Crazy Libertarians, What Do They Know About Economics?

[KONGOS 0]

I guess what I basically see is (and H is going to hate me for saying this) a whole bunch of free market supporters that were happy when the free market was up and took on a great number of overly risky investments that in the end went south when the housing market fell in a hole. Now these same people who were enthusiastic free market supporters when the market was profitable are crying disaster because it's in the minus column. Either you support the free markets to do what they are supposed to do and have a rollercoaster economy or you don't. Unfortunately these idiots don't just hurt themselves but take even the people who weren't involved down with them. It pisses me off to even consider bailing these fools out of their folly. But I don't see that there's much choice. I do wonder why we have to put out the whole $700 billion all at once instead of doling it out as needed. Some of these guys need to crash for the mess they've put us into. I'd like to see congress approve say $200 billion to start and see if this idea is even going to work before we pour everything into it.

Please watch this, as he does a much better job explaining than I could. You cannot call what we've had for the last few decades anything close to a free market. You can't have government subsidies, artificially low interest rates, a private bank just printing our money whenever they feel like it, etc and call it a free market. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g35jiS_uDfQAlso just for kicks, watch this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpxItPqpirw

[Nimue1995 1]

Why would I hate you for saying this? I've been one of the most outspoken opponents of corporate welfare on these boards, and that's pretty much what this is. You've pretty much nailed my sentiment here.The only caveat I'd add is that this is corporate welfare that was promised to them when they did their planning, so pulling the rug now is mildly unfair. But it's unfair to the taxpayers to go through with it. The problem is the system -- get rid of corporate welfare and semi-regulated industries (with the regulations that exist being written by those industries), and then I'd be happy to let them sink for their mistakes. As written, hmm, close call.

Guess you could say I'm starting to come over to the dark side eh H?

[hblask 1]

Guess you could say I'm starting to come over to the dark side eh H?

It's just a matter of time :)What I find is that most people who say "free markets don't work" are either talking about something different than what I mean when I say "free markets". When people object to free markets, they are usually objecting to either corporatism -- corporations being in bed with govt to screw the little guy, or they are objecting to force or fraud -- intentionally harming people. The first of these becomes a bigger problem with *more* regulation, as we see in this mortgage nonsense. The second can easily be covered by laws that apply to all, there's no need to single out big business or corporations for the dark side of the human soul. What happens is a lot of discussions go in circles because it's too difficult to lay the ground work of "what exactly do you mean" for every single discussion. When I talk about free markets, I mean a market that allows voluntary consensual transactions within a framework of rule of law and informed consent and enforcement of contracts, and is free from market distortions caused by political considerations.

[Nimue1995 1]

It's just a matter of time :)What I find is that most people who say "free markets don't work" are either talking about something different than what I mean when I say "free markets". When people object to free markets, they are usually objecting to either corporatism -- corporations being in bed with govt to screw the little guy, or they are objecting to force or fraud -- intentionally harming people. The first of these becomes a bigger problem with *more* regulation, as we see in this mortgage nonsense. The second can easily be covered by laws that apply to all, there's no need to single out big business or corporations for the dark side of the human soul. What happens is a lot of discussions go in circles because it's too difficult to lay the ground work of "what exactly do you mean" for every single discussion. When I talk about free markets, I mean a market that allows voluntary consensual transactions within a framework of rule of law and informed consent and enforcement of contracts, and is free from market distortions caused by political considerations.

In that context, other than my concerns for certain issues that I see having happened before without regulation, I'd like to actually see it work. But at this point, there is such a mass of conflicting laws, regulations and corruption, that I don't see how it could be implemented. Like the present situation, the mess is so entangled with every facet of the financial picture that I don't see how even the present bailout will get us out. If it weren't for the fact that there's no way the Bush Whitehouse could keep such a conspiracy secret or even run it properly, I'd almost go with the paranoid people who say that he's wanting to have this crisis to declare martial law and take over the country. Regardless, it's my opinion and apparently the overall opinion of most Montanans is screw em.

[hblask 1]

In that context, other than my concerns for certain issues that I see having happened before without regulation, I'd like to actually see it work. But at this point, there is such a mass of conflicting laws, regulations and corruption, that I don't see how it could be implemented. Like the present situation, the mess is so entangled with every facet of the financial picture that I don't see how even the present bailout will get us out.

This question came up in another discussion -- the transition issue. It's a big problem. This mortgage thing is one example, and the CA energy problems a few years ago is another. In both cases, the system was flawed. But any attempt to completely deregulate met with resistance from lobbyists. So instead of deregulation, what we got was laws that allowed companies with good lobbyists to reap the profits of free markets without bearing the costs of free markets. You need companies to bear both for markets to work. Realistically, it's pretty difficult to get a true reform through. Telecommunications is another example. It's a disaster of tangled nonsense. I cry a little when I think about the phones and internet and TV and radio services we could have if the govt would get out of the way.I think the only way to do it is like a band-aid -- just pull it all at once, really fast. Whenever deregulation occurs in little chunks, the special interests get their way and make things worse.One of the best ideas is a constitutional amendment that says that all laws have to be renewed every x number of years (where 3 < x < 10). If you can't justify re-authorizing it, it expires. This would apply to old laws too, even ones from way back, and all laws big and small. That way, when we see how bad a law is, we're not stuck with it for generations.

