8 ms·

Liberty produces far more equality than the pursuit of equality could ever achieve, if I may borrow a line from Milton Friedman. It really is the fault of us c

Liberty produces far more equality than the pursuit of equality could ever achieve, if I may borrow a line from Milton Friedman. It really is the fault of us citizens that we've allowed our government to grow so large and unaccountable. More accurately, we've allowed it to grow far outside its constitutional limits. And we accept this and deem it necessary. In fact, some of us still think it needs to be bigger to protect us from calamities like the housing crisis! Yet we don't realize that it was precisely the largeness of the government and its influence on the market and money that caused the crisis. All of this really does have its roots in the Great Depression. At the time, people blamed the crash on capitalism when the real causes were anything but, and as a result people were more than willing to let the government become bigger so it could 'protect' them. It's unfortunate that we the people were, and still are, so shortsighted. On a side note, robber barons are largely a myth. As well, blaming the fall of the middle class on globalization and technology is simply absurd; how would we afford iPhones and all of the miracles of modern technology without globalization and.. technology? You can't look only at one side of the equation (jobs moving to China) without considering the other (much cheaper products). While it may hurt certain workers when some kinds of labor leaving the U.S., consumers as a whole benefit. Not to mention that people elsewhere on the globe benefit from these jobs.

hazov 14y ago
Reading too much from Mises Institute I presume. I am really amazed anyone can take anything published there seriously, these guys always talk how mainstream economists always try to simplify human action in their models, such as when discussing the nature of money and how it came to exist, anthropologists are making the same points all the time. But they certainly do love to forget this exact argument when they write their diatribes against ideas from people they disagree with them. Like you assuming what people in the past thought about an event without searching from some data to support your assertions. Mind you I do not like the tone of the link and I thoroughly disagree with the premise of class struggle that those fond of Marx almost always take for granted.
- MordinSolus 14y ago
  I don't read Mises, but thanks for the assumption. The causes of the housing crisis are and were, for lack of a better word, obvious. You don't need to read this or that, or even subscribe to a certain form of political thought to see why things happened as they did. > Like you assuming what people in the past thought about an event without searching from some data to support your assertions. They elected Roosevelt how many times in a row?
  - hazov 14y ago
    If it was obvious I would not see people discussing about causes of the crisis, right? Besides the fact that debt and the inability to pay for it was the main cause I do not saw something close to agreement in this area. About Roosevelt, ok you're probably right about that, I am not American to say too much about that, but changes in office were not exclusive to the US, in some places some fringe parties got control of the government such as the Nazis. For me this thread is over here but I would love if you can elucidate some points about your first paragraph.
efuquen 14y ago
"On a side note, robber barons are largely a myth." What exactly is mythological about robber barons? The term is widely used and I've never heard anyone question their existence.
- MordinSolus 14y ago
  Perhaps this, and the related book, will explain it better: http://www.fee.org/nff/the-myth-of-the-robber-barons/ http://www.fee.org/nff/the-myth-of-the-robber-barons/
  - aaronbrethorst 14y ago
    You say you don't read Mises, but then you peddle literature from an organization that exists explicitly to spread his (and a handful of others') ideology. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4650573 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4650573
    - MordinSolus 14y ago
      Whoops, I forgot that Mises is the only source of knowledge about economics. Silly me. If you don't like my reading suggestions, then perhaps try a Milton Friedman youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk
      - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
        Great, so you don't do Mises, but you do Mises' academic son, Friedman. Same stuff, different packaging.
        MordinSolus 14y ago
        Actually they have pretty different approaches to economics, yet they end up with similar conclusions (except for differences regarding the control of the supply). And you say that like it's a bad thing, when in reality we could use a healthy dose of economic conservatism right now.
phillmv 14y ago
1. What constitutional limit? >Yet we don't realize that it was precisely the largeness of the government and its influence on the market and money that caused the crisis. 2. Just how was overregulation responsible for a massive price bubble? >At the time, people blamed the crash on capitalism when the real causes were anything but 3. What part about your definition of capitalism excludes massive price bubbles, followed up by the government of the time constraining monetary conditions? >how would we afford iPhones and all of the miracles of modern technology without globalization and.. technology? Well, I'm not going to argue against global trade. It's pretty great, and the growth it's generated in China absolutely benefits the Chinese. Mass exploitation of the labour force, hopefully, is a transitionary stage. That said, we'd still have iphones. They would be a bit more expensive but not that much more expensive.
- MordinSolus 14y ago
  > 1. What constitutional limit? The limits imposed by the Constitution. It's really not that mysterious of a document. The interstate commerce clause might seem ambiguous, but it certainly was never intended to be as abused as it is today. The existence 10th Amendment makes this even more obvious. > 2. Just how was overregulation responsible for a massive price bubble? I'll be a bit more clear: we either need much less regulation, or a whole lot more. Given how badly more regulation generally goes, I'd prefer less. We were stuck in this awkward middle ground as a result of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. It didn't get rid of the FDIC, but it got rid of certain regulations preventing commercial banks from being investment banks (simplification). So it basically encouraged risk taking by banks. Remove the FDIC, and you'll see much less risk taking. So we really need to get rid of ALL of the Glass-Steagal act. As well, we need to get rid of the SEC. By this sort of deregulating, you discourage risk by making banks much more accountable to their investors. > 3. What part about your definition of capitalism excludes massive price bubbles, followed up by the government of the time constraining monetary conditions? My definition of capitalism, ideally, would not include the Fed. > They would be a bit more expensive but not that much more expensive. But would the lower/middle classes be able to afford them? Or as readily? Given wages here, probably not.
  - 14y ago
Spooky23 14y ago
You've swallowed the big lie of globalization -- that only by exporting labor to 3rd world serfs can we enjoy the standards of living that we enjoy. The government is an enabler of bad economic activity, but the capitalists are always the catalysts. Government regulations did not force Countrywide Loans to give $1M mortgages to people who lacked the resources to repay. Government regulation did not force brokerages in 1929 to offer 50:1 margin loans. Read some real history, not some cherry-picked analysis by economists. Travel to historical sites in places like Pennsylvania. Study the origins of the labor movement. Robber barons were/are very real.
- MordinSolus 14y ago
  > You've swallowed the big lie of globalization -- that only by exporting labor to 3rd world serfs can we enjoy the standards of living that we enjoy. At the prices we pay today, this is absolutely true. We would be paying much more for iPhones if they were manufactured here. > The government is an enabler of bad economic activity, but the capitalists are always the catalysts. Government regulations did not force Countrywide Loans to give $1M mortgages to people who lacked the resources to repay. But that's exactly the point. They didn't 'force' banks to make bad decisions, but without the government's bad regulations, bad monetary policy, and bad fiscal policy, the housing crisis would have been much harder to come by. I'm not saying the banks are not at fault for their poor decisions: I am saying that without the actions of the government, you would either have not seen the crisis at all or you would have seen a much smaller and less disastrous bubble and burst. > Study the origins of the labor movement. Robber barons were/are very real. It depends what you mean by robber barons. Did certain businesses during the 19th century exploit workers and warrant the formation of certain labor unions in order to protect the workers? Yes. I'm not denying this. Did the most successful capitalists in the 19th century make their money by exploiting workers, stealing from the poor, and adding nothing of value to society? Absolutely not. I'm not saying these men were angels, but these so-called 'robber barons' improved society by an incredible amount, far more than what unions have ever done, producing better and more goods at cheaper prices. The rising standards of living during the 19th and early 20th century were not a wholly a result of government intervention or labor unions, but instead _mostly_ because of technological progress and the ensuing gains in productivity. And the labor movement is not without its fair share problems. Much of the violence in strikes during the 19th century was caused by the unions. As well, you had a great deal amount of racism.
ucee054 14y ago
Liberty produces far more equality than the pursuit of equality could ever achieve Nonsense! I know this code: "pursuit of equality" = giving medicine, schooling to the poor "liberty" = medieval scale deregulation + tax cuts for billionaires And where people's freedom is actually destroyed, down the rathole of militarism and corporatism, well that's just "patriotism". Tell you what buddy, why don't you first roll back the Pentagon budget, Homeland Security, asset securitisation and corporate personhood. After that, we can talk about trading off equality or freedom.
- MordinSolus 14y ago
  I don't think you understand what I mean by liberty. Try to not let your political goggles blind you here. > "pursuit of equality" = giving medicine, schooling to the poor I'm all for achieving the best results. I want to see more education and better healthcare for everyone. What we're doing, however, is not achieving the best results. Why is it that these areas with the most government involvement (education, healthcare, and banking) seem to have the most problems? We spend more on education than anywhere else in the world (http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/ http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographi...) yet the results aren't there. Same with healthcare. > "liberty" = medieval scale deregulation + tax cuts for billionaires How about tax cuts for everyone? No more income tax, no more corporate tax, no more FICA? What about removing regulations that encourage the growth of monopolies and too-big-to-fail banks, removing subsidies, and removing tax breaks for everyone? How about no more bailouts? > And where people's freedom is actually destroyed, down the rathole of militarism and corporatism, well that's just "patriotism". Militarism / corporatism are products of big government. How about a much smaller federal government?

