Free Market Foundations

[Kevin_Kennedy]

what is the end of a business cycle for some is a philosophical vindication for others. dissenters could easily point to the same crisis and argue that lax regulation of futures and lending standards precipitated the 'meltdown'.

any credibility outside the jaded blame-game the crisis has become?

And yet you yourself mentioned that the most successful countries in the world today are mixed economies with regulation, with high taxation, etc... So, in my opinion, you can't have it both ways. Either the global economic system was brought to its knees by rampant laissez-faire policies, or your most successful countries are mixed economies.

However, it's really how you see things. Maybe you can accept that the economy was highly regulated, but you think it needed more regulation. Or, and this is my perspective, maybe you saw the entire system as being completely unsustainable in the long run. It's all how you interpret the facts.

i actually pointed out three ways of looking at the situation. i'm of the opinion that the crisis is an overdue correction typical of the business cycle. i contend that the gravity of the situation is because the correction was centered on financial services. any hit on this sector is tougher than the average because of its leverage... the ol' tip of the iceberg. also, the interdependence of all other industries on this sector can be a drag, potentially of staflationary proportions. this was not the case with the dot-com bust. at the time the internet was peripheral to the wider economy.

other folks have taken to a tug of war which makes the correction which i feel is central to the situation seem as if its not a factor at all -- that it must be over or under regulation of the market, and i just think that's philosophical opportunism for the most part. this is, however, not to entirely downplay the role that regs or the lack thereof might have played. i just dont think that issue is central to the fact.

Well the free market economists don't see the problem as only having been too much regulation. That's certainly a problem, and one that has held our economy back, but not the main problem. The main problem is keeping interest rates artificially low, which is the cause of the business cycle in the first place. This creates a bubble that is eventually going to pop.

 

[antagon]

And yet you yourself mentioned that the most successful countries in the world today are mixed economies with regulation, with high taxation, etc... So, in my opinion, you can't have it both ways. Either the global economic system was brought to its knees by rampant laissez-faire policies, or your most successful countries are mixed economies.

However, it's really how you see things. Maybe you can accept that the economy was highly regulated, but you think it needed more regulation. Or, and this is my perspective, maybe you saw the entire system as being completely unsustainable in the long run. It's all how you interpret the facts.

i actually pointed out three ways of looking at the situation. i'm of the opinion that the crisis is an overdue correction typical of the business cycle. i contend that the gravity of the situation is because the correction was centered on financial services. any hit on this sector is tougher than the average because of its leverage... the ol' tip of the iceberg. also, the interdependence of all other industries on this sector can be a drag, potentially of staflationary proportions. this was not the case with the dot-com bust. at the time the internet was peripheral to the wider economy.

other folks have taken to a tug of war which makes the correction which i feel is central to the situation seem as if its not a factor at all -- that it must be over or under regulation of the market, and i just think that's philosophical opportunism for the most part. this is, however, not to entirely downplay the role that regs or the lack thereof might have played. i just dont think that issue is central to the fact.

Well the free market economists don't see the problem as only having been too much regulation. That's certainly a problem, and one that has held our economy back, but not the main problem. The main problem is keeping interest rates artificially low, which is the cause of the business cycle in the first place. This creates a bubble that is eventually going to pop.

do you feel that business cycles could be avoided altogether?

what alternative mechanism could manage the base rates of interest?

my take on these issues is that economies are not self-sustaining. instead, at the macro level, they need direction to overt their self-defeating growth patterns. these directions take on a character which predisposes them to certain frequent ailments -- the business cycle. it is essentially the propensity to overdo a good thing, filling the economy with activity until it bursts. eventually, the redeeming qualities of the economy's character fail to elicit the positive responses which they once did. at this point, the economy is on one such self-defeating end of it's growth. the response is normally to fight the fact for a decade or more, then wise up with a fairly dramatic redirection.

the new deal direction was golden for the US. it built up infrastructure, cities and industry. by 1970 none of that shit was important anymore and the economy was making that known: its focus was self-defeating. after a decade of denial, the '80s ushered in a period when private individuals and their businesses would fill in the gaps in the new deal era's framework. it was just the change in character that the US needed at the time. financial services boom in the reaganomic environment we are in. they are also the epicenters for crashes in our biz cycle. one of the symptoms of the new deal era's demise were outrageously high rates; one of the symptoms of reaganomics is the low or crash interest rate environment we are in today. this is the decade which we deny that there's something wrong with our economic direction, and try out the same shit that got us here to fix it. we will have issues with our economy until we innovate an alternative, i think.

