[Big Mac]

Another roughly 2,000 page reform bill is to be signed into law, this time it's supposedly a financial "reform" bill that we'll have to pass before we know what it contains (in the words of Criminal Majority Leader Dodd). A bill with at least 400 regulatory provisions not yet written. A bill that conveniently leaves out any regulation of the failed government agencies of Freddie and Fannie, which is no surprise because this bill was written by Dodd and Frank. A bill that creates yet another agency to guarantee loans to minorities. (I suppose the Dems. motto in DC is, if at first the type of Socialism you try tanks the economy, try try again!) A bill that creates new, costly federal bureaucracies, to "protect" us, while it seems like the actual effect will be to constrain consumer choice and reduce the already constricted consumer credit market. A bill with tons of giveaways to Big Labor. A bill that no one can explain the full net effect of legally or otherwise.

Anyone care to defend this passage as a good thing?

[Strong]

politics- they never do anything productive

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Another roughly 2,000 page reform bill is to be signed into law, this time it's supposedly a financial "reform" bill that we'll have to pass before we know what it contains (in the words of Criminal Majority Leader Dodd). A bill with at least 400 regulatory provisions not yet written. A bill that conveniently leaves out any regulation of the failed government agencies of Freddie and Fannie, which is no surprise because this bill was written by Dodd and Frank. A bill that creates new, costly federal bureaucracies, to "protect" us, while it seems like the actual effect will be to constrain consumer choice and reduce the already constricted consumer credit market. A bill that no one can explain the net effect of.

Anyone care to defend this passage as a good thing?

Sure, I will. This bill is wonderful! God bless the honorable public servants working so hard on our behalf! We are lucky to live in America!

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm trying to hate this bill, but I just can't pay attention anymore to anything short of the complete annihilation of american liberty

[Big Mac]

The complete annihilation of American liberty is a process, one we're seeing unfold before our eyes right now.

[turtle777]

Obama is f*cking this country till it bleeds. There will be a revolution.

He promised change. What change ? Making things even worse than before ?

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A bill with at least 400 regulatory provisions not yet written.

You realize that's kind of normal, right? Congress doesn't always micromanage the way in which departments and agencies meet the goals it specifies, and I would say that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[besson3c]

What are you hoping to accomplish here, Big Mac?

Until Uncle Skeleton pointed this out to me, I did the same sort of thing... Seriously, what are your objectives here?

Your tactics are basically "here's my very strongly worded viewpoint peppered with some very blunt and pointed statements and rhetoric designed to put people on the defensive, please try to dissuade me of my beliefs that I'm firmly committed to, if you dare". Nobody is going to dissuade you of anything, and you know it. You'll get some people nibbling around the corners maybe, and some bickering, but little else...

I'm ambivalent about this bill because I don't know much about it. A "hey guys, what do you think of this bill?" without all the other stuff would have been a much more productive way to have a good thread, and it would have probably lasted a lot longer.

Maybe I should create that thread so we can see which one wins?

Sorry to get all preachy on your ass, but part of me thinks that perhaps you do want that lively and productive thread... Just trying to help. If I'm wrong let me know and I'll shut up about this in the future.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Anyone care to defend this passage as a good thing?

It's a nightmare.

There's some interesting stuff there. Fannie & Freddie are discussed around page 2258 or so of the conference bill PDF -- they lay out the timeline of the shift to subprime, stressing the role of HUD. They conclude by saying that "something must be done" and that's about it. There are numbers, though, and that's interesting. Says that taxpayers could be on the hook for $5.3T (which is about 40% of the actual liability - so they're planning for recovery).

It calls for a one-time audit of the Fed, due by 12/1 of this year. Along with a full disclosure of Fed lending going forward, with a "reasonable" delay.

I don't know about the 400 number, but there's quite a bit of vague language in this one. That's usual for anything out of Congress (regulators fill in the blanks, always) but this one is REALLY circumspect in a few critical areas. Scare-ee.

I put a bunch of linkies on my blog page if anyone's interested.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Sure, I will. This bill is wonderful! God bless the honorable public servants working so hard on our behalf! We are lucky to live in America!

