you going to sit there and say, "you know, sir, the net utility of society would actually be improved if you pursued an economic venture of a different path and here's some figures and charts I've gathered on the matter, would you like to discuss over some milk and cookies"? No, you're going to say, "GUN! HE'S GOT A GUN! Honey, call the cops, get my gun, run away, do something!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Perez Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Here is my response to every utilitarian argument for the state: Ugh, this person is saying that they support you being shot for disagreeing with them and the best response people have here is arguments of efficiency? Wake up! This person supports shooting you! There is a gun in the room. I don't think this thread was any sort of argument for the state. Perhaps scandinavian countries are more successful because not all violent human interactions can be reduced to a "gun in the room" – and perhaps that's why insisting on reducing explicit violence is not good enough to save us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts