http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5870760.ece
From The Times
March 9, 2009
Believers in free markets are fighting back
Regulation not greed has pushed banks to the edge of ruin
Eamonn Butler
“If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal swimmer Michael Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him in a pool and he sank, you wouldn't call it a ‘failure of swimming'. So, when markets have been weighted down by inept and excessive regulation, why call this a ‘failure of capitalism'?”
That view, expressed by the George Mason University professor Peter Boettke, found much favour among the free-market eggheads who assembled in New York this weekend to discuss the financial crisis. Up to now the Keynesians have made the running. Greed, they say, has brought down the world economy. Only massive public spending can revive it. And with the Masters of the Universe now gasping on the floor, the G20 summit in April will give them a final kick in the tax havens. That'll teach them.
But now the believers in free markets and small government have regrouped. The meeting was called by the Mont Pelerin Society, founded in 1947 to preserve liberal ideas. Early members included Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek and George Stigler. Their view - as expressed by The Ascent of Money author Niall Ferguson - is that capitalism isn't dead, though the global banking regulations embodied in Basle 2 should be. It took regulators ten years to perfect Basle 2, but far from making things safer for bank customers, it pushed banks to the brink of ruin.
When the banks discovered that their “assets” were riddled with junk, everyone ran scared. Nobody knew exactly how “toxic” it all was, so the banks couldn't unload it on to anyone. Their “assets” became worthless. Under the Basle rules, they had to stop lending. Hello, credit crunch.
“This is a balance-sheet crisis,” the billionaire and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes told the gathering. “If you had to sell your house today, you wouldn't get much for it. That doesn't mean it's worthless.” Banks are largely solvent - it's regulation that threatens to bankrupt them.
“We need to sell off, split up or close down the zombie banks,” says Bill Beach, senior policy boffin at Washington's Heritage Foundation. Next, he says, we need to encourage business, not load it, like Michael Phelps, with burdens. That means lower taxes, particularly business taxes, and less of the regulation that discouraged firms employing people.
Occasional crises are the cost of the prosperity that entrepreneurial capitalism brings. Try to eliminate risk, and you eliminate entrepreneurship itself.
- Dr Eamonn Butler is director of the Adam Smith Institute. His book, The Rotten State of Britain, is published this month
How will free market capitalism solve 3rd world poverty, wars and enviromental problems?
*crickets*
/thread
In the US, the Federal and state governments pay farmers to NOT GROW FOOD, in order to artificially inflate prices. That's what they mean when they say "farm subsidies". They also set minimum prices for food...it's actually illegal to sell milk, one of the most universally healthy and useful foods, below a certain price!
This raises food prices above what the poorer fifth in the US can afford, even though they're more prosperous than the poorest fifth in most other countries. Then the government hands out billions of dollars in "free food", via food stamps, WIC, et cetera. This extra money is, itself, a form of food subsidy, raising the dollars available for food, and therefore causing food prices to increase.
In other countries, governments set price controls on food directly, which destroys the supply/demand system, so that they end up with food shortages...having to beg for food aid from the US, even while their own farms simply sit idle, or worse, actually are EXPORTING food to neighboring countries (that lack price controls) while their own people starve.
BOOKS do not sell themselves: that is what films are for. “The Reader”, the book that inspired the Oscar-winning film, has shot up the bestseller lists. Another recent publishing success, however, has had more help from Washington, DC, than Hollywood. That book is Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”.
Reviled in some circles and mocked in others, Rand’s 1957 novel of embattled capitalism is a favourite of libertarians and college students. Lately, though, its appeal has been growing. According to data from TitleZ, a firm that tracks bestseller rankings on Amazon, an online retailer, the book’s 30-day average Amazon rank was 127 on February 21st, well above its average over the past two years of 542. On January 13th the book’s ranking was 33, briefly besting President Barack Obama’s popular tome, “The Audacity of Hope”.
Tellingly, the spikes in the novel’s sales coincide with the news (see chart). The first jump, in September 2007, followed dramatic interest-rate cuts by central banks, and the Bank of England’s bail-out of Northern Rock, a troubled mortgage lender. The October 2007 rise happened two days after the Bush Administration announced an initiative to coax banks to assist subprime borrowers. A year later, sales of the book rose after America’s Treasury said that it would use a big chunk of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Programme to buy stakes in nine large banks. Debate over Mr Obama’s stimulus plan in January gave the book another lift. And sales leapt once again when the stimulus plan passed and Mr Obama announced a new mortgage-modification plan.
Whenever governments intervene in the market, in short, readers rush to buy Rand’s book. Why? The reason is explained by the name of a recently formed group on Facebook, the world’s biggest social-networking site: “Read the news today? It’s like ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is happening in real life”. The group, and an expanding chorus of fretful bloggers, reckon that life is imitating art.
ome were reminded of Rand’s gifted physicist, Robert Stadler, cravenly disavowing his faith in reason for political favour, when Alan Greenspan, an acolyte of Rand’s, testified before a congressional committee last October that he had found a “flaw in the model” of securitisation. And with pirates hijacking cargo ships, politicians castigating corporate chieftains, riots in Europe and slowing international trade—all of which are depicted in the book—this melancholy meme has plenty of fodder.