Now I know this is Bess.

[BadKosh]

They did the same with the ObamaCare bill. When they have no clear idea of what to do they suggest any BS and put it in the bill, and those liberal Dems will vote for anything. I guess that style of politics is gonna be over by December.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You realize that's kind of normal, right? Congress doesn't always micromanage the way in which departments and agencies meet the goals it specifies, and I would say that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Exactly. Congress passes laws. Governmental agencies then implement regulations to implement/enforce said laws. There's nothing out of the ordinary about this at all.

As for it being a "2000 page bill" ... again that is not unusual for a major piece of legislation ...

... major spending bills frequently run more than 1,000. This year's stimulus bill was 1,100 pages. The climate bill that the House passed in June was 1,200 pages. Bill Clinton's 1993 health care plan was famously 1,342 pages long. Budget bills can run even longer: In 2007, President Bush's ran to 1,482 pages.

Moreover, long bills of this nature are certainly not particular to Democrats ....

But long bills are written by both Democrats and Republicans. The second longest bill to appear in Congress over the past ten years was authored by Republican Rep. Don Young [R, AK-1]. It’s a mere 68 words shorter than the House health care bill. Of the 10 longest bills in the past ten years, five were written by Democrats and five were written by Republicans.

Finally, page count in Congressional legislation is a misleading measure in and of itself ...

What's more, if you've ever seen the physical page of a bill in Congress, you know that it doesn't look like a traditional printed page. As one of Matt's readers noted yesterday, "Nobody ever mentions that bills have very few words on each page. They're double spaced, there are huge margins, every line is numbered -- it ends up working out to only 150 words a page or so. The HC bill may be long, but it's the equivalent of a 300 or 400-page book, tops."

Our good friends on the right really need to wake up and realize that this inane "page count" talking point really doesn't hold up to even a modicum of scrutiny.

Having said that ....

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Anyone care to defend this passage as a good thing?

Your OP was way to vague and general to kickoff a productive discussion IMO. Perhaps you could list some specific points in the legislation you object to and then others can agree or disagree?

OAW

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Our good friends on the right really need to wake up and realize that this inane "page count" talking point really doesn't hold up to even a modicum of scrutiny.

Good point.

"The equivalent of a 300-400 page book" is frickin' insane.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Now I know this is Bess.

How do we know that you aren't me?

[el chupacabra]

Yes a 400 page condensed book where every line; every word, is important and needs a team of new bureaucracies to enforce and carryout.

the bill should be no more than 40-50 pages.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Yes a 400 page condensed book where every line; every word, is important and needs a team of new bureaucracies to enforce and carryout.

the bill should be no more than 40-50 pages.

And what is this statement based on?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Yes a 400 page condensed book where every line; every word, is important and needs a team of new bureaucracies to enforce and carryout.

the bill should be no more than 40-50 pages.

I'd say that you are about 40-50 pages too high.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I'd say that you are about 40-50 pages too high.

So how do we prevent another banking collapse, the whole "too big to fail" thing, fraudulent loans, etc.? Do you feel that boom and bust cycles as large as we have seen are just par for the course? Are there other countries that see them, or is this an apples vs. oranges sort of comparison? Can we build a stable economy that swings so heavily back and forth as it is now? If so, how do we do this?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So how do we prevent another banking collapse, the whole "too big to fail" thing, fraudulent loans, etc.? Do you feel that boom and bust cycles as large as we have seen are just par for the course? Are there other countries that see them, or is this an apples vs. oranges sort of comparison? Can we build a stable economy that swings so heavily back and forth as it is now? If so, how do we do this?

Here's how to prevent problems in the banking sector: You inform banks that there will never be any kind of bail-out for any reason ever, and you remove the concept of a base rate. And then you go improve your golf handicap.

A swing in the economy is inevitable and unavoidable. However, this is usually a slight swing. The reason we see large swings is because politicians interfere, imagining in their vanity that they can avoid the slight downturn during their administration. The system gets backed up, and the longer the system is held up the greater the downswing when the levee bursts.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I'd say that you are about 40-50 pages too high.

