patrick.net

In Britan, the Labour party has actually promised to do away with the business cycle; Gordon Brown (likely to be Tony Blair’s successor as PM) actually used “No Return to Boom and Bust” as one of his campaign slogans!

I laugh when people try to do away with the business cycle.

It is possible to eliminate the boom/bust cycle, only if you leave it in a permanently depressed state. :)

Bring back the Conservative Party!

I really hate to brand or label people... but any human who thinks he can defeat boom/bust cycles is a communist.

I really hate to brand or label people… but any human who thinks he can defeat boom/bust cycles is a communist.

Or laughably self-delusional, or both. Even so, I think NIMBY laws have the effect of making the boom/bust cycles far more severe. If there was ever a clear-cut example of government interference creating moral hazrds, the RE bubble is it. And CA is the poster child.

It is possible to eliminate the boom/bust cycle, only if you leave it in a permanently depressed state.

can you reference any respected authority on this? given that govts generally don't want to see depressions under their watch, although they still seem very ignorant of the economic drivers...

so booms and busts are essential now. once again, we should just shut down this site then. total waste of time. the economy is on track, lending practices are normal and prudential, and tulip booms, dotcom crashes and having your life savings wiped out overnight because you believed in 'the system' is perfectly normal and acceptable. further, you are not entitled to an affordable house anywhere in the country, just get used to renting forever and retiring on nothing.

what's a communist?

The head of the local preservation trust (which primarily sought to limit building on unbuilt lots) when I lived in Belmont was a popular local Libertarian politician. I always found it odd that a Libertarian was the head NIMBY.

I really do not understand libertarianism then.

The only way we can save the world is for everyone to become more spiritual and care about everyone else. This is so far away from human nature that we can forget about it.

can you reference any respected authority on this?

I am a self-respected person and so I hereby reference myself. :) Just kidding.

Boom/bust cycles are horrible. But they are no worse than humanity.

If there was ever a clear-cut example of government interference creating moral hazards, the RE bubble is it. And CA is the poster child.

hmmm, so CA state laws have created the boom? nothing to do with people in a private market bidding higher and higher? getting more and more credit from private sector lenders without regulation or oversight? completely uncontrolled by govts? given the most recent thread pointing out that 40% of purchases are investments or holiday homes.

can you point to any sound reason the govt is to blame? except that centralised banks control the single economic lever of interest rates, which has multiple effects on multiple parts of the economy, often working in different directions to somebody's detriment.

and given that similar booms are occurring in a dozen OECD countries in the world right now due to historically low interest rates, liberalised credit offerings by private sector lenders, and no curbs on free market speculation. so they're all suffering from govt-induced moral hazards? i'd like to see the peer-reviewed academic paper on that - presume you're working on one... those views are not just blind prejudice and idiotically blind self-destructive tendencies - like the poor Republican-voting farmers of the red states guaranteeing their kids will never get to college and they will never get affordable health care...

I always found it odd that a Libertarian was the head NIMBY.

hmm, people often have self-inconsistent belief systems. surprise, surprise. politicians just go with their gut instincts on everything, anyhow, no matter how contradictory it is... whatever has personal or voter appeal...

hmm, people often have self-inconsistent belief systems. surprise, surprise. politicians just go with their gut instincts on everything, anyhow, no matter how contradictory it is… whatever has personal or voter appeal…

Different Sean, sometimes I really wonder how much our beliefs are different yet how much the are the same. :)

Uhhh....DS,

We basically agree on the central bank/low interest rates (plus GSE/MBS/taxpayer risk underwriting) having started this whole thing. What I'm basically saying is you have two government-induced moral hazards operating side-by-side here:

(a) Federal (and international) level: The Fed/CB injects massive amounts of liquidity into mortgage/banking system, which gets loaned out to Jill & Joe McDebtor in the form of IO/neg-am/no-doc jumbo-sized loans. Which triggers bidding wars and much higher prices. Risk gets transferred from banks/S&Ls to individual taxpayers & investors, thanks to mortgages getting sold and repackaged as MBS/CMOs. Speculation is also partly taxpayer subsidized in the form of over-generous capital gains exemptions, mortgage interest deductions (incl. investment property), 1031 exchanges, etc.

