Ron Paul Post-Mortem's the GOP

[bascule]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that 20 years ago that after a government bailout the S&L crisis was averted.

 

I'm sure Ron Paul et al. would just argue that the crisis wasn't averted but postponed...

[Pangloss]

...yet. The logic could have applied to civil rights movement, quantum physics, or any type of change that results in a paradigm shift. I think you'd have a hard time convincing Ghandi that the British are just mainstream so there's no point in debating whether or not they should be there.

 

I think your analogy might be more effective if it were forward-looking instead of backward-looking. In my opinion what you're talking about is an old idea that was carefully and thoughtfully considered and discarded for valid reasons, not an insightful new vision that has never been tried. (What about the Roman Republic? It was an old idea that was then ignored for a couple thousand years and then regurgitated. Put that one forward and I'll show you a nice counterpoint to it.)

 

But again, by all means, believe in what you believe. I got no beef with that. In my opinion these different points of view are exactly what produces the kinds of new ideas that we DO need in order to find the right path. We need to remember what's been tried in the past, so that the right parts and pieces of those old ideas can be culled and used in the right way.

 

 

Surely you are not telling anyone on this board that they should give up on their convictions just because they are not mainstream??

 

Of course not. I simply suggested an alternative political outlook; if you're not interested, so be it.

 

But I will say that 'convictions' are not really what we're talking about here. Convictions represent general viewpoints that can be applied to numerous issues. What we're talking about are larger collections of issue positions grouped into a declared political unit. Many people can share many or even all of your convictions without joining your political collective, and many people in a political collective differ in their convictions.

 

 

Obviously I am under no illusion that the government is going to give up its regulatory powers tomorrow. But, I am hopeful that, if the right free market arguments are in the right places at the right times, people will see in the future how the latest rounds of regulations will utterly fail us and a different paradigm ought to be employed.

 

I think the fact that people are pressuring the government about the down sides of bailouts is not only beneficial, it's having an impact. That IS about convictions, and the proof of that is the fact that the very argument you described above is coming from MANY quarters, not just those who like Ron Paul. You're standing right alongside people from all over the political spectrum on this conviction, and that's why the issue hasn't fallen along the traditional lines of Democrat and Republican.

 

Where that GOES is a different question. Where your political group wants it to go is complete deregulation (or Ron Paul's not-quite version). Where others want it to go is someplace different. But the pressure is there, it's real, its being recognized by government and independent analysts, and it's having an impact.

[ecoli]

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that 20 years ago that after a government bailout the S&L crisis was averted.

 

I'm sure Ron Paul et al. would just argue that the crisis wasn't averted but postponed...

I'm not sure if he's said anything about that, but that does sound like a possible counterargument.

 

At any rate, right now I'm operating under a principle related but completely in line with the Austrians... that is; sometimes manipulating risk assessment through government intervention created sustained economic booms. Other times it creates business cycles, when the money generated in booms are not invested into the right places.

 

It seems to me, however, that since it is impossible to predict real positive growth areas, vs areas that there will be malinvestment, artificially stimulating general economic growth (through manipulating federal funds target rate) or stimulating growth in a specific sector or industry is more risky than it's worth.

 

Even if there is the chance you'll produce sustained economic growth, until you open the box, the cat will have an equal probability of being dead... er... I mean a bubble will be generated due to malinvestment.

 

It's possible that public investment through bailouts will create sustained economic growth. However, it is equally likely that these banks and firms will fail anyway, leaving us will a mountain of debt (and maybe even a few more business cycles).

 

Reasonable middle ground, Pangloss?

[Pangloss]

Well yes, and I think it's a good idea to trumpet the horn about what happens if they take the bailout and still fail to turn around the problem. Which is why I lean towards more dramatic internal change with any company that takes a bailout, and not just leaving it as a "bridge loan". If their track record is failure (and it would almost have to be if they're asking for a bailout), they should be replaced by smart, motivated people who have real ideas about turning things around.

 

(Even if that means some layoffs, btw. I don't want to hear any crap from politicians later about we bailed them out to avoid layoffs. Avoiding laying them ALL off was part of the reason, but they need to become profitable, and if that means smaller, then that's what it means. Eat it, Senator from the Great State of Unionland.)

[ParanoiA]

I think your analogy might be more effective if it were forward-looking instead of backward-looking. In my opinion what you're talking about is an old idea that was carefully and thoughtfully considered and discarded for valid reasons, not an insightful new vision that has never been tried.

