Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 181 posts

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#171

Post by cchooper »

grandalf wrote: post #159
cchooper wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, note that if it weren't for regulators deciding on the amount of reserve capital Citibank was required to hold, the market would probably have demanded that it hold much more. This was your original point. Let's stay on track. Your claim that regulators decide how big Citibank's reserves should be is false. They set a minimum, not a maximum. You then tried to draw an analogy between speeding and regulation,…

I don't think you have refuted my speeding analogy. Do you ever drive in an area with ice on the roads? I recommend that you observe the phenomenon before you dismiss it. I do not think you have refuted my claim that regulation leads to people suspending critical judgement about risks. Reserve requirements are a good example of this effect. Industry lobbyists try very hard to have the limit decreased while benefiting…

>I don't think you have refuted my speeding analogy.

My point was that you analogy doesn't apply. Pointing to ice on the roads is completely missing the point: that the analogy doesn't hold in the first place.

>I do not think you have refuted my claim that regulation leads to people suspending critical judgement about risks.

I did not say this! I said that specifying a reserve requirement does not reduce bank reserves. Please keep this argument to reserve requirements, not general regulation.

>If you don't buy my argument then you probably believe that people are so stupid that without regulation banks would hold $0 in reserves.

The UK does not have reserve requirements and they don't have zero reserves. But they did not raise their reserves to safe levels either, refuting your original point.

Incidentally, it's you that's arguing that regulation encourages banks to hold lower reserves than they would without reserve requirements. You are constantly conflating reserve requirements and general regulation, moving an argument about one to a conclusion about the other.

You then go on to talk about TARP again, illustrating my point.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#172

Post by dgabriel »

ckinnan wrote: post #132
dgabriel wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boomers have already started retiring. The first wave became eligible in 2007. Perhaps you mean the peak?

Right, sorry, 2017 is the year the total paid to retirees is greater than the incoming contributions. Medicare is already running in the red, by the way.

That is terrifying.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#173

Post by gaius »

sfg wrote: post #162
gaius wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the other states don't matter! If Libertarian country A is in trouble (from an aggressor, not of its own doing) and free citizens from Libertarian country B want to get involved, they are free to do so. It's none of B's government's business! It would not even occur to a Libertarian that he or she might require the government's permission . Tho' given that the Libertarian value is long-term freedom, it's unlikely…

Indeed, people do go abroad(independently of government decree) to fight for causes they believe in. Just look at the Spanish civil war.

Or American pilots joining the RAF in WW2.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#174

Post by grandalf »

cchooper wrote: post #171
grandalf wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you have refuted my speeding analogy. Do you ever drive in an area with ice on the roads? I recommend that you observe the phenomenon before you dismiss it. I do not think you have refuted my claim that regulation leads to people suspending critical judgement about risks. Reserve requirements are a good example of this effect. Industry lobbyists try very hard to have the limit decreased while benefiting…

>I don't think you have refuted my speeding analogy. My point was that you analogy doesn't apply. Pointing to ice on the roads is completely missing the point: that the analogy doesn't hold in the first place. >I do not think you have refuted my claim that regulation leads to people suspending critical judgement about risks. I did not say this! I said that specifying a reserve requirement does not reduce bank reserve…

The ice on the roads creates a risk of the car going out of control. Unanticipated volatility in the market creates the risk of a bank being insolvent.

To manage the risk of your car going out of control, you choose a safe speed.

To manage the risk of a bank becoming insolvent, it chooses an amount of capital to keep in reserve.

I seriously doubt you take exception with any aspect of the analogy so far...

A speed limit sign suggests a speed that is safe to drive. However like any regulation it is only an imperfect estimate. Yet people seem to drive at that speed under adverse weather conditions completely irrationally.

A reserve requirement suggests an amount of reserve capital that is safe for operation of a bank. However like any regulation it is an imperfect estimate. Few banks carry reserves in excess of those set by the requirement.

These are completely identical scenarios. In each case, humans cluster around the regulation without exercising independent judgment. Drivers slide off of the road all the time, and a bit of recent price volatility sent many banks into insolvency.

Your example about the UK is noteworthy but I would argue that due to the dominance of US banks (and US regulations) in financial markets, UK banks are inclined to mirror US policies in order to remain competitive with US banks. Analogously, a Russian firm may adopt some US accounting practices if it wishes to attract investment from the US.

There are two factors: The first is the way that the bar is set by the regulation in the first place. T

he second is the grouping/incentive effect. If your competitor has too few reserves then you are at a disadvantage for not copying that behavior unless the economy crashes (such that your competitor goes out of business and you don't).

