Greenspan's philosophy is obviously hypocritical in that it's a contradiction. Letting the market do what it wants, and then bailing it out when it fails. But, on the other hand, it fits in perfectly with the conservative movement's idea of privatization of government in general. Instead of either private risks and private profits, or public risks and public profits, we get PIVATE PROFITS and PUBLIC RISKS.

After thirty years of this nonsense, with private corporations looting the public coffers, I vote we do it the OTHER way for 30 years just to balance things out. PRIVATE RISKS and PUBLIC PROFITS.

What was so striking about that book [Greenspan’s The Age of Turbulence], was that half of it is a screed against the need for government regulation—you know, free markets are self-regulating—government doesn’t need to mess with free markets. They’ll correct themselves. And the other half of it is Greenspan’s memoir about all of the times he used the Federal Reserve to bail out failed bets by free markets. Now, how can you have it both ways?

In a nutshell there it is ..

"Let the Free Market Rule .. But Bail Us Out & Subsidize Us & Make It Illegal NOT To Purchase Our Product & .. & .. & .."

Mike@1 is right about cons, but not free-marketers. Even Greenspan said on TDS that the US isn't a free market. So his concept was to work with the control system that was in place, and to do so as lightly as possible. I personally think he failed at that.

But I think it's time to acknowledge that the US economy is not a free market, and that conservatives only use that term as a marketing gimmick. True capitalism has been killed off by pseudo-socialism. The down-sides of both systems are present, while the benefits of either struggle to see light.

Maybe Zombie Capitalism would be a good term to use?

Spot on! He's totally right - corporations unfairly lobby the government to bend the market to their whims... they get legislation passed to outlaw things that are less profitable, to force consumers to buy their products, and to stop competition. The market is a bitch, though - regardless of how much control they exert, the citizen still votes with their dollars and drives deserving companies to bankruptcy. The fed then bails them out - i'm sure Greenspan's buddies get a nice little bonus for it, too. Lots of money going back and forth from the taxpayer's pocket and none of it for us...

The American people need to take back their government.

Guys like this exist only because of MSM.

Revolution. Sign me up.

Gersom at 11

Don't know what you know, but know you're right.

Republicans run on the idea that government doesn't work and then they prove it when they get elected.

The ideological battle over "government regulation of business" is vestigial at this point. It comes from an era when we were trying to choose between free market capitalism and planned economic communism.

"Regulation" to the Greenspans of the world (and you don't need to get too far into Atlas Shrugged to get this one) is tantamount to nationalization of industry.

But we're past that now. No one is really arguing that free markets are a bad thing. The argument is that free markets are not free because of abusive, monopolistic and sometimes downright stupid behavior.

The idea that markets are "self-regulating" is an unsubstantiated fantasy. It works in the narrow example always given (ie if you don't provide good products, you won't make a profit), but only if markets are generally trusted. That trust comes from reliable regulation.

There was a time when S&Ls were highly trusted, VERY conservative financial institutions. Once they were freed up to "self-regulate," well, any S&L's in YOUR neighborhood today?

"Deregulation" did well for itself as a meme, attaching to anti-communism. But it's really anti-capitalism at this point.

Remember: drying up and blowing away in the wind like so much dust is one form of "self-regulation." Actually, it's the only form.

Hillary Signals Free Pass for Bush

Free Documentaries on Google Video that will attempt to explain the Federal Reserve System for you:

Zeitgeist: Part III 47 minutes.

Fiat Empire - 59 minutes

I don't know why Greenspan wasn't called out big time on this....During his 60 Minutes interview with Steve Krofft, Greenspan said he favored the Bush tax cut because he thought we had enough money in the surplus to cut taxes and fund the war and do anything else we wanted to. Krofft gave him a "HUH?" look and said what about politicians who wanted to use the money for education, social programs, etc. to which Greenspan replied, I thought we had enough for all of that.
Greenspan strikes me as someone who is so intellectual on theory, that he is a complete idiot when it comes to the way the world really works.
Agree with another poster, why isn't Kuttner covered more? Greenspan is the epitome of intellectual Inconsistency.
My other thought when I watched that interview was, Cheney's got the goods on him, otherwise he wouldn't be saying something so ridiculous.

A major factor in contributing to the sub-prime fiasco was that these loans were bundled into "mortgage-backed securities" which were then given the highest debt rating by the rating companies. These securities were then sold to investors, freeing the original lenders to make more sub-prime loans.

Now, maybe a loan where the borrower pays only interest on the loan while he/she figures out how to make repayments of principal are not worthy of the grade AAA rating these securities got. I think there is a bit more to this matter than an "intellectual inconsistency" here. Looks to me like potential fraud. Had the securities created by these bundled loans been correctly rated, there would have been no secondary market to unload these loans on, and further sub-prime loans would have been curtailed. The real-estate bubble would not have been created, only to burst.

