8 Reacties:

At 10:36 Anoniem said...

Op zich heel nuttig, zo'n eurosceptische partij, maar erg jammer dat de steun weer deels uit christenfundamentalistische, ouderwets "extreem-rechtse" hoek moet komen, zoals de Poolse Gezinsliga en het Bulgaarse Ataka.

 

At 10:44 Vincent De Roeck said...

@ Appelscha

Libertas is niet Eurosceptisch en al helemaal niet anti-Europees. Libertas staat voor subsidiariteit, transparantie, aansprakelijkheid en - vooral - directe democratie. Als referenda leiden tot het stopzetten van het politieke EU-project, zijn we daar zeker niet rouwig. Maar als de burgers daar wel voorstander van zijn, moeten én zullen we dat ook gewoon aanvaarden.

Libertas wil rond haar vier speerpunten samenwerken met alle partijen van centrumlinks tot centrumrechts. De extremen worden bewust niet binnen Libertas betrokken. De Poolse Gezinsliga heeft geen enkele affiliatie met Libertas. In Polen gaat het om de centristische regeringspartij "Poolse Boerenpartij" en om "Rechtvaardigheid en Gerechtigheid" van president Kacynski. Idem voor het Bulgaarse Ataka. Libertas is bereid samen te werken met de gematigde vleugel van Ataka als zij de partij zelf vaarwel zou willen zeggen.

En Libertas is al helemaal niet christenfundamentalistisch. De stichter is liberaal en de partij heeft geen enkele religieuze agenda.

 

At 11:06 Anoniem said...

Beste Vincent,
ik schreef niet dat Libertas christenfundamentalistisch is, maar ik het jammer vond dat de steun uit die hoek kwam. Op grond van het lijstje met ondertekenaars dat ik op BJ las, dacht ik namelijk dat Ataka en de Gezinsliga bij Libertas waren aangesloten, en die beschouw ik wél als christenfundamentalistisch en wat men extreem-rechts pleegt te noemen. Ik ben blij dat Libertas die clubs juist op enige afstand wil houden. Bedankt voor je opheldering en mijn complimenten voor je blog.

 

At 11:49 katootje said...

Even kijken of ik het goed begrijp. Dus er is een politieke parij, Libertas.eu, opgericht en deze zal op europees nivo gaan handelen?
Ik begrijp iets niet. Gaat deze partij zich uitsluitend bezighouden op europees nivo?

Ik lees nu voor het eerst over het bestaan van Libertas.eu.
Ik ga snel verder lezen.
Je site bezoek ik regelmatig.

Vriendelijke groeten.

 

At 11:57 Vincent De Roeck said...

@ Katootje

Libertas is de verderzetting van de neen-campagne tegen het Verdrag van Lissabon in Ierland op Europees niveau. Libertas zal enkel op EU-niveau actief zijn en eventueel op nationaal/lokaal niveau andere partijen steunen. Op dat vlak is Libertas vergelijkbaar met de ELDR (Europese liberalen) en de EVP (Europese christen-democraten). Het verschil is wel dat Libertas in alle EU-verkiezingen als "Libertas" zal opkomen en niet onder de naam van de nationale/lokale partijen. Althans toch niet van zodra Libertas als partij gevestigd is.

 

At 21:33 Anoniem said...

Ziet er officieel zelfs nog niet eens zo radicaal uit eigenlijk. Democratie, transparantie, subsidiariteit... Wat is dus het verschil tussen Libertas en de traditionele partijen? Enkel hun verleden als anti-Lissabongroep? Of is het officiële vierpuntenprogramma maar een manteltje om de échte agenda van de partij af te dekken? Ik ben benieuwd naar de toekomst, maar weet nu nog niet goed wat denken.

 

At 09:48 Vincent De Roeck said...

In "The Freeman" van januari/februari verscheen een interessante column van Sheldon Richman: "Bailing out statism".

