The Federal Reserve - Lapdog to Goldman Sachs
- Thread starter Don
- Start date
It feels to me like there's something inherently wrong with any economic system in which "investment" is a viable business strategy.
In even the simplest economic system, how would you obtain a net to catch fish if you didn't invest the time it took to make it? How would you have gotten your degree if you didn't invest the time it took to complete the college courses?
Investment is a critical business strategy leading to the creation of capital goods, which allow a person to increase their productivity.
Investment is a critical business strategy leading to the creation of capital goods, which allow a person to increase their productivity.
Ah, got it. OTOH, I recently invested in my lawn-care guy by loaning him money to get a new mower. My grass looks better, he's working off the loan in part by helping me with some heavy work, and since his credit was sketchy, the bank probably wouldn't have worked out for him. I'll even give him a nice reference if he needs to go to the bank to get a new truck. That was my whole business plan.
I think capitalism worked out pretty nicely for both of us. YMMV.
OTOOH, the investment bankers I've dealt with all sucked, so I see your point.
I bought an Xbox 360 from a friend this week. I intend to use it to have fun.
I guess that counts as a business plan, too.
OTOOH, the investment bankers I've dealt with all sucked, so I see your point.
Hence, I argue that an economic system that allows their existence is inherently flawed.
Here's the essence of what I understand about your political/economic philosophy, Don:
You despise governmental regulation of economic enterprises because the latter always subvert the former, to theri own benefit.
So, your answer is to have no regulations at all.
Am I missing something here?
caw
You despise governmental regulation of economic enterprises because the latter always subvert the former, to theri own benefit.
So, your answer is to have no regulations at all.
Am I missing something here?
caw
Last edited:
Close, but no cigar. The short answer is a civilized society should have safeguards against malum in se acts, particularly the initiation of force (assault, murder, rape, robbery, etc.) or fraud, destruction of commons such as air and water, disputes concerning contracts freely entered into, and the like.
I think it best if those services are provided by cooperating and competing entitles as we have today with local, state and federal governments, but I'd prefer those options be voluntarily selected among competing entities rather than determined by geography. I'm pro-choice in everything, including protection and justice systems.
I'm no fan of malum prohibitum. Most of what should be legitimately protected against should fall under the description given above. If there is an overarching federal agency, I'd prefer it be focused on protecting the rights of the individual from encroachments by those lower-level service providers.
Oh, and IMO, fractional-reserve banking is a fine example of fraud and should be considered as such. Also IMO, much of what passes for advertising today is riddled with fraudulent claims as well. As for corporations, no group of people should be granted privileges that are not granted to every citizen, and that includes limited liability and eternal life. Those are prime examples of Uncle Sam failing in his most important role; equal justice for all.
Malum Prohibitum opens the door to Goldman Sachs owning the agency that's supposed to oversee it and closes the door to both innovation and potential small business owners who can't afford a phalanx of lawyers and accountants to get their doors opened. It punishes Main Street to the benefit of Wall Street and K Street. It leads to an FDA that prohibits marijuana and legalizes a drug for rough skin that has been shown to cause cancer, to a DEA that wages war on our youth and minorities and militarizes our domestic police forces, to an EPA that slaps BP on the wrist for destroying hundreds of miles of shoreline and thousands of square miles of prime fisheries and to a government that takes from the taxpayer to bail out companies that are failing because they don't offer products consumers are willing to buy. BP should have gone bankrupt from lawsuits and General Motors should be in the hands of new owners who can produce cars people want to buy.
Malum Prohibitum leads to rent-seeking and regulatory capture, the cornerstones of crony capitolism, hidden in the sheep's clothing of consumer protection. We need fewer opportunities for corporations to take advantage of moral hazard and pass their losses on to the taxpayers. We need fewer opportunities for Wall Street to erect barriers to entry that prevent small businesspeople on Main Street from entering into competition against them.
We need more Underwriter's Laboratories and Consumer Reports and Angie's Lists and ASMEs and ITEFs and W3Cs, not more Centers for Food Safety and USDA and Corps of Engineers and occupational licensing. We need more National Wildlife Federations, not more Bureaus of Land Management.
In short, we need more engagement in society. People have gotten lazy and disconnected from their responsibilities to society by the assumption that "Uncle Sam will do it" if only they vote for the right angels to run the world. It's hard to blame the people, though, when governments at all levels take nearly 50 cents of every dollar to "help" them, and the economy's in the crapper thanks to the policies of the Federal Reserve.
And generally, Uncle Sam does a pretty crappy job providing that "help" that citizens expect, given the problems with rent-seeking and regulatory capture that we're all too well aware of.
[/rant]
Well, you did ask.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
Here's something from a nice little blog post that I ran across:
And also this observation:
http://internetisinamerica.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-libertarianism-sucks-as-ideology.html?m=1
ETA
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
I don't think a single one of these is on the mark, not as "universal truths" accepted by "all libertarians." Number 2 seems self-contradictory, since the former is a subset of the latter. And five is pretty funny to me, since Don at least argues against it as much as anyone else. Here's an example from only ten days ago, in case anyone missed it.
Rugcat, it seems to me that critiques of really any political philosophy at all are compromised by sacrificing an ear for nuance in favor of simplistic caricatures. Do you disagree?
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 4,110
- Location
- East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
- Website
- www.jlevitt.com
No, I basically agree with that.
But it seems to me the post you referenced talks mostly about social issues in terms of economic policy and consequences.
