Free Markets for You, Protection for Me

It's interesting that George Bush, who proclaims to be a strong supporter of letting markets work without government intervention, derived much of his wealth in a government protected industry:

It’s not surprising Bush would praise a company like Cabela’s though. His own fortune, as I show from the public record and from interviewing his friends and from his own tax returns, derives from a subsidy that was derived from a tax increase! There’s an irony—George Bush got rich from a tax increase [a sales tax passed by voters in Arlington, Texas] that was funneled into his pocket inefficiently. The people who had to pay the tax got no benefit—most of them were not baseball fans—from this subsidy to build a stadium for the Texas Rangers [baseball team Bush owned].

And it's also worth noting that the team Bush owned was protected through baseball's anti-trust exemptions so it's hardly the case that he was subjected to the demands of a competitive marketplace. Could he have survived in a truly competitive baseball market? We'll never know because he didn't have to, but from what I've seen, I have my doubts.

Bush isn't alone in finding ways to enrich himself in a government protected environment. This interview of New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston appearing in the libertarian online magazine reasononline details how common this is:

The Cost of a Free Lunch, by Brian Doherty, Reason: ...David Cay Johnston['s] .... latest book, just out this week, is called Free Lunch: How The Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves At Government Expense (and Stick you With the Bill). It’s valuable ... because of its detailed stories of government attempts to manipulate or adjust the market, leading—predictably, a libertarian might say—to benefits for the well-off and well-connected rather than the disadvantaged or the masses.

Free Lunch is full of sharp, heavily reported takedowns on eminent domain, expensive special favors for sports teams, legislative deals that put taxpayers on the hook for private train company’s crimes and errors, giveaways from small towns to attract big-box stores, and how heavily government-managed markets in areas such as power and health care can enrich some at everyone’s expense. ...

reason: What is the theme of Free Lunch, and what made you write it?

David Cay Johnston: Ronald Reagan famously asked Americans if we were better off than we were four year ago; Americans said “no” and elected him. This empowered a great change, supposedly, in government. It was supposed to lead to less government, more market solutions, and lower taxes.

What I’m asking in Free Lunch is: Are you better off than you were a generation ago when Reagan was elected? Government is just as big, there are vastly more regulations, and as I show, we have many new rules and regulations that handcuff the invisible hand of the market and instead, in subtle, sometimes hidden, ways, extract money from the pockets of the many and funnel it to the politically connected few. ... I would think libertarians would like everything in the book, except for the parts about health care [where he calls for nationalized health care, European-style]. ...

reason: Barron Hilton, Paris’ grandfather, was in the news today for something related to a story in your book which discussed how he gained much of his fortune—in your reading, because of unconscionable appeals court decisions in California.

Johnston: Barron Hilton announced that he’s giving 97 percent of his fortune to charity, and it got mostly uncritical press about his generosity, and poor Paris being shortchanged. Now, the Hiltons knew my book was coming and that its official publication date was [Thursday]. I can’t prove it, but I think the timing of this announcement is connected with [my book]. I asked in Free Lunch, what kind of family produces a young woman as brazen and shameless as Paris Hilton?

The answer is, a family that derived its fortune not from hotels but by snatching it from poor children. [Paris’ great-grandfather Conrad Hilton] left his fortune to the poor [via a foundation]. He left his son Barron a tiny, itsy bitsy sliver of fortune. Barron started scheming, and set in motion within days of [Conrad’s] death to deny all that money to the poor and to take it from the charity through a complicated legal argument ... and lost at every turn. Finally one set of judges gave him a favorable ruling not in accord with 400 years of common law. He negotiated a deal to get 60 percent of his father’s fortune. He may be turning that money back over to charity when he dies, but he diverted hundreds of million to his own pocket in the meantime.

reason: At times you go out of your way to traduce unfettered markets, but aren’t all the practices you condemn in Free Lunch the result of government actions or decisions?

Johnston: Markets are the very best mechanism to determine the price of things, but all markets have rules. ...

reason: It seems to me Free Lunch goes beyond an investigative reporter “just the facts” attitude. You do seem guided by a principle more or less like, if something seems to benefit the rich, you’re against it….

Johnston: There is definitely a moral tone to the book. I cite Adam Smith, Andrew Mellon, and the Bible at length on the proposition that one of the most morally offensive things is to take from those with less to enrich those already rich. ... I have no objection to people getting wealthy. Just get wealthy off hard work and enterprise, not getting government to pass rules no one knows about that reach into my pocket and take money out of it. ...

reason: I’m curious if you ever get to the point, studying example after example of how government works to prop up the powerful, where you just throw up your hands and decide that it’s government itself that is inherently the problem here...

Johnston: When people say a problem is intractable, I think that’s the most un-American thing you can say. The whole idea of America is that we will solve our own problems. We recognize people abuse power, so we limit it—put in checks and balances. We will solve these problems when people decide they care enough to solve them. I think a big problem is many Americans are giving up on democracy. I never throw my hands up about these problems, and if I did, that would be saying that I don’t think this ingenious idea, the Constitution, can work, and I do.

I am not as anti-regulation as reasononline, I think there are times when regulation is necessary to ensure that competitive conditions are approximated, to protect the vulnerable, and so on. Many of the regulations discussed above, however, work the other way - they limit rather than enhance competition with the benefits flowing to those who own or control businesses in the protected industries.

Telling one type of regulation from the other can be difficult - regulations that protect and limit competition are often touted as enhancing efficiency (e.g. some licensing requirements). There are other aspects to this debate, but this characterizes a difference between those who lean toward libertarian beliefs, and those who are more apt to call for market intervention. Libertarians believe that, on balance, government intervention distorts and redistributes wealth and income in inefficient, inequitable ways. Activists believe that while government is far from perfect, it can, on balance, promote rather than hinder the market process through interventions that prevent abuses and market failures from pushing outcomes away from what would occur with competitive markets.

Our response to the use of government to protect and enrich certain segments of the economy as documented above should not be to remove all regulation, to stop enforcing rules against having too much monopoly power or the wholesale removal of safety standards, for example. We can always do better - sure - but in the process of weeding out the protectionist type rules and regulations let's not also throw away the rules that are needed to protect the vulnerable and promote efficient outcomes. Those who rail against government intervention in the marketplace are often upset that government prevents them from fulling exploiting their economic power to their advantage. Government can be an agent of unfair or inefficient  consolidation of wealth and power, or a counterbalance to it, and too few rules and regulations to limit abuses of power can be just as harmful as too many.