This is a prime example of white collar crime, where the crime is supposed to be too convoluted and complicated for people to realize that a crime may have been committed. But essentially, what I think may have happened is that the amount of loans made was caused by these loans being bundled into securities which were mis-classified by the ratings companies in order to sell these securities at a higher price in order to make the sub-prime loans profitable for the original lenders.

Of course, the tax payer is expected to be the national health insurer for those who got financially ill due to this mis-classification by the ratings companies.

how about the inconsitency of GWOT economics
"US general predicts record poppy haul"
--perhaps we should have used the Afghani poppies to pay for the war on terror instead of the Iraqi oil....

If you agree with this man, you don't know economics. We need totally free markets, unlike what we have here in America; which is a mixed economy.

Get the government out of the market. The market WILL assume responsibility instead of always having a net to fall on in hard times.

Ofc, being that crooksandliars is a lib site, you guys will almost always support government intervention. I'm almost through with this site...

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 25:

We tried no government regulation at all, and that didn't work.
We tried some government regulation but no bail outs, and that worked.
We are currently trying no government regulation, but huge government bailouts and that doesn't work.
blockquote>

You sir, don't know American history. While it is true that America is one of the most free markets in the world, we've NEVER had a free market like Hong Kong has enjoyed since the 60's. I wish people didn't spout off so much disinformation about such a serious issue as our economy.

ok never is too absolute a term. We have had a free market but it was much before the Fed came into existence in the early 20th century.

I've posted this before, but this history lesson bears repeating.

….a significant chunk of Federal spending is so far “Off Balance Sheet” that it would make the CFO of Enron blush. Its not just the war in Iraq funded via special legislation; The other major expense is FEMA. This “Emergency” spending on an ad hoc basis makes the deficit appear smaller than it really is.

What this really means, folks, is that the real defense budget, like Consumer Price Inflation [CPI] is MUCH LARGER than official statistics would have us believe.

But why would anyone want to deceive us?

To answer this question, I direct your attention to none other than rep. Ron Paul (R), currently running for the nomination to be the Republican Party’s candidate for President of the United States of America (from a speech delivered in the House of Representatives on July 9, 2002):

“It is now commonplace and politically correct to blame what is referred to as the excesses of capitalism for the economic problems we face, and especially for the Wall Street fraud that dominates the business news. Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government – for which they are directly responsible. Instead, it gives the Keynesian crowd that run the show a chance to attack free markets and ignore the issue of sound money.

So, just who are these ‘Keynesians’ who seem to be such ardent proponents of unsound money, anyway?

Well, let’s just say that they are not capitalists. As Dr. Paul points out,

“Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!”

So, if we’re to believe Dr. Paul, it seems that ‘core’ to where we find ourselves economically speaking is unbridled credit creation [fiat currency] and fiat money’s chief advocate – Central Banking.

But doesn’t Central Banking and Capitalism go hand-in-hand?

The answer is a resounding no!!

To wrap one’s mind around this fact, they need look no further than the words and thought of Edward Mandell House, chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson from 1913 to 1921:

House was a Marxist whose goal was to socialize the Untied States. In 1912, House wrote the book “Philip Dru: Administrator" in which he stated that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." In this book, House laid out a plan for the conquest of America, telling how both the Democratic and Republican Parties would be controlled, and be used as instruments in the creation of a socialistic government. And he asked for the establishment of a state-controlled central bank, which were both proposed in "The Communist Manifesto". And it was in 1913, during the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson Administration, that both of these proposals became law. The Federal Reserve Act was passed, which brought into power a private central bank to create the money of the United States, taking this power away from the united States Congress. And the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the graduated income tax as proposed by Karl Marx, was also ratified.

You see folks, Central Banking is, and always has been, a key tenet of Communism -- not Capitalism.

This is reality.

Predatory capitalism is no different than predatory communism.

Amazing how much time I have spent explaining this to Capital-L Libertarians - the government will regulate or it will bail out.

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 25:

We tried no government regulation at all, and that didn't work.
We tried some government regulation but no bail outs, and that worked.
We are currently trying no government regulation, but huge government bailouts and that doesn't work.

So that answer that the Paulbots and Republicans propose? Back to no government regulation, that we already know doesn't work. Morons. Why is it they ALWAYS insist on breaking eggs, then saying "no, no! if we just scoop up the dirt and hair covered yolk, shove it back in the shell, and glue it all together, it will be good as new!"

Are they really not smart enough to consider making rules like: "don't break the egg in the first place"?

