Interesting View

C

Cancel7

Banned
I think we need to listen to all views on this, before we rush into this shotgun bailout

Liberaltarianism’s New Groove
Who imagined that the great opportunity for joint progressive and libertarian advocacy and activism would end up being economic? But that’s where we are. This loathsome bailout plan is a slap in the face to anyone who believes in either free-market principles or social justice. William Greider calls it “a historic swindle.” Paul Krugman says, “No Deal.” Radley Balko decries it. Arnold Kling says, dueting with Luigi Zingales (pdf), “the government officials making these decisions are seeing things from the perspective of Wall Street, which is kind of like seeing the auto industry from a Detroit viewpoint or seeing the movie industry from a Hollywood viewpoint or seeing elections from a Washington viewpoint.”

What we have here is a soul test of several tendencies in American politics - progressivism, libertarianism, limited-government conservatism, principled defenders of managerial liberalism generally. This is as naked a case as we could imagine seeing of the state working to enrich the already wealthy at the expense of the many. The only theoretical defense of it would be a belief that the well-being of America’s wealthy as a class is necessary to the well-being of the country as a whole, and that this transcends any merit its members possess. That is, the business of America isn’t business, but businessmen. This is not an argument anyone is going to want to make in so many words.

If libertarians fail to oppose this bailout, they stand revealed as the hypocritical apologists for corporate power their detractors have always accused them of being. If Democratic leaders fail to oppose this bailout, they will prove to be the phonies and weaklings of stereotype. If managerialists go along with it, then every argument against the State as guardian of the general welfare will bear out. Right now a corrupt and spent corporate class is on the brink of getting a corrupt and spent governing class to perpetuate its privilege by almost dumbfoundingly transparent means. Anyone with a soul needs to oppose them.


http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/20/8720
 
Part 2 is interesting too.

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/21/8722



Yglesias:

Simply put, if congressional Democrats manage to acquiesce in a plan that spends $700 billion on a bailout while doing nothing for average working people and giving the taxpayer virtually no upside in a way that guarantees that even electoral victory would give an Obama administration no resources with which to implement a progressive domestic agenda in 2009 then everyone’s going to have to give serious consideration to becoming a pretty hard-core libertarian.

It’d be one thing for a bunch of conservative politicians to ram a terrible policy through. Then we could say “well, if some progressives win the next election things will be different.” But if this comes through an allegedly progressive congress then the whole enterprise starts looking pretty hollow.
Click to expand...

I would heh, indeed that, but there’s a big challenge pointing the other way: Libertarians need to ask themselves to what extent limited-government advocacy simply provides, in the real world of practical politics, fine-sounding rhetorical justification for pro-corporate, as opposed to pro-market, policy. I know an awful lot of professional libertarians, and the ones I’ve met genuinely abhor government intervention on behalf of corporations. The thing is, they don’t themselves have any power, any more than progressive activists do. It’s a fair argument that the fate of libertarian advocacy has been to selectively justify GOP programs allowing "the market" to deliver rewards to the best-connected billionaires and corporations, and punishments to ordinary workers and consumers. (Years ago, Gene Healy suggested in conversation that this was Michael Lind’s argument about Cato et al in Up From Conservatism: the genuinely libertarian institutions made their sincerely laissez-faire arguments; the corporate elites behind the GOP took the arguments that benefited themselves and ignored the rest.) The speed with which a John McCain moves from declaring himself "fundamentally a deregulator" to endorsing a taxpayer-funded golden parachute for the entire finance sector gives the game away. Genuine libertarians won’t endorse the bailout. What genuine libertarians think simply won’t factor into the decision.

My arguments about the Iraq War included that one is responsible for the genuinely foreseeable consequences of one’s policies. It didn’t matter that advocates of "liberating" Iraq did not hope to see a guerrilla war, ethnic strife, massive fratricide and 15% of Iraq’s population in diaspora. These things were predictible, and therefore fairly the fault of hawks regardless of their intentions. The question is whether the same standard applies to professional libertarianism in the current economic circumstance.

