**official Vote Libertarian Thread**

[mk 11]

Would you like to try again?(The others are just a list of companies, so I'm not sure what you are getting at.)

You aren't one of the truly crazy libertarians who wants to abolish the Fed, are you? (I expected you to investigate the cases yourself. I don't think I need to paste summaries into the thread).

[hblask 1]

You aren't one of the truly crazy libertarians who wants to abolish the Fed, are you? (I expected you to investigate the cases yourself. I don't think I need to paste summaries into the thread).

The Fed is an interesting topic.... I don't have a crazy desire to see it eliminated. I have read about the idea of privatizing the money supply, which would immediately eliminate inflation, but the subject is too complex to really get a grip on without years of study. I would support an experiment in that direction, but I'm not sure it is something you could do halfway.The reason I don't want to investigate each of the companies is because I've read them before, and they always turn out to be dead ends. For example: Myth: Standard Oil had a monopoly. Truth: no they didn't, not even close, and even to the extent that they dominated the market they offered more products for lower prices than their competitors, which is who you would want to be the market leader, right?.Myth: Microsoft has a monopoly on ?? Truth: One of their biggest compeitors is giving away their product for free. And Microsoft is unfair? Lol. Their so-called "monopoly" only existed for an extremely narrow definition of their product line, i.e., Intel-based home computers -- a category of products that they basically created a way for the world to use. And even with that narrow definition, they were nowhere close to a monopoly, as there were a number of compeitors available at the time.Myth: AT&T was a monopoly. Truth: AT&T was regulated into being a monopoly. When the regulations were removed, the phone market became competitive, prices dropped, and services expanded.Again and again, the same facts keep coming back: no natural monopoly has ever existed in all of history. If a monopoly exists, it is due to regulation. Competitive markets ALWAYS have lower prices and more services than regulated markets. Any so-called "facts" to the contrary are just propaganda.

[mk 11]

Myth: Microsoft has a monopoly on ?? Truth: One of their biggest compeitors is giving away their product for free. And Microsoft is unfair? Lol. Their so-called "monopoly" only existed for an extremely narrow definition of their product line, i.e., Intel-based home computers -- a category of products that they basically created a way for the world to use. And even with that narrow definition, they were nowhere close to a monopoly, as there were a number of compeitors available at the time.Again and again, the same facts keep coming back: no natural monopoly has ever existed in all of history. If a monopoly exists, it is due to regulation. Competitive markets ALWAYS have lower prices and more services than regulated markets. Any so-called "facts" to the contrary are just propaganda.

There is a difference between a company having a natural monopoly and a company engaging in anticompetitive practices. From the initial complaint brought against MSFT: 5. To protect its valuable Windows monopoly against such potential competitive threats, and to extend its operating system monopoly into other software markets, Microsoft has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities. Microsoft's conduct includes agreements tying other Microsoft software products to Microsoft's Windows operating system; exclusionary agreements precluding companies from distributing, promoting, buying, or using products of Microsoft's software competitors or potential competitors; and exclusionary agreements restricting the right of companies to provide services or resources to Microsoft's software competitors or potential competitors.

[hblask 1]

There is a difference between a company having a natural monopoly and a company engaging in anticompetitive practices. From the initial complaint brought against MSFT: 5. To protect its valuable Windows monopoly against such potential competitive threats, and to extend its operating system monopoly into other software markets, Microsoft has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities. Microsoft's conduct includes agreements tying other Microsoft software products to Microsoft's Windows operating system; exclusionary agreements precluding companies from distributing, promoting, buying, or using products of Microsoft's software competitors or potential competitors; and exclusionary agreements restricting the right of companies to provide services or resources to Microsoft's software competitors or potential competitors.

None of these practices are unusual or unfair in the business world.Tying other products to their main product: So is this to imply that once a product is created, it is to be locked into that form forever? That no extensions to it could ever be made? When MS created their operating system, the WWW didn't exist. Once it did, users expected to be able to use the internet when they bought a computer. So MS is somehow engaging in anti-competitive practices by giving the customer what they want? What a joke.Exclusionary agreements: It would be difficult to find a large company that does not have an exclusionary agreement of some type with at least *some* of it's customers. At any rate, if I create something, I own it, and it is not the government's job to decide how I sell it or under what terms. As I've pointed out repeatedly, and have the data to confirm, when the gov't interferes in voluntary consensual transactions, the economy is harmed.Perhaps you'd like to address what the issue is really about: Microsoft was not giving "their share" of campaign contributions, while their competitors were. Microsoft had no lobbying presence in Washington. MS's competitors, tired of getting their butts handed to them on the level playing field, brought their briefcases full of money to Washington, and suddenly, look, a legal dispute.Eventually MS rolled over, now has lobbyists and gives the appropriate amount of money to corrupt politicians. Despite the fact they they continue to operate as before, or if anything, do more of what they were accused of, there are no more legal threats. Coincidence? Sure.In the end, it's about property rights. Do you own what you produce or not? Historically, societies that have strong property rights and right-to-contracts have been successful and healthy; societies that do no are poor and unhealthy.Which will you choose?