I read somewhere that one of the definitions of lunacy was to do the same thing over and over but expecting every time a different outcome. In that respect Paultards and Libertarians in general do fit the definition of lunatics.

Ron Paul is a dangerous idiot, as are the swarm of inept people who are proposing with a straight face that the only "cure" is to return to the gold standard. Talk about not knowing what they are talking about. As a professor of mine used to say: "Be wary of any advice regarding brain surgery from a moron that just read the Cliff's notes on Horse medicine."

AConfederacyofDunces @ 31:

Greenspan is an apologist for Wall Street.
Now he whines that we should not judge him.

He's a hypocrite, a liar and a thief.

The Federal Reserve "loans" the US money that it could print for itself interest free.

Americans are not taught the rudiments of monetary policy.
If the American public understood they'd be run out of town, tarred and feathered.

...

By definition, banking depends on the ignorance of the masses. If people knew that it was their money bankers were making their fortunes off, a different story would have emerged. Not only that, but bank charters would have never allowed to create money out of thin air in fiat based on partial reserve requirements. Banks and the financial system in general can and do create money out of thin
air, and it is up to the peopel with their hard work to generate that money. It is the biggest scam ever played on people. And the sad part is that to this day, a lot of people don't know how fiat and money in general works, even though their lives revolve around it.

Financial education in general should be as fundamental as math and/or literacy IMHO. There is nothing in our lives that plays as important role as money, and yet it is the most misunderstood subject of them all by the populance. No wonder Jesus lost it with the usurers in the temple.

Ron.j @ 37:

Alan Greenspan is a fraud. greenspan wrote a long time ago, that the FED monetary policy of the 1920's lead into The Great Depression. What did he do when he was in charge of teh FED? The same policy- in spades.

Greenspan was warned in 2000 by another FED member about loosened lending standards. He was uninterested in doing anything about it. Why? Because Greenspan was going to engineer a housing bubble, to replace the stock bubble. Greenspan dropped rates to 1%, then told home buyers in 2003, that they should get adjustable rate mortgages. At 1%, FED rates had nowhere to go but up.

in 2005, Greenspan praised no down, interest only, no doc, negatively amortized lending programs, as a means for those who otherwise could not afford to buy a house, to own one. Now he says it was an accident waiting to happen. F R A U D.

Now Greenspan blames anything but himself, for a housing bubble.

Alan Greenspan should be prosecuted for Central Banking fraud.

So... is that like Bush who stated over and over that large government was dangerous, then proceeded to make the largest, most dangerous government in history?

What is it with these guys? If there was one word that described all this... stuff that has happened to us since Newt Gengrich and Ken Starr, I'd say "self-loathing". Well that and they vastly over-estimate their own abilities, if you are right about Greenspan thinking he could create and control a bubble like that intentionally, indefinitely. I just don't know why they can't go self-flagellate on their own and leave the rest of us out of their sick games. Just look at Dick Cheney's face. You just KNOW he pays someone to spank him on a daily basis. QUAAACK!

The most disappointing thing in Ron Paul's fiscal policies in my view is that they would actually DECREASE personal liberty in modern society. That's not very libertarian in my view, but he's convinced this is the 17th century I guess.

flubb @ 26:

If you agree with this man, you don't know economics. We need totally free markets, unlike what we have here in America; which is a mixed economy.

Get the government out of the market. The market WILL assume responsibility instead of always having a net to fall on in hard times.

Ofc, being that crooksandliars is a lib site, you guys will almost always support government intervention. I'm almost through with this site...

syanora

swarmofkillermonkeys @ 45:

Moose @ 43:

Gersom @ 11:

Number 3 is right!!! The Federal Reserve is not part of the government. It is a privately owned banking institutuion. I still can't get my head around the fact that our Congress is afforded the right to print money (interest-free) via the Constitution and yet it give this same right away to an institution that prints the money, and in turn, loans it to the government, who then must repay the loaned money with interest. What a great scam!!! How can I get a SWEET deal like that?

This is what happens when you learn how the Federal Reserve works by conspiracy videos rather than textbooks.
Things to consider:
1)The Fed is controlled by an independent US government agency (the Board of Governors)
2)The Fed does not print money
3)The Fed does not loan the government money

But... but... Ron Paul said.... gold standard!... black helicopters!!.... jewish cabal!!!.... utra-free markets uber-alles!!!!! Jawol!

Sorry. My, I'm so sarcastic today... but that is some serious tinfoil hat stuff that Paul has tapped into lately. A rich $20 million dollar vein of it, apparently. Good luck shedding some daylight on it...

As a rule of thumb I tend to ignore anything that a medical doctor which does not believe in evolution has to say. It is just funny in a sad kind of way to see the Paultards taking the things their messiah says as gospel.

