Sensible Voices Against the Bailout

Screw you ya Big Fat Baby! My views are held by a majority of people in this country and around the world. You're just such a simple minded concrete thinking person you don't have the ability to discuss reasonable/ popular positions if they don't fit your bill. - unmitigated moron

Oh, the IRONY!!! And the double irony considering that Muirdiot is FAT.

The next election may well be of a guy I think will change things for the better. I maybe wrong but I'm not an outside thinker on this issue. Most people are going to agree with me.

Holy shit! This brain fart is actually proud of the fact that he has lived his entire life in the absence of a single original thought.

Russ Roberts, I'm sorry. I just can't comply (wouldn't matter anyway as these twats are rarely ignored by others anyway - especially when welcomed into the fold by the hosts). I don't get to meet people this incredibly dumb in my life - and so willing to display their stupidity for all to mock. I mean, I live in a Northeastern bastion of modern liberalism, so I often talk to people with whom I disagree. But rarely do I meet an actual idiot. Muirdiot is the only one I (sort of) know.

"That's not my problem. That's your problem. At least I'm willing to go into the lions den and have my position challenged. That you are unable to do so effectively is what's really bothering you.

A man who's not up for good debate... that's all you are....PITIFUL!!

Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 2, 2008 11:22:14 AM"

muirduck, you're a gutless shit. Posting on the internet is not an act of courage at all. No one is going to waste a penny of their money traveling to you just to beat the shit out of you. As for all other aspects of debate on the internet, it is a simple fact that we can all be who we want to be and say what we want to say without fear or retribution. To beat your chest about your courage in "going into the lion's den" is just more of your amusing Village Idiot prose.

As for your claim here: "my position challenged. That you are unable to do so effectively is what's really bothering you."

You are simply full of socialist shit again. Your "position" has been challenged and disproved not only by countless Cafe clients, but by your position's sorry performance in history.

Your only problem is being to emotionally immature to recognize when you're substituting girly tears for brains.

No one can challenge or defeat your girly emotion, but there are four year olds in many areas of the world that can defeat your political and economical postions. In places where people live on the edge and actually work daily, they learn early that folks like you are full of shit. Oh they'll take your gratis goods and laugh at you behind your back, but they know you're a fool.

My views are held by a majority of people in this country and around the world.

The fact that you change your views based on popular opinion is nothing to be proud of.

The fact that majority wants to live like parasites, is not a surprising to any of us.

My views are held by a majority of people in this country and around the world.

The band wagon argument: "Most people agree with me, therefore I'm right"

Often implemented by those that argue by assertion rather than by logic.

Hmmm, mg is logically impaired.

Shorter Muirgeo,

I am a Fascist, and so are most of the people I know. We'll mess you up if you don't do what we tell you to do.

Russ,

Screw you ya Big Fat Baby! My views are held by a majority of people in this country and around the world. You're just such a simple minded concrete thinking person you don't have the ability to discuss reasonable/ popular positions if they don't fit your bill.

That's not my problem. That's your problem. At least I'm willing to go into the lions den and have my position challenged. That you are unable to do so effectively is what's really bothering you.

The next election may well be of a guy I think will change things for the better. I maybe wrong but I'm not an outside thinker on this issue. Most people are going to agree with me.

Your position on these issues IS a minority position. YOU are the one who needs to prove your credibility. But you are to weak to even try. Here's some advice. Place one pinky finger in each ear, close your eyes, turn your head side to side fairly quickly and say LALALALALLALAL...not listening.....LLAALALALALAL...real loud. That might help.

A man who's not up for good debate... that's all you are....PITIFUL!!

In a way, Russ, I know you're right. But in another way, Muirgeo helps me to sharpen my own ideas and rhetoric. He can be counted on to bring in the very latest propaganda from the political class - for me to disassemble and annihialate. You've got to admit that this blog really rocks - and some of the credit has to go to Muirgeo.

Please consider that muirgeo only posts these obviously falsee ideas to feed off your outrage. Since Russ and Don don't agree that muirgeo only posts to enrage people, and won't ban muirgeo (worse, they welcomed the vampire back into their house?!?), our only recourse is to never, ever reply to muirgeo. If we lack the self discipline, then muirgeo's nonsense will be with us forever. Muirgeo will not change; only we can change.

"- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)"

Hopefully said arrows are for shooting at congressmen.

I can not begin to imagine what that could possibly be relevant to. Indeed, trying to figure it out is going to bother me all day :(

Muirgeo,

"I agree your free-market fantasy is very nice to imagine but when it hits the real world of greed and scheming bastards with no good intentions they always run amuck breaking down your beliefs into cold hard reality."

The way I break it down (ala Robert Pirsig's idea of the scalpel), is that the greedy scheming bastards are all members of the political class. Its a definition. The political class equals the greedy scheming bastards. What remains after using the scalpel to remove the greedy scheming bastards is the productive class. The productive class operates in the realm of the free market - and yes, the free market does really exist. The political class, being parasites, could not survive if it did not.

Crusader,

"You can't have a free market with currency-based economy."

Make that a state controlled currency and you've got a point.

Brotio,

Your explantion of the origin of muirduck is a good fit, but not fact.

He got the name as a play on the maxim of, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck...it's a duck.

In his case it was, if he writes like a socialist, thinks like a socialist, expounds socialist doctrine like a socialist, and does so with the emotional maturity of a 13 year old girl.....he's a duck. muirduck.

One day muirduck will have his moment of epiphany and realize that there is a natural chasm between these two forms of regulation:

1. individual voluntary submission to natural law and naturally developing customs that facilitate trade and commerce. This is self regulation and beneficial.

and

2. arbitrary force applied by non-participating individuals imposed unnaturally on the actions of others engaged in trade and commerce. This is government regulation which is interference and harmful.

He will in that same moment of epiphany realize that criminal law (natural law) is adequate to deal with any form of crime.

LOL, no it's impossible! He'll die muirpid.

muirgeo says “But where were all the free market voices when the Fed was running this gravy train of economy on easy credit”

I might not be a typical free market voice but, as an Executive Director of the World Bank, and as a member of the Audit Committee, I told their financial department the following in mid-2004:

“Phrases such as ‘absolute risk-free arbitrage income opportunities’ should be banned in our Knowledge Bank. From what I have read and seen, I believe there is a clear possibility that much of the world’s financial markets are currently being dangerously overstretched through an exaggerated reliance on intrinsically weak financial models that are based on very short series of statistical evidence and very doubtful volatility assumptions.” (Voice and Noise, 2006)

This is not intended as an “I told you so” but to point out that if I, who had not worked directly in the financial sector for decades, and never have had responsibility or involvement in the supervision of the financial sector, had in mid-2004 already gotten the message… why on earth did it take so much for the responsible to do something about it and what about their accountability?

Has anyone heard about a regulator-supervisor fired and fined? Has anyone heard an iota about how to make sure the silence of the responsible does not drown us again?

Where do you get the idea that the wealthy elite like free markets?

Really ... How can people believes this nonsense? Wealthy elites lead the charge against free markets, and they always have.

John Smith says:

"However, the Senate did add a few winners to this new version:

NEW TAX EARMARKS IN BAILOUT BILL

- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)


- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)


- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

TAX EARMARK “EXTENDERS” IN THE BAILOUT BILL.

- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)


- American Samoa (Sec. 309)


- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)


- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)


- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)


- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)


- Railroads (Sec. 316)


- Auto Racing Tracks (317)


- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)


- Wool Research (Sec. 325)"

What a joke... These self centered bastards could not, not even for a minute, curb the addiction to wetting their beaks.

The best system money can buy.

And to think there are some out there that believe these criminals are better prepared to offer health care to the masses or oversight for the markets.

They occur regularly by free-market idealist do-gooders who want to force their religion on others.

Prove it

1) That they occur regularly

2) never occur under socialism


3) done by free-market idealist.


4) Never by cunning incompetent socialist scum.


5) they force their religion on others.


6) Prove that Nazi (national socialists) didn't force their religion on others.

Once you prove those inanities, we might consider taking up on your other silly statements.

They are simply favored by people who already are wealthy elite or who want to be or who don't understand that their beliefs result in a wealthy elite ruling class.

Where do you get the idea that the wealthy elite like free markets?

Many of our legislators in D.C. are millionaires, and most of the rest are good friends with millionaires. They love government. Military contractors love government too, it's a source of very lucrative contracts.

ADM loves government, a source for ethanol subsidies.

