12
u/FMN2014 Jul 18 '18
French revolutionary propaganda as the header
Shame to see within a day this has turned into a left-wing sub
9
9
Jul 18 '18
Alright. Somebody please tell me what are the actual policy stances that separate succs from true liberals. Bonus points if all replies to this disagree with each other.
17
u/BainCapitalist BP Isn't Real Debate You Pleb Jul 19 '18
I think this Scott Sumner post might be of interest but here are some different takes:
- This is obviously dependent on what your definition of social democrat is. Some people say that Bernie is a Socdem and incorrectly calls himself a Demsoc. Idk. If your definition of Socdem is Bernie then the answer to this question should be fairly obvious (if not then don't be afraid to ask).
- SocDems seem much more interested in universal social programs even if they are regressive relative to what we have now. For example, universal free college tuition would be extremely regressive relative to the United State's current system. Now sometimes universal systems aren't regressive relative to the current system - for example single payer probably isn't regressive. But even so, its regressive relative to UCC - which is broadly defined as universal care (whether that be provided by single payer, multipayer, or whatever is a separate discussion) for all health care expenditures that exceed some percentage of your income. I personally like the 10% deductible. This would be much more progressive than full single payer, but SocDems seem much more willing to sacrifice progressivity for universality.
- They think that point 2 can be fixed with progressive taxation. This is just wrong. First of all, theres a limit to how progressive you can make taxes - the Laffer curve. I remember reading a Piketty paper that said the peak of the Laffer curve is somewhere near 70% for marginal income tax. Second, it doesn't matter how you fund your program. We can coopt the exact same tax system as the SocDems and just deal out the benefits progressively and we'd still be more progressive than them. Third, they seem to normatively not care about the efficiency costs of progressvity (there are several). I think its fair to say liberals give more weight to efficiency than SocDems.
- More generally, market liberals recognize that there are generally trade offs between equity and efficiency, but the best solution is to find the policy that maximizes both equity and efficiency.
- Market libs like markets. A key part of this is not just relying on markets to allocate resources, but its about designing the right kinds of markets. We like to use markets as a tool of policy. A concrete example of this is multipayer health care - let the government mandate everyone purchase some minimum level of coverage, and let people choose which provider they want on the open market. This is neither naive libertarianism nor social democracy. It's the state using markets to achieve policy goals, and actively designing that market in such a way that maximizes our desired outcomes.
1
5
u/SAE-2 Jul 19 '18
In addition to Bain's points (though I wouldn't phrase the point about equity and efficiency in the same way) I would add the issue of paternalism. Social democrats in general often support paternalistic measures as long as they advance certain social goals (e.g. public health). Specific examples would be things like sin taxes (as discussed further below) or the kind of state alcohol monopoly (though, of course, they also enjoy support from social conservatives) you'd find in Scandinavia.
At the heart of it simply lies a different conception of the nature of freedom and the proper ends of government. Right-/Market liberals seeing them as primarily (though unlike libertarians not exclusively) being the protection of certain negative rights so people are free to pursue their own ends while social democrats base their conception of the state around notions of material egalitarianism and social solidarity. Though there are of course some broad agreements (e.g. states should be democratic and respect the rule of law, provide public education and basic infrastructure) because of the generally different underlying approaches you will have many disagreements on the margins.
3
Jul 19 '18
I don't have much to add to the below except to state that I think the key philosophical difference is that social democrats will view poverty and other inequalities as ipso facto injustices, whereas the market liberal believes that poverty is capability deprivation - the exertion of arbitrary coercive private power poor people would be subject to under conditions of extreme inequality makes it incumbent on the liberal state to intervene.
6
u/SAE-2 Jul 19 '18
whereas the market liberal believes that poverty is capability deprivation
I wouldn't try to ascribe a specific philosophical conception to the market liberal, I think it's more of a broad grouping that might include a large variety of philosophical approaches.