If a law can't be read and understood by a man with an average IQ in a single weekend (fitting in around his usual family activities), it's a bad law.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Here's how to prevent problems in the banking sector: You inform banks that there will never be any kind of bail-out for any reason ever, and you remove the concept of a base rate. And then you go improve your golf handicap.

A swing in the economy is inevitable and unavoidable. However, this is usually a slight swing. The reason we see large swings is because politicians interfere, imagining in their vanity that they can avoid the slight downturn during their administration. The system gets backed up, and the longer the system is held up the greater the downswing when the levee bursts.

I don't know if that's true...

Are politicians directly responsible for short selling, derivative markets, credit default swaps, and the like? Or, has the financial sector just grown more complicated? Or, is it both?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So how do we prevent another banking collapse, the whole "too big to fail" thing, fraudulent loans, etc.? Do you feel that boom and bust cycles as large as we have seen are just par for the course? Are there other countries that see them, or is this an apples vs. oranges sort of comparison? Can we build a stable economy that swings so heavily back and forth as it is now? If so, how do we do this?

What makes you think that with 100 years of the Federal Reserve, 80 years since they completely took control of currency and policies of federal involvement in the financial sector that they are going to even be able to "fix" any of these problems? Despite there being several generations of attempts to create this "economic utopia" where we are all protected from any bad things happening there hasn't been any progress. All we have seen is more infringement on our rights, more power taken by the Federal government, and the same "boom and bust" cycles. Look at the number of laws and regulations that have accumulated over the years and look at the severity of the current economic situation compared to others we have had over the years. It hasn't helped. AT ALL.

Let me ask you: How do you become "too big to fail" without government intervention? In a truly free market what would prevent having lots of competitors? Nevertheless, I reject the idea that there is some kind of right not to be effected by the failings of private businesses. They are the whole reason we even have an economy in the first place.

Here's my Financial Reform legislation:

• Government is hereby prohibited from bailing out or otherwise funding any private business. Likewise, the Federal government is prohibited from the establishment of quasi-government institutions which operate in the private sector.
• The Federal Reserve is hereby abolished and we will return to gold standard currency issued by private institutions…just as G-d intended.
• All laws and regulations which apply to businesses or private individuals engaging in business, not pertaining to actual fraud, theft etc. are hereby abolished. Private businesses, which consist of private citizens funded with privately attained money, are free to engage in their respective businesses as they see fit so long as they are not infringing on the rights others to do so.

Of course, this would necessitate a massive overhaul of the tax code in order to facilitate the kind of freedom needed to make this work.

Also, this would need to be phased in.

I guess I was wrong. Even UNDOING all the government's crap requires tons of paper.

Too radical?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Yes a 400 page condensed book where every line; every word, is important and needs a team of new bureaucracies to enforce and carryout.

the bill should be no more than 40-50 pages.

This is like saying that the space shuttle should have no more than 100 moving parts. Arbitrary "page count" limits in legislation are as nonsensical as arbitrary "moving part" limits in engineering. The length of either should be determined by the complexity of the problem being addressed.

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

This is like saying that the space shuttle should have no more than 100 moving parts. Arbitrary "page count" limits in legislation are as nonsensical as arbitrary "moving part" limits in engineering. The length of either should be determined by the complexity of the problem being addressed.

Originally Posted by Einstein

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

Minimum character thingy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

What makes you think that with 100 years of the Federal Reserve, 80 years since they completely took control of currency and policies of federal involvement in the financial sector that they are going to even be able to "fix" any of these problems? Despite there being several generations of attempts to create this "economic utopia" where we are all protected from any bad things happening there hasn't been any progress. All we have seen is more infringement on our rights, more power taken by the Federal government, and the same "boom and bust" cycles. Look at the number of laws and regulations that have accumulated over the years and look at the severity of the current economic situation compared to others we have had over the years. It hasn't helped. AT ALL.

This would be true if you could say for certain that we have not been shielded from unpublicized potential economic turmoil that was circumvented by these policies. I'm not saying that we have, I'm saying that you can't make these statements without knowing this.

It's the same sort of circular argument as saying that the War on Terror has been working because we haven't been attacked (i.e. what would the results have been if the WoT didn't exist? We don't know that).

Let me ask you: How do you become "too big to fail" without government intervention? In a truly free market what would prevent having lots of competitors? Nevertheless, I reject the idea that there is some kind of right not to be effected by the failings of private businesses. They are the whole reason we even have an economy in the first place.

Here's my Financial Reform legislation:

• Government is hereby prohibited from bailing out or otherwise funding any private business. Likewise, the Federal government is prohibited from the establishment of quasi-government institutions which operate in the private sector.
• The Federal Reserve is hereby abolished and we will return to gold standard currency issued by private institutions…just as G-d intended.
• All laws and regulations which apply to businesses or private individuals engaging in business, not pertaining to actual fraud, theft etc. are hereby abolished. Private businesses, which consist of private citizens funded with privately attained money, are free to engage in their respective businesses as they see fit so long as they are not infringing on the rights others to do so.

Of course, this would necessitate a massive overhaul of the tax code in order to facilitate the kind of freedom needed to make this work.

Also, this would need to be phased in.

I guess I was wrong. Even UNDOING all the government's crap requires tons of paper.

Too radical?

Define fraud and theft (in your third point)? Some would say that what prompted this financial reform was fraud and theft.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Minimum character thingy.

That doesn't really apply unless you start with a clean slate with something new rather than amending an existing structure. Amendments are almost always very complicated in just about any sort of design of anything.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That doesn't really apply unless you start with a clean slate with something new rather than amending an existing structure. Amendments are almost always very complicated in just about any sort of design of anything.

True, but is there any law stopping the politicians from sweeping clean and starting again?

Imagine a wall. Let's say it's lego. Each generation of politicians comes along and removes a few bricks of the other side's colour before building higher with a few bricks of their own colour. And they don't necessarily build their bricks into the gaps which they made when they removed the other bricks.
Is that wall ever going to be strong and safe, or will it forever need "builders" to make sure it doesn't fall over?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Minimum character thingy.

That's the wrong Einstein quote you're using. The correct one is:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's the wrong Einstein quote you're using. The correct one is:

They both work.
Mine's a little more scathing of the "intelligent fools" with no backbones who we vote into power.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Here's my Financial Reform legislation:

• Government is hereby prohibited from bailing out or otherwise funding any private business. Likewise, the Federal government is prohibited from the establishment of quasi-government institutions which operate in the private sector.

This is one of those things that sounds good on paper ... but when the rubber meets the road can be problematic.

Bailouts - I agree. They are distasteful to say the least. In this latest crisis it was a clear case of "privatizing the gains and socializing the losses". Having said that, there's this old saying "Don't cut of your nose to spite your face." Allowing the entire US (and perhaps world) economy to collapse because of some "purist" principle would have been foolishness of the highest order. Having said that, once the system has been stabilized (as it has) the thing to do then is to ensure that the collapse of a large firm doesn't threaten the entire economy. IMO it's really simple ....Too big to fail is too big to exist. These mega-firms that have the capacity to tank the entire economy should be broken up and not allowed to merge back into an unmanageable behemoth. That would promote competition in and of itself while putting the government in a position to never have to do a bailout again. Seems like common sense to me (and a lot of other people) ... but that goes against the "laissez-faire", "anti-regulatory" stance that our good friends on the right hold.

Government funding of private business - Generally speaking I agree. But as with all rules there are notable exceptions. I don't think it would have been in the long-term interests of the United States to allow the domestic auto industry to collapse during the financial crisis. If Boeing or perhaps large segments of the US defense industry were in danger of imminent insolvency and the government did nothing that would endanger the country militarily. Any measures taken would need to be temporary of course ... but in a situation like that something would need to be done. And again, it would be better to have a regulatory framework in place to prevent a scenario like that from happening in the first place.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

• The Federal Reserve is hereby abolished and we will return to gold standard currency issued by private institutions…just as G-d intended.

