The Libertarians’ Lament

It's a decent article, but a little too dismissive of the reasonable argument that implicit guarantees of Fannie and Freddie caused them to take on systemically dangerous risks. It also underestimates the impact of overly lax monetary policy, and the countless other factors that contributed to this mess. The Libertarians have their share of ideologues, but so do Republicans and Democrats. I still think the track record of the Libertarian ideology is far more consistent.

For a more even-handed analysis, see: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12415730

It's a decent article, but a little too dismissive of the reasonable argument that implicit guarantees of Fannie and Freddie caused them to take on systemically dangerous risks. It also underestimates the impact of overly lax monetary policy, and the countless other factors that contributed to this mess. The Libertarians have their share of ideologues, but so do Republicans and Democrats. I still think the track record of the Libertarian ideology is far more consistent.

For a more even-handed analysis, see A Short History of Modern Finance: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12415730

Sarah Palin and John McCain are the Reason's they are in the position they currently find themselves..

And thats on the.... LOSING END

Throw in a Bad Economy, 2 Costly Wars, Millions of Foreclosures, a Wall Street Bailout Package with CEO's getting Millions at the tax Payers Expense, a Crumbling Infrascructure, Millions of Americans out of Work [Unemployed] and a Very Ole and Sickly 72 year Old Man running to be President, along with his Hollow Selection as his Vice President and you don't need a Petty 3rd Tier Party, such as the Liberatarian Party or Green Party to hurt the Republican Party.

America's overall Problems lends itself, to a Changing of the Gaurd....

See You Later

Oh, and btw, I have never read anything by Ayn Rand. So stop making an overarching assumption and brandishing it as factual support for a dangerous premise. I'll see your column and raise you that the Liberal Great Society program destroyed African American family structure, encouraged welfare reliance, who programs discouraged marriage and two parent families. The rest is history.

Also - Medicare and unionized employer health coverage [supported by Democrats] created the medical cost problems we have now. Reason: patients are no longer in charge of making medical financial decisions. If something costs you nothing, you use more of it. This conclusion does not require a Yale or Harvard degree. When people use 'free' health care, they use more of it, which costs other people more money. Neither doctors nor patients care what endless tests and marginally needed health care costs because they do not pay for it. If all of sudden you started needing to pay for it again, and submitted an insurance claim for major medical, like it was in the 1950's and 60's, use would drop. When use drops, cost growth rates drop.

Nationalized health care mean rationing. That is the ONLY way to avoid it bankrupting the country. Access and use will be controlled and anyone who believes differently is deluding themselves. Just like you Mr. Weinberg.

This type of trash journalism so disconnected from the facts is why i will be canceling my subscription to Newsweek. How can a financial crisis that is not even close to being contained be pinned on one group? How can government cheap credit not be blamed? His complete lack of understanding of the current crisis coupled with his abandonment of reason have led him to a very flawed conclusion. Perhaps you need to consider the source and validity of your authors.

Way back in the stone age, before Liberals took over all schooling in the USA, I was taught 2 things:

1. If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten. (Our government has ALWAYS interferred in the markets. Can you say sugar/farm/you name it subsidies?)

2. The other thing I was taught was, "If you have trouble solving a problem, try turning it on it's head. Hmmm, government has always interferred in the markets, maybe we should try NOT interfering in the markets. But then folks like Obama and the Clintons, and yes, even republicans like George Bush wouldn't have cusshy give aways to give away.

Anyone who thinks that any politician has the best interests of anyone but himself in his/her mind, is just plain wrong.

See: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164972

Stating that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't what caused the meltdown, and noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."

I would expect this low level of writing from FOX, not Newsweek, but there it is. Mr. Weisberg's The Libertarians' Lament is disjointed, imprecise and reeks of ignorance. I'm tempted to cancel my subscription and call Time Magazine instead! You cannot pin Libertarians nor Libertarian ideals in financial policy for our economic meltdown, because Libertarians do not believe that market places should be driven by CREDIT. Market places are best driven by CAPITAL. Do not make the mistake of calling Credit, Capital. They are two totally different things.
Now for politics: I don't know whether Greenspan calls himself a Libertarian or not, but I know this: Greenspan is no Libertarian, like Bob Barr is no Libertarian. So, it stands to reason Greenspan will vote for Barr this election. But who will Mr. Weisberg vote for? The candidate that is the most conveniently matching his whim, is my guess.
I have a suggestion for Newsweek: Send Mr. Weisberg back to slate.com and ask for your money back too. You may need it someday, if you keep printing this shlock!

Mr. Weisberg's op/ed piece demonstrates tremendous chutzpah and ignorance. Chutzpah because he attempts to pin the blame for the current economic calamity on libertarianism, when the fact is that not a single libertarian has occupied the White House since the early 19th century and the only remotely libertarian person in Congress is Texas Republican Ron Paul. How then, when libertarians and their policies have had zero political power over the past century, are they to blame for the economic failures that occurred under the pro-government Republican and Democrat regimes?


