Libertarians Are The Problem

[Revoltingest]

Wouldn't be a problem if there was a possibility for the people to vote how to legislate how they want their money spent.

We voters might even screw it up more. Nah, I prefer to keep gov out of business subsidy, & keep the taxes they'd to to squander on it.

Admin problems are easily solvable but this is definitely a reason for big businesses to benefit mostly.

Naturally, we smaller fish don't like that incentive.

Simple solution, have competent, experienced people vetted and campaigned for. The Private sector could easily scrounge a billion or two to have better Libertarian candidates and market them better.

The problem with politicians is that relevant competency is in campaigning to win office.
That's what they're good at. And they'd beat any competitor who doesn't excel at that game.
To be a skilled administrator & manager is irrelevant to getting the job.

Ah, the private sector is trying to loan shark ya huh?

If they're the only game in town, then it's worth it. What can make it work is negotiating a principal discount. But surprisingly, even at 20%, they typically won't lend for more than a year. I'd have to propose a likely exit strategy, ie, a refinance scenario for next year.

So you are left between Corrupt crony-run Banks or loan sharks. Why is the private sector not offering low price solutions?

Lending money is risky in a shaky economy. Banks can do it for less cuz of the fractional reserve system, but gov't limits their ability to lend. Equity firms lend their own money, & it wouldn't be worth it to get a paltry 8% or so, considering the risk.

The government can be fixed nonetheless. It takes great effort though. The private sector could just start springing friendly (i.e. non-loan-shark) banks and angel investors could realize there's a whole world outside of tech and software.
Vote for who exactly? What if they don't win? Are we just doomed because the sheep majority are too happy dining on astroturf?

I have to live with the system we have.

Monsanto doesn't own every producer. Notice what Monsanto will do when it has power. Who will stop Monsanto exactly? What regulations will be brought on them? The price of Organic food is expensive but not prohibitively. If you have to spend an extra $150 per month on food, it's not exactly a huge dent for the middle class as much as it would be for the poor, but it's still a marginal industry no matter how fast its growing, and concentrated in "Liberal hippie" states like Sunny CA. Start spreading the seeds of change to get people in the Midwest to eat Organic food, you will do more good than voting for a failed candidate.

You can dis Monsanto, but Round Up is a great product for pesticide free food.
I buy both it & the generic glyphosphate. Good ole chemical weed whacker.

I Simply don't trust the private sector anymore or less than the Public sector, with the Public sector you actually have the ability to enforce regulations on producers (and on the regulators themselves), without the public sector's authority, you can only politely ask or hope you have more shotguns than them. If the public sector becomes corrupt, then why has the Private sector allowed that to happen? What gordion knots have made it impossible for the Invisible hand to untie itself?

Don't trust one more than the other. I favor having the private sector provide the product, but gov't provide the legal environment. Tis a separation of powers.

 

[Shermana]

We voters might even screw it up more. Nah, I prefer to keep gov out of business subsidy, & keep the taxes they'd to to squander on it.

If voters can't even be trusted in how to spend their own money, what's the point of Democracy in the first place? Small businesses would be far better served with the ability to compete with the big players at subsidized loans curteousy of the Big players themselves to even out the field. If they fail, the government could simply remanage them if they deem profitable. If the government must compete with the Private Sector to make the Private Sector less monopolized, so be it.

Naturally, we smaller fish don't like that incentive.

Processing 100 applicants per day, you could have a system that regulates each area through appointments and screening at minimal overhead cost, the means of enacting would be part of the written legislation itself.

The problem with politicians is that relevant competency is in campaigning to win office.
That's what they're good at. And they'd beat any competitor who doesn't excel at that game.
To be a skilled administrator & manager is irrelevant to getting the job.

Are you saying there is no such thing as a charming, charismatic Libertarian? Or are you saying that they can't hire a single good advertising firm? If McCain and Romney can "charm" their way to win, surely the Libertarians can find someone who the public are willing to vote for by means of simple style over substance. If the Libertarians need people who can help with "Style" and make their taste more fit to the West and East Coast, they should hire my friends for video production. They're very fairly priced.

If they're the only game in town, then it's worth it

Why are they the only game in town? Have not enough small private businesses and banks succeeded to the point that they are able to compete with the big players anymore? Or have the big players squashed them? Was it collective incompetency or all interference?

. What can make it work is negotiating a principal discount. But surprisingly, even at 20%, they typically won't lend for more than a year. I'd have to propose a likely exit strategy, ie, a refinance scenario for next year.

This is where a "National Bank" as I tried to explain it could come in very handy for you. Provided you are competent.

Lending money is risky in a shaky economy

It wouldn't be so shaky if there was more credit available for the little guy. The only solution to this is to forcefully provide credit for the little guy at the expense of something else like the big players who caused the problems.

.

Banks can do it for less cuz of the fractional reserve system,

Ah, sounds like the idea of the Federal Reserve being able to "lend money from thin air" (i.e. a 9:1 value) has some use in case of credit crashes caused by the...Private sector. The Fed wouldn't have been as popular if not for the 1900s bank panics often caused by monopolist' meddling.

but gov't limits their ability to lend.

A bank should be sufficiently large enough to take hits and losses to account for what they hold on to and not to have that money backed in refinanced deals. All private banks should be able to back their word. If they lend $33,000 they should in fact have $33,000 in market-priced assets. A bank's priority should be accumulating more money to lend in the first place, a medium or relatively large size bank is not a problem when its run in compliance. The government forced banks to lend to almost whoever and whenever for houses, a single market which was a bubble any serious private investor should have seen collapsing. Running a business is much different than a home which you sit on and hope you sell it while the bubble is rising, and should be assisted through industry-specific investment banks. How about more investment banks for farmers and manufacturers that can operate on a paltry 8%? Many business profit margins are around 10%, this one would involve just overseeing their own assets.

Equity firms lend their own money, & it wouldn't be worth it to get a paltry 8% or so, considering the risk.

If I had a billion, earning $80 million a year through direct industrial investment alone isn't a bad way to keep my money at least up with inflation. Or if I had a spare $100,000 and wanted to throw in to a bank to earn solid $8,000 a year on it, pay house taxes that way. Nonetheless, deals could be worked out that provide the lender with money after the business becomes successful as well with direct assistance and managerial subsidies, even paying people to hire American labor in tax credits. Less risky than demanding the business be profitable by year 1 or 2 enough to pay off the loan. If it proves unsuccessful, they'd simply seize the assets and remanage it like how they seize homes, they wouldn't have invested in it if they didn't think it would work so they either take the hit as their own fault or re-assign its management.

I have to live with the system we have.

