Dem Debates

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm pretty sure libertarian monetary policy would have been to abolish the Fed's interest rate target and instead letting the rate float freely to its market value. He purposefully set the interest rate well below the known market value to goose the economy. I'm not sure how you claim such a move is the implementation of libertarian monetary policy, but I'm intrigued as to how you'll square that, so go for it.

Because his ideology wasn't purely libertarian, but had an objectivist slant. It was intended to stimulate economic activity, just like you said. (With a trickle-down motive)

But what really fucked things up wasn't so much his interest rates, but the actions on behalf of Greenspan and his cronies that served to reduce the amount of rules and regulations financial institutions were subjected to, under the impression that financial institutions operating in as close to a free market environment as possible would be more prosperous. This is what I mean when I say 'his libertarian policies'.

And as we've discussed before, although this was termed 'deregulation', it actually produced an increase in regulatory volume because these laws, which essentially gave financial institutions increased freedom to act how they wanted, manifested legislatively as laws and rules. In essence, a large volume of new federal rules and regulations decreased the extent to which the government regulated and oversaw the behaviors of financial institutions. The net effect being the deregulation of the financial sector.

[entruil]

Do we exist to serve the government or does the government exist to serve us!?....

Ron Paul 2032

[Raev]

So, you agree that:

• Our government is corrupt
• Bernie Sanders would increase the size of the government
• Bernie Sanders would not substantially decrease its level of corruption

Ergo, Bernie Sanders is the worst candidate in the field. At least Jeb and Clinton wouldn't make the current mess worse. I don't think a libertarian would be elected, but if they were, then yes I think things would get better by the reverse logic (a small corrupt government is better than a larger corrupt government).

Calling Alan Greenspan a libertarian makes me throw up in my mouth. I don't care what the man thought about himself, when you cause two depressions by messing with monetary policy you are not representative of small government.

Originally Posted by Lune

Nobody has ever been convinced of anything by rhetoric on the internet unless they are young or are a woman.

So you are racist AND sexist, not to mention close-minded. I think I'm just going to call it a day here. It amazes me that you don't realize that your arguments boil down to 'if we just let Northern European males handle things, everything would be OK'.

[quido]

prove it

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Calling Alan Greenspan a libertarian makes me throw up in my mouth. I don't care what the man thought about himself, when you cause two depressions by messing with monetary policy you are not representative of small government.

You see, here's the thing. Alan Greenspan wasn't in charge of expanding or shrinking the government. He was in charge of monetary policy. He implemented objectivist/libertarian monetary policy. It was a disaster. You don't get to disown him because of the wider repercussions of a policy born from an ideology that you support. Never mind the fact that Greenspan's policies somewhat shrunk the government's legal role in regulating destructive financial behavior. (But he did not eliminate it, and yes, the government and finance industries were complicit in some shady, corrupt shit)

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you are racist AND sexist, not to mention close-minded. I think I'm just going to call it a day here. It amazes me that you don't realize that your arguments boil down to 'if we just let Northern European males handle things, everything would be OK'.

Oh man, it really is that simple for you isn't it? I talk about cultures and nations, and because of the groups I've selected as examples (which included Japan), you distill the concept of race? How am I racist for stating which countries are currently successful? Are you for real?

And please tell me you aren't so socially inept as to be unable to separate lighthearted casual internet political incorrectness from full blown sexism. I say something tantamount to "get back in the kitchen", and now I'm a woman-hater. Okay. I didn't know this was tumblr.

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So, you agree that:

• Our government is corrupt
• Bernie Sanders would increase the size of the government
• Bernie Sanders would not substantially decrease its level of corruption

Ergo, Bernie Sanders is the worst candidate in the field. At least Jeb and Clinton wouldn't make the current mess worse. I don't think a libertarian would be elected, but if they were, then yes I think things would get better by the reverse logic (a small corrupt government is better than a larger corrupt government).

We disagree on whether the government should be big or small. I feel as though I made a pretty good case for the value of government, but of course we're never going to agree on this point. Somehow the fact that large, successful, largely non-corrupt governments exist doesn't count, apparently because the fact that they exist is... racist? Oh well

I also disagree that Bernie Sanders would not substantially decrease its level of corruption. Honestly I believe his advocacy has a good chance of being effective, and would at the very least start us on the road to change. Bush, Trump, Clinton, or a libertarian would only get us in deeper.

[entruil]

End the Federal Reserve Corporation

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You see, here's the thing. Alan Greenspan wasn't in charge of expanding or shrinking the government. He was in charge of monetary policy. He implemented objectivist/libertarian monetary policy.

I'm pretty sure libertarian monetary policy would have been to abolish the Fed's interest rate target and instead letting the rate float freely to its market value. He purposefully set the interest rate well below the known market value to goose the economy. I'm not sure how you claim such a move is the implementation of libertarian monetary policy, but I'm intrigued as to how you'll square that, so go for it.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm pretty sure libertarian monetary policy would have been to abolish the Fed's interest rate target and instead letting the rate float freely to its market value. He purposefully set the interest rate well below the known market value to goose the economy.

Yes. Greenspan was the chairman of the Federal Reserve; his entire job was to manipulate the economy. That's not very libertarian. He directly caused the 2008 housing crash by lowering interest rates after the dot-com crash, then raising them in 2006 before leaving things to his protégé Bernanke, who is now building an even bigger bubble which will burst fairly soon now.

However, I suspect Lune was referring to abolishing Glass-Steagall. I personally would have kept that law, as I think it's one of just a few regulations that actually have a net positive, but even there I don't think its repeal was nearly as critical as the bank bailout. If we had simply let our banks go broke, we would have emerged from the crisis just fine (Iceland is a great example here). Instead, and this is where the corruption thing comes in, we bailed them out to the tune of 15 trillion dollars.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So, you agree that:

• Our government is corrupt
• Bernie Sanders would increase the size of the government
• Bernie Sanders would not substantially decrease its level of corruption

wait are you trying to say that the government is somehow more corrupt than corporations in a free market...?!

The government must answer to the people, corporations must not if they want to make the most amount of money possible.

If you think that the Government is corrupt, a system that has checks and balances in order for it to be transparent so that it cannot be corrupt, can still become corrupt.. however a corporation which is obliged to keep its activities secret would somehow be less corrupt.. well then it is you that is being naive.

ITT there are two types of people, people that pledge allegiance to a system designed so that people can control the checks and balances of their environment.. and people who pledge allegiance to a system designed to remove them from the equation.

The government you can believe in, if you believe in a corporation, you simply have been hoodwinked by television or commercials.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The government must answer to the people, corporations must not if they want to make the most amount of money possible.

Yeah, I think I learned that in business 101. Shit all over your customers as much as possible and under no circumstances are you to do what they want. The customer is always wrong.