Hocus-Pocus Indeed

OMG, K! I didn't realize what an idiot I have been! You are so right. Thank you so much for enlightening us with your brilliant insights into the blessings of a strong leviathan state!

Hehe. some of you really internalized the no government fantasy.

Quick, name a great society without a strong government.

Society doesn't exist in a vacuum, and power waits for nobody. You either seize power or you stay on the porch.

This country rose to prominence being a world leader through deed of strong government. It has been in decline ever since self-serving industry infested government by purchasing useless politicians.

but his unshakable faith that well-intentioned and intelligent politicians will make America better is adolescent...

The Post is scratching their head because you didn't say what you mean. Are you saying it is impossible for America to get better? Or impossible for politicians to make America better? Who makes America better? The military?

Please don't tell me unregulated laissez faire capitalism makes it better all on its own. Corporations reach a size where customers no longer matter to them. They will throw anybody under the bus for a short-term gain. They will go to the ends of the earth to deny a mountain of dead bodies or patch of scorched earth.

They will bribe their way to asymmetric advantage every chance they can get, and they will call for regulations that help themselves, and they will dismantle regulations that stand in the way of unfair advantage.

You blame government even while it is nearly impossible to get to the true balance sheet of the corporations that want you to buy their bonds.

The most crime-infested place on earth is Wall Street, yet you want no regulations and no government.

Google "Citi Fined" if you every want to see what a habitual criminal syndicate looks like. Just having a Citi ATM near where you live puts you in a high-crime neighborhood.

Do you know why the hated French have a strong social safety net? Because the French wouldn't stand for anything less. They would burn down their government if it behaved like the USA. Come back to fundamentals and ask, "what kind of government wants to provide health coverage and good education for their people?"

Would that be a lousy government, or a good government?

What kind of country awards no-bid contracts to companies? Is that free market capitalism, or is that a cleptocracy?

Crap-for-brains wants a government he can drown in the bathtub, but I want one that provides the things the free market doesn't or won't.

Here is some political hocus-pocus:

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_feat_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html

The lie that they feel our pain.

Don Boudreaux in his lead into Hocus-Pocus Indeed

"No one can doubt the goodness of E.J. Dionne's motives, but his unshakable faith that well-intentioned and intelligent politicians will make America better is adolescent."

I challenge his goodness and his intelligence.

M,

"CDO's and Hedge Funds are complex financial instruments designed specifically to steal wealth from the productive economy..."

Oh, so they're kind of like the government then. I'm not sure that's quite right though. My understanding is that participating in hedge funds and CDOs is completely voluntary, while participation in government schemes is not.

"doesn't 'statism' mean a society that has a central government?" - Gil

No.

Statism is the belief that government can solve all (or most) of life's problems. Yasafi claims that he can recognize failures in government, but in his years of posting here, I can not think of one instance where he defended liberty if it collided with the best interests of the State, and Yasafi has never sided with free enterprise versus the State.

"If you think there is no evidence that demonstrates that statism doesn't work . . ."

Wait a tick - doesn't 'statism' mean a society that has a central government? Unless you're talking of some sort of anarcho-Libertarian society where everything is in private hands and every good and services is provided privately then you're a 'statist'?

Just look back before 1920 or so (and FDR) or 1964 and Johnson's Great Society.

Things weren't always perfect, but they ran pretty well.

Posted by: Chris O'Leary

No they didn't. What do you base that claim on? Before The First Great Republican Depression you had regular severe recessions, bank failures and depressions every 6-12 years. Post FDR there were no major depressions or bank failures. The economy grew strong and steady and the middle class thrived.

Muirdiot doesn't know what a CDO or a Hedge Fund ....

Posted by: Methinks

CDO's and Hedge Funds are complex financial instruments designed specifically to steal wealth from the productive economy and in their current form anyone who would step forward to defend them is nothing more then a lowly criminal parasitic cancer on our society.

Anyone who believes these are instruments of free and competitive markets is a delusion knucklehead cultist and nothing more.

I'm pretty sure that's how you explained them to me last time methinks.