 

How do you know it was carefully and thoughtfully considered and discarded for valid reasons? That may be a bit too much trust in men. Obviously if it has been around for awhile, the it's still being carefully and thoughtfully considered. Among those who have discarded it are politicians and statesmen. And I'm not sure I can trust the motivation a politician could have for discarding economic systems that don't provide for their direct manipulation. (particularly ones trying to run a republic like a global empire).

 

A "managed" economy sounds like a throwback to me. Like manual transmission. You only think you need to handle the intricacies. Perhaps one day we'll evolve into a more automated approach.

 

(What about the Roman Republic? It was an old idea that was then ignored for a couple thousand years and then regurgitated. Put that one forward and I'll show you a nice counterpoint to it.)

 

Ok, I officially put this forward. Show me your counterpoint. I'm interested.

[bascule]

I'm not sure if he's said anything about that, but that does sound like a possible counterargument.

 

It's not for the simple reason that there are so many other factors affecting our economy that without some sort of absurdly inclusive model I just can't buy blaming the problems of today on events that occurred 20 years ago.

 

The bottom line is after the S&L bailout the economy was on the up-and-up for almost a decade. That's not to say that the bailout was responsible, only that we did intervene with the economy and it did well.

 

There is certainly evidence that such interventions can be pulled off. The alternative I'm seeing out of the Ron Paul camp is simply to let natural forces do what they will, even if the immediate outcome is extremely negative.

 

I'd argue that through properly administered government intervention, natural forces can drive the economy back on track without that immediate, temporary collapse. As precedent I'd site the S&L bailout.

 

Would you agree that Ron Paul would've argued against the S&L bailout? Do you think the outcome of the S&L bailout was favorable as opposed to non-intervention?

[Pangloss]

How do you know it was carefully and thoughtfully considered and discarded for valid reasons? That may be a bit too much trust in men.

 

Do you believe that socialism was discarded for valid reasons? It's just an opinion; I've been clear on that. You want to think differently, I got no beef with that.

 

 

A "managed" economy sounds like a throwback to me. Like manual transmission. You only think you need to handle the intricacies. Perhaps one day we'll evolve into a more automated approach.

 

It isn't, though, it's actually a very new idea, in terms of the kind we're talking about here. It's a very specific definition, I presume you realize -- not a general, vaguely defined thing that someone could liken to, say, a Soviet five-year-plan. Completely different thing.

 

We can explore that further if you like.

 

 

(What about the Roman Republic? It was an old idea that was then ignored for a couple thousand years and then regurgitated. Put that one forward and I'll show you a nice counterpoint to it.)

Ok, I officially put this forward. Show me your counterpoint. I'm interested.

 

Sure, the Roman Republic was not based on the concept of equality. The first time human beings successfully codified that idea was July 4th, 1776. The point being that sometimes old ideas have flaws. I'm not saying old ideas are automatically bad, mind you. I'm saying they're often discarded for a reason. The reasons that led to the discarding of free-market capitalism may not have been fully explored, but they are logical and they are are too-often ignored by its adherents, to the detriment of discussions on the matter.

 

That's my two bits on it, anyway.

[ecoli]

It's not for the simple reason that there are so many other factors affecting our economy that without some sort of absurdly inclusive model I just can't buy blaming the problems of today on events that occurred 20 years ago.

well I never said that the Savings & Loan crises is directly responsible for the current housing bubble. I don't know if Ron Paul has ever said that either. However, your premise that things we do can't affect us years in the future seems faulty to me.

 

Especially considering that the Austrian business cycle model predicts pretty well how bubbles can be created and burst years later. This isn't to say there aren't a large host of factors involved and that different bubbles have their own unique flavors, due to many factors (as you said).

 

 

The bottom line is after the S&L bailout the economy was on the up-and-up for almost a decade. That's not to say that the bailout was responsible, only that we did intervene with the economy and it did well.

right, and I've agreed that it is possible for government intervention to result in economic stability. However, I believe that this is impossible to predict and the intervention is not worth it, for long term economic health.

 

Also, I have not heard any argument that the government's solution to the S&L crises DIDn't cause later problems (though I am admittedly uneducated about the crisis, being only two years old at the time).

 

There is certainly evidence that such interventions can be pulled off. The alternative I'm seeing out of the Ron Paul camp is simply to let natural forces do what they will, even if the immediate outcome is extremely negative.

 

I'd argue that through properly administered government intervention, natural forces can drive the economy back on track without that immediate, temporary collapse. As precedent I'd site the S&L bailout.

