Wal-Mart and Banking (Walter Block)

[ilovewiki]

Walter Block, is way too intelligent to pay heed to these people... "We have the greatest banking system the world as ever seen." "Our banking system is not broken." ...and he's a republican? People, who are supposed...to be for the Free Market... they're jokes, seriously...I can't believe Dr. Block wasted his time with them.

[mcc1789]

Unfortunately, Dr. Block may not realize Wal-Mart has received over $1 billion in government subsidies, which he would regard as illegitimate.

[crashmoderately]

@mcc1789 Dr. Block is not pro-Walmart or anti-Walmart. If Walmart is getting subsidies, he wouldn't support it. If Walmart is being stopped from competing in a particular sector, he wouldn't support it.

[mcc1789]

@crashmoderately Ok, but in his comments Block seems to act like they got it all on their own merit. The massive subsidies say otherwise. I'm not beating up on Block. This is something to mention and take into account though.

[megatherium100]

@mcc1789 But almost all big companys, not just Wal-Mart and subsidaries are getting special privilegies, and it would be to theire detriment if they dont take this privilegies, because they would be on a competive disadvantage to theire competitors. Is not Wal-Mart´s fault that the system is corrupt, the system is inherently corrupt since the begining.

[mcc1789]

@megatherium100 True, but my point was to address Dr. Block's comment that seemed to say Wal-Mart did it all with no subsidies, which is clearly untrue.

[AdurianJ]

How dare the consumers buy at the lowest possible price for the quality of the product. And how dare the Evil wallmart enable customers to do so.

Also why should they be able to run their own banking affairs when their competitors think otherwise.

[macroman52]

@AdurianJ I think you really mean "How dare there be banking regulations. Why can't anyone be a bank?"

[TreachMarkets]

Let's drag these two bank shills back today and let Walter Block call them on their defense of our wonderful banking system.

[cobracarg]

"Our banking system is not broken"

What?!

[NermalsChannel]

@ 4:17 "we have the greatest banking system the world has ever seen"

" if it aint broke, don't fix it"

I wonder what he thinks of it now. lol

[publicanimal]

Banking is not broken? I want some of what that guy's on

[dumky]

I love the section where the guys from Independent Bankers of America claims that the banking services in the US are so great and serve customers so well. Of course, he's not trying to defend his turf from competition.

As Walter Block points out, if Wal-Mart fails to deliver a better service to customers, it will bleed out funds and either improve its offering or get out of that business.

[selfrealizedexile]

"We have the greatest banking system the world has ever seen."

Holy hell...

[Freethought42]

@selfrealizedexile

I LOL'd hard at that too!

[OctoBox]

Block is one of my favorite Rothbardians; but at 3:45 he loses the debate.

[dumky]

@OctoBox

You're refering to representative Gilmore saying that Wal-Mart will be seeking or benefiting from government support (in the form of insurance).

This is a classic government argument: justify more government regulations because the market is tainted by previous government interventions.

There is no good reason for banks to be getting "insurance" (FDIC) from government in the first place. This introduces moral hazard, as was obvious during the financial crisis.

[OctoBox]

@dumky -- I'm not arguing "for" gov't -- I'm arguing against it. So we agree on every issue that minimizes gov't "authority"

However -- on the issue of "rights" when people want them "enforced or guaranteed or they want to justify an action" they tell it to the judge (the gov't).

Talking about rights does not get them enforced -- you need a "force-agency" for that. A "right" is defined by the gov't and the gov't is created by consumer abdication of self-rule.

[dumky]

@OctoBox

You seem to be assuming that there needs to be a single/centralized justice system.

But that may not be necessary. There are good indications that private justice systems would work (and better).

For example, see the article entitled "The Not So Wild, Wild West".

It shows how people found solutions to their problems of enforcement of justice. One of them is for both parties to pick a representative, who in turn pick a mediator with the final say. The common rule is private property.

[OctoCuba]

@dumky -- You haven't ever read about an economic philosophy like mine. Rothbard took Mises and went right and I took Mises and went left. Rothbard went towards "owner's rights" and I followed Mises and went toward "consumer-individualism."