It can be changed, but it takes effective work, aimed directly at the right cause, through providing information and instruction to others in ways other than just voting but for supporting the industries that their purchasing decisions support. If you don't disagree with Monsanto and think that their chemical solutions are not part of the problem, then that's another problem.....

You can dis Monsanto, but Round Up is a great product for pesticide free food.
I buy both it & the generic glyphosphate. Good ole chemical weed whacker.

This is where I brought up the issue that what the "people want" is not always "What is best". Pest loss to food is not that high with Organic losses, usually around 10-15% higher or so. Paying a 25-100% higher price for food that's not genetically modified or grown with toxic chemicals is worth it in my belief, it will save me potential doctor bills later, not to mention quality of life. I believe the research on Organic food and GM food and pesticides clearly points to their being totally harmful not only to our individual selves (which is not the main issue so long as its properly labeled) but in the environment and future ability for the land to be used as well. Destruction of the soil through toxic fertilizers is something that affects more than just the person who claims to own the land.

Don't trust one more than the other. I favor having the private sector provide the product, but gov't provide the legal environment. Tis a separation of powers.

I am not against private production as long as its incorporated into the greater whole and not left to do its own thing without any oversight. I also believe that when the tax rate was 94-95% for those earning over the equivalent of $2.5 million year ($200k), it drove a great deal of money back into the economy that was otherwise being hoarded.

 

[Revoltingest]

If voters can't even be trusted in how to spend their own money, what's the point of Democracy in the first place? Small businesses would be far better served with the ability to compete with the big players at subsidized loans curteousy of the Big players themselves to even out the field. If they fail, the government could simply remanage them if they deem profitable. If the government must compete with the Private Sector to make the Private Sector less monopolized, so be it.

I prefer the simplicity of eliminating subsidies & bail-outs.

Processing 100 applicants per day, you could have a system that regulates each area through appointments and screening at minimal overhead cost, the means of enacting would be part of the written legislation itself.
Are you saying there is no such thing as a charming, charismatic Libertarian?

Well....I haven't met one yet. We tend to be unpolished.

....who the public are willing to vote for by means of simple style over substance. If the Libertarians need people who can help with "Style" and make their taste more fit to the West and East Coast, they should hire my friends for video production. They're very fairly priced.

You'd have to talk to someone interested in running. I prefer anonymity.

Why are they the only game in town? Have not enough small private businesses and banks succeeded to the point that they are able to compete with the big players anymore? Or have the big players squashed them? Was it collective incompetency or all interference?
This is where a "National Bank" as I tried to explain it could come in very handy for you. Provided you are competent.

Small banks abound, uncrushed by the giants. I'd rather that the gov not create a national bank to lend me money. I want them to stop preventing my borrowing money. Do you know that if a bank forgives principal to a weak borrower, the Uncle Sam calls the forgiven amount ordinary income, & hits the borrower with a high tax. Thus, it's almost impossible to negotiate a better deal with a bank.

It wouldn't be so shaky if there was more credit available for the little guy. The only solution to this is to forcefully provide credit for the little guy at the expense of something else like the big players who caused the problems.

Or government could stop enacting measures preventing banks from lending to us. RBS said they needed to call in my loans because regulators said they had too many risky loans like mine. My payments were current, but I couldn't get alternate financing anywhere else, so they foreclosed. My loans were just sold to a company specializing in liquidating such loans. We're negotiating. Interesting times are ahead.

Government just doesn't understand lending or borrowing. None of our leaders have any experience or expertise in it. They're asleep at the wheel & heading towards the ditch.

 

[Shermana]

Small banks abound, uncrushed by the giants. I'd rather that the gov not create a national bank to lend me money. I want them to stop preventing my borrowing money. Do you know that if a bank forgives principal to a weak borrower, the Uncle Sam calls the forgiven amount ordinary income, & hits the borrower with a high tax. Thus, it's almost impossible to negotiate a better deal with a bank.

The problem here is wrong regulation, not regulation.

They aren't nearly as Capitalized as they need to be handle the needs of the many Small Businesses that are solid performers, and unfortunately many small businesses are under-capitalized in addition to being run incompetently, and what is actually needed is not provided to achieve the stated goals. This is where a strong interaction between the lender and lendee would be benefited by a bank that is properly regulated with legislation that best levels the playing field for those who have a solid history.

RBS said they needed to call in my loans because regulators said they had too many risky loans like mine.

Here's the problem with Regulations, they need to be regulated. If you have a fine credit history and a good business history, there is no reason to view a demanded industry, especially if it can prove it can garner contracts, as anything but a solid candidate. What is not a risky investment in their eyes?

Government just doesn't understand lending or borrowing. None of our leaders have any experience or expertise in it. They're asleep at the wheel & heading towards the ditch.

Therefore you'd think a nationally elected Financial Expert would be in charge of the National Bank. However, the problem is within the legislation, not the concept. Just because a structure's management is run foully doesn't mean the system itself is foul beyond fixing.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem here is wrong regulation, not regulation.

True dat! So few realize it. We must be in some kind of elite hyper-intelligent group, eh?

They aren't nearly as Capitalized as they need to be handle the needs of the many Small Businesses that are solid performers, and unfortunately many small businesses are under-capitalized in addition to being run incompetently, and what is actually needed is not provided to achieve the stated goals. This is where a strong interaction between the lender and lendee would be benefited by a bank that is properly regulated with legislation that best levels the playing field for those who have a solid history.

Actually, I've talked to many bankers who have capital to lend. But they don't want to. TCF, for example, has residential rates 2% higher than their competition in order to discourage lending without saying they don't lend. If I were a bank, I wouldn't want to lend in this shaky economy either.....except for the safe stuff: student housing, multi-family housing, senior housing.

Here's the problem with Regulations, they need to be regulated. If you have a fine credit history and a good business history, there is no reason to view a demanded industry, especially if it can prove it can garner contracts, as anything but a solid candidate. What is not a risky investment in their eyes?

Some asset classes are inherently riskier than others.

Therefore you'd think a nationally elected Financial Expert would be in charge of the National Bank. However, the problem is within the legislation, not the concept. Just because a structure's management is run foully doesn't mean the system itself is foul.

An elected expert? Anyone who wins that election will merely be an expert in getting elected. Just look at Obama without considering partisan politics.....he had never managed anything, never met a payroll, never been in charge of personnel, & never started a business. Why was he elected then? He's a strong campaigner. Even if he were a Libertarian, I'd be dismayed at his lack of qualification.

 

[Shermana]

Actually, I've talked to many bankers who have capital to lend. But they don't want to. TCF, for example, has residential rates 2% higher than their competition in order to discourage lending without saying they don't lend. If I were a bank, I wouldn't want to lend in this shaky economy either.....

