Here's a letter that I sent yesterday to the Wall Street Journal:
has at least two flaws ("Free-Marketeers Should Welcome Some
Regulation," April 3).
First, Mr. Singer ignores the possibility
that errors made in the private sector – such as balance sheets
leveraged too highly – were artifacts, not of too little government
intervention, but of too much. Double taxation of profits combined
with deductibility of interest on debt; implicit government backing of
Fannie and Freddie; and (most significantly) the Fed's monopoly control
over the money supply, are just some government policies that might
have promoted the great bulk of the private-sector errors that Mr.
Singer laments.
Second, even if today's problems are at root the
fault of the market, Mr. Singer writes as if he's proposing new
regulations to an apolitical and unbiased agency, one immune to
interest-group pressures and to the weaknesses in human judgment that
Mr. Singer himself believes contributed to the market's implosion. I
dare say that no error in judgment is so dangerous as the one that
leads Mr. Singer and others to regard government as being something
akin to a god-like institution.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
{ 50 comments }
First, "the government made them do it" is not a very compelling account of "private sector" errors. Maybe government should get out of the way and stop enforcing property rights altogether. That government creates some short term advantage for hucksters to fleece gullible investors is no excuse for the gullible investors in my way of thinking, particularly since government is always playing this role.
Second, Singer ignores another problem, that "errors" made in the private sector – such as (retrospectively) over-leveraged balance sheets – are good for the economy as long as government doesn't try to repair the balance sheets. Entrepreneurial investments are experimental. If every experiment succeeds, they aren't really "experiments". Are they? The death throes of one entrepreneurial experiment should signal the birth pains of another. The problem occurs when we squander endless resources continually resuscitating corpses.
Aside: Income of all sorts is double, triple and quadruple taxed. The "double taxation of dividends" canard has never impressed me either. It's like the "estate tax is double taxation" canard. Somehow, I'm supposed to perceive the taxation of a transfer from a wealthy old man to his young trophy bride, for her sexual services, as "double taxation" while taxation of a transfer from the same old man to the homely middle aged woman changing his bedpan is … something else. Well, I don't perceive it so.
On the other hand, I would replace the income tax with a progressive consumption tax exempting all investment from any taxation. Taxing investment returns only discourages risk taking.
What I find fascinating in all of this is the presumption that the government does no wrong and that the "failures of the markets" are the result of a lack of regulatory authority to deal with the new innovations in the markets.
What perplexes me in all of this is the failure of these pundits who believe in the infallibility of government bureaucrats to explain to us where these bureaucrats get all of the knowledge and wisdom to always be right in their regulatory calls thus the need to provide them with even greater powers over us mere mortals. Just exactly how to the come to possess this great knowlege and wisdom. And more importantly just exactly how does the government find and retain these "gods". If just once these pundits laid out a rationale and credible case as to how the government is able to possess this great ability then I may concede that more regulation of my personal decisions may be justified. But until this is proven – I only see it as a power grab where the newly sought powers of government are nothing more than a diminishing of my freedom and liberties.
Thanks for this.
When I read the article in the dead tree issue of the WSJ yesterday, I thought Hayek would must be rolling over. Singer says in no uncertain terms that more regulation with smarter people in charge will fix everthing. That Mr. Singer is a member of the board of Commentary and The Manhattan Institute makes it even more distressing.
Very simply, there were no "errors" made. Fraud was committed. Simple as that. They should be prosecuted, not sympathized with.
I challenge anyone to explain how a lender would make the terrible subprime loans we saw made that crashed the market with out passage of both the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
This flow diagram doesn't flow without Wall Street getting its way on every issue from the passage of the above acts , to favorable interest rates to loosing of leveraging standards by the SEC.
To believe the complex markets of today could be competitive without regulation is to believe ( and I mean believe in a religious way) a soccer game would be more competitive with out rules.
I somewhat agree with the problems related to the Fed but tell us what medium of exchange you suggest. And do so without using RULES of your own.
We will have regulation. Massive regulation. The result will be a productive sector that does not take risks.
Don,
You wrote "Mr. Singer ignores the possibility that errors made in the private sector – such as balance sheets leveraged too highly – were artifacts, not of too little government intervention, but of too much."
Fair enough, but you call it a "possibility", and then follow with several examples of political intervention which are "just some government policies that might have promoted the great bulk of the private-sector errors that Mr. Singer laments."
