Libertarianism is killing our economy

[Jarhyn]

You don't seem to get the significance of the difference between Monetarism and Free Market.

Four times now you have made a post about there being a difference between Monetarism and Free Market, and charging that no one but you knows the difference.

In those four posts, you could have posted the difference, according to you.

I think we can all agree that if a person “not knowing the difference” goes to look on the internet, it is entirely possible they will find some inaccurate sources (in your eyes) and then argue an inaccurate (in your eyes) rebuttal that could be construed as a straw man. Given that highly likely scenario, why would you post four times that no one knows the difference, without expounding on your own what the difference is, (in your eyes) so that a meaningful discussion could be made?

So that he can't be pinned down to a specific position which may at that point be proven wrong or used as leverage to proclaim a lack of morality, which is apparently The Worst Thing in JH land.

Chronically never answering questions or avoiding actually talking about what you believe and what principles you hold on a discussion board where the whole point is to discuss your positions rationally does not seem to be very appropriate to me.

 

[laughing dog]

First, the notion that Friedman was not a free market economist for most of his career is wrong. He consistently and persistently advocated for freeing up markets for goids and services.

Second, the gold standard is anti-free market because it requires a government to fix the price if a commodity (gold) instead of the market.

Third, depending on the version of “Monetarism” there is no necessary inconsistency between Monetarism and libertarianism.

Fourth, regardless of one’s opinion of the validity or applicability of some of Friedman’s views or policy proposals, his work greatly influenced generations of economists for the good.

In my view, Friedman and his followers neglected the importance of the social fabric and norms, along with transaction costs in their policy proposals snd positions.

 

[Swammerdami]

Let me try to answer Rhea's question. First a historical look at central banks:

"Monetarism" is the idea that central banks should control interest rates and/or the money supply. Whether the U.S. should even have a central bank has long been an important political issue. Hamilton and the Federalists wanted one; Madison, Jefferson and the Dem-Reps didn't. (Madison and his rural supporters felt that substituting paper for gold would let Northern businessmen cheat Southern farmers.) Under Pres. Madison, Hamilton's First Bank's charter expired, but Madison soon realized this was a blunder and chartered a Second Bank. And again. there was schism with Andrew Jackson and his Southern popular supporters splitting from the Dem-Reps on this issue and allowing the Second Bank's charter to expire near the end of Jackson's Presidency. The U.S. didn't have another true central bank until 1913, and of course many right-wingers are still squawking about that.

A key purpose of central banks is to provide liquidity when stockpiles of gold and silver are depleted by a credit crisis. (Imagine how the 2008 financial crisis would have played out if Wall St. bankers had demanded that all debts be paid in gold! During the 77-year period that the U.S. lacked a central bank there was at least one financial crisis that didn't abate until a shipment of gold from London was sighted in New York Harbor!)

It is good to realize that the earliest central banks were private banks, which Libertarians might approve of. Most (80%?) of the shares in The First and Second U.S. Banks were owned by private citizens — IIRC a maximum of 49%(?) shares could be owned by foreigners. Even the Federal Reserve Bank is set up nominally as a private bank, with the Federally-chartered banks who "own" the FedRes, electing its Governors. Central banks offer several conveniences, especially a stable well-defined currency. During the periods when there was no central bank to issue stable paper money, a traveler from Boston to Philadelphia might not be able to purchase anything until the shopkeeper checked his newspaper to see what Boston paper money was trading for relative to Philadelphia paper money!

That environment, where buyers and sellers decide on a case-by-case basis which bank's paper, or which precious metal, or which crypto-currency to use for a transaction, is the Utopia that today's Hyper-libertarians want to return to!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Crudely speaking, there are two plans to cope with recessions. (Set aside hyper-libertarians, who don't have a plan.) Recession can be fought with fiscal stimulus (tax cuts and government spending) or with "Monetarism," which attacks recession with increases in the money supply and/or lowering interest rates. Obviously these two approaches appeal respectively to those who favor government action, and those who just want to grease the wheels of the free market.

Friedman was a Libertarian — he wanted small government and unregulated economy — so naturally he supported Monetarism (I think he coined the word). The idea is to put money in the hands of private businesses to spend rather than having the government spend it as F.D. Roosevelt did.

Hyper-libertarians, unlike Friedman — who, whatever his faults, is one of the premier economists of all time, respected by both the Right and the Left — oppose almost all government action, including the government's role in providing stable currency. Gold? Bitcoin? Let the free market decide! I don't know how well this would have worked a century or two ago, but in the present environment it would definitely cause huge chaos.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The unifying theme of all Hyper-Libertarians is hatred and fear of government. What about policing or courts of law? Some libertarians want private police and private courts. One libertarian (Rothbard?) believes police should be free to torture suspects — with no government there are only "natural" laws — but that if the suspect later proves his innocence he can sue the torturers in some sort of civil court!

