TheAgitator.com
Next Stop Is the Eastside Motel
Wednesday, December 17th, 2008A few weeks ago, I posted about a piece in reason by Veronique de Rugy showing how President Bush has overseen the largest expansion of the federal regulatory state since at least Nixon, possibly LBJ.
It’s now online, here.
As Bush’s second term winds down there seems to be an emerging narrative in the media that W was this massive deregulator, and so all of the problems of the last eight years can be laid at the feet of limited government, free market philosophy. It just isn’t true.
Warren G FTW!
Dang John…you beat me to it.
MOUNT UP!
“As Bush’s second term winds down there seems to be an emerging narrative in the media that W was this massive deregulator, and so all of the problems of the last eight years can be laid at the feet of limited government, free market philosophy. It just isn’t true.”
If there’s anything Bush is responsible for, it’s not limited government. All of the problems of the last eight years should be laid at the feet of incompetent government. That’s Bush’s legacy.
It took me about 15 seconds to realize what the title of the post had to do with the post itself. “Regulators! Got it!” Hahha, annnnnd I’m dumb. But the point is that Warren G (well really Nate Dogg) quotes are always awesome. Nice job, Radley!
Oh, and can I just say, on the topic of the song, the original sample “I Keep Forgetting” by Michael mcDonald is one of the best songs ever!
I don’t know what’s sadder — that you made the reference, or that it seems like everyone (including me) got it.
History to media is what occurred 5 minutes ago.
“All of the problems of the last eight years should be laid at the feet of incompetent government. That’s Bush’s legacy.”
Well said, Dave.
If spending more and drafting more rules made for a more effective organization, then the US military would be utterly dominant, and capable of, say, taking a few third world countries in less than five years.
That is not so, of course. And Bush is no more a regulator, or even a believer in regulation, that a mall cop with all the toys is an effective warrior. Look at what he has done! The interior department is riddled with drug use and sex with lobbyists, OSHA is utterly ineffective, the FDA killed hundreds of thousands of people with crap science relating to Vioxx and other medications, while simultaneously allowing meth ops to pop up at meat packing plants all over the country. Oh, and the CPSC has lost their last and only toy inspector after a year of scandal about poisonous toys! And don’t even get me started on the total lack of financial supervision over the last five years, ridiculous wastes of time like the new accounting rules aside. And now the newest rules the executive is issuing seem intent on preventing us from suing when the corps take advantage of the newly issued, lax rules to screw us over!
Sure he is spending more; more money for his cronies and contractors, after all! Sure he is issuing more rules; lots of work to do to undo all worker, consumer, and public protection so that the big corps can abuse and steal with impunity! But reaching the conclusion that because he is spending more and writing more rules that he is being a more effective regulator, or that he even believes in regulation at all, is pure tunnel vision. Focusing on a few figures rather than what is actually happening is bound to cause a person to reach the wrong conclusions.
What would I like? A small, effective regulatory apparatus that is intent upon protecting the public from greedy people hurting their fellow citizens for profit, and a legal profession devoted to fixing problems that arise despite the best efforts of the regulators. You might like small government, Randy; we both do, in fact, because a large government is very inefficient and open to corruption. But as long as corporations are considered super-citizens with rights above those of the average person, with the sole life purpose of making more money at any cost, then they will need to be restrained a bit or we will end up with a government of totally unaccountable corporations that can destroy your life with even less recourse available to you than if the gov does it; after all, how can you revolt against an organization that can just pick up shop and base themselves in another country, where they can abuse you with impunity?
By the way, I think there are private solutions, along the model of the Consumer Union, that could be implemented on the regulatory front. I would love to see the FDA dissolved and replaced with a subscription funded testing lab, like the Consumers Union but endowed with subpoena power, to test medications -against one another-, something the FDA steadfastly refuses to do despite the fact it would save thousands of lives (at least!) and a second governmental body devoted to food safety. The new Doctors and Pharmacists Union could sell their subscriptions to every doctor and pharmacist in the country, cut out the drug industry funding, and push us into a future in which the effective generic is the first choice, rather than the expensive and usually less effective patent medication. :-)
But as long as corporations are considered super-citizens with rights above those of the average person, with the sole life purpose of making more money at any cost, then they will need to be restrained a bit or we will end up with a government of totally unaccountable corporations that can destroy your life with even less recourse available to you than if the gov does it…
So here’s an idea… Instead of expanding government to restrain the super-citizen corporations, we stop considering corporations to be super-citizens in the first place. And keep in mind that the whole reason corporations became super-citizens was because of expansive governmental regulations which could be laden with loopholes for corps. So here’s the plan: no regulations, no loopholes, no super-citizens. Sure beats fixing regulation with more regulation, don’t it?