 

here is one austrian perspective that I've managed to dig up that takes an alternative view, if your interested:

https://mises.org/story/299

 

 

Would you agree that Ron Paul would've argued against the S&L bailout? Do you think the outcome of the S&L bailout was favorable as opposed to non-intervention?

I would assume so, but I think the crises was during his time off from congress, so I can't find anything he's specifically written about the crises (yet).

 

I think the general argument that he would make, though, is that massive central planning by reacting to crises is a good way to generate future crises. Like I have said before, government intervention results in widespread failure to assess risk properly. Put that into a fiat currency system and you've got a government who can expand the amount of capital available, at will. If people are investing that free money into the wrong places, those sectors will eventually fail... but not before they create an artificial economic boom (which can last for several years).

 

 

Now, of course, this is not the only way malinvestment and mini-business cycles can occur. It could very well be that investors have poor information and just act poorly. But, in these cases where investors know there is no safety net, they're more careful about these things, and malinvestment is not as widespread a problem. If malinvestment happens anyway, and a business fails, the credit is lost.

 

Imagine instead that the government rescues these investments by infusing even more capital into the failing sectors (by making direct loans, encouraging borrowing by lowering interest rates, etc). This isn't necessarily going to improve the quality of the businesses you're trying to save, but it is inflating the currency.

 

Now, I don't know what universe everyone else is on, but in times of uncertainty, the last thing I'd do is open a line of credit and spend money that I don't have. I'd save it, cut out luxuries, etc. The mainstream economists are afraid of this though, because they correlate deflation with economic downturn, because prices are dropping down (to a market level that people can actually afford.) Deflation means that busnisses will fail, so they have to create inflation to supply credit to businesses so that they can keep prices (and wages) high.

 

However, if I want to invest in the stock market, I'm going to take some money out of my paychecks and find some solids company that I trust to make me some money (diversify to include some riskier investments, etc). What I wouldn't do, is photocopy my dollars and invest in the company with inflated money. The company, at first, would appear to be doing better, because, hey!, I just invested a million dollars into the company. But, wait, that million dollars was actually just 1 dollar photocopied a million times, so those million dollars actually only equals one dollar. For a time, the business can thrive on the inflated currency (and keep surviving by making more photocopies... afterall, consumers are using the same inflated dollars to make purchases). But you can only inflate so much, before this catches up to you. When the debts get called in, because you've borrowed to much on credit, and the funds you have aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

 

Here are two excellent articles that describe some of this stuff much better than I can:

 

http://mises.org/story/3155 (favorite article - excellent example of how apparent economic growth can occur by eating the value of capital now, so that you delay 'investing' in that growth until it comes backs later to bite you in the ass)

http://mises.org/story/3151

http://mises.org/story/3144

http://mises.org/story/3119

 

PS - I found this video amusing/sad. I feel sorry for Peter Schiff. He's right, but he still can't laugh about it because he was right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw&eurl=http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/

 

PPS - I'm sorry to be dropping so many links, but this is a middle ground that may interest you, bascule and pangloss.

 

http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/deregulation-and-the-crash-of-2008-was-greenspan-right/#more-48

 

Deregulations may have stimulated and contributed to this economic crises, but the credit expansionist policies and inherent flaws with our fiat currency system are the underlying problems.... so (if you believe this author) yes, it is silly to point to one specific cause and use that as a scapegoat for all our problems.

 

now I have to sleep.

Edited November 19, 2008 by ecoli

[ParanoiA]

Do you believe that socialism was discarded for valid reasons? It's just an opinion; I've been clear on that. You want to think differently, I got no beef with that.

 

Right, and I care about your opinion. I care about what smart people think and why they think it. It may not alter my belief system at all, or just presently, but you wouldn't believe how much past conversations and debates impact future internal audits. Also, I'm sure there are others reading your comments that agree with you, so it's nice to have it out at this level so we "extremist idealists" have our chance.

 

And no, I don't believe socialism was discarded for valid reasons. It's not discarded - maybe in this country, although we're still incrementally heading that way - but it's rolled out in other countries. It's mainstream for them.

 

I look at libertarianism, Austrian economics - alleged "old ideas" as the center we've yet to reach. You know how the pendulum swings back and forth before resting in the center? Well, in my mind, the pendulum is still swinging to one extreme and then another. We're still trying to control all the variables - like little gods. If humans "ran" the planetary ecosystem, we would have stepped in long ago and intervened on virtually every extinction, and meddled into every subsystem we could rationalize "saving".

