Wednesday, April 25, 2018

JG opposed by libertarians


Cato libertarians out against a JG right on cue:





32 comments:

Andrew Anderson said...

Well-paid jobs and low levels of real unemployment are outcomes desired by all. But attempting to achieve that through this program amounts to cracking a nut with a sledgehammer, undermining what matters far more for living standards: efficiency and productivity. RYAN BOURNE [bold added]

What good are efficiency and productivity if the economic system that produces them is so unjust as to be unstable and thus dangerous? E.g. were the efficiency and productivity of the 1920's worth the Great Depression and World War II?

Konrad said...

The Cato Institute’s objections to public works projects are IDENTICAL to elitist objections in the 1930s to the public works projects of the New Deal.

[1] Public works projects would cost too much.

Nonsense. The U.S. government can create infinite dollars out of thin air, and therefore can pay for any Public Works programs. These same Cato a**holes have no trouble with the Pentagon budget being increased by another $80 billion each year.

[2] Public works projects would “crowd out” private sector activity, and would “radically alter behavior of both workers and businesses.”

That is, American workers would no longer have to submit to so much abuse, exploitation, and enslavement, whether or not they participated in Public Works Projects. This would be disastrous for American “interests” (i.e. for the oligarchs). America was founded on slavery, and average Americans remain enslaved today. Only the forms change.

[3] Public works projects would be “be ripe for corruption and political interference at the government.”

Oligarchs define “corruption” as anything that limits oligarch corruption. At present we have a nexus of corrupt politicians and big corporations. Public works projects would operate outside this nexus of corruption. Therefore oligarchs denounce anti-corruption projects as “corrupt.” Oligarch claims about any topic are always the exact opposite of reality, and are always saturated with hypocrisy.

Likewise, oligarchs (and their toadies) condemn anything that reduces inequality as “big government.” Meanwhile anything that increases inequality is “small and efficient government.” The actual size of government is irrelevant.

These same Cato a**holes think it is right and just that politicians sell themselves to the highest bidder, and work only for the rich. But when some national leader institutes social programs, the Cato a**holes whine that, “He’s trying to buy votes!”

And speaking of corruption, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney openly boasts about his corruption. He doesn’t just rationalize his corruption; he revels in it. He brags that in his current post (and as a former Congressman from South Carolina) he won’t talk to anyone unless he is paid a huge bribe. And even if someone pays him a bribe, he says he “might” talk to them. Mulvaney proudly celebrates the fact that nothing gets done in Washington without bribes. With a smirk, he thrusts his middle finger in your face, and chuckles that there’s nothing you can do about it.

Do you think I exaggerate? See this…

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/25/open-and-flagrant-corruption-mulvaney-admits-bankers-he-only-met-lobbyists-who-gave

Matt Franko said...

They’re libertarians they would rather a cohort remain unprovisioned than see govt institution impose any policy improvement via authority...

Their enemy is authority .... not necessarily the people who fall thru the cracks ....

Konrad said...

@ Matt Franko: a person’s definition of “Libertarian” depends on his position in the social pecking order.

For the Koch brothers, “liberty” means freedom from all regulation; freedom to exploit and enslave; freedom to destroy the planet in the quest for more profits.

Meanwhile for the peasants, “liberty” means freedom from the Koch brothers’ definition of “liberty,” and freedom from whoever they think oppresses them.

Libertarians at all levels talk about freedom from “government,” but in reality they love government oppression, as long as the oppression is only directed at whoever libertarians want it directed toward.

The Koch brothers, for example, love “big government” as long as government works for the Koch brothers alone. Elitists love “liberty” as long as elitists alone have it.

Oligarchs regard fairness and equality as “oppression.” Anything that reduces the suffering of the masses is “oppression.” Anything that eases the misery of workers is “anti-liberty.”

Tom Hickey said...

Liberalism is comprised of social, political and economic liberalism.

This presents a lot of possible POVs as conceptual frames.

The US has binary political system that clearly can't represent this other than through factions within parties.

Parliamentary systems are designed to take this into account, but in parliamentary systems, there can't be a party for every cohort, so parties also have intra-party factions.

These factions generally represent different interest groups.

Noah Way said...

The purpose of government is to protect people from each other. In theory, at least.

Matt Franko said...

The solution certainly isn’t “muh Freedom!”....

Tom Hickey said...

The purpose of government is to provide security, ensure good order, and promote the common good and general welfare. These fall under "public purpose."

Andrew Anderson said...

Their enemy is authority Franko

You're thinking of anarchists*, not libertarians. Libertarians believe that government should protect their rights - as they construe them.

.... not necessarily the people who fall thru the cracks .... Franko

Practically speaking, they ARE the enemy of the general population IF they support, for example, unlimited property rights such that, for extreme example, Warren Buffet might own all of Nebraska (cf. Leviticus 25).

And yes Franko, all authority is from God (Romans 13) but don't you for a minute think God isn't concerned about justice and won't judge those authorities who aren't, especially if they claim to be Christian.

Andrew Anderson said...

Btw, I don't see that CATO allows comments so I appreciate your posting their articles here.

Andrew Anderson said...

The solution certainly isn’t “muh Freedom!”.... Franko

Certainly no citizen should be forced to work through private depository institutions or else be limited to unsafe, inconvenient physical fiat, aka "cash."

Ralph Musgrave said...

Cato is right: this particular JG proposal will get nowhere. In fact it's worse that: the recent Levy proposals will bring the whole JG idea into disrepute. Offering DOUBLE the existing minimum wage for JG work, while not doubling the min wage for the rest of the economy will just draw millions of people away from regular jobs into tree planting and vegetable planting jobs (two popular ideas for JG work).

The Levy lot should have kept the min wage and JG separate: i.e. advocated JG at the existing min wage, and then, if wanted to, advocated a rise in the national min wage for all employers and sectors of the economy.

Bob Roddis said...

The purpose of government is to provide job security for the people that run the government, feed off the government and for the people that work for the government. The more problems the government can create that would not otherwise exist while gaslighting the dim-witted public about the real cause of those problems (and the associated looting of the public by government actors), the better.

You guys still cannot locate that magical, special time in history when laissez faire failed and created mass unemployment without the contribution of fiat money (or fractional reserve) price distortions or that special time when laissez faire resulted in monopolies. Your two favorite bugaboos don't actually exist. They never happened. Your entire program is based upon hoaxes.

Andrew Anderson said...

without the contribution of fiat money Bob Roddis

So taxpayers should pay for and pay with needlessly expensive fiat?!

And that's your solution?

Try to understand that inexpensive fiat is THE ONLY ETHICAL money form for government use else the taxation authority and power of government is misused to benefit private interests and thus distort the economy.

Matt Franko said...

“anarchists not libertarians”

Anti-authority is a matter of degree AA... anarchists are just a higher degree than libertarians...

Ryan Harris said...

In our current system, everyone has to move to cities to ensure efficient markets for labor. Identical in-demand skill sets in London will get paid twice what is paid in Yorkshire and the Humber. Gross inefficiencies in labor and capital markets accross geography were not helped by the internet but actually made worse. Now the JG as designed will absolutely destroy incentives to move to places where demand exists and create distributed centers of affluence and talent which companies will have to develop new technology to harness. It may Force companies to abandon the liberal center model for a traditional distributed model.

Bob Roddis said...

Try to understand that inexpensive fiat is THE ONLY ETHICAL money form for government use else the taxation authority and power of government is misused to benefit private interests and thus distort the economy.

That is total nonsense and the complete opposite of the truth on so many levels. Every time there is an emission of fiat funny money, there is theft of purchasing power from those holding existing money and not receiving the new money to the new recipients. The process was concocted by the .1% that controls the government to loot the rest of society. It started almost immediately after the creation of the Fed and financed U.S. entry into WWI:

During World War I federal expenditures ballooned and although the new income tax was able to partially finance the war effort, most of the financing was done through federal borrowing and by the highly accommodating monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. The role of the Federal Reserve at this time was expressed unambiguously by the New York Federal Reserve Bank Governor Benjamin Strong, who told a Congressional committee in 1921 that ‘I feel that I, or the bank at least, was their [the Treasury’s] agent and servant in those matters’ and further added that the wartime inflation caused by the low interest rates maintained by the bank were ‘inevitable, unescapable, and necessary’ for prosecuting the war (Strong, 1930) [emphasis added}.