The cart is in front of the horse. The credit is needed for the small businesses for the economy to be less shaky. If private businesses won't do what's necessary to take the risks with otherwise solid performers who are on hard times due to hard markets and not necessarily incompetence, you have no choice but the national bank option.

except for the safe stuff: student housing, multi-family housing, senior housing.

If the only thing the banks are going to invest in is housing, what does that tell you?

Some asset classes are inherently riskier than others.

What defines an "Asset class"? If you can guarantee contracts, what's the risk? If you can provide evidence that the investment will make money, why is it a risk because of its size? There's the problem I'm talking about! The Big players are hungry hippoing the available credit and excreting out cartel-priced products once they dominate the market. The system you complain about is nonetheless caused by Free Market forces whether or not the regulation is corruptly geared to their favor or not. And because the economy is "Shaky", the small private lenders don't want to deal with other small timers. It's all just a sinking ship unless you take serious action to repair the holes, and that takes government, run correctly.

 

[dust1n]

I Simply don't trust the private sector anymore or less than the Public sector, with the Public sector you actually have the ability to enforce regulations on producers (and on the regulators themselves), without the public sector's authority, you can only politely ask or hope you have more shotguns than them. If the public sector becomes corrupt, then why has the Private sector allowed that to happen? What gordion knots have made it impossible for the Invisible hand to untie itself?

I equally distrust anyone with power, whether private or public. Reminds me of that ol' Bob Black quote, "To demonize state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst ... Your foreman or supervisor gives you more or-else orders in a week than the police do in a decade."

 

[Revoltingest]

The cart is in front of the horse. The credit is needed for the small businesses for the economy to be less shaky. If private businesses won't do what's necessary to take the risks with otherwise solid performers who are on hard times due to hard markets and not necessarily incompetence, you have no choice but the national bank option.
If the only thing the banks are going to invest in is housing, what does that tell you?

Banks also invest in some retail & office, but the preference I hear is for residential. Risks are exacerbated by government. Instead of gov subsidy, how about removing dysfunctional barriers imposed by gov, eh? That's what we small-gov types prefer.

What defines an "Asset class"?

Government & lenders do.

If you can guarantee contracts, what's the risk? If you can provide evidence that the investment will make money, why is it a risk because of its size?

Even personal guarantees are not a guarantee to the bank. Example: Suppose the bank sold my 2 foreclosed properties. They'd net far less than what I owe, so they'd continue to pursue me for the balance. But I'd file for bankruptcy, & with all my remaining assets protected from them, all they'd receive is a percentage of wages for 5 years. This would be a huge loss for them. Have you ever lent a big sum of money before? What risks did you face?

There's the problem I'm talking about! The Big players are hungry hippoing the available credit and excreting out cartel-priced products once they dominate the market. The system you complain about is nonetheless caused by Free Market forces whether or not the regulation is corruptly geared to their favor or not. And because the economy is "Shaky", the small private lenders don't want to deal with other small timers. It's all just a sinking ship unless you take serious action to repair the holes, and that takes government, run correctly.

We don't have the option of making gov run correctly. It runs the way it runs, & voters are unwilling to make any radical change like voting Librertarian.

 

[Shermana]

Banks also invest in some retail & office, but the preference I hear is for residential.

If the biggest investors are only sinking their money into residences, then Industry is stuck in an industrial sized pool of quicksand, with no hope, and another housing bubble may form.

Risks are exacerbated by government. Instead of gov subsidy, how about removing dysfunctional barriers imposed by gov, eh? That's what we small-gov types prefer.

What kind of barriers specifically are in place right now which discourage lending to small producers which small private lenders who can get around such problems aren't taking advantage of? If the small timers won't help even if they can, what other choice does the industrial and commercial sector have than Le Grande Banque Nationale?

Government & lenders do.

Okay, now there's the problem. An "Asset class" shouldn't be judged mostly by its size but by its ability and ability to achieve a result. If someone can guarantee contracts, there is something wrong if they aren't viewed as a trust source of repayment while the big player isn't just because he's big. It's as if they have no idea that bigger businesses often fail and small businesses often succeed, though often fail due more to undercapitalization than mismanagement. If the risk is due to undercapitlization, and no one wants to capitalize the undercapitalized, that quicksand ain't getting less quick.

Even personal guarantees are not a guarantee to the bank.

Why shouldn't a history and statement of existing and future contracts and guaranteed procurements be a guarantee to the bank? Because of things outside your control, like price changes of land, as you say. Thus, it's an issue of things beyond your control taking preference to their preference. Free Market fail.

Example: Suppose the bank sold my 2 foreclosed properties. They'd net far less than what I owe, so they'd continue to pursue me for the balance.

Why should you be viewed as being risky because of a drop in general real estate prices when you have proven to nonetheless be able to produce income with your skill set and experience? Illogical.

But I'd file for bankruptcy, & with all my remaining assets protected from them, all they'd receive is a percentage of wages for 5 years

I agree that we should have to pay what we owe even if it's not our fault, but to be denied the credit to earn money to pay what we owe because of it is like debtor's prison, illogical and stupid.

. This would be a huge loss for them. Have you ever lent a big sum of money before? What risks did you face?

I have not risked more than a hundred at a time and have lost it. The risk I faced was dealing with unsavory swine who took the money and ran and forever ruined their reputation for a measly Benjamin. If I was lending to a person with a solid history and that I had overseeing of his plan and was making profit, that's another story, I'd consider it.

We don't have the option of making gov run correctly

We don't? What's the point of voting and Democracy in the first place? This is simply illogical, we DO have the option to make gov run correctly, it takes great work and a dedicated and organized Vanguard to lead the Sheep to make the right choices. Finding that Vanguard is the first phase of the hard part.

. It runs the way it runs, & voters are unwilling to make any radical change like voting Librertarian

Because they are sheep and are led to whatever seems comfortable for them. Hence, if you don't have any Charming Charismatic libtertarians, you will remain in a certain intellectual fringe. If leaders can't lead and voters can't vote, then the concept of a "Democratic Republic" fails, we'd be better with Mercantilism and an Aristocracy. But it's possible to make the right choices, the Sheep CAN be led, it requires the right leaders and vanguards.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the biggest investors are only sinking their money into residences, then Industry is stuck in an industrial sized pool of quicksand, with no hope, and another housing bubble may form.

If the future of housing heads in the direction of rented apartments, then no bubble.
If gov't steers us back to home ownership, then we're doomed.

What kind of barriers specifically are in place right now which discourage lending to small producers which small private lenders who can get around such problems aren't taking advantage of? If the small timers won't help even if they can, what other choice does the industrial and commercial sector have than Le Grande Banque Nationale?