I feel compelled to point out that “free market” not only allowed, but also incentivized, the unregulated trading of $60 trillion dollars of credit default swaps, which transformed the subprime problem into the current credit crunch that has sent the global economy into recession.
Sorry, everyone, but an unregulated market is not the answer to all of our economic woes.
Hey ClubMedSux, explain how no regulations means no super-citizens? Let’s say I am the head of a huge multinational corporation and I decide that the company’s profits will increase if I create and market a product that appears safe, but has harmful side effects to its users that occur over a long period of time and the product is made by children as slave laborers until horribly inhumane conditions. With no regulation, there is nothing to stop me and my supercitizen company. Brilliant plan! Your well-thought out position solves everything!
Rich,
A free market was not involved in any way, shape, or form with allowing, or incentivizing, the unregulated trading of $60 trillion of credit default swaps. Nor is it to blame for the subsequent credit crunch and global recession.
Sorry, but you first have to have a free market (not statist capitalism) before you can blame a free market.
Rich,
Explore the libertarian (and free market) concept of liability, which doesn’t go away with a free market.
Also, why is your world full of people who buy products that are made by children in horrible conditions? What a terrible world you live in.
Hey ClubMedSux, explain how no regulations means no super-citizens?
I define a super-citizen as somebody who doesn’t have to play by the same rules as everybody else (e.g. when a supercitizen owns a poorly-run company producing an inferior product, the government bails them out while a non-supercitizen goes out of business). The situation you describe could occur with anybody, be it a multinational corporation or a corner toy store selling “Bag-o-glass” Halloween costumes.
My point is that, once we start relying on government regulation to keep corporations in check, we’re simply creating a vicious cycle where large corporations donate money to pols to create loopholes for them and the little guy gets screwed. The end result is not safer conditions for individuals but rather more money for politicians and more influence for corporations–neither of which is an end goal of yours, I would assume.
I’m not saying the marketplace is perfect. I’m merely suggesting that it’s a better alternative to fixing ineffective regulations with more ineffective regulations.
Sorry, I thought we would deal with reality on this site. My mistake.
Here is a previous comment I posted, in response to Boyd Durkin’s comments:
I agree that governments are extremely inefficient at allocating resources. I also agree that free markets are extremely efficient at this same task. In fact, I find myself agreeing with many (but not all) of the positions expressed or implied by Radley Balko on this fine website. It is safe to say that I am frequent reader and fan or Mr. Balko. But I am troubled by the near-religious faith that Mr. Balko, some of the commentors here and others place in “free” markets.
In microeconomics, the market is theoretical, in that all participants are permitted without any barriers to entry, such participants act rationally based on complete transparency and perfect information, and no externalities are ignored, because these are factored into the buying and selling decisions. In fact, this theoretical free market is designed and conceived to be perfectly efficient.
I hope that Mr. Balko, commentors and the rest of us would recognize that no such market exists in reality. There are barriers to entry. Participants act irrationally and/or based on imperfect information. Externalities, such as environmental or social impacts, are not priced into many commodities. More importantly, no such “perfect” market can or will ever exist. To believe otherwise is to simply ignore reality.
For example, how can you defeat barriers to entry created by market participants without some body to regulate the market? How do you prevent monopolies or price collusion, which are anti-market forces, without regulation? How do you deal with externalities, such as people wanting to end exploitative labor practices (ie, child or slave labor), that are not priced by the market? How could you possibly force participants to act rationally, rather than emotionally?
Because of these obvious imperfections in the real market, inefficient government regulation becomes a necessary evil. This is where the libertarian argument falls apart. And I admit this as a libertarian myself. Unfortunately, our problems cannot be solved by relying on a theoretical model that can never be implemented. Let’s try and be realistic and pragmatic, and leave the dogma at the door.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think anybody is claiming the free market is perfect. The point is that it’s more efficient than governmental regulation. I’m glad you brought up child labor, as that’s an excellent example. Sure, child labor sucks. But let’s say some government in southeast Asia bans child labor. What happens? The children are forced to turn to the sex trade industry. Chalk one up for regulation.
