Good regulation vs bad regulation

[This came from a nice thread on government regulation on the Coffee Party page.]

I agree the CRA played a big role in setting the stage by incentivizing the issuing of bad loans. I'm sure other regulations have historically caused problems, too. I'm not the sort to think all regulations will guarantee positive outcomes. There is often an unseen foot that trips the best of intentions. However, even though some regulations ... See Moreend up causing problems, I believe we need some regulations beyond basic laws protecting life, liberty, and property.

For example, it would have been nice to have had a regulation to prevent the formation of the huge and interconnected market of credit default swaps placed against those bad loans caused by the CRA. Now, there's nothing illegal or immoral about credit default swaps. However, the interconnectedness and inter-dependencies within the financial market that were allowed to form caused huge problems when the housing bubble burst. The fraud that allegedly took place just added to the problem.

Good regulations can prevent a system from becoming fragile. Bad regulations (e.g. CFA) can cause huge market distortions.

Coffee Party leanings

[This post is from this Coffee Party thread]

The discussions on this Coffee Party page will probably always be to the left of the far right because the far right people are off doing their own thing on the Tea Party pages. In other words, if there were exactly the same number of people here from these political 'buckets': right, center right, center, center left, left, far left, then the overall 'leaning' of the discussions will average out to center left because the far right is not well represented. And that's an unrealistic distribution. My guess is the real distribution of people posting here cause the discussions to average out to further left than 'center left'.

However, that doesn't mean the Coffee Party sets out to be a left-leaning organization. The Coffee Party is what it is based on who shows up. If the people on the right decide not to show up, well....their loss.

the real Road to Serfdom, version 2.0

I used to be a member of the 'Road to Serfdom’ camp back in the 90s and believed any intervention in the marketplace is one more step down a road that we *all* agree ends in a bad place. Since then I came to realize that, although the theories espoused in 'Road to Serfdom' may be sound, they don't translate well into the real world. I came to believe it's not possible for free markets to persist in the real world. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The world is not only ‘wanters’ and ‘havers’ engaging in commerce. Markets coexist within a framework containing many other systems: Political systems, legal systems, banking systems, religious systems, energy distribution systems, information distribution systems, road systems, international treaty systems, extended family systems, reputation systems, etc, etc. Some of these system are fairly independent of the market system, others intersect and overlap the market system. The reason free markets eventually fail in the real world is that unethical people use elements of these other systems to gain huge, unfair advantages within the market system. Some government intervention is necessary to help prevent or correct these unfair advantages. Of course, government is another system existing within the overall framework and unethical people work hard at manipulating government to gain advantage in one or more of the other systems. It's a big tangled mess of feedback loops that distort any chance for a truly free market to work well in the long term. In fact, I feel these feedback loops, and the opportunities for manipulation they create, cause all the ‘isms’ (capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, egalitarianism, etc) to fail in the long run, if left untended, unregulated.

If nothing works, then what to do? Well, I didn’t say ‘nothing works’, I said ‘nothing works when left untended’. Therefore, what is needed is a society that is diligent in keeping on top of the various systems affecting it, has the tools to monitor these systems, and has the power to do something when corrections are necessary. One that embraces the fact that it will need to continually make adjustments as it goes along. Those adjustments will sometime require an expansion of government to prevent or correct unethical behavior in all the other systems within the framework (including the market system), and sometimes require limiting government to correct abuses or bad government policies. We must always keep in mind that the world is full of flawed people and imperfect systems and know that the *best* we can do is muddle along, but the worst we can do is sit back and trust everything to just work. Faith in the ‘system’ (whatever it is) is the real Road to Serfdom, IMHO.

Credit Default Swaps and the Bail-Out

This article describes credit defaults swaps, the role they played in the collapse of the financial market, and why people felt it was necessary to bail out the large firms. In short, not bailing them out would have triggered a cascade of 'credit events' that would have brought down the entire system (or something like that).

http://money.howstuffworks.com/credit-default-swap.htm

Another political party? No thanks.

[This comment is from this Coffee Party thread]

Many changes to the electoral and political process will need to take place before third parties become viable in the US at a national level. Given the way things are now, they tend to simply funnel votes away from either the Dems or the Repubs and can result in the worse candidate getting elected (worst from the 3rd party's perspective).

For that reason I personally don't want the Coffee Party to become an actual political party any time soon. I'd rather it continue existing as a 'movement' focused on the goals listed in the Coffee Party's 'About Us' page [copied below]:

"Coffee Party USA aims to reinvigorate the public sphere, drawing from diverse backgrounds and diverse perspectives, with the goal of expanding the influence of the People in America's political arena. We do not require nor adhere to any preexisting ideology. We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members. We see our diversity as a strength, not a weakness, because we believe that faithful deliberation from multiple vantage points is the best way to achieve the common good. It is in the responsible and reasonable practice of deliberation that we hope to contribute to society."

gun thoughts

[This was posted in this Coffee Party thread.]

I think many gun owners truly believe personal gun ownership is the innermost wall in the ring of defenses that protect America from a hypothetical future government that oppresses the population. The walls further out would be all the other freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the military, law enforcement agencies, court system, free press, the checks-and balances built into the political institutions, etc. The thinking is: Even if there came a day when these other walls were compromised, and an oppressive government gained a foothold (either by invasion or via corruption from within), it would still face an armed populace. In fact, the mere existence of an armed populace acts as a deterrent to give potential oppressors great pause.

Regardless of the soundness of such logic, it's deeply ingrained in many gun owners minds. Knowing that, it becomes easier to understand why gun owners are so opposed to any law or regulation that would make it easier for some future government to ban or confiscate people guns. I believe most gun owners would oppose any laws that result in lists of gun owners and the types of guns they own. However, I think many gun owners would be ok with laws that require proficiency tests and background checks as long as no owner lists get compiled as side-effects of the implementation of these laws.

not anti-Tea

[This was a comment in this Coffee Party thread.]

The Coffee Party is not an anti-Tea Party group. It's goal is not to bring down the Tea Party or to be against everything the Tea Party is for. Its goals (as I see them) are to bring civility back to the democratic process and foster an more informed and active electorate. If it turns out that the majority of Coffee Party members agree with a specific policy position, the organization as a whole might then officially endorse that position, but that is almost a side-effect of all this wonderful Coffee Party activity, not a primary goal. At least that's how I see it.