[hblask 1]

Oh. Then, what are we arguing about?

I missed this before. I was supporting libertarianism, and you seemed to disagree that it is viable, but I have yet to see a case where the libertarian version of events would be worse than the statist version, yet know of many (ie endless) cases where the statist version is worse. Any regulations beyond the libertarian ideal of force and fraud harms the economy and harms people.

[SilentSnow 1]

If you don't believe it, you can do an experiment. There are several different organizations that rate countries on the basis of economic freedom. The Heritage Foundation is one, there are a couple others. Use whichever objective rating system you want.Compare the countries rankings on the level of economic freedom to the information in the CIA World Factbook for any measure of human well-being that you would like to measure.The results obvious: government interference in the economy harms people, reduces health and livelihood, reduces standards of living, and leads to misery. You can propose plausible reasons why X needs a bureaucrat involved and why politicians are particularly adept at solving problem Y, but history has already done that experiment, and private enterprise wins. And it's not just "ekes out a win", it's a blowout.

The "economic freedom" measures are confounded by so many other variables that they become almost useless. I am willing to bet that there would also be a strong positive correlation between government regulations, government tax receipts, government welfare, government health care, environmental restrictions and human well-being. Of course, these are all fundamental sins to a libertarian. "Some of the highest ranking countries in the Index, for example Iceland (# 5), Denmark (# 8), Finland (# 12) and Sweden (# 19) are widely recognized as having some of the world's most extensive welfare states, which are strongly opposed by advocates of laissez-faire."Just for fun, lets look at some tax rates. We all know that Hong Kong is held up as the shining libertarian example. Never mind that it's not even a real country. It's tax rate is 20 percent. Here are some countries that are lower.http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthreeRomania Russia Serbia Slovakia All generally horrible places to live if you arent rich. If you exclude some African countries, they rank close to dead last in happiness surveys.I shouldnt even have to bother to tell you that most of the best countries to live in have some of the highest tax rates.

[wilheldp 0]

Wow...I wish I had time at work today to keep up with this thread...so many fun topics have been missed.#1 - Deregulation would have never been a problem had regulation never occured in the first place. The airlines are a perfect example. A few airlines were given privileged access to routes and competition was completely stifled. Consequently, the big airlines continued to grow and prosper because they didn't have competition to keep them in check. They built business models based on the regulated industry. Then came deregulation. Roughly half of the airlines that existed under regulation have gone out of business, and the other half are currently in bankruptcy. Know why? Because the business model that regulation created DOES NOT WORK IN THE FREE MARKET! Companies like JetBlue and Southwest came in after regulation, used good and proven business models and are currently thriving while the dinosaur airlines complain about how bad the airline industry is at the moment. What pisses me off about the situation is that the government is bailing out the companies after years of creating their problems.#2 - Could corporations provide funding to colleges/universities the same way that the government does today? The answer: Yes. In fact, it has happened in a very limited number of instances. Kettering University (formerly the General Motors Institute) is currently a top 10 engineering school, and guess who funded that school? Another example is the fact that my current company is reimbursing me for my tuition and fees for getting my Master's degree. Anybody that went to school on student loans, and are paying them off gradually is having their education indirectly paid for by their employer. How is this beyond the stretch of your imagination that schooling could exist without government intervention? It is in the best interest of the private sector to have employees with varying levels of education, and they already indirectly pay for it...why not make them pay for it directly?#3 - I am one of those nutjobs that advocates for the removal of the Federal Reserve System. If you can point to a SINGLE system of fiat currency (i.e. non-Gold standard) that has not failed in the history of the world, I will change my position immediately. The Fed is completely incapable of controlling inflation because the Fed is the ONLY source of inflation. The Fed controls the amount of currency in circulation because they distribute the currency from the BEP and Mint to the Federal Reserve Banks, and then to the private banks. They also control the interest rates which determines how much imaginary money is created (i.e. purchases made on credit without the money ever really existing to back up the purchases). These two factors allow the Fed to create monetary inflation (which isn't widely reported). Monetary inflation leads to more money in circulation, which allows people to spend more (more demand) which allows companies to raise prices, and these higher prices are what lead to *price inflation*, which is what everybody is talking about when they talk about inflation. It is the RESULT of monetary inflation, which is directly caused by the Fed. If anybody doesn't follow that, I can probably take another crack at explaining it better.

[wilheldp 0]

The M3 is a measure of all monetary assets, reserves, or agreements in the US. The Fed stopped releasing this data a few months ago, but they recently started it up again. Notice anything? How about in this one....

