libertarianism empirically disconfirmed?

[BulletMagnet]

The way the lower classes in this country mock education just blows my mind sometimes.

In case you hadn't noticed, nobody's hating on these chumps because they're educated (save that for those arugula-eating elitist liberal college professors and community organizers!), but because, despite being educated, they manage to drive their own companies (and their employees) into the ground, and STILL demand ridiculous amounts of compensation for it (from the taxpayers who have likely been paying a greater percentage of their income into the system than they have, no less). Seriously, look wherever you want - who's mocking these guys for "being educated?" There are plenty of educated people who manage to do their jobs well - this group, however, is not among them, and deserve every last lashing they get, and more, especially after so loudly touting their limitless genius as their right to their bloated earnings for so long. Sorry, no sympathy from the likes of simple ol' MBA-less me.

And off to the side, believe me, nobody is more disparaging of the ludicrous sums that athletes make than me. However, if nothing else, these days it seems that the sports field is more determined than the business/financial sector to pay out based on performance...and to refrain from begging for bailouts.

[The n00b]

If it's in their contract to be paid that much plus severance pay, why the crying when the company actually adheres to that contract? This really sounds like a matter for a company's board of directors to sort out not the government. After all nobody forces a board of directors to do anything. They can even break the contract if they are feeling pretty pissed and think they can win the ensuing lawsuit.

BTW if their salaries are so bloated then why doesn't the board hire another guy for the position? Here's why: supply and demand

[Ed Oscuro]

Also, the FBI is investigating like 26 companies for illegal activity.

[BulletMagnet]

If it's in their contract to be paid that much plus severance pay, why the crying when the company actually adheres to that contract?

I'm no expert, but when that much money is involved one would hope that said contracts would include some provision regarding the quality of performance (or at least competence) required to earn that salary...at least if these guys are as smart and confident in their abilities as they've been telling us. Down here in Doofusville, if I agree to pay a guy a certain amount to mow my yard, and he ends up tearing the place to pieces instead, if he demands the amount in full afterwards I'm going to tell him to go to Hell, and to fix my yard before he leaves.

But then again, I'm not that educated.

After all nobody forces a board of directors to do anything.

Yeah, including cutting their own holiday bonuses BEFORE firing a chunk of their staff as a "belt-tightening" measure. Though frankly I'm half-tempted to say I wish someone would.

BTW if their salaries are so bloated then why doesn't the board hire another guy for the position? Here's why: because they're likely as ridiculously overpaid and under-competent as he is

Fixed.

[professor ganson]

We are a country that pay people millions to play what are essentially children's games (basketball, football, and baseball). It's okay, nobody gives a crap about these guys. We laugh when they waste all their money on "bling." Good times, eh?

However if a guy works his ass off through school. He develops enough of a reputation of success in his career to actually be considered CEO of a company and America hates him. Or rather I'd say blue collar or "working class" America hates him. The way the lower classes in this country mock education just blows my mind sometimes.

The wealthy and well educated are sometimes resented, but more often they are respected. What really irks me is how the Republican party tries to reinforce the resentment for political gain. A really nice, short piece in the latest Economist traces this back to Nixon:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedst ... d=12260881

[Ed Oscuro]

A lot of the dirty tricks of politics can be traced back to Nixon.

[JoshF]

CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE

CEOs are just da biggest welfare queens of them all. That gal down the street might get $500 a month she didn't personally labor for, Ms. Walton gets 5 billion. Which one should I resent more again, Mr. Limbaugh?

A lot of the dirty tricks of politics can be traced back to Nixon.

It's one of the reasons they called him tricky dick [/hamburger]

[The n00b]

CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE CLASS WARFARE

CEOs are just da biggest welfare queens of them all. That gal down the street might get $500 a month she didn't personally labor for, Ms. Walton gets 5 billion. Which one should I resent more again, Mr. Limbaugh?

Is that gal down the street a democrat or a minority? - Mr. Limbaugh

To answer BulletMagnets question: I own stock. So in the end I don't care what has to happen for the price of my shares to go up, barring anything nasty like child labor and various other illegal practices. Now if the price of my shares go down and I get a letter telling me it was because some manager didn't feel like letting go of a few extra employees he felt sorry for....well I just might not buy any more shares of that company or even sell what I have. I invest in a company not in charity cases.