I really don't get this fascination with the "gold standard" among our conservative compatriots. At the end of the day, anything ... be it a dollar ... a gold coin ... a diamond ... a stock ... a bond ... or whatever only has as much value as people collectively assign to it. There is nothing "magical" about gold. If we can buy and sell goods and services with a paper dollar because the people collectively put a certain value on them then that's all that really matters.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

• All laws and regulations which apply to businesses or private individuals engaging in business, not pertaining to actual fraud, theft etc. are hereby abolished. Private businesses, which consist of private citizens funded with privately attained money, are free to engage in their respective businesses as they see fit so long as they are not infringing on the rights others to do so.

Another one of those things that sounds good on paper ... but falls down in practice. So there should be no public health standards enforced on restaurants because there is not "fraud" or "theft" involved? Just let the market decide? Essential items like water and energy should be completely under the control of private commercial interests even though they are typically monopolies in their geographical areas?

The role of government is to create a level playing field for private business and to promote the common good. A football game needs rules and a referee to enforce said rules ... otherwise the game descends into anarchy. The game is best when the rules make sense and the referee isn't too heavy handed. And a good referee does just enough to keep the teams in line and allows the game to unfold naturally. That is what the government should be doing as it regulates business. This notion of "let private business do whatever the hell it wants" is extremely shortsighted IMO. Because there are business practices that might not be considered "theft" or "fraudulent" but they are certainly "abusive". Case in point .... cell phone companies and contracts. If I buy an iPhone at full retail price WTF is it still locked to AT&T? WTF do I have to sign a contract that has a termination fee? I can see this if the cell phone company has subsidized the cost of the phone ... an early termination fee makes sense then. But there is no legitimate reason to have that if you buy the phone at full price. But why is this done? Because AT&T can. Why is a phone locked to a single carrier EVER? Because they can. And they can because consumer choice is so limited. There are cases where the power dynamic in the marketplace is so skewed because the government when it was controlled by our good friends on the right de-regulated the industries to the point where we end up with a handful of players dominating an entire industry. IMO this is a practice that should be banned. Plain and simple. And the government in such instances should be a check against the excesses of the strong and the wealthy and the powerful. But the conservative mantra would be to "let them conduct their business as they see fit" .... even though such practices are clearly anti-consumer and anti-competitive.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Too radical?

A tad bit.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

True, but is there any law stopping the politicians from sweeping clean and starting again?

Imagine a wall. Let's say it's lego. Each generation of politicians comes along and removes a few bricks of the other side's colour before building higher with a few bricks of their own colour. And they don't necessarily build their bricks into the gaps which they made when they removed the other bricks.
Is that wall ever going to be strong and safe, or will it forever need "builders" to make sure it doesn't fall over?

I'd like to see us do that with many, many things. I made the analogy that some of our structures are sort of like Microsoft Word version 230923804 - bloated, complicated, and in bad need of redesign. However, this country is in general very weary about drastic change... It is appropriate, I feel, to be highly skeptical about this sort of thing ever happening.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The role of government is to create a level playing field for private business and to promote the common good.

Therein lies the problem: This is not the role of government. Much suffering has been inflicted upon the people in the world by their own government in the name of the so-called "common good" This is the very philosophic basis of every socialist, communist and fascist regime in history.

A football game needs rules and a referee to enforce said rules ... otherwise the game descends into anarchy.

I don't think that a football game is a very good analogy for something like an economy.

I would say that even in a free economy there are rules: the rules of trade, laws respecting individual rights, checks in the form of civil liability etc.. I think that a better analogy than football is the internet. Here is a system that requires certain equipment that all speak a certain language and THAT'S IT. Look at where the internet has gone in the last decade without any top-down planning, special manipulative taxes, and almost NO regulation. I don't think that anyone with half-a-brain would argue we need Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, John McCain and Lindsey Graham to "make the internet better" for the "common good".

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is appropriate, I feel, to be highly skeptical about this sort of thing ever happening.

I agree. There's far too many people with an interest in holding the existing wall up.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I agree. There's far too many people with an interest in holding the existing wall up.

Yes, on both sides of the aisle.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, on both sides of the aisle.

