Financial consumers would have fewer protections than originally envisioned under a draft of a bill being circulated on Capitol Hill.
The latest proposal for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency would no longer require financial institutions to offer a “plain vanilla” version of its products, such as a basic 30-year fixed rate mortgage. That would free lenders to concentrate on selling more sophisticated and expensive products.
The changes were proposed in a memo sent to Democratic members of the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday evening by its chairman, Barney Frank.
The financial crisis sparked the idea for the agency, to make financial products safer for consumers. Advocates say such an agency could have prevented the subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting financial meltdown.
The agency would be able to examine and subpoena information from banks, while regulating financial tools such as mortgages and credit cards. Such an agency could determine the language on loan applications, how it’s presented and what the disclosure requirements are.
The new proposal would exempt non-bank businesses — such as merchants and retailers — from oversight. That means they could continue to offer customers tabs and layaway plans without facing a new layer of regulation, Frank’s memo said. Accountants, real estate brokers and agents also would be exempt.
Oddly enough, the banks are less than thrilled with the idea of this agency and would rather kill it outright.
#27 Wow. Just wow. The ignorance is breathtaking. Just breathtaking. So much wrong here, but the heart of the matter is this last statement.
I have no problem with the government setting standards (promoting the general welfare) but it is not the job to enforce standards.
How can I break this to you… the government can set all the standards it wants, but if it doesn’t enforce them, they are absolutely useless. So simple a child could understand… if mommy says “don’t steal cookies” but doesn’t punish you when you do, you can steal as many cookies as you want.
And yet libertarians somehow miss this. I feel sorry for you, LL.
“There is no reason to believe that consumer protection would not be done better if you have clear accountability for people doing consumer protection oversight in a separate agency,” Geithner said to lawmakers at the House Financial Services Committee.”
Oh, give me a freaking break! The answer to the total failure at EVERY level of regulatory monitoring and enforcement is to create yet another bureaucracy to eventually be corrupted into not doing its job? NO! RESTORE the various regulations which have been stupidly dropped over the years (ex., Glass-Steagall) and actually ENFORCE the others for a CHANGE! But, NO, that’s unpopular with the various criminals who got us into this mess and who have far more influence on the government than they should, so the only answer is, of course, to set up another DO NOTHING government “oversight” agency. Sheesh… The farce continues…
#27 LibertyLover
I should probably say – straight off the bat in most situations I favor simplicity. If its not simple its probably not efficient. If it’s simple but not ‘maximimally efficient’ – often that’s often good enough. Actually in practice simple is often more efficient than some notionally maximal efficiency that never really happens.
Anways…
‘#20, So, we don’t need the EPA regulations to stop corporations from dumping toxic waste?
No. If it is truly a problem, sue the shit out the companies for violating your property rights.’
Well how do I know its a problem? Am I going around and doing all the testing? I mean I might find out when my right falls off, but its a bit late then.
And actually sueing is awefully inefficient way to get anything done. Most people don’t know how to do it. You need lawyers. You don’t know the results. Might end up costing you.
Good answer if you’re a lawyer.
Not simple -> fail.
‘We don’t need OSHA regulations to make sure corporations provide safe workplaces for their workers?
No. Unions should take care of this. If the workers truly demand a safe working environment, they will demand it or go on strike.
OSHA is a nanny-state org.’
So the government can set the standards but does not enforce them.
I think this is a simplicity fail too. Why? Because again its putting the onus onto some amorphous group of people to do the enforcing. Such a group (for whatever reasons) may or may not actually have your best interests at heart. I mean its ripe for corruption. The group may not exist – say in a small company. And then we’re back to sue central.
I’ll come straight out and say it – that I think that the sue culture in the US is a fail. Why? Because it fails the simplicity test.
‘We don’t need the FDA regulations to make sure food and drug producers are making safe products?
Have you read the history of food regulations in the country? They were pushed by large cattle companies to keep foreign meat out of America. Free Trade? Hardly.’
I have not read the history of food regulations in this country.
I have read a lot about food issues in the US though. I’d agree its not working very well.
So lets say we get rid of the FDA (or somethign like it)- so hows this going to work?
Whos going to do the research? Whos going to do the testing? I don’t even mean cutting edge stuff – just the basic stuff.
Having a government body/s to do this seems the simplest solution. It might not be perfect – but I don’t see a better suggestion. (ie sueing isn’t it – for the previous reasons).
‘We don’t need regulations on automakers to force them to make safe cars?
If the companies were colluding with each other, whoever made the safer car wins.’
I assume you mean not colluding.
Having the government specify the code, and then enforce it is simple. If a company (such as volvo) wants to take that further then they can and sell on that.
It’s simple. I know if I buy a car sold in the US it will be at a certain level of safety.
If the government doesn’t enforce – then who will? How will they enforce? What if they don’t where do I go? I mean who are these people that are making all this stuff happen? How are they funded? Whats their objective?
Having a government body to set standards and enforce basic standards is simple. Its a win for the majority of people.
For small isolated groups of people say < 50 then what you're saying is the simple answer, all this other stuff is baggage. So I can endorse that.
But for the world we live in – it badly fails the simplicity test.
@Phydeau and #26
Who are these people that want companies dumping waste on their lawns and in their river?
who are these people that would allow fraud to happen?
Who are these people who want cars that are unsafe?
Who are these people who want tainted meat?
Who are these people who would continue to buy these products and allow this to happen when the company was found out?
Who are these people who WANT to cheat their customer and risk losing all their business to their nearest competitor?
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? IS IT YOU?
It’s important to note, that the industries that people complain about the most are the industries that the government is involved with the most. Healthcare, auto, banking, finance, education, energy etc.
“no company wants to compete on a fair playing field”
Small business does. They don’t have the resources to lobby congress for special privileges and regulations that limit competition, increase cost, and limit entry into the marketplace. large corporations do have that ability, therefore small business gets squashed.
Your statement also helps make my point, no business WANTS to compete on a level playing field, which is why they lobby congress for regulation of their industries. This is why small business would be happy to have an even playing field, this way they wouldn’t have such a hard time competing with mega-mart.
# 26 freddybobs68k
“‘The free market will sort everything out’ is a crock. Implying the less regulation the better the result. Leading to no regulation is the best.
I mean it’s trivially wrong.
It comes down to what are the purpose of companies? Sure to maximize the profit for their shareholders. But that’s under the assumption that as a side effect it maximizes the benefit for the people.”
The purpose of a company is to maximize profit, absent the intrusion of government…how does a company do that?
I have an answer to this question, but I’d really like to hear yours. Maybe I’m missing something.
#31 LibertyLover
‘Nope. You would be shot on sight for trespassing and if you survived, sued for violating my property rights.’
This is kinda stupid.
But no. I dropped a bomb on your house, with you in it. I can do this because I’m a rich company with big planes and bombs. And your some sad pathetic individual.
I then placed the nuclear waste in the crater created.
Done.
#33, How can I break this to you… the government can set all the standards it wants, but if it doesn’t enforce them, they are absolutely useless.
Let’s try this one more time.
The government says, “Here is a list of recommended safety features all vehicles should have.”
A car company advertises they support those features.
A private citizen finds out they don’t.
The private citizen files a complaint.
The government punishes them for fraud.
This method is much easier than what we have now.
#36 Veering ever farther from reality, DA asks:
Who are these people that want companies dumping waste on their lawns and in their river?
who are these people that would allow fraud to happen?
Who are these people who want cars that are unsafe?
Who are these people who want tainted meat?
Who are these people who would continue to buy these products and allow this to happen when the company was found out?
Uh, dude… no consumer wants all this stuff… but it’ll happen, because in your happy shiny deregulated world, these are profitable things for corporations to do, and if there’s nothing stopping them (like regulations), they’ll do it.
And furthermore, who says the people will find out about the nasty food, or the polluted water, or the unsafe workplaces? In your happy shiny deregulated world, the big corporations will own all the media and prevent any news of their malfeasance from getting out. Well, that one’s uncomfortably close to reality right now. 🙁
And another thing, small businesses like regulation because it forces the big guys to play fair. History has shown that once small companies get big, they become opposed to true regulation. On the other hand “regulation” that favors them they’re always in favor of, and they use their lobbyists and campaign contributions to make that happen.
freddybobs68k, IMHO libertarians are like communists or fundie christians. They have their own extreme view of the world and insist on trying to fit the world to their views.
#37, Who would actually drop the bomb and be in jeopardy of being tried for murder?
That is a clear violation of property rights and violation of non-aggression.