[Loismustdie 0]

This question came up in another discussion -- the transition issue. It's a big problem. This mortgage thing is one example, and the CA energy problems a few years ago is another. In both cases, the system was flawed. But any attempt to completely deregulate met with resistance from lobbyists. So instead of deregulation, what we got was laws that allowed companies with good lobbyists to reap the profits of free markets without bearing the costs of free markets. You need companies to bear both for markets to work. Realistically, it's pretty difficult to get a true reform through. Telecommunications is another example. It's a disaster of tangled nonsense. I cry a little when I think about the phones and internet and TV and radio services we could have if the govt would get out of the way.I think the only way to do it is like a band-aid -- just pull it all at once, really fast. Whenever deregulation occurs in little chunks, the special interests get their way and make things worse.One of the best ideas is a constitutional amendment that says that all laws have to be renewed every x number of years (where 3 < x < 10). If you can't justify re-authorizing it, it expires. This would apply to old laws too, even ones from way back, and all laws big and small. That way, when we see how bad a law is, we're not stuck with it for generations.

I ****ing love that idea.

[Nimue1995 1]

This question came up in another discussion -- the transition issue. It's a big problem. This mortgage thing is one example, and the CA energy problems a few years ago is another. In both cases, the system was flawed. But any attempt to completely deregulate met with resistance from lobbyists. So instead of deregulation, what we got was laws that allowed companies with good lobbyists to reap the profits of free markets without bearing the costs of free markets. You need companies to bear both for markets to work. Realistically, it's pretty difficult to get a true reform through. Telecommunications is another example. It's a disaster of tangled nonsense. I cry a little when I think about the phones and internet and TV and radio services we could have if the govt would get out of the way.I think the only way to do it is like a band-aid -- just pull it all at once, really fast. Whenever deregulation occurs in little chunks, the special interests get their way and make things worse.One of the best ideas is a constitutional amendment that says that all laws have to be renewed every x number of years (where 3 < x < 10). If you can't justify re-authorizing it, it expires. This would apply to old laws too, even ones from way back, and all laws big and small. That way, when we see how bad a law is, we're not stuck with it for generations.

Wow this is a historic moment. H, LMD & I agree on something

[El Guapo 10]

I really like your idea of re-examining old laws. I have always said a major problem with our society is we make new laws and don't get rid of old ones, and then they contradict themselves. It would be interesting figuring out the logistics of it.

[copernicus 0]

I ****ing love that idea.

It would create market distortions as transactions are timed around expiration of different laws, and cause redundant lobbying to reinstate/allow laws to lapse. the consideration of what party is in power for the expiration of certain laws becomes paramount. (Witness the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for all of the above.) If a law doesnt work, change it, and take the heat/credit for changing it. Automatic expiration is a Congressional traffic jam waiting to happen.

[hblask 1]

It would create market distortions as transactions are timed around expiration of different laws, and cause redundant lobbying to reinstate/allow laws to lapse. the consideration of what party is in power for the expiration of certain laws becomes paramount. (Witness the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for all of the above.) If a law doesnt work, change it, and take the heat/credit for changing it. Automatic expiration is a Congressional traffic jam waiting to happen.

I think the market distortions would be less because companies could no longer make long-term decisions based on the belief that their corporate welfare gravy train will go on forever. They will have to stick to business fundamentals and doing what makes sense instead of what politicians they can buy. I think this is just an argument for a shorter-rather-than-longer time frame for expiration.As for redundant lobbying efforts, I think that is an excellent punishment for companies that rely on political largess rather than sound business.And yes, the Congressional traffic jam is the *point* of the expiration law. Congress would have to quit micromanaging a million things that they know nothing about, and would have to instead set up fair and predictable structures that would be renewed without controversy.Again, I'll go back to the current state of comminications (TV, Internet, Radio, Phones). It would take 1000 lawyers 1000 years to understand all the laws in this area. There is no reason for it to be this complicated. The reason it is complicated is because telecommunication is big business, and lobbyists are determined to protect their piece of the pie. If that became cost prohibitive, maybe they'd go away. The only type of bill that could be renewed every few years is one that is fair and clear.

[Loismustdie 0]

It would create market distortions as transactions are timed around expiration of different laws, and cause redundant lobbying to reinstate/allow laws to lapse. the consideration of what party is in power for the expiration of certain laws becomes paramount. (Witness the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for all of the above.) If a law doesnt work, change it, and take the heat/credit for changing it. Automatic expiration is a Congressional traffic jam waiting to happen.

