It's the economy, libertarians.
A weak economy is causing millions to suffer, while nearly every economist who has a good predictive record over the past five years (re: the housing bubble, financial collapse, inflation, interest rates, European GDP growth under austerity, etc), says the US economy right now cannot handle shrinking the public sector or raising taxes on people who use their paychecks to consume (i.e. the non-wealthy).
The reasoning is that there is no private sector demand to fill in for public sector losses, so public sector cutbacks will just cause more weakness in both the public and private sector. After nearly 4 yrs. of European malaise and outright double-dip recessions given public sector cutbacks, this can hardly be denied.
Libertarians, including Gary Johnson, are dogmatic in their desire to cut the public sector no matter the circumstance. But the best prediction, made by those who have the best records, is that significant cutbacks at the federal level in 2013 would immediately push the US back into recession, as it has done in the UK, SPain, Ireland, and Greece.
Here's a few of the bad ideas about public sector spending Gary Johnson has endorsed:
1. Gary Johnson opposed the public infrastructure spending in the American Recovery Act. The US is spending a lower % of its GDP on infrastructure than at anytime since WWII, despite the fact that economists with good predictive records recommend government investment on infrastructure during economic downturns to offset private sector slumps.
2. Gary Johnson opposed federal aid to local and state governments. Even with this aid, state and local governments have fired nearly 700k public sector workers, including hundreds of thousands of teachers. Most economists with good predictive records have pt.ed out that this has been a huge drag on the recovery. It turns out that firing people does not create jobs during recessions.
3. Gary Johnson has proposed cutting military spending by 1/2. While this might or might not be a good idea when the private sector is in good shape, this is a terrible idea currently. It would almost certainly send the US into a deep recession.
In short, it's in almost no one's personal economic interest to vote for an economic illiterate to start setting policy in 2013, and it's certainly not in the interests of the 25 million under and unemployed in this country either.
Pay attention to the economists who have solid prognostication records, have some concern for people who aren't doing well in these poor economic times, and do not vote for Gary Johnson.
Catchy I wish you understood free market capitalism.
(#291299)Government is always, invariably, the problem. Government actions & government failures precipitated the financial crisis. Let me explain why government interventions in market transactions invariably fail.
Governments fail at market interventions because governments ignore price signals. Instead of leaving people free to make rational decisions according to supply and demand information, governments use the police power (or bully pulpit power in some cases) to dictate price floors and transaction costs. They therefore create artificial price signals that cause distortions in market activity, like disturbances in the force. These distortions invariably cause negative externalities - this is the law of unintended consequences. But wait! you say. What if the government sets price signals in a way nearly identical to the free market? Wouldn't that minimize or eliminate disturbances in the force? Sadly, no. Because government decisions are made and enforced by people - politicians and bureaucrats - whose incentive structure is nothing like that of the free market, given time those incentives will outweigh any well-intentioned effort to mimic market-driven decisions, and disturbances will creep in. Even if they could be as quick and responsive as the free market with its rack-and-pinion steering (they can't), their bureaucratic incentives would lead them astray. They are beholden to government interests, not market interests, and therein lies the problem.
Free markets, on the other hand, excel at allocation of resources. There is no such thing as distortion of price signaling in a truly free & unencumbered market exchange. This is because market incentives are not driven by people or organizations, or really any human agency whatsoever. Instead of some damn bureaucrat making decisions based on quotas and/or the organizational instinct for self-preservation, a free market is like Nature herself laying her hoary hands on our shoulders and telling us "come with me if you want to live." A pure market is a condition of absolute freedom in the state of nature, and it is nature, akin to the process of natural selection, who decides rapidly and efficiently the best way to allocate finite resources. If any distortion appears in a market exchange economy, you can bet there's some government screwup or other behind it if you just look hard enough. Unencumbered economic exchange is one of nature's great symmetries, like the conservation of energy, or of angular momentum.
Therefore any decision about allocation of resources should be made by the free market with zero intervention from government.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Nicely done
(#291306)Just the right amount of sarcasm, at that level where a true believer might take it straight and everyone else is giggling.
If John is around he might debate you on the economics. My beliefs are much simpler - efficiency is not the purpose of life so arguments about who has the best information or who has the correct incentives are beside the point. When someone points out that "markets" sometimes make mistakes it makes about as much impact on me as saying that "women" sometimes regret having an abortion. In both cases the point is individuals running their own lives, not ensuring that some kind of optimal decision is made every time.
A democracy *is* individuals running their own lives. -nt-
(#291310).
M Aurelius was probably right.
No
(#291311)it's everyone running everyone else's life.
So you're an anarchist?
(#291315)I don't consider that a bad word BTW. But it is even less likely than libertarianism to ever get implemented.
I blame it all on the Internet
eeyn or catchy for President?
(#291330)-
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Some Assembly required. -nt-
(#291316).
M Aurelius was probably right.
The liberty to be unemployed and forced into poverty
(#291321)How does that increase liberty again?
Whether your simple liberty or the more sophisticated efficiency is at issue, the point is the same: libertarianism is entirely unsuited to the present context and won't increase either overall efficiency or liberty if enacted.
Why? B/c cutting the public sector right now won't cause the private sector to grow larger in absolute terms, and not necessarily even as a proportion of the overall economy. All we know is that both the private sector and the public sector will shrink if Gary Johnson's spending cuts are enacted. So, overall less efficiency and less liberty.
The key here is to realize that the private sector and public sector are not currently in competition for resources. Instead, we're living in a post-2008 world in which there are vast amounts of non-utilized resources in both labor and capital. That's what it means to be in a depression.
Your mistake and Gary Johnson's is to think your general attitudes toward the public and private sectors are operative in the current circumstance. They're not. In non-depression periods, we can argue over the appropriate public/private split for the country and our economy. To try to enact the libertarian version of that split in 2012 is to advocate for the return of a 30s-style depression vs. the lesser one we're in.
This is dangerous, harmful nonsense you're trucking in.
What dictionary
(#291323)are you using? I'd like to compare definitions of liberty. In my dictionary it doesn't have much to do with efficiency, or whether that guy down the street that has more money than me isn't getting taxed enough.
libertarianism is entirely unsuited to the present context
I understand that you view increasing the number of jobs in the country as the sole issue of the day, and that it justifies giving up on every single other thing. When it comes (for example) civil liberties vs money it becomes apparent where people's real priorities lie, and I can't claim that you're an outlier here, you're solidly in the mainstream and I'm the fringe. Oh well.
To me the context is not just a depression - one where people are hurting but not in fact starving or dying - but also one major war and couple of semi-wars, another very major war a real possibility, a Bill of Rights that is being dismantled in not-so-slow motion, and a major party consensus devoted to systematically reduced to either collectivizing or corporatizing our personal lives.
I'd also say you've got a fairly narrow view of libertarianism as something having to do with Austrian economics. Johnson is running mainly on a platform of ending the war in Afghanistan, legalizing marijuana, and freer borders.
In non-depression periods, we can argue over the appropriate public/private split for the country and our economy.
We can argue about it now, and we can argue about it if/when the depression is over. Does it make a difference? I predict people who like big government now would find other reasons to like it when the economy is good.
Big government?
(#291324)Big country, big government.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Damn you spart
(#291326)You locked in my typos before I could fix them. Another blow against freedom and human dignity.
Sorry, I could've saved us time
(#291329)An earlier version of my comment specified that I was talking about economic liberty, not civil liberties.
I get your idea that civil liberties trump economics.
