As I explained to you before, I would like to see more alliances between left and right libertarians.
I view the essential struggle of our times as between statism and libertarianism.
And I've tried to explain what my analysis of the situation is, namely that the real struggle has to do with protecting the private citizen against infringements from the threat to freedom posed by oligarchical capitalism, multi-nationals, and big government.
Sinn Fein (a left wing, nominally socialist party) were the only semi-mainstream political party in Ireland to call for a No vote on Lisbon - much as I disparage most of the actions of the Provisional IRA, I applaud Sinn Fein on this.
The compatibility is very lacking. Left wing libertarians are socially in agreement with right wing libertarians but they are economic statists. The influence of libertarians is better with the center-right to move them right on economic statism. Social liberalism may come later in Conservative parties like in Canada.
Contrary to people on this board, showing evidence of a popular left wing like Naomi Klein wanting to nationalize Exxon should raise alarm bells. I'm glad progressives here are distancing themselves from Chavez but why are people like Naomi Klein so popular with the left? When I see people defending Greek anarchists and attacking Chavez I think there is at least some confusion. Anarchists are very far left and would look at Obama as a far-right candidate.
What we really need is regulation that allows investors less information asymmetry. Currently the accounting rules are allowing for some debt to be held off the balance sheet. This is why banks don't trust to lend to each other because they are aware of what future losses maybe lurking outside financial statements, since they do it themselves. That's why there is a credit freeze. This is also why we will have more surprises when they start recognizing those losses on the financials bit by bit like they have this past year.
If investors know that something is crap they won't invest in it. Car loan debt, sub-prime mortgage debt, credit card debt cannot be aloud to be called AAA when converted into investments for the public to buy. Debt should also not be allowed to be resold.
Do people believe the last 8 years was really 2-3% inflation like the government says? Now that there is a crash there is some deflation but deflation allows lower prices which in turn can revive some spending. This nullifies the "Paradox of Thrift" by Keynes. Retirees with fixed incomes can't keep eating inflation all the time. The interest rates should be based on real inflation to give savers a reason to save. Deficits should be eliminated ASAP and overall government debt should be paid off bit by bit. As interest charges are reduced from having less overall government debt there will be more money for government spending AND tax cuts. Alberta did this already and it's possible for others to do so even without oil to speed up the process.
Now future generations will benefit the most from this and current generations will have to struggle with this problem but I'm not just thinking about myself. I actually care about future generations. The debt in the U.S. is particularly massive and will require some administration to realistically raise taxes and cut spending and this administration will have to take criticism from the left and right to achieve this. Bush lowered taxes and increased spending. We can see that doesn't work. Obama wants to raise taxes to the Clinton era to corporations and lower taxes to the "middle class" and refund social security payments for those who don't pay tax to achieve 95% of the population receiving a tax cut. Yet he wants to massively increase health entitlements so I don't see any solutions other than more right wing solutions than the Republican party. There has to be some political influence at some point to put the brakes on the deficit and debt in bold fashion whether it's popular or not. The economist magazine already did a survey asking people about taxes and spending. Most people said yes to both more spending and lower taxes.
Calling right wing points of view "generalizations" and right wing libertarians seeing a future in allying with left wing libertarians doesn't make sense to me.
That will have to be explained further for me to understand how that would be more successful than the right libertarians influencing the the center-right.
When Nixon said "we are all Keynesians now" you think I'm being unfair to Keynes? The entire 20th century economic history has governments using Keynes (fairly or unfairly) leading to exagerrated boom bust cycles we see now. Keynes is the most politically influential economist I've seen. If politicians don't pay back deficits when there is a boom then what are we to do with Keynes ideas of deficits that are supposed to be paid back? Is it realistic that it will be paid back?
Also if China threatens to sell U.S. bonds then is it realistic that the U.S. will be able to keep interest rates low even if we need to? If the Chinese ever decide en mass to sell some bonds to pay off their own debts or consume internally in their own economy that would trigger a currency crisis. Either print money or drastically raise interest rates to coax investment.
If Obama wants to be a "change" then he should raise taxes and cut spending and take the heat from all parties. I prefer keeping taxes as they are and cutting spending more but that will be resisted in congress so increasing taxes and cutting spending is the only politically viable solution I can see now to balance the budget sometime in the next 10 years.
Now what I want to see is your opinion on the financial crisis.
Should bailouts be used? How will they work?
Why should auto-companies get bailed out and not other industries?
Do we live in a world now that temporary unemployment of 10% during a recession is now something that we should avoid at ALL cost?
Are the social programs we have now good enough to handle higher unemployment?
To try and stay somewhat topical: Do you defend the anarchists from Greece in this thread?
There are consequences to interest rate policy (monetary policy) and deficits/surpluses (fiscal policy). What is happening now could have been avoided.
Can you tell I'm getting frustrated?
