From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 09:51:33 +0800
To: hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Buying whales with digicash Re: Anonymous stock trades.
In-Reply-To: <9606081830.AA05221@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <199606082240.SAA21523@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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