Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren Doesn't Understand Regulatory Capture. That's a Problem for a Would-Be Regulator.

|

In my most recent Daily Beast column, I wrote that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the darling of progressives, was right to be pissed at the way in which last-minute changes were stuck into the #CRomnibus budget bill that covers discretionary spending by the federal government for the rest of fiscal year 2015.

Indeed, Congress and the president should be more roundly assailed for failing to follow regular budget procedures for years now. It's a failure of leadership that implicates both parties and leads precisely to the sort of stupid actions and priorities that we have now come to tolerate and expect from our politicians.

At the same time, Warren is wrong to be surprised that the ostensible goals of regulation, especially regulation as wrongly conceived as Dodd-Frank, are routinely undermined by the very industries and interests they are supposed to rein in.

From my column:

How naive can a person be? If you're Elizabeth Warren, the answer is endlessly. Earlier this year, for instance, she colored herself aghast that Dodd-Frank, a truly gargantuan pile of words championed by Barack Obama and a Democratically controlled Congress, wasn't working out so well, especially when it came to dispersing concentration in the financial sector. "The four largest banks are nearly 40 percent bigger today than they were just five years ago," she observed. "These banks…are a whole lot bigger now than they were when we bailed them out in 2008 because they were too big to fail."…

Recognizing the dynamics of regulatory capture or ineffectiveness needn't lead to policy nihilism or chaos. That's especially true when it comes to markets, which are extremely good at squeezing out firms and businesses that deserve their comeuppance. The best thing the government can do when it comes to the concerns of Warren and other progressives is step down rather than step up. You want less concentration in banking—at least the type that will screw the little guy and imperil the economy? Then make it clear that there will be no bailouts, not that there will be bailouts up to this or that size.

Read the whole thing.

Given the ubiquity of cronyism on both sides of the aisle, it's no easy task to say that there will be no bailouts, of course. And given the ubiquity of subsidies to favored industries or favored firms within certain industries, it's not easy to even start zeroing out government-rigged favoritism. But if policy is any way tied to intellectual clarity going in, Warren and other progressives and liberals would do well to ponder not just the stated purposes of regulatory policy but its actual outcomes and its ignominious history as a tool of the well-connected.

Related: Back in 2009, Reason TV interviewed George Mason University's Todd Zywicki about Elizabeth Warren's plan for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Take a look:

NEXT: Baylen Linnekin: When the Cops Stole $160,000 Worth of Wine

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is naive a euphemism for stupid?

  2. Regulatory capture is just a teatard myth. It doesn’t happen in the real world. What you loonytarians call regulatory capture actually shows the need for yet more regulation.

    1. Yes, because when regulation does not work, clearly more regulation is needed.

      1. First rule of liberalism: failure of government AUTOMATICALLY warrants MORE government.

    2. Who in their right mind would want to regulate Banks that take high risk investments with people’s life savings?? I really like the idea of giving away my money that I’ve earned through hard work! Interesting form of Capitalism… or is it socialism??? Or maybe communism??? Or Republicanism? or democratism? I would like to be free of manipulatisim! I want a socio-political cleansing! How’s that type regulation sound?

  3. Elizabeth Warren isn’t just wrong about the pitfalls of sliding into crony capitalism–Liz Warren believes that crony capitalism is the solution to our problems!

    Here’s Liz Warren how free enterprise works (skip to 0:50).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

    Obama’s “You didn’t build that” faux pas was him echoing what he’d heard Liz Warren say in fund raising speeches.

    Liz Warren doesn’t misunderstand and isn’t wrong about anything. She hates real free enterprise with a passion that progressives respond to by opening up their wallets, and she’s exploiting that. Liz Warren genuinely believes that people trying to start and run businesses for themselves–without the government–are evil.

    Liz Warren is evil. If she were the President, it would be about the worst thing that could happen to the future of this country.

    1. its evil to state the truism that business success happens in a setting where social and political institutions make it possible?

      1. Interesting use of the word truism, T. Never change.

        1. its a truism, deal

          1. Would you say that it’s a truism that it’s a truism?

            1. See, I’d say that it’s a truism that it’s not a truism. As the only truism re: a stable business environment is that it requires security of property rights, not a state that steals, chooses winners and losers, and otherwise mangles the market.

              I’m sure you have your own unique, highly educated perspective on the matter, though.

              1. and what secures the property rights youre talking about? and who enforces the contracts that come out of business, and keeps the customers and sellers safe while they do business? states inevitably have to set up rules that will favor some and not others, but under neoliberal thought its the already wealthy and powerful that are favored under an illusion of ‘free contract’

                1. Silly rabbit, property rights are are for cronies! Where would we be without the state? Lost, lost I tell you! Only the state can protect us from the evils of capitalism!

                  But under the delusion of socialism, it’s the already wealthy and powerful that are favored under an illusion of ‘social justice.’

                2. Sure the environment matters but nobody congratulates the school bus driver for the success of the valedictorian that rode to school on his bus.

                  1. Pretty sure VGZ just discovered yet another market failure.

                    1. Channeling Rothbard, I’m pretty sure that I deserve social justice payments for wearing deodorant and encouraging my girlfriends to go braless in public.

                      It’s externalities all the way down.

                    2. If I run into one of you girlfriends I’ll send you a check. Externality resolved.

      2. “its evil to state the truism that business success happens in a setting where social and political institutions make it possible?”