Ignorance, because Mr. Weisberg either fails to understand the root causes of the economic crisis, or dismisses them out-of-hand because they are inconvenient truths that challenge his political preferences. If Mr. Weisberg were intellectually honest, he would admit in his article that the crisis was not a result of a libertarian free market, but instead was a product of the federal government's subsidization of subprime mortgages through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the SEC's regulation of the debt-rating industry that led to S&P, Moody's, and Fitch providing absurdly optimistic AAA ratings on mortgage-backed securities, and Alan Greenspan's slashing of the Fed Funds rate from 6% to 1% after the dot-com bust, creating a credit bubble in the housing market. Instead of properly attributing the economic calamity to this perfect storm of government mismanagement, Mr. Weisberg wants to ignore all these facts and pin the blame for this mess on a political group that hasn't held any meaningful influence in American politics since Andrew Jackson was president. Mr. Weisberg's push for his political preferences at the cost of the truth is a prime example of unfortunate advocacy.

Mr. Weisberg's critical reference to the philosophy of Ayn Rand reveals he knows nothing about it.

If he did, he would know that Ayn Rand's philosophy -- Objectivism -- is not the same thing as libertarianism. Indeed, there are fundamental differences between Objectivism and libertarianism, the most important difference being libertarian's inability to account for the morality of capitalism. Objectivism provides a complete account of the morality of capitalism -- the only system that protects individual rights and allows man to live for his own life, not the lives of others.

Before anyone makes up his mind about Ayn Rand or her philosophy, he should read her works, including her nonfiction: Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Her ideas are not sophomoric , as the author of this article claims. Rather, they offer compelling insights into ethics and politics.

The article written by Mr. Weisburg blames the current economic crisis on libertarianism - from an economic standpoint, the belief that centralized economic planning efforts by politicians and their appointees are inadequate to efficiently allocate resources and regulate decisions. Strangely, Mr. Weisburg then argues that centralized planning efforts by politicians and their appointees - Greenspan, Gramm and Cox - were inadequate to efficiently allocate resources and regulate decisions. What gives?

Perhaps Mr. Weisburg's seemingly contradictory article arises from his belief that libertarians do not favor regulation. This naive belief is completely false. Libertarians favor free markets that are heavily regulated by the constrains of competition and the ever-changing choices made by free individuals. This form of regulation - unlike the form preferred by Mr. Weisburg - is not beholden to the political whims of the party in power or the sea of interests groups that seek Washington's help in insulating them from the
regulatory forces of competition and consumer sovereignty.

After 9/11, the US government started rounding up Muslims without cause and without due process of law, like we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII. The Bush administration called it's main internment camp Guantanamo Bay. While there are certainly many guilty terrorists held in Guantanamo, there are also many innocent American citizens who have been held illegally for years without even being charged with any crime. They have been tortured by our government. Some of them have died.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in the matter of Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court Justices were NOT on the side of the terrorists. They were on the side of the Geneva Convention, that says you can not torture POWs, and on the side of US laws that state you can not imprison a person without charging them with a crime and bringing them to trial. I'm sure that like most Americans, the Justices who voted against the illegal, immoral doings at Guantanamo didn't feel sympathy for the terrorists. They felt sympathy for the laws of AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where even rat finks get a fair trial.

Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the Bush administration is busy trying to build a smokescreen to hide the CRIMES they have committed. Those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Just think, the National Debt went up over 6 trillion dollars under Bush. More than 2 TRILLION of it went directly into the pockets of Halliburton, a corporation owned by the Cheney family. Halliburton is now a DUBAI corporation and therefore is not subject to US taxes. All that money they took out of the US Treasury is going into the coffers of a MUSLIM country.

Did you hear about how the US government is being charged millions for Halliburton deliveries of sand into Iraq from Kuwait? Sand. Like there is a shortage of sand in Iraq? Another contractor shipped sand from Idaho to Iraq at our expense. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses these and other excesses of our current government's out of control spending in Iraq.

Your grandchildren will be working like slaves to pay off this debt, so that the Bushes and Cheneys can live the high life in Dubai.

Yeah, they're patriots, Bush&Co. They wear flag pins. And hide the money they stole from America in Dubai.

And they want me to believe that Obama is a socialist. Right.

