Bailout bill

[kthx]

They give you an addictive opiate for tooth pain, that is even worse than getting some Tylenol, are you serious? Besides America doesn't have a health care problem because I work and I have health care. The only health care problem America has is my taxes pay for illegals and lazy welfare recipients health care.

The executive branch has nothing to do with this anymore, all power is given to the secretary of the treasury, he can give out bailouts when and where he wants without any approval.

[Squeezer]

They give you an addictive opiate for tooth pain, that is even worse than getting some Tylenol, are you serious? Besides America doesn't have a health care problem because I work and I have health care. The only health care problem America has is my taxes pay for illegals and lazy welfare recipients health care.

The executive branch has nothing to do with this anymore, all power is given to the secretary of the treasury, he can give out bailouts when and where he wants without any approval.

congrats for you. my job doesn't. you can't be reasonable and spare some taxes to cover those of us without? You'd rather drop bombs on Ira(n)q?

[Epinephrine]

Perhaps we can reduce this percentage, as the founder of the Mises Institute found some of my recent views interesting enough to share on his website. My opinion now joins those of various other political commentators, college professors, Nobel prize-winners, economists, and even a presidential candidate.

Say what you will but I think it's a start.

Well just to start off, perhaps you can go to last year's winners of the economic Nobel Prize:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/e...007/index.html

They won it for accurately describing that a perfect free market cannot exist, and their theories have been used to help design regulations and so on.

Who is "Society" and why is his opinion more important than each individuals' viewpoint? We must be speaking of different things - Congress passed the bailout, necessary for Mr. Society - while ignoring the massive amounts of letters and calls showing which showed that American individuals did not want it.

Well in my mind, individuals are stupid, and corrupt and prone to do really ridiculous things. I see stupid people doing stupid things every day. If possible, I would like to live in a world where their stupidity has the least effect on me, which is why I like the idea of regulation. Imagine if I had to live in a world where I'd wonder whether every cup of milk I drank had melanime in it because someone wanted to make a quick buck and do something stupid like spike milk with it, that would be horrible. As much as I might not 'trust' government, I trust private corporations and individual people a lot less, because they are more easily swayed and biased.

And by not considering the system's possible implications, you doom yourself to concluding wrong. I believe I've shown that, especially in the case of central banking - which you have yet to really argue.

Your example was based on the US. It does show that there is maybe a link between lending and the prime rate. But it doesn't explain why lending didn't go down when the rate went up. It also does not explain why in other countries, say Japan where the rate has been close to 0 for many years, that there isn't unlimited lending. Therefore your example is just about the American system, and thus not generalizable to the idea of a 'central bank', and doesn't prove anything aside for the fact that America itself really messed up and is now pulling the world down with it.

I would say it takes every individual alive to organize and distribute resources amongst one another. Unless you're willing to hire every human alive as a Government employee - but then, who would pay taxes?

I'm just going to end here. This goes beyond economics, and is actually part of our entire views of life. I think it's a cultural thing. For whatever reason, Americans are really into the 'the individual is the most important' line of thought, and you personally take that view into the absolute most extreme. This line of thought has made America the most litigenous society in the world, the most selfishness and 'me first' society in the world, and a society where any single person is expected to have right to do whatever they want no matter how it may affect other people. I come from a different culture, where the group is respected a lot more.

I'm not that great a writer, so I'll let David Brooks, noted conservative, individualist, and editorialist at the NY Times tell you more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/op...se&oref=slogin

[Zerzera]

Yeah Jerome, your ideology might be pretty cool and appealing but even if this would be a system that's better than the current, it's not going to happen this lifetime when people are unfit for the behaviour you have in mind.
(Please don't grab power and start killing specimens that don't :fear

[Vehicle]

I know I said I was done with this thread and I am, just want to reccomend some light reading for you Jerome: Anarchy State and Utopia was the first book I read about the idea that a society can sustain itself without government. And it presents a very good argument as to why governments exist, to what extent they are legitimate, and how far they can go before they become unujustifiable.

And I read the paper every day, thanks.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Epi - now when that Nobel winner reads your ideas, and finds them so compelling he decides to share it with thousands of people, globally, who read and take in the idea - then the point will go away. I'd like to point out, though, that nowhere do I advocate the feasibility of a "perfect" free market - in fact I think I make a point of saying the free market will never be "perfect". Perhaps sometime down the road I'll make a better go at explaining it.

I, too, will probably stop this debate, because it's obvious that noone is now arguing about the bailouts, and continuing will probably just throw out some bad vibes and lead to alot of personal shit. So I'll just sort of tie up some loose ends and we'll continue this the next time something pops up - the future is uncertain.

(Though just a quickie - Epi, lending continued to rise because the initial lending spiked housing prices, which in turn did cause the market to jump on - people thought it was a great investment. By that time, the interest rate did begin to rise but the ball was in motion for the housing bubble.)

I've learned a shitfuckton about banking and business cycles and Federal Reserves, and it's been great. I asked alot of questions and got alot of responses and from what I can gather, the questions were of a compelling enough nature to reduce the debate down from the policy questions to more over-arching issues.

