An Anti-Libertarian FAQ Worth Talking About?

[foo barf]

I read the wikipedia link. It was not very satisfactory. I want to know an account of why is it happening, not just what happening.

it happened because people have crazy ideas and think they know whats best for the country, people get drunk on power and ideology. the teachings of economics at universities and schools are a joke and create scholars destined to perpetuate classism.

Also, home insurance companies can provide building code, because it's in their interest in reducing the likelihood of a fire so that they don't have to pay to the homeowner. They could increase premium if homeowner do not have a house that comply with the building code. They will reward homeowners that comply with the building code of the company. So the whole idea of free markets don't provide regulations is a bunch of nonsense.

well, we had a 7.1 mag earthquake here recently. some insurance companies are not honouring their policies and refusing to pay out. there goes you're theory that the market helps. but, there was some help, The New Zealand government, during a time of a socialist policy, had setup an Earthquake Comission, which is a state-owned enterprise designed to rescue consumers in the event of failure of the insurance market during catastrophic events. forgive my language but fuck that stupid idea of free market's being a panacea, they are not, the reality is contrary to your belief. we have a similar system to address failings in the health insurance market called ACC.

[1714991322]

1714991322

[1714991322]

1714991322

[theymos]

A government operating under Austrian economic principles would not raise spending. However, during the "Rogernomics" period, the government did just that:

Foreign debt quadrupled. New Zealand's credit rating was downgraded twice.

[marcus_of_augustus]

just how is Bitcoin/<crypto-currency> going to kick the asses of these 'communistic' keynesian systems?

Well, well, oh learned one. If you haven't figured out the link between money, economic freedom, personal freedom and its anti-thesis to socialism you have along way to come. Hint, begin with why gold is money for the ages and why socialists and facists alike hate it.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed eh? You seem to be a forgotten, rusty old socialistic relic left in an abandoned gully somewhere, like a railway system from the 1900's.

[foo barf]

Well, well, oh learned one. If you haven't figured out the link between money, economic freedom, personal freedom and its anti-thesis to socialism you have along way to come. Hint, begin with why gold is money for the ages and why socialists and facists alike hate it.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed eh? You seem to be a forgotten, rusty old socialistic relic left in an abandoned gully somewhere, like a railway system from the 1900's.

I wonder if you even realise, that it was Karl Marx's idea to introduce the stock market to the public. scarcity huh? you should get into photovoltaic minerals.

fuck off mate... we had some awesome railway engineering in the 1900s ! faster than than 12 packhorses!

[foo barf]

if you've got the time heres an interesting docco, 'for 40 years New Zealand had full employment'

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/in-a-land-of-plenty-2002

[Anonymous]

New Zealand had a government the whole time. Thats the reason for the whole mess not the "free market".

This allows corporations to control the policies of the country imo.

With no state you dont have to worry about the "nwo"  either.

Libertarianism has been co-opted these days by the mainstream political parties and stands for nothing. Look at Bob Barr in the US for example - a former mainstream politician = fail.

It is used to dirty the name of true liberty and market freedom - a false flag if you will.

You're just stating stuff without backing your argument up.

orly? Since when are arguments on the internet about facts and figures ? 

People will believe their own mindset and nothing I link them too will change it and it is a waste of energy to do so.

 Do I have to drag out the chart of the 200 million people killed by their own governments in history in each thread where socialist trolls hang out ?

[fergalish]

Why did the market fail to provide regulations of building code?

I'm not informed about this discussion of NZ, but if it ain't because people need cheap houses and builders were happy to fill the gap without a thought for the future, then I'll eat a bitcoin.

[kiba]

it happened because people have crazy ideas and think they know whats best for the country, people get drunk on power and ideology. the teachings of economics at universities and schools are a joke and create scholars destined to perpetuate classism.

I don't want to hear about how terrible they are. I want an economic analysis of how free markets fail.

well, we had a 7.1 mag earthquake here recently. some insurance companies are not honouring their policies and refusing to pay out. there goes you're theory that the market helps. but, there was some help, The New Zealand government, during a time of a socialist policy, had setup an Earthquake Comission, which is a state-owned enterprise designed to rescue consumers in the event of failure of the insurance market during catastrophic events. forgive my language but fuck that stupid idea of free market's being a panacea, they are not, the reality is contrary to your belief. we have a similar system to address failings in the health insurance market called ACC.

You said "some", not all. Is the court doing their job of dragging "some" of these corporations into fulfilling their obligation with their customer? If not, the government is implicit in helping insurance companies avoid fulfilling their contracts.

[kiba]

if you've got the time heres an interesting docco, 'for 40 years New Zealand had full employment'

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/in-a-land-of-plenty-2002

Will probably never watch videoes. I generally hate video as a medium of delivering information. If you have an equivalent article that said the same thing, that would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you feel like, you could summarize the video.