But it's difficult to do a joint cost-benefit analysis when you won't take the economic costs very seriously, treating them as mostly a crass desire for more money.
"people are ... not in fact starving or dying"
The suicide rate has increased by nearly 50% in the UK during this downturn, the US rate of family homelessness increased by double digits during the '08 - '10 downturn, and child malnutrition is at record highs in the US.
I'm aware of emphasizing my own self-interest in this election, but it's a bit galling to be told by someone with a career and the dignity of a steady and interesting job, that mine and others' desire for work in this country represents the reduction of life to money.
Finally, I expect you to be able to separate the question of what's good for the economy now vs. what may be appropriate later, or at least not to malign those so capable as simply expressing a stable bias in favor of big government. I'm in favor of deeply slashing the US military, but not now when it would likely start a depression.
These are special times, you should be able to comprehend the basic concepts behind a depressed worldwide economy, and realize that Johnson is directly advocating for 30s style depression.
Rolling back the clock on collectivizing our personal lives or opening borders is obviously not worth that right now.
We can talk later about how the economic costs of Gary Johnson stack up against potentially more substantial benefits like Afghanistan, avoiding war in Iran, and the Bill of Rights. But let's see that you're at least in the neighborhood of appreciating the economic argument I'm making first.
OK
(#291339)Let me start by admitting that I have zero formal or informal education in economics, not even the libertarian variety. I have not read Hayek, von Mises, much less any mainstream economists. My beliefs are just from reading history and (seriously) the Forvm. Here goes...
I believe there is going to be periodic instability anytime a society has vastly more labor and resources available than are needed to meet basic needs; i.e. anytime most of the economy is based on stuff that is essentially optional. As you point out, the problem today is that we have plenty of labor and resources but not many people that have work they want done. Based mostly on perceptions and confidence level, people have decided not to do things like buy new cars, new houses, invest in new technology, etc, just like a few hundred years ago people decided that fancy tulip bulbs were not really essential and an economy collapsed.
I think it is inherent and unavoidable. Instability has happened under every system from laissez-faire to mildly socialist to state capitalist to hard left. I want to stress that I believe with Real Hardline Libertarians in charge there would be periodic recessions at least as severe as what we have now. When we need maybe 2% of the population to keep us fed, and maybe 15% to maintain an adequate lifestyle (this is even more true if you have a "light footprint" philosophy) then the other 85% is going to be subject to collective whims about consumption level. These whims can be expressed through the free market, through politics in a democratic socialist system, or they could be the whims of a dictator, but it's going to happen.
All the above is long term and I understand you are interested in right now. I don't deny that the government can make changes that affect employment short-term. To take your points in decreasing order of validity:
1. Yes, more infrastructure spending would create jobs in the construction industry. Yes, there would be some ripple effect on other industries and consumer spending, but it's attenuated at each level of indirection. The big winners would be construction workers and owners of contracting firms. But on the whole I'm not against this type of spending if it's legitimate infrastructure.
2. On the federal aid to state and local governments - Instead of pulling money out of a state and then sending it back minus overhead and plus strings, why don't we have state governments just collect and spend the money themselves? This is just a centralization scheme. Call your state legislator and ask them to spend more if you want job creation.
3. I have to completely disagree on this one. War as a jobs program is not something I can buy into. If you are worried about maintaining the overall spending level, it could be switched to some other massive govt program over a period of years. I wouldn't like that but I'd sign onto it.
One last thing...relax, Johnson is not going to be our next President.
Briefly!
(#291357)I don't have any training in econ either. The layperson approach is just to keep track of who makes what predictions and see if they're born out. Many neo-Keynesians have outperformed everyone of a libertarian bent by a country mile by the metrics I mentioned in the diary, at least according to my accounting.
Your view seems to be that government spending would only help in the short term, it would wear off, and that the problems are basically structural. These worries have all been addressed by the aforementioned economists - Krugman, Dean baker, brad DeLong, Bill McBride, Joseph Stiglitz, Simon Johnson, Yves Smith, Mark Thoma, and Robert Reich.
We could go into long-winded explanations (short-term spending stops negative feedback loops, keeps worker skills from deteriorating, stops consumers indebtedness, etc.) but the truth of it is that I'm essentially deferring to these people. Lots of explanations can sound good in theory, libertarianism included, but people like us should probably just keep track of where the rubber meets the road.
So when all these same economists who've gotten things right say it would be very bad for the economy to implement Gary Johnson's policies, I think it's irrational not to listen.
When Paul Krugman predicted that David Cameron's plans to cut the public sector back in 2010 would reverse the growth the UK was experiencing and send them into a double dip recession, libertarian types scoffed. Then 6-9 months later what he said came to pass. This isn't an isolated incident and it's as relevant to our present situation as you can get.
1. you're missing the idea of a multiplier. more construction workers getting paid and spending would be good for everyone. that's true of government hiring in any sector.
2. state and local governments can't realistically deficit spend like the fed government. thus aid to state and local governments is not a quibble over de/centralization. johnson opposes public deficit spending to offset private sector slumps which is anti-Keynesian and dangerously, harmfully ignorant.
3. Johnson is not proposing to shift spending from the military to other areas of the fed government. he's proposing to cut the military in half, period. we're talking about johnson as a candidate and his positions, not some position you made up. the point is still that there may be appropriate times to implement a policy you generally like and there may be disastrous times. wise people should attempt to tell the difference.
I'm not worried about a Johnson presidency, I'm just appalled that smart people are voting to send the country directly into a 30s style depression.
Gov Employment Falls....Millions of Jobs Gone...Millions of...
(#291359)...other jobs to support these 1.7M employees but now unemployees...and people not speding in their community.
To examine the direct consequences of lower government employment, consider the case in which employment had hewed to its historical level. Between 2001 and 2007, the average ratio of government employment to population was 9.7 percent. Had that share remained steady, government employment would have been more than 23.6 million in June 2012 as compared to its actual level of 21.9 million. That is, employment would be 1.7 million jobs higher today if the share had remained constant, and the unemployment rate would be 7.1 percent instead of the current rate of 8.2 percent (see graph below).
Full Brookings report here, with fine graphs too!
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2012/08/03-jobs-greenstone-looney
Oil and crop subsidies being cut back or abandoned, with a corresponding cut in Military Hardware Spending could gladly (yes, gladly), have supported this employment.
You know I'm telling you the truth...and showing a path to a better America, more employment, a rebuilding of infrastructure, etc.
Best Wishes, Traveller
Another reason not to vote Third Party
(#291312)And this is really why I will not vote a third party Presidential candidate for the forseeable future...and I mean a true third party, not Gary Johnson. Gary Johnson is not a true third party, he is Republican. A true third party candidate, IMO, does not run as a Democrat/Republican, only to lose and THEN decide they are a Third Party candidate, which is what Johnson did. Give me a break.
How powerful would a President be without a single member from his/her party in either house of congress? How would this Third Party President(TPP) affect change without anyone on/from his/her side to carry his/her ideas? Who are going to be his/her cabinent members? People from this Third Party who has no one in elected national office?
I am of the belief that in order to change our political system, if it is to be done politically, change must come from the bottom up, not the top down. All you Third Parties out there, why don't you first try and get elected locally? Then move on up to state elections. Get some of your party members in state congressional houses, maybe even a governorship or 2. Then, on this local and state success, get some of your party members elected to national congressional seats. Start with one, then 2, 3, so on and so forth. Couple in the house, then, perhaps, a senate seat or 2.