        As a commercial real estate developer, who’s been forced by the government to build roads, schools, firehouses, etc. in order to get plans approved (to build on my own property, no less), yeah, that’s not much of a “truism” you got there.

        The truth is that the things she was talking about are paid for by the taxpayers–not the government. The government doesn’t pay for anything. It’s a money losing enterprise.

        Yeah, the idea that the taxpayers who pay for our schools, roads, and firehouses shouldn’t complain about their taxes being too high or squandered on things that have nothing to do with schools, roads, and firehouses–is evil.

        The suggestion that taxpayers who pay for schools, roads, and firehouses should be ashamed that they use the schools, roads, and firehouses they they pay for–is also evil.

        Evil.

        1. no, her point is that the majority of people have paid into the physical and legal infrastructure that makes your real estate developments possible, so going on about how ‘they’ just get entitlements while ‘you’ dont and pay for it all is false

          1. You’re confused about who’s the parasite and who’s the host–just like she is.

            The taxpayers aren’t using the government to build roads. The government is using the taxpayers to build roads. It isn’t that taxpayers can’t be successful without government roads; it’s that all of those roads were paid for by taxpayers.

            There’s a formula for roads, specifically, for every city I build in. They do an estimate of how much traffic my development is going to create over the course of their general plan, and I have to account for my proportion of those fees to build and maintain all of those roads. Those costs are reimbursed by the people who buy (or lease) those buildings once they’re up.

            I have other fees I have to pay to the school district, the fire department, the parks and recreation department, etc. for every single square foot of building I put up. Some of it makes sense–if you’re going to have 2.7 children per home, why not charge them for the upkeep of the schools. Why my industrial warehouse/distribution facility should have to make payments to the school district is another question entirely…

            Regardless, the point is that she (and you) are getting it all backwards: The government pays for absolutely nothing that the taxpayers use; the taxpayers pay for every single thing the government does. Why shouldn’t the taxpayers use what they pay for? Why shouldn’t the taxpayers complain when their taxes are squandered on things like ridiculously fat pension benefits?

            1. youre still missing the point, which is that she is criticizing people who act like they ‘got theirs’ without the use of all the things government (paid for by the taxpayers yes) did for them. if the government did it for them why not do it to help others?

              1. “youre still missing the point, which is that she is criticizing people who act like they ‘got theirs’ without the use of all the things government (paid for by the taxpayers yes)”

                You don’t want the taxpayers acting like they’re entitled to use the things they themselves paid for?

                This isn’t a logical argument. It’s class envy or something else that has nothing to do with rational policy making.

                Maybe you’re really attached to Elizabeth Warren emotionally or something? I don’t know, but I’ve seen creationists make smarter observations than that.

                1. no, they should and do use government services they pay for, and they did in their rise, that’s the point. they want to act like they, and by extension everyone, doesnt benefit or need any government and thats false

                  1. Since when is losing money a benefit? Even the ultimate wet dream of the socialists is failing just like all Ponzi schemes are destined to do.

                    1. of course not everyone benefits from every government program at all times. jesus fuck dude what do you think your arguing?

                    2. It’s not even at all times, Sir derpsalot. The point is that the government is extremely good at squandering resources both instantaneously AND net. THE centerpiece program of your social justice is nothing more than a failed Ponzi scheme. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “Unicorns, fairies, and feelz!!” does not change that.

                      Today’s government on net is a drag on the net well being of society. Just because you worship it and see it as a way to get even with everyone who out competed you doesn’t change that fact.

                    3. underfunded, constantly attacked programs sometimes don’t work great! news at 11.

                    4. Leftist claims failing program just needs more money thrown at it. News at 11.

                    5. What programs are underfunded? School system? No, we have the best funded school system in the world (maybe actually second to Switzerland). The fact that many countries that spend less per capita on schools than us produce better results than us is proof that under-funding is not the problem; the problem is structural inefficiency.

                      The same can be said for many government services. Even as they get better funded they tend to perform worse.

                      You’re saying that there’s not enough wine in the wine skin. I’m saying that there’s no use pouring wine into a broken wine skin.

              2. So you’re saying that the government again couldn’t do anything that the private sector hadn’t already done.

                1. “they want to act like they, and by extension everyone, doesnt benefit or need any government and thats false”

                  He’s saying he doesn’t like the way the taxpayers “want to act” and that the government could really get things done if only it wasn’t for the damn taxpayers feeding off the government.

                  …which is something, you know, a Moonie could be trained to say. The government gets all of its money from the taxpayers, but he’s already been indoctrinated to believe that somehow it’s the taxpayers who are parasiting off of the government–and nothing is going to break that programming.

                  …not even seeing his own ridiculous words.

                  We’re probably dealing with some kind of government employee. They get really weird ideas. I’m sure tapeworms imagine that they belong in our intestines, and that their hosts should stop being so selfish.

                  It’s the hosts who are the parasite, see? The ones who are paying for everything–they “want to act” like they didn’t use what they paid for. If you can’t see that, then you must be out of your mind!

                  1. holy shit your missing the point more than a blind sniper. its the opposite of complaining because taxpayers use government services, its complaining about people who believe they havent used them in their rise to the top.

                  2. Yeah, he really does make Creationists look smart. Didn’t you know that you don’t actually own any property since you use public roads to get to work?

                    1. of course you might own property, its established and protected via a system of government enforced deeds, contracts, police protection, etc.