[kiba]

A government operating under Austrian economic principles would not raise spending. However, during the "Rogernomics" period, the government did just that:

Foreign debt quadrupled. New Zealand's credit rating was downgraded twice.

If indeed the public debt is increasing in that period where government should be cutting spending, than it make sense that some of the problem in that country is probably caused by increased debt burden. However, I don't understand if the foreign debt include public and private. The article said that the public debt in 1995 return to pre-1984 level. She didn't mentioned that the public debt had been decreasing for 5 years until this article was written.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/New_Zealand_overseas_debt_1993-2010.svg

1993 to 2010 onward, government debt remain stable. Private debt are always increasing. GDP is also growing. We still don't understand what's going on before 1993.

Wikipedia said that the private debt are a result of trade imbalance:

one reason why New Zealand runs persistent current account deficits, that drives the net foreign debt upwards, is that earnings from agricultural exports and tourism fail to cover the imports of advanced manufactured goods and other imports (such as imported fuels) required to sustain the New Zealand economy. However, this trade imbalance is much smaller than the investment income imbalance which makes up the vast majority of New Zealand's current account deficit.

I am beginning to understand the New Zealand economy, but I have no clear understanding of what's going on during this 1984-1993 reform period.

[kiba]

orly? Since when are arguments on the internet about facts and figures ?  

People will believe their own mindset and nothing I link them too will change it and it is a waste of energy to do so.

 Do I have to drag out the chart of the 200 million people killed by their own governments in history in each thread where socialist trolls hang out ?

On closer inspection, your arguments have nothing to do with the discussion at hand in which New Zealand is considered as a free market policy failure. We don't need to keep hearing libertarian propaganda that does nothing to advance the debate.

Although the case is not looking good anyway, because the guy who supported this theory have failed to repeatedly explain anything for the last few pages.

[kiba]

Why did the market fail to provide regulations of building code?

I'm not informed about this discussion of NZ, but if it ain't because people need cheap houses and builders were happy to fill the gap without a thought for the future, then I'll eat a bitcoin.

That's a plausible explanation. It might be able to explain why the housing standard are degrading. Of course, we need statistics on housing demand to determine if it could fit.

[kiba]

just how is Bitcoin/<crypto-currency> going to kick the asses of these 'communistic' keynesian systems?

Well, well, oh learned one. If you haven't figured out the link between money, economic freedom, personal freedom and its anti-thesis to socialism you have along way to come. Hint, begin with why gold is money for the ages and why socialists and facists alike hate it.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed eh? You seem to be a forgotten, rusty old socialistic relic left in an abandoned gully somewhere, like a railway system from the 1900's.

Had this devolved into a flamewar about who could spew the most facts and memes for their position? Does it have anything to do with my attempt to understand New Zealand refrom policies?

[ribuck]

... I have no clear understanding of what's going on during this 1984-1993 reform period ...

I lived in New Zealand from 1986 to 1992, which included the time where Roger Douglas and David Lange were reforming the economy. It was a fabulous time to be living there.

Prior to the 1980s, New Zealand was a "good" example of a socialist economy. Even the state-provided housing was of very good quality, and virtually no-one was homeless. Employment was high, but so was tax, and import duties were very restrictive. There were some racial tensions, but mostly it was a peaceful and comfortable country.

Although most people had decent housing and a steady job, you couldn't call the country prosperous by any measure. The average person couldn't afford a nice car, because they were extremely expensive. Nor were luxury consumer goods affordable. By that I mean, few people would have been able to afford (for example) a high quality camera. But for sure, all the basics of life were provided for, for most people.

But in the early 1980s, the government had experimented with "big business" capitalism. The government had taxed heavily to fund what they called the "Think Big" programs. These involved very large industrial and "public works" projects, way beyond what the country could afford, and the projects were chosen for political purposes rather than for cost-benefit ratio. Of course much of the profits went to the corporations that contracted with the government to build these things.

As a result of the "Think Big" projects, the government got deep into debt. Inflation rose, and unemployment rose. The Bank of New Zealand was bordering on insolvency.

Against this background, there was a change of government and the Labour Party was elected. Much to everyone's surprise, the Prime Minister (David Lange) and Finance Minister (Roger Douglas) turned out to be a bunch of libertarians and started to tear down the mechanisms of the state. They bailed out the Bank of New Zealand (for almost a thousand million NZ$ if my memory serves me correctly). They deregulated the labour market to reduce unemployment (which worked) and they balanced the budget to stabilize interest rates (which worked), and they moved towards inflation targeting for central bank policy to reduce inflation (which worked).

The were driven by the notion of the government's job being simply to provide a "level playing field" for enterprise to flourish, and to quite a large extent they succeeded. Because government policy was driven by this central idea of the "level playing field", the job of lobbyist virtually disappeared, because there were no favours being given out in response to lobbying.