hazov 14y ago

Reading too much from Mises Institute I presume. I am really amazed anyone can take anything published there seriously, these guys always talk how mainstream economists always try to simplify human action in their models, such as when discussing the nature of money and how it came to exist, anthropologists are making the same points all the time. But they certainly do love to forget this exact argument when they write their diatribes against ideas from people they disagree with them. Like you assuming what people in the past thought about an event without searching from some data to support your assertions. Mind you I do not like the tone of the link and I thoroughly disagree with the premise of class struggle that those fond of Marx almost always take for granted.

MordinSolus 14y ago
I don't read Mises, but thanks for the assumption. The causes of the housing crisis are and were, for lack of a better word, obvious. You don't need to read this or that, or even subscribe to a certain form of political thought to see why things happened as they did. > Like you assuming what people in the past thought about an event without searching from some data to support your assertions. They elected Roosevelt how many times in a row?
- hazov 14y ago
  If it was obvious I would not see people discussing about causes of the crisis, right? Besides the fact that debt and the inability to pay for it was the main cause I do not saw something close to agreement in this area. About Roosevelt, ok you're probably right about that, I am not American to say too much about that, but changes in office were not exclusive to the US, in some places some fringe parties got control of the government such as the Nazis. For me this thread is over here but I would love if you can elucidate some points about your first paragraph.

efuquen 14y ago

"On a side note, robber barons are largely a myth." What exactly is mythological about robber barons? The term is widely used and I've never heard anyone question their existence.

MordinSolus 14y ago
Perhaps this, and the related book, will explain it better: http://www.fee.org/nff/the-myth-of-the-robber-barons/ http://www.fee.org/nff/the-myth-of-the-robber-barons/
- aaronbrethorst 14y ago
  You say you don't read Mises, but then you peddle literature from an organization that exists explicitly to spread his (and a handful of others') ideology. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4650573 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4650573
  - MordinSolus 14y ago
    Whoops, I forgot that Mises is the only source of knowledge about economics. Silly me. If you don't like my reading suggestions, then perhaps try a Milton Friedman youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk
    - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
      Great, so you don't do Mises, but you do Mises' academic son, Friedman. Same stuff, different packaging.
      - MordinSolus 14y ago
        Actually they have pretty different approaches to economics, yet they end up with similar conclusions (except for differences regarding the control of the supply). And you say that like it's a bad thing, when in reality we could use a healthy dose of economic conservatism right now.

phillmv 14y ago

1. What constitutional limit? >Yet we don't realize that it was precisely the largeness of the government and its influence on the market and money that caused the crisis. 2. Just how was overregulation responsible for a massive price bubble? >At the time, people blamed the crash on capitalism when the real causes were anything but 3. What part about your definition of capitalism excludes massive price bubbles, followed up by the government of the time constraining monetary conditions? >how would we afford iPhones and all of the miracles of modern technology without globalization and.. technology? Well, I'm not going to argue against global trade. It's pretty great, and the growth it's generated in China absolutely benefits the Chinese. Mass exploitation of the labour force, hopefully, is a transitionary stage. That said, we'd still have iphones. They would be a bit more expensive but not that much more expensive.

