Ron Paul Atreides posted:Actually, that makes me curious, has Jrod ever talked about the 2008 crash? I don't see what the need is. Here, I will present his argument for him. (1) Statist interventions helped to cause the crisis by creating bad incentives that lead to the bubble through house-purchasing incentives, interest rate manipulation and giving bailouts to banks (moral hazard); these incentives would not happen without a central manipulating authority with monopoly control of a fiat currency. (2) Bailouts are indicative of crony capitalism with the banks who rely on the state to survive and would not survive in a free market without a state. Of course, the first half of both of these statements are true, but it's by no means all of the story and the conclusions are severely lacking. I have often considered a libertarian gimmick account that puts libertarian arguments better than Jrod just to make this thread punchier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:I don't see what the need is. Here, I will present his argument for him. Actually they're almost entirely true they just say nothing about other good things the state does or how the market alone, literally absent a state, would handle the same situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 16:46
|
|
asdf32 posted:Actually they're almost entirely true they just say nothing about other good things the state does or how the market alone, literally absent a state, would handle the same situation. No, not having a central bank would not have made the situation better, nor would having currency competition. In fact, it's arguable there was too much pseudo-money floating around in the banking system. Voila: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repurchase_agreement Moreover, the argument at (2) is implied to be a good thing, when I think it's apparent that permitting bank runs and not doing bailouts is a disastrous policy. The causal claims are all true, but not self-sufficiently. There's another story to do with deregulation and psychotic and fraudulent banking practices that is totally absent from that libertarian standard history I provided.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:No, not having a central bank would not have made the situation better, nor would having currency competition. In fact, it's arguable there was too much pseudo-money floating around in the banking system. Voila: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repurchase_agreement You didn't say "not having a central bank would make things better" you said "these incentives would not happen without a central manipulating authority with monopoly control of a fiat currency." - while the phrase "manipulating authority" could have been chosen differently, the statement is basically still exactly correct. The point is that it's important to be able to stare problems in the face and not run wildly into the arms of a different, possibly worse problem.. Libertarianism does exactly that with every problem in government. They're not necessarily wrong in their criticism, but the conclusions are wildly off-base.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:17
|
|
asdf32 posted:You didn't say "not having a central bank would make things better" you said "these incentives would not happen without a central manipulating authority with monopoly control of a fiat currency." - while the phrase "manipulating authority" could have been chosen differently, the statement is basically still exactly correct. No I'm p. sure there would be worse bubbles and runs without the central bank. There would be even worse incentive structures at work, I imagine, they just wouldn't be so centrally-housed and easily corrected.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:No I'm p. sure there would be worse bubbles and runs without the central bank. There would be even worse incentive structures at work, I imagine, they just wouldn't be so centrally-housed and easily corrected. Also not disagreeing with that. That doesn't mean that the recent bubble, as it played out, wasn't influenced by government incentives however.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:37
|
|
asdf32 posted:Also not disagreeing with that. That doesn't mean that the recent bubble, as it played out, wasn't influenced by government incentives however. A view accepted by the entire political spectrum as far as I know.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:A view accepted by the entire political spectrum as far as I know. Not me, I reject any implication that the governments lack of regulation in an area makes it a moral imperative for the markets to act on that opening and exploit it. Why libertarianism doesn't work.txt
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:55
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Not me, I reject any implication that the governments lack of regulation in an area makes it a moral imperative for the markets to act on that opening and exploit it. Yeah but they often apply the reverse logic to interest rates.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Actually, that makes me curious, has Jrod ever talked about the 2008 crash? Government distorting the market and giving free "money" to
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Government distorting the market and giving free "money" to And the Goldman Sachs derivatives specifically designed to obfuscate the nature of the investment loan? Is that just ignored or on the banks for not doing their due diligence on the investment sold by the mega monolith with a previously sterling reputation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:Actually, that makes me curious, has Jrod ever talked about the 2008 crash? I took a quick ctrl-f through his history in this thread, and it turns out that he has addressed 2008 several times, on one specific topic: the (incorrect) fact that Austrians warned us of the housing bubble and subsequent crash while non-Austrians did not. His evidence for the Austrians is usually that Peter Schiff or someone similar who constantly predicts immanent collapse happened to do so around the right time for the crash, usually also predicting Weimar-style hyperinflation. His evidence that filthy Keynesians failed to predict it was (as best as I can tell) do a search for Krugman editorials that contained the word "housing" and post them as proof without reading any of them. Several of the articles he listed as evidence for Krugman saying housing isn't in a bubble were literally "there's a housing bubble right now, and it's going to be super bad when it bursts" in like 2003-4, but we can deduce from first principles that he must have been wrong, so there isn't any need to address or read the actual content of his editorials.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
To adapt a classic burn used against another libertarian poster, years ago: Oh no, it's someone who knows something about anything, how did they know Jrod's one weakness?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Oh yes, can we please talk about the 2008 crash more? That's way more interesting than all the vaccine stuff. Speaking of which, I always hear about the effects interest rates had on the crash. Which interest rates are people referring to exactly (I believe there's more than one kind that the Fed tinkers with) and is there a historical table that has that info over the decades?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Oh yes, can we please talk about the 2008 crash more? That's way more interesting than all the vaccine stuff. The one being talked about when people talk about "Interest rates" is usually the Federal Funds Rate. This is the rate at which banks trade balances held at the federal reserve, and serves in many ways as a benchmark rate to which all other investments are compared, similar to LIBOR.  This chart is as close as I can find to a historical table, and more or less shows the problem. Interest rates in general dropped into the toilet in the 2000 era, which caused people to take their money elsewhere in search of profitable investments since yeilds on US Treasury bonds likewise went down to the 1-3% mark. Banks started throwing together CDO products and selling them like mad, and the market loved that poo poo since it was easy money. Eventually they ran out of people to sell houses to who were qualified, but no one wanted to admit the game was over so they just cut lending standards over and over until they were giving houses to literal corpses knowing full well that they weren't going to be responsible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
The point is the Fed is supposed to ratchet the rate up to make borrowing more expensive so people don't work themselves in to gigantic housing bubbles, but Greenspan did the opposite because that way the economy looks great right until the moment it doesn't. There wasn't even much stopping the Fed, since there wasn't especially low (or high) inflation and even a small move makes a big difference.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:The one being talked about when people talk about "Interest rates" is usually the Federal Funds Rate. This is the rate at which banks trade balances held at the federal reserve, and serves in many ways as a benchmark rate to which all other investments are compared, similar to LIBOR. Ah, much obliged!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Ah, much obliged! If you haven't read it, get your hands on a copy of Matt Taibbi's "Griftopia". Also get a bottle of bourbon, you're going to need that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Caros posted:If you haven't read it, get your hands on a copy of Matt Taibbi's "Griftopia". Also get a bottle of bourbon, you're going to need that. Oh most definitely. It's been on my "to buy" list for the longest time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Oh most definitely. It's been on my "to buy" list for the longest time. Don't forget the bourbon. I can't stress that enough. The book will seem pretty okay at first, but about halfway through you'll want a drink. Also god help you if you even try to look at his followup book without a glass in your hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The point is the Fed is supposed to ratchet the rate up to make borrowing more expensive so people don't work themselves in to gigantic housing bubbles, but Greenspan did the opposite because that way the economy looks great right until the moment it doesn't. There wasn't even much stopping the Fed, since there wasn't especially low (or high) inflation and even a small move makes a big difference. I.e. Greenspan was a big old dummy
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
I was watching the latest segment by John Oliver about the tobacco industry, and it was yet another example of why we need somebody to watch over companies. Philip Morris has no problem with selling cigarettes to actual children in third world countries. If companies like that have no moral issues with doing such things, then there's really not a lot of morality companies like that have to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I was watching the latest segment by John Oliver about the tobacco industry, and it was yet another example of why we need somebody to watch over companies. Philip Morris has no problem with selling cigarettes to actual children in third world countries. If companies like that have no moral issues with doing such things, then there's really not a lot of morality companies like that have to begin with. corporations are by definition sociopathic because they only give PR lip service to the extent that it supports their primary goal, to make profit libertarians really hate it when you point out that they worship and idolize sociopaths
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
At least Objectivists own it and build a whole morality around worshiping sociopaths instead of trying to pretend their ideal society won't starve the children of poverty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Apparently Kevin Sorbo is not only a hardcore religious conservative, he's also an AnCap/Libertarian. As are Tuvok and Ensign Kim; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT2kVRKSyU8 I have never been more disappointed that I cannot watch a terrible film than I am at this moment. Jrod, please write for us a review of this amazing movie. I am sure you have seen it, because Ron Paul has endorsed it. Edit: Also, yes, those are FEMA agents with the shoulder-lights and Firetruck horns. Rhjamiz fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
I don't care what terrible opinions Kevin Sorbo has, Poolboy 2: Drowning Out The Fury will always be the greatest movie in my heart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
I figured they were all just desperate for work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Dammit Hercules, what would Zeus say!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Is one of the news segments announcing gold being withdrawn from Ft Knox? I mean $400 billion of gold isn't chump change, but come on the banks stole more than that during the financial crisis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Apparently Kevin Sorbo is not only a hardcore religious conservative, he's also an AnCap/Libertarian. As are Tuvok and Ensign Kim; I think Tim Russ and Garrat Wang both like having food in their stomachs and a roof to sleep under.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/18/thats_something_that_should_make_libertarians_nervous_inside_the_tumultuous_rise_of_an_american_ideology/ "Power is the ability to force people to do things they don’t want to do. I don’t think corporations have that kind of power." Apparently corporations cannot coerce.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:"Power is the ability to force people to do things they don’t want to do. I don’t think corporations have that kind of power." any time you create joinder with a corporation by being employed, buying their product you establish implied affirmative consent
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is one of the news segments announcing gold being withdrawn from Ft Knox? That was worthless fiat, in the future you'll only be able to buy Bitcoins with gold bars and that's why the banks are withdrawing gold
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I was watching the latest segment by John Oliver about the tobacco industry, and it was yet another example of why we need somebody to watch over companies. Philip Morris has no problem with selling cigarettes to actual children in third world countries. If companies like that have no moral issues with doing such things, then there's really not a lot of morality companies like that have to begin with. Would jrode actually see this as a bad thing? In a truly free society, peoples of all ages should be able to enjoy the cool taste of menthol without men with guns infringing on that liberty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
I suspect that it'll be more "Obviously cigarettes are bad for children and I don't support it, but have you looked at the open research questions? I had a cigarette as a child and I turned out fine. We should let the market figure out the natural alternatives to cigarettes."
Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Feb 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
I'm not sure jrod has enough life experience to have smoked a cigarette.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:Apparently Kevin Sorbo is not only a hardcore religious conservative, he's also an AnCap/Libertarian. As are Tuvok and Ensign Kim; This movie should really clue you in...
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
What is Jrod's view of Rand Paul starring in a Homophobic documentary?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:What is Jrod's view of Rand Paul starring in a Homophobic documentary? Rand Paul is in it, ergo it's not homophobic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Uroboros posted:This movie should really clue you in... Oh, like, I said, I already knew he was a religious nut (thanks to that movie). I just didn't know he leaned AnCap too. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2015 23:52
|
|