Yup.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Therein lies the problem: This is not the role of government. Much suffering has been inflicted upon the people in the world by their own government in the name of the so-called "common good" This is the very philosophic basis of every socialist, communist and fascist regime in history.

Well on this we certainly disagree. That certainly is the role of government along with providing for the common defense. Now having said that, there are instances when particular governments fail to live up to this responsibility. There are instances when particular governments promote the power base of those that control the government in the name of promoting the "common good". But this isn't an indictment of goal or philosophy itself but rather the implementation of it.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't think that a football game is a very good analogy for something like an economy.

I would say that even in a free economy there are rules: the rules of trade, laws respecting individual rights, checks in the form of civil liability etc..

I don't see how this is very different from what I said.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I think that a better analogy than football is the internet. Here is a system that requires certain equipment that all speak a certain language and THAT'S IT. Look at where the internet has gone in the last decade without any top-down planning, special manipulative taxes, and almost NO regulation. I don't think that anyone with half-a-brain would argue we need Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, John McCain and Lindsey Graham to "make the internet better" for the "common good".

Again ... I don't see how what we are saying is that far apart. The internet is a prime example of the "unobtrusive referee" IMO. Now having said that, an example of a "rule of trade" that I personally think should be enforced is Net Neutrality. A company that is an ISP simply should not be allowed to use that market position to discourage or restrict internet traffic from the competition in favor of its own services. AT&T should NOT be allowed abuse its position as an ISP to restrict internet streaming of movies/TV shows from sites like Hulu or Netflix in favor of its own U-Verse service. Nor should Comcast be able to charge its customers more when using their Comcast internet connection to access a non-Comcast owned service.

I suppose I'm more in the "limited regulation" camp as opposed to the "no regulation" camp.

OAW

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I really don't get this fascination with the "gold standard" among our conservative compatriots. At the end of the day, anything ... be it a dollar ... a gold coin ... a diamond ... a stock ... a bond ... or whatever only has as much value as people collectively assign to it. There is nothing "magical" about gold. If we can buy and sell goods and services with a paper dollar because the people collectively put a certain value on them then that's all that really matters.

The point is that by tying our money to an objective value we can't just print more money to fund outrageously expensive programs. The value of the dollar would not be determined by fiat.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now having said that, an example of a "rule of trade" that I personally think should be enforced is Net Neutrality. A company that is an ISP simply should not be allowed to use that market position to discourage or restrict internet traffic from the competition in favor of its own services. AT&T should NOT be allowed abuse its position as an ISP to restrict internet streaming of movies/TV shows from sites like Hulu or Netflix in favor of its own U-Verse service. Nor should Comcast be able to charge its customers more when using their Comcast internet connection to access a non-Comcast owned service.

I suppose I'm more in the "limited regulation" camp as opposed to the "no regulation" camp.

OAW

I certainly disagree there. Net Neutrality is a direct violation of the property rights of the ISP's. The internet is not a public service we are all entitled to, it is a network of privately owned devices providing privately owned and run services. The ISP's should be entitled to run there services anyway they need to in order to maintain or increase profits, because it is their money, their property, their right.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The point is that by tying our money to an objective value we can't just print more money to fund outrageously expensive programs. The value of the dollar would not be determined by fiat.

I suppose what I was saying is that the value placed on gold is by no means "objective". It's driven by the market. Just as is paper currency.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I suppose what I was saying is that the value placed on gold is by no means "objective". It's driven by the market. Just as is paper currency.

OAW

One version of a gold standard (as it existed post WWII until the Nixon Administration) would be to peg the price of gold at $X per ounce, fixing its value. Now, this worked at the time because everyone else agreed to peg their currencies to the dollar, essentially fixing the price of gold worldwide. I doubt you would find agreement to do that today.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I suppose what I was saying is that the value placed on gold is by no means "objective". It's driven by the market. Just as is paper currency.

OAW

The free market IS objective. The value of gold is would not be determined by how much people simply desire to pay for it, it would be determined by supply and demand.

