Steyn nails it

The progressive paradigm which has been the running theme of government for over a century, or at least 70 years, is based on fiat economics.

Make budget allocations, establish policy, and enact regulatory regimes based on intentions and the desired results will follow.

And when the desire results don't show up, blame everybody else for getting in the way. And especially, (ht Marx) blames markets, greed, and "laissez faire" policies for the failure of fiat economics.

It is progressivism (some “P”, some “p”) which has brought us to this point. It is historically nonsensical and ignorant to suggest otherwise.

One must be intellectually dense beyond belief to advocate the current progressive platform, and wipe away nearly a century of socioeconomic failure.

The Euro will not collapse and Greece will not go bust because Germany is at the mercy of the Euro right now. Germany must keep the betting more long than short in the long run, or its economic and political power collapse. Germany did not dive in to the insane boom fueled by low interest rates in the same way the US, Ireland, Spain, Iceland, Dubai and other nations did. But it is being forced to absorb the mistakes of these other markets.

The only profit that is sure is that a few very large hedge funds will profit from the roller coaster of the currency. Small fry traders and people who jump the bandwagon are exposed to risk, and the people of Germany hold the liability, but the large hedge funds are now calling the shots.

Germany must perform just enough intervention to ensure the Greek economy. Right now the German government is being rather wise in resisting the bailout and making demands on Greece, but in the end of the day the German government needs the Euro strong and currency traders in global markets can short the Euro if they don't agree with EU policy. Currency traders all watch CNBC or Blommberg, they know the stories being put out and they know that if they collaborate they can make more money then if they don't. This is the tragedy of markets.

This is how Capitalism truly as a social reality. Some players with leverage get larger and larger until a small group owns and controls the market. All markets will tend to monopoly, it is perhaps the only solid law of economics.

Once a few smaller players have so much leverage that they can, through their collective decisions, determine price levels and even the total supply of investment capital available in a given market they look to ensure their profits. They purchase private insurance and they fund political candidates.

It is contributions from these very rich that drives modern political action, and it is these large firms that provide wealth to political leaders when they leave office. Dick Cheney took this logic to a radical level.

This is the inescapable reality of modernity, something that the authors of this blog seem unprepared to face. Liberalizations of global markets creates massive organizations with massive concentrated wealth and therefore power. These groups convert smaller players in to wage employees. These massive groups then seek to rationalize the market, to be able to ensure accumulation. These massive groups seek only profit margins, and if profit margins are expanded or ensure by governments the better.

In fact these private firms love the public sector. The governments power to tax is the envy of every large company and all over the world big firms establish close relationships with government.

This is, sadly I admit, reality. The story in Greece is NOT that some protests form against government cuts. Greece has been rocked by political unrest now for some time, and it has been getting worse for a while. The story is how the EU is being gamed by the markets and Germany, which had resisted the trend that American, Spain, Ireland and the UK follower, now finds itself forced to back up the risks others took during the liberalization craze.

This is the state of the world.

An excellent assessment and one that will likely draw plenty of abuse on this site.

Why thank you. My ideas are mostly based on the works of Richardo and Smith, I never made it entirely through Capital and have to say I don't use Marxist ideas because I never felt comfortable with them. So I stick to solid established economic principles.

So it should be interesting to see a rightest attack on them.

One of my most formative experience with economics was a simulation I created 1995. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?d...

I followed Classical economic ideas in line with my education at University of Chicago. My model had consumers as cost minimizes, advertising as reducing cost, costs equal to price plus search and travel costs minus benefits from service.

It was all very Richardo and I got some criticism for how classical the model was. But when we ran it each time it formed tow of three mega stores that dominated the market and could determine the price.

This is just economic reality. If you create a game to play market using all the assumptions someone like Hayek would agree to you get monopoly formation with key players able to call the market.

Sadly this is the reality we live in today, were currency traders can force Governments to do what they want. And if the government tries to say no the traders will find a point where they have to say yes.

"Sadly this is the reality we live in today, were currency traders can force Governments to do what they want. And if the government tries to say no the traders will find a point where they have to say yes."
_______________

This wouldn't be the case if governments weren't addicted to the use of fiat money.

Interesting to read the german centre right president talking about
the pressure the currency Market is putting on EU states to act. Marx
would probably say 'i told you so'

This is a broken record.

There's a lot of that with these guys. I would change my name to sickofhayekians but it's too close to you moniker. ;)

Feel free. It's fully open sorced

I never made it entirely through Capital and have to say I don't use Marxist ideas because I never felt comfortable with them. So I stick to solid established economic principles.

yet you do:

All markets will tend to monopoly, it is perhaps the only solid law of economics.

This is Marxian concept, not a solid law of economics. In fact, most of your underlying concepts are profoundly Marxian.

Once a few smaller players have so much leverage that they can, through their collective decisions, determine price levels and even the total supply of investment capital available in a given market they look to ensure their profits.

Everyone looks to ensure their profits. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with that. But, the point of achieving monopoly is to make excess return. That same excess return attracts competitors. Natural (not government created and protected) monopolies can't exist for long because of this. Also, there is absolutely no proof that cartels such as the one you describe leading to monopoly work. As the excess return increases so does the payoff for cheating by supplying more product, which then drives down the price. And that's to say nothing of the effect of competitors offering substitute products.

Further, the purchase of political power is not an essential feature of capitalism but a feature of an overly powerful government. An overly powerful government makes a whore out of everyone. The politicians promise to rob A on behalf of B, while keeping a hefty chunk for himself.

There is no question that large corporations love government - because they can buy its power easily. If government creates rents, people will seek them. Why is this surprising.

What is surprising is the the repeated misspelling of David Ricardo's name by someone who claims to get all of his ideas from him.

were currency traders can force Governments to do what they want. And if the government tries to say no the traders will find a point where they have to say yes.

You provide no evidence. Are we to take your word for it or are you actually going to explain how you think this happens?

Monopoly formation is not a Marxist or Keynes or Classical concept, it is simply a reality of markets. A perfectly classical analysis of markets will produce monopolies as a small number of players use leverage to take a market.

It is also an observed empirical reality. Since I learned how a single player could take a market in Uni Microsoft, Google, and WalMart have emerged.

My point on government is that it is the product, to a large extent, or business. That a Capitalist society loves government and makes it work. There is nothing wrong or even right with it, its only sometimes it causes grave injustice as the tax payers are paying for bonuses and dividends.

As for evidence, as I have repeatedly said on this blog, the evidence is Greece. We all know the German will bailout the Greek if they need to and the reason is not because the German people love the Greek people, but because a Greek collapse would cause a Euro collapse, and at some point the government will need to step in.

As for many theories in Economics this is a theory of decision making, so the evidence is in the prediction. The evidence is that Germany will save Greece.

A perfectly classical analysis of markets will produce monopolies as a small number of players use leverage to take a market.

I think I misunderstood you. Here you say that monopolies naturally occur in a capitalist system. No argument. Previously, I understood you to say that capitalism will lead to ONLY a small number of monopoly firms. That latter is Marxian concept. However, while both Google and Walmart are very large players, they are not monopolies. Microsoft too is not a true monopoly.

My point on government is that it is the product, to a large extent, or business. That a Capitalist society loves government and makes it work.

There is no greater enemy of Capitalism than Capitalists. Although, I would rephrase what you wrote to say that capitalists love government and help it to NOT work - assuming that a working government prevents corporations (including unions) from extracting rents. Government Sachs is the master at this game.

Certainly capitalism does not bring Utopia. Grave injustices are part of human existence. What is the alternative you propose if you propose one?

The evidence I was looking for is evidence that large hedge funds are "calling the shots", that they are not exposed to risk while small traders are (all traders can hedge, so I'm deeply confused by your statement). I was hoping you'd flesh this idea out more.