And broadly I'd agree that government has failed in that it represents the desires of corporations over those of people.

Posted by: muirgeo | May 2, 2009 1:56:29 AM

More meaningless pap.

Because everyone knows that Bush's biggest problem were that his intentions weren't good enough. Of course, liberals believe that Bush was both genuinely stupid AND evil.

You are a sham, wow! I have never seen you acknowledge anywhere on this blog the failures of government and the rules.

Posted by: S Andrews

I can admit to all kinds of problems with government interventions.


And broadly I'd agree that government has failed in that it represents the desires of corporations over those of people.

Oh baloney. If you think there is no evidence that demonstrates that statism doesn't work -- that socialism, in any of its forms, including communism and fascism -- leads to economic disaster if practiced consistently -- then you are evading the major events of the 20th century.

Posted by: Michael Smith

Talk about Straw-men. I'm as much of a statist or socialist as you are a feudalist... probably less so.

"... can imagine what I think YASAFI stands for. If I'm right, do you mind if I steal it? - Methinks

Sorry, Methinks. You can't steal it because I already did :p Read on:

YASAFI

I think "Yasafi" is a wonderful, new name for Mierduck. I shall endeavor to use it often.

When the comment-count reached 100 on the original Nepal thread, and Yasafi hadn't commented, I was wondering if it was because he understood that the conversation was way over his head - or if he was on another of his junkets to taxpayer-subsidized locales. Well, it was certainly not because he realized his ignorance.

Posted by: brotio | Apr 30, 2009 1:55:09 AM

I will be happy to share, though. I think Yasafi is a wonderful name for our dear Ducktor :D

Why, that's a good argument for gun control, M. Smith! If people didn't have access to guns then there'd be no mass shootings.

"And still you can provide NO, NONE , NADDA evidence that if we followed YOUR rules liberty, freedom and the economy would thrive."

Just look back before 1920 or so (and FDR) or 1964 and Johnson's Great Society.

Things weren't always perfect, but they ran pretty well.

Muirdiot doesn't know what a CDO or a Hedge Fund is and he isn't interested in finding out

I totally agree. For someone coming to the Cafe for year after year, he is still unable to acknowledge even 1 major point of agreement economically. I wonder if he has changed an even minor opinion because of his exposure to the Cafe.

CDOs are not fraudulent per se. All the moral hazards associated with bailouts, government granted oligopoly rating agencies, lose monetary policy, administrations after administration peddling home ownership, all contributed to the crisis. Sure, there were many greedy people on Wall Street, but is that new? How about all the greedy home flippers on main street? How about all the deadbeats who lived large for several years on "home equity" in a home that they bought with 0 down payment, interest only loan?

I agree there are too many rules but the last thirty years have revealed the problem of letting a small elite delete effective rules and make their own news rules.

Governments are always run by a relatively small group of elites. Elites always envision themselves running government. You appear to be no different.

It doesn't matter if you dress it up as "democracy", which merely sates the people with the illusion that they are "participating" in running things, all governments are oligarchical. It's the nature of things.

But of course only YOU know where to draw the line?

I didn't make them up, I merely find them sensible and therefore subscribe to them.

Do you recall what they are? They have been around for a long time.

Methinks, have at it.

makes the mistake of thinking that the only planning to be done is by politicians.

Well, of course. Allowing you to plan for yourself reduces liberty and concentrates wealth in the hands of the minority productive individuals instead of a minority of politicians. Plus, it's messy. Makes perfect sense. Now it's time for you to understand that you must accept BHO as your Lord and Saviour and only then will you live in liberty from your worldly entanglements like your own opinions, preferences and decisions.

And of course, his first post makes the mistake of thinking that the only planning to be done is by politicians. Please pay attention.

S. Andrews,

Muirdiot doesn't know what a CDO or a Hedge Fund is and he isn't interested in finding out (I've spent countless hours fruitlessly explaining because I dumbly fell for it when he was begging for an explanation months ago). He also doesn't know the difference between a newborn infant and a toddler. That's more worrying, of course, since he's a pediatrician. At least he claims to be.

Before you can find and explain faults, you have to have at least a basic understanding of what you're talking about. Since he's clueless, it's pretty hard for him to come up with an argument - even a bad one.

muirgeo apparently hasn't been paying attention to ANYthing anyone says on this blog. He still brings out the strawman of confusing the free market position with anarchism, and evades the MASSES of evidence that free markets work better than any government controls.

Sam,

Forgive me if I'm a bit thick, but with your hint you can imagine what I think YASAFI stands for. If I'm right, do you mind if I steal it?

Michael Smith,

You know, communism needed to be "practiced" for only a couple of weeks or so to effect economic disaster. No consistency needed. The Bolsheviks tried it in 1917 but gave up pretty quickly. Socialism didn't work either, but you could keep that going a while longer.

Pretending arguments don't exist isn't muirdog's worst offense. Pretending he's a competent doctor is.

CDO's, Hedge funds and the current state they put the economy in are an example of the results of NO rules or minimalist rules as you would desire. They are real world evidence of the failure of YOUR position.

There were rules, really bad ones, like the bailouts. This is not the first time the bankers and financiers got bailed out. The whole federal reserve system exists to bail out financiers; that is their raison d'etre.

You are a sham, wow! I have never seen you acknowledge anywhere on this blog the failures of government and the rules. You arguing here without admitting even the most glaring faults of totalitarian central planners leaves you with no credibility - none, nadda, nothing, zilch.

Muirgeo claimed:

And still you can provide NO, NONE , NADDA evidence that if we followed YOUR rules liberty, freedom and the economy would thrive... NONE just hearsay.

Oh baloney. If you think there is no evidence that demonstrates that statism doesn't work -- that socialism, in any of its forms, including communism and fascism -- leads to economic disaster if practiced consistently -- then you are evading the major events of the 20th century.

And that's all you ever do, Muirgeo, you refuse to either accept an argument or refute it -- you simply pretend that it doesn't exist as you regurgitate your baseless claims.

"You need to understand that too many rules are at least as bad as no rules."

But of course only YOU know where to draw the line?

And still you can provide NO, NONE , NADDA evidence that if we followed YOUR rules liberty, freedom and the economy would thrive... NONE just hearsay. Because Sam says so it must be true... no REAL WORLD evidence required.

I agree there are too many rules but the last thirty years have revealed the problem of letting a small elite delete effective rules and make their own news rules.

CDO's, Hedge funds and the current state they put the economy in are an example of the results of NO rules or minimalist rules as you would desire. They are real world evidence of the failure of YOUR position.

Got it. Thanks for the hint, Sam.

What confuses me is, given our nature, that some actually think we'd be better with no rules or politicians.

What doesn't confuse me is that you keep resurrecting this straw man.

The rules have been cited to you many times, I'm sorry if they are unable to register in your brain. I'm not going to repeat them unless you promise to write them down.

You need to understand that too many rules are at least as bad as no rules.

We have too many rules.

Do you know how many there are?

Of course not, even teams of lawyers and bureaucrats don't know that.

MnM, S stands for such.

Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchucka

King of Bhutan who recently ceded power to democratic elections.

shorter muirgeo - only Republican brains are evil.

YASAFI? That one went over my head. A cursory Google search turned up bupkis. Help?

Anyone who believes that as a species we've evolved beyond evil is naive, arrogant, or stupid.

Posted by: John

I totally agree with you. What confuses me is, given our nature, that some actually think we'd be better with no rules or politicians... that policy doesn't matter. And they believe it in spite of having no evidence to cite in support of their claim. They just make the claim, grab a quote from a book of fiction and assume they've made a point even if the real world offers no proof. They call people juvenile for recognizing what is clearly right before our eyes. Policy matters.

Policy matters and some where along the spectrum of political formats even the most ardent denier has to admit a difference between a Stalin and a Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchucka Bush or a Bush and an Obama... An FDR and a Coolidge.

YASAFI works hard to keep his title.

Carl (Flim) Pham,

I'm sure Prof Boudreaux appreciates your telling him what he didn't know.

"I hate to pull a Godwin here, but this president of ours sure reminds me of certain charismatic leaders who started off quite popular and ended up doing some very evil things."

In 30 years time the refrain will be...

But at least the (high speed) trains ran on time.

I want to know who was the arrogant ass who started this "evolved into a higher state of being" crap.

It's like a religion, with them at the center.


Humanism perhaps? I don't know but it's dangerous.


Every bit of history I've seen where power is accumulated and centralized has ended in disaster.


It always starts with an aura of infallibility, and ends in death.

I hate to pull a Godwin here, but this president of ours sure reminds me of certain charismatic leaders who started off quite popular and ended up doing some very evil things.

"Our highly evolved brain is a thing, in fact the pinnacle, of emergent order."

We're three steps out of the cave with a bunch of toys.

Anyone who believes that as a species we've evolved beyond evil is naive, arrogant, or stupid.

Through accumulating knowledge we have eliminated the need to rediscover many things, by making tools with tools we've increased our ability to create complex machines, but the minds who use them are just as barbaric as the minds who have slaughters millions and millions of people over the ages.

Geez, Boudreaux, that's a useless letter. About all you'd do, even if it were published, is get yourself labeled as a grumpy crank.

You'd have been better off pointing out that Caesarism in general has never worked out well for any polity since Rome itself.

I mean, sure, let's stipulate that Obama is as brilliant and wonderful as Dionne thinks he is. But in order to implement all his brilliance, he obviously needs a lot of power, right? That means we may need to hmmm...cut a few constitutional corners, in terms of what the President can and can't do, right? Which sounds very reasonable. Ends justify the means and all that.

Except...Mr. Obama can only be President for 7 more years. Then what? How is Mr. Dionne going to feel when all that newly-institutionalized Presidential power falls into President Sarah Palin's hands?

The problem with Caesars is not Caesar himself, provided he works out well. It's that you set up a power structure that Caligula can then use to take you over the cliff. History suggests -- and the Framers agreed -- it's better to create a power structure that even a clumsy oaf can operate with moderate success, that limits the damage an evil bastard can do, and which, ipso facto, equally limits the good a brilliant once in a lifetime leader can accomplish.

Guess what: They didn't publish your letter, right?

"I don't know how to respond to George now, but I will when the smartest President pulls his epic boner."

Why wait when you have so much to choose from right now?

Every President in my lifetime has done at least one monumentally stupid thing. I don't know how to respond to George now, but I will when the smartest President pulls his epic boner.

The success of Tom Woods' MELTDOWN is an example of the "renaissance of Austrian economics" that Indiana Jim mentions.

Rob wrote: "Don is working hard crafting more bitter comments of his own as payback for the general rejection of Austrian economics within the profession."

"Bitter"?

Well, no; I can't see this any thing but silly.

"Payback for the general rejection of Austrian economics within the profession"?

Well, I don't know Don's utility function, but it would have to include an extremely high discount rate given what I think is the obvious prospect for a renaissance of Austrian economics in the profession.

E.J. Dionne has always struck me as a junior high level "intellectual" writing stuff that even smart junior high students would make fun of him for in the lunch room.

"adolescent" -- you nailed it.

Unfortunately is motives aren't that pure -- he's continually lying about the arguments and motives of non-leftists.

Dionne isn't just juvenile -- he's a low character guy.

"Our highly evolved brain is a thing, in fact the pinnacle, of emergent order. To not use it to plan our future would be a slight to the power of spontaneous emergent order. That's what I think anyway but maybe brains are looking for the next level of order or some good optimal combination of those that now exist."

All I have to say is read David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest".

Eh. I wouldn't worry dg lesvic, I imagine Don is working hard crafting more bitter comments of his own as payback for the general rejection of Austrian economics within the profession.

Don,

Don't answer Murg. Please don't answer him. For Goddsakes, don't answer him.

Our highly evolved brain is a thing, in fact the pinnacle, of emergent order. To not use it to plan our future would be a slight to the power of spontaneous emergent order. That's what I think anyway but maybe brains are looking for the next level of order or some good optimal combination of those that now exist.