The World's Most Perfect Political Post

[Essence]

You might want to also note the actions the government took around the deregulation that appeared to reduce the risk to the people dealing in these risky transaction and was reemphasized afterward with the bailouts.

All of which were the result of Wall Street putting political pressure on the government by donating to certain politicans and PACs over others. 

I would disagree how who libertarianism requires to be responsible. If most of the consumers were responsible then the corporations would be held accountable. However I am probably using a stronger meaning to the word responsible than you are.

If you mean that every consumer is supposed to be so responsible that they research exactly what's in the products they use, where that stuff comes from, what it's going to do to them, what the corporation that creates it stands for, how they're using their money, and where they get their source products from -- because that's how responsible we'd have to be in order to properly police the corporations ourselves -- well, that's just utterly unrealistic.  There aren't enough hours in the day or neurons in your brain to cover all of that information about all of the companies whose products you interact with over the course of an average day.

The fact that threads like this exist mean that people in the nation have been bifurcated into two sides mindlessly screaming at each other while everyone gets rich.  Everyone but the people.  The people get caught in the crossfire.  Accusing "republicans" of causing it simply means you're part of the problem.  If you honestly believe that you're side is right and there's is at fault, you're a tool.

That's absolutely true if you're talking about the country as a whole.  But there are aspects of the problem that can be accurately blamed on a subset of "everyone"-- and fiscal policy is decidedly one of them.  Liberal fiscal policies make life better for the entire country.  Conservative fiscal policies fail everyone except the very rich.  History has proven this over and over and over again.   (http://daveyspolitics.blogspot.com/2006/10/liberal-vs-conservative-economic.html)

Now, believe me when I say, I hate the Democrats with just as much vitriol as I hate the Republicans -- and I hate liberals just as much as I hate conservatives.  But about different issues.  Liberals are limp-wristed p*ss**s who wouldn't know how to take a stand even if they could take it from behind.  But at this particular point in time, the entire public discourse is -- and should be -- about money.  And when it comes to money, everything that comes out of a so-called conservative's mouth is either a lie or a honest mistake based on bad information.  Period.

The REAL fiscal conservatives are the ones who are focused on FIXING the problem -- and the aren't afraid to admit that that means RAISING TAXES as much or more than cutting spending. 

But there's something I've always believe.  Blame is the antithesis of success.  Maybe it's time we forget who started it, and /someone/ steps up to finish it.

That's a nice placebo, but so long as 50%+ of the country has been bamboozled by the Great Conservative Money Lie, no one is going to be able to 'finish it'. 

[OldTrees]

You might want to also note the actions the government took around the deregulation that appeared to reduce the risk to the people dealing in these risky transaction and was reemphasized afterward with the bailouts.

All of which were the result of Wall Street putting political pressure on the government by donating to certain politicans and PACs over others. 

Indeed. I just wanted to make sure that the government's role was understood since you had already pointed out Wall St.'s role.

I would disagree how who libertarianism requires to be responsible. If most of the consumers were responsible then the corporations would be held accountable. However I am probably using a stronger meaning to the word responsible than you are.

If you mean that every consumer is supposed to be so responsible that they research exactly what's in the products they use, where that stuff comes from, what it's going to do to them, what the corporation that creates it stands for, how they're using their money, and where they get their source products from -- because that's how responsible we'd have to be in order to properly police the corporations ourselves -- well, that's just utterly unrealistic.  There aren't enough hours in the day or neurons in your brain to cover all of that information about all of the companies whose products you interact with over the course of an average day.

Correct, responsibility for that amount of information. Now I can think of many ways for repetitious  individual actions to be changed to take less time within a population. Can you? Some of the solutions already exist today [BBB]. Through enough competitive solutions that compete with each other the amount of exhaustive research would decrease while still requiring research into each company and the chain of producers and worker comments. A pure libertarian society is not impossible but is not feasible.

[Essence]

OK, so now for the second hurdle to your scenario: if you don't regulate the businesses in question so that they are required to provide all of that information -- they won't.  At that point, you've hit a catch-22.  You either regulate the businesses to provide the information that the people need in order to be responsible citizens, or you regulate the businesses in order to prevent them from doing the kinds of horrible things that would require responsible citizens in the first place.