Even if Washington does not keep the book’s sales booming, Hollywood might. A film version is rumoured to be in the works for release in 2011. But by then, a film may feel superfluous to Rand’s most loyal fans; events unfolding around them will have been dramatisation enough.
This latest round of problems is because companies ran wild with all sorts of crazy schemes and the government sat back and said "Sorry, we can't get involved.
QuoteIn the US, the Federal and state governments pay farmers to NOT GROW FOOD, in order to artificially inflate prices. That's what they mean when they say "farm subsidies". They also set minimum prices for food...it's actually illegal to sell milk, one of the most universally healthy and useful foods, below a certain price!
This raises food prices above what the poorer fifth in the US can afford, even though they're more prosperous than the poorest fifth in most other countries. Then the government hands out billions of dollars in "free food", via food stamps, WIC, et cetera. This extra money is, itself, a form of food subsidy, raising the dollars available for food, and therefore causing food prices to increase.
In other countries, governments set price controls on food directly, which destroys the supply/demand system, so that they end up with food shortages...having to beg for food aid from the US, even while their own farms simply sit idle, or worse, actually are EXPORTING food to neighboring countries (that lack price controls) while their own people starve.
Governments should enforce rules on companies that benefit all people.
Companies many times lay off people not because they can't afford them but because profit 'isn't high enough to satisfy stockholders'.
Look guys, I wish government was some magical force that worked exactly like it was intended to. I really do, but thats a fantasy. The reality is that most government endeavors are terribly inefficient and often produce unexpected side effects that end up causing more problems.
The big problem is free market capitalism which exploits the working class on all continents.
I don't get how you can see this, but at the same time ignore that the same thing holds true for free markets ???.
I'm not saying capitalism is 100% perfect but at least within that system there is always a plethora of choices.
There's nothing beautiful about it.
You know how in the South of the US the poor whites and blacks were played out against each other using the race card? (When it would have been logical to stick together and fight 'the man')
That's whats happening right now on international scale. People all across the world are being convinced that they should accept shit living standards or lower wages, because otherwise the companies might leave to another place. Poor people are being played out against each other and get more poor so that the companies can reap profit.
If you dont like the way something works you can find a new business or even start your own.Again, it would be nice if it actually worked that way :'(. I don't know how anyone can champion a meritocracy. Everything in my experience has proven otherwise.
QuoteThis latest round of problems is because companies ran wild with all sorts of crazy schemes and the government sat back and said "Sorry, we can't get involved.
No.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html (http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html)
The Federal government set up two massive lending institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the F in each name stands for Federal), which they then ordered to hand out money for home loans to people who couldn't possibly afford them, and ordered to overlook the government's own minimum standards (like the 80%/20% subprime lending trick). When this caused the present failure...the tiny remaining freedom in the banking industry was blamed.
Look guys, I wish government was some magical force that worked exactly like it was intended to. I really do, but thats a fantasy. The reality is that most government endeavors are terribly inefficient and often produce unexpected side effects that end up causing more problems.
I don't get how you can see this, but at the same time ignore that the same thing holds true for free markets ???.
What's exactly rolleyes worthy about my comment FOC?
That I would like companies to distribute the wealth they earn amongst the many instead of the few?
Uhm obviously I don't it's like that, doesn't change the fact that I would want it to be like that.
Uhm obviously I don't it's like that, doesn't change the fact that I would want it to be like that.
Yeah I wish life was like church camp too, where we all would sit around the fire and tell each other how special each and everyone one of is! And then afterwords some magical force would bring us food to eat.
Uhm obviously I don't it's like that, doesn't change the fact that I would want it to be like that.
Yeah I wish life was like church camp too, where we all would sit around the fire and tell each other how special each and everyone one of is! And then afterwords some magical force would bring us food to eat.
...
...
...
A magical force, like some great big Invisible Hand?
The system wasn't perfect by far and it's good it crumbled. But the free market capitalist system should crumble too , because just as implemented communism it's not fair or viable.
smh
What are the "forces" through which the free market operates?
Where's the invisible hand to feed them?QuoteModerate Malnutrition Kills Millions Of Children Needlessly
ScienceDaily (July 1, 2003) — ITHACA, N.Y. -- About 90 percent of child deaths worldwide occur in just 42 countries -- and about one-fourth of these deaths occur before age 5 in the poorest countries, such as Angola and Niger.