Suing is only inefficient because of the all the government regulations the lawyers have to maneuver through. I agree. It is complex now. It shouldn’t be and it doesn’t have to be.
amorphous group of people to do the enforcing.
And that is crux of this whole argument. You don’t think people in general are smart enough to take care of themselves. Do you really have such low regard for your fellow man that you feel you have to take care of him? That’s just downright insulting.
#39, these are profitable things for corporations to do, and if there’s nothing stopping them (like regulations), they’ll do it.
Why do you feel that way? If somebody started dumping their trash in your front yard, would you not complain to the authorities or would you just clean it up, call your congressman and get another law passed?
And another thing, small businesses like regulation because it forces the big guys to play fair.
As a small business owner, I have to say you are completely wrong. I cannot compete on the big jobs because of all the regulations I have to follow. I just take the ones that don’t require a staff of compliancy lawyers.
Can I suggest..
that STOCK HOLDERS get the hit..
ISNT that what STOCK HOLDERS are for??
They invest into a company or idea, and if its GOOD the stock goes up, as the company advances??
It SHOULD be the same for banks..IF they SCREW UP the stock holders GET THE HIT. FORGET the FDIC. its the investors that SHOULD be funding the bank. Isnt that HOW a bank WORKS anyway??
LET the investors and stock holders TAKE IT IN THE SHORTS..NOT the public.
#38 What we have now:
1. The government publishes a list of safety features a car should have.
2. The government tells car makers they must have those features to sell cars in the U.S.
3. Everyone in the U.S. has a safe car.
Notice what’s not there? Individuals needing to sue General Motors. Where the f*ck is an individual going to get the money to sue a multi-billion dollar corporation?
Notice what else isn’t there? The individual being required to become an automotive expert and comb through the tech spec of the car to make sure it has the safety features it claims.
Notice what else isn’t there? The government being required to respond to hundreds or thousands of individual claims against the manufacturer of an unsafe car.
Your way involves lots of suing, lots of money being spent on lawyers (if people can even scrape it up) and lots of nickel-and-diming action by the government.
Now multiply this times the food industry, and the housing industry, and any other industry that an individual comes in contact with. The libertarian paradise involves the individual becoming an expert in every one of those areas, and to be rich for all the money he’ll spend suing big corporations to try to force them to do the right thing.
What color is the sky in your world?
# 37 freddybobs68k
“Well how do I know its a problem? Am I going around and doing all the testing? I mean I might find out when my right falls off, but its a bit late then.
And actually sueing is awefully inefficient way to get anything done. Most people don’t know how to do it. You need lawyers. You don’t know the results. Might end up costing you.
Good answer if you’re a lawyer.”
there is a lot of money to be made in sueing a company thats causing harm, and you pointed out a critical point. Sueing is inefficient…so the problem isn’t corporations, the problem is government. More specifically the problem is with the courts. So maybe we should figure out how to fix the courts so that we don’t have to pay MORE taxes for ineffective government bureaucracy.
You recognized the underlying problem of government then ignored your own point and proceeded to imply that we need MORE of what caused the problem.
“So the government can set the standards but does not enforce them.
I think this is a simplicity fail too. Why? Because again its putting the onus onto some amorphous group of people to do the enforcing. Such a group (for whatever reasons) may or may not actually have your best interests at heart. I mean its ripe for corruption. The group may not exist – say in a small company. And then we’re back to sue central.
I’ll come straight out and say it – that I think that the sue culture in the US is a fail. Why? Because it fails the simplicity test.”
First off, rating agencies, consumer groups, compete with each other. If a consumer group is corrupt and their competing group is able to find either something they missed or find where they corrupt, then that company is going to reap massive benefits.
I can guarantee that I could run a moral and profitable consumer advocate group that serves the best interest of the consumers. Not only that, but I’d get more market share by publishing when companies tried to bribe my company. Unfortunately, government has pushed out the market and now owns a monopoly.
If you reject the market based solely on mankind’s fallibility then you must also reject government for the same exact reason.
“I have not read the history of food regulations in this country.
I have read a lot about food issues in the US though. I’d agree its not working very well.
So lets say we get rid of the FDA (or somethign like it)- so hows this going to work?
Whos going to do the research? Whos going to do the testing? I don’t even mean cutting edge stuff – just the basic stuff.”
Roughly the same response here as my response to your previous point, just extrapolate from that what I would say here.
