Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Libertarians on Money

BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 6:20:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm generally a libertarian on economic policy. I favor limited government and markets. But, one area libertarians have clearly been wrong on is money.

Now, I do agree with libertarians that rules over discretion is a good monetary policy. However, inflation hawks have been verifiably wrong on their predictions on mass inflation.

I was able to admit I was wrong about money and still be a limited government, free market type, why can't more libertarians do the same?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 10:56:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 6:20:37 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I'm generally a libertarian on economic policy. I favor limited government and markets. But, one area libertarians have clearly been wrong on is money.

Now, I do agree with libertarians that rules over discretion is a good monetary policy. However, inflation hawks have been verifiably wrong on their predictions on mass inflation.

I was able to admit I was wrong about money and still be a limited government, free market type, why can't more libertarians do the same?

Who was wrong and with what predictions? Because I have noticed a lot of inflation...
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
BigDave80
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2014 11:04:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 10:56:39 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/14/2014 6:20:37 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I'm generally a libertarian on economic policy. I favor limited government and markets. But, one area libertarians have clearly been wrong on is money.

Now, I do agree with libertarians that rules over discretion is a good monetary policy. However, inflation hawks have been verifiably wrong on their predictions on mass inflation.

I was able to admit I was wrong about money and still be a limited government, free market type, why can't more libertarians do the same?

Who was wrong and with what predictions? Because I have noticed a lot of inflation...

All of the major measures have had inflation running low.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 12:11:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm generally a libertarian on economic policy. I favor limited government and markets.

Big Dave,

Interesting post.

Have to give you props on putting yourself out there. Quite unabashed.

As one who finds Libertarians intriguing, perhaps you may answer a much broader question I have. I understand the small government view as deeply ingrained in the American psyche. What I find puzzling is the co-joining of such a belief with Libertarianism. In essence, when I meet a Libertarian they often come in two, almost irreconcilable varieties. 1. The market skeptic Libertarian, or 2. The market embracing Libertarian.

Thus, in essence, we have the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Tea Party movement drawing from the same Libertarian tradition.

How does one reconcile such opposing forces within such a worldview?
HenryR
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:30:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 12:11:49 AM, Ipsofacto wrote:
I'm generally a libertarian on economic policy. I favor limited government and markets.


Big Dave,

Interesting post.

Have to give you props on putting yourself out there. Quite unabashed.

As one who finds Libertarians intriguing, perhaps you may answer a much broader question I have. I understand the small government view as deeply ingrained in the American psyche. What I find puzzling is the co-joining of such a belief with Libertarianism. In essence, when I meet a Libertarian they often come in two, almost irreconcilable varieties. 1. The market skeptic Libertarian, or 2. The market embracing Libertarian.

Thus, in essence, we have the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Tea Party movement drawing from the same Libertarian tradition.

How does one reconcile such opposing forces within such a worldview?

As a libertarian myself of the second kind, I do not consider OWS to be a libertarian movement. Libertarianism is essentially about maximizing liberty by limiting the coercive powers of the state to what is needed for a functioning society without private coercion (like theft). OWS, while it agrees with libertarians about banking bailouts, also is generally in favor of punitive taxes on the wealthy and other state measures that serve no purpose in enhancing personal liberty and thus I do not consider to be in the libertarian (aka classical liberal) tradition.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:12:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:30:50 PM, HenryR wrote:
At 2/15/2014 12:11:49 AM, Ipsofacto wrote:
I'm generally a libertarian on economic policy. I favor limited government and markets.


Big Dave,

Interesting post.

Have to give you props on putting yourself out there. Quite unabashed.

As one who finds Libertarians intriguing, perhaps you may answer a much broader question I have. I understand the small government view as deeply ingrained in the American psyche. What I find puzzling is the co-joining of such a belief with Libertarianism. In essence, when I meet a Libertarian they often come in two, almost irreconcilable varieties. 1. The market skeptic Libertarian, or 2. The market embracing Libertarian.

Thus, in essence, we have the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Tea Party movement drawing from the same Libertarian tradition.

How does one reconcile such opposing forces within such a worldview?


As a libertarian myself of the second kind, I do not consider OWS to be a libertarian movement. Libertarianism is essentially about maximizing liberty by limiting the coercive powers of the state to what is needed for a functioning society without private coercion (like theft). OWS, while it agrees with libertarians about banking bailouts, also is generally in favor of punitive taxes on the wealthy and other state measures that serve no purpose in enhancing personal liberty and thus I do not consider to be in the libertarian (aka classical liberal) tradition.