Governmental barriers to borrowing:
- Regulatory limitations on banks' loan portfolio composition.
- Regulatory requirement for more frequent & more expensive appraisals.
- Taxation burdens: capitalization of loan origination costs, income tax on principal forgiveness, high operating income tax burden which hurts after tax cash flow
- Increased red tape
- Regulatory prohibition of refinancing high risk loans.

Okay, now there's the problem. An "Asset class" shouldn't be judged mostly by its size but by its ability and ability to achieve a result. If someone can guarantee contracts, there is something wrong if they aren't viewed as a trust source of repayment while the big player isn't just because he's big. It's as if they have no idea that bigger businesses often fail and small businesses often succeed, though often fail due more to undercapitalization than mismanagement. If the risk is due to undercapitlization, and no one wants to capitalize the undercapitalized, that quicksand ain't getting less quick.

Guarantees aren't worth too much.

Why shouldn't a history and statement of existing and future contracts and guaranteed procurements be a guarantee to the bank? Because of things outside your control, like price changes of land, as you say. Thus, it's an issue of things beyond your control taking preference to their preference. Free Market fail.

Free markets fail? I see that they work. But gov introduces distortions which make matters worse.

Why should you be viewed as being risky because of a drop in general real estate prices when you have proven to nonetheless be able to produce income with your skill set and experience? Illogical.

The drop in real estate prices raises the loan to value ratio (LTV) to levels prohibited by bank regulators. Thus, gov requires that these loans be divested. But one cannot borrow elsewhere in this case, so foreclosure or sale of the loan at a discount is required. Thus, the gov requires that the bank take a loss now, in order to prevent the possibility of a loss in the future.

I agree that we should have to pay what we owe even if it's not our fault, but to be denied the credit to earn money to pay what we owe because of it is like debtor's prison, illogical and stupid.

I'd be happy to redesign the whole system.

I have not risked more than a hundred at a time and have lost it. The risk I faced was dealing with unsavory swine who took the money and ran and forever ruined their reputation for a measly Benjamin. If I was lending to a person with a solid history and that I had overseeing of his plan and was making profit, that's another story, I'd consider it.

Even big loans secured by real estate can become hard to collect.

We don't? What's the point of voting and Democracy in the first place? This is simply illogical, we DO have the option to make gov run correctly, it takes great work and a dedicated and organized Vanguard to lead the Sheep to make the right choices. Finding that Vanguard is the first phase of the hard part.

By "we" I'm referring to those of us who participate in capitalism & see a better direction. We are a minority, & do not control gov't.

Because they are sheep and are led to whatever seems comfortable for them. Hence, if you don't have any Charming Charismatic libtertarians, you will remain in a certain intellectual fringe. If leaders can't lead and voters can't vote, then the concept of a "Democratic Republic" fails, we'd be better with Mercantilism and an Aristocracy. But it's possible to make the right choices, the Sheep CAN be led, it requires the right leaders and vanguards.

I expect to remain on the fringe. I'd love to become powerful enuf to be called "the problem", but I just don't believe that it will happen.

 

[Shermana]

If the future of housing heads in the direction of rented apartments, then no bubble.
If gov't steers us back to home ownership, then we're doomed.

I agree. But you have not responded twice to the Gorilla in the room which is that no one is investing in industry and agriculture. How do you expect an economy to ever possibly improve if none of the credit sector are investing in the improvement of the economy and don't plan to, because of reasons that are exasperated by their lack of funding?

The answer to this gaping sinkhole of a situation is the National Bank. There is no rebuttal to that. Either private lenders start making the economy grow or big brother needs to do it.

Governmental barriers to borrowing:
- Regulatory limitations on banks' loan portfolio composition.
- Regulatory requirement for more frequent & more expensive appraisals.
- Taxation burdens: capitalization of loan origination costs, income tax on principal forgiveness, high operating income tax burden which hurts after tax cash flow
- Increased red tape
- Regulatory prohibition of refinancing high risk loans.

The taxation issue is a difficult subject, but I agree loans should be privately negotiable without tax problems that make leniency a burden. The expensive appraisals is definitely a problem, if you mean overvaluing property, which is what all bubbles are made from. I agree that all these regulations are incompetently composed and that a new, more flexible and growth-minded legislation could be mandated with the right action.

Guarantees aren't worth too much.

What else is there than contractual guarantees? If you can prove that you have 10 clients ready to sign and they have you signed to begin as soon as you receive ability to do so , it should be not a major problem getting your loan to look less risky from the people in charge of who to give to, if it's proven you have months worth of income lined up. Who do you propose is an example of a "Safe" investment?

Free markets fail?

No, Free Market Fail. Like Epic Fail. But yes, they fail harshly because they are not guarded from vultures and sharks.

I see that they work. But gov introduces distortions which make matters worse.

We've established that without government, it would be calamitous and have no means of enforcing anything or preventing monopolies. The problem is who is making the decisions within the government and what those decisions are. What is needed is a strong group of leaders who know exactly what to change to what, in the specifics.

The drop in real estate prices raises the loan to value ratio (LTV) to levels prohibited by bank regulators. Thus, gov requires that these loans be divested. But one cannot borrow elsewhere in this case, so foreclosure or sale of the loan at a discount is required. Thus, the gov requires that the bank take a loss now, in order to prevent the possibility of a loss in the future.

Ah, "one cannot borrow elsewhere". Why? Bank o' Sam would effectively slice that Gordion knot.

I'd be happy to redesign the whole system.

Make a rough draft proposal for legislation.

Even big loans secured by real estate can become hard to collect.

The way to make a loan easier to collect is to invest it in things that are known to have a guaranteed clientele. I see real estate investment as a waste for the most part unless you see the next Bubble and sell right before it bursts. Industrial and Agricultural investment you'd think would be the most direct means of a guaranteed profit if you manage it properly. Those who loan money should in fact be free to check in and see what needs to be done to help make things more profitable.

By "we" I'm referring to those of us who participate in capitalism & see a better direction. We are a minority, & do not control gov't.

Everyone participates in Capitalism. I am participating in Edison and Time Warner's profits by using their services at this moment. However, direct action needs actual action to be done, and from there help the Sheep know what choice to make once you have made that choice possible. If you don't have any Charming, Charismatic Libertarians who can make such legislation and gain popular support to save the economy from its sinkhole, you have no chance of any hope for the future.

I expect to remain on the fringe. I'd love to become powerful enuf to be called "the problem", but I just don't believe that it will happen.

What is stopping you from being powerful?

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. But you have not responded twice to the Gorilla in the room which is that no one is investing in industry and agriculture. How do you expect an economy to ever possibly improve if none of the credit sector are investing in the improvement of the economy and don't plan to, because of reasons that are exasperated by their lack of funding?