                    2. Which justifies what exactly? What is your specific point?

                    3. “Didn’t you know that you don’t actually own any property since you use public roads to get to work?”

                      The taxpayers need to understand that those roads didn’t just build themselves…

                      The government paid for those roads, and how dare the taxpayers use them without paying for them–and then act like they didn’t need to use those roads at all!

                      LOL

                      This is just programming. This is someone who’s subjected themselves to so much unscrutinized crap that they can’t even see themselves anymore. His critical thinking muscle on this issue has atrophied to nothing.

                      This is just like Tony. And he’s so convinced he’s right and that we just don’t understand. It must be the Koch brothers’ work! If it wasn’t for the Koch brothers, maybe we’d all realize that the government pays for everything, and the damns selfish taxpayers help themselves to all of it without giving the government the credit.

                    4. It’s like saying that because the government of the Soviet Union controlled all food production, their citizens owed their very lives to the Politburo, because they’d never be able to feed themselves without a government program to raise grain.

                    5. Basically the government is the pimp and the taxpayers are the prostitute(s)

                      Bishop Don Magic Juan: “I supply the clothing, food, housing, transportation, medical and all the other benefits. All she has to supply is the money.”

                    6. It’s like it doesn’t occur to him that those roads and police and all are paid for by the very people he’s criticizing for being ungrateful to the government.

                      The more successful your business, the more you pay to maintain the roads, et al. It’s called a progressive tax system. Dr. Doom seems to think the millionaire entrepreneur should be thanking the hot dog vendor for helping to pay for the road leading to his successful business. In fact, the millionaire already pays a far larger share of his income toward the road maintenance than the former, so if anything, by Doom’s logic, it is poor people who should be thanking rich people (and their successful businesses) for generating the revenue necessary to build roads.

              3. She’s arguing that because people generally agree that the country should have basic and well functioning institutions of government, therefore she should have the right to take whatever she wants to do whatever she wants. That’s pretty evil.

              4. if the government did it for them why not do it to help others?

                You’re missing the point. The government already did ‘it’ to hero everyone. Everyone can use the roads, everyone can try to start a real estate company is they want to, and to the extent that government regulations stop people from doing that equally, libertarians are the ones fighting it.

          2. And she and you would be wrong. Only about half of the people in this country pay net taxes over their lifetime today. There might be a slight majority still, but it doesn’t invalidate the point that the government steals money from one group to give it to another group to prop up its existence. If a private entity did what the government did, we would call it stealing.

            1. but the net taxpayer has times in their lives where they take in more than they pay and they wouldnt be taking in anything at all to speak of if they did not have the government building the roads their customers drive on, keeping their customers safe, etc

              1. Wait, so your criteria for needing government is merely an instantaneous condition of not paying taxes? Wow, we need The Derpotologist in here stat because that is some purely distilled derp right there. So only government can build roads? Really? You might want to check on the definition of the word ‘net’ again.

                And government keeps them safe and protects their property? Really?

                1. its of course hard to calculate what their net is because part of warrens point is that the wealthy right now would not have gotten there without the legal and social system that surrounded them during their rise. add to that that the more one has the more one is still currently benefiting from it all

                  1. Wow, those goalposts took off so fast that they’re undergoing relativistic corrections as we speak! You’re flawed argument (and Piketty’s) is flatly disproved by looking at the makeup of the “wealthy” today. Look at the Forbes top 100, 500. There is huge turnover in the span of years to decades. If your thesis was right, we truly would have an oligarchy. We don’t, but if you and she get your way we sure as hell will.

                    the more one has the more one is still currently benefiting from it all

                    Said the mafia extortionist to the independent business. “Be a real shame if something were to happen to your establishment…”

                    1. *Your

                    2. pointing out what one has benefited from=mafia extortion rackets. lol

                    3. Pointing out that somebody owes you protection money for being forced to consume your “services” = mafia extortion racket. Yep.

                    4. and the guy down thread said straw men. seems like he needs to look upthread along the yellow libertarian privately built brick road here!

                  2. tl;dr

                    SOMALIA!

                    You’re not even very good at employing the argument. Leave it to the cretins more sophisticated than you.

                    1. e.g., Warren. Which is a sad statement of anyone other than Warren herself.

                    2. the man says tl;dr and then talks about sophisticated arguments! lol

          3. no, her point is that the majority of people have paid into the physical and legal infrastructure that makes your real estate developments possible, so going on about how ‘they’ just get entitlements while ‘you’ dont and pay for it all is false

            Which is why she’s a moron or a liar and possibly both.

            She’s saying that ‘the rich’ who pay a majority of tax revenue to the government are free riding off ‘the poor’ who pay little or no taxes.

            1. And another thing.

              Teh roads, and courts and legitimate levels of policing can all be paid for with a spending level of 1%-2% of GDP.

              Which is about 5% of current government expenditures.

              1. And one could invert his argument by pointing out that it is primarily those who generate revenue that ultimately pay the bulk of the taxes to pay for roads and police.

                In other words, next time Dr. Doom runs into an evil mustache twirling capitalist, Dr. Doom should thank the latter for paying for the roads and the police that Dr. Doom benefits from even though he pays less for it than the capitalist.

                Basically, Dr. Doom think this: poor Guy A pays $5,000 per year in taxes to pay for public services; rich Guy B pays $10,000,000 per year in taxes to pay for the above services. Both benefit equally from public services, yet for some reason Doom thinks Guy B should be thanking Guy B.