Mr. Harvestdigger's posts do not appear for me unless someone quotes him, so please let me know if he finds my synopsis flawed in any respect.

 

[Rhea]

Let me try to answer Rhea's question. [...]

Crudely speaking, there are two plans to cope with recessions. (Set aside hyper-libertarians, who don't have a plan.) Recession can be fought with fiscal stimulus (tax cuts and government spending) or with "Monetarism," which attacks recession with increases in the money supply and/or lowering interest rates. Obviously these two approaches appeal respectively to those who favor government action, and those who just want to grease the wheels of the free market.

[...]
Hyper-libertarians, unlike Friedman — who, whatever his faults, is one of the premier economists of all time, respected by both the Right and the Left — oppose almost all government action, including the government's role in providing stable currency. Gold? Bitcoin? Let the free market decide! I don't know how well this would have worked a century or two ago, but in the present environment it would definitely cause huge chaos.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The unifying theme of all Hyper-Libertarians is hatred and fear of government. What about policing or courts of law? Some libertarians want private police and private courts. One libertarian (Rothbard?) believes police should be free to torture suspects — with no government there are only "natural" laws — but that if the suspect later proves his innocence he can sue the torturers in some sort of civil court!

Thanks that is helpful and informative. (Snipped for reply, but I read the whole thing with interest.)

It sounds like Jason’s point is that he wants, as a True Liberatarian(tm), to distance himself from any act of a government and beleives that carrying around gold is a great way to have a safe and stable society because the alternatives are oppressive and nothing could possibly go wrong with disparate and leverage-driven private currencies.

 

[Deepak]

You don't seem to get the significance of the difference between Monetarism and Free Market.

Four times now you have made a post about there being a difference between Monetarism and Free Market, and charging that no one but you knows the difference.

In those four posts, you could have posted the difference, according to you.

I think we can all agree that if a person “not knowing the difference” goes to look on the internet, it is entirely possible they will find some inaccurate sources (in your eyes) and then argue an inaccurate (in your eyes) rebuttal that could be construed as a straw man. Given that highly likely scenario, why would you post four times that no one knows the difference, without expounding on your own what the difference is, (in your eyes) so that a meaningful discussion could be made?

Because he's proselytizing for his religion that's only scrutable through divine revelation. We lack the ability to see the truth, and until we open our hearts we won't be able to bask in its gross incandescence.

Only by opening your heart and emptying your mind can one truly understand.

 

[Deepak]

You don't seem to get the significance of the difference between Monetarism and Free Market.

Four times now you have made a post about there being a difference between Monetarism and Free Market, and charging that no one but you knows the difference.

In those four posts, you could have posted the difference, according to you.

I think we can all agree that if a person “not knowing the difference” goes to look on the internet, it is entirely possible they will find some inaccurate sources (in your eyes) and then argue an inaccurate (in your eyes) rebuttal that could be construed as a straw man. Given that highly likely scenario, why would you post four times that no one knows the difference, without expounding on your own what the difference is, (in your eyes) so that a meaningful discussion could be made?

So that he can't be pinned down to a specific position which may at that point be proven wrong or used as leverage to proclaim a lack of morality, which is apparently The Worst Thing in JH land.

Chronically never answering questions or avoiding actually talking about what you believe and what principles you hold on a discussion board where the whole point is to discuss your positions rationally does not seem to be very appropriate to me.

But that's actually not true. I did pin him down and proved him wrong. The other canard he offered, though I didn't take the time to address it at the time, was also wrong and the only issue that Friedman had with the gold system is that he didn't think any sovereign country would give up fiat currency. He certainly preferred it.

What's happened is that now that the absurdity of his two earlier assertions has been demonstrated he's moved the goalposts to Friedman having implemented one certain type of policy that in some undefined way isn't 'true' libertarianism, therefore Friedman isn't a libertarian. That is to say, JH is the most extreme type of libertarian, one who believes in libertarian free will - and so simply by cogitating it Friedman could have implemented a pure libertarian landscape, and he didn't therefore he isn't a libertarian.\

The comical stupidity of it all is apparent to anyone reading, but he's in the center of the cone of ignorance and therefore in his mind's eye he's making perfectly logical points. I bet he was smugly smiling when he posted that last response having really nailed us with his remarkably witty retort

 

[Jarhyn]

So that he can't be pinned down to a specific position which may at that point be proven wrong or used as leverage to proclaim a lack of morality, which is apparently The Worst Thing in JH land.

Chronically never answering questions or avoiding actually talking about what you believe and what principles you hold on a discussion board where the whole point is to discuss your positions rationally does not seem to be very appropriate to me.

But that's actually not true. I did pin him down and proved him wrong. The other canard he offered, though I didn't take the time to address it at the time, was also wrong and the only issue that Friedman had with the gold system is that he didn't think any sovereign country would give up fiat currency. He certainly preferred it.

What's happened is that now that the absurdity of his two earlier assertions has been demonstrated he's moved the goalposts to Friedman having implemented one certain type of policy that in some undefined way isn't 'true' libertarianism, therefore Friedman isn't a libertarian. That is to say, JH is the most extreme type of libertarian, one who believes in libertarian free will - and so simply by cogitating it Friedman could have implemented a pure libertarian landscape, and he didn't therefore he isn't a libertarian.\

The comical stupidity of it all is apparent to anyone reading, but he's in the center of the cone of ignorance and therefore in his mind's eye he's making perfectly logical points. I bet he was smugly smiling when he posted that last response having really nailed us with his remarkably witty retort

So, a no-true-Scotsman through and through.

That's just fucking stupid.

JH is a dyed in the wool true colors but-he-never-said-it trumpsucker.

This is what he will never properly admit to asking for, but which we all know he did. And it fucking killed a bunch of people. My bet is he asked for more.

This is someone who hates bikes riding in front of everyone putting a rod through his own spokes and crying that bikes aren't good, down with bikes.

If government doesn't work when people break it, stop letting in people who want to break it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You don't seem to get the significance of the difference between Monetarism and Free Market.

Four times now you have made a post about there being a difference between Monetarism and Free Market, and charging that no one but you knows the difference.

In those four posts, you could have posted the difference, according to you.

I think we can all agree that if a person “not knowing the difference” goes to look on the internet, it is entirely possible they will find some inaccurate sources (in your eyes) and then argue an inaccurate (in your eyes) rebuttal that could be construed as a straw man. Given that highly likely scenario, why would you post four times that no one knows the difference, without expounding on your own what the difference is, (in your eyes) so that a meaningful discussion could be made?

Sorry for assuming you had any basic knowledge of economics. I won't make that mistake again.

Free Market should already be understood - minimal government intervention in the economy. In any way, method, mode, or aspect, government is kept to a minimum. That means taxes, spending, regulation, anything that the government might to to influence the economy in any way. If the question is steering the economy and you start a question with "should the government ..." the answer from a Free Market perspective is "No".

Monetarism is one of the several ways to depart from that. In that system the money supply is, directly or indirectly, controlled by the government in order to steer the economy in some desired direction. Government issued currency, central banking controlled interest rates, and central banking controlled money supply. Usually the government establishes a central bank and the other banks are required to be part of it. Sometimes the government is also the central bank, though that is more rare. The central bank is often said to be independent, but it wouldn't exist without government making it what it is. All of its powers are derived from government edict, so in effect they are actually government powers.

To summarize

              | Free Market | Monetarism
Fiat Currency | No          | Yes
Interest rate |             |
Manipulation  | No          | Yes
Money Supply  |             |
Manipulation  | No          | Yes

There actually is a real difference there. It shows that there is indeed a real difference between Monetarism and Libertarianism, as the economic system of Libertarianism is the Free Market.

My mistake was assuming people even knew what I was talking about when I said there is a distinction between what libertarians advocate and what Friedman advocated.

 

[Deepak]

It's been days since you visited this thread. Why not take an extra few minutes and actually read people's responses before posting?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's been days since you visited this thread. Why not take an extra few minutes and actually read people's responses before posting?

Since I started at the erroneous premise, all the conclusions that followed don't matter.

What do you expect me to say, to, say, Swammerdami when he wrote "Friedman was a Libertarian — he wanted small government and unregulated economy — so naturally he supported Monetarism". Doesn't he see the internal inconsistency within that sentence? That in order to establish Friedman as a Libertarian he had to contradict himself from the start?

I know, libertarians say they don't believe in Monetarism, libertarians say that Monetarism isn't compatible with Libertarianism, but what do libertarians know about what libertarians believe. Lots of people say Friedman was a libertarian. Keynesians say it. Conservatives say it. Liberals say it. Progressives say it. Everyone except libertarians say it.

 

[Deepak]

Who the fuck is Monetarism compatible with then?

