Libertarian Kvetchfest continued

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
True capitalism will result in monopolies being formed. We see that right before the depression and can be seen as one of the causes for it.
With hardcore libertarianism, we will see the rise of a new type of government: one of slavery and bondage to monopolies.

(*oooh dramatic*)

I remember reading about this issue in several economics books. The final solution people reached after much debate was that monopolies, on most goods, were not an inevitable part of the capitalist system. A few things like telephone service, utilities, and railroads are considered "natural monopolies" but most other industries tend to see and oligopoly as the end state in an unregulated capitalist system.

As for Monopolies causing the depression. Nope you're way off base there. Standard Oil, U.S. Sugar, U.S. Steel, and most of the other classic monopolies got broken up 15-20 years before the depression. The biggest industry in the country was automobiles and there were over 100 independent auto makers in the U.S. in 1929 and in 1940 there were still 25 different independent companies. By 1940 the big three had 50% of the market but other makes such as Nash, Hudson, Studebaker, Packard, Willys-Overland, Bantum, & all controlled the other half. The stories is the same in aircraft, ships, steel, cement, and most other industries.
Monopolies just weren't the reason for the depression.

For a good read about the root causes of the depression you could check out "The Rise and Fail of Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. He talks about increasing trade barriers, countries which intentionally devalue their currencies in order to undercut foreign manufactures, this causes financial chaos where companies can't get access to capital, this causes the economy to tank thus causing another round of increased tarrifs and competetive currency devaluations, etc... It becomes a "self reinforcing" down ward spiral which is almost impossible to get out of with out large scale government intervention. BTW one of the primary reasons for the IMF and the WTO is to prevent such a senerio from repeating itself.

[Berzerker]

He talks about increasing trade barriers, countries which intentionally devalue their currencies in order to undercut foreign manufactures, this causes financial chaos where companies can't get access to capital, this causes the economy to tank thus causing another round of increased tarrifs and competetive currency devaluations, etc...

Can you explain that a bit more? Does this de-valuation mean cutting back on the money supply? I heard the Fed had a "loose" monetary policy and tightened it up resulting in the Depression (with other factors of course playing a role).

[GeneralTacticus]

I think what it means is making your currency worth less relative to other countries', making foreign goods more expensive and encouraging people to buy domestic goods.

[Dinner]

Competetive devaluations work like this. In the 1920's & 30's Britain, France, and Germany were the leading exporters of manufactured goods to countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The goods from each of these countries were competeting more or less head to head in the market place.

Now lets say there is a normal downturn in the market causing a recession. France begins to have a hard time selling its goods on the international market so the French Government decides to have the French Central bank devalue the Franc visa vi the Pound and the Mark. The result is goods made in France are now cheaper to buy in a country like Czechoslovakia. Now comes the problem; German & British manufacturers are hurting more then ever so their governments follow France's lead and they each devalue their national currencies in order to continue to compete in world markets. That means if France wants to regain its previous market price advantage it will once again have to devalue its currency which means the British & Germans will have todevalue theirs again as well. Which means France will... This causes financial melt down since banks don't want to lend since the value of the money they will be paid back will be much lower then the value of the money they lent out. The only way the bank can make money is to charge sky high interest rates; rates which no one can afford to pay since the value of all their currency based assists just got wiped out.

Now comes the visious part which makes the cycle nearly impossible to break. There is a trickle down effect on countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia. They have weaker economies then the great western powers so, naturally, they must price their currencies even lower then the Brits, Germans, & French. Their economies also tank so they can't afford to buy the goods which the westerners are trying to sell them plus these small eastern European countries are heavily into debt due to post war expenditures and these debt must be repayed in Dollars, Pounds, or Francs. Hard currency which they can't come up since their farmers and manufactures can't get credit to continue to opporate. So their governments are forced to default on their national debt. This makes it even more difficult for them to get capital, so more companies fail and their economy gets worse causing yet another round of devaluations.