part of the point i'm making is that basement interest rates are part and parcel with the policy package we're running and have been for 30 years. in this character, our economy has shown the propensity to grow unstable if the rates rise above 4-5 points.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

i actually pointed out three ways of looking at the situation. i'm of the opinion that the crisis is an overdue correction typical of the business cycle. i contend that the gravity of the situation is because the correction was centered on financial services. any hit on this sector is tougher than the average because of its leverage... the ol' tip of the iceberg. also, the interdependence of all other industries on this sector can be a drag, potentially of staflationary proportions. this was not the case with the dot-com bust. at the time the internet was peripheral to the wider economy.

other folks have taken to a tug of war which makes the correction which i feel is central to the situation seem as if its not a factor at all -- that it must be over or under regulation of the market, and i just think that's philosophical opportunism for the most part. this is, however, not to entirely downplay the role that regs or the lack thereof might have played. i just dont think that issue is central to the fact.

Well the free market economists don't see the problem as only having been too much regulation. That's certainly a problem, and one that has held our economy back, but not the main problem. The main problem is keeping interest rates artificially low, which is the cause of the business cycle in the first place. This creates a bubble that is eventually going to pop.

do you feel that business cycles could be avoided altogether?

what alternative mechanism could manage the base rates of interest?

my take on these issues is that economies are not self-sustaining. instead, at the macro level, they need direction to overt their self-defeating growth patterns. these directions take on a character which predisposes them to certain frequent ailments -- the business cycle. it is essentially the propensity to overdo a good thing, filling the economy with activity until it bursts. eventually, the redeeming qualities of the economy's character fail to elicit the positive responses which they once did. at this point, the economy is on one such self-defeating end of it's growth. the response is normally to fight the fact for a decade or more, then wise up with a fairly dramatic redirection.

the new deal direction was golden for the US. it built up infrastructure, cities and industry. by 1970 none of that shit was important anymore and the economy was making that known: its focus was self-defeating. after a decade of denial, the '80s ushered in a period when private individuals and their businesses would fill in the gaps in the new deal era's framework. it was just the change in character that the US needed at the time. financial services boom in the reaganomic environment we are in. they are also the epicenters for crashes in our biz cycle. one of the symptoms of the new deal era's demise were outrageously high rates; one of the symptoms of reaganomics is the low or crash interest rate environment we are in today. this is the decade which we deny that there's something wrong with our economic direction, and try out the same shit that got us here to fix it. we will have issues with our economy until we innovate an alternative, i think.

part of the point i'm making is that basement interest rates are part and parcel with the policy package we're running and have been for 30 years. in this character, our economy has shown the propensity to grow unstable if the rates rise above 4-5 points.

Yes, the business cycle can be avoided completely.

Let the market decide what interest rates are supposed to be based on the level of savings. As savings goes up interest rates go down, and as savings go down interest rates go up.

And that's where we differ. I'm of the opinion that economies and markets are completely self-sustaining, and the biggest problems arise from government interference.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

sorry, frank. i count six or so suggestions in the OP, which one confuses you?

i'm confused by the manhattan project bit if that's any consolation.

Confused and you can't count.

Here's the OP again (I'm assuming this is the you're talking about)

Free Market Foundations

"Market principles are central to the form and function of capitalism itself. Free market principles remind that heavy-handed public or private manipulation of markets can destroy the efficiency of the capitalist economy, and corrupt the delicate flow of supply, demand, price and purchasing power.

Its when free market theorists claim that freedom in a market is the most crucial component of its function, that I feel the concept falls short of delivering. Looking at the world's most efficient markets -- those which make the best utilization of factors available to them, and which return the most to the human participants involved -- history makes an argument contrary to laissez-faire theory. These markets are heavily regulated. They are taxed with the intent to support infrastructure crucial to the market, but go one further to employ taxation as a mechanism to circulate purchasing power throughout the market.

Of course the free marketeers object to these very characteristics, but what is their presumption based on, but some books from 18th and 19th century economists?"

Can you point to one industry/business/made up shit that makes your point because I don't see any in there.

 

[Samson]

sorry, frank. i count six or so suggestions in the OP, which one confuses you?

i'm confused by the manhattan project bit if that's any consolation.

Confused and you can't count.

