NEWSFLASH: libertarians and free marketeers have not been running the country

[Adam Weinberg]

I know from the look of this website some of you want to think so, but we are still very much a political minority with limited public policy influence.

Even the ostensibly right wing party, while paying lip service to free markets, limited public spending and balanced budgets has embraced nothing of the sort. Notably in this Presidential primary and general election, we libertarians and limited government conservatives have done what we can to rally against what currently passes in casual discussion for conservative policy. The argument that we are complicit in these economic woes seems misplaced considering it is now the Democrats who are coming to the table in favor of Corporate Welfare the fastest...with the best of intentions, of course.

The misconception that our economic situation relates to capitalism rather than government and corporate collusion--and the misunderstanding that special interests are naturally the primary beneficiaries of free markets--is a crock that has been repeatedly peddled around these parts and it's time for that notion to be let go for people who want an honest discussion.

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that everyone does want that honest discussion. Who would have guessed that the left, sensing the reins of power are not far from reach, would so quickly adopt the method of the Neo-Conservatives in granting an oft-repeated lie greater currency than the truth?

...Actually, I would have guessed, and I bet a number of you would have as well.

The Democrats can have a good run like the GOP did from 2002-2006 undermining freedom in this country with a fictitious Great Depression to justify their policies.

And how strange that the arbiter of this entire premise is George W. Bush.

Yes, while he is indeed the President they've been trying for years to peg as a lying, underqualified, ape-man who got us into a "dumb war" to subsidize the military-industrial complex, he now has the foresight and intelligence to solve the economic crisis by subsidizing the giants of the financial industry with the assistance of the Democratic Congress.

They will find a way to get over this irony and develop the accoutrements for their national emergency that changes everything. Equivalents to the terrorism color code and the duct tape sealing of your home will come about. They will just have to focus on your economic survival instead of your actual survival.

But just like with the Bush Republicans, there is a remote glimmer of hope because the public will eventually show signs of fatigue with the senselessness of their policies toward a problem they were only pretending to understand. Free thinking people will also get annoyed with their accusations against the other side for being soft and less committed to national interest.

Anyway, Orwellian predictions aside, here are some more easy-reading resources if you care to hear the more prominent libertarian and paleo-conservative perspectives on this issue, what caused it and what should be done, and quite importantly, not be done:

http://reason.com/news/show/129041.html - Economists weighing in on the bailout.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=616 - Ron Paul's response to the President's address.


...That is all.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Well it's a Republican prez, all you need is a jackass like Michael Moore blaming the "free market" and too many just assume they go hand in hand. Obama's change with wanting (yet) more regulation, government involvement and programs, is like saying the guy who shifts his vehicle from 3rd gear to 5th will bring change.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I know from the look of this website some of you want to think so, but we are still very much a political minority with limited public policy influence.

Even the ostensibly right wing party, while paying lip service to free markets, limited public spending and balanced budgets has embraced nothing of the sort. Notably in this Presidential primary and general election, we libertarians and limited government conservatives have done what we can to rally against what currently passes in casual discussion for conservative policy. The argument that we are complicit in these economic woes seems misplaced considering it is now the Democrats who are coming to the table in favor of Corporate Welfare the fastest...with the best of intentions, of course.

The misconception that our economic situation relates to capitalism rather than government and corporate collusion--and the misunderstanding that special interests are naturally the primary beneficiaries of free markets--is a crock that has been repeatedly peddled around these parts and it's time for that notion to be let go for people who want an honest discussion.

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that everyone does want that honest discussion. Who would have guessed that the left, sensing the reins of power are not far from reach, would so quickly adopt the method of the Neo-Conservatives in granting an oft-repeated lie greater currency than the truth?

...Actually, I would have guessed, and I bet a number of you would have as well.

The Democrats can have a good run like the GOP did from 2002-2006 undermining freedom in this country with a fictitious Great Depression to justify their policies.

And how strange that the arbiter of this entire premise is George W. Bush.

Yes, while he is indeed the President they've been trying for years to peg as a lying, underqualified, ape-man who got us into a "dumb war" to subsidize the military-industrial complex, he now has the foresight and intelligence to solve the economic crisis by subsidizing the giants of the financial industry with the assistance of the Democratic Congress.

They will find a way to get over this irony and develop the accoutrements for their national emergency that changes everything. Equivalents to the terrorism color code and the duct tape sealing of your home will come about. They will just have to focus on your economic survival instead of your actual survival.

But just like with the Bush Republicans, there is a remote glimmer of hope because the public will eventually show signs of fatigue with the senselessness of their policies toward a problem they were only pretending to understand. Free thinking people will also get annoyed with their accusations against the other side for being soft and less committed to national interest.