I don't know how much Germany participated in the bubble, but I agree completely Germany will pay the price for its weakest and most profligate members. That's the nature of collectives. And I agree that Germany will likely bail out Greece.

However, I'm not convinced that the Euro will collapse if the Germans don't bail out Greece. They seem to be between a rock and a hard place. If they bailout Greece, moral hazard rises significantly and the Germans will eventually balk at paying for further bailouts. That could weaken the Euro. If the Germans don't bail out Greece, the Euro MAY strengthen as Germany and France demonstrate an intolerance to such profligacy. Or it may weaken if the market perceives effectively kicking Greece out of the currency as the first step to the Euro's demise.

I am not sure Marx said Capitalism will only lead to a small number of monopoly player, where did he write that?

I have to admit I have trouble understanding Capital after Chapter 32. So I can only argue based on the economics I know, which is mostly classical. But from what I can tell Marx was a Classical economist, its where he jumps to sociology and history that he radically breaks with earlier economists. That is also the area where I lose the trend of the argument. I guess I can't understand Marx well enough to decide if I accept his reasoning.

Well the evidence on the fund is kind of obvious. You see the Euro going down and the EU markets being hit. You turn on CNBC and you see currency traders saying that the market is concerned about Greece impact on the Euro. This is strange because when states in the Union, or even entire regions of the United States experience collapse the dollar rarely is undercut. Precisely how the Greek economy impacts the Euro only really exists in the belief structures of the investors. The investors are just saying it over and over again on CNBC, they want a bailout.

As for evidence, well what economic theory ever has evidence. I recall taking a sociology class where they asked me to construct a theory. As a young University of Chicago student I constructed a rational choice about student aid in a democratic representative government. It took from authors like Hayek and Smith. Very classical model of economics.

The teacher liked the theory. The next week we had come up with a experiment to determine if our theory was correct. I spent a long weekend trying to work that one out, but I soon saw I was stuffed. I had to come up with a different theory in order to test it.

The teacher had a good laugh last we talk. "Economic theories are all tautologies" Asking for proof of any economic theory is a good trick. What is the "proof" of Hayek's love of the free market? Where is the experiment that proves boom and busts come from lack of thrift?

That does not mean economics is useless, its just that economics is more about reading human intentions than about conducting experiments.

So for proof I give this, the people of Germany have no desire to bail out Greece. In theory Greece could be allowed to go just like Michigan was allowed to go in the United States, just a region of the European Union that can't pay its bills. The connection between Greece and the total Euro is not very clear.

But despite all of this Germany will be forced to pay the bill. Because there is a smart play that has been agreed in open public by the currency investors. Short the Euro, buy Greek debt, when the Germans fully back it up long the Euro. Everyone is happy, except for the people of Germany who are stuck with the bill.

"However, while both Google and Walmart are very large players, they are not monopolies. Microsoft too is not a true monopoly. "

Split hairs all you want, they all three exercise market power.

"I'm not convinced that the Euro will collapse if the Germans don't bail out Greece. They seem to be between a rock and a hard place. If they bailout Greece, moral hazard rises significantly and the Germans will eventually balk at paying for further bailouts. That could weaken the Euro. If the Germans don't bail out Greece, the Euro MAY strengthen as Germany and France demonstrate an intolerance to such profligacy. Or it may weaken if the market perceives effectively kicking Greece out of the currency as the first step to the Euro's demise."

This smells of uninformed speculation and wishful thinking. If Greece goes down the other three little PIGS will likely follow. Germany can't take that chance anymore than Paulsen and Bernanke could 17 months ago.

I personally endorse all speculation, informed or otherwise.

Yours falls under "otherwise"...

Bravo.

You dismiss my speculation by calling it speculation and refute with...drum roll....your own speculation.

I don't care what you're smelling - it's likely your own stench. Your obsession with me is sort of amusing, but I'm hoping the next email alert I get for this site and thread is from SickofHayek. I'm tiring of seeing your pointless drivel in my mailbox.

There's a difference between your speculation and mine. No one of any reputation is saying "the Euro MAY strenghten" if Greece is not bailed out or discussing the option of "effectively kicking Greece out of the currency". Where do you get this stuff?

On the other hand, my "speculation" about the danger of the other PIGS being brought down if Greece were to default is all over the financial news and being discussed at the highest policy levels in the EU, IMF and the US. In fact, it's not even "my" speculation, it's shared by so many others.

If you care to become educated, I've provided a few links:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/02/14/gener...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/201...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087...

So you’re arguing that socialist countries, be they mildly (Germany) or overtly (Greece) so, are in real danger (entirely agreed), and that we need to address this problem, caused by your own ideas.

Again, I would discourage making demonstrative statements from a position of ignorance.

"So you’re arguing that socialist countries, be they mildly (Germany) or overtly (Greece) so, are in real danger (entirely agreed), and that we need to address this problem, caused by your own ideas."

Please copy the text where I made this argument. Good luck. I didn't.

Because you cannot respond intelligently, you have to make up arguments your meager intelligence can respond to. My symapthies.

The burden is on you to disprove my contention, and provide an alternate explanation. You won't, because you can't.

If you knew anything about logic, you'd know you can't prove a negative. But you're an imbecille and that's way too much to expect, mesozoicguy.

BTW...I'll try to refrain from assuming too much from your statements about currency holders and Sovereign Debt holders calling the shots. However, it must be said that if you're going to issue debt, the debt holders will start calling the shots in a crises. If you don't appease them, you won't be able to issue debt. That's just the reality. If you want demand for your currency, you have to make it attractive to the potential buyers. The other option is to not issue debt or to have a managed peg or nonconvertible currency.

Of course, the other option is to not allow known cheaters like Greece into your club (Greece has cooked books for a long time and it's no secret that it complied with EU standards only long enough to be accepted into the common currency). Then, Germany's creditors can't force Germany to do anything.

"Greece has cooked books for a long time and it's no secret that it complied with EU standards only long enough to be accepted into the common currency."

Somebody please inform Methinks how many of the last umpteen countires to join the common currency this statement applies to.

Somebody please inform Methinks how many of the last umpteen countires [sic] to join the common currency this statement applies to.

Well, counting Romania, all of them.

European Monetary Union has always been contentious (and I maintained unsustainable), and it will likely end in some dissolutive whimper or asymmetric confiscation of (state-generated) pseudo-wealth (see above, FAIL). It’s basically a wealth-transfer agreement from Germany to everyone else, especially Greece.

I would refrain from making statements like this from a position of ignorance; Methinks has far more international economics and financial markets experience than you.

Then Methinks fails to demonstrate her alleged erudition. Besides, you have no idea what experience in international economics and financial markets I have.

"It’s basically a wealth-transfer agreement from Germany to everyone else, especially Greece."

And so the Germans must be stupid in order to tolerate it, right?

Stupid, irrational, but very open minded in that ignorant European way, which you no doubt wish to emulate.

I (we) can tell from your statements of ignorance you have little to no experience in international financial markets, or markets of any kind, for that matter. Methinks’ informed predictions are perfectly plausible, and I assure you she has read far more than you on the subject.

I'll believe it when I see it in one of her posts.

Are you like her boyfriend or something?

Are you, like, 13, or something?

I was just asking about the boyfriend-girlfriend thing because you run to protect her so enthusiastically.

Wait a minute. I just realized I don't know that you're a he. Up North, "you guys" an go either way. So maybe it's a girlfriend-girlfriend thing.

I agree. I know what you mean about the satisfaction of using Classical theory to devlop evidence and arguments like this. I do the same thing using strict constructionist constitutional interpretations against the conservative and libertarian "strict constructionists" who believe in a narrow interpretation until they get a conservative majority on the court when they suddenly discover the virtues of judicial activism.

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look.

Its interesting that only the protests are covered, and utterly out of context. Greece has a very violent recent history and is in the middle of a largely disruptive period. People are on the streets protesting in Greece right now on almost any issue. The military dictatorship of just a generation ago has still not been worked out.

What is surprising is this blogs utter disinterest in the real story here. Protests in Greece are knee jerk and every day. The real story is the role "market" players are having in this game. In how currency traders are forcing a EU bailout to take place.

The people on the picket lines are essentially powerless, trying to hold on to what they have. What is far more interesting is how people with power are using the situation in Greece to try and to protect what they have. Germany resisted much of the market liberalization of the past 30 years and its public finances benefits. Now it would seem that by targeting the Euro global currency exchanges are clearly trying to force tax payers in Germany to bail them, that is the currency traders out.

The people on the picket lines are essentially powerless, trying to hold on to what they have.

And who disempowered them? You just pointed out it was government.

Germany resisted liberalization until it became "the sick man of Europe" - when the number of people dependent on the state rose 400% while during the same time period the people paying into the state increased by 4%. Then, it liberalized somewhat. The EU is under no obligation to do anything for anyone who is long the Euro. The politicians want to hold on to the power a united Europe gives them. The people, not so much. You can scapegoat currency traders all day, it doesn't change the reality. Global currency trading will not go belly up if the Euro collapses. It existed before the Euro and it will exist after.

"And who disempowered them? You just pointed out it was government."

This statement nicely encapsulates the fundamental weakness of libertarian economic and political policy prescriptions.

Libertarians seem incapable or unwilling to look behind the veil to see who most often controls government policy making: those with the financial resources to make large campaign contributions and mount big lobbying and public relations campaigns.

Obvious to any observer is that there is a BIG overlap between those who have great political influence and those who have great market influence, because political and economic resources are fungible and competition in both arenas is far from perfect.

Libertarians argue to cut government to the bone in order to return power to markets, but this ignores the fact that doing so simply delivers power back into the same hands that exercise the lion's share of influence in the political arena.

Libertarians also fail to recognize the fact that existing market distortions and inequalities, whether their source lies in prior govt. interventions or previous market failures, have profound implications for which interests dominate after government is gutted and whether the invisible hand that libertarians have such faith in will ever be uncuffed to correct these distortions.

Under these conditions, I have no faith that markets will correct themselves or that the dominant economic elites will willingly, in the glow of enlightened self-interest, relinquish any of their market advantages.

So, why do I support a strong central govt (like the one the founders created through the Constitution) since I've just argued that govt policy making is usually dominated by economic elites.

The crucial reason lies in the word "usually". There are times in US history, about every 25-35 years, when the grasp on govt of these elites is broken by some great economic or political failure of those elites. These failures undercut their legitimacy and mobilizes large democratic (non-elite) forces to pursue political or economic reforms. [Here's a quick list of these reform periods in US history:

* the Revolution (c. 1775)
* the rise of Jeffersonian democracy (c. 1800)
* Jacksonian democracy (c. 1830)
* the Civil War and emancipation (c. 1861)
* the Progressive era (c. 1900)
* the New Deal (c. 1933)
* the Great Society (c. 1964)
* the Reagan revolution (c. 1981) ]

These democratic forces of reform also have their roots in changes in education culture, demography and technology, but they are typically catalyzed by a significant failure in the political or economic realm.

A strong central govt is the only effective tool of peaceful change available in these periods, and American history demonstrates that some of those reforms are enacted and usually with a minimum of violence.

If libertarians were to succeed in stripping govt of the capacity to channel these energies constructively and successfully, they would leave only the options of insurrection and revolution.

I don't think I can explain by objections to libertarianism and laissez-faire economic theory more concisely than that.

Well, that's just weird.

That's the best you can muster?

What better reply to moronic drivel followed by more of the same?

I've just realized who you must be! What college did you drop out off?

Insulsissimus Est Homo.

It's still gibberish, but I'll give you that it's relatively concise for pure nonsense.

You are too deeply confused for me to waste time reading your entire post, so I'll just address your first mistake - from which I'm certain all of your follow-up mistakes flow.

A person with money and in the presence of Rule of Law can only offer someone an amount high enough to encourage the other person to part with his property.

Politicians always sell political power. The larger government is, the more corporations or anyone with means will seek to purchase that power. The government has the power to rob anyone it wants (think imminent domain and think about who benefits from it - and think beyond the first step).

If government doesn't have a lot of power to sell, corporations can't buy it.

I think you also conflate a weak government and one that is so weak it cannot maintain Rule of Law. I don't know what you've figured in your head defines "libertarians", but there isn't that much consensus among libertarians - as far as I can tell. Anarcho-capitalists are against all government. Most libertarians aren't.

You should read something by David Friedman - particularly "The Machinery of Freedom". You may not agree with his conclusions, but at least you'd be better informed about how anarcho-capitalists think about things.

I'm from a country with incredibly strong central government. It doesn't work as you imagine. I've pointed out to you before that the best friend of the regulated is the regulator, yet you continue to hold onto the fantasy that enough regulation will solve your unsolvable problems.

Well, your totally off-point post demonstrates the hazards of a short attention span, assuming you already know what someone will say after reading only their first paragraph, English as a second language, and ideological blinders combined with limited intelligence.

English is your second language?

Sorry about the confusion. I suppose I should have translated that sentence into your native tongue but I don't know pig Latin.

Oh, you are very confused and incapable of learning. For this you should certainly be sorry.

Are you like 13?

As I posted previously:

Let’s take a quick inventory of recent achievements in liberal/progressive governance -

Europe: bankrupt. FAIL

New York: bankrupt. FAIL

California: bankrupt. FAIL

US Gov’t: basically bankrupt, except they can print money. FAIL

This is not open to discussion: they have failed, due directly to your ideas.

Sorry, chief. You lost, before you even realized there was a contest.

Failed stupid ideas from failed stupid people (i.e. you), for ignoramuses (voter pan am) never work.

Perhaps you’d like to hear this from someone other than me:

A Greek crisis is coming to America, By Niall Ferguson


FAIL

Yes, I read that earlier. You could have spared me from having to see such superficial opinionizing a second time.

Just because your rhetorical hero is some pernicious ribald like Muirturd doesn’t mean you need to publicly discharge the same putrid ignorance and pseudointellectual horseshit.

Imitation may well be the most sincere form of flattery; fatuousness is the most absurd tribute…

Insulsissimus Est Homo.

Two in one day!

Ad hominem. And ad lapidem.

Do try harder.

Quando podeces te regi eorum libertarus fecerunt?

I have realized how ironic it is of me to say that socialism never works. It works exactly as planned.

From Pass of Thermopylae and the character of the warriors defying the Persians, to the whiners tearing up the streets in Athens in a tantrum because their free stuff is threatened, socialism has done its job. Total degeneration of individual character and total economic devastation.

Agreed. It works as planned. Socialism must be seen as a method of exploitation. Much like the catholic church at the height of its power, it benefits a political elite by enslaving the population through an ideology.

I blame corporate greed. Corporations have absolute control over the the lives of the Greek people. Public campaign finance would be one step towards loosening their hold on the economy.

You're what's known around here as a blasphemer. BLASPHEMER!!! You will be smote by The Hand of God....wait I mean The Invisible Hand God.

The Greeks entitlements might still exist were it not for the destruction of the global economy by free market created financial derivatives.

Comedian Stephan Colbert has more insight on other clues to the Greeks default much as the Market Fundamentalist would rather not look up the causal chain for other explanations into why Greece is in the situation it is in. So much nicer to explain the situation in a way that preserves your own biases.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report...

