Hey Even, Mises said big business was not evil. To be fair, he did not live to see the TBTF banks, but I am waiting for his libertarian followers duped by this stuff to say the TBTF banks ARE evil. Say it Evan!
Here is my post to your off the wall review of my ebook on Amazon. It will show that your thinking is deeply flawed:
Evan, I understand you are a political enemy of mine. I don't make enemies, but apparently I attract them.
When dealing with Ron Paul and the libertarians, one must realize that it is a large movement. Not all libertarians agree on every issue. But they have some fundamental assumptions that drive them into the arms of the more pragmatic Tea Party types. While some rank and file Tea Party members are not interested in financial gain by the banks, many believe that the victims of the housing scam were actually the instigators. That is wrong headed, and is a view that is partly shared by Ron Paul. Clearly, the banks were the instigators of the easy money house price appreciation, and resultant crash. They guided the predatory lending.
Evan, you follow me around on Hubpages, and on Business Insider, often making comments that are light in substance and harsh in criticism. But just because you happen to have a flawed philosophy, steeped in Libertarian assumptions, is no reason to use a review to spread your flawed opinion as if it was literary criticism. It is not.
I gave Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt in this ebook. Yet he came out lacking. I personally wonder if you even read the ebook, as I did comment favorably on Ron Paul where it was deserved. But libertarianism is a trap, that will sap your soul if you let it. The assumptions backing the doctrine have been proven time after time to be nothing more than misplaced hope in the goodness of greed.
Taking our disagreements to the level of a book review is just not right, Evan. But I will wear the badge of misplaced criticism with pride. It means I am getting the word out about a philosophy that looks clean and honorable on the surface, but is really not that way when you look at its underbelly of greed and contradictions.
Will Rogers was a far greater man than Ron Paul. He had the pulse of both the big bankers and their real business, and of the nation as a whole. The Tea Party wants deregulation in order to profit off continued easy money in the future. Will Rogers would have called them out for their greed and financial harm against the nation. On the other hand, the libertarians in the UK and in the USA encouraged deregulation of our financial system leading up to our hurtful housing bubble. And they no doubt seek even more deregulation in the future.
If you want to stop bankers from blowing bubbles you have to make banks much more conservative in their leverage and in their use of capital. Libertarians foster the idea that speculation by bankers is ok. The liquidity of the Fed drives up prices some, but speculation in futures contracts drives up prices very unfairly. Inflation is a tax, but speculation is a greater tax. Libertarians are ok with massive speculation and deregulation.
Mises, libertarian economist supreme, for example, believed that capitalism should be unchained. He saw the good of capitalism in the 1950's, as America prospered. He may have spoken differently now that speculation in futures markets is destroying that free market capitalism with a tax on consumers. He may have spoken differently had he seen that toxic loans different from anything existing in the 1950's become an attack on consumers. Yet libertarians still oppose regulation of badly behaving bankers, and that is why, Even, your book review is wrongheaded. Times have changed from the idyllic '50's of the libertarian dream.
Evan, this is what your hero, Mises, said: "They must realize that bigness in business is not an evil, but both the cause and effect of the fact that they themselves enjoy all those amenities whose enjoyment is called the "American way of life."" I would suggest to you that we now know that the too big to fail banks being too big is an evil. Mises was wrong about the banks, and while he may or may not be wrong about other companies that actually produce goods and services, he was dead wrong about the banks and would have seen this if he were living today. Face it, Evan, your religion of Mises and libertarianism is deeply flawed.
Hope some of you take this seriously of proof that the libertarians will never stop the big banks from screwing America.
MORE Liberty would definitely put a dent in the monopoly that the banks have. Don't be fooled these banks LOVE the regulations that establish barriers to market entry.
Go ahead... get with some friends and start a bank. It ain't happening.
Heck... try building an oil refinery. Manufacture some drugs. Make a new car. Its not happening. You've been locked out. The folks that went through those doors, got in bed with lawmakers and shut the doors behind them.
Alas... you'll have to settle for something less. A restaurant maybe? A farm? How about a paint booth for spraying cars?
While those are a little more achievable, you're increasingly being locked out there too. Trade and Industry associations pay BIG bucks to lobby state houses so that they can lock out competition.
Heck the unions are in the game too. Try doing electrical work for a heavily unionized city that has successfully implemented prevailing wage and benefit laws.
Alas... libertarians are the only ones who have it right. Greed and corruption are going no where. Capitalism is a component to EVERY economic system. We know that there is no running away from that.
We contend that a free market is the ONLY effective defensive against this kind abuse. We don't want any more "help" from the government. Instead we want a level playing field that gives us a chance at defending ourselves.
I have no idea what book you're talking about so I don't know where you base your assumptions.
However, true libertarians factor in the Federal Reserve's key role in reducing interest rates, which gave the banks the ammunition to create his housing bubble. Creating the bubble was the Fed's admitted intention, and deregulation was simply another step in that process, not the cause. How come it was only the libertarian economists who predicted the economic collapse way head of time? Because they were the only ones willing to look at government economic policy being the problem. Every other economist just does not see because that would mean admitting they were wrong, and putting their pay-check in danger, which comes directly from the institutions that benefit from government intervention, e.g. the universities, the media, Wall Street.
