Someone in a progressive forum asks the following question of libertarians. Since there are no libertarians in the forum, it seems a rather odd place to solicit libertarian opinions. Therefore, I offered to post his question here, so he might get the answers he's after.
Here's the question:
"Why is it that libertarians and small government proponents always point out how 'history' has shown that government involvement curtails our freedom, legislates and creates laws that interfere with creative, successful, lucrative business practices, that watch dog groups and/or government oversight committees don't do their job right anyway and taxpayers end up paying for their failure or for personal gain of crooked politicians and then propose that the unfettered, deregulated, free market will police and monitor itself - and yet most of the examples of unrestrained, deregulation of the banks, investment houses, oil companies and agrobusiness have proven consistently that self-monitoring is a pipe dream and the whole idea that taking the government out of the way would open the doors for the success of capitalism when it has proven only to be the unbelievable excessive success of the few at the expense of the environment, sovereign nations, the economic stability of the whole country and those of us who live with pride in this incredible country even though we don't make millions?"
If anyone would like to offer answers, here is the URL of the original question: http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/calimba/blog/2010/05/show-me-how-it-works (One must create a login, but it's pretty painless)
Alternatively, just reply in this thread, and I will provide a link to this thread in the original forum, so they can come over here and see the responses.
Thanks, and have fun...
It's more of a proposition than a questiion.I
I'm posting as Sieben
In all likehood, if I would ask the person who wrote that stuff what his examples were of 'unrestrained', 'deregulated', etc.., it would turn out that they weren't really deregulated at all. Considering he brings up banking, investment and oil, it's even more clear that he is talking about fake examples of free markets. Those markets are among the most regulated ones of all. And yes, having a central bank with the legal power to print notes out of thin air (and going to jail if you start a real bank) is a regulation.
up
Oh gosh, Thom Hartmann. He has no economic understanding, so it only follows that his listeners are ignorant as well. One of my good friends really likes Thom and asked me to read a book written by Thom, so I obliged. Lots of economic fallacies as well as emotional appeals instead of concrete logic. Thom knows a good bit of history, but that's about it.
He once cited tax cuts as the reason for the recessions. His proof? "Every time throughout history that we've had a tax cut for the rich, there has been a recession." Most of you recognize this as post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).
Anyways, you get the point. Hartmann is a leftist. Big time.
These so called "progressives" are just a bunch of socialists.
The question proposes that the banking/financial industry has been "deregulated".
That is a farce - the state has a monopoly on the definition and supply of money.
Most recently, the current economic crisis is said to be caused by the "excesses" of economic freedom and "too little regulation" of the economy, especially financial markets. This is said by the president and numerous other politicians, with straight faces, despite the facts that there are a dozen executive-branch cabinet departments, over 100 federal agencies, more than 85,000 pages in the Federal Register, and dozens of state and local government agencies that regulate, regiment, tax, and control every aspect of every business in America, and have been doing so for decades.
Laissez-faire run amok in financial markets is said to be a cause of the current crisis. But the Fed alone — a secret government organization that is accountable to no one and which has never been audited — performs hundreds of regulatory functions, in addition to recklessly manipulating the money supply. And it is just one of numerous financial regulatory agencies (the SEC, Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, FDIC, and numerous state regulators also exist). In a Fed publication entitled "The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions," it is explained that "The Federal Reserve has supervisory and regulatory authority over a wide range of financial institutions and activities." That's the understatement of the century. Among the Fed's functions are the regulation of [omitted for brevity; see link].
That's a pretty comprehensive list, the result of 96 years of bureaucratic empire building by Fed bureaucrats. It gives the lie to the notion that there has been "too little regulation" of financial markets. Anyone who makes such an argument is either ignorant of the truth or is lying. Read more: Never-Ending Government Lies About Markets - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Institute http://mises.org/daily/3446#ixzz0nqvmbCy8
Felipe: These so called "progressives" are just a bunch of socialists.
Were people in 16-17th century Europe socialists? Nah, like today, they were just people who thought top-down actions can solve any perceived problem.
Socialism is about abolishing private property, but today's progressives, like people from mercantilist and statist Europe, want to make a shortcut through private property to engineer what they want and how they want. They wouldn't dare abolish private property, because they are too dependent on the businesses they want to coerce for their benefit.
Prateek Sanjay:Were people in 16-17th century Europe socialists? Nah, like today, they were just people who thought top-down actions can solve any perceived problem.
actions can solve any perceived problem.
I have always thought that mercantilism was very similar to marxism, at least in the final result of its policies.
Prateek Sanjay:Socialism is about abolishing private property
Then explain the spanish PSOE and the French Socialist Party.
Prateek Sanjay:but today's progressives, like people from mercantilist and statist Europe, want to make a shortcut through private property to engineer what they want and how they want. They wouldn't dare abolish private property, because they are too dependent on the businesses they want to coerce for their benefit.
private property to engineer what they want and how they want. They wouldn't dare abolish private property, because they
are too dependent on the businesses they want to coerce for their benefit.
Socialism may have been redefined over and over but the same backward policies keep reappearing, although somewhat
attenuated.
It's called a rhetorical question and it was not meat to be answered.
A very creative example of "Smoke and Mirrors"...
I'm not sure I understand the smoke and mirrors comment.
By the way, Snowflake, excellent post. Thanks for putting it up there. Of course, there has not yet been any sort of reply to your points. I think Caley McKibbin may have been right in that it was meant as a rhetorical question.
Jesus Christ, talk about a run-on sentence...