Ron Paul is an MD, he is a scientist. Any person who does not believe in evolution is not fit for the highest office in the land, period. It is time we start demanding a level of excellence in our leaders. And frankly, I find it deeply insulting that minimal scientific knowledge is somehow supposed to be a "luxury" for the people we are selecting to guide us through the first part of the XXI century. Enough is enough, and the least common denominator needs to stay back in the trailer park and off the white house.

Alas, it does not matter how stupid someone in the lime light is, there are plenty of apologist to make sure we are not getting the full context.

Theory in the scientific parlance is an explanation of facts, a lot of non scientist tend to miss interpret theory with conjecture... and there lies the folly.

Unfortunately reality and nature for that matter is not a democracy. You don't get to chose facts and realities, sorry. Next time, try a simple experiment; jump off a roof, and chose not to believe in what those "physicist" tell you about gravity. And you will find out the hard way, that nature does not give a rat's ass about what you believe. Such is the arrogance of the ignorant...

Greenspan will always be an Ayn Rand cultist. The "Free market" is his God and he is the media's god

denial and hypocrisy are essential for living the ayn randian wet dream.

what economic model could be taken seriously if it doesn't factor in environmental limits any better?

the fed is NOT part of the government , it's the instrument by which our country is controled.

Well,

This post was correct all the way up until Kuttner said that the best DIRECTION would be to "listen" to all the calls for more "managed capitalism", which is just a cowardly way of saying socialism.

So we have free markets working according to Greenspan, which is true of course, yet at the same time he, as Fed chief, bailed out many companies that failed by printing money for them. Unfair? You bet.

But nobody is making a comment on what the relationship of the Fed and the market should be. Kuttner is bang on when he says that the Fed is a government entity (the proof is that they don't advertise their product like all other private companies do, and also nobody else is allowed to create and sell what the Fed does (paper money), they are a government entity).

OK, we have the government Fed and free markets. Kuttner is saying free markets work yet the Fed bails out companies when they fail in a free market. Instead of saying "ok, this system is obviously flawed, maybe the Fed shouldn't bail out the companies", no, Kuttner instead says we should just shut up, pull up our pants, and say let's just manage the economy more like the Soviets did.

Of course this view is popular for left thinking people who think capitalism should be completely stopped, so obviously he is repeated and his views spread. But the error in this is that it forgets that the problems of the economy START with the Fed. Alan Greenspan printed so much money at the start of the millennium, that interest rates were at 1% for a few years. This low interest rate allowed mortgages to lower, which made it easier for "sub-prime" borrowers to buy a house. Now, as all inflationary times (lots of money being printed) are unsustainable, sooner or later the printing press has to stop or else the economy will really tank. So Greenspan stopped all the printing, interest rates went up, and the sub-prime borrowers found that their mortgage rates went up.

All the financial securities that were based on the mortgage payments of these borrowers were found to be worthless. That's where we are today. So what do people on the left and Kuttner think? Instead of BLAMING THE FED for lowering rates and causing all the problems, they instead say free markets don't work!!!

Can anyone see the irony here?!?!

Of course the obvious answer is TO GET THE FED OUT OF THE MARKET!! Not make the markets more regulated and hampered.

Allow people to trade in gold if they want. Allow COMPETITION in the creation of money. That's all it would take.

GOP "free" markets - Bailouts for me, but not for thee

Drama King...."If anyone tries to trade products in gold, they are arrested by the government"!

Nothing could be more inaccurate. People buy and sell products with gold all the time. Take a look at the E-gold site and you'll see a significant list of sellers of merchandise in which the seller accepts god as payement. The same is true of the Gold Is Money site and many others in which you can convert your fiat Federal Reserve notes for an equal amount of digital gold that you can then use to purchase just about anything you want. Anyone can use what we know as dollars to purchase physical bullion as well and as the dollars continues to depreciate in value, the price of both gold and silver continue to rise. Just as a hedge against inflation, gold was the best performing financial sector in 2007 rising +31% The Dow only 6.4%.
I don't agree with everything that Ron Paul has to say, but when it comes to the economy he is correct in calling for an end to the Federal Reserve system. The Constitution never called for a central bank that was controlled by a private cartell of bankers, but rather a US Treasury with coin in gold and silver. Not a worthless paper I.O.U.

Andrew @ 60:

I don't agree with everything that Ron Paul has to say, but when it comes to the economy he is correct in calling for an end to the Federal Reserve system. The Constitution never called for a central bank that was controlled by a private cartell of bankers, but rather a US Treasury with coin in gold and silver. Not a worthless paper I.O.U.

And there is where the folly lies, Dr. Paul has absolutely no training --or any idea for that matter-- regarding economic policies or theory. So there is not enough gold or silver to back our economic throughput. Then what do you do?