“I assume you mean not colluding.”
No I’m pretty sure he meant what he said, in a cartel that isn’t enforced by law the company to break that cartel wins.
“Having the government specify the code, and then enforce it is simple. If a company (such as volvo) wants to take that further then they can and sell on that.”
It’s simple, but wrong, it limits competition and causes mistakes. “I followed the regulations, therefore I’m not responsible”, it also removes incentive to innovate and actually makes it illegal.
It’s simple. I know if I buy a car sold in the US it will be at a certain level of safety.
“If the government doesn’t enforce – then who will? How will they enforce? What if they don’t where do I go? I mean who are these people that are making all this stuff happen? How are they funded? Whats their objective?”
Even though I covered this idea, I’m going to respond again in more detail….
“who will enforce?”
The consumer. Companies that make shitty failing products would fail if they could be held accountable by the consumer.
“How will they enforce?”
they will enforce by voting with their money and their feet.
“What if they don’t where do I go?”
If there is free entry into the market then you go to the nearest competitor. If there isn’t then go figure out why.
Having a government body to set standards and enforce basic standards is simple. Its a win for the majority of people.
“I mean who are these people that are making all this stuff happen?”
They are funded by the consumer and often the government…and they are protected by government through absurd laws.
Go try to start a bank, see how long you last before you get thrown in jail for doing the exact same thing the bankers do now. You know what the difference is between you and the bank?
They have special privileges and you dont.
Whats their objective?”
Their objective is profit naturally. I’d go into more detail but I’m saving this particular idea for a different post.
“For small isolated groups of people say < 50 then what you're saying is the simple answer, all this other stuff is baggage. So I can endorse that.
But for the world we live in – it badly fails the simplicity test.”
No it doesn't, the answer is a simple answer, however the market is complex. More complex than anyone can possibly understand completely and therefore it's impossible to understand how to centrally plan an economy.
#40 And that is crux of this whole argument. You don’t think people in general are smart enough to take care of themselves. Do you really have such low regard for your fellow man that you feel you have to take care of him? That’s just downright insulting.
You’re right, this is the crux of the problem. In your happy shiny libertarian world, you expect a man to be an expert in automotive, housing, and food technology to make sure he’s not being screwed by big corporations.
In the real world, we realize we’re not experts in everything. We delegate the responsibility to figure out safe automotive technology to the experts, and we use that expertise to come up with standards that we as a nation make the automotive manufacturers follow. No suing necessary, no guessing necessary.
7 AlfredETerrorist
“Statist spin that regulation, or lack thereof, caused the meltdown”
So. Which is it then? You can’t take both sides of your “reason”. You have one or the other.
LibertyLover,
We’ve touched on this in another posting, and it’s coming up again, though not directly. Corporate Personhood makes the individual fighting false claims almost impossible. You can “sue” any company you want. But when corp can put billions of dollars and any amount of “expert” against your claim, you are done. And even if you win, they will appeal all the way up.
One of the governments primary, and maybe most important, role is to protect the citizenry. From wars and from the exploitation of multi, foreign or supranational entities. Regulation seems to be the only way to level the field against companies like Haliburton that eat US tax dollars whilst moving operations to Dubai to avoid paying taxes back.
Thankfully, you can not see the anal surgery scars on this middle class piggy.
—
Please Help Stop Global Whining
What you see here is the sad result of too much Ayn Rand at an impressionable age. It’s too late for the adults, but think of the children!
Friends don’t let friends’ children read Ayn Rand. 😉
This argument shows what useful tools the libertarians are for the big corporations. While libertarians babble “no regulation necessary, just sue them” and “unions will protect the workplace”, the big corporations are working overtime on “tort reform” (i.e. restricting people’s right to sue) and union busting.
Way to go libbies… hope they use lube. 🙂
#41
“Uh, dude… no consumer wants all this stuff… but it’ll happen, because in your happy shiny deregulated world, these are profitable things for corporations to do, and if there’s nothing stopping them (like regulations), they’ll do it.”
You’re right it is profitable, and they will do it, but only if they are allowed. You keep missing my point, even though I’ve spelled it out repeatedly.
“And furthermore, who says the people will find out about the nasty food, or the polluted water, or the unsafe workplaces? In your happy shiny deregulated world, the big corporations will own all the media and prevent any news of their malfeasance from getting out. Well, that one’s uncomfortably close to reality right now.”