The stimulus/effects are mostly temporary, and lasts only until short rates are raised back above CPI levels, and while GSEs remain solvent. Whether or not the speculation-friendly tax incentives are more permanent remains to be see.

(b) State and local level: NIMBY anti-development laws & Prop. 13 tax re-distribution schemes erect barriers and disincentivize new housing development/zoning.

This has a much longer lasting, more permanent impact on housing prices regionally than the federal stimulus above. Even in the complete absence of a speculative bubble, CA house prices would be far higher than most other states. There is no other good reason why this is so, "sunshine premium" notwithstanding.

Bring back the Conservative Party!

Thatcher got voted out because the policies weren't working, and she was making life very unpleasant for a lot of people other than her elite cronies. There was, amongst other things, a 'grey rebellion' when she started axing meals on wheels services for senior citizens...

I don't know why people who are unahppy with CA have to go to Tenessee or Texas, what about other places in the world?

I have been to Dallas, you can't pay me enough to move there. I have been to Tenessee on business as well, thanks but no thanks. Now if I only have a couple mil to spare, these are definitely not the places where I fancy I can advance my personal wealth or intellectual stimulation further. Nothing wrong with these nice country folks, just not my cup of tea. If I have a couple Bil to spare, then I may consider moving there, with the intent of turning the local town into some sort of paradise I envision.

If one day CA becomes unbearable, I would rather move to Seattle. If Seattle fails, then Vancouver, if Vancouver doesn't work out, Sydney, if Sydney fails, I will exhaust London, Tokyo before I even think about Dallas. It is not that important that I have to stay in the US, my family are sort of scattered around the English speaking countries. But growing up in a cosmopolitan, I require some minimum degree of filth and crime to get by. :-)

Even in the complete absence of a speculative bubble, CA house prices would be far higher than most other states. There is no other good reason why this is so, “sunshine premium” notwithstanding.

so nothing to do with 'get rich quick' messages, irrational exuberance of markets, people believing investment properties will be their 'retirement plan', general ignorance of fundamentals, panic buying in a boom, opportunistic speculation, 'the guy next door just made a fortune', etc etc - just like the dotcom boom...

there is abundant housing to go around, despite people pointing to curbs on development. i think the price hikes are far more sinister than just a putative supply/demand effect.

Different Sean,
Have you read “What’s the matter with Kansas?”

No, I've seen excerpts from it, and reviews of it, and I was definitely subliminally channeling Thomas Frank in that remark, because he sums the situation up so neatly in his writing...

@Different Sean,

Irrational exuberance/mass psychology has a great deal to do with the business cycle, which is why no government will ever be able to regulate it out of existence. Basically, most government attempts to "regulate" innate irrational human behavior tends to be either ineffective or backfire and make things worse.

I am basically an advocate for simple asset class-nuetral flat taxes (income, consumption, whatever), eliminating taxpayer lending risk underwriting, and letting the markets determine what are "appropriate" interest rates (i.e., risk premiums). Being free of various interest group's sacred-cow subsidies / exemptions / shelters / risk-underwriting would mean a truly nuetral, moral hazard-free tax system. Of course, I'm not so naive to expect this will actually happen anytime soon.

The Fed/CB injetcs massive amounts of liquidity into mortgage/banking system, which gets loaned out to Jill & Joe McDebtor in the form of IO/neg-am/no-doc jumbo-sized loans.

that's not what happens in australia, and yet the boom here is worse than anywhere. funding for mortgages in most other countries comes direct from private sector lenders, and even pension funds. indeed from anyone who thinks they will get a strong and safe return on investment based on brokering mortgages. how do the private banks get injections of funds from the government or from central banks?

further, it was a decision by the private sector banks internationally to liberalise their lending standards and create exciting new 'investment products' for specuvestors, not the central banks.

(reserve banks were set up in some countries as far back as the late 19th century to stop banking and economic crises from happening as the economy boomed and busted and there were massive runs on funds withdrawals which could not be met, and as in the Great Depression - they are supposed to be a self-regulating prudential authority - there is something here called APRA - Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, which stepped in recently and told the banks to stop lending so freely to so many borderlline credit cases... which is one plank of the way to contain the boom...)

astrid,

shanghai will be quite high on my list if they fix the following problems:

1) Rampant pollution
In winter you feel like you are trapped in a gas chamber. I got sick often when I traveled to that parts of the world. The infrastructural development is sure amazing, and pretty much at par with HK, but the air pollution is unbearable.