Once you are there, with elected representation in natioinal office, THEN come and talk to me about voting for your Presidential candidate. THEN come talk to me and say, "See all this change we have done locally, at the state level, and now we have the chance, with elected members in congress to help us, to affect change in this country and get us out of this 2-party system. Vote for ME for Preisdent!" Then I will listen.
If you can't even affect change on a local level, how do you expect to convice me you can affect change at the national level?
Bottom up, not top down. If this country wants to change our political system, that's how it's gonna work.
~At times like these I am reminded of the immortal words of Socrates when he said...."I drank what?"
You seem to be assuming that
(#291313)You seem to be assuming that a person running for president must necessarily have some party affiliation, either first, second or third. Isn't it possible that candidate could run independently, even eschewing party affiliation? In many countries party affiliation is often an afterthought, and it's the decision of the voter comes down the the qualities of the candidate and what they stand for.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
You can't govern without affiliation.
(#291317)That's the political reality parliamentary systems are continually running into. You may get elected to represent a district, a fraction of a vote, etc., but unless you can form some kind of a coalition, you will not be able to govern.
In the U.S., the two main political parties are actually coalitions, only formed before, rather than after, an election. One advantage: you know who your candidate is going to be in bed with before the election.
M Aurelius was probably right.
To evoke change? Yes, a
(#291318)To evoke change? Yes, a viable third party is necessary.
Anything else is just cosmetic, IMO.
~At times like these I am reminded of the immortal words of Socrates when he said...."I drank what?"
80% of the time I hear
(#291319)this particular line of argument - and it's something every third party candidate has been hearing for decades* - it's from people who don't know how many candidates the third parties run for local offices. 19% of the time it's concern trolling by people who would never vote third party even for dogcatcher. And there are the 1% who actually want to debate the strategy, which of course includes you.
Take a look at this list of candidates (in my state, don't know where you are) and explain why your comment doesn't apply to the Democrats, who are contesting fewer congressional and lower-level state races than the Libertarians and Greens, and about the same number of state senators and state reps. There's something like 150 third party candidates in one state alone.
At which point the argument switches to "why don't you focus on those races only". Would you suggest that the Democrats drop Obama from the TX ballot to focus on low level races only? If not, why should the third party.
But that's not the main reason. The reason is that the law essentially requires running someone at the top of the ballot. In many states the requirement is that a party has to earn some percentage of the vote for the top level race, or entire party at all levels is tossed off the ballot for the next election. Failing to run a candidate for the top line is the end of the party by law, and they have to reorganize from zero. Also, to get qualified to put the party on the ballot in the first place, statewide petitions are required, often with 10's of thousands of signatures. Someone has to motivate and run the statewide effort and it's normally going to be one of the statewide candidates.
--------------
*the lower level candidates get the opposite comment - "Why run for a low level office that can't make a real change?". I realize you're not saying that, but those concern trolls will argue both ways.
I should also point out
(#291333)That due to unequal ballot access laws, in many (if not most) states minor party candidates spend most of their time simply trying to get on the ballot.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Interestingly enough
(#291332)That's not how the most successful 3rd party in US history did it (by starting at the lowest level). The Republican Party started with John C. Fremont in 1856 and elected a President in 1860.
Granted, that was a special circumstance where the Whigs basically ceased to exist and they filled the void, but they were a minor party at the time (to the extent that there were such things then).
On thing I'd like to point out is Duverger's Law, which is why it is incredibly hard for any minor party to get any seats in any legislature. We're in a Nash equilibrium with respect to our political choices. We can't change the party structure without changing the voting system, and we can't change the voting system without changing the party structure. If 10% of Democrats decided they were going to vote for some minor party, all we'd get are a lot of Republicans. Where I depart with most of my Forvm friends is that I'll take the Republicans winning 60% of the seats in Congress for a few decades straight in order for a bigger payoff down the line.
In other words, the two party system is a symptom of our voting method. If we got rid of FPTP elections and used something like approval or instant runoff voting, you'd see a surge in 3rd party activity. But of course no Democrat or Republican wants to let anyone in on their racket, so such laws aren't going to be passed any time soon.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Interesting
(#291337)Do you think the Dems could achieve the same level of destruction with "60% of the seats in Congress for a few decades"? Or are you stuck with rooting for the Republicans to bring on the apocalypse?
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Honestly
(#291340)If the Democrats had 60% of the seats in Congress, we already know what they'd do. They had just about that many between 2009 and 2011.
They passed some good bills, but not nearly enough for a radical*** like me. This is largely because the Democrats are made up of centrists and a few center-left folks, but not too many unabashed liberals. The Republicans are much more conservative than the Democrats liberal/progressive/buzz-word-of-the-day-goes-here.
As I've said before. The Republicans make things worse and the Democrats stop things from getting any worse, but they largely don't make anything better. It's like getting half of what you want and none of what you want. You can always get the half, but it'd be nice to get it all. If they had control for a good 10-14 years, I think they could do some good. I wouldn't count them out, but neither would I count on them. When it's all said and done, I simply don't think that the Democrats' and my priorities are in line (putting aside my bizarre priorities for the moment).
***Radical in that I believe in swift change to our institutions, not slow, incremental change.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Not really
(#291346)they had 60 seats in the Senate for a total of 5 months, split into two different segments. So you got to see about 1/4 of what they could have done.
I blame it all on the Internet
Just about
(#291475)Not exactly, but close.
Obviously 60 votes in the Senate is a big hurdle, but it's a self-imposed one. 51 members of the Senate can, at any time, change the rules if they put their mind to it. The Democrats should have eliminated the filibuster on 1/3/2009, but they thought they could get the Republicans to play ball. Of course they didn't and they never pulled the trigger.
When the Democrats had both houses, they could pass any bill they so chose. They simply didn't want to. That speaks a lot to me.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Nope.
(#291341)To take the frog analogy (we're the frogs) the Democrats would be a pot slowly coming to a boil, Republicans are a hot frying pan.
And libertarians?
(#291343)?
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
A straight answer
(#291347)In the long run the economy would be no better. I'll concede the possibility of bigger booms with correspondingly bigger busts.
On the other hand, we'd have less war, more personal freedoms, gay marriage plus other types we haven't even thought of, a more robust Bill of Rights, and about a million fewer people incarcerated or on probation.
Actually, eeyn
(#291692)I think, in the long run, you'd have fewer booms and busts for the simple reason that government policy could not sharply drive resources in different directions that an independent trial and error market process would not allow.
Think of it this way: cars speed through intersections because they have green lights. Turn off the light and cars proceed more cautiously and norms develop about how to proceed.
Except history shows the exact opposite
(#291695)before the Fed was created we had regular, severe crashes every 5 - 10 years.
I blame it all on the Internet
I'm not talking about the Fed
(#291701)I'm talking about bubbles within industries and the general allocation of real resources...not necessarily in a monetary sense.
What you're referring to is the traditional anti-gold bug argument against the existence of the Fed. It's related but somewhat different from what I was referring to. However, as far as the Fed is concerned in making recessions less frequent, the loosening of and then absence of a gold standard probably has more to do with it than the Fed's tinkering....though the Fed has gotten more savvy over the decades in dealing with new tricks to dodge or avoid recessions (at least for a time....but it eventually catches up). But even when looking at all those crashes, high levels of deficit spending and wars (and dare we say currency/banking malfeasance?) were nearly always a precursor. Gold standards make things much less forgiving. It's like driving without suspension over a bumpy road. But yes: There has definitely been a higher level of sophistication and success in trying mitigate the effects of bad fiscal policies and irresponsible currency manipulation. But more to the point, the lessening recessions with monetary policy is not unlike the improvement in dealing with a variety of things compared to past ages....polio, small pox, rampant urban fires that razed cities, weather forecasting, norms for building construction etc.. Man learns.