Still, Matt isn’t wrong. This isn’t just a Democratic Congress - it’s a Democratic Congress that owes its existence to specifically progressive activism. On some level it’s not fair that, since liberalism has a handle on some genuine levers of power and libertarianism does not, liberalism bears more responsibility for whatever happens next: Nancy Pelosi just has more capacity for action than Ron Paul. But as Matt points out, liberals do have genuine power here, and their leaders really will expose their enterprise as a fraud if they roll over for the bailout.

The question is, then what?
 
RStringfield said:
Part 2 is interesting too.

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/09/21/8722



Yglesias:



I would heh, indeed that, but there’s a big challenge pointing the other way: Libertarians need to ask themselves to what extent limited-government advocacy simply provides, in the real world of practical politics, fine-sounding rhetorical justification for pro-corporate, as opposed to pro-market, policy. I know an awful lot of professional libertarians, and the ones I’ve met genuinely abhor government intervention on behalf of corporations. The thing is, they don’t themselves have any power, any more than progressive activists do. It’s a fair argument that the fate of libertarian advocacy has been to selectively justify GOP programs allowing "the market" to deliver rewards to the best-connected billionaires and corporations, and punishments to ordinary workers and consumers. (Years ago, Gene Healy suggested in conversation that this was Michael Lind’s argument about Cato et al in Up From Conservatism: the genuinely libertarian institutions made their sincerely laissez-faire arguments; the corporate elites behind the GOP took the arguments that benefited themselves and ignored the rest.) The speed with which a John McCain moves from declaring himself "fundamentally a deregulator" to endorsing a taxpayer-funded golden parachute for the entire finance sector gives the game away. Genuine libertarians won’t endorse the bailout. What genuine libertarians think simply won’t factor into the decision.

My arguments about the Iraq War included that one is responsible for the genuinely foreseeable consequences of one’s policies. It didn’t matter that advocates of "liberating" Iraq did not hope to see a guerrilla war, ethnic strife, massive fratricide and 15% of Iraq’s population in diaspora. These things were predictible, and therefore fairly the fault of hawks regardless of their intentions. The question is whether the same standard applies to professional libertarianism in the current economic circumstance.

Still, Matt isn’t wrong. This isn’t just a Democratic Congress - it’s a Democratic Congress that owes its existence to specifically progressive activism. On some level it’s not fair that, since liberalism has a handle on some genuine levers of power and libertarianism does not, liberalism bears more responsibility for whatever happens next: Nancy Pelosi just has more capacity for action than Ron Paul. But as Matt points out, liberals do have genuine power here, and their leaders really will expose their enterprise as a fraud if they roll over for the bailout.

The question is, then what?
Click to expand...

If you go to the link I gave, which I got from Andrew Sullivan, it says nothing about any part II.
 
I've already called my congressman and my two senators and said, no bailout, period.

That's all you can do, but if you're against this, do it.

We're going to get it anyway. Boy are we going to get it.
 
This is exactly what the Dems should do. Say that it is not the business of the government to bail out businesses that made bad decisions. Let market forces decide and everyone get ready to bail water when it starts coming over the sides. It will hurt more but for a shorter period of time. Dems REALLY need to listen to libertarians on this one.
 
Socrtease said:
This is exactly what the Dems should do. Say that it is not the business of the government to bail out businesses that made bad decisions. Let market forces decide and everyone get ready to bail water when it starts coming over the sides. It will hurt more but for a shorter period of time. Dems REALLY need to listen to libertarians on this one.
Click to expand...
How do you think Ron Paul is going to vote?

Tancredo is against the bailout too, but I'm sure :rolleyes: that it is somehow because of illegal immigration....
 
Socrtease said:
This is exactly what the Dems should do. Say that it is not the business of the government to bail out businesses that made bad decisions. Let market forces decide and everyone get ready to bail water when it starts coming over the sides. It will hurt more but for a shorter period of time. Dems REALLY need to listen to libertarians on this one.
Click to expand...