Aside from that, they need to fix the quality of food. Even the foreign supermarket chains are selling expired food items or knockoffs, what can I say? Regardless of how good the money is, I won't compromise on my health.

2) Lack of a trustworthy legal system
I don't particularly care for democracy, nor do I hold a grudge against the communists, I can live in Singapore alright. But there is a sheer disrespect of law anywhere in China, and because I did some deals there, I got to see how nasty things could get.

If they fix these couple of problems, I probably will go to Shanghai before I head for Vancouver.

CA has a severe perennial shortage of entry level rental housing.

probably. altho it has more active 'affordable housing' programs than most places in australia, especially sydney, which has become incredibly laissez-faire and indifferent. even those places are probably a drop in the ocean though.

income tax in the UK and Australia has been progressive since its inception. to raise funds for govt, under a flat tax system, you would have to peg it relatively low so that low income earners have enough left to live on after tax, but then the govt is robbing itself as high income earners will be left with far more discretionary income than they need to live comfortably, and the govt will be unnecessarily reducing its own incomes. to peg it high will cause an unbearable burden on lower income earners. the overall effect of progressive tax is to raise about 30% of total income across the workforce, similar to setting a flat tax at 30%, but with a social justice weighting. either way, you can rest assured that the govt is definitely going to raise that money. flattening taxes might work, in peacetime, but you are currently not at peace. on the other hand, limiting the amount of money govt can raise might in turn discourage it from going off on adventures of neo-colonial conquest at great public expense...

but i don't think you can have wars and a flat tax system...

altho it has more active ‘affordable housing’ programs than most places in australia, especially sydney, which has become incredibly laissez-faire and indifferent.

Affordable housing program? It is a disgrace.

My friend looked at a "luxury" condo in Los Alto (around 1M). Of the 15 or so units, two are designated as "Below Market Rate" for lower-income people. Both are still vacant after more than a year. It is a complete waste of resources. They are doing it just for the sake of doing it. They are not helping anyone at all.

We need pro-growth laws instead. Just let the developers build whatever they want wherever they want and we will have affordable housing in no time.

I wouldn’t go that far. I do like BA’s open space. It’s so much nicer than LA because there’s all this green space.

Then I guess we will just have to pay the premium.

that’s not what happens in australia, and yet the boom here is worse than anywhere. funding for mortgages in most other countries comes direct from private sector lenders, and even pension funds. indeed from anyone who thinks they will get a strong and safe return on investment based on brokering mortgages. how do the private banks get injections of funds from the government or from central banks?

DS,

I can't speak for how things work in Oz, but here the Federal Reserve Bank ('the Fed') is clearly a prime cuplrit behind the current huge run-up in mortgage liquidity and erosion of lending standards (along with the GSEs, which essentially socialize mortgage risk). To fully explain how the Fed accomplished this would itself merit it's own dedicated thread (perhaps a future topic?).

In a nutshell, they basically lowered the Fed "discount" rate for member banks (pretty much any national bank/S&L is Fed chartered) to 1% for about 2 1/2 years. This meant that the rate at which member banks could borrow money was negative in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. This had the effect of pouring gasoline on the fire of speculation. Member banks were basically able to lend money out to anyone with (or without) a pulse and still turn a profit on the spread. Most of this money got funneled into subprime mortgage lending, which may not have been the Fed's original intent. In addition to setting the short-term "discount" rate, the Fed also has the power to literally "create" money by direct-depositing credit into its member banks' accounts.

For more info, refer to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve_bank

My friend looked at a “luxury” condo in Los Alto (around 1M). Of the 15 or so units, two are designated as “Below Market Rate” for lower-income people. Both are still vacant after more than a year. It is a complete waste of resources. They are doing it just for the sake of doing it. They are not helping anyone at all.

can you elaborate on that one? does that mean they are still too expensive? like 800K? i wouldn't call that affordable for low income earners, heh. are they supposed to be rentals only? does that mean if they pushed it up to 'market rates' they would immediately get tenants/buyers?

the problem here could be that you have to qualify for the apartment on a means tested basis, but they are still too expensive for anyone who passes the test. in that case, the developer also misses out on a return, so everyone takes some hurt. don't really undestand this situation at all...