          4. Dr doom. I think you are trying to say that, without government, some things cant be done by the private sector because a lack of capital. No private entity has the buying power of a government?See MMT??In relation to the above article, although regulatory capture is a problem that needs to be solved it doesn’t prove regulations shouldn’t occur. It means more accountability, transparency, and simplicity toward our government, legislative and executive, is necessary. Many of the large banks grew larger, not because of regulation, but because they bought, sometimes with government help, failing banks. What Warren is saying is that after the crises, they should have broken up these newly grown banks rather than try to control and reduce their risk to the economy without controlling the very problem, their size (which is the threat).

    2. I’d not seen that video before, but that’s exactly Obama’s much-mocked argument. The modern left is living in the shadow of Rawls, but not too many people like being told that his or her success is accidental and therefore the state can take as much as it likes (its own “success” presumably not being accidental).

      While she’s certainly better than Hillary in that she won’t pick fights with sympathetic NPR hosts, Warren is no real candidate. She’s obnoxious, she has an awful speaking voice, and there’s an unmistakable air of mania about her. Even Biden is a better purely political pick to appeal to the masses who vote for personality.

      1. you might want to read rawls before throwing his name around

        1. He didn’t say the left properly understands Rawls.

          1. The modern left is living in the shadow of Rawls, but not too many people like being told that his or her success is accidental and therefore the state can take as much as it likes

            that but sure seems to follow and connect the idea of rawls with being told success if accidental and therefore the state can take as much as it likes. of course rawls did not say such things. his argument for redistribution was not based on what successful people owe to the social and legal system around them, but was a matter of moral fairness. he’d admit some people were successful because they were more talented or ambitious

            1. Dr. Doom|12.20.14 @ 11:59AM|#
              “The modern left is living in the shadow of Rawls, but not too many people like being told that his or her success is accidental and therefore the state can take as much as it likes”

              I’ll bet ignoramus thinks this is BRAND NEW to us! Our eyes are now open!

            2. As I said, leftists don’t actually understand Rawls.

              1. Maybe they do, and just don’t give care. Its not so much about understanding him, as being able to make use of him to provide the facade of intellect to a ludicrous agenda. Mankiw understands Keynes better than Krugman does. But who do the politicians listen to more often? The latter, of course, because it’s more convenient.

                Personally though, I think Rawls is enormously overrated anyway. But I’m sure his disciples would say that’s just because I don’t understand him.

        2. Thanks for the tip. It has been a few years since I took his class and spoke with him, so I can see why you might think that.

          If you need any reading recommendations regarding Liberalism 101, just let me or any other Misesian know.

          1. i knew john rawls, i took class with john rawls, you sir are no john rawls! lol

            1. LOL is always a good sign that you’ve won a debate.

              Start with Human Action and Liberalism, then get back to me after you’ve shown a good-faith attempt to understand liberalism.

              1. what kind of bush league tactic is that? have you read warren’s books? if not shouldn’t you to show a good faith attempt to understand her position and then get back to us?

                1. Which of Warren’s books on political philosophy do you think I should read?

                  Should I read them before or after I finish the Little Red Book?

                2. Dr. Doom|12.20.14 @ 12:24PM|#
                  “what kind of bush league tactic is that?”
                  Exactly what you deserve.

                  “have you read warren’s books? if not shouldn’t you to show a good faith attempt to understand her position and then get back to us?”
                  No and no.
                  I’ve got paint drying; watching it is a far better use of time.

                3. Have you read Palin’s book? Until you do I guess that means you’ve no right to criticize her. You just have to listen to her drivel in silence until you ‘Go Rogue.’

    3. I always wrote her off as stupid. Hillary I consider much more evil.

  4. whats the point of this article, that regulating an industry leads to concentration? sorry, but markets lead to that all on their own. look at something like the (non-alcoholic) beverage industry which is nowhere near as heavily regulated as the financial market, coke and pepsi have about 80% of the market.

    1. Or beer, or retailers like Service Mechandise and Sears.

      Markets lead to efficient outcomes according to revealed preference.

      1. they seem much, much more ‘efficient’ for a small few, of course

        1. Dr. Doom|12.20.14 @ 10:46AM|#
          “they seem much, much more ‘efficient’ for a small few, of course”

          That’s the reason 90% of the US population lives in abject poverty, right?
          Are you lost? Huffpo is well off to our left; maybe straight ahead for you.

          1. Check out Cuba where the Castros own a private island and everyone else makes no more than $20 per month. Now that’s efficient!

            1. the argumentum ad Cuba, it was bound to come up

              1. Dr. Doom|12.20.14 @ 12:16PM|#
                “the argumentum ad Cuba, it was bound to come up”

                Strangely enough, when some lefty ignoramus shows up spouting the same damn lies we’ve read hundreds of times, that ignoramus really isn’t due any effort at originality.

              2. the argumentum ad Cuba, it was bound to come up

                Argumentum ad Cubam, bruh. If your gonna use fancy Latin to melt your argument sound more sophisticated, at least write it correctly…

                1. *make

        2. Ever heard of economies of scale? Or did you not bother to take and econ classes because you were busy taking philosophy classes?

    2. If the soft drink market were regulated, coke and pepsi would still have 80% of the market.

      And you would have nothing but Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi and one flavor of diet ginger ale.

