Debunking the republican free-market myth

Billo_Really

Litre of the Band
Aug 14, 2005
41,817
7,366
1,830
Long Beach, Ca
The republican's keep saying how much they want a limited government, but there are examples all over the place showing they believe in the opposite. Here are 3 of those examples...

1. Government support of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF):
...why would any market-oriented opponent of big government support the existence of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF)? These TBTF banks operate with an implicit subsidy from the government. Lenders expect the government to step in to back up these banks' debt if they fail, as happened on a massive basis in 2008. As a result, TBTF banks can borrow money at lower interest rates than would be possible in a free market.

2. Government support of prescription drug companies:
...drug patents raise the price of prescription drugs by close to $270 billion a year above their free-market price. Patents are government granted monopolies. Since prescription drugs often are necessary for a person's health or even life, people will pay almost anything for a drug if they can afford it or can get their insurance to pick up the tab. Patents imply very big government since the government will imprison anyone who produces a drug without the patent holder's consent.

3. Government support of licensing restrictions:
...conservatives support, highly paid professionals (e.g. doctors, dentists and lawyers) use licensing restrictions to limit both foreign and domestic competition. While the government has been using the banner of "free trade" to drive down the wages of manufacturing workers, it has simultaneously been increasing the protection afforded doctors in order to prevent any similar downward pressure on their wages.
Right-wing hypocrisy, knows no bounds.
 
Banks were forced by democrats to make bad loans or face civil rights litigation. The bad loans would be guaranteed by Fannie Mae but democrats had that base covered too. The House Banking Chairman who had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae looked Americans in the eye and said Fannie was solvent when it was on the verge of collapse under a democrat majority in both houses of congress. We have learned that politicians are dumber and more dishonest than bankers. The problem seems to be how deeply democrats want to wade into the fascist quagmire and completely control the manufacture and distribution of goods and services.
 
Banks were forced by democrats to make bad loans or face civil rights litigation. The bad loans would be guaranteed by Fannie Mae but democrats had that base covered too. The House Banking Chairman who had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae looked Americans in the eye and said Fannie was solvent when it was on the verge of collapse under a democrat majority in both houses of congress. We have learned that politicians are dumber and more dishonest than bankers. The problem seems to be how deeply democrats want to wade into the fascist quagmire and completely control the manufacture and distribution of goods and services.

It's always nice when I read a post by someone who is informed.
 
The republican's keep saying how much they want a limited government, but there are examples all over the place showing they believe in the opposite. Here are 3 of those examples...

1. Government support of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF):
...why would any market-oriented opponent of big government support the existence of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF)? These TBTF banks operate with an implicit subsidy from the government. Lenders expect the government to step in to back up these banks' debt if they fail, as happened on a massive basis in 2008. As a result, TBTF banks can borrow money at lower interest rates than would be possible in a free market.

2. Government support of prescription drug companies:
...drug patents raise the price of prescription drugs by close to $270 billion a year above their free-market price. Patents are government granted monopolies. Since prescription drugs often are necessary for a person's health or even life, people will pay almost anything for a drug if they can afford it or can get their insurance to pick up the tab. Patents imply very big government since the government will imprison anyone who produces a drug without the patent holder's consent.

3. Government support of licensing restrictions:
...conservatives support, highly paid professionals (e.g. doctors, dentists and lawyers) use licensing restrictions to limit both foreign and domestic competition. While the government has been using the banner of "free trade" to drive down the wages of manufacturing workers, it has simultaneously been increasing the protection afforded doctors in order to prevent any similar downward pressure on their wages.
Right-wing hypocrisy, knows no bounds.

Ok. So then lets have real free markets. I would love to get rid of minimum wage and subsidies for companies. Lets have a small government and eliminate the FDA, the USDA and replace them with smaller, more efficient state run agencies. I'm all for that. I don't support a highly paid doctor or lawyer any more than I support a low wage earner, or any less. You set the market for your labor. Lets have a government that enforces contracts and does not attempt to define them. Can we? Please?

Mike
 
Banks were forced by democrats to make bad loans or face civil rights litigation. The bad loans would be guaranteed by Fannie Mae but democrats had that base covered too. The House Banking Chairman who had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae looked Americans in the eye and said Fannie was solvent when it was on the verge of collapse under a democrat majority in both houses of congress. We have learned that politicians are dumber and more dishonest than bankers. The problem seems to be how deeply democrats want to wade into the fascist quagmire and completely control the manufacture and distribution of goods and services.