Government-sponsored "affordable" housing measures, whether of the direct kind (government "projects", a-la Cabrini Green), or indirect (forcing developers to sell X-% of units at below-market price) have historically proven to be consistently miserable failures. Ditto for rent "control".

CA indeed has some of the most stringent "afforable housing" measures in the country (not to mention the worst anti-development NIMBY laws), but --surprise, surprise-- also has the LEAST affordable housing of any state in the country. This is what happens when you have government trying to decide winners and losers in the marketplace, and trying to dictate what kind & how much housing gets built.

Like Peter P says, just let the developers build whatever they want wherever they want and we will have affordable housing in no time.

can you elaborate on that one? does that mean they are still too expensive? like 800K? i wouldn’t call that affordable for low income earners, heh. are they supposed to be rentals only? does that mean if they pushed it up to ‘market rates’ they would immediately get tenants/buyers?

Exactly. They will still be way too expensive.

If they are at market rate, there should be no problem finding buyers.

We need to have affordable housing at market rate. We cannot distort the market or we will not accomplish much.

Increasing supply is the only way.

the Federal Reserve Bank (’the Fed’) is clearly a prime cuplrit behind the current huge run-up in mortgage liquidity and erosion of lending standards

i would have thought that the lenders actually offering the products would have been the prime culprits, as well as the specuvestors and other actors in the market. no-one is making them take the products, nor stopping the banks from offering them. it's like saying if there is a loaded gun in front of me, i can't resist the urge to pick it up and kill someone, so the gun manufacturer is at fault, and then the person that placed it on the table.

it's at best a complicated interaction of govt involvement and private sector practices and market outcomes. altho, yes, the idea of the fed is to maintain a stable economy and increase wellbeing across the board for people, so they are failing in that aim if their policies and practices ultimately result in a painful housing boom.

in the same vein, too, i disagree with tax deduction allowances on housing investment losses and reducing capital gains tax, so there are plenty of things govts are doing wrong from country to country. these have also helped fuel the boom, so wrong-headed govt actions can certainly be a factor. all the more need to elect the right people, or else keep agitating...

in the history of banking and the original prudential need to create central banks, apart from issuers of currency, see also the run of banking panics in the late 19th century, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907

The 'mission statement' of the RBA reads as follows:

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is responsible for formulating and implementing monetary policy. The Board's obligations with respect to monetary policy are laid out in the Reserve Bank Act. Section 10(2) of the Act, which is often referred to as the Bank's 'charter', says:

"It is the duty of the Reserve Bank Board, within the limits of its powers, to ensure that the monetary and banking policy of the Bank is directed to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia and that the powers of the Bank ... are exercised in such a manner as, in the opinion of the Reserve Bank Board, will best contribute to:

(a) the stability of the currency of Australia;
(b) the maintenance of full employment in Australia; and
(c) the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia."

How well they're carrying that out, and how you measure it, is a matter of opinion. (APRA has been pushed out of the RBA at arms length to regulate the lending institutions.)

Increasing supply is the only way.

I broadly disagree - I think there is plenty of supply, In fact, 10,000 people leave Sydney every year for affordability reasons, and everyone who is here could be comfortably housed with what's available. Although there could be a small supply/demand effect taking place. (Neoclassical economics pretty much says that all overpricing is a result of undersupply, I suppose.)

The problem to me is the inherent price-fixing nature and 'ratchet effect' of the market. Prices in housing tend to be inherently inelastic, except at bust time.

I believe the best approach is for an enlightened govt to step in and start regulating land prices to avoid booms. If they learned from the lessons of history, they would take price-setting out of the free market and peg prices to earnings and CPI. They're too laissez-faire. They should cut off the noses and ears of specuvestors, real estate agents and bank managers. That would bring the prices down in a hurry...

it’s like saying if there is a loaded gun in front of me, i can’t resist the urge to pick it up and kill someone, so the gun manufacturer is at fault, and then the person that placed it on the table.

Huh? Hey, are you trying to get another cheap dig at me for for being pro-gun again? ;-)

Gun control aside, if the Fed hands a banker tons of free money to lend, at virtually no risk to the bank, what do you think is going to happen? Lending money for profit isn't just something banks occasionally do, it's what they're SUPPOSED to do. Their shareholders would hold any bank officer responsible for failing to lend money on favorable terms.