[Acid King]

BM, I'll try to keep this quick because I don't really have time to get too in depth here. I'd recommend the book the Forgotten Man or just google "FDR Exacerbate Depression" and you'll come up with sites. Lookit, there are countries that more laissez faire than the US. On indices of economic freedom, the US is near the top but in relation to other countries, including Canada, the UK, Ireland, Australia etc... is not some bastion of free market capitalism (Check the Heritage Foundations Index and the Fraser Institute as starting points). Shit man, Canada, Switzerland AND the UK rank above the US in economic freedom in some.

It's not only what regulation you don't have, but what you do have, not to mention the different ways governments intervene in markets and the way businesses and consumers are behaving. Regulations aren't a be all end all, and every market will have its ups and downs no matter what the government does because not all potentially damaging behavior by businesses and consumers can be predicted. That's why our current troubles don't disprove free market economic theory any more than a downturn in a highly regulated economy disproves Keynesian economics or regulation in general.

Ganson's suggestion, as much as I like him, is flawed because it lacks an understanding of social science. Social science is not like physics or chemistry. Things aren't disproven so much as they lack evidence to support them and there are many examples of countries whose growth exploded after economic liberalization. Does that disprove regulation? Does that prove the superiority of laissez faire? Only insomuch as it shows that CERTAIN KINDS of deregulation in CERTAIN KINDS of economies is beneficial. You can feel however you want about capitalism and laissez faire (Chomsky, replying to a question about capitalisms' ability to grow economies, basically said "Economies based on slavery grew too") but to suggest our current economic troubles somehow disproves free market economics is ignorant and irresponsible,

That was longer than I wanted it to be, but that pretty much says it all.

[BazookaBen]

cool to see some forums where people are talking about this civily.

I would just like to point out that no one has mentioned inflation. I'm convinced that what is happening now is a result of the Fed's lowing of interest rates after the .com bubble burst in order to prevent a recession. Once they did this, credit was so cheap that many people could buy houses that normally couldn't afford them. Now, we have so many extra houses on the market that it is trying to correct, in other words, housing prices are trying to go down. All the mortgages these banks are holding are pretty expensive, and they're going to take heavy losses once prices go down.

So what does the fed do? They want to pump AT LEAST 700 billion more dollars into the economy. The dollar has already been hitting all time lows, just wait until this bailout comes through. BulletMagnet, I recommend you watch Money Masters on google video or elsewhere, it gives a pretty good overview of how this fucked up system has kicked our ass for years.

Seriously though, guys, we're in for some really tough times. It's hard for us to imagine in post WW2 america, but we're all going to be making some very tough decisions soon. Just remember to stick with those you love, and don't believe any politician who comes and tries to blame this on any race/class of people. This is something we've all been buying into for 60 years and we're paying the price now.

[Ed Oscuro]

A lot of the dirty tricks of politics can be traced back to Nixon.

It's one of the reasons they called him tricky dick [/hamburger]

I rove that line sooo much

[professor ganson]

there are many examples of countries whose growth exploded after economic liberalization. Does that disprove regulation? Does that prove the superiority of laissez faire? Only insomuch as it shows that CERTAIN KINDS of deregulation in CERTAIN KINDS of economies is beneficial. You can feel however you want about capitalism and laissez faire (Chomsky, replying to a question about capitalisms' ability to grow economies, basically said "Economies based on slavery grew too") but to suggest our current economic troubles somehow disproves free market economics is ignorant and irresponsible.

Good points. I'm inclined to think that these matters are incredibly messy and complicated, so simple slogans (e.g. "markets take care of themselves") are deeply problematic. My main problem is with an extreme position-- an extreme form of libertarianism. I think it is no more plausible than an extreme form of socialism. In fact, what I prefer is something like our system which is a (fallible) attempt to find a happy middle ground. I like pragmatic leaders like Bill Clinton, who are not wedded to an extreme philosophy.

Regarding slavery, I don't think the issue with that practice had anything to do with economics. Of course it is economically beneficial to have such cheap labor.

cool to see some forums where people are talking about this civily.

I would just like to point out that no one has mentioned inflation. I'm convinced that what is happening now is a result of the Fed's lowing of interest rates after the .com bubble burst in order to prevent a recession. Once they did this, credit was so cheap that many people could buy houses that normally couldn't afford them.