Do you see how this turns into a never ending cycle? How things keep getting worse and worse and the only way to stop it is for some large extra governmental lender to step in act as a creditor of last resort. The IMF was formed to fill that role and to help smooth the wild swings in international capital flows.

[Berzerker]

Okay, thx. Would it then make sense to have a worldwide monetary system for everyone so that countries can't start the cycle or has the IMF proven to be sufficient to prevent the cycle from starting?

[TCO]

Berz, you're such a weasel. You make a big todo about WHO you talked to about lotteries. Give it up. It is really silly. You were part of that discussion that Floyd and I had.

I bet you get all worried someone is after your dope. I met lots of dopers in Breck. I'm used to the paranoia.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Berzerker
UR -
4. How can it be gauranteed?

4) By respecting the rights of others.

ARE YOU ****ING SERIOUS! THAT IS THE MOST NIAVE CHILDISH ANSWER CONCIEVABLE!

[Kontiki]

OK, I'm not going to waste my time arguing this anymore. I'll respond to your last post and that's it, because you seem incapable of looking at an entire arguement instead of taking single points out of context. And, as I'm sure you'll respond to this, try reading the whole thing first before you attack a single sentence. Otherwise, if you want to claim victory, be my guest.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kon tiki -

The fact the American Revolution was funded and fought by volunteers helps your argument?



Does that mean you are hung up on unclear meanings?



It was enough to win the war, a war against the greatest power on Earth by a fledgling group of colonies.



Oh brother, another whiner. Where did I "dodge" your point?

I'm impressed that you found four seperate things to argue about from one, very clear point. Let me spell it out for you again: THE NON-TAX FUNDED REVOLUTIONARIES DID NOT FIELD AN ARMY THAT COULD DEFEAT THE BRITISH ALONE. WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERVENTION, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT DOWN. Which part of this are you not understanding? Does it matter if they were funded by lotteries alone, lotteries, private donations and other "non-coercive" forms in combination, or by green monkeys living on Mars?

France declared war in '78 and it was Britain who declared war on the Netherlands followed by military action in '81. As I said before, the fact Britain had an empire to protect all over the world diverted resources away from the American Revolution, but these countries were acting out of their self-interest too.

Not quite correct. The Netherlands declared war on Britain in 1780 (you're right about France declaring war in 1778). I'm not even sure why you are arguing the rest here - France and the Netherlands got involved purely out of self-interest, and not out of any sense of altruism to help out the revolutionaries. They simply seized an opportunity. As far as I can tell, you are agreeing with this.

They had to transport troops and supplies thousands of miles, that's why the Brits could not maintain their hold in the colonies. Once they failed to suppress the rebellion in it's infancy, the war was lost.

Had there not been outside distractions in the form of a rather major war in Europe and in the seas against other naval powers, the British could easily have put enough forces in North America to put down the rebellion. Again, you seem to acknowledge the role other nations played, so why do you doubt this?

We are dealing with the real world, there's always distractions.

Well, some of us are, and some of us seem to keep flipping back and forth between the real world and some libertarian fantasy world. You are quite correct that in the real world there are always distractions. There are also always other states who wouldn't follow the libertarian ideals and who would be quite willing to attack a poorly defended country. You are also mixing the two in the current setting, as I will describe below.

The help from Europe was appreciated and helpful, but I don't think it was crucial. Once the Revolution gathered enough steam, it was all but assured.

Irrespective of what you may believe, it is fairly well acknowledged that foreign intervention was critical in securing an American victory. For example, in the Battle of Yorktown, the majority of the soldiers in the Continental Army were French, the weapons were from France, and the wages were paid by France. But I'm sure you're right. Without this kind of assistance, the "non-coercively" funded Americans would have been just fine.

Yup. We have a $10 trillion economy, building and maintaining nukes doesn't cost much at all compared to the GNP.



Yup, we'd have an even larger economy and a much more effective militia system in addition to the military (albeit much smaller than now). If China can get away with a military budget of $42 billion, I'm sure we could afford a nuclear deterence.



The statist system didn't create this country and didn't evolve until the 20th century (although the Civil War set a horrible precedent).

Here's where you seem to be switching back and forth between your libertarian dream world and reality once again. If the US had been a libertarian country from day one, it would not have become a continent-wide superpower. Policies by a strong government funded by "coercive" taxation built the United States into what it is today. You developed nukes in the first place thanks to a massive and incredibly expensive government program. You're taking over of the west, killing off/internment of the natives certainly flies in the face of libertarian values - hell, David has gone so far as to argue that the US should not be in the west at all. If you had followed this path, you would have been surrounded by other countries (from other colonial powers that didn't have such reservations about conquest) and most likely wouldn't have enjoyed the glorious isolation that's allowed the US to escape from a major war on its own soil (save for the civil war) and avoid the need to consistently have a major fighting force on hand - that's only been the case since the end of WWII.

So, I don't understand how you could possibly argue that the US would have an even bigger economy, or even look anything like it does today had it followed a libertarian path.

If you had read the other thread you would have seen it was started by someone insulting libertarians and used as a platform by others to insult libertarians. And GP has done little more that insult people, so if you want to enter this thread and start making snide remarks about my position, don't complain when I react accordingly.

Which snide remarks would those be? The only thing I said was that if you think the revolutionaries could have won without outside intervention, you are deluding yourself. You're the one that has so far accused me of fabricating things, putting words in your mouth, being unable to make my own arguements and, more recently, of being a whiner.

[tinyp3nis]

OK, I'm not going to waste my time arguing this anymore. I'll respond to your last post and that's it, because you seem incapable of looking at an entire arguement instead of taking single points out of context. And, as I'm sure you'll respond to this, try reading the whole thing first before you attack a single sentence. Otherwise, if you want to claim victory, be my guest.

Wellcome to the club
This is some funny stuff, I'm already waiting impatiently for his next answer.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then again, I hate JJ Rousseau, so I'm not inclined to agree with anything he says just on the basis that he said it

Intolerant

I happen to like him

[orange]

well, his ideas anyhow...

[David Floyd]

Agathon,

You asked me why it is wrong for you to harm someone - ie, violate their rights.

I would think that the concept that you shouldn't hurt other people is pretty self-evident, and really shouldn't need an explanation for most people.

Then again, most people wouldn't murder 100 to stop someone else from murdering 101, so I guess I can see your confusion.

Harming an individual is wrong because it infringes upon their natural rights. Now, loinburger is going to pop in and try to open up a thread saying that he disproved natural rights - that isn't the case. The thread degenerated into a debate over the meaning and function of a contract, and if contracts could exist in a state of nature. But that's neither here nor there (although if you or anyone else wants to make it an issue we can certainly discuss it again).

I guess at this point, we need to stop and ask the question: Do you believe in or accept the existence of natural rights, in any form?

[TCO]

Dave, you didn't cut or paste anything. And you wrote in paragraphs. And you advanced a cogent thought and listened to what your opponent was saying.

I'm sorry, you will have to leave the libertarian cell. Berz can go mad in there on his own.

[Agathon]

Oh jeez. What's the point?

Berzerker. You are just thick. Please accept this: there is nothing morally wrong with being thick, but it does impose some obligations on you - like going to school and learning how to if you want to engage in debate. If you don't you will just stay the boring and confused individual you are.

There is no point in debating with you because you refuse to follow the rules of debate, which is to be charitable to your opponent and to actually take their arguments as they make them - instead of ignoring the hard bits and pouncing on irrelevant details. In your own sick mind you no doubt think you are some great intellectual, but I can assure you that this is not the case.

Look it's my job to teach people how to argue properly - I get paid to do it. I spent most of this last weekend grading philosophy papers - most of them weren't that good but I realised that all of them displayed a much higher degree of competence than your illiterate ramblings.

[David Floyd]

Ah, a philosophy prof...interesting.