You still don't get it, the wealthy elite comprise government. They are at the top of the oligarchy, the power pyramid.

Which societies have come close to anarchy, and please, don't use the mis-definition where anarchy=chaos. Governments and those that desire to rule have caused almost all of the social economic chaos in this world. History books are full of the evidence.

Please cite more than one example of chaos caused by philosophical anarchists.

Since by your own admission, free markets never existed in reality, how is this crisis a fault of free-market? Address that first, and we might take you up on your other dyslexic thoughts.

Posted by: Oil Shock

Free markets don't exist never have and never could outside of absolute anarchy.

Ideas that try to move us towards free markets (ie anarchy) DO exist. They occur regularly by free-market idealist do-gooders who want to force their religion on others. In the name of free-markets they are the policies that tend toward under-regulation and allow markets to run themselves into the ground on a regular basis. They are simply favored by people who already are wealthy elite or who want to be or who don't understand that their beliefs result in a wealthy elite ruling class.

The best governments to date have been ones that ride the fine line between social equality and freedom... the social democracies. Certainly communism and socialism have existed and have shown themselves to be not so great. Libertarian societies do not and have not existed so there is little basis on which to judge them but the evidence is clear that when societies tend to close towards anarchy their economies break down or they become Plutocracies like Brazil, Mexico or Russia... that's where we are heading.

Perhaps Aristotle was speaking of Fiat money.

Because as Aristotle said money exist not by nature but by law. Who gets to make the laws regarding currency.

So you are claiming that a free market can't

exist because Aristotle said so.

That's not enough of a because.

Actually, you can't have "fiat" money in a free market because it will be driven out by good money.

There are a number of instances of non-government or private issuance of currency in history.

"Answer that and we can move on." - Muirduck

That, from the guy who got the name "Muirduck" because of his propensity for ducking questions. It should be noted that Muirduck has been ducking some of those questions for over eighteen months. Kinda funny that he would throw down a gauntlet to a man who does his best to answer questions thoughtfully, timely and politely.

I've been pretty good about not reading the muirdiocy, but that was right above Oil Shock's excellent post, so it was hard to miss.

Since by your own admission, free markets never existed in reality, how is this crisis a fault of free-market? Address that first, and we might take you up on your other dyslexic thoughts.

You can't have a free market with currency-based economy.

Because?

Posted by: Sam Grove

Because as Aristotle said money exist not by nature but by law. Who gets to make the laws regarding currency.

Step ONE for the formation of Libertopia. Answer that and we can move on.

Muirgeo,

You're conflating corporatists and free marketers - again.

Posted by: Randy

No you are confusing ideology with reality. I agree your free-market fantasy is very nice to imagine but when it hits the real world of greed and scheming bastards with no good intentions they always run amuck breaking down your beliefs into cold hard reality. All the guys that claim to be for free-markets when put out into the real world become corporatist deigned to monopolize markets and stymie competition with no intention of planning for the future. Short term schemers need to be checked by long term planners.

According to the Census Bureau, the median income of individual male workers really hasn't risen much in decades, while productivity has soared and incomes at higher percentiles have soared with it. Regardless of how we account for this fact, it is a fact.

Let me try accounting for it.

1. Entitlement programs

2. the empire


3. business subsidies and protections


4. agricultural subsidies and marketing orders.


5. a very large bureaucracy


6. foreign aid

All of the costs of government must be borne by foregone consumption by those who produce through labor.

You can't have a free market with currency-based economy.

Because?

Martin Brock:

That's because rich people have created multiplier effects(where increased productivity increases profits) that flow one way - to their coffers. Why increase the wage?

Sam Grove:

You can't have a free market with currency-based economy. The only way to truly have a free market is barter/trade without any regulations. Maybe we can start to get this working on the small town/village level.

According to the Census Bureau, the median income of individual male workers really hasn't risen much in decades, while productivity has soared and incomes at higher percentiles have soared with it. Regardless of how we account for this fact, it is a fact.

Muirgeo,

You should go to the "Standard of Living" topics section of Cafe Hayek to review the data on your claim that the compensation of workers at the bottom of the "income distribution" has been stagnating. This is a convenient myth for those who seek more power for government, but it's one that stands up poorly to the facts.