Do you read anything? 1.3 children per woman. Do a little simple arithmetic and figure out where that birth rate inevitably leaves you in a couple of generations. You think statutory entitlements are some kind of magical garden, producing endless riches for all to gather? Money has no hands, fella. A real socialist, of the old-fashioned, labor-theory-of-value school, would understand that fact at least.

But you aren't even a socialist. It's not that you want the working man to get what's coming to him. You only want the state to provide what you imagine you have coming to you. Where's the state supposed to get it? Who cares? Not your problem.

You aren't interested in the working class. You only want to join the parasitic lords yourself, and so it ultimately goes with state socialists everywhere.

The Greeks earned their share of the blame, no doubt, with their co-conspirators at Goldman Sachs who made money on the deception and are now making money on the collapse.

It seems to me that the Greek entitlements (which are, actually still very much in tact) would remain more in tact had the Greeks never entitled so many to so much in the first place. The spending is always the problem. Steyn's other point is that the Greeks may have gotten away with entitling themselves to more of the public booty if they had, in fact, gotten busy with the booty of a lovely Greek woman. Given the utter lack of interest in making more Greeks in Greece, well, demographic pyramids that are inverted tend to not produce the sorts of productive and taxable young adults that pay for the entitled life of older Greeks. None of this is complicated, nor dependent on global finance. Don't spend more than what you make. Make kids if you want to finance retirement on their backs. The end.

Wake me up when Colbert finds a mathematical solution that doesn't involve bears.

destruction of the global economy by free market created financial derivatives.

The meltdown was not caused by financial derivatives.

It was triggered by certain events and the destruction fell upon the shores of real estate based instruments. The ultimate cause of the bust was the boom which was produced intentionally by the FED via low interest rates.

It is undoubtedly the vile little man's belief that the Chicago fire was caused by oxygen.

I advise against dirt throwing with an expert.

His repeated use of vile profanities against good people leaves little room for judgement. He doesn't even care to maintain a facade of the respectability of his own profession.

I am reminded of the examples set by Julian Simon in his response to avid critics of his "The ultimate Resource", and Bjorn Lomborg's well reasoned response to critics of his the Skeptical Environmentalist".

Always courteous, their dignified responses left their critics looking very dirty indeed.

You have me convinced. From now on I will refer to him as "the eloquent and honorable gentleman".

Why refer to him at all?

IAC, if you do that, I advise the /sarcasm lest readers think you addled.

"Why refer to him at all?"

Touche'.

Just so.

Let his demeanor speak for itself.

The bursting of the FED-fueled housing bubble was the match, sub-prime mortgages were the fuse, and derivatives were the 500 lbs of TNT under the economy.

The bursting was the explosion, the match was possibly the spike in oil prices which caused a drop in demand for housing that had been built far from employment centers.

I saw it happen here in Silicon Valley.

Actually, when bubbles pop, there's no explosion, only a collapse with the discovery that speculated value was not supported by real productivity gains.

To claim the crisis was not caused by financial derivatives shows extreme ignorance and cognitive dissonance on your part Sam. These things shielded value price, allowed massive misallocation of resources, raise risk instead of minimized risk and enabled massive leveraging. You are hopelessly cluelessly stupendously terminally in a state incognition and denial. Sad one can deceit themselves to such a degree.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05fri...

Okay, shall we try this again?

Let’s play “Follow the Incentives”

Question: what drove government-mandated risky lending?

Another question: what drove government-mandated home ownership targets?

Another question: what drove large IBs to keep CMOs, MBAs, CDOs, etc on their books? What caused these (misaligned) ratings?

Please, do pose these questions to the NYT: I would be more than curious about their reply. Since they have zero understanding of financial markets, I wouldn't hold my breath for said reply.

Sisyphus is my hero...

PS, yes, I know more about financial markets than basically all of the NYT business “reporters,” combined. That’s a pretty low bar, but instructive.

Please, the NYT?

An argument from authority?

Newspaper editors as authorities on economics?

The popular interpretation has such handy scapegoats, we must NEVER turn our skepticism toward the holy political agency.

NYT is an HBS case study in how not to run a business. Even Carlos Slim won't touch them...

You have made no argument, but rather engaged in nearly endless ad hominem.

Busts are the inevitable downside of booms that are the result of monetary/credit expansion.

Most businessmen, including financial officers don't know beans about economics, just finance and taking advantage of profit opportunities.

Remember the Beanie Baby boom?

Speculative value is created by eager customers.
Easy credit expands the customer base.
Businesses take advantage of the opportunities.

Why were there so many opportunities?

The FED kept interest rates low after the last bust to keep the economy growing.

Speculative value exceeded real growth.

The bust was inevitable and the where was a result of fiscal policy, specifically in the housing market.

Had the bubble not yet been pricked, most people would still be clamoring for these investments and no one would be claiming phony value.

Value is a product of human perception.

The only thing that has changed about those financial instruments is the perception of them.

The investments were made in what is now empty housing stock, a prefect illustration of malinvestment.

Oddly, if gas prices had not spiked, perhaps we would still be enjoying the boom.

Apropos of this, I am into Richard Ebeling's new book, Political Economy, Public Policy and Monetary Econommics/Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian Tradition, in which he describes how just this sort of mind set culminated in mass starvation, rioting in the streets, and the rest of the fate of Austria before WW II that we know all too well.

The book cost me $128 on Amazon, but, already, only a third of the way into it, I have more than gotten my money's worth. What a rarity, history through the eyes of economists.

I'm sorry, but this short quote reflects three things I've observed on numerous occasions:

* The tendency of libertarians to present the worst rhetoric of their opponents as though it's the core of their legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to libertarians' laissez-faire policy prescriptions.

* Their practice of trivializing the arguments and evidence of opponents then labeling them lovers of "big government", "socialists", "communitarians" (a code word for "communists"), etc.

* Their sense of persecution.

* The tendency of libertarians to present the worst rhetoric of their opponents as though it's the core of their legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to libertarians' laissez-faire policy prescriptions.

* Their practice of trivializing the arguments and evidence of opponents then labeling them lovers of "big government", "socialists", "communitarians" (a code word for "communists"), etc.

It has been my experience in 30 years of libertarian identification that this has been the modus operandi of the left AND right in responding to libertarian ideas.

In 1976, the national Review published an article proving that the Libertarian Party was a front for communists.

Left liberal/progressives CONSTANTLY mis-characterize libertarians as being heartless, pro-corporate, right wingers who advocate an absence of rules.

Libertarians get the worst of both worlds. They must be doing something right.

As I see it the major argument between the right and the left is over what to control and how, not over what to leave alone.
On the occasions that they agree they like to bring out the word 'bipartisanship', as if it's a good thing.

Libertarians don't want centralized control over anything, so they are useless to power seekers on both the right and the left.

Watch this neat trick:

I'm sorry, but this short quote reflects three things I've observed on numerous occasions:

* The tendency of [insert political philosophy here] to present the worst rhetoric of their opponents as though it's the core of their legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to [insert perceived political philosophy here] policy prescriptions.

* Their practice of trivializing the arguments and evidence of opponents then labeling them lovers of [insert rhetorical talking points here], etc.

* Their sense of persecution.

I've developed the ability to do this after reading years of pointless, content-less posts within discussions. Without having to actually bring up substantive content one can dismiss one's opponent and appear to care about having a real discussion. I know, pretty awesome.

If you'd like to actually address the content of the article that would be super. I think Don's point about the perception of selfishness is spot on. I am very often personally accused of being selfish because of my own philosophy. Why do you feel the accusation of selfishness among small-government, Republican, libertarian, anarchists, etc. isn't true?