Do you believe in positive liberty? If so, raising taxes to fund social programs -- which have been cut in recent years -- does enhance liberty.
HenryR
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:39:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 11:12:13 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:30:50 PM, HenryR wrote:
At 2/15/2014 12:11:49 AM, Ipsofacto wrote:
I'm generally a libertarian on economic policy. I favor limited government and markets.


Big Dave,

Interesting post.

Have to give you props on putting yourself out there. Quite unabashed.

As one who finds Libertarians intriguing, perhaps you may answer a much broader question I have. I understand the small government view as deeply ingrained in the American psyche. What I find puzzling is the co-joining of such a belief with Libertarianism. In essence, when I meet a Libertarian they often come in two, almost irreconcilable varieties. 1. The market skeptic Libertarian, or 2. The market embracing Libertarian.

Thus, in essence, we have the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Tea Party movement drawing from the same Libertarian tradition.

How does one reconcile such opposing forces within such a worldview?


As a libertarian myself of the second kind, I do not consider OWS to be a libertarian movement. Libertarianism is essentially about maximizing liberty by limiting the coercive powers of the state to what is needed for a functioning society without private coercion (like theft). OWS, while it agrees with libertarians about banking bailouts, also is generally in favor of punitive taxes on the wealthy and other state measures that serve no purpose in enhancing personal liberty and thus I do not consider to be in the libertarian (aka classical liberal) tradition.

Do you believe in positive liberty? If so, raising taxes to fund social programs -- which have been cut in recent years -- does enhance liberty.

I believe that there is a role for the state (preferably at the local level) to serve as a last-resort safety net for those who cannot help themselves (i.e. disabled), and I also believe that a democracy requires its citizens to have a basic education and the ability to support themselves (and thus I support funding for poor students to attend the school of their choice). But beyond these basic measures, government social programs tend to corrode personal initiative and the work ethic across all levels of society and lead people to see the state, rather than personal initiative as the answer to their problems. In terms of taxes, I believe that they should be generally proportional to one's means (perhaps with a small exemption for the poor, in lieu of welfare programs to the greatest extent possible), and I completely disagree with the view that appears to be rampant among OWS members and other progressives that taxes should be used as a weapon against the economically successful, as this also erodes the spirit of personal accomplishment.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 1:33:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 6:20:37 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I'm generally a libertarian on economic policy. I favor limited government and markets. But, one area libertarians have clearly been wrong on is money.

Now, I do agree with libertarians that rules over discretion is a good monetary policy. However, inflation hawks have been verifiably wrong on their predictions on mass inflation.

I was able to admit I was wrong about money and still be a limited government, free market type, why can't more libertarians do the same?

I generally stay out of politics due the conflict and bullsh*t that accompanies it, but if forced to take part, I would probably go for Libertarianism. This would, however, be subject to certain conditions:

1. It's not an Occupy thing (as you've already addressed).

2. Hospitals, roads, schools, public toilets and emergency services are government-owned (if you privatise these, you might as well privatise the Law as well).

3. In lieu of welfare, there must be organisations that reinsert people into the workforce.

4. There must be laws to protect animals and the environment, as the free market will not do this.

5. There must be a law against starting wars. Military force must only be used to defend the country and people within it.
slo1
Posts: 4,359
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 10:07:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/14/2014 6:20:37 PM, BigDave80 wrote:
I'm generally a libertarian on economic policy. I favor limited government and markets. But, one area libertarians have clearly been wrong on is money.

Now, I do agree with libertarians that rules over discretion is a good monetary policy. However, inflation hawks have been verifiably wrong on their predictions on mass inflation.

I was able to admit I was wrong about money and still be a limited government, free market type, why can't more libertarians do the same?

Yes, they have been wrong and it all starts with the credit bust in 2008. We still have not fully recovered from the irresponsible extension of mortgage credit and credit default swaps which were completely unregulated.

Then the focus was on the Fed Reserve process. To inflation hawks anytime more money is put into play they equate it to the inflationary events in Germany and Zimbabwe and completely ignore the fact that the method used to increase money supply is not the same thing as "printing money".

They ignore that the Fed does not buy debt directly from the Treasury, but instead buy from banks and institutions. They are limited by the amount of Treasury debt that is in private hands. Sure the Treasury can just sell more debt into the market place, but that is by auction and yields would rise long before inflation went to 1,000% and plus that takes money out of the money supply naturally reducing economic activity.

That is not to argue that the Fed can increase their balance sheet another 3 Trillion with no repercussions, but the inflation hawks just go back to equate the process to the Treasury Department printing their own money. The process is quite genius and gives wiggle room to increase money to increase economic activity which helps soften a the credit cycle bust.

it would have been bad, real bad if we did not increase the money supply from the 2008 bust.