Re: [NOISE] Buying whales with digicash Re: Anonymous stock trades.

Bill Stewart writes:
> Oh, come on now, Perry - while Friedman has more sense than that,
> you've been around the Libertarian party long enough to know people
> who call themselves free-market environmentalists who contend that whales
> will be best protected if they're owned property,

Sure, but Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, D.Phil., was contending that
Friedman said the free market solution was for people to voluntarily
stop buying whale meat -- he wasn't even contending that Friedman said
the whales should be owned. Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, D.Phil., presented
a portrait of Friedman that is so totally out of line with even the
most fuzzy headed free market types that it is almost impossible to
believe that he said anything of the sort.

Perry

>Sure, but Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, D.Phil., was contending that
>Friedman said the free market solution was for people to voluntarily
>stop buying whale meat -- he wasn't even contending that Friedman said
>the whales should be owned. Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, D.Phil., presented
>a portrait of Friedman that is so totally out of line with even the
>most fuzzy headed free market types that it is almost impossible to
>believe that he said anything of the sort.


Perry, 

	Apart from hero worship why do you believe that Friedman is not able to say 
anything ridiculous? I found the letter to be ridiculous which is why I remember it. 

	Since you were so certain that Hess was not a staff member of the Cato institute 
despite being listed as such on their home page is it not just a little possible that 
you might be wrong in this case?

	Plus, to say that such an analysis would be out of line with "even the most 
fuzzy headed free market types" is somewhat rich. I have heard plans to eliminate all 
government apart from the army, privatising roads and the police. I have heard numerous 
claims that monopolies cannot ever exist under any circumstances unless they are created 
by government. I have even heard it stated that had gun ownership been more widespread 
in the UK the Dunblane massacre would not have occurred. Whether  the teacher was 
expected to gun down Hamilton with the Kalashnikov she carried to school each day or 
whether the tots were expected to come to her aid with Smith and Westons I'm not sure. 
In short I don't think that there is any type of piffle that the "most fuzzy headed free 
market types" cannot offer.

	How to save the whales is a logical outcome of Friedman's thesis that markets 
are everything. It is unfortunately very common for great men to get megalomania and 
believe they have the solution to the worlds problems in one theory.

	The flaw in Perry's "stakeholder" theory is the same one in many academic 
theories. It assumes that most people are smart enough to realise their true interests. 
It assumes that people take a longer term look than they do. 

	
		Phill

hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu writes:
>Apart from hero worship why do you believe that Friedman is not able to say 
>anything ridiculous?

Because I've read vast chunks of the corpus of his writings and the
comment you attribute to him sounds about as much in character as, say,
Jesse Helms announcing that he's in favor of gay marriages. Its
POSSIBLE that it could happen, but its not bloody likely.

He's said many things that I disagree with -- his contentions about
fixed rule central banking seem specious, for instance -- but I've
never heard him say or write anything out of character.

>Since you were so certain that Hess was not a staff member of the
>Cato institute despite being listed as such on their home page

He isn't. My whole point about P.J. O'Rourke should have made that
point, but you just spewed inanities about telecommuting. You
obviously had no idea where he worked even though I dropped the major
sarcastic hint that it was Rolling Stone, and not Cato. Never mind. I
suppose your sense of sarcasm is also impaired.

You have contended that Hillary Clinton traded options when she traded
futures.

You have contended that Hillary Clinton was trading in margin when the
facts were that she was trading out of margin.

You have contended that Hillary Clinton was trading lots of under
$20,000 when she was trading vastly larger sizes.

You obviously didn't examine the situation yourself at all.

However, having a doctorate in an unrelated field, you apparently
believe that you are able to make pronouncements in the absense of
facts. Later in your message, you accused the free market faction of
being "academic".

>Plus, to say that such an analysis would be out of line with "even
>the most fuzzy headed free market types" is somewhat rich. I have
>heard plans to eliminate all government apart from the army,
>privatising roads and the police.

Yes, but since you don't understand how free markets work or how free
market types think you can't reason about them.

Put it this way -- communists say really outrageous things, right?
Well, would it be in character for a communist to go out and endorse
joint stock companies as a primary mechanism for distributing factory
profits?