Comments

[Meh]

It's worth noting that many of those who are happiest to preach about the virtues of "truly free markets" work in very protected professions (law and banking spring to mind.)

That does not disqualify their views in itself, but it should lead us to question the basis for their preaching.

[John V]

Hadn't seen this interview yet. Thanks. Good post. Good balance.

There were actually some good exchanges that you left out. Definitely worth clicking through to read the whole thing.

I like how the post undermines the oversimplification of

pro-regulation vs. anti-regulation.

However, I didn't like Johnston's answer to the Doherty's last question. I think he avoided the valid premise that many libertarians wish liberals would consider a little more often than actually do.

Nonetheless, a good read.

[John V]

Meh,

I don't think your assertion is very well founded at all.

What source do you cite to make such a claim about who supports free markets?

[billyblog]

To adapt John Wanamaker's apothegm: "Half of government regulations have perverse social consequences, the other half have positive social consequences; the trouble is there is no agreement on which half is which."

[mik]

I'm not very interested in baseball.
But somehow I knew 10 years ago, before idea of President Bush The Second has came up, about GWBush machinations
in Texas to stick taxpayer with a bill for his enrichment.

Why that aspect of Jorge Boosh demagoguery was not brought up in 2000 or 2001 or 2003 or 2004?

My guess is the honest free-market types wanted power more than honest politician and the left could not bring itself up to critisize goverment or goverment taxing misdeeds.

But why Libertoads were silent? Did they really think that what is essentially machine type politician will advance the case of liberty and free markets?

[mik]

Speaking of free-market demagoguery while profiting from government.

On a smaller scale that Jorge Boosh duplicity, what about all those employees in government-educational complex?

All those FreeMarketUberAlles professors in government (public) or quasi-government ("private") Universities.

They benefit coming and going. Free Market bring them cheap goods and Open Borders bring them cheap maids and gardeners. While government just keep increasing their benefits and salaries through boom and bust times alike.

[John V]

libertoads??? Dr. Thoma??

[bob mcmanus]

"I am not as anti-regulation as reasononline"

Good grief, I may have misjudged Prof Thoma's political inclinations.

[ScentOfViolets]

I'm curious John; in an earlier exchange you described yourself as 'middle of the road' and 'moderate' (in ways which lead me to suspect you were anything but), and now you say you're a libertarian.

Which is it? I've remarked before on my dislike of people trying to drag what is considered mainstream or moderate to the the right. This strikes me as a very clear example if you are trying to imply that libertarians are moderates.

[David Cay Johnston]

Mik's question about the timing of news about President Bush's baseball profits is answered in Free Lunch.

On Mark's point, the economic effects of the major sports leagues being exempt from the laws of competition (irony is not dead), on ticket prices, player pay, where teams play and on urban children, including how two different subsidies encourage urban gangsare all examined in fans and on urban children in Free Lunch.

[John V]

Scent,

I am libertarian. Sorry if you feel compelled to think otherwise based on some past comment. I don't remember the context of that comment but I have said ample times since whenever that was that I'm a libertarian. Do you have anything else to add or do you just want to keep making this all about me instead of the issue being discussed?

[John V]

David Cay Johnston,

I read your tax book, Perfectly Legal a few years back. I found it quite interesting and appreciate the passion you put into the results of corrupt political buffoonery.

I recall you quoting someone as having said that our tax system is the most political in the world.

Like Doherty, I kept asking myself during that book if the results youy complain about are simply a natural result of politics that invites far too much lobbying from all sides because the stakes are driven far too high.

I would think a much simpler and less malleable system that is more impervious to special interests would produce less tug of war and favor seeking between competing interests that results in our corrupt mish mash tax code.

I think lower rates with fewer to no deductions on personal income would lessen the appeal to lobby for special tax laws, improve compliance and weaken the urge to cirmcumvent the system.

[robertdfeinman]

The libertarians want a society free of government regulation, even when such regulation is the product of democratic processes. We will shortly see a rejuvenation of pure food enforcement because of public pressure to do so. So, even though, the government is performing a function assigned it by the public this is seen as unwarranted regulation.

Now contrast this with the preferred solution to all problems: private enterprise. Every private enterprise in the modern world is run as a command and control system from the top down. There is no input from stockholders, employees or customers (except indirectly via purchase decisions). Thus, a social organization which stands for everything that libertarians say they are against in practice is seen as preferable to one which is controlled by its stakeholders (the public).

I can only deduce from this that all libertarians fantasize that they will be the one at the top issuing the commands. They all seem to believe that they are superior beings and hold the public to various degrees of disdain. What gets most of them really angry is that their obvious talents aren't appreciated and that's why they are stuck being cogs just like everyone else.

At least the academic libertarians are making a living from spouting their opinions so there is some self interest at work, but why your typical disaffected white young man sides with the privileged class remains a puzzle.

[barry payne - economist]

the reason libertarians attack with such vigor Bush and his ill gotten gains is the same reason they attack things like the Iraq war and universal health care;

it's not about how much wealth Bush acquired but how he got it; when others, far more wealthy than Bush, pass the "self-made" test of never having depended on a dime of government assistance, they are held up as shining examples of what an individual can achieve - despite taxes paid of course;

dig deeper and even that test can fail; given the presence of a central banking system that operates on fractional reserves and credit, long regarded as the root cause of widespread fraud and theft, even those seemingly apart from government handouts could just as well be stewing in subsidies just behind the veil, masking most anyone's legitimate hold on wealth

had AG indeed run the Fed with a computer-like consistency as Friedman suggested to track real output and keep those relative prices real and uniform across all players, there would be nary a peep from the libertarians on this score, even if the resulting income distribution were the same as it is today

as Krugman has pointed out, even conservatives, much less libertarians, can't stand it when government can do something for less cost than the private sector; no matter the magnitude of empirical differences in inter-country differences on health care costs, the one with the least participation by government gets the vote

but you have to give the purists credit, like Edward Crane at a recent Ayn Rand conference, who even goes after supply siders and the voodoo Laffer Curve for trying to expand government by maximizing tax revenue; and Ron Paul, despite that gold standard thing, flushes the inner-Bush from the other Rubs for all to see

[cm]

Meh: In prior days it used to be called "preaching water and drinking wine".

[John V]

Robert,

The libertarians want a society free of government regulation, even when such regulation is the product of democratic processes.

Well, to have a more honest discussion of the matter, you start from the onset of what this country would like if every ill-conceived yet well-intentioned passion that could make it through the democratic process were allowed to do so.

You certainly must appreciate the thought of how so many rights you take for granted would have been totally adulterated, compromised or obliterated by now if not for their protection from the democratic process and laws that further have been sought to deal with those new realties and so on.

And like I've said to you at Swords Crossed in the past, for someone who thinks and writes about politics as much as you do, you seem to have some overly biased and inaccurate opinions about the people you disagree with and why they think the way they do.

As a liberal, you're perfectly capable (I would hope) of discussing pros and cons of any POV based on the content of views as seen by those who hold them and not from unempathetic viewpoint that attempts to question the motivations and intent of that POV in a backdrop where some greater truth that you hold is obvious to all...even those who disagree with you.

I can only deduce from this that all libertarians fantasize that they will be the one at the top issuing the commands. They all seem to believe that they are superior beings and hold the public to various degrees of disdain.

Is that really what you think? I could easily deduce the same intent from your writing...but I won't.

As for your last paragraph, we could say the same of liberals, couldn't we? But we don't.

[cm]

robertdfeinman: Just a minor embellishment to your observation, as far as I have seen, at least some start out as "honest" libertarians at about the time when they are riding through higher ed based on a track record of passable scholastic/academic success, when their success is still largely sheltered from competition and imaginations of continued success as a "free agent" are still intact. This will possibly continue into a successful career start, fortune permitting.

I'm inclined to believe a fairly large portion of the population goes through such phases (and frankly the Western societies promote such views by individualism, self-realization, and (American-)dream propaganda). When the rubber of the dreams meets the road of reality, possibly when their own academic success or career starts are stunted, some incorporate their experience in a more mellow world view, some transition to the "corrupt" type of libertarian you describe. Some of course figure out the rules of the game even earlier.

[James Killus]

Said to me at a party last night: "Libertarians are anarchists who want the police to protect them from their slaves." I'd think that comment more unfair if I'd ever heard a Libertarian giving a first principles argument as to why human beings shouldn't be property. As nearly as I have been able to tell, they believe that everything else should be.

My old communist friends state the title of this posting as "Socialism for the Rich and Capitalism for the Poor." That avoids the problem of having to decide what a "free market" is. I've heard that organized crime has a contract market for murder. Would that count?

[cm]

John V: "Sitting at the top and issuing orders" is perhaps too strict an interpretation. It is however consistent with the more general version "nobody is telling me what to do", which extends to having leverage in negotiations and in competition, which comes pretty close practically.

[John V]

cm,

that's quite a stretch.

[realpc]

"Government can be an agent of unfair or inefficient consolidation of wealth and power, or a counterbalance to it"

Government is just as likely to become evil as anything else, and that is why our constitution limits its power. The continued success of our society depends on different factions opposing and balancing each other.

The answer isn't libertarianism or socialism, because neither prevents malignant alliances between government and business.

[cm]

John V: It may be a stretch, but that's why I said it's consistent, not it's the same.

At any rate, anybody can only judge based on the individuals they have met/observed who have offered or demonstrated their takes.

By that record (on my part), the combination of straight-dealing honest merit in a competitive environment, and "free" competition rhetoric plus regarding others as equals appears to be not too common.

[John V]

realpc,

The answer isn't libertarianism or socialism, because neither prevents malignant alliances between government and business.

If libertarianism has questionable premises or flaws, THIS critique you levy is NOT one of them. By it's essence, libertarianism destroys this alliance and renders it futile. It makes absolutely NO sense to otherwise.

Socialism in any degree inevitably does encourage this alliance because of the high stakes involved with an overactive government and lobbying struggles that becomes part of doing business. The relationship between business and government becomes a foregone and inevitable conclusion.

This is very apt when looking at the interview with Johnston.

[Dickeylee]

How come nobody asked just where G.W. Bush got the money to buy the baseball team in the first place? The "private" equity firms that bought out his oil exploration company, or the Carlyle Groups consulting contracts? His oil company never hit oil, never, not once. Guess having the VP as dad didn't hurt.

[marcello]

“Our upside down welfare state is ‘socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor.’ The great welfare scandal of the age concerns the dole we give rich people.”
--
William O. Douglas (1898-1980)
Associate Justice, U. S. Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------

this story is SUCH old news. when is somebody gonna DO something about it ? it has been recognized for decades, and yet the Dooh Nobir state persists, stronger than ever

[ScentOfViolets]

No, John, it really is quite simple: at one point you claimed to be a 'moderate' and 'middle of the road'. This was not something I inferred, you flatly stated it.

But if you're a libertarian, you're on the far right, so either you weren't being truthful then, or you aren't being truthful now, and are certainly no 'moderate' or 'centrist'. So please don't refer to yourself as such anymore. In any case, I don't see how you could possibly have misunderstood my point, unless perhaps, there was some perceived advantage to not understanding it.

This goes to the essential dishonesty of the libertarian tribe. I feel free to use you as a specific example of a general case. This is something that more and more people are remarking on, btw; I've got a feeling most folks have had a bellyful of these folks and their 'philosophy'.

[ScentOfViolets]

As for your last paragraph, we could say the same of liberals, couldn't we? But we don't.

Just to ride my hobby-horse some more. This is a contemptible misuse of terminology. People who disagree with libertarians are not ipso facto 'liberals'. I'm quite moderate and I absolutely loathe them. As do most people I know, though back in the 80's this was not necessarily the case.

No, this "if you disagree with me you must be a liberal" has got to stop being given currency. Especially since most of the people saying this seem to be far-right types trying to nudge the center-line even further right.

[John V]

Scent,

You're boring me. Like I said, I don't know why I said that nor in what context. I don't remember and I don't care. It may have been in a partisan sense....where I am very middle of road and non-partisan since I don't really care for either party and am generally in "no man's land" between them and am an unreliable voter who votes both ways.

I'm not far right. Some of views are interpreted as "Right", some "Left", some moderate, some none of the above. It goes with the territory. Either way your preoccupation with and badgering of ME PERSONALLY is uncalled for and pointless. My views are clear from my writing here. I don't hide them and have stated very, very and infinitely more times than I ever I've referred to myself as a "moderate" or "centrist" or any term you like. So, when you say "don't refer to yourself as such anymore", I LOL as I struggle to remember that one day or instance in past where I used it under whatever circumstances. Before that day and many times after it, I've been clear on POV. So stop living in that one thread....where ever it is.

Regardless, some of my views are in fact moderate. Either way, I don't care. I really don't care. I'm libertarian and have been for a long time, having migrated to that point from a "Reich/Rubin" liberal position. Dr. Thoma is quite aware of leanings. It's no secret. I actually wouldn't mind if he erased this entire exchange as it detracts from the thread topic. I didn't start this, I'm only responding to your comments.

But again, none of this really matters. You very overtly have a clear and unhealthy bias against libertarianism...but do you see me bothering with it? No. I'm not interested in your pet peeves about what should be moderate and where it should be. And I'm trying to claim that libertarians are moderates though moderates can very easily be libertarian-leaning on the main issues.

To me, a generally anti-war, more socially liberal and fiscally conservative person fits into the loose realm of "libertarian leaning" and there's nothing "fringe" about it. From there, many define their views more deeply and starkly. They are more ideological.

But again. Who cares???

What matters here is discussing the issue topics in the threads and I've done that here prior to your nagging.

[John V]

Scent,

Robert is basically a liberal. Perhaps a moderate liberal but a liberal nonetheless. I've had many exchanges with him elsewhere including a blog called www.swordscrossed.org where I contribute often. I'm quite familiar with his views.

So your pet peeve doesn't apply here.

Do you have anything to add on the thread topic, BTW?

[John V]

correction above:

And I'm NOT trying to claim that libertarians are moderates...

[robertdfeinman]

John V:
I've said this before (although, perhaps not to you) when one starts to criticize the person making the comment rather than the content of the comment it is generally thought that this is because there is not any substance in the rebuttal. You have now personalized the discussion with at least a half dozen people.

Perhaps others enjoy this type of discourse, but I stay away from it. I made some remarks about libertarians which you, apparently, decided were directed at you. I'm not responsible for your mindset.

So I won't engage in any further discussions where there are comments directed at me or anyone else personally. Assume that when you do this I will consider that as a sign that you have already lost the argument. Others would be wise to do the same as replying to personal attacks is counterproductive.

I've been critical of the libertarian philosophy for a long time and I'm still refining my ideas. My ideas today about private firms being a centralized command and control system is something I hadn't thought of before, so I tried it out. If I get some replies as to this line of thought I may modify my position the next time I use this idea.

As far as I can see your only criticism is that democratic systems are imperfect so that we need to protect people from the imperfections by imposing non-democratic systems on them. How that would work is never made clear. Who decides? Who decides who are the deciders? Once again elitism is promoted over democracy.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...

Jefferson's remark was the most important advance in political science in a thousand years. It eliminated the idea that authority stemmed from a supernatural being or from heredity. That it is still not accept by those who are (or want to be) part of the elite is not surprising.

[John V]

Hey Robert,

Slow down. That's a rather strange reversal there. You are accusing me of doing precisely what I saw you doing...perhaps not directly at me but it seemed that way and I responded as such nonetheless. As for losing an argument, we hadn't even had an exchange until now.

As for my comments, I think my point on the flaws in the passions of the democratic process is a valid point that we all gladly use defend ourselves from the passions of others under the bill of rights and a bicameral chamber and Supreme Court. This is but one point. I could go on but it's hardly the place for it.

In your studies, I cordially invite you explore that idea a little more and not dismiss it as "elitist"...see my first comment above about seeing peoples' views for what they mean in an empathetic way.

As for personalizing the discussion with a half a dozen people, who would that be??

If you want to count yourself, hmmmm....OK...I suppose. That's one. Who else? If you follow my exchange from the beginning, you'll clearly see that my responses are REACTIVE and that Scent has done precisely what you describe.

Why do you have to so difficult to converse with? Seriously.

[ScentOfViolets]

Sigh. No. Libertarians are not 'moderate' or 'middle of the road' in any sense of the word. You know this. I know this. Everybody here knows this. They are far right. End of story.

And no, _you_ started this. Stop being offended by remarks against libertarians in general, and then claim that someone is attacking you personally when you are singled out as a posting libertarian. That's nasty, cheap, and insulting. Further, you're doing it again - claiming to be moderate and then saying oh so innocently 'where have I said that'? Also:

But again, none of this really matters. You very overtly have a clear and unhealthy bias against libertarianism...but do you see me bothering with it? No. I'm not interested in your pet peeves about what should be moderate and where it should be.

That wouldn't be anything like BDS, would it bub? Where people who really don't like Bush are accused of an 'irrational' hatred? Has nothing to do with the fact that he's blown through a _trillion_ dollars, or that he advocates torture, spying on Americans, etc, right?

Isn't that just a trifle, shall we say, disingenuous? No, I don't have an 'unhealthy' bias against libertarianism, I come by my distaste for it honestly (and yes, you trying to pretend that my dislike is anything but considered is also nasty, cheap, and insulting.[1]) Would it really kill you to admit that your political philosophy has made some massive blunders that have hurt hundreds of millions of innocent people? That's called taking personal responsibility, something your crowd seems to think there's not enough of . . . at least when it comes to other people. Heaven forbid libertarians every get a dose of the bitter medicine they so readily prescribe as the cure for all ills.

Finally, I could care less about what you think on the issue of where the middle line is political discourse: it's quite obvious that having that line pulled to the right suits you to a tee. Most people, otoh, are getting very, very tired of being accused of being a 'liberal' just because they happen to disagree with the right wing. You don't want this to be an issue? Then stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a 'liberal'; lobbying for better health care is not the sole province of liberals, for example, though liberals lobby for it. Agitating for certain regulations on certain businesses is not liberal, having a disdain for vouchers is not liberal, etc.

In short, grow up, and accept some responsibility for your actions. And by the way - the hypocrisy of libertarians is just what this thread is about, ergo, I am totally on topic. Now, do you have anything to say that isn't a personal shot?

[John V]

Scent,

And no, _you_ started this.

LOL. Where? When you called me out after I made a comment on the thread topic?

Enough, please.

[ScentOfViolets]

I forgot to add the footnote:

[1] There was a time, late 70's, early 80's when I was very sympathetic to libertarianism, to the point where I actually did campaign work for the libertarian party. But something happened around that time, where the focus gradually changed from personal rights and freedoms to some bizzaro economic philosophy (is there any literature on this subject, btw? Anyone?) that held that 'taxes are theft'. Also, the people in the party seemed to become both duller and nastier. And bad crazy as opposed to good crazy. Finally - and this is a far from uncommon story - I went online in '83 or thereabouts. And there is nothing like talking with a net.libertarian to make you lose your sympathy for that bunch. Let me repeat that last: I've heard this over and over and over again, that the net looneytarians have done a fine job of anti-recruitment.

So if people don't like libertarians, or movement conservatives, or neocons, or Randites, it's not because in general they are some sort of leftist liberal types; it's because those wights have made a pretty poor showing. And have had a generally poor attitude to boot. The stench of hypocrisy comes uppermost to mind.

[ScentOfViolets]

No John, you can't have it both ways, you can't personally attack people because they have some gripes about the behavior of libertarians and then whine that when they start talking about you in particular that it's inappropriately personal. One or the other, but not both.

This actually goes quite nicely with the theme of the thread - hypocrisy. Don't do it.

[John V]

Scent,

last comment on this from me:

Wow. That's quite a posting. Quite presumptuous.

Has nothing to do with the fact that he's (Bush) blown through a _trillion_ dollars, or that he advocates torture, spying on Americans, etc, right?

I'm not sure how this is relevant. LOL. I certainly hope you're not trying to lump libertarians with Bush on those issues.

Would it really kill you to admit that your political philosophy has made some massive blunders that have hurt hundreds of millions of innocent people?

Wow. Care to explain?

I could care less about what you think on the issue of where the middle line is political discourse: it's quite obvious that having that line pulled to the right suits you to a tee.

Did I even give an opinion on where that should be? No. This is your issue. Not mine.

In short, grow up, and accept some responsibility for your actions. And by the way - the hypocrisy of libertarians is just what this thread is about, ergo, I am totally on topic.

I'm sorry. But that's obtuse. What actions?

Look, I'm done here. I'm literally amazed.

Out of respect for Dr. Thoma, I'm stopping right now. You're being quite belligerent and aggressive and your screeds are uncalled for and blown way out of proportion. You came after I'm on this thread on a personal matter you have here that's of ZERO relevance. And I do not not want to get any problems from Dr. Thoma for arguing with people.

My God.

[ScentOfViolets]

John, you say this is your 'last post' but then you 'want me to explain'? That doesn't make sense.

And let this be my last post to you on this subject: other people have commented on the fact that you have made this personal. You might want to stop, reconsider for a moment, and think about why people are getting this impression.

Look. We don't have a particularly high opinion of libertarians or libertarianism here. That's pretty much a given, and that's just something you're going to have to deal with. When you start questioning people personally with a certain tone, don't be surprised when they come right back at you in the same mode. You really didn't need me to explain this, did you?

I think that, upon reflection, you'll admit that yes, there are a lot of libertarians ( or 'libertarians') out there who think and act in just the way described, and that you would be better served by admitting to that plainly obvious fact. _Then_ you might want to - civilly, politely - state your own thoughts _without_ coming across as hectoring.

I suspect you'll get a far more sympathetic hearing that way. Just some advice. Take it or leave it as it suits you.

[Winslow R.]

To follow up on Meh's point....

Bankers have a 'special' relationship with the government. They are given an enviable position of borrowing short at rates 'normal' citizens cannot access. The banking system is the very definition of a rigged system where bankers can enrich themselves in a government protected industry.

I've come to accept that it will be a very slow evolution that will transform banking into a more democratic model over many years perhaps hundreds of years as banking has been in existence for thousands of years.

Bernanke's TAF's seem another small step in the right direction to level the playing field between small and large players yet even the smallest of these players is very large when compared to the average American citizen.

I'm not sure, but I think I see a war erupting between small and large (and possibly foreign) banks. One has to wonder if sides are being newly taken by various sovereign wealth funds or perhaps recent moves are just reinforcements of positions taken long ago.

What is disturbing is this war is being fought in a sector of our economy with a special protected relationship with the government. One where foreign citizens with the right credentials had/have easier access to Fed funds than small banks and continue to have easier access than the typical American citizen. This has allowed those with access to feast on those who don't. Bill Gross's plankton analogy.

It is possible that at least Bernanke and perhaps Rubin, Paulson etc. are true patriots and will attempt to give all Americans the ability to continue to feed? Or perhaps these privileged gentlemen are just opening the table to foreign diners just as the table becomes stocked with repossessable assets much more filling than mere plankton?

[Lafayette]

JohnV: I like how the post undermines the oversimplification of pro-regulation vs. anti-regulation.

Reasonableness is as reasonableness does

I live in Europe. Wanna see over-regulation? Come here, I'll show you nations whose economies have been made sclerotic from over-regulation. Brussels has labored this past decade to free-up markets so that market forces can work properly (to bring consumers products/services at the most reasonable price).

My point: If Europe is over-regulated and the US under-regulated (or, when regulated, to the profit of the rich and not the poor), then what is the obvious solution?

The answer: Reasonable regulation. It is reasonable to regulate Health Care service pricing to assure people get decent medical attention. It is reasonable to get back to the pre-Reagan years of confiscatory taxation marginal tax rates in order to spend the money on truly Public Services, rather than allowing the rich to use it to show the world how rich they are.

It is reasonable to subsidize a national network of high speed trains in order to reduce the automobile pollution (allowed to Detroit because SUVs are not Federally tax-rated as trucks but cars, when in fact they share the same platforms as trucks). It is reasonable to compel coal-generated power stations to install CO2 scrubbers in their plants. It is reasonable to assure that medicines don't cost an arm and leg just to satisfy the pharmaceutical industries profit objectives.

Finally, it is most reasonable to assure that Americans can elect their political leadership WITHOUT the interference of BigBusiness moneyed-interests.

Reasonableness is as reasonableness does. But, it cannot exist in an America where each and every one of us is trying simply to cope with life in order to survive. Worse, in order to survive, we think we have to become like them -- rich.

America has become a jungle where the fittest survive (best), and the fittest are always the most wealthy. We (the people) created this jungle and we can do away with it. If not, then the situation can only worsen.

[paine]

i suggest we translate these catch phrases to reveal their content better

classic:
free trade -> open border trade

neoclassic:
let the marketplace work it out -> let the corporations work it out

[paine]

"Just get wealthy off hard work and enterprise"

i'd like to figure how
the wealth distribution curve would look
if this metamoral law
as if by an invisible hand
guided all human exchange

and in particular despite
the frequent unfettered episodic
creative destructions
erupting thru these exchange systems

this at the limit means
taxing away all pure rent
for redistribution and funding public goods
passing thru at maximum speed
all newly produced surplus value
as reduced relative prices
and doing it so rapidly
and effectively
only the minimum effect profits of enterprise
dynamically form and dissolve

sounds like it would require
a system of endless unique miracles
to me

so if its gonna happen
and it ain't right
we gotta post facto
take the "ill " retained surplus
ie
excess wealth back
from its capturers
thru wealth taxes

[paine]

the charity of the dead tycoon
is like
self regulation among corporations

i say
lets not leave it up to them
to do the right thing

charity fine
but ---beyond some "indexed"
per capita bequest limit ---
the rest goes to the public
thru taxes

[Callahan]

Whatever the hell we claim to be (left, right, middle, top, bottom) we have put some real specimens into Washington DC over the last 10 or 20 years now, AIN'T WE?

[James Killus]

Robert,

As part of a different conversation at the aforementioned New Year's Eve Party, I spoke with someone who had seen "Charlie Wilson's War," and who noted at one point, the "horribly unworkable" economic system of the Soviet Union. I observed that the SU was a typical command-and-control economic system, quite similar in organization to modern corporations, with an added disadvantage that it was under constant external military and political pressure, so it spent vast sums on a military. Western corporations have basically outsourced that function, including the funding of it and indeed, many corporations profit from military spending, rather than its providing a monetary loss.

He blinked a little, then went with the old "sometimes corporations go out of business." I noted that this phenomenon seems, for the most part, inversely proportional to the size of the corporation. Small companies fail; large firms tend to be propped up, and certainly the rulers get the golden parachutes (another feature in common with tin-pot dictatorships). Consider the possibility that the Soviet Union was a giant conglomerate; even so, it did go into receivership after about 70 years.

He then said he'd have to think about the matter some more.

So yes, your comparison of corporations to command-and-control socialism may have some merit. I've thought so for quite a while now.

In other news, I haven't been able to read most of John V's posts, and I admire SoV's stamina in that regard. Has John V he indicated whether or not he actually belongs to the Libertarian Party? I'm all for libertarians who vote Libertarian, and I always urge self-identified libertarians to do so. Phrases like "isolation ward" spring to mind.

People who claim to be libertarian but vote Republican are just using one of the many rationalizations available to people who have a deep need not to examine their own motives. Actually, that's true of those who vote Libertarian as well, but they're mostly harmless.

[paine]

kill
what makes socialism only in one country
hardly different from
capitalism all in one corporation

needs a few more generations
to get properly digested

[paine]

door prize entry

" We (the people) created this jungle and we can do away with it. If not, then the situation can only worsen"

[hari]

Mark -

This thread brings me back to my quotation on morality:

"ruler morality" and "servant morality"...

In fact, Nietsche coined these terms to distinguish the demise of Europe at the turn of 20th century. He was perhaps the first serious philosopher to question the existing social morality....not only in Germany but also based on the French Revolution and its aftermath...[the Will to Power]!

The exchange above on the arcane distinction in US academia about "libertarian" economics and "classic" or "neoclassic" reflects more on a delinquency in learning objective criteria of logical thinking...

How in the world do you, as a Professor, expect the general voter or public today to accept such intellectual nonsense when discussing serious national/development issues?

No wander they're having difficulty distinguishing the true believers from the so-called non-true-believers of American democracy in Iowa!!! I find the whole diatribe not only disquieting but,at my age, I find it really unworthy of this serious thread...to put it mildly.

Even in our best days, during debates and whatnots, we never impunged the personal integrity of a fellow graduate student. We faught hard, may be Paine can underscore it also, but the type of social revolution we're able to forge was based entirely on our ability to convince and influence. There's common sense in humanity or not!

To get back to your thread, can you imagine anything materially different from above case history of what may take place in a centrally controlled/managed economic system?

The Chinese would have a good laugh to find out what we've established as, Lafayette rightly calls for, a REASONABLE system!

[xxx]

"Bush isn't alone in finding ways to enrich himself in a government protected environment."

Finally, somebody in the Western World understands how the big money in Russia and Eastern Europe were made, after the fall of communism, by some individuals who got them money from all the other people paying for their private property. It's the same model, folks! Take money from where the state subsidizes and make them private, aka yours.

(Being a member in the former secret services or former poliburo also helps, because it means you have the right connections.)

Well, it took you 17 years to understand.

[xxx]

"The Chinese would have a good laugh to find out what we've established as, Lafayette rightly calls for, a REASONABLE system!"

Then look who's speaking! The chinese calling the kettle black.

[zinc]

Just another reason to preserve (restore) the progressivity of income tax and the unearned income estate tax.We can also reverse the preferential tax treatment of passive income over wage earners.

The state subsidy of Bush's baseball team wasn't his biggest coup. The take from tax cuts for the rich dwarfs the former, not to mention the take from preferential tax treatment of unearned income (cap gains and interest).

The guy is a genius and the average American, I'm afraid, an idiot.

[John V]

James Killus,

Has John V he indicated whether or not he actually belongs to the Libertarian Party? I'm all for libertarians who vote Libertarian, and I always urge self-identified libertarians to do so....

People who claim to be libertarian but vote Republican are just using one of the many rationalizations available to people who have a deep need not to examine their own motives. Actually, that's true of those who vote Libertarian as well, but they're mostly harmless.

No, I'm independent

(and maybe you should read my comments, BTW instead SoV's, whose comments were a forceful, meandering, protean detour from my original posting. I refused to continue and have apologized to Dr. Thoma for getting caught up in SoV's aggressive and irrelevant inquisition)

I've never even had a chance to vote Libertarian as there has never been one on any ballot I've ever voted on. It's not very practical. I generally vote both ways as split tickets or "abstain". I've actually never even voted Republican for president...only Democrat or "abstain"....though I did vote Perot (I was 19) as protest vote my first time voting but voted Clinton in 96. Come to think of it, I've only voted GOP on a few occasions in state and local elections when I wasn't abstaining.

By "abstain", I mean I write in Mickey Mouse.

As for the last paragraph, I think you short change the POV by attributing mal-intent or intellectual laziness to it instead of showing a level of empathy and attempting to understand it...regardless of whether or not you agree.

I actually can easily empathize with liberal positions on economics because I used to be more liberal in that regard. Hence, even though I now disagree with more leftist economic constructs, I do understand WHY liberals view economic policy the way they do. Thus, I'm never hostile to it in the sense that I question the intentions or integrity of those who hold those views. I simply disagree and view cause and effect differently and, hence, what we can actually do about it in a satisfactory manner. It's not a matter of questioning intentions.

I actually read Thoma and Rodrik (I've also read his recent book) almost daily and Delong a little less often. And even though I disagree with them in some respects, as many actual PhD libertarian economists do, I respect their POV and see an incredibly stark difference between how they explain their views and see economics and how many who comment here do. (I'm not referring to you BTW).

[reason]

John V.
Have the Libertarian's invented their government robot yet? Somebody needs to make and enforce the rules. By not voting you are making sure that unreasonable zealots dominate the process, so making your "government is always and everywhere the problem" axiom self-fulfulling. America needs more democracy not less.

Scent-of-violets, John-V read

http://www.davidbrin.com/libertarian1.html

and the following essays. David Brin is a Liberal, but sympathetic to a pragmatic Libertarianism, but not the Libertarian party (and particularly not to Rothbartianism). Perhaps in those essays you can find a meeting point.

[Lafayette]

Hari: How in the world do you, as a Professor, expect the general voter or public today to accept such intellectual nonsense when discussing serious national/development issues?

Yes, you've got a point.

But, the nonsense is not in the intellectualism, or the academic bent on explaining complex economic phenomenon. It is in our inability to explain that complexity rationally but simply to the Mr. & Mrs. America.

Take a look at Health Care. There is NO reasonable way conventional economic analysis can justify monopoly pricing of today's medical practitioners. But, what are the politicians peddling, "Medical insurance for everybody"?

Anybody asking who is going to pay for those who can't afford medical insurance? Yep, us suckers are going to pay for the windfall of clients who will be flocking to the GP's with their new-fangled insurance coverage that doesn't cost them anything.

It's something for nothing! And, people believe this nonsense!?!

Just mention the word Monopoly in America and people think its a board game. But, something-for-nothing ... oh, yeah, we'll all have some of that, wont we.

The political huckstering has only begun. It's a long, long trail of bullshit to November. Don't forget your topboots on the way to the voting booth.

[James Killus]

Oh John V, I never said that I read SoV's comments replying to yours, just that I admired his stamina. And when I said that I was unable to read your comments, I meant simply that reading them requires more effort than I'm willing to commit, and whatever you think I "should" do is not on my radar screen.

Thank you for answering my question about Party affiliation, however, although I am disappointed. The reason for using words to describe something (including self-descriptions) is that they are supposed to encapsulate information. "Libertarian" however, encapsulates very little. I've heard it used (again, self-applied) by folks in the Society for Creative Anachronism, in a context where it was clear they wished for the reinstatement of feudalism. I've heard it used by members of the Christian Identity Movement, by stone bigots and con men, in other words. I've heard it used by men who make their living writing military SF, war fantasies, in other words, who express the specific sentiment that true freedom only exists in military organizations. I've heard it used by those who also call themselves anarchists, and who work in Civil Service.

Like "independent" and "green" and "socialist" and "Trotskyite" and voting for Perot, libertarian means "don't blame me for the mess we're in." I sympathize with the sentiment. That does not mean that I tolerate foolish discourse on imaginary political systems whose primary function is to elevate the self-perceived status of those who believe that they really do imagine a better world, as opposed to a entertaining wish-fullfillment fantasies.

[Lafayette]

JK: That does not mean that I tolerate foolish discourse on imaginary political systems whose primary function is to elevate the self-perceived status of those who believe that they really do imagine a better world, as opposed to a entertaining wish-fullfillment fantasies.

You see that on the Right in America. I see it on the Left in Europe (but without the military connotations).

No political current has a patent on fundamentalism. Reasonable political economics, or as close as we shall ever come to it, is found somewhere in between.

[reason]

Reasonable political economics, or as close as we shall ever come to it, is found somewhere in between.

No I beg to disagree - the word you should use is not "in between" it is "outside". That is what has happened to the MSM as the middle has been shifted continuously to the right. Ignore the left-right access. Discuss small pragmatic continuous improvement.

[reason]

Read Dr. Brin - the real fight is (or should be) between pragmatists and utopians. I'm in the pragmatists camp.

[Lafayette]

Anecdote: A remarkably effective lie

I was once taking the "red-eye" from Seattle to Boston, which departed after midnight. A little old lady was also on the flight, in the aisle across from me on a flight that had very few passengers.

We hit some turbulence and the woman became very agitated. I tried to calm her down, but to no avail. After a while, the stewardess noted the woman's plight, which was worsening. The woman explained to the stewardess that she could not understand how the pilot could find his way in the dark. (Which, of course, made three of us who were listening smile inwardly.)

The stewardess calmed her down with a remarkably effective lie. She told the lady to look out on the Left wing and notice the blinking light. Which the lady did. Then the stewardess told her to look out the Right wing -- and note the blinking light. Then the stewardess told the lady that all the pilot had to do was to steer the aircraft between the two blinking lights. It was easy!

Much assured, the lady went into a peaceful sleep for the rest of the journey.

My point: Political leadership is a bit like flying an aircraft. Few people know how an aircraft finds its way, they just trust that it does. Politics is similar, so Presidents try to show how they are flying the country between the blinking lights ... or so they think. It is a "remarkably effective lie", because they come to believe it as well ....

[reason]

Lafayette...
do you realise just how elitist and sexist that story is? I wonder how many people think comfortable "well I'm not so stupid as to believe that". I mean the passager could have become very hostile told such a stupid lie. She well have been intelligent but ignorant, the story (if it is true) shows that the stewardess held her in contempt. (I suppose she could have it with a wicked grin as a joke.) Would the story be believable if the location was not in the US.

[Lafayette]

reason: do you realise just how elitist and sexist that story is?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ugliness, too.

[wjd123]

Since I believe that free trade as practiced today is a danger to our economic morality, the rules and regulations guiding our economy, and since I believe that globalization leads to economic anarchy, I tend to want to regulate the bejesus out of trade. I also see no reason to trust corporations to act ethically on their own. Therefore, I want to regulate the bejesus out of them also. My dislike of both, free trade as practiced today and corporations, has gotten visceral. My New Year's resolution for the third year in a row is to do evil to corporations.

When Mark gave his explanation of the differences in regulations my ears perked up. "Perhaps," I thought, "this will put my regulation frenzy on a more even keel." It didn't, since I thought he snubbed regulating for social reasons.

However, that doesn't mean I didn't learn anything. I used Mark's goals for regulating when commenting on something Dani Rodrik wrote on his blog: "Why I don't do political economy any more."

http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2007/04/trade_and_proce.html

[Blissex]

«He blinked a little, then went with the old "sometimes corporations go out of business."»

The institution of bankruptcy is indeed the most important one for progress and efficiency. People speculate that it is private ownership of productive assets, or rather industrial organization of production, or market based pricing, or whatever, but my opinion is that the most important thing is bankruptcy, and any system that keeps failed organization going is going to be inefficient and poor, whether the system is capitalistic, or industrial or market based.

«I noted that this phenomenon seems, for the most part, inversely proportional to the size of the corporation. Small companies fail; large firms tend to be propped up, and certainly the rulers get the golden parachutes (another feature in common with tin-pot dictatorships).»

One definition of "Soviet system" is "a system run for the benefit of management". A lot of the USA/UK/... economy seems to be sovietic in essence.

«Consider the possibility that the Soviet Union was a giant conglomerate;»

Well, the Soviet *party* was a conglomerate, one run for the benefit of management. Just like the Republican party in the USA.

«even so, it did go into receivership after about 70 years.»

Again, bankruptcy is the golden standard of a progressive system. As someone said, only hydraulic empires are not subject to bankruptcy even in the long run, only extinction or conquest.

[Lafayette]

rdf: Perhaps others enjoy this type of discourse, but I stay away from it.

Borrrre-innnnggggggg forum clutter

Quite right, rdf.

When this occurs, it's best to SOB (SOB = Scroll On By) the poster, rather than clutter the forum with personalized diatribe.

NB: There was once a forum mechanism that allowed a post to create its own thread. People could then entertain themselves with personal on-line vendettas without cluttering the forum generally. Typepad should have a look at that technique.

[Lafayette]

wjd: Since I believe that free trade as practiced today is a danger to our economic morality, the rules and regulations guiding our economy, and since I believe that globalization leads to economic anarchy, I tend to want to regulate the bejesus out of trade.

That's a sure recipe for disaster.

We get more out of trade than it costs. That is not a mantra, it is economic fact.

Yes, nearly all matters of economic policy are subject to laws and regulation. The challenge is in choosing the right balance. But, that must be done on an international basis, and not result from a temper tantrum.

Regulating toughly trade just because it dislocates jobs is simply not a good idea. First and foremost, it can lead to a trade war and history has shown us that trade wars diminish overall economic performance worldwide.

So, that is not the sort of "globalisation" that we really need.

In fact, nobody complained in the US whilst American multinationals made billions of profits in international trade and commerce for five decades after WW2. How many jobs at General Electric or IBM and other such multinationals were due to the global component of their business?

But, now that America is losing jobs to lower paying countries, it's got our dander up. The problem is that the world looks at our present distemper over globalisation as just that of a spoiled brat, who no longer likes the rules of the game.

[reason]

blissex

A VERY important comment that unfortunately will be ignored by most. I have written elsewhere that treating mistakes gently is at least as important as rewarding success in ensuring dynamism. The moral hazard fanatics seem to have forgotten this, or else they think that only the rich with diverse (limited liability) portfolios are the only people able to evaluate ideas.

[Lafayette]

Bliss: People speculate that it is private ownership of productive assets, or rather industrial organization of production, or market based pricing, or whatever, but my opinion is that the most important thing is bankruptcy, and any system that keeps failed organization going is going to be inefficient and poor, whether the system is capitalistic, or industrial or market based.

A breath of fresh air

Why should bankruptcy be the "most important"? Who is to judge a "failed organization". According to what criteria?

Is that a company that does not make a profit, but keeps its staff employed? Or, one that can't even pay salaries? Or one so beset by debt that it cannot pay salaries, so it must close shop?

Let's presume it the very last above. Protection from one's creditors whilst a plan is instituted to recuperate lost market share (presuming this was possible) -- is that not a better option (to keep personnel employed) than closure? Would it not be in the interest of the authorities to allow this "breath of fresh air" for a limited period of time, if it was consonant with continued operations (but a release from the obligation to pay debt owed).

The answer depends upon a case-by-case determination, and should be an option to those companies that can argue their case.

Of course, if operations are too bad to be saved, then surely they must be closed (and assets employed to repay outstanding debt). But, this is up to an impartial body of experts to decide, and should not, in fact, be the prerogative of a judge (to my mind).

Unless, of course, a company thought it was unjustly considered by the panel of experts and wished to contest their negative decision to allow temporary relief of debt. Then a court could decide.

Bankruptcy typically befalls a small to medium-sized company that does not have the talent to see its way through a crisis. In fact, private equity is filling the talent gap -- but by buying residual assets, employing the talent necessary to redress the company and then selling it at a profit. The company thus avoids bankruptcy. But, most often, personnel are made redundant.

All for what? Such that retired millionaires can simply enhance their net worth? The utility of the company is in producing/selling products/services viably, by employing people. They should have access to talent, at a time of need, to do so.

I find that a mechanism for finding that talent and employing it at a company in crisis, can -- quite possibly -- avoid the ravages of bankruptcy. That talent might exist at business schools nearby. Or, even, retired business people with the requisite experience who would like to assist benevolently.

Why not employ either option, and have the effort paid for by a state agency. Wouldn't that be a better, less costly solution than having to pay unemployment benefits in case of bankruptcy?

Maybe.

[wjd123]

Regulating toughly trade just because it dislocates jobs is simply not a good idea. First and foremost, it can lead to a trade war and history has shown us that trade wars diminish overall economic performance worldwide.--Lafayette

Lafayette,

Why are you reading ideas into my post that aren't there. I didn't say anything about trade dislocating jobs. I said I wanted to regulate the bejesus out of trade because it destroyes economic morality.

We get more out of trade than it costs. That is not a mantra, it is economic fact.--Lafayette

Didn't financial institutions use the need to compete internationally as a reason to deregulate the banking business. Didn't deregulating the banking business cause a crisis here at home that will lead us into a recession. Our lack of tough regulation have led to disaster.

Yes, nearly all matters of economic policy are subject to laws and regulation. The challenge is in choosing the right balance. But, that must be done on an international basis, and not result from a temper tantrum.--Lafayette

Unfortunately, there is no international government capable of making or enforcing the rules, however, there are plenty of corporations that can use free trade to escape the rules made by our national government since no one is going to raise tariffs on them if they do.