Lange and Douglas steamrollered ahead, but they went one step further than the electorate was prepared to accept, when they announced the introduction of a flat rate of income tax. They quickly backtracked on this, but nevertheless lost the next election.

Along the way, they had also made three other big changes. They introduced Goods and Services Tax (in a very fair way, without loopholes), but of course in my opinion any tax increase is bad. And they stood up for themselves on matters of principle relating to warfare (even to the extent of upsetting their allies, the USA) -- for example, in the first gulf while everyone else sent combat troops, New Zealand sent a hospital ship. And the government gave the people a chance to choose the voting system. Although the government campaigned to retain the first-past-the-post system, the people chose a preferential system (wisely, in my opinion).

[kiba]

I lived in New Zealand from 1986 to 1992, which included the time where Roger Douglas and David Lange were reforming the economy. It was a fabulous time to be living there.

Thanks for providing a counter-perspective but also giving me a few crucial explanatory details for me to work with. Your post is long so it will take me a while to digest and come up with questions about New Zealand economy. It's not exactly the best argument in the world but I don't think your intention is to refute Foo Barf's arguments.

[theymos]

Forbes agrees with my previous source on the data about debt, but it attributes NZ's later success to policies introduced by Douglas.

The revolutionary free-market ideas of Labor's finance minister, Roger Douglas, even contaminated New Zealand's conservative National Party. Consequently, both political parties have introduced one innovative reform after another, and New Zealand has realized the largest increase in economic freedom in the world since 1985. It now ranks third-highest in the world in economic freedom, just behind Hong Kong and Singapore. Guess what? The IMF'S World Economic Outlook issued last month [1996] forecasts that New Zealand's real GDP growth rate will average 3.95% over the next two years [1996-1998], compared with a 2.3% average for all industrial countries.

Just look at those numbers. Net public debt has been reduced from 52% of GDP in 1992 to 37.6% last year [1995], and is scheduled to fall to 17.6% by 1999.

The Wall Street Journal also considers "Rogernomics" to be beneficial, citing improvements in various stats over the period. Like Forbes, it puts the responsibility for debt decreases on earlier policies.

Output is projected to increase 4.6% this fiscal year [1994], the third straight year of steady growth. The government is in surplus for the first time in 17 years [1977-1993]; net public debt is to be down to 30% of GDP by 1997; it was over 60% not many years ago. The country is nearly square in its current account. And inflation is under 2%, in keeping with a mandate to the central bank that was another product of the reform years.

The Journal goes on to explain that the policies failed because they were unpopular, not because they were unsuccessful. "It hit the wall that such endeavors usually do: The people like their gravy."

References:
Hanke, Steve H. 1996. "A revolution that paid off". Forbes.
"The new zealand experiment". 1994. Wall Street Journal.

[ribuck]

It's not exactly the best argument in the world but I don't think your intention is to refute Foo Barf's arguments.

I wasn't trying to argue anything. I was just posting my fond recollections, which I have also written about elsewhere.

[fergalish]

Well, I've finally got around to reading the anti-libertarian FAQ of the title of this thread - so you don't have to go to that first page, here's the link again: http://www.raikoth.net/libertarian.html

It's a good read, but in particular, there's one (for me) outstanding point (section 2.14.1):

If people are really dumb enough so as to think "Hmm, government regulation of basic minimum safety standards for industrial products have worked okay, so I'll bet letting a huge, oppressive government control every facet of our lives would work GREAT!" then people are probably also too dumb to responsibly live in a libertarian society.

What he's saying is this: libertarians claim that a docile population will lead to ever bigger and more dictatorial governments, but if people are really that docile, then they'd never be able to participate in a libertarian society.  Comments?

[kiba]

What he's saying is this: libertarians claim that a docile population will lead to ever bigger and more dictatorial governments, but if people are really that docile, then they'd never be able to participate in a libertarian society.  Comments?

By your logic, they cannot participate in anything. No matter what, they are d00med.

[error]

If people are really dumb enough so as to think "Hmm, government regulation of basic minimum safety standards for industrial products have worked okay, so I'll bet letting a huge, oppressive government control every facet of our lives would work GREAT!" then people are probably also too dumb to responsibly live in a libertarian society.

What he's saying is this: libertarians claim that a docile population will lead to ever bigger and more dictatorial governments, but if people are really that docile, then they'd never be able to participate in a libertarian society.  Comments?

I don't think the issue is that people think this; I can't imagine anybody thinking: "I want an oppressive dictator to control me!"

I think the issue is that people don't realize that the small, incremental changes ultimately lead to the same thing. The "spirit of resistance" is largely gone, at least in the USSA. These days, you're more likely to see a "spirit of dependence" leading to such bizarre sights as the Greece-style protests in Wisconsin by government employees upset that their gravy train can't keep going forever.