Geeze....I thought I responded, but perhaps my weighting of your concerns differs from yours. People are investing in industry & agriculture.
I see it. I don't expect the economy to improve as long as credit is largely unavailable. (I thought this was a point I'd been making all along.)

The answer to this gaping sinkhole of a situation is the National Bank. There is no rebuttal to that. Either private lenders start making the economy grow or big brother needs to do it.

That's not "the answer", rather it's your answer. I prefer my answer, ie, less but better gov regulation of lending.
It's a more libertarian solution than expanding government.

The taxation issue is a difficult subject, but I agree loans should be privately negotiable without tax problems that make leniency a burden. The expensive appraisals is definitely a problem, if you mean overvaluing property, which is what all bubbles are made from. I agree that all these regulations are incompetently composed and that a new, more flexible and growth-minded legislation could be mandated with the right action.
What else is there than contractual guarantees?

- Personal guarantees
- Cross colateralization of other assets
- Lender rights to step in & manage the property if it's not performing

If you can prove that you have 10 clients ready to sign and they have you signed to begin as soon as you receive ability to do so , it should be not a major problem getting your loan to look less risky from the people in charge of who to give to, if it's proven you have months worth of income lined up. Who do you propose is an example of a "Safe" investment?

Lenders don't care about a tenant who is "ready to sign". Only leases currently in force matter. Risk is a complicated thing to evaluate
, & beyond the scope of this thread to address. Let's just say that lenders & government have their standards for analyzing it.

No, Free Market Fail. Like Epic Fail. But yes, they fail harshly because they are not guarded from vultures and sharks.

The definitions of "fail" are many. I don't see that free markets fail, because I don't expect perfection....there will be unwanted transient responses,
there will be outcomes influenced by emotion rather than classical economic thought, and there will be people who fail in it. Those things aren't "failure",
but rather just part of how the system behaves. The biggest problem I see with markets is that government tries to intervene for political purpose, &
creates dysfunctional distortions & instabilities. The housing bubble was directly caused by gov regulation, eg, subsidies of loans, inflation of prices,
tax incentives to overpay, high transfer costs, prohibition of principal forgiveness. I couldn't have done a better job of designing a system doomed to
fail at the first major economic hiccup, which in this case was 9.11.2001.

We've established that without government, it would be calamitous and have no means of enforcing anything or preventing monopolies. The problem is who is making the decisions within the government and what those decisions are. What is needed is a strong group of leaders who know exactly what to change to what, in the specifics.

Well, spluuuUUUuuuUUUuuuh! That's why I want Libertarians to be the problem.
I think we'd do a much better job....by doing less.

Ah, "one cannot borrow elsewhere". Why? Bank o' Sam would effectively slice that Gordion knot.

You propose that a gov bank would fix the problem of gov interference with borrowing?
A gov bank would be run by the same people causing the problem already. Just look at Fannie & Freddie...the largest residential
lenders in the world....owned & run by gov. They don't allow principal renegotiation...they just foreclose. And Obama's housing
loan programs are massive failures, since almost no one in need can qualify. Government is run by people whose primary skill
is campaigning to win election. By & large, they've no expertise in business. And their incentive is to pander to voters, which
is usually at odds with economic well being.

Make a rough draft proposal for legislation.

Oh, yeah....that would be worth the effort. Hah!

The way to make a loan easier to collect is to invest it in things that are known to have a guaranteed clientele.

If only it were so easy.

I see real estate investment as a waste for the most part unless you see the next Bubble and sell right before it bursts. Industrial and Agricultural investment you'd think would be the most direct means of a guaranteed profit if you manage it properly. Those who loan money should in fact be free to check in and see what needs to be done to help make things more profitable.

What industry or investment vehicle is without risk? I don't see one.

What is stopping you from being powerful?

Dang near everyone likes some part of the Libertarian agenda, but few like all of it.
Most people are scared of the chaos of too much liberty, so they trust & want government to make things right.
That ain't us.

 

[Shermana]

Geeze....I thought I responded, but perhaps my weighting of your concerns differs from yours. People are investing in industry & agriculture.
I see it. I don't expect the economy to improve as long as credit is largely unavailable. (I thought this was a point I'd been making all along.)

The point we're discussing is why no credit is available. Bad government regulations are established as part of the problem. I have not seen anywhere that we've discussed that there's serious investment in industry and agriculture, where is it? Where is all the private investment in traditional industry? You'd think there'd be 10,000,000 new jobs by now with all this investment. But there's not. There's no industrial investment anywhere close to the levels as when the tax rate was 95% for those earning the equivalent of 2.5 million. The only solution to the problem is getting private lenders to make industry grow unless Le Bank Du Sam kicks in. As I explain below, if no one's going to do anything to make the regulations fixed, we have no solution whatsoever.

That's not "the answer", rather it's your answer. I prefer my answer, ie, less but better gov regulation of lending.
It's a more libertarian solution than expanding government.

Expanding government is often necessary when the private sector is abusing and neglecting the system and there's no other choice. The problem however is to make the regulations properly written.

- Personal guarantees
- Cross colateralization of other assets
- Lender rights to step in & manage the property if it's not performing

So why is a business that's doing poorly due to factors not of its own doing such a risk that no one wants to invest? Who WILL invest? Who will invest in who? What businesses are lent to and which aren't? I agree that lenders should be ready to step right in and make whatever changes is necessary to make sure they get repaid. What's the risk if you can take over yourself if the "trustee" is not doing his job correctly? If you don't think it will work as an idea in itself, you wouldn't be lending.

Lenders don't care about a tenant who is "ready to sign". Only leases currently in force matter. Risk is a complicated thing to evaluate
, & beyond the scope of this thread to address. Let's just say that lenders & government have their standards for analyzing it.

I suppose that's for another thread, my point is that this risk evaluation system is just a big Gordion Knot that kicks small time players in the jewels and blames them for lying on the ground doing nothing but writhe in pain. Someone has to take a risk for business to succeed. If private lendors won't do it, you have no choice but Banque Du Sam.

The definitions of "fail" are many. I don't see that free markets fail, because I don't expect perfection....

What do you expect? The finest times in America were when the Tax rate for the rich was near 100% and forced them to invest their capital to avoid losing it.

there will be unwanted transient responses,
there will be outcomes influenced by emotion rather than classical economic thought, and there will be people who fail in it. Those things aren't "failure",
but rather just part of how the system behaves.

The system behaves in a way which ultimately allows the big players to rig the system no matter who's in charge unless proper controls are in place. Much like any social system in history.