See also:
Health & Medicine
Yet, 8 million of the 11 million childhood deaths worldwide each year could easily be prevented, says a Cornell University expert, writing in the authoritative medical journal The Lancet . That's because almost 60 percent of deaths of children under 5 in the developing world are due to malnutrition and its interactive effects on preventable diseases.spoiler (click to show/hide)I'm not arguining pro communist btw, just anti establishment, so your data about the dark side of communism is moot. Cause I was never in favour of that kind of system anyway.[close]
Big government is working so well in Europe, just ask Britain. :teehee Perhaps that's why they were given a basket of cheap DVD's as a gift, soon they won't be able to afford Blueray.
The free market nor big government can cure hunger on a global scale. Not sure where that idea is coming from. I have an idea though, people could start having less kids, its slow, but over time might help a bit.
What I find funny is that you think government can cure world hunger, can they rid the world of murder and rape too?
What I find funny is that you think government can cure world hunger, can they rid the world of murder and rape too?
So we shouldn't bother trying, then? That's what I can never understand from conservatives. "The govt. is a large, drunken octopus! There's no way it can effectively do ANYTHING!" Well, not true. And when it's obvious that the free market has no incentive or desire to do certain things that the public wants (like, you know, not paint kids toys with lead paint, put poison in our food and our pets food, etc etc) then govt. has a responsibility to step into the void. If it doesn't, then you get something like the past 8 years.
I also find it comical that conservatives will point to the ineffectiveness of the federal govt. after almost 30 years of trying to starve it to death. "They can't maintain roads and bridges!" shriek the ostriches at conservative think tanks and the like. Well, yeah. No shit. After your personal Jesus Ronald Reagan stopped paying to maintain them, wtf did you THINK was gonna happen? Guess the Invisible Hand didn't get the memo to take care of that one, huh.
What I find funny is that you think government can cure world hunger, can they rid the world of murder and rape too?
So we shouldn't bother trying, then? That's what I can never understand from conservatives. "The govt. is a large, drunken octopus! There's no way it can effectively do ANYTHING!" Well, not true. And when it's obvious that the free market has no incentive or desire to do certain things that the public wants (like, you know, not paint kids toys with lead paint, put poison in our food and our pets food, etc etc) then govt. has a responsibility to step into the void. If it doesn't, then you get something like the past 8 years.
I also find it comical that conservatives will point to the ineffectiveness of the federal govt. after almost 30 years of trying to starve it to death. "They can't maintain roads and bridges!" shriek the ostriches at conservative think tanks and the like. Well, yeah. No shit. After your personal Jesus Ronald Reagan stopped paying to maintain them, wtf did you THINK was gonna happen? Guess the Invisible Hand didn't get the memo to take care of that one, huh.
Huh? He didn't, who cares. Quit digging up Reagan's corpse just to fuck it, Jesus.
From Card Cheat
After your personal Jesus Ronald Reagan stopped paying to maintain them, wtf did you THINK was gonna happen?
I would shoot myself after reading this this Obama Hussein bin Stalin didn't take my guns.
I would shoot myself after reading this this Obama Hussein bin Stalin didn't take my guns.
I would shoot myself after reading this this Obama Hussein bin Stalin didn't take my guns.
He's been too busy buying cheap DVD's.
Try what cure these things globally? No because that's something we can't do. And at what cost? How much would be too much before you would say enough, we just can't do it? Not sure where you're going with the lead paint thing. I don't support a free enough market where we have no safety regulations on foods, imported products. In fact I don't know any conservatives personally that would support having none of those things, some things transcend political ideologies.
And we should point out the ineffectiveness of government, State or Federal. Highways on the other hand, their building new roads in my area now while letting the old ones go to shit. It'd make much more sense IMO to repair the shitty ones then if you have the money build the new ones. And building highways and curing global hunger are two different things. Repairing infrastructure in our nation is possible.
I said I CAN'T SHOOT MYSELF
:'( Literacy :'(
I would shoot myself after reading this this Obama Hussein bin Stalin didn't take my guns.
Ganhyun, if you're going to keep mumbling I'm not gonna talk to you anymore.
Ganhyun, if you're going to keep mumbling I'm not gonna talk to you anymore.
Lol, u mad.
LOL @ anyone who would deny the central role that greed (on every level) played in creating this economic crisis. :lol
JESUS CHRIST, STOP MUMBLING!
Not sure where you're going with the lead paint thing.
Ganhyun, if you're going to keep mumbling I'm not gonna talk to you anymore.
No, you guys just don't want to fund it to the point where it's actually effective. GIVE ME BACK MAH MONIES! and all that rot.
Yes, we should point out the ineffectiveness of govt. But we should also go further and point out exactly WHY it might be ineffective. Could it be that people who have philosophical differences with the notion of a strong federal govt. (a strong federal govt. that tries to offer services to the populace at large- they have no problem with that govt. saying who can marry who, or that braindead vegetable people must be kept hooked up to ventilators and feeding tubes, etc etc) might not be the best choice to, you know, ACTUALLY RUN said govt? The empirical evidence of the last eight years is pretty clear on this.