That’s the question that you seem to be ignoring. If a libertarian stabs me in the head he can’t argue in court that libertarians are opposed to the initiation of violence.

These people who all sup at fountain of Rand and would implement pure libertarianism but for practical matters are the ones who proffered monetarism. You can squint and say that they’re not libertarians but we don’t care. That you think Friedman is closer to any ism other than libertarianism is a phantom that haunts your brain, but for all practical purposes doesn’t matter to anyone. The semantics are your problem, not ours

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Who the fuck is Monetarism compatible with then?

That’s the question that you seem to be ignoring. If a libertarian stabs me in the head he can’t argue in court that libertarians are opposed to the initiation of violence.

These people who all sup at fountain of Rand and would implement pure libertarianism but for practical matters are the ones who proffered monetarism. You can squint and say that they’re not libertarians but we don’t care. That you think Friedman is closer to any ism other than libertarianism is a phantom that haunts your brain, but for all practical purposes doesn’t matter to anyone. The semantics are your problem, not ours

There are actually few pure Monetarists, as Monetarism has mostly been subsumed into modern Keynesianism. It is distinct from textbook pure Keynesianism as that is only concerned with government spending, but real world Keynesians have never met a government intervention they do not like.

Still, most Monetarists fit within the Republican Party, as they like to talk about how they like small government but never actually do anything to shrink government.

Not sure what your "stab in the head" question is supposed to relate to. It seems to have come from nowhere. If you want to know what is compatible with libertarianism, perhaps the thing to do is find out what libertarians believe in the first place.

 

[Deepak]

 

[Swammerdami]

Let me try to help again.

The confusion involves the distinction between Libertarians and Hyper-Libertarians.

To clarify this with an analogy, let us consider a hypothetical debate between a Democrat, Dick, and a Hyper-Democrat, Jane. Just as Jason thinks of himself as a Libertarian, so the Hyper-Democrat Jane thinks of herself as just a Democrat.

Jane: "So the voters have decided! 51% of voters agreed to send all the blacks and red-heads to the slave camps, first confiscating all their wealth and splitting it among white-skinned blonds and brunettes. Yayy!!!! MAGA."
Dick: "That's what you call democracy? Persecuting a broad class of innocent people just because 51% are in favor of the persecution?"
Jane: "Democracy IS rule by the majority. Don't you even know how to use a dictionary?"

Is Jane correct? Near the top of Merriam-Webster's definition it does say "Rule by the majority." But most of us would side with Dick, I think, and regard Jane's idea as an unfortunate caricature of "democracy."

IMO, the true Democrat is Dick, who uses majority rule as one of several guiding principles. Jane should be called a Hyper-Democrat: Instead of just a guiding principle, to her majority rule is a perverse obsession which allows no exceptions.

And similarly we see a difference between Libertarians like Milton Friedman and the Hyper-Libertarians that show up in Yahoo blogs and message-boards. Friedman was thoroughly familiar with all facets of economics, but chose minimizing government as one guiding principle. A Hyper-Libertarian can't think beyond "Teh gummint is teh Evil."

On another message-board, where the Hyper-Libertarians were willing to express themselves fully rather than indulging purely in obfuscation and snide remarks, one Hyper-Libertarian came out, in effect, in favor of smallpox! The eradication of smallpox would have been impossible without government intervention so was therefore a bad thing!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Short-term interest rates are set by government-controlled central banks in today's developed world. I do sincerely wonder what would happen if those central banks dissolved and let "the free market" set interest rates. Are there journal articles discussing how such a major shift would be likely to play out? For starters, most of the "money" in the U.S. consists of FedRes computer records. Would those records be turned over to a cabal of private banks? Some sort of blockchain? Would FedRes money be redeemed into gold or silver on a first-come-first-served basis? (Much of the Hyper-Libertarian crap on YouTube is pushed by people buying or selling gold.)

Much higher interest rates is the one certainty if Hyper-Libertarians have their way. Even they understand that this would have severe adverse consequences in the short term, but think it would lead to a better economy in the long term. I would be delighted to study an academic paper that projects the future in such a scenario. Is there such a thing? Or if we ask for links, will we just get gold-bug Youtubes?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hyper-libertarians use the "Dot-com bubble of 1999-2000" as a case study where FedRes' loose money policies failed. They speak of the "misallocation of resources" with companies manufacturing many miles of fiber optic cables that nobody wanted. I don't know what Hyper-Libertarians saw as the preferred alternative. Unemployment?

In fact, people were content in the 1990's. Whatever one thought of Buy_Widgets.com, the economy was succeeding. Yes, unemployment rose during the Bush-43 term after the bubble burst, but unemployment was a goal of the Hyper-Libertarian solution anyway, no? And, BTW, there is still demand for fiber optic cables!