Paper currency is by no means merely "market driven". It is manipulated directly by the printing of more whenever they feel they need it. The market affects the value, but it doesn't determine the value. You can't see the difference?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I certainly disagree there. Net Neutrality is a direct violation of the property rights of the ISP's. The internet is not a public service we are all entitled to, it is a network of privately owned devices providing privately owned and run services. The ISP's should be entitled to run there services anyway they need to in order to maintain or increase profits, because it is their money, their property, their right.

Well in this situation there are two bedrock principles of a free market system involved that are in conflict here ...

- Property Rights
- Fair and Competitive Marketplace

So then the question becomes what should be done? Should the Property Rights of an ISP trump the establishment of a Fair and Competitive Marketplace for internet Video entertainment? It's my contention that it should not. If Comcast decided to get into the search business should it have the right to block all access to Google and Yahoo and Bing by its customers ... regardless of what those customers want? If Charter decided to get into the e-book business should it be able to block its customers from Amazon? If AT&T decided to get into the music business should it be able to block its customers from iTunes? I simply don't think in a situation like this it is wise to hinder a Fair and Competitive Marketplace in favor of the Property Rights of private businesses that are virtual monopolies in the areas where they operate as ISPs. That goes against the fundamental principles of capitalism as espoused by Adam Smith.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

One version of a gold standard (as it existed post WWII until the Nixon Administration) would be to peg the price of gold at $X per ounce, fixing its value. Now, this worked at the time because everyone else agreed to peg their currencies to the dollar, essentially fixing the price of gold worldwide. I doubt you would find agreement to do that today.

Exactly.

Today we have a Foreign Exchange Market to determine the value of currencies. "Printing more money to pay for expensive programs" has consequences in the FX market. As for the US dollar being a "fiat" currency, nearly all national currencies are. It is a hallmark of a modern banking system. Notwithstanding the fact that the "gold standard" is an anachronistic notion in and of itself ... for the US to return to that in isolation from other major countries in a global economy would be wholly impractical.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The free market IS objective. The value of gold is would not be determined by how much people simply desire to pay for it, it would be determined by supply and demand.

Paper currency is by no means merely "market driven". It is manipulated directly by the printing of more whenever they feel they need it. The market affects the value, but it doesn't determine the value. You can't see the difference?

Printing of currency is an increase in the supply of money. Similarly, the gold market can be manipulated by hoarding, decreasing the supply.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Printing of currency is an increase in the supply of money. Similarly, the gold market can be manipulated by hoarding, decreasing the supply.

Exactly. It is the role of the central bank of a nation to determine the money supply based upon the needs of the nation. Should the same amount of dollar bills be in circulation in 2010 as it was in 1810? I would venture to say no considering the expansion of the US in terms of population and economic activity in the last 200 years.

And speaking of market manipulation ... that's a case in point when it comes to diamonds. If the diamond market were truly based upon supply and demand the things would be virtually worthless. Africa is filled with them ... but the DeBeers Cartel manipulates the market by hoarding them and creating artificial scarcity. Between that and the "Diamonds are forever" marketing campaign the diamond industry is the biggest racket this side of the insurance and music business.

OAW

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well in this situation there are two bedrock principles of a free market system involved that are in conflict here ...

- Property Rights
- Fair and Competitive Marketplace

So then the question becomes what should be done? Should the Property Rights of an ISP trump the establishment of a Fair and Competitive Marketplace for internet Video entertainment? It's my contention that it should not.

In my view right are an absolute and should be treated as such. Property rights are not antithetical to free markets, they are the foundation of free markets.

We shouldn't be regulating "fairness" as you mean it here, as "fairness" is highly subjective and thus is always subject to the whims of legislators and a fickle or manipulated public.

By establishing rights as an absolute, you insure that people's rights are always protected from infringement and you are predictable in your actions. There is never this doubt about what new and creative rules a bureaucrat can come up with.

If Comcast decided to get into the search business should it have the right to block all access to Google and Yahoo and Bing by its customers ... regardless of what those customers want?

Yes. By what right do you demand on a legal basis what a provider allows on their property? Would you likewise demand that Apple sells dell computers? It's ludicrous.