QuoteNot sure where you're going with the lead paint thing.
the relevance of the lead paint is that you and ganhyun have clearly been drinking some
QuoteNot sure where you're going with the lead paint thing.
the relevance of the lead paint is that you and ganhyun have clearly been drinking some
QuoteNot sure where you're going with the lead paint thing.
the relevance of the lead paint is that you and ganhyun have clearly been drinking some
So we should drink cool aid?
Ahh here we go. Now it comes out. The typical Liberal response: Someone not Liberal have a point that you don't like?
There goes Ganhyun mumbling again. I can't believe my ears- I thought I just heard him try to blame most or all of this shitstorm on making loans to poor people. You know how many of the toxic loans out there were made by Fannie and Freddie? Like 20% of 'em. The other 80% were made by big private sector banks that didn't bear any risk in actually making the loans, because they then turned around, chopped 'em all up and sold 'em off as mortgage backed securities.
But yes, let's blame the poor people and the democrats. Or as Ganhyun would no doubt put it, "the Democrat controlled Congress". ::)
QuoteAhh here we go. Now it comes out. The typical Liberal response: Someone not Liberal have a point that you don't like?
i have yet to see this point of yours
Actually, you know what would be nice?
1. Quit trying to solve everything with tax cuts. Tax cuts are not a miracle panacea that will cure cancer, limp dicks and any economic crisis. Running a surplus? Tax cuts! Oh shit, big recession with lack of demand and spending in the private sector? Tax cuts!
2. Second, just shut. the. fuck. up. I don't care what you people think or have to say about anything anymore. I can pretty much have an argument with you by putting your words in my dog's mouth and pretending at this point. The last eight years have given us all a pretty good idea of how a Republican dominated federal govt. handles any situation- peace and economic surplus, war, massive natural disasters, queers getting married and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Your ideas and philosophies have failed on every conceivable front. So. shut. the. fuck. up. The adults are driving again, no more free rides for the "lawyers" from Liberty University. Sit quietly in the back seat and when we get to our destination you can have an ice cream cone and we won't let you see the queers holding hands.
JESUS.
I don't care what you people think or have to say about anything anymore.
I don't begrudge someone their ability to own a home of their own, but buy one you can afford to pay for. If you can't afford to do that, then rent until you can.
in the words of Card Cheat: Thats because you cant fucking read Wink
Quotein the words of Card Cheat: Thats because you cant fucking read Wink
it's because you can't put a sentence together.
:oI said I CAN'T SHOOT MYSELF
:'( Literacy :'(I would shoot myself after reading this this Obama Hussein bin Stalin didn't take my guns.
Where does this say you CAN'T?
You aren't Father Mike now. I know this has to be some huge mistake.spoiler (click to show/hide):'([close]
Actually, you know what would be nice?
1. Quit trying to solve everything with tax cuts. Tax cuts are not a miracle panacea that will cure cancer, limp dicks and any economic crisis. Running a surplus? Tax cuts! Oh shit, big recession with lack of demand and spending in the private sector? Tax cuts!
2. Second, just shut. the. fuck. up. I don't care what you people think or have to say about anything anymore. I can pretty much have an argument with you by putting your words in my dog's mouth and pretending at this point. The last eight years have given us all a pretty good idea of how a Republican dominated federal govt. handles any situation- peace and economic surplus, war, massive natural disasters, queers getting married and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Your ideas and philosophies have failed on every conceivable front. So. shut. the. fuck. up. The adults are driving again, no more free rides for the "lawyers" from Liberty University. Sit quietly in the back seat and when we get to our destination you can have an ice cream cone and we won't let you see the queers holding hands.
JESUS.
LOL @ anyone who would deny the central role that greed (on every level) played in creating this economic crisis. :lol
There goes Ganhyun mumbling again. I can't believe my ears- I thought I just heard him try to blame most or all of this shitstorm on making loans to poor people. You know how many of the toxic loans out there were made by Fannie and Freddie? Like 20% of 'em. The other 80% were made by big private sector banks that didn't bear any risk in actually making the loans, because they then turned around, chopped 'em all up and sold 'em off as mortgage backed securities.
But yes, let's blame the poor people and the democrats. Or as Ganhyun would no doubt put it, "the Democrat controlled Congress". ::)
lol, I thought you were ignoring me now crybaby? ::)
You must have missed the part where I said Republicans were responsible too? But yes, a big issue in this was the known bad loans that banks knew the poor people couldn't pay back, yet kept making due to policies enacted by those Democrats. After all, if a poor person defaulted out, well, they always had more willing to come buy the house.
I don't begrudge someone their ability to own a home of their own, but buy one you can afford to pay for. If you can't afford to do that, then rent until you can.
If I have to see fucking Ganhyun post that fucking "blue pill derderder lololo" post one more goddamn time in a politcal thread, I'm going to virtually ball tap him. My hand will fucking tear dimensions to get to it.