Yeah, Acid King, BulletMagnet, Ed Obscuro, and the rest of us are all on friendly terms, so it would have been surprising if things had gone otherwise. Your point about inflation really has me worrying. My main worry is the national debt. If I were a one-issue voter (I'm not), it would be: Whose going to work hard to lower our debt (and thereby strengthen the dollar)? I tend not to vote just on issues, though. I want a president who is smart, careful, and pragmatic. I would also like to see a more balanced Supreme Court. So it's probably pretty obvious who I'm going to vote for.

[jp]

Libertarianism is disconfirmed?


Yes... because whats happening now has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve creating artificial credit and artificially low interest rates that distorted the market.

And Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae weren't chartered by Congress or anything.


And now we're getting MORE federal regulation?

Yes! You're right! Lets let the government do more! Here's some great ideas surrounding that:

Lets like, bailout all these companies on some nonexistent credit, OK, so this way your houses don't lose value. Or so your retirement funds or investments or whatever don't lose money. Great, yes, lets do that, the federal government should take charge and show us that a free market doesn't work. Yes. Definitely. Definitely need the government to come in and stop this madness. Yes.

Oh wait, that shit happened in 1929 yo' and the same tactics were used for over a decade. Anyone else here remember what the 1930s were? Anyone? You know... large amount of nonexistent credit being applied to more bad nonexistent credit... will... keep the value of our dollar... up? What? Yeah, that makes total sense right? Hey guys! While we're at it, maybe the government can start printing up more money for us! Right?

Oh, but when the market did a similar thing in 1921 and the government let things play out as they should then um... things were rough for a year and then got back on track.

But hey, you know, I'm just... you know... trying to apply the lessons from like... this thing called "the past"... or "history", I know thats a crazy idea... but... you know.

Edit:
Just to clarify, the "snideness" of this post wasn't necessarily aimed at you pro. ganson. Its more that I simply cannot believe that our government is so fucking stupid. All of it. Not just Bush. Not just Republicans or Democrats. ALL OF THEM! Trying to fix bad credit with bad credit only delays the inevitable and is going to make the inevitable that much worse.

This is not going to be a fun decade. I don't care if we elect Mr. Hollywood or Mr. I-don't-know-where-I-am-and-I-wet-Myself.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm gonna have to take a pass at replying to that one, jp...I FEEL YOUR PAIN

Anyway, new stuff:
URGENCY PLS

Now, McCain is the one saying "let's rush off to Washington and fix the problem," only he can't deliver the votes of his own party.

Depending on who you talk to, things are fine in the negotiations (Democrats), or they're...well, they're not too clear but they think it's not going to happen in the House (Republicans).

Everybody agrees this is a giant chunk of change and horrible, but it's also necessary.

[professor ganson]

Libertarianism is disconfirmed?


Yes... because whats happening now has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve creating artificial credit and artificially low interest rates that distorted the market.

Honestly, I don't understand this response. Yes, the artificially low interest rates contributed to the housing bubble, but that doesn't detract from the point that the activities of the investment banks were simply out of control and needed to be reigned in.

[JoshF]

McCain is the one saying "let's rush off to Washington and fix the problem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjkCrfylq-E

[Stormwatch]

[BulletMagnet]

Now if the price of my shares go down and I get a letter telling me it was because some manager didn't feel like letting go of a few extra employees he felt sorry for....well I just might not buy any more shares of that company or even sell what I have. I invest in a company not in charity cases.

Apparently a higher-up in a company firing lower-level employees to "cut expenses" when it's his own incompetence that got the company in trouble, AND giving himself a raise while he's at it, doesn't qualify as "anything nasty" to you?

...don't believe any politician who comes and tries to blame this on any race/class of people.

Not a "politician" per se, but is this close enough? There are more like him, I can assure you of that...

@Acid King - still looking over some of the stuff you mentioned.

[JoshF]

Not a "politician" per se, but is this close enough? There are more like him, I can assure you of that...

You should watch that Bill Moyers program that aired a little while ago on hate radio.

[The n00b]

Now if the price of my shares go down and I get a letter telling me it was because some manager didn't feel like letting go of a few extra employees he felt sorry for....well I just might not buy any more shares of that company or even sell what I have. I invest in a company not in charity cases.