      They would also cost $8 for a two litre bottle.

      1. just like how we only have three banks right now

        1. Shhh! You’re not supposed to tell them the end plan yet!

      2. The fact that Coke and Pepsi have 80% of the market shows that no regulation is needed.

        1. I’m sure if everyone brewed their own soda in their basement and sold it on the street corner, it would no doubt be cheaper and safer to drink than the mass factory-produced beverages of Pepsi and Coke.

          I suspect Dr. Doom also think Walmart is haunted.

    3. whats the point of this article, that regulating an industry leads to concentration? sorry, but markets lead to that all on their own.

      Nope.

      There is a direct correlation between the degree of regulation in economic sectors and the level of firm concentration.

    4. look at something like the (non-alcoholic) beverage industry which is nowhere near as heavily regulated as the financial market, coke and pepsi have about 80% of the market.

      You are absolutely insane.

      There are tens of thousands of varieties of non alcoholic beverages available to consumers produced by thousands of businesses.

  5. “These banks?are a whole lot bigger now than they were when we bailed them out in 2008 because they were too big to fail.”…

    Maybe that’s because banks which were allowed to fail were rolled up into those megabanks.

    1. Allowed? They were driven there like Jesus chasing the money-changers of the temple. Don’t for a minute think the left has forgotten about Galbraith.

      1. “Allowed? They were driven there like Jesus chasing the money-changers of the temple.”

        The Fee Market in action, according to lefty twits!

        1. BoA’s coerced merger with Countrywide, for example. Totally free market concentration.

          As have been the thousands of small community banks forced to sell themselves to a few large bank holding companies by regulators in the last five years.

          1. And the bail-outs? Free market all the way! No government involvement there!

            1. Oh, but ‘creative destruction’ just sounds so mean! Nothing should ever be destroyed!

  6. The best thing the government can do when it comes to the concerns of Warren and other progressives is step down rather than step up.

    Oh yes, please step down, because we know corporations have the American people’s best interests at heart.”

    The reversal of Glass-Steagall unleashed the robber barons, as was freely conceded by Goldman CEO Blankfein in an interview he gave to The New York Times in June 2007. “If you take an historical perspective,” Blankfein said, gloating back then about the vast expansion of Goldman Sachs, “we’ve come full circle, because that is exactly what the Rothchilds or J.P. Morgan the banker were doing in their heyday. What caused an aberration was the Glass-Steagall Act.”

    The “aberration” being the sensible regulation of Wall Street to prevent another depression, which now seems dangerously close at hand. Since Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, Goldman Sachs experienced a 265 percent growth in its balance sheet, totaling $1 trillion in 2007.

    1. What, three dozen logins weren’t enough?

    2. Update your bookmarks. The smart lefties abandoned that one about 3 years ago.

    3. IIRC, the only financial entity involved in the 2008 crises that was subject to any provisions of Glass-Steagall was Citi and the problem at Citi, holding commercial paper, was in no way covered by Glass-Steagall in the first place. This is just a stupid Whig/Progressive red herring. Besides, the bulk of Glass-Steagall was repealed by the Clinton administration.

    4. I’m not even going to argue the insanity of blaming the financial crisis on GLB.

      Rather, since every lefty is certain that was the cause of the financial crisis why did they not simply repeal it, reinstating the Glass-Steagall status quo ante, instead of passing the Dodd-Frank monstrosity?

    5. Germany has no equivalent regulation to to the Glass Steagall Act. I guess that explains why the housing crisis was so much worse in Germany than the US… oh wait…

  7. Real troll fest going on in this thread.

    1. protip, if you want to know where an article is linked, enter “link: ” in google followed by the url (no quotes needed). seems this post as linked in r/worldpolitics

      1. That’s really, really helpful, actually. I’ve always wondered whether that’s possible.

      2. Thanks for the tip Mokers

    2. Real troll fest going on in this thread

      So sorry to disturb your echo chamber. Is calling people with whom you disagree trolls the go to method around here or is that just your preferred method? Once it is posted I imagine it brings calm to your overwrought mind knowing that you can now dismiss everything posted which ran counter to Reason dogma.

      1. blast|12.20.14 @ 12:08PM|#
        “So sorry to disturb your echo chamber.”
        No problem. Ignoramuses like you are part of the fun of being here.
        Ya know, in WWII the US bypassed some Japanese strongholds and thereafter just used them as target practice. I believe we can call you Rabaul.

        “Is calling people with whom you disagree trolls the go to method around here or is that just your preferred method?”
        We tend to call a garden implement a garden implement, so when you’re called a lefty ignoramus, just presume we’re being honest.

      2. So sorry to disturb your echo chamber. Is calling people with whom you disagree trolls the go to method around here or is that just your preferred method?

        We only want a better quality troll. You know, one that does not confirm every proggie preconception we have by not providing any actual arguments, providing unsubstantiated arguments, providing arguments we are already aware of & can easily refute, relying one falsely premised & disingenuous talking points, moving the proverbial goal posts, lobbing ad homs when your argument is beaten, relying on your feelings rather than any level of critical thinking, and generally twisting language until it is meaningless.

      3. It would be wonderful if an intelligent leftie dropped in here to liven the place up. Someone that reads WR Mead perhaps.

        Alas, my unicorn wants to go for a walk.

