Let's consider this - basic politics/economics, but not about this election (PLEASE)

[TUSooner]

I don't really know enough about this part of our history to speak with authority. But I reserve the right to disagree and howl anyway. There's a lot of professed love for Libertarianism or laissez-faire capitalism around here. I tend to generally accept that as a basic precept - as a corollary of the idea that capitalism is the natural economic system or order.

BUT...
For all of our history as a nation up to the early 20th Century, did we not have laissez-faire capitalism?

And did we not see problems like the exploitation of labor, including child labor and sweatshops? (Not to mention what happend to the American Indians.)

And did we not see monopolies and "Robber Barons" and such?

And did we not see much of our nation's natural beauty endangered or destroyed, and our people's health endangered, by unbridled exploitation of natural resources?

And wasn't Teddy Roosevelt among those "progressives" and "reformers" who recognized that some intervention by the Government was necessary in the interests of conservation and "fairness" and thus in the best interest of our nation?

The point: Have we not already tried laissez-faire / Libertarianism and found that it was not The Answer To Everything and that we have SOME LEVEL of Government intervention FOR GOOD REASON?

In light of the foregoing, and in light of your agreement or not, can it still be argued that Libertarianism is The Answer To Everything?

Yes, No, Maybe, Sorta, Mostly, No Way, a little, a lot?

By all means, feel free to point out any false premises in my presentation of issues.

Let the fireworks begin!!

[FaninAma]

Is your point that capitalism has had excesses in the past and probably will in the future?

If so I think any reasonable person would agree with you.

Now here is where I part company with those who think the only way you combat these excesses is by creating a central government so powerful that they can over-regulate corporations in the name of protecting workers, the environment, or whoever.

But what happens is that the multi-national corporations and financial institutions end up controlling the central government......especially the regulatory agencies. Is that really capitalism or a form of corporate fascism? Before you comment you need to research the term "regulatory capture" and see how the government is used to benefit the biggest and most powerful multinational companies and banks.

Now Obama has added another federal governemnt requirement that will provide even more headwind to small and medium size businesses.....healthcare regulation. If you think that is an appropriate role for the federal government then you should also be willing to accept the economic consequences of that action.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

So big government doesn't have excesses?

Look, these are all human endeavors and no human endeavor is perfect. If we are talking about economics, then we are talking about the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources. Can you provide me a more efficient model for allocating scarce resources than the supply/demand model?

Now, what you are talking about are externalities. As one of my econ professors at OU explained, in theory a business' profits should reflect value added to society. If a company takes raw materials of $50, adds $30 of labor and sells a widget for $100, then it has created $20 of value for society. Now if the company at the same time is dumping chemicals in the water and it creates $30 of damage downstream, then the company is creating negative value for society even though the firm is reporting a profit.

As a society, we have an interest in seeing these externalities internalized as costs of the business creating the externalities or in limiting the externalities. It makes sense that gov't has a role in this.

The problem is when the regulators get in bed with the regulated. The housing bubble wasn't just pumped up by Wall St. The gov't was complicit in a highly regulated industry. Then we want to bail them out because we don't want the pain that would come with letting the banks reap what they had sown. But, again, gov't being in bed with the banks does nothing to prevent Wall St from reinflating the bubble. Did we break up the banks? No. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank aren't going to come down on the guys they've been shielding their entire careers.

[JohnnyMack]

Now here is where I part company with those who think the only way you combat these excesses is by creating a central government so powerful that they can over-regulate corporations in the name of protecting workers, the environment, or whoever.

The problem as I see it is that while small-government libertarian minded folks like you genuinely want less interference, so does Wall Street. They'll lay low, hide behind a move towards less regulation and then go off and do cataclysmically (is that word?) crazy sh1t once the layers of regulations have once again been peeled away. Then regulations will be put back in place and we'll go through the dance over and over again. All the while these firms make money (sometimes by taking money from the government and then loaning it back to them) by doing sh.t that has become so complex and so unwieldy that Warren Buffet has called them "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

[TUSooner]

I'm actually reading and trying to digest this stuff. For awhile I was afraid only Ama would write in, and I'd be forced to agree with him about something. ewwww!!! (Do I really need to add the winky?)

[FaninAma]

I would propose that the real regulation of capitalistic excesses is the judicial system. That is where the smaller corporations and even labor can hope tohold their own agianst the too big to fail institutions. The big government regulatory agencies are in the tank for these type organizations. Some of the judiciary systems are too(Delaware bankruptcy courts are totally in the tank of the Wall Street jackals).

Overall, the judiciary offers the best bet for keeping the JPM's and Goldman-Sachs types under control. Growing government only plays into their hands.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

It's sad that a thread about actual policy is doomed to be quickly off the front page, but a thread titled, "YOUR GUY SUCKS - DISCUSS" will automatically go 10 pages.

