A True Threat Of Failure Makes You Conservative
Bluesherry left me a comment a few days ago that had a link to a Libertarian bashing article. Columnist George Monbiot so eloquently titles his article, “Governments aren’t perfect, but it’s the Libertarians who bleed us dry.” In it he writes how Northern Rock pushed for deregulation, got themselves in big trouble, and then asked for a government bailout. His stance is that Libertarianism and its ideal of self interest lead to this incident and its the taxpayer who’s left to foot the bill.
Personally, I disagree with his article. In a true free market, Northern Rock wouldn’t have the safety net of a Government bailout. Failure, in that case, would mean extinction and complete loss of shareholder wealth. Faced with a “true threat” of that nature, the majority of businesses would adopt conservative policies and not engage such risky behavior.
The best line of that article was from Presido, a commentor (emphasis mine):
This taxpayers’ money being made available to bail out these banks is precisely what causes the moral hazard that leads to these banks knowing that they cannot lose. They can lend recklessly and make huge profits for their management and when it goes sour the taxpayer will foot the bill. This is called privatise the profits and socialise the losses.



November 16th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
One failure of the freedom movement in general (of course this doesn’t apply to ME) is the inability to properly use language.
If you look closely at instances of “DEregulation” you will see they are not really movements towards a lack of regulation, but rather, a REregulation or a changing of regulations. Such was the case with the CA power market a decade ago, it was a re-jiggering of the rules that resulted in a gaming of the rules, and NOT a true move towards less regulation.
This is also the case with NR’s proposals. They didn’t want LESS regulation, they wanted regulation that THEY could game. RE, not “de,” regulation.
If we confront statists at every opportunity with the DE versus RE clarification, the freedom movement will advance a long way. We shouldn’t let the enemy control the semantic “high ground.”
Regarding the general point that “live free or die” promotes both a general conservatism in business and a weeding out of the excessive risktakers, I concur completely.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Bill, you make a key point here. It truly is a failure of the proper use of language that perpetuates the erosion of liberty and freedom.
Author Monbiot indicated that it was NR’s push toward DEregulation that lead to this but you’re probably right that it was NR’s push for REregulation that undid it in the end.
November 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
When it comes to semantic clarity and looking into the true nature of the beast, I like the articles at LewRockwell.com best,
“Not surprisingly, when the government gets involved, fraud runs rampant. Instead of allowing the bank to close down and be replaced by a more efficient one, the Bank of England bailed out Northern Rock. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling said that the Bank would ensure the deposits of Northern Rock customers because of, “the importance I place on maintaining a stable banking system.” In its role as lender of last resort, the Bank of England would certainly be capable of ensuring those deposits – it’s as easy as just printing more money. On September 19th, the Bank injected 10 billion pounds into the British economy and essentially allowed the whole scheme to continue. Where did they get this money?
Certainly they couldn’t have raised taxes overnight. And they didn’t borrow it. Instead, they did as all governments do – they inflated. Though the mechanism by which this occurred, namely through the buying and selling of securities, is complex, money was essentially created out of thin air. This is nothing more than legal counterfeiting. If the creation of money dilutes the value of existing money, then this was certainly theft on a massive scale.
And who is it to benefit? Certainly not the average man. Instead, as with the U.S. economy, when the Bank of England injects “liquidity” into the money markets, they are generally helping some of the richest in society by essentially giving them not only a subsidy, but also a way to beat out inflation. When Bernanke lowers the interest rate half a percentage point, Wall Street goes bananas.
”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raskin/raskin26.html
November 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
bluesherry: thanks for that link, I like the Lew Rockwell site a lot!