OK, let's say I take your reformulation of my comments. Clearly, they apply to libertarians since they apply to virtually all participants in political debates. In other words, they really have no meaning, they're just empty phrases.

Then how can all the libertarians on this site cheer the pedestrian "insight" allegedly demonstrated by the quote from Steyn that Don used to start this discussion?

It is just an empty piece of rhetoric used by a pastor to preach to the choir.

"In other words, they really have no meaning, they're just empty phrases."

That's exactly what I said. We're on the same page. However this is merely the natural projection of the implications of your statement. I don't actually believe it to be true. I was merely pointing out your observations, which I'm sure you see them as useful, have absolutely no purpose once one realizes that the observation is simply that of partisans in general. Not libertarians specifically.

"Then how can all the libertarians on this site cheer the pedestrian "insight" allegedly demonstrated by the quote from Steyn that Don used to start this discussion?"

While you should note that it's you who sees the reception as "insight", a few others have simply indicated that there are many examples where this how shown true. (Muirgo was the only other to use the word or to allude to it as insight) Even Don simply posted it, in my reading, as a spot on verbalization of the characture created of libertarians by the opponents of libertarianism. For myself, the only person I feel comfortable speaking for, I saw it as an accurate observation. I even indicated as much.

To put it simply, I believe they cheer it because they've personally experienced it.

I think it would be a better use of time to talk about how to change that perception. You'll not see me argue against that! But this is Don's site and he liked the article. Your participation would be as silly as any one of us going to Daily Kos and groaning that they are all sitting around talking about the wrong things. Fortunately, given the Internet, there's a way to fix that kind of thing... ;)

Well done.

And actually, for me, the accusation is true. I am not in the least motivated by the argument that because some idiot wants to embark on whatever grand crusade that I have to be a part of it because he or she has declared me to be a member of his or her preferred meta-community. Nor do I feel any need to defend myself against such accusations. The accusations themselves are propaganda and I dismiss them as such.

nice

Publius_Texus

Your comment here seems misplaced. No quote mining can change the fact that governments are on the road to meltdown and their limitless irresponsibility is to blame. What is the argument that libertarians miss that justifies this? Supermassive organisations with monopoly control on coercion use their power to extract ever more in tax and resources and behave in a very irresponsible manner and will now start going bankrupt. Sorry - what is the argument libertarians overlook that justifies such wholesale corruption?

I've dealt with the bigger question you've raised many times n this blog and I'm not prepared to spend the time to repeat my arguments now.

My comment is entirely appropriate to the quote from Steyn that is the point of departure for this post. You're welcome to refute what I've said here and I'll respond to that.

So when the shoe is on the other foot, it tends to fit?

No, typically it's very uncomfortable when you take it off one foot and put it on the other. :)

Hello, Sam. It's been awhile.

Re; *1. There are no "legitimate theoretical and empirical objections" to freedom. There are only the rationalizations of the political class (i.e., propaganda).

Re; *2. It is not their "arguments and evidence" that I trivialize, but rather, their propaganda.

Re; *3. The persecution (more precisely, exploitation) is quite real. The primary difference between the medieval political classes, and modern political classes, is that the medieval political classes were open and honest about their exploitation, while the modern political class obfuscates at the professional level.

"Re; *1. There are no "legitimate theoretical and empirical objections" to freedom. There are only the rationalizations of the political class (i.e., propaganda)."

Thank you. By claiming your opponents are against freedom and only spouting propaganda, you're making my case.

"Re; *2. It is not their "arguments and evidence" that I trivialize, but rather, their propaganda."

Thank you, again. You're confirming #2 again.

Re; *3. The persecution (more precisely, exploitation) is quite real. The primary difference between the medieval political classes, and modern political classes, is that the medieval political classes were open and honest about their exploitation, while the modern political class obfuscates at the professional level.

You've changed the subject. #2 deals with how libertarians have a persecution complex. But, thank you yet again, because your tone sounds like you feel persecuted.

xx

Perhaps my casual studies of the human skeleton lead me astray, but I still believe that "de toe bone be connected to de foot bone, and de foot bone be connected to de ankle bone, and de ankle bone be connected to de shin bone, and de shin bone be connected to de leg bone, and de leg bone be connected to de hip bone, and de hip bone be connected to de back bone, and de back bone be connected to de shoulder bone, and de shoulder bone be connected to de neck bone, and de neck bone be connected to de head bone."

What does that have to do with your position? Simply that Randy would be correct in asking what are the "legitimate theoretical and empirical objections" to freedom.

Once we, Randy and I, see the toe bone presented to us by those who say this; "The tendency of libertarians to present the worst rhetoric of their opponents as though it's the core of their legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to libertarians' laissez-faire policy prescriptions." neither Randy or I have to doubt that the foot bone is coming next, and from there we know we will see the ankle bone.

In other words, amigo, we can safely dismiss our opponents who cast doubt on our ideas of freedom, because those, typically on the left or who claim to be in the middle, have shown that those who claim legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to libertarians' laissez-faire policy prescriptions, when pressed to lay out those theoretical and empirical objections to libertarians' laissezfaire policy prescriptions always give us loss of freedom as their counter to our ideas of laissez-faire life and markets.

You some how have the perception that you can talk about the toe bone and the foot bone and we all have no idea where it will all lead.

History has already told us over and over and over where it leads.

I'm glad to see you have the lyrics of an old Negro spiritual committed to memory, vid. Your cultural experience is broader than I gave you credit for. :)

"neither Randy or I have to doubt that the foot bone is coming next"

Great. I'm arguing economics with libertarian podiatrists. Explains a lot.

You're arguing with people intelligent enough to know that things don't happen in isolation, there is always a connectivity to be considered, and I know from reading Randy's post that he, as well as I, know that full well.

It seems you believe otherwise. Good luck on that.

:-D

But, really this begs the question asked above, what are the "legitimate theoretical and empirical objections" to freedom.

If you know and can explain them, please do so. Put up or shut up.

De toe bone connected to de foot bone, my friend.

"there is always a connectivity to be considered"

Duh. No, I don't believe otherwise. We just connect the dots in different ways. I know that you, as a podiatrist, understand that da bones have to be connected in an unalterable, predetermined way ordained by the Trinity (Rand, Hayek , Mises) as specified in your little poem. I don't accept that notion, but then, bone connections are irrelevant to me.

Ahh yes, we dodge the issue once again. So, in response to my challenge you can't put up but you won't shut up.

Imagine that after the meeting of the founding fathers when it was decided to declare independence and Thomas Jefferson was assigned the task of writing the declaration; you've followed Thomas home so that you can voice your concerns over what he is going to write in the Declaration of Independence, after all you don't want to see people running around naturally and completely free.

He was a polite man, so as you sit there sipping his brandy, what are you going to tell him about the "legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to freedom that will alter these words, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Evidently you would tell him the exact same thing you've told us, which is zip, nada, zero, and nothing.

Your debating technique resembles that of the muirduck so closely, what schools did you guys attend? You both string together a collection of high sounding dazzling rhetoric that is meaningless and can't be backed up with rational explanation when challenged.

I am just a dumb country boy, no degree from any university, and only have my cobbled together education and experience; so do me a favor, amigo, tell me about those "legitimate and empirical objections to freedom". Show me how you connect the dots on that one. I am always happy to learn new things.

Yes, your command of rhetoric, theory, logic, evidence and the multiple fields of knowledge on which you have felt qualified to pontificate have all suggested as much. Thank you for confirming it.

The words "legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to freedom" are your words, not mine, so of course I won't defend them.

But despite the fact my time is wasted doing so, and to make it as easy as possible for you to find it, I will copy and paste a comment I made elsewhere about libertarianism and laissez-faire theory:

--Publius_Texus in reply to Methinks1776

"And who disempowered them? You just pointed out it was government."

