GOP in desperate need of libertarian infusion

The Nashua Telegraph, Nashua, NH ^ | 2009-04-30 | Ed Lopez

[rabscuttle385]

Over a year ago, Mitt Romney was losing primaries to John McCain, and conservative pundits from Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh predicted the end of the GOP – Coulter went as far as promising she would campaign for Hillary Rodham Clinton if McCain became the party's nominee.

By November 2008, the GOP had embraced a nominee who had considered switching parties twice, had opposed tax cuts, and had failed to advance an aggressive shift in a foreign policy that left the GOP discredited in an area it had always trumped in.

It's not that McCain's willingness to reach across the aisle was condemnable. On the contrary, had McCain been able to do that as a conservative, he would've had more than tepid support from voters.

It also has less to do with the reasons conservatives disagreed with him when they should have found common ground. For example, McCain angered many conservatives when he opposed the federal ban on same-sex marriage.

Here in New Hampshire, congressional candidate Grant Bosse was among the few Republicans who understood the importance of leaving some decisions for adults to make with God and their state, not judges and the federal government.

It's precisely the reasons many couldn't support McCain – even conservatives who stuck by their guns and refused to send him to the White House – that merit serious reflection.

So far it's difficult to sense the fundamental message shift required for the GOP to make inroads in 2010 and 2012, but it seems no state is better poised to nurture these than the state of New Hampshire.

They key to doing this successfully? Allowing New Hampshire's libertarian spirit to infuse the GOP grassroots and allowing that to spread nationally.

[Still Thinking]

We need a new, “rock star” Republican to emerge that can compete with the 0bama dazzle. It shouldn’t be that way, but that’s what we get in today’s “American Idol” America. Sarah can hang in at VP until she gains a little more ‘gravitas’ and experience. Then, a ways down the road, she should provide two excellent terms as President herself.

Obama's not going to have much "dazzle" left by '12 in the eyes of the public. In fact, the strain may be grinding on him by then, and showing in his public persona as well. I'm not saying that to argue in favor of nominating Sarah, but by '12 I don't think "rock star" is what people are going to be looking for. A nerdy, dandruffy 65 year old who sincerely promises to get government out of our lives would probably sweep 50 states.

[dirtboy]

On a free market, why would they be leveraged at all?

Because properly-regulated leverage is an engine of economic growth?

[Bokababe]

roamer_1 & I had a long discussion about this a last week.

There is a big difference between "Libertarian" and "libertarian". It's not wise to confuse the two. The small "l" libertarians are closer to Barry Goldwater than they are to Bob Barr.

1 "Libertarians"- Members of the Libertarian Party that believe in the entire Libertarian platform

2."libertarians" -those who belong to other parties -- Republicans, Constitution Party, etc., or no Party at all -- but who believe that the Constitution is the only authority that government should have.

These two groups should no be confused or interchanged, because they are different.

For example, Big L, Libertarians are mute on the abortion issue, whereas little l libertarians are often pretty vocally anti-abortion.

Libertarians are anti national borders, while libertarians support guarding national borders and our sovereignty far more than mainstream Republicans.

Libertarians are for easy immigration, while libertarians are vocal about controlling immigration and even go as far as saying that "born here" shouldn't automatically grant you citizenship if your parents were here illegally.

Libertarians and libertarians disagree vehemently on some very key issues, and I think that it is therefore unwise to confuse them or interchange them.

I printed this yesterday on another post, but the logo for the California Republican Liberty Caucus best represents the small "libertarian" infusion" that is mentioned in this article

[djsherin]

That doesn’t mean it’s a free market principle. All fractional reserve banking does is inflate the money supply, which produces no new goods. We aren’t richer simply because we print more money, or create more as debt. It redistributes purchasing power, just like any kind of inflation.

And what exactly are adequate reserves? Anything less than what depositors as a whole can demand at any given time seems less than adequate to me (i.e. 100% reserves). It is their money after all.

[dirtboy]

You really are showing a profound disregard for how the modern financial system works. Fractional reserve banking, when properly regulated, helps propel economic growth by increasing the velocity at which money moves around the system.

[djsherin]

Even if that’s true which IMO is doubtful, that doesn’t make it laissez faire or free market. If having state supported monopolies actually increased economic growth, that wouldn’t mean it’s free market.

[ken21]

yes.

the gop is gay.

[dirtboy]

Even if that’s true which IMO is doubtful, that doesn’t make it laissez faire or free market.

I'm curious - if a bank has $100,000 in deposits and loans out $200,000 - how is that not free market? No government intervention has happened. The bank has evaluated that under normal circumstances, it only needs $5,000/day in liquidity, so it has plenty of money for check redemptions and withdrawals.

