Don’t Throw Me Into that Briar Patch!

There was also deliberate manipulation of the truth without outright lying. The lies of the administration are too well established for there to be any doubt. Sometimes they lied outright; sometimes they came up with a claim and pressured intelligence analysts to sign off on them.

The biggest problem with liberals is that they don't understand that when government regulates the economy in favor of the big corporations that it is STILL regulation. It is not the free market.

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, testified on Capitol Hill earlier this month. The Times of London reports Blankfein may get a $100 million bonus.
-AOLnews

He "earned" every penny of it, so stfu; you're just envious; get a job at McDonalds flipping burgers, and work your way up to CEO. Climb the corporate ladder, one rung at a time. It's the American way and the American dream. Don't knock corporate greed Capitalism, until you try it; it even works wonders with TARP funds during a depression, the banks helped cause and profited from, so how bad can it be? Lloyd Blankfein et al., love it. Envy is worse than Greed. You are so bad, and so had. You just wanna be rich, too, shame on you!

Anyway: Consumer, Not Corporate, "Greed" Is Ultimately Behind Layoffs
Dr. Mark J. Perry said so in 2002. He was so ahead of his time, he deserves a gold medal.

http://www.mackinac.org/3931

"Show me an 'anti-capitalist' policy and I’ll show you wealthy capitalists who applaud it loudly."

I agree with the argument in general, but that last bit goes too far. You won't find wealthy capitalists applauding a policy of expropriating and nationalizing industries.

"Show me an “anti-capitalist” policy and I’ll show you wealthy capitalists who applaud it loudly."

slutty corporatists.

"Show me an “anti-capitalist” policy and I’ll show you wealthy capitalists who applaud it loudly."

What do you propose to do about those rent-seeking "wealthy capitalists" and their rent-seeking, power-hungry, enablers, namely powerful politicians?

I contend that a main problem with Capitalism is that it is based on sloth and greed by those receiving excessive rental income, not on real work (and certainly not on any "creative destruction" unless they are contemplating your destruction) , so you must be talking about an increase in "rents" above and beyond the massive rents they already get, which they seldom "earn" in any hard work sense of the word, as is typically understood by redneck burger-flippers.

Caustic complaining is fine, but solutions are desperately needed.

The solution is to dramatically reduce the size, scope and power of government. Of course, that's not an easy problem to solve. The solution is harder still because so many people that recognize the problem of rent-seeking corporatists think the solution is to increase the power of government.

"their rent-seeking, power-hungry, enablers, namely powerful politicians?"

That is your focus. The sooner you learn that, become convinced of it, and work to fix that, the sooner the problem gets fixed.

U.S. Constitution, Art 1, Sec 5 para 2, first phrase, "Each House may Determine the Rules of its Proceedings," there is the secret as to how and why congress people can behave like whores on a Saturday night and get away with it.

They simply have written themselves out of the constitution and left you to learn of it on your own.

Why don't you try abolishing state agencies and "representative democracy?"

Progressives have all the billionaires on their side. What have you libertarians got to show against that?

On my way to first carbon billion.

Love yaaaaa,mmmmmwwwwwaaaaahhhh

Liberty, freedom, logic and reason.

Spot on. It's incredible how experienced writers still see big government as the enemy of big government paradigm, while all the facts point the other way.

errrr, I think one of your "government" needs to be replaced by "business".

Capitalism is mistakenly believed to be an end result when it instead it is a process.

I believe that this misunderstanding is why the above report could be made.

"Capitalism" is a word. It means what people commonly mean by it, and people commonly use it as a synonym for "corporatism", because as a practical matter, it is.

martinbrock wrote:


"Capitalism" is a word. It means what people commonly mean by it, and people commonly use it as a synonym for "corporatism", because as a practical matter, it is.

I disagree.

Words and terms have specific meanings. Asserting that a word or term means “whatever people commonly mean by it” simply invites various groups of people to use terms or words to “commonly mean” what they wish them to mean, regardless of how different this may be from the term’s original meaning.