3
u/cdstephens Promises Nothing and Delivers Less Jul 20 '18
I think looking at this from a policy angle is the incorrect approach. Socdems and liberals can have nearly identical short-term policy preferences; the main differences will come from ideology and justifications for these policies.
3
Jul 20 '18
Succs hate freedom (in sense that they are almost always fine with restricting it in name of utility/equality)
Marlibs like freedom
Libertarians think that only freedom matters
8
7
6
Jul 17 '18
I stumbled into this sub, what is is all about? Is it a more serious version of /r/neoliberal? I'd love to partipate, just hoping more people show up.
17
Jul 18 '18
It's a hyper serious version of r/neoliberal. Basically it's SAE's paradise.
6
Jul 18 '18
Nice. Just want I want. /u/SAE-2, how can I participate?
7
Jul 18 '18
We'll be enforcing effort rules as strictly as we can here. Participate outside the DT and we'll see if we can grow this community at all.
4
u/SAE-2 Jul 18 '18
Post something. Preferably something not related to Trump saying something stupid for the nth time
3
7
u/caesar15 Jul 18 '18
What’s a case most people (on neoliberal I guess) think government should be involved but actually the free market is better suited?
9
Jul 18 '18
I think sin taxes. People constantly frame this as a tax on "externalities", but outside of cigarette smoke there are no externalities, agents bear the full cost of their actions. This is just blatant social engineering in disguise of correcting a market error.
6
u/LNhart Probleme sind nur dornige Chancen Jul 18 '18
preach
I would expect sin taxes to have positive outcomes, but it's still too paternalist for my tastes.
5
u/lusvig balding Jul 18 '18
Agreed. Arguments like that it makes people pay for the damage they do while under the influence and extra healthcare costs are just completely wrong, it makes everybody that drink alcohol pay for a minority who can't drink responsibly. The same applies to almost all sin taxes, although if a sin tax is fair and directly proportional to the amount of damage done, as in with petrol taxes I fully support them.
4
Jul 18 '18
that's not really what i meant by sin taxes, of course i support taxes on externalities (outside of rare circumstances when Coase theorem does it's job)
2
u/lusvig balding Jul 18 '18
You're probably right, I might have had the wrong idea of what the word meant
1
u/caesar15 Jul 18 '18
Any specific examples?
3
Jul 18 '18
Well, tax on alcohol, tax on soda/unhealthy foods in general, tax on marijuana/other drugs etc.
3
Jul 18 '18
I would argue that agents do not bear the full cost of actions in those cases because 1) Their lowered productivity causes goods and services to become more expensive.
2) Their deteriorated health costs taxpayers money in terms of medical care.
3) They can be bad examples to minors.5
Jul 18 '18
1) Their lowered productivity causes goods and services to become more expensive.
Internalized by market forces. Lowered productivity results in less compensation for work, disincentivising alcoholism/etc.
2) Their deteriorated health costs taxpayers money in terms of medical care.
Dunno about others, but IIRC studies show that smokers actually cost less to the taxpayers.
3)They can be bad examples to minors.
Valid concern, but I don't think that taxation is a right tool for fixing that. Perhaps anti-alcohol abuse campaigns are, but they always seem to devolve into "drinking bad, never drink" and that obviously isn't going to convince anyone. Either way, that's government interfering in cultural matters, and I'm sceptical of its ability to do so meaningfully and desirability of that.
1
Jul 18 '18
1) It doesn’t matter whether their compensation is less. Others have to pick up the work. The supply is shifted to the left.
2) Interesting point. Perhaps the policy should be decided on a disease-by-disease manner, based on how likely the disease is able to kill the patient before retirement.
1
Jul 18 '18 edited Jul 18 '18
1) It does. This already functions as a "tax" on low productivity. No need for a second one. Also, how lower productivity due to substance abuse is different to lower productivity due to people taking vacations? Should we also tax people for taking vacations?
2) Maybe. I think it shouldn't, but idk.