That kind of scenario happens all too often… The government has good intentions to regulate, but it just doesn’t work. Unsafe toys–which you mentioned earlier–are another example. Congress passes the CPSIA to save our children and the end result will be small companies going out of business and large corporations gaining a monopoly over the toy industry. http://nationalbankruptcyday.com/ Again, is this the result we want?
I can’t speak for anybody else here, but I’ve never claimed the market was perfect. I just think that, nine times out of ten, the market will do a better job than politicians. And since I don’t know of any way for the government to discern the 10% of the time when they might effectively regulate something, I’m casting my lot with the market. Seems realistic and pragmatic to me.
You’re right, it’s not true. But the narrative has been created by the left-wing that is salivating at the idea of using the current economic crisis to expand governmental power. They do that by convincing the rubes that too little regulation by their enemy, the evil Bush, brought this upon us, so more regulation is needed.
In a free market…there are no barriers. Barriers come from goverment regulation…usually sponsered by corporations in one way or another to protect themselves. If they band together for price collusion, then another company will sell at a lower price to increase profits…assuming there are no barriers thanks to government regulation. Monopolies might exist for a while, but if they start to suck, someone will fill the void.
If corporations are doing bad things…then you sue them. Thats how you keep them in check. If a company isn’t being transparent enough and people lose faith in their financial reporting, people sell their stock and stop investing in that company.
If people act irrationally, thats their own fault and they take responsability. I’m not going to force anyone to act rationally if they can’t do it on their own.
I don’t think anyone thinks things will be perfect in a Libertarian world. The world will never be perfect. Even with regulation, bad things still continue to happen. But I would say more bad things occur thanks to regulation. Price protection, barriers to markets, wage restrctions and unfair licensing are all products of government intervention, not the free market.
Libertarians aren’t looking for perfection, we’re looking for freedom.
ClubMedSux, I’m glad you brought up the CPSIA. It’s about to my own little business out of business, and I just got started. So much for my dream of owning a little gift shop of exclusively hand made (home-made) toys.
bye bye, Lizzypops’ Shop
bye bye, Uniquilt
The entire handmade community is up in arms over it.
I think I just found a new tagline. Thanks!
… about to PUT my…
*sigh*
How can you say the free market “incentivized, the unregulated trading of $60 trillion dollars of credit default swaps, which transformed the subprime problem into the current credit crunch that has sent the global economy into recession.”
I mean…do you sit around and watch Lou Dobbs all day? The US Government created the incentives, manipulated the interest rates, and encouraged poor mortgage lending practices. How can you call yourself a Libertarian and overlook the truth that stares us all in the face? Government intervention and corporate collusion (very anti free market) is at the cause of the mess we’re in.
You’re right, it’s not true. But the narrative has been created by the left-wing that is salivating at the idea of using the current economic crisis to expand governmental power. They do that by convincing the rubes that too little regulation by their enemy, the evil Bush, brought this upon us, so more regulation is needed.
Right on!!!
The fact anyone could possibly say that the President responsible for Sarbanes-Oxley was anti-regulation is completely insane. That is the biggest, most disastrous piece of legislation in my lifetime.
the government always thinks more regulation is the solution. Enron gave us SOX, 9/11 gave us the patriot act, etc etc.
Rich J-
You say ‘Externalities, such as environmental or social impacts, are not priced into many commodities.’ What are you basing this on?
Any technical trader would argue against this and commodity markets have been operating for hundreds of years, with traders able to research and consider ‘externalities’ when they’re investing.
What do you mean by ‘There are barriers to entry.’?
re-reading your post, I gotta tell you, you’re coming off as a condescending ass- ‘Sorry, I thought we would deal with reality on this site. My mistake.’ ‘Let’s try and be realistic and pragmatic, and leave the dogma at the door.’ Am I taking this wrong?
Rich J; Amen brother! Less faith in artificial human constructs and more in human ability and providence would benefit us all, I think.
Even the CPSIA is an example of Bush’s pro-big business malfeasance; what better way to shut down a nascent home-made industry of toys and clothing that competes with the big boys than by making them illegal outright. Bush saw regulation as a tool to screw us rather than as a tool to protect the public, and that’s going to take a long time to fix.