[hblask 1]

The "economic freedom" measures are confounded by so many other variables that they become almost useless. I am willing to bet that there would also be a strong positive correlation between government regulations, government tax receipts, government welfare, government health care, environmental restrictions and human well-being. Of course, these are all fundamental sins to a libertarian. "Some of the highest ranking countries in the Index, for example Iceland (# 5), Denmark (# 8), Finland (# 12) and Sweden (# 19) are widely recognized as having some of the world's most extensive welfare states, which are strongly opposed by advocates of laissez-faire."Just for fun, lets look at some tax rates. We all know that Hong Kong is held up as the shining libertarian example. Never mind that it's not even a real country. It's tax rate is 20 percent. Here are some countries that are lower.http://www.worldwide-tax.com/index.asp#partthreeRomania Russia Serbia Slovakia All generally horrible places to live if you arent rich. If you exclude some African countries, they rank close to dead last in happiness surveys.I shouldnt even have to bother to tell you that most of the best countries to live in have some of the highest tax rates.

The rankings of freedom use regulations, taxes, etc in their rating, so I don't think "confounded" is the appropriate word. More like "intentionally included".I love it when people use big government, non-libertarian places as arguments against libertarianism. Those countries you list are about as far from libertarian as you can get, and the economic results show. There is no reliable right to private property in those places, and no reliable rule of law.So thank you again for point out the value in what I am trying to demonstrate here.

[SilentSnow 1]

The M3 is a measure of all monetary assets, reserves, or agreements in the US. The Fed stopped releasing this data a few months ago, but they recently started it up again. Notice anything?"Pictures people should pay attention to but wont because the economy might as well run by magic for all they know or care"

I dont know what you were trying to show by that post, but here is my interpretation of the 2 links below-http://chevallier.turgot.org/a363-Monetary...GDP_growth.htmlhttp://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.htmlFor the last few decades, the federal government has actively tried to manage the money supply. If they increase the money supply, then the economy should theoretically be boosted. However, all this might be ineffective. For all we know changes to the money supply dont really affect things that much. One thing we do know though is that increases in the money supply reliably predict recessions- even if they cant change the economy much, the fed does seem to be able to predict when things are heading south. For whatever reason, M3 and GDP growth are very stongly negatively correlated. Even if you do not avoid a recession, monetary increases have a great political benefit. If you lie about the true inflation numbers, then an increase in monetary supply will show up as an increase in GDP. Needless to say, the government has hardly been truthful lately about actual vs official inflation.As that chart shows, since M3 is skyrocketing upwards, a recession should be soon to follow.Also, since our debt is at very high levels, it will be extremely difficult for the government to help spend the economy out of a recession.We can also see that, right on cue, the yield curve is inverting. This is another reliable predictor of recession.Another interesting chart is between stocks and real assets like gold, housing, and oil. If this chart holds, then we probably have at least another decade of decreasing stock prices relative to physical assets. And that is even before you factor in the actual scarcity of oil and maybe a few other commodities this time.Throw in the end of the housing bubble if you feel like piling on.Summary- We are almost certainly heading for a recession soon, and given all the factors coming together, might be lucky to avoid a severe recession or even depression.Gratuitous anti-Libertarian argument- Still, all this data shows is that Republicans cant be trusted to effectively and honestly run a country. Whether you believe in capitalism, libertarianism, or socialism I think we can all agree that dishonesty and extreme shortsightedness is no way to run a country.

[SilentSnow 1]

The rankings of freedom use regulations, taxes, etc in their rating, so I don't think "confounded" is the appropriate word. More like "intentionally included".I love it when people use big government, non-libertarian places as arguments against libertarianism. Those countries you list are about as far from libertarian as you can get, and the economic results show. There is no reliable right to private property in those places, and no reliable rule of law.So thank you again for point out the value in what I am trying to demonstrate here.

I dont think you understand what I said.I specifically pointed out that highly socialistic governments rated near the top of the "economic freedom" index that libertarians cite in order to prove how great libertarianism is. So be sure to read the next sentence carefully until you understand it.Since the MOST SOCIALISTIC governments rank near the TOP of "economic freedom" indexes, then we can reliably conclude that those indexes are COMPLETE NONSENSE.That is why in my socialism thread I ignored the fraudulent economic freedom indexes and used a real indicator of socialism.

[hblask 1]

I dont think you understand what I said.I specifically pointed out that highly socialistic governments rated near the top of the "economic freedom" index that libertarians cite in order to prove how great libertarianism is. So be sure to read the next sentence carefully until you understand it.Since the MOST SOCIALISTIC governments rank near the TOP of "economic freedom" indexes, then we can reliably conclude that those indexes are COMPLETE NONSENSE.That is why in my socialism thread I ignored the fraudulent economic freedom indexes and used a real indicator of socialism.

Yep, I did misunderstand. I thought you were saying Russia and Serbia were your examples, instead of the examples of Denmark and Sweden. Basically, countries like Denmark and Sweden, while welfare states, have strong rule of law and good support for property rights and free enterprise, which is the generally accepted definition of economic freedom. The welfare state detracts from that, but not to the same extent that harmful regulation of free exchange, or lack of respect for property rights does.