Robert Reich explains the "Free Market" in a nutshell.

[dblack]

And it seems you don't understand the scope of legislative powers, pertinent to the economy..

This is what the Constitution actually provides:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


Article I | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute


All of that is germane when dealing with the economy.

Quoting the Constitution is fine, but it all comes down to the values and ambitions of those interpreting it. If you want the commerce clause to mean that government has unlimited power to dictate our economic decisions, and you can get Congress and the Court to agree with you, then that's what it means.

The real question is, what do we want it to mean, and why?

There's ALOT more than just the "commerce clause" in the sections I just posted.

It's in English as well.

So? How is that a response to my point? It's in English, but there's widespread disagreement on what it means. In the end, the Constitution is only valuable if we agree on what it means. If three-fourths of us want expansive and intrusive government, that's what we'll get.

 

[Sallow]

And it seems you don't understand the scope of legislative powers, pertinent to the economy..

This is what the Constitution actually provides:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


Article I | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute


All of that is germane when dealing with the economy.

Quoting the Constitution is fine, but it all comes down to the values and ambitions of those interpreting it. If you want the commerce clause to mean that government has unlimited power to dictate our economic decisions, and you can get Congress and the Court to agree with you, then that's what it means.

The real question is, what do we want it to mean, and why?

There's ALOT more than just the "commerce clause" in the sections I just posted.

It's in English as well.

So? How is that a response to my point? It's in English, but there's widespread disagreement on what it means. In the end, the Constitution is only valuable if we agree on what it means. If three-fourths of us want expansive and intrusive government, that's what we'll get.

The government MAKES the fucking money. Physically.

I don't know how much more I have to spell it out for you.

 

[dblack]

And it seems you don't understand the scope of legislative powers, pertinent to the economy..

This is what the Constitution actually provides:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


Article I | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute


All of that is germane when dealing with the economy.

Quoting the Constitution is fine, but it all comes down to the values and ambitions of those interpreting it. If you want the commerce clause to mean that government has unlimited power to dictate our economic decisions, and you can get Congress and the Court to agree with you, then that's what it means.

The real question is, what do we want it to mean, and why?

There's ALOT more than just the "commerce clause" in the sections I just posted.

It's in English as well.

So? How is that a response to my point? It's in English, but there's widespread disagreement on what it means. In the end, the Constitution is only valuable if we agree on what it means. If three-fourths of us want expansive and intrusive government, that's what we'll get.

The government MAKES the fucking money. Physically.

I don't know how much more I have to spell it out for you.

I guess a lot more. Are you trying to make a particular point? Apparently something seems obvious to you, but I seriously don't know what it is.

 

[kaz]

This is a pretty concise high level talk about the "Free Market".

Yes, it is. What do you suppose he's high on exactly?

Power, mostly. Putting government in charge of our economic decisions will be worse than letting them control religion.

the power to regulate commerce is clearly delegated in our federal Constitution

interstate commerce, not "the economy"

dear, Commerce among the several United States is the economy.

So when you go to the grocery store down that street that isn't. You are full of shit

 

[kaz]

Yes, it is. What do you suppose he's high on exactly?

Power, mostly. Putting government in charge of our economic decisions will be worse than letting them control religion.

the power to regulate commerce is clearly delegated in our federal Constitution

interstate commerce, not "the economy"

dear, Commerce among the several United States is the economy.

the Commerce Clause was primarily designed to encourage free trade among the states after it had largely disappeared under the Articles.

Do you understand?

No, he doesn't understand. but it's OK, he's Canadian

 

[Sallow]

And it seems you don't understand the scope of legislative powers, pertinent to the economy..

This is what the Constitution actually provides:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


Article I | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute


All of that is germane when dealing with the economy.

Quoting the Constitution is fine, but it all comes down to the values and ambitions of those interpreting it. If you want the commerce clause to mean that government has unlimited power to dictate our economic decisions, and you can get Congress and the Court to agree with you, then that's what it means.

The real question is, what do we want it to mean, and why?

There's ALOT more than just the "commerce clause" in the sections I just posted.

It's in English as well.

So? How is that a response to my point? It's in English, but there's widespread disagreement on what it means. In the end, the Constitution is only valuable if we agree on what it means. If three-fourths of us want expansive and intrusive government, that's what we'll get.

The government MAKES the fucking money. Physically.

I don't know how much more I have to spell it out for you.

I guess a lot more. Are you trying to make a particular point? Apparently something seems obvious to you, but I seriously don't know what it is.

Not really worth the time.

I provided a video and the clauses from the Constitution

This is a thread about Capitalism and how it works.

The rest is up to you.

 

[danielpalos]

free market capitalism ... government controlled crony capitalism

a distinction without a difference in the real world outside of economic models

obviously capitalism is very different from
crony capitalism or crony socialism or socialism. Under capitalism the govt in not involved in business while under the others it is.

Obamacare is the perfect example. It is not capitalism, but it is some version of the other 3.

Do you understand?

dear there is a difference between true capitalism or anarcho-capitalism and our form of capitalism which is mixed with socialism which bails out capitalism of each and every day

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is. What do you suppose he's high on exactly?