Just because someone says something you consider weird doesn't mean
they aren't thinking in a systematic fashion, and doesn't mean that
certain things are and are not out of character. Over and over again,
however, you have betrayed a fundamental ignorance of the arguments
free marketeers use. It is one thing to disagree with someone, but it
is another thing to mischaracterize them. I've read lots of Marx and
Lenin, but it doesn't seem like you've bothered to read the writings
of even fairly mainstream economists.

>I have heard numerous claims that monopolies cannot ever exist under
>any circumstances unless they are created by government.

I've never heard that, but I myself have made the argument that they
are very rare without government intervention. Its a simple fact of
the world -- if you disagree with me you are disagreeing with the
historical record. I can name the real cases of monopoly that have
sprung up over the decades -- Alcoa being about the best example.
You probably can't name any to speak of, other than tired and fake
examples like U.S. Steel.

>I have even heard it stated that had gun ownership been more widespread 
>in the UK the Dunblane massacre would not have occurred.
>Whether the teacher was expected to gun down Hamilton with the
>Kalashnikov she carried to school each day

Of course, thank goodness the U.K. has some of the strictest gun
control in the world, since it stops these sorts of
incidents. (I'll point out for Dr. Hallam-Baker's benefit that this
sentence was "sarcasm".)

And yes, if she'd been carrying not a Kalashnikov rifle but just a
simple pistol in her pocket she might indeed have been able to shoot
the guy. I realize this may come as a shock to you, but in a fire
fight the winner is the guy who fires accurately first, not the guy
with the longer gun. Of course, you prefer to use distortionary
language (like refering to carrying a rifle) to make things look
ridiculous when in fact non-silly alternatives are possible.

>How to save the whales is a logical outcome of Friedman's thesis that markets 
>are everything.

Since you are either misreporting or inventing the comments you
attribute to Friedman and can neither cite the actual article nor
produce quotes from it, I don't think its entirely fair for you to
make claims about his position.

>The flaw in Perry's "stakeholder" theory is the same one in many
>academic theories. It assumes that most people are smart enough to
>realise their true interests.

Since in practice it always works, and since the alternatives never
do, I would say that the collectivists of the world, such as yourself,
are the academics here.

Amazing how time after time even weak Adam Smithian analysis works
just fine. Impose price controls on gasoline, and watch shortages form
when supplies change, as in 1973. Remove price controls, and watch
shortages disappear. Substantially lower the income tax, growth goes
up. Substantially raise it, growth goes down. Make alchohol illegal,
watch criminals take over the market. Make it legal again, watch the
problems go away.

No, Dr. Phill Hallam-Baker, D.Phil., who can't name whether Hillary
Clinton traded options or futures and never examined a single trade
she made but who can give us details about how those of us who looked
at the thing in detail are wrong when we say her trades were
impossible, it is you who is the academic high in your ivory tower
with no sense of reality whatsoever.

Ask all the people defecting from Cuba if they think your way is
better some time. Be prepared to wipe the spit off your face.

Perry

>>Since you were so certain that Hess was not a staff member of the
>>Cato institute despite being listed as such on their home page

>He isn't. My whole point about P.J. O'Rourke should have made that
>point,

Perry, one last time:

The POINT is that you CORRECTED me in saying Hess was a Cato Institute staff 
member when the Cato Institute THEMSELVES list him as a staff member.

Your correction was ILL INFORMED and WRONG to continue to present this as an 
example of my being in error is somewhat stupid.

It wouldn't be so bad Perry but you can't resist calling someone an imbecile 
when they say something you disagree with. I may occasionaly post without 
checking my facts but I don't call someone a fool without checking my facts. 
When Perry mentioned Hess I did a search on Alta-Vista, found his work at the 
Cato Institute and read it. Unfortunately that search produced hits for the 
father as well as the son but the papers were all by the son. 

P.J. O' Rourke is also listed as a Cato staff member. So to describe him as such 
would NOT be inaccurate. It might not be the best way to describe O'Rourke but 
it would not be an incorrect way.