This is the pure Rothbardian explanation. Wars are funded with fiat money which robs average people of purchasing power without the victims understanding exactly what is being done to them and without any due process of law. If the citizens had to make an immediate sacrifice in the form of a forced contribution of tax money to fund wars on a pay-as-you-go format, there would be far fewer wars. Kuehn then notes that the inflation encountered by the populace had been caused by the “expansionary policy of the Federal Reserve” and thus not any alleged “market failure”. After the war, such policy was “sharply curtailed” as was government spending leading to the predictable bust.

http://bobroddis.blogspot.com/2012/08/daniel-kuehn-provides-factual-basis-for.html

Bob Roddis said...

Bernie Sanders is running for president again, it appears. He’s in the news with his plan by which the government guarantees a job to every single American, and at a minimum wage of no less than $15 an hour. The plan is excellent, if his aims are to waste wealth, drive up inflation, reduce the values of businesses, reduce productive investment, tax those who work, tax those who consume, and tax those who produce, while subsidizing and rewarding those who don’t, won’t and can’t work. Unemployment will rise under Bernie’s plan.

Instead of planning how to produce income in the future, mainly by investing in themselves, people will have the incentive to avoid building up their human capital because a job is guaranteed them. They can afford to be more lazy, more shiftless and less ambitious. They will be induced to higher levels of indolence. Banks will find a new corps of people who can afford loans, because the government is paying them for working. The government in turn, faced with an army of unskilled workers, will enact stipulations to receive the benefit, extending its control over labor markets. Government control over labor markets will expand, a sure way to destroy business operations in free markets.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/bernies-jobs-plan/

Matt Franko said...

“Wars are funded with fiat money”

Bob you are biased anti-war....

Matt Franko said...

“can afford to be more lazy, more shiftless and less ambitious”

The competent will then make a lot more munnie than the incompetent JG people....

It’ll make sure the most competent will get the important jobs...

Neil Wilson said...

"just draw millions of people away from regular jobs "

Those aren't regular jobs. They are parasite businesses that don't pay enough to live on. In any correctly functioning competitive system they would be eliminated - as Nick Hanauer rightly points out.

And as ever it is up to the private sector to compete for labour. Nobody will be drawn away from the private sector who is properly compensated for their time. Those who have no viable business, however, will go bust and the space taken over by more efficient and productive operators.

The private sector is going to have to learn how to compete.

Neil Wilson said...

"You guys still cannot locate that magical, special time in history when laissez faire failed and created mass unemployment without the contribution of fiat money (or fractional reserve) price distortions or that special time when laissez faire resulted in monopolies"

It's more the other way around. Libertarian nut jobs can never locate the time in history when their special case fantasy applied - much like mainstream economists.

A geo-stationary satellite is still always falling to earth under the force of gravity. That it appears stationary and at equilibrium is an illusion.

Kaivey said...

The elites run the government, getting rid of the elites doesn't cure the problem. I tell this to the libertarians all the time.

On the whole I think libertarians are smart alecs who love pissing everyone off. But there are some genuine good libertarians. Ryan Dawson is good. And he dislikes Alex Jones and Steven Molyneux, people who I really dislike.

Libertarians don't realise they've been had over. They claim to be bright, but they obviously can't thick things through logically.

Most are kids who have never known hardship or poverty.

Matt Franko said...

They are biased anti-authority Kaivey... they can still be intelligent and even appear as caring people...

They would like for things to turn out well for all of us BUT (and it’s a BIG but) they do NOT want it to happen via imposition of authority...

“libertarian” is the secular philosophical equivalent of the non-secular scriptural “satanic”...

Kaivey said...

