New York Times: "The Downside of Liberty"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Ah hmm; that's a pretty interesting self disclosure.

I don't speak for you or speculate on your reasons for supporting Libertarianism here, but if you gained that much from the financial destruction caused by the recent economic crisis, it stands to reason that you'd be in a pretty good position to gain from the immediate short-term financial destruction of austerity and spinning off of public services to private hands, like described in my previous post:

KyussBishop wrote:

What do they stand to gain still from Libertarian policies? The firesale of public assets to the private sector, and subsequent asset stripping of those gains, plus the ability to dominate freed up markets that government previously had a strong hand in, as well as massive deregulation in all areas that get in the way of profit interests (at the expense of the environment, public safety/health, financial stability, income equality etc.).

There's an enormous amount of money to be made from all of that (and what I believe would be new future cycles of economic crisis caused by deregulation), and is what I think motivates much of Libertarian financial support in the US; I don't speculate over individual supporters of Libertarianism, but that is my view of the big think tanks and proponents etc. in the US.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Denerick moans about his wealthy employers buying luxury goods yet previously stated:

Denerick wrote:

...demand can be created through a greater distribution of wealth and its transfer to the poor and middle classes (Who are more likely to spend it productively than the idle rich)

If you adhere to your own argument you should support your employers spending their profits on fast cars -- although I think the only conclusion here is the revelation of your very thinly veiled dislike of privately held wealth.

This is the anti-capitalistic mentality alluded to in Permabear's original post; this is the rigid neo-Marxist ideology that defenders of liberty should resist and reveal for what it is -- a dislike and hatred of private productivity and thrift.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yep, I am right, a rant about FF doesn't really fit into a thread you started in US politics!

And yes, we all know that this guy, unlike Fianna Fáil in Ireland, didn't massively increase government spending, eviscerate the tax base, pursue loose monetary policy, preside over the biggest housing bubble in history, or fail to regulate complex financial instruments such as derivatives and mortgage-backed securities:



"It is very easy to blame Government for everything, an easy target after all..."—K-9.

My, my, Permabear moaning about tax bases being eviscerated and failure of regulation! The light regulation was pushed by banks and markets and Governments stupidly caved in.

Getting back to your op, I can see the writers point. You go on to mention Zuckerberg, the Facebook flotation is an example of the greed he is on about. Make as much as possible and feck the poor sods gullible enough to fall for it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, it's certainly the impression I get of its purpose in the US, I don't know about Ireland.

What's there not to gain from buying up privatized public assets, from a government that is severely strapped of cash?

The most obvious gains, are privatization of profitable services; loads of money to gain from buying up schools for instance, if the system is spun off as all private.
Dublin Airport is pretty profitable (don't know about Aer Lingus mind), and there are probably millions in assets that could be sold off at a profit, while maintaining a barebones service.

Bord Gáis also seems pretty profitable, and has significant assets, so don't know why that wouldn't be snapped up if sold off; Eircom is a pretty good template of what is likely to happen with privatized public assets.


So yes, enormous amounts of money to be made from privatization, both from selling off parts of companies and from taking over markets previously dominated by government;
If Libertarians in finance are supportive of privatization of such industries, why would they not also take advantage of that for economic gain?

Somebody is going to buy the stuff when it's privatized, and it's very likely to be the big financial firms, right? Why would they pass up that opportunity for profit?

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

This is the anti-capitalistic mentality alluded to in Permabear's original post; this is the rigid neo-Marxist ideology that defenders of liberty should resist and reveal for what it is -- a dislike and hatred of private productivity and thrift.

Oh come on quit the labeling and generalizing; Right/Austro-Libertarian views share a lot of similarities with neoliberalism, but you don't find other posters trying to affix that label to you, because they know it's only part of the picture, and that neoliberalism also contains a lot of views you don't agree with (just as the Marxism label doesn't apply to someone who's views remotely correlate with it).

The only label, in general, that gets applied to you and others is Libertarian or Right/Austro-Libertarian, and those are self-identified labels that you hold yourself; nobody here identifies as Marxist.

It's the same dishonest generalization I've mentioned multiple times in this thread already.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed, another put down.

Ah, I see. So it's not really the government's fault, then. Fair enough.

I'm afraid you aren't following my posts at all, you are reading what you want to read from your political viewpoint, like Valmont earlier.


