That’s a thing lots of people claim, but it’s simple minded thinking as well as being patently false.

I have an extensive collection of marital aids. Vibrators, dildos, blindfolds, handcuff, Venus Butterflies, etc. I’d really like to keep that private. It’s not like everyone needs to know. They’re not illegal where I am but I really don’t have any interest in explaining to any authorities how a fleshlight works.

Should I be ok with cameras in rest rooms provided by merchant’s? I do know lots of shrink leaves the premises as a five finger discount via the restroom on. Quite a large % of shoplifters use the restrooms as part of their larceny. I want to be clear. I object to having a surveillance camera in the bathroom stall. It wasn’t illegal to take a dump the last time I checked.

The falsehood that I quoted above would have been equally valid in Nazi Germany. Just obey the law and you have nothing to worry about. Another variation is that “It’s a free country as long as you do what you’re told to do”. The latter came from my Junior year in high school the history teacher spent the better part of an hour explaining that. The she went on to the qualifications to be President, you know, at least 35 years old, a natural born citizen of the US, has to be Caucasian, and no bald men allowed either. I swear on my mother’s grave that’s what she was teaching.

“Chaos and market fluctuations are natural” – yes, but they do a lot of damage that limits potential growth and prosperity in the future.

Yes, they do damage. Eliminating “damage” in the market should not be a goal of any capitalist. No, they do not limit potential growth. “Natural” Market fluctuations elminate the weak users of capital and provide new growth opportunities for the efficient. Not allowing the natural fluctuations results in a build up of forces that eventually force a collapse: massive crisis, massive debt incurred to “stimulate and stablize”, drain from debt payment, inflation, etc…protectionist policies that entrench inefficient producers (GM) while placing innovative-sapping barriers to entry, and spreading higher costs to consumers and tax-payers alike.

Relative stability is one of the keys to prosperity. US prosperity never took off until we figured out how to provide relative economic stability that dampened the natural flucuations.

Relative stability is not a key to prosperity. It is curious why you think this. Relative stability is one of the keys to getting re-elected and maintaining status quo for the current holders of capital. As for US prosperity being linked to “stability”, a few million immigrant workers are feeling shunned for their contribution.

Having large numbers of people disposed of their homes for example makes them sigificantly less employable and limits future growth.

Yes, the housing crisis caused by Keynesian economic policies (like the ones you are supporting: stimulus) would have large numbers of people disposed of their homes and would be terrible. THAT is a point for my side, not yours.

Don’t worry about defeating my position…not that you are. Mises himself (and Rothbard, Hayek, and others) knew Keynes would “win” when married to democracy and a population willing to vote for the best promise of free cheese.

America has not in any way, shape or form shown itself to be a country that is able to end the love affair with Keynes and collectivism/socialism. And, in fact the last decade has shown this love affair to be even stronger than most in the Austrian School suspected. Austrian studies enable economists to at least note where and how policies will fail…and profit from it…as stated before.

So, by all means, another round of stimulus and tell the Chinese ambassador I’m at lunch.

Especially not when libertarians still oppose functional, tested, and necessary social safety net programs while championing business-and-corporate interests.

Who tested? Who declared them functional? Who declared them necessay? What business and corp interests are we championing that you’re particularly annoyed at because they harm da poor?

For the record, Libertarians and libertarians want to help the poor folk of this country (and all countries) much, much, much more than all the Democrats and Republicans combined and then raised to the power of Michael Moore’s pant size. So there’s my starting point.

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m very happy to see Keynsians in charge as the failures of their policies are easy to predict and profit from. Isn’t that the ultimate test for an economist?

‘…despite the very wide economic consensus…

you meant ‘very wide liberal economic consensus’, right?

No, I think that in the spring of 2009 there was a broad consensus that some stimulus was needed. I am sure that there were Austrian/Chicago School dissenters, which is why I didn’t say “unanimous” consensus, but I think it’s fair to say that even many conservatives recognized the need to stimulate the economy.

you meant ‘very wide liberal economic consensus’, right?

Hmm. The program cost $3 billion. I wonder how much gas is being saved? How long until it pays for itself?

Some say about 4 years

Just because you viscerally dislike something, however, doesn’t make the policy unsound. There’s a reason we have a Council of Economic Advisers, a Federal Reserve, etc., instead of just asking some layperson what their gut tells them to do.

any deal this complex to evaluate, to me, is smoke and mirrors. like the tax code- it sucks.

Wouldn’t you want to kick Sam in the nuts?

1. It uses seasonally adjusted numbers (in dollars) for new and used car sales combined. Since (contrary to your argument, above, MDGuy) used car sales figures were essentially flat throughout 2009, combining them isn’t a problem per se, but it tends to inflate the totals a bit.

2. The administration’s assessment of C4C looked at units sold vs. dollar sales. I think there are probably some sound policy reasons for this approach (e.g., the whole point of C4C was to increase sales of more fuel-efficient – typically cheaper – cars), but I think it bears pointing out.

3. I again refer to the Maritz analysis which addresses some other factors, including program participants’ estimates of when they would have purchased a new car but for the program, and incidental sales generated over time by additional dealer traffic.

4. Even if one assumes, contrary to the evidence cited by the White House and Maritz, that the program borrowed from future car sales, there is some economic benefit to that. A starving man could rationally benefit from receiving a meal now even if he has to pay it back in the future.

5. I agree with hattio that MDGuy is trying to have his cake and eat it to regarding the “wash” argument. If the vehicle sales were a wash then there’s no reason to believe that the ripple effects (e.g., used car dealers’ sales) were a wash, too. (I think the sales evidence in the Commerce spreadsheet puts to rest the ripple effect argument, however.)

you’re not really suggesting all these govt programs are helping the poor?!!

I believe a lot of people can work their way out of poverty if they’re left alone. If a woman wants to style hair and she doesn’t have the license or full beautician training, she’s sol… there are way too many examples of govt regulations ‘championing the poor’ for one post.

the complex tax system doesn’t help. people could use their HSA accounts to buy high-deductible insurance for people who weren’t dependents or spouses if the tax code wasn’t so restrictive.

allowing people more control of their pensions would spur private lending to help launch small businesses. A 17 yo kid could borrow a few thousand dollars from a neighbor (out of his roth) and launch a grass cutting or deck cleaning or whatever business.

people could figure things out if the govt would get out of the way.

do you have a list of ‘well considered’ govt programs that I should know about to balance out my opinion?

http://www.thinkgeek.com/blog/2010/08/warning-may-incite-swat-teams.html?cpg=138H1&head

And not when I suspect the opposition to C4C was mainly on ideological grounds rather than economic (I wouldn’t be surprised if nothing had been said of the same plan if it had come from the right or CATO, spun the right way) — but that’s supposition on my part based only on personal experience.