MordinSolus 14y ago
> 1. What constitutional limit? The limits imposed by the Constitution. It's really not that mysterious of a document. The interstate commerce clause might seem ambiguous, but it certainly was never intended to be as abused as it is today. The existence 10th Amendment makes this even more obvious. > 2. Just how was overregulation responsible for a massive price bubble? I'll be a bit more clear: we either need much less regulation, or a whole lot more. Given how badly more regulation generally goes, I'd prefer less. We were stuck in this awkward middle ground as a result of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. It didn't get rid of the FDIC, but it got rid of certain regulations preventing commercial banks from being investment banks (simplification). So it basically encouraged risk taking by banks. Remove the FDIC, and you'll see much less risk taking. So we really need to get rid of ALL of the Glass-Steagal act. As well, we need to get rid of the SEC. By this sort of deregulating, you discourage risk by making banks much more accountable to their investors. > 3. What part about your definition of capitalism excludes massive price bubbles, followed up by the government of the time constraining monetary conditions? My definition of capitalism, ideally, would not include the Fed. > They would be a bit more expensive but not that much more expensive. But would the lower/middle classes be able to afford them? Or as readily? Given wages here, probably not.
- 14y ago

Spooky23 14y ago

You've swallowed the big lie of globalization -- that only by exporting labor to 3rd world serfs can we enjoy the standards of living that we enjoy. The government is an enabler of bad economic activity, but the capitalists are always the catalysts. Government regulations did not force Countrywide Loans to give $1M mortgages to people who lacked the resources to repay. Government regulation did not force brokerages in 1929 to offer 50:1 margin loans. Read some real history, not some cherry-picked analysis by economists. Travel to historical sites in places like Pennsylvania. Study the origins of the labor movement. Robber barons were/are very real.

MordinSolus 14y ago
> You've swallowed the big lie of globalization -- that only by exporting labor to 3rd world serfs can we enjoy the standards of living that we enjoy. At the prices we pay today, this is absolutely true. We would be paying much more for iPhones if they were manufactured here. > The government is an enabler of bad economic activity, but the capitalists are always the catalysts. Government regulations did not force Countrywide Loans to give $1M mortgages to people who lacked the resources to repay. But that's exactly the point. They didn't 'force' banks to make bad decisions, but without the government's bad regulations, bad monetary policy, and bad fiscal policy, the housing crisis would have been much harder to come by. I'm not saying the banks are not at fault for their poor decisions: I am saying that without the actions of the government, you would either have not seen the crisis at all or you would have seen a much smaller and less disastrous bubble and burst. > Study the origins of the labor movement. Robber barons were/are very real. It depends what you mean by robber barons. Did certain businesses during the 19th century exploit workers and warrant the formation of certain labor unions in order to protect the workers? Yes. I'm not denying this. Did the most successful capitalists in the 19th century make their money by exploiting workers, stealing from the poor, and adding nothing of value to society? Absolutely not. I'm not saying these men were angels, but these so-called 'robber barons' improved society by an incredible amount, far more than what unions have ever done, producing better and more goods at cheaper prices. The rising standards of living during the 19th and early 20th century were not a wholly a result of government intervention or labor unions, but instead _mostly_ because of technological progress and the ensuing gains in productivity. And the labor movement is not without its fair share problems. Much of the violence in strikes during the 19th century was caused by the unions. As well, you had a great deal amount of racism.

ucee054 14y ago

Liberty produces far more equality than the pursuit of equality could ever achieve Nonsense! I know this code: "pursuit of equality" = giving medicine, schooling to the poor "liberty" = medieval scale deregulation + tax cuts for billionaires And where people's freedom is actually destroyed, down the rathole of militarism and corporatism, well that's just "patriotism". Tell you what buddy, why don't you first roll back the Pentagon budget, Homeland Security, asset securitisation and corporate personhood. After that, we can talk about trading off equality or freedom.

MordinSolus 14y ago
I don't think you understand what I mean by liberty. Try to not let your political goggles blind you here. > "pursuit of equality" = giving medicine, schooling to the poor I'm all for achieving the best results. I want to see more education and better healthcare for everyone. What we're doing, however, is not achieving the best results. Why is it that these areas with the most government involvement (education, healthcare, and banking) seem to have the most problems? We spend more on education than anywhere else in the world (http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/ http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographi...) yet the results aren't there. Same with healthcare. > "liberty" = medieval scale deregulation + tax cuts for billionaires How about tax cuts for everyone? No more income tax, no more corporate tax, no more FICA? What about removing regulations that encourage the growth of monopolies and too-big-to-fail banks, removing subsidies, and removing tax breaks for everyone? How about no more bailouts? > And where people's freedom is actually destroyed, down the rathole of militarism and corporatism, well that's just "patriotism". Militarism / corporatism are products of big government. How about a much smaller federal government?