Government, Not Free Market, Caused Subprime Crisis

[Turtle]

Socialism is in principle indistinguishable from slavery. The only difference is one of degree.

"in principle indistinguishable" is putting it highly euphemistically; let's call a spade a spade: Socialism IS slavery. Under traditional slavery, the fruits of someone's labour are taken by force and given to someone else. Under socialism, the fruits of someone's labour are taken by force and given to someone else.

I wonder sometimes if it's more than just coincidence that the rise of modern socialism appeared after the fall of "traditional" slavery; perhaps it's the same human instinct (i.e. to unfairly subjugate the labor of others to one's own benefit at the expense of the other) merely being expressed in a different form. (Free market capitalism isn't 'unfair subjugation of labour' in that it's mutually voluntary, mutually beneficial, free of force, and the terms of exchange are negotiated ... none of these are true for either socialism or old-style slavery.)

 

[Arthur]

Singapore - you mean that place where they execute people for buying and selling certain products! That's free market and economic freedom for you!

(Yes, BBSA, I know you're not talking to me...)

Really? So for you an index (or at least an indicator) of Capitalism is where they execute people? Little sense in debating, then - there's just soo much basic stuff one has to explain.

This gap causes social problems.

Social inequalities ultimately effect your economic freedom.

Much more important is the reason for the gap. If you purpose is to eradicate gaps then you're an egalitarian and will of course see any gap as unjust, and not scruple to 'redistribute' wealth to close to the gap. That is a recipe for fascism because it ignores how people come by their property, or why the gaps exist.

Even America, that paragon of the free market, has a regulated market.

America is not a paragon of the free market. The last two-thirds of the 20th C saw a serious erosion of freedom in the USA, and the process continues, and will probably accelerate under the new president.

 

[Sherbang]

Really? So for you in index of Capitalism is where they execute people? Little sense in debating, then - there's just soo much basic stuff one has to explain.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't quite clear, that they execute people is not the issue, but that they execute people for buying and selling certain products
For someone who doesn't want any government interference in economic activities I would think that is problematic.

 

[Turtle]

For someone who doesn't want any government interference in economic activities I would think that is problematic.

Of course it's "problematic" on its own, but it's also not relevant to the current argument in that it doesn't negate (i.e. is not a counter-example) the argument of advantages of economic freedoms in OTHER areas (I presume you're talking about penalties for trading specific things like drugs?) ... there are many, many different areas and markets governments can interfere in in different ways and on different levels.

If a hypothetical otherwise-purely-free-market government made it illegal to sell, say, blue coffee mugs, it wouldn't mean that all the economic benefits of free trade in every other area would disappear. Nor would it mean that the economic prosperity would be thanks to the government banning blue coffee mugs.

 

[alloytoo]

You do not want to read it because you know it is true.

Less economical freedom = more poverty

Poverty can only be eradicated if you have a vibrant economy which is create by economical freedom.

Your concerned that a few people will get supper rich is blinding your justment.

Do you have a comprehension problem?

A pure market driven economy (of which no such animal exists) would produce great wealth, however the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest would be huge.

This leads to a host of social problems (as is evidenced by South Africa's immense poverty and soaring crime rates.)

You cannot have a vibrant economy where social problems impact on freedoms both economic and personal.

Lets return to the road analogy.

A pure market economy produces a few F1 race cars and many pedestrians. A moderately regulated economy will produce a few sports cars, some economy hatches and some buses.

 

[BBSA]

Do you have a comprehension problem?

A pure market driven economy (of which no such animal exists) would produce great wealth, however the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest would be huge.

This leads to a host of social problems (as is evidenced by South Africa's immense poverty and soaring crime rates.)

You cannot have a vibrant economy where social problems impact on freedoms both economic and personal.

Lets return to the road analogy.

A pure market economy produces a few F1 race cars and many pedestrians. A moderately regulated economy will produce a few sports cars, some economy hatches and some buses.

Let rather leave the personal insults, it is not helping.

South Africa is really a bad example of economical freedom. Remember Apartheid/AA/BEE/restrictive labour laws?

Your road analogy is not what happen with economical freedom. Yes some will have F1 race cars but the rest will have at least bicycles. I think you will only be happy if everybody have to walk.

 

[alloytoo]

Much more important is the reason for the gap. If you purpose is to eradicate gaps then you're an egalitarian and will of course see any gap as unjust, and not scruple to 'redistribute' wealth to close to the gap. That is a recipe for fascism because it ignores how people come by their property, or why the gaps exist.