        1. Unfortunately they’re getting dumber every year. They’ve driven all other opinions off the campuses, so no one left to challenge them, so all the circle jerking has made them complacent and soggy-brained.

  8. Here is a Forbes owned site’s “bottom line” on government regulation which, I think, accurately surmises how government regulation successfully benefits both consumer and business

    The government is certainly a friend of business, providing financial, advisory and other forms of service to the business community. Simultaneously, the government is also a friend of the public and the American consumer, and acts in what it perceives as their best interests with protective laws, rules and regulations. While businesses may oppose some aspects of restrictive laws, taxes and regulations, they may also endorse other such requirements if they help their own specific business goals.

    This conflict may never be resolved, and as business becomes more complex as technological breakthroughs continue, the dual nature of government’s relation to business may become increasingly more regulatory and collaborative at the same time.

    Government, therefore, may be justifiably perceived as benefiting both business and consumer, friend to each, foe of neither.

    1. people like warren are not ignorant of the idea of regulatory capture or cronyism. no one better realizes the power that concentrated wealth can bring to bear on government agencies as well as any other institution. that has to be policed. so yes government often helps business interests. the point is that government CAN help something other than business interests, in some situations its the only effective counterweight to what would otherwise be unmatched power of wealth

      1. n some situations its the only effective counterweight to what would otherwise be unmatched power of wealth

        Yes, this is very true. Going off topic for just a moment, this is what some people willfully ignore with regard to McCain-Feingold. I believe the converse of Tocqueville’ statement, “Men cannot become absolutely equal unless they are entirely free” is equally true: Men cannot become entirely free unless they are absolutely equal.

        1. i wouldnt say absolutely equality is necessary, but security in necessities would enhance real freedom

          1. but security in necessities would enhance real freedom

            I think that was the gist of what Tocqueville was trying to communicate, at least as I understand it.

          2. We must also broaden our view of what is meant by peace and security. Peace means much more than the absence of war. Human security can no longer be understood in purely military terms. Rather, it must encompass economic development, social justice, environmental protection, democratization, disarmament, and respect for human rights and the rule of law

            Human security in its broadest sense embraces far more than the absence of violent conflict. It encompasses human rights, good governance, access to education and health care and ensuring that each individual has opportunities and choices to fulfil his or her own potential. Every step in this direction is also a step towards reducing poverty, achieving economic growth and preventing conflict. Freedom from want, freedom from fear and the freedom of future generations to inherit a healthy natural environment?these are the interrelated building blocks of human, and therefore national, security.

            – Kofi Annan

            1. Oh, for pete’s sake, Rabaul!
              Quoting a worthless bureaucrat isn’t gonna win props here.

              1. Quoting a worthless bureaucrat isn’t gonna win props here

                Okay, how about a distinguished doctor

                The concepts of “security” and “insecurity” have relative connotations in different contexts. For some, insecurity comes from the sudden loss of guarantee of access to jobs, health care, social welfare, education, etc. For others insecurity stems from violation of human rights, extremism, domestic violence, spread of conflicts, displacement, etc. To be meaningful, therefore, security needs to be redefined as a subjective experience at the micro level in terms of people’s daily experience.

                The simplest definition of security is the absence of insecurity and threats. In realism, security has usually been associated with threats to the survival of states. Human security instead poses threats to individuals and communities as its focus. Threats can be to their survival ( physical abuse, violence, persecution, or death), to their livelihoods (unemployment, food insecurity, health threats, etc), and to their dignity. Thus, poverty, for example, is conceptualized as a human security threat. Not only because it can induce violence which threatens the stability of the state, but because it is a threat to the dignity of individuals.

                Human security, in its broadest term, therefore means freedom from want, freedom from fear and a life of dignity.

                1. So one idiot isn’t enough, you got to trot out another?
                  Are you familiar with the phrase ‘appeal to authority’? I didn’t think so; lefty ignoramuses commonly aren’t.

                  1. So one idiot isn’t enough, you got to trot out another?

                    You immediately dismiss her as an idiot?

                    You immediately dismiss someone in government and now you immediately dismiss someone in academia. Both experts on the subject matter.

                    Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh, leading worldwide expert on human security and professor at Sciences Po in Paris. You should at least listen to her arguments before labeling her.

                    1. blast|12.20.14 @ 2:45PM|#
                      …”Both experts on the subject matter.”

                      According to some lefty ignoramus on a web site.
                      Let’s just take this gem:
                      “Human security, in its broadest term, therefore means freedom from want, freedom from fear and a life of dignity.”

                      “Freedom from want”
                      Of course. Nothing wrong with that, except that it is not possible to satisfy humanitys’ “want”.
                      And you claim we’re to consider that idiot’s comments? You are truly dumber than dirt.

                    2. Let’s just take this gem:
                      “Human security, in its broadest term, therefore means freedom from want, freedom from fear and a life of dignity.”
                      “Freedom from want”
                      Of course. Nothing wrong with that, except that it is not possible to satisfy humanitys’ “want”.

                      Did you watch the video I linked to. If you watch it I think you come to appreciate the subtle distinctions in her philosophy which are impossible to grasp from reading just a line or two of text. Watch the video you will thank me later.

                    3. What is it with left-tards and videos that are alleged to convey more information about an argument than text? Do facial expressions or intonations somehow mean more than the words spoken (or written)?

                    4. juris imprudent|12.20.14 @ 3:57PM|#
                      “What is it with left-tards and videos that are alleged to convey more information about an argument than text?”
                      Well, video is a NEW medium, so all the old, worn-out arguments are somehow NEW in a vid!

                    5. blast|12.20.14 @ 3:11PM|#
                      “Did you watch the video I linked to.”
                      No.

                      “If you watch it I think you come to appreciate the subtle distinctions in her philosophy which are impossible to grasp from reading just a line or two of text. Watch the video you will thank me later.”
                      If you really think there’s something there, why please summarize it and I’ll take a look.
                      Do you think you are offering something new here? Do you think we all fell off the turnip truck yesterday?
                      There are no “new” concepts on the left, only argument about how those who produce wealth are to be relieved of it.
                      “Subtle distinctions” among lefties are questions of whether to eat those who produce all at one time, or just a leg at a time.

                    6. If you really think there’s something there, why please summarize it and I’ll take a look.

                      I get the impression that you are on the fence and that you just need a push in the right direction.

                      As for a summary: That is why I linked to the good Doctor’s paper and her video. I do not come close to the eloquence and sophistication of her presentations. Any attempted replicate would be severely lacking and I would be doing you a disservice.

                    7. blast|12.20.14 @ 4:07PM|#
                      “I get the impression that you are on the fence and that you just need a push in the right direction.”

                      Sure.

                    8. “Human security, in its broadest term, therefore means freedom from want, freedom from fear and a life of dignity.”

                      Contra Sevo, this is a wonderful idea.

                      I am deeply gratified to discover this worldwide expert agrees with me that eliminating economic scarcity via market-driven innovation remains the only means of eliminating poverty and sustaining human dignity.

                      Unless “eliminating want” just means cronyism and theft via fiat.

            2. Holy shit!

              The derp is off the charts.

              1. REACHING UNSUSTAINABLE LEVELS!! WE MAY CRASH THE SITE!!!

          3. “real freedom” = freedom from any responsibility or choice!!
            YAY!! It’s win win!!

    2. blast|12.20.14 @ 11:55AM|#
      “Here is a Forbes owned site’s “bottom line” on government regulation which, I think, accurately surmises how government regulation successfully benefits both consumer and business”

      Goody for you. I’ll bet Boeing thinks gov’t regulation is just ducky, too.
      Cronies and lefty ignoramuses tend to agree on quite a few things.

      1. The moron is too dense to realize that he’s arguing for crony capitalism.

    3. Shorter version: “Look at the good intentions of all these regulations! Only a money-grubbing puppy-killer would conclude that government isn’t everybody’s best friend”

      1. money-grubbing puppy-killer

        What does this have to do with cops?

    4. The government is certainly a friend of business, providing financial, advisory and other forms of service to the business community.

      Which businesses are getting financial and advisory services from the government? I’d like to avoid them. Thanks.

    5. Is that an Alexander Raven Thomson quote, blast?

    6. I’m still waiting for you to make an actual argument.

  9. How naive can a person be?

    As naive as someone who seriously believed that Obama would improve race relations in America?

    1. people virulently reacted to a black guy in power and its his fault. of course!

      1. Is that you Mary?

      2. Dr. Doom|12.20.14 @ 12:04PM|#
        “people virulently reacted to a black guy in power and its his fault.”

        ^
        Random ignoramus?
        Mary?
        Tulpa?

        1. A troll by any other name would smell as sweet.

      3. Yeah, the same people who would walk through a wall of fire to vote for Ben Carson. Man, they’re really virulently anti-the idea of a black president.

        1. And it has nothing to do with his horrible policies and constant lies.

        2. And another thing, being president =/= “in power.” This isn’t Imperial Rome where the executive was the sole wielder of all practical authority and the Senate was so irrelevant that he could appoint his horse to it and it wasn’t a big deal. Much as our current executives of both parties are trying to make it that way.

      4. Right. If only he were white we’d all be lining up to suck him off. I mean it’s not like anyone tried to crucify Clinton or anything.

        And in a couple years you’ll be saying we only hate Hillary’s tx policy because of her vagina. Though in all honesty, her particular vagina probably is pretty scary.

  10. she is criticizing people who act like they ‘got theirs’ without the use of all the things government (paid for by the taxpayers yes) did for them.

    That man, there; he’s made of straw.

  11. I just agree… Brenda `s st0rry is amazing… on wednesday I got a top of the range Citro?n DS sincee geting a check for $9519 this – five weeks past and even more than 10/k this past month . it’s actualy the nicest work Ive had . I actually started 6 months ago and right away was bringing home over $86…
    per-hr . official website ———- http://www.jobsfish.com

  12. What does this have to do with cops?

    They bring the world ORDER.

    Without the cops it’s Hobbesian Nightmare Time.

    1. I doubt you intended it, but this does point out the irony of Schumpeter’s creative destruction within a properly functioning capitalist system versus the left-wing desire to lock in a very static order.

  13. Back to the article, it regulatory capture was the only thing Warren can’t understand, the world would be a far better place.
    Her ignorance extends far beyond that.

  14. Weep, America

    The line between these two worlds is thinner here in Las Vegas than it might be elsewhere. The majority of my students this semester hold part-time survival jobs, and some of them will remain in those jobs for the rest of their working lives. About 60 percent of the college freshmen I teach will not finish their degree. They will turn 21 and then forgo a bachelor’s degree for the instant gratification of a cash-based income, whether parking cars in Vegas hotels, serving in high-end restaurants or dealing cards in the casinos.