Power, mostly. Putting government in charge of our economic decisions will be worse than letting them control religion.

the power to regulate commerce is clearly delegated in our federal Constitution

interstate commerce, not "the economy"

dear, Commerce among the several United States is the economy.

the Commerce Clause was primarily designed to encourage free trade among the states after it had largely disappeared under the Articles.

Do you understand?

dear, Commerce among the several United States is the US economy

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, it is. What do you suppose he's high on exactly?

Power, mostly. Putting government in charge of our economic decisions will be worse than letting them control religion.

the power to regulate commerce is clearly delegated in our federal Constitution

interstate commerce, not "the economy"

dear, Commerce among the several United States is the economy.

So when you go to the grocery store down that street that isn't. You are full of shit

great point ; too bad Dp enjoys being stupid and will not learn from it

 

[dblack]

Quoting the Constitution is fine, but it all comes down to the values and ambitions of those interpreting it. If you want the commerce clause to mean that government has unlimited power to dictate our economic decisions, and you can get Congress and the Court to agree with you, then that's what it means.

The real question is, what do we want it to mean, and why?

There's ALOT more than just the "commerce clause" in the sections I just posted.

It's in English as well.

So? How is that a response to my point? It's in English, but there's widespread disagreement on what it means. In the end, the Constitution is only valuable if we agree on what it means. If three-fourths of us want expansive and intrusive government, that's what we'll get.

The government MAKES the fucking money. Physically.

I don't know how much more I have to spell it out for you.

I guess a lot more. Are you trying to make a particular point? Apparently something seems obvious to you, but I seriously don't know what it is.

Not really worth the time.

I provided a video and the clauses from the Constitution

This is a thread about Capitalism and how it works.

The rest is up to you.

Well, we clearly disagree on how the Constitution should be interpreted, so I'm not sure how you think simply quoting it is persuasive. And the video was contradictory. Reich pointed out how the regulatory state caters to the interests well-heeled lobbyists, but I know for a fact that he supports the policies that make that possible. Unless he changed his mind, which I doubt, he's simply talking out of both sides of his mouth.

And, despite his claim, the video (and this thread) isn't about capitalism at all. It's about government interference in the economy, and people using that power to enrich themselves. I think that should be stopped. Reich doesn't.

 

[Sallow]

There's ALOT more than just the "commerce clause" in the sections I just posted.

It's in English as well.

So? How is that a response to my point? It's in English, but there's widespread disagreement on what it means. In the end, the Constitution is only valuable if we agree on what it means. If three-fourths of us want expansive and intrusive government, that's what we'll get.

The government MAKES the fucking money. Physically.

I don't know how much more I have to spell it out for you.

I guess a lot more. Are you trying to make a particular point? Apparently something seems obvious to you, but I seriously don't know what it is.

Not really worth the time.

I provided a video and the clauses from the Constitution

This is a thread about Capitalism and how it works.

The rest is up to you.

Well, we clearly disagree on how the Constitution should be interpreted, so I'm not sure how you think simply quoting it is persuasive. And the video was contradictory. Reich pointed out how the regulatory state caters to the interests well-heeled lobbyists, but I know for a fact that he supports the policies that make that possible. Unless he changed his mind, which I doubt, he's simply talking out of both sides of his mouth.

And, despite his claim, the video (and this thread) isn't about capitalism at all. It's about government interference in the economy, and people using that power to enrich themselves. I think that should be stopped. Reich doesn't.

Capitalism has never and will never exist without government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Capitalism has never and will never exist without government.

all agree!! Any idea why you just told us 2+2=4 other than because to you its a revelation.

 

[dblack]

So? How is that a response to my point? It's in English, but there's widespread disagreement on what it means. In the end, the Constitution is only valuable if we agree on what it means. If three-fourths of us want expansive and intrusive government, that's what we'll get.

The government MAKES the fucking money. Physically.

I don't know how much more I have to spell it out for you.

I guess a lot more. Are you trying to make a particular point? Apparently something seems obvious to you, but I seriously don't know what it is.

Not really worth the time.

I provided a video and the clauses from the Constitution

This is a thread about Capitalism and how it works.

The rest is up to you.

Well, we clearly disagree on how the Constitution should be interpreted, so I'm not sure how you think simply quoting it is persuasive. And the video was contradictory. Reich pointed out how the regulatory state caters to the interests well-heeled lobbyists, but I know for a fact that he supports the policies that make that possible. Unless he changed his mind, which I doubt, he's simply talking out of both sides of his mouth.

And, despite his claim, the video (and this thread) isn't about capitalism at all. It's about government interference in the economy, and people using that power to enrich themselves. I think that should be stopped. Reich doesn't.

Capitalism has never and will never exist without government.

That's debatable, but also irrelevant. We're not arguing over the need for government. We're arguing over the extent of its power.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well, we clearly disagree on how the Constitution should be interpreted, so I'm not sure how you think simply quoting it is persuasive.

Interestingly, it should be literally persuasive according to its primary author, Madison. He kept copious and voluminous note at the Constitutional Convention but did not release them until his death 35 years later so that people would read the words literally rather than try to figure out what they meant from the debates preceding the actual writing.