I do not believe you can have a centralized nor a decentralized authority (consumer will overrider). Now I agree with Ron Paul and Mises that you must transition; however the transition must already put the consumer as the "boss"

[dumky]

@OctoCuba

I'm not sure I understood your distinction between "owner's rights" and "consumer-individualism" (pointer?). It seems to me that they are the same. Consumers, like producers, are owners too.

Private property and private choice lead to consumer-individualism (if I interpret it correctly), as the consumer gets to choose how to spend the resources that he earned in other roles. Producers naturally try to satisfy the consumer, to aquire resources and later act as consumers themselves.

[OctoBox]

@dumky -- It was enough of a difference to cause Mises (mentor) and his colleague Rothbard (mentee) to disagree.

Consumers are "possessors" and "ownership" requires (rights) -- historically this was accomplished by voting and lobbying.

"Production" happened once (at the moment of creation) -- after that we only "USE, TRANSFORM, OR DIMINISH." The latter is the definition of "consumption"

[OctoCuba]

@dumky -- I know all about the wild wild west and it was built off of slavery and reservationism (not that slaves lived in the west), but the Gov't that stole the lands from Indians and Mexicans was build off of slavery.

[OctoCuba]

@dumky -- Therefore we don't know "how" the wild wild west would of looked in a "free-society" since it was not a free-society. They used the Army to route out Indians, that's a huge cost reduction and subsidy. Also, Wild Wild West was not part of the information age.

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- (((cont))) Anarcho-Capitalism is oxy-moronic. Since Anarchy means No-Authority and Capitalism means (Owner's Rights or Economic-Fuedalism -- according to the "coiner" of the term, definition, and phrase).

You can't have "rights" when there are no authorities.

In a free-society there are "possessions" not "property" -- self-defense is 100% in the free-market in a free-society; there are no monopolies.

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox I do not see how a consumer-minarchism could logically proceed to a natural order since 1)You do not differentiate between Cminarchism and minarchism 2) Unless you imply continues secession, states always grow. Regarding capitalism, no I don't think most libertarians think of it as protecting the capitalists, rather it is popularly equated with free market. Again, I base my position on the practicality of going with the majority. Consumer-minarchism is an interesting perspective.

[dumky]

@OctoBox

The mistake in your argument is that you don't get your ownership from authority.

By virtue of being a human, I own my life, whether governments or other entities recognize it or not. Unprovoked usage of force against me is wrong, regardless of the existence of "authorities".

If anything, authorities derive their authorities from individuals, not the reverse.

See Tom Wood's presentation on YouTube, entitled "Where Do Rights Come From ?"

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- Since Capitalism is an (Owner's Rights Society) and since all rights must be protected by force (an involuntary court system) and has never existed otherwise, then we can conclude simply that a free-market (anarchy or indiviudalism) is not possible under capitalism.

Consumer-Minarchism (would be a better transitionary model) according to Mises; who was Rothbard's mentor -- even though you will not get this sense down at Mises Institute. Because it is run by Rothbardians.

[OctoBox]

A consumer-minarchism would then logically procede into a Consumer-Individualist or Consumer-Sovereignty; which is the very definition of a free-market.

This is easy to see with a minor bit of meditation.

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox cont... you should address Cminarchism to the faculty at the Mises Institute

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- I have. You must understand that they've been trying to make Rothbardianism work for 30+ years; the tenants are integrated into their thinking.

Out of respect of Mises I named the Minarchism I came up with (which is only a logical extension) "Consumer-Minarchism"

I'll send you a mock up of 1st Step C-M and 2nd Step C-M. I call the 1st Step Ron Paul Minarchism (as I base it off of his tranistionary thoughts).

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- They are not "Misesian" down at Mises Institute; the Rothbardians are in charge, in fact the Rothbardians created it. Mises has a bigger name in the Austrian school, at the time then Rothbard did. Also, it was an honorific.

Rothbard says "owner's rule" and Mises said "consumers rule" -- in a free-society.

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox Consumers' rule vs Owners' rule debate is irrelevant. The former is used in the context of economics while Rothbard clearly used the latter in the context of ethics. Everyone is an owner because of self-ownership of the body. This is the basis for Rothbardian ethics. Consumers' rule is used in economics because of subjective value. There is no conflict between the two uses. I read what you sent. My only problem is enforceability. For me the easiest way is nullification lead to secession

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 - Ummm -- no it is very relevant because Mises and Rothbard argued over this.

Defining who the individual is under an individualist society is of first order improtance.

As I've said there is overlap -- where Mises and Rothbard agreed. Maybe even 60-80 percent of the time.

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox See dumky's answer. Consumers are owners too because in order to consume you have to produce first. It's called Say's law. Mises and Rothbard argued over what exactly? I have a feeling you don't know the answer to this. Mises wanted a value-free economics. Rothbard wanted to integrate it with a rational ethic. That is, private property. Their contention had nothing to do with owners vs consumers as far as I know.

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- Read my response to dumsky.

You have it reversed. In order to "produce" you must consume.

Consumption: To use, to diminish, to transform.

Production happened at the moment of creation (regardless the view) and after that it was "use, diminish, or transform"

The producer must consumer knowledge, resources, tools, and labor (to name a few before he can produce.

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox How can you consume if you did not transform nature first and 'produced' something? Robinson Crusoe must catch fish before he can trade the fish for meat. Only then can he consume the meat. He must first produce(catch fish) before consume(eat meat).

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- Consumption is "transformation." You are not looking at consumption correctly. Consumption means: To Use, to Diminish (waste), and to Transform. We consume knowledge, tools, fuel, energy, resources, oxygen, water, nutrients. "Production" is a subset of consumption.

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox So we use different words to mean the same thing. No conflict then. Haha!

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- Hahaha. It would be faster to just agree but I think there is a big difference still. Rothbardians believe in "property rights" -- they are Propertarians. This is the symptom of arguing "for" property rights in a Big Statist Society, one tries to take his daily arguments into utopia and show how they still can work. A Consumer-Individualism (a "true" anarchy) gives rise to the individual because NO ONE has "rights" -- there are no rights. Nor any venues to argue them.

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- All are consumers (in a free-society) including owners, workers, seniors, and students. The only way to keep the consumer "free" is to ensure there are no claims or hidden costs (regulations, laws, licensure, fines, taxes) against owners, workers, seniors, or students -- because all costs are paid by the "consumer" (the largest individual-centered group).

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- "all costs are paid by the 'consumer' (the largest individual-centered group)."

To get workers to rally -- the Worker Advocates ensure loss of jobs, decline in savings by easy-credit, and rising healthcare costs.

To get owners to rally -- the Owner Advocates ensure licensure, ever-new GAAP, higher employee tax, worker-unions -- this invokes rent seeking and "controlled" currency (which is a "property" guarantee -- since all property is in terms of dollars).

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- You're understanding of consumer-rule vs self-ownership is lop sided, you've obviously are unaware that even down at the "Mises" Institute there is a continuous debate on this topic; though the Misesians are not in control, it was founded by the Rothbardians.

Read Gunning -- it's a big deal actually.

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox How is it relevant then? I don't want to be referred to links or books. Important topics usually don't need jargon to explain.

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- If you wont read "Gunning" then you are not interested in the debate between Mises and Rothbard and should therefore not speak on it because it's pure speculation on your part -- given they are "master class economists" and you and I are not. I do have an advanced a degree in economics, but most of my understanding comes from meditation and Austrian post-graduate self-study.

[OctoBox]

Capitalism was (historically) when only Owner's had Rights (wealthy WASP men) and there is imperfect currency competition (though there is "a little").

Corporatism is when Owner's and Worker's have Rights (and there is no competition in the currency market).

Consumer-Sovereignty would be where Owner's and Worker's have ZERO Rights (perfect competition in the currency market).

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox cont... mises(dot)org defending the word capitalism, you might want to read that. It just makes no sense to jettison capitalism solely on the basis of being historically accurate or the word being abused. The fact that the greats have used the word capitalism and majority of libertarians use it make the word part of the libertarian movement. If you don't want to use it then don't. Good luck in converting people with the word market anarchism.

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 --- The Mises Institute is mostly a Rothbardian Institute (founded and run by Rothbard). You are probably un-aware of this but Rothbard and Mises disagreed (in a polite way) over who the individual was in a free-society. Individualism is the root of a Free-Market accurately defining the individual is of key importance. You can't "force" capitalism through. Free-markets have never existed in this country; not as long as there is consumer-circumvention (voting and lobbying).

[OctoBox]

@OctoBox (edit) -- "founded and run by Rothbardians" -- it was not founded by Rothbard.

I agree with the Rothbardians probably 80% of the time; however, the most important area is in determining who the individual is in a free-society -- otherwise your meditations will be off.

Mises said it was the Consumer

Rothbard said it was the Owner

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox I am not forcing capitalism through as I am not holding a gun to your head. If what you mean is let the market decide which word to use, then I am just exercising my market vote as an individual. It's how we do things in the market, through negotiation and persuasion. Nothing wrong with that.

With regards to who the individual is in a free society, I think that is irrelevant to the debate here. The question is: Will giving up on the word capitalism be effective in promoting liberty?NO

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- That's not where this debate began, "determining the word."

But I'll play along. The "word or phrase" used to describe a free-market should reflect who is protected (since a free-market is an "individualist" solution). Individualism protects the greatest number of individuals and where no one group has greater power than any one individual. Workers are Consumers (in their role as worker and when they are not working).

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 (((cont))) Owners are Consumers (in their role as owner and when they are not running their business or managing their estate). Students are Consumers (in their role as students and when they are not students)

On and on -- Therefore the individual is the consumer; as the consumer pays all costs, so any "right" (gov't protection) for any other "type" of individual would dampen purchasing power and thus consumption.

[OctoBox]

I'm not a "leftist" (by-the-by).

I made a non-Rothbardian leap from Mises and continued his work on Consumer-Sovereignty (C-S)

Capitalist Revenue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase, 2) Consumers-who-Invest, and 3) Gov't Subsidization - Regulation - Taxation - Licensure.

Free-market Revenue Stream: 1) Consumers-who-Purchase and 2) Consumers-who-Invest

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox Do you really think it would be advantageous to give up on equating capitalism with genuine free market? Capitalism is politically incorrect and intimidating.

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- American Capitalism was from 1776 (roughly) - 1877; then a transition from Capitalism to Corporatism began (1877 to 1913). Beginning in 1913 the balance of capitalism and corporatism tipped and corporatism became the dominant swing and capitalism was officially over as American Currency became "Fiat" and under the control of the Banking Families (who were globalists).

So, why would we hold on to "capitalism" when it's be gone for so long, and again Marx coined it (the term).

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox "So, why would we hold on to "capitalism" when it's be gone for so long"

That makes no sense at all. It conveys the idea that we should accept some tolerable brand of statism than capitalism since capitalism is gone for so long. Rejecting usage of the word capitalism is also pointless. Most libertarians today do not equate capitalism to corporatism. A movement to equate the two would only cause unnecessary division. It is statists who equated the two in the first place so why give in.

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- You asked the question, smile.

Consumer-Sovereignty does not convey the idea we should accept statism -- Capitalism IS statism; as it stole from the people (by gov't force) and awarded economic-feudalists.. It's just that Corporatism is an even "bigger" form of statism. Consumer-Sovereignty -- 1st by Consumer-Minarchism then logically by Consumer-Individualism. Voting and Lobbying can never bring Liberty (it is perpetual war). Owner's Rights vs Worker's Rights (forever).

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- These are the things that happened under Capitalism

1) Slavery, 2) Indian Land Theft, 3) Intentional Indian Genocide, 4) Reservationism, 5) the Civil War, 6) Black Codes, 7) Prison Slavery, and 8) Jim Crow.

Capitalism is an Owner's Rights Society. Those rights are protected by courts (force agents) that have the right to steal, kidnap, and transfer land holdings. You can't have a "free-market" when people are not given 100% self-defense (self-rule).

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox FYI 100% self-defense means carrying your own weapons. In a free market or consumer-sovereignty as you call it, people would contract with insurance company to defend themselves. Again, your definition of capitalism is only held by a very few and is pointless. The issue here is what is most effective in promoting liberty. I do not give a shit about being historically accurate. Rand, Mises, Rothbard, Hazzlit, Hayek, Hoppe have used the word capitalism. There is an article on Mises(dot)..

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- Ron Paul and everyone down at Mises Institutue (the pre-eminent free-market thinkers) all agree that we are living in a Corporatist Society; and we've been moving to it's height since 1913. They would all agree that the height of "capitalism" was pre-Civil-War and began its rapid decent through Reconstruction till 1913. All would agree that Marx coined-defined capitalism -- The "laymen" has the wrong conception (regarding it's height and just how "wed" to gov't it was).

[Iansback]

"Japan's recession was caused by mixing banking and commerce"

Seriously is this guy retarded?

[Darealwhip]

@Iansback WHERE IS THE FREE MARKET ECONOMY ...If Walmart want a BANK LET IT BE....WHERE DA FOOK IS THE FREE COMPETITION....

[pretorious700]

Gilmore is an idiot.

[pretorious700]

Another congressman who doesn't know the difference between "industrial" and "retail".......

[pretorious700]

This redhead is really annoying

[kaziqbal]

Dr. Block is the king!!!

[Burnaby1]

+1 to Walter, Good job buddy!

[OctoBox]

Walter Block is correct only if we assume Wal-Mart "plays" 100% in the free-market and are not right-seekers (lobbying for regulatory advantages, buys subsidized goods, receives direct or indirect subsidies, takes advantage of fiat credit, or seeks out tax breaks).

Wal-Mart is NOT a free-market corporation -- there are zero free-market corporations dwelling within a Corporatist society.

This comes down to consumer-sovereignty (zero owners and workers rights). If the goal is free-markets

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox When any corporation goes into banking, we directly conclude that it is NOT acting as a free market firm. Banking today is equivalent to organized fraud because it is a system of fractional reserve banking. It just makes sense for WalMart to go into this corrupt business in order to get a sort of immunity from competition. Its been doing this for a long time now. Like when it's CEO advocated raising the min wage

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 Wal-Mart already was a non-free market firm, so now it's a "special" non-free market firm?

An Owner's Society will always lead from Capitalism to Corporatism; if there are any mechanisms to circumvent consumer will or circumvent self-defense.

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox The likelihood is towards corporatism but do not take that as a theoretical given. Saying that capitalism leads to corporatism is like saying a good child will become a bad child. Your claim is not warranted by economic theory even though evidence is there. Evidence alone is not a strong criterion for validity when it comes to economic science. If anything, democracy is the reason that capitalism leads to mixed economy then corporatism. By allowing everybody to enter into government,

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- All human history points out when there is an Owner-Nobility (dominant) vs. Worker-Peasant-Commoner the result is always (ALWAYS) the same. The result is Imperialism (according to Marx), which is re-translated as "Corporatism" (by Mussolini).

Marx's solution-conclusion was wrong -- he wanted to reverse the case, which is a move even further away from consumer-demand and entreprenuerialism.

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox The gross inequality of wealth that you pointed out is a result of statism, specifically fascism. Capitalism is already a very much abused word and saying that it leads to corporatism is giving in to the enemy(statism).. As you said, capitalism has not even been tried for many decades so why say that capitalism leads to corporatism. Mixed economy leads to corporatism is better. You do not say grade school leads to a job. You say grade school leads to high school leads to.... job.

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- Capitalism was formed (in the U.S) whereby ONLY a few men had the right to vote -- they controlled the declaration of war -- and later would force states to remain part of the "union" (unionism).

.

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 (cont)

Any attempt at an "owner based" society -- regardless of how far out you try to "allow" the ownership (which under the Founder's was relegated to ONLY Wealthy WASP men) you will wind up at "imperialism"

Later Musolini coined "fascism" and "corporatism" -- the latter he termed to mean "economic-fascism"

So yes you are right (barring all human history) capitalism (owners rights society) could potentially lead to liberty; it just never has

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 (cont) from "likelihood...."

However, Marx did accurately assess and lable (he created the word) the world of his day -- "capitalism" is as he worded it "economic-fuedalism" (which means its nationalistic and wedded to big gov't.) Whereas Corproatism is economic-fascism (which is globalist and wedded to big gov't).

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox cont..... the fact that it is easier to gain wealth politically(the less rich or masses will always try to steal from the rich through redistribution) encourages corruption and cronyism. Hence, democracy is the most unstable form of government. Philippine legislators have an average net worth of 10M and own many businesses. Could you consider these businesses free market? China on the other hand is not a democracy and thus politically stable and also more free market than many democracy

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 --- Democarcy, Capitalism, Corporatism, all forms of Marxism, and Socialism --- are all one and corrupt. Nations under these banners each killed 50M people (by genocide or democide).

None of the above banners make self-rule a reality in the medium to long-run

Understand that capitalism has not existed in this country post Reconstruction. Before Reconstruction only wealthy WASP men could vote, there was slavery, Reservationism, and extreme income disparity

[truevoice08]

@OctoBox If democracy, capitalism, corporatism, socialism, marxism are all the same then it makes no sense to say capitalism leads to corporatism. I for one do not want to further pollute language even if capitalism has historically been associated with corporatism. The dictionary definition of capitalism is still a system of private property absent state coercion. I prefer holding on to this definition despite propaganda by the left and constant attempts to bruise and torture the word.

[OctoBox]

@truevoice08 -- Marx created the word "capitalism" and he broke it down to "economic-fuedalism" which is an accurate size-up of the Industrialists.

The were "owners" -- "nationalists" (in predominance) -- and were wedded to "big gov't"

That's just fact -- If you are interested in the "non-polluted" definition.

[DaveDoggOwns]

"We have the greatest banking system the world has ever seen."

LOL. Omg, the ignorance.

[Visfen]

Duh, a politican :D

[dradeel]

Hahaha. Yeah, that was priceless. And followed up with the amazing saying "If it ain't broken don't fix it"... and three years later it broke. Oops! ^^ Sure seems like "maintenance" in terms of free enterprise and market competition is better than breaking and fixing stuff. :P

[trpirate]

That is just too sweet!

The bank guy is just wrong on so many levels it's amazing!

[BATCH420]

pwned... although we austrians believe that the banking system IS in fact broken.

[Cliffrosson]

that idiot said we had the best banking system in the world.....

[mthmn20]

I love how Walter Block just logics the shit out of everything.

[iamacyborg]

*new favorite phrase*

[soulshaker123]

werd.

[Hxcorps]

@mthmn20 "logics the shit out of everything." EPIC.

[KommanderWill]

Walmart is asking for government involvement and aid. Wow, banks have never tried that. This guy is such a tool, Block owned him.

[coffeeintheface]

I love when that guy said "We shouldn't allow Wal-Mart to infringe on the private sector because they're asking for insurance from the FDIC"......uh, and the OTHER banks DON'T?? That's an entirely different issue -- the main reason people don't want Wal-Mart entering banking is because they're crazy anticapitalists punchdrunk with a passion for class warfare.

[CommSense]

ha mr block ran shit. love it.

[thomasst2]

Everything your saying is something customers should take into account when deciding (not sure if it's all correct though). But, for instance, if the bank takes FDIC insurance and the smaller banks don't, theoretically the smaller banks should have sounder balance sheets (but I'm sure they fractionally reserve bank as well). But Walter's point is that anyone should be free to start a business. The customer determines who wins. But the customer that doesn't do due diligence will be burned.

[DarthKazi]

Yeah... I put thought into it and you and he are correct.

Arguing things on some abstract ethical grounds, or some biased opinion about a particular company, doesn't really bode well for logical argument and discussion.

Survival of the fittest works in nature and it works in business.

I hate things Rockefeller(s) have done and I do feel they are part of "the big ugly conspiracy", but the FACT is, if not for JD Rockefeller making Kerosene cheap, people would have froze to death and starved.

[thomasst2]

I think it works in business too...but I've started to learn that given uncertainty of consumer preference, 2 types of entrepreneurs develop: Ones that honestly accept the challenge of uncertainty, competition and innovation, and ones that depend on the state to regulate and subsidize to obtain competitive advantages and attempt the ensure survivability. Their cost is to provide services that benefit the state, which creates conflict of interest between the regulators and the regulated.

[thomasst2]

What you said before makes sense. In your situation, you are an informed customer on how the banking system works and have ideas who you would bank with.

You win!!! Others after you...I'm not so sure.

[cjatasu]

Our banking system is strong, if it aint broke dont fix it? Where is this clown at now? Oh yeah he woke up in 2008 realizing he didn't know what the f%^k he was talking about in 05. Maybe someday people will listen to the Austrian school. There is hope HR1207 has 124 cosponsors.

[rflosi]

Wal-Mart can't drive out small businesses. Only consumers that choose Wal-Mart over small businesses can drive out small businesses. The choice is up to the consumer. Get these politicians out of here.

[OutlawTomFantastic]

"We have the greatest banking system the world has ever seen. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our banking system isn't broken." - Wow that guy sure looks like an ass these days with all the banking problems. Care to try out free market banking now?

[AryaStarkFan]

The problem now is caused by lack of a free market. The government essentially promised the banks that the government wouldn't let them go broke, so banks took unreasonable risks. Further, the federal reserve set the interest rates artificially low so everyone took unreasonable risks.

Yes, I would very much rather try free market banking than a 700 million dollar bailout that *might* work.

[AryaStarkFan]

700 billion -- oops. Oh, make that 1 trillion, just a little government over run. Ooops, forgot about fanny and Freddie it'll only be 2 trillion more... well.. maybe there are a few other institutions that took unreasonable risks given the low interest rates and government guarantees...

[OutlawTomFantastic]

Rereading what I wrote, it does sound like I was being sarcastic about free market banking, but I was being serious. Free market banking is truly the only way to go. All these regulations and government oversight, plus the monopoly by the Fed on interest rates is what is responsible. We need to eliminate central control by the Fed, go back to government currency backed by 100% gold AND allow other currencies to vie on the free market.

[AryaStarkFan]

I guess my irony detector was on vacation. /me goes to buy more gold

[VariedInterest]

Walter Block defends a system under the name of the Free Market, which doesn't even remotely resemble a free market. Is he insane or just a liar? Anything he supports in the name of deregulation is suspect. His agenda may be under the guise of free enterprise, but all it does realistically is aid an already corrupt and predatory system in further avoiding reprisal for their exploitative actions.

[coffeeintheface]

I think his point was less about the corporations and the crony capitalism we have now and more about stating general problems/solutions. Like I said to another poster, I think he should have mentioned first off that corporations like Wal-Mart have perks that are NOT part of a free market and are only possible through unconstitutional government measures. That's what I would've said first before saying anything else. But Block understands this, being part of the Austrian School.

[adamkinneythompson]

Walter Block is the man.

[macarrera]

well... i agree when you are referring to it's origins not entirely based on a free market system. But, Dr. Block is referring to as we have now, and how it would benefit costumers. His argument is merely pragamatic and very accurate.

[OgeronimonominoregO]

I'm all for free market, but would Wal-Mart really exist in a free market? All of these large corporations fuel their expansions by manipulating the non-free market fractional reserve banking system. They can "borrow" millions of fiat dollars which command resources to build stores by the thousands.

Unless they got all their money from stock issues, the free market argument for them is

somewhat mute IMHO. It would be much harder to create such a giant in an actually free market.

[coffeeintheface]

Again, I really think Block did a disservice by not bringing this up. Since a lot of people don't understand that, they might just hear Block and think he's a "corporate apologist", when the fact of the matter is that regulation ALLOWS stuff like this to happen.

[VariedInterest]

I'm not exactly a free market capitalist, but I would love to see America try it!

[coffeeintheface]

The funny thing is that some clowns are saying that "capitalism caused the crisis" and that this is proof that the markets have failed and that we should have something like Michael Albert's Participatory Economics to replace markets.

Before they start recommending such insane ideas, they might actually want to TRY the free market. We don't have it. Our market is nationalized via regulations which caused the crises. So it makes no sense for them to blame markets/capitalism.

[VariedInterest]

I'll agree with that.

I'm still not a free market capitalist, though, by any means. I don't mind working with some in toppling the current order of things, I just fundamentally disagree with the concept that everything is the private property of humans, I just find it naive and unwise. I have by no means finished my studies on the subject (as in as long as I breath I study), but in my understanding what we have now is the inevitable result of a free market capitalist economy, not a deviation.

[coffeeintheface]

I understand that, though I believe 100% in private property. It's ultimately an extension of individual rights and the ultimate defense against tyranny.

[coffeeintheface]

I would highly recommend checking out the writings of the Austrian School of Economics (of which Walter Block is an adherent). Specifically, check out Murray Rothbard's writings. He wrote a book called "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto" which I HIGHLY recommend. This is the book that turned me into a 100% private property advocate. A life-changer.

[VariedInterest]

I think the exact opposite about private property on th exact same grounds, haha.

I appreciate your referral, though. I know a good amount about that area of theory, and I agree the current form of capitalism in practice is certainly not represented by it, but even in a green uncorrupted stage of free market capitalism, I still dont find it at all conducive to prolonged liberty, and by design I dont find it fair or enlightened anyway. I think its reactionary, naive, and unwise, as I said.

[coffeeintheface]

I felt nearly the exact same way as you until I started reading Rothbard and similar authors. And I haven't stopped there: I consistently test my beliefs and (imho) they still hold up.

Good luck in your studies man.

[coffeeintheface]

The thing that makes "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto" so powerful is that it covers not only the economic aspects of individual rights and private property, but the underlying moral/epistemological basis from which you can deduce the rest of the views.

In case you don't wanna buy it or can't find it at a library, it's available online here:

mises(DOT)org/rothbard/newlibe­rtywhole(DOT)asp

All of Rothbard's works are available free here, along with other Austrian Economics works.

[VariedInterest]

Same to you. I am reading a lot of sociobiology, natural sciences and feminist studies right now, but I don't mind taking a better look at Rothbard specifically, whatever good it will do me.

And same to you. There's no reason that, while we fundamentally disagree on some points, we can't come to terms reasonably on common ones. It's not productive to have all this petty acrimony you see in left politics.

[macarrera]

I love Dr. Block... He's my future husband

[OutlawTomFantastic]

Walter Block owned that debate. The only thing I agreed with the Republican guy was that the government should not be guaranteeing loans that Walmart banking would make. In fact the government should not be guaranteeing *any* loans period. But great explanation by the professor.

[coffeeintheface]

I think that was a point that Block should have built on, and that in a mixed economy like ours, it allows monopolies to occur. That was the only good point that Repub dude made. The guy representing the 'Independent Bankers of America' was an idiot.

[zasterguava]

They found Osama Bin Laden!

[bmtimv]

got to love mr. block's assessment.

[dommyxx]

Block of genius

[cassidy1478]

My problem is not with Walmart per se, but rather the corporate welfare granted by government. I wish Block had taken time to address the one gentleman when he said that Walmart was petitioning for tax breaks, etc.

[Daytrader2008]

Nothign wrong with petitioning for tax breaks. It's a business' responsibility to increase profits, and getting tax breaks is part of it. If the government gives Wal-Mart tax breaks but no one else, that's not Wal-Mart's fault.

[Balden2]

Haha! Block showed them who's boss!

[Vhaeos]

So stupid. Why shouldn't Wal-Mart have banks? Most of my local grocery stores have banks, and there is not a problem.

[cmbradford]

Walter Block is the man!

[qtronman]

These politicians are utterly and profoundly ignorant hicks and fools. "Where I come from,..." Spare me the "Momma knows best" bullshit, asshole.

[thorsmitersaw]

the western world is full of neo-mercantilist idiots. Go Block!

[cflying]

You can watch more of Walter Block's videos at the Mises Institute website.

[DoWhatYouCanDo]

Yes, mises [dot] org

[1tinsoldier]

awesome, Walter!

[kulza23]

"Our banking system is not broken"

Hahaha. Yeah, fractional reserve banking supports the average citizen and not the financial elite. Give me a break.

But then again, if you could create money out of thin air and loan it at interest, you've got a sweet deal. Who would want to give THAT up?

[Omnis2]

"We have the best banking system in the world."

LMAO! Yeah right. Go Walter!