So, you critique Mr. Singer based on a "possibility" in favor of your argument of government policies "which might have promoted" this calamity.
It seems to me that you, Mr. Singer and other economists (including me) all have some limited, incomplete and dispersed knowledge about what actually happened based on even more limited, highly incomplete and extremely dispersed knowledge regarding what we believe "might" have "possibly" caused the crisis.
In other words, none of us knows very much much, despite everyone pretending to be some financial "guru" in the media. We really are quite dismal indeed.
If there is one lesson to be learned about the complexity of this crisis, and the severe shortcomings in our economic theories as well as the small piece of knowledge each one of us has at any given time, it is that nothing is sacred.
When the going gets tough, the tough become practical and change ideology. Only the weak stay married to some given ideology in the face of new evidence, especially evidence brought about by a disaster.
Keynes was believed to have said something similar to a journalist: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I, for one, am able to admit that we really don't all that much.
Can you imagine a soccer game in which referee scores goals for one side? Can you imagine a soccer game in which referee insists on the "equality" of both sides?
Market is the rule, government is the referee, human beings are players.
Oil Shock,
Can you imagine a soccer game? No. At least I try not to.
"I challenge anyone to explain how a lender would make the terrible subprime loans we saw made that crashed the market with out passage of both the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodity Futures Modernization Act."
You already have, and been countered a dozen times. If you have that much time on your hands go look them up in the archives.
Prof Boudreaux,
That's hitting the nail right on the head.
Another home run!
Ray Butler,
What element of Glass Steagall restricted banks from making risky loans?
What element of Glass Steagall prevented nondepository lenders (mortgage banks) from selling their loans?
What element of glass Steagall prevented banks from selling loans?
What element of Glass Steagall prohibited investment banks from underwriting securities that were claims to loans?
What element of Glass Steagall prevented investment banks from holding securities of any sort?
What element of Glass Steagall prohibited banks from holding AAA securities?
What Glass Steagall prohibited was depository institutions from underwriting securities and investment banks from offering deposit accounts.
The change in the law allowed a single holding company to have divisions that underwrote securities and divisions that offered deposit accounts.
Nothing in the current crisis required that deposits be offerered by the the "same" institution that securitized the loans.
Stand alone investment banks were able to underwrite plenty of mortgage backed securities and create lots of CDOs.
And stand alone depository institutiosn purchased plenty of CDOs.
Investment banks held large portfolios of CDOs financed by very short term commercial paper. Investment banks have always been able to hold portfolios of securities financed by short term loans. That isn't to say that there was nothing unusual about what they doing. It is must that it didn't require a change in Glass Steagall.
And there is nothing in Glass Steagall that prohibits the sale of a loan or the holding of securities.
My understanding of the "crisis" is that Citibank and most of the stand along investment banks go into trouble because they held large portfolios of mortage backed securities. It wasn't the underwriting that was the problem, it was the holding them.
I don't think any of this required credit default swaps, and so, if they had been regulated in some different manner, it wouldn't have avoided the problem.
Of course, I suppose that the taxpayer wouldn't be funnelling money through AIG to commerical and investment banks who held portfolios of CDOs if AIG has sold fewer Credit Default Swaps.
I think the people who blame deregulation just don't know much about the regulations.
Bravo, Don.
There is no great regulation for risk taking than the fear of injury or failure. Period.
Government agency stamps of approval amount to painting a safety net on a concrete floor below tight-rope walkers and telling them that it's safe run across like clowns.
Bill Woolsey,
I believe you were addressing muirduck, not Ray Butler. You notice on this blog the poster's info comes at the end.
Bill,
My understanding was these large money center banks like citigroup and bankamerica were moving these restricted financial activities overseas and glass steagall couldn't prevent them from doing so. Therefore, in order to prevent large amount of capital leaving they had to update the archaic glass steagall? any thoughts? or am I just misinterpreting this scenario?
I too cringe at the mere thought of Singer's "new global regulatory initiative". Yuck.
However, I don't believe the Singer "ignores" the possibility that government policy affected the decision made in the private sector that lead to the problems. Instead, I believe he is addressing the question, "given political constraints, what, if anything can be done to help avoid such failures in the future?"