The key to understanding the saga of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—the recently nationalized twin government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that dominate home financing—is this:
They were set up—intentionally—to distort the housing and mortgage markets. Government planners were not content to let voluntary exchange and spontaneous market forces configure those industries unmolested. So—holding the taxpayers hostage—they intervened.

Make no mistake: The collapse of Fannie and Freddie is government social engineering predictably gone bad.

In a free society supply and demand would govern markets. The demand for houses would be determined by people’s preferences and the resources at their disposal. Supply would be determined by relative profit expectations—which is to say, by the demand for housing and the competing demand for the necessary inputs.

A distortion occurs when government planners and rent-seeking corporate allies, under cover of humanitarian social policy, engineer a deviation from natural market outcomes. Dressed up as promotion of the American Dream through home ownership, the planners used political means—ultimately, the threat to imprison uncooperative taxpayers—to channel wealth to the construction, real-estate, and financial industries. The primary instruments of this social engineering were Fannie Mae, created as a government agency during the New Deal and—cough—“privatized” in 1968 to get it off budget, and Freddie Mac, created as a “private” GSE in 1970.

The GSEs don’t make mortgage loans. Rather, using borrowed money, they buy mortgages from original lenders, encouraging banks to make more loans. Pooling lots of mortgages together, the GSEs create mortgage-backed securities (MBS). In fact, Freddie and Fannie created the secondary mortgage market that has come in for criticism since the subprime problem developed.

As economist Arnold Kling writes, “Whether it retains or sells the security, the GSE bears the default risk of the mortgages, which is the source of the recent crisis” (emphasis added).
Freddie’s and Fannie’s activities were designed to channel money to mortgage lenders so that they could loan widely, especially to people who might have been priced out of a fully private mortgage market. The system inevitably lowered lending standards and interest rates.

If these activities had been performed not by GSEs but by real private companies, they would have been subject to market checks. But they were not. They’re not called government-sponsored enterprises for nothing. As such they have special advantages over private companies, permitting them to do things on a scale larger than would have occurred in a free market.

They don’t pay local and state taxes like other companies do, and they can get government loans. Moreover, as Kling puts it, “In both the mortgage insurance business and the portfolio lending business, the GSEs have two important advantages . . . [:] a lower risk premium and lower capital requirements.” In brief, Fan and Fred could borrow money for less than private companies could because “investors believed that the GSEs would not be allowed to fail,” Kling writes. This is the “implicit guarantee.” (With the wink of an eye, the GSEs say their paper is not guaranteed. So why not hold their creditors to the letter of the contract?)

As for the lower capital requirements, Kling writes, “When banks engage in the mortgage insurance business or the portfolio lending business, they are required by their regulators to put more of their shareholders’ funds at risk than the GSEs are. This makes it difficult for banks to compete with GSEs.”

The result was a far more concentrated lending market and hence greater vulnerability to adverse changing conditions. Fan and Fred hold or insure $5.4 trillion in mortgage debt—half the national total—making the taxpayers ultimately responsible now that the GSEs are under federal conservatorship. Three-quarters of mortgages written these days are GSE-backed. So the government has just become the country’s major mortgagee. It’s ironic that after making the GSEs dominant, the government now wants to shrink their role in the mortgage industry beginning in 2010.

Not Greed But Incentives

We can see, then, that the GSEs’ privileged status, which was intended to distort the housing and mortgage markets, did exactly that. The whole shaky structure was vulnerable to a deterioration in home values, to which the GSE system itself contributed. (Other things contributed to the run-up and collapse of home values in particular parts of the country, such as a broad social policy of encouraging banks to lend to un-creditworthy borrowers.) As of September, the GSEs had lost well over $10 billion since the mortgage meltdown occurred, and they were getting close to being unable to borrow enough money to roll over their debt. This and fear of a more general economic meltdown are what prompted the government to step in, exposing the taxpayers dramatically. The bailout was to begin with a billion-dollar infusion. Up to $200 billion has been promised. It will no doubt be more. Of course, the treasury secretary now has the author-ity to buy $700 billion worth of dubious mortgage-backed securities from struggling banks. Rev up those printing presses.