The Fed is *well* aware of this fact, and were fully cognizant of the possible consequences of lending money to member banks at negative real rates. Greenspan may well go down in history as the most irresponsible Fed chief in history --if Bernanke doesn't top him.

Government-sponsored “affordable” housing measures, whether of the direct kind (government “projects”, a-la Cabrini Green), or indirect (forcing developers to sell X-% of units at below-market price) have historically proven to be consistently miserable failures. Ditto for rent “control”.

How have they proven to be miserable failures? Did not someone get an affordable house, which was the desired outcome? How are they doing it wrong, and how could they therefore correct any mistakes they may have made? I went to a housing affordability conference here with a guest speaker from CA which showed very good results for affordable housing projects - i'll send you a link to the powerpoint presentation...

CA indeed has some of the most stringent “afforable housing” measures in the country (not to mention the worst anti-development NIMBY laws), but –surprise, surprise– also has the LEAST affordable housing of any state in the country.

but some people must therefore be getting an affordable house out of it? no? isn't the idea of such a program to offset or ameliorate the actions of the private market? no-one said it would offset the market completely, regrettably there's usually a tiny number of affordable places as a % of the whole...

This is what happens when you have government trying to decide winners and losers in the marketplace, and trying to dictate what kind & how much housing gets built.

These are two separate issues, handled by separate authorities and tiers of govt. without planning controls, someone could otherwise build a 40 storey glass tower next to your bungalow on a suburban block...

Like Peter P says, just let the developers build whatever they want wherever they want and we will have affordable housing in no time.

Developers here are like the mafia. They're all driving Mercedes Maybachs and bribing councils and the govt. (Obviously paid from money out of the sheeple buyers' pockets.)

The problem to me is the inherent price-fixing nature and ‘ratchet effect’ of the market. Prices in housing tend to be inherently inelastic, except at bust time.

I agree, but increasing supply and guaranteeing future supply will kill off any price-fixing scheme very quickly.

The Fed is *well* aware of this fact, and were fully cognizant of the possible consequences of lending money to member banks at negative real rates. Greenspan may well go down in history as the most irresponsible Fed chief in history – if Bernanke doesn’t top him.

well, there you go. bad governance is bad. i agree.

you should write to the newspaper with those concerns, and get people interested. then they might pressure the govt to do something about it. try writing to congressmen. they are supposed to be your democratic representatives. you could even apply for bernanke's job on that ticket ;) altho you'd have to move to DC...

put simply, greenspan tried to head off the share market collapse with lower interest rates, thus creating a housing bubble. altho it may be more complex than that. is it a case of mission impossible with the single lever of interest rates?

the gun example is exactly analagous, altho it might be a bad one to choose. historically low interest rates tend to induce people to pay more and borrow more, altho even the recent history of the 80s with 18% interest rates should inform people they can rise again over time... who out of the Fed, greenspan, bernanke, the banks, and the sheeple is failing to learn the lessons of history?

I think it lies government adding in incentives for small unit, high density housing.

That can work too, I guess.

We do not even need to have small units. All we need is higher density. If we build more highrises, we can even free up more green open space without reducing housing supply.

Artifically forcing prices down will just discourage more building, leading to even greater housing shortage.

not at all. house prices were much lower before the boom, they can be low again. everyone in agreement that the land price boom is a disaster, so why not address it directly? the only other possibility is that the whole population has doubled overnight, in 12 different OECD countries, and that simply hasn't happened, so forget the supply/demand driver. no need to build appreciably more houses.

this boom is entirely artificial and entirely economic.

i predict that if you build trillions of new houses you will have a lot of empty houses. the developers will have bought the land at sky-high 'market price' as well. you think that if i start buying up 5 acre farms on the outskirts of sydney that the owners who bought for chickenfeed 30 years ago aren't going to hold out for the highest possible price? (which is what's happening.) based on developer offers and their own calculation of what the final housing price will be. if i start making offers on derelict warehouse districts properties for redevelopment the owners won't try to gouge me for the highest possible sum?

put simply, there are very many manifest failures of conventional markets to deliver affordable housing, or even to provide minimum decent housing for all. 1 in 13 american families lives in a trailer... why keep fetishing something that doesn't work? if you rub the 'market voodoo' just one more time, it will finally bring you luck and auspicious weather?

