Left with the options of: Human Rights, Constitutional Restoration, Environmental Protection and Freedom with Justice for all,

What about Economic Policy? As for Constitutional Restoration, please. No one but the Libertarians and the Constitution Party and Ron Paul try to talk about the Constitution in any holistic way. For both the Republicans and the Democrats, "restoring the Constitution" simply means "protecting the few parts of the Constitution that I like."

Posted at August 20, 2008 11:26 PM in response to A DIFFERENT TAKE ON SADDLEBACK

Yes--cheap gas meant that many Americans didn't care about efficent cars. This is why we need govt to oversee the public good and set standards for certain products. This is why we have seat belts, standards for toy safety, etc.

Okay, then stop this B.S. about how in "Detroit, where, for some reason, the consumer's plea for affordable, safe automobiles has fallen on stone-deaf ears." You are not saying that the "market" did not deliver to consumers what they want, but that the consumers did not want the things you think they should want.

But the average individual investor wasn't borrowing to buy stocks. He was simply responding to the advertising for the bull market (in the financial media and in the mainstream media.) And he was responding to what his neighbor said about how much he had made.

But "easy money" affects every single credit market, not just the stock buyers. And moreover, so what if the average investor was not borrowing to buy stocks? Those who were were driving up the price, affecting everyone else.

Like it or not govermments have always meddled with the money supply, no matter what the coin of the realm was made of, paper money is no worse in this respcet than anything else.

Yes, it is, because the government can print as much of it as it wants. The paper money (or electronic money) supply can be tripled, quadrupled, dekupled in a week. You can't do that with gold.

Moreover, the real issue is that the government can force us to accept dollars (they're called "legal tender laws"). If people were freer to use alternative currencies (if they desired) and to refuse payment in dollars ifthey so choose, then the government could only manipulate the money supply so far before people would stop using the government's money.

In any case, blaming the stock market bubble or our low savings rate on "the market," rather than on government inteventions, is completely wrong.

Posted at August 12, 2008 8:23 PM in response to The Fictions of a Free Market

With, of course, certain exceptions. Such as Detroit, where, for some reason, the consumer's plea for affordable, safe automobiles has fallen on stone-deaf ears.

Yes, if only there were some way that we could buy cars from places other than Detroit. If only there were such a thing as foreign imports and if only people could buy affordable, efficient automobiles from them if Detroit won't listen to them...

The fact of the matter is that cheap gas prevented Americans from caring about getting more efficient cars. That is likely to change very quickly, even absent government intervention.

Posted at August 11, 2008 6:51 PM in response to The Fictions of a Free Market

The bull market of the 1990s proved just how irrational humans can be. Ignoring every sign that the market was over-priced--from spiraling price-earnings ratios to a Fed chairman talking about "irrational exuberance"-- investors piled on, buying companies that, in some cases, didn't even have a product.

That was largely because we do not have a free market in money, but rather have worthless paper imposed upon us as "legal tender" by the government. This allows the government to manipulate credit, and to give loans far in excess of what has actually been saved aside.

Most speculative booms are the direct result of the government's meddling with the money supply.

Posted at August 11, 2008 6:46 PM in response to The Fictions of a Free Market

Steve Sailer has suggested that Dubya really, really, wanted to win the presidency, but he didn't really care about actually being President.

Posted at August 6, 2008 3:04 AM in response to Of Writers and Leaders

Why didn't George W. Bush do better as a leader? Why didn't he win the election of 2002

Maybe because there was no Presidential election in 2002?

Posted at August 5, 2008 7:16 PM in response to Of Writers and Leaders

Personal courage didn't win it. Nothing did.

Actual, something did win the war. I believe it was called North Vietnam.

Posted at July 25, 2008 7:41 PM in response to McCain: The Foam on the Surge

The only problem with all this talk about stagnating wages is that it ignores one major factor as to why wages are stagnating: we are importing millions of poor people, largely from Latin America. Bringing in more low-wage workers means that the average wage will be lower.

Posted at July 15, 2008 1:14 AM in response to Grand New Party and Political Narrative

Why should we permit 'private' security services to walk among us armed?

More to the point, why should we let the government have guns?

Posted at June 30, 2008 7:38 PM in response to The Case For Domestic Disarmament

John McCain is upset that a black man has decided not to go on welfare.

Go to Hell, McCain.

Posted at June 19, 2008 11:52 PM in response to By Any Means Necessary: Obama Opts Out