The federal, state and local government in the US, like any large organization, is inherently inefficient and obsessively self-perpetuating. The police state has grown unbelievably powerful in my lifetime, thanks to the use of fear and disinformation. I value my freedom, what little I have left. I would like the civil freedoms guaranteed to me in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I want the government to leave me alone as much as possible. If I am not hurting anyone, then let me be.
So, in that sense, I subscribe to some libertarian ideals.
I find it interesting that when I introduce a concept like we need some form of government regulation of the market, people get all reactionary. Why? It seems like such an obvious truth. Don’t try to paint me as someone who thinks that more and more regulation is the answer in order to invalidate my argument. We have to face the fact that some regulation is required.
What would you have me believe, that government is the root of all evil? If the government and regulation went away, that we would all live in global peace without any problems? What planet do you live on? This isn’t Wonderland, my friends.
My point all along has been that such a belief appears to be contrary to reason. Some government, however inefficient, is necessary for freedom to exist. If you don”t want to face that reality, that’s fine. But it is ignoring reason, like a matter of faith. But that’s ok, because I am all for religious freedom as well.
Oh, and the unregulated sales of CDSs allowed market makers to collect premiums on $60 trillion dollars worth of what are essentially insurance policies with absolutely no reserves or ability to pay claims. You guys like insurance, right? Without regulation, what is to keep your insurer from taking your premiums, losing them in Vegas, then refusing to pay your claim when your house burns down? The market would put such a company out of business, right? But what about the people that paid premiums, and have nothing but a burnt house? How does the invisible hand of the market solve that problem?
I cannot believe that you people took this wonderful opportunity for a retrospective on 1994 era MTV and used it to discuss politics. I am ashamed.
If you smoke like Radley smokes, You get high like everyday
Best title ever, and #30 is best comment ever.
Rich,
I, and I might be the only one on this board (well, maybe Cynical in CA), do claim that the free market is perfect. As most of you know words have distinct meanings, and “perfect” would first have to be defined in order for many of the statements above to have any meaning. The failure, I believe, is presuming an agreed upon definition of “perfect” is in use.
Socialists might claim “perfect” to mean that wealth is equally distributed throughout the society. Any failure to do this is considered “imperfect” and must be corrected. In this case, the Free Market does not provide. And life isn’t perfect because we have death.
Meanwhile, I see monopolies and income disparity and “barriers to entry” and economic cycles and business failures and don’t see “imperfect” at all.
It must be said that you lose the opportunity for serious discussion by claiming reality isn’t dealt with on this site. You spent some time on your post, and that emotional opening cheapens it.
I apologize upfront for not engaging in a structured premise statement and debate, but I’ve had these exact same discussions/debates literally over 1,000 times over 20 years (even before the Intertubes were created) and am out of the business of spending 2,000 words to educate others on economics. It’s like Groundhog Day without the jokes or cute girl (and I really like both).
The answers are out there and the good people at Mises.org do a great job of getting those capable of, and willing to, learn started on their way. Others…meh. Also, this is a “response” section and not a “debate” or even a “discussion” and I’ve already written too much.
However; one comment on your post:
“What would you have me believe, that government is the root of all evil? If the government and regulation went away, that we would all live in global peace without any problems? What planet do you live on? This isn’t Wonderland, my friends.”
I live on planet Earth. I know free markets…and I had to study, debate, argue, challenge, admit I was wrong, and search for years to find it. Good luck with your search. No dogma here, better check your own backyard.
“Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell.” — Frank Borman
Yin and Yang. There is no light without dark. No success without risk of failure. Perfect.
Liberals are never ones to let facts interfere with their narrative.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
People are animals and behave the same as animals – the free market doesn’t operate by thousands of individuals making rational decisions, rather like a herd or a flock capital wheels about not knowing why it’s heading where it’s heading or what’s spooked it. Some times, like with Lemmings, it heads off over a cliff. Financial regulation is an attempt to fence off that cliff line.
One further point – when serious libertarians cry out that the free market hasn’t failed because it’s never been tried, they may be technically correct. But they sound a lot like the Socialist scholars who similarly argue that Communism hasn’t really failed because it’s never been properly implemented.
Good Lord, where is the perspective? The financial crisis doesn’t mean that the market has failed. The financial crisis is the market’s way of correcting itself. Interfere with that at your peril.
