libertarianism empirically disconfirmed?

[BazookaBen]

BTW, I read a stat that congressmen who voted yes on the bailout get 50% more donations from the financial sector.

Got a link?

http://www.emailwire.com/release/16500- ... ng-No.html

[BulletMagnet]

Thanks. On that page I found a link to a more detailed rundown of how much each Representative has taken from the industry, and how he/she voted, here. On that same site, in case anyone still doubted it, the page for the bailout bill lists the lobbies in favor of its passing, and surprise surprise, banks, credit agencies, and investors are/were pulling for it. Until that changes, the bill shouldn't be passed.

[JoshF]

Kucinich voted against it.

Can't be so black and white.

[Ganelon]

Honestly, it's no real surprise. Sure, a few democrats will probably try and get a huge amount of the money to go back to the new-homeowners-who-can't-really-afford-their-homes so they probably have that in mind. And a few representatives may genuinely feel that the cushioned impact from a bill would outweigh whatever crash landing we may possibly be heading towards. That's nice; but when pitted against big business, most politicians aren't on your side (except when the threat of re-election outweighs the damaged reputation). Plus, they can always give some more juice when the going gets rough...

I'd expect our senators to be much more in favor of their bill since they're that much more financed by corporate interests. And whatever the situation, I just hope this current stalemate is the real deal and not some BS mock battle meant to show that Congress is really deliberating the bill's merits when they already have the outcome in mind (since it's pretty uncommon for party members to entirely deviate from party leadership lines).

[jp]

Honestly, it's no real surprise. Sure, a few democrats will probably try and get a huge amount of the money to go back to the new-homeowners-who-can't-really-afford-their-homes so they probably have that in mind. And a few representatives may genuinely feel that the cushioned impact from a bill would outweigh whatever crash landing we may possibly be heading towards. That's nice; but when pitted against big business, most politicians aren't on your side (except when the threat of re-election outweighs the damaged reputation). Plus, they can always give some more juice when the going gets rough...

I'd expect our senators to be much more in favor of their bill since they're that much more financed by corporate interests. And whatever the situation, I just hope this current stalemate is the real deal and not some BS mock battle meant to show that Congress is really deliberating the bill's merits when they already have the outcome in mind (since it's pretty uncommon for party members to entirely deviate from party leadership lines).

Unfortunately, I think the media/financial market have scared the American people into believing this bailout will be a good thing. So I imagine Congress will be playing along very soon.

It is rather unfortunate that we live in such a stupid country.

[Twiddle]

if they pass the "pay banks to make people homeless" boner version hilarity will ensue

[Ed Oscuro]

The fact that people voting for this bill got 50% more of the money is as much an indication that these people have some passing familiarity with how the economy works outside of going around and scaring up votes with whatever form of insanity they run their platform on. Man, those poor Republicans, not getting money from the financial sector... If this is a conspiracy, then I'm all for it because there's also a strong correlation between duncery and voting against the bill.

I mean the bailout is literally equivalent to someone losing all their money at a casino and crying foul.

When I lose all my money at a casino (lol!), only I suffer.

In this case, people having trouble paying their mortgages are facing more pressure from institutions that cannot simply change their rules for now - because those institutions are also having their bottom line affected.

And then we can get back into all the stuff I talked about yesterday.

FUN FACTS TO IGNORE:

* Ireland's stock market had its largest bust ever the day of the massive downturn. Russia had its stock market closed for (at least) two days after a historic loss there, as well. Much of this can arguably be traced back to our own handling of the situation; in the long term, being a bad economic player turns other nations against us just as surely as starting wars (don't say this isn't true; just think about China and India and DEY TUK ERR JERBS).

* A bit of a follow-through to Acid King's helpful response to the loss on Wall Street (I heard 7-8% from another investor, but I won't argue on this point; it's clearly a much smaller loss proportionally - though the market isn't standing still either). On that giant day of losses, $1 trillion was lost. Some of that is lost to all parties forever because of restrictions on short selling. Some have understandably called the move to ban short selling ridiculous, although it's easy to see why the Fed would want to do that to save the taxpayer money that would have to be thrown after companies like AIG which would have been depressed even further.

The market will eventually come back around, but this represents a huge lost opportunity for conscientious workers and average Americans who wanted to get a better return on their money - and also for businesses in - you guessed it - completely unrelated sectors of the economy whose stock price represents funding, or whom need lending opportunities.