With laissez faire you allow banks and the financial system to crash whenever it's time too. This means no one can plan ahead and they will lose their houses, savings, and pensions over and over again. People will became risk adverse and the economy will get stuck unable to grow. We will then remain in the Dark Ages of the medieval era.

Matt Franko said...

ie WEAK leadership by incompetent/unqualified people...

Andrew Anderson said...

Every time there is an emission of fiat funny money, there is theft of purchasing power from those holding existing money and not receiving the new money to the new recipients. Bob Roddis

The problem with a fixed or slowly growing money supply relative to potential real economic growth is that it rewards lazy, risk-free money hoarding. But real economic growth requires diligent risk-taking, not lazy, risk-free money hoarding as a means to free-ride on the diligence and risk-taking of others. So a fixed or slowly growing money supply relative to potential real economic growth is ANTI-real economic growth. (cf. Matthew 25:15-30, The Parable of the Talents)

Andrew Anderson said...

The problem with a fixed or slowly growing money supply relative to POPULATION GROWTH is that it allows a lazy, risk-free INCREASE in a money hoarder's ability to command the labor of others as wages fall due to an inadequate growth rate in the money supply.

Bob Roddis said...

Matt Franko said...“Wars are funded with fiat money”

Bob you are biased anti-war....


That would naturally follow from a philosophy that calls for the rigorous prohibition upon the initiation of all violence. Statists never seem grasp why I question their demand for violence via SWAT teams for every problem of living.

The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life.

"What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."

Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit, except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.


https://mises.org/library/myth-and-truth-about-libertarianism

Bob Roddis said...

The problem with a fixed or slowly growing money supply relative to POPULATION GROWTH is that it allows a lazy, risk-free INCREASE in a money hoarder's ability to command the labor of others as wages fall due to an inadequate growth rate in the money supply.

Like those evil old and poor people just trying to save for a rainy day? Or to make it through the month?

Instead, let's constantly dilute the funny money supply so that the 1% get the new money first thereby stealing purchasing power from the powerless so they can bid up the price of assets and make millions thereby creating unsustainable asset bubbles prior to their inevitable bust. Sounds like a plan. AKA "THE FATAL CONCEIT".

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3643985.html

Ultimately, these hackneyed government-run socialist and Keynesian economic policies are always going to be enforced with violence or threats thereof from SWAT teams. How noble.

Andrew Anderson said...

Instead, let's constantly dilute the funny money supply so that the 1% get the new money first thereby stealing purchasing power from the powerless ... Bod Roddis

Imagine that God gave every US citizen pieces of gold at a rate precisely metered according to the potential real economic growth rate and according to population growth and that the US allowed free coinage of gold fiat.

Would you have a problem with that? No?

Now instead of that, my position is that all fiat created beyond that created by deficit spending by the monetary sovereign for the GENERAL WELFARE (not for special interests such as gold miners) should be equally distributed to all American citizens, not into banks, credit unions, etc., but into inherently risk-free checking/debit accounts of their own at the Federal Reserve.

Would the 1% still get a lot of the new money by jacking up rents on the helpless? Yes, but that's OK according to libertarians? Right? In that there should be NO LIMITS to how much land an individual can own either personally or through collective means as long as they acquire it ethically? So that if Warren Buffet should buy a huge chunk of Nebraska during the next Depression and evict everyone on it, that's OK with you?

I've read Rothbard and Mises and used to think as you do but then a personal tragedy drove me to reading the Old Testament and there I discovered that God believes in private land ownership but FOR EVERYONE - not just a few.

Bob Roddis said...

A. Imagine if God gave all men a perfect living clone of Kate Upton!

C and B are just as likely as A to occur.

B. Imagine that God gave every US citizen pieces of gold at a rate precisely metered according to the potential real economic growth rate and according to population growth and that the US allowed free coinage of gold fiat.

C. Now instead of that, my position is that all fiat created beyond that created by deficit spending by the monetary sovereign for the GENERAL WELFARE (not for special interests such as gold miners) should be equally distributed to all American citizens, not into banks, credit unions, etc., but into inherently risk-free checking/debit accounts of their own at the Federal Reserve.