It is true that these were not the failures of a completely unregulated market (since much of it was highly regulated). On the other hand, the political-economic system did fail, and many of the government and institutional problems Don mentions simply are not going away. For example, the probability that the central bank will be shut down and replaced with free banking is very, very close to zero. You can wish that weren't true all you like, but it's still true, nonetheless.
To assume the status quo is not necessarily to ignore it.
First, "the government made them do it" is not a very compelling account of "private sector" errors.
I don't see that as the argument.
The argument is that market functioning relies on various signals that constitute the feedback from previous decision and actions.
Distortion, obscuring, or obliteration of these signals by political machinations, leaves market actors unable to act appropriately upon the reality that these signals are supposed to be communicating.
Government requirements impose costs which can be incorporated into decisions, but other government actions distort the feedback, thus distorting the output and rendering correction much more difficult, if not impossible.
Pingry,
I just wanted to add my favorite Keynes quote:
"The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous – and it doesn’t deliver the goods. In short we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed." 1933
And then he came up with its replacement! Government INCREASES spending in a downturn so that GDP matches its pre-downturn level and the people employed by the government don't need to be employed doing anything specific, but can build pyramids and because of the "multiplier" their work will (get this) be MORE valuable than the work it replaces. And 73 years later, Socialists still think this makes sense.
Peter Singer is right, free marketeers need more regulation; it's called "loss." It's part of the "profit and" thing. With "too big to fails," the FDIC, and TARPs around every corner, it's clear that market actors are in desperate need of its regulation.
For example, the probability that the central bank will be shut down and replaced with free banking is very, very close to zero.
Too many things are impossible because people believe them to be so, not because they are inherently so.
Healthy Markup,
I am not advocating in any way replacing capitalism, and nothing of the sort can be inferred from my comment above.
In fact, I am a big believer in markets, and I, too, believe that usually the best way to regulate economic activity is to force firms to be subject to profits and losses in a competitive industry.
The crux of my argument is that all of us, myself included, must overcome ideology and deeply ingrained beliefs. I am trying to do that, and of course, it can be difficult to break with a worldview in which so much has been invested.
But, it seems to me that so much talk regarding the crisis is nothing more than blatant bias masquerading as something true, intellectual and rigorous.
To loosely quote Will Rogers if I may "it was almost worth this crisis to see how little our big men know."
So, while we can argue about any particular regulation or law with respect to costs and benefits at the margin, it has become quite clear that the financial sector cannot go on creating massive spillover costs for innocent third parties. Because, yes, financial markets are very capable of creating disaster without a helping hand from government…think LTCM, just a decade ago I might add.
It's just completely unacceptable in my view because financial crises occur with alarming frequency. If you believe in Taleb-style black swan events occurring very frequently and "fooling people with randomness", as is the history of finance over the centuries, then you must seriously entertain the notion of preventing and limiting their spillovers to others, which may include getting new regulations and laws, but also discarding old ones.
—Pingry
Pingry says…
In other words, none of us knows very much much,despite everyone pretending to be some financial "guru" in the media. We really are quite dismal indeed.
Pingry again says…
It's just completely unacceptable in my view because financial crises occur with alarming frequency. If you believe in Taleb-style black swan events occurring very frequently and "fooling people with randomness", as is the history of finance over the centuries, then you must seriously entertain the notion of preventing and limiting their spillovers to others, which may include getting new regulations and laws, but also discarding old ones.
Now Pingry who are those "know nothings" who will design these smart regulations?
Also Pingry, who are the know nothings who will do "fair" enforcement of these regulations?
I agree with Martin Brock. There are more minds at work in the Free-Market than there are in all the Government Bureaucracies combined.
Furthermore, these minds are dedicated to the task of creating profit under the conditions with which they are presented with. Those conditions include:
Current Government intervention in the market.
Monetary monopoly controled by the Federal Reserve (in Secret, and with Government protection)
Taxation hurdles.
What is left of the supposed "Free" market forces.
How, by any rational measure, can you condemn the players in the market for failures when the rules are made and enforced by a handful of Bureaucratic Regulators? The rules change in this game every year. The money and interest are controlled by the Fed and the "wizards of Oz behind the curtain" of monopolistic secrecy.
Free markets are always blamed for the problems, always the scapegoat for the errors. We have never known a Free market, ever! So why not blame the regulators? Why not blame the Fed? Why are the markets, which are all of Us, given the blame? Because any freedom we might have is to be made suspect to those who wish to control. Our Freedom to succeed or fail is ours, not theirs, and so they must regulate away the freedoms. Control is power, and power corrupts when that power is over other people.