    In a city like Las Vegas, many customer-service jobs generate far more cash (with fewer work hours) than entry-level, office-dwelling, degree-requiring jobs. It can be hard to convince my 19-year-old students that the latter is more profitable or of greater personal value. My adjunct-teaching colleagues have large course loads and, mostly, graduate-level educations, but live just above the poverty line. In contrast, my part-time work in the Vegas service industry has produced three times more income than my university teaching. (I’ve passed up the health benefits that come with full-time teaching, a luxury foreign to the majority of adjuncts at other universities, to make time for my blue-collar work.)

    College professors in France don’t have to work at Olive Garden! Why can’t America be like France?

    1. And it’s a real shame that some of the students decide that the degree is worth less than other possibilities open to them!
      Why, there ought to be a law! This guy knows what’s good for them better than they do.

    2. It can be hard to convince my 19-year-old students that the latter is … of greater personal value.

      Jeebus! What a self-important asshole.

    3. It is a shame I share with many of my blue-collar colleagues, a belief that society deems our work inferior, that we have settled on or chosen these paths because we do not have the skills necessary to acquire something better.

      I hear that quarries are hiring, and they should pay better than being an unappreciated academic. As much as I hate to say it, academics are unappreciated–they output has little appeal to consumers, and the idea that scholarship should necessarily be remunerative in the same way a consumer-oriented job would be is economically crackpot. Most people don’t need or want an English instructor, and you should expect to be paid accordingly.

      I found myself in general agreement with the author, though, particularly this bit:

      But not all my restaurant co-workers are college dropouts, and none are failures. Many have bachelor’s degrees; others have real estate licenses, freelancing projects or extraordinary musical and artistic abilities. Others are nontraditional students, having entered the work force before attending college and making the wise decision not to “find themselves” and come out with $40,000 in debt, at 4.6 percent interest.

    4. It can be hard to convince my 19-year-old students that the latter is more profitable or of greater personal value. My adjunct-teaching colleagues have large course loads and, mostly, graduate-level educations, but live just above the poverty line. In contrast, my part-time work in the Vegas service industry has produced three times more income than my university teaching.

      And yet the cultist remains convinced that his university teaching is more important.

      1. “And yet the cultist remains convinced that his university teaching is more important.”

        He’s a PROFESSOR! He knows more than the lower order of people whose preferences define the market!
        If you don’t believe him, ask him! Oh, and ask our new lefty trolls; Rabaul is trying to pitch other lefties as ‘authorities’ since the want humanity to exist without want.

  15. I would like to know how much her net worth has skyrocketed since she has been in Congress. I bet she has made some back room deals in her time in congress.

  16. I am not sure why she is so popular. She beat a Republican Senator- in Massachusetts- by less than ten points. Prior to that, she was not picked by Obama administration to run the very consumer protection group he had hired her to create. All she does is run around yelling and gesticulating. And she pretended to be a woman of color for reasons unknown but probably nefarious.

    1. “And she pretended to be a woman of color for reasons unknown but probably nefarious.”

      As I understand it, she used that lie in application for her position at Harvard.

  17. Just as happens all too often in the political spectrum, the libertarians are more concerned with being right than doing the right thing.

    I’m glad Elizabeth Warren might be naive in this realm. I hope she is. She can have advisers explain the details. We just need someone to reign in the big financial powers. We need someone passionate. We need someone with a strong bias against these financial giants.

    If you think the merits of private property is the ultimate ideal, then I hope you one day wake up to owning NO PROPERTY after these bankster thugs get done with you.

    1. We just need someone to reign in the big financial powers.

      Unintentional slips are the best kind.

    2. … “bankster”…

      How
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      juvenile.

    3. Because sometimes you have to destroy the village to save it!

      I am worried a LOT more about the government taking my shit than a private corporation (unless that corporation is in league with the government).

    4. “I’m glad Elizabeth Warren might be naive in this realm. I hope she is. She can have advisers explain the details.”

      Yeah, because putting morons in positions of power always has profoundly good effects, right?

      “We need someone passionate. We need someone with a strong bias against these financial giants.”

      We need someone who emotes rather that thinks, who will enrich her own cronies and hurt people I don’t like.

  18. We need someone passionate. We need someone with a strong bias against these financial giants.

    We hatess teh munnylendersssss, Precious.

  19. I think the people who are naive are the ones thinking she is naive.

    She damn well understands regulatory capture. She just thinks she can profit it off of it, like almost every other politician. Her populist anti-corporate act is phony as her American Indian heritage.

    1. Here’s what I don’t understand about the ‘Indian heritage’ thing. If she really is 1/32 Indian, she is still 31/32 evil white oppressor… but even worse, the 1/32, no doubt, means that one of her ancestors raped a native American, so wouldn’t that also means she is part rapist? That’s not something to be proud of!

      This is how Harvard perpetuates rape culture.

  20. Good article, but to be fair to Warren, she ended up arguing against Dodd-Frank rather vehemently at the time because of the way the White House and Democrats watered it down and allowing the abuses and lack of effectiveness that are being criticized now.

  21. This christmas with Santa Claus special offer happy life free registration , free gift and much more bundles just as Samuel explained I cant believe that a mother can make $7276 in a few weeks on the internet . read the full info here to keep it join.
    big christmas big offer -=-=-=-=-=- http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.