I'll quote my full sentence you quoted earlier.

K-9 wrote:

It is very easy to blame Government for everything, an easy target after all, but it suits certain agendas to blame them solely for the mess.

That clearly does not absolve blame in any reasonable persons mind. Unfortunately you and Valmont seem to have difficulty with that final intrinsic part of the sentence, it's as if it almost isn't there in your minds.

Don't misrepresent my posts or edit sentences leaving out important elements.

Please do explain to us how Zuckerberg used the Facebook IPO to rip off the "poor sods" who were "gullible enough to fall for it." I can't wait to hear this.

*makes more coffee*

Nothing to see here, move along now, forget about this too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ya on second look Bord Gáis does have significant debt; still, there are the other profitable public assets in my previous post, plus many I haven't even looked at yet, giving ample opportunity for quick profits to the financial industry.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And you respond by ignoring the Time magazine piece, not to your liking either? Do provide me with the Permabear acceptable list of newspapers and I might oblige, probably not though!

My coffee is finished.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

KyussBishop wrote: »

Oh come on quit the labeling and generalizing; Right/Austro-Libertarian views share a lot of similarities with neoliberalism, but you don't find other posters trying to affix that label to you, because they know it's only part of the picture, and that neoliberalism also contains a lot of views you don't agree with (just as the Marxism label doesn't apply to someone who's views remotely correlate with it).

The only label, in general, that gets applied to you and others is Libertarian or Right/Austro-Libertarian, and those are self-identified labels that you hold yourself; nobody here identifies as Marxist.

It's the same dishonest generalization I've mentioned multiple times in this thread already.

And the reason why I've no intention to continue the 'discussion' with Valmont. I'm no shrinking violet when it comes to these things but the level of dishonesty and pettiness Valmont is taking to the table genuinely surprises me.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you don't see the potential for massive profits in buying up public assets relating to education (public schools and the income they would provide if turned to profit focus), major infrastructure (airports, ports, railways, bus services), power services/infrastructure (power plants, grid infrastructure; don't have to accept any debt to buy it, may be spun off to pay debts).

Just what I can think of offhand; you seriously think there isn't an enormous amount of profit to be made in finance, if all or even half of that was privatized?

Not even any profit to be made from occupying the vacuum left in these markets as government leaves them, to provide these services privately?

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm no fan of the southern European labour system - its far too onerous on companies and hampers overall employment growth. But we're talking about relatively liberal economics here - Ireland, the UK, the USA - all of which had full employment until a couple of years ago. Of course much of that employment in the construction industry etc. was unsustainable but to suggest that the only way to create full employment in this economy is by stripping worker's of all of their rights smacks of extremism. In any case, the kinds of jobs created would be of such a poor calibre and so badly paid that peoples lives would only be marginally better than if they were on the dole.

So, your employers buy supplies as cheaply as possible, sell their products for as much as possible, and spend part of their profits on houses and cars. I don't see the problem here. For a start, if they weren't generating profits, they probably couldn't afford to hire you. If they weren't buying beach houses and sports cars, those people who build beach houses and manufacture sports cars would similarly be out of work.

It's funny how you decry wasteful spending on houses and cars, when the full-employment economy you praise above was based on much the same kind of "waste."

For obvious reasons I can't go into details here (I'd be willing to share them via PM, if you'd like) but I've witnessed acts of savage robber baron style exploitation of desperate smaller firms that has left them on the brink of bankruptcy.

My problem isn't with the profits. Or even spending money on luxury goods. Its the level of tax avoidance and general anti-socialness of that vast wealth that disturbs me. The income gap seperating the worker and the employer is the fundamental problem of our age, something that will spark social unrest in years to come. Of that I'm certain. No great group of people can tolerate an idle wealthy class living ostentatiously wonderful lives in the midst of economic catastrophe. The outcome will eventually be gruesome, history has taught us that much.

Why not create a more social democratic polity, where that wealth is redistributed more equitably, and which nips rising social tensions in the bud?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Many countries have a social democratic model whilst also possessing dynamic private sectors and stable currencies (Denmark can't sell its debt cheap enough these days) When done well, an activist state with its aim to create full employment and - crucially - ensure a good standard of living, with the means to pursue ones interests, and which provides equality of opportunity to all...