I think it's wonderful - because it means that I'm making the right sort of points about our current system, to a point where the general response is "ok whatever, but still, you can't do anything about it". This point I concede gladly - because it shows what sort of "freedom" the government really means to preserve.

I hope I didn't antagonize anyone in the thread, I really like the questions and arguments because it means people are thinking and questioning and not just passively taking information for granted. At the end of the day, I can only hope to be proven wrong - because I really don't want this shit to happen, I really do want people to be ok and I want the world to function. I could definitely do without having to grow up during a global financial meltdown but I am, and so I'll try to figure out how to solve that problem.

The last great wave of Austrian thinkers got their start during the 1930's, and the venerable F.A. Hayek managed to push out an entire new theory on business cycle and central banking before he was thirty, and it was of such a magnificent scope that it took the world 40 years to recognize him with a Nobel prize - because he was, as literally as possible, years ahead of his time. In time, perhaps I can hope to achieve that sort of distinction as well.

What I say might be "impractical", or "revolutionary", but the best ideas always are. And sometimes the most necessary actions are, as well. One of the most revolutionary ideas of the 18th century was the idea that humans had the right to be free - not because someone thought they should be, but because it was recognized that freedom was an inherent right of each person.

Our governments were the product of such thinking. This I can't argue. But to read the ideas of John Locke, of Thomas Jefferson, of Thomas Paine and Adam Smith and all of these men - they did not gloat upon the superiority of government, they treated as a potentially corruptible, potentially harmful institution - in short, they treated it as they treated other individuals. They did not advocate that governments should do as they please. They did not advocate that the masses should follow, with little resistance, the actions of their leaders.

The American Revolution - and countless others - were born out of intense questioning and scrutiny of the existing political order. The founders of my country had these questions in mind when developing our government. But they were of such a high calibre intellect that they did not even trust the product of their own design. They limited it, created checks against it, and threw in a clause that gave the people the right to throw their government away the second their interests clashed.

I see many of you referencing these men and their ideals, but not practicing what they preach.

To some extent - I understand. I'm young, I'm reckless, and I'm not yet settled into anything resembling my future. But I know there are billions of people who are very vested in the current system, and without it, they would lose everything - perhaps their lives.

The fact is, many people (but not all) defend the government because they depend on the government. And I think that is the most dangerous situation to be in.

It might be true that things will never change. But it might be true that things will change. In the past eight years, things have changed. I've lost rights, liberties, and economic freedoms. Sovereignty - a concept coming from individuals and individuals alone - is about to finally be usurped to global institutions. It is thought that individuals must give their sovereignty to their country - and now our countries are in turn handing that sovereignty to global powers. And we, as individuals, have no say in it - unless you count the ballot box, but considering where we are now - is that really a solution?

I've held out as a "conservative", a "libertarian", a "minarchist" - always the principle of that which governs least, governs best of all. Indeed, I find the view to be respected the most out of anyone who still advocates the inevitability of the State.

But many of you who have this view seem to think that the current global order is a representation of that. Perhaps you have not paused to meditate on the significance of the phrase "global order" - a phrase even I hesitate to use, thanks to crazies like Tone - but it's getting hard to argue otherwise.

This isn't about my ideals. This is about what is happening, right now. Daily I find myself on the verge of just giving up and giving in - but every day, our governments are passing more and more laws and taking more and more power.

Remember the bailout? Now, we're on the brink of nationalization. The governments of the world are moving at breakneck speeds - thanks to all the little "exceptions" we've given them to the normal process of 'democracy'.

Has anyone in America noticed that now, our economy will be under the supervision of a man who vaguely resembles that bad guy from Iron Man? That he now heads the "Office of Financial Stability"? That he used to work for Goldman Sachs, along with his boss Henry Paulson - a former Goldman Sachs executive?

Perhaps you guys think that after all the hubbub, things will return to normal. Well, they won't. You can add this small coup to the list of others - the Patriot Act, FISA, et cetera.

I just pray that the next thread that rolls around about the next issue I wish to bring to light, it won't be something drastic or extreme. A few months ago, my threads about the economy were small, with little discussion. And now the world's global network of central banks are making decisions that will affect all of us - and suddenly I see alot of people suddenly on my case about my beliefs, when previously you gave two shits.

Epi - man I hope you're right about alot of things, but not about the idea that individuals are flawed. Because the way things are headed, I might find myself in Canada, and you'll be having to fix my tar-filled lungs.

In closing - great thread, I can only hope I managed to get a few things across, given everything that I've learned.

[Galleleo]

You mention Adam Smith as one of your examples on how things should be. But not too long after he published his work, Malthus and this guy he was always discussing things like Adam Smiths theories with (his name slipped my mind right) already showed various flaws in his work. As have many, many economists since. No doubt has Adam Smiths work been very important and Malthus was a very gloomy guy with his predictions. But I think it has since long been accepted that Adam Smiths work as it is does not work.

And one thing that I have noticed in your last post is you seem to relate everything that happens in the US, less freedom, less sovereignty and generalize it as if all governments are like that. I think this is a very big flaw in your theories. For instance, sure the Dutch government nationalised Fortis, but once the economic market is stable again Fortis will be sold. Plus, they financed this nationalised by loaning money from other banks, thus giving them more business at the same time trying to stimulate them and the market. I know for fact that the Dutch government cannot be compared to the US government in its actions (though it has also tried to use the scare tactic to get things done). I obviously do not know enough about governments of other countries to say without doubt in how far it would or would not be alike to the US government, but I think that making such generalizations about all governments purely from the US governments actions is flawed and scientifically not acceptable.

[Squeezer]

Those two guys that won the Nobel Prize for the no such thing as a true free market book are speaking at my school this year. I can probably get a press pass.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Galleleo, you're faulting me for not having the ability to perceive all events at once, globally and through time. Doesn't mean I'm doing anything wrong, just doesn't mean I'm God - which I already knew. Perhaps if the Dutch were a little bit more significant - they would show up on my radar. :P

[Jerome Scuggs]

Oh, these '07 Nobel dudes did some work in mechanism design theory. That explains alot, econometrics in general is pretty useless, unless of course someone figures out a math equation for individuality

[Epinephrine]

Epi - now when that Nobel winner reads your ideas, and finds them so compelling he decides to share it with thousands of people, globally, who read and take in the idea - then the point will go away. I'd like to point out, though, that nowhere do I advocate the feasibility of a "perfect" free market - in fact I think I make a point of saying the free market will never be "perfect". Perhaps sometime down the road I'll make a better go at explaining it.

I'm sorry Andrew Snow, but if you're going to gloat about how your opinion is so good, it's officially sanctioned by some blogger I've never heard of, which makes your opinion just as important as that of nobel prize winners, I'm going to call you on it. I don't see how me citing other nobel prize winners saying that my views coincide with them is any different.

As for the free market, my point has always been, less deregulation = a "more" free market = more screwups, although I have also advocated that a 'less' free market is bad, so the trick is to find somewhere inbetween.

Your point has been, 'it doesn't matter if there's less deregulation, there's still a government, therefore it's not a real free market'. That in itself implies that you don't believe there can be a 'more free' market compared to a 'less free' market (by changing the amount of regulation or oversight), and that the only 2 choices are 'absolute free market' vs 'anything else'. This point has been central to the global warming debate, the health care debate and now this, so don't just talk about the central bank. But I've obviously mistaken your point whatever it is.

[Capital Knockers]

We should just rename this thread, "Jerome vs Epi" battle of the titans over here lol.

As for you Izor, it's people with your mentality that got your country in the shitstorm it's in now. I don't feel the need to keep arguing with you, 404 did a great enough job of shutting you down. You say you disagree with everyone that made this mess, but what are you doing to fix anything? I'm doing whatever I can up here in Canada, to spread the word, get people informed, and I'll be talking personally with my candidates where I live to decide who to vote for.

Enjoy the product of your own design jackass.

[Izor]

We should just rename this thread, "Jerome vs Epi" battle of the titans over here lol.

As for you Izor, it's people with your mentality that got your country in the shitstorm it's in now. I don't feel the need to keep arguing with you, 404 did a great enough job of shutting you down. You say you disagree with everyone that made this mess, but what are you doing to fix anything? I'm doing whatever I can up here in Canada, to spread the word, get people informed, and I'll be talking personally with my candidates where I live to decide who to vote for.

Enjoy the product of your own design jackass.

Hilarious. The US dollar is pulling away from yours and catching up to the euro very rapidly, but its only us in a recession. What the fuck are you doing to fix anything is the real question here. I did what I could to stop this bill in particular and despite the very large amount of people that wanted nothing to do with it, it got passed anyway (my representative in jersey voted no). What CAN you do is the more appropriate question. You're not a politician, nor does anyone outside your circle of friends care what you think. Even friends that you disagree with will have a hard time being converted. You need to learn your place in society.

P.S. Enjoy the product of my design jackass. We're in this together remember

[kthx]

Fuck Canada.

[Capital Knockers]

Hilarious. The US dollar is pulling away from yours and catching up to the euro very rapidly, but its only us in a recession. What the fuck are you doing to fix anything is the real question here. I did what I could to stop this bill in particular and despite the very large amount of people that wanted nothing to do with it, it got passed anyway (my representative in jersey voted no). What CAN you do is the more appropriate question. You're not a politician, nor does anyone outside your circle of friends care what you think. Even friends that you disagree with will have a hard time being converted. You need to learn your place in society.

P.S. Enjoy the product of my design jackass. We're in this together remember

Love how you seem to forget how much higher the American dollar used to be. As much as you say you're doing what you can, you conviently forgot to say what exactly you were doing. I'm taking my time to read everything every candidate is doing to earn my vote. On Sunday, Stephane Dion is coming to Orleans, and I'm going to be there to question him. I'm currently reading the Liberal action plan, and writing out questions as I read.

We are in this together, and I'm glad you agree with me now that it helps you with a retort. You're really great at making personal attacks with no reason and point behind them other than trying to make yourself seem to be the better person. FIND something you CAN do. Rather than attacking people on forums - and if you're going to stick with the latter, try to do a better job of it.

and lol Kthx.