This statement nicely encapsulates the fundamental weakness of libertarian economic and political policy prescriptions.

Libertarians seem incapable or unwilling to look behind the veil to see who most often controls government policy making: those with the financial resources to make large campaign contributions and mount big lobbying and public relations campaigns.

Obvious to any observer is that there is a BIG overlap between those who have great political influence and those who have great market influence, because political and economic resources are fungible and competition in both arenas is far from perfect.

Libertarians argue to cut government to the bone in order to return power to markets, but this ignores the fact that doing so simply delivers power back into the same hands that exercise the lion's share of influence in the political arena.

Libertarians also fail to recognize the fact that existing market distortions and inequalities, whether their source lies in prior govt. interventions or previous market failures, have profound implications for which interests dominate after government is gutted and whether the invisible hand that libertarians have such faith in will ever be uncuffed to correct these distortions.

Under these conditions, I have no faith that markets will correct themselves or that the dominant economic elites will willingly, in the glow of enlightened self-interest, relinquish any of their market advantages.

So, why do I support a strong central govt (like the one the founders created through the Constitution) since I've just argued that govt policy making is usually dominated by economic elites.

The crucial reason lies in the word "usually". There are times in US history, about every 25-35 years, when the grasp on govt of these elites is broken by some great economic or political failure of those elites. These failures undercut their legitimacy and mobilizes large democratic (non-elite) forces to pursue political or economic reforms. [Here's a quick list of these reform periods in US history:

* the Revolution (c. 1775)
* the rise of Jeffersonian democracy (c. 1800)
* Jacksonian democracy (c. 1830)
* the Civil War and emancipation (c. 1861)
* the Progressive era (c. 1900)
* the New Deal (c. 1933)
* the Great Society (c. 1964)
* the Reagan revolution (c. 1981) ]

These democratic forces of reform also have their roots in changes in education culture, demography and technology, but they are typically catalyzed by a significant failure in the political or economic realm.

A strong central govt is the only effective tool of peaceful change available in these periods, and American history demonstrates that some of those reforms are enacted and usually with a minimum of violence.

If libertarians were to succeed in stripping govt of the capacity to channel these energies constructively and successfully, they would leave only the options of insurrection and revolution.

I had this drafted earlier this morning but the Cafe wouldn’t let me post because of some server malfunction. As to which of us is in the end the dummy, I leave to the public judgment of this Cafe; and, so far, amigo, you don’t seem to be making any headway.

Merriam Webster
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1973
Pg 704
Market 1 a. (1) a meeting together of people for the purpose of trade vt private purchase and sale and Usually not by auction. (2) the people assembled at such a meeting.

Marketplace 1 a. : an open square or place in a town where markets or public sales are held.

I pity you Pubass Texhole. Like Mesa just told you, you have a cognitive disability, me I just simply tell you that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

That you have some sort of education is evident, but like Disingenuous Kuehn and muirduck your ability to actually think about that information in an original way is missing. All that comes out of you is the same old statist socialist scriptures, much like the tape recording we have heard from muirduck et. al, for the last three to four years. Yes, you are an educated fool, but a fool none-the-less; and, a fool because you’re locked in to what is evidently that statist socialist belief that the individual does not exist and can not be allowed freedom.

Your “legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to libertarians laissez-faire policy prescriptions” is an example of the carefully concocted string of bullshit typical of the socialist.

To claim that you aren’t talking about freedom is just the typical socialist disingenuous crap; because as I stated before “libertarian laissez-faire policy prescriptions” is free markets. You haven’t even tried to make anything else of that. You can dodge and bullshit, but you’re talking about individual freedom and we all know it.

What you call legitimate objections are just more of the socialist statist collectivist obsession with restriction of individual liberty and regulation of markets, which indeed are one and the same. The fact that your brain can’t stretch to encompass that thought is just more proof of who you are and how close to muirduck you are.

Over and over again people on this Cafe tell you that they know that there are problems with what is called crony “capitalism” but, unlike you, they see the solution completely different. God forbid you might read what they say and comprehend, oh no, arrogant Pubass Texhole has all the answers in his little recorded tape that he replays over and over. Yeah there is cronyism but the problem with it is not the market players that want to buy government power the problem is with the government officials that we employ and who betray our trust by selling out. Like most loony lefties it is impossible for you to damn government, you must damn business. Business people, market people, are doing what is natural, government employees are betraying trust and their position.

Now surprise surprise you pathetic loony, do you see the definitions above. In your inability to put brain in gear you some how miss the fact in those definitions individuals qualify as markets just like your local Kroger. One who sells or buys goods or services is a market, I have skills to sell as service to video companies; therefore, I am a market. My friend in Beaumont, CK, has a video service and she is sole owner and operator. She buys my services, that makes her a market as well. Between Ms CK and I our market place is wherever we might hook up to exchange the goods and the compensation, even if our marketplace be the U.S.Postal Service.

There it is, slick, as simple as it gets

I came to the Cafe through references on the Reason on-line site, and stayed to participate for one simple reason and that was to test my own street level analysis of business, markets, and capitalism; but above all to see if my words were the right words to use to explain to really ignorant people why they really truly do not want to “kill capitalism”, or even get in its way and hinder it.

I did not put my thoughts out to peer review, I put them out into a forum where most of the people participating are way beyond me in formal education, particularly in economics.

The strange thing, Pubass Texhole, is that no one, not the hosts or all the other trained participants, in over three years has told me that I have it wrong. My training taught me to consider possibilities and probabilities on all things, but I can not believe that those here who have rapport with me would not tell me, and I can not believe that those who have the economic training and who despise my views would not be quite pleased to slap me down or at least contest my views.

It hasn’t happened.

Capitalism begins with the individual profit motive, each of us begins our day with the devout ambition to profit on our day in any way we can. Profit means excess (surplus), excess means the ability to invest, the ability to invest means more profits accumulated without labor just some risk, investments privately owned and controlled is capitalism.

Lucy and her kin demonstrated profit motive 2.5 million years ago, my Homo Erectus buddies, Og and Mog, took that and invented surplus, trade, and capitalism, again a million years or more ago.

So, now that we come to this, Pubass Texhole, once again, please tell us precisely what “the legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to libertarians policy prescriptions” are. Legitimate, Pubass Texhole, legitimate.

I truly expect you to join muirduck in running from the issue, and once again I submit my views to superior review. If I get slapped down by those better trained than I, and you aren’t one of them, slick, then so be it. I came here looking for answers and I am still looking.

"Merriam Webster
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1973
Pg 704
Market 1 a. (1) a meeting together of people for the purpose of trade vt private purchase and sale and Usually not by auction. (2) the people assembled at such a meeting.

Marketplace 1 a. : an open square or place in a town where markets or public sales are held."

My god! You know how to use a dictionary!

Now where does it say that individuals are markets? I see references to people (that's plural, vid) in commerical relationships (i.e., trade) but unless you're talking about individuals with multiple personalities who buy and sell among themselves, I think you must be mistaken.

See your doctor about adjusting your meds, yohs.

Don't bother responding to me. I'm turning you off.

:-D

"Yes, your command of rhetoric, theory, logic, evidence and the multiple fields of knowledge on which you have felt qualified to pontificate have all suggested as much. Thank you for confirming it."

Yes I have no problem confessing my ignorance, but dumb and untrained as I am, I have no problem seeing your mish mash of disingenuous BS for what it is. Simply put, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and you think people here are to stupid to recognize that fact. You're wrong.

"The words "legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to freedom" are your words, not mine, so of course I won't defend them."

Here is the quote you put out and said that you agreed with and admired:
"* The tendency of libertarians to present the worst rhetoric of their opponents as though it's the core of their legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to libertarians' laissez-faire policy prescriptions."