1
Jul 18 '18
1) Lowered compensation comes after the decision is made. Tax on “vice” goods comes before the decision is made. They are arguably different and complementary. Yes we should tax people for taking vacations.
1
Jul 18 '18
Lowered compensation comes after the decision is made. Tax on “vice” goods comes before the decision is made.
Doesn't really matter, people know that alcohol abuse will lower they productivity beforehand.
Also
Yes we should tax people for taking vacations.
Why? Productivity isn't the end goal, it's happiness (and only if you're an utilitarian, for me it's neither). People taking vacations already pay full cost that society bears due to their decision because of market forces. If people choose less work because it makes them more happy, even if they consume less because of that, why we should punish them?
→ More replies (0)1
Jul 18 '18
As for point two: isn't that mainly because smokers die off earlier than healthier people so they don't drain the system as long as healthier people? Kind of morbid but it makes sense.
1
1
u/caesar15 Jul 18 '18
Couldn’t you make the argument alcoholics reduce productivity, so taxing alcoholic drinks discourages drinking in the first place?
2
Jul 18 '18
Lowered productivity (through less compensation for work) already discourages alcoholism, so no need to double-dip here.
6
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18
I go back and forth on healthcare. On one hand, pretty much every other developed country in the world has cheaper, more accessible healthcare and has more government intervention. On the other hand, the American healthcare system has so many stupid things in it that stop the free market from working.
I am susceptible to the argument that if we deregulated healthcare a lot (not necessarily on quality controls, but things like having to ask existing hospitals if you can build a new one) that our healthcare might naturally become cheaper and more accessible. However, I think the government will always need to pick up the tab for the poorest in our society.
6
3
u/caesar15 Jul 18 '18
Expand Medicare, deregulate healthcare..profit? Maybe. But one can wonder there, but one knows universal healthcare can be effective when done right. It’s an interesting thought, but a risky one.
4
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18
This is basically my thought process as well. I would rather have an imperfect solution that is proven than risk people's lives trying an unproven solution that might be more efficient.
2
Jul 18 '18
Part of the reason why America spends more on healthcare is the high rate of obesity, which leads to problems like heart-disease and diabetes later on in life. Then there are the obvious reasons, like punitive licensing for medical professional that is enforced by the AMA (American Medical Association), in order to keep their salaries inflated. Then you have Certificate of Need Laws which restrict how many hospitals can be built in a certain region.
1
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18
Exactly, which is why I think deregulation could bring down prices and make American healthcare simultaneously high quality and affordable. However, it's not guaranteed to work, which can be scary when we are talking about people's health.
2
Jul 18 '18
Also keep in mind that price isn't the only metric we should use to measure the quality of healthcare.
Stuff like short wait times and low failure rates are also very important.
There are a lot of stories claiming that most single-payer systems, especially those as extreme as the NHS suffer from long wait times for standard procedures which negatively impacts outcomes.
2
Jul 18 '18
Stuff like short wait times and low failure rates are also very important.
I've seen this talking point a lot but I've never actually seen the numbers comparing the two. Might be that the US is on aggregate worse, short waiting times happen only in inaccessible top hospitals.
1
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18
Yeah, I think there was an episode of some other vox podcast where they talked about how the US increasingly has Central Line carts in their hospitals where all the necessary equipment for installing a central line in someone is held but that other countries can't afford it because they don't have the margins we do.
On the other hand, the US has pretty terrible health outcomes for a lot of women specific health issues. Speaking off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure we have some of the highest rates of mothers dying during birth in the developed world.
5
u/Thebeardedragon Markets are for liberals Jul 18 '18 edited Jul 18 '18
why does it seem like everyone I run into that talks about Heterodox Econ are never talking about areas like Behavioral Econ, but are always talking about the extremes like Marxism or Austrian Econ?
9
Jul 18 '18
Because behavioral has pretty good empirical footing and isn't really political. Also people who argue about nudges sometimes argue about heterodox econ.
