Live data from Hacker News

Bringing back the Somali shilling

jpkoning.blogspot.com

121–130 of 170 posts

Re: Bringing back the Somali shilling

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> See, for example, the Coase theorem Which only holds when transaction costs are negligible, i.e., never. Which was precisely Coase's point in that work - he showed that mathematically, it doesn't matter what initial distribution you put on something (his example was radio broadcast frequency allocations), since the final Pareto-optimal distribution is independent of initial conditions. This is the Coase theorem. Bu…

I'm not a libertarian and agree with you on all points except... > * EpiPen pricing My understanding was that part of the problem with the EpiPen was a monopoly due to patent issues. Patents are monopolies created by the government, so the market failures they cause are in fact government failures.

There's a bit of a drugs problem anyhow:

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2012/03/08/ero...

And, well, medicine ain't all it's cracked up to be:

https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/msqfdpan_0xudzuorebfbg

Which is to say, you're vastly better off investing in public health measures than in intensive medical interventions.

(See Laurie Garrett, The Coming Plague, for more on that theme.)

Re: Bringing back the Somali shilling

#122
post #118

> As I pointed out in my old post, there's an old and nagging question in monetary economics that has never been satisfactorily answered: why is fiat money valuable? I've always been surprised by questions like this. Why is (say) gold valuable? The gold supply fluctuates unpredictably depending on gold strikes and without any consideration for creation of underlying economic value (so is inherently inflationary, exce…

Very interesting comments. I've been thinking a lot about UBI and the one thing I still can't work out is if we are going to just have to print tons of money to be able to make it actually universal (meaning not for people < $50K). Some will still be creating real value for their income so how much is that money devalued by the amount that is given for free via UBI? Will this just cause massive inflation? (I guess I should take some economic theory classes somewhere..)

Re: Bringing back the Somali shilling

#123
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're implying that there's a possibility for a regime that starts from commumist ideas not to become a monarchy or oligarchy. Can you point out a real-life example where that didn't happen, please?

What about revolutionary Catalonia? Besides that, I think it's disingenuous to claim that it is a problem with the Communist idea; Marxism is a method of analysis, and that analysis can be applied to itself to find out what the problems were, and what is necessary to move past them. It's also worth noting that almost all the states you are referring to as monarchies or oligarchies are founded on the principle of Marx…

Let's say I had a software vendor who coded everything in Brainfuck and, historically, had only produced applications that had failed catastrophically.

Now, let's say they try to sell me an application that they haven't written yet. But it'll be fine, they say, because they've decided not to use Brainfuck though they won't divulge what they will use.

Exactly how unwise would I be to dismiss them? I mean they might produce Utopian software next time. But is it really wise to assume so?

Re: Bringing back the Somali shilling

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now we will soon have "separate but equal" restrooms in Texas. I find state rights advocates to be the worst™ people in the world. They advocate for state rights when it suits them. Absolutely hypocritical bunch. We've decided as a nation that there are some rights and responsibilities that we have regardless of where we live within this nation. How many times do we have to fight for civil rights?

You're making the strange assumption that the federal government will always be be more in line with your own political views than your state government. After all, at the end of the day a hard-right state is less bad for liberals than a hard-right country, because only in the first case can they try to find a job in California.

Yes, he's assuming the government will not be terrible to live under. But saying "at least with local government, terrible governments will be localized" is a copout. Can we have non-terrible governments? If so, it makes sense to try and ensure everyone has one.

Re: Bringing back the Somali shilling

#125
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarians don't posit a precise optimum. They are generally of the opinion that the optimum is quite a bit lower than what we have right now. > Don't libertarians understand or accept that there are market failures that government is needed to solve? The only credible "failure" I'm aware of is the need to internalize of public externalities, which can be achieved in a number of liberty-friendly ways. See, for exam…

> See, for example, the Coase theorem Which only holds when transaction costs are negligible, i.e., never. Which was precisely Coase's point in that work - he showed that mathematically, it doesn't matter what initial distribution you put on something (his example was radio broadcast frequency allocations), since the final Pareto-optimal distribution is independent of initial conditions. This is the Coase theorem. Bu…

> * Microsoft monopoly in the late 90s

MS had better products than everyone else. It was a market success.

> * Too little being done to reduce CO2 emissions, since emission costs are externalized and delayed

This is within a libertarian government's purview. Negative externalities should be regulated since it's protection of citizens.

> * Broadband providers in the US

Government authorized duopolies / monopolies, not a market failure.

> * EpiPen pricing

Result of current laws, not a market failure.

> * Essentially every Health and Safety regulation ever exists to fix a market failure. In the small government world, employers see no cost of workers dying of lung cancer in their 60s from breathing asbestos, etc.

Companies have an incentive to avoid harming their workers. It has a significant negative impact on their reputation and workers could seek civil damages.

Re: Bringing back the Somali shilling

#126
post #12

As an aside: I've been waiting for Libertarians to declare Somalia to be heaven on earth. I wonder why they've never picked up on the obvious real-world example of a nation with no central state government with a monopoly on violence?