Entirely unregulated business will always do whatever is most profitable, and if that means feeding you arsenic-coated crack and calling it candy while not telling you a damn thing about what's actually in your candy -- getting you addicted to a lethal substance and pocketing every cent you own while you die in the street -- SOMEONE will.

And under a libertarian society, that one person will dominate the market. 

The necessity of some power to regulate business is logically inescapable once you see what real life businesses actually do even under the current regulations.  It's so grotesque that it will make you sick.  That's why everyone should read that book I mentioned (http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Us-Were-Experts-Manipulates/dp/1585421391/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298276029&sr=8-1). 



(STILL waiting for some self-declared conservative to explain to me why conservative economics has even a tiny shred of good in it...)

[Neopergoss]

That's why everyone should read that book I mentioned (http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Us-Were-Experts-Manipulates/dp/1585421391/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298276029&sr=8-1). 

Sadly, not finding enough time to participate in discussions like this, but wanted to say: I love Tom Tomorrow! (the guy who did the cover art for that book)

[OldTrees]

OK, so now for the second hurdle to your scenario: if you don't regulate the businesses in question so that they are required to provide all of that information -- they won't.  At that point, you've hit a catch-22.  You either regulate the businesses to provide the information that the people need in order to be responsible citizens, or you regulate the businesses in order to prevent them from doing the kinds of horrible things that would require responsible citizens in the first place.

Entirely unregulated business will always do whatever is most profitable, and if that means feeding you arsenic-coated crack and calling it candy while not telling you a damn thing about what's actually in your candy -- getting you addicted to a lethal substance and pocketing every cent you own while you die in the street -- SOMEONE will.

And under a libertarian society, that one person will dominate the market. 

The necessity of some power to regulate business is logically inescapable once you see what real life businesses actually do even under the current regulations.  It's so grotesque that it will make you sick.  That's why everyone should read that book I mentioned (http://www.amazon.com/Trust-Us-Were-Experts-Manipulates/dp/1585421391/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298276029&sr=8-1). 

(STILL waiting for some self-declared conservative to explain to me why conservative economics has even a tiny shred of good in it...)

Ah but you admitted previously that if the consumers had time (more than 24hr per day) they could regulate companies themselves by demanding information or changing where they shopped. This corporations like the BBB would reduce the number of businesses each consumer would have to exhaustively research and threaten to just this type of business. So unless there are few enough to form an oligopoly, they will be unable to resist the pressure from responsible consumers. The question would be how many would exist and that is a matter of the economies of scale which truly cannot or are nigh impossible to measure without implementation. Remember profitable does not always mean to the disadvantage of the consumer. Especially when the economies of scale create many producers like for online games.
The major problem with AnarchoCommunism was Envy, The major problem with AnarchoCapitalism is Sloth. Despite the level of responsibility being possible and despite the society working under certain economies of scale, it would be a long time before even a significant fraction of the population is sufficiently responsible. I am not that responsible and I believe in the principles that point to that kind of a society.

PS: Um everyone agrees that companies need to be regulated by Law and Justice. We just disagree on the source of said Law and Justice. I see the anarchy's continual improvement upon Law and Justice to be preferable to the monopoly of Law and Justice (also titled a State).

However I to would like a Conservative to step up and defend their economic policy. As a Libertarian the answer is that I do not like state sanctioned forced transactions and believe that this violates the innate (negative) right to Life. But I would like to hear a Conservative begin to defend their side in earnest for they occasionally tie their social policy into their fiscal policy in confusing ways. (Like the maximum set on wages demanded by Unions which is not fiscally conservative but might be socially conservative)

[The_Mormegil]

Maybe it's time we forget who started it, and /someone/ steps up to finish it.

There was a time in Italy when a great deal of bad things happened. Mafia ruled the politics, all parties of it except extremists of both sides (too insignificant to meddle with, and with too strong an ideology to corrupt). Everybody knew except nobody actually DID knew to what extension this was. Then a man stood up to this situation. His name was Antonio Di Pietro, and he was a former copper, now magistrate. He took people - LOTS of people - and arrested them. He acted on the very edge of legality here, he took them in cells without actual proofs and before they had a chance to talk with lawyers, he put handcuffs and gun on the table in front of them and said: "Tell me who the true responsibles are, and I shall free you. Stay silent, and I have the proofs to put you in jail for the rest of your life."
He lied, many didn't fall for it, but some did. He didn't even use violent methods - just psychological violence. Fact is, the great scandal named "Tangentopoli" happened, many people were jailed, some were innocent, most were guilty. It seemed the right course of action at that time. It had some terrible consequences, but the politics seemed to get rid of the old system. That was the end of the First Republic.

Chaos was all around, parties were dismantled, people migrated from a part to another, the politics were in a critical moment. This is when a man did "step up" to finish this mess. He was Silvio Berlusconi. He used his economical and communicational power to impose himself as "the man that would save Italy" from communism, from false politicians, from corruption. You all know where this is going, don't you.

Beware of sentences like this. They leave you far too exposed to situations like the one we have now.

[truddy02]

The problem with government regulation is who regulates the regulators?  You have already said that big corporations already spread misinformation with regulation but now they have their rubber stamp from the government saying it is ok.  Regulations are put in place by politicians on both sides of the aisle that receive huge amounts of money from certain groups and this affects how they make their regulations.  Regulations often create new loopholes and block out new competition.  The flaw in regulation is the assumption that regulators have your best interests in mind.  Pure free market economics isn't absolutely perfect, no system is.  The idea of people working only in their own self interest isn't necessarily optimal but it is reality.  Politicians, regulators, businessmen and everyone else are working in their own self interest right now and to think otherwise is really just a pipe dream.

[Neopergoss]

The problem with government regulation is who regulates the regulators?

No one is suggesting that regulators aren't also self-interested. But regulation is still viable. First of all, regulators are not supposed to have the same conflict of interests as the businesses that they're regulating. It's at least a little more realistic for an outside force to regulate a business than for the business to regulate itself. Second, businesses have only one thing that they're responsible for: the bottom line. Politicians, in contrast, have to answer to the people. If politicians aren't acting in the people's interests, they can be voted out of office. Nothing like this exists for CEO's.

So to answer your question, the people regulate the regulators. They have to be involved in the process, or else there is nothing keeping the powers that be honest.

It's true that it doesn't really work like that, which is why the biggest problem with the system right now is that money is too closely tied to politics. It's rotten and it's corrupt, and too often the regulators are controlled by what they're supposed to be regulating, which defeats the purpose. If anything, the government is only helping funnel money to elite business interests, even at great cost to the country as a whole.

Pure free market economics isn't absolutely perfect, no system is.

It's very far from perfect. It inevitably leads to monopolies and the collapse of competition, and market externalities (such as pollution or safety) are never taken into account. Basically, without any regulation, laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work.

[OldTrees]

Pure free market economics isn't absolutely perfect, no system is.

It's very far from perfect. It inevitably leads to monopolies and the collapse of competition, and market externalities (such as pollution or safety) are never taken into account. Basically, without any regulation, laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work.

Regulation in the form of Law and Justice is desired in every society. However a society does not need a State to have Law and Justice.

Monopolies only occur when government supported, when they do not act like monopolies or when the economies of scale require a monopoly because 2 firms would cause a reduction in wealth generated. Additionally monopolies are only bad when they are in control of a necessity. The monopoly on Diamonds is not a problem because people who do not find the diamond to be worth the price will not buy it. A monopoly on clean water would be a problem but also would be hard to enforce except in a landlocked desert.

Collapse of competition only occurs when natural monopolies occur or when barriers to entry are added to the market.

Market Externalities are a problem. Many positive externalities (like Lighthouses) can be eliminated when entrepreneurs think about it. Most negative externalities (like harming the environment) can be eliminated if the consumers knew and cared. However these solutions only solve some of the externalities.

[The_Mormegil]

Regulation in the form of Law and Justice is desired in every society. However a society does not need a State to have Law and Justice.

Would you please explain this further? I'm seriously intrested.

Monopolies only occur when government supported, when they do not act like monopolies or when the economies of scale require a monopoly because 2 firms would cause a reduction in wealth generated. Additionally monopolies are only bad when they are in control of a necessity. The monopoly on Diamonds is not a problem because people who do not find the diamond to be worth the price will not buy it. A monopoly on clean water would be a problem but also would be hard to enforce except in a landlocked desert.

I don't quite agree on this. Although a monopoly on diamonds is a big "I don't really care" issue, I don't think it is positive anyway. With a monopoly prices increase and plusvalor grows exponentially. That causes people to not having the possibility to buy diamonds. What do I care about that? It's the principle. I just think people should have that possibility, no matter what, and monopoly doesn't increase that. Instead, it turns diamonds into elitary and luxury objects / products. Which is good for diamond's market, but not for people who would like to buy a diamond ring to their woman.

[OldTrees]

Regulation in the form of Law and Justice is desired in every society. However a society does not need a State to have Law and Justice.

Would you please explain this further? I'm seriously intrested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0TBE-pcEi0
Parts 1-3 (4 and 5 incomplete)
Note: This is a biased source but it cites its resources well, shows little bias from my point of view and it is the topics not the details that you were interested in.

Monopolies only occur when government supported, when they do not act like monopolies or when the economies of scale require a monopoly because 2 firms would cause a reduction in wealth generated. Additionally monopolies are only bad when they are in control of a necessity. The monopoly on Diamonds is not a problem because people who do not find the diamond to be worth the price will not buy it. A monopoly on clean water would be a problem but also would be hard to enforce except in a landlocked desert.

I don't quite agree on this. Although a monopoly on diamonds is a big "I don't really care" issue, I don't think it is positive anyway. With a monopoly prices increase and plusvalor grows exponentially. That causes people to not having the possibility to buy diamonds. What do I care about that? It's the principle. I just think people should have that possibility, no matter what, and monopoly doesn't increase that. Instead, it turns diamonds into elitary and luxury objects / products. Which is good for diamond's market, but not for people who would like to buy a diamond ring to their woman.

The diamond monopoly (Consumer side that is. Resource side has serious problems like blood diamonds.) is not a problem but is not optimal either. It would be better if there was no Diamond Monopoly but the diamond monopoly does not harm those that value diamonds at lest than the monopoly set price. Monopolies still need to obtain consumers then just find that a lower number of consumers is more profitable and thus they engineer that situation. Hence luxury monopolies are unfortunate but not problematic.

[Essence]

Monopolies only occur when government supported, when they do not act like monopolies or when the economies of scale require a monopoly because 2 firms would cause a reduction in wealth generated.

I fail at this sentence.  Monopolies occur in any free market, because one firm that controls all of the market share will always generate more wealth than 2 firms competing for control of that same market.  The government can artificially create monopolies by supporting one business over another over the long term, but far more often, monopolies are formed by market pressure -- more market share = more control over prices = more profit -- and then they manipulate the government into supporting them. 

A monopoly on clean water would be a problem but also would be hard to enforce except in a landlocked desert.

Have you ever heard of this place called Gaza?  Maybe you have and you just aren't thinking of it.

Collapse of competition only occurs when natural monopolies occur or when barriers to entry are added to the market.

You keep saying stuff like this as though it defends your position when it doesn't. "barriers of entry" are CREATED BY MONOPOLIES -- and even near-monopolies!  Any time a company gets big enough to buy out whatever startup has a good idea in their field, that's pretty much the definition of "barrier to entry" -- and guess what?  That happens hundreds if not thousands of times every day, all across the country. 

So, your first quote above says (paraphrased) "monopolies only occur when one company would make more total wealth than two competing companies in the same market" -- and ignores the fact that that's a normal state of being.  And this quote acts like barriers to entry come from somewhere other than natural market forces.  Without any offense intended, I'm starting to think that you are, in fiscal terms at least, a libertarian because you honestly don't grok how a free market actually works.