Yeah, I’m thinking of writing an article on this issue with the title “Lost Economy”, both a play on that Yudkowsky article, and having the meaning “lost ability to economize”.
A blogger I read made a point that I will incorporate: that people of a certain ideology were screaming bloody murder at how destructive it is to nationalize of this or that part of the economy, but also believe “the economy” will “recover” in just a few years. This blogger remarked that, “um, guys, if you can nationalize sectors of the economy and only cause a few years of pain, then what the hell were we fighting for this whole time? The worst that can come from doing the opposite of what we want is four years of sub-par growth? I thought the consequences would be worse than that …”
As for Sumner’s position: I just don’t see by what standard “lots of shoddy loans to prop up fake numbers” constitutes a “good economy”.
Indeed. While I find the general arguments about market efficiency persuasive, there’s a big blind spot in the view that “The economy will always operate efficiently despite interference, unless that interference is by something we call a ‘government’”.
Sure, you’d need to be able to replace the symbol (government) with the substance of what causal mechanisms you believe are responsible for damage to the economy, and why they’re associated with the government.
Just to clarify, though, I wasn’t criticizing a particular anti-government view, just a particular combination of views. I can understand if someone says, “Nationalization isn’t that bad, the economy won’t be hurt much by it.”
Or if someone said, “Nationalization is devastating, and it will take ages for the economy to recover from one, if it ever does!”
But I see a big problem with someone who wants to believe both that nationalization is devastating, and that “the economy” will recover after one in just a few years. No, if it really is devastating, your definition of “the economy” and its “goodness” need to reflect that somehow.
Yeah, I’m thinking of writing an article on this issue with the title “Lost Economy”, both a play on that Yudkowsky article, and having the meaning “lost ability to economize”.
A blogger I read made a point that I will incorporate: that people of a certain ideology were screaming bloody murder at how destructive it is to nationalize of this or that part of the economy, but also believe “the economy” will “recover” in just a few years. This blogger remarked that, “um, guys, if you can nationalize sectors of the economy and only cause a few years of pain, then what the hell were we fighting for this whole time? The worst that can come from doing the opposite of what we want is four years of sub-par growth? I thought the consequences would be worse than that …”
As for Sumner’s position: I just don’t see by what standard “lots of shoddy loans to prop up fake numbers” constitutes a “good economy”.
Indeed. While I find the general arguments about market efficiency persuasive, there’s a big blind spot in the view that “The economy will always operate efficiently despite interference, unless that interference is by something we call a ‘government’”.
Sure, you’d need to be able to replace the symbol (government) with the substance of what causal mechanisms you believe are responsible for damage to the economy, and why they’re associated with the government.
Just to clarify, though, I wasn’t criticizing a particular anti-government view, just a particular combination of views. I can understand if someone says, “Nationalization isn’t that bad, the economy won’t be hurt much by it.”
Or if someone said, “Nationalization is devastating, and it will take ages for the economy to recover from one, if it ever does!”
But I see a big problem with someone who wants to believe both that nationalization is devastating, and that “the economy” will recover after one in just a few years. No, if it really is devastating, your definition of “the economy” and its “goodness” need to reflect that somehow.