Here's the OP again (I'm assuming this is the you're talking about)

Free Market Foundations



Its when free market theorists claim that freedom in a market is the most crucial component of its function, that I feel the concept falls short of delivering.

Can you point to one industry/business/made up shit that makes your point because I don't see any in there.

LOL



WTF Frank, do you find it difficult to find any substance in the OP???

 

[antagon]

The main problem is keeping interest rates artificially low, which is the cause of the business cycle in the first place. This creates a bubble that is eventually going to pop.

do you feel that business cycles could be avoided altogether?

my take on these issues is that economies are not self-sustaining.

Yes, the business cycle can be avoided completely.

Let the market decide what interest rates are supposed to be based on the level of savings. As savings goes up interest rates go down, and as savings go down interest rates go up.

And that's where we differ. I'm of the opinion that economies and markets are completely self-sustaining, and the biggest problems arise from government interference.

while you feel you have illustrated a cure for the business cycle, i contend you have illustrated a business cycle itself, kevin. the idea of an economy transitioning from smoothly through the cycle which you have described is only remotely sensible on paper. the small print reads that such theory assumes complete markets, no externalities, perfect information, perfect competition, etc. without a perfect paper market, investors pile up on savings until deflation is well settled in, then they run on the banks when there's better deals to be had in equity. when that dries up and businesses and homes are over invested and consumption has given rise to inflation, the rates recover and money sucks off the street back into banks/interest bearers, leaving businesses assed-out... deflation sets back in.

if the 19th century US never happened, we'd both be talking theory, but it did. the cycle above captures an idea of the volatility in an unmanaged or unbuffered business cycle typical of that period.

for around 200 years there has been theory on business cycles. they have been observed since the dawn of capitalism as a natural characteristic of the model. letting it be is not the solution as that has been played out already. keynes raised the potential of snuffing or smoothing the cycles out, but an expense of potential growth was paid as a result. keynes' solution was practically opposite your own, and i argue had the opposite effect: mitigation of the extremes of the business cycle, where a market's intrinsic 'equilibrium', which you describe, is far harsher.

i say the business cycle is part of what makes capitalism run. they are the leaps and bounds of the system, rather than keynes' efforts to make it shuffle its feet. understanding the intrinsic nature of markets in real application precludes the belief that the biz cycle should be stamped out (or could be), in my opinion.

 

[antagon]

sorry, frank. i count six or so suggestions in the OP, which one confuses you?

i'm confused by the manhattan project bit if that's any consolation.

Confused and you can't count.

Here's the OP again (I'm assuming this is the you're talking about)

Free Market Foundations

"1.....Market principles are central to the form and function of capitalism itself. 2.....Free market principles remind that heavy-handed public or private manipulation of markets can destroy the efficiency of the capitalist economy, and corrupt the delicate flow of supply, demand, price and purchasing power.

3.....Its when free market theorists claim that freedom in a market is the most crucial component of its function, that I feel the concept falls short of delivering. 4....Looking at the world's most efficient markets -- those which make the best utilization of factors available to them, and which return the most to the human participants involved -- history makes an argument contrary to laissez-faire theory. 5......These markets are heavily regulated. 6a.....They are taxed with the intent to support infrastructure crucial to the market, 6b.......but go one further to employ taxation as a mechanism to circulate purchasing power throughout the market.

7a.....Of course the free marketeers object to these very characteristics, but what is their presumption based on, 7b.....but some books from 18th and 19th century economists?"

Can you point to one industry/business/made up shit that makes your point because I don't see any in there.

there ya go frank. i counted the presumptions in the OP for ya. now which one are you puzzled over?

*sigh* no child left behind

 

[asterism]

I don't think the premise in the OP and the further points defending it (in the academic sense) are valid since regulation affects the economy and the economy is a dynamic entity that responds, which then garners more regulation response, and the entire system breaks down when the regulating body is also a significant participant in the economy.

How would a football game look if the referees were in the game?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

do you feel that business cycles could be avoided altogether?

my take on these issues is that economies are not self-sustaining.

Yes, the business cycle can be avoided completely.

Let the market decide what interest rates are supposed to be based on the level of savings. As savings goes up interest rates go down, and as savings go down interest rates go up.