Now I suppose in your mind we are all so dumb that we don't know that the words "libertarians' laissez-faire policy prescriptions" are not directly translatable to "free markets", i.e. "Leave it alone". Again you're wrong.

In actual fact the quote you admire is saying that there are legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to free markets.

What you seem to be ignorant of is the fact that market, markets, and marketplace do not exist independent of humans, specifically individual humans. So when some one addresses free markets they are talking about free people. People free to engage in trade as they see fit.

I am a market, you are a market, Randy is a market, Methinks is a market, we individually are the Invisible Hand. When the talk is of regulating markets it is talk about denying freedom to individuals.

Now again, I ask you, please tell us all what the "legitimate theoretical and empirical objections" to freedom are.

You're also wrong about the founders forming a strong central government with the constitution. It was a very limited central government with the majority of true power left to the states individually. That did not change until the civil war turned the constitution around in its relation to the states, the federal government assumed a dominance not accorded to it in the Constitution. Again, you're wrong.

Government is individual people in places of trust, and they have failed the people who put them there. Without the misapplication of power that government can apply (sell to the highest bidder), no single business could eliminate or sidetrack competition, or any other aspect of free trade.

I know you're very impressed with yourself and your opinions, and I am sure that in your intimate circles you are a guru; but; it is painfully obvious that you aren't up to defending yourself against reasonable challenges to your BS.

What are those legitimate and empirical objections to (I'll say it your way) to libertarian laissez-faire policy prescriptions? You're proud of the quote, you should understand it enough to explain it. Please do.

"Here is the quote you put out and said that you agreed with and admired: ' The tendency of libertarians to present the worst rhetoric of their opponents as though it's the core of their legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to libertarians' laissez-faire policy prescriptions'."

If you had read this with any perspicacity you would know these are my words, not a quote I "put out there". So I know exactly what the author intended.

"In actual fact the quote you admire is saying that there are legitimate theoretical and empirical objections to free markets"

This is so willfully ignorant it demonstrates your inability to absorb even the most basic information without massive distortion and rationalization.

"...market, markets, and marketplace do not exist independent of humans"

Duh. Truly inspired insight there.

"I am a market, you are a market, Randy is a market, Methinks is a market"

Here a market, there a market, everywhere a little market. Old Macdonald had a farm... Take an Economics 101 course or at least look up "markets" on wikipedia, if not to save yourself the embarrasment of your ignorance and presumption, then to save your reader the time of wading through your blather.

"You're also wrong about the founders forming a strong central government with the constitution. It was a very limited central government with the majority of true power left to the states individually."

Your ignorance of economics is, amazingly enough, surpassed by your ignorance of post-revolutionary American history and constitutional law.

Vid, your state of ignorance is not the problem--it's the lethal combination of arrogance, defensiveness, lack of curiosity, and rigid certainty with that ignorance.

Your ignorance of economics is, amazingly enough, surpassed by your ignorance of post-revolutionary American history and constitutional law.

Careful there, Pubicus: Vids knew Sam Houston personally…

Houston would have shot him on sight. Know anything about Houston, his values and his politics, mesa?

That was a joke.

You’re not too bright, is ya?

So you don't know anything about Houston.

Am I getting this correctly? Your idea is that the reason we need a strong political class is so that when they suck we can use them to change them? And what's so wrong with insurrection and revolution? These are methods that have proven useful throughout history. Seriously, you seem to assume that the problems that need fixing will always be external to the political class, rather than the political class itself. The historical evidence does not support that assumption.

I'm responding up the string to get away from the margin.

As I suspected, you don't have the faintest idea what is meant by the "Progressive era". That's because you know so little about American history as demonstrated repeatedly, but that doesn't slow you down a whit.

Look it up on Wikipedia and learn something about the subject before pontificating about it. When you do, come back and I'll listen to what you have to say. Hint: the Progressives predated Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the like by 30 to 60 years and had a very different agenda. Some of their progeny even opposed significant parts of FDR's agenda.

By the way, do you even deny that the exploitation is real? I don't remember that you have, and my guess is that you are smart enough not to - that you simply believe that the rationalizations of the political class have value. If so, I'll have you know that I don't deny that the rationalizations of the political class have value to the political class.

I'm actually using the terms "Progressive" or "progressive" with a measure of respect, as it is a term that the people I'm referring to frequently use to describe themselves. But if you prefer, I can just as easily use other terms - Fascist, Socialist, Totalitarian, etc., all of which suit me just fine. By any of these I mean the modern American political class - those who imagine they have a right to exploit people like me.

Where did I say anything about the "need for a strong political class"? Look again; I don't. I DO, hoewever, talk about political and economic elites, and imply that they'll always be with us. But I sure didn't say we had a need for them.

Randy, try debating the substance of what I say instead of what you make up to be what I'm saying. Or stop responding.

P.S. And did they solve the problems which were the original rationalization? At best, one could say that they made a bit of "progress". But solved? Not even close. They rationalized their power seeking on the idea of creating heaven on earth. They will create instead a modern totalitarian hell.

I never said "solved'. They made progress, often times more than a little. If it wasn't significant progress why would the next generations of reformers fight so hard to preserve and extend that progress, and why would their oppents fight so hard to reverse it?

Because the primary benefit of these programs is to the Progressive political class, who now live in multi-million dollar homes in places like Georgetown and the Hamptons, go on "fact finding" junkets to exotic locations worldwide, screw Hollywood starlets, and generally live themselves a grand life - at our expense. Of course they fight to protect their privilege, and of course those who are exploited to pay for it all oppose it.

I'm a progressive (note the difference between the lower case "p" and your confusion with the capital "p" Progressives of 110 years ago; just like there's an important difference between classical liberals and modern liberals) and I'm poor as shit and my progressive friends are likewise. You really don't know what you're talking about.

But you ARE demonstrating your sense of persecution along with some envy thrown in for good measure.

Re; Persecution. Again, the exploitation is real. You show some grasp of history, so you know how it works. The king taxes the nobles and the noble collect from the serfs. It has always been so, it always will be so, and the United States of Progressive America is no exception.

Re; Envy. I'd buy that accusation if the political types had earned what they have. But they haven't earned it. Their wealth is the result of their exploitation of people like me. I don't "envy" them. I resent them and I disrespect them - these they have earned.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

What an inconvenient observation.

Let's take a concrete historical example; the expansion of the Progressive political class in modern America. Yes, there were "problems". We had a few classes of people who weren't as well off of as the Progressives would have liked. Much of the rest of the world was torn by violence and/or living in poverty. Based on the "justification" of these "problems", the Progressive political class expanded the state - and its power. While certainly they did take actions to address the "problems" (the welfare state, the corporatist state, the indoctrination state, the military industrial complex), with every action they also increased their own power, and the amount of resources which necessarily passed through their hands.

And what is the problem now? That the ability of the general population to deliver the resources demanded by the Progressive political class has become unsustainable. But they use their power to maintain access to these resources anyway, at the expense of the general population. The pattern is not rare in history. And we both know how it ends. They will hold on to power until the bitter end. It is their nature.

"...the Progressive political class expanded the state - and its power. While certainly they did take actions to address the "problems" (the welfare state, the corporatist state, the indoctrination state, the military industrial complex), with every action they also increased their own power"

What specific actions do you have in mind here?

The Welfare state; Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and a wide variety of other programs, all of which channel resources through the hands of the political class.

The Corporate State; A wide variety of regulations designed to align the interests of corporations and the political class.

The Indoctrination State; A steady alignment of "public education" with the interests of the political class. Making institutions, subject to the approval of the political class, the gatekeepers to most professions via licensing. A modern guild system.