* American companies like General Motors that need sales badly are looking at worse sales forecasts than their already-depressed figures anticipated because people can't get loans.

In other words, if you live in Michigan or any state with a strong automotive or expensive consumer good manufacturing (i.e. you live in a town in Pennsylvania that manufactures prebuilt homes), and you called up your Congressman to complain about the bailout, you just argued against your own financial well-being. Congratulations!

All that said, the bottom line comes to this: I wouldn't be surprised if most people arguing against the bailout don't have stocks and so take a "fuck them all" attitude towards the stock market.

I am happy that some extra tweaks are in the newer version of the bill, but they aren't so substantial that they make up for the (likely) hundreds of billions of dollars lost forever in the stock market.

But hey, I should just join in with their advice and hide my cash under my mattress. That's great for the economy too!

[jp]

No, you should take your cash and invest it in a bank that wasn't stupid enough to sell CDS's.



New fun fact for everyone:


Where is the government getting the $700 billion to bail these idiots out?

Answer: From the banks they're bailing out. And the banks are charging them interest.

Bailout is going to crash the value of the dollar. Simple as that.

[Ed Oscuro]

Because losing money forever (opportunity cost = lost forever, although it's not usually so dramatic) is better than a suffering minimal amount of inflation on the money in circulation that would have been overcome by getting returns on the mortgages (which would have been bought at roughly the lowest reasonable price, maybe slightly above or even below).

And, of course, I find these constant complaints about inflation somewhat misguided because the Treasury routinely balances the availability of capital versus inflation. I don't know the exact numbers, and certainly $700 BN is high, but considering what we lose it is (was?) a necessary tradeoff.

All that said, I don't want to give the impression that I think your concern is ridiculous or unwarranted, jp; the issue is that it is a fair tradeoff.

Unless you don't care about anything but the value of your own assets, in which case I wonder why you'd hold any currency at all. Might as well invest in Krugerrands if you don't like inflation.

p.s. I do need to get my money into an account that makes enough money so that I will need to file a tax return next year...I dunno if I even kept up with inflation because I let my bank roll over my CD at whatever tragically low rate they can get away with. Lazy me.

p.s., I forgot to ask -

No, you should take your cash and invest it in a bank that wasn't stupid enough to sell CDS's.

What are "CDS's?" Did you mean CDs, maybe?

[BulletMagnet]

Man, those poor Republicans, not getting money from the financial sector...

Actually, according to the page BB linked to...

Democrats voting Yes received an average of $212,700 each...Republicans voting Yes received an average of $273,181 each

those [Democrats] voting No, $107,993...those [Republicans] voting No, $181,688

The disparity in contributions received between "yes" and "no" voters was greater among the Dems, but in terms of raw dollar amounts the Reps, on average, are ahead on both fronts.

[Ed Oscuro]

What an incredibly surprise this October?!?!!?

It would be a shame if Dems were ignoring the financial sector, as you'd have to take my comments earlier to interpret this finding, but then again we have to factor in the traditional unthinking bias of businesses towards the Republicans (also, I was talking about a different measure earlier). Certainly there's a number of factors at stake here, so anybody is free to ignore my simplistic readings

In any case, the party that makes less money on average pushed very hard for this rescue package. That puts the lie to claims that this is solely money-influenced.

EDIT:

ahahaha, MSNBC update on the House's upcoming re-vote:

House leaders “are bringing in the small business lobby and the banking lobby to buy the 12 Republican votes they need,” said Bob Borosage, the co-director of the progressive group Campaign for America’s Future.

Granted, averages aren't the same as individual data points, but who believes they're likely to find a Republican walking around with holes in his shoes?

[jp]

CDS = Credit Default Swap. Its what is at the heart of this "financial crisis".

[BazookaBen]

One of the main purposes of the bill is to keep house prices artificially high. Do you think an economy based on borrowing money against an overpriced house can sustain itself? Until we actually start creating more jobs, which will take a while, more bandaids are just going to make the problem worse by wrecking the dollar.

Ed, how do you think we got in this situation? Lack of regulation?

[jp]

Yeah, house prices NEED to come down in a big way. I think anyone with half a brain should understand that. Most people don't want it to happen 'til they get their money though.