You probably haven't looked that hard. Somalia case studies are ubiquitous in libertarian (anarchist-leaning) circles. The general claim seems to be that, yeah, stateless Somalia is way worse than high-functioning governments like the United States, but better than its neighbor states and better than it was before it became stateless. Leeson's article is probably the best on the topic: http://www.peterleeson.com/Bett…

>The general claim seems to be that, yeah, stateless Somalia is way worse than high-functioning governments like the United States, but better than its neighbor states and better than it was before it became stateless.

I think you have to have a pretty strong a priori bias in favor of libertarianism to see that as a favorable statement. It also looks a bit self-serving, as there seem to be more Somali refugees in Kenya and Ethiopia than vice-versa.

Re: Bringing back the Somali shilling

#127
post #60
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bush Administration, under Paul Bremer, tried to build The New Iraq as the ideal capitalist state. They even implemented many things that could never get full traction in the US, like very low, flat taxes [1]. I can't say that I followed much of it closely, but at least Iraq was inspired by right-leaning principles and ideology. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/11/02/u...

What libertarians would probably want first in Iraq is to let ethnic and religious groups to have the control of their own territory and abolish or weaken the central government as much as possible. Honestly this approach would at least alleviate the current turmoil there. Consider Syria, Iraq and Yemen for this.

Libertarians are anti-interventionist. They wouldn't have invaded Iraq and wouldn't have manipulated their government.

Re: Bringing back the Somali shilling

#128
post #65
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People actually argue that Somalia is better than it was back when it had a functioning government? Have they talked to anyone who grew up or lived through that? Nobody I've talked to from Somalia (I grew up in Minneapolis, a good chunk of my classmates from elementary and uni were Somali), nobody thinks it was a good change. The amount of death and fear is just staggering. That article reads a little tone deaf, a lo…

It is very common for foreigners to hate their homeland. People who move from Kuba tend to say it sucks. I moved from America to Prague and I tell everyone that America sucks. My Russian friends say Russia sucks. The Ukrainians I know say Ukraine sucks. The Kyrgyzstanies I know say Kyrgyzstan sucks. I live among foreigners, and the only ones that I've met that actually like their home country are rich ones from total…

I don't think I would enjoy Cuba, Russia, Ukraine or Kyrgyzstan either.

I'm an expat from Sweden and I think Sweden is fantastic. It's just not the place for me at this point in my life. My friends from the U.S. are also very fair in their descriptions - there are things about their country they love, other things they hate.

You could just as well say that people still in their countries are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Re: Bringing back the Somali shilling

#129
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Somalia is way worse than high-functioning governments like the United States Yet my libertarian friends on Facebook all seem to want to tear the enitre government down.

There is a difference between Anarchy and libertarianism. Most libertarians want less government, not no government.

From my perspective, the libertarian vision "less government" looks a lot like "no government." Just defense and contract enforcement, right? With ridiculous notions like environmental issues being handled by courts.

Re: Bringing back the Somali shilling

#130
post #118

> As I pointed out in my old post, there's an old and nagging question in monetary economics that has never been satisfactorily answered: why is fiat money valuable? I've always been surprised by questions like this. Why is (say) gold valuable? The gold supply fluctuates unpredictably depending on gold strikes and without any consideration for creation of underlying economic value (so is inherently inflationary, exce…

Very interesting comments. I've been thinking a lot about UBI and the one thing I still can't work out is if we are going to just have to print tons of money to be able to make it actually universal (meaning not for people < $50K). Some will still be creating real value for their income so how much is that money devalued by the amount that is given for free via UBI? Will this just cause massive inflation? (I guess I…

Consider that in many western economies, inflation has been perilously low for a decade or more. Japan, Europe, and the US all have extremely low inflation today. This leads to some problems we don't usually hear economists worry about--namely that debt-financed personal investments like a home mortgage or a student loan become much more onerous to people who have taken on that debt in the last 20 years. Since such debts tend to have fixed payments over fixed periods, a reasonable rate of inflation would ensure that the real cost of paying off those debts goes down over time, and even if everything else gets more expensive, you still end up with more discretionary income over time, even if your real wages never go up compared to inflation. But with 1% or lower inflation, those debts become a decades-long constant drag on an individual's discretionary income, which may never grow. For real assets, such as homes, inflation also ensures that homeowners actually accrue equity over time, in addition to shrinking debt payments.

All of that is to say, we could do with a couple of decades of 3-4% inflation. Implementing UBI very likely would trigger some inflation, but if there's one thing central banks know how to do and have the power to do, it's clamping down on inflation. Other economists have proposed less direct methods of giving money, from burying caches of cash (to create employment and stimulate investment), to dropping money from helicopters. Sure, those examples were tongue-in-cheek, but you can kill two birds with one stone by using government money to invest in rebuilding infrastructure, building high speed rail, curing cancer and diabetes, paying for more and better public education from pre-K through college. That money pays off in multiple ways: more people have jobs, you stimulate moderate inflation and wage growth, and in the end you have all new infrastructure, new treatments for disease, and a better educated population. Better still, all that money will get spent by all these people with more money and better jobs on buying better housing, newer cars, better food, more luxuries, and that money can make our corporations more profitable and faster-growing...

Yet I fear we are all headed the other direction on these things.

Post reply on HN