So TU, what's your prescription to our economic challenges?

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't really know enough about this part of our history to speak with authority. But I reserve the right to disagree and howl anyway. There's a lot of professed love for Libertarianism or laissez-faire capitalism around here. I tend to generally accept that as a basic precept - as a corollary of the idea that capitalism is the natural economic system or order.

BUT...
For all of our history as a nation up to the early 20th Century, did we not have laissez-faire capitalism?
For the most part yes, excepting the fact that a significant portion of the Federal budget at that point came from tariffs.


And did we not see problems like the exploitation of labor, including child labor and sweatshops? (Not to mention what happend to the American Indians.)
Certainly.


And did we not see monopolies and "Robber Barons" and such?
Correct.


And did we not see much of our nation's natural beauty endangered or destroyed, and our people's health endangered, by unbridled exploitation of natural resources?
I would argue with your term "much." This is a massive country and "much" of it wasn't being utilized then and isn't now. But a portion of it, yes.


And wasn't Teddy Roosevelt among those "progressives" and "reformers" who recognized that some intervention by the Government was necessary in the interests of conservation and "fairness" and thus in the best interest of our nation?
Yes, he was.


The point: Have we not already tried laissez-faire / Libertarianism and found that it was not The Answer To Everything and that we have SOME LEVEL of Government intervention FOR GOOD REASON?
Nothing is the answer to everything. There are going to be issues remaining regardless of which direction you go. I may even agree that the government should put into place basic standards ensuring the fair conduct of business, but those rules and regulations should never get in the way of business itself. What we're talking about is a government that may need to go 4-5 ticks in the regulatory direction; whereas, currently, the government is 1000 ticks in that direction. We damned sure don't need to go further that way -- we need to go back the other direction.


In light of the foregoing, and in light of your agreement or not, can it still be argued that Libertarianism is The Answer To Everything?
I don't know that anyone has argued it's the answer for everything, but moving back that direction is certainly needed.

Yes, No, Maybe, Sorta, Mostly, No Way, a little, a lot?
Let's go with the fifth option.

By all means, feel free to point out any false premises in my presentation of issues.[/quote]
It's important to remember a few things.

1)Our economy with its federal reserve system, government bailouts, and corporate welfare is nothing close to a capitalist system. What we have is a fascist economy. I don't mean that to say this is a racist-nazi country -- I'm speaking purely in economic terms. Our economy very closely resembles the fascist economic model which is essentially "corporatism." I know you characterize my politics as being closely fascist but nothing could be further from the truth. There is absolutely nothing about fascism that I don't find disdainful both socially and economically. I don't believe in a central banking system, I don't believe in bailouts, and I don't believe in corporate welfare. I think big business has done a tremendous amount of damage to this country. What we are likely to have are widely differing views on how to prevent or mitigate that damage.



Let the fireworks begin!!
No fireworks here.

[JohnnyMack]

1)Our economy with its federal reserve system, government bailouts, and corporate welfare is nothing close to a capitalist system. What we have is a fascist economy. I don't mean that to say this is a racist-nazi country -- I'm speaking purely in economic terms. Our economy very closely resembles the fascist economic model which is essentially "corporatism." I know you characterize my politics as being closely fascist but nothing could be further from the truth. There is absolutely nothing about fascism that I don't find disdainful both socially and economically. I don't believe in a central banking system, I don't believe in bailouts, and I don't believe in corporate welfare. I think big business has done a tremendous amount of damage to this country. What we are likely to have are widely differing views on how to prevent or mitigate that damage.

Yeah, for instance, your "time-machine model" where we all go back to 1840's American won't really hold up well against derivatives and credit default swaps...

But the rest of your post is quite accurate.

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah, for instance, your "time-machine model" where we all go back to 1840's American won't really hold up well against derivatives and credit default swaps...

But the rest of your post is quite accurate.
I don't want to go back to 1840's America. That's just nonsense.

...I want to go back to the 1840s South. ;)

[BigTip]

It has been a long time in this country since it was totally laissez faire. Capitalism proponents will say this over and over. Once there is government regulations imposed then it's no longer pure capitalism.

The banks have always had grand sway in our history and government. The Federal Reserve is a perfect example. Does everyone know that the Fed is not a government entity?

Thomas Jefferson was a right smart fella:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

[Scott D]

It has been a long time in this country since it was totally laissez faire. Capitalism proponents will say this over and over. Once there is government regulations imposed then it's no longer pure capitalism.

The banks have always had grand sway in our history and government. The Federal Reserve is a perfect example. Does everyone know that the Fed is not a government entity?

Thomas Jefferson was a right smart fella:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

so Thomas Jefferson supported Credit Unions ;)