W H Y W A S N ' T T H I S M A N M A D E P R E S I D E N T ?

[edit]

Show me a man that has a better understanding of our economy. Without a doubt, the economy is now the most important issue facing America today.
He NEEDS to be president. NOW.

^You said it, MGR. Ron Paul shows us just what tools Obama and McCain really are.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, September 29th, 2008 11:46am PDT - promote requested by blankfist.

Is it really accurate to say this has "nothing to do with free-market capitalism?"

Here is his response after today's vote:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Bail-Out-Fails-Ron-Paul-Speaks-About-The-Bail-Out-Vote

>> ^chilaxe:
Is it really accurate to say this has "nothing to do with free-market capitalism?"


Indeed, government intervention to the scale we are talking about in this present enviroment is not free market capitalizm.

>> ^chilaxe:
Is it really accurate to say this has "nothing to do with free-market capitalism?"

imho, yes.
i can certainly understand any confusion, because of the degree to which "free-market" is a term that's been co-opted and muddied.

the free market that ron paul is talking about is not utterly laissez-faire, letting potential robber barons run rampant.

he's talking about a wisely-regulated and -patrolled system, that doesn't give preferential treatment to either consumers or suppliers. a system that doesn't privatize gains, then socialize losses.

He's saying the financial