Also Ed,

My main concern about this bill is the value of the dollar, which is already weak. If the US government is about to borrow $700 billion from a bunch of shitty banks, then the Federal Reserve is going to have to print up even MORE money because of it. And this is not a good thing.

This entire bailout is a temporary solution. And if someone can only see into next week or next month, then yeah, its a great idea. But for those of us looking farther into the future, its only delaying the inevitable and making it that much worse. If this bill passes, inflation WILL go insane. The value of the dollar WILL virtually crash next year. And we're going to go from worrying about a rough recession to worrying about a nasty depression, with no WWII in sight to save us this time (since WWIII would probably just end the world).

[Ed Oscuro]

Sorry in advance for wall of text, trying to keep it straightforward here.

CDS = Credit Default Swap. Its what is at the heart of this "financial crisis".

I see what you mean now. I was a bit confused because I have only done either CDs or direct stocks - letting some firm invest me in god-knows-what always scares me. In short, I agree with your advice!

One of the main purposes of the bill is to keep house prices artificially high.

Although I'm not aware of anybody saying so, and I think that's a conspiracy theory-sounding spin on the real motives (keep lending viable), it is an intriguing charge.

Higher home prices would definitely hurt refinancing efforts for people facing foreclosure - on the other hand, a homeowner's capital is usually mostly tied up in their residence.

From July '07 to July '08 home prices fell a historic 16.3%, so I suppose that's all I need to say: ever since home prices have been tracked, home prices have not fallen so dramatically from one year to the next.

We all need to remember that the financial markets - and everyday notions about the value of anything and everything - are based on consensus and trust. I don't see a compelling reason why home prices should be allowed to slide to nothing; neighborhoods will empty out and perfectly good homes will fall into ruin at great cost to everyone in society - a cost for property owners, to the city that has to raze buildings, and to the people who eventually will build somewhere to replace that lost housing capacity (or, failing all else, in the form of increased demands on housing for the homeless). You wanna talk about moral hazard? How about community hazards - fire traps, squatter nests, drug dens. A house with a "good" price won't sell when it's surrounded by that sort of neighborhood.

I can't think of one good reason to let home prices fall further, especially when there's no sign that they will go further. The "market determines the value" mantra becomes meaningless and about as valid in the financial world as a mystic incantation when everybody is fearful about assets.

Do you think an economy based on borrowing money against an overpriced house can sustain itself? Until we actually start creating more jobs, which will take a while, more bandaids are just going to make the problem worse by wrecking the dollar.

Enjoy trying to create more jobs when lending is completely kaput! Jesus, I even touched on that earlier with GM. How you gon' get fresh without capital for production investments when the stock market and the banks are scared too shitless to lend you money? Many industries have had years of layoffs and equipment and plant sales, and throwing money directly at industries is not going to help.

Ed, how do you think we got in this situation? Lack of regulation?

So pointing out some facts means I'm a Reaganite, huh? :o That doesn't even deserve an answer, although I'll say "no, that's as ridiculous as the idea we don't need a rescue (FREE MARKET OR BUST)," and then we can move on. Deal?

If the US government is about to borrow $700 billion from a bunch of shitty banks,

And thus you demonstrate that you don't really understand what's happening here.

Nothing is being borrowed - debt that underperformed miserably will be bought at fair prices via reverse auctions. It was terrible for the banks that bought, say, $1.00 of debt that returned only $0.50; but as Uncle Sam gets that debt for even less than $0.50 (because nobody else wants to buy it) we have a chance to let the Fed sit on those investments and possibly turn a profit. Meanwhile, banks get a chance to get on their feet again, clean house, get rid of the clowns running their investment departments.

This entire bailout is a temporary solution.

You're a genius. Of course it's a solution to a single issue; who said it wasn't? Without lending (and, for that matter, the whole of the rest of the capital markets), you don't have the ability to start the economy running again. You've heard of the saying "it takes money to make money," I bet.

For the sake of clarity:

Yes, we do need to invest in other stuff too; that's part of the reason why I speculated a few days back about the possibility of paring down the rescue package or breaking it into smaller parts. That said, the market was willing to rally on hopes of a bailout; don't think that private sector forces are blind to the opportunities that low markets present for investment.