 

That's what I see in government and the subsystems within it. We just can't let things alone and allow the natural processes to give us the benefit of autonomous, predictable results. Instead, as usual, we think we can circumvent the cost of risk - we think we can work around natural consequences of a given system. From what I understand, the business cycle, recession - are natural corrective processes that clean out bad debt. Trying to work around that by playing with the money supply, dreaming up arbitrary regulations and etc is trying to undermine the inherent risk in our system - and that has consequences.

 

I don't think we, as a society nor as a government, is ready to accept that. We need to meddle and get burned some more. And the austrians, the CATO's, the Mises - will all be there when our country is ready to accept the nature of the system. If we ever are ready to accept the nature of the capitalist system, that is.

 

To draw a comparison, think of our parent's approach to credit. My parents come from a comparatively frugile generation. They really only financed houses and cars and credit cards were few and religiously paid down. My generation saw credit as a chance to get everything the machine has convinced them they should have right now. Fresh out of high school and college, we're financing houses, cars, TV's, Furniture, multiple credit cards, second mortgages - you name it, we're making promises that impact our whole freaking future before we're old enough to truly understand the dynamics of those promises. And the cost of all that credit - ugh. We're pissing money away because we're idiots and we're drawn to those stupid commercials that convince us to buy a new SUV and finanace a house full of furniture we can't afford.

 

Does that mean our parent's approach to credit has been discarded? Is a useless old idea that has no relevance today? Absolutely not. Many handle their finances more like my parents. They finance a bare minimum of necessities and practicalities, and do without or save for the goodies. That is essentially people who have accepted the nature of their income to debt ratio; have accepted the cost of the system.

 

Not the best example, but it should illustrate the relevance of an old idea in the context of rejection based on immaturity - not a thoughtful rejection of the idea.

[iNow]

now I have to sleep.

 

That was an outstanding and thoughtful post, ecoli.

 

EDIT: You too, ParanoiA. Well done, guys.

[bascule]

Like I have said before, government intervention results in widespread failure to assess risk properly.

 

I don't see why it's particularly easier to assess risk if the government doesn't intervene. Why wouldn't it lead to increased volatility and make risk even harder to assess?

[Pangloss]

And no, I don't believe socialism was discarded for valid reasons. It's not discarded - maybe in this country, although we're still incrementally heading that way - but it's rolled out in other countries. It's mainstream for them.

 

I think it was discarded, and what we see today are various degrees of compromise -- there's no pure socialism anywhere either, just as there's no pure capitalism. This is perhaps a matter of definitions, but the point is that unilateral ideologies are a thing of the past, in my opinion.

 

I don't think we, as a society nor as a government, is ready to accept that. We need to meddle and get burned some more. And the austrians, the CATO's, the Mises - will all be there when our country is ready to accept the nature of the system. If we ever are ready to accept the nature of the capitalist system, that is.

 

I don't think we ever will be. Whether that's an intelligent rejection or simply a matter of not being tolerant of the humanitarian shortfall, I guess that's a matter for opinion too.

[iNow]

Here's another interesting article regarding the GOP loss.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802886.html?nav=hcmodule

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

 

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party.

[ecoli]

That was an outstanding and thoughtful post, ecoli.

 

EDIT: You too, ParanoiA. Well done, guys.

Thanks... it's nice to have a thoughtful and meaningful discussion about this stuff without resorting to attacks. I know you not everyone is going to agree with me (hell, I'm not even sure how much I agree with myself) but it helps to debate this things with people who actually listen to you and respect you.

 

I'll try to return the favor.

 

I don't see why it's particularly easier to assess risk if the government doesn't intervene. Why wouldn't it lead to increased volatility and make risk even harder to assess?

great question.

 

this is how I understand it: When the government sets the federal funds target interest rates under market value, capital becomes more freely available. In other words, banks have better access to capital and investors can take out lower interest loans, by extension. On the surface, this ability to keep credit flowing is great because you can get more money into the hands of investors.

 

However, the problem is that interest rates are set by the market for a reason. This of it this way; if the government decides to subsidize the cost of fast food burgers so that they only cost 50 cents each, this would be great for the fast food industry, because it means that more people will be buying greaseburgers (meaning more hiring, stock value goes up, etc). However, just because burgers are cheaper doesn't mean more people will continue to consume burgers. Eventually, people will realize eating greaseburgers are bad for you, or they just can't stomach them on a daily basis. The government will continue to subsidize the burgers, or maybe even increase subsidies, thinking that there is a problem on the supply side... there aren't enough subsidies (rather than what's actually the case; people just don't like burgers). At first, because burgers were so cheap, people assumed that they were going to keep buying them, not realizing that the demand didn't meet the resulting increase in supply. In the boom times, investors would put their money into fastfood, because of the cheap burgers, causing the industry to grow. However, once consumer demand doesn't match the supply, you're wasting company resources and government funds, so the industry has to deflate (or collapse!).