The banks flinched, buckled under pressure from politicians, and made loans to people who happily signed on the dotted line.

So WHERE does the blame lie?

With the banks who made "easy" credit available to unqualified people?

Or with the people who were stupid enough to overextend themselves and borrow more money than they were capable of repaying?

I say both the banks AND the borrowers are to blame, EQUALLY.

Blame the Democrats. Blame the Republicans. Blame all of the politicians. They ALL deserve to be tarred and feathered!
 
Banks were forced by democrats to make bad loans or face civil rights litigation. The bad loans would be guaranteed by Fannie Mae but democrats had that base covered too. The House Banking Chairman who had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae looked Americans in the eye and said Fannie was solvent when it was on the verge of collapse under a democrat majority in both houses of congress. We have learned that politicians are dumber and more dishonest than bankers. The problem seems to be how deeply democrats want to wade into the fascist quagmire and completely control the manufacture and distribution of goods and services.

The banks flinched, buckled under pressure from politicians, and made loans to people who happily signed on the dotted line.

So WHERE does the blame lie?

With the banks who made "easy" credit available to unqualified people?

Or with the people who were stupid enough to overextend themselves and borrow more money than they were capable of repaying?

I say both the banks AND the borrowers are to blame, EQUALLY.

Blame the Democrats. Blame the Republicans. Blame all of the politicians. They ALL deserve to be tarred and feathered!

What is perhaps even worse is that they were all bailed out. Now the lesson is that if you get big enough you will be bailed out no matter how bad you screw up.

Mike
 
Banks were forced by democrats to make bad loans or face civil rights litigation. The bad loans would be guaranteed by Fannie Mae but democrats had that base covered too. The House Banking Chairman who had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae looked Americans in the eye and said Fannie was solvent when it was on the verge of collapse under a democrat majority in both houses of congress. We have learned that politicians are dumber and more dishonest than bankers. The problem seems to be how deeply democrats want to wade into the fascist quagmire and completely control the manufacture and distribution of goods and services.
The federal government never told the banks to dish out loans to people who could not afford it. The banks still had to do their due diligence in order to determine who was credit worthy. However, credit default swaps, changed all that.

BTW, the majority of bad loans, were issued by private banks.
 
Ok. So then lets have real free markets. I would love to get rid of minimum wage and subsidies for companies. Lets have a small government and eliminate the FDA, the USDA and replace them with smaller, more efficient state run agencies. I'm all for that. I don't support a highly paid doctor or lawyer any more than I support a low wage earner, or any less. You set the market for your labor. Lets have a government that enforces contracts and does not attempt to define them. Can we? Please?

Mike
And leave us at the mercy of the corporate oligarchy?
 
The banks flinched, buckled under pressure from politicians, and made loans to people who happily signed on the dotted line.

So WHERE does the blame lie?

With the banks who made "easy" credit available to unqualified people?

Or with the people who were stupid enough to overextend themselves and borrow more money than they were capable of repaying?

I say both the banks AND the borrowers are to blame, EQUALLY.

Blame the Democrats. Blame the Republicans. Blame all of the politicians. They ALL deserve to be tarred and feathered!
I say we break up the big banks and make them little banks, much like we did with the phone company.
 
Ok. So then lets have real free markets. I would love to get rid of minimum wage and subsidies for companies. Lets have a small government and eliminate the FDA, the USDA and replace them with smaller, more efficient state run agencies. I'm all for that. I don't support a highly paid doctor or lawyer any more than I support a low wage earner, or any less. You set the market for your labor. Lets have a government that enforces contracts and does not attempt to define them. Can we? Please?

Mike
And leave us at the mercy of the corporate oligarchy?

Separate both business and union from government. The free market works when it is free. Do you think that if the government stepped away that everybody would just start working in sweat shops today?

Mike
 
Separate both business and union from government. The free market works when it is free. Do you think that if the government stepped away that everybody would just start working in sweat shops today?

Mike
It would be more like BP and those mining company's paying fines, instead of maintaining a safe working environment, except without the fines.
 
The republican's keep saying how much they want a limited government, but there are examples all over the place showing they believe in the opposite. Here are 3 of those examples...

1. Government support of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF):
...why would any market-oriented opponent of big government support the existence of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF)? These TBTF banks operate with an implicit subsidy from the government. Lenders expect the government to step in to back up these banks' debt if they fail, as happened on a massive basis in 2008. As a result, TBTF banks can borrow money at lower interest rates than would be possible in a free market.