What it was true in the XVIII century it is not necessarily true for the current economic situation, you know it being 3 centuries ago and all. But by all means, let's all go do the Paulette lemming thing and let's go back to the gold standard. So in other words, Libertarians truly long for the days of the Robber Barons, oh to be back in the good ol' XIX century. With no regulation, kids working in mine shafts, women knowing their place, and them miniorities too busy working for no pay to be uppity. Yes the good old days, and all that gold backed money which did diddly squat to stop the crash of 1929... but by all means, let's not look at the facts, and let's try again what has ended up in major dissaster everytime it has been tried: savage deregulation. Let's all do the Paultard twist!

Idiots...

The Dude @ 62:

"And there is where the folly lies, Dr. Paul has absolutely no training --or any idea for that matter-- regarding economic policies or theory."

Yes he does. He was PERSONALLY trained by Murray Rothbard. Personal training by Rothbard beats ANY modern economics degree at the universities today beleive you me.

"So there is not enough gold or silver to back our economic throughput. Then what do you do?"

You can stop thinking this because it is a fallacy. The amount of money has nothing at all to do with being able to have a running economy. All prices would adjust, just like they adjust to the amount of paper dollars that exist today, and every other day. You confuse value with riches.

"What it was true in the XVIII century it is not necessarily true for the current economic situation, you know it being 3 centuries ago and all."

That's not what he is saying. But PRINCIPLES last forever.

"But by all means, let's all go do the Paulette lemming thing and let's go back to the gold standard."

Would be the best idea ever.

"Yes the good old days, and all that gold backed money which did diddly squat to stop the crash of 1929"

The crash was due to too many PAPER DOLLARS being printed (credit expansion actually).

"Idiots"

Hmmm....

The Dude @ 65:

"That is because those idiots read somewhere on the internets that Congress had the ability to print paper money and legal tender. The main problem? They are not congress. That and the fact that it was a scam..."

You like to say idiots a lot don't you? Be careful because I and lots of people I know call others that say what you say idiots (and sheeple).

"The main problem is that a gold backed currency does nothing to address the problem."

What problem are you referring to? Gold solves inflation, deflation, depressions, and business cycles. We never had a 100% reserve gold standard in the history of this country, so you can't say it would 100% fail!

The Dude @ 67:

Drama King @ 64:

The Dude @ 62:

The crash was due to too many PAPER DOLLARS being printed (credit expansion actually).

...and all those paper dollars were backed by gold, go figure.

You may find Rothbard impressive, alas Mr. Randian Austrianism himself has been throughly discredited. So yes, let's all do the Paulette twist, it goes something like this: "I got mine so fuck you...."

Those paper dollars were not backed 100% by gold. That is the key. It has to be 100%. If it isn't, then the percentage can be anything the government wants.

Rothbard has not been "discredited".

Let's do the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil stupid dance

It's not happening, it's not happening.....

na na na na na na na na na na na

Drama King @ 68:

Those paper dollars were not backed 100% by gold. That is the key. It has to be 100%. If it isn't, then the percentage can be anything the government wants.

Rothbard has not been "discredited".

Let's do the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil stupid dance

It's not happening, it's not happening.....

na na na na na na na na na na na

Austrian School assholes and supply siders are the reason why we are in this pickle. So I am not really that interested in having them solve the problem they got us in to begin with. No one is denying that there is a problem, it is the cure that you are proposing that makes no sense.

But I am sure dogma is too important for you to even sit down and use logic, alas... enjoy your Paultard Twist.

The Dude @ 70:

Drama King @ 68:

Those paper dollars were not backed 100% by gold. That is the key. It has to be 100%. If it isn't, then the percentage can be anything the government wants.

Rothbard has not been "discredited".

Let's do the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil stupid dance

It's not happening, it's not happening.....

na na na na na na na na na na na

Austrian School assholes and supply siders are the reason why we are in this pickle. So I am not really that interested in having them solve the problem they got us in to begin with. No one is denying that there is a problem, it is the cure that you are proposing that makes no sense.

But I am sure dogma is too important for you to even sit down and use logic, alas... enjoy your Paultard Twist.

--------------------

We are in this pickle because of the kondratieff cycle. Coolidge was President during the roaring 20's boom and Clinton was President during the roaring 1990's boom.
Disinflation and a FED easy money policy presided over both eras.

Japan had stock and housing bubbles in the 1980's. Britain, Spain and other countries have housing bubbles. China has a stock bubble.

It is the nature of this phase of the inflation/deflation cycle.