Aside to Jason: I imagine that most of the negative comment karma you’re getting is the result of you including the link to your blog in every comment. Protip: that’s spamming. Your name is already a link, man. The best way to get people to your site is to make insightful comments so that they’re interested in hearing more from you. Dropping throwaway one-liners with a link to your place at the bottom just turns people off.
“Without regulation, what is to keep your insurer from taking your premiums, losing them in Vegas, then refusing to pay your claim when your house burns down? The market would put such a company out of business, right? But what about the people that paid premiums, and have nothing but a burnt house? How does the invisible hand of the market solve that problem?”
Again…you take them to court and sue them for breach of contract. When you say that a little bit of regulation and govenment structure is necessary, you’re right. The real function of government is to provide the courts and legal system that allows you to hold wrong doers accountable in civil and criminal court. That’s it. YOU are responsible for this becuase it’s YOUR money.
You ask how do you stop companies from selling CDS’s and so forth…when companies do this and you don’t like it, stop investing with them. That’s how responsible people act. Its that simple.
You want regulation, then you regulate. You research your companies, you decide who to invest with, you decided what actions are in your best interest, and act accordingly. Every government regulator operates in the governments best interest, not in your best interest.
Mattocracy:
“Again…you take them to court and sue them for breach of contract.”
I can see your position, which is completely correct in theory. I think that it might be somewhat oversimplified, though, in practice. Sure, I can take them to court. But this assumes that I either have the savings to fund a lawsuit (think tens of thousands of dollars for the simpliest of litigation) or am willing to give away 1/3 of my award to an attorney who will take the case on a contingency basis. Plus, in my example, the company is busted from gambling away its reserves in Vegas. So, they have no assets for me to reach with my judgment, were I able to prevail in court. They are judgment-proof. Finally, it seems that the US civil courts are little more than battlefields, where the claimants with the most resources wins through wars of attrition. Justice is not the goal.
“You ask how do you stop companies from selling CDS’s and so forth…when companies do this and you don’t like it, stop investing with them. That’s how responsible people act. Its that simple.”
I totally agree in theory. But I believe that this is also oversimplified in reality. That is why I raised the CDS example. First off, the practice of investing in CDS was incredibly widespread. Nearly every bank, insurance company, and retirement plan has some either direct or indirect exposure to these instruments. You could hardly make a financial move without touching an entity with some exposure to CDSs. That is why were are in a financial crisis. Seriously, you can’t even have your money in a savings account without having exposure to a bank’s failure. Next, the instruments were barely disclosed, and their risks were either ignored or misunderstood. So, disclosure and transparency were virtually nonexistent. Even if you did invest in a company, mutual fund or hedge fund with direct exposure to CDSs, it was unlikely that you had full information about them so that you could act in your own best interest. Finally, I did not invest in any of these companies, mtual funds or hedge funds. I am a work and save my money as cash in a bank kind of guy. After losing a bundle in the dot com fiasco, I realized that the stock market is little more than organized gambling for the small investor like me. Yet I am still suffering through a shitty economy thanks to unregulated trading of CDSs.
Look, everyone, my premises is not that government is efficient, or acts in my best interest. I never said anything close to that. I tried to be clear that I agree that government is inefficient, with a primary focus on its own self-perpetuation and expansion of power. Remember, I called it a necessary evil. That is hardly glowing support.
I realize now that many, such as Boyd, tried to label me as a liberal in favor of lots of government to discredit me rather than deal with my point. Sorry, but this is not the case. I, like many here, agree that the government that governs least governs best. Honestly. I just want my civil liberties without a bunch of intervention.
I never said I was against bankrupty, Boyd. I did not support the bailout of investments banks, nor do I think we should bailout the automakers. How did anyone reach this conclusion from my comments? Boyd, a perfect market is one that allocates resources efficiently. I never said I was for equality of wealth or other socialist concepts. Maybe you are being intellectually dishonest?
My simple point is that the theoretical perfectly free market in which you place your faith does not exist in reality. Why is this so hard to accept? One the first day of class, my microeconomics professor said that the perfect free market is used as a model, a mental construct. Call me a liberal if you must, but I still think that turning to a theoretical construct that cannot actually exist as the solution to all our problems is a near-religious faith, not reasoned thought.
