Comments on: Trees, Not Forests http://theunbrokenwindow.com/2008/11/17/trees-not-forests/ The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. - F.A. Hayek Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:43:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Patrick http://theunbrokenwindow.com/2008/11/17/trees-not-forests/comment-page-1/#comment-1533 Patrick Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:31:07 +0000 http://theunbrokenwindow.com/2008/11/17/trees-not-forests/#comment-1533 There's someone named Patrick already commenting on that blog. Creepy, in fact. There’s someone named Patrick already commenting on that blog. Creepy, in fact.

]]> By: Patrick http://theunbrokenwindow.com/2008/11/17/trees-not-forests/comment-page-1/#comment-1532 Patrick Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:58:20 +0000 http://theunbrokenwindow.com/2008/11/17/trees-not-forests/#comment-1532 1. Is it really the same as if there was some new technology that was making the major car manufacturers obsolete, though? It would be something if we were on the forefront of some new magic shellfish powered car or something but we aren't. One year ago those same manufacturers were perfectly strong, today they aren't? The problem for them is sales, and that seems to have more to do with other parts of the economy collapsing, causing Americans to not be able or want to purchase cars. I'm not sure how much of the blame you can place on circumstance vs. bad practices and decisions by the companies. Of course, I guess that argument's a bad one. Welcome to the world of snowballing. "Hey, the FINANCIAL sector got a bail-out, why can't we?" "Hey, the AUTO industries got a bail-out, why can't we?" "Hey, the STUDENT LOAN industries got a bail-out, why can't we?" Nonetheless, it doesn't seem to be the result of any new technology. It is the result of us giving a bail-out to one sector that makes the others want one too. 2. Detroit is just the obvious example that popped into my head. That's not the point, specifically. My only point was that even if it is a small sector of the economy, as you said, their misfortune is not to be celebrated. And there's nothing to say those jobs will come back in any form, whether in another state or in Detroit itself. People just don't want to buy cars right now, that's nothing one company or another will be able to solve better. Maybe it is, if they make more cost-efficient cars. Once again, I can't say I can deny the logic but making an argument for job destruction in the name of "Progress!" feels rotten. I have much of an emotional connection to the idea anyway, after looking at poor Johnstown, PA. because my entire family going back 100 years were all been coal miners or laborers of some sort. My parents were the first to go to college. Then again, there's absolutely nothing to be envied about a coal mining job. I can't think of anything I would like to do less. It's dangerous, unsanitary, and leads to an early and painful death. No one would want to have to do that. It's a rotten, low paying job as well. Then again, 25% unemployment is nuts too. There's nothing that the government can or should do about it, but there's no reason to be happy about job destruction. The best you can say is, well, it's inevitable, and anything we do will either be unfair or make things worse for someone else. In the long run things will improve. But in the short run it is a very bad thing for quite a few people. Makes me sick to my stomach to think about the impact on people who will lose their jobs anyway. The companies I want to collapse, the workers who did nothing wrong I feel bad for. I suppose that's the essence of it. In other news, I heard some guy on NPR today say that "laissez-faire economics is dead." I wonder why they didn't say that socialism was dead once China, Russia, and oh every country that has ever tried it inevitably has famines, deaths, and various horrors plaguing their society. Funny that. Too much Capitalism doesn't mean too many Capitalists, it means too few... This website made me LAUGH too. http://anarchocyclist.ca/2005/06/20/universal-basic-income/ "one of the essential elements of capitalism is private property, which embodies the idea that people get remunerated based on the power they have (ie, how many property deeds) rather than how much work they do." Not exactly, mate. Quite the opposite in fact. The ONLY way to get property is through work, obviously. If you don't work, you get nothing. He's assuming that all wealth is constant and that it is impossible to gain or lose. This is pretty obviously an incorrect assumption...I would comment, but it is a 2 year old post anyway. I'll be looking into their more recent posts to see if I can find some other basic economic fact to refute them on. This is how I spend my free time, haha. 1. Is it really the same as if there was some new technology that was making the major car manufacturers obsolete, though? It would be something if we were on the forefront of some new magic shellfish powered car or something but we aren’t. One year ago those same manufacturers were perfectly strong, today they aren’t? The problem for them is sales, and that seems to have more to do with other parts of the economy collapsing, causing Americans to not be able or want to purchase cars. I’m not sure how much of the blame you can place on circumstance vs. bad practices and decisions by the companies. Of course, I guess that argument’s a bad one. Welcome to the world of snowballing. “Hey, the FINANCIAL sector got a bail-out, why can’t we?” “Hey, the AUTO industries got a bail-out, why can’t we?” “Hey, the STUDENT LOAN industries got a bail-out, why can’t we?” Nonetheless, it doesn’t seem to be the result of any new technology. It is the result of us giving a bail-out to one sector that makes the others want one too.
2. Detroit is just the obvious example that popped into my head. That’s not the point, specifically. My only point was that even if it is a small sector of the economy, as you said, their misfortune is not to be celebrated. And there’s nothing to say those jobs will come back in any form, whether in another state or in Detroit itself. People just don’t want to buy cars right now, that’s nothing one company or another will be able to solve better. Maybe it is, if they make more cost-efficient cars. Once again, I can’t say I can deny the logic but making an argument for job destruction in the name of “Progress!” feels rotten. I have much of an emotional connection to the idea anyway, after looking at poor Johnstown, PA. because my entire family going back 100 years were all been coal miners or laborers of some sort. My parents were the first to go to college. Then again, there’s absolutely nothing to be envied about a coal mining job. I can’t think of anything I would like to do less. It’s dangerous, unsanitary, and leads to an early and painful death. No one would want to have to do that. It’s a rotten, low paying job as well. Then again, 25% unemployment is nuts too.

There’s nothing that the government can or should do about it, but there’s no reason to be happy about job destruction. The best you can say is, well, it’s inevitable, and anything we do will either be unfair or make things worse for someone else. In the long run things will improve. But in the short run it is a very bad thing for quite a few people. Makes me sick to my stomach to think about the impact on people who will lose their jobs anyway. The companies I want to collapse, the workers who did nothing wrong I feel bad for. I suppose that’s the essence of it.

In other news, I heard some guy on NPR today say that “laissez-faire economics is dead.” I wonder why they didn’t say that socialism was dead once China, Russia, and oh every country that has ever tried it inevitably has famines, deaths, and various horrors plaguing their society. Funny that.
Too much Capitalism doesn’t mean too many Capitalists, it means too few…

This website made me LAUGH too. http://anarchocyclist.ca/2005/06/20/universal-basic-income/

“one of the essential elements of capitalism is private property, which embodies the idea that people get remunerated based on the power they have (ie, how many property deeds) rather than how much work they do.”
Not exactly, mate. Quite the opposite in fact. The ONLY way to get property is through work, obviously. If you don’t work, you get nothing. He’s assuming that all wealth is constant and that it is impossible to gain or lose. This is pretty obviously an incorrect assumption…I would comment, but it is a 2 year old post anyway. I’ll be looking into their more recent posts to see if I can find some other basic economic fact to refute them on. This is how I spend my free time, haha.

]]>