Saying "The Fed" is shorthand
(#291702)for all the changes that came at the same time - the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and deposit insurance, effective banking regulations, etc. Surely not part of a libertarian platform.
I blame it all on the Internet
OK?
(#291704)I'm actually giggling and shaking my head. There's a lot more to all this "Fed business" than I am capable of discussing. And judging by what I read here, it also clearly well beyond the scope of the regulars. Sorry. And that's a good thing because it prevents a lot of silly....and ultimately impotent...discussion that hinges on cliches and half-truths at varying levels of depth on the chain of causation and interrelationship of facts and events. I have also come to believe that there are more billionaires in the world than people who really understand this stuff from all sides.
The history of central banking and the anatomy of panics, crises, recessions and depressions from both a before- and after-the-fact point of view is very dicey business that is quite hard to truly digest and understand and it's even harder to do so without being selective in terms of source material.
Well if you're incapable of discussing it
(#291712)I'll just have to assume that I'm actually correct about this issue and you can't contest it.
I blame it all on the Internet
The Fed Was Founded In 1913
(#291715)The other stuff came decades later. Giggling is pretty much the appropriate reaction to chronologically challenged "shorthand."
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
I've heard that people who don't understand things
(#291717)tend to giggle inappropriately. The Fed was created in response to banking panics, and was strengthened and extended during the biggest banking panic of all - the Great Depression. So yes, all the changes I mentioned were in response to the boom/bust economy of the 19th century that got worse in the 20th century. The reason for the discussion was that libertarians apparently believe that removing these structures and regulations would lead to a better economy, when history shows that's not the case.
I blame it all on the Internet
Except That. . .
(#291718). . .some argue that the Fed itself without all those additional measures helped cause the crash and the depression that all of those other measures did not manage to end, either (it took WW II to do that). Libertarians are correct in pointing out that none of the previous crashes were as bad as the Great Depression, which happened after the Fed was founded (and was possibly contributed to by the meddling of the Fed)--they would also point out that recessions--including bad ones--happen even with all of these safety measures in place.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Yes, idiots blame the fed
(#291720)because in that case the fed governors did exactly the wrong thing, which was to shrink the monetary supply during deflation. But just because the fed did that wrong, it doesn't invalidate the idea of the fed as since then they've applied the correct remediation and greatly reduced the severity of recessions.
Because there weren't any WMDs in Iraq does that mean that the idea of having an intelligence agency is bad? No. It just means you have to staff it with intelligent people who know what they're doing.
The fed alone is not going to fix the ills of any economy. You also need effective and enforced regulation and good government economic policy. Going back to bank panics every 5 - 10 years is not the solution.
I blame it all on the Internet
You see, Hank?
(#291735)Hardly anything that scratches more than a little below the surface has been said and a little mini thread flares up. Very noxious topic.
Um, that's kind of the point of this place
(#291741)topics that generate discussion are a good thing.
I blame it all on the Internet
Causality a problem here?
(#291739)There were a lot of factors that were different for the Great Depression, not just the Fed.
For example, the weight of banks in the economy, and of Wall Street, was far greater than previously. Wall Street was not nearly so important in previous panics. It handled a lot less capital. Look at the first chart here.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
If you look into what caused banking panics
(#291738)from multiple points you'll stumble across varying sources with different perspectives. Certain factors and how they relate will become clear. The more you look, the more you will rid yourself of the simple Fed/Regulation vs. Gold logic/No Regulation Logic.
I have looked into them
(#291751)and the only consistent conclusion I've been able to come to is that the libertarian prescription is the one that is farthest removed from reality.
I blame it all on the Internet
DAoist economics
(#291754)The economics that can be named is not the true economics.
You're a riot, Hank.
(#291828)Seriously.
What exactly have you read that is so far from reality?
The gist of what I have read from those sources in terms of understanding banking panics of that era is simply a matter of massive increases in money supply....usually due to heavy spending/borrowing for war...that ultimately and inevitably snaps back to equilibrium as things return to normal causing deflation in the absence of any true understanding of how this all works and therefore how to effectively counter it. The painful leash of the gold standard only made the matter even less forgiving.
Now, that's a value-free assessment. There's no agenda there. It's just what happened. In a way, it's no different than looking at the folly of how the wisest of people dealt with the Plague. It's seems like it could have been managed much more easily (or just managed at all) from a modern sensibility. But at the time, the most basic notions of how to deal with it at even a most minimal level of relevant scientific knowledge about COVERING YOUR MOUTH to avoid airborne bacteria simply weren't there. You can even say they weren't fully understood on the even of the stock market crash in 1929 when the Fed actually existed. Some economic historians noted that conditions began to improve as gold supplies inadvertently increased...thereby causing an increase in money supply. But in real time, it was more or less dumb luck that wasn't fully grasped because the US then stopped amassing gold from Europe and money supply increases stopped. Sure, in hindsight, future economists armed with perspective and better understanding were able to look back and learn from it but in real time such techniques and concepts weren't common knowledge.
So, I am not sure what exactly you are referring to.
Or you can take it at face value
(#291733)...
Got it
(#291744)You are wondrously sophisticated and well-read, and while you might have some time to jot down a few paragraphs telling us how unworthy of you we are, you certainly don't have the time to share any of your understanding.
Sorry to be blunt, but this sounds like very well-nurtured compensation for very low self-esteem.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
No, Wagster
(#291746)It's a genuine lack of desire for what would follow on such a topic....especially in light of some of the stuff I have seen in these parts. I have evolved to a point where the topics I have read the most about are the ones that I least like discussing in heated, gory detail. I just don't have the stomach for it anymore. Low self esteem is furthest thing from the truth.
Mysterian BS
(#291749)No one here believes you have an ineffably profound understanding of economics, and you can either attempt to actually communicate and engage in good faith, or waste everyone's time with mysterian BS that no one's buying.
It's not mysterious at all
(#291827)Actually, I don't claim to have a profound understanding of economics. But someone who has would see what I am saying as spot on and prudent rather than mysterious BS.
The aggressive tone toward a stance that admits to having read a lot on the matter but ultimately lacking a clear and iron clad understanding to make clear, bold statements (in large part for having read so much on the topic) is a turn off....if not more than a little perplexing.
You argue valiantly here
(#291719)You argue valiantly here but when you add "excesses of labour" to your list of inconveniences like polio and rampant urbane fires to be dealt with as expediently as possible on the grounds that we will learn, eventually to conform to the gold standard. Get into gold's groove, believe in its promises, so to speak. I think we should adopt a human standard, invest and store value in human achievement and potential. We should set our standards high. Digging in the ground for something we rely on to tell us our worth is not a good start.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Gold Standard?
(#291736)I just made some commentary about how man learns to deal with things better....things that when seen from a modern perspective appear as unintentionally destructive as they really were (unbeknownst to the people at the time). The areas of science and engineering show a multitude of examples. Hardly anything controversial, right?
I often see a precipitous rush to the punch line here....even when one isn't there. The most primal binary punch line on monetary policy with regard to booms and busts is Fed vs. Gold. But that's not the only way to see it. I see problems with both and advantages with both. The more I have learned about both, the less I am for either in isolation and without context. It's complicated.
