Did I miss a memo? Why are we returning to feudalism, again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

You don't need to pepper your post with suggestions that I just don't understand certain concepts, thank you very much. I'm keenly aware of the conflicts and hypocrisies in our political parties, elected legislators, and their policies. Voters exhibit the same contradictory behavior---Tea Party senior citizens protesting against taxes, but hands off their SS and Medicare benefits. It's become a dog and pony show, a circus, a spectator sport, and a joke. Those who whine about SSSocialism or central planning also use SS/Medicare and central banking to their political advantage. It's a bipartisan cluster fuck.

---

You clearly don't understand certain fundamentals if you continue to contend that the economic and political realities that led up to the Great Recession resembled or approached those put forth by proponents of a laissez-faire, libertarian free market.

It's also hard to take your animadvert of our "bipartisan cluster fuck" seriously when you have consistently failed to talk about any group other than the Teaparty, Libertarians, or Republicans. I simply don't believe you when you try to paint yourself as some objective, magnanimous third party, weighing each idea on its own merits. Nobody here would think less of you if you just came out and admitted being a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. In fact, speaking personally, I'd respect your candor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

You clearly don't understand certain fundamentals if you continue to contend that the economic and political realities that led up to the Great Recession resembled or approached those put forth by proponents of a laissez-faire, libertarian free market.

---

My contention is that neither government nor regulations are "bad" things in and of themselves. They only become "bad" or ineffectual by the people who manipulate or abuse them, usually for their own purposes.

Quote:

---

[It's also hard to take your animadvert of our "bipartisan cluster fuck" seriously when you have consistently failed to talk about any group other than the Teaparty, Libertarians, or Republicans. I simply don't believe you when you try to paint yourself as some objective, magnanimous third party, weighing each idea on its own merits. Nobody here would think less of you if you just came out and admitted being a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. In fact, speaking personally, I'd respect your candor.

---

All humans have some subjective components as part of their ideology. That includes you, and how you perceive other people and the world. Sorry, I can't do much about what you believe me to be, or how you interpret my posts. When I see the obvious fractures within the Republican party, candidates trying to go far right to appeal certain groups (Tea Party, Evangelical Christians, Catholics, Religious Conservatives, Grover Norquist "promise-keepers") in attempts to appeal to their base--or define their base--I'll post about those fractures. They're clearly more extreme changes than anything happening in the Democratic party.

I'm surprised that you're surprised, when pretty much all moderate Republicans are saying the same thing. Barbara Bush said the Republicans have become a weird and unrecognizable party. Poppy Bush was an Ambassador and early advocate for Planned Parenthood and federal funding for family planning and sex-ed. Even Ronald Reagan wouldn't be considered part of the "base" by today's definitions (though he's cited as the great savior of conservative politics).

If that makes me a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat in your mind, then bust a gut! But that would mean you're not a real libertarian. Libertarians don't label individuals or place people into groups by stereo-type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

My contention is that neither government nor regulations are "bad" things in and of themselves. They only become "bad" or ineffectual by the people who manipulate or abuse them, usually for their own purposes.

---

No, GGT. Your contention is that free markets and laissez-faire economics are what led to the global economic crisis. In case you've forgotten:

Quote:

---

Didn't the latest financial crisis prove the flaws in laissez-faire, libertarian, "self-regulation" and "self-interest" theories?

---

That's the quote that I took issue with, and it is a flawed premise that I've seen you put forth time and time again.

Quote:

---

All humans have some subjective components as part of their ideology. That includes you, and how you perceive other people and the world. Sorry, I can't do much about what you believe me to be, or how you interpret my posts. When I see the obvious fractures within the Republican party, candidates trying to go far right to appeal certain groups (Tea Party, Evangelical Christians, Catholics, Religious Conservatives, Grover Norquist "promise-keepers") in attempts to appeal to their base--or define their base--I'll post about those fractures. They're clearly more extreme changes than anything happening in the Democratic party.