In case you think McCain is any different than Bush, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w

The Newsweek is out of touch this election that most of their blogs posted is still about what happens in the past... this election is about our future... let's move on from Iraq as the Iraqis run their country now thanks to Mr. Bush. Yeah, the Guantanamo is history, they are processing the court of law for those who want to destroys our nation and our citizen either you like terrorist or not. And by the way... millions now enjoying freedom like us here now in the U.S. a freedom to express your own thoughts and freedom to speak, as all our co bloggers in the Newsweek, but before, with Sadam, gun will be in their head if they speak against the goverment. Let's move on to the future leave the history to the historians and let's focus our unity and commitment for our better future not just change... because change can be good and also can be for bad or worse as Mr Obama's flatform, but he is lacking substance & experience to bring about good change and don't have the proof of action in his time in the Senate as two year first term as Senator. But Mr. Mccain lack of voice in the media is being flooded with anti Bush ad and speaches I guess Mr. Bush is running again for Presidency or the democrat is four years behind on their strategy or maybe they are still bitter because Mr Bush win four years ago and we still cling to our guns and religion. The future belongs to those who have faith and hopes that God is the rewarder of the gifts of goverment to this great nation. Pgadia

After 9/11, the US government started rounding up Muslims without cause and without due process of law, and put them in prison camps like we did to the Japanese Americans in WWII. The Bush administration called it's main internment camp Guantanamo Bay. While there are certainly many guilty terrorists held in Guantanamo, there are also many innocent American citizens who have been held illegally for years without even being charged with any crime. They have been tortured by our government. Some of them have died.

Recently the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration in the matter of Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court Justices were NOT on the side of the terrorists. They were on the side of the Geneva Convention, that says you can not torture POWs, and on the side of US laws that state you can not imprison a person without charging them with a crime and bringing them to trial. I'm sure that like most Americans, the Justices who voted against the illegal, immoral doings at Guantanamo didn't feel sympathy for the terrorists. They felt sympathy for the laws of AMERICA, the land of the FREE, where even rat finks get a fair trial.

Meanwhile, back in Iraq, the Bush administration is busy trying to build a smokescreen to hide the CRIMES they have committed. Those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Just think, the National Debt went up over 6 trillion dollars under Bush. More than 2 trillion of it went directly into the pockets of Halliburton, a corporation owned by the Cheney family. Halliburton is now a DUBAI corporation and therefore is not subject to US taxes. All that money they took out of the US Treasury is going into the coffers of a MUSLIM country.

Did you hear about how the US government is being charged millions for Halliburton deliveries of sand into Iraq from Kuwait? Sand. Like there is a shortage of sand in Iraq? Another contractor shipped sand from Idaho to Iraq at our expense. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz discusses these and other excesses of our current government's out of control spending in Iraq.

Your grandchildren will be working like slaves to pay off this debt, so that the Bushes and Cheneys can live the high life in Dubai.

Yeah, they're patriots, Bush&Co. They wear flag pins. And hide the money they stole from America in Dubai.

And they want me to believe that Obama is a socialist. Right.

In case you think McCain is any different than Bush, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJUCU1UH2w

This is so true about how the election is already bought and paid for:
http://www.againstobama.com/2008/10/what-is-it-that-barack-obama-knows-that-the-rest-of-us-don%E2%80%99t/#comment-1929

This is so true about how the election is already bought and paid for:
http://www.againstobama.com/2008/10/what-is-it-that-barack-obama-knows-that-the-rest-of-us-don%E2%80%99t/#comment-1929

Nims: Funny how fast Newsweek took that article : AP IMPACT: Mortgage firm arranged stealth campaign, http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732 , came off the general table of contents for this site once they figured out that, instead of being a bit on those evil lobbiest, it in fact admitted that the Republicans were trying to regulate Freddie and Fannie in 2005 and were targeted by Freddie, and the no Democrats were targeted because they were all in the tank with Freddie and Fannie not to regulate them as a means of promoting the Community Reinvestment Act. I don???t think that article stayed up 24 hrs before they took it off the main screen.

This article waffles between blaming libertarians for the collapse of the economy and pitying them for their intellectual immaturity. Displayed in this article is a misunderstanding of the market and the ethics put forth by libertarians.

...

Capitalists that risk their own funds face an endless array of consequences, from losing money, to imprisonment, to public outrage. Government, on the other hand, can affect the situation by stealing money in the form of taxation, inflation, and money supply manipulation. Government does not answer for any of these transgressions and politicians are shielded from the consequences of their actions. Yet, the author's premise is that government action is to be trusted to save us from capitalism. I find that a staggering conclusion.

Even without a background in economics, the following chain should be easy to understand...

The rest of my reply at: http://monopolyonreason.com/blog/?p=224

Displayed in this article is a misunderstanding of the market and the ethics put forth by libertarians.
...

Capitalists that risk their own funds face an endless array of consequences, from losing money, to imprisonment, to public outrage. Government, on the other hand, can affect the situation by stealing money in the form of taxation, inflation, and money supply manipulation. Government does not answer for any of these transgressions and politicians are shielded from the consequences of their actions. Yet, the author's premise is that government action is to be trusted to save us from capitalism. I find that a staggering conclusion.

Even without a background in economics, the following chain should be easy to understand...

The rest of my response: http://monopolyonreason.com/blog/?p=224