I'll not start singing the internationale or anything, but you get my point. I'm not a raving leftie of the ULA persuasion but there is a lot to be said for Leviathan providing it has competant administrators.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed, I'd doubt anything would be proven at this stage but there are serious questions to answer, it's in the news after all.

Your populist interpretation, garnered no doubt from the informed financial commentary at the Daily Mail, is that Mark Zuckerberg and Wall Street deliberately approached the IPO with the attitude of: "Make as much as possible and feck the poor sods gullible enough to fall for it." (Insert lots of ranty tabloid prose about the greedy wealthy and the exploited little guy who falls for their nefarious schemes.)

Garnered from Time actually, that's what the allegations are about, hiding information that would affect the share price at launch. If you've a problem with me using a Mail article found on a Google search do report it and stop bleating on about it.

You clearly haven't considered that Zuckerberg's own personal net worth declined by $4.7 billion in the 11 days following the IPO. What did Zuckerberg have to gain from a plunging share price?

Well he made a nice $200 Million from it, only peanuts to you Permabear. The rest is just a paper loss.

Neither have you factored in analysts' longer-term expectations for the stock. When securities firms began coverage of the company, analysts' average share price estimate was $37.95—just $0.05 short of the IPO price. All major firms bar one gave the stock a "buy" or "hold" rating. So ... most people who bought FB at the IPO price, or bought in the first few days of trading, will eventually recoup their investments or make a profit. So much for your effort to represent the IPO as some sort of rip-off scam.

That isn't the point. It's about did some people benefit from inside information? As for prices in the future, who knows and it's irrelevant. If those people make a substantial profit it doesn't make it right, though I know that is a minority opinion these days.

The only "poor sods" who got burned in the Facebook IPO were those who assumed that they were going to make a guaranteed killing by buying into a tech IPO, and who panicked and sold as the share price dropped. But nobody, either at Facebook, on Wall Street, or at NASDAQ, guaranteed investors that the share price would go up—especially at a time when the markets were in turmoil over Greece.

Buying shares is an inherently risky investment. Any "poor sod" who is "gullible" enough not to understand that shouldn't be dabbling in the market in the first place. Maybe they should print that in the Daily Mail.

Again not the point, did facebook and your idol Zuckerberg knowingly withhold and mislead the public? Its a rather old fashioned notion I do admit.

KyussBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is all that's implied by Libertarianism's policies of privatization i.e. removing government control; what areas that I mention there do Libertarian's advocate keeping public?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Obviously.

Again, the key word is "allegations." That's all you have. Facebook and Morgan Stanley strongly deny any wrongdoing.

Obviously and they would say that wouldn't they. I'll await the investigation but they have questions to answer.

Yes, Zuckerberg staged a disappointing IPO of his $104 billion company, all so he could net a whopping $200 million. That makes huge amounts of sense.

It doesn't matter, sure it will be worth far more eventually, well so says securities firms and analysts.

Did they? You don't know. All you have are "allegations" garnered from the Daily Mail.

And time magazine, the Telegraph, CNBC, CNN, Fox, Reuters etc. I'm sorry, your OCD complex about the Mail and ignorance of Time doesn't cut it.

If you want to claim that the IPO was a scam staged by the wealthy to rip off small investors, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that small investors have actually been ripped off. Thus far, Facebook is doing much better than Zynga, whose share price has dropped by more than half since its IPO last December. I don't hear you complaining about that.

So Facebook was less of a disaster than Zynga is your point?

Yet again, all you are doing is slinging around allegations.

Widely reported allegations, not me personally.

Anyway, I don't like debating with ideologues, too much misrepresentations and selective quoting which gets tiresome after a while.

The disingenuous editing of my sentence and then posting it in big text like this

"It is very easy to blame Government for everything, an easy target after all..."—K-9.

shows you can't have an honest, respectful and non-point scoring discussion here. I post in soccer for fanboyism.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

And the reason why I've no intention to continue the 'discussion' with Valmont. I'm no shrinking violet when it comes to these things but the level of dishonesty and pettiness Valmont is taking to the table genuinely surprises me.