The biggest problem I see with markets is that government tries to intervene for political purpose, &
creates dysfunctional distortions & instabilities.

The problem here is the incompetence factor as well as possibly having big players rig and game the system to benefit themselves, like with crippling regulations that they can deal with but small timers can't.

The housing bubble was directly caused by gov regulation, eg, subsidies of loans, inflation of prices,

Bad regulation indeed.

tax incentives to overpay, high transfer costs, prohibition of principal forgiveness. I couldn't have done a better job of designing a system doomed to
fail at the first major economic hiccup, which in this case was 9.11.2001.

Perhaps it was intentionally designed to fail that badly by people who profit off such failures. This is why the government itself must be regulated properly and have a private overwatch community that can effectively organize action, otherwise, the sheep get to eat astroturf.

Well, spluuuUUUuuuUUUuuuh! That's why I want Libertarians to be the problem.
I think we'd do a much better job....by doing less.

Doing less means more cartels and more price fixing and more loan sharking. It's like dealing with a bully. If you don't hit him in the right spot, he'll hurt you even worse. You must knock him out in a single, organized and planned blow if you want to take him out. If a bad solution is given to a problem, the problem gets worse. Does not mean the concept of enforceable solutions is bad. Again, I repeat, we need "Vanguards" to write such legislation and draft it.

You propose that a gov bank would fix the problem of gov interference with borrowing?

Run properly and with efficient legislation that accounts for the issues aforementioned, yes.

A gov bank would be run by the same people causing the problem already. Just look at Fannie & Freddie...the largest residential
lenders in the world....owned & run by gov

Run by Democrats more like it. Party politics and incompetency and potential game-rigging may have all played a part in Fannie's bungling.

. They don't allow principal renegotiation...they just foreclose. And Obama's housing

That's a problem with the regulations, redesigning the deals on the principal should be all considered part of the lending process based on market factors beyond the lendee's control. We agree at least that the government is too incompetent to draft legislation. This is why we need leaders to do it for them and to have the politicians jump on board.

loan programs are massive failures, since almost no one in need can qualify.

Home loan programs shouldn't have many qualifiers. Business loans are another story. The same thing with Fannie and Freddie would not happen if the SBA was more than a Token establishment and did similarly. Houses don't make money except by riding the wave, businesses make money so long as there is demand and it's run competently. The problem is that too many "Real estate experts" were directing and guiding both political and social policy. Government shouldn't be involved with home loans. Business loans, absolutely. One is completely tied to the size of the wave, the other is flexible.

Government is run by people whose primary skill
is campaigning to win election. By & large, they've no expertise in business. And their incentive is to pander to voters, which
is usually at odds with economic well being.

As we've established, the problem here lies with the sheep themselves who eat what is offered to them, and the lack of Elites among them who are doing much to change the direction. As we can see with:

Oh, yeah....that would be worth the effort. Hah!

Okay, so what's there to do then? Who will write the legislation? Who will promote it? Who will effectively try to support it and get the sheep to listen? No one? Uh oh........looks like the Private sector is too weak and feeble and lazy and unwilling to do anything about its own situation?

If only it were so easy.

It's not as difficult as they make it out to be. A profitable business shouldn't be seen as risky because of land-price factors.

What industry or investment vehicle is without risk? I don't see one.

So what's the point of lending? Who gets lended to? If small businesses are all too risky, you have no hope of anything getting better.

Dang near everyone likes some part of the Libertarian agenda, but few like all of it.

Is there such thing as "All of it"? Maybe what you need is an actual party platform with a rigorous though somewhat flexible agenda, with prepared draft legislation and a charming charismatic leader to promote it. Unfortunately, no Libertarians either want to do this or have gotten this idea in their heads yet.

Most people are scared of the chaos of too much liberty, so they trust & want government to make things right.
That ain't us.

Government CAN do things right, and the chaos of too much liberty will most likely result in power grabs and wealth inequality that make the current system look tame.

 

[Crystallas]

the chaos of too much liberty will most likely result in power grabs and wealth inequality that make the current system look tame.

There is a switch that can be realistically hit to automatically grant too much liberty? Wow, that's amazing.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a switch that can be realistically hit to automatically grant too much liberty? Wow, that's amazing.

I like that the phrase "too much liberty" signals a threat to society.

 

[Revoltingest]

The point we're discussing is why no credit is available. Bad government regulations are established as part of the problem. I have not seen anywhere that we've discussed that there's serious investment in industry and agriculture, where is it?

From my local perspective, I see examples. Here are a couple from my tenants:
- An industrial laser research & development firm is getting private money to expand production.
- A building contractor is investing in marketing for a new business plan.
- A collection agency has seen a slight improvement, such that they can now afford to take on new business. It costs them a lot to comply with fed regs for taking on new accounts.

You'd think there'd be 10,000,000 new jobs by now with all this investment. But there's not.

Dang near everyone I know wants to expand business, but not hire. They want volume & profit, not burdens & risk. Obamacare scares the smaller companies, who don't have the resources to research its effects. Larger companies are better prepared to cope, eg, Truven.

There's no industrial investment anywhere close to the levels as when the tax rate was 95% for those earning the equivalent of 2.5 million.

The effective tax rate was never that high because it was offset by incentives (aka "loopholes") for investment. But they distorted the market in ways which wasted money, especially in real estate where bad investments were profitable because of the tax dodges. An effective tax rate of 95% would kill off all business.

The only solution to the problem is getting private lenders to make industry grow unless Le Bank Du Sam kicks in. As I explain below, if no one's going to do anything to make the regulations fixed, we have no solution whatsoever.
Expanding government is often necessary when the private sector is abusing and neglecting the system and there's no other choice. The problem however is to make the regulations properly written.

I think your cure is worse than the disease. You would give the same gov which is mucking things even greater control.

So why is a business that's doing poorly due to factors not of its own doing such a risk that no one wants to invest? Who WILL invest? Who will invest in who? What businesses are lent to and which aren't? I agree that lenders should be ready to step right in and make whatever changes is necessary to make sure they get repaid. What's the risk if you can take over yourself if the "trustee" is not doing his job correctly? If you don't think it will work as an idea in itself, you wouldn't be lending.

Investment is going on. But it's greatly restricted both directly & indirectly by dysfunctional taxation & regulation.

I suppose that's for another thread, my point is that this risk evaluation system is just a big Gordion Knot that kicks small time players in the jewels and blames them for lying on the ground doing nothing but writhe in pain. Someone has to take a risk for business to succeed. If private lendors won't do it, you have no choice but Banque Du Sam.

Again, if gov is the problem, I'm not inclined to give them even more power.

What do you expect? The finest times in America were when the Tax rate for the rich was near 100% and forced them to invest their capital to avoid losing it.