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#175

Post by netcan »

ohxten wrote: post #167
netcan wrote: post #128

I think it is important to look at what I see as the two main sides of 'libertarianism'. -The Moral Argument- Libertarianism is about rights & opposing coercion. Other people & by extension governments should stay out of other people's business. Don't tell me where to work or what to do. Don't tell me to wear a seatbelt. Mostly that works fine -The Economic Argument- There is the second argument that (when it being c…

> For a similar reason to the amphetamine prohibition above, I think that welfare/health is essential & should be provided by the state. I think you will find that a libertarians actually don't mind it being provided by a /state/ government (myself included) The issue comes in when the /federal/ government provides it. This is not freedom, because unless you move from the USA you are forced to subsidize what is argua…

I'm not American. But frankly, I don't know what it is you guys have with your constitution. It's part of the legal framework. It's OK. The US Constitution was a legal framework for operating a problematic place & it did that job quite well. But I have no idea why it keeps getting referred to as if it's some sort of ultimate moral authority. The Bill of Rights is also a good sort of a document. But I don't see why it is better then any other high level statement of morality.

Some parts of it seem outdated. The US isn't an ungovernable collection of states that need Federation only for dealing with other countries anymore. There is also nothing wrong with Federation if it works. Even if you decide to work at county level, that's fine. But as with anything, you end up risking income discrepancies & the consequences of this (migration, resentment, estrangement, etc.)

But anyway, that's a completely administrative issue. How you should form a Government (states//Federation, Republic, Kingdom) is one thing. Deciding what this government should do is a seperate issue.

If you are not opposed to Government provision of health/welfare (or as I prefer Government guarantee of these, but the de facto difference is quite small), I think you are pushing the definition of libertarian.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#176

Post by cchooper »

grandalf wrote: post #174
cchooper wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't think you have refuted my speeding analogy. My point was that you analogy doesn't apply. Pointing to ice on the roads is completely missing the point: that the analogy doesn't hold in the first place. >I do not think you have refuted my claim that regulation leads to people suspending critical judgement about risks. I did not say this! I said that specifying a reserve requirement does not reduce bank reserve…

The ice on the roads creates a risk of the car going out of control. Unanticipated volatility in the market creates the risk of a bank being insolvent. To manage the risk of your car going out of control, you choose a safe speed. To manage the risk of a bank becoming insolvent, it chooses an amount of capital to keep in reserve. I seriously doubt you take exception with any aspect of the analogy so far... A speed lim…

>A reserve requirement suggests an amount of reserve capital that is safe for operation of a bank.

In one case we have members of the public who have passed a driving test. In the other, we have the foremost experts in the field, using the latest theories of risk, working with millions of dollars of modelling and statistical equipment, with their jobs on the line. For what good reason would a single one of them look at the reserve rate and say "Although the government doesn't claim that this is a safe rate for banks to operate at, but instead sets it completely arbitrarily, and admits to the fact that it's totally arbitrary, and has not changed this rate in several decades because it is an obsolete tool of monetary policy, I am nevertheless going to take it to 'suggest' a safe level of reserves, totally ignore all of my models and education, and just pick that number on a completely irrational basis."

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#177

Post by [deleted] »

gaius wrote: post #34
homme wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On empty stomachs versus well feed soldiers? Who might be conscripted and organized?

Now you're just being ridiculous. What country wouldn't have food reserves? Even tinned food in supermarkets, let alone military stockpiles. Unless Xia managed to perfectly conceal its dislike for its neighbour, that is. Perhaps they had MAGIC UNICORNS to help?

[deleted]

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#178

Post by gravitycop »

cmac wrote: post #152
gravitycop wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the example isn't helpful because of [...] 1) The unexplained reason why Xia can produce food so cheaply. No explanation is needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_advantage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

Well, I think an explanation in real-world terms is needed, not theoretical definitions. For example: 1) Does Xia have better climatic conditions? If so, why wouldn't neighbouring countries have similar conditions to become a viable competitor? 2) Do the have better packing and transportation technology? If so, why can't another country develop/buy/steal the technology? 3) Etc, etc. Hence, my point is that the impose…

Interestingly, substituting gas for food, this very scenario is playing out while we speak. http://news.google.com/news?q=ukraine+gas+crisis

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#179

Post by grandalf »

cchooper wrote: post #176
grandalf wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ice on the roads creates a risk of the car going out of control. Unanticipated volatility in the market creates the risk of a bank being insolvent. To manage the risk of your car going out of control, you choose a safe speed. To manage the risk of a bank becoming insolvent, it chooses an amount of capital to keep in reserve. I seriously doubt you take exception with any aspect of the analogy so far... A speed lim…

>A reserve requirement suggests an amount of reserve capital that is safe for operation of a bank. In one case we have members of the public who have passed a driving test. In the other, we have the foremost experts in the field, using the latest theories of risk, working with millions of dollars of modelling and statistical equipment, with their jobs on the line. For what good reason would a single one of them look…

Not at all. There are experts who decide what the posted speed limit should be on all roads.

Re: A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.)

#180

Post by cchooper »

grandalf wrote: post #179
cchooper wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A reserve requirement suggests an amount of reserve capital that is safe for operation of a bank. In one case we have members of the public who have passed a driving test. In the other, we have the foremost experts in the field, using the latest theories of risk, working with millions of dollars of modelling and statistical equipment, with their jobs on the line. For what good reason would a single one of them look…

Not at all. There are experts who decide what the posted speed limit should be on all roads.

That just makes my point even better. Experts set safe speed limits for non-experts to follow. Minimum reserves are set arbitrarily and experts that decide actual reserve levels will not pay them any attention.
Post reply on HN