The idea that it was the poors mortgages that caused this is not only flimsy, it fails to acknowledge that it was the lenders who were willing to give the money in the first place. Both were complicit in that mess, but when a bank is willing to give loans to those who don't even have a source of income or any assets to speak of something is wrong. You can criticize the changes to the community reinvestment act during the Clinton administration, but that's not the reason these liar loans were going through. All it took was for one lender to relax rules further to create a domino effect where "everyone was doing it". And to the loan originators it didn't matter because they were just gonna bundle em up and pass them on to another company, and it didn't matter to that other company because they had insurance. AIG said, sure, we'll insure those. Those are AAA. And so on and so forth.
So yeah, the whole poors getting mortgages they couldn't afford was a problem. It wasn't the cause of the mess, but it was another symptom of greed and an example of what happens when regulations are eased and the market is left to its own devices. I find it odd that those who complain about the relaxed regulation that made easier access to loans are simultaneously against further regulation.
The idea that it was the poors mortgages that caused this is not only flimsy, it fails to acknowledge that it was the lenders who were willing to give the money in the first place. Both were complicit in that mess, but when a bank is willing to give loans to those who don't even have a source of income or any assets to speak of something is wrong. You can criticize the changes to the community reinvestment act during the Clinton administration, but that's not the reason these liar loans were going through. All it took was for one lender to relax rules further to create a domino effect where "everyone was doing it". And to the loan originators it didn't matter because they were just gonna bundle em up and pass them on to another company, and it didn't matter to that other company because they had insurance. AIG said, sure, we'll insure those. Those are AAA. And so on and so forth.
So yeah, the whole poors getting mortgages they couldn't afford was a problem. It wasn't the cause of the mess, but it was another symptom of greed and an example of what happens when regulations are eased and the market is left to its own devices. I find it odd that those who complain about the relaxed regulation that made easier access to loans are simultaneously against further regulation.
bobobobo LIBERAL SENATORS AND BILL CLINTON MADE THE BANKS DO IT
Actually, you know what would be nice?
1. Quit trying to solve everything with tax cuts. Tax cuts are not a miracle panacea that will cure cancer, limp dicks and any economic crisis. Running a surplus? Tax cuts! Oh shit, big recession with lack of demand and spending in the private sector? Tax cuts!
2. Second, just shut. the. fuck. up. I don't care what you people think or have to say about anything anymore. I can pretty much have an argument with you by putting your words in my dog's mouth and pretending at this point. The last eight years have given us all a pretty good idea of how a Republican dominated federal govt. handles any situation- peace and economic surplus, war, massive natural disasters, queers getting married and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Your ideas and philosophies have failed on every conceivable front. So. shut. the. fuck. up. The adults are driving again, no more free rides for the "lawyers" from Liberty University. Sit quietly in the back seat and when we get to our destination you can have an ice cream cone and we won't let you see the queers holding hands.
JESUS.
Actually, you know what would be nice?
1. Quit trying to solve everything with tax cuts. Tax cuts are not a miracle panacea that will cure cancer, limp dicks and any economic crisis. Running a surplus? Tax cuts! Oh shit, big recession with lack of demand and spending in the private sector? Tax cuts!
2. Second, just shut. the. fuck. up. I don't care what you people think or have to say about anything anymore. I can pretty much have an argument with you by putting your words in my dog's mouth and pretending at this point. The last eight years have given us all a pretty good idea of how a Republican dominated federal govt. handles any situation- peace and economic surplus, war, massive natural disasters, queers getting married and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Your ideas and philosophies have failed on every conceivable front. So. shut. the. fuck. up. The adults are driving again, no more free rides for the "lawyers" from Liberty University. Sit quietly in the back seat and when we get to our destination you can have an ice cream cone and we won't let you see the queers holding hands.
JESUS.
holy shit, conservatives destroyed in a nuclear fire
About the loan thing, what I find funny is dems who blame the banks but turn around and reward them.Is this all you can see, is everything this black and white to libertarians? smh
About the loan thing, what I find funny is dems who blame the banks but turn around and reward them.Is this all you can see, is everything this black and white to libertarians? smh
Well "adults driving" is still more reasonable and grounded in reality than a "magical force"
About the loan thing, what I find funny is dems who blame the banks but turn around and reward them.Is this all you can see, is everything this black and white to libertarians? smh
Chose to avoid my question I see, typical.
About the loan thing, what I find funny is dems who blame the banks but turn around and reward them.Is this all you can see, is everything this black and white to libertarians? smh
Chose to avoid my question I see, typical.
It's my FoC impression, in case you missed the first 2 pages
But what if humans are incapable of acting in their own best interest, as history has repeatedly shown and of which there exists extensive literature (in fact, behavioral finance is very recent area of research). I don't get how you fail to account for this, but still champion the ideal.
But what if humans are incapable of acting in their own best interest,My answer is pretty simple, if an individual is incapable of acting in their own best interest than that individual and that individual alone will suffer whatever consequences will happen.