---

Of course you don't think of yourself as a Democrat. You are a strong, independent minded woman who is a straight shooter and a political rogue. You can't be classified by party or ideology, because nobody really gets you, and you reject any and all attempts to be labeled. Believe me, I understand that allure, and I don't blame you for it. I also think it's mostly a smoke screen. On almost every issue we've discussed, you've fallen well to the left of most independents and moderates, and on major issues more often than not have an opinion that's in lockstep with, or that's not all that different from the most liberal Democratic rank and file.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that. Very few people define themselves by party affiliation, and for good reason. Party affiliation is an imperfect beast. No party can perfectly advocate or reflect every individuals personal convictions, but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Quote:

---

I'm surprised that you're surprised, when pretty much all moderate Republicans are saying the same thing. Barbara Bush said the Republicans have become a weird and unrecognizable party. Poppy Bush was an Ambassador and early advocate for Planned Parenthood and federal funding for family planning and sex-ed. Even Ronald Reagan wouldn't be considered part of the "base" by today's definitions (though he's cited as the great savior of conservative politics).

---

I'm not a Republican, and I don't particularly care what moderate Republicans think of their party. What Republicans do or don't think has little to do with the positions you have consistently held and advocated on here.

Quote:

---

If that makes me a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat in your mind, then bust a gut! But that would mean you're not a real libertarian. Libertarians don't label individuals or place people into groups by stereo-type.

---

Yeah, this is not doing anything to help your case that you have a clear understanding of the principles of libertarianism, or what makes a Scotsman true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Funny how you put that. Did you mean to say that "government" today is not as sensative to the needs of the nation as "government" was 80 years ago? It worked in FDR's time and I believe you support the concept of social security.

---

I didn't realize it was any more effective then than it is now. In fact, I highly doubt it was at all, especially considering the whole court packing fiasco and the circumstances behind it. That era may have seen much more "high profile" legislation passed, but I doubt that makes it more effective at all than the government of today. In fact, he was dealing with a clear and open Congress as the major head of the party, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coinich

I didn't realize it was any more effective then than it is now. In fact, I highly doubt it was at all, especially considering the whole court packing fiasco and the circumstances behind it. That era may have seen much more "high profile" legislation passed, but I doubt that makes it more effective at all than the government of today. In fact, he was dealing with a clear and open Congress as the major head of the party, no?

---

Not to mention that it wasn't FDR's socialism that brought the USA out of the Great Depression, but WWII.

I thought WWII just added the finishing touches and that things had already begun to look up for other reasons :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

...I think I may have lost my chain of thought somewhere in there. I'm sorry it's a bit muddled. Perhaps I'll have a go at it again later.

---

Since you feel this way, I'll just throw a few comments here and there and see if that helps anything. It's possible the issue is too large to tackle as a whole. (It's likely, even)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

On the one hand, I see where you're going. There are plenty of perversions of the democratic process, and in general corruption is a vicious cancer for any free society. But I'm just not sure that much of the current crop of complaints has to do with actual corruption; it's something far more insubstantial. I don't doubt it still has the potential to be quite harmful, but I'm unconvinced it's as disastrous as we might presuppose.

---

Okay; how can we test this hypothesis? I mean, how can we tell? If Congress has a 10 % approval rating, does that tell us anything at all? I don't propose to possess very good information coverage, and I'd be chuffed to bits to fix that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

For example: I find it very frustrating when large segments of our elected officials - albeit in line with the general populace - are clearly ignorant or outright wrong about fairly fundamental scientific principles. Evolution is a big example in the US but hardly the only one. I think it's damaging to our educational system and our societal advancement, and it pains me to see when such clearly wrong-headed rhetoric gets in the way. Yet at the same time, when I hear people like Dawkins speak, I'm frustrated with his obstinate nature as well. I listened to a TED talk of his where he tried to claim (on the basis of very flimsy evidence) that the people best suited to run the country (i.e. the smartest people) were overwhelmingly atheists/nontheists and as such were effectively ineligible for election to public office in the US, unless they were willing to lie. His methodology was seriously flawed, though, notably in assuming that academics in natural sciences are best suited to run the country.

---

I'm not very fond of the types who think Plato's ur-fascism was a good idea; you work with other scientists, can't you see how disastrously wrong this line of thinking is?

