My Letter to Ralph Nader

Dear Mr. Nader:

I saw your interview on Bloomberg television a few days ago and was favorably impressed. However, I do not believe that you identify ultimate causes. You attribute corporate influence to the corporations. But corporations, like human beings, will always be greedy. Hence, you campaign against human nature and do not seriously aim for reform.

In order to eliminate corruption, the power of the state to engage in corruption needs to be limited. Human impulses will not change, but human institutions can be made more or less conducive to moral behavior. Limitations on the ability of corporations to influence the state require a limited state.

Your point about the Bernanke Fed is a good one. However, to limit the Fed's subsidy to big banks and Wall Street would require a limitation on the Fed's ability to create money. Such a limitation existed until 1932, when Roosevelt eliminated the gold standard. If you continue to support the current fiat money system, you continue to support Wall Street, the commercial banks and income inequality.

As your argument stands now, you are supporting corporate corruption. Illogical arguments in favor of the impossible are simply arguments for the status quo. One way to limit corruption is to limit the power of the banking system to subsidize the stock market by transferring value from dollar holders to stock holders. Another way is to limit the power of the federal government.

I would urge you to look for a compromise with the libertarian position and to combine forces with or coopt Ron Paul. There is enough common ground that you could retain your anti-corporate posture but also adopt a libertarian posture that would be compatible with both "right" and "left" positions, which could double or triple your vote count.

Please see my blog here.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert

If Only Ralph Nader Supported the Gold Standard

I just saw Ralph Nader on Bloomberg television. He is critical of the bailout of Bear Stearns. To the extent that the major party candidates defend the bailout Ralph Nader is more serious intellectually than they are.

Looking at the minor parties, the Libertarian Party has a free market, limited government orientation but is dominated by vegetarians, nudists and those who favor animal rights.

Ralph Nader is right about the problem of special interests, but he does not fathom the underlying cause, which is big government. Nader supports the disease but complains about the symptom. He was excellent this evening with respect to the Bernanke Fed, but he lacks the intellectual foundation to consider that the Bernanke Fed does what the Fed does, and if he doesn't like it he needs to advocate reestablishing a fixed monetary standard. Rule by minority whine is ineffective.

Now let's look at the major party candidates. Hillary Clinton believes that the problem is lack of regulation and if there were only more regulation, then the bailout can be forgiven. Barack Obama's position is less clear, but I do not sense that he has a coherent strategy, and it certainly is not a free market one.

That leaves us with John McCain. Although Mr. McCain is beholden to the same special interest groups that inspire the bailout, he is not a vegetarian and he, at least in symbol, represents free market impulses. I suspect that the differences among McCain, Obama and Clinton with respect to subsidies to Wall Street are small. Nevertheless, Mr. McCain represents the most free market orientation. If Mr. Nader decided that our seven decade experiment of unlimited freedom to the banks to print money has failed, then he would have my support. Conversely, if the Libertarians would only grow up and focus on a few adult issues, they would have my support. Alas, I am left with Mr. McCain, who is the most logical candidate. In honor of this inspiration, I have sent Mr. McCain my $500 donation.