 

This is similar to how the Fed creates bubbles. By lowering interest rates, people invest simply because there is credit available. They look at areas where there is a lot of apparent growth, like dot-coms or real estate (pick your bubble) and invest. Because interest rates are virtually at zero percent, they can essentially put money in the market with zero down, and ride the wave up. This manipulation of interest rates makes credit easily available, so people aren't considering the risk of investments. When interest rates are high (which they are for riskier investments) people are less likely to invest on credit and with all their eggs in one basket. When interest rates are low, that signals to investors that the sky's the limit.

 

However, the sky isn't really the limit, because the investment going into to dot-coms or real-estate isn't coming from real savings. When the Fed prints money and gives it to the banks at low interest rates, they aren't creating new value (b/c the government has no sources of production). The infusion of capital into the economy is used to invest, but these investments are being funded by inflating the currency, not by saving and reinvesting.

 

When the government intervenes, it doesn't do a great job of assesing which industries are worth investing in. It responds to political pressures, but ignores the fact that market prices are already dictating the market value of a product or sector. The market value is usually pretty damn good at saying what's worth what. And that includes things like interest rates, which investors need to have an accurate picture of to assess risk.

 

While government intervention may decrease market volatility, in some sectors, that sort of ignores the reason why the market is volatile in the first place. If risk is difficult assess, because of natural market forces, the government isn't doing us any favors by forcing stabilization of the market... there's no gaurantee that the price is equilibrates to is a proper, sustainable price, which is acceptable to consumers.

 

If the government stabilizes interest rates to under market value, as I have said, this can lead to overinvestment where it doesn't belong, the generation of valueless capital to finance it (in a fiat currency system) and a bust as the market tries to correct this error.

 

Worse, if the people who set monety policy don't realize that the market needs to correct for areas of malinvestent, they'll try to inject more capital and decrease interest rates further, to insure the "liquidity of capital." However, it makes no sense to further inflate the currency to keep up the rouse that these industries are worth investing in and growing. These industries may be growing, but only relative to the devaluing dollar.

[bascule]

So ecoli, the question that still remains from that is: are you arguing bubbles are the result of government intervention and wouldn't happen in a free-market economy?

[ecoli]

So ecoli, the question that still remains from that is: are you arguing bubbles are the result of government intervention and wouldn't happen in a free-market economy?

I'm arguing that bubbles can arise as a result of government intervention, and that the ones we've experienced recently are. It can still happen in a free market system, when investors make mistakes, but I contend that government intervention causes investors to make more mistakes, and therefore produce worse bubbles.

[bascule]

I'm arguing that bubbles can arise as a result of government intervention, and that the ones we've experienced recently are. It can still happen in a free market system, when investors make mistakes, but I contend that government intervention causes investors to make more mistakes, and therefore produce worse bubbles.

 

But I mean... what real evidence or supporting argumentation is there for any of that? I could just as easily turn around and say that investors make more mistakes in a natural system because it's entirely subject to emergent effects which aren't easy to predict, whereas an economy regulated by the government is more predictable as the government actually has a vision for the direction it's taking the economy and will act to intervene when reality deviates from that vision.

 

In some cases the model by which the government drives that vision was wrong, as was the case with the Friedman-inspired model that Greenspan was using. However, what I take away from that failure is that Friedman/Greenspan's model was fundamentally flawed and that Greenspan's hands off approach was what let the mortgage market run wild and that's why the economy is bucking us right now.

 

Maybe it's just a glass is half empty / half full kind of thing...

[ecoli]

But I mean... what real evidence or supporting argumentation is there for any of that? I could just as easily turn around and say that investors make more mistakes in a natural system because it's entirely subject to emergent effects which aren't easy to predict,

 

The idea behind Austrians theory is that they consider economics praxeological philosophy. This is one important point where I don't like ABCT. They have a point in claiming if you try to make empirical observations, you're almost always going to be missing something, because by the very act of observing, you're affecting the outcome of human action that dictates economic theory in the first place.

 

 

You can see there point, but, as a scientist, it's difficult to accept this notion. Because, as you say, without observation and evidence, how can you prove a theory? I guess the Austrians are content that their theory predicts business cycles, and that their predictions are often right, based on their models.

 

I think the modern synthesis (like the one I've been describing) has more evidence for supporting it. (like this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=TGAewLfypE0C&dq=Tyler+Cowen&pg=PP1&ots=Hzw9Ikt5WZ&source=an&sig=SozohuozNah554QXQxasByord9E&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result )

 

I'm reading it, but haven't gotten to the empirical stuff yet... I'll get back to you on that. BTW... the author of that book has a pretty good blog: marginalrevolution.com

 

whereas an economy regulated by the government is more predictable as the government actually has a vision for the direction it's taking the economy and will act to intervene when reality deviates from that vision.

 

I would counter-argue that a intension of predictability doesn't result in predictability... look at our current crises. We have had a federal reserve setting interest rates and introducing capital in a fiat currency (tightly controlled by a federal reserve board with good intentions (I hope)) and we still had a major economic crisis.

 

Major economic planning in the Soviet union still resulted in crises.

 

Why do we still trust that "government knows best" mantra again?

 

I still contend that letting group behavior freely determine economic policy is safer than letting a few people plan the economy, just because they happen to have written their PhD thesis at an Ivy League. (And that's regardless of whether the Austrians or non-Austrian libertarians are "more correct")

 

In some cases the model by which the government drives that vision was wrong, as was the case with the Friedman-inspired model that Greenspan was using. However, what I take away from that failure is that Friedman/Greenspan's model was fundamentally flawed and that Greenspan's hands off approach was what let the mortgage market run wild and that's why the economy is bucking us right now.

Well, the Austrians would argue that Friedman's manipulation of interest rates is most certainly not a free market model... in fact, we haven't had a free market system in the last century, so its impossible to empirically determine whether we'd be better off with one.

 

 

Maybe it's just a glass is half empty / half full kind of thing...

 

I think the economists have been arguing about this stuff for a half a century, and so nothing we say here will resolve the conflicts between the Austrians and Keynesians. That doesn't mean we shouldn't critically discuss it though.

 

Speaking of Ron Paul... have you guys (read: paranoiA) taken a look at Gary Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson

 

He's the governor of New Mexico; he supported Ron Paul's run, but is a bit younger and will be in a good position in 2012.

Edited November 20, 2008 by ecoli

[ParanoiA]

Speaking of Ron Paul... have you guys (read: paranoiA) taken a look at Gary Johnson [url']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_E._Johnson[/url]

 

Yeah, I like this guy. Thanks for the reference. Also for the link on the Austrian take on the Great Depression by Rothbard. I'm wading through it a little at a time. I think I could really benefit from reading a point by point debate on Austrian ideas verses Keynesian, or Friedman economics. When I get through this, and have a better grasp on these various theories and approaches, I may have to look for something along those lines.

 

 

Johnson was elected as a Republican during a time when New Mexico’s party registration was 2-1 Democrat. He ran both his initial campaign and his re-election campaign as "100% positive' date='" never mentioning his opponent once.[/i'] Under Johnson's administration, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax-increase in the state’s entire history (8 years)[1].

 

He cut the rate of government growth in half, left the New Mexico state government with a budget surplus and 1000 fewer employees (without firing anyone), privatized half of the prisons in the state, brought a state-wide school voucher system to New Mexico, shot down campaign finance reform in his state, and vetoed 750 bills (more than all the vetoes of the other 49 Governors in the country at that time, combined) with only 2 overrides, earning him the nickname Gary “Veto” Johnson. He opposes the War on Drugs, he opposed the Iraq War from the start, and was the only Republican Governor in 2000 to not endorse George W. Bush for President. He is also a triathlete, having scaled Mount Everest[2].

 

"He ran both his initial campaign and his re-election campaign as "100% positive," never mentioning his opponent once" - Sorry Obama lovers, but THAT'S a candidate running on change. THAT'S literally putting your money where your mouth is.

[Mr Skeptic]

"He ran both his initial campaign and his re-election campaign as "100% positive," never mentioning his opponent once" - Sorry Obama lovers, but THAT'S a candidate running on change. THAT'S literally putting your money where your mouth is.

 

Wow. Nice guy. About Obama, though, I would say that the McCain=Bush comparisons probably won him the presidency, and I think that says more about us than about him (saying he's a politician pretty much says all there is to know about him IMO). Personally, I'd love to see a presidential candidate who wants us to vote for him, rather than against the other guy.