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

[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.

[Enoch the Red]

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.

[Nessus]

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?

[CitizenCain]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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.

[Loki]

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.

[Being]

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.

[LittleFuzzy]

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.

[GGT]

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.

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"?

[Enoch the Red]

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.

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?

[GGT]

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.

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?

[Enoch the Red]

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.

[Being]

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

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.

[Enoch the Red]

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...

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.

[Being]

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?

[Enoch the Red]

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

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...

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.

[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?

[Enoch the Red]

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.

[Being]

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.

[Enoch the Red]

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

Okay?

[Flixy]

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?

[GGT]

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...

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.

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?

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