I'm not that noble, and this just seems like a poor trade off
(#291349)I am only planning on living a few more decades (perhaps a bit longer if I'm lucky). It would seem counter productive to allow a political party on which I agree with nothing control my government in the off chance that there will be some benefits by the time I'm in my 70's. It just seems stupid to me, particularly since natural political evolution is more likely to get you the results you want.
--- I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
I SUGGEST YOU READ VON MISES
(#291320)nt
I already know everything he said a priori
(#291322)That's how come I know hyperinflation is coming in 2010, I mean 2011, I mean 2012, I mean ...
You didn't weigh anything
(#291331)Or maybe you did. As others in this diary have said, right now issue #1 for you is the economy. I get that. I respect it. It makes sense. I don't agree with it, though. I think it's more important than usual.
I'm not going to debate whether or not Gary Johnson would be good or bad for the economy in the short term. I think you're absolutely right that we'd be pushed back into recession, but that's not the only thing on the table as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps that's because during the current economic downturn I went from unemployed to making what I consider to be a pretty significant sum of money. As the song goes, things are going great, and they're only getting better (for me).
Here are some of the other things Gary Johnson says he'd do as President:
1) Would let the PATRIOT Act expire.
2) Eliminate the death penalty for federal crimes.
3) Lower the drinking age to 18.
4) End the war on drugs.
5) Cut the military budget by 43%
When I weigh that out, I can take a recession (even if I or someone close to me were to lose their job) if it means those 5 things are implemented.
If you're saying that now is not the time to be flirting with a Libertarian candidate, I can respect that. If you're saying no time is ever the time, I'll have to disagree and be on my way.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Gary Johnson can promise the moon
(#291334)..because he stands no chance of being elected.
Vanity candidate, vanity vote.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Very good
(#291336)In that case Catchy's diary holds no weight. If he can't do the supposedly good things, he also can't do the supposedly bad things.
It's a push.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Not really
(#291348)he can siphon off enough votes to throw the election to one of the two major candidates. Who he'd siphon more from is a matter of debate.
I blame it all on the Internet
The recent upsurge
(#291351)in Democratic ridicule of Johnson is a good sign. It means he's starting to get some traction on his anti-war, pro-immigration, pro-legalization message, and Dems are worried about losing votes off their left.
But the general consensus among libertarians who've studied the numbers is that they take two votes from Republicans for every vote taken from Democrats.
That's because he's a Republican
(#291353)he just switched this year because he couldn't get any traction in the GOP primaries. Mr. Life Long Libertarian he is not.
I blame it all on the Internet
I don't think he has
(#291355)loyalty to any particular party, including Libertarians. His ideas haven't changed a whole lot since he "changed", except that he campaigns with and endorses members of his new party rather than his previous one.
You're not persuading me to vote for him
(#291361)he may not have loyalty, but almost all his contacts in government are Repubican. That would tend to make him deal with them first and preferentially.
I blame it all on the Internet
How could anyone who cares about civil liberties
(#291363)belong to the Republican party during the Bush admin's reign, the worst decline in civil liberties since Nixon?
Compartmentalization nt
(#291366).
I blame it all on the Internet
That's not the subject
(#291377)We were talking about if Johnson was elected all the bad he'd do. I gave examples of good things he'd do. Sparty came back with "it doesn't matter because he's never going to be elected". To which I replied "so the bad things don't matter either". Then you said, "but he might end up pulling a Nader", which doesn't have anything to do with anything.
Either Gary Johnson would be a good candidate for President or a bad candidate for President. The fact that he can't win doesn't change the fact that on the whole he's either good or bad. The answer "he'll screw up the election for someone" is possibly true, but doesn't speak to him as a candidate; it speaks to our horridly old-fashioned FPTP voting system.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
The fact that he can't win
(#291389)..is entirely the point. If he stood even the slightest chance of winning his platform would be radically different, I garantee it.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
You've figured it out
(#291394)You must have got the password to the underground cavern. We claim to be for a bunch of freedom stuff, but once we're in power the actual plan is to appoint Terry Jones (of Florida) to the Supreme Court; send everyone that isn't a WASP back to Africa or wherever; nuke Iran, France, and San Francisco; and - bwahahahahaha best of all - reduce the tax rate for Mitt Romney while raising it for everyone else.
No
(#291402)What your representatives will do to achieve power will change radically once they are in with a realistic chance of actually attaining it, that's what I meant.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Conjecture or proof
(#291477)I'm wondering which you have.
If I was governor of Ohio, I'd do the same thing re: pardons for possession of drugs. You can take that to the bank.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Ironclad
(#291491)Experience of how pols behave. A few more years under your belt and all will be revealed to you too and if your going to be the governor of OH I wanna be he King of Siam.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
It'll never happen
(#291531)I'm too much of an introvert and my ideas are not popular.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
And you're probably gonna need hair plugs
(#291539)just like Joe.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
You'd be surprised
(#291543)My dad started to go bald in high school. I'm doing pretty well. I expected to have nothing on top by the time I was 30.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Hmmm...
(#291338)Let's entertain the fantasy that he was President...
He might be able to hold back a Veto override on 1, but he'd need Congress on 2, 3, 4, and 5... as well as the cooperation of literally every state on 3.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Well yes
(#291342)Of course he'd need Congress and if they override his veto then he's busted, but that's true of any President.
On #2, he can commute or pardon anyone that is set to be executed for a federal crime. That power is not questionable by anyone else.
On #3, he could simply allow states to set their own drinking ages. Currently if a state doesn't set the drinking age at 21, they lose out on some highway funds. This effectively makes the drinking age 21 by Congressional fiat. Absent that, some states might want to set the age lower. 10-1 says that Colorado would. Could he set the drinking age at 18, no. I worded it poorly, but he could let states do it.
On #4, he said he'd remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances by executive order. Apparently he could do that. He also has the ability ensure DEA/ATF agents put a very low priority on drug cases.
On #5, yes, he'd probably need Congress and wouldn't get it. At least he'd have the balls to veto a defense appropriations bill. I don't know what we'd need to spend all the money on when he withdraws all our troops from around the world.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
He could do better than that
(#291345)On Items 2 and 4, he could just issue pardons or commutations. There aren't that many federal death sentences carried out each year. A previous LP presidential candidate (Marrou in 1992) promised to end the federal War on Drugs by signing a few thousand pardons every morning.
Item 3 is enforced through block grants to states that have the 21 requirement built in as a condition. Johnson wants to end the block grants, and since they are a budget item they have to pass every few years. There's not a huge lobby backing 21, so he would only need 34 senators to end it at the federal level. Some states would revert automatically to 18.
Item 5 would be hard unless he was willing to play chicken on passing a budget. I think he would be.
EDIT: Or what faster-typing Stinerman said.
Government by pardon?
(#291352)theoretically possible, but I think you underestimate the effort it would take. For example, he'd have to go over each case individually, it wouldn't look good to pardon someone who was out on parole or who had been convicted of a violent crime in the past. It's more likely that would get him impeached. Which the other two parties would be looking for an excuse to do anyway.
I blame it all on the Internet
Not so hard
(#291354)Presidents have staff. People would apply for pardons, part of the package could be a state certified copy of the criminal record. The staff sorts through them; in the first wave they just cherry pick ones where the sole charge was possession, produce a list of names, the Prez signs it.
Of course there'll be mistakes, and so what? We release people with violent records all the time anyway. And he can blame the mistakes on his predecessors for locking up so many people indiscriminately.
You guys are living in la la land; no offense.
(#291358)A President who did this would be in more or less open contempt of Congress, the police and the courts. The latter two especially would hate his or her guts.