I think it lies government adding in incentives for small unit, high density housing.

there are environmental benefits in having clustered housing and smaller units to heat and cool. public transport and laying infrastructure becomes easier. sprawling suburbia probably isn't sustainable at current rates, and much arable farmland can be consumed by subdivisions, so there is a balance of the common good. although i think reasonable concessions need to be made when doing high or medium density multi-residential development for privacy, dignity and personal space concerns.

however, i have a scheme that suggests that govt should be buying up the 5 acre farms virtually by a process of resumption, offering a fair price over what was paid 30 years ago on original purchase, and controlling the land with covenants and discouraging developer profiteering by doing PPP cost-controlled developments. And repeat that model everywhere, with infill, with inner urban redevelopment, etc. Stop developer and land-owner profiteering. if someone bought a 5 acre farm a year ago to speculate that it will become a new suburb, tough luck. the system won't reward speculators and profiteers.

some form of calamity? isn't this whole website devoted to 'some form of calamity' from the operation of the market?

the trouble is that govts are nowadays afraid to intervene meaningfully, and they've forgotten what they are for...

I see the government overcoming collective action problems and tweak around to make things a bit more efficient.

this viewpoint is mainly due to a conditioning effect. and it has nothing much to do with efficiency, it has more to do with social justice outcomes, keeping the voters happy (if they had a brain), etc.

some form of calamity? isn’t this whole website devoted to ’some form of calamity’ from the operation of the market?

Personally, I see the Bubble primarily as a direct result of irresponsible policies of the central banks (who are appointed by and acting on behalf of politicians after all) and federally sponsored (and implicity taxpayer insured) GSEs. Peter P may disagree with me here, but I see the psychological greed/fear feedback loop developing as a (possibly unintended) RESULT of lousy government policies.

the trouble is that govts are nowadays afraid to intervene meaningfully, and they’ve forgotten what they are for…

I disagree. The U.S. government is all TOO eager to jump in an intervene in plenty of areas it has no damned business sticking its nose into --like banning gay marriage, soft drugs, trying to ban abortion, subsidizing inefficient industries, setting arbitrary minimum/maximum prices, invading the privacy of non-criminals, pre-emptively invading a country that hasn't attacked us, etc.

Different Sean,

I know you don't believe this, but there *is* a difference between being FISCALLY conservative and SOCIALLY conservative. Libertarian doesn't necessarily = culture war neo-con.

This gets to the foundation of western property based economy. Easy to get into a slippery slope and start appropriating other forms of property ownership in the name of greater good.

oh well, bad luck. as long as it is demonstrably for the greater good. what we currently have is selfish, unenlightened self-interest.

you have to consider that the entire continent of australia was misappropriated from the native title holders only 200 years ago, only a few generations really, that's 6 million square miles for free. land was then parcelled out to favourites, sweeping land grants given to anyone with a title, whose descendants now have the luxury of selling it off in chunks. Freed convicts and settlers were granted tiny unworkable plots called 'selections' by way of contrast, as the soil was far poorer than European soils with lower yields. not to mention preventing the indigenous people from using the land in traditional ways for hunting and foraging.

similarly, in the US and the New World in general, the entire US was misappropriated from the indigenous peoples 400 years ago, who were ignominiously put onto reservations. now do you feel guilty?

note that the US govt retains 'eminent domain' over all lands, as the highest form of title. your 'freehold title', or 'fee simple' transfer, is only illusory control as the next strongest claim to title. similarly, all lands in oz, UK etc are owned by the Crown.

e.g. the state govt here was recently going to resume land for a $2bn desalination plant to solve the water shortage problem. they eventually shelved the whole project under environmental pressure, but they were quite prepared to do it. my message to the same govt is that if you are prepared to talk tough about land resumption for industry, you should do the same for housing, clearly for the public benefit.

40% of the planet's uranium holdings are in oz. proceeds from the 'wealth of the nation' should be returned to the nation, not to a couple of claim jumping miners. saddam hussein nationalised the oil industry on gaining power in iraq years ago, for the benefit of iraqis. (he nearly went broke waging war on iran with the proceeds, but never mind. using funds this way has to be informed by ethics as well.) presumably chavez is doing the same in venezuela.