How stupid do you think people are? lol
Seriously? If a bunch of people owns cars and they start on fire, do you really think they aren’t going to notice?
Would people all sound like this? – “Huh, thats odd, another one of my cars started on fire, why is my insurance so expensive…weird. I aint done nothing, it’s not my fault these damn cars keep starting on fire! I demand regulation of insurance companies! They’re ripping us off! Lets go burn down the insurance companies!! AHHHHH!!!”
Is this how you envision society without government regulation? A bunch of mindless dolts enslaved to smart CEOs?
Further I also just showed another way market influences good products. Through insurance, or risk management. Companies and consumers that expose themselves to high risk will be forced to pay high prices for insurance.
“And another thing, small businesses like regulation because it forces the big guys to play fair. History has shown that once small companies get big, they become opposed to true regulation. On the other hand “regulation” that favors them they’re always in favor of, and they use their lobbyists and campaign contributions to make that happen.”
History doesn’t show this at all, neither does axiomatic reasoning.
Read – http://mises.org/efandi/ch45.asp
Stop being so misinformed, you need to actually read history rather than blindly spouting rhetoric.
“freddybobs68k, IMHO libertarians are like communists or fundie christians. They have their own extreme view of the world and insist on trying to fit the world to their views.”
Well, that explains a lot, thanks for revealing your ignorance.
#43, What we have now:
1. The government publishes a list of safety features a car should have.
2. The government tells car makers they must have those features to sell cars in the U.S.
3. Everyone in the U.S. has a safe car.
Where are the steps where the car companies bribe the officials to NOT increase the safety standards or they wouldn’t be able to compete with some small start-up or a foreign competitor?
How many car company start-ups did we have at the turn of the 20th century? How many have we had since then?
Your way involves lots of suing, lots of money being spent on lawyers (if people can even scrape it up) and lots of nickel-and-diming action by the government.
The loser pays the costs.
Up front costs will be minimized because there will be fewer laws to navigate around.
#45, I may not be an expert in everything but I damned sure know how to look up facts when what I’m being told is clearly not correct. See DA’s post in #44 for more details.
#49, Friends don’t let friends’ children read Ayn Rand. 😉
Now that’s funny, I don’t care who you are.
#52 Where are the steps where the car companies bribe the officials to NOT increase the safety standards or they wouldn’t be able to compete with some small start-up or a foreign competitor?
Bribery happens. We deal with it, punish it when we find it. Doesn’t invalidate the point.
The loser pays the cost.
And in the individual vs. the megabillion dollar corporation, we all know who that will be.
#45, I may not be an expert in everything but I damned sure know how to look up facts when what I’m being told is clearly not correct. See DA’s post in #44 for more details.
In today’s complex world you will never be able to look up enough facts to keep yourself safe in all areas. That’s why we the people, in order to promote the general welfare, hire experts to research the facts and share their findings with us. It’s called government, it’s called regulation, and it works. Not perfectly, but it works.
# 44 DA
So its a long post. So you bring up some good points.
Yes – we could make the court system more efficient. But its never going to be very efficient. Most efficient is not to go to court in the first place. And thats what a government standards/enforcement provide. Your complaint that ‘we met the standards’ – doesn’t work in that if it failed the company could still be taken to court.
I actually think a big part of the problem is what ‘Phydeau’ brings up. That is that it implies everybody is an expert on everything. Which is not to say people are stupid – just that everybody cannot know everything.
There is the implication of if I do it it will be more efficient. Whats it going to take for me to ensure my water is safe? If I paid the government 1 USD a year to do it for me – it would have 300 million USD to test water across the country. That’s pretty efficient. What you seem to be suggesting is standards and sueing are going to be more efficient somehow. Can’t see that – having a few people test and enforce for millions of people is simple and efficient.
People will generally not enforce generally. They don’t know how. They don’t have the expertise to know the underlying problem. They are not going to take on big business (for a variety of reasons that have already been bought up).
Paying some extra taxes – so we can have experts who do create standards and enforce them is simple and efficient.
I’m not going to argue maximally efficient. It doesn’t have to be. But what you’re suggesting is certainly not simple – or efficient for large groups of people.
For you and you’re mates in the libertarian commune – sounds like it would work great.
…
“What if they don’t where do I go?”