The thing with the disrespect and -trust towards academia is, I would assume it can course-correct in roughly two different ways. If totalitarianism proceeds its march forward, academia will be subverted into a tool for that totalitarian system (this I pose only as an empirical observation, not some grand hypothesis) from within and without. Otherwise, the economical draw-backs to an increasingly uneducated and uninformed population will enable progressives to argue that research and education need a larger slice of society's pie. (And another observation is that if the economical situation becomes bad enough, totalitarian ideals have a better shot at a populist grab for power instead of "crypto-fascism", but never mind, we lack data.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

What I'm trying to get at is even if democratically elected leaders may sometimes drive me crazy, there is a feedback mechanism in place, and many of them are actually decent at governance. Serious distortions of information that result in adverse events will get corrected in time, though it's certainly possible that some amount of damage will already have been done. And at the end of the day, our legislature and judiciary do care about people at the end of the day. Even the members of Congress who espouse a worldview with which I am completely opposed probably care very deeply for their constituents. When I look at people who disagree with me, I don't see them as the stooge of powerful lobbies, but as people who have been convinced that their course of action is the best for their voters. I don't doubt there's plenty of pork-barrel politicking, back-room compromises, etc. involved, but at the end of the day I do think most of our government thinks it's doing the right thing.

---

I apologize in advance, but so did Joseph Goebbels. I don't know how much hyperbole there is in the claims of War on Women and so forth, but if as a legislator you persist in pursuing positions that serve to place more abject human misery into the field, I'm not sure your good intentions are worth that price.

Of course as public figures, one has to put forth a lot of propaganda, but the sheer amount of hateful stuff that's perfectly acceptable if not even popular is just staggering. The whole idea that people need to be governed through force and punishment just screams moral and practical endorsement of totalitarianism. The fact that the punishments meted out are both lives ruined through malnutrition, meth violence and loss of health, and those things within society-funded institutions isn't that big of a difference at the end of the day, is it? It seems hard to comprehend how a nation that started out as a direct refutation for the divine right of kings has the culture it has these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Our job is not to suggest the system is broken, but to advocate for our positions both with the general electorate and our elected officials. On issues about which I feel strongly, I will often send a letter to my representatives and discuss it with my peers. Hell, I myself have revisited some of my positions when someone I respect has voiced a surprising opinion on an issue. I'm sure most of this is irrelevant and at most gets put into some simple polling data, but that's not the point. The aggregate of everyone's discussions and arguments and donations and advocacy is what we call democracy.

We live in a world of unprecedented information density and access, where every citizen in the developed world has instant access to nearly everything necessary to make a decent decision. Yes, things are very politicized, but there are always people ready and willing to call bullshit on a claim, and it happens frequently. I don't deny that some people live in echo chambers, but overall we have a far richer and complex public discourse than ever before. I am optimistic that we can overcome any hiccups in the process to arrive at a reasonably satisfactory conclusion.

---

Where I (tried to) began this conversation was to state that this democracy is failing. I know it's easier than ever to have these discussions (we're having one right now! How cool is that?), but I'm not really convinced of their impact on our governance.

I don't remember which Lem book it is, probably HMV, where the protagonist ponders about information density. When there were only 1,000 new books out each year, it was perfectly feasible to find the sub-set of the valuable ones. Now that there are millions of books appearing at an increasing pace (the book takes place pre-Internet), it becomes impossible to sieve through all of it. This problem is far worse today.

Isn't that the raison dêtre for Citizens United? For all our discussions, how much closer to the truth can we get? How much of these discourses are informed and influenced by biased parties serving their self-interests? Of course society is by definition attempting to find common ground between different interest parties, but perhaps you can appreciate the difference in sheer volume if nothing else. If it is possible to out-right purchase legislation, the only difference between that system iterating towards a tyranny of the minority and the ones where this was achieved through beatings and torture is the level of physical violence.