It’s really an anticlimactic chapter in this story of putrid rent-seeking and political opportunism. The bailout of the GSEs’ creditors creates a new round of the same moral hazard—encouraging recklessness by insuring it—that brought on the calamity in the first place. No one believed it would be the last bailout of those who are “too big to fail.”
The current problems are commonly attributed to greed and irresponsibility. But this won’t do. As Lawrence H. White notes, “Greed is a constant.” Why did the consequences take so long to show up?

There was irresponsibility—but only because the government for decades has pursued a policy of relieving big companies of the responsibility that otherwise would have been imposed by market discipline and competition. Any promise to bail out companies, and any regulatory, tax, or trade policy that raises the barriers to entry for new competitors, sews the seeds of crisis.

Focusing on greed and irresponsibility misses the most basic point: incentives. In a truly free market—when business people know they must face the consequences of their actions—“greed” (whatever that may be) tends to create general benefits. (“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”) In a government-regulated and government-guaranteed environment, “greed” can inflict harm on innocents. Institutions determine whether self-serving action benefits or damages others. Institutions that respect freedom, property, and self-responsibility promote the general welfare. Institutions that forcibly transfer risk to the taxpayers, punish responsibility, and reward irresponsibility promote social and economic catastrophe.

The New York Times was wrong. This was not “an extraordinary federal intervention in private enterprise.” It is the state bailing out statism. As Oliver Hardy might have said, “Well, government, this is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into.” Let’s hear no more about the “laissez-faire” Republicans. That myth serves only to protect advocates of state intervention regardless of party.

 

At 10:17 Vincent De Roeck said...

Ganley: "the European Union is almost as Chávez"
Interview met Declan Ganley voor de Slowaakse krant SME, vertaald uit het Slowaaks via Google-Translation

By the third morning, discussed with Slovak conservatives establishing Libertas party with us. A few hours sleep and started to work again. It is dependent on the BlackBerry and colleagues sent emails already on the seventh. It argues that sleep is a waste of time, which can be used better - for example, to combat the Brussels elites. Irish millionaire, Declan GANLEY (40) is satisfied of their countrymen to vote against the EU Lisbon Treaty. Now wide Libertas Party, which wants to stand in the June European Parliament elections.

The Czechs want to reach? Euro opinions we do not yet broader support.
“I want to understand the Slovaks, which are the main topics eurovolieb. They are probably more important than national, because most of the laws - more than 75 percent - was approved in Brussels. People usually do not, that Brussels is one of the few places in the developed world, where you do not have to be chosen to be able to propose laws. “This must change."

Slovaks in the European Parliament elections in 2004, its worst electoral participation of all States of the Union - just 17 percent. How do you convince now?

You should not feel guilty for the low voter participation. People simply do not understand what it's all about. And it's everywhere. Political parties to suits, because if people know what they are, they would be angry. How many people in Slovakia knows that most of the laws approved in Brussels? How many know that when they approve the Lisbon Treaty, the Union will have a vote a president who will represent the world? "
However, the Government nominated by the Member States that choose themselves. Aj slovenský premiér može ovplyvniť voľbu prezidenta únie. Czech prime minister also may influence the choice of the President of the Union.

The only democratic institution in Brussels, is the weakest - the European Parliament. And that is broken, because there exist a normal political party. There are those lúzerské coalition, such as People's (EPP), that exchange photocopies via fax or unable to do effectively. "
You asked for a subsidy from the European Parliament, but eventually you have received. Estonian and Bulgarian MEP claimed that they never signed your application for recognition as a Pan-European party. Cheat?
"Our application was considered three month financial and legal service europarlamentu and found no problem. We have information that the political order to find an error. No it was not. When it come to a final decision, politicians began calling members who signed the application. Few in to. It was interesting because, first claimed that there have not. When we showed the original, have argued that they did not know what you sign."