In a true free market, there is no such thing as 'too big too fail' since there are no such things as bail-outs, subsidies and the regulating competition out of the game. In a free market, which we most definitely do not have, peoples' greed has to be of the benefit of the consumer or they will go out of business. Without government intervening and messing things up, greed is completely benign. When you break it down, what is immoral about seeking something for yourself as long as you don't take it by force?
Here is the deal, the libertarians never get a free market but they always get deregulation of the banks. So the rich and the banks win and the libertarians are always helping them. That is the bottom line.
The Fed isn't going away. Neither is the need for bailouts if the banks screw things up. The money market system was almost destroyed by the banks, and it had to be bailed out. It was bailed out incorrectly, but it had to be bailed out.
The bankers should, in the face of these facts, be stopped from bubbles in the first place, with more strict regulation. Otherwise, you libertarians are just playing into their hands and they laugh at you for being the blind people you are.
Okay, well this libertarian doesn't want or accept simply the deregulation of the banks - the rolling back to free market principles has to come first. Any libertarian settling for Bush/Reagan style deregulation only is not a real libertarian. This is more akin to neo-conservatism. You might be getting confused.
If we don't consider the Fed going away we're going to continue misattributing economic collapses to free-market principles. I've just explained how it was the Fed's idea to create a housing bubble, and it can be substantiated. No Fed, no bubble.
As far as bailouts are concerned, If the banks screw things up they should bear the brunt of what they have done and rightfully collapse so as to de-incentivise screwing things up and prevent more economic collapses in the future. I've never heard of a more ridiculous notion than giving money to people who have screwed up.
Sorry, if that is the case, libertarians need to be voting for Obama, who supports Dodd-Frank and the Volcker Rule. But they don't.
The free market is over, and they are already planning another housing bubble with the GSE wind down. The TBTF banks want the power to guarantee, with government backing, all loans. They want to get a piece of that GSE action! Don't know when they will get what they want, but it could cause massive moral hazard.
Dodd-Frank and Volcker are large government regulations of the market, which libertarians cannot support. Obama also supports bail-outs, the federal reserve, Keynesian economics, illegal wars and passed the NDAA - a massive violation of civil liberties. People from across the political spectrum must reject Obama in total for these things alone.
It's a very simple solution - the government needs to STOP giving cheap money to the banks at practically 0% interest rates - STOP giving them GSE - STOP taxing people so much as to force their money into the stock market and be subjected to manipulations - STOP bailing out the banks. Obama is going nowhere near these things, which proves that he's in the pocket of Wall Street.
Why would you stop the regulation of the very banks who could blow another housing bubble? Even Max Keiser thinks you guys are nuts for not wanting regulation. Do you have umpires at a baseball game? How long would the integrity of the game last without umps?
Because regulation to stop bubbles is unnecessary if the central bank stops creating them, along with the legalisation of the competing currency.
The umpire analogy is bogus, because you're seeing the market as a war instead of a cooperation. In a free market cooperation is extremely profitable, so there is no reason at all why there needs to be an umpire. In fact, an umpire will only serve to inhibit cooperation.
Ah, "a cooperation." As in the case of the rampant insider stock traders, greedy CEOs cooking the books and buying their way out of SEC and Justice Dept fraud charges with billions in fines, of course, without admitting nor denying guilt and so forth?
Orthodox economics accepted Keynes long ago and so do investment bankers and virtually all economic forecasters. Apparently, Paul Ryan did too when he voted for the bailouts and applied for Obama stimulus money for a Wisconsin constituent.
Behaviour that would be benign in a truly free market as the government will not be protecting the financial services industry at expense of the competition, the government will not be bailing them out and all our money will not be funnelled into a select group of banks.
It makes no difference to me what the orthodoxy is when none of the orthodox economists predicted the economic collapse - it's also why I'm not supporting Paul Ryan. The Keynesian model has failed, not capitalism.
Keynesian economics is taught in every reputable college economics curriculum. Even Adam Smith, apostle of the invisible hand, recognized that businessmen if left to their own devices will collude to screw their customers.
Adam Smith said that?!?!?!
Yeah. he did.
When you have a king who will kill you for saying "government isn't needed", you tend to NOT say "we don't need government".
Adam Smith wasn't even the "apostle of the invisible hand", numerous economists before him came up with the idea before he.
Anyway, I'm out. Have a good life.
Ah yes, the sweet irony in the appeal to authority, to a libertarian. We recognise that colleges that are in part funded by the government do not have the incentive to contradict the government - especially concerning an economic system that bases itself on government intervention. I find the 'reputable colleges' argument considerably unconvincing - I am only motivated by facts and principles.
Innersmiff, I do appreciate your defense of libertarianism, or at least your version. I wrote a couple of ebooks on the subject.
Libertarians just do not have enough appeal to the public. They talk and talk and say nothing of merit. In that respect, libertarians are too much like the other two parties.