 

[laughing dog]

Who the fuck is Monetarism compatible with then?

That’s the question that you seem to be ignoring. If a libertarian stabs me in the head he can’t argue in court that libertarians are opposed to the initiation of violence.

These people who all sup at fountain of Rand and would implement pure libertarianism but for practical matters are the ones who proffered monetarism. You can squint and say that they’re not libertarians but we don’t care. That you think Friedman is closer to any ism other than libertarianism is a phantom that haunts your brain, but for all practical purposes doesn’t matter to anyone. The semantics are your problem, not ours

There is no real point in discussing economics with anyone who uses narrow definitions for schools of thought that ignore the breadth or depth of diversity of thought within those schools of thought.

Given JH's definitions, he is correct. The fact that his definitions are accepted as valid by a very small minority of the public means fruitful discussion is highly improbable. If he wants to continue to stamp his metaphorical feet insisting that Milton Friedman was not a "libertarian" (according to his definition), nothing will dissuade him. Of course, no one is obligated to accept his definitions.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Given JH's definitions, he is correct. The fact that his definitions are accepted as valid by a very small minority of the public means fruitful discussion is highly improbable. If he wants to continue to stamp his metaphorical feet insisting that Milton Friedman was not a "libertarian" (according to his definition), nothing will dissuade him. Of course, no one is obligated to accept his definitions.

The fact is, my definition is accepted by all libertarians, even if nobody else accepts them.

If you want to know what ideas are libertarian, it would seem obvious to ask a libertarian. That is the one thing not done around here.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Given JH's definitions, he is correct. The fact that his definitions are accepted as valid by a very small minority of the public means fruitful discussion is highly improbable. If he wants to continue to stamp his metaphorical feet insisting that Milton Friedman was not a "libertarian" (according to his definition), nothing will dissuade him. Of course, no one is obligated to accept his definitions.

The fact is, my definition is accepted by all libertarians, even if nobody else accepts them.

If you want to know what ideas are libertarian, it would seem obvious to ask a libertarian. That is the one thing not done around here.

Do you mean your definition is accepted by all who are libertarians per your definition? Or by all who are libertarians per some other definition? Or by all self-identified libertarians?

 

[laughing dog]

Given JH's definitions, he is correct. The fact that his definitions are accepted as valid by a very small minority of the public means fruitful discussion is highly improbable. If he wants to continue to stamp his metaphorical feet insisting that Milton Friedman was not a "libertarian" (according to his definition), nothing will dissuade him. Of course, no one is obligated to accept his definitions.

The fact is, my definition is accepted by all libertarians, even if nobody else accepts them.

When Milton Friedman was alive, he did not accept you definition. So I doubt the validity if your fact.

 

[Jarhyn]

Given JH's definitions, he is correct. The fact that his definitions are accepted as valid by a very small minority of the public means fruitful discussion is highly improbable. If he wants to continue to stamp his metaphorical feet insisting that Milton Friedman was not a "libertarian" (according to his definition), nothing will dissuade him. Of course, no one is obligated to accept his definitions.

The fact is, my definition is accepted by all libertarians, even if nobody else accepts them.

When Milton Friedman was alive, he did not accept you definition. So I doubt the validity if your fact.

Not to mention that nobody out here in the real world actually cares.

It does not actually change the fact that it is essentially "keep all the asymmetrical power dynamics but deny those harmed by them from ignorance or lack of leverage the one means to combat that (collective public violence)."

No, if you are going to leverage ignorance against people through "contract" and then hold them to that ignorance even when they are disabused of it, I'm just going to respond with violence of whatever level is necessary to make you stop and drop whatever it was you think you had a right to, alongside everyone else.

Let the seller make the buyer aware, or the seller beware. Don't like that? Don't be a piece of scum cheating people out of their hard work

 

[WAB]

When Milton Friedman was alive, he did not accept you definition. So I doubt the validity if your fact.

Not to mention that nobody out here in the real world actually cares.

It does not actually change the fact that it is essentially "keep all the asymmetrical power dynamics but deny those harmed by them from ignorance or lack of leverage the one means to combat that (collective public violence)."

No, if you are going to leverage ignorance against people through "contract" and then hold them to that ignorance even when they are disabused of it, I'm just going to respond with violence of whatever level is necessary to make you stop and drop whatever it was you think you had a right to, alongside everyone else.

Let the seller make the buyer aware, or the seller beware. Don't like that? Don't be a piece of scum cheating people out of their hard work

Holy crap.