US politics seems to have bi-polarized to an almost complete stand-still. To me, it doesn't look like a completely ridiculous suggestion that at least one of the main motivations of the GOP has been to remove Obama at all prices. Of course it's possible that they're just misinformed by an echo chamber and acting out of good intentions when they're attempting to spiral the global economy into a death spin, again, we lack data. (Of lesser interest to you, local politics stagnated for a long time between three major parties playing against each other rather than for the people; the populist response of the people raised a small uproar abroad as we know. I'm not exactly optimistic about this situation, either.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

This is really an aside, but I just want to acknowledge that I'm not one of those people who feel that genocide or world war are impossible in our bright new era. My family's history is far too depressing on that subject for me to believe that the darkness at the heart of human society has been expunged. Much as I would like to believe that these evils are the actions of a few, Christopher Browning has unfortunately convinced me that is wrong. I just feel that our current path doesn't make it likely as long as there are right minded, reasonable people who stand up for what is right. The depths to which we've sunk in this century are truly horrifying, from Turkey to Auschwitz to Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot to Rwanda... the list goes on and on. Yet the world does get better, and I think the darkness of this century has been a warning for us. We have established unprecedented institutions that have helped to reduce the number and severity of armed conflicts around the globe, and we're getting better at providing basic food and medical care to those who would die from other causes. It's a long way from a finished project, but I think that the underlying cosmopolitanism of our current society is an encouraging trend.

---

At this moment in time, I really don't know what I think about the goodness in the hearts of men and how much that can help. My primary concerns are the physical realities on the ground; it looks like no one has a clue about, say, the global energy budget or the nutritional budget. We just stumble along blindly, looking at objectives 3 or 6 months down the line for the most part. And hoping for the best. I'm really not the kind of person that can just hope for the best. Of course, that is just my personal pathology and not very interesting to the conversation of the global situation or the possible degeneration of democracy. But still, some data would be nice, wouldn't it? No matter how hard you wish upon a star out of good intentions, it won't do much if you're wishing for something physically impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

No, GGT. Your contention is that free markets and laissez-faire economics are what led to the global economic crisis. In case you've forgotten:

That's the quote that I took issue with, and it is a flawed premise that I've seen you put forth time and time again.

---

"Flaws" in Freee Markets (a misnomer to begin with) with a laissez-faire attitude toward Regulation did lead to the crises, yes.

That's the 'premise' and analysis of many (including Greenspan's hindsight). In real-time, financial regulation reform of the 80's and 90's (Financial Modernization Act, Glass-Steagall, Gramm-Bliley, etc.) was heavily debated by legislators. Critics and red flag warnings were largely ignored, fast-forward to 2007 and the global financial meltdown...which led to the Great Recession.

Again, Regulations aren't bad in and of themselves, only how they're applied or used. "Less" regulation doesn't necessarily mean better, more appropriate or targeted regulation. And it shouldn't mean NO regulatory oversight. OTC derivatives and swaps markets still aren't monitored by anyone other than the "self-interested" participants who are "self-regulating"....a $700 Trillion global market.

It's become a common political talking point, to spin it toward teh evilz of gummint and/or regulation, using Reagan's quote that gov't IS the problem. I get it. The reality is more nuanced and pragmatic than bumper-sticker slogans, though. We'd do better to find the right types of rules and the best kinds of regulations, instead of condemning them wholesale. Turning it into a right v left, (R) or (D), all-or-none thing doesn't help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I thought WWII just added the finishing touches and that things had already begun to look up for other reasons :o

---

Depends on which country you're talking about, but the end of the Great Depression only came when money for the WWII military build up (or the actual war itself) started flowing in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

"Flaws" in Freee Markets (a misnomer to begin with) with a laissez-faire attitude toward Regulation did lead to the crises, yes.

---

Wow.

It's like you don't know what these words actually mean. Really, invest in a dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

"Flaws" in Freee Markets (a misnomer to begin with) with a laissez-faire attitude toward Regulation did lead to the crises, yes.

That's the 'premise' and analysis of many (including Greenspan's hindsight). In real-time, financial regulation reform of the 80's and 90's (Financial Modernization Act, Glass-Steagall, Gramm-Bliley, etc.) was heavily debated by legislators. Critics and red flag warnings were largely ignored, fast-forward to 2007 and the global financial meltdown...which led to the Great Recession.

Again, Regulations aren't bad in and of themselves, only how they're applied or used. "Less" regulation doesn't necessarily mean better, more appropriate or targeted regulation. And it shouldn't mean NO regulatory oversight. OTC derivatives and swaps markets still aren't monitored by anyone other than the "self-interested" participants who are "self-regulating"....a $700 Trillion global market.