There are some holes to be sure. I love it because I thinks it's interesting, and would take some of the heat off at times as much as it would apply it at others. It's an interesting thought. So is my "Boob jobs for all" proposition, as cool as that would be it has it's drawbacks. Like, what if it's an ugly chick and stuff like that.

[copernicus 0]

Like, what if it's an ugly chick and stuff like that.

Save the bag the implants came in, FTW.

[Kenny Banya 0]

Wow this is a historic moment. H, LMD & I agree on something

LOL...would it be too much if I agreed too. Like LMD, I find it interesting too.Looks like I (and not just me) was right about the auto industry too...man inflation and debt is going to be building.House Authorizes $25 Billion in Loans to Auto Industryhttp://www.thestreet.com/story/10439329/1/...E&cm_ite=NA370-58 in the House...shouldn't have a problem getting past the Senate.

[Kenny Banya 0]

There are some holes to be sure. I love it because I thinks it's interesting, and would take some of the heat off at times as much as it would apply it at others. It's an interesting thought. So is my "Boob jobs for all" proposition, as cool as that would be it has it's drawbacks. Like, what if it's an ugly chick and stuff like that.

Best idea yet

[hblask 1]

I know this thread has wandered far from it's title, but if I could put it back for a moment. Paul's 2002 speech now looks practically copycat when you look at people before that. Who? Well, those crazy libertarians again:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1152&full=1The Washington Post is noticing:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8092403209.html

[copernicus 0]

I know this thread has wandered far from it's title, but if I could put it back for a moment. Paul's 2002 speech now looks practically copycat when you look at people before that. Who? Well, those crazy libertarians again:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1152&full=1The Washington Post is noticing:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8092403209.html

Im not sure if youre being sarcastic here. RP's campaign rhetoric came straight off of mises.org and the Cato Inst. thats no secret.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Here is a short interview with Ron Paul on the current bailout rescue plan and current state of the economy.http://townhall.com/columnists/BillSteiger...nterview?page=1

[Sal Paradise 57]

Here is a short interview with Ron Paul on the current bailout rescue plan and current state of the economy.http://townhall.com/columnists/BillSteiger...nterview?page=1

I think I may have to write in a vote for him.

[KONGOS 0]

Check this out...from 2006http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6PamCQ6zw

[copernicus 0]

Check this out...from 2006http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU6PamCQ6zw

Laffer FTW. The problem with Schiff's analysis is that he doesnt recognize that all markets are cyclical. Yes, RE and stocks may have been overvalued at one point, and a correction was due. That doesnt mean that they give back all of their gains, and it doesnt mean that they dont resume their growth after the correction.Net wealth has grown both in nominal terms and in purchasing power as Laffer says.

[KONGOS 0]

Laffer FTW. The problem with Schiff's analysis is that he doesnt recognize that all markets are cyclical. Yes, RE and stocks may have been overvalued at one point, and a correction was due. That doesnt mean that they give back all of their gains, and it doesnt mean that they dont resume their growth after the correction.Net wealth has grown both in nominal terms and in purchasing power as Laffer says.

Along with all the other stupid things Laffer said, he says "Our economy has never been in better shape" and you say LAFFER FTW??I am glad you are not my financial advisor.

[copernicus 0]

Along with all the other stupid things Laffer said, he says "Our economy has never been in better shape" and you say LAFFER FTW??I am glad you are not my financial advisor.

He was correct, and McCain is correct that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. In the midst of the worst crisis in the financial markets in 20 years or more, stocks have gone down less than 15%. Do you have a clue why?

[vbnautilus 49]

He was correct, and McCain is correct that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. In the midst of the worst crisis in the financial markets in 20 years or more, stocks have gone down less than 15%. Do you have a clue why?

Because "fundamentals of the economy" obviously refers to the "our workers"!

[copernicus 0]

Because "fundamentals of the economy" obviously refers to the "our workers"!

No, it refers to the productivity, intellectual capital and infrastructure which is still the best in the world by far.

[KONGOS 0]

No, it refers to the productivity, intellectual capital and infrastructure which is still the best in the world by far.

We produce a whole lot of debt, I can agree with you on that....and we do import a lot of scientists/engineers/intellectuals because we're not graduating them here in the US so we can agree there...but infrastructure?? Where have you been living?Debt is our biggest export. We borrow, borrow, borrow and then spend money on useless shit (2/3rds of our economy driven solely by consumption). Getting yourself into debt can be a good idea if for example you use the money to build a factory that produces something and then you sell it, make a profit, and reduce/eliminate your debt. We saw it work 100 or so years ago but all we're doing is borrowing money to buy "sneakers with lights in them" as Carlin once said, so I'd say the fundamentals are pretty pathetic.