What the fuck is your question. Jesus I dont even see a fucking question mark. I assume its this.QuoteBut what if humans are incapable of acting in their own best interest,My answer is pretty simple, if an individual is incapable of acting in their own best interest than that individual and that individual alone will suffer whatever consequences will happen.
The idea is that the government has checks and balances to try and stop most corruption and mistakes while having a free market is jumping in the pool and shitting yourself.
What the fuck is your question. Jesus I dont even see a fucking question mark. I assume its this.But its not just certain individuals, empirical research has shown that it is nondiscriminantly everyone. I can provide you with the research on request, but I would highly recommend the book Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely for starters.QuoteBut what if humans are incapable of acting in their own best interest,My answer is pretty simple, if an individual is incapable of acting in their own best interest than that individual and that individual alone will suffer whatever consequences will happen.
Hmmm which group do I want to belong to. This is a real tough choice. I might have to stay up all night deciding...that's good. kestastrophe might be able to post those statistics before you decide.
you don't understand, loki: greed is virtuous! man is invested with the sovereign and unalienable right to care not ONE WHIT about his neighbor, and ultimately MUST acknowledge that the greatest service man can do is to look completely after his own interest -- and, of course, to proselytize as many shallow axioms about self-sufficiency as necessary to ensure that everyone else ALSO embraces that credo! once we are all perfectly self-sufficient, the gates to economic nirvana will open; free market jesus will return to break loaves of gold into monetarily-sound fishes for all his unshackled followers; and the lambs, thus feed from the tyranny of social welfare, will lay down with the john galt-esque lions! it's so simple! LIBERTOPIA AWAITS!
this crisis is caused because we didn't respect greed ENOUGH -- we, in the evil of our regulatory bodies, tried to slap the hands of titans, leading them to only half-heartedly invest the great works of their minds and bodies. had we let them pursue their noble course, they would have become flush with the wealth of their clever economic mathematics, their unfathomably brilliant securities and derivatives labyrinths, and their long-term investment visions (don't you DARE call them "ponzi schemes")! then, enlightened as they are, would have used that wealth to give every man and woman who was willing to apply the sweat of their brow in the service of capital with a REAL JOB making REAL (gold backed, of course) MONEY.
doesn't it all just make a lovely sense? how can you deny this!spoiler (click to show/hide)there is a real fear among libertarian types when it comes to the notion of a greater social consciousness and responsibility. when you try to view the world through the chiaroscuro lens of personal economy -- what gives you a meaningful roi and what doesn't -- acknowledging and adapting to meet the weaknesses of your fellow man probably seems very, very unrewarding. hence, we see the facade of sociopathy painted large, and the bumper sticker justifications that completely, wholly, and utterly fail to acknowledge the reality of being human in a world of fucked-up humans. :'([close]
Hmmm which group do I want to belong to. This is a real tough choice. I might have to stay up all night deciding...that's good. kestastrophe might be able to post those statistics before you decide.
but of course china (capitalist paradise) should be a pretty big strike against libertarianism anyways.
Liberals think mankind is "incapable"
Libertarians believe mankind is "capable"
Hmmm which group do I want to belong to. This is a real tough choice. I might have to stay up all night deciding...
The idea is that the government has checks and balances to try and stop most corruption and mistakes while having a free market is jumping in the pool and shitting yourself.
Wow you think government stops most corruption. You my friend are very naive. How old are you 12?
the free market's own corruption
I have a solution to solve corruption, make government smaller.Quotethe free market's own corruption
Explain what free market corruption is.
I have a solution to solve corruption, make government smaller.Quotethe free market's own corruption
Explain what free market corruption is.
http://www.msnbc.com, read the business section
I have a solution to solve corruption, make government smaller.
I have a solution to solve corruption, make government smaller.Quotethe free market's own corruption
Explain what free market corruption is.
http://www.msnbc.com, read the business section
That's called theft and its illegal.
After generations of ridiculously tight control of the banking industry, causing the few remaining companies in it to be clumsy and outdated, and run by incompetents. The Federal government then INCREASED the number and kind of regulations, but called it "deregulation", producing a complicated new category of bank that had a special safety net, insulating it from responsibility OR consumer control, called the Savings and Loan, and staffed with the bumblers from the old banking industry. This, of course, eventually failed, and the economy was additionally damaged by billions of dollars in bailouts that should never have happened, just like today.
I have a solution to solve corruption, make government smaller.
It's amazing that all of your solutions are jingoistic and less than ten words.
Prole- he already did, see post 101. Fuck, here you go.Quote from: Randroid the RetardboyAfter generations of ridiculously tight control of the banking industry, causing the few remaining companies in it to be clumsy and outdated, and run by incompetents. The Federal government then INCREASED the number and kind of regulations, but called it "deregulation", producing a complicated new category of bank that had a special safety net, insulating it from responsibility OR consumer control, called the Savings and Loan, and staffed with the bumblers from the old banking industry. This, of course, eventually failed, and the economy was additionally damaged by billions of dollars in bailouts that should never have happened, just like today.