You'd soon have a large criminal class of petty drug criminals roaming the streets. "Gary's Boys." Mostly that'd be fine, but a lot of them would be unemployed and not a few of them would be violent morons. You'd start having suburban housewives getting harassed by crackheads at shopping malls. There'd be a number of high profile murders in the papers and the national news - there go Gary's Boys again. People would be scared, and the media would whip it all into a cocoa froth sh#tstorm. Now you've got governors pissed, state legislators. So many big, frightening and unnecessary changes, all of which can and will be conveniently pinned to the jackass in the White House faster than you can say one term president. The next president would get swept into office on a platform of - you guessed it - tough on crime.
You can't govern by alienating everyone else in the government.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Jordan, great reasons why a Dem can't do it
(#291368)Not good reasons on why it shouldn't be done. Not good reasons why I shouldn't vote for a guy willing to do it.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
President Calls The Shots In Justice, Too
(#291372)He could simply issue a directive: "No further drug prosecutions will be undertaken while this Administration is in office." Theoretically, the AG could rebel against this, but it would get his @$$ fired and that of any subordinates who refused to follow the order. Unless the major parties could manage an impeachment and conviction over it, four years would be time enough to have a seismic impact on the situation in the federal legal system re drugs. I don't necessarily approve of that, but it is certainly the truth.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Might work better politically (declining to prosecute
(#291379)is a much lower-profile way to let people off the hook than pardoning after a conviction; thus the Civil Rights Act)...
but isn't this a risky move legally speaking? Constitutionally speaking? The President's job is to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress, not to pick and choose his favorites. Reversing an entire code of criminal law just because "Nah, I don't feel like it" doesn't seem like a precedent the other branches could or should tolerate.
M Aurelius was probably right.
That's what the impeachment power is for
(#291481)If Congress thinks the President is abusing his pardoning power, he can be impeached. There are checks and balances each branch has over the others. They should be used often.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Why vote for one guy
(#291378)when you could vote for / help elect an entire Congress willing & able to change the law legitimately?
This is one of those moments where I feel sorry for myself as one of only a handful of Americans who understands American civics.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Who said we're voting for just one guy?
(#291385)I'm not sure who you support for Congress. Is your candidate promising to vote to end the drug war? Mine is.
Then why did you mention pardons?
(#291387)My Rep. is Charles Rangel. He's one of the original and most vocal champions of the War on Drugs, a guy who accused Ronald Reagan of being soft on the illegal drug issue. I used to vote against him, but he seems to have come around to seeing the devastating consequences of the laws he championed, so I'm reconsidering whether he might do more good in or out of office.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Vote for one guy?
(#291403)Ok, I'll vote for three, but that's about all I can manage, voter ID and all. I'm not sure what you're saying is illegitimate. The power to pardon is an enumerated power. Since the legislature has been hell bent for leather in handing over their powers and responsibilities to the executive, I really can't see how they'd get upset about the POTUS using his bona fide powers.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Marc Rich
(#291404)Dueling Congressional investigations and some cranks calling for impeachment hearings -- after Clinton had already left office.
And all that was over a pardon for just the one dude.
Well, Congress has impeachment power, but it would cause
(#291422)problems if a partisan Congress decided to impeach the President, the Cabinet, and every single judicial or executive appointee for the forseeable future. Know what I mean? The pardon power is not meant to be a post-facto veto...the President can't (or at least shouldn't) use it to overturn entire laws. (Pardons don't overturn the underlying laws in normal use.) That would be a power grab extraordinaire.
You can only vote for 3 national candidates, that's right. I forgot you're not a Chicago Democrat. (Ba dump bump.) What I mean of course is that a President is powerless with a hostile Congress, and if you want to get anything done you have to work for Congressional majorities (or, today, supermajorities) as well. If you vote for a President who's going to make enemies with Congress and the judiciary, you're voting for a one-termer whose policies won't outlast his or her tenure.
M Aurelius was probably right.
You're kidding, right?
(#291430)you don't think there'd be a s(*tstorm of biblical proportions if the president started pardoning thousands of people a month?
I blame it all on the Internet
Keep in mind
(#291432)that the scenario we're talking means the person won the Presidency having campaigned on a promise to pardon thousands of people a month. There would still be s#!tstorm but that would blunt it. At the least, representatives inclined toward legalization but currently scared would feel like they had some cover.
Jordan hits the dangers
(#291367)but I think you underestimate what's involved. This would be like creating another cabinet post, with a staff of hundreds if not thousands of lawyers. Pretty strange move for a libertarian.
Besides, federal drug arrests are less than 10% of overall drug arrests so it would be more symbolic than anything. Oh wait, that does make sense for a libertarian.
I blame it all on the Internet
But Jordan doesn't hit the dangers
(#291381)The entirety of his second paragraph is out to lunch. First, it's already happening unless the proposal to fix the problem is that non-violent drug offenders should never see the light of day again. That is they do get back on the street, they just cost us $25-30k a year while in dwell. As for the 100k non-violent drug-related federal prisoners...yeah, purely symbolic.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
"It's already happening"?
(#291383)You don't see any difference at all between a person being arrested, charged, convicted, serving time and getting out on the one hand, and a person being arrested, charged, convicted and pardoned on the other? I guarantee you the police and courts don't see it your way. And neither does the public: this country was founded on the notion that laws and due process of law is more important than the whims of individual members of the government. You and eeyn are talking about some kind of Presidential Nullification through pardons which would amount to a single powerful government official setting aside the laws of Congress and judgments of the courts.
I want to see an end to the War on Drugs too, but this is no way to go about ending it. At the same time I recognize the political impasse, and that something has to happen to get long overdue changes moving. But electing one guy to one office expecting him to violate his oath in order to make changes more or less exactly in opposition to the Constitution is a bad way to do it.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I hope you won't take this
(#291399)too personally, but you seem to be (a) in favor of presidential death warrants without trial or hearing, but (b) aghast at the idea that the president might let some drug offenders out of prison. Sounds almost.....Republican.
I have no problem with select, occasional use of pardon power.
(#291400)I also have no problem with a grand, sweeping use of pardon power as some kind of civil disobedience. Easy example: pardoning runaway slaves en masse and so nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act. I would have no moral or ethical problem with this. I also think incarcerating 10% of the black male population for nonviolent crimes is, in effect, not all that different. I have a serious moral problem with it, in fact.
I would, however, recognize that the action (mass pardons) would be political suicide and therefore ultimately ineffective at changing the law of the land. It would be a short-term solution that might assuage consciences, but which would be ultimately counterproductive and probably set back the abolitionist cause. That is my point here. Mass pardons and presidential nullification are bad politics, and therefore would lead to bad policy.
(a) The President can authorize the armed forces to shoot at people in a war zone. The "death warrants" you're talking about apply only to that situation, and they amount to CYA for the commanders tasked with targeting terror suspects in an active war zone. Can the President unilaterally execute captives without trial? No. Can the President have people brought into custody and then executed? No.
There is absolutely zero difference in my mind between shooting US citizens or shooting nationals of some other country (Germany, Egypt, Pakistan), assuming they are in a warzone and involved in planning attacks against the US.
M Aurelius was probably right.
This one doesn't wash
(#291398)This would be like creating another cabinet post, with a staff of hundreds if not thousands of lawyers. Pretty strange move for a libertarian.
Even if one accepts the implied insult that it's just about the money and bureaucracy, keeping people in prison requires orders of magnitude more of both than sorting through some pardon paperwork.
