@3!: Too long; didn’t read; and not impressed with the profanity in your first sentence.

@Peppermint Pig: Also too long; didn’t read.

@Sava: As I noted in my very first comment on this post, this was not the picture I would have chosen to observe the election of a new president (despite my personal bias, reflected in the comment I left on DDD’s photo on Flickr). However, we each choose what to blog, and I’m not going to delete another contributor’s post — that goes against the editorial freedom I’ve given each contributor. Let’s be honest, though, if a different candidate had won and someone had posted a related LEGO image here, we’d probably be having a different conversation, wouldn’t we?

I won’t exercise the power to delete comments or posts, but I think tempers need to cool, so I’m locking comments on this post for now.

I like the fact that people are free to post things like this, though it’s hard not to get political with these comments.

I prefer to address a work by ignoring style and theme and focusing on the skill with which it was made. With that, I think this work is a little simplistic, which might be beneath the standard of work typically posted, which does make one question the pertinence of injecting something with more of a political value.

It’s called making a coherent argument.

“do you seriously believe that the recent economic downturn is the result of interference on the part of the US Treasury?”

I didn’t mention the US Treasury. It does play a part, yes.

“If you didn’t see the housing crisis from early on then you’re pretty goddamn ignorant about economic theory on a whole, and your casual disregard for over a centurty of established scholastic foundations betrays your abhorrent randian philosphy.”

So that would be all the Democrats who claimed Fanny Mae was a sound institution? I guess all those government officials with economics credentials hanging on the walls of their offices saw it coming as well?

Interesting… I don’t consider myself a Randian, actually… I suppose that’s just another one of your tactics to try and discredit me without completing an argument as to why I’m wrong.

“Hey, guess what? I agree with you that the bailout was uneccessary and unrealstic, but it’s also completely absurd to believe that magical market forces from a far away fantasy land will create economic stability any better than government regulation.”

I’m not asking you to believe in them, nor am I conflating governance of the economy with an explanation of economics as you’ve done. Whether you choose to understand it or not, activity in the marketplace follows along certain principles. Violating such principles will lead to wealth destruction. For a time you may delay a crisis by turning to bailouts and phony economic policy, but eventually trouble comes home to roost by hiding the costs of poor decisions in less apparent ways.

“Here’s a thought experiment: imagine to yourself what would happen if there was not, in fact, a $700 b federal bailout and all the rapidly collapsing banks would have to fend for themselves?”

And conveniently ignore the several decades of bad policy which has built up bubbles in the marketplace? Politicians in positions which matter do not have the incentive to act otherwise because the lure of power and money is too great. They can’t see beyond the election cycle, so they naturally do what preserves their career or the party’s dominance in the political sphere rather than solving these problems. Hard times are coming, but market contraction is not something you see instantaneously.

So you’re actually supporting the bailout then?

“The free market dug itself into this hole, son, and no amount of pseudological hand-wringing about the big bad government is going to wipe away the fact that centuries of established history have proven that pure market forces cannot sustainably keep a global economy healthy and free of volatility.”

So bad businesses shouldn’t fail? Wake up buddy, government has its tentacles all over the place. It’s not a business if you prop it up and suspend it from the consequences of bad decisions, because a business is supposed to create value for its customers. Government parades that they will create good by making the banks give out bad loans, but by doing so they invoke a moral hazard. What have government regulations done? They’re the biggest creators of waste, both economically and environmentally, and prop up monopolies and favortism.

Two people exchanging goods or services profit from the venture, else they wouldn’t do it. In the long term, this is proven to be true, and no amount of financial chicanery can survive the negative and often unseen consequences of deceiving people as to the value of money, services, or goods. But yes, you may continue to advocate for central control, and see where that gets you.

“FIAT CURRENCY NEW WORLD ORDER
GOLD STANDARD RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL”

NWO conspiracies are a fascination of truthers, who masochistically examine politics as a form of celebrity and intrigue, with fruitless ‘researching’ of said conspiracies.

A true gold standard would be superior, but government has a proven track record of corrupting the money system, so I can’t see how it should be supported. They’ve been conducting fractional reserve banking for a long time now. Like any other service or product, the means of exchange someone chooses should also be available, including alternative currency.

We’ve never had a truly free market if you’re looking at this from a nationalistic perspective. So it’s disingenuous to discard economic liberty considering individuals make voluntary exchanges every day which support a free market.

You seem more obsessed with controlling others so they don’t do bad things, rather than promoting incentives for good behavior. People seem to live in a la-la land when it comes to the assumption that Government can do good when it can’t function without leeching from the private marketplace.

Very sad of you to resort to broadbrushing. Ron Paul has some good ideas, but he works within the system trying to promote Constitutional adherence, and it’s by no means a perfect document. But I support anyone who would seek liberty through principled action.

Here’s Senator Obama’s birth certificate:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-birth.html