It's become a common political talking point, to spin it toward teh evilz of gummint and/or regulation, using Reagan's quote that gov't IS the problem. I get it. The reality is more nuanced and pragmatic than bumper-sticker slogans, though. We'd do better to find the right types of rules and the best kinds of regulations, instead of condemning them wholesale. Turning it into a right v left, (R) or (D), all-or-none thing doesn't help.

---

I feel like we've been down this road already...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

...

You are familiar with what laissez-faire means, aren't you? I'm beginning to get the distinct impression that you are not. To claim that the choices and environment that led to the financial crisis were completely free from government intervention, regulation, and taxation is beyond my comprehension. Were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac children of the free market or government intervention? Do you think banks would have have been so cavalier with credit if there wasn't an implicit guarantee from government that they were too big to fail? What is a HUD loan, GGT, and what do you think that kind of loan does to a market? What role do you think the Federal Reserve played in the financial crisis? I will be the first to admit that crony capitalism is a problem, arguably the problem, but it's a problem that will increase proportionally to the amount of influence and power that can be traded, brokered, and bartered from the government. Increasing the role government plays will not fix the problem, it will create a whole host of new ones. This is what I've been trying to get you to see, and what you've even admitted, yet you still don't recognize this very fundamental truth. The more power is centralized, the greater the role that government plays in our life, the greater reward there is in corrupting and subverting that influence.

You don't have crony capitalism, you can not have crony capitalism, without first having a corruptible government with the necessary influence. Instead of banking on, and hoping for a government free from corruption, let's do what history tells us and realize that any institution made by man will be forever susceptible to not only his virtues, but his vices as well.

I know you like to post as an outsider, but you the irony is that you are not, GGT. It isn't that you object to the status quo, you simply want to tweak it, to modify it until it suits you, and then send it on its merry way. The status quo has been tried, it has been tested, and it has failed. Let's try something new.

Finally, to hear you say that you think the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve is somehow the plenary authority on what constitutes libertarian free-market thought is showing a rather telling lack of understanding of the varieties and complexities of libertarian thought.

---

Then move forward, and explain what "trying something new" means to you. Some of that status quo will remain, because we're a nation of laws, and legislators will have to be involved in whatever "new" thing you propose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Then move forward, and explain what "trying something new" means to you. Some of that status quo will remain, because we're a nation of laws, and legislators will have to be involved in whatever "new" thing you propose.

---

Well, for starters we can roll back government interference in the markets, as opposed to blaming government interference, (it's just the wrong interference, see) for the problems facing our economy. We could also remove any guarantee that the government will bail out investors, banks, and organizations engaging in risky behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

We could also remove any guarantee that the government will bail out investors, banks, and organizations engaging in risky behavior.

---

I like this in principle, but what would happen if enough big players went down? The entire world economy collapses on itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I like this in principle, but what would happen if enough big players went down? The entire world economy collapses on itself?

---

"Too big to fail" == too big to exist.

If any of the players are *really* that big (instead of just claiming it to get free money), they need to be busted into smaller organizations under existing anti-monopoly laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I like this in principle, but what would happen if enough big players went down? The entire world economy collapses on itself?

---

Ah the old "THE SKY IS FALLING" garbage. Didn't people scream it would be the end of the euro if Greece defaulted? Well Greece defaulted and no end of the Euro.

People are too afraid of uncertainty, when inefficient and over leveraged companies fall, that's a good thing. Creative destruction is a FANTASTIC thing. We don't want zombie corporations feeding off the government in perpetuity. Kill em off and start over. The whole world needs to grow a pair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I like this in principle, but what would happen if enough big players went down? The entire world economy collapses on itself?

---

I bet the next wave of large companies wouldn't be so risk-acceptant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I like this in principle, but what would happen if enough big players went down? The entire world economy collapses on itself?

---

I believe you have bought in on the idea that currency out weighs production in the overall scheme of life. Think Stalin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I believe you have bought in on the idea that currency out weighs production in the overall scheme of life. Think Stalin.

---

That rebuilding would be a possibility does not mean a collapse would not have happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Well, for starters we can roll back government interference in the markets, as opposed to blaming government interference, (it's just the wrong interference, see) for the problems facing our economy. We could also remove any guarantee that the government will bail out investors, banks, and organizations engaging in risky behavior.

---

Then we'd have to do better at differentiating between interference and intervention. Accounting and disclosure standards are good things for every market participant, see. But I agree with you on the second part. :up:

Now, seeing that our Treasury and Federal Reserve can do back-door bail-outs by buying private bank -toxic- assets, print money expand money supply, and we're a main reserve currency used in global markets....do you view that as (-) interference or (+) intervention by "government"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Then we'd have to do better at differentiating between interference and intervention. Accounting and disclosure standards are good things for every market participant, see. But I agree with you on the second part. :up:

Now, seeing that our Treasury and Federal Reserve can do back-door bail-outs by buying private bank -toxic- assets, print money expand money supply, and we're a main reserve currency used in global markets....do you view that as (-) interference or (+) intervention by "government"?

---

Do you really think I view any interference as (+) interference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Well, for starters we can roll back government interference in the markets, as opposed to blaming government interference, (it's just the wrong interference, see) for the problems facing our economy. We could also remove any guarantee that the government will bail out investors, banks, and organizations engaging in risky behavior.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Do you really think I view any interference as (+) interference?

---

It was an invitation for you to be more specific than 'free markets are good, government is bad'.

It's one thing to have Treasury and Fed bailing out banks and SIFI (including foreign banks), but quite another to have FDIC protection for bank deposits. Are both "bad" simply because the gov't is involved? Are anti-trust laws that prohibit monopolies or price-fixing the same as any other regulation, or "bad" because they interfere in markets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

It was an invitation for you to be more specific than 'free markets are good, government is bad'.

It's one thing to have Treasury and Fed bailing out banks and SIFI (including foreign banks), but quite another to have FDIC protection for bank deposits. Are both "bad" simply because the gov't is involved? Are anti-trust laws that prohibit monopolies or price-fixing the same as any other regulation, or "bad" because they interfere in markets?

---

Free markets are good, and I do oppose government intervention regardless of intended outcome or efficacy. Government interference is wrong, even if it isn't necessarily bad. Of course, I personally believe that the majority of the time it is both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Free markets are good, and I do oppose government intervention regardless of intended outcome or efficacy.

---

:confused: Stolen cars would be a free market if government didn't intervene. Not much different than a financial adviser selling you crap they invest against. Determining and maintaining a fair playing field is part of what government does. How would you achieve fair markets without central control to lay down and enforce the rules? It'd be like playing a game of football with a team of giants against a team of midgets, with no referees, and only the midgets bring guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

:confused: Stolen cars would be a free market if government didn't intervene. Not much different than a financial adviser selling you crap they invest against. Determining and maintaining a fair playing field is part of what government does. How would you achieve fair markets without central control to lay down and enforce the rules?

---

I'm not sure you're using your terms correctly. Preventing a government from interfering in a free market does not mean that there aren't laws that need to be enforced. It means you aren't letting them tamper with the prices or monetary policy, mitigating legal risks, controlling supply, etc...

Quote:

---

It'd be like playing a game of football with a team of giants against a team of midgets, with no referees, and only the midgets bring guns.

---

Yeah, it's pretty much exactly like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm not sure you're using your terms correctly. Preventing a government from interfering in a free market does not mean that there aren't laws that need to be enforced. It means you aren't letting them tamper with the prices or monetary policy, mitigating legal risks, controlling supply, etc...



Yeah, it's pretty much exactly like that.

---

I was just taking a swing at your over generalization. Laws are intervention. And you seem to be fine with some laws but not others. As an example, how do you feel about sugar subsidies? Do you mind paying 4x what the rest of the world pays for cane sugar? Another example, milk subsidies were put in place to stabalize milk prices, does that benefit you at all? One last example, tomatoes were deemed a vegetable by Congress for tax puposes and that decision was upheld by scotus, do you care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I was just taking a swing at your over generalization. Laws are intervention. And you seem to be fine with some laws but not others. As an example, how do you feel about sugar subsidies? Do you mind paying 4x what the rest of the world pays for cane sugar? Another example, milk subsidies were put in place to stabalize milk prices, does that benefit you at all? One last example, tomatoes were deemed a vegetable by Congress for tax puposes and that decision was upheld by scotus, do you care?