Correlation is not causation. There were many factors:
- The effective tax rate on the wealthy was far far lower than 90%. It's a myth that a significant number of taxpayers ever mismanaged their affairs so badly that they actually paid the high nominal rates.
- Regulation was far less.
- Foreign competition was less intense.
- Our balance of trade was better.
- People were satisfied with less: smaller houses, more primitive health care, fewer cars, party line phones, no air conditioning, black & white TV, no internet, etc

The system behaves in a way which ultimately allows the big players to rig the system no matter who's in charge unless proper controls are in place. Much like any social system in history.
The problem here is the incompetence factor as well as possibly having big players rig and game the system to benefit themselves, like with crippling regulations that they can deal with but small timers can't.

This is where regulation can be useful: curb political corruption, prevent monopolies, ban insider trading, etc

Perhaps it was intentionally designed to fail that badly by people who profit off such failures. This is why the government itself must be regulated properly and have a private overwatch community that can effectively organize action, otherwise, the sheep get to eat astroturf.
Doing less means more cartels and more price fixing and more loan sharking. It's like dealing with a bully. If you don't hit him in the right spot, he'll hurt you even worse. You must knock him out in a single, organized and planned blow if you want to take him out. If a bad solution is given to a problem, the problem gets worse. Does not mean the concept of enforceable solutions is bad. Again, I repeat, we need "Vanguards" to write such legislation and draft it.
Run properly and with efficient legislation that accounts for the issues aforementioned, yes.
Run by Democrats more like it.

Really? Obama knows nothing of business, having never been in it. The party is rife with crony capitalism.
Nah....tis time to make Libertarians the problem. <--- The theme of this thread

Party politics and incompetency and potential game-rigging may have all played a part in Fannie's bungling.

Since party politics & incompetence are intrinsic to a democracy, that's why the best solution is to eliminate government run lenders like Fannie.

That's a problem with the regulations, redesigning the deals on the principal should be all considered part of the lending process based on market factors beyond the lendee's control. We agree at least that the government is too incompetent to draft legislation. This is why we need leaders to do it for them and to have the politicians jump on board.

It sounds like you're suggesting that lobbyists write the laws, & then legislators enact them.
If done with transparency, that idea has some merit.

Okay, so what's there to do then? Who will write the legislation? Who will promote it? Who will effectively try to support it and get the sheep to listen? No one? Uh oh........looks like the Private sector is too weak and feeble and lazy and unwilling to do anything about its own situation?

Government creates the legal & tax environment.
The private sector operates in it. What happens isn't about "lazy" or "unwilling".
The rules of the game are dysfunctional. The voters & politicians largely don't understand.
I maintain that understanding is improved if more people are in business, & fewer are on the dole (eg, welfare, stimulus, bail-outs).
Since Dems, Pubs & Grees are all wedded to big government & the nanny state, the only way to achieve that is to make Libertarians "the problem".

Is there such thing as "All of it"? Maybe what you need is an actual party platform with a rigorous though somewhat flexible agenda, with prepared draft legislation and a charming charismatic leader to promote it. Unfortunately, no Libertarians either want to do this or have gotten this idea in their heads yet.

All parties field the best candidates they can.
Some win. Most lose. We are who we are.

Government CAN do things right, and the chaos of too much liberty will most likely result in power grabs and wealth inequality that make the current system look tame.

I place no hope in the approach that gov "can do things right". I'd design public policy, taxation & laws based upon what gov is likely to do.
I can't improve human beings, so I prefer a system which takes their failings & strengths into account.

 

[Shermana]

From my local perspective, I see examples. Here are a couple from my tenants:
- An industrial laser research & development firm is getting private money to expand production.
- A building contractor is investing in marketing for a new business plan.
- A collection agency has seen a slight improvement, such that they can now afford to take on new business. It costs them a lot to comply with fed regs for taking on new accounts.

Like I said, tech industries are the only thing being invested in right now. A building contractor's business is based on how well new industries are being invested in. A collection agency is not really industry and agriculture. Do you know any actual production-based industries that aren't tech-related being funded?

Dang near everyone I know wants to expand business, but not hire. They want volume & profit, not burdens & risk. Obamacare scares the smaller companies, who don't have the resources to research its effects. Larger companies are better prepared to cope, eg, Truven.

The hiring problems were an issue before Obamacare. The states that are opting out should have this problem removed. It is just one excuse out of many for the big players to not invest.

The effective tax rate was never that high because it was offset by incentives (aka "loopholes") for investment. But they distorted the market in ways which wasted money, especially in real estate where bad investments were profitable because of the tax dodges. An effective tax rate of 95% would kill off all business.

I address this by saying that they invested their money. Do you have a link that shows that bad investments were profitable due to the "dodge"? (This dodge was the intended result). An effective tax rate of 95% on those making over a few million would give business a shot in the arm: It would kill off all the corrupt big bad players who don't want to play the game too.

I think your cure is worse than the disease. You would give the same gov which is mucking things even greater control.

But without government, the Private Sector can be just as bad if not worse if left to their own devices. At least with government you have a chance to rig it before the big players rig it.

Investment is going on. But it's greatly restricted both directly & indirectly by dysfunctional taxation & regulation.

So thus, new legislation is needed to fix those areas, but who will do it? Investment is going on to industries that don't necessarily drive the economy but make use of the bad financial situation if anything. Like collection agencies. As it stands, I don't think the taxes and regulation are THAT bad to completely discourage private investment in production-based industry. We're not even close to Europe and they chug along, especially in Germany. If we were taxed like the Germans, America would fall apart, yet Germany remains a power.

Again, if gov is the problem, I'm not inclined to give them even more power.

Bad gov is part of the problem indeed. The Free Market cartels are another big side of the problem. However, bad gov can be fixed. The Cartels....good luck.

Correlation is not causation. There were many factors:
- The effective tax rate on the wealthy was far far lower than 90%. It's a myth that a significant number of taxpayers ever mismanaged their affairs so badly that they actually paid the high nominal rates.

Again, I add that they invested in the money to avoid paying the full amount or anywhere close to it. Worked great apparently, even if "bad investments paid off", which would make them good investments, right?

- Regulation was far less.

I have addressed that the big businesses are largely responsible for putting crippling regulations in place that affect the small players much worse than the big players who can handle them.

- Foreign competition was less intense.

That's a whole issue in itself, but as it stands, Foreign Competition is also competing with the American worker for the same capital from American firms. Do you agree with foreign outsourced labor from China and Mexico and Vietnam? Maybe all that foreign free-market capital is WHY the foreign competition has grown so exponentially? The baby dragon they (Free Market investors) fed has now grown to a monster.