It's now dishonest and petty to point out glaring logical contradictions? Either you rail against the 'idle rich' for holding on to their wealth or you admit that their buying of fancy products is what you consider to be good for the economy -- you can't have it both ways.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

It's now dishonest and petty to point out glaring logical contradictions? Either you rail against the 'idle rich' for holding on to their wealth or you admit that their buying of fancy products is what you consider to be good for the economy -- you can't have it both ways.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I rail against the ostentatiously wealthy who spend vast sums on luxury goods in societies with appalling poverty and where access to basic human services is in question. As do most people. its not a controversial position and certainly not 'Marxist'. Furthermore this kind of outrageous consumption directly impacts on social tensions, which are in no one's interests to perpetuate.

As for 'you admit that their buying of fancy products is what you consider to be good for the economy' I really don't know what you're getting at. I think you're grasping at straws here. If the wealthy choose to spend their wealth on luxury products it will create demand for luxury products and thus boost production of the same. If their wealth is captured elsewhere and invested in infrastructure or healthcare, it will create jobs for builders, doctors, nurses. So your supposedly 'grand argument' is merely a consequence of perspective, and I won't be dragged into this tit for tat attrition. Its boring, pointless, and serves no-one any good.

Frankly I don't understand why a broader discussion had to descend into this kind of bickering and what appears to be petty point scoring, I thought you were better than this.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

OK, that's enough. There are three fundamental problems with this thread.

1. It has gone WAY off topic. The original question put forth was:

It's worth asking here whether we can so cleanly and easily separate personal from economic freedom. Can we logically celebrate resistance to conformist bourgeois norms in the social sphere without celebrating the analogous victories over bourgeois norms that people won in the markets?

This is perhaps better suited to the Political Theory forum than the US politics forum. However, it is probably a good thing for many posters on this thread that it was not in PT because...

2. There is WAY to much sniping and snark on this thread. "I'll my coffee"? "Queen of the Internet"? Get a grip, people: this is not AH, and the regulars, in particular, should know better. Consider this the first and last warning for this thread.

3. The whole "If you believe X you are clearly a Marxist" trope is beyond tired at this point. There has been a lot of angst in this forum about what is and is not libertarian, and efforts to clarify between being a corporatist capitalist vs. a government minimalist, etc. It is high time that this same acknowledgement of 'different shades of left' is recognized by some of the posters who would not share these political leanings.

Folks, get some cop-on: stop with the stupid labeling, the misrepresentation of other posters' positions, and dragging the thread in any direction but forward.

Mjollnir

Just a brief note, up to and including the mod warning, I have to say that compared to several of the boards I used to frequent, most of them US-based, the substantive nature of the exchange and the content of the exchange here is light years beyond almost anything else I've seen elsewhere.

C14N

Mjollnir wrote: »

Just a brief note, up to and including the mod warning, I have to say that compared to several of the boards I used to frequent, most of them US-based, the substantive nature of the exchange and the content of the exchange here is light years beyond almost anything else I've seen elsewhere.

Is that a good thing or a bad one?

Mjollnir

Quite a good thing.

matthew8

That's because there are fewer posts. No one would bother trolling here.

Duck Soup

Can you separate personal and economic freedom? Probably not. But freedom means the ability to make choices. If you have no means of moving from your born station in life, you have little or no freedom. You're a prisoner of poverty.

Steve Jobs dropped acid, studied at public school and then dropped out of a small private college his parents could scarcely afford. Jobs and Gates started their companies under what today's Republicans would characterize as oppressive and extortionately high tax regimes. Apparently job creators create jobs based on the strength of their ideas and convictions, rather than prevailing tax rates.

What's happened since then is that the separation of those who have the wherewithal to get on and those who don't has become more pronounced. The greatest determinant of where you end up in American society is where you started. America has lower social mobility than any other developed nation in the world apart from the UK.

For most Americans, there is little or no personal freedom, because when you weaken the ladders that enable people to move freely and easily socially - in particular good public schooling, but also affordable further education and healthcare - there is a slowly stratifying society.

The great post-war US boom was built on a strong working and middle class. Programmes likes the GI Bill enabled people to learn skills, make their lives better.

An economically 'free' society in practise tends to mean that those already with the means can work the system - get their children into the right schools and universities, move their money into the most advantageous off-shore accounts - while everyone else is free to be born, live and die in the same small town, doing the same 9 to 5 job. One of the great ironies of the neoliberal-era freedom is that you're now more likely to achieve the American dream in any country in the developed world other than America.