Freedom is about the power one has over one's own life and destiny. It is the antithesis of monopoly and government control. So Free markets get the blame, even though government is the culprit, every time.
How is it that a handful of politicians and bureaucrats could know more about what we "need" than our own selves? How? I don't see any of them with halos about their heads, or over sized brains! I don't see any indication of omnipotence in any of them. For anyone to assume that someone else knows what is best for them, is to assume themselves incapable of living on their own.
I, for one, do not believe anyone else capable of living my life, making decisions on my behalf, or knowing what is best for me. To do so is intellectual suicide.
So don't presume you know that a handful of "experts" have the answers to the problems of our markets. You can hang yourself with the thought, but don't swing the same noose around my neck "for my own good", thank you very much. I can do without the nanny-state no matter how grand, how wise, and how mighty you think it might be.
I am a Rational Human Being, not a sheeple. The Market is a large collection of Rational Human Beings, not a herd of cattle. I would trust the Market at large without a moments hesitation, but I would not trust a bureaucrat to wipe my behind, let alone tell me what is good for me.
So the concept of a World Government is absolutely repulsive! Hazlitt, Hayek, Mises, Jefferson, and all the other lovers of Liberty and Freedom are probably rolling over, just as I am trying to hold down my lunch!
Check yourself in to a mental hospital if you think someone else should control your existence. But don't presume the same prognosis for me!
Pingry,
It's funny that you mention LTCM. If the government had not stepped in and forced a sell off of LTCM's assets and half of Wall St. lost its shirt, I doubt they would have been taking so many risks. As someone else mentioned, the best regulation is failure. If other firms see competitors going bankrupt because they over leveraged themselves, they will be less likely to make the same mistakes in the future. However, the government just reinforces risky behavior every time they try to prevent these banks from failing.
Euler,
Don't infer from my argument that I somehow believe in "bailouts", however defined. Yes, we all know the story of how government reinforces risky behavior.
You wrote:
"As someone else mentioned, the best regulation is failure. If other firms see competitors going bankrupt because they over leveraged themselves, they will be less likely to make the same mistakes in the future."
Alright, do you reckon that the massive S&L failures in the 1980's made it less likely that the current FI's limited their leverage preventing the same mistake?
I think not. I think the bubble mentality, and colossal failure in both the private and public sector had little to do with the warnings of the S&L debacle.
People in finance have a short memory, and furthermore have bad incentives when paid in bonuses irrespective of actually producing longterm value.
And yes, I understand that people on here have a tendency to deviate from the point, so I shall also blame the government, in addition to the S&L's, for the crisis back then…think the poorly designed Regulation Q and its aftermath, combined with localized real estate bubbles…sounds kinda' familiar.
We wondered how the Germans could fall for Hitler’s line. Now we know. The Big Lie has come to America, and Americans are lapping it up like Germans. For scapegoating greedy capitalists rather than greedy Jews is simply fascism with a liberal face, and the call for more regulation for more faith in “the god that failed.”
Pingry,
You have not answered my question.
Pingry,
I'm not sure what your point is about S&L in regards to over leveraging. I'm assuming you're trying to provide a counter example, but there was a Savings and Loan bailout in 1989. Or are you trying to provide more examples of how government action has encouraged risky behavior?
Ray Butler, You can call me Ray but muirgeo.
What element of Glass Steagall restricted banks from making risky loans?
Bill Woolsey
Disclosure. Why did you NOT see such shitty loans for the last 5,000 years of humanity? Because until they could be sold, repackaged and traded outside of regulation and stuffed into peoples retirement funds there was no way to pass the hot potato with out being stuck holding the liability for a shitty loan.
Why did this problem NOT arise in the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's or the 1980's… OH WAIT IT did occur in the 1980's when we deregulated the S&L's.
Why did it hapen in the 1920's? What were the 1920's regulations that resulted in mopre of the same.
Come on guys. There's nothing to hide behind here. The economy you desire is known for its resultant boom and bust cycles. Why are you denying a basic tenant and well known fact.
Muirgeo rehashes all the debunked nonsense for the umpteenth time. Ignore.
Ignore.
Posted by: Oil Shock
Good plan!
"Can you imagine a soccer game in which referee scores goals for one side? Can you imagine a soccer game in which referee insists on the "equality" of both sides?"
Or a soccer game where goals where not allowed in the interests of fairness and equality?
I'm assuming you're trying to provide a counter example, but there was a Savings and Loan bailout in 1989
Before that there was the chrysler bailout, latin american debt crisis in the 70s.
Before that there was the chrysler bailout, latin american debt crisis in the 70s.
"The economy you desire is known for its resultant boom and bust cycles."
So what?
That's the price of doing business.
It's also a lot more interesting than a world where nothing much of significance happens out of a desire for stability.
any body heard of the nifty fifty bubble of 60s and early 70s? How about U.S defaulting on its obligation to pay its debt in gold, in 1971?
I just found a list of recessions/depressions in american history. THere has never been an extended period of time when recessions were outlawed as you can see from the following list, including after the 1930s period. LOL.
If there is anything to be learned from the list is that despite all the technological and scientific progress, global division of labor, global division of comparitive advantages, and all the parasitic bureaucratic structures, we have experienced more recessions in the 20th century than the 19th.
* Late 2000's Recession
* Early 2000's Recession
* 1990's Recession
* 1980's Recession
Following period, two per decade was the norm:
* 1970's Oil Crisis ( two recessions and raging inflation )
* Late 1960's Recession
* Early 1960's Recession
* Late 1950's Recession
* Early 1950's Recession
* Late 1940's Recession
* Recession of 1945
* The Great Depression
* Recession 1926
* Post World War I Recession
* Panic of 1907
* 1890's Recession
* 1870's Recession
* Panic of 1857
* Panic of 1837
* Depression of 1807
* Panic of 1819
* Panic of 1797
Did I miss any?
"Can you imagine a soccer game in which referee scores goals for one side? Can you imagine a soccer game in which referee insists on the "equality" of both sides?"
Or a soccer game where goals where not allowed in the interests of fairness and equality?
Posted by: Chris O'Leary
Yeah this is exactly representative of the point I was making. Because yes I was talking about keeping the score even, adjusting the rules to favor the weaker team ect….
Talk about making straw-men. The rules need to be consistent , fair and enforced by an unbiased referree but their definatly needs to be rules because with out them you get bigger goals for some and not for others.
On recessions. Bottom line is they lasted longer and where more frequent in the "pre-regulation" era.
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
But you guys are so hung up on your "principles" that you are willing to allow for massive ineffeciency in honor to The Invisible Hand God… Yes let's offer up some virgins.
If I believed what you offered was more efficient, equitable (fair) and liberating I'd support it too… but the evidnece says it ain't so.
To some degree you are right. We DO need less government interference but you compulsivly take that to mean we need NO goevernment interference or rules. So rather then focusing on improving the rules you end up offering nothing constructive to the real world.
Don, Russ,
You need to ban muirgeo. Has he posted anything new here in the last two years? Okay I can believe if this guy has clay brains and can't see the logic of the other side of the argument! But shouldn't he give up evangelizing others here?
Joe,
Muirgeo's typical post is indeed a specimen of misinformation filtered through juvenile thought processes.
And it is this fact that lies at the heart of my inability to understand the frustration with Muirgeo. Why take him seriously? If you were, say, an astrophysicist and then a correspondent — no doubt well-meaning — kept insisting that the earth really and truly is a stationary orb occupying the center of the universe — would you get angry at him?
I doubt it. I know that I wouldn't. I'd likely pity his incapacity to reason, but his ideas wouldn't come close to being the type that I'd be tempted to ban from a forum such as the Cafe.
If Muirgeo's arguments are representative of the knowledge and ideas of "Progressives" or other modern-day "liberals," then those of us who cherish freedom and free markets have nothing whatsoever to fear.
Respond to Muirgeo, if you wish (but always in tones civil and with contents substantive). But if his comments irritate you, please reject any anti-liberal sentiments that might arise in you for 'banning' commenters such as Muirgeo. Laugh at him, cry for him, shake your head in bemusement in response to his posts. But never succumb to the anti-liberal urge to silence those who are wildly uninformed.
Martin, you're starting to make the same mistake as Muirgeo: repeating the same tired arguments that people have disposed of many times before. The government does not enforce private property rights (even though it may think it does and even though it may say it does). The government is simply an agent of the property owner in defending their natural rights to property ownership. Anybody might serve that agent role, e.g. a rent-a-cop, Mario who's in the protection business, or my buddy Bruno, when he's not working out at the gym.
I challenge anyone to explain how a lender would make the terrible subprime loans we saw made that crashed the market with out passage of both the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
Place the burden on yourself by explaning how a lender would be prevnted from making a subprime loan. Better yet, explain why people like yourself go all sorts of apeshit when lenders wont touch someone with a checkered credit report; why you scream some kind of unfairness and become all indignant/sanctamonious?
To believe the complex markets of today could be competitive without regulation is to believe ( and I mean believe in a religious way) a soccer game would be more competitive with out rules.
Don't you suppose that the rules of soccer emerged over time without a formal (political) government. And you know what, considering that there's legislation and law concerning property theft, contract execution, and malicious behavior that causes harm to others, I do actually think that markets would be more competitive withour regulation.
Why did you NOT see such shitty loans for the last 5,000 years of humanity?
There were never bad loans before markets became more organized and connected? Tell me, originally, do you suppose that the people who got the loans that they did not deserve and at rates that they should not have gotten them at, think that these loans were shitty?
Yeah this is exactly representative of the point I was making. Because yes I was talking about keeping the score even, adjusting the rules to favor the weaker team ect…Talk about making straw-men.
Is that sarcasm, George? And if so, it's not warranted. It's not as though this isn't exactly the kind of representation of your views that you've expressed a 100 times or more here.
There are rules already, George. But the kind of rules that you'd propose would possibly cause everyone to lose interest in playing the game.
But you guys are so hung up on your "principles" that you are willing to allow for massive ineffeciency in honor to The Invisible Hand God… Yes let's offer up some virgins.
LOL. There's a dearth of virgins at the moment; the Church of Environmentalism has a well organized system of snatching girls with their innocense in tact.
If I believed what you offered was more efficient, equitable (fair) and liberating I'd support it too… but the evidnece says it ain't so.
Explain how a market can simultaneously be more efficient and liberating while at the same time, more equitable.
…you end up offering nothing constructive to the real world.
This is one of those experiences where you have stolen the words out of just nearly everyone else's mouth.
Is anybody besides muirgeo's strawman advocating no rules?
I was wondering what the CH community thought about the recent G20 meetings?
Thank God for principled human beings with a moral compass
I've suggested before that muirgeo, et al, will not see a market as regulated unless it is totally regulated, hence 85% regulation would be insufficient in their eyes.
George has denied this is his view, yet has claimed that the most extensively regulated sector of the U.S economy has suffered from laissez faire policies under an administration that substantially increased the regulatory budget for the financial sector.
He reminded me recently of a long ago incident where I picked up an issue of a religious tract while using the services of a laundromat. The tract contained an article which attempted to disprove evolution by recounting the biological similarities between humans and lower life forms.
I felt confounded for a while until I was forced by reason that there really were people so dumb that they could make such an incoherent argument.
George Reisman said it best in his "The Myth that Laissez-faire is Responsible for our Financial Crisis":
"It seems that so long as anyone manages to move or even breathe without being under the control of the government, laissez faire allegedly continues to exist, which serves to make necessary yet still more government controls."
Pingry,
"When the going gets tough, the tough become practical and change ideology. Only the weak stay married to some given ideology in the face of new evidence, especially evidence brought about by a disaster."
"Keynes was believed to have said something similar to a journalist: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
The crux of my argument is that all of us, myself included, must overcome ideology and deeply ingrained beliefs. I am trying to do that, and of course, it can be difficult to break with a worldview in which so much has been invested."
I see no reason to overcome my deeply ingrained beliefs because I see no evidence that they're wrong. You're offering some weird trade-off: "I'll rethink my positions if you'll rethink yours because it's obvious that you're wrong." You approvingly add a quote from the man of the hour and world-class clown who said, "whenever you save five shillings you put a man out of work for a day." Until serious people quit approvingly quoting this man and setting in motion trillion dollar "stimulus" packages in his intellectual image I know one thing for a fact: MY WORLDVIEW IS NOT BEING TESTED. Our government has been fixing a key price for years (interest rates) and everyone knows what price fixing leads to. It controls our money supply. It offers free insurance to mortgage lenders. And right now it's accelerating the errors with quantitative easing, but all the people who approvingly quote Keynes tell me we're looking at a world-class market failure and just need to let government go to work and fix this.