Literally: I was going through my outdated internet bookmarks and saw HubPages. I thought to myself "jeez, I might as well see what people are talking about".
The first link in my forum list is this thread.
Wow, I'm gone for half a year, I haven't talked to anyone in this community for half a year, I gave up on changing people's minds through forums (really, has it EVER happened?), I've come to realize that the sheep are going to ask for more whippings, and I pretty much don't give a ****** about HubPages any more (I got banned for 3 months because I quoted someone)
... and yet, my "hub score" is still 89, and I still have entire forum threads dedicated to me to this very day!
I must be awesome!
Anyway, enjoy your slavery. "With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!"
PS: it's "Evan", not "Even".
Evan, you came by. Hey, how about the argument that you need umpires to regulate a sports contest? Even with self regulated sports like golf they have rules officials and if they catch you cheating your a** is grass.
Guess somehow the banks are going to do the right thing, like with an invisible hand. Right? You should read my newest article on BI about Niall Ferguson. Libertarians should vote Democrat after you read that article. After all, Niall is a warmonger. He is determined for the US to be an imperial empire and he is a Brit with ties to the UK banking system. Be sure to read the links as the article about the UK being the last manifestation of the Roman Empire is my most valued work.
Jesus said to give to Caesar what is due Caesar. There is not a single example in the bible where taxation is looked upon as theft. The Jewish farmer in the OT was told to leave a part if his fields for the poor. He was told to let the poor gain what he didn't harvest.
Your concept that taxation is coercion is without merit, which is just one reason where libertarianism is without merit.
If taxation is not coercion why am I liable to be detained against my will if I refuse to pay it?
It should be coercive. It is a tax. If it is an agreed upon tax, ie a tax with representation, then it is fine. If someone is stealing your land and calling it a tax that is different.
Well that was a quick turn around - you now admit tax is coercive, so that's good.
I didn't agree to being taxed, so it is clearly taxation without my representation. Taxing is exactly the same as stealing my land - the money I have earned is equally my property as my land.
It's called democracy--paying taxes in order to pay for roads, bridges, schools, law enforcement and other government functions voted on by our elected representatives. You are way out on the fringe of something.
Yes, democracy, when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. Where is my representation? And why can't I voluntarily give up my money for the services I actually use and want? Why is it that politicians have no obligation to provide me with these services, along with all the other thigns I voted them in for, even though I've paid for them?
"You are way out on the fringe of something."
Which would make all of those God Fearing colonial rebels apostates.
Remember, these men declared individual rights a gift from God that were "unalienable" from their person. That notion, in part, provided the moral justification necessary to throw off the chains that bound them to Britain.
In other words, they were reclaiming their rights from thieves.
The founding fathers lived in an era of libertarian thought, or classic liberalism. However, if they saw the housing bubble they would hate the bankers they fought the war against, one more time.
Well, we can be at least be certain that they wouldn't have been bailed out. More, we know that they probably wouldn't been afforded that abominable shield known as Corporate person hood.
More importantly however, they would've never evolved our system to the structure that we have today... and therein lies a huge part of the quagmire we find ourselves in.
As you rightly point out, their's was a libertarian era and the government that they established was a codification of those ideals. That we would take copper and attempt to hammer it into lead is beyond foolish. It' s dangerous.
That's what we have here. The foundation for our system of laws is that libertarian document known as a constitution. Upon this foundation we have attempted to build a little bit of this and a little bit of that.... so much so that there is a damn one of us that knows where government legally starts or stops.
Excellent response. We're not worthy, we're not worthy.
PS: good to see you again.
Please watch in its entirety:
In a free market there are no police. It has been tried after the fall of the Soviet Union for instance. Police were needed and the mafia filled in. They sold primarily protection.
There's a difference between a Free Market and Market Anarchy. In fact, a strong and thriving free market is very dependent on a system laws that deal with contracts, debts and liability.
More, a Free Market, which we do not have, does not relinquish the strength afforded by personal accountability via a silly notion called corporate person hood.
Evan thought Ron Paul would win. He didn't reckon the nation would think that libertarians were flakes.
by Don W6 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the...
by Gary Anderson5 years ago
You mentioned in our discussion on another site that Alan Greenspan sold out. But really, he sold out by not regulating bubbles. You say he sold out by not having a gold standard. But a gold standard would cause credit...
by Sooner283 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world … odayspaperhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/world … wanted=allEmployees work in dangerous conditions, are paid a pittance of a wage, and don't even have the...
by James Smith3 years ago
The modern left/right dichotomy is essentially a scam - an identification as either one is incoherent, and to say that cherry-picking from each 'side' is somehow 'moderate' is patently absurd. Every 'moderate' I've ever...
by Ralph Deeds3 years ago
Economists Agree: Solutions Are ElusiveBy EDUARDO PORTERPublished: April 23, 2013 "Last week the International Monetary Fund hosted a conference of some of the world’s top macroeconomists to assess...
by Tony Lawrence5 years ago
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/2 … oesnt-WorkTruth. Why are so many of our young people so enthralled by this very dangerous idea?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.