|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
20th February 2010, 07:09 PM | #41 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
|
To your sort, they are blood-sucking leeches. to the sane, they are the people who build the infrastructure that an ecconomy needs and keep the brigands and bullies from robbing or enslaving or cheating the weak.
Putting government workers out of work when there is no longer an industrial base is not going to increase productivity.
Quote:
|
20th February 2010, 07:18 PM | #42 |
JREF Kid
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,952
|
So no, it wasn't a free market. It was a government managed market. And it failed spectacularly. The best idea the interventionists have is "well, government should have managed the security industry more too". Its fail plus fail. "Government should manage the finance industry." Triple fail. They completely fail to comprehend that the only reason the source industry of mortgage lending failed, was due to government management!
What does it say when the best argument is "yeah, we could have turned the poor into the homeless en masse, but we wouldn't have had to pass TARP or lose any 401k money"? I would humbly suggest that if this is the best you have, then you are looking in the wrong spot for the blame. You are basically ignoring the underlying problem. "Another black eye for free market capitalism", is just neo-comm wishing thinking. There isn't a single shred of evidence they can provide that there was a free market working. Moreover, the idea that businessmen represent the free market, is not one Friedman shared. One of the key reasons that Friedman opposed managed economies is that businesses take unfair advantage of them. Tell me that wasn't the case during the mortgage lending bubble. |
__________________
Nothing Reportable Here |
|
21st February 2010, 07:02 PM | #43 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
|
|
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
21st February 2010, 07:11 PM | #44 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
|
No it wasn’t government managed at all. The core of the problem was in the derivatives market which is almost completely unregulated.
This lack of regulation allowed lenders to externalize risk thereby breaking the risk-reward system financial markets are built on. This risk doesn’t just disappear however; it gets taken up by the system as a whole and brings down the whole system under the right conditions. |
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
22nd February 2010, 01:46 AM | #45 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
|
[quote=corplinx;5639486]Moreover, the idea that businessmen represent the free market, is not one Friedman shared.]/QUOTE]
Who, then, does? This makes bloody little sense.
Quote:
|
22nd February 2010, 11:22 AM | #46 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
|
I could grant you heaving money at The Poor and The Old and we still haven't touched much.
One doesn't have to support an extremely limited government (which I do) to simply be against the massive, grotesque growth lately, and the stunning $3.2 trillion budget this year. See, in good times, they run up the debt because the times are good and we can afford it. In bad times, we "have" to run up the debt to "help". There's always a narrative to spend too much money, for the purpose of electing officials. |
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
22nd February 2010, 11:35 AM | #47 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
22nd February 2010, 12:59 PM | #48 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,611
|
|
22nd February 2010, 02:12 PM | #49 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
|
|
22nd February 2010, 02:20 PM | #50 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
|
|
22nd February 2010, 02:31 PM | #51 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,208
|
|
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
22nd February 2010, 02:56 PM | #52 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,236
|
hmmm.
I'm not 100% with you on this. The US generally has a trade surplus in semiconductors and capital equipment. http://www.bea.gov/agency/uguide1.htm#_1_19 /\/\/\ stats Also, it pays to remember that traded goods are actually a pretty small share of the US economy. Just cause US exports go down doesn't mean that the US doesn't produce something any more. A US company may have invested abroad and be producing in a foreign market what it formerly produced for export in the US. This doesn't mean that the company no longer has the capacity to produce that good in the US for the US market. |
__________________
Evolution a poem As luck would have it, people. |
|
22nd February 2010, 03:12 PM | #53 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
|
Yeah. The big money is in trading paper, a lot of it based on the profits of companies that import manufactured goods. We are left, basicly, trying to get rich flipping each other's hamburgers.
Quote:
Quote:
|
22nd February 2010, 03:26 PM | #54 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,236
|
Hey man, I'm on your side re. crappy low-wage service jobs. It's getting harder for the working man, no doubt.
All I'm saying is that shutting down export capacity doesn't necessarily mean you're shutting down capacity to produce for the domestic market. Shutting down domestic capacity, offshoring this and then importing what you formerly produced domestically for domestic consumption is a 'nuther thing. |
__________________
Evolution a poem As luck would have it, people. |
|
22nd February 2010, 03:31 PM | #55 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,584
|
|
__________________
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|