Or they can listen to progressives who are arguing against this.
 
The dems folded on the war and the bush tax cuts. Why would you ever think they would stand firm now?
 
Well the one thing that is going to work against this is that the "small government" republicans that are running for office will blame ALL the economic problems that result on the Democrats for not bailing out wall street.
 
Socrtease said:
Well the one thing that is going to work against this is that the "small government" republicans that are running for office will blame ALL the economic problems that result on the Democrats for not bailing out wall street.
Click to expand...

That’s right. And Damo, and SF will sing right along with them. They're just waiting for the beat.
 
too many bailouts already,
look at it this way.
Some millionaire/billionaire from a failed wall street gambling house (AIG)
comes knocking on your door. Can you give him $5,000 so he doesn't have to close his doors, or if he does he'll still be a billionaire.
No freaking thanks AIG, here's a punch in the face for asking.
 
Darla said:
That’s right. And Damo, and SF will sing right along with them. They're just waiting for the beat.
Click to expand...
But if they bail them out, then the republicans will pretend NOT to have been for the bailout but to be "small government" conservatives. Now is a really good time to be the opposition.
 
Darla said:
I've already called my congressman and my two senators and said, no bailout, period.

That's all you can do, but if you're against this, do it.

We're going to get it anyway. Boy are we going to get it.
Click to expand...

I called my 2 senators and my rep. However my 2 senators are republicans....
 
I don't think there is any chance whatsoever that the Dems will oppose it, but we'll see.

It's an election year, and they're petrified. The last thing they want is to be seen as "not doing something," and I doubt they have many other good ideas. They're terrified that the market will tank again if they go against it, and that they'll be blamed.

It's like an economic version of the Iraq resolution...
 
Onceler said:
I don't think there is any chance whatsoever that the Dems will oppose it, but we'll see.

It's an election year, and they're petrified. The last thing they want is to be seen as "not doing something," and I doubt they have many other good ideas. They're terrified that the market will tank again if they go against it, and that they'll be blamed.

It's like an economic version of the Iraq resolution...
Click to expand...

It sure is.
 
Lorax's good point applies to all politicians, I doubt any of them would do the right thing in an election year and take the short term pain even though it's better in the long term. Obama is silent on this. I suspect like a lot of lefties he's torn between their desire to have government exercise more control over finance and between having to help corporations they hate. He doesn't need to say anything, the prez as per usual gets all the blame/credit for anything good/bad so as this could be easily construed as either depending on how the economy holds out for now, then why bother?
 
Onceler said:
I don't think there is any chance whatsoever that the Dems will oppose it, but we'll see.

It's an election year, and they're petrified. The last thing they want is to be seen as "not doing something," and I doubt they have many other good ideas. They're terrified that the market will tank again if they go against it, and that they'll be blamed.

It's like an economic version of the Iraq resolution...
Click to expand...

Which is why should not open all questions to political answers.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Lorax's good point applies to all politicians, I doubt any of them would do the right thing in an election year and take the short term pain even though it's better in the long term. Obama is silent on this. I suspect like a lot of lefties he's torn between their desire to have government exercise more control over finance and between having to help corporations they hate. He doesn't need to say anything, the prez as per usual gets all the blame/credit for anything good/bad so as this could be easily construed as either depending on how the economy holds out for now, then why bother?
Click to expand...

PHILADELPHIA — Senators John McCain and Barack Obama warned Sunday that there should be more oversight built into the government’s $700 billion plan to stabilize the financial markets but said the potentially enormous expenditure would not force them to scale back their ambitious governing agendas.

Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, and Mr. Obama, his Democratic rival, agreed in separate interviews that steps should be taken to ensure taxpayer dollars are not used to enrich the executives of troubled financial firms bailed out by the government. They echoed each other in assessing the threat from the financial crisis as severe enough to warrant government intervention.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22campaign.html?hp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top