John C. Wright ([info]johncwright) wrote,
@ 2008-09-26 22:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Who is John Galt?

Two questions continually echo in my brain as I listen to the mainstream media "news" with growing disbelief to the slow motion train wreck overtaking the American economy.

First, why is it that no one is speaking of the causes of the crisis? The cause is the same here as it was in the Great Depression. Easy credit policies, favored by the state, in that case meddled with the credit supply through the newly formed Federal Reserve Board, and in this case meddled with the housing credit supply through Freddie and Fanny, complex federal insurance schemes meant to underwrite, and therefore encourage, malinvestment. During the Great Depression the malinvestment was in stocks; here, in mortgages.

To add insult to injury, there was also peculation from political leaders, who looted the banking system for campaign funds, or just for funds. The very people who caused this problem -- it is one hundred per cent pure quill nothing but state intervention in the free market that caused it -- are the ones now vowing to fix it. And to fix it how? By massive state intervention.

To add evil to insult, the voices in the mainstream media – degraded to a mere propaganda organ from what was once a high estate of truth-seeking journalism – are calling for punishment and retribution for the wrongdoing — wait for it!— against Wall Street and from the state! As if, having been poisoned by a witch, and treated by a doctor, we then ask, if our health fails, to have the witch punish the doctor! Such reversals of justice, logic, and cause and effect are awe-striking, if not positively diabolical, in their insolence. One almost admires the sheer chutzpah.

Ludwig von Mises over half a century ago proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, that a little intervention in one sector of the economy creates an incentive for a lot of intervention in ever larger sections of the economy; and the government must forswear either the goals it has set as policy or the means selected to pursue them to resist, if ever, that incentive, and suffer the humiliation and financial loss of reversing long-standing policy. (A nice summary of his argument can be read here: http://mises.org/midroad.asp. A complete study of the underlying logic and epistemology can be read here: http://mises.org/resources/3250 )

As you can imagine, such complete reverses of ideology are rare. It is the road to serfdom. No serious student of economics would debate the issue, any more than a serious scientist would debate the theory of phlogiston.

The moneyed powers against whom G.K. Chesterton is so fond launching his Jeremiads, to the degree that they are not simply imaginary figments of that imaginative writer, are not the Ayn Randian self-made men we have here in America, honest businessmen. The moneyed powers are Big Government types, the heads of banking committees, the presidents of Fannie Mae, the chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board: people who transfer wealth, not the men who make wealth. In short, they are the Dems.

Those who see this debacle as an indictment of Capitalism are the same ignoramuses who saw the Great Depression as the indictment of Capitalism, and the death of the West. The socialists held an angry Jubilee and danced in the streets, never realizing that the unenlightened, if not downright evil, policies of Keynes and the clumsy non-policies of FDR would aggravate, extend and expand the Depression to make it a decade-long nightmare rather than a short and painful market adjustment. Perhaps in those days, an willing dupe of Soviet propaganda might have the excuse that he trusted Stalin, and therefore concluded that a command-and-control economy was more prosperous than a free market. These days, no one, no one at all, has that excuse. 

Yet nonetheless, even to this day, some intelligent people repeat, without deep thought, the old myth that the Second World War somehow cured or pulled us out of the Depression: as if the shocking national debt war expenses incurred, the death of countless young men, and the destruction of countless dollars of equipment, the suspension of international trade, and putting the economy on a war time rationing and quota system could somehow produce wealth. If destruction caused wealth, why not simply bomb your own factories, rather than waiting for the Blitz? Bastiat demonstrated, with the precision of a geometer, the folly of such attempts over a century ago. This is not news. It is Victorian Era knowledge. As if no one had yet admitted the conclusions of Maxwell's Four Laws. Against such widespread ignorance, the gods themselves contend in vain.  

Second, where is the outrage? We are sleepwalking into socializing our housing and banking markets. Have we learned nothing from the failed policies, the poverty, the lunatic politics of postwar Western Europe and (more importantly) of Eastern Europe?

As best I can tell from casual conversations with friends in person, and with strangers and acquaintances on the Internet, the answer is a resounding NO. Not one person in ten knows the basics that could be gleaned from an ECON 101 textbook. They do not know where money comes from, nor what it represents. They do not know what sets the height of interest rates. They think there is such a thing as a free lunch. 

But there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The bill always comes due. 

What ought a sound and honest country should do in a crisis like this? Determine the causes of the problem and remove the cause. The cause is state intervention in the credit cycle. To remove it, place the credit rate and money supply outside of the range of the state, for the same reason, and in the same way, the press and the church are outside the range of the state: because history proves the state both incompetent and unwilling to govern these areas justly and disinterestedly. Abolish Freddie and Fanny; abolish the Federal Reserve Board; return to the gold standard; remove government incentives for unwise bank loans; let banks that unwisely lend go bankrupt. If you want, at the same time, to goose the economy, then let us by all means the abolish all capital gains tax, and abolish estate taxes, abolish the income tax. Don't you think those steps would restore some investor confidence? 

Sadly, one cannot run a free market republic in a land where the citizens are ignorant of the basic scientific laws governing the market relations. If most voters follow any Rumpelstiltskin or Paracelcus who says they can make gold from straw or lead, the voter's theory of how the economy works will lead them to sabotage the economy, thinking they are doing good, as if someone ignorant of the germ theory of disease insisted on being bleed with filthy leaches in order to balance his humors. If the theory of humors is wrong, the acts based on those theories will be unproductive or even counterproductive of the ends sought. 



(44 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]axiem
2008-09-27 04:07 am UTC (link)
Aye, although if I were in charge, I am not so sure I would go as far as you as quickly (I am still hesitant about the gold standard, for instance). Still, what you propose would in time solve our problems, I think.

The problem I'm struggling with: how, practically speaking, can I put this into action? Who can I vote for that might fix this? Or is it worth the evil of voting in someone who will utterly destroy the system, simply to prove even further how horrid such intervention is? A dose of vinegar might be what the people need in order to pick the honey.

I am curious as to what you think. What is the best way for us free-market people to vote, especially in this election?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]johncwright
2008-09-27 05:09 am UTC (link)
You must decide between the pragmatic and the idealistic approach. The pragmatic approach is to vote for the lesser of two evils. The idealistic approach is to vote for someone who represents your views, without any calculation as to whether he stands a chance of winning or not-- a third party candidate. The idealistic approach is a long term approach, because it hopes that these third party 'throw away votes' will lure some ambitious mainstream politician to court them.

Between a long term and a short term approach, I would favor the short term approach when doomsday seems closer at hand, and the long term approach when doomsday seems farther away. Since both parties exaggerate the importance of the election and the threat posed by the opposition, assessing the calendar length till doomsday is a difficult judgment call. (As a Christian, I am more serene about presidential politics than my agnostic friends, because I am duty bound to render Caesar what he is due, but not to look to him for salvation. We survived FDR's gross mismanagement. We will survive this.)

Myself, I am a philosopher, not a political pundit. I think that by the time the difference of opinion has reached the ballot box, it is too late. The general mood and tenor of a nation is set by its philosophy, which is propagated one discussion, one textbook, one argument at a time. It is a slow process to change the spiritual and philosophical outlook of a whole generation bent on self-indulgence and self-destruction, but no political solution can oppose the glacial changes in national philosophy, for good or ill.

I would never, ever vote for an evil man on the hope that his evil will destroy the nation and then, when the smoke clears, the socialists and collectivists will clap their hands to their brows and shout out that their eyes are now opened. All that will happen when Obama-like socialist policies bankrupt a nation is the same thing that is happened now: Wall Street will be blamed for Washington's economically-illiterate folly. No, I fear that when a man who believes the humor theory of disease is dying, he does not suddenly give up his theory-- instead he calls for more leeches.

Banish this thought from your head, please. It is the advice of despair.

(Me, I am voting for McCain merely because he has Palin on the ticket. She will be the presidential nominee in four years (assuming McCain serves one term) and I would be delighted to have an American Margaret Thatcher.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]automatthew
2008-09-27 05:20 am UTC (link)
We lack a respectable, honest, and decent party of the Left in this nation. If the Republicans, headed by McCain, can purge themselves of the out-and-out rascals (Ted Stevens, e.g.), I think they would make a fine leftist party.

When McCain wins the election, conservatives won't be responsible for the victory. "RINOs" and sane Democrats will. This seems to be Senator McCain's strategy. He doesn't have much use for conservatives, and he wants to rebuild the Republican party without them.

McCain will get the endorsement of the Washington Post, and possibly, just maybe, because Senator Obama is such a dingleberry, the endorsement of the New York Times. Bill Clinton already hearts McCain so much it hurts.

The Republican party is dead, long live the Republican party.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]axiem
2008-09-27 05:42 am UTC (link)
The general mood and tenor of a nation is set by its philosophy, which is propagated one discussion, one textbook, one argument at a time. It is a slow process to change the spiritual and philosophical outlook of a whole generation bent on self-indulgence and self-destruction, but no political solution can oppose the glacial changes in national philosophy, for good or ill.

This is what I struggle with most, as it seems my arguments for classical liberalism fall either upon deaf ears, or upon the ears of the chorus. At a certain point, I just feel like giving up, because no matter how much I try, I cannot convince people to stop the car before we drive off of a cliff.

As time has gone on, I've found myself detached from it more and more. One of the study groups my church is forming this autumn is one on Faith and Politics--I gave it up, though, to instead focus on the study group dealing with the history of theology and the church.

As such, I decided where my vote would go before either side had picked a vice president (I'm also a McCain backer, mostly because he wants the car to go slightly slower than Obama towards the cliff). The Palin pick was a pleasant surprise, but I in my endless skepticism am not yet enthralled by her.

In short, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the subject. It's rare to find someone reasonably rational in philosophy these days, it seems to me. It gives me something to think about.

Edited at 2008-09-27 05:49 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]sun_stealer
2008-09-30 04:21 am UTC (link)
Do what I do, among other things, always keep a copy of The Road to Serfdom in your bookbag or on your person for emergencies. The side with instruction and fervor wins. I've accepted that we are spiraling into another depression and have decided to make the most of it. As Lenin said, "The worse, the better". Environments like that of the coming second depression are breeding grounds for militant ideologies, as the people will desperately be looking to anything if it gets them out of their situation. In those dark times we must be sons of liberty, not kadets or the old right.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]robert_mitchell
2008-09-27 04:03 pm UTC (link)
I note that you don't have to choose between the idealistic and pragmatic approach if you actually play the game. Be idealistic when getting candidates into the pipeline, and filling party positions. Be pragmatic when facing the other party. Do it right, and you can bend your party to your will. Look what the Communists were able to do with the Democrats. Think what the Libertarians could have done with the Republicans if they hadn't thrown their tantrum and self destructed..........

(Reply to this) (Parent)

She's no Margeret Thatcher
[info]oscillon
2008-09-29 12:07 pm UTC (link)
"I would be delighted to have an American Margaret Thatcher"
That, my friend, is an insult to Mrs. Thatcher. Thatcher was a well educated, well spoken, champion of reason. Whether you like Thatcher's policies or not, she was a dignified and impressive person. Mrs. Palin is about as opposite a character as I can imagine. I can only hope you're joking.
Just fast forward to about 3:00 unless you want to watch the whole, painfully embarrassing, thing.


Thatcher interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpdbEK3E4U8


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: She's no Margeret Thatcher
[info]sun_stealer
2008-09-30 04:29 am UTC (link)
I have to agree, though that interview is was edited and an ambush from the start. She reminded me of Elizabeth or Victoria. Margaret Thatcher was truly an Iron Lady. It's a shame all her supporters are a bunch of losers. As for Palin, she has more of a folkish and good natured asethetic. Don't get me wrong, she had to be tough to clean up the Alaskan political establishment, but Iron Maggie would've had that weaselly interviewer sobbing in the fetal position in the corner. But then again, Margaret Thatcher is a bit before my time, maybe I'm buying into a mythologized version of Margaret Thatcher.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]automatthew
2008-09-27 05:10 am UTC (link)
I am also hesitant about the gold standard (or any other standard, excepting antimatter or computer time). Didn't Friedman make some good arguments on this topic in Capitalism and Freedom? My copy's packed away.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]axiem
2008-09-27 05:47 am UTC (link)
The core argument, as I understand it, is that governments should not be given power of fiat currency because then at some point they will abuse this and print lots of money and basically create runaway inflation.

However, I am not convinced the solution to this is to instead base money on amount of a substance that is in high demand as something other than money (gold has nice chemical properties for many applications), or that has a good chance of having fluctuating stocks (especially as it's a material that has other uses).

As such, I am inclined towards fiat currency despite possible government abuse. My real goal would be for there to always be a static, finite amount of money in the system--really only achievable by a fully electronic system (in theory). I'm also something of an idealist here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]johncwright
2008-09-27 05:57 am UTC (link)
I would state the core argument with slightly different emphasis. Governments should not be given the power to issue fiat currency because (1) they will inflate or hyperinflate the currency. Inflation is not a natural phenomenon: it only occurs with fiat currency. (2) they will be able to inflate the currency as a form of invisible taxation (3) this taxation deprives creditors to the benefit of debtors and government dependents (4) depriving creditors leads to capital decumulation: people spend rather than invest (5) fiat money drives out hard money, as people try to unload fiat currency (6) fiat money rises and falls with government confidence (cf. continental currency and confederate currency) hence, the money is not protected and cannot survive (cannot hold value) beyond the current regime (7) fiat money creates an inevitable conflict of interest between nation states, whereas hard currency avoids that conflict (8) a stable international currency encourages trade INDEPENDENT of the trustworthiness and goodwill of the current administration or sovereign of a particular nation. (9) Fiat currency and its accompanying inflation is a necessary precondition for big and intrusive government: reckless tax and spend policies are simply not possible where the government has no power to print fiat money. (10) Fiat currency is counterfeiting.

Having said that, raising fiat money for the purposes of funding a war might be an acceptable evil in an emergency.

The fluctuations in the gold market tend not to inflate or deflate currency except in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. the California gold rush, or the Spanish conquest of South America).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]jordan179
2008-09-27 06:58 am UTC (link)
The fluctuations in the gold market tend not to inflate or deflate currency except in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. the California gold rush, or the Spanish conquest of South America).

One problem with an official currency based on precious metals right now would be that it would tend to give the Powers That Be a good reason to do everything they could legally do to discourage the use of asteroidal resources. I'm quite serious about this -- if we went back on an official gold standard, a single big ore strike could cause immense financial dislocation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]axiem
2008-09-27 03:27 pm UTC (link)
a single big ore strike could cause immense financial dislocation.

This is one of my worries, as well. Also, what happens when we get into space and start mining asteroids, which have high concentrations of say, gold?

I would be a lot more comfortable making our material standard for money something other than gold--some material that is useless (outside of money) and not likely to be suddenly found.

(In short, my argument against the gold standard is over the choice of gold, rather than the choice of standard)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]rlbell
2008-09-27 05:51 pm UTC (link)
Another problem of a mineral standard is that finance becomes a zero-sum game. There is no such thing as capital gains, as capital does not grow, it only changes hands. The US is in the pickle that going to a gold standard will lock up the US economy faster than the gold standard locked up the economy of ancient Rome-- the imbalance of trade will drain all the gold out of the US.

The US dollar would need to be revalued to a peg that allows all the gold posessed by the US government back all of outstanding value of extant dollars (not just the value of printed bills, but the value of dollars in electronic form, as well). The only upside is that there would only be single bout of hyper-inflation, but would the US dollar still be more valuable than the Zimbabwean dollar? An upside to this is that US holdings of foreign currency might be enough to pay back foreign held debt in US dollars.

Not that I disagree with the other suggestions, but going back to the gold replaces a distant economic catastrophe with an immediate one.

Keynesian economics requires two steps, but the second step has never been implemented:

Step 1) In bad eceonomic times, spend like drunken sailors, even to the point of deficit spending.

Step 2) When the good times show up, stop spending money, pay off the national debt, and build up surpluses to cover the deficits expected in the next downturn.

While it will flatten out the boomtimes, Keynseian economic policy was meant to fill in the busts. Keynesian policy would limited the real estate bubble, before it burst and given the US government enough cash to finance any needed bail-outs.

I really agree that banks that have driven themselves out of business should be allowed to fail, so long as people can still be convinced to move their insured savings to other banks (the little guy is not wiped out for not joining the run).



(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Aha!
[info]djmahon
2008-09-27 07:42 pm UTC (link)
Another problem of a mineral standard is that finance becomes a zero-sum game. There is no such thing as capital gains, as capital does not grow, it only changes hands. The US is in the pickle that going to a gold standard will lock up the US economy faster than the gold standard locked up the economy of ancient Rome-- the imbalance of trade will drain all the gold out of the US.

Thank you--I suddenly understand the Panic of 1907.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]axiem
2008-09-27 08:53 pm UTC (link)
I am not sure how having a static amount of currency in circulation will prevent capital from growing.

Finance to a certain extent must always be a zero-sum game--money doesn't just appear for most banks. At least, that's what I was given to understand. Interest doesn't create money.

And as for the current imbalance of trade...doesn't that affect us just as much if we're on fiat currency?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]rlbell
2008-09-28 03:47 am UTC (link)
The advantage of a fiat currency in the face of a trade deficit is that there is a tendency to self correction-- as money leaves the country, the exporters sell it to convert it into money that they can spend at home. This excess depresses the value of the currency, imports in the imbalanced market cost more, and local substitutes are found. As a currency devalues, potential exports become more attractive to foreign buyers. A fiat currency with a market driven value, by increasing the cost of imports and decreasing the cost to foreign buyers, will revalue the currency towards balancing the trade accounts. This process gets hamstrung if the people that are exporting peg their currency to that of the importing country (like the chinese had been doing to the US [and may still be, for all that I know])

With a hard currency, in finite supply, each dollar in unbalanced trade is gone from the money supply. I admit that my intro to macroeconomics did not fully explain that scenario, but in the extreme case of the Roman empire, it led to a lack of sufficient coinage to meet the financial demands of administering the empire and forced the system of requisitioning to pay the costs of the army, among other public services (Each household had marked on the lintel of the front door the amount that the army could loot. Invading barbarians quickly learned to only take that much to keep the populace from active resistance).

If the US was on a gold standard, there would be a massive export of the certificates, to the point that the US would have to revalue the currency to have enough currency to keep the economy lubricated. While foreign exporters might put up with this once, or twice, they would eventually only accept american gold.

Without a fiat currency, no financial instrument can increase in value; except by devaluing something else, as there is a fixed amount of money. However, I will accept the possibility of being wrong about no capital gains without a fiat currency.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]rlbell
2008-09-28 04:21 am UTC (link)
An interesting, if highly unusual treatise on how the perception of value is as good as the real thing is Poul Anderson's "Fairy Gold".

Banks are allowed to lend out more money than they have as cash. A factually useful explanation is the animation on youtube "Money as Debt". Aside from the video's portrayal of bankers as usurous thieves and the writer's obvious chauvinism for the gold standard, it does explain how banks create wealth.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sun_stealer
2008-09-30 04:37 am UTC (link)
Unfortunately we already spent ourselves back into a boom and spent that back into another bust. Also the economic catastrophe isn't distant, it's several months from now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sun_stealer
2008-09-30 04:34 am UTC (link)
money outside of money is useless. With fiat currency, money has value because we think it has value. With the gold standard, money has value because gold has value because we think it has value.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Actually it is government spending.
[info]mr_feathertop
2008-10-01 08:10 pm UTC (link)
Nice post. Unfortunately, the modern Econ 101 book does not contain the elucidation that you believe it does. Having taken it in the 90's and looking at my daughter's textbooks, I can tell you that it is more socialist theory than anything else. It presents tradition econ, such as the fact of there being no such thing as a free lunch, as a theory or viewpoint that is set against socialist constructs like their understanding of marginal value. (That money is more valuable in the hands of the poor, and therefore, the redistribution of money increases overall wealth.) So instead of being taught the truth of economics, the students are asked to to choose an ideology and then construct theories around its central tenants.

While I agree that over a long period of time, a gold standard type currency is less inflationary, it is quite volatile and will have a great deal of inflation and deflation. I have been convinced, however, that long term inflation is caused by government spending, whether the money is from taxes, borrowing, or inflation. The statistical correlations I saw were pretty impressive. In essence, the government is competing with private buyers for goods and services, which drives up prices--it is artificial demand.

Ironically, inflation transfers wealth from people without physical assets (not loans) investments to people with such assent investments. Inflation causes wages and savings to decrease in value and property to increase in value. Given that rich people tend to have such assets, government spending seems to hurt the poor and help the rich.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jordan179
2008-09-27 05:03 am UTC (link)
First, why is it that no one is speaking of the causes of the crisis?

I am guessing that the Democrats don't want Clinton's responsibility for the mandate to make bad loans to be discussed, while the Republicans' big-business wing doesn't want to talk about the responsibility of the firms themselves for making other bad decisions.

During the Great Depression the malinvestment was in stocks; here, in mortgages.

... and remember that the stock crash of 1929 was preceded by an earlier real estate crash.

To add insult to injury, there was also peculation from political leaders, who looted the banking system for campaign funds, or just for funds. The very people who caused this problem -- it is one hundred per cent pure quill nothing but state intervention in the free market that caused it -- are the ones now vowing to fix it. And to fix it how? By massive state intervention.

One might, indeed, describe this as a dubiously-legal quid pro quo. The banking system financed the politicians, who are now returning the favor by saving the bankers. The upper management is getting out of it all right; so are the depositors. The real losers are the stockholders and to some extent the lesser employees.

To add evil to insult, the voices in the mainstream media – degraded to a mere propaganda organ from what was once a high estate of truth-seeking journalism – are calling for punishment and retribution for the wrongdoing — wait for it!— against Wall Street and from the state! As if, having been poisoned by a witch, and treated by a doctor, we then ask, if our health fails, to have the witch punish the doctor!

Well put.

Ludwig von Mises over half a century ago proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, that a little intervention in one sector of the economy creates an incentive for a lot of intervention in ever larger sections of the economy; and the government must forswear either the goals it has set as policy or the means selected to pursue them to resist, if ever, that incentive, and suffer the humiliation and financial loss of reversing long-standing policy.

... and what we are seeing here is a textbook case of such a sequence of events.





(Reply to this)


[info]xander25
2008-09-27 07:28 am UTC (link)
"Abolish Freddie and Fanny; abolish the Federal Reserve Board; return to the gold standard; remove government incentives for unwise bank loans; let banks that unwisely lend go bankrupt. If you want, at the same time, to goose the economy, then let us by all means the abolish all capital gains tax, and abolish estate taxes, abolish the income tax."

This is the main reason I was so appreciative of Ron Paul.

(Reply to this)


[info]baduin
2008-09-27 12:52 pm UTC (link)
You are showing here only a half of the truth. The other half is that great corporations are directed by people interested only in their quarter or yearly premium, and willing to destroy the corporation to get it.

More generally, you are confusing two things:

1. Problems created by government-supported mortgages, fiat money, term transformation, fractional reserve banking system and the central bank keeping rates artificially low. This certainly distorts the pricing system a great deal. For details, see
Ron Paul, and also
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/01/straightforward-explanation-of-present.html
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/02/return-to-castle-goldenstein-gold.html
www.mises.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/

2. Problems caused by the INSUFFICIENT supervision of the financial system. It should be obvious to all by now that the modern financial system can work only under the strictest supervision of the state authorities. Whenever that supervision starts to slack, we get bubbles and crashes, Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, and the like. See South Sea Bubble, Savings&Loans, etc. It is rather obvious that financial regulation has been loosened a great deal lately.

I suggest the following blog. I will quote a somewhat long, but interesting post:

http://suddendebt.blogspot.com/
"Free markets (in this case financial markets, since they are my area of expertise) without tight regulation to even out the playing field as much as possible, rapidly deteriorate towards crony capitalism, i.e. a particularly virulent form of junglenomics. US financial markets were the envy of the world because a whole array of professional regulators (SEC, NASD, NYSE, FRB, etc) stood ready to send in the feds and bodily carry out manacled perps, in full view of their co-workers and the cameras.

No, it didn't always work out as it should have and many a big fish swam away leaving the minnows to fry in the pan. But mostly it worked, and the markets were the better for it. This is no longer the case and dominant positions now exist (or existed) unchecked in most markets and crony capitalism makes itself evident in many aspects of the US economy (Enron, for example).

Some people sadly still confuse freedom with total lack of regulation, thinking oversight interferes with a "natural" right to do as they please. In that case, their proper place is up in the mountains with the rest of the wild animals (Aristotle had something to say about them, people who do not wish to participate in a cohesive society and be bound by its rules). Others place absolute faith in the invisible hand, thinking it will even out everything all by itself. To my mind, they belong to the Flat Earth Society.

No doubt, they in turn will paint me a "commie", showing a complete lack of understanding about what communism is all about. Well, both communism and absolute laissez-faire don't work - in practice - because they both disregard human nature: man is no saint. He will no more gladly share everything he has with his fellow than he won't fall prey to unfettered greed for individual gain.

Free market capitalism is not antithetical to the common good - quite the contrary; it is just that human nature will always be governed by extremes of fear and greed and behavior must be governed by checks and balances, for everyone's benefit. Likewise for democracy, which can all too easily deteriorate towards mob rule or fascism, a fact understood very well by the writers of the Constitution. It is extremism that I rail against, not freedom.

Bottom line: excellence in market regulation leads to better and freer markets. And please... do not confuse quality with quantity, from either perspective: more is not better, but neither is less. Smarter, more effective, more efficient... that's better."

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]marycatelli
2008-09-27 05:39 pm UTC (link)
Except what incentive does the government oversight have to check Ponzi schemes, etc.? The biggest Ponzi scheme going is the Social Security system.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]baduin
2008-09-27 08:40 pm UTC (link)
A good government would have all the incentive in the world. It will blow up the state in the end, and the government with it. The fact that democratic governments don't care about the future survival is the problem with democracy, not with governments. You won't solve it by closing the Social Security system - which is anyway impossible in a democracy.

That is why I prefer monarchy - but I don't intend to try to put it into practice.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]marycatelli
2008-09-27 09:12 pm UTC (link)
A good government would have all the incentive in the world.

If that were true, we wouldn't be in this pickle. Because incentives work whether the government is good or bad.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]baduin
2008-09-27 10:25 pm UTC (link)
And here we disagree. You apparently hold Kant's position from "Perpetual Peace":

http://www.constitution.org/kant/1stsup.htm
"The problem of organizing a state, however hard it may seem, can be solved even for a race of devils, if only they are intelligent. The problem is: "Given a multitude of rational beings requiring universal laws for their preservation, but each of whom is secretly inclined to exempt himself from them, to establish a constitution in such a way that, although their private intentions conflict, they check each other, with the result that their public conduct is the same as if they had no such intentions."

And I disagree with it. There is no substitute for honest men, and certainly no mechanical "incentive" will do that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]marycatelli
2008-09-28 03:13 pm UTC (link)
Forgive me for dealing with real and not imaginary people.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sun_stealer
2008-09-30 04:47 am UTC (link)
My opinion of Kant has improved.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]sun_stealer
2008-09-30 04:50 am UTC (link)
Sorry to double post, I clicked too early. All I knew about Kant was the circular logic of his do your duty because it is your duty to do your duty morality. If I had known he had good ideas, I would've read more of his works.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]howling_wolf
2008-09-28 07:07 pm UTC (link)
Having to shell out $700 billion for every bail-out it will have to undertake without proper regulation looks like good incentive.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]baduin
2008-09-27 12:53 pm UTC (link)
The only way to eliminate the regulation of fractional reserve banking and the insurance industry is the total elimination of fractional reserve banking and insurance. More thoughtful libertarians certainly advocate it:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html

Rothbard's quote: "The nineteenth-century English economist Thomas Tooke correctly stated that "free trade in banking is tantamount to free trade in swindling."

Don't forget that the so called "Credit Default Swaps" are simply insurance contracts which were exempted from necessary regulation because of criminal complicity of authorities. ALL insupervised insurance, except for mutual insurance, historically ended by setting too low reserve level and getting shortly bankrupt. If you want a fictional version, I suggest Anthony Trollope, The Way We Live Now

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5231/5231-h/5231-h.htm

The only kind of insurance which can function without extremely tight regulation is mutual insurance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

There is also mutual banking:

http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm

Both mutual insurance and mutual banking require much less - but certainly some! - regulation. (The mutual banking has also an additional benefit - it can easily be made complicit with Sharia - and this can be useful in our brave new world.)

But consider what that change in the financial system means : it means blowing up the world as we know it and constructiong the new one from the rubble. This is a rather dangerous experiment. The last one attempt was made by communists, and they proved more adept at blowing things up than at constructing new.

To speak more generally, the free market is good at providing non-essential things. When there is something that is absolutely necessary for survival, the free market offers you the way to get that thing for cheap now - and when the terms of trade change to be left without and to die. For the results of the orthodox free market way of solving food crises, see the Great Hunger in Ireland. Government did nothing, and the market balanced itself, as it always does. The demand for food fell to the level of existing supply. In lay terms, people died or emigrated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Hunger

No civilised country allows free trade in food products (perhaps some small food exporters are an exception?), and not many have done so historically. Those that allowed free trade in food were mostly food exporting countries. And England during XIX century - but they paid for it during the first and second WW.

Similarly, there is no free trade in oil, in weapons etc. Since the modern finance industry have proved necessary for the survival of modern economy, there can be no "free trade" in financial industry. You can either eliminate the modern finance industry, so that not one firm is "too great to fall" or regulate it tightly.

And remember - the fact that something was regulated badly doesn't prove that it shouldn't be regulated at all. Generally, what is necessary is good regulation in places where it is needed.

People who speek in general about "more regulation" or "less regulation" are like Procrustes who was fitting his guests to his bed. Communist had a very long bed, and needed a rack to stretch the patient. Libertarians have a very short bed, and need an axe to cut his head off.

For myself, I prefer good regulation where it is necessary. It doesn't sound as exicting, and in fact can seem casuistic, pedantic and nit-picking. But in practice the great, ideal solutions tend to bring few benefits and loads of bodies.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]marycatelli
2008-09-27 05:37 pm UTC (link)
The problem is that once you let loose regulation, it acts like a dog: according to its nature, not yours. There is no way to ensure it remains good.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]baduin
2008-09-27 08:35 pm UTC (link)
You know, there is no independent entity called "regulation". Certainly, the government tends to expand, and to overregulate, and the bureaucrats collude with the people they are supposed to regulate, so the regulation stops to work. (Moreover, in the long term we all will be dead.)

That is the reason why from time to time people invent some perfect system which will work independently of the people who take part in it. The communists are clearly mad - their systems won't work for reasons obvious to anyone knowing a bit of economy.

The libertarians are better for two reasons - their ideal systems are much nearer to reality, so by studying them you can learn a lot about the way things function. Moreover, their systems won't be put into practice for reasons obvious to anyone knowing a bit of politics. For that reason the damage they can inflict is limited. (A few trillion dollars is nothing compared to the mountains of dead).

I seldom hear lavish praises heaped on the Chinese for their free market practices in production of milk formula.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12262271

Strangely enough, most people prefer that the evil government regulators prevent poisoned milk from being sold in the shops. They don't understand that the free market works much better than any regulation: all children eating poisoned milk formula will die, the producent will be left with no buyers and will go bankrupt. A beautiful example of free market in action!

More seriously, any free market solution requires an immense amount of government regulation. Without regulation, there will be no free market. You will be too afraid to buy from aliens, and will buy only from friends and relatives.

People understand this good enough with regard to everyday things. That is why you don't hear anyone protesting the regulation of food industry - although it is certainly not perfect and there is a great deal of corruption, cronyism etc in it.

But nobody knows anything about the financial industry. That is the reason that from time to time someone pretends to believe libertarian theories and introduced some "liberalisation of financial industry". After a few years you get an enormous crisis. See Savings&Loans.

This cannot work for quite obvious economic reasons - and true libertarians know it quite well. I suggest you read Rothbard's essay:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html

He explains why the modern financial industry cannot function at all without the regulation. His solution is to close down the modern financial industry. That would certainly work, but I don't know the aftereffects.

I would only like to suggests that the only civilisation which doesn't in principle allow banking is the Islamic one. (Christians managed to dilute their objections to nothing - a clear example of the triumph of reality over scripture). I myself like to think that the financial industry is really unnecessary, and that for example the mutual system would work better. Perhaps yes, perhaps not - are you brave enough to try?

There was a joke about Marx and Lenin - some old peasant in a communist country is listening to a lecture about scientific socialism, stands up and says: "Marx and Lenin were not scientists?" "How so? They created the science of communism, as opposed to the earlier utopian etc.." "The scientists experiment on rats first."

So, if you intend to overthrow the modern world and to build something better in its place, I suggest you try it on the rats first.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]marycatelli
2008-09-27 09:11 pm UTC (link)
You know, there is no independent entity called "regulation".

Yes, that's the problem you're evading.

Strangely enough, most people prefer that the evil government regulators prevent poisoned milk from being sold in the shops.

He says, having blithely overlooked that not only is he lying through his teeth, he is doing so in an obvious matter.

Have you no shame? You link to an article that refutes you. So far from the "free market practices" you claim it represent, China had the regulations you are singing the praises of. They had the food-and-drug administration you say they needed.

And the evil government regulators did nothing to prevent it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]baduin
2008-09-27 10:40 pm UTC (link)
There is no need to get incensed. I don't like to explain everything in too great detail; it can easily get boring.

But, in this case I will try to be precise.

1) In a well known case, in China (which is commonly known as a communist, not a libertarian country) there was sold poisoned milk formula. This was caused both by dishonest producer, and by badly working regulatory institution.

2) Nobody suggested, however, that the regulation be removed; to the contrary, there was demand for increased and more thorough regulation. My supposed "libertarian" opinion was voiced by none; that was actually the point.

3) This is in contrast to the response of some people to the present crisis.

4) But, actually, the true libertarians, including our host, know that the present financial industry requires very extensive regulation. They propose the changes to the financial industry which would make the regulation much less necessary.

5) I actually tend to agree with them, but I am somewhat afraid of that kind of large-scale experiments. There is only one world economy, and if the theory will prove to be false, recreating it would be somewhat difficult.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]m_francis
2008-09-30 09:38 pm UTC (link)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/3096660/China-milk-scandal-lawyers-threatened.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sun_stealer
2008-09-30 04:58 am UTC (link)
Jokes are not improved when you replace the middle with "yada yada yada."

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sun_stealer
2008-09-30 04:54 am UTC (link)
"But consider what that change in the financial system means : it means blowing up the world as we know it and constructiong the new one from the rubble."

Good news, the economy should collapse into year zero a few months from now. Everybody wins.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

activists
[info]marycatelli
2008-09-27 05:34 pm UTC (link)
A pity we couldn't pass a law requiring any activist who whines that the poor are being shut out of the housing market must go into the loan business within ninety days to amend this problem, or shut up forever on the grounds they are incompetent to have an opinion. . . .

Given that they bear a great deal of the blame -- the government didn't decide to punish banks who didn't lend to black by refusing to let them open branches and the like -- it's a real pity they will certainly escape all punishment now.

Indeed, I have heard a proposal that some of the money garnered from the assests the government seized be plowed back into the sort of activist group that instigiated the problem. Which surpasses a pity of any size.

(Reply to this)


[info]ndrosen
2008-09-27 07:43 pm UTC (link)
Mr. Wright, I think there's quite a bit of truth in what you say. I can join you in condemning the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, inflation of fiat currency, and so on. But there's another problem which usually goes unaddressed, and that's land. I've tried to explain how and why land speculation contributed to the meltdown on Wall Street http://ndrosen.livejournal.com/206484.html. May I suggest reading that, and also, you should read about Henry George, and also read his books. He was an economic thinker who wrote like an angel.

(Reply to this)


[info]oscillon
2008-09-28 07:01 pm UTC (link)
"In short, they are the Dems."
Hmm... Gold Standard revoked --- Nixon 1971 (to allow us to continue to fund Vietnam without really paying for it)
Pressing Fannie may to drop lending standrds --- Bush
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm
Running federal deficits and spending to all time highs - Bush (To allow a trillon dollar war with money borrowed from the Chinese among other things)
And now we are watching the most intensive series of interventions into the free market in history by a republican president but somehow it is all the democrats fault. The Orren Boyles and Wesley Mouch's of the world seem pretty evenly spread across both parties. The blind partisan defense of political parties allows them to operate.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]arhyalon
2008-09-29 01:15 pm UTC (link)
A really good point.

It's important to remember that the Republicans are not the Conservatives!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(44 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…