Consider, for instance, what has been done to the term “laissez-faire capitalism”.

In its original meaning, “laissez-faire capitalism” denoted an economic system wherein government did not regulate or interfere with business or economic activity in ANY WAY and instead limited its function to protecting the citizens from criminals and foreign invaders.

To today’s “liberals“, however, “laissez-faire capitalism” means anarchy -- a complete absence of government, with people left at the mercy of armed criminals and gangs.

To today’s communists and socialists, “laissez-faire capitalism” means a system in which a small, elite group of businessmen grow rich by stealing from -- and thereby impoverishing -- the great majority of the population.

To leftists and “progressives” like “muirgeo”, “laissez-faire capitalism” means the economic system erected by George W. Bush during his 8 years in office.

But nothing justifies these last three “redefinitions” of “laissez-faire capitalism” -- they are nothing more than straw men erected to let “liberals“, communists and leftists discredit “laissez-faire” by claiming it leads to the horrors of anarchy, poverty and the current economic crises, respectively. In reality, blaming such things on “laissez-faire capitalism” is the exact equivalent of blaming them on an invasion of Martians.

Such is the folly of advocating that words or terms mean whatever people choose to “commonly mean” by them. I, for one, will never agree that laissez-faire means anything other than its original meaning, “liberal”/communist/leftist fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding.

To today’s “liberals“, however, “laissez-faire capitalism” means anarchy -- a complete absence of government, with people left at the mercy of armed criminals and gangs.

Paraphrasing Bastiat here, you're describing people who are unable or unwilling to discern the difference between government and society. They are easily spotted because they use the first person when referring to the government and the third person when referring to society, when unless they are a government employee it should be the other way around.
So because of this confusion when someone says that they do not want the government to do something, the confused person assumes that they don't want that something to be done at all.
Furthermore if someone does not want the government to do something, then the confused person assumes that that they don't want the government to do anything at all.

Personally I believe it is a mental illness.

Not really, definitions do adjust themselves over time and can mean slightly different things to different people. After all, take the Libertarian's definition of words like 'Socialism' and 'counterfeiting'.

Here is an excerpt from an essay I have in the works:

Why do you think the young have been allowed, even encouraged to abandon traditional English? Even the traditionalist uses it only sparingly, in ritual and prayer maybe, never for idle conversation, never in the halls of justice, and rarely for commerce. It is too powerful. When everything is in equilibrium the language is, by default, direct. Those who would seek to alter the past in order to control the future must do so in another language, one that is ambiguous, malleable, and open to interpretation. Deceit is ever so difficult when people speak the same language and share the same meanings of the words.

That paragraph deals directly with where I attribute the fault, the federally dominated Foolsystem we have had since FDR and his Regressive socialist crowd began taking over the education of Americans. A Foolsystem where instruction in the essentials has degenerated at an ever increasing pace.

Thee are still individuals that make it through the system and through self motivation and ambition come out with real knowledge, but even the majority of those need further instruction in speaking, reading, and writing the English language.

Any one who wishes to challenge me on my cynical assessment, just let me know and we can see examples, provided by some friends who are working in jobs that compel them to use e-mail constantly. I can get them to pull and show us random samples of what they see come in. Having done so already, I have to tell you it is pitiful just how time is lost in business simply through the effort to communicate and come to understanding the point of the communication.

Here is a sample of a communication I overheard between a young sales clerk and a customer of the same age. "May I help you?" "Yes, I was looking for shirts so I could look like the one guy on TV?" "Which one guy?" "The one guy that plays the dective." ....And, round and round the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel for something that should have been accomplished in one sentence.

My thought was, "My God, these two are over 18, that means they can vote!"

Gil wrote:

Not really, definitions do adjust themselves over time and can mean slightly different things to different people.

I have no problem with the fact that words or terms can have slightly different meanings to different people, as long as the essentials do not differ.

Perhaps you can clarify what you consider to be a “slight difference” in meaning by elaborating on what Libertarians mean by “Socialism” and “counterfeiting”.

In any event, I‘d say that what’s been done to the definition of “laissez-faire capitalism” does not constitute a “slight adjustment” to its meaning -- it constitutes, rather, a wholesale switch to a completely different meaning -- a meaning that gets switched depending on which group wants to blame which problems on it.

Michael, we are on the same page. Just for reference, as I understand it from what little history I know on the subject, laissez-faire simply means "leave it alone" or "leave it be". Of course that means just what you said above and the point free marketers all live by, no government regulation.

Yes, vidyohs, as the story goes, Louis XIV -- always anxious for more revenue -- asked one of his advisors, Colbert, what could be done to raise taxes. Colbert was a typical statist who believed that government controls and regulations could "stimulate" businesses and allow them to pay more in taxes. Sound familiar?

So Colbert imposed countless controls and regulations on the French economy in an attempt to spur business activity. The result was a decline in business activity. Colbert finally asked a group of manufacturers what he could do for industry that would help.

A manufacturer named Legendre is said to have answered: “Laissez-nous faire!” -- which I understand means “Let us alone”!

As Ayn Rand observed, apparently the French businessmen of the 17th century were far more courageous and wise than the American businessmen of today.

Michael,

Some time back, you had posted a comment either here at the Cafe or at EconTalk about the number of regulations, and the number of pages in the master set of books. How it has grown in recent years. Could you tell me where I can get a hold of that information? I might find it useful for a presenation I will be doing in my MBA class. I will really appreciate it if you can provide me a link, reference or something.

Thanks.

Sandre, is this what you had in mind?

http://extent-of-regulation.dhwritings.com/

Thanks, this does help. And your comment in one of the other threads listing the numerous regulations on financial industry, will help as well.

Anyone who thinks we have Laissez faire markets in the USA should take some moments to browse just this one website.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/

Of course that is just a rough sketch of what is piled on top of that.

Sorry Martin but you're juxtaposing your opinion with universality. It is clear from daily reading and listening to "learned gentlemen" and "experienced reporters/journalist" that capitalism is thought of, and referred to, as if the word and concept can be, and need be, applied only to the fruit without reference to the tree.

"Capitalism" is a misleading moniker for free enterprise. In common use, the word instead denotes an ideology of, by and for established proprietors, continually seeking state protection from competition. Free Enterprise is the opposite of this protection and is thus the opposite of Capitalism practically as much as it is the opposite of Socialism.

Isn't one of your arguments that Chinese mercantilism hurts incumbent Chinese producers by raising prices?

I'm not quibbling with your logic here at all - I just find it interesting that sometimes the argument is "mercantilism just hurts domestic incumbents so we should sit back and enjoy it if they're manipulating their own currency", and sometimes it's "mercantilism helps domestic incumbents so politicians and producers are in league and we should worry about costs on the unseen and unrepresented".

"so we should sit back and enjoy it"

Does Professor Boudreaux write such words about mercatilism, daniel. Over the years I've read many of Don's posts about free trade. I don't remember him arguing in favor of mercatilism by anyone. He does point out who benefits from mercantilist policies and who suffers from them. He consistently argues against retailiation. But I doubt that Professor Boudreaux, a consistent and tireless defender of freedom, "enjoys" seeing mercantilist policies being enforced anywhere on the globe.

What he has written is: "such undervaluation would have been to our benefit" (the only damages he mentioned in that post are to the producers). And he repeatedly fails to mention any negative consequences for the United States of other countries' export oriented policies.

Has he ever literally said that we should "sit back and enjoy it"? I don't know. He's certainly said we benefit from it, and then left it at that alone. And he takes that approach repeatedly despite repeated mentions by me of some of the problems. So if he had a more nuanced position he's had ample opportunity to share it.

Then comment on what he writes, daniel. He never said we "should sit back and enjoy it". To my knowledge, he never wrote anything remotely similar.

You frequently get caught making mistaements, daniel. Then you try to weasel your way out of them as you just have done. As a result, readers have much less respect for your writing than they otherwise would.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to "weasel" out of or what mistake I've made. I'm standing by the "sit back and enjoy it" characterization even if he never used those words literally. The implication still seems perfectly clear to me. Don has repeatedly suggested that we benefit from Chinese mercantilism and if they want to shoot themselves in the foot we shouldn't complain about it. My rephrasing didn't substantively change that point of his, and since he's repeatedly made that point, I'm not sure what the problem here is.

What's ironic is how many "mistakes" you claim to identify, most of which just reveal how mistaken you are in most cases (not all cases - in some cases you've pointed out some good stuff and I've been more than happy to acknowledge it).

The two assertions you juxtapose are not inconsistent. Export subsidies hurt subjects of the mercantilist state, and the same subsidies help subjects of the state. States have multiple subjects. Subsidies also help trading partners of the mercantilist state, who are not subjects of the state at all. This statement doesn't contradict the first two.

But "mercantilism helps trading partners" omits details of real trading relationships. Trading partners of mercantilist states don't sit back and enjoy the benefits. Instead, the states of trading partners also play the mercantilist game, and they play it to benefit particular interests among their own subjects at the expense of other subjects.

The problem with Chinese export subsidies, for the U.S., is not the value of these subsidies to U.S. consumers. The problem is that U.S. statesmen conspire with Chinese statesmen to create advantages for interested subjects in both states, as when they convert "private securities", bought by Chinese interests from U.S. interests, into rents forcibly imposed on U.S. subjects with no interest in the securities.

Chinese statesmen didn't buy mortgage backed securities incorporating dubious derivatives from Chinese interests above market prices by selling entitlement to U.S. tax revenue. U.S. statesmen did that. The idea that U.S. statesmen act for their subjects generally while Chinese statesmen act for the Chinese generally is laughably ridiculous. Statesmen act for statesmen generally.

If you want a contradiction in terms, try "representative democracy".

I don't think they're contradictory either - that was sort of my point. It would just be nice to acknowledge that Davos isn't just helping incumbent producers, and Chinese mercantilism isn't just a boon for Americans at the expense of the Chinese. That was my only point.

U.S. statesmen bought mortgage backed securities?

Re: "The idea that U.S. statesmen act for their subjects generally while Chinese statesmen act for the Chinese generally is just laughably ridiculous. Statesmen act for statesmen generally."

I think what's laughably ridiculous is that we can nail down what a group of people do and what their motivations are in a single sentencce. It is laughable to think that statesmen only act in their people's interest. It's also laughable that they only act in their own interest. They do both.

I worked for the Federal government as a civil servant for eleven years. I was Treasurer of a union of Federal employees for a while, at Marshall Space Flight Center. Once, we worked for a day care facility for center employees. It was one of our few positive accomplishments. Mostly, we just had pointless meetings.

We finally settled with the center on a facility operated by a committee of parents. The center provided a building but no other support. Parents bore all other costs.

Some of us wanted to include contractors as well as civil servants in the project, allowing contractors on the committee and their children in the facility, even though the union represented only civil servants. I had been a contractor myself, with the Universities Space Research Association, before becoming a civil servant.

This idea was hotly debated, and I'll never forget the words of one proponent of reserving the facility for civil servants only. After the facility was approved, we held a meeting of interested employees to discuss it, and this civil servant said, loudly, "I think we should look out for our own." [her emphasis]

"Our own" didn't refer to the union. I don't even think she was a member. Most employees weren't. Alabama is a right to work state, and Federal employee unions are mostly pointless, since Federal employees can't strike. "Our own" referred to Federal employees vs. Federal contractors, and this sense of civil servant tribalism pervaded the culture. That's a fact. I saw it in other contexts as well. Everyone was keenly aware of it.

So rules have exceptions. Sure. But in this case as much as any, the exceptions only prove the rule.

And U.S. statesmen did buy mortgage backed securities incorporating dubious derivatives from Chinese interests above market prices by selling entitlement to U.S. tax revenue. Didn't they? That was TARP and various Fed programs.