Anyway, Orwellian predictions aside, here are some more easy-reading resources if you care to hear the more prominent libertarian and paleo-conservative perspectives on this issue, what caused it and what should be done, and quite importantly, not be done:

http://reason.com/news/show/129041.html - Economists weighing in on the bailout.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=616 - Ron Paul's response to the President's address.


...That is all.

You're right. Free market shit always fails precisely because the right people aren't in charge. Socialism has similar problems.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

You're right. Free market shit always fails precisely because the right people aren't in charge. Socialism has similar problems.

You're trying to make the comparison between the two economic systems, but you're mixing the political and economic question, and leaning on that old perfect vs. good discussion the left and right have had as if it applies here.

It doesn't apply here. We're comparing an awful bipartisan economic policy of more government and more deficit financing and more corporate welfare to a policy of less government, no deficit financing and no corporate welfare. Forget how mixed the economy may or may not be when the policies are being pursued. One brand of policies embraces free market principles and the other doesn't at all.

What I'm suggesting is that politics and economics be more separate--for both the sake of our politics and our economics--whereas you suggest they become very close together.

Socialism is run by a state and capitalism is not run by any one authority if the political class resist stacking the deck.

Under my preferred system, there is no one authority to blame for economic mismanagement, because I don't want our economy micromanaged.

We are dealing with the issue of too much too state here. The state is certainly run by the wrong people, but that doesn't mean the economy is in the wrong hands. The economy is what it is because the government is working in the interest of the wrong people. The same people acting arrogantly on Wall Street, if prohibited from running wild with public money, can put their greed to a greater good.

 

[ironhead]

Adam,

I've also been extremely fatigued by the endless erroneous use of the words "free market" in the last few weeks. It seems that, to most people, if there is private ownership (slowly becoming debatable at this point) then it's a free market. Laughable, to say the least.

A free market isn't just about profit - it's also about losses. People tend to forget that side of it, which is where government intervention goes wrong: it prevents the market from correcting itself.

 

[KingCondanomation]

You're right. Free market shit always fails precisely because the right people aren't in charge. Socialism has similar problems.

Nonsense, the whole essense of a true free market is that you don't have people in charge of it (and hence regulating it). It leaves the regulation up to the people in each party trying to seek out the best deal to benefit them and a legal contract to bind the agreement.
Lefties idea of a free market is whatever state the market is in right before they "reformed" and helped save America with yet another new regulation.

"Have you ever noticed how statists are constantly "reforming" their own handiwork? Education reform. Health-care reform. Welfare reform. Tax reform. The very fact that they're always busy "reforming" is an implicit admission that they didn't get it right the first 50 times." – Lawrence W. Reed, economist, in The Freeman

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

LOL, that was like a nuclear bomb on this conversation.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Adam,

I've also been extremely fatigued by the endless erroneous use of the words "free market" in the last few weeks. It seems that, to most people, if there is private ownership (slowly becoming debatable at this point) then it's a free market. Laughable, to say the least.

A free market isn't just about profit - it's also about losses. People tend to forget that side of it, which is where government intervention goes wrong: it prevents the market from correcting itself.

The market is not correcting itself, it's falling in on itself.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You're trying to make the comparison between the two economic systems, but you're mixing the political and economic question, and leaning on that old perfect vs. good discussion the left and right have had as if it applies here.

It doesn't apply here. We're comparing an awful bipartisan economic policy of more government and more deficit financing and more corporate welfare to a policy of less government, no deficit financing and no corporate welfare. Forget how mixed the economy may or may not be when the policies are being pursued. One brand of policies embraces free market principles and the other doesn't at all.

What I'm suggesting is that politics and economics be more separate--for both the sake of our politics and our economics--whereas you suggest they become very close together.

Socialism is run by a state and capitalism is not run by any one authority if the political class resist stacking the deck.

Under my preferred system, there is no one authority to blame for economic mismanagement, because I don't want our economy micromanaged.

We are dealing with the issue of too much too state here. The state is certainly run by the wrong people, but that doesn't mean the economy is in the wrong hands. The economy is what it is because the government is working in the interest of the wrong people. The same people acting arrogantly on Wall Street, if prohibited from running wild with public money, can put their greed to a greater good.

Adam, the ideal economic system which produces the highest growth (while not enslaving the citizens) is not one in which the government is absent. It is good that you realize that the government screws up a lot of things via the law of unintended conseuqences, but you shouldn't reduce this to mean that everything the government does will inevitably lead to horrorifying consequences. Actual economists support this pretty unanimously, whether they be from the right, like Greenspan and Bernanke, or the left, like Volker and Krugman.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

It is good that you realize that the government screws up a lot of things via the law of unintended conseuqences, but you shouldn't reduce this to mean that everything the government does will inevitably lead to horrorifying consequences.