This prompted my shrieking, hair pulling and scat pic post.
republitwat
How many hours a day do you guys sit around thinking of words like, Repug, Repube, Replitwat :lol
Wait we don't have jobs? Then why do i work harder than anyone here :(
How many hours a day do you guys sit around thinking of words like, Repug, Repube, Replitwat :lol
I've heard about 10,000 nicknames for Obama and various other Democrats in the last six months, many of which are getting increasingly complex while remaining scatological and sophomoric. By June, the standard phrase on Free Republic will be "Bare-ass Soretaxo Zer0bamarxommunist Fart-Face."
Doesn't the state own and control a large fraction of the Chinese economy? I know they gave up the centralized planned economy though. They seem more like a socialist market economy with tools of capitalism.I don't think the government runs any trade exports.
Wait we don't have jobs? Then why do i work harder than anyone here :(
How many hours a day do you guys sit around thinking of words like, Repug, Repube, Replitwat :lol
I've heard about 10,000 nicknames for Obama and various other Democrats in the last six months, many of which are getting increasingly complex while remaining scatological and sophomoric. By June, the standard phrase on Free Republic will be "Bare-ass Soretaxo Zer0bamarxommunist Fart-Face."
I doubt they will use the same name that liberals called bush.
How many hours a day do you guys sit around thinking of words like, Repug, Repube, Replitwat :lol
I've heard about 10,000 nicknames for Obama and various other Democrats in the last six months, many of which are getting increasingly complex while remaining scatological and sophomoric. By June, the standard phrase on Free Republic will be "Bare-ass Soretaxo Zer0bamarxommunist Fart-Face."
I doubt they will use the same name that liberals called bush.
Bush... Dubya... uh, I know some idiots used Bushitler...
Okay, that's really all I can think of.
Quoterepublitwat
Liberals should publish a book with all the different ways they make the word Republican into some kind funny name. You guys seem to be very good at it. How many hours a day do you guys sit around thinking of words like, Repug, Repube, Replitwat :lol
Maybe if you guys stopped sitting around thinking of funny names and got a job you wouldn't have to worry about getting income from other peoples taxes.
How will free market capitalism solve 3rd world poverty, wars and enviromental problems?
*crickets*
/thread
First of all its not capitalism's responsibility to solve anything. Second of all.QuoteIn the US, the Federal and state governments pay farmers to NOT GROW FOOD, in order to artificially inflate prices. That's what they mean when they say "farm subsidies". They also set minimum prices for food...it's actually illegal to sell milk, one of the most universally healthy and useful foods, below a certain price!
This raises food prices above what the poorer fifth in the US can afford, even though they're more prosperous than the poorest fifth in most other countries. Then the government hands out billions of dollars in "free food", via food stamps, WIC, et cetera. This extra money is, itself, a form of food subsidy, raising the dollars available for food, and therefore causing food prices to increase.
In other countries, governments set price controls on food directly, which destroys the supply/demand system, so that they end up with food shortages...having to beg for food aid from the US, even while their own farms simply sit idle, or worse, actually are EXPORTING food to neighboring countries (that lack price controls) while their own people starve.
Quoterepublitwat
Liberals should publish a book with all the different ways they make the word Republican into some kind funny name. You guys seem to be very good at it. How many hours a day do you guys sit around thinking of words like, Repug, Repube, Replitwat :lol
Maybe if you guys stopped sitting around thinking of funny names and got a job you wouldn't have to worry about getting income from other peoples taxes.
man, i wish i had a job that paid me well into the double digits...
shame how being liberal holds me back. :'(
OH WAIT :smug i am one of the producers, and somehow i feel an obligation to the society that enables, protects, and validates me! perhaps i should give it some money in the form of taxes! but that taxation is inefficient and is spent on non-producer red states -- what to do? OH MY, DEMOCRACY! this reality thing is amazing -- i accept that there are no pat answers, and work within the existing context to move towards a better condition by using the tools at my immediate disposal, unbound to childish ideology and fantasy! THIS IS AWESOME! it's like i...i...AM THINKING! i get to keep my ideals without trying to reinvent the world as a bumper sticker! OMG OMG OMG
you don't understand, loki: greed is virtuous! man is invested with the sovereign and unalienable right to care not ONE WHIT about his neighbor, and ultimately MUST acknowledge that the greatest service man can do is to look completely after his own interest -- and, of course, to proselytize as many shallow axioms about self-sufficiency as necessary to ensure that everyone else ALSO embraces that credo! once we are all perfectly self-sufficient, the gates to economic nirvana will open; free market jesus will return to break loaves of gold into monetarily-sound fishes for all his unshackled followers; and the lambs, thus feed from the tyranny of social welfare, will lay down with the john galt-esque lions! it's so simple! LIBERTOPIA AWAITS!
this crisis is caused because we didn't respect greed ENOUGH -- we, in the evil of our regulatory bodies, tried to slap the hands of titans, leading them to only half-heartedly invest the great works of their minds and bodies. had we let them pursue their noble course, they would have become flush with the wealth of their clever economic mathematics, their unfathomably brilliant securities and derivatives labyrinths, and their long-term investment visions (don't you DARE call them "ponzi schemes")! then, enlightened as they are, would have used that wealth to give every man and woman who was willing to apply the sweat of their brow in the service of capital with a REAL JOB making REAL (gold backed, of course) MONEY.
doesn't it all just make a lovely sense? how can you deny this!spoiler (click to show/hide)there is a real fear among libertarian types when it comes to the notion of a greater social consciousness and responsibility. when you try to view the world through the chiaroscuro lens of personal economy -- what gives you a meaningful roi and what doesn't -- acknowledging and adapting to meet the weaknesses of your fellow man probably seems very, very unrewarding. hence, we see the facade of sociopathy painted large, and the bumper sticker justifications that completely, wholly, and utterly fail to acknowledge the reality of being human in a world of fucked-up humans. :'([close]
:lol
Awesome post. You have a lot more patience for this stuff than I do nowadays. Lately I just find myself lol'ing at everything, utterly incapable of summoning the energy to post an actual response. People will always believe what they want to believe regardless of how cogent your arguments are, how persuasive your rhetoric is, or how much data you have on your side.
As an aside, when do you think we'll see any of the following measures enacted. I told my friend this weekend that one of the only ways I'll believe that it isn't "business as usual" in this country is when one or more of the following come to pass (most of which should have been among the first things done in the wake of the Bear and Lehman catastrophes):
- Repeal of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
- A hard cap on leverage (say, 8-10:1) reinstituted; I believe restraints on leverage were lifted by way of a Bush era law, though I forget which one in particular.
- Mandating that all mortgages and loans remain with the issuing institutions (this would provide an incentive for local banks to ensure that borrowers did not enter into default, and would also mean that dozens of other institutions wouldn't end up with toxic assets on their balance sheets; had this been in place 5-7 years ago, this entire crisis could have been averted, or at least drastically reduced in scope).
- Requiring that all future financial "innovations" be vetted by regulatory agencies before being put into widespread practice. This could have prevented the entire CDS debacle. The fact of the matter is that developments in the financial sector have been occurring far too rapidly, and have outpaced the ability of agencies to properly analyze them. They insinuate themselves into the system too quickly for any systemic effects to be analyzed on a smaller scale before they end up being $40+ trillion pandemics like the global CDS market.
- Mandating that all mortgages and loans remain with the issuing institutions (this would provide an incentive for local banks to ensure that borrowers did not enter into default, and would also mean that dozens of other institutions wouldn't end up with toxic assets on their balance sheets; had this been in place 5-7 years ago, this entire crisis could have been averted, or at least drastically reduced in scope).
lord i hope so
dude, imagine the awesome live shows though
holy crap, siamesedreamer says something i don't disagree with
oh god, the claim that the cra had anything to do with this crisis has been completely and utterly debunked.
dude, imagine the awesome live shows though
though i think the mock courtroom trials in the securitized stock yard (get it? lol. stock yard. goddamn) would be quite youtube worthy.
rather than guilty or not guilty, people would be deemed buy (live) or sell (kill).
dude, imagine the awesome live shows though
though i think the mock courtroom trials in the securitized stock yard (get it? lol. stock yard. goddamn) would be quite youtube worthy.
rather than guilty or not guilty, people would be deemed buy (live) or sell (kill).
this would be quite awesome. individuals can either invest in the accused's future, or deem them junk fit only to be reduced to fundamental assets for sale (assuming they have an organ donor card).
To be blunt: a lot of the people behind the scenes in the finance world that caused this still believe that they're the wronged victims in all of this. Meanwhile, they either don't know or don't care about the effects spread from their dumbfuckery. I'm betting it is the latter. They've been so used to getting away with everything that in the time of reality, they still think that they're owed all kinds of privileges. Unfortunately, Geithner and Co. agrees with them.
dude, imagine the awesome live shows though
though i think the mock courtroom trials in the securitized stock yard (get it? lol. stock yard. goddamn) would be quite youtube worthy.
rather than guilty or not guilty, people would be deemed buy (live) or sell (kill).
this would be quite awesome. individuals can either invest in the accused's future, or deem them junk fit only to be reduced to fundamental assets for sale (assuming they have an organ donor card).
Don't sell these people short-
Why are some people so unwilling to share?
Why are some people so unwilling to share?
Why are some people so unwilling to share?
Send me your bank account info and I will be more than happy to share your money with you.
Waiting for the FOC post how starving children in Africa should just get a job.