Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Frenetic Fiddling

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

Sam Grove — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:32:42 -0000

I just don't see Obama as the enemy of liberty that you do.

Certainly Obama doesn't see his actions as a threat to liberty.

To avoid being eaten by tigers, it is better to see them when they aren't there, than to not see them when they are.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

John Dewey — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:26:07 -0000

boscoH: "Flood insurance. AT&T before deregulation (too long to be temporary). First class mail. Amtrak. Airport Security."

daniel kuehn: "every one of the industries that you list were justified by the nationalizers as some sort of "natural monopoly" or public interest."

What exactly do you mean by "public interest"?

Ensuring the survival and quality of our nation's food supply is the probably the most important "public interest". Should Obama and Congress use that "public interest" as justification for taking over food companies that fail? or farms that fail?

What was the "natural monopoly" possessed by Penn Central's passenger rail service? Greyhound and Continental Trailways certainly didn't view Penn Central as a "natural monopoly".

Prior to 2001, airport security was generally provided by passenger airline companies. Why do you argue airport security is or was a "natural monopoly"?

daniel kuehn: "You can make a "natural monopoly" argument for AT&T that you just can't make for car companies."

What was "natural" about the near-monopoly AT&T held in long distance telephone service?

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

John — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:08:40 -0000

yet another Dave,

I wonder what could be done to change things and stop that snowball, but I fear it is too late.

People once put more value upon something earned vs a gift, but now the distinction is increasingly vague.

We've got so many people getting these gifts from the government that they believe are theirs.

Words such as "deserve", "owe" and "fair" have been distorted into concepts that require the government taking from one and giving a gift to another.

I don't think it can be stopped. At best we can slow it down enough to prepare for the worst, but no I don't think it can be stopped.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

yetanotherDave — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:03:13 -0000

John,

I share your hope, and I too wonder if it's not already too late. I'm particularly interested in things we could do to at least start moving in the right direction. As in things that are politically possible. I struggle to come up with any because the incentives are so powerful to keep the snowball rolling ever faster down the hill toward us.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

John Dewey — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:03:11 -0000

daniel kuehn: "I'm guessing Congress will be meddling in GM and Chrysler until they feel no need to depend on subsidized loans any longer. Notice they're not touching Ford."

With Amtrak, the subsidies have lasted 38 years so far. Why do you think Congress will feel the need to meddle in GM for only a lesser period?

The government may not be "touching" Ford - and Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, and other auto manufacturers. But their actions have certainly impacted other providers of passenger vehicles.

When the U.S. government chose to subsidize Amtrak, it gave the passenger rail company a financial advantage over Greyhound, Continental Trailways, People's Express, American Airlines, and all other companies in the U.S. mass transit market.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:00:06 -0000

Oil Shock -

RE: "Yeah Daniel, you like to eat dog poop in small and increasing quantities and want to shove it down other peoples throat as well. No thank you. I don't live off of dog poop."

Yes - shoving dog poop down other people's throats... that's what I'm all about.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

John — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:51:12 -0000

yet another Dave,

I keep hoping we can have a peaceful revolution at the ballot box, but I'm losing hope.

It seems to me that we're at a tipping point where nearly half the population is what I call 'adult children', that is children in adult bodies in need of someone to take care of them.

They will always vote for the one who promises the most, not caring who is hurt by it anymore than a spoiled child cares about anything outside their selfish interests.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

yetanotherDave — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:42:29 -0000

Daniel:

I'm on the fence about certain policy decisions or economic debates or ideological arguments. I'm not on the fence in a battle for liberty. I just don't see Obama as the enemy of liberty that you do.

Then I conclude that you're either blind, foolishly optimistic, or willfully ignorant. Any of these is very dangerous IMO.

By the way, it's not just Obama, he is just one in the latest group of politricksters. Even if the intentions of this latest group are completely good it doesn't matter. Their rhetoric also doesn't matter. What matters are the results of what they do.