“When you say that a little bit of regulation and govenment structure is necessary, you’re right.”
Ah, finally…. Mattocracy, that was all I was trying to say in the first place. Not that the government can solve every problem, but that we must admit that there is some limited role that the government has to play. Again, a necessary evil.
I seriously appreciate your recent comment, Mattocracy. I was just looking for a little validation exactly along the lines of the last thing I quoted from you.
Rich J-
A theme I keep reading in your posts is that the ‘truth’ is we need the government to watch out for us and that’s a ‘fact’ and then you ridicule some posters’ belief in free markets. I think you’re right when you say, ‘My simple point is that the theoretical perfectly free market in which you place your faith does not exist in reality.’ That doesn’t make it impossible. Until Keynes, it wasn’t expected for a free government to manipulate the economy on a grand scale. These policies have repeatedly led to higher taxes, more intrusive government, and economic hardship.
You look at recent failings of the market and don’t seem to take into account poor policies that led to this. How can the market be trusted when it’s not allowed to fail? The direction we’re headed is not the right way, in my opinion. We need to disentangle our government from our markets or we’ll surely face more economic hardships and intrusions into our freedoms.
‘Why is this so hard to accept?’
Marty:
Please understand that I agree with you 100% that we are not headed in the right direction. In fact, I think we are headed in exactly the wrong direction. We need less government involvement in order for this financial crisis to be resolved, so that the market can correct itself. Bailouts = bad policy, and prolonged economic instability. A less regulated market is inherently more efficient. The less regulation, the better.
Where I suggest that the market should not be allowed to fail? Where do I deny that bad government policies helped create this mess? I certainly didn’t mean to suggest anything of the sort.
My only argument is that the free market cannot solve everything, because the perfectly efficient theoretical market is not possible.
That factual statement in no way advocates massive government entanglement, though. While I understand the the perfect free market cannot exist in reality, I want as close to the perfect theoretical market as possible, with as little regulation as possible. i don’t think the two positions are mutually exclusive.
Why can’t the perfect theoretical market exist as I have repeatedly suggested? It is impossible because it is based on the assumption of perfect information, total transparency, no externalities and perfectly rational behavior from all participants. How can those wonderful ideals ever be achieved? How is a consumer supposed to know every thing about every product? How can externalities be included in a product’s cost? How can you force people to act on reason and not emotion?
We are stuck with imperfect information, limited transparency, externalities and occassional (or frequent, depending on your view) irrational behavior. And I do not see any way around these obstacles in the massive complex global marketplace of today. Without completely perfect information, complete transparency, no externalities, and irrational actors our perfect market must unfortunately remain theoretical.
I gave 2 examples where I thought that some limited regulation might make sense: insurance and CDS trading. I am curious. Are you against requiring insurance companies to have reserves in order to pay claims? I may be for the free market, but I also want my insurance company to be able to pay if my place burns down. Does that make me a socialist in your book? What about FDIC insurance on bank deposits? Do you want depositors to lose their savings if, as we both seem to agree would be best, banks are allowed to fail? I am all for a free market, but I don’t want to lose my hard earned savings because some fat cat thought it would be a good idea to lower interest rates to ridiculous levels and to make loans to anyone with a pulse.
Remember when the hurricanes hit and the insurance companies that did not “gamble the money away in Vegas” STILL didn’t have the money to pay for the losses and the government had to bail them out anyway? At that point, the best the company can do is go bankrupt and the people that “invested” only get a sliver of what they signed up for. They should have made sure that the company was solid enough to pay for such a catastrophe, whether that was through independent study or by demanding the proof from the company.
It’s all about personal choices. Lots of ordinary people believe that companies are mystical places where things happen on a daily basis that nobody could understand. There are even more people that believe the same thing about politics… and on and on. The fact is that the goings on at companies are knowable, and if they don’t want to prove their viability then they aren’t worthy of my money. The same works on the flipside… If I don’t want to prove that they are worthy, then I am taking a risk and may very well lose my money. Lessons hurt, but you learn from them. Individuals, companies, and governments should be able to feel such pain. It’s the only real feedback mechanism that works.
If GWB were a raving libertarian, you’d think he’d have found more than zero occasions to veto during his first term – even if the Republicans who controlled Congress were also all libertarian.
I love how human irrationality is presented as a reason to entrust our decision-making to a small group of humans chosen by humans.