It is often claimed by progressives that businessmen favor a free market, but it appears that their support is usually conditional, as long as they aren't suffering the effects of competition, etc.

Just because people know how to make money doesn't mean they understand economic principles.

Bankers may be the worst of the lot as they have long enjoyed the benefits of banking cartels via the FED.

If a businessman endorses a free market, it may be because he sees an immediate benefit or threat to his business from politicians. The extent of his support for free markets will be shown by his actions when opportunities arise from political influence or threats arise from competition.

Libertarians support a free market unconditionally.

An easy way to communicate with your "representative" is to register at downsizedc.org.

Muirgeo, some reading for you.

Rothbard on:

America's Great Depression

Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure

The Mystery of Banking

Senate bailout bill hits the Internet - Update: File added; Update: Not earmarks?

October 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/01/senate-ba...>

The Senate will begin debate within minutes on their attempt to revive the bailout bill rejected by the House. They have released the bill text this morning, and the Senate Conservatives Fund website has it for public perusal.


http://senateconservatives.com/2008/10/01/text-...

The new version has no allocations going to the Housing Trust Fund, which the Dodd version originally did, so ACORN will get no money from the bailout.

However, the Senate did add a few winners to this new version:

NEW TAX EARMARKS IN BAILOUT BILL

- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)


- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)


- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

TAX EARMARK “EXTENDERS” IN THE BAILOUT BILL.

- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)


- American Samoa (Sec. 309)


- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)


- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)


- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)


- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)


- Railroads (Sec. 316)


- Auto Racing Tracks (317)


- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)


- Wool Research (Sec. 325)

I love the auto racing tracks in particular. I can see the headlines now: “Global financial markets melt down, NASCAR, Caribbean rum hardest hit”.

Call your Senators immediately and thank them not forgetting Rum and NASCAR during this crisis. May God bless them one and all.

The Senate will vote at around 7:35 PM tonight on this bill.....

American people aren't voting on this and they're being threatened with a collapse of "main street". Of course, "main street" will be paying for this for generations to come.

every member of congress should be drawn and quartered. One barbaric act deserves another.

Methinks - I knew 9% Nancy would stuff it with pork to get at least 12 Democrats over. So predictable. Will the American people let it happen?

Learn to love it, people. Look at the changes to the legislation. They've now stuffed it so full of pork that they're all selling this nightmare in the name of "the common good" lest "the economy completely collapse". It looks like it will pass. Unfortunately, it's so stuffed full of typical congressional BS that we're all going to be wishing that they passed the first bill instead.

WHAT A DISASTER!!

Some people cheered it on, some people didn't. Many, many free-marketers, the Mises Institute for example, but others too, predicted these very things would happen, & they were dismissed as whackjobs. Is it their fault nobody listened?

came across an interesting idea from a professor of finance at BYU as a bailout alternative.

he's says 60B will do the trick: http://politicalcivility.com/the_stone_plan_08....>

Muirgeo,

You're conflating corporatists and free marketers - again. I've told you many times that the corporatist/fascist state created by FDR is a big part of the problem, but either you don't get it or you're not listening.

The pages of this blog are on record arguing the strength of this credit driven debt ridden economy of the last 4 or more years. Pointing to how their is no problem with wages or income/wealth inequality and eve denying the trends.

Yes... I guess we should oppose the bailout... I'm not smart enough or informed enough to understand the consequences.

But where were all the free market voices when the Fed was running this gravy train of economy on easy credit while ignoring the importance of wage and earnings driven market economies. The sub-prime crisis is still a subset of a crisis of wealth concentration at the top and wage stagnation down below. And the cause was completely policy driven.

Cactus over at Angry Bear makes a great point that the market has been dysfunctional for the last 5-10 years while the supposed free-marketeers cheered it on. Now and only now are market forces coming to bear the ultimate result of the exploiters of paper money that if it had only been traded in actually dog-shit could people see them for what they were truly worth.

Per Kurowski,

More calm indeed. I'm beginning to see how people like Mussolini and FDR were able to so easily gather power to the state. Simple fear mongering. Unfortunately, it works.

From Men in Black;

"Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.


Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Yes, I wanted the bail-out to be more specific on what it was going to do because I actually like the possibility of making many reverse auctions for a certain percentage of many different tranches of many issues, so as to help to find a market price for instruments no one knows what they might be worth; though sometimes you might in fact be better off enjoying the bliss of ignorance… I remember that wise recommendation that goes “never ask something you do not know what the answer is going to be”.