Should not such behavior únijových elites counterproductive?
British liberal Graham Watson said that his aim is to stop Libertas, deter us. This shows that these people are Democrats. Speaks about democracy, but their actions are contradictory. The fact that Ireland and Venezuela (where the second referendum took place recently to Hugo Chávez could run for president indefinitely, this already is aware of. Red.) Are the only two countries in the world where people have to vote this year on the same subject, shows as they are anti-people. "

Do you prefer one to the level of Chavez and Brussels?

Claims that Venezuelan had to vote again because the first wrong answer to the question. Írsko musí robiť to isté. Ireland must do the same. Comparison of leaves it up to you. (Laughter)

To finance the campaign in 27 states, you'll need a lot of money. Will you contributions from individuals, as planned, enough?

We have a real pro, the world leaders who have worked in other campaigns. Truth Campaign Obamovej copy portions of the older approach to fundraising Howard Dean (known as a pioneer of online campaign - I know. Red.) Them borrow ideas and waiting that zafungujú. "

Use some money from your business?

Not."

In connection with the financing of your campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, some media claim that you are connected to the Pentagon and the CIA.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

I am the wife never nebil.

"Really? (Laughter). You see, I am forced to deny you that you sometimes his wife bili. Now you understand how ridiculous it is that question? My link to the Pentagon and the CIA is the invention of Daniel Cohn-Bendita (Co Green factions in the parliament and critic Euroskeptics). With him he wants to talk with German prosecutor, however, much more important matters. When you can not trump the argument start to lie. They say that I am a CIA agent, to deter people. This will not nezaslúži response, as well as that my question. "

Are you a longtime entrepreneur. The Treaty of Lisbon will undermine your business activities?

For me it already does. It is important that people understand what this is. Not for money. I worked as a bartender, laborer on the construction. I work hard nebojím. If you try to destroy my business, I have a wonderful family. “For me is not the journey back. "

You want to keep Ireland out of the Union. Fight, not to the sovereignty. As it threatens Lisbon?

"I have no problem with the transfer of powers to Brussels, but only if the people who handle them, are accountable to all of us in the election urnách. European Parliament President Hans-Gert Poettering last week, said that in one hundred percent of the laws adopted Brussels acts as a co - . I am not against, in many cases to be meaningful. But there are also areas that can be done better, at lower levels closer to people. "

Before the Irish referendum campaign have argued that the Lisbon treaty threatens the sovereignty of your tax. The harmonization of the text, however, is not the word.
This is the dishonesty of those people. French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde argued that the harmonization of taxes will be a priority for their presidency. Later he took them back and lied that it was not. Alignment of taxes is a priority for Brussels! "

But the document does not write about it.
"The contract in several places places opens the door for harmonization. For example, part of the competition says about unfair competition, which may include the tax."

You assert that you thoroughly study the Lisbon Treaty. What was read? You have fun?

”There. (Laughter) took me to a lot of time. It's impossible to read at once. I started with the Constitutional Treaty and the first nine pages, I was shocked. As a father of four children I was really concerned about the direction of where they push Europe. When I then read Lisbon, it was fun, because it is the same text. Poprehadzovali paragraphs, chapters, and there are also the same spelling. Sarkozy promised minizmluvu, but in fact the words 8tisíc longer. Changed the line to be shorter. "

Where do you see for five years? To be an MEP, or the Irish prime minister?

"I do not want to be Irish Prime Minister. I hope that in five years I can look back and see that Libertas has fulfilled its role. That people will lie at the heart of democracy, accountability and transparency in Brussels. If we, the Union will be much stronger, more credible and rešpektovanejšia worldwide. I want to get from Brussels lobbyists and give them there instead of people.

 

Een reactie posten