Very fun- for the state. And this is why I don't want the state to exist.

__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
-Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address

I am of the opinion, that better public policy would include inducing less developed countries (with command economies) to upgrade their infrastructure, before deregulating markets.

Modern infrastructure would facilitate access to markets and could reduce some of the problems associated with restructuring from a command economy to a market economy.

What kind of inducements did you have in mind?

One need not look at the third world. I hear there's a report in a Minnesota newspaper today (I presume either the paper in Minneapolis or St. Paul) that looks at home heating bills in the state. Apparently, there are record numbers of people who haven't paid their gas bill from last winter (about 20% of all customers) with an average outstanding balance of around $1,500. At the same time, the gas company saw its 1st Q NET profit go from $88 million in 2006 to a 1st Q Net profit of $130 million in 2007.

So, what we see is a privatized company gouging its customers so much so that those who can afford to pay do so (dearly) and more than make up for about 1 in 5 of the customers who cannot afford to pay.

I would expect this problem to be compounded in the winter of 2007-08, as I hear global warming will not spread fast enough to completely end the notoriously harsh winters of Minnesota.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Cool beans, I'll check out the thread this evening.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

Very true. I'm no economist, and maybe it's just my Western upbringing typing, but it seems that a more "hands-off" approach to the market is more beneficial to everyone.

If there is no state, then what will govern society by making, interpreting, and enforcing the law?

I agree. I don't know the intricacies of the policies, but the "gradualist" approaches taken by China and India are working well, it appears.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Oh what fun, I've never encountered a libertarian anarchist before!

You can see your pet theories in action. Just look at the current state of Russia! Completely deregulated capitalism run amuck. A paradise for the likes of you! Please, do explain the miracle of modern capitalism that is Russia! I cannot wait to understand how 100% laissez-faire capitalism would be as good for the U.S. economy as it so evidently is for the Russkies!

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

In the opinion of someone who really doesn't know much about economics or development, I think IMF loans and World Bank funding. Instead of making the conditions for the funds ones of rapid liberalization, they could be prolonged directives for the state to nurture certain industries while dismantling the barriers. There are problems, certainly: once the industry becomes a vested interest, it may have the influence to maintain government subsidies even when it is strong enough to compete, like Western agribusiness. Nevertheless, the social costs of the rapid policies (which I think are being gradually replaced by more moderate policies, though I'm not sure) are too great to resist some sort of reform.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Unfortunately the incremental nature of government is not hands-off. Just as an industry will try to keep the government money it depends on, the government will try to keep the control it's used to having over the industry.

It's difficult to achieve a lasseiz-faire economy under the guidance of government regulation.

It's impossible to achieve with regulation, if you're talking about a truly laissez-faire economy. But's that achievement is not necessarily the goal of the policies I suggested anyway; the goal is to reduce the social costs of the transition from command to market.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

What we see are a few things.

We see an industry that has been relying on existing sources of natural gas to meet a growing demand. This was all good until the demand caught up with supply. In fact, natural gas production has been in decline since 2000 precisely because natural gas companies relied so heavily on their existing reserves. Now those suppliers are having to spend a fair chunk of change looking for new sources and retooling to tap those resources. Supply hasn't kept up with demand.

We also see environmental regulations restricting where companies can drill. Hurdles like this make it harder for newcomers to enter the market which would force prices down. Obscene profit margins draw capitalists like flies to garbage. But the more obstacles that are in the way, the higher the existing players can keep prices without fear of losing business. Of course, it's not like the existing companies are all broken up over barriers to new competition.

What we really see is an industry that is providing a product people (80% of them, anyway) are willing to pay for. Right now, natural gas prices are still low enough that its competitive with electricity for things like water heaters. If natural gas prices go up much farther, the lack of supply won't be an issue for suppliers because they'll start losing business.

Natural gas suppliers have been living on borrowed time for a while.

It won't be a transition from command to market. You can't really achieve a market economy if you start from a position of government control because the government will be loath to give up that control. It may have elements of free enterprise, but it would be closer to a socialist or fascist economy.

You want anarchy? Only a fool would put so much faith in the goodness of mankind. A country without government would either destroy itself (likely) or be destroyed by an organized state.

__________________

There is no "fascist economy"...

__________________

Tell that to China. It is on a very fine line between "closer to a socialist" and "closer to a capitalist" economy--and how does one even define that line? Anyway, it doesn't make sense to assert that you can't really achieve a market economy if you start from a position of government control: you are telling a large portion of the world that all of their reforms are doomed simply because of the position they started in. I don't really understand your assertion here, either. Are you saying that any public regulation at all makes the economy closer to a command system than a free trade system?

What policies would you suggest to a state with an economy changing from command to market?

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne