Nice calm conversation.

Senator Al Franken. I just like saying that!

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by NetRunner.

Ahhh, so that's what a reasonable political discussion sounds like...

Statists like Fraken don't believe in individual liberty and the required risks that real freedom entails.

But you knew that when this never-funny clown stole the election.

i have been wondering when i was going to hear al fraken have something to say about this.

and you can see the teabaggers start to loose interest in his rational thorough explaination.
they dont want this. they want emotional rhetoric in 30 second clips.

And they thought he was only good for comedy. He sounded pretty knowledge, and patient around people right there. Tough subject matter, made worst, when the audience lives on sound bits of lies and misinformation. That crowd there, seemed hostile at the start, and started calming down as time progressed. If the fear and misinformation is taken out of the problem, the problem is easily managable and understood.

But I would like quantumushroom to tell all of us want 'real freedom' entails. Or is he getting at Animal Farm? "All the animals are equal, but some are more equal" ('Animal Farm', George Orwell).

I think those people QM, got some real freedom. They got to see our goverment at work, and in their presence, speaking to them.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Statists like Fraken don't believe in individual liberty and the required risks that real freedom entails.

For once I agree with you, but I'd argue that most Americans do not want the risks that absolute liberty entails. Absolute liberty is a situation where every man is for himself, and only the strong and lucky survive. The whole advantage of forming governments is to create a more civil and just society, one where even the weak and infirm have rights.

You may think it's okay to simply let the poor and weak suffer and die, but I promise you, you will some day be in that class yourself. And then you will finally value the compassion of others.

I love how being a comedian is supposed to make you in-eligible for public office, but being in public office makes you legitimate.

Of the people, by the people, for the people. See how the people can speak reasonably to each other when reasonable people represent us?

Norm Coleman wouldn't have had this conversation with someone who opposes him.

^ The people of Minnesota sort of disproved the claim that being a comedian makes you ineligible. Now we're just seeing how right they were.

This video should be titled: How to Talk Crap Calmly Enough to Bore People Out of Politics

>> entr0py:
For once I agree with you, but I'd argue that most Americans do not want the risks that absolute liberty entails. Absolute liberty is a situation where every man is for himself, and only the strong and lucky survive. The whole advantage of forming governments is to create a more civil and just society, one where even the weak and infirm have rights.

QM didn't say "absolute liberty", he said "individual liberty", which means keeping liberties at the level of individuals, so one individual won't have more liberties or privileges than another, at the expense of another, which is the case when government takes money from Peter and hands it to Paul.

I agree the reason we need governments has to do with civility: Keeping people from using force against each other. The problem is when government does that itself, and ours does that a lot. It's supposed to repress violence, not practice it. Your definition of a "just society" seems mostly based on one person being forced to provide for another against their will.

You may think it's okay to simply let the poor and weak suffer and die, but I promise you, you will some day be in that class yourself. And then you will finally value the compassion of others.

Compassion is about giving voluntarily, not forcing people to give through government, which is the opposite of compassion.

If you subsidize poverty, you'll just get more of it. If you save people from risks, they'll tend to become reckless and irresponsible.

*doublepromote
it probably doesn't need it but this video has given me a new appreciation for Al Franken.
I havn't really followed his political career so this was all I had to go by:

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, September 4th, 2009 3:11pm PDT - doublepromote requested by JiggaJonson.

What a sad time we live in when calm, rational discussion has to be pointed out and celebrated.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Statists like Fraken don't believe in individual liberty and the required risks that real freedom entails.
But you knew that when this never-funny clown stole the election.


Yeah heaven forbid that everyone be given the opportunities to succeed in life without being constantly terrified of getting sick and losing everything they've worked for.

Funny how Franken stole his election, but Bush won fair and square. Did you suffer a massive head trauma when you were young or were you born this stupid?

>> ^gtjwkq
Your definition of a "just society" seems mostly based on one person being forced to provide for another against their will.


That statement is exactly what's wrong with the teabaggers and conservative in general. You all seem to think that it's a one for one exchange, you get screwed because you're getting someone else's bills. Here's a simple analogy so you can understand the concept without straining too hard.

You have ten people going out to lunch. Lunch costs 5$. Occasionally someone forgets their wallet or is short, so the rest of the group pools their money, and picks up lunch for that person. So while everyone is out 60 cents extra, they can safely know that if they're short one day they'll get their lunch taken care of by the rest of the group.

Conservatives are happy to receive the free lunch as long as they don't have to pay the pittance to give someone else a meal.

The goals of a society should be betterment of the whole, through group effort; not individual accumulation of wealth. Conservatives need to get over their greed.

The tea parties were around before Health Care Reform.

Its was about tax reform! Until the far right started to dilute the parties with stupid.

Insulting some one or a group of people you disagree with is detrimental to your cause.

Anyone who says "Teabaggers", "Liberal Wingnuts", or "Conservative Dingbats" will no longer get my ear.


Lastly the current health care system is bogus, because of bad incentives! I cannot say it enough. The whole of America is corrupted by bad incentives.

Lets take this fictive, or not so fictive example. Some one has a cancer, a rather aggressive cancer. But they are showing excellent resilience despite all of the medications, and photon beams. They are due for a treatment, but the pharmacist wont fill the prescription, because the pharmacist isn't sure he will get paid. Because of the insurance companies policy: You do not get paid until the full script is given.

Its both the pharmacists fault, and the insurance companies fault, its bad incentives and selfish tactics. The nature of a bargain is usually this: you don't pay for something until it is all received.

The insurance company is being selfish, and the Pharmacist is selfish. Bad business and bad ethics. Its not necessarily the system as a whole but the people working in the system. Its the decisions the people in the system make while faced with bad incentives.

Ill tell you all a secret: Good business is created by unselfish practices. You provide the service, and then once the service is complete you receive payment. If you do not then you take it to a Civil Court. That is good business and what the Civil Courts are for.

The question is will any of this change with the coming health care reform? Probably not. Humans will act as humans do. A few will stand up for what they think is right, given their frames of reference.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
The tea parties were around before Health Care Reform.
Its was about tax reform! Until the far right started to dilute the parties with stupid.
Insulting some one or a group of people you disagree with is detrimental to your cause.
Anyone who says "Teabaggers", "Liberal Wingnuts", or "Conservative Dingbats" will no longer get my ear.

The woman in the video wears a T-Shirt that says "Taxed Enough Already Party". She identifies herself as a Teabagger.

unfortunately Senator Franken won't be there to dispel every piece of misinformation these people digest, and they'll probably get some chain email in a week that convinces them Franken's not even an U.S. Senator

>> ^HollywoodBob:
You have ten people going out to lunch. Lunch costs 5$. Occasionally someone forgets their wallet or is short, so the rest of the group pools their money, and picks up lunch for that person. So while everyone is out 60 cents extra, they can safely know that if they're short one day they'll get their lunch taken care of by the rest of the group.

The ten people pooling for the guy who forgot his wallet is a great concept and I'm ok with it. However, there are many incentives against abuse in that setting because money is being contributed voluntarily. Also, no money is being wasted in your example, because there isn't someone mismanaging all the money and overcharging for their monopoly over the "food insurance" service.

Conservatives are happy to receive the free lunch as long as they don't have to pay the pittance to give someone else a meal.

I'm not a conservative. There's no such thing as a free lunch because someone's always paying for it, and a free lunch provided by government will tend to cost a lot more than lunch paid by charity.

Society prospers the most if individuals are free to cooperate with each other voluntarily. If government steps in trying to force people to help each other, you're instituting injustice, not just because money is being taken forcibly, but because it won't tend to be applied as productively as it would were people convinced voluntarily to apply it on their own, guided by their self-interests.

The goals of a society should be betterment of the whole, through group effort; not individual accumulation of wealth.

In a free society, an individual accumulates wealth by being productive, you can only be productive by helping others, by honestly convincing them to give you money in exchange for some service. On the other hand, in a social liberal society, you end up with more government, and that *actually* means individuals accumulating wealth at the expense of others, because people get their money taken from them forcibly.

If you think society's prosperity should be attained at the expense of some individuals, you're missing the point that society IS a bunch of individuals. Society isn't better off, it's worse off when you institute injustice.

Conservatives need to get over their greed.

You need to get over your fake moral high ground. You're the one being greedy if you want to take people's money because you think you can spend it more wisely. Either that or you're just another sucker rooting for thieves.

you can only be productive by helping others, by honestly convincing them to give you money in exchange for some service

Come now.....this is demonstrably not true. There are plenty of recent high visibility counter-examples.

"I'm not a conservative. There's no such thing as a free lunch because someone's always paying for it, and a free lunch provided by government will tend to cost a lot more than lunch paid by charity."

Sounds like a generalization, and not fact. There is structure within the goverment (local, state, and federal) to over see, and keep an accurate report of funds being spent. When this number rises rapidly by unknown reasons, people examine it closely and make changes as needed. The Goverment Accounting Office, is one such cog in the workings of the machine. And yes, strange as it might sound, most charities are not as aefficient as the US Goverment when doing things. In addition, if you, the citizen dislike what is happening, you can sue the goverment (under the 1st Amendment) or talk to your representative or senator.

"Society prospers the most if individuals are free to cooperate with each other voluntarily."

Society discintigrates the most if individuals are free to kill/mame/maul with each other voluntarily. As we saw with civil rights in The South, during the 1870-1960s. The KKK ran around torching black churchs and houses, murdering people. So yes, Society can be designed for individuals, but for the purpose of destruction of some, for the betterment of others. Like the Nazis of Germany before WW2 broke out. Or the groups operating in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's time, or Iran at current.

"In a free society, an individual accumulates wealth by being productive, you can only be productive by helping others, by honestly convincing them to give you money in exchange for some service."

What planet do you spend more of your time on?

The concept of a free society, is one based entirely on philsophy and fiction. The moment reality sets in, the free society is destroyed. We Americans have MANY examples of individuals who got their wealth, not through the betterment of others, or by being honest and giving their services in exchange. No, the ones that made the big bucks did things that were neither legal nor ethical at the time. Since, to be illegal, there would have to be a legal to begin with, right? For something to be unethical, first, there has to be an ehtical standard.

J.P. Morgan did it, Bill Gates did it, Even Mr. G. W. Bush did it. Unlike the fantasy of a society you believe we live in, the reality is rather plain: We live in the Rule of Law. Laws are created and enforced, because past examples and events turn to show how people, left to their own morals (or usually lack any moral code) have unleashed misery, destruction, and predatory visions of a future on the people and land around them. Without well structured laws, this free society you claim you live in, would not exist. Laws can be created with good or bad intentions, as well ass, carried out and executed for good or bad. The President, I would bet good money on, has good intentions, and the will to make sure the law past will be for the good of America.

The concept of Health Care for all Americans is a good one. We can easily pay for it. If we can pay for Iraq ($3 trillion and climbing now...), we can pay for Health Care for 330 million people. Now, if an individual has better, or they like their health coverage, that's fine. This concept only gives people an option.

Just remeber, that unlike railroads, auto industry and even the steel industry, there is NO, anti-trust laws in effect for Health Care in the USA. That means, the health care companies could secretly pass your information between each other, and jake up the price you pay out of pocket. That's perfectly legal, even though its totally dishonest. But for-profit health care companies are just that....the least effort for the most buck. They are not there, for the betterment of mankind, only their kind. I think we saw what happens when we go easy on financial rules during the Bush Administration and Wall Street companies. Do we really need this sort of crap with Health Care?

>> ^demon_ix:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
The tea parties were around before Health Care Reform.
Its was about tax reform! Until the far right started to dilute the parties with stupid.
Insulting some one or a group of people you disagree with is detrimental to your cause.
Anyone who says "Teabaggers", "Liberal Wingnuts", or "Conservative Dingbats" will no longer get my ear.

The woman in the video wears a T-Shirt that says "Taxed Enough Already Party". She identifies herself as a Teabagger.



And that is why they are marginalized. Rational thought, and rational means they do not have. It is exactly why I did not listen to a word they said, but rather paid more credit to Franken.

Al Franken wasn't reading off the Pelosi talking points memo. Either way, the government option is dead thanks to the Tea Parties.

...and the crowd's eye's slowly glaze over because they have no idea how to rationally argue a point. They just want a yelling match.

Wow Nithern, your reply is a mess. I guess I should have explained to you that I'm not an anarchist, since that's what you understood by "free society", my fault for using such a loose term.

I meant a society free from government intervention in the economy, free market, preferably with a small government. Being mostly a libertarian, I don't like to be confused with an anarchist, the same way a social liberal might feel offended when called a socialist.

>> ^Nithern:
Sounds like a generalization, and not fact. There is structure within the goverment (local, state, and federal) to over see, and keep an accurate report of funds being spent (...)

Ah I feel better already. Bureaucracies sure seem very efficient when you explain it like that.

The concept of Health Care for all Americans is a good one. We can easily pay for it. If we can pay for Iraq ($3 trillion and climbing now...), we can pay for Health Care for 330 million people. Now, if an individual has better, or they like their health coverage, that's fine. This concept only gives people an option.

We're currently in a financial crisis because our government is broke, the world has been lending us money, but that will end when other countries realize we're never going to pay them back. Our government is currently spending money it doesn't even have.

Socialized healthcare as an *option*, doesn't make the idea any better, because it's still wasting money and it's unfair competition that will further distort the healthcare insurance market. Any reform in healthcare should involve reducing government intervention not increasing it.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
And that is why they are marginalized. Rational thought, and rational means they do not have.

If people are having trouble understanding the rationale behind the Tea Party movement against socialized healthcare, it's mostly about excessive government spending and taxation. Was that too hard?

I don't think social liberals will ever take the issue of spending seriously, even after the value of the dollar is destroyed and our economy collapses.

But for-profit health care companies are just that....the least effort for the most buck. They are not there, for the betterment of mankind, only their kind. I think we saw what happens when we go easy on financial rules during the Bush Administration and Wall Street companies. Do we really need this sort of crap with Health Care?

I think you need to educate yourself out of lies about the insurance business, on the government's major role in causing the housing bubble and subprime mortgage crisis, and on the utter uselessness and injustice of anti-trust laws.

>> ^TangledThorns:
Either way, the government option is dead thanks to the Tea Parties.

That would be a major achievement.

You have ten people going out to lunch. Lunch costs 5$. Occasionally someone forgets their wallet or is short, so the rest of the group pools their money, and picks up lunch for that person. So while everyone is out 60 cents extra, they can safely know that if they're short one day they'll get their lunch taken care of by the rest of the group.

I do not mean to insult in this - but your example is NOT an example of liberal government. It is an example of CONSERVATIVE NON-GOVERNMENT! You have mis-applied your example so completely as to completely render your entire point invalid, and have resulted in making yourself appear laughably ignorant.

When government is involved in the process of 'social justice' then it in NO WAY resembles your example. Here is what your example would look like when using government as a solution...

Ten people go out to lunch. Lunch costs $5. Everyone is signed up under the "Government Lunch" program, and is being taxed out of every paycheck to the tune of $2,500 every year ($1,825 for 365 days of government lunches, plus $675 in administration). ONE person in the group is at the poverty level, and so he gets his 'Government Lunch' at a reduced rate (he only pays maybe $1,200 a year out of his wages). A different guy earns over $200,000 a year, so his 'free lunch' program costs him $8,000 a year. Everyone else pays the regular $2,500. You can only get the 'free lunch' at specially selected government restaurants which serve government approved food (no trans fats, no booze, no HFCS) and each meal is dietically similar with a maximum of 650 calories and a proper balance of fruit, veggies, grains, and protien.

THAT is what your example should be like. In it, some people are paying as much as $21 dollars for a $5 lunch. Most people are paying over $6 for the free lunch. And one guy is paying $4.10 for his free lunch. Everyone is being forced to pay, whether they use the lunch or not, and piles of cash are going into a big government program which only ONE PERSON IN TEN even vaguely benefits from.

Your original example actually follows the CONSERVATIVE approach. No government program. Ten individuals. They decide among themselves who needs a hand, and the people voluntarily meet the need in a brief, efficient transaction in which the person either gets help, or pays everyone back at a later time.

Thank you for giving us such a fantastic example of the PROPER way to do charity. Voluntarily - with no government.

Mad ups for rational discussion and The Great Minnesota Get-Together!!!

again I beg for a Minnesota tag!

This is the America I believe in.

Absolute liberty is a situation where every man is for himself, and only the strong and lucky survive. The whole advantage of forming governments is to create a more civil and just society, one where even the weak and infirm have rights.

Seems every time someone disagrees with the latest statist tyranny, it's "obvious" they must therefore be for anarchy. How can the party of moral relativism suddenly throw a switch and be in "all-or-nothing" mode? Answer: it can't.

Compassion takes many forms. Instead of offering people poison with the promise of an antidote, how about not offering poison at all? It's possible to believe in people without also believing in a government program to control their every behavior.

Once the government controls your health options, they own you. Tyranny? Got enough already, thanks.

I have great respect for someone who can sop calmly put forward points and reasons like this in the face of those who just don't listen. Those there were being very attentive and it was great to see such civil discourse, but there were times when some just hadn't listened to the POINT he was making with examples. He very calmly handled that, where I'm sure inside he wanted to scream "I JUST TOLD YOU! I JUST ILLUSTRATED A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS WORKS... GOD YOU'RE STUPID.. LISTEN!"

>> ^gtjwkq:
Wow Nithern, your reply is a mess. I guess I should have explained to you that I'm not an anarchist, since that's what you understood by "free society", my fault for using such a loose term.
I meant a society free from government intervention in the economy, free market, preferably with a small government. Being mostly a libertarian, I don't like to be confused with an anarchist, the same way a social liberal might feel offended when called a socialist.
Well, one could argue that government of any sort is government intervention in the economy. That's why anarchists and libertarians so often get confused. Think about it. There's a market for murder. There's a market for "protection". There's a market for "waste disposal". So really, the question always boils down to 'what specific government interventions into the marketplace are you for?'

The problems with that line of reasoning are all those pesky externalities. Exploiting the commons for personal gain is the oldest trick in the book. It's also, unfortunately, the reason we need to regulate the marketplace. In our most recent episode, we removed long standing regulation on securities trading. They existed because in the 20's people had already figured out how to privatize gains and socialize losses. Without a government to overcome the transaction costs of collective bargaining, it would never be possible for people to prevent this sort of exploitation. To me, while anarchy seems like the end result of libertarian ideals... really it's rule by corporate oligarchy, with rampant exploitation of the commons. At least anarchy often does away with currency, and with it the power structure.


Ah I feel better already. Bureaucracies sure seem very efficient when you explain it like that.

How about like this: Medicare operates with 3% overhead, non-profit insurance 16% overhead, and private (for-profit) insurance 26% overhead. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007

We're currently in a financial crisis because our government is broke, the world has been lending us money, but that will end when other countries realize we're never going to pay them back. Our government is currently spending money it doesn't even have.

I would disagree. We are currently in a financial crisis because an unbridled, short-term incentive laden banking industry leveraged itself into oblivion. Afterwards, they put a gun to our head and handed us the tab. In other words, print the dough, or the pitchforks and torches tear the whole joint down. The only reason their hustle didn't work indefinitely is because too many of US were spending money we didn't have. Changing that is going to take a cultural shift that is already beginning.

As for China, whom I presume you're referring to. I don't think they want to start selling their position. Ever hear of buy low, sell high? No, I think China is more likely to just borrow against it, and start picking up their part of the consumption. They're already pulling the world out of this recession.


Socialized healthcare as an option , doesn't make the idea any better, because it's still wasting money and it's unfair competition that will further distort the healthcare insurance market. Any reform in healthcare should involve reducing government intervention not increasing it.
I disagree. Also, can we call it a "public option" please? Our good friends in the public relations office spent a while coming up with that one. Listen, the bottom line is we already pay for everyone's health insurance. It's just that it's cheaper to pay for antibiotics than it is to pay for abscess removals on ER beds.


If people are having trouble understanding the rationale behind the Tea Party movement against socialized healthcare, it's mostly about excessive government spending and taxation. Was that too hard?

Yes. Define excessive.


I don't think social liberals will ever take the issue of spending seriously, even after the value of the dollar is destroyed and our economy collapses.

Spending is serious business, it's inflation you all gotta relax about. Is it worth having the "why inflation is good for the economy" argument with you? Or would you rather go back to your non-mathematical Austrian school BS, and we can just agree to disagree?

I think you need to educate yourself out of lies about the insurance business, on the government's major role in causing the housing bubble and subprime mortgage crisis, and on the utter uselessness and injustice of anti-trust laws.

I agree, it's difficult to write laws without unintended consequences. That is, you can always game the rules. One should not conclude from this, however, that you shouldn't try and write rules. Instead, you should just write them faster than the douche bags can game them. You always need more rules. Every time there is an advance in technology, you need more rules. Why? Technology makes it easier to game the rules, and exploit the commons, just like it makes it easier to do everything else.

I would disagree. We are currently in a financial crisis because an unbridled, short-term incentive laden banking industry leveraged itself into oblivion.

And I would argue that this financial practice only came into existence because of government interference in the private lending market. It was looooong leadup where government and lobbyists joined together for their own agenda items to change the rules. This crisis was NOT simply a crisis of capitalism gone amok. That is a neolib conceit, and it is inaccurate because it ignores 66% of the problem. The crisis was a THREE PARTY problem. 1. GOVERNMENT was the one that set the table. 2. Financial houses were the ones that sold the food. 3. Citizens were the ones that came and gorged themselves stupidly on unnecessary, unaffordable debt.

Also, can we call it a "public option" please? Our good friends in the public relations office spent a while coming up with that one. Listen, the bottom line is we already pay for everyone's health insurance.

There have been numerous studies that show conclusively that the real problem is not the lack of socialized medicine. The problem was the creation of an government mandated 'insurance' system that screwed up the private market. THere are two kinds of insurance really. One kind of insurance is 'universal' and it supposedly covers all expenses. THe other kind of insurance is 'catastrophic' which is supposed to only kick in when something serious happens.

The problem here is that people want to treat health insurance like "universal" insurance, when they really should be treating it like "catastrophic". Americans need to get it through their thick skulls that health insurance is not and NEVER WAS designed to cover drugs, doctor visits, band-aids, flu check ups, and stubbed toes. Health insurance as a concept can ONLY WORK if it covers only large scale, catastrophic disease or injury. Everything else should be paid for out of your own pocket by direct interaction and discussion with doctors & providers. That would bring costs down to affordable levels so fast it would make your head spin.

Think about it. If you treated your car insurance like you treat your health insurance then it would cripple the industry. People would be taking their car in to change their oil, rotate their tires, replacing headlights, fixing scratches and so forth. Suddenly the demand for those services would skyrocket because they were 'covered' and people would be doing them a lot more often because they were 'free'. Suddenly, oil changes would cost $100. Tire rotations would cost $500. All because they were 'insured' and the laws of supply & demand got screwed up by an artificial system that was inserted into the private market.

But auto insurance stays relatively cheap and affordable because you can only use it when something 'big' happens. And you can go get your oil changed for only $20 because you are negotiating directly with the provider for a cheap commodity service. That's how our health care should be. CHEAP basic services we negotiate directly in the free market, with insurance for the unexpected major problems.

Yes. Define excessive.

Excessive = anything beyond what was prescribed in the original US constitution and bill of rights. I.E. pretty much 99.99999% of what the federal government is currently doing except national defense.

>> ^bmacs27:
Well, one could argue that government of any sort is government intervention in the economy. That's why anarchists and libertarians so often get confused. Think about it. There's a market for murder. There's a market for "protection". There's a market for "waste disposal". So really, the question always boils down to 'what specific government interventions into the marketplace are you for?'

Most of those activities you mentioned require the use of force, so they can't be done by private citizens, because the use of force is exclusive to government. Any other activity that doesn't *require* the use of force shouldn't be done by government because it can be done (and will tend to be done better) by the private sector.

To me, while anarchy seems like the end result of libertarian ideals... really it's rule by corporate oligarchy, with rampant exploitation of the commons.

If anarchy was the end result of libertarian ideals, they would be called anarchists. Corporate oligarchies are much more likely when government regulates the economy, and gets in bed with corporations. You have to realize that any "archy" requires government, force. It can't sprout out of markets where force is not allowed.

How about like this: Medicare operates with 3% overhead, non-profit insurance 16% overhead, and private (for-profit) insurance 26% overhead. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007

Does that overhead in the private sector have anything to do with excessive government regulation of the healthcare insurance market? Maybe it would be less of a burden to compete in a market that is almost 60% provided by government?

I would disagree. We are currently in a financial crisis because an unbridled, short-term incentive laden banking industry leveraged itself into oblivion. Afterwards, they put a gun to our head and handed us the tab. In other words, print the dough, or the pitchforks and torches tear the whole joint down. The only reason their hustle didn't work indefinitely is because too many of US were spending money we didn't have. Changing that is going to take a cultural shift that is already beginning.

Government and the Fed created the moral hazards that led to what you're attributing as the cause. A lot of people acted stupidly, you're saying it's cultural, that people "got greedy", ignoring the incentives and government guarantees that led people to believe there weren't any risks.

Ever hear of buy low, sell high? No, I think China is more likely to just borrow against it, and start picking up their part of the consumption. They're already pulling the world out of this recession.

Ever hear of "cutting your losses"? There's no "sell high" here, the US can't pay back its lenders, not at the rate the US government is spending and willing to spend for the next few years, and not in a recession where government is ruining productivity. China will be part of the recovery effort alright, but they'll much rather do it without the US strapped to its back.

Think about it, if China lent the US more than a trillion dollars, it's better to lose that money than lend us 2 or 3 more trillions just to watch even more money go to waste. They don't need us.

Yes. Define excessive.

The Constitution is a good reference, most things the federal government does that are not expressly authorized in the Constitution are excesses.

Spending is serious business, it's inflation you all gotta relax about. Is it worth having the "why inflation is good for the economy" argument with you? Or would you rather go back to your non-mathematical Austrian school BS, and we can just agree to disagree?

NetRunner, is that you? I guess you think hyperinflation is a synonym for "awesome".

If you actually studied Austrian economics and you think it's "non-mathematical" and "BS", yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. You're beyond help.

I agree, it's difficult to write laws without unintended consequences. That is, you can always game the rules. One should not conclude from this, however, that you shouldn't try and write rules. Instead, you should just write them faster than the douche bags can game them. You always need more rules. Every time there is an advance in technology, you need more rules. Why? Technology makes it easier to game the rules, and exploit the commons, just like it makes it easier to do everything else.

Don't worry about that. Keep rules simple, no fraud, enforce contracts, no use of force. Everything else will tend to sort itself out. Also, don't be afraid of technology.

Most of those activities you mentioned require the use of force, so they can't be done by private citizens, because the use of force is exclusive to government. Any other activity that doesn't require the use of force shouldn't be done by government because it can be done (and will tend to be done better) by the private sector.

How exactly is force the exclusive domain of the government? What about the polluter that is forcing you to breath lower quality air? I can't do anything about that. I need a government to enforce my property rights over the air. Yes, the government employs force. It's our only recourse against the force employed by concentrated capital.


If anarchy was the end result of libertarian ideals, they would be called anarchists. Corporate oligarchies are much more likely when government regulates the economy, and gets in bed with corporations. You have to realize that any "archy" requires government, force. It can't sprout out of markets where force is not allowed.

Please explain to me the law of nature which prevents corporate oligarchy in the absence of government force. Collusion is the rational selection for a small number of powerful agents. They reap the return, prevent entry into marketplaces, and price gouge when privy to exclusive control over an inelastic market (such as healthcare). You've been reading Ludwig too much... I'd recommend reading more of his brother Richard's work. He actually contributed to knowledge.


Does that overhead in the private sector have anything to do with excessive government regulation of the healthcare insurance market? Maybe it would be less of a burden to compete in a market that is almost 60% provided by government?

Hopefully not. I'm a single-payer kinda guy. Like I stated, healthcare is an inelastic market like police, fire, and water. As such, it should be provided by the government because the status quo of a small number of profit-driven actors in the market leads to price gouging.


Government and the Fed created the moral hazards that led to what you're attributing as the cause. A lot of people acted stupidly, you're saying it's cultural, that people "got greedy", ignoring the incentives and government guarantees that led people to believe there weren't any risks.

I'm not saying people got greedy (though the few did). I'm saying the majority of people got stupid. The laws that were in place to prevent the overextension of consumer credit were withdrawn. That is, they removed government intervention in the marketplace. That allowed unfortunate people to overextend themselves to the benefit of the few. Now, before you go off on some rant about the laws governing entrance into the sub-prime housing market, remember those laws would not have been nearly as dangerous had they not also repealed restrictions on debt securitization, turned a blind eye to insurance market regulation of CDS, and loosened fraction reserve restrictions. Those three de-regulatory events had, imo, far more reaching ramifications in this crisis. They removed the counter-party risk from debt initiators, and instead incentivized predatory lending. It was not government subsidy of the sub-prime market that distorted the incentives. It was the banks writing a junk bond, and slapping a smily face on it.


Ever hear of "cutting your losses"? There's no "sell high" here, the US can't pay back its lenders, not at the rate the US government is spending and willing to spend for the next few years, and not in a recession where government is ruining productivity. China will be part of the recovery effort alright, but they'll much rather do it without the US strapped to its back.
Think about it, if China lent the US more than a trillion dollars, it's better to lose that money than lend us 2 or 3 more trillions just to watch even more money go to waste. They don't need us.

Actually, they do. If our dollar were to suddenly become worthless, they would have no currency reserves. While I agree, they have the upper hand in this, they've already seen what a collapse of consumption on our soil does to their own economic growth. Without that growth, the chinese government doesn't have a political toothpick to stand on. I think you'd be surprised with the swings in currency valuation these days just how much higher the dollar could yet climb back. Our workforce is skilled, and increasingly well educated. In any event, it doesn't make sense to sell all at once. What they'll probably do is wait until the systematic risk has stabilized, and then slowly convert their treasury notes into special drawing rights at a rate which will not drastically undermine valuation of the dollar. I agree however, they will likely discontinue purchasing the debt, forcing us into "quantitative easing" (another winner from the PR team).


The Constitution is a good reference, most things the federal government does that are not expressly authorized in the Constitution are excesses.

So the market for nuclear weapons, particularly when wielded by militiamen, shouldn't be regulated?


NetRunner, is that you? I guess you think hyperinflation is a synonym for "awesome".
If you actually studied Austrian economics and you think it's "non-mathematical" and "BS", yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. You're beyond help.

Net who? No, I'm afraid there can be more than one educated progressive. I didn't say hyperinflation... I said inflation. Between 2 and 4% inflation is a good thing. If you disagree, you are beyond help.

As for the Austrian school, yes, it's BS. It's been discredited repeatedly. The predictions don't hold water, so they say "you can't use mathematics because people are too complicated." Even the Chicago school monetarists (many of whom worked with Von Mises) know it's BS. Once you run out of room with monetary policy what should you do is the only argument left. I think the Keynesians about have that fight won now that they've shown how to explain the late seventies.


Don't worry about that. Keep rules simple, no fraud, enforce contracts, no use of force. Everything else will tend to sort itself out. Also, don't be afraid of technology.

No force, but enforce contracts. Right. You show no regard for the existence of externalities, nor the rampant exploitation of the commons by the private sector. In fact, you explicitly removed that single section from my post indicating either your ignorance of basic economics, or an intentional dodging of the topic.

It's easy not to worry about how the rules are set up so long as they are benefitting you. Once you see that not everybody is getting a fair deal, you realize the moral, and even selfish reasons for entering a broader scoped social contract. In the end, we all benefit from a well educated, healthy society. We just need to put up the VC.

I think the Keynesians about have that fight won now that they've shown how to explain the late seventies.

Keynesian economics? Never worked and never will. You can't spend your way out of recession or depression. FDR proved it. Obama is proving it again. The only thing Keynesian economics does is give the illusion of helping during a downturn by shuffling the deck a bit and creating massive inflation and stagflation. It doesn't help recessions or depressions. It merely prolongs them.

>> ^bmacs27:
How exactly is force the exclusive domain of the government? What about the polluter that is forcing you to breath lower quality air? I can't do anything about that. I need a government to enforce my property rights over the air. Yes, the government employs force. It's our only recourse against the force employed by concentrated capital.

Everyone has access to some form of violence, and violent impulses are part of human nature. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but the initiation of violence against another usually is. There are many ways to repress the initiation of violence, but the ultimate resource is violent retaliation. In a civilized society, a government should try to establish a monopoly over the use of force, so that private citizens can concentrate on more productive endeavours and not have to worry about coercion from fellow citizens.

The level by which an individual is free of coercion from others determines how civilized a society is.

So, I'm not saying government has actual exclusivity over violence, but the reason we have government is so that it creates a monopoly over violence, so that it can use violence itself to repress those who use violence against each other. That doesn't mean government is allowed to go nuts and use violence to plan our lives, redistribute wealth, establish monopolies, control the currency, etc.

Services that *require* violence should be done by government. You can't have a "wagging finger" police, they're law enforcers, you can't have courts that can't apply punishment or incarceration, a military that shoots flowers, etc. However, any other service that doesn't *require* the use of force to be performed (education, healthcare, housing, insurance, product safety, space exploration, research, etc.), should be done and will tend to be done better by the private sector.

Please explain to me the law of nature which prevents corporate oligarchy in the absence of government force. Collusion is the rational selection for a small number of powerful agents. They reap the return, prevent entry into marketplaces, and price gouge when privy to exclusive control over an inelastic market (such as healthcare). You've been reading Ludwig too much... I'd recommend reading more of his brother Richard's work. He actually contributed to knowledge.

Well, how would they prevent entry into marketplaces in a free market? Usually it's the collusion between govt + corporations that stops new players from getting in a market with legislation and subsidies. If that's out of the picture, what's left, price dumping? Dumping can push competitors away, but, while it lasts, it's good for consumers (lower prices) and a dumping company's profit takes a hit. No matter how wealthy a company is, it can't practice dumping forever.

If, through price gouging, a company tries to take advantage of its "monopoly" in a market, that creates demand for competition. No matter how inelastic a market is, that doesn't stop the dynamics of supply and demand.

If you're dismissive of Ludwig's contribution to economics, yeah, I hear ya. Whatever knowledge he contributed got pretty much diluted in the mess that economics currently is. If after years of study you were lead to believe you're an economist, I can only offer you my sincere condolences.

Like I stated, healthcare is an inelastic market like police, fire, and water. As such, it should be provided by the government because the status quo of a small number of profit-driven actors in the market leads to price gouging.

You're talking about a highly regulated market that is about 60% provided by government. Gee, I wonder why it's so inelastic.

I'm not saying people got greedy... (loads of crap) It was the banks writing a junk bond, and slapping a smily face on it.

Look into how low interest rates set by the Fed for so long encouraged people getting into debt, how government pursued policies to encourage home ownership (good intentions gone bad), how the subprime market was only possible because of government guaranteed loans.

I've said this before, but I always find it curious how creative interventionists become when they come up with all sorts of "unsolvable" problems that arise from a free market, yet can't use any of that imagination attributing bad consequences to government intervention in a regulated market. It's always the market who gets the blame.

Actually, they do. If our dollar were to suddenly become worthless, they would have no currency reserves. While I agree, they have the upper hand in this, they've already seen what a collapse of consumption on our soil does to their own economic growth. (...)

China along with many other countries were duped into using dollars as reserves, pieces of paper we can print as many as we like. For a while now they've been accumulating actual reserves, such as gold, in preparation for the "quantitative easing" we'll soon be indulging ourselves in.

Consumption isn't a huge favor the world needs from us. Anyone can consume, it's not that hard. what matters is that you pay for it and America hasn't been able to do that for a very long time now. Hell, China has many more consumers than us who can actually pay for stuff with real money. Why would they care to export to us when they can consume most of their goods themselves?

Do you think a chinese is thankful he works in a dishwasher factory so he can go home and wash his clothes by hand on a rock? Or making cars for us so he can ride his bicycle to work?

Their government is also being stupid because they're still trying to prop up the dollar and devaluing their currency by keeping it pegged. They'll wise up eventually.

I didn't say hyperinflation... I said inflation. Between 2 and 4% inflation is a good thing. If you disagree, you are beyond help.

That's kind of a silly statement. Governments like inflation, people who have to produce and earn money don't. That's like saying "low interest rates are good". Depends on who you ask, they're good for debters, but not good for lenders and savers.

As for the Austrian school, yes, it's BS. (BS)

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." -- Hayek. Not that a keynesian would care.

No force, but enforce contracts. Right.

Touché Señor Nitpicker I meant something along the lines of "don't allow use of force among citizens".

It's easy not to worry about how the rules are set up so long as they are benefitting you. Once you see that not everybody is getting a fair deal, you realize the moral, and even selfish reasons for entering a broader scoped social contract. In the end, we all benefit from a well educated, healthy society. We just need to put up the VC.

Unfairness is, most often than not, advanced by the use of force. Problems that don't involve force to begin with, don't require force to be solved. Violence is in a different domain. That's like bullying people into liking you.

Why aren't you questioning the selfishness of those who advocate the use of force? They want power over a whole domain of other people's lives. They say people are being wronged yet they propose using the most destructive tool, something that opens up so much potential for abuse, to solve everything.

Libertarians are always worried about individuals instead of this group, or that group, or whoever claims to be speaking for the interests of society, not out of blind selfishness, but because "individual" is a very cool concept with the following magic properties:

An individual is the smallest minority, so when you help the individual, you help the minority that needs the most protection from abuse (they're the smallest!). An individual is the most numerous minority, so you help the most minorities. An individual is the majority because everyone is an individual. So when you keeps things always at the level of individual, individual rights, individual liberties, etc. you're helping everybody and people tend not to be benefitted at the expense of others.

That sounds a lot more fair to me.

It's nice to be able to watch an argument like this unfold without being at the center of it.

Hey Captain Edit, until your post contains the word externality, and a way in which your free market intends to deal with it, I don't want to talk to you.

p.s. I'm a neuroscientist, not an economist. I just read the behavioral literature.

p.p.s. Cool story bro.

I'd be delighted to get into that subject, but you're in no position to make demands in what I assumed was polite conversation. Suit yourself.

P.S.: You don't have to tell me you're not an economist.

>> ^gtjwkq:
I'd be delighted to get into that subject...(loads of crap)


You must have played some serious dodgeball at recess eh?

Why are you still talking?