And that's where we differ. I'm of the opinion that economies and markets are completely self-sustaining, and the biggest problems arise from government interference.

while you feel you have illustrated a cure for the business cycle, i contend you have illustrated a business cycle itself, kevin. the idea of an economy transitioning from smoothly through the cycle which you have described is only remotely sensible on paper. the small print reads that such theory assumes complete markets, no externalities, perfect information, perfect competition, etc. without a perfect paper market, investors pile up on savings until deflation is well settled in, then they run on the banks when there's better deals to be had in equity. when that dries up and businesses and homes are over invested and consumption has given rise to inflation, the rates recover and money sucks off the street back into banks/interest bearers, leaving businesses assed-out... deflation sets back in.

if the 19th century US never happened, we'd both be talking theory, but it did. the cycle above captures an idea of the volatility in an unmanaged or unbuffered business cycle typical of that period.

for around 200 years there has been theory on business cycles. they have been observed since the dawn of capitalism as a natural characteristic of the model. letting it be is not the solution as that has been played out already. keynes raised the potential of snuffing or smoothing the cycles out, but an expense of potential growth was paid as a result. keynes' solution was practically opposite your own, and i argue had the opposite effect: mitigation of the extremes of the business cycle, where a market's intrinsic 'equilibrium', which you describe, is far harsher.

i say the business cycle is part of what makes capitalism run. they are the leaps and bounds of the system, rather than keynes' efforts to make it shuffle its feet. understanding the intrinsic nature of markets in real application precludes the belief that the biz cycle should be stamped out (or could be), in my opinion.

The problem with citing the 19th century as some era of free markets and allowing the market to set interest rates is that it's not true.

 

[antagon]

true enough for me, kevin. there was no central bank in the US during the jackson era. some 25 years. no central banks in the 19th century manipulated rates of interest whatsoever.

i don't think you can validate a theory by moving the goalposts under a rainbow, man.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

true enough for me, kevin. there was no central bank in the US during the jackson era. some 25 years. no central banks in the 19th century manipulated rates of interest whatsoever.

i don't think you can validate a theory by moving the goalposts under a rainbow, man.

The Lincoln administration introduced paper money and inflation to pay for the war.

 

[antagon]

I don't think the premise in the OP and the further points defending it (in the academic sense) are valid since regulation affects the economy and the economy is a dynamic entity that responds, which then garners more regulation response, and the entire system breaks down when the regulating body is also a significant participant in the economy.

How would a football game look if the referees were in the game?

i argue that the refs are in the game. turkeybowl is fun, but when the stakes are high, you need a ref. like it or not, the calls they make are good as play calls.

 

[asterism]

I don't think the premise in the OP and the further points defending it (in the academic sense) are valid since regulation affects the economy and the economy is a dynamic entity that responds, which then garners more regulation response, and the entire system breaks down when the regulating body is also a significant participant in the economy.

How would a football game look if the referees were in the game?

i argue that the refs are in the game. turkeybowl is fun, but when the stakes are high, you need a ref. like it or not, the calls they make are good as play calls.

Allow me to clarify. I'm not suggesting that the refs exit the field and relinquish their role as enforcers of the rules, I'm saying that they should not be participants in the game where they have a stake in which side scores the most points.

Their role is to observe and apply penalties, not step in to be quarterback.

 

[antagon]

true enough for me, kevin. there was no central bank in the US during the jackson era. some 25 years. no central banks in the 19th century manipulated rates of interest whatsoever.

i don't think you can validate a theory by moving the goalposts under a rainbow, man.

The Lincoln administration introduced paper money and inflation to pay for the war.

this follows 20-some years of no central banking, which in turn followed 50 years of banking which cannot be characterized as manipulative of rates of interest, in fact, to its own detriment.

i argue that the primitive equilibrium which you suggest conforms to the banking system from the ~1790s to the 1862 (or whenever the greenback thing happened), and this suggestion that fiat is out of step with your solution only further characterizes your ideas as archaic and without a shadow of a chance of running a modern economy. i thought the early greenbacks were demand notes anyhow.

 

[antagon]

I don't think the premise in the OP and the further points defending it (in the academic sense) are valid since regulation affects the economy and the economy is a dynamic entity that responds, which then garners more regulation response, and the entire system breaks down when the regulating body is also a significant participant in the economy.

How would a football game look if the referees were in the game?

i argue that the refs are in the game. turkeybowl is fun, but when the stakes are high, you need a ref. like it or not, the calls they make are good as play calls.

Allow me to clarify. I'm not suggesting that the refs exit the field and relinquish their role as enforcers of the rules, I'm saying that they should not be participants in the game where they have a stake in which side scores the most points.