Any simple list is going to be far from nuanced. Certainly individuals are nuanced and their opinions vary; almost no one adheres to a strict party line about anything, whatever their philosophical beliefs.
But I happen to think that it's a pretty solid description of libertarian philosophy in general, myself. The themes that are listed are certainly common to most of the libertarians I've talked to in my own experience.
The blog posting itself is much longer and actually more nuanced though no less critical of libertarianism as a viable philosophy for organizing human affairs and society.
Actually, he sounds like the typical whiny-ass self-interested party who's pissed that economics puts parameters on his utopia and would prefer force be used to create his vision of a perfect society, whether other people are willing to freely submit to that vision or not.
That's mostly what pisses people off about libertarians, bottom line. We don't believe it's moral to use force to create our personal version of the perfect society. We only believe in personal choice, free association and free trade among individuals without some central authority guiding all of society with an iron hand. We honestly believe in freedom of choice; for us it's not a term to be trotted out when we discuss abortion and put back into mothballs when it comes to damn near everything else.
Some people that scares because it requires confidence in one's own ability to produce value for value; some people that pisses off because it would mean getting off their ass and getting a real job that produces real value for society, meaning they have to forego their dream of being the world's most under-appreciated artist; some people figure there's no free lunch for anybody in that scenario; and by "anybody" they mean themselves.
Why am I not the least bit surprised that the author, "Jimbo X," styles himself as a "Freelance Multi-Media Journalist"? I wonder at his source of income, and how much "multi-media journalism" he's actually sold for real money to put food on his table and an iPad in his hands.
My guess is his personal vision of the perfect society includes free access to whatever he wants whenever he wants it, whether people are actually willing to pay for his sterling prose or not.
He has such an insightful focus on society, after all. As he describes it: "a nice jumble of high culture snobbery and low culture sleaze" and "heavy-handed bloviating about politics and consumption. Well, that, and lots of stuff about video games and junk food. The things that matter the most obviously." I'm amazed he hasn't won a Pulitzer already.
Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastián d'Anconia said:
Last edited:
Maybe take another look, in particular the discussion of same-sex marriage. The basic message is: the economic consequences are X, but it's not that important in the end, because same-sex marriage is about equality more than anything else.
And that's really the way many libertarians talk about these issues. Answer this: what do you think libertarians tend to hate more about the war on drugs? Is it the idea of government intruding in matters where it doesn't belong, or all that money being wasted?
It is longer, but not much more nuanced, imo. I don't think it even reaches a basic level of seriousness.
But here, I'll treat seriously one of the more serious critiques, just for a moment.
That could hardly be more wrong, imo. Why do libertarians criticize free ice cream? Because rightly or wrongly, it's seen as theft. So saying it's seen as worse than theft makes no sense at all. Really, libertarians complain about theft more than anyone. That would actually be a strong basis for a criticism of libertarianism, imo: the idea that libertarians see theft in places where it arguably doesn't exist (like taxation). But that's a far cry from arguing--wrongly--that libertarians see stealing and looting as no big deal, and even moral. Really it's the exact opposite that's true. And note how little argument the author uses to support his claim. There's really nothing there, imo.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 46,262
- Reaction score
- 9,912
- Location
- on the Seven Bridges Road
- Website
- thepondsofhappenstance.com
It's all good. Just some disgruntled employee, surely. We all know the Fed holds those nasty banks feet to the fire and makes them toe the line. We know the Fed holds the interests of the little guy and the shopkeepers down on Main Street foremost in their mind when developing policy.So, about Goldman Sachs and the Fed...
So, about Goldman Sachs and the Fed...
"Why are government employees filing a civil suit against Goldman Sachs? That's just going to be embarrassing in a few years when they all go back to work at Goldman Sachs." –Stephen Colbert
Oh, come on. We all know the revolving doors between government agencies and the industries they're tasked to oversee is a good thing. Where else are you going to find the expertise to police these firms, if not from within the very firms that must be policed?
<-- again.(Actually, that's an argument I've seen posted by some here.) I'd say it's a really, really safe bet that Ms. Segarra won't be offered employment at Goldman Sachs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2005
- Messages
- 46,262
- Reaction score
- 9,912
- Location
- on the Seven Bridges Road
- Website
- thepondsofhappenstance.com
It's all good. Just some disgruntled employee, surely. We all know the Fed holds those nasty banks feet to the fire and makes them toe the line. We know the Fed holds the interests of the little guy and the shopkeepers down on Main Street foremost in their mind when developing policy.
It's interesting to me, the lack of a desire from much of the left to hold the Federal Reserve (and its congressional lackeys) accountable for collusion with certain firms. We saw this play out in the Occupy nonsense, where the focus was limited to private interests and select politicians on the right.
This collusion has been a problem for a long time imo and when it comes to things like the subject of this thread, it's at the top of the list for the "why." Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and other "select" institutions lost a ton of wealth in the recession, but the masters of the universe running them had their collective asses saved, made whole, and then some via the Fed. Hell, the Fed backed Corzine to the hilt when he took over MF Global, gave the small firm the same kind of special privileges Goldman Sachs had, thus allowing Corzine and company to amass huge personal fortunes before MF Global collapsed (hammering average Joes right and left).
This is all true, imo. And man, I thought I had forgotten all about Corzine and MF Global.
That one does explain the libertarian hard-on for the Confederacy in a way I hadn't thought of before.