If you’re pointing that at me,

I’m not pointing it at you…if I were pointing it at you I would say “You, Jeff Molby, have hijacked Milton Friedman’s argument to support a welfare state and keep out the immigrants”. Jeez, man, paranoid much? :)

Seriously, if I’m criticizing you directly I’ll let you know…my comment was meant to attack the argument itself because I consider it at best an invalid rationalization and at worst a cover for racism (and no, I didn’t just accuse you of being a fool or a racist).

Not literally fatal, but yeah, there would be a very serious economic disruption involving mass poverty, the likes of which this country has never seen.

Really? Because I seriously doubt that we’ve “never” seen that sort of thing before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression

I refer you back to Cato’s Menu of Pain.

I think you’ve misinterpreted Cato’s Menu of Pain.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj24n1-2/cj24n1-2-7.pdf

The results of cutting back as Cato prescribed would be painful, but not fatal. And they are inevitable, and the longer you wait, the more painful and longer lasting the results of those cuts will eventually be. And as long as the politicians think they have any way not to pull the trigger on those cuts, they’ll happy pass the buck to their successsors. So I’m proposing that we get it over with sooner, so the short-term damage is less and the long-term benefits will arrive sooner.

By then, the addition of 20 million (very) unskilled laborers will not be enough to solve the problem. The rest of the gap will have to be made up through a decreased standard of living. Whether it comes from increased taxes, decreased retirement benefits, or inflation is irrelevant; all of the choices are very bad.

Given the choice between a) increased taxes, b) decreased retirement benefits (in which I include Medicare), or c) inflation, I opt for “b”, since it’s the only option that puts the burden on the people who deserve to shoulder it…those who’ve benefited unfairly from a welfare system based on theft. I also consider open borders to be part of the solution to the problem since immigrant labor helps to reduce the price of goods and services (and provides more openings for skilled workers) thereby helping to offset somewhat the inflation that will likely also result:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/index.htm

I’m just saying that Friedman’s argument has been hijacked to make a case against immigration in favor of a welfare state and I doubt he would approve.

If you’re pointing that at me, it’s still a strawman. I am not in favor of a welfare state. I merely accept that one exists and I believe that the ideal way to dispose of it is gradually. I seek practical ways to reach that ideal and they involve the temporary compromises of our ideals. It’s cool that you favor a different approach, but please don’t mischaracterize my position.

You’re operating under the assumption that a politician will take “free” money away from his voting constituency if he isn’t forced to.

Again, that’s assuming that a majority of politicians are willing to do something that they perceive will be politically unpopular with their voters and may cost them their jobs

Well, yeah. If you were in office, wouldn’t you try to dismantle the state? I would. I’m assuming that there’s some small chance that our movement might actually succeed. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t even bother showing up here.

You apparently see the collapse of the welfare state as something that would be fatal to our country. I don’t…

Not literally fatal, but yeah, there would be a very serious economic disruption involving mass poverty, the likes of which this country has never seen.

I refer you back to Cato’s Menu of Pain. Any of the options, chosen immediately, would seriously hamper economic growth for decades. But they’re still not serious about addressing; we’re looking at another 3-5 Presidential terms before the problem comes within the average politician’s scope of concern.

By then, the addition of 20 million (very) unskilled laborers will not be enough to solve the problem. The rest of the gap will have to be made up through a decreased standard of living. Whether it comes from increased taxes, decreased retirement benefits, or inflation is irrelevant; all of the choices are very bad.

Wasn’t saying that was your intent. But trying to restrict immigration to keep the welfare state solvent is hiding the consequences of the welfare state from the public.

It may seem like I’m nitpicking, but there’s a substantive difference between our language. I’m not hiding the consequences. I’m delaying them while seeking to avoid them altogether.

You’re not questioning my motives and orthodoxy, are you?

Nope…I’ve never really questioned your motives or orthodoxy either. I’m just saying that Friedman’s argument has been hijacked to make a case against immigration in favor of a welfare state and I doubt he would approve.

I, being aware that a collapse is probable, want to try to avoid the collapse through an orderly dismantling of the welfare state.

You’re operating under the assumption that a politician will take “free” money away from his voting constituency if he isn’t forced to. You apparently have a much higher opinion of politicians than I do…which is an impressive show of faith considering that even when the GOP controlled Congress and the White House they never seriously tried to dismantle the welfare state.

I know damn well that falling off the Empire State Building is fatal and I spread the message at every opportunity. That doesn’t mean I want it to happen.

You apparently see the collapse of the welfare state as something that would be fatal to our country. I don’t…I suspect that before it gets to that point our politicians will be forced to make a choice of who to screw over in order to keep us solvent (because they’ll have no other option). And realizing that poor people who live on welfare are much less likely to donate money to political campaigns than the people who actually pay for welfare I have a pretty good idea on which group’s going to get the shaft and be forced to go out and get themselves a McJobbie Job.

The point being, politicians don’t like to make tough calls unless it’s in their self-interest to make tough calls, and usually the only time it’s in their self-interest to make tough calls is when they don’t really have any other choice (as Winston Churchill once noted).

I’m not trying to hide the consequences.