And I'd be happy with a whole new Cabinet level post devoted to enforcing limits on government. Even if it did mean hiring a few thousand lawyers. Think of it as stimulus spending.
What evidence do you have
(#291411)that it would reduce the size of the police/prison complex?
If you want to attack the drug war, try doing what we're doing here in Washington, in Colorado, and in Oregon - actual legalization. It's no guarantee, in fact I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would find a way to strike it down, but the more states do this the better the chances we'll get the vast bulk (50%+) of drug arrests eliminated.
I blame it all on the Internet
Why not do both?
(#291434)In any case, if legalization passed effective 9/1/2014, it would be kind of strange to tell people convicted on 8/31/2014 that they've got to serve out their 40-year sentence. Not to mention expensive. Presumably we'd be pardoning those people anyway.
I would hope so, but I doubt it
(#291438)too many people believe in following laws, any laws, no matter how stupid or counterproductive they are.
I blame it all on the Internet
I believe in following the law
(#291442)even when it's stupid - that covers most laws, actually - and as a result miss out on all kinds of pleasures, but I don't believe in punishing others who indulge.
I'll go one further
(#291474)I believe in following the law especially when it's stupid. Following stupid laws is the only way they get off the books.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
????
(#291476)why would following them get them off the books faster than breaking them? Especially if large numbers are involved?
I blame it all on the Internet
Meh I said it wrong
(#291482)The text in my brain didn't come out in my fingers. And it wasn't really relevant after all
What I really meant to say was that we should enforce stupid laws so that people will push the legislature to remove them. In my hometown it is illegal to spit on a sidewalk. True story. No one is ever cited for it, but the city council has never gotten around to removing it from the books.
Laws like this one make it such that the police can arrest someone under any of several laws that people break all the time.
Now, that cuts against me in that I'm for pardoning folks who are in prison under simple possession. Sometimes you gotta break the rule when the law is inherently unjust (rather than simply bad or nonsensical).
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
The #s
(#291362)3 isn't important.
2 is a low priority and affects very few.
Why is anyone thinking of implementing 5 in 2012 when it would send the US into a 30s-era depression, which we have no idea how to get out of, and we have no idea what could result. Look at the rise of fanaticism and separatism in Europe. You're thinking of some temporary downturn that would last a few years, but that isn't the likely effects of Johnson eliminating 500 billion in spending per year.
1 and 4 are tough ones, but isn't the Green candidate proposing same? Why not vote for her?
I am going to vote for a Green Candidate
(#291375)Jill Stein. Mostly because of the last name.
No not really because of the last name. I am voting for her, but I'd seriously consider Johnson over Obama for the reasons I gave.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
The Only One of Those He Could Actually Do
(#291388)is the first, by vetoing the renewal legislation. Which in all likelihood would be over-ridden.
Numbers 2 and 4 he could sorta do by benign neglect. But that's more "not doing" than "doing". The laws would remain in effect and Congress would hound him to no end to actually enforce them.
The best he can do on Number 5 is veto whatever budget Congress sends him to sign, but again, that's likely to be over-ridden and maybe get him assassinated.
So basically, Congress will just govern around him*.
The theatre of it all would be incredible, however. Maybe that should be Gary Johnson's pitch: "It'll be a hell of a show!"
------------------
*He'd weaken the Presidency, as an institution, maybe for the next several cycles. Another reason to vote for him!
I kind of agree with you...
(#291390)...but as usual the libertarians lose me at environmental policy:
So, he's fine for 1972, but this year we had an all-time record for Artic ice cap melting. Coal-fired power plants are most definitely an extremely bad idea. I don't like cap and trade, but we do need a carbon tax, even a revenue-neutral carbon tax, like yesterday.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Understandable
(#291382)There is really no such thing as a liberaltarian. The chasm between the left and libertarians on the size of government is too vast.
Government is merely a servant – merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.
Including the obsession with size to begin with,
(#291384)liberals care about the functions of government. Size is irrelevant to any question about the powers and limits of government, and it's frankly baffling why some people fetishize it.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Big country
(#291386)Big government. Small country, small government. Works for me.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
You and Jordan
(#291395)seem to think "size" of government is measured in kilograms or meters. Size is measured in percentage of the economy controlled, and in the scope of powers.
I don't see why in a country of 300M the percentage of the economy controlled needs to be larger than in a country with 3M, or that a country of 300M needs to have public health care but a country of 3M does not. But since it's your idea perhaps you could explain.
What functions should the government perform?
(#291397)What functions should the government leave to private investment or individual choice? Answers to those questions will determine the size of the government.
Starting with the size of the government and then working in reverse to determine what functions a government of that size can perform is a bass ackwards way to approach the issue.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Exactly...
(#291405)The general rule should be that government has to do what the private sector is not good at, or is unable to do altogether.
This is why I harp so much on the environment. The private sector cannot protect the environment without government mandating it. The incentives are simply not there. Libertarians are basically oblivious to this.
Health care is another. There are some positive market incentives to health services, but most are negative. Pharmaceuticals benefit from treatments, for example, and not cures. So naturally they don't research cures. This doesn't mean they are evil, it simply means the market is not a good mechanism for a lot of drug research.
Market mechanisms are clearly superior in the provision of consumer goods (subject to environmental regulation), information technology, durable goods, and most services. That said, regulation is needed for a number of these. Do we want unregulated banks? I don't think so. Food additives?
Government does not need to be large today because the country is large, or because we need to create jobs. Government needs to be large because a technological society is complicated and many actors enjoy enormous leverage that was not possible 200 years ago.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
"Government does not need to be large today because
(#291449)we need to create jobs."
Whoops. You got that one wrong, and for precisely the reason you mention in your comment - it's up to government to engage in countercyclical spending and to expand when the private sector won't and resources aren't being used.
You've keenly expressed government's necessary role for expanding in other comments - government needs to "play the fool" for the good of the economy as a whole when it is irrational for individual actors to expand and hire.
I hate to mention it
(#291406)..but perhaps the 'e' word might be at root of the fetish over size?
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Ha
(#291409)since WWII, every Republican president has been a big government Republican (no matter what they said to get elected.) Since Carter the Democrats have all done more to reduce the size of government than Republicans have. So I'd guess libertarians would have more problems with Republicans over the size of government than with Democrats.
I blame it all on the Internet
Word.
(#291415)It's a matter of faith that people believe that republicans limit government. It's like George Washington chopping down the cherry tree. Also, you can't make fun of people's faith, no matter how silly, so lay off.
You're asserting a general chasm
(#291447)I was saying any libertarian ought to be able to realize that the general chasm isn't operative in a depression.
Apparently I don't exist
(#291483)I'm not one for labels, but I hover between liberal and libertarian from time to time when the mood strikes me.
I'm not losing sleep if we get rid of the Department of Education. However, I also believe single-payer is good policy. The again, I'm anti-Roe, yet pro-choice (much like Gary Johnson).
It's odd when you don't fit into a nice ideological box. I think you know something of that.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Reason #1
(#291504)He won't be elected, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will. So your vanity vote will effectively be a tactical vote for one or other of the two major party candidates. Fine if you reside in a 'safe' state, not so fine if you live in one of the contested states.
Also, for those who aren't receptive to the economic argument, from Charlie Savage via Charles Pierce:
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
What does
(#291512)Mitt Romney's position on torture have to do with whether I should vote for Gary Johnson? Your opening statement is incorrect. Mitt is toast, Barack Obama is going to be re-elected, so dragging out the Romney bogeyman has very little effect on me.
In any case, torture is a criminal offense. It is not a matter for presidential discretion. For Obama to assert that he could torture but decided not to makes him worse, not better.