If they really want it, they could go find another provider. Of course, this doesn't work as well in the anti-competive highly regulated market the government has created. In a free market without government intervention or favoritism, what would prevent a competitor from giving the customer what they want?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

In my view right are an absolute and should be treated as such. Property rights are not antithetical to free markets, they are the foundation of free markets.

With this rigid thinking a person should be able to store nuclear material in his basement because the house is his "property" and his right to do whatever he wants with it is "absolute".

Originally Posted by smacintush 

We shouldn't be regulating "fairness" as you mean it here, as "fairness" is highly subjective and thus is always subject to the whims of legislators and a fickle or manipulated public.

Again ... a fair and competitive marketplace is essential to a free market system. Without it, the capitalistic system is fundamentally undermined.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yes. By what right do you demand on a legal basis what a provider allows on their property? Would you likewise demand that Apple sells dell computers? It's ludicrous.

Where your analogy falls down is that Dell and Apple both have numerous outlets to sell their products. Internet companies do not. There is one internet. Access to the internet is controlled by the local ISP. And generally speaking the local ISP market is effectively a duopoly. You either roll with the local cable company .. or the local phone company. And since this is the case it is appropriate for it to be regulated in a manner that other markets are not.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If they really want it, they could go find another provider. Of course, this doesn't work as well in the anti-competive highly regulated market the government has created. In a free market without government intervention or favoritism, what would prevent a competitor from giving the customer what they want?

The fact that the infrastructure for gaining access to the internet is controlled by two private companies at the local level. The barriers to entry into the ISP market are simply too high for meaningful competition against the phone and cable grids. In general I think we are on the same page. Where we differ is that I recognize a situation like this to be an exception to the rule. A "market" with one or two players is entirely different than one with dozens and should be regulated accordingly.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Where your analogy falls down is that Dell and Apple both have numerous outlets to sell their products. Internet companies do not.

What you're saying is that the internet is a special case because it is not just the product, it is the entire marketplace. If that is the case then it should be a public utility administered by the government, just like roads (on which much of the "marketplace" takes place). Of course, smacintush might not agree that roads should be public either, but in my opinion he has a more convincing argument if he subscribes to the notion that part of the government's job in upholding the free market is providing a venue for that market to take place in the first place, and highways and info-super-highways are such a venue. Just my 2¢.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What you're saying is that the internet is a special case because it is not just the product, it is the entire marketplace. If that is the case then it should be a public utility administered by the government, just like roads (on which much of the "marketplace" takes place). Of course, smacintush might not agree that roads should be public either, but in my opinion he has a more convincing argument if he subscribes to the notion that part of the government's job in upholding the free market is providing a venue for that market to take place in the first place, and highways and info-super-highways are such a venue. Just my 2¢.

Special case? Yes. Like roads? Not exactly. Access to the internet is a service along the line of electrical service or natural gas service. Most local electric or gas companies are still privately owned but they are monopolies so they are highly regulated. Quite unlike the local clothing market for instance. Most local ISPs are either the phone company or the cable company so it's generally a duopoly. Consumer choice is extremely restricted so consequently they should also be subject to more regulation than say local grocery stores. Imagine if your local electric company got into the TV set business and used their market position to dictate that their customers could only use the electricity that they had "Property Rights" over with TV sets that they manufactured. Would most people argue that they should be allowed to do something like that? I think not. Well Net Neutrality essentially is about preventing ISPs from doing things directly analogous to that. So while I don't think ISPs need to necessarily be a public utility ... they certainly warrant being regulated as privately owned utilities are.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Imagine if your local electric company got into the TV set business and used their market position to dictate that their customers could only use the electricity that they had "Property Rights" over with TV sets that they manufactured.

That is not realistic. Once the power is in your house, the power company has no control over what you use it on. Power, gas, and water utilities deliver a uniform product. You can't get "Microsoft-only" power. Even if they somehow furnished you with proprietary outlets you could simply change them and be ok again. I think the real difference is that you go onto the internet to conduct 3rd party business, rather than simply having your private internet reservoir filled from the outside, which would be more like power, water or gas.