.... A managed form of capitalism verses a predatory form of capitalism..... Hmmmm what is it those Guinness boys like to say?
Oh yea, brilliant! Look folks, I ain't any kind of econ major so I don't care to get into a big debate here.. All I'm saying is the current form of capitalism??? It ain't working out....for anyone save a very few. And a minority of extreme wealthy in a world of increasingly extreme poverty for more and more people and societies with no middle class to speak of as buffer is a recipe for an economic and social disaster of some kind... I don't really care how many big brains with econ degrees wants to sit in a big room arguing otherwise..............JD

Austrian School assholes and supply siders are the reason why we are in this pickle. So I am not really that interested in having them solve the problem they got us in to begin with. No one is denying that there is a problem, it is the cure that you are proposing that makes no sense.

Ron J.........I think you have your statement backawards. The Austrian Scholl believes in real money such as gold and silver while living within ones means. The Kenysians on the other hand believe you can inflate your way out of the financial mess we're in. Ain't gonna happen. Back to the history books.

Drama, your libertarian religion is nonsense. What principles are you talking about? "Personal Freedom"? It's interesting what you libertarians think of "personal freedom". A worker is not supposed to be able to form unions, obviously me deciding to do so is in opposition to my own freedom. A capitalist can though, matter of fact, it's encouraged. When you talk about "freedom" you aren't talking about freedom for everyone, just those who own capital. If I own a factory in a libertarian economic system and you are a worker are our freedoms equal? I as a capitalist can decide to pay you what I want and you the worker have a right to accept my terms (this is a "coercion free" economic contract according to you libertarians) or starve. If I own capital I have absolute freedom, if I only own my body I have the freedom to accept the capitalists terms or starve, which is why I've heard libertarians explain that the free market economics system is not a moral system, but one dominated by principles. If it were moral it would have to consider the rights of those who don't own capital and only have their bodies and what their body can produce. This is why every time your system has been attempted it’s been an unmitigated disaster.

So the Gold Standard is the "best idea ever"? In a world of decreasing resource availability we are supposed to not expand or contract purchasing power based upon it's ecological effects, we're supposed to expand our ability to buy natural resources because of a metal underground? Outside of the fact that the Gold Standard allows you libertarians to attempt your utopia, in other words pretend we aren't part of your religion, what justification is there for the damn Gold Standard in today's world? Just because it, kinda, worked in the early 20th century doesn't mean it makes any logical sense what so ever.

Tell us how the Great Depression happened because of too much fiat currency when the Fed reduced the amount of dollars in the system to 1/3 their original size during the Great Depression? Milton Friedman, who's probably too left wing for you, claims this was one of the biggest causes of the depression.

Give us an example of the country who did the best job of implementing the Austrian School's economics, or anything close. I'd like to see which country's economic policies you think is a good representative of your philosophy.

Do you know what the Austrian School’s solution to the ecological destruction done as a result of capitalism? The Austrian School does not agree with forcing corporations to “internalize” the costs they create, obviously THAT personal responsibility is too much for them. To tax a corporation without consent would be “coercion”. If a corporation pollutes my drinking water, creating a negative externality, I won’t be able to go to an institution that guarantees MY basic rights, that wouldn’t exist. I would have to take that corporation to court. If that corporation dumps waste in my drinking water and I get cancer I can fight the corporation’s team of lawyers and pray. This is the world you want to live in? We’re supposed to live under private tyrannies because YOU simply like the idea of it?

Drama King @ 64:

The Dude @ 62:

"And there is where the folly lies, Dr. Paul has absolutely no training --or any idea for that matter-- regarding economic policies or theory."

Yes he does. He was PERSONALLY trained by Murray Rothbard. Personal training by Rothbard beats ANY modern economics degree at the universities today beleive you me.

"So there is not enough gold or silver to back our economic throughput. Then what do you do?"

You can stop thinking this because it is a fallacy. The amount of money has nothing at all to do with being able to have a running economy. All prices would adjust, just like they adjust to the amount of paper dollars that exist today, and every other day. You confuse value with riches.

"What it was true in the XVIII century it is not necessarily true for the current economic situation, you know it being 3 centuries ago and all."

That's not what he is saying. But PRINCIPLES last forever.

"But by all means, let's all go do the Paulette lemming thing and let's go back to the gold standard."

Would be the best idea ever.

"Yes the good old days, and all that gold backed money which did diddly squat to stop the crash of 1929"

The crash was due to too many PAPER DOLLARS being printed (credit expansion actually).

"Idiots"

Hmmm....

Well, these discussions are interesting, but there is no way the Fed is going away, no way central banking will be reversed, no way our government will resume printing currency on it's own. Why?? Because the folks who own the banks, and control most of the wealth of this world, won't be reversing their course by allowing that to happen. They are on the brink of what they've been working toward for almost a century and I seriously doubt they'd let Ron Paul or anyone else spoil their fun (and NWO).