I believe those results will reduce our liberty, and therefore they are enemies of liberty. I wish more people would wake up and realize what's going on. Things that would have been outrageous 30 years ago are now widely accepted. Things that are outrageous now will be common in another 30 years unless enough people start fighting back. (BTW, I'm not calling for armed revolution here, just in case anybody would take that meaning.)

- Oh, and please forgive the garbled previous post (the middle is what I wanted; the beginning part-paragraph and last line should have been deleted). I evidently forgot how to use a keyboard

:o)

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

Oil Shock — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:39:27 -0000

Yeah Daniel, you like to eat dog poop in small and increasing quantities and want to shove it down other peoples throat as well. No thank you. I don't live off of dog poop.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

John — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:39:10 -0000

"you may find patterns that you want to find, not patterns that really exist."

I'll give you that. But something doesn't need a large group of people to agree upon it to be true, and a large group of people can agree on something that is false.

I'm not sure that Obama and company are specifically trying to expand government power for power's sake, I think they really believe in what they are doing.

Continually expanding regulations at the price of liberty and choice can only lead to totalitarianism where every movement requires a permit or supervision.

It's an incoming tide of government encroachment, with an inevitable result of a totalitarian state.

Forward and back, forward and back, but always more forward than back.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:38:13 -0000

BoscoH-

I didn't say they shouldn't have corporate jets! I just said I'm not going to lose sleep over Congress shaming them into driving to DC for a Congressional hearing.

RE: "Flood insurance. AT&T before deregulation (too long to be temporary). First class mail. Amtrak. Airport Security."

Other good examples. I said one came to mind immediately, and certainly there are more. My point was that despite significant meddling in steel, autos, and banks in the past there has never been any permanent power grab for them. Notice that every one of the industries that you list were justified by the nationalizers as some sort of "natural monopoly" or public interest. And certainly we can argue whether that justification was right or not. I'm really not a big-government kind of guy. I just think about what we have nationalized in the past, and what we've interfered with but not nationalized - and I see very important distinctions that indicate to me that this is not some kind of permanent power-grab. I just don't see it. I see no desire for it, and I see no precedent for it. You can make a "natural monopoly" argument for AT&T that you just can't make for car companies. I'm not an apologist for government - I just think the distinctions are very important.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

BoscoH — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:31:00 -0000

Daniel asks: Name me an industry that we've nationalized in the past that wasn't temporary.

Flood insurance. AT&T before deregulation (too long to be temporary). First class mail. Amtrak. Airport Security.

And your comment on "not minding" the Congressional shame machine over corporate jets illustrates that you (like many in government) don't care about the basics of the auto industry! These companies have plant, distribution, and retail that is not always within reach of major airports. Corporate jets give managers the ability to reach important sites quickly by giving them access to smaller, regional airports with less lead time.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

lightduty — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:29:24 -0000

Obama said his team was coming up with a business plan for GM. Two thoughts on that.

1 - a real business plan, written by the White House, would be extreme micro-management. Even the army doesn't have to suffer the pols at the WH writing their operational documents.

2 - Who in Obama's team has EVER written a business plan before?

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

txslr — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:24:19 -0000

These things proceed by fits and starts. Certainly no one on this blog would claim that prior to Obama's inauguration we had a perfectly free market everywhere and that, after 60+ days we are on the road to perdition and socialism. However, this action with respect to the auto industry is frighteningly similar to other things that the government has done since the 1930's in particular. Government gets involved in the markets to right some wrong, creates a bigger problem, blames it on the markets, gets more involved, lather, rinse repeat. It is much easier to find examples of industries that the government has increased it meddling in - sometimes nearly monotonicaly - than otherwise. Health care, pharma, autos, agriculture, home finance, banking, investment banking, come to mind immediately. On the other side - maybe airlines. Maybe trucking. The government avoided going after delivery of non-first class mail which counts for something. Still, slim pickings.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:08:26 -0000

John -

RE: "You seem to be attracted to quick movements, which means you don't see the boogey men because they are moving too slowly to catch your attention, and so large that you must step backwards to view them in their entirety."