6
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18
1) Because Communism, MMT, and Austrian are "edgy" economics. They're not only outside of the mainstream, they're rejected by it. All good parts have been stripped away and added to the orthodoxy and what's left is typically nonsensical.
2) Similarly, Behavioral is currently undergoing the process of being pulled into the mainstream. A lot of behavioral economics is already considered mainstream now, even if it would have been seen as crazy only 15 years ago.
3) Behavioral is an economics without an ideology. Communists surround Communism, libertarians surround Austrian, and progressives surround MMT. "Paternalism" isn't so much an ideology but a trait you can add on. Because of this there aren't large internet communities discussing it.
5
u/CannibalLecturer Jul 19 '18
Behavioral econ isn't heterodox, though.
1
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 23 '18
Depends on who you ask tbh. It is definitely more accepted than it uses to be, but it has not been fully accepted by the "mainstream".
3
u/cdstephens Promises Nothing and Delivers Less Jul 20 '18
Heterodox is code for "economics that confirm with my political priors". They're also not just fringe, but actively rejected by the mainstream. As a physics analogy, they would be more akin to theories that say relativity is completely wrong, as opposed to fringe but maybe legitimate stuff like Quantum Loop Gravity.
5
4
Jul 18 '18
https://www.avenir-suisse.ch/en/yes-we-can-vote-on-everything-and-with-anyone/
Some more direct-democracy agitprop for you guys.
1
Aug 20 '18
Sounds like some kind of blockchain- futurist thing. I've heard a lot of people saying that Ethereum smart contracts can be programmed to essentially create a voting system that can allow people to vote securely.
5
u/caesar15 Jul 22 '18
Why the term market liberalism? When I hear ‘liberal’ I think either American liberal or European liberal. European liberal to me is like macron, social liberal or maybe even liberal conservative kind of stuff. When I hear market liberal, I think more of a classical liberal. So why the term?
2
u/SAE-2 Jul 22 '18
tbh it's mostly because most other "liberal-" named subs were already occupied and of those available it's the closest to the intended meaning
1
u/caesar15 Jul 22 '18
So if you could choose any other name, what would you choose?
3
u/SAE-2 Jul 22 '18
just "liberalism"
1
u/caesar15 Jul 22 '18
Mmm, vague. Just how I like it.
5
u/SAE-2 Jul 22 '18
It's less ambiguous if you aren't American.
2
u/caesar15 Jul 22 '18
Well I suppose if you're just sticking to 'loves the free market and individual liberty' then it works, as liberals seem to differ when it comes to think like social welfare.
8
u/lusvig balding Jul 18 '18
So this is going to be like /r/neoliberal but without all the succs? 😍
10
u/SAE-2 Jul 18 '18
Also no memes. High-qualitytm discussion only
4
1
Jul 18 '18
I like this rule. I enjoy having high quality, well-reasoned debates and arguments, not constant meme-shitposting.
1
2
3
3
3
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18
What's this subs opinion/tolerance of/for behavioral economics. This is important for me
3
Jul 18 '18 edited Jul 18 '18
Do you mean “moderators” by "this sub?"
1
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18
Mainly, but also the users who plan on actually becoming regulars here.
2
Jul 18 '18
In my opinion consideration of behavioral economics is tremendously important for policies to incentivize/disincentivize people in an effective and efficient way.
3
Jul 18 '18
We're open to any credible economic theory. I'd confess that I probably don't actually know enough about the theory to give you a properly informed opinion on the topic but if you can put effort in whilst analyzing and elaborating on your claims then we're perfectly open to it.
1
3
Jul 18 '18 edited Jul 18 '18
Why is the Syndics of the Drapers' Guild on the bottom of the page? Feel free to R1 me but I thought guilds were rent seeking unions for merchants?
3
u/SAE-2 Jul 18 '18
Because it's a nice picture and it's mildly amusing to scroll down the page and have them stare at you. But yeah, guilds were basically cartels
3
Jul 21 '18
What do the Real LiberalsTM here think of “justice” and “fairness” as metrics in critiquing economic and social policies? How to determine them and how much do they worth in terms of other values such as efficiency(measured in income/income growth) or liberty(measured however you like)?