Anyone remember JFK? He wanted to abolish the Fed and take control of our currency and government back for the people (as much as possible). Know what happened to him?

http://www.acton.org/publications/mandm/mandm_article_114.php?view=print

Rothbard summarizes the libertarian position on externalities as follows:

Anyone who initiates [an overt act of aggression against the person or property of someone else] must be strictly liable for damages against the victim, even if the action is "reasonable" or accidental. Finally, such aggression may take the form of pollution of someone else’s air, including his own effective airspace, injury against his person, or a nuisance interfering with his possession or use of his land.

This is the case, provided that: (a) the polluter has not previously established a homestead easement; (b) while visible pollutants or noxious odors are per se aggression, in the case of invisible and insensible pollutants the plaintiff must prove actual harm; (c) the burden of proof of such aggression rests upon the plaintiff; (d) the plaintiff must prove strict causality from the actions of the defendant to the victimization of the plaintiff; (e) the plaintiff must prove such causality and aggression beyond a reasonable doubt; and (f) there is no vicarious liability, but only liability for those who actually commit the deed.16

Rothbard collapses all crime into tort law, so that no one other than the victim can press charges against an aggressor–not the state nor any other entity. Giving some attention to problems of multiple aggressors and large numbers of victims, Rothbard asserts that victims may not join others to the suit as plaintiffs without their permission, as class action suits do.

Andrew @ 81:

Drama King @ 77:

Andrew @ 73:

"As far as site like e-gold being taxed??? Your wrong. The only charge that there is, is a small transfer fee and as far as gold money is concerned, I send them $20 in fiat for a gold gram and I can spend it just like a money order or check making it payable to whomever I wish and I have never had a single store or other retail outlet deny them."

Yes, THEY charge YOU a transfer fee, but the rise in gold price? THEY are taxed by the government.

That $20 you send them is basically converted into a money order that is accepted by other retailers FOR THEM TO CONVERT TO CASH.

Once again, let's be clear. We cannot trade in gold AS MONEY. The only LEGAL tender is PAPER dollars issued by the government Fed.

Gold and silver are stores of value, and while all in the last two generations were led to believe that gold and silver were only something to ware around ones neck or finger, the rest of the world knows it is the only medium of exchange that mankind has ever known and has continued to retain its value throughout history.

Drama....You mixing apples with oranges here. E-gold is taxed as any other corporation on the smal profits they make charging excange fees. There's nothing wrong with that. But your missing the entire point that your purchasing power is being shredded by inflation which is caused by any country debasing their currency by printing more and more of it with nothing but hot air backing it. The transfer fee is 50 cents per transaction and that is a miniscule price to pay for buying or selling something with real money and the government is scared to death that places like E-gold and Gold Is Money will catch on with the general publis, because it will mean the dollar will fall even further as less and less people will use it.
When we were on the gold standard prior to 1913, both inflation and deflation never budged more than 1%. Nixon boke the final link between gold and the dollar in 1971 and inflation has continued to rise ever since.

Andrew, I don't think you and I are in a disagreement here, I think there is just some misunderstanding. I agreed totally with this post, so I am trying to understand where you and I are disagreeing.

Andrew @ 85

Good reading...

I hope more people realize that the Federal Reserve and all other central banks are not what "capitalistic pigs" advocate when they say free markets.

A free market is impossible when there is a single small group of people (Fed) who determine what interest rate you pay for your car, what price you pay for your house, and what lines of businesses tend to be profitable and hence attractive to potential employees (Halliburton, Wall Street, Blackwater, etc).

I think hardcore left and right people are on the same side, they just disagree on how to get there..

“And don’t confuse freedom with power. Freedom in the libertarian sense (founding fathers knew this) is when nobody can stop you from doing anything as long as you don’t harm anyone else physically or by fraud.”
Power in a libertarian economic system is with those who own capital, this is as obvious as gravity. They own capital by being parasitic elements off of other’s work. A capitalist who sits on his ass, clicking a mouse on a computer & increasing his wealth (I’m referring to the financial giants that really run the world), is not adding anything tangible to the world. That is being done by who he is paying. The wealth he creates will not be by anything HE produces, so whatever he earns isn’t by HIS work, it’s a result of the investment he’s done in the work of others. Capitalism exists because the people who create tangible things don’t own or control what they create. If they did, if the people were in control of what THEY produce, it wouldn’t be capitalism.