- Our balance of trade was better.

Indeed, before Private Investors turned China and Mexico into giant sweatshops to make their costs cheaper, the balance of trade was better. This also has to do with American purchasing decisions and lack of willing investment in industry.

- People were satisfied with less: smaller houses, more primitive health care, fewer cars, party line phones, no air conditioning, black & white TV, no internet, etc

Debatable, the purchasing power back then was greater for basic costs like food, clothing may been a little more expensive but was meant to last, costs of education were far less even inflation adjusted, there were many more jobs available per person, and the small players had more leverage. This subject has been debated often: The Baby Boomers had it better with their Black and White TVs economically speaking than Gen Y with our Flat Screens but where no jobs are available.

This is where regulation can be useful: curb political corruption, prevent monopolies, ban insider trading, etc

Okay, so government CAN be useful and effective. But doing it is the important part. I actually think Insider Trading is not necessarily wrong in many cases....but I could be wrong.

Really? Obama knows nothing of business, having never been in it. The party is rife with crony capitalism.

Of course it is. I'm not defending the crooked Democrat party which is a joke of a representative of the "big government party", I'm defending the concept that Government can be used to level the playing field and break up the gangs of organized rule-breakers and rule-twisters...in the hands of the right "Elites" who do the job of steering the sheep away from the Astroturf and into the fresh grasslands. But where are these Elites to counter the Washington Elites?

Nah....tis time to make Libertarians the problem. <--- The theme of this thread

And I'm saying that they don't have a clue what to do as far as actual legislation is concerned. There is no organized Libertarian agenda. Some want one thing, some want another. Who is running in the first place that would even have a serious challenge to the current financial problems in place?

Since party politics & incompetence are intrinsic to a democracy, that's why the best solution is to eliminate government run lenders like Fannie.

They are not intrinsic. The government can be run competently, look at Andrew Jackson sticking it to the (privately run) Second National Bank?

It sounds like you're suggesting that lobbyists write the laws, & then legislators enact them.
If done with transparency, that idea has some merit.

Of course it does. The Lobbyists are not always bad. The lobbyists often know exactly how to legislate what they want. So Libertarians should be making use of this process to fight fire with fire.

Government creates the legal & tax environment.
The private sector operates in it. What happens isn't about "lazy" or "unwilling".
The rules of the game are dysfunctional. The voters & politicians largely don't understand.

So how shall the rules be changed to make them functional? The private sector should be doing whatever it can to get out of its situation. I could go on and on about how there should be mroe private investment even with the current conditions.

I maintain that understanding is improved if more people are in business, & fewer are on the dole (eg, welfare, stimulus, bail-outs).
Since Dems, Pubs & Grees are all wedded to big government & the nanny state, the only way to achieve that is to make Libertarians "the problem".

How exactly shall we make Libertarians "the problem"? How do you plan to compete with the entrenched power if you have no serious leaders proposing radical legislation?

All parties field the best candidates they can.
Some win. Most lose. We are who we are.

And how do you propose to win? How do you propose to make the sheep vote how it must be voted to enact what is best? Why are Libertarians not more well funded in the political arena?

I place no hope in the approach that gov "can do things right". I'd design public policy, taxation & laws based upon what gov is likely to do.
I can't improve human beings, so I prefer a system which takes their failings & strengths into account.

Well I respectfully disagree, I believe that government has historically shown to be able to do the right thing, if they are overtly corrupt and geared to serve the will of the biggest Free market players in town, that's a reflection of society at large.

 

[Revoltingest]

Geeze...so many sentences. I'm starting to get really lost.
I won't be convinced that more gov't is the solution to bad gov't.
Let's just agree to put Libertarians in charge, let us be the problem, & see how it goes.

 

[Shermana]

I'll agree to Libertarian Socialists. I'll agree that Libertarian is a broad term, and that I think the idea of the extremes of Libertarianism have only manifested themselves in the forms of political machination to suit the big players' objectives which they'd do all the same in any other system, especially with less systems of controls. I'll agree that we need less and better regulations but more Regulating.

I agree that the government should not be involved particularly much in people's lives. What they should be heavily involved with however is the economy and the distribution of the available resources. The very nature of how wealth has shifted hands and into what pockets it exists today is a social injustice, I see little wrong with the government taking control of the entire economy and planning it in a way which most maximizes all its capabilities and production in a way which is also socially beneficial (i.e. Organic farming subsidies instead of Monsanto farming) if it is done correctly and not incompetently. This however requires the oft-mentioned "Vanguard". Without this political elite of charming, charismatic intellectuals nothing will get done under the voting system. It requires the right legislation to be put through the system. Without someone crafting this legislation, even if you had all libertarians in power, what are they going to vote for exactly? You need a plan that's ready to go and a vehicle ready to take it or you will lose the race to the donkeys and elephants on steroids.

Now if we agree to put Libertarians in charge, who are we agreeing to vote for exactly? What are agreeing to do to help put them in charge? What if I only want Libertarian Socialists? You said that they don't exist or it is a contradiction, yet we both agree there must be some "Government" involved and that you are against allowing monopolies to form, so you yourself are to some degree a Libertarian Socialist if you believe in government enforcement in the first place.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll agree to Libertarian Socialists. I'll agree that Libertarian is a broad term....

When you use the big "L", it becomes our party agenda....certified 100% socialism free.

.....and that I think the idea of the extremes of Libertarianism have only manifested themselves in the forms of political machination to suit the big players' objectives which they'd do all the same in any other system, especially with less systems of controls

It's about all players, not just the big'ns.

I'll agree that we need less and better regulations but more Regulating.

Say whuh?

I agree that the government should not be involved particularly much in people's lives. What they should be heavily involved with however is the economy and the distribution of the available resources.

That's why you're not one of us.

The very nature of how wealth has shifted hands and into what pockets it exists today is a social injustice....

Talk to the Dempublicans about that one.....we aren't the problem....yet.
Put us in charge, see what happens, & then carp about us, eh?

Now if we agree to put Libertarians in charge, who are we agreeing to vote for exactly?

Stronger civil liberties.
Less war.
More economic freedom.
Lower taxes.
Smaller gov't.
Nerdier leaders in Hawaiian shirts & uncombed hair.

What are agreeing to do to help put them in charge? What if I only want Libertarian Socialists? You said that they don't exist or it is a contradiction, yet we both agree there must be some "Government" involved and that you are against allowing monopolies to form, so you yourself are to some degree a Libertarian Socialist if you believe in government enforcement in the first place.

Socialism is about the gov owning the means of production.
Prevention of monopolies, regulating pollution, courts, cops, etc. don't strike me as socialistic.