2. Government support of prescription drug companies:
...drug patents raise the price of prescription drugs by close to $270 billion a year above their free-market price. Patents are government granted monopolies. Since prescription drugs often are necessary for a person's health or even life, people will pay almost anything for a drug if they can afford it or can get their insurance to pick up the tab. Patents imply very big government since the government will imprison anyone who produces a drug without the patent holder's consent.

3. Government support of licensing restrictions:
...conservatives support, highly paid professionals (e.g. doctors, dentists and lawyers) use licensing restrictions to limit both foreign and domestic competition. While the government has been using the banner of "free trade" to drive down the wages of manufacturing workers, it has simultaneously been increasing the protection afforded doctors in order to prevent any similar downward pressure on their wages.
Right-wing hypocrisy, knows no bounds.

The last 5 years has debunked quite a few conservative ideals. But denial is one of their strong suits. Denial and madness.
 
The banks flinched, buckled under pressure from politicians, and made loans to people who happily signed on the dotted line.

So WHERE does the blame lie?

With the banks who made "easy" credit available to unqualified people?

Or with the people who were stupid enough to overextend themselves and borrow more money than they were capable of repaying?

I say both the banks AND the borrowers are to blame, EQUALLY.

Blame the Democrats. Blame the Republicans. Blame all of the politicians. They ALL deserve to be tarred and feathered!
I say we break up the big banks and make them little banks, much like we did with the phone company.

What created the problem was not "banks and government". What caused the problem is the fractional lending system. If you allow banks to create "currency" on the basis of a signature and without actual capital then the system will eventually crash. We should have let the whole thing come crashing down. Instead we propped up a failing system in which you and 5000 other people go borrow money from a bank that doesn't have it. The bank gets to loan money that was created when you agreed to pay it back to other banks who can then loan out several times as much fake money as was created when you signed a paper saying you would pay them that money. The system is fundamentally flawed.

Mike
 
Separate both business and union from government. The free market works when it is free. Do you think that if the government stepped away that everybody would just start working in sweat shops today?

Mike
It would be more like BP and those mining company's paying fines, instead of maintaining a safe working environment, except without the fines.

People are smart enough to decide what risk they can take to make a buck. This is not the 1920's.

Mike
 
The republican's keep saying how much they want a limited government, but there are examples all over the place showing they believe in the opposite. Here are 3 of those examples...

1. Government support of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF):
...why would any market-oriented opponent of big government support the existence of too-big-to-fail banks (TBTF)? These TBTF banks operate with an implicit subsidy from the government. Lenders expect the government to step in to back up these banks' debt if they fail, as happened on a massive basis in 2008. As a result, TBTF banks can borrow money at lower interest rates than would be possible in a free market.

2. Government support of prescription drug companies:
...drug patents raise the price of prescription drugs by close to $270 billion a year above their free-market price. Patents are government granted monopolies. Since prescription drugs often are necessary for a person's health or even life, people will pay almost anything for a drug if they can afford it or can get their insurance to pick up the tab. Patents imply very big government since the government will imprison anyone who produces a drug without the patent holder's consent.

3. Government support of licensing restrictions:
...conservatives support, highly paid professionals (e.g. doctors, dentists and lawyers) use licensing restrictions to limit both foreign and domestic competition. While the government has been using the banner of "free trade" to drive down the wages of manufacturing workers, it has simultaneously been increasing the protection afforded doctors in order to prevent any similar downward pressure on their wages.
Right-wing hypocrisy, knows no bounds.

The last 5 years has debunked quite a few conservative ideals. But denial is one of their strong suits. Denial and madness.

The last 20 years have debunked the idea that there are many conservatives left. None of those 3 are conservative actions. The "conservative" movement in this country is not much more than a different flavor of liberalism today.

Mike
 
The last 20 years have debunked the idea that there are many conservatives left. None of those 3 are conservative actions. The "conservative" movement in this country is not much more than a different flavor of liberalism today.

Mike
That would be "neo-liberalism".
 
The last 20 years have debunked the idea that there are many conservatives left. None of those 3 are conservative actions. The "conservative" movement in this country is not much more than a different flavor of liberalism today.

Mike
That would be "neo-liberalism".

I don't see neoliberalism represented much at all, certainly not as much as corporatism, the dominant mode of government coming out of both major parties.
 

Forum List

Back
Top