Deregulation and Free Markets

[witzkeyman]

awesome explanation

[eirefrance]

Because 'capitalists' or 'industrialists' wield so much power, regulations only get created after crises give enough clout so that their interests can be overcome (see subprime mortgage). As a result, the regulations we get are reactive rather than anticipatory. This makes for an easy straw man that libertarian deregulationsists can knock down as ineffective. Regulations, if properly installed, protect us all.

[JosephtheLibertarian]

you're a moron. you fucking socialist scum. I hope you die

[eirefrance]

If you think I'm a socialist because of that statement, you're the moron. Still, I believe in debate and the right to disagree so I'll treat you with more respect than you've shown me. Completely separate from the reality of whether or not all regulations are bad, the regulations we have had are reactive. It isnt fair to judge all regulations on such hastily produced laws.

[freesk8]

Thanks for your civility. Joseph may not be the best representative for the libertarian/atheist position. May I offer myself for the job? I promise to remain civil.

[freesk8]

I'm a libertarian, and an atheist, and let me tell you that your ad hominem attacks and your bad language do not help our cause. Eirefrance does not seem to understand what the free market is and how it works. Instead of insulting him, let's show him how excess government power leads to corruption by the wealthy, and the way to end that involves reducing the power of politicians...

[eirefrance]

My statement about the state of modern regulations is really a separate thing from the free market. Its simply a statement on the realities of how we arrive at regulations. It may be true that regulations as a whole are bad. It may be that, as I said above for libertarian philosophy, that it is impossible to expect regulations to be applied in any other way than reactive.

[eirefrance]

This is a big reason why I think idealogies are harmful. They are driven by an a priori philosophy that cannot consider the law of unintended consequences. That is, I feel, what happened with the libertarian movement. Idealogues applied it with good intentions, but the outcome was corporate welfare and greater financial inequality.

[freesk8]

It is government action that leads to unintended consequences. Deregulation is the idea that those regulations should be removed, thus ending the unintended consequences.

Some ideologies are worse than others. And it is certainly true that one small set of ideologies will yield the highest social outcome. I think that classical liberalism is one of those philosophies, and my proof is in the rise of the US from agricultural backwater to dominance since 1800.

[eirefrance]

Well, unintended consequences always happen, govt or not. There are a lot of other reasons why the US rose from an agricultural backwater to dominance. The period of greatest world economic dominance by the US was probably after WWII, which was directly following Roosevelt's social programs and the beginning of the income tax era.

[freesk8]

Even after Roosevelt, we had the most free economy of any nation except Hong Kong. In spite of the socialistic changes that have been added since 1930, the US is STILL one of the ten most free economies in the world. The key to our success is exactly the freedom of our economy. Defense of individual property rights, low taxes, low regulations, keeping government out of the economy is the secret to our prosperity. We are now in the process of undermining the key to our own success.

[eirefrance]

Well, it hasn't been a continuous pro-socialist movement divided by 1930. For instance, Munn v Illinois(1872) & Budd v NY (1892) allowed for direct price regulations by the state in private industries that provide public services. And, there is, of course, the popular modern movement of deregulation as constrast. Call it what you will, it is definitely not socialist.

[o0xst]

Funny how the radical right religious folks love this stuff so much. I guess it's the years and years of living under a system of tight rules and regulations (religious life) and they see it as a way to break free from all of that oppression or whatever, and do it in Gods name. Interesting how rotten and anti-Christian the things they end up doing as a result, and it says a lot about a lot of things...

[JosephtheLibertarian]

I'm atheist, stupid.

[o0xst]

The mathematical possibilities of this applying to all 6 billion people on the planet are probably equal to the odds of trickle down economics actually helping middle class folks.

[antipovertycultz]

free markets are unregulated and allow employers to slave wage citizens as they please

freemarkets are a secret doorway to societal slavery!

[JosephtheLibertarian]

you're a moron

[freesk8]

We want REAL deregulation.

REALLY fewer rules.

Only force and fraud should be illegal in the marketplace.

Corporate welfare subsidies are NOT consistent with the free market.

The poor are better off in free market economies than they are in the more heavily controlled countries. France's unemployment is about 10%, though the US has more immigration. Inflation is double and economic growth rate is half.

[snuffydoug]

Couldn't agree more. You should also mention how Imperialism is not consistent with true capitalism.

[freesk8]

Right, of course! :)

Imperialism is consistent with statism, mercantilism, socialism or authoritarianism, not with true capitalism.

Under true capitalism, corporations can not buy special consideration from government. They are left to stand or fall based on the success of their products and services in the marketplace, NOT with how well they can bribe politicians. The authors of this video confuse capitalism for it's opposite. We need a separation of ECONOMY and state.

[snuffydoug]

Right On! You read anything by Milton Friedman?

[freesk8]

But of course. He's a hero of mine and will be sorely missed. I loved "Capitalism and Freedom" and "Free to choose." I am a Libertarain and he is one of my favorite libertarians. He did for Capitalism what Carl Sagan did for Science.

[snuffydoug]

I would think of myself as a Fiscal Conservative, and I am quite fond of Classical Liberalism along with you.

[freesk8]

Friedman promoted freedom in the economic sphere. Such freedom is a form of tolerance: tolerance with the way others spend their money. We classical liberals also promote freedom in the personal sphere. I don't live like a hippy, but if you chose to do so, that's fine, so long as you do not tread on anyone else's rights. While I may not approve of certain "alternative" lifestyles, I must be tolerant of them if I wish my own peaceful idiosyncricies to be tolerated.

[freesk8]

That's why I'm not just a fiscal conservative. That's why I'm a Libertarian. Free Minds and Free Markets. I believe this to be the position of the founders of this country, especially Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Adams. Socially tolerant, fiscally responsible. Limited government and individual rights.

[snuffydoug]

I beleive in both Personal and Economic Freedom as well, but I would not consider myself a Libertarian.

[freesk8]

Well, there are "small 'l' libertarians" who share our philosophy, but who tend to vote Republican, and there are "capital 'L' Libertarians" who share our philosophy and vote for partisan Libertarian candidates. But the philosophy that you and I share, of limited government, personal liberty, and free markets is best called "libertarian." A Republican who cares more about fiscal issues than the abortion or gay marriage issues is most like a libertarian, and not a conservative.

[snuffydoug]

Barry Goldwater?

[freesk8]

He was from the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

To mischaracterise him as a conservative is to misunderstand his political philosophy.

Just for fun, take the Worlds' Smallest Political Quiz at the website of the Advocates for Self Government. Ten questions and you find out if you are a conservative or a libertarian...

I've been trying to post the URL, but YouTube won't let me...

[eirefrance]

Still, the fact that it was applied in an imperfect way says something about its practicality. Socialists wanted REAL equality where everyone worked to their ability and took to their need. Idealogies rarely turn out the way we would like them to and modern libertarianism cannot ignore that their philosophy has driven the corporate welfare, wage-depression, growing inequality of our times.

[freesk8]

You must have missed where I said above that corporate welfare is NOT compatible with either the free market or libertarianism. Free markets lead to greater wage increases than do greater levels of government control. Though free markets tend to lead to greater inequality, they also produce higher absolute wage levels for the poorest. I don't care about inequality, I care about reducing poverty, and free markets do that better than government control.

[eirefrance]

You must have missed where I said that the real world APPLICATION, not philosophical application, of free market libertarianism was turned into corporate welfare. As libertarians are so quick to point out, there has never been a truly free market, so noone can know what effects it would have on the real world, with all of its human statistical anomalies. Just as socialism failed because what people sought was unrealistic in the real world.

[freesk8]

At the very beginning of this thread, I advocated FEWER economic regulations, not zero. I am not an anarchist, nor do I advocate no government involvement in the economy. I advocate fewer rules. 100 years ago in the US, taxes soaked up about 5% of US GDP. Now they soak up about 35%. I think 10 or 15% is a better number, and would lead to better conditions for the poor. The French unemployment and inflation rates have been about double the US rate, and GDP growth half. This hurts the poor.

[eirefrance]

I guess I would say that fewer and less are simplistic ways of looking at it. The lower the taxes, the better, of course. But priorities should happen first. We need to prioritize govt spending first, and I am very much in favor of repsonsible spending. PAYGO is a start, at least, but its not perfect.

[freesk8]

I agree that PAYGO is an improvement, but it more often leads to tax increases than to spending cuts. In WA state, we have "priorities of government" POG, but the politicians just ignore it when it gets too restrictive.

There are entire categories that the government should not fund: pro sports, or any kind of entertainment, for that matter, but the big one for the US to eliminate should be military occupation of other nations. This costs too much and makes us LESS safe.

[eirefrance]

I agree that any pro sports organization (or any private business that does not provide an essential service) should never receive funding from the govt. Defense, in general, should be cut. We don't need Cold War era tanks, for instance, to fight Al Qaeda.

[freesk8]

Agreed.

The Iraq war is bankrupting us.

[eirefrance]

I would have no problem with getting rid of or drastically reducing the income tax if we raised property and investment tax. I know this would hurt the overall economy so it would never be instituted, but what can I say, I was a socialist once and you never forget your first.

[freesk8]

I think that if we eliminate the Iraq war, we can have tax cuts with no reductions in social programs.

[IFloridaMotocrossI]

Tax cuts are not always a good thing. Bush's tax cuts had little effect on the overall economy, with the exception of increased income inequality and a deficit.

Not allowing the government to collect revenue is the reason the Fire Department has started billing people.

[eirefrance]

In fact, I think tax cuts haven't, at least in my adult life, been applied for anything close to good. It has always been about helping corporations that donate huge sums of money to politicians and hire them for "consulting" positions after retiring. Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It hasn't been about helping the economy in a long time.

[IFloridaMotocrossI]

You are 100% correct.

[tradingbr]

if benefits industries it benefits the economy by definition, that doesnt mean it damages consumers at the same time