You're right that the reverse argument is true: Without strong fundamentals in what is often called "the real economy," the financial markets are meaningless. Indeed, you could have a "real economy" without any financial markets to speak of; unfortunately, that would put progress back somewhere between the 1600s and the end of the Roman Empire - so the Dark Ages, essentially. I am not kidding either; the Dutch East India Company was the first group to get ordinary people some profits, instead of making it all a venture judged solely by a sovereign and their cabinet.

[BazookaBen]

Most of what you're saying is true, I just don't think congress will actually give enough oversight to make sure the money is spent wisely. That's why I'd rather let the markets decide the price, even if they undershoot the real value at first. Here's one thing you said I don't understand though.

I can't think of one good reason to let home prices fall further, especially when there's no sign that they will go further. The "market determines the value" mantra becomes meaningless and about as valid in the financial world as a mystic incantation when everybody is fearful about assets.

What are you saying here? If we have some sort of a bailout, housing prices will stay where they are? That's not the situation I've been seeing:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/re ... 8707.story

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/busi ... rices.html

The fact is, keeping house prices high prevents people from buying homes already on the market. Most banks won't want to lend money on something that going to go down in value. And I'm just speaking from my own personal experience here. I live in North Carolina, and any suburban are you go to outside a big city is full of empty houses. And this presents the problem for the banks, they are holding all of these assets that they paid way too much for, and now they're in for some serious trouble. I don't see how a bailout solves this underlying problem.

[Ed Oscuro]

That's why I'd rather let the markets decide the price, even if they undershoot the real value at first. Here's one thing you said I don't understand though.

The problem is that the markets let themselves be shamelessly manipulated whenever Paulson or Bernanke or some House leader makes a statement. Pathetic really, but that's how things work and that's part of why the Feds need to step in.

I can't think of one good reason to let home prices fall further, especially when there's no sign that they will go further. The "market determines the value" mantra becomes meaningless and about as valid in the financial world as a mystic incantation when everybody is fearful about assets.

What are you saying here? If we have some sort of a bailout, housing prices will stay where they are? That's not the situation I've been seeing:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/re ... 8707.story

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/busi ... rices.html

The fact is, keeping house prices high prevents people from buying homes already on the market.[/quote]
I understand what you're saying, but not having a functioning loans system is preventing people from buying houses. I agree that home prices are going to keep going down for some time and in that sort of situation people are going to come up with a negative answer to the question "is this a good market to go looking for a house in?"

However, trying to hasten the process along is playing irresponsibly with what is for many people their sole truly valuable asset.

There are direct things that can be done to try to help stabilize the housing market, but I think that having a stable financial system is a prerequisite for that.

[BazookaBen]

Word. Of course, neither scenario is going to happen. If they don't pass this thing tomorrow, they'll end up passing an equally rushed bill in the near future. I don't see any bill they pass having any protection for homeowners that are already struggling.

I do wanna tell everybody in this thread: CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE!!! Tell them not to vote for the bill (or not vote for it until it has more of the provision mentioned by Kucinich and other good democrats). For the first time in recent memory, I was actually proud of the congress on monday. If enough people call them, they will listen.

[Ed Oscuro]

It is worth mentioning that the stupid "insure your worst assets with the Fed's money" provision was added by House Republicans.

Tonight I hope that the VP candidates will talk a bit about their prospective plans for getting some important legislation passed to help clean up after all this - like reforms to finally end the Reagan era of anti-regulatory excess. Anything more is probably too much to hope for, since Palin is expected to return to her fiery anti-Obama style speech from the days of the Republican Convention.

Ben, I can't find Rep. Kucinich's proposed addition anywhere, you gotta link handy?

Some handy stuff I found:
Open letter from academics expressing concerns about the rescue package
Rescue package details (remember it's been modified slightly since this posting
[url=http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/m ... 32_xml.pdf]Original text of the rescue package[/url,] H.R. 1424

[jp]

Here you go professor ganson, here's the answer to your original question:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBVB1Uc0nko

[Acid King]

Response to a recent piece declaring the death of Libertarianism.

The End of Libertarianism and Other Adventures in Financial Policy Fantasy
Don't blame free markets for the current panic

Jeffrey A. Miron | October 21, 2008

In a recent piece that appeared at Newsweek and his own web publication, Slate Editor in Chief Jacob Weisberg announces "the end of libertarianism."