So. . .
(#291513). . .your answer would be different if you believed that Romney might win--or is the first paragraph just a bit of parsley to spruce up the second one?
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
It's parsley
(#291521)and a friendly elbow in spart's ribs. My algorithm is to choose from the candidates that make the ballot that are closest to my position, and no game theory. If Johnson turned out to be a Mac user or something else disqualifying, my next preference would be Stein, if she was using also, then I'd be in a bind. The remaining choice would be between a candidate who's done unacceptable stuff and one who hasn't but wants to do even worse.
You had me at algorithm
(#291534)That sounds exactly like me. Based on my ballot, my preferences would be:
Stein (Green)
Johnson (Libertarian)
Alexander (Socialist)
Obama
Goode (Constitution)
Romney
And I'll bet Stein uses a Mac.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Romney is not toast
(#291522)the trends are very bad for him right now, but there's still over a month until the election.
I blame it all on the Internet
Spart, Hank..
(#291526)See that Ohio poll. Yeah, it's an outlier, and yeah, third party percentage always goes down when the real vote is counted, but even 3-4% would put Romney out of range in states he has to win.
The world keeps spinning
(#291536)and all kinds of events happen. Some of them could even influence our election one way or another.
I blame it all on the Internet
September's FEC Reports
(#291551)should be interesting.
Sure, folks still need to get out & vote
(#291527)but I think we are seeing the skids being put under any GOP governors in the battleground states who might have been considering putting a thumb on the scales.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
He's toast, Hank.
(#291737)Almost always was.....barring a sudden recession before election day....a recession that he would be no better able to deal with than Obama. He can just thank fate in that case and how the masses' voting logic works.
That's pretty much what I said
(#291742)he's toast, unless he isn't.
I blame it all on the Internet
Yes, but what I mean is that....
(#291747)it's not up to him or his campaign. It'll be the luck of GDP/Stock Market growth numbers and the fear or optimism that follows. Everything else is just noise....bad clanging noise.
I guess you haven't been reading what I've been writing
(#291748)because that almost exactly what I've been saying - Romney's number look horrible, but a lot can happen in 5 weeks.
I blame it all on the Internet
If you're in TX you have the luxury
(#291523)TX will go for the Mitster regardless of how many votes Johnson collects and you can't do any harm to the Democrats, so have at it.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Agreed
(#291588)Obama guaranteed that we are just one more election away from living in a torture regime. It is shameful.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Recent poll from what was a "swing" state
(#291524)Ohio: Obama 44.5%, Romney 37.8%, Johnson 10.6%.
Romney is toast and now he's bleeding small but significant numbers to Johnson. You ought to be encouraging this.
I'm voting for Gary Johnson
(#291690)I have no choice in the matter. The two candidates available from our ruling parties leave me no choice to make that would leave me happy when I walk out of the voting booth. I cannot meld certain parts of Obama and Romney together and discard the leftovers. So, I vote Johnson instead.
BTW, in case you're looking for me to argue against the economic gist of your post, I am not going to. It's not that I have nothing to say about it. It's simply that I don't have the desire to engage it. It's not worth it.
I will say this, however:
In the hypothetical scenario in which Johnson actually won, I couldn't think of a better president to enact change in ways that actually matter for the health of a sick democracy like ours as well as for reigning in some of the scary power that has accumulated in government and in the WH in particular. Never mind the whole notion of Johnson's unfettered impulses on economy policy. It doesn't work that way for Dems and Republicans so why would work for someone with more strident views? All that would happen in that regard is a veto-festival that would require more sensible veto-proof legislation from Congress and a little bit of integrity from legislators to stick to some principles so as to avoid a monstrosity that is only veto-proof because all 535 legislators get booty.
I think more to what the President actually controls with little impediment. THERE, he would be a dream candidate that many independents (leaning right and left) and MODERN LIBERALS (gasp!) could only dream about from their own party. Think: Civil Liberties, Executive power/discretion, wars....both military and imagined (drugs for example). What you gain directly and immediately with Johnson or someone with his views is more real and forthcoming than any fears and what-ifs about budgetary details and legislation that he doesn't fully control.
Personally, I see little in what Obama has done in which he has little impediment that modern liberals and suspicious independents can actually like other than not invading Egypt during their little tumult....like McCain may have done. Congrats, Barry. So, it boils down to partisan junk: Gotta vote for Obama so we don't Romney or it will be worse. Bla Bla Bla. Please. You vote for Obama. I'll vote Gary. If I am going to bother expending the energy to give my puny vote (not worth the energy in the final analysis), I may as well make myself happy since it won't do much of anything else.
It's not that I have nothing to say about your comment
(#291705)It's simply that I don't have the desire to engage with it. It's not worth it.
... There are nice ways to say you think we're too far apart to have a meaningful discussion, and then there's your way of saying it.
That was a nice way
(#291708)wasn't it?
You should be excited about the prospect
(#291709)I have a feeling John's second choice is Romney.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
No way, Stiney
(#291710)We go way back, you and me....Swords Crossed, Facebook. You should know me better than that. ;-)
It's interesting
(#291711)that libertarians also seem to believe in the all powerful president.
I blame it all on the Internet
I've now read through Gary Johnson's platform,
(#291740)and other than social issues, there's not much daylight between him and the Tea Party. He supports a radical reduction in federal spending and has an inordinate faith in the ability of "private enterprise" to perform essential government functions, for example R&D into speculative or non-profitable areas of technology.
The FairTax looks like an unworkable nightmare that would create the largest black market the country's ever seen. Tax evasion would become a national sport. Doesn't help that it would be strongly regressive, cutting taxes on the top 1% of income earners by extraordinary amounts. (Sales tax evasion today amounts to something like 10% of total sales, even with single-digit taxes.) It's somewhat alarming that proponents of the FairTax seem immune to the realization that compliance would quickly become a nearly insurmountable problem, and that widespread intrusive audits, mandatory bookkeeping rules, and massive central planning efforts would be required to appreciably stop the bleeding.
His foreign policy is quite naive. I agree with him that stupid expensive interventions are stupid and expensive, but he's basically a strong defense isolationist who would among other things end *all* foreign aid. This tells me that he knows bupkis about foreign policy, trade policy and balance of power. A return to strong US isolationism would be catastrophic, as other less scrupulous powers rush in to fill the vacuum.
He says he wants to apply "cost/benefit analysis" to all federal spending, which sounds great! Then he says he wants an immediate 43% cut in spending, which tells me he hasn't looked at the costs & benefits of anything. He seems to believe the federal deficit is the real economic crisis facing the country, contrary to all evidence. Naturally he's dead set against keynesian countercyclical spending, and if his policies had been in place during the last 3 years we'd be in the middle of Great Depression 2 now.
Incidentally, he'll never get elected because he basically plans to axe Medicare & Medicaid, so this is all academic.
I can't imagine voting for someone with such a limited grasp of foreign policy, and such an insulated, completely unrealistic approach to fiscal policy & taxation. I do like most of his social stances, including his pragmatic approach to drug legalization.
M Aurelius was probably right.
The good thing about a VAT as opposed
(#291743)to a sales tax, is that it's to an extent self-enforcing. If you're a bread-maker, then you have to make sure that your flour-seller pays his taxes, because if not then you're paying his share.
Also, I've heard some economists say that 20% is kinda the limit on sales tax before evasion becomes a serious problem. Johnson is talking about a 23% tax. Having said that, payroll and income taxes also have evasion and administration costs too.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs