Government's Failure at Business

[Dad2three]

dear, please state the question in good english?

You're bloviating.

dear, 8 words is not talking at length. It pays to know the definition of a word before you use it, liberal!

Bloviation is a style of empty, pompous political speech


The verb "to bloviate" is the act of creating bloviation. In terms of its etymology, according to one source, the word is a "compound of blow, in its sense of 'to boast' (also in another typical Americanism, blowhard), with a mock-Latin ending to give it the self-important stature that is implicit in its meaning."

Bloviation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

LOL, THAT'S how the 'free market' works? If one side takes the 'good customers' the other 'markets' must lower their standards?

dear, the free market works without huge huge govt interference from Fan Fred Fed, not with huge huge interference from them. See why we say slow?

Do you understand?

Weird, F/F had been around for 70 years, why all of a sudden did they create an imbalance in the 'free markets'

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

LOL, THAT'S how the 'free market' works? If one side takes the 'good customers' the other 'markets' must lower their standards?

dear, the free market works without huge huge govt interference from Fan Fred Fed, not with huge huge interference from them. See why we say slow?

Do you understand?

Weird, F/F had been around for 70 years, why all of a sudden did they create an imbalance in the 'free markets'

dear it was not all of the sudden. Housing had been inflating for a long time mostly on assumption that prices would always go up as they always had thanks to Fed. It was called the Greenspan put!

 

[Dad2three]

dear, the free market works without huge huge govt interference from Fan Fred Fed, not with huge huge interference from them. See why we say slow?

Do you understand?

Weird, F/F had been around for 70 years, why all of a sudden did they create an imbalance in the 'free markets'

dear it was not all of the sudden. Housing had been inflating for a long time mostly on assumption that prices would always go up as they always had thanks to Fed. It was called the Greenspan put!

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

 

[Dad2three]

Let me answer for you, you coward: no.

Bankters created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST



Jun 16th 2005


The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops



The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist

DUBYA ALLOWED A SUBPRIME BUBBLE TO HAPPEN!!!!

No....bankers must work withing the structure and regulations of the politicians.

That is why the blame for the mortgage meltdown must be laid squarely at the feet of the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives.



For your edification:


It all began with Democrat megalomaniac Franklin Roosevelt, who, when not appointing KKK members to the Supreme Court, decided to invade the private economy with the creation of GREs.


You were unable to deny that he did so....but you were afraid to answer whether the meltdown would have occurred sans the efforts of this Democrat.

It would not have.
Too bad FDR would not give due respect to the Constitution.

Now....Democrat debilitation via contemporary efforts......



Take notes:



a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.


b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now [Democrat associate] (Acorn)threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.


c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).


d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.


e. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.


f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.


g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.


h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities [Democrat policy] didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, [Democrat] Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”


i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: [Democrat bagman] Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.


j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards [Democrat policy] when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.”
Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”[Democrat policy]


k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans [Republican policy] —loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.[Democrat policy]


l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.[Democrat policy]


m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.[Democrat policy]


n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.)

Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio[Democrat policy] —that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.
[Democrat policy- 'political pressure']



o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new lending wisdom.[Democrat policy]

Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.”[Democrat policy]

Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” [Democrat policy]

Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”[Democrat policy]

—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns. [Republican wisdom]


p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing lending standards [Democrat policy]for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.


q. Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. [Democrat policy]

Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians [Democrat policy]that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home[Democrat policy]—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes.[Democrat policy]
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009



Timeline shows Dems were warned:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]





During the seventies and eighties, CRA enforcement was perfunctory. Regulators asked banks to demonstrate that they were trying to reach their entire "assessment area" by advertising in minority-oriented newspapers or by sending their executives to serve on the boards of local community groups.

The [Democrat] Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. [/B

]The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made? Have banks invested in all neighborhoods within their assessment area? Do they operate branches in those neighborhoods?
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities by Howard Husock, City Journal Winter 2000

No....bankers must work withing the structure and regulations of the politicians.

That is why the blame for the mortgage meltdown must be laid squarely at the feet of the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives.


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up



The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.




Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.



•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture





Alan Greenspan:


"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Greenspan.

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of | Business | The Guardian

 

[regent]

Free market sounds good, I mean all free and stuff, but what is a free market?

Did America ever have a "free market" after the first European settlers came to this land?

Maybe a better way would be to tell us what nations on this planet have a "free market" today?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Free market sounds good, I mean all free and stuff, but what is a free market?

Dear, free market is capitalism, non free is socialism liberalisn Nazism Communist Fascism. How old are you?

 

[regent]

Free market sounds good, I mean all free and stuff, but what is a free market?

Dear, free market is capitalism, non free is socialism liberalisn Nazism Communist Fascism. How old are you?

Guess part of my question got lost, anyway when did America have this free market, and what nations on this earth practice it?

And never mind my age, I'm married and straight.

 

[Rshermr]

Free market sounds good, I mean all free and stuff, but what is a free market?

Did America ever have a "free market" after the first European settlers came to this land?

Maybe a better way would be to tell us what nations on this planet have a "free market" today?

Ed has a very simple mind. He sees black and white. No grey for ed. Poor ignorant tool. And he has no idea what a free market is. He is bought and owned by the libertarians, who tell him what to believe and what to say. Makes it possible for ed to function.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

when did America have this free market, and what nations on this earth practice it?

dear, no one ever said America had a perfectly free market. In Econ 101 they teach that all economies are mixed. So, now do you have any idea what your point is?

 

[regent]

when did America have this free market, and what nations on this earth practice it?

dear, no one ever said America had a perfectly free market. In Econ 101 they teach that all economies are mixed. So, now do you have any idea what your point is?

Yeah my point is why are you promoting something that has never been in America and exists no place on Earth? Is this economic system you're trying to sell, sort of like the Utopia Marx promoted? If so that ain't gonna work either. Now about this mixture you say is the real thing, not your Marxist utopia, but a real economy, mixture of what?

 

[ShackledNation]

when did America have this free market, and what nations on this earth practice it?

dear, no one ever said America had a perfectly free market. In Econ 101 they teach that all economies are mixed. So, now do you have any idea what your point is?

Yeah my point is why are you promoting something that has never been in America and exists no place on Earth? Is this economic system you're trying to sell, sort of like the Utopia Marx promoted? If so that ain't gonna work either. Now about this mixture you say is the real thing, not your Marxist utopia, but a real economy, mixture of what?

Free markets have been and are in America. That they are imperfect does not mean they do not exist.

The Free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or nontangible services. Thus, when I buy a newspaper from a news dealer for fifty cents, the news dealer and I exchange two commodities: I give up fifty cents, and the news dealer gives up the newspaper. Or if I work for a corporation, I exchange my labor services, in a mutually agreed way, for a monetary salary; here the corporation is represented by a manager (an agent) with the authority to hire.

Anything that interferes with that process makes the market less free, but it is still there. Nothing fantastical about it.

 

[Rshermr]

dear, no one ever said America had a perfectly free market. In Econ 101 they teach that all economies are mixed. So, now do you have any idea what your point is?

Yeah my point is why are you promoting something that has never been in America and exists no place on Earth? Is this economic system you're trying to sell, sort of like the Utopia Marx promoted? If so that ain't gonna work either. Now about this mixture you say is the real thing, not your Marxist utopia, but a real economy, mixture of what?

Free markets have been and are in America. That they are imperfect does not mean they do not exist.

The Free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or nontangible services. Thus, when I buy a newspaper from a news dealer for fifty cents, the news dealer and I exchange two commodities: I give up fifty cents, and the news dealer gives up the newspaper. Or if I work for a corporation, I exchange my labor services, in a mutually agreed way, for a monetary salary; here the corporation is represented by a manager (an agent) with the authority to hire.

Anything that interferes with that process makes the market less free, but it is still there. Nothing fantastical about it.

What you are promoting, me boy, is the libertarian dream. It does not exist. It has started, but it has always failed. Always. There is no Free Market anywhere. There are laws that have been enacted because people do not want to live with the consequences of the free market. They are intelligent enough to see the problems of monopoly power, and a few very wealthy people scamming the system.

Another thread currently is pushing the virtues of a free market housing industry. Which does not protect consumers. Oddly enough, they do not suggest eliminating the laws that protect the mortgage lender. Default is still illegal. But simply eliminate the laws that protect the lender from the non performance of the mortgage holder.

Which is why, me boy, there IS NO FREE MARKET. Just as there is no communist economy. In either case, the population will not put up with it. Both ignore human nature.

But, there is a push now to create a free market, or a true libertarian dream. Because there is not one on earth, the potential creators are looking at creating floating islands and making those man made islands nations governed under free market, or libertarian, rules. maybe that should be your new home, if you can afford the entry price and the thing does not sink.

Politically Isolated Libertarians Go Literal, Consolidating Plans For Man-Made Libertarian Islands
Politically Isolated Libertarians Go Literal, Consolidating Plans For Man-Made Libertarian Islands | Alternet

 

[ShackledNation]

Yeah my point is why are you promoting something that has never been in America and exists no place on Earth? Is this economic system you're trying to sell, sort of like the Utopia Marx promoted? If so that ain't gonna work either. Now about this mixture you say is the real thing, not your Marxist utopia, but a real economy, mixture of what?

Free markets have been and are in America. That they are imperfect does not mean they do not exist.

The Free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents. These two individuals (or agents) exchange two economic goods, either tangible commodities or nontangible services. Thus, when I buy a newspaper from a news dealer for fifty cents, the news dealer and I exchange two commodities: I give up fifty cents, and the news dealer gives up the newspaper. Or if I work for a corporation, I exchange my labor services, in a mutually agreed way, for a monetary salary; here the corporation is represented by a manager (an agent) with the authority to hire.

Anything that interferes with that process makes the market less free, but it is still there. Nothing fantastical about it.

What you are promoting, me boy, is the libertarian dream. It does not exist. It has started, but it has always failed. Always. There is no Free Market anywhere. There are laws that have been enacted because people do not want to live with the consequences of the free market. They are intelligent enough to see the problems of monopoly power, and a few very wealthy people scamming the system.

Monopoly power and scammers derive that power from government, which interferes with the system. Monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing.

Another thread currently is pushing the virtues of a free market housing industry. Which does not protect consumers. Oddly enough, they do not suggest eliminating the laws that protect the mortgage lender. Default is still illegal. But simply eliminate the laws that protect the lender from the non performance of the mortgage holder.

We can talk about that in the other thread then.

Which is why, me boy, there IS NO FREE MARKET. Just as there is no communist economy. In either case, the population will not put up with it. Both ignore human nature.

Exchanging goods with someone else ignores human nature? Really? No. We have a free market. A perfect one? No. But it is there. Will a 100% free market ever exist? I doubt it. But that does not mean that there is no free market. That is just a silly thing to say. Based on the definition I gave you, free markets clearly exist all around the world and have for as long as humans have existed.

But, there is a push now to create a free market, or a true libertarian dream. Because there is not one on earth, the potential creators are looking at creating floating islands and making those man made islands nations governed under free market, or libertarian, rules. maybe that should be your new home, if you can afford the entry price and the thing does not sink.

Politically Isolated Libertarians Go Literal, Consolidating Plans For Man-Made Libertarian Islands
Politically Isolated Libertarians Go Literal, Consolidating Plans For Man-Made Libertarian Islands | Alternet

That is such old news. Ideas like that have been "floating around" for decades. (see what I did there? "floating"? hehe). I would probably never live on one, but if people want to more power to them.

 

[Rshermr]

Exchanging goods with someone else ignores human nature? Really?

Really, attributing something that they did not say to someone is a form of lying. What I said was quite clear, which is that we do not have a free market, which could also be defined as a libertarian defined economy. Sorry if that is too difficult for you to ponder.

Free sub markets, as in parts of an economy, in some cases. Say an economy for grapefruit. Yup. I would agree. In every nation. France. Germany. Sweden. Spain. Somalia. SO WHAT. There is no such thing as an economy that can be defined as a free market. There are mixed economies. Primarily a combination of capitalism and socialism. But very few if any perfect free markets. Well, maybe I am wrong. Maybe Somalia would qualify. Do you like Somalia??

Otherwise you have regulated capitalism as the winning economy in terms of existing economic systems. Sorry about that.

Monopoly power and scammers derive that power from government, which interferes with the system. Monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing.

You are making the conservative argument that can only be found in the bat shit crazy con web sites. Economists know that there are a variety of definitions and related types of monopoly. You are talking about a natural monopoly. One that exists because it needs to and is by law regulated by government. Like a public utility. It is in it's region or market a perfect or complete monopoly.
Complete or perfect monopolies are illegal except for those regulated by the gov. I and economists are talking about monopoly power, which exists in markets with a few suppliers. Jesus, I feel like I am talking to an 8th grader.
An example of monopoly power is Exxon. Because they can affect supply and they can change prices as they desire to a large degree. And yes, I think that is a bad thing every time I fill my gas tanks at over $4 a gallon. It is a good thing why??? Any proof, by the way, of any statement you would make??

That is such old news.

It is indeed a couple years old. Point is, if there was a free market economy, these guys would not need to create one.

 

[ShackledNation]

Exchanging goods with someone else ignores human nature? Really?

Really, attributing something that they did not say to someone is a form of lying. What I said was quite clear, which is that we do not have a free market, which could also be defined as a libertarian defined economy. Sorry if that is too difficult for you to ponder.

You said that my libertarian dream (i.e. free markets) ignores human nature. Free markets are simply the exchanging of goods with someone else--that is the definition I gave, so that is exactly what you are saying ignores human nature.

Free sub markets, as in parts of an economy, in some cases. Say an economy for grapefruit. Yup. I would agree. In every nation. France. Germany. Sweden. Spain. Somalia. SO WHAT. There is no such thing as an economy that can be defined as a free market. There are mixed economies. Primarily a combination of capitalism and socialism. But very few if any perfect free markets. Well, maybe I am wrong. Maybe Somalia would qualify. Do you like Somalia??

You are the one attributing things to me I did not say. When did I say any country could be defined as having a perfect free market economy? Only a fool would make such a claim, and I never did.

Otherwise you have regulated capitalism as the winning economy in terms of existing economic systems. Sorry about that.

Did I say otherwise?

Monopoly power and scammers derive that power from government, which interferes with the system. Monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing.

You are making the conservative argument that can only be found in the bat shit crazy con web sites.

Ad hominem and genetic fallacy.

Economists know that there are a variety of definitions and related types of monopoly. You are talking about a natural monopoly. One that exists because it needs to and is by law regulated by government. Like a public utility. It is in it's region or market a perfect or complete monopoly.
Complete or perfect monopolies are illegal except for those regulated by the gov. I and economists are talking about monopoly power, which exists in markets with a few suppliers. Jesus, I feel like I am talking to an 8th grader.

Strawman. I did not say complete or perfect monopolies are legal.

An example of monopoly power is Exxon. Because they can affect supply and they can change prices as they desire to a large degree. And yes, I think that is a bad thing every time I fill my gas tanks at over $4 a gallon. It is a good thing why??? Any proof, by the way, of any statement you would make??

Gas taxes, at least in CA, generate revenues larger than the profit margins of gas companies. So if you are going to complain about price, I would first look there. Government is also subsidizing the oil and gas industry, further proving my point that these monopolistic powers are supported by government policies. By the way, Exxon is not a monopoly.

That is such old news.

It is indeed a couple years old. Point is, if there was a free market economy, these guys would not need to create one.

Strawman, again. I find it ironic that you open your response complaining I did not address your argument, then fill your entire response with strawmen.

 

[regent]

How come my newsman and gas station refuse to even consider my offer of ten percent less than they are asking? I told them about the free trade thing and they laughed at me.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How come my newsman and gas station refuse to even consider my offer of ten percent less than they are asking? I told them about the free trade thing and they laughed at me.

dear if enough people stop buying until price goes down 10% you'll have plenty of free trade! Do you understand now?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

An example of monopoly power is Exxon.

interesting that when a liberal is asked to show how capitalism leads to monopoly he picks Exxon not knowing that it is highly controlled by liberal govt such that new competition is harshly restricted. For example we have had no new refineries in about 30 years!!

 

[OnePercenter]

An example of monopoly power is Exxon.

interesting that when a liberal is asked to show how capitalism leads to monopoly he picks Exxon not knowing that it is highly controlled by liberal govt such that new competition is harshly restricted. For example we have had no new refineries in about 30 years!!

We don't need any new refineries, if we did we'd have shortages.