Skip to main content

Today, speaking not as a Libertarian, but as a historian and a futurist...

...I want to think about the implications of the worsening financial earthquake.

Partisans of presidential elections will point to Dubya's record and say, Blame the GOP....

Libertarians will point to the existence of the Federal Reserve and fiat money, and say Blame the State....

People with retirement accounts will look at the huge bonuses of the executives who appear to have run the great banking conglomerates off the cliff, and say, Blame the corporate CEOs....

People who didn't go out and leverage their mortgages will look at all the people who signed up for ARMs and other fancy financial packages they couldn't afford, and say, Blame the people who got greedy for more than they could afford....

And on all these counts there is both merit and enough blame to go around for the firestorm I think we're about to live through. It will be as potentially life-changing and paradigm-shifting for this generation as 1929 was for the men and women who eventually emerged as the Greatest Generation when hauled from the crucible of the Great Depression into the fire of World War Two.

But none of that captures the complexity of what's really occurring in the American economy (which is the elephant in the room of the world economy today) right now.

The current leverage stock/investment/real estate boom has been going on for more than 20 years....

For that whole time, in a post-industrial America, we have built a national economy on two things: information technology and the generation of money/credit for the rest of the world. China and Dubai didn't sneak in through the back door; we invited them in, and used their capital to leverage derviatives.

Nobody really understands derivative financing, just as nobody really understood Milliken-style junk bond financing in the 1970s-1980s. Derivatives are an exceptionoally volatile instrument, essentially a non-linear complex system for raising adjunct funding. For awhile it was the fact that nobody understood derivatives that made them work, but there were hints of their instability as far back as 7 or 8 years ago in the Asian markets.

The dangerous complexities of derivative financing combined with the long-term rise in energy costs. America was founded on cheap energy. Few people realize that the English colonists who arrived in Virginia and Massachusetts in the 17th Century were not just fleeing religious persecution: they were also fleeing a restrictive coal and wood monopoly held by a group called the Hostmen of Newcastle. And what they found in American forests was a virtually free(in short and medium-term economic terms) source of energy. Low-cost energy means low-cost transportation. Low-cost energy and transportation combined with a non-existent tax structure, cheap labor, and availability of natural resources to produce the greatest sustained commerical/industrial boom the world had ever seen between about 1730-1960.

But those conditions had begun evaporating as early as the 1920s. The US enjoyed a wartime surge and two decades of postwar dominance primarily because America had the only major industrial plant on the planet not destroyed or severely damaged by WW2. This turned out to be a short-term boon and a long-term burden, as by the mid 1960s our industrial plant was decades older than that of our competitors, and our transportation infrastructure was on the brink of being rendered a cost disadvantage rather than an advantage by rising fuel prices.

Upshot: we are approaching a paradigm shift in American history. I have no idea what comes next (or else it would not be a paradigm shift), but I can hazard one guess: it will be traumatic.

What's at stake, however, on the political front is this question: is it possible to meet this challenge without compromising the essential American values of individual liberty and personal responsibility?

Or is a European Union-style surveillance state with high taxation and government domination of most major industrial sectors our unavoidable future?

Comments

Anonymous said…
I have no idea what comes next (or else it would not be a paradigm shift),

That is a great line....
Delaware Watch said…
"Or is a European Union-style surveillance state...our unavoidable future?"

Really now, this is an unnecessary bugbear. And necessity is precisely the point because there is no necessary connection between what might come after the stock market problems end and surveillance state. If there is such a necessity from a social democratic economic model, you haven't shown it.

Besides, the US now has more authority to engage in more unsupervised surveillance than any of the European states you cited in your other post. All you have to do in the US is make a phone call. There's the reign of relatively more liberty for you.
Anonymous said…
Besides, the US now has more authority to engage in more unsupervised surveillance than any of the European states you cited in your other post.

I beg to differ. After living in London for five years and invoking my "right for surveillance footage," which allowed me to get video surveillance archives of my commute from my flat's door all the way to my office 25 miles away -- including all of my time on the train -- I can vouch for the European surveillance state's perniciousness.

I left the UK shortly before the mandatory national ID card -- which must be presented on demand to law enforcement -- was rolled out. The card, being implemented now, includes biometric data and an electronic record that includes prior address and passport information on it.

It also comes with new laws allowing national and local authorities to enter any property, for any reason, in pursuit of a missing/nonpresented card. And its a machine-readable open standard that will shortly be used as the UK's universal ID card for commercial, as well as government, transactions.

This is to keep the UK safe, of course! And after all, if you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a worry.

Orwell would blush at the audacity.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...