Apparently a higher-up in a company firing lower-level employees to "cut expenses" when it's his own incompetence that got the company in trouble, AND giving himself a raise while he's at it, doesn't qualify as "anything nasty" to you?

In most cases, a CEO cannot give himself a raise. The board of directors must approve a raise. Now a better question for you to ask is "Does the board approving a CEO's raise after he did such a good job of restructuring qualify as "anything nasty" to you?" And my question would be "did such a move raise the value of my shares?" If so, then yeah I don't give a crap.

[jp]

Honestly, I don't understand this response. Yes, the artificially low interest rates contributed to the housing bubble, but that doesn't detract from the point that the activities of the investment banks were simply out of control and needed to be reigned in.

Well, no, that one piece of my post didn't really address the problem with the banks.

The problem with them is that we're going to bail them out. In a true free market economy, we should be letting them die for their mistakes, the economy will go all nasty for about a year, and then someone will replace them and things will go back to normal.

Thats what should be happening.

But this idiotic country is now all about helping every idiot in it walk away from their incompetence with no consequences, and in this case, its going to bite us back HARD if the dumbasses in Washington DO bail these motherfuckers out.

[Acid King]

But this idiotic country is now all about helping every idiot in it walk away from their incompetence with no consequences, and in this case, its going to bite us back HARD if the dumbasses in Washington DO bail these motherfuckers out.

Well, the electorate demands action. A pol can't be seen as doing nothing. They have to either do, or atleast act, like they're going to do something, no matter how idiotic or illogical it is. It's just the nature of politics and democracy.

[BulletMagnet]

Now a better question for you to ask is "Does the board approving a CEO's raise after he did such a good job of restructuring qualify as "anything nasty" to you?"

"Restructuring" is certainly a nicer way of repackaging "sacrificing somebody else so the ill effects of your own incompetence don't get in the way of your own advancement." And if the price of your shares matters to you more than this sort of twisted and unjust "business practice" then I simply don't know what to tell you, especially considering where this sort of callous ruthlessness has very recently gotten us.

Well, the electorate demands action.

Considering how content the general electorate has been to let their leaders not do much of anything when things seem to be going well (paging Calvin Coolidge), I really don't buy the notion that people are so dumb that they'll insist that the government occupy itself with busywork even if it's to their own detriment (especially in a country like this one, which still regards Reagan as its patron saint). Heck, the current bailout plan is very unpopular with voters, if memory serves - the ones who are scrambling to get it passed ASAP are the Bush administration and their corporate pals, not the general public (surprise, surprise). When people demand government action it's because they feel that there's something specific that needs doing - to stick close to home, what about all of us who have been demanding increased government oversight of the over-reaching lending and other short-sighted business practices that set off the current crisis? Have we just been blowing hot air, or did we actually detect a problem in need of solving, which the private sector wouldn't so much as pretend to address?

Sorry, but the "don't feed it, or it'll never leave" argument doesn't hold water imo. And if the public were better-informed on important issues by the corporate-owned media then it would hold even less than it does.

[Acid King]

Considering how content the general electorate has been to let their leaders not do much of anything when things seem to be going well ... When people demand government action it's because they feel that there's something specific that needs doing

Which is exactly what I was saying. When a crisis arises, the public panic and outrage forces the government to act, sometimes not rationally.

[TLDragoon]

Heck, the current bailout plan is very unpopular with voters, if memory serves - the ones who are scrambling to get it passed ASAP are the Bush administration and their corporate pals, not the general public (surprise, surprise).

Along with many Democratic leaders and some Republicans. Really odd bedfellows in this one.

[Daedalus]

especially considering where this sort of callous ruthlessness has very recently gotten us.

What? The current problems stem from bad business decisions, not "callous ruthlessness".

the ones who are scrambling to get it passed ASAP are the Bush administration and their corporate pals, not the general public (surprise, surprise).

Sounds like a children's TV show "Bush n' Pals". Anyways, I would be very interested in knowing exactly who Bush's corporate pals are in this incident.

Have we just been blowing hot air, or did we actually detect a problem in need of solving, which the private sector wouldn't so much as pretend to address?