The Military state; Trillions of dollars funneled throught the hands of the political class to fight wars and rumours of wars. Its the "moral equivalent of war" argument at its most basic. The truth is that even our real wars do not meet the requirement of the moral equivalent of war. The wars of the 20th century were fought, not to protect the population, but to further the ideology of the Progressive political class.

Well, Pubicus, can I call you that?

Pubaliciousness, I would start with the big 3: language, law, and liberty (yes, I know, 1 & 2 are parts of 3)

Progressives have distorted and basically destroyed these 3 pillars of western society, starting with the language of "meaning," whatever that means. They then moved to the other 2, with intent to control social structure, after their overt socialist agenda failed in the 1930s. This is documented history.

The only areas progressives have been successful in are the ones with captive audience, i.e. zero competition, and usually as defined by them (i.e. you).

The Village Idiot's version of this, ObamaliniCare, is but another example of failed salesmanship, because the product sucks ass. No other way to put it, mon ami.

But again, since you have an extremely limited view of the world, and have never encountered these things personally, I do not expect you to either understand or even acknowledge they exist, because you have a cognitive disability.

"A strong central govt is the only effective tool of peaceful change available in these periods..."

A strong central government means a strong political class. The two have never been separated in all of history. And very often in history it is this strong political class that is itself the problem. I am addressing the substance of what you are saying - and following it to its conclusion.

I don't disagree with any of what you say until your last sentence:

"I am addressing the substance of what you are saying - and following it to its conclusion."

The proper conclusion is that the strong political class that is "often... the problem" is also the strong economic class (which is also the problem). Those who are not strong have a better chance of working their will, without violence, through a strong central govt., than they can through economic markets.

For example, neither slavery nor Jim Crow would have been terminated without the power of a central govt used by reformers. Yes, that power had been used previously by Southern economic elites to maintain slavery and Jim Cro. But after many decades of struggle, reformers elected Lincoln and the Republicans and Johnson, along with large Democaratic majorities, then passed the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments and the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This could not have happend through the workings of markets.

Without the power of a strong central govt., created by the founders through the Constitution, the only choice left to the reformers, black and white, would have been insurrection, a fear that in fact terrorized the South and contributed to the cruelty of their treatment of slaves. It also led to rampant Southern violations against *white* southerners of freedom of speech, association and the press, censureship of the mail, suppression of and violence against southern white opposition to slavery.

Missed this one. I'll address it now in case you're still monitoring the thread.

"Those who are not strong have a better chance of working their will, without violence, through a strong central govt., than they can through economic markets."

Your theory goes back at least as far as "the divine right of kings". The idea was that the king, representative of the will of god, was the protector of the people. Great propaganda, but unfortunately, the king was nearly always an exploiter himself and the ringleader of an exploitive political class. In other words, there is no logical leap from "the will of god" to the king. Likewise, there is no logical leap from "all that is right and good and reasonable" to the Progressive political class. They claim to oppose the exploiters, but they are themselves exploiters.

I don't have a feasible solution. Exploitation is human nature. There will always be those who exploit human beings, and unfortunately, those who exploit human beings will probably always be in charge. But I don't have to respect them.

By claiming your opponents are against freedom...
Are you saying that they are not?
What is laissez-faire other than freedom?
Our opponents want to control and direct things through force. Is that not the opposite of freedom?

I will concede that some of us tend to overuse labels to the point of them becoming straw man arguments, but that doesn't mean that they are always used improperly.

Their sense of persecution.
That looks to me like an example of trivializing an argument and then attaching a label to the opponent.

Re your first point: From time immemorial, freedom has meant much more than laissez-faire. In fact, the etymology of "freedom" goes back at least 2000 years before any one thought of laissez-faire. The fact that libertarians define it solely in terms of laissez-faire policies demonstatrates the aridity of their thinking.

Re: your third point: My comment about libertarians having a persecution complex has nothing to do with any substantive arguments libertarians make. It's an observation about their behavior.

"The fact that libertarians define it solely in terms of laissez-faire policies demonstatrates the aridity of their thinking."

Speaking in absolutes and generalizing. Guilty of your own first two critics. Fascinating. How will you wow us next?

Also something about spelling and grammar. You get the point.

It all comes down to class, culture, and perspective. Those in the political class have an interest in rationalizing their exploitation. Those who are exploited have no such interest. Am I making your case? Not the way I see it, as your "case" is nothing but propaganda. I confirm only your perspective.

Well, at first I didn't think you were making my case. Then you said:

"Not the way I see it, as your "case" is nothing but propaganda."

With that, you made my case again. Thank you.

Well, I guess it is fair to say that my dismissal of political behavior as exploitation and propaganda could be viewed as "trivializing". Then again, I don't see any evidence that political behavior is anything other than exploitation and propaganda. It is what it is, and a thousand grand rationalizations aren't going to make it anything else. They don't even really deny it themselves. They just say they have to exploit and propagandize for... whatever rationalization occurs to them at that moment. So, if the political types are feeling trivialized... well, so be it.

So your solution is to outlaw politics? Let's outlaw greed, lust, vanity, ignorance, prejudice, and sloth while we're at it. You're talkiing about changing the nature of man. That's been tried. It leads to totalitarianism.

Oh, forgot to address the nature of man thing. Yes, exploitation is human nature. But we forbid individuals from exploiting human beings - its what much of the law is all about. And yet, much of "the law" is also about expressly allowing a political class to exploit the general population. I see no reason why the political class should be allowed to exempt themselves from the general prohibition.

Re; Outlawing politics.

Actually, that is pretty much what I have in mind. More precisely, outlawing political behavior (exploitation). This would mean a government that provides true services, i.e., services offered for a fee on a voluntary enrollment basis. Such services would be productive behavior, not political behavior, and thus, in essence, a matter of outlawing politics.

P.S., If your mind is leaping (as expected) to the idea of "free riders", I must remind you that the whole point of political behavior is to create free riders.

I don't see where he suggested such a thing.

How does one outlaw political power when the power to outlaw things is political power?

Seems like a good reason to support amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Most Latinos are good Catholics, and good Catholics make lots of babies (every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great...).
We're gonna need lots of babies if we're to keep the government Ponzi schemes afloat.

Not to mention all the scientific experiments for the lot of 'em...

I've always marvelled at the unrecognized ironies in this quote from Durant.

* The fact that religion (Justine in his Christianity) closed the Stoic and other Greek schools of philosophy because they were pagan.

* That few people who cite this quote are very religious (or stoic for that matter; certainly not as the Greeks meant it).

* That few who cite it understand the deep conflict between most modern religions, which view suffering as a fundamental human experience that cannot be avoided (outside of death), and stoicism, which strives to be free of "passion", which translates from the ancient Greek as "suffering".

* That Greek civilization (alluded to in "stoic" and "epicurean") did not begin in stoicism but ended in it.

* That to Epicurus, "epicurean" did not mean "the undisciplined pursuit of individual pleasure" by rather that modest desires, limits on appetites, and the simple life was the source of the good life.

* That Epicurus was a materialist who gave us one of the first "theories" of the atom, and that skepticism, not religious certainty, is at the heart of western progress.

I agree that the term epicurean is often misused, and that Durant misuses it here, but the meaning and truth of the statement still seems quite clear to me.

"Stoic" as well. That's 0 for 2 in ancient Greek philosopical allusions. Since they're both central to his claim, it's difficult for the claim to be valid.

"nothing makes an individual more selfish than the socially equitable communitarianism of big government"

Reminds me of the story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company from Atlas Shrugged.

I love this blog, but didn't Don Boudeaux make almost the same post a couple days ago, with the same quote? It probably is worth re-posting, however.

Yeah, but one of the trolls nonetheless keeps posting that nobody here EVER talks about the Greek situation.