Wasn’t saying that was your intent. But trying to restrict immigration to keep the welfare state solvent is hiding the consequences of the welfare state from the public.

I want to do everything possible to back away from the ledge and take the stairs back to the ground floor.

Again, that’s assuming that a majority of politicians are willing to do something that they perceive will be politically unpopular with their voters and may cost them their jobs…which they won’t so long as they think there are other options on the table.

Believe me, you won’t get any argument from me when you discuss things like competing currencies, nor will I defend the actions of the federal reserve.

My point is purely theoretical. A properly-managed fiat currency is not dangerous.

The key words there are properly-managed. Nothing our federal government does is properly managed. Thus, while a responsible government might be trusted with a fiat currency, “responsible government” is in fact an oxymoron.

i hate to sound like an extremist, but taxation will in fact be a real flashpoint in any struggle to change anything regarding our well being. and that point of opposing certain taxes will indeed come to a head as state revenues fall short as they already are.

I, speaking only for myself, say that as i see the FR reducing rates to a target of %2 and probably lower, possible to 0, as a reprinting of money which re-capitalizes corporate/govt structures that finance much of the impetus regarding the GWOT and regarding energy.

there are many degrees of “capitalism.” and ‘free-market’ as a descriptor is debatable within itself. but supporting the idea of competing currencies seems to be capable of thwarting govt spending.

That is obviously a problem, where they act as if the result of inflation (higher prices) is the cause of inflation, while disregarding the fact that it’s the increase in the money supply that is causing the higher prices.

Monetarists, as you can see, have no problem with fiat currency. Instead, monetarists view an artificial inflation of the money supply as “ok” as long as it does not become excessive. In other words, pumping up the money supply is fine, as long as you do it slowly… perhaps so slowly that people don’t notice.

And what’s wrong with that? A fiat currency, as long as inflation is low and stable, is not a problem. If people are expecting 2-3% inflation per year, it gets built into their expectation of society in general, built into their plans for asking bosses for raises, built into their spending/buying plans, built into the underlying interest rates for people lending & borrowing money, etc.

The problem, then, lies elsewhere. The problem with a fiat currency lies in the fact that the government can’t be trusted to keep inflation low and stable when they realize they have a hidden printing press at their disposal. Their spending habits outweigh their ability to tax the populace, so they increase the rate of inflation to keep up.

That doesn’t change the fact that inflation IS a monetary phenomenon, nor does it make a fiat currency unworkable in theory. The problem comes when incentives make it unworkable in practice due to government not following his mandate to keep inflation low and stable.

But its not proving as simple as that. People are very partisan and easily duped. They will vote for a new fresh face who makes the same old promises. They often think – if only we had the right leadership, than all the benefits of big government would be magnified.

So for me, the best strategy is to take a long term historical approach. Point out how the size of the federal government has ballooned in the last century, the size of tax revenues, the pages of regulations we have to comply with, the inherent problems in socialised education, medicine, the repeated failures of the war on drugs and the war on poverty.

I think the war on drugs is the best example, how long should a rational person want to keep trying it ? Yet both parties persist in using half of the police resources and most of our prison space in fighting the drug trade.

No, the problem I have is that the argument is actually transposed and manipulated, usually by people trying to obscure the real point.

As libertarians we’re not supposed to save ourselves from the consequences of having a welfare state…we want it to collapse

You’re not questioning my motives and orthodoxy, are you? Let’s not go there.

You want it to collapse. I, being aware that a collapse is probable, want to try to avoid the collapse through an orderly dismantling of the welfare state. I realize it’s a longshot, but I think it’s worth pursuing; if you don’t, that’s your prerogative.

You can’t convince people that statism is a bad thing if you’re making policy arguments that hide the consequences of that statism from the public

I’m not trying to hide the consequences. I know damn well that falling off the Empire State Building is fatal and I spread the message at every opportunity. That doesn’t mean I want it to happen. “I told you so” is pretty hollow, especially since the masses would probably learn the wrong damn lesson anyways. There’s already a surplus of examples of statism’s failures and still we pursue it at a breakneck pace.

No, I want to do everything possible to back away from the ledge and take the stairs back to the ground floor.

It isn’t feasible. I know you’re ok with the resulting collapse, but that’s a separate issue.

No, the problem I have is that the argument is actually transposed and manipulated, usually by people trying to obscure the real point. The point isn’t supposed to be that open immigration is non-feasible because we have a welfare state because people are still going to come here illegally as long as there are jobs to be had, whether we restrict immigration or not…the point is supposed to be that the welfare state isn’t feasible for a free society because it turns positive and essential things (like immigration) into negatives and gives the state an opening to expand its power.

As libertarians we’re not supposed to save ourselves from the consequences of having a welfare state…we want it to collapse because that’s what’s supposed to happen. You can’t convince people that statism is a bad thing if you’re making policy arguments that hide the consequences of that statism from the public…everyone’s going to assume that you’re just asking them to make changes only for the sake of change.

odd, I would have thought Friedman was proximal to Von Mises, guess not.

Not all reputable economists have to agree on every subject I suppose.

Well that and his argument that open immigration isn’t feasible because of the existence of a welfare state

It isn’t feasible. I know you’re ok with the resulting collapse, but that’s a separate issue.