What? The private sector has been trying to address it. Sure, some shitty CEOs jumped ship with some nice money, but those CEOs were hired by people who have millions of dollars invested in these companies. They don't exactly like seeing their investments turn to nothing.

Additionally, people who have a lot of money invested don't like to see a choppy market in general. Had you done your homework, you would see that many of these companies realized the problems, and took steps to correct it (replaced management, changed business priorities, etc), but ultimately collapsed under the weight of previous mistakes. I think it's very unfair to say that these companies did nothing to prevent their own demise.

[BulletMagnet]

When a crisis arises, the public panic and outrage forces the government to act, sometimes not rationally.

I won't argue that sometimes the government will do something rash just to shut people up, but the prevailing call at this point seems to be "wait, wait, we've already watched you waste loads of our money - this time you'd better be willing to tell us exactly what you're going to do with it and why you don't want any oversight." Not a unanimous call, obviously, but it seems to me that the Wall Street types and their ilk are far more panicky and in "do something nownowNOW" mode than most anyone else. So where's the stern "calm down and shut up" aimed in their direction, from ANYone?

Along with many Democratic leaders and some Republicans. Really odd bedfellows in this one.

If memory serves, wasn't it Congress, on both sides of the aisle, which balked at the original Paulson plan and are currently working on improving it? In either case, the people most responsible for the economy's mess have been by far the most eager to (make somebody else) do something, ANYthing, and quickly, more for the sake of being able to say they've done something than anything else.

On that note, here's another "blame the minorities" (oh, sorry..."diversity") piece for you to chew on.

[TLDragoon]

If memory serves, wasn't it Congress, on both sides of the aisle, which balked at the original Paulson plan and are currently working on improving it? In either case, the people most responsible for the economy's mess have been by far the most eager to (make somebody else) do something, ANYthing, and quickly, more for the sake of being able to say they've done something than anything else.

There wasn't much balking at least initially. From what I've heard, the largest dissent has been from House Republicans who are balking at the use of tax payer money to buy these bad loans, but many on both sides have been on board with the general plan and have been debating over parts of it (oversight, restrictions on executive pay for those involved in the buyout, etc.).

[BulletMagnet]

The current problems stem from bad business decisions, not "callous ruthlessness".

And where did these "bad business decisions" stem from, if not the willingness to do absolutely anything to anybody in the name of making more money, faster?

Anyways, I would be very interested in knowing exactly who Bush's corporate pals are in this incident.

Let me put it another way - which among the corporations set to benefit from this bailout have been complaining about it? They all seem mighty satisfied with the way things were set up from the beginning, and as far as I could tell wanted it passed immediately - taxpayers apparently by and large disagree, but since when have they mattered? The corporations should NOT be getting a "good deal" out of this - they should have whatever they get forced down their throats after the way they've handled other people's money for so long.

many of these companies realized the problems, and took steps to correct it (replaced management, changed business priorities, etc), but ultimately collapsed under the weight of previous mistakes. I think it's very unfair to say that these companies did nothing to prevent their own demise.

Last-minute half-assed efforts to save one's own skin with no regard for anyone lower on the totem pole than you do not qualify as "steps to correct" long-standing problems in my book. Sorry, but a lot of less-educated outsiders saw this coming years ago, and to claim that these guys' "efforts" are/were justified after years of complaining about the government being too in their faces is ludicrous. If they'd been serious about their long-term viability, they'd have either taken steps to curb their bad tendencies a long time ago, or else opted to forego government help in exchange for the decreased oversight they kept demanding.

many on both sides have been on board with the general plan and have been debating over parts of it (oversight, restrictions on executive pay for those involved in the buyout, etc.).

Obviously pretty much nobody plans on doing nothing and just "letting the market sort itself out" (least of all the largest proponents of "free" markets, naturally), but despite the plan's MANY shortcomings I'm at least glad to see that Bush and company can't just throw a bogeyman at us and expect a plan tailor-made for the benefit of them and their allies to pass unopposed overnight. Frankly, I hope the deliberations are long and in-depth before any action is taken - after years of "from the gut" decisions, I want to see some sweat.

[TLDragoon]

There is another plan out there that might be gaining some momentum, but I'm too familiar with it. From the little I know, it would create an insurance sorta like the FDIC and the private sector would pay into it based on the risk of the loan.