Good article from REASON online. You bought into the foreign interventionist line of bull in '03, don't buy into the domestic interventionist line of bull in '08. As always, your interests are not being put into consideration, and neither are the long term consequences of these actions... http://www.reason.com/news/show/129468.html
So, we're supposed to read an article that states as a major point summary that "history is bunk"? Are you in favour of Free Markets?
We have never seen free markets on this planet. Ever. In the US, like in Canada, we have always had a mix of freedom and regulation. The whole thing is a red herring.
yes, haven't i just said so? Is this 20 questions about obadiah or do you have something to comment about the article?
Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing at all. Capitalism is a system. Free markets are simply a lack of central control. I am all for well regulated free markets (as actually described by Adam Smith), yet i am not a Capitalist, nor do I support Capitalism. I am also firmly opposed to corporate dominance, and the idea that a corporation can have the same rights as an individual. I also believe that regulation is the only way to preserve the free market, because without rules we have nothing. I have no illusions that the free market can solve every problem. Nor did Adam Smith, despite what you hear. Some problems require the government to play a role, and spreading risk is a legitimate state interest. In this country, we have a tendency to privatize the gains and socialize the losses.
duh, who said they were? you make an awful lot of assumptions about myself in your post. I never mentioned Smith, so how could know what it is i thought i heard about him? I'm not impressed by the name dropping so there really is no point sir. but if you people must know, i would say that i am laissez-faire who is leaning toward free-market anarchism. in either case, is no one willing to discuss the points made in the freakin article?
My problem is not that markets don't "solve" social problems. My problem is when "free markets" are deemed to be a replacement for social safety nets. You ask who says so? how about "trickle down economics"? As far as the new deal "prolonging the great depression" is concerned, they have a point. Perhaps it did. But I don't think the idea always to resolve every crisis in the quickest way possible. You have to balance efficiency with compassion. We also need to get off the "rational actor" bandwagon, and many economists are.
"Trickle down" is a republican/conservative position that applies to tax breaks for corporations. I'm anti-statist in general, though i have been known to vote libertarian. If you're going to tax, flat tax or national sales tax seem to be the option that i would prefer more than a progressive income tax. who are you arguing with and about what? Do you have an opinion about the points made in the article or not?
yes, I believe I addressed the notion that the new deal prolonged the depression. To elaborate, it also gave hope to a Nation that was short on hope. It got things moving again. It might mean it took longer to be technically out of the great depression, but it did a whole lot of good. I was "anti-statist" once, back when I was a Randroid. But I came to realize that not all poor people are bad, and I also came to realize I was no John Galt, but rather the poor sap who winds up taking the train into oblivion at the end. We can still have free markets while cushioning the blows and caring for the least among us, and the biggest players, since they have the most to gain from the system of protections that make their transactions possible, deserve to carry a larger share of the burden of maintaining that system. The basic problem with your article is that it clings to the conceit that humans are rational actors.
Why yes. I had to catch the bus, thanks. Modern bank regulation is supposed to mandate minimal capital reserves to pad against liabilities. Because of the existence of an unregulated market, the regulations were meaningless. Government regulation didn't do shit to stop what happened. The shit that caused this mess, mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps, were entirely unregulated. So they were traded indiscriminately, with interest, with no one having any idea how much they were worth. And that's the American government for ya. Common sense is bad politics in America.
Well, what they're doing is just par for the course. They demonize the free market -- which does not exist -- and they use this faulty argument to dupe the uninformed public into supporting even more government management of the economy. Again, it's problem-reaction-solution. What these people want is a completely managed global economy and world currency. They hate free markets, because under a free market system there is competition, and there is nothing those at the top hate more than competition. They want it all for themselves. They are monopoly capitalists.
Um. Newflash - The sub-prime mortgage fiasco was a result of the government not intervening and regulating the market. In Canada it's illegal to get a mortgage loan with a 0 down. Why do you ask? Because we knew that it would bubble and collapse the housing market if it the government didn't pass a law to make it illegal to do it. Duh. We avoided that whole mess. And the USA could have avoided it too by regulating mortgage laws - and neglected to regulate CDS loopholes and prevent companies from charging interest on stock insurance and doubling their profits all for nothing.
In my opinion, the notion of having a free market is both overly idealistic and impossible. Plus, how does it improve the quality of life for people? Do we really benefit from shipping oranges to Kashmir if that's what part of the free market entails?
What I am referring to is market manipulation via interest rates and the issuance of credit. That is the ultimate root of the problem, which is the Federal Reserve System, which deliberately created this mess to consolidate even more control and more power. Everything else is merely a symptom of the problem, which the media would rather not talk about. Go back to Alan Greenspan and his 40-year low interest rates, combined with the flooding of the markets with worthless fiat to drive the value of the dollar down to all-time lows. None of this just happened. This was all planned and is completely deliberate. That's why I was able to foresee this years ago. I have read the documents from the IMF, World Bank and Club of Rome. The people that think this just all of a sudden happened out of the clear blue really do not have a clue. To bring in their New World Order, they must destroy the old system so they can offer their new system as the solution. Order out of chaos. I am not going to debate over authorized media talking points. I have done the research and I know what's going on. Whether people agree with me or not, I really don't care. I can talk about regulations until I am blue in the face. That still does not address the real issues. The thing is, if this truly was a free market system, regulations would not even be an issue. Stuff like this doesn't just happen. It is made to happen. It has nothing to do with incompetence, but rather calculated evil. Those who have some idea about how the banking system works will have at least some idea of what I am talking about.
Newsflash -- most history is bunk. 75% of the history kids are taught in school is lies, and that's why today people still are willing to go off and die in wars that have nothing to do with what the public is told. Trust me, the people behind these wars depend on an ignorant public that believes whatever its told at face value. They're the ones who determine history. If you don't understand this, you never will. Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. [SIZE=-1][/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]--1984 by George Orwell[/SIZE]
don't speak too soon, eh? You'll jinx it. I may need to run home if things get too bad around here. I know my RRSP is safe. For now. Interesting point - alot of the deregulation we refer to is nonexistent. It's just the regs were not enforced.
