Bailouts are to Creationism as Capitalism is to Darwinism

[jillian]

I suppose...if one likes meaningless blather...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I suppose...if one likes meaningless blather...

i'm entertained so yeah, it was good for me

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I suppose...if one likes meaningless blather...

Only meaningless to those who probably didn't understand it.

 

[jillian]

I suppose...if one likes meaningless blather...

Only meaningless to those who probably didn't understand it.

I doubt there's anything you could write that I wouldn't understand...I just think your certainty without knowledge is blather. People like Toro and a few others are the people I would look toward for knowledge in economic areas...

Richard-H has the right idea economically and historically.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

EDIT: Sorry guys i dunno whats wrong with me tonight...i'm outta here

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I suppose...if one likes meaningless blather...

Only meaningless to those who probably didn't understand it.

I doubt there's anything you could write that I wouldn't understand...I just think your certainty without knowledge is blather. People like Toro and a few others are the people I would look toward for knowledge in economic areas...

Richard-H has the right idea economically and historically.

I don't blame you. Toro is extremely intelligent, along with gonegolfin, BaronvonBigmeat, and Paulie. You can't go wrong listening to those 4, and I'm sure there are more but those 4 come immediately to mind.

I'm not going to bother defending myself, but you and Richard-H are mistaken about a good many things if you blame a non-existent free market for the failures of the Federal Reserve and federal government.

 

[Richard-H]

If you accept that we haven't been a free market since 1890, which I would dispute by the way, then how can you blame the free market for our current downturn? It makes no sense. As to deregulation since the 80's being responsible, that's a fallacy. Regulation easily outstrips any deregulation.

The Federal Reserve is responsible for this recession, and we can agree that the Federal Reserve is not a creation of the free market I'm sure. By artificially lowering interest rates the Fed created malinvestment which seemed to be good during the boom period, but must inevitably bust. Now we're simply doing the same things we did to create the recession, to solve the recession. It's an exercise in madness that is only going to make our situation that much worse.

We have had a constantly decreasing regulatory economy since the 1980s, which has caused this mess - that combined with trickle up economics.

So since you feel that the Fed's handling of the interests rates was the primary cause of this economic disaster, then you'll have to agree that Milton Friedman's monetarist theory was a bunch of BUNK - since that was the guiding philosohy of the Fed's actions that lead up to this mess.

And if you agree that monetarism is bunk, perhaps you'll also consider Friedman's views on free-market economics equally.

And while your considering those, let's review a few more of Friedman's views:

-The military is a socialist organization and should be entirely privatized.
-The public school system is socialist and should be abolished
-All drugs should be legal and traded as commodities
-Argentina and Chile were (in the 1970s & 1980s), model societies that all nations should emulate.

Milton Friedman was a FASCIST ASSHOLE!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you accept that we haven't been a free market since 1890, which I would dispute by the way, then how can you blame the free market for our current downturn? It makes no sense. As to deregulation since the 80's being responsible, that's a fallacy. Regulation easily outstrips any deregulation.

The Federal Reserve is responsible for this recession, and we can agree that the Federal Reserve is not a creation of the free market I'm sure. By artificially lowering interest rates the Fed created malinvestment which seemed to be good during the boom period, but must inevitably bust. Now we're simply doing the same things we did to create the recession, to solve the recession. It's an exercise in madness that is only going to make our situation that much worse.

We have had a constantly decreasing regulatory economy since the 1980s, which has caused this mess - that combined with trickle up economics.

So since you feel that the Fed's handling of the interests rates was the primary cause of this economic disaster, then you'll have to agree that Milton Friedman's monetarist theory was a bunch of BUNK - since that was the guiding philosohy of the Fed's actions that lead up to this mess.

And if you agree that monetarism is bunk, perhaps you'll also consider Friedman's views on free-market economics equally.

And while your considering those, let's review a few more of Friedman's views:

-The military is a socialist organization and should be entirely privatized.
-The public school system is socialist and should be abolished
-All drugs should be legal and traded as commodities
-Argentina and Chile were (in the 1970s & 1980s), model societies that all nations should emulate.

Milton Friedman was a FASCIST ASSHOLE!

I agree that Keynesianism and monetarism are "bunk." I'm a proponent of Austrian free market economics, and believe that it's the market that should be setting interest rates rather than a central bank that will only cause malinvestment.

 

[Richard-H]

I agree that Keynesianism and monetarism are "bunk." I'm a proponent of Austrian free market economics, and believe that it's the market that should be setting interest rates rather than a central bank that will only cause malinvestment.

It's easy to be a proponent of an economic system that can never exist. The Austrian Free Market system simply cannot exist becuase no economic system can exist without government, other than pure barbarism.

For an economy to exist the dominate military paradigm must dictate a least that transactions are peaceful, that transactions are willful and that contracts must be honored. That would be the minimum to create an economy.

But, for that dominant military paradigm to exist, it must tax and it must create a system of industry to support itself and insure that it remains the dominant military paradigm.

Once those two needs are met, the free-market no longer exists.

A free market needs government, yet the very existence of government destroys the free market. Therefore free market cannot exist.

Try dabbling in reality sometime - it's a bit more challenging.

 

[Richard-H]

Have you considered that the mantra of 'free-market' is nothing more that a slogan propagated by scammers and con men in order to get the public to accept a monarchist based economy camoflauged as an attempt to transform an otherwise eglaritarian economy into a 'free-market' economy?