Responding to commentators who believe that misguided government policies caused or contributed to the current financial mess, Weisberg asserts that the real culprit is the libertarian financial policy (which banned "any infringement of the right to buy and sell") that the U.S. has allegedly pursued in recent years. We're in the midst of "a global economic meltdown made possible by libertarian ideas," writes Weisberg, who adds that intellectually vapid libertarians simply cannot "accept that markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk, and misallocate resources or that financial systems without vigorous government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention constitute a recipe for disaster." Libertarian policies have failed so miserably, he concludes, that it is time to toss libertarianism, like Soviet communism, on the trash bin of history.

Excuse me? Are you serious, Jacob?

Whatever one's views of libertarian policies, the incontrovertible fact is that the U.S. has not pursued such policies. Not in the past 10 years. Not in the past century. Indeed, except for a brief moment before Alexander Hamilton engineered the first U.S. bailout of financial markets, not ever. If the U.S. had truly been the "Libertarian Land" that Weisberg alleges, a huge range of policies that have helped fuel the current situation would have been radically different.

In Libertarian Land, banks would not be chartered, defined, and regulated by government, as they have been in the U.S. for over 150 years. In particular, banks would have the right to "suspend convertibility," meaning they could tell depositors, "Sorry, you can't have all your money back right now," during banks runs that threatened bank solvency. This is precisely what banks did in key financial panics during the pre-Fed period, when suspension was illegal but tolerated or encouraged by regulators. By so doing, banks reduced the spread of panics and solvent but illiquid banks did not fail in large numbers.

In Libertarian Land, the Federal Reserve would never have been created. This means the Fed could not have turned a normal recession into the Great Depression by failing to stem a huge decline in the money supply. This decline and the related bank failures occurred because the Fed's existence was taken as indication that banks could not, or should not, suspend convertibility, as they had done successfully in the past. Thus in Libertarian Land, the Great Depression would probably not have occurred.

If the Fed had never been created, Alan Greenspan would never have been its chairman. Thus he would not have given investors inappropriate assurances about the riskiness of derivatives or the long-term viability of the stock market boom of the mid-1990s. Absent the Fed, no Alan Greenspan would have kept interest rates low for an extended period and thereby fueled the housing bubble that has played a key role in turmoil of the past two years. Market participants would have made judgments on their own, and these would plausibly have been more cautious as a result.

In Libertarian Land, the Securities and Exchange Commission, along with financial market regulation such as capital requirements, would not exist. This means investors would have no assurance that government can keep "excessively" risky or fraudulent securities out of the marketplace. Many small investors would stay on the sidelines, leaving the risky investing to those who could afford to lose.

In Libertarian Land, government would not promote increased home ownership, so it would not have created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or encouraged these institutions to extend subprime loans, or implicitly promised to bail them out if or when these loans failed. Thus a key ingredient in the recent financial turbulence would not have arisen.

In Libertarian Land, government would not protect private agents from the downsides of their risky decisions. This means no rescues or bailouts for banks, airlines, or car companies. No deposit insurance, no pension benefit guarantees, and so on.

In Libertarian Land, individuals and businesses would take risks, but they would think long and hard about these risks. Some individuals and businesses would profit handsomely from smart risk-taking, but many would earn modest returns on average because their seemingly "excessive" returns in good times would be balanced by big losses in bad times.

Reasonable people can debate whether consistent pursuit of libertarian policies would have improved U.S. economic performance over the past two centuries. They cannot claim, however, that recent events demonstrate the failure of libertarian policies, since those policies have not been employed.

Nor can they say, as Weisberg contends, that "libertarian apologetics fall wildly short of providing any convincing explanation for what went wrong." In fact, by theorizing, anticipating, and underscoring the inevitable failure of mixing free-market dynamics and politically driven interventions into the economy, libertarians explain both what's going on and how to avoid its periodic repetition.

At a minimum, the jury is still out on whether a truly libertarian policy regime is desirable. With luck, some government will one day have the courage to give it a try.

Jeffrey A. Miron is a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University.

[Ed Oscuro]

Thanks for that link, Acid King, it definitely clears some things up. Working that into what I thought before:

Libertarianism has been turned into teh bogeyman with no regard for what it actually is, that's certain.