Haha - perhaps. The risk on the flip side of that coin is that when you specifically set about to "connect the dots" in the big picture you may find patterns that you want to find, not patterns that really exist.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

John — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:04:57 -0000

DK,

You seem to be attracted to quick movements, which means you don't see the boogey men because they are moving too slowly to catch your attention, and so large that you must step backwards to view them in their entirety.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

Fabio Franco — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:02:40 -0000

What is really scary is that Prof. Roberts has dismissed the argument that President Obama is a socialist. Isn't he going against an argument Hayek himself would have used?

"Socialist ideas have so deeply penetrated general thought that it is not even only those pseudo-liberals who merely disguise their socialism by the name they have assumed, but also many conservatives who have assumed socialist ideas and language and constantly employ them in the belief that they are an established part of current thought. (From "Law, Legislation and Liberty", vol. III «The Political Order of a Free People»).

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:01:59 -0000

yet another Dave -

I'm on the fence about certain policy decisions or economic debates or ideological arguments. I'm not on the fence in a battle for liberty. I just don't see Obama as the enemy of liberty that you do.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:59:23 -0000

John -

RE: "Am I far off?"

I think you're quite far off, at least in characterizing my opinion. I don't think you're a paranoid tin-foil hat wearer - I just don't see boogey men where you do.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

yetanotherDave — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:58:39 -0000

Daniel,

I think you completely missed my point. Whether an industry has been permanently nationalized iDaniel,

I think you completely missed my point. Whether any industry has been permanently nationalized is irrelevant to my point. The point is that this is an expansion of government power. Even if the politicians are only thinking 2 years ahead, the cumulative effect of their deviousness is to expand government power at the expense of our liberty.

I find your positions extremely dangerous, because you seem to understand that the government is over-stepping its bounds, yet you make excuses for them. You seem to me to have an “it won’t happen here” attitude. You defend that attitude by splitting hairs over perceptions about how bad this or that particular event is.

Whether you realize it or not, we are engaged in a battle for liberty. The battle has been happening for generations, and liberty is losing. I would love for you to hop off the fence and join the voices trying to turn the tide.

s irrelavent

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:57:04 -0000

Oil Shock -

RE: "Where did Russ say anything about fullscale nationalization?"

He didn't - that was my point. He did talk about the administration "running" the car companies.

RE: "I don't like to eat from a plate that has small amounts of dog poop, and you pointing out that it is not a whole plate of dog poop doesn't make a difference.

Hmmm... not sure how illuminating that metaphor is - but I'd personally rather eat a small amount of poop than a lot of it. You're assuming that temporary and permanent measures are both bad, and the difference is only in degree. I don't make that assumption and I think that some intervention may actually bear fruit in the future. So I think the value of your metaphor depends on me actually agreeing with you - which is an odd strategy for trying to convince me of anything.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

John — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:49:13 -0000

"But I have a feeling it's going to play out somewhat differently and Obama will not end up being another Putin or Chavez."

Not if he has anything to do with it.

That giggle we heard in that interview with Steve Kroft was not a nervous twitter of a man accustomed to a teleprompter, rather the intoxicated laughter of someone who is drunk with power.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

Crusader — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:48:49 -0000

2 examples of government failure - year after year:

Post office

Amtrack

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:45:35 -0000

John -

RE: "Really? How so? Because Fannie Mae was a government agency before it became a private corporation? "

Right.

On Amtrak - I was actually thinking thinking of the government control of the money supply, but Amtrak is a good example as well.

I'm guessing Congress will be meddling in GM and Chrysler until they feel no need to depend on subsidized loans any longer. Notice they're not touching Ford. I've been very troubled reading all this all morning. Don't get me wrong - it's not good news at all. But I have a feeling it's going to play out somewhat differently and Obama will not end up being another Putin or Chavez.

Re: Frenetic Fiddling

John — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:44:39 -0000

It seems we've got two camps here. Those who see nationalization and totalitarianism around the corner, and those who say "Prove it! I won't believe anything unless it is documented in triplicate, peer reviewed, full consensus, and endorsed by at least ten celebrities. Anthropogenic Global Warming is fact, encroachment of our civil liberties is a fiction dreamed up by paranoid tinfoil hat wearers."

Am I far off?