Nobody said that anything the government does would lead to horrifying consequences. I am far from an advocate of a completedly unregulated marketplace.

But it is pretty obvious what our current political climate permits and we shouldn't be surprised that after this episode of government growth with the Bush Republicans, the Democrats want to release an action-packed sequel.

 

[uscitizen]

It is all govt and corporate mingling.
And yes the dems have moved into this area as well as the republicans have.
they both suck. So far the Republicans just suck worse.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Adam, the ideal economic system which produces the highest growth (while not enslaving the citizens) is not one in which the government is absent. It is good that you realize that the government screws up a lot of things via the law of unintended conseuqences, but you shouldn't reduce this to mean that everything the government does will inevitably lead to horrorifying consequences. Actual economists support this pretty unanimously, whether they be from the right, like Greenspan and Bernanke, or the left, like Volker and Krugman.

From what Obfuscate said, Volcker went the opposite route and desired the recession in the early 80's rather than a bailout.
Bernanke has a short-term bias against having a recession now because his job would be gone if there was one.
Greenspan has criticized the bailout and is against it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html

Paul Krugman is a left-wing hack of an economist and is better off writing his little pieces for the NYT, and it is some kind of silly joke to even mention him in the same sentence as the other 3.

A recession is not the end of the world and this bailout would not necessarily avoid one, it will likely delay it, make it worse and we spend a lot of money for nothing when the next bailout emergency is called.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Paul Krugman is a left-wing hack of an economist and is better off writing his little pieces for the NYT, and it is some kind of silly joke to even mention him in the same sentence as the other 3.

Paul Krugman is a future winner of the nobel prize. Unlike most economic commentators (IE the conservative ones) Paul Krugman is taken very seriously in the field of economics.

He won the John Bates Clark medal, which along with the nobel is considered the greatest award in economics, and he is considered a shoo-in for the nobel at sometime in the future. It would certainly be a much better pick than some of the other trash economists they've picked in the past, such as the pseudo-scientists Friedman and Hayek. And honestly, a winner of the John Bates Clark medal probably knows more about true economics than someone who was picked for (political) reasons to run the treasury.

 

[uscitizen]

Paul Krugman is a future winner of the nobel prize.

I think he must have edged out Dano by a hair and Dano is just jealous.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

A recession is not the end of the world and this bailout would not necessarily avoid one, it will likely delay it, make it worse and we spend a lot of money for nothing when the next bailout emergency is called.

That's the Austrian hypothesis, that a recession is necessary and inevitable.

The Austrian hypothesis is a joke.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

From what Obfuscate said, Volcker went the opposite route and desired the recession in the early 80's rather than a bailout.
.

What? A bailout?

He raised interest rates. There was not a market failure in the early 80's, just high inflation. Volcker has specifically asked for a plan like the S&L bailout for the current situation.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/...r-a-solution-to-the-financial-meltdown/print/

In today's Wall Street Journal [a paid publication], there's a great piece from some of the veterans of that era from former US Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady, former US comptroller of the currency Eugene Ludwig, and former Fed Chairman Paul Volker.

They don't mince words. Simply put, they think the U.S. financial system is on the brink, and if action is not taken, we may see "the mother of all credit contractions."

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Greenspan has criticized the bailout and is against it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html

That article is about the Fannie and Freddie bailouts, not this one.

Greenspan is coming out arguing for a quick bailout:

http://in.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idINIndia-35681620080926

"We urgently advocate immediate, extensive action that would maintain the functions of credit markets and prevent a serious economic contraction," the two elder statesmen of U.S. finance said in a letter published on the Wall Street Journal's website.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeha well Greenspan wants to cover up his involvement in this little economic adjustment period.

 

[Obfuscate]

Joeseph Stiglez, Nobel Prize winner and lefty is against the current package. He said we'd be better off having better unemployment insurance during the downturn and let prices stabilize. That way you actually take care of "main street".

These banks will just sit on this $700 billion like they've been sitting on the low 2% interest rates. Remember we had to lower them to encourage borrowing?

Watermark is close to retarded and will have a totally differnt world view by this time next year.

Also, you'd have to not understand Austrian economics and not been paying attention to their predictions to not see they have been dead on in this issue for the past decade.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Adam,

I've also been extremely fatigued by the endless erroneous use of the words "free market" in the last few weeks. It seems that, to most people, if there is private ownership (slowly becoming debatable at this point) then it's a free market. Laughable, to say the least.

A free market isn't just about profit - it's also about losses. People tend to forget that side of it, which is where government intervention goes wrong: it prevents the market from correcting itself.

That's exactly right. The so called "free marketers" at the moment want to privatize profits but socialize losses. Due to lack of regulation and an administration that's been asleep at the wheel, again, were in a rotten mess, again. I'm so mad I could just spit.