Thus, unemployment benefits, some level of pension, healthcare, etc, makes perfect sense and overcome private sector inefficiencies.

well, yes and no. Unemployment benefits, pensions, free schooling, hospitals, roads, etc aren't really about 'inefficiency' under any definition of the word - more about omissions, oversight or couldn't-care-less by the market - i.e. meeting rights of citizenship. e.g. sometimes govt has to mandate that companies provide utility services to rural and remote areas altho that's not very profitable, but guarantees universal access to services at the same cost, sometimes using subsidies - so there is a SLA with the govt... for instance, dubya is trying to 'outsource' welfare to lockheed martin in texas - that is, the govt retains policy control over welfare, but services are delivered by an outsourced arrangement rather than by a 'bloated bureaucracy' (which implies all govt offices are held to be inefficient compared with a lean, mean corporate approach.)

i think the market is generally efficient at delivering goods and services to people that they genuinely want, and 'the invisible hand' works inasmuch as a company producing something no-one wants will go out of business.

anyway, adam smith was an apologist for the prevailing social order and a bit of a wanker...

I see the psychological greed/fear feedback loop developing as a (possibly unintended) RESULT of lousy government policies.

I still can't agree with this. it's as though the govt is expected to be responsible for holding people back and stopping them from exercising unenlightened self-interest and greed, and only by setting the magical interest rates. thousands and thousands of unenlightened micro-economic transactions are leading to a macro-ecomic disaster - as per tulip and dotcom booms - they arguably should have seen this coming, but it's as though they've created market-dominated rules limiting their response and then insisted they can only play by those rules foreverafter regardless of the outcome. it's almost like a giant laissez-faire laboratory experiment to see just how stupid people can be and how dysfunctional things will become - proving that self-interest does not guarantee good results in the community, and ultimately not for the planet vis-a-vis sustainability issues.

if they only have interest rates to play with, and it's important to keep them low to stimulate business post 9/11, then that leads to a housing bubble, so then you raise them top slow the bubble, which hurts business (and new mortgagors on ARMs for that matter), then you have inflation and wage demands, which also hurts business, so you should lower them again, etc etc. one lever is inadequate to 'manage' the whole economy. you need further policy responses by govt at all tiers to contain potential disasters when the market goes haywire.

HARM Says: April 5th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Different Sean,
I know you don’t believe this, but there *is* a difference between being FISCALLY conservative and SOCIALLY conservative. Libertarian doesn’t necessarily = culture war neo-con.

i'm not sure i even appreciate what all the distinctions really mean.

I personally find all the categories a tad unhelpful and confusing, especially when used loosely. neocon, even in the current sense, can mean different things, e.g. in the context of US foreign policy, neocon tends to mean self-interestedly interventionist with hawkish views, operating unilaterally if necessary, which competes with ideas of liberal internationalism, realism, and non-interventionism. i could argue they are inappropriately insular, nationalistic and 'patriotic' in an unenlightened sense. but they tend to be advocates of larger govt and social spending as necessary.

i could argue very well that libertarians are philosophically the closest thing to a communist in the true sense as defined by Marx et al as you will find - supporting the withering away of the state, etc. - if not that, then an anarchist - so there is some ideological confusion there as well.

i am 'liberal' on a range of social issues, but not libertarian. does that make me socially conservative then? for instance, a 'liberal' may encourage gun control, because they think it's ultimately very harmful to a large society. but they may not mind soft drugs, unless they are independently and unbiasedly proven to do serious material damage to the person. they may dislike the effects of smoking for its costs and suffering. the ideological libertarian says it's ok to smoke and possess firearms. the neocon is ok with owning and bearing arms because it's a kind of socially and culturally cool and conservative thing to do in one particular culture.

this is not even to get into the history of thought on the matter, dating back centuries, and mostly forgotten and unconsidered in the mainstream.

i could then pull in left-right Marxist class theory, tough-minded vs tender-minded psychological theory, kohlberg's hierarchy of ethical development, the ability to take the part of the other, feminist studies and gendered power relations, etc etc. you can have a great old time...

i think it's necessary to formulate a grounded ethical position when dealing with 'being in the world' rather than a logical one, which hopefully then dispenses with the need for categories or rigidity, and can even be used to critique or expose those categories as being perhaps inconsistent, leading to unworkable outcomes or unnecessarily cruel.