 

[editec]

If you accept that we haven't been a free market since 1890, which I would dispute by the way, then how can you blame the free market for our current downturn? It makes no sense. As to deregulation since the 80's being responsible, that's a fallacy. Regulation easily outstrips any deregulation.

The Federal Reserve is responsible for this recession, and we can agree that the Federal Reserve is not a creation of the free market I'm sure. By artificially lowering interest rates the Fed created malinvestment which seemed to be good during the boom period, but must inevitably bust. Now we're simply doing the same things we did to create the recession, to solve the recession. It's an exercise in madness that is only going to make our situation that much worse.

We have had a constantly decreasing regulatory economy since the 1980s, which has caused this mess - that combined with trickle up economics.

So since you feel that the Fed's handling of the interests rates was the primary cause of this economic disaster, then you'll have to agree that Milton Friedman's monetarist theory was a bunch of BUNK - since that was the guiding philosohy of the Fed's actions that lead up to this mess.

And if you agree that monetarism is bunk, perhaps you'll also consider Friedman's views on free-market economics equally.

And while your considering those, let's review a few more of Friedman's views:

-The military is a socialist organization and should be entirely privatized.
-The public school system is socialist and should be abolished
-All drugs should be legal and traded as commodities
-Argentina and Chile were (in the 1970s & 1980s), model societies that all nations should emulate.

Milton Friedman was a FASCIST ASSHOLE!

Let's not be too harsh on the man, Richard.

He's not an asshole.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I agree that Keynesianism and monetarism are "bunk." I'm a proponent of Austrian free market economics, and believe that it's the market that should be setting interest rates rather than a central bank that will only cause malinvestment.

It's easy to be a proponent of an economic system that can never exist. The Austrian Free Market system simply cannot exist becuase no economic system can exist without government, other than pure barbarism.

For an economy to exist the dominate military paradigm must dictate a least that transactions are peaceful, that transactions are willful and that contracts must be honored. That would be the minimum to create an economy.

But, for that dominant military paradigm to exist, it must tax and it must create a system of industry to support itself and insure that it remains the dominant military paradigm.

Once those two needs are met, the free-market no longer exists.

A free market needs government, yet the very existence of government destroys the free market. Therefore free market cannot exist.

Try dabbling in reality sometime - it's a bit more challenging.

Not true at all. The government's only function in a free market economy is to prosecute fraud, and it's not anti-free market to do so.

 

[editec]

If our markets want to really be free, let them try marketing without courts, police, and armies to protect them.

Of course the masters don't want a market free of government,

They ARE the government....and they own that market, too.

Happy lads those masters.

They've got it worked out so they can hate government if it gets in their way (a la the Republican party ) and they can love government when it gives them pork contracts at the same time.

Ask any master of our universe if they'd truly want no government to protect them and theirs, and they'd look at you like you were forking crazy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Have you considered that the mantra of 'free-market' is nothing more that a slogan propagated by scammers and con men in order to get the public to accept a monarchist based economy camoflauged as an attempt to transform an otherwise eglaritarian economy into a 'free-market' economy?

Have you considered that government intervention in the market leads to your so-called "monarchist based economy?" That's what history shows us over and over.

 

[Richard-H]

Have you considered that the mantra of 'free-market' is nothing more that a slogan propagated by scammers and con men in order to get the public to accept a monarchist based economy camoflauged as an attempt to transform an otherwise eglaritarian economy into a 'free-market' economy?

Have you considered that government intervention in the market leads to your so-called "monarchist based economy?" That's what history shows us over and over.

No. If it's a democratically elected government, then government intervention in the market would constitute a democratically based economy.

(Like duh!)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Have you considered that the mantra of 'free-market' is nothing more that a slogan propagated by scammers and con men in order to get the public to accept a monarchist based economy camoflauged as an attempt to transform an otherwise eglaritarian economy into a 'free-market' economy?

Have you considered that government intervention in the market leads to your so-called "monarchist based economy?" That's what history shows us over and over.

No. If it's a democratically elected government, then government intervention in the market would constitute a democratically based economy.

(Like duh!)

Regardless, when the government intervenes in the market it simply causes problems.

 

[Richard-H]

Problems for the extremely wealthy maybe, but for the vast majority of the people government intervention is the only thing that protects us from slavery.

 

[jillian]

Regardless, when the government intervenes in the market it simply causes problems.

when government DOESN'T intervene, you end up in a Dickensian hell where only very rich and very poor exist.

a viable democracy requires a strong middle class...and the only thing preserving the middle class is government controls.

or you could live in a banana republic, i suppose.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Regardless, when the government intervenes in the market it simply causes problems.

when government DOESN'T intervene, you end up in a Dickensian hell where only very rich and very poor exist.

a viable democracy requires a strong middle class...and the only thing preserving the middle class is government controls.

or you could live in a banana republic, i suppose.

It's the government that destroys the middle class through it's policy of inflation and interest rate manipulation.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Regardless, when the government intervenes in the market it simply causes problems.

when government DOESN'T intervene, you end up in a Dickensian hell where only very rich and very poor exist.

a viable democracy requires a strong middle class...and the only thing preserving the middle class is government controls.

or you could live in a banana republic, i suppose.

It's the government that destroys the middle class through it's policy of inflation and interest rate manipulation.

You guys do know you are both right. When the govt gets totally involved you end up with exactly what kevin says....when the govt has no involvement you end up with what jillian says.

The problem is everyone is running from one side to the other without trying to make a hybrid out of it . i think we should be closer to the no govt side but have SOME regulations to protect individual consumers.