Their role is to observe and apply penalties, not step in to be quarterback.

on aggregate, the government is on the side of the economy and its cumulative participants. (i step carefully here because some do get shafted by sam, but uncle's general interest and effect is stability and growth)

the ref makes calls to favor our side in the game.

 

[asterism]

i argue that the refs are in the game. turkeybowl is fun, but when the stakes are high, you need a ref. like it or not, the calls they make are good as play calls.

Allow me to clarify. I'm not suggesting that the refs exit the field and relinquish their role as enforcers of the rules, I'm saying that they should not be participants in the game where they have a stake in which side scores the most points.

Their role is to observe and apply penalties, not step in to be quarterback.

on aggregate, the government is on the side of the economy and its cumulative participants.

That declaration is only your opinion, it is not fact. I used to think this was the case, but the more I see how the government implements its primary method of sustainability (taxation), the more I think that it's not interested in being on the side of the economy, it's on the side of a new paradigm where win lose or draw the ruling class gets the Keynesian stability while the proles get the basic subsistence.

Of course I think the government on both sides of the aisle is infested with eugenicist progressives, so there's my bias.

(i step carefully here because some do get shafted by sam, but uncle's general interest and effect is stability and growth)

Things are pretty unstable and lacking any real growth lately.

the ref makes calls to favor our side in the game.

In that situation, the only winner is the ref.

 

[antagon]

That declaration is only your opinion, it is not fact. I used to think this was the case, but the more I see how the government implements its primary method of sustainability (taxation), the more I think that it's not interested in being on the side of the economy, it's on the side of a new paradigm where win lose or draw the ruling class gets the Keynesian stability while the proles get the basic subsistence.

Of course I think the government on both sides of the aisle is infested with eugenicist progressives, so there's my bias.

what could be noted to support my opinion is that the ruling class is burdened with the most tax liability and that the government looks to make taxation sometimes painfully progressive. a capitalist economy is regressive or trickle-up by nature, and i feel that that is responsible for the winst by the most wealthy, win lose or draw.

is it sensible to attribute income disparity to progressive policy? i feel that wide income disparity is one of the innate characteristics of capitalist economies which i feel is mediated by a regulated specie like what we run in the US. the progressive era really emplaced all of that.

 

[asterism]

That declaration is only your opinion, it is not fact. I used to think this was the case, but the more I see how the government implements its primary method of sustainability (taxation), the more I think that it's not interested in being on the side of the economy, it's on the side of a new paradigm where win lose or draw the ruling class gets the Keynesian stability while the proles get the basic subsistence.

Of course I think the government on both sides of the aisle is infested with eugenicist progressives, so there's my bias.

what could be noted to support my opinion is that the ruling class is burdened with the most tax liability and that the government looks to make taxation sometimes painfully progressive. a capitalist economy is regressive or trickle-up by nature, and i feel that that is responsible for the winst by the most wealthy, win lose or draw.

The ruling class is not burdened with the most tax liability. Take a look at Warren Buffett's gaming of the system, and Timothy Geithner's free pass. The ruling class does not share the burden, they advocate for others to pay more while they use every trick to minimize their own personal share.

is it sensible to attribute income disparity to progressive policy? i feel that wide income disparity is one of the innate characteristics of capitalist economies which i feel is mediated by a regulated specie like what we run in the US. the progressive era really emplaced all of that.

Show me a successful sustainable society that has a narrow income disparity and I'll show you that the average quality of life in that society is quite low by our modern standards. The Politburo underlings may not have been rich in cash, but that's because nobody had much cash. They got better housing and travel permits though. Not anywhere close to our average.

Perhaps income disparity doesn't have the importance you claim.

However I do see some insight into the eugenicist worldview as expressed by progressives, one that focuses on indicators that can be predicted to generate unrest. Rather than cure the disease that causes the unrest, the focus is on treating the symptoms. That implies a perspective that there is no cure, which then leads to a methodology oriented towards controlling and pacifying the general population.

As articulated by Karl Marx, the father of the US progressive movement.

I'm not pulling a boogeyman, so please don't be so base. I am pushing a bit to see if you are educated enough about your own perspective to engage in an actual conversation about it. So far so good, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[antagon]

asterism, i have a different concept of class than the one you put forward, but i can abide. I argue that the wealthier participants in the economy pay virtually all of the income tax liability accrued in the economy. those who earn at levels within a threshold of the poverty line cant really accrue wealth. in the US tax system, they don't really accrue income tax liability either. being active in our economy affords your 'tricks' to minimize the share of income allotted to tax. far from a progressive policy, expensibility and deductability are decidedly regressive for this reason. as a business owner, but not to be mistaken as a buffet-grade participant in our economy, i welcome expensibility.

Show me a successful sustainable society that has a narrow income disparity and I'll show you that the average quality of life in that society is quite low by our modern standards. The Politburo underlings may not have been rich in cash, but that's because nobody had much cash. They got better housing and travel permits though. Not anywhere close to our average.

quite the opposite. i argue that societies which manage to field a middle class which encompasses the bear share of their constituents, exhibit both a moderate mean income gap and a high quality of life.

i interpreted your criticism of a ruling class juxtaposed to a proletariat and associable with america's progressive policy to be a failure to recognize the greater income disparity and commensurately lower QoL of a pre-progressive US. it should be noted that just as I deride the notion that market freedom is a paramount value in our economy, i criticize the idea that narrowing the income gap or spreading purchasing power is a wise singular or paramount aim of the economy or the policies that guide it. i'm definitely not advocating communism or centralism.

Perhaps income disparity doesn't have the importance you claim.

However I do see some insight into the eugenicist worldview as expressed by progressives, one that focuses on indicators that can be predicted to generate unrest. Rather than cure the disease that causes the unrest, the focus is on treating the symptoms. That implies a perspective that there is no cure, which then leads to a methodology oriented towards controlling and pacifying the general population.

i argue that income disparity is crucial to a capitalist economy. the greater the extremes of income, the less perfect the market will be. this is the matter which i addressed a bit earlier with regard to the pillars of capitalism. the three most popular - supply, demand and price - function in equal measure to purchasing power and currency (Kevin_Kennedy makes the important point that interest rates are tied to the currency pillar, or may stand alone). income disparity offers a view to the distribution of purchasing power. as i said, capitalist economies trickle up, and without measures to skim wealth hoarded by those at the top and reintroduce additional purchasing power in the economy, only the number 1 cylinder would be getting any fuel, so to speak, and the economy will have to correct. some elements of this thinking are pre-progressive, classical capitalist observations.

i'm not so much a cynic, i guess, but i think there is a value in taming unrest through economic measures. the economy is a facility of the society which creates it through their participation. where you argue that progressive solutions have merely treated the symptoms like i would accept welfare does, i also contend that progressive labor legislation enfranchises the economy's participants with more of the rewards of its growth and health. progressive tax policy is also structural to the economy -- hardly a band-aid.

back to the distribution of wealth, because wealth is created through commerce, i argue that despite the cost of taxes and high hourly wages, the creation of wealth in countries with progressive reforms avails more commerce and greater wealth to their participants with the american economy to wit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

sorry, frank. i count six or so suggestions in the OP, which one confuses you?

i'm confused by the manhattan project bit if that's any consolation.

Confused and you can't count.

Here's the OP again (I'm assuming this is the you're talking about)

Free Market Foundations

"1.....Market principles are central to the form and function of capitalism itself. 2.....Free market principles remind that heavy-handed public or private manipulation of markets can destroy the efficiency of the capitalist economy, and corrupt the delicate flow of supply, demand, price and purchasing power.

3.....Its when free market theorists claim that freedom in a market is the most crucial component of its function, that I feel the concept falls short of delivering. 4....Looking at the world's most efficient markets -- those which make the best utilization of factors available to them, and which return the most to the human participants involved -- history makes an argument contrary to laissez-faire theory. 5......These markets are heavily regulated. 6a.....They are taxed with the intent to support infrastructure crucial to the market, 6b.......but go one further to employ taxation as a mechanism to circulate purchasing power throughout the market.

7a.....Of course the free marketeers object to these very characteristics, but what is their presumption based on, 7b.....but some books from 18th and 19th century economists?"

Can you point to one industry/business/made up shit that makes your point because I don't see any in there.

there ya go frank. i counted the presumptions in the OP for ya. now which one are you puzzled over?

*sigh* no child left behind

Thanks for highlight your gibberish.

I was asking if you had any industry/business/product in mind when you were describing the ruthless efficiency of heavily regulated markets

I mentioned the Manhattan Project because it was the last time a heavily regulated government enterprise actually delivered a product on time.