[djsherin]

Profound disregard? What am I missing? I know how it works. I’m questioning its supposed benefits. How do higher prices help us? Does increased velocity or supply increase our standard of living? More money doesn’t create more goods. It doesn’t perform any net social benefit. Some people are helped, others are hurt.

[dirtboy]

Profound disregard? What am I missing? I know how it works. I’m questioning its supposed benefits. How do higher prices help us?

If the fractional reserve loaning leads to correspondingly higher economic production, within reason, that does not raise prices. The problem is preventing it from expanding to the point where too much is being produced, beyond the ability to consume or use it.

[dirtboy]

More money doesn’t create more goods.

Tell that to the company that just started manufacturing after getting a fractional reserve loan from the bank.

[Question_Assumptions]

The GOP needs people whe are simultaneously (A) fiscally conservative (to appeal to libertarians), (B) socially conservative (to appeal to religious and traditionally moral people), and (C) defense conservatives (to appeal to military and those concerned with their safety). You need all three to win, and just as libertarians are turned off by social and defense conservatives willing to spend like drunken sailors, social conservatives are turned off by things like support for abortion and drug legalization. The reason that the GOP is in such bad shape is that about all it has left are defense conservatives and everyone’s forgotten that terrorists are trying to kill us.

[Beagle8U]

LOL...I know.

[djsherin]

Did it just print the extra $100,000? If so that’s counterfeiting and it should be easy enough to see why that’s not laissez faire.

Or did it just create money as it does now when a loan is created, thus increasing the money supply by $200,000? That isn’t how it happens. A bank can only loan out a fraction of what it has in its reserves. Say the reserve requirement is 10%, then the bank can loan out $90,000. This $90,000 then becomes $81,000 when it all deposited, then $72,900, etc. Ultimately the money created is 9 times the original amount or 10 times the original loan ($900,000).

***The bank has evaluated that under normal circumstances, it only needs $5,000/day in liquidity, so it has plenty of money for check redemptions and withdrawals.***

As long as it didn’t counterfeit the money it loaned, then it is up to the bank to ensure it has the money to pay its depositors. It would have to disclose first though to its customers that it loans out some of their money. In that that case and in a true free market, it would be likely that people agree to give up liquidity for a certain period of time, namely that they allow the bank to use their deposits for x number of days and that when that time expires, they will have access to their money plus a little bit of interest.

[Bokababe]

My understanding of the underlying factors involved in this crash was the repeal of the repeal of a key condition of the Glass-Steagall act of 1933 by enacting the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley allowed financial services companies and insurance companies to combine, thereby creating mammoth super-corporations that if they fell, would take the entire economies of nations with them.

Well, these super corporations screwed up, by getting involved in risky ventures. Combine that with federal regulations that forced Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae to make bad loans and the whole thing went into the toilet.

So in one sense, you could say that it was new regulations that caused this mess -- not a lack of regulations.

[org.whodat]

Fractional reserve banking, when properly regulated, helps propel economic growth by increasing the velocity at which money moves around the system.

Problem is the republican party has no grasp of the proper regulated part!!

[WOSG]

The ‘principle’ you engaged in was the principle of standing aside and doing nothing to stop the country from going to Obama in this election. It’s the ‘principle’ of being ineffective and powerless with your vote.

As such, it is no better and likely worse than the ‘lesser of evils’ option. After all, we ended up with ‘greater of evils’. It would be better to practice this luxury in elections where we dont have a leftist demagogue ready to ruin the country.

[WOSG]

The slippery slope ...

Gay marriage ==> end of marriage ==> end of family ==> demographic decline and fall of our civilization.

[dirtboy]

So in one sense, you could say that it was new regulations that caused this mess -- not a lack of regulations.

It Gramm-Leach-Bliley was in effect deregulation, not new regulation. I don't see it as the main problem, however, other than creating institutions too large to fail - it also allowed failing institutions to be absorbed into healthier ones.

[djsherin]

***If the fractional reserve loaning leads to correspondingly higher economic production, within reason, that does not raise prices.***

But prices are higher than they otherwise would have been. I’m not better off because of that. And prices always go up which leads me to believe the volume of goods never keeps up with the increase in the supply of money.

***The problem is preventing it from expanding to the point where too much is being produced, beyond the ability to consume or use it.***

Sounds like central planning to me. No one can know when “too much” is being produced. In fact money creation distorts economic calculation. It gives more to people wanting to invest in higher order goods without a corresponding shift in consumer preferences. The investment in the higher order goods is only sustained by cheap credit. It isn’t based on real market demand and thus the boom period proves to be a period of malinvestment, in other words, resources were employed poorly.