---

I don't know how to be more clear, so I'll try again. Free markets do not necessitate anarchy where you fence stolen goods openly. Laws and regulations that revolve around

Quote:

---

Preventing a government from interfering in a free market does not mean that there aren't laws that need to be enforced. It means you aren't letting them tamper with the prices or monetary policy, mitigating legal risks, controlling supply, etc...

---

In your example, sugar subsidies, milk subsidies, and selective taxation would all be examples of government interference that falls within market interference. You also seem to think that my goal is to have a market that benefits me the most, and that is not the case. Again...

Quote:

---

Free markets are good, and I do oppose government intervention regardless of intended outcome or efficacy. Government interference is wrong, even if it isn't necessarily bad. Of course, I personally believe that the majority of the time it is both.

---

It doesn't matter if I personally benefit as a consumer, that doesn't make it right.

I think I'm getting closer to understanding your stance on free market interference by government so bear with me, are antitrust laws an inhibition to free markets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

I think I'm getting closer to understanding your stance on free market interference by government so bear with me, are antitrust laws an inhibition to free markets?

---

I believe in an environment without corporate welfare and crony capitalism, there would not the same level of need for antitrust laws, but no, I don't consider them to be inherently inhibiting to free markets. The problem lies in how government enforces/pursues antitrust cases. Often antitrust cases are not designed or enforced out of a sense of fairness and desire for openness in the market, but instead are co-opted by those who could use it to their own advantage. In short, like much in government, it is at the mercy of either the angels or demons of mans nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I believe in an environment without corporate welfare and crony capitalism, there would not the same level of need for antitrust laws, but no, I don't consider them to be inherently inhibiting to free markets. The problem lies in how government enforces/pursues antitrust cases. Often antitrust cases are designed or enforced out of a sense of fairness and openness for the market, but instead are co-opted by those who could use it to their own advantage. In short, like much in government, it is at the mercy of either the angels or demons of mans nature.

---

And without it you would have one giant corporation instead of government. Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

And without it you would have one giant corporation instead of government. Just a thought.

---

Okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Free markets are good, and I do oppose government intervention regardless of intended outcome or efficacy. Government interference is wrong, even if it isn't necessarily bad. Of course, I personally believe that the majority of the time it is both.

---

Out of curiosity, what is your view on things like infrastructure? They are built (and paid) by the government, and greatly benefit both citizens and companies. Since good infrastructure is a competitive edge for a company, do you see this as a government interference? And would you prefer things like private toll roads instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Preventing a government from interfering in a free market does not mean that there aren't laws that need to be enforced. It means you aren't letting them tamper with the prices or monetary policy, mitigating legal risks, controlling supply, etc...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Free markets do not necessitate anarchy where you fence stolen goods openly.

In your example, sugar subsidies, milk subsidies, and selective taxation would all be examples of government interference that falls within market interference. You also seem to think that my goal is to have a market that benefits me the most, and that is not the case.

---

Okay, then as far as using terms properly goes, maybe you could be more specific than using government as a general blanket. Monetary policy includes what our central bankers decide, and citizen voters don't have a say in that---other than electing legislators to whom they report---and electing presidents that appoint cabinet positions like Sec. of Treasury, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I believe in an environment without corporate welfare and crony capitalism, there would not the same level of need for antitrust laws, but no, I don't consider them to be inherently inhibiting to free markets. The problem lies in how government enforces/pursues antitrust cases. Often antitrust cases are not designed or enforced out of a sense of fairness and desire for openness in the market, but instead are co-opted by those who could use it to their own advantage. In short, like much in government, it is at the mercy of either the angels or demons of mans nature.

---

Enforcement of laws falls within Dept. of Justice (appointees), but 'designing' those laws falls to our elected legislators. I agree with you....that law-makers have been co-opted <bought by special interest groups, lobbyists, campaign donors, and even our two-party dominant system>. When it comes to corporate welfare and crony capitalism, I do understand what you meant by saying those can't exist without government interference ;) but IMO it's rooted in how our elections are funded and who's doing the funding. That's not "government", that's politics. Crony corpo-politico-capitalism? :noob:

Our elections have created their own marketplace! Requiring multiple-million$ to run for office, run for office, run for office instead of governing for the people. It's absurd. Only legislators can change the process or the rules...how sadly ironic :sour: