Quote:
|
Economic libertarianism is an experimental concept which, if advocated lock stock and barrel, would fail miserably because nothing about markets are free.
|
As usual, you conflate current conditions with what is advocated by libertarians. Current markets are indeed not free. This, however, does not constitute a sensible arguement against the proposition that they should be free. You have presented assertions, but no argument.
Quote:
|
Markets are in no way natural. They are the creation of humans and are as distinct and varied as even humans. The markets that exist between Vermont and New Hampshire are different than those between North and South Korea. Just because we like one more than another does not mean that either are less of a creation of government.
|
Your own statements contradict eachother. Markets are natural in that they are the result of the spontaneous decisions of individuals. A "market" is simply the sum total of economic interactions between individuals. There is nothing "synethetic" about that. Markets naturally occur as a result of human action.
And the proposition that markets are the creation of government is rather absurd. People do not trade with eachother because the government exists. People trade with eachother because they have incentives to. If we woke up tomorrow and there was no government, such incentives would still exist and there would still be markets (I.E. a series of exchanges and the production of goods and services).
It takes a very nonsensical understanding of human nature to propose that the reason why people produce stuff and make exchanges is because the government. Clearly, people engage in such activities regaurdless. The belief that the government is the sole or fundamental reason why people engage in exchange and production is dogmatic and akin to a religion.
Quote:
|
The sub-prime crisis, Enron, derivatives and other exotic financial instruments were in many cases attempts to profit by operating in a shadowy realm just outside the reach of existing regulation.
|
Both were blatant cases in which there was government intervention and monetary meddling that lead to problems. Both are the result of political policy. It hardly can be argued that they are the result of a non-existant laissez-faire system.
Quote:
|
Corporations profiting by peddling some of the higher-risk financial instruments, often leaving other's holding the bag, adequately demonstrate the need for regulation over and above the type of caveat emptor that either Ron Paul or resident Jr. Economists here would have us believe.
|
Except it is precisely corporatist regulation and intervention that allow such things to occur in the first place.
Quote:
|
This is not a matter of those at the wheel having merely missed a few things. It is indisputable evidence to alliegances made in return for patronage. Inasmuch as any student (to be distinguished from master) of economics reocognizes these aspects of markets to be true it was proactive support of the interests of a select few taken at great risk to the rest of us.
|
And patronage between private interests and the government is not laissez-faire. It is a political system of government favoritism and protection to select private groups. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this obvious point.
Quote:
|
When the solvency of the entire system can be threatened by the practices of a few, the risks are simply too great to embark on someone's draconian vision of an unprecedentedly free market when there are so many other crucial tweaks screaming to be made. This calls for regulation and with regulation comes less freedom, violation and even punitive measures for offenders. This is a far dry from the utopian free market that some dreamily cast as being natural.
|
Your statements are highly rhetorical but not substantial. Do you have anything to present other then rhetoric? Please present and argument! Not rhetoric! You're not argueing against anyone's actual position. You're playing a rhetorical game.
Quote:
|
Notice that Bush himself, no doubt under advice of others, did not seek anyone from the Mises Institute -- he sought Ben Bernanke, economist and academician who wrote the basic book on how to respond to conditions that led to the Great Depression. That is the first demonstrable sign I've seen from Bush that when you don't know shit you seek out the most credible and revered authority who does. It is a different kind of authority that Bush has been accustomed to. It is the authority of knowledge and track record rather than the authority of "how-I'd-like-it-to-be". It is too little too late but better late than never.
|
Sigh. More rhetoric. And you're pointing to Bush's decisions as an example of what's credible and sensible? Wow. Just wow. Bernake, a monetarist who heads a central bank, is a reliable authority? Wow. Just wow. You do realize your statements can easily be construed in a pro-bush manner, right? You're making apologetics for the status quo and dismissing dissent as crackpottery.
Quote:
|
Beware of those who, with cursory study, make up answers to serious questions as they go. I would not call those people at 3am.
|
Will you stop with the rhetoric and irrelevant statements already and make an actual argument?