I brought up externalities because it shows a situation where there clearly is harm being done to others and your philosophy is incapable of realistically dealing with that situation when the parties involved are not equal. Any institution that would bring relative parity would not exist, and if I were harmed by a rich capitalist I’d have to beat him in court to recover the costs. This is unrealistic. It is, anything you say as a counter would be based on how things are THEORETICALLY supposed to work and you wouldn’t have an example of any justice anywhere in the world in line with your religion.

“Workers and capitalists each do not have any direct arbitrary power to determine wage rates”

??? Let’s give an example of the real world, since you refuse to get out of the textbooks you’ve read. I’m a corporation who doesn’t like the demands for wages in the US (where the unions are weak and the laws are rarely enforced, right in line with your philosophy), so I decide to go to China and pay a worker there a small fraction of the wages that I would get in the US. The difference between the two is monopolized by no one else other than the capitalist. You saying that wages are determined by supply and demand is naïve. Wages are like any investment, the lower the cost the better chance at turning a profit, as long as the productivity of the worker doesn’t negate the difference. There is no example you could give where a corporation paid workers more without “coercion” of the Austrian kind. It might happen with the upper brass, predominately of the same class as the capitalists to begin with, but not true in general.

Economists as far back as Adam Smith have said that this situation, one that results in profits, is beneficial because that profit will be invested in tangible things like factories and jobs. That obviously is not that simple any longer. The financial markets have grown to ten times what they once were. Nine times more investment goes into the financial markets relative to where they used to in the early 1970’s, meaning far less is going to things like factories and jobs. So we have a situation now where the differences in wages is being put towards ventures that simply increase the capitalists share of the wealth. This is why wealth inequality is going up everywhere. Not just in this country and those like it but the developing countries as well.

Like I said before, which I didn't mention in the previous comment, in the libertarian economic system there is only one true freedom. The capitalist has the freedom to do what he or she wants and anyone who doesn't own capital has the freedom to accept the terms of those who do or they can starve. This is a perverse idea of what freedom is. Capital allows the capitalists to control natural resources, which is the only thing in the end that matters, I cannot eat dollars, cloth myself with them & I can't build a home with numbers on a computer screen. Since that is the case, there can never be anything other than tyranny in a libertarian economic system. If I don't accept the terms of the group that controls my very livelihood I won't be able to stay alive. That is not freedom.

pepper @ 90:

You have no idea what true tyranny is. Ask a North Korean, or a Chinese dissident, or a Sudanese, or a Saudi woman. You have absolutely insulted these people by saying that a free country is somehow tyrannical. You are saying black is white.

Ask any one of the citizens of these countries, and believe me, they will take a "tyrannical" libertarian society anyday of the week over a "peaceful socialistic" society.

You seem to have never experienced or thought about how bad it is in these countries. You sit in your capitalism made chair, in your capitalism house/apt, wearing your capitalism clothes, typing on your capitalism PC, at the very same time complaining about capitalism. You are a walking (or rather sitting) contradiction.

pepper @ 93:

Capitalists DON'T make the decisions for everyone. EVERYONE makes the decision for themselves, and capitalists provide those needs and wants.

You seem to think that capitalists are one group of top hat wearing men smoking cigars sitting in a board room saying "yes, mmkay", when in reality they are people who often times start work from their garage creating something and getting rich (a la Bill Gates).

Anyone can become a capitalist in the libertarian system. It is not closed to anyone. In the countries I mentioned, it IS closed.

Andrew @ 95:

- dismantle the US Federal Reserve
- back the USDollar with Great Lake fresh water
- give China, Japan, Saudis, and Persian Gulf Coop Council seats on US Prez Cabinet
- give China, Japan, Saudis, and GCC veto power on US federal budget approval
- forbid any US citizen from working as World Bank or Intl Monetary Fund directors
- rescind the Medicare payment system and its entire program
- dismantle all the concentration camps (230 of them) on US soil, recently completed
- install a broad manufacturing base in the United States, even if attached to prisons
- end all chemtrail experiments in the upper atmosphere to control weather
- release American Medical Assn cures for cancer which are available in Latin America
- begin massive US infrastructure repair, a reconstruction initiative with foreign funding
- admit to the world that the Untied States has become a Third World nation

LOL. Have fun on the UFO. Notice any contradictions there?

You surely want no taxes, water instead of money, unrestricted corporate monopolies, the Saudis running the government, the Saudis running the U.S. budget, forbid the U.S. from allocating U.S. money, destroy Medicare so seniors die on the streets, dismantle "conentration camps", build "concentration camps", end all black flying helicopters that read your brainwaves, you think Columbia has the cure to all cancer that they've just been hiding on us, you would "begin massive US infrastructure repair" even though you got rid of the government that would do it and you suggest stealing money from others to pay for it (though you've already killed the military too), and you hate the U.S.

Hahahaha!

OK, funs over. Now take your meds.

Seriously.