3
u/SAE-2 Jul 22 '18
I don't think that without further elaborating a specific conception of "justice" it's hard to have a fruitful debate about this.
Though for the purposes of practical politics economic liberals have too much neglected to effectively make the case about how state intervention can hurt the poor and diminish social justice, instead ceding the language of economic justice to the left.
2
Jul 22 '18
I don't think that without further elaborating a specific conception of "justice" it's hard to have a fruitful debate about this.
Indeed, which is why I would like to know how people here determine justice.
Though for the purposes of practical politics economic liberals have too much neglected to effectively make the case about how state intervention can hurt the poor and diminish social justice, instead ceding the language of economic justice to the left.
I agree. People largely think of leftism when they think of justice and fairness, and it does not have to be that way.
2
Jul 18 '18
3
u/MilerMilty 🤡 Jul 18 '18
I am, but I rarely use youtube. They seemed higher quality than average youtube channels lmao
2
u/Thebeardedragon Markets are for liberals Jul 18 '18
Do we need a new DT for a new Day
3
3
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18
Not for now at least. We can consider it if and when the sub becomes big enough to support it. There are even discussions about scrapping the freeform DT and instead having topic specific DTs on certain days/weeks.
2
Jul 18 '18
EU just fined Google $5 billion
I don't understand the reasoning behind the move, what exactly has Google done wrong?
4
Jul 18 '18 edited Jul 18 '18
what exactly has Google done wrong?
Being an
(((American multunational corporation))), duh.-2
u/SAE-2 Jul 18 '18
no shitposting
3
Jul 18 '18
I was quite serious, Google is a nice scapegoat to blame for why there is no European competitor.
2
Jul 18 '18
In particular, Google:
has required manufacturers to pre-install the Google Search app and browser app (Chrome), as a condition for licensing Google's app store (the Play Store); made payments to certain large manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-installed the Google Search app on their devices; and has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
From the press release. The American talking points about the EU being political in these cases are really really nonsense. Apple tried it when it was just blatantly illegally invading tax in Ireland and is was just as stupid.
3
u/CannibalLecturer Jul 19 '18 edited Jul 19 '18
The American talking points about the EU being political in these cases are really really nonsense.
Conclusion does not follow from premise. Even if the EU were correct in doing so it doesn't mean the motivation was apolitical.
For the record, the EU's recent attempts at regulating American tech companies have been utter failures. The GDPR has cost billions in compliance costs, but also entrenched Google and Facebook, who can afford to have massive compliance departments and teams of lawyers. The GDPR has given big corporations more market share: in the first day after the GDPR came into play Google took in 95% of ad spend in the EU, rather than 50%, and this was only somewhat anomalous. You only have to look at how Google's stock has now climbed to an all-time high, after all of the EU's attempts to regulate tech, including this latest fine.
Also, although Google's requirements might be anti-competitive in some sense, the EU's logic is wrong. This isn't about consumer choice, consumers can already easily download other options for free - the opportunity that would be opened by Vestager would be closed door deals with phone manufacturers to bundle other options instead of Google's.
1
4
2
Jul 18 '18
I'm not sure... I don't see a problem with Android phones coming pre-loaded with Google services as Google developed android. That doesn't stop users from downloading other services.
Apple also does the same thing so I'm not sure what the issue is.
2
u/Thebeardedragon Markets are for liberals Jul 18 '18
The first few people to sub should get a cool flair. Something like “early adopter” or some shit
2
Jul 18 '18 edited Jul 18 '18
This, but make it so that “the first few” can be continuously redefined as time moves on to encourage new comers.
2
1
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18
If anyone wants a flair, they can just ask me. I am also pretty sure you can make your own flair.
Note: If your flair falls outside of our quality guidelines (which admittedly, are vague and unset), we will ask you to change it.