Lets just say I feel theres a balance between the uninspired unefficient drudgery of communism and the ruthlessness of pure capitalism.

I'd rather have a 20 room mansion surrounded by 3 bedroom homes than a 25 room mansion surrounded by shacks.

 

[alloytoo]

Let rather leave the personal insults, it is not helping.

It's not an insult it's an observation. You seem to repeatedly ignore what I say.

South Africa is really a bad example of economical freedom. Remember Apartheid/AA/BEE/restrictive labour laws?

It is however a good example of social inequalities leading to social problems. That some of the economic intervention is poor is irrelevant.
That our regulated banking system has shielded us from the worst of the global credit crisis is undisputed.

Your road analogy is not what happen with economical freedom. Yes some will have F1 race cars but the rest will have at least bicycles. I think you will only be happy if everybody have to walk.

Again, comprehension seems to be the issue. Buses are still preferable to bicycles and F1 racing cars serve no other purpose than to travel in a circle quickly for thrills.

 

[Turtle]

That our regulated banking system has shielded us from the worst of the global credit crisis is undisputed.

Actually I'd say traditional capitalist-style self-interest played the most part in "shielding" our banks from the worst of the global credit crisis: Our banks, operating in a fairly high-risk environment, already (by and large) employed relatively sensible risk management in their lending and investing practices (to the extent that some even had to make very few changes to implement the NCA). This is not because they were forced to do so by regulation, but because it makes sense to do so if you want to keep making money as a bank and lender.

 

[BBSA]

It is however a good example of social inequalities leading to social problems.

Exactly, so why do you promote socialism then Apartheid, AA, BEE and restrictive labour laws is examples of sosialism.

 

[BBSA]

Actually I'd say traditional capitalist-style self-interest played the most part in "shielding" our banks from the worst of the global credit crisis: Our banks, operating in a fairly high-risk environment, already (by and large) employed relatively sensible risk management in their lending and investing practices (to the extent that some even had to make very few changes to implement the NCA). This is not because they were forced to do so by regulation, but because it makes sense to do so if you want to keep making money as a bank and lender.

+100

 

[alloytoo]

Actually I'd say traditional capitalist-style self-interest played the most part in "shielding" our banks from the worst of the global credit crisis: Our banks, operating in a fairly high-risk environment, already (by and large) employed relatively sensible risk management in their lending and investing practices (to the extent that some even had to make very few changes to implement the NCA). This is not because they were forced to do so by regulation, but because it makes sense to do so if you want to keep making money as a bank and lender.

Which suggests that regulation is not as onerous to the market as some would have us believe.

 

[alloytoo]

Exactly, so why do you promote socialism then Apartheid, AA, BEE and restrictive labour laws is examples of sosialism.

No, I support a regulated free market economy.

 

[Turtle]

Which suggests that regulation is not as onerous to the market as some would have us believe.

Depends what you mean by "regulation"; that word could mean a lot of things.

 

[BBSA]

No, I support a regulated free market economy.

Like the USA?

 

[alloytoo]

Like the USA?

Like every non-communist country in the world.

I am however glad you've brought us back to the US, you've yet to explain Xarog and myself how non-existant regulation caused the current global financial crisis?

Regulation, not fiscal and monetary policy.

 

[BBSA]

Which suggests that regulation is not as onerous to the market as some would have us believe.

I have no problem with self regulation as it is a function of the market. I do have a big problem with government regulation, have a look what a mess government regulation have done to our telecom industry.

 

[BBSA]

Like every non-communist country in the world.

I am however glad you've brought us back to the US, you've yet to explain Xarog and myself how non-existant regulation caused the current global financial crisis?

Regulation, not fiscal and monetary policy.

Fiscal and monetary policy is actually government regulation, which caused the current global financial crisis. Government, not the Free Market, determine Fiscal and monetary policy.

 

[Arthur]

Peter Schiff predicted the crisis - and worse to come

Fourteen years ago economist Peter Schiff predicted the sub-prime meltdown.

Worth a watch is this video of a recent (Jan 2009) interview on RT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2x7R8pxUs

Then there are older TV interviews from 2006 and 2007 predicting the current recession: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Even worse is on the way.

Bottom line: the bottom line will disappear.

 

[BBSA]

Fourteen years ago economist Peter Schiff predicted the sub-prime meltdown.

Worth a watch is this video of a recent (Jan 2009) interview on RT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2x7R8pxUs

Then there are older TV interviews from 2006 and 2007 predicting the current recession: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Even worse is on the way.

Bottom line: the bottom line will disappear.

Ja, very scary.

The solution is less government not more