If you happen to know that the Cato institute is lying then thats another 
matter. Its not unknown for lobby groups to fill out their staff lists with 
bogus placemen but if O'Rourke isn't happy about being called a Staff member of 
Cato presumably his lawyers would be issuing letters. Certainly I would not call 
someone a fool for believing the Insititute of Historical Review when they 
falsely claim that A.J.P.Taylor was a supporter of their position. I might 
correct them and point out that the IHR was lying but I would not 


>>I have heard numerous claims that monopolies cannot ever exist under
>>any circumstances unless they are created by government.
>
>I've never heard that, but I myself have made the argument that they
>are very rare without government intervention. 

Its not a debate that I think its worth having with you and its a pointless 
debate in any case. There is no large company in the world which does not 
interact with government agencies and is not affected by government regulations. 
It is impossible to attribute cause and effect and say what would have been the 
case had government not been involved. The deBeers Diamond cartel was formed by 
Rhodes because he had the only steam pump in South Africa, not because of any 
governmental favours. It has continued because it is in the interests of all 
suppliers to maintain the false price. Granted that the current state of the 
diamond market may not last another twenty years it has already survived a 
century.

Of course monopolies will be rare, by their nature there can only be one in any 
particular industrial sector.


>Of course, thank goodness the U.K. has some of the strictest gun
>control in the world, since it stops these sorts of
>incidents. (I'll point out for Dr. Hallam-Baker's benefit that this
>sentence was "sarcasm".)

Actually it turns out that they are not all that tight after all. But don't 
worry, this is being fixed. 


>And yes, if she'd been carrying not a Kalashnikov rifle but just a
>simple pistol in her pocket she might indeed have been able to shoot
>the guy. I realize this may come as a shock to you, but in a fire
>fight the winner is the guy who fires accurately first, not the guy
>with the longer gun.

Is it just me or is the idea that teachers should be armed with lethal weapons 
somewhat a silly one. For a start the number of teachers who crack and plug a 
youngster being a pain would probably be higher than the current number of 
schools masacres. Secondly it may be just me but I suspect that Hamilton would 
have been the person to shoot first in the Dunblane trajedy.



>Since you are either misreporting or inventing the comments you
>attribute to Friedman and can neither cite the actual article nor
>produce quotes from it, I don't think its entirely fair for you to
>make claims about his position.

Perry, I do not carry a full archive of press clippings arround with me! I gave 
you the reference, you have the opportunity to look it up if you have access to 
an online service with archives from English papers. 


>Amazing how time after time even weak Adam Smithian analysis works
>just fine. Impose price controls on gasoline, and watch shortages form
>when supplies change, as in 1973. 

Perry, you are entirely neglecting the effect of a little cartel in the middle 
east that got together to deliberately force up the price of oil called OPEC. 
While nobody in the west is likely to support their action its a bit rich for 
you to claim that shortages resulted from domestic policy when the oil producing 
countries enacted a deliberate policy to force the price of oil up. From the 
supplier country point of view its hard to argue that the OPEC move was a bad 
one, it allowed them to drastically increase the value of their oil stocks. Its 
a pity that little of that reached the people in those countries but that is 
capitalism for you.


>Ask all the people defecting from Cuba if they think your way is
>better some time. Be prepared to wipe the spit off your face.


Perry you are worse than a fool. I have never been an appologist for Castro or 
his self serving ideology. It is ideologues like Castro and yourself who do the 
real damage. By idealogue I mean someone who tries to pretend that society can 
be organised according to a single overarching principle which is believed in as 
an article of faith. 


		Phill

If you are so bright, why can't you format your line length to
something that fits on an 80 column screen?

On Sat, 8 Jun 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: 
	Apart from hero worship why do you believe that Friedman is not able to say 
anything ridiculous? I found the letter to be ridiculous which is why I remember it. 

 	Since you were so certain that Hess was not a staff member of the Cato institute 
despite being listed as such on their home page is it not just a little possible that 
you might be wrong in this case.

___________________end quoted_________________


	I am not attacking your positions on this, but it would be a lot
easier (well, a little easier) if I could easily READ it. 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com