Sucks, I agree that the neocons are worse than Democrats (but because they are basically just Democrats and either lie about it or are too stupid to know the difference). However, I will not join the Democrats. Better to stay independent and work for the Truth.

As a former Republican, I consider neocons worse than liberals. At least, with the liberals, I might bet some better roads and bridges. Given their alliance with the Evangelists, you cannot beat the neocons from within the Republican Party. Your best bet is to switch to the Democratic Party and help guide its shift to the center.

Nah, I’ll let the fact that you ask questions after saying you won’t read the answers do the talking for me.

And you ask me for an example of where market forces “worked” to solve our economic maladjustments. What exactly do you mean by “worked”? If you mean that the market approach has to solve the problem with no pain, suffering, dislocations, etc., then you again are missing the point. The Depression “worked.” It was longer than it needed to be (because of excessive intervention), and painful, but it cleared the excesses. You cannot correct for the serious maladjustments in our system without significant pain. I’m not suggesting that we eliminate welfare and let people die in the streets, but I do believe we have to accept the facts. The world is changed, and we will have to adjust. Most will, some won’t. Freedom requires not only the opportunity to succeed (notice I didn’t say guarantee), but also requires the possibility of failure. Such is life. Politicians and those that believe in Utopia fight this tooth and nail, in order to preserve their view of the world and their position in it, to the detriment of the rest of us.

And Sucks, yes I know where supply-side economics comes from. When did I ever say I was a neocon? I hate those bastards. They’ve taken a party that once stood for freedom and personal responsibility and turned it upside down. Or did you not notice it is the neocons in league with the Democratic majority that is trying to cram this brick turd through Congress??

First, the Paulson plan didn’t have warrents – which is what made it corporatism. I notice you ignored that completely.

Second, there’s no such thing as an unregulated market. Absolutist thinking is the bane of sensible policies. Think of it this way: at a minimum, you need regulations that require the enforcement of contracts and prevent the murder of competitors. So, we’re talking about degree. Or, at least, I am.

Intervention *can* do good in markets, if it’s intelligently done, just as deregulation can do much good, if it’s intelligently done.

Don’t like intervention? Instead prefer to “liquidate the bankers, liquidate the farmers” and so on? Good luck with that.

“You, Bernanke and every other Keynesian apologist I hear keeps talking about how the “hands-off approach” caused the Great Depression. You’re clueless. The Depression was caused by too much debt.”

And how did there get to be too much debt? By not having proper regulations to stop greedy people from immolating themselves, and catching fire to the rest of the economy. You’ve made my point for me.

Now, I firmly believe that the Depression became the Great Depression because of Roosevelt’s “throw everything against the wall and see what sticks” economic policy, but you can’t say that we got too much debt, and then in the same breathe say that you’d like to see the markets free to get too much debt, and expect anyone to think you’re not… inconsistent, to be kind.

I’m arguing that we need to do something to keep the wheels on the car so we can slow to a stop. You’re arguing to just let the wheels fall off, so we stop faster.

I’m not really enamored of your proposal. Why should I be?

Again, we’ve tried hard libertarian approaches (and not just in 1929). We’ve tried hard interventionist approaches, (and not just in 1931).

They’ve NEVER worked. Once. There’s always a severe reaction to either. Or can you find a counter example? If you’ve got one, I’d like to hear it.

We DO have examples of soft interventionist approaches working, such as in the Mexican and Scanidinavian banking crises.

So, if you’re so right, how come there’s no examples of you being right? Why aren’t there people using examples like Scandinavia for your side?

Seriously, put up or expect mockery.

I suggest (half seriously) we either go all the way to 1850s style New Mexico Territory rules libertarianism with guns in our holsters or the other extreme and embrace Marx. This middle stuff is confusing too many Americans.

Barry, Adam, “Shiller Fan”, and “CNBC Sucks” (I love that…) already beat me to the punch, but in a nutshell, Shiller is absolutely awesome. I doubt there are 5 other people in the world who accurately called the tops of the last two major bubbles (Nasdaq, housing), let alone who published the call in a book! Shiller’s “problem”, in my observation, is that he is an unassuming academic who isn’t into running around and pounding his chest about his calls. He’s EXTREMELY low-key and understated, which comes out in his interviews. His book, “Irrational Exuberance” was the first book I read that started me questioning EVERYTHING (and consequently saved me money, as well). In an extremely academic way, he simply presents facts, rather than spews out blames (as true as they may be…). However, he does more than hint in his writing whom he believes are the usual suspects:

From Irrational Exuberance (2nd Ed, 2005):

p 40 “Supportive Monetary Policy and the Greenspan Put”
p 41 “Ultimately the Fed cut interest rates as the stock market fell, to a low of 1% by 2003. This aggressive rate cut, which put real (inflation-corrected) interest rates well into negative territory, was probably a significant contributing factor to the housing boom after 2001.”

same page: “…the generally supportive stance of Alan Greenspan and other central bankers was a contributing factor to the millennium stock market boom and to the real estate price boom that came on its heels.”

Hey Venny,

Some of us live within our salaries. I will continue living within my means and badgering my Congressman to reject any bailout.

And by the way, consider that maybe, just maybe, the financial system shouldn’t survive in its current form. After all, keeping our tower of debt propped-up all these years is what has led us to this.

This isn’t socialism. A socialist solution would be to nationalize the failing banks, seize all their assets, and sell off good parts.

This is a corporatist solution. If you don’t know what corporatism is, I suggest you look it up. It’s what the Republicans have really stood for for 30 years, now. So this isn’t really a surprise to those who were paying attention.

Incidentally, the interventionist capitalist solution, where we buy preferred shares of failing banks, is the one proposed by Democrats.

So, we’ve got three proposals: the libertarian proposal from some Repug Congressmen, the interventionist proposal by Democrats, and the corporatist solution proposed by the Executive.

So far, the ‘Crats and the Exec’ have come together to get a deal done. The libertarians don’t really think we should do anything (a la Hoover), so it’s unlikely they’ll ever come along.

Me, I think we should do a *real* socialist solution – seize any undercapitalized bank, and sell off the parts that still work. Then imprison anyone who abused the public trust. It’d get things solved more quickly than other ways. But I don’t expect us to actually do that, so I’ll settle for the interventionist capitalism.

The libertarian way’s been tried already, the last time, in 1929 – it didn’t work out so well. Unless you can explain why this time is different, it’s a non-starter.

The corporatist way was tried already the last time as well, by the National Socialists in Germany. That didn’t work out too well either.