Fall of the Republic

[justintempler]

The problem is that he was picking and choosing what and when to deregulate. The whole idea of the fed goes against Libertarian philosophies. Hand picked deregulation is really just more meddling. The libertarian model for our economic system would be a total restructure from the ground up. Applying these philosophies to a few parts of the current system is ridiculous and I would say that Greenspan was disingenuous when saying that these moves were based on Libertarian or Randian philosophies (which are not really completely the same anyway).

Derivatives were never regulated. They were private contracts between two corporations. And corporations are considered individuals under the law. So your libertarian philosophy still wouldn't have stopped the mess we have in the credit market.

"Applying these philosophies to a few parts of the current system is ridiculous "

And how else do you propose to spread the deregulation? You have to pick and choose. You have companies and businesses that have 30 year contracts based on the regulation model, you can't just decide willy nilly to change their business plan against their will and put them out of business overnite.

[RRK]

Yeah, I can understand the logic behind that. But at the same time technology has grown to the point where we can use disgusting and cheap ingredients to make food taste good, or make toys bright, or make building repairs cheap, and so on. So let's take two companies:

ChinaCorp: No ingredients list, slave labor, and shitty ingredients combine to make Widget 9000 Deluxe cost $1.20 in parts and labor, $1.50 in packaging and transport, $6 in advertising, and sells for $20 at WalMart.

USACorp: Provides ingredients, uses good materials and skilled laborers to make a superior product, the Widgetron Pro. It costs $12.50 in parts and labor, $2 in packaging and transport, and sells for $25 at WalMart.

1) People will go for the cheapest one
2) WalMart will stock more of the cheaper one
3) ChinaCorp's product will have more money for advertising to convince people their product is A-OK, with no limitations on advertising language

Many of the philosophies behind Capitalism are outdated due to advances in technology, travel, ingredients, and even medicine.

In a perfect world, capitalism without regulation should work beautifully. But in a perfect world, so should communism.

People should be able to choose which aspects of each product they find more valuable. If one product is truly better then the other then over time the negative effects will play out and an educated consumer will prefer the better product. Currently, cost is an amazingly complicated number that has little to do with value and consumers have a very hard time determining true value due to government manipulation. The libertarian perspective is not an easy option. It requires a tremendous amount of personal responsibility but provides true fairness.

Also, modern capitalism is far from the free market economy. In a free market increases in technology should only raise standards of living by increasing resources. Some speculate that in the future technology will basically remove scarcity from the equation.

[VBSnus]

Free sharing with the attempt of someone keeping an open mind is one thing, but forcing information in attempt to change someones mind is another. It is VERY hard to change the opinions of someone. The only way I changed my mind on the 9/11 opinion was because a friend said "Hey, let's watch this video, it's about 9/11. Some other guys opinion." And I was like, Okay. The info was such that it convicted me in a way that it changed my opinion. It's hard to do unless the info ISNT forced upon you, and it's good, valid info.

Same with religion. The religions that FORCE themselves on you, the ones who are at your door, shoving literature down your throat are ones you avoid but the ones you hear good things about, or know people are involved with, or the ones that "do their own thing" or stick to themselves are more approachable because they aren't in your face.

Too true. That's what Obama's campaign did "right" during the elections. Make a bucketload of phone calls and door to door visits. Press the point. The best (and maybe only) way to change public opinion is with mass marketing dollars.

That's why I'd love to see a complete removal of PAC advertising, and set amounts for party and candidate advertising. In fact, I'd love to see something like:

1) Every four years, five party slots would be opened for a "primary election". Parties are given a set amount of money with which to advertise with no PAC interference and with unbiased journalism in the center. Parties will argue their points and will be chosen by the people in a national vote. The winning five parties will gain access to federal election money. Independents may also run in this election against parties.
2) During Presidential and congressional elections, the five winning parties will be given money from a pool and will not be able to go above that amount with individual contributions. No PAC interference. Equal rights to public debate, and unbiased journalism in the center.
3) Parties or independents who were not chosen in #1 would have the right to compete in elections with indepdent money up to the limit set on the winners in #1.

Probably naive and full of holes, but it would allow more parties in without unfair advantages by the current two party system. It would also get rid of PACs, which needs to happen either way. PAC advertising is ridiculous.

[chadizzy1]

The Obama campaign was the only one in recent years I can recall who had an interesting run in my area.

They had coffee/tea lunches (I attended one) and literature on the tables, but not much talk about Obama. Just an open forum. Of course, the topic did come up, but it wasn't pressed on you.

The door to door visits, were just "Hey, stopping by for the Obama campaign." Handed me literature. Left.

The Hillary ones? GOOD LORD. They knocked on the door, and asked if they could come in, blah blah blah, a little invasive.

Obama's was quite peaceful in my area.

[VBSnus]

People should be able to choose which aspects of each product they find more valuable. If one product is truly better then the other then over time the negative effects will play out and an educated consumer will prefer the better product. Currently, cost is an amazingly complicated number that has little to do with value and consumers have a very hard time determining true value due to government manipulation. The libertarian perspective is not an easy option. It requires a tremendous amount of personal responsibility but provides true fairness.

Also, modern capitalism is far from the free market economy. In a free market increases in technology should only raise standards of living by increasing resources. Some speculate that in the future technology will basically remove scarcity from the equation.

All good points, and I really like your understanding of the topics you are debating.

In fact, my only arguments are actually a couple observations.

You are right that an educated consumer will prefer the better product. But that education will come from advertising of which cheaper manufacturers can do more, and actual education which must be government regulated and as optimal as possible.

Also the amount of time required to balanced and the personal responsibility requires that we as a society accept dregs, harm, or even death of those who cannot wait out the balance or adhere to the personal responsibility. I won't speculate whether this is good or bad, but it does go against the implied purpose of the US government set forth in the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution.

Definitely a hard road, and I won't disagree and say it's a bad one. I just don't know if the soft, consumer-based American public could survive it.

[chadizzy1]

THIS is how you discuss politics.

Peacefully.

[Bigblue1]

Derivatives were never regulated. They were private contracts between two corporations. And corporations are considered individuals under the law. So your libertarian philosophy still wouldn't have stopped the mess we have in the credit market.

Oh so true. There is a pretty good book by Thom Hartmann who is really pretty far left leaning BTW. It is called Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance And the Theft Of Human Rights. He goes into great detail On corporate personhood and the use of the 14th Amendment by the corporations to gain the rights but not quite the responsibilities of a free man.
I will lift a quote from there now
Of the cases in this court in which the Fourteenth Amendment was applied during its first fifty years after it's adoption, less than one half of one percent invoked it in protection of the Negro race, and more than fifty percent asked that it's benefits be extended to corporations-- Supreme Court justice Hugo Black, 1938

[RRK]

Derivatives were never regulated. They were private contracts between two corporations. And corporations are considered individuals under the law. So your libertarian philosophy still wouldn't have stopped the mess we have in the credit market.

"Applying these philosophies to a few parts of the current system is ridiculous "

And how else do you propose to spread the deregulation? You have to pick and choose. You have companies and businesses that have 30 year contracts based on the regulation model, you can't just decide willy nilly to change their business plan against their will and put them out of business overnite.

I don't spend enough time to understand the application of a libertarian model to fix our current issues. I have a libertarian friend who spends nearly all of his time following economics and he may be able to describe all of the intricacies of this particular situation. From what I understand of it the libertarian perspective is that derivatives in themselves are not the problem but a combination of government intervention in the lending market and poor choices made by the companies who made these contracts. One of the basic principles of libertarian economics is that unsuccessful companies will fail. In a free market system these failures would create more opportunities for other companies and the entire system is not so dependent that these failures have the power to collapse the entire system.

[Bigblue1]

THIS is how you discuss politics.

Peacefully.

Whodda thunk it, the way this one started... 8)

[RRK]

Definitely a hard road, and I won't disagree and say it's a bad one. I just don't know if the soft, consumer-based American public could survive it.

True, Dat. But I would rather support a system that I find to be philosophically sound rather then a system that is IMO ethically ignorant and offensive.

[chadizzy1]

Ethical society. Oxymoron? *sigh*.

I read a book on Social Ethics recently, I wish I could find it but I'm not around my books. But it talked alot about how doing what is good and what is right can influence a society, and also how the terms good and right are different in the eyes of different people, but how a middle ground can be established towards the benefit of a better society and cited alot of Greek Philosophy for references.

[justintempler]

One of the basic principles of libertarian economics is that unsuccessful companies will fail. In a free market system these failures would create more opportunities for other companies and the entire system is not so dependent that these failures have the power to collapse the entire system.

I undertsand, the problem is you aren't starting from scratch.

There was a lot of bitching and moaning when the bailouts happened but there was bipartisan support for them because the alternative to a bailout was unthinkable.

Ideals are nice, but implementing them into the current system is where you run into problems.

[Roo]

At the risk of offending 90% of Americans (or so it seems), making an educated purchase and shopping at Walmart are mutually exclusive.

[RRK]

I undertsand, the problem is you aren't starting from scratch.

There was a lot of bitching and moaning when the bailouts happened but there was bipartisan support for them because the alternative to a bailout was unthinkable.

Ideals are nice, but implementing them into the current system is where you run into problems.

Well, "bi-partisan" is the root of this discussion.

It's true that I only know enough to argue the point from starting from scratch. But there are plenty of more educated libertarian economists that have proposed actions that could be taken to move us toward this ideal. I could do some internet searches but I probably still wouldn't know enough to say which ones I completely agree with. I find economics to be very boring so I just make sure that I agree with the basic principles. I know enough to state that I don't agree with many of the most basic parts of our current system.

[VBSnus]

At the risk of offending 90% of Americans (or so it seems), making an educated purchase and shopping at Walmart are mutually exclusive.

Boy wut the hell you talkin' bout I dun picked up a bran new shotgun from Wally World gonna last me at least twenty shots fer sure.