That said, you show me a bank that can suspend convertibility and I'll show you a financial system that's inventing fiscal instruments as bad as anything we had this time around. The one primary question (perhaps misconception) surrounding Libertarianism is that it discourages regulation. Certainly the Republican 'supporters' of the theory claim just that, and perhaps that has damaged its credibility.

Same for the Fed, of course, and our current system - while the Fed's regulators theoretically have less of a conflict of interest, they also solve problems by throwing more of our money at issues, which does not seem the right answer to a bank panic (since hooray we're going to be paying off the debt for the rest of our lives, if we ever start trying). At worst, government agencies tend towards smugness and attracting workers who value job security over critical thinking (this is inherent in the bureaucratic system though).

If we went to a Libertarian system, we'd be trading one set of problems, quite well-defined, for another that we can guess at but which is fundamentally an unknown quantity perhaps greater or less than our current one.

I do think that Libertarianism has a specific currency despite not having been actually practiced in government for years because some of its prescriptions are fairly obvious. Even so, it's not clear to me that Libertarianism is a better platform to run with, i.e. politically feasible for the long run. Hit one wolf and henhouse snag and people will be calling for the heads of anybody vaguely associated with Libertarianism. It also gets in trouble because of the (not completely unfair, I think) association with the robber barons of the Gilded Age, but then we're probably getting into another misconception when it's thought that strict Libertarianism = no regulation.

[Michaelm]

Libertarianism can be summed up quite easily in the following sentence.

I should have the liberty to con you and you should have the liberty to con me but because I'm smarter then you or have more assets then you the second option will never happen.

[BulletMagnet]

Ignorant observation/question from the peanut gallery -

The article's overarching point is correct, that we haven't really gone "all the way" when it comes to true free markets/libertarianism/etc. anytime in our history, and thus can't say without a doubt how it might have performed. However, I would also assume it safe to say that, in many ways, under Bush, the country has operated under conditions much closer to the "libertarian ideal" (or whatever you care to call it) than under, say, Clinton - regulation was reduced, the role of government in many areas was backscaled, outsourced, or privatized, taxes were cut, and the prevailing assumption has been to just sit back and let the market take care of as much as possible (until, of course, the "free marketers" start getting antsy and demand that their private risk, but not their profits, be socialized, but you've already heard me gripe about that).

A similar attitude, and method of governance, was manifest just before the Depression, as well as the Reagan mini-recession, as it is now - to a simpleton like myself, it would appear at a glance that the closer we get to the "libertarian ideal," the worse things tend to get for most people (heck, even before the credit crunch and all that, nearly all the financial gains of the past decade or so went to the rich, while most others had trouble keeping up with inflation). Most libertarians, though, seem to maintain that the problem was not that we got too close to the ideal, but that we didn't go far enough - that if we got rid of those last few bits of non-libertarian entities and principles that apparently are REALLY responsible for mucking things up (though it's odd that situations like this rarely arise when the collective attitude swings farther in the opposite direction), then we'd see what the free market and all that is REALLY about, and reap the benefits.

To a country bumpkin like myself, one has to make a lot of assumptions to insist that this is what would happen, as opposed to interpreting the events of the past in a seemingly more obvious way. In a nutshell, what is it that gives you so much confidence in the aforementioned outcome coming to pass?

[Acid King]

I think the problem, BM, is that you're ascribing the act of deregulation to libertarianism, as if the simple act of deregulation is libertarian. You don't have to be libertarian to promote deregulation. Keynesian economists can suggest deregulation as well. I'm curious as to what and where you're getting your information about what libertarianism is and libertarian policy recommendations because Bush, sure as shit, is no where fucking close to libertarian. The guy slashed taxes and increased spending. Ethanol subsidies causing food costs to increase? Steel tariffs inserted for political reasons causing unemployment to rise in other sectors of the economy?

Just because there is some deregulation doesn't mean we are somehow closer to the libertarian ideal. I'll say it once again, libertarianism is not just economic theory. You could have completely free and open markets and still not have a libertarian country. Laying blanket blame on "libertarianism" for what you see as a failure of free market capitalism doesn't make sense, considering how incredibly marginal libertarians our in our political system.

I would liken it to building a house. The house that we've built looks far, far different than one if we had built it on libertarian principles. Now we have all sorts of beams and programs and supports and subsidies and regulations that we've built ourselves one fucking monstrous house. Then, when a person comes in and proposes to remove some regulation or another, and knocks out wall without thinking about all the shit they built around it, and all of a sudden the attic is in the living room. People sit back and say "Look what the libertarians did!". It's completely irrational.

[Ed Oscuro]

Then, when a person comes in and proposes to remove some regulation or another, and knocks out wall without thinking about all the shit they built around it, and all of a sudden the attic is in the living room. People sit back and say "Look what the libertarians did!". It's completely irrational.

Not completely by accident, this is why we can't have Libertarianism today. If nothing else, it'd cause trouble in international finance, but even simpler is the problem of changing how all business works in this country. It'd be a massively expensive campaign.

A guy I know here on campus gave me a book of Ayn Rand's short essays. I've been advised to stay away from the novels because (no surprise) she wrote them while learning English, and also gets a little carried away characterizing the opposing viewpoint.

[BulletMagnet]

I'll say it once again, libertarianism is not just economic theory.

I am aware of this, though in my comments here I'm referring solely to the political/economic aspects of libertarianism - I'd also assume that most others are doing the same. I know that it's not a "complete" picture of it, but it's not meant to be - I'm concerned solely with the "practical" effects that libertarian principles, when applied, have on what government does or does not do.

As you say, deregulation is not the entire picture, but I do believe it safe to say that it, along with social liberty, is THE issue that most defines libertarianism in a purely political sense, at least in this country. However you slice it, and whatever other issues are present, the fact remains that libertarians (as defined above) in general want minimal government involvement in pretty much every aspect of life - again, it's a simplified summary, but on that level I believe it's accurate. With that in mind -

The house that we've built looks far, far different than one if we had built it on libertarian principles...Then, when a person comes in and proposes to remove some regulation or another, and knocks out wall without thinking about all the shit they built around it, and all of a sudden the attic is in the living room. People sit back and say "Look what the libertarians did!".

Again, this appears to gel with what I said earlier about libertarians insisting that the problem is that we "didn't go far enough" - the libertarian point of view appears to be that we should never have built so big a house in the first place, so there would be no need (perceived or otherwise) to knock down any walls to begin with (of course, things being as they are, the only way to get to that smaller, more efficient house is to knock down most or all of the existing one, and as you say, that fact in itself cannot be "blamed" on libertarianism). My question, however, was and remains this - how much assurance, in the form of hard evidence (as you say, this way of doing things has never been tried "in earnest" before) is there that most people would be better off this way? Moreover, considering how frequently libertarianism and "Social Darwinism" cross paths, is that even a concern of most of the supporters of such a system to begin with? In short, while a smaller house requires less upkeep than a large one, it also provides shelter to far fewer people when the weather outside gets bad (and sends you instead to see your local private retailer, who might advertise tents while selling umbrellas, and it's your responsibility, monsoon or no monsoon, to take your business elsewhere if he's unsatisfactory). It might work, but then again it might not - in very simplified terms, referring to this very particular aspect of libertarianism, the more we've attempted to adhere to it the more blatant advantage has been taken of most people, while a very select few get very rich, often through dishonest means with little to no consequences. What about a "pure" libertarian setup would make this particular and oft-observed phenomenon disappear? How exactly would a small cottage that you're not allowed into be any better for you than a mansion with a hole in the wall?

I'm not even going to attempt to delve too deeply into the aspects of libertarianism that can't be decisively "felt" by the general populace under its rule, as described before - unless, of course, their practical, tangible application would make some practical, tangible difference in how things are set up/executed. You obviously know far more about that sort of thing than I do, so as much for the sake of your typing fingers as my brain I'm attempting to limit the scope of the discussion as much as possible - obviously it's all connected to some extent, but not so much, I would hope, that a relatively simple response to this relatively simple setup couldn't be offered.

[BryanM]

All I really want is for that muppet, McCain, to stop talking about how horrible it would be to have health care, college level education, and $1000 off in annual taxes to the common man. It's the eye rolling and head bobble that bothers me.

As for the empty boxes.... insane zoning and over supply and house flipping gets what it gets?

[Ed Oscuro]

One of the various editorials put it in a beautiful way today about McCain's smile. To paraphrase: "that odd smile that rips across his face like a fault line."