And yes I much prefer other venues following a bit the Swedish route and that as I see it also reminds me of the Chilean way.

But I was never actively opposed to the bail-out plan but little by little I am getting there… as a reaction to the media frenzy and as a reaction against the hurry-urgent-hurry-urgent pushing going on.

Given someone such extensive emergency authorities, without having formally decreed a state of emergency, is a major historic decision that needs to be pondered with much more calm.

There will be a NEW bailout VOTE in the House tomorrow THURSDAY, October 2.

Fax numbers for all of Congress and much, much more contact information at “Stop the Banker's Bailout!”:

http://DebateItAll.com

scroll down to view FAX Numbers of Senators & House Representatives in Washington DC

AN OPEN LETTER TO MY FRIENDS ON THE LEFT

By: Steven Horwitz Department of Economics, St. Lawrence University


http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/open_letter.h...>

abstract:

[speaking to the Left]..... One of the biggest confusions in the current mess is the claim that it is the result of greed. The problem with that explanation is that greed is always a feature of human interaction. It always has been. Why, all of a sudden, has greed produced so much harm? And why only in one sector of the economy? After all, isn't there plenty of greed elsewhere? Changing jobs, State employees can end up working for Corporate and Corporate employees can end up working for State; Does the greed factor change based on employer or sector?

Firms are indeed profit seekers. And they will seek after profit where the institutional incentives are such that profit is available. In a free market, firms profit by providing the goods that consumers want at prices they are willing to pay. (My friends, please don't stop reading there even if you disagree - now you know how I feel when you claim this mess is a failure of free markets - at least finish this introduction.)

However, regulations and policies and even the rhetoric of powerful political actors can change the incentives to profit. Regulations can make it harder for firms to minimize their risk by requiring that they make loans to marginal borrowers. Government institutions can encourage banks to take on extra risk by offering an implicit government guarantee if those risks fail. Policies can direct and artificially change what is profitable, yet do not serve the public.

For example many of you have rightly criticized the ethanol mandate, which made it profitable for corn growers to switch from growing corn for food to corn for fuel, leading to higher food prices worldwide. What's interesting is that you rightly blamed the policy and did not blame greed and the profit motive! The current financial mess is precisely analogous.

Those of us who support free markets are NOT your enemies. The real problem here is the marriage of corporate and state power. That is the corporatism WE both oppose. I ask of you only that you consider whether such corporatism (Corporate + State Power) isn't the real cause of this mess and that therefore you reconsider whether free markets are the cause and whether increased regulation is the solution.

Great Depression II?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26970885#26970352

This made me so sick that I had to write MSNBC a letter:

Dear Mr. Lauer,

I could not help but laugh at the piece with Jim Cramer on your show this morning. He reminded me of a used car salesmen, frantically moving around, raising his voice, and saying blunt lies, to try and sell his product.

A few examples:

1. We did not lose Wachovia, they were bought by Citibank. That means that a majority of those people and their jobs still exist. Nothing happened to them, just work for a different company.

2. Economists do invest in the stock market, maybe not as much or as hap-hazard as Mr. Cramer, but they do invest.

3. You do not have to participate in something to know that it is dangerous. I am not a chain saw juggler, yet I know it is dangerous. The reward for someone juggling chain saws is high because people want to see that and are willing to pay, but if you slip, it had better be your arm that gets cut off and not the American Tax Payer.

4. This has everything to do with Wall Street. Stocks in those mortgage companies are sold on Wall Street, those are the companies that are failing, the companies that made imprudent investments and flooded the market with credit.

I know that your job is to maximize profits and not convey tasteful and unbiased news (As was hinted by only Barack Obama adds as advertisements before every video I loaded… don’t worry, I am not voting for McCain, or anyone for that matter) but have you ever thought of having an actual Economist come on your show and explain why a bail-out is bad, or is being one sided and not letting both sides talk what you believe in?

Muirgeo,

George Bush FAVORS the bailout; his voice - which we agree is most senseless - is not among those who oppose any bailout.

And some not so sensible ones.

"My first instinct was to let the market work, until I realized ... how significant this problem became."

GW Bush

You're right.... this was a failure of government.