If there is free entry into the market then you go to the nearest competitor. If there isn’t then go figure out why.
…
This is exactly what I mean. Oh I just go and figure it all out then. Well that’s easy. You obviously haven’t bought health insurance recently. It’s sooo transparent and simple.
#47, I still feel you take the personhood away from corporations and a lot of these problems go away.
And I think the “big” corporation would become a thing of the past if it was (well, you would need to repeal most of the regulations that hurt the small guy, too).
Smaller companies are more maneuverable and smarter. My company could out perform most other companies 10 times my size — if only I owned a senator.
#51 See, this is the sickness of libertarians. They’d rather people have to notice that gee, lots of cars are exploding in flames and people dying, then the car company is forced to do something,maybe, if individuals have good enough lawyers and enough money for lengthy court battles. Rather that than just telling the car companies up front, hey, don’t build exploding cars.
And multiply that by the food, housing, drug, industry. Let them get away with selling tainted food, shoddy housing, drugs that don’t work, until maybe, someday, the consumers catch on and individually try to sue these big corporations into selling good food, good housing, and drugs that work.
Again — what color is the sky in your world? What kind of twisted mentality does it take to want that?
#54, Bribery happens. We deal with it, punish it when we find it. Doesn’t invalidate the point.
What a crappy attitude. So, just because it happens, we have to deal with it. And you call me insane?
In today’s complex world you will never be able to look up enough facts to keep yourself safe in all areas. That’s why we the people, in order to promote the general welfare, hire experts to research the facts and share their findings with us. It’s called government, it’s called regulation, and it works. Not perfectly, but it works.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t PROMOTE it . . . . just not PROVIDE it.
Big difference.
# 47 Phydeau, discussing perfect knowledge.
“You’re right, this is the crux of the problem. In your happy shiny libertarian world, you expect a man to be an expert in automotive, housing, and food technology to make sure he’s not being screwed by big corporations.
In the real world, we realize we’re not experts in everything. We delegate the responsibility to figure out safe automotive technology to the experts, and we use that expertise to come up with standards that we as a nation make the automotive manufacturers follow. No suing necessary, no guessing necessary.”
This is a silly argument.
You imply that EVERYONE needs to be experts to know when they are getting screwed. Thats absurd, if I see that everyone is getting sick from a certain companies brocolli then I’m not going to eat their brocolli…If that company turns out to be irresponsible then they would be exposing themselves to serious risk. In the form of lawsuits and loss of profit.
On top of that consumer groups as well as other companies have HUGE incentives to figure out if a company is being irresponsible.
If I run cow farming company A and you run cow farm company B, and you decide to feed your cattle toxic waste that increases the growth rate of your cattle and makes them more tasty, but your product has longterm effects that wont be seen for several years. So your company suddenly starts turning huge profits, I would investigate immediately because I want to figure out what you’re doing. Now I could expose you, you could go out of business and I could get your market share, or a consumer advocate group could expose you and get increased market share in their market, or any other curious individual could expose you and file a lawsuit, or any other number of things. Naturally I could decide to do the same thing you are doing and try to reap the benefits…If I was able to reap the benefits other investors and entrepreneurs would see this and want to enter this highly lucrative market and undercut us. They’d do some research and find out how we are doing it….
I mean seriously, is everyone really that fucking evil? Are you? I’ve never met one of these people, I’m sure there are a few that exist…even still. I find it extremely hard to believe there are THAT MANY evil people.
I’m sure you’re going to bring up cigarette companies…I hope you do.
#54 Phydeau
Right. You said it better than I could.
To the libertarians – don’t get me wrong what we have is far from perfect. And perhaps some libertarian ideas would make the country operate better. But the broad idea as a replacement, it just doesn’t fly with reality.
#56 And I think the “big” corporation would become a thing of the past if it was (well, you would need to repeal most of the regulations that hurt the small guy, too).
I think this is what libertarians are really pining for — a simpler time, with no big corporations and no big government, when people had enough expertise to deal with everything they came in contact with. Who knows, libertarianism might really have worked then, if that time ever really existed. But it sure isn’t the reality we’re dealing with now, which is why libertarianism will remain forever theoretical, the wrong solution at the wrong time.
#61, I think this is what libertarians are really pining for — a simpler time, with no big corporations and no big government,
Not simpler. Righter.