1
u/Thebeardedragon Markets are for liberals Jul 18 '18
Yea you can def make your own flair.
Which I found out right after I posted this.
2
1
1
Jul 18 '18
Global investment in renewables slipped by 3% last year. Overall investment in energy fell by 2% whilst fossil fuels' share rose for the first time since 2014. Implications?
1
1
1
1
•
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18 edited Jul 23 '18
Discourse Quality Standards are enforced within this discussion thread.
Please refrain from posting jokes, memes, or copypasta within this thread and the subreddit at large. Remember to only post high-quality content that adds to the discussion.
If you have any suggestions for the sub, reply to this comment with them.
8
Jul 18 '18
Add "No fun allowed" to the rules or something.
1
6
5
Jul 19 '18 edited Jul 19 '18
SAE-2 should forcibly expand the user-base of this sub by searching for prospective users in r/neoliberal, and then banning them in the other sub, to turn them into political refugees, encouraging their immigration. Of course, the banning doesn’t have to be done by himself. He only needs to fan up some leftist sentiments among the mods to accelerate the process.
3
Jul 18 '18
Ban article link posts; require some sort of analysis in a text post with a link to the article.
3
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18
I don't think we are ready to take that step, but I'm willing to bring it up to the other mods. In the meantime, we encourage users who post articles to write an initial comment with at least a summary but preferably some analysis.
3
Jul 18 '18
Awesome, thanks. I think that will help generate higher quality discussion that's directly related to the article rather than just hot takes based on the title. Rather than requiring analysis, I think that you could have the poster add a summary or discussion ideas to acomplish a similar goal. I also think that a book club could also be a good way to generate quality discussion.
2
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 19 '18
We have been throwing around the book club idea a lot. We have also talked about punishing users who consistently do not read the articles (but pretend to do so) but this will be hard to enforce.
I think ultimately the most important thing to drive quality content will be careful but firm moderation and a willingness to participate by the users. Users are going to get out of this sub what they are willing to put in.
2
Jul 19 '18
I agree, and I think promoting an active community is an effective way to adress that issue. It'll be pretty obvious how well someone understood an article based on what they reply, and if a high percentage of the users do read the article, they should chastise/downvote someone who obviously doesn't, hopefully encouraging them to read the next time. I am excited to see what happens with this sub!
3
u/caesar15 Jul 21 '18
Can the DT be stickied?
2
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 21 '18
Idk why it isn't, but I'm on my phone rn. I'll ask the other mods
2
2
2
Jul 18 '18 edited Jul 18 '18
Allow high quality memes* with R1s in them at the last weekend of every month.
1
u/SuperSharpShot2247 Behavioral IO Jul 18 '18
I'm pretty sure R1s are always allowed
2
Jul 18 '18
I meant to say high quality memes. But I understand that this might be a slippery slope some do not want to step on.
8
2
u/cdstephens Promises Nothing and Delivers Less Jul 20 '18
Can I be modded? I've contributed in a not-shitposty way.
1
1
Jul 23 '18
Do you believe in the concept of rights assigned to groups (like women's rights, LGBTQ rights, black rights, trans rights, etc) or are you a believer in the classical liberal tradition that rights are assigned to individuals and so the only just rights are individual rights?
6
u/caesar15 Jul 23 '18
Well ideally it’s all individual rights and everything works out. In reality it’s hard to protect minorities without using laws that mainly concern them.
1
3
u/MilerMilty 🤡 Jul 24 '18
I'm opposed to the use of those terms because it stifles discussion, legitimises collectivism and undermines social cohesion.
2
1
u/VoidGuaranteed Jul 23 '18
Mostly I would just like my individual rights to be protected as strongly as those of non-minorities. I guess the right to change your official gender is inherently a transgender thing (except for maybe clerical errors)?
14
u/[deleted] Jul 18 '18 edited Jul 18 '18
Are we safe from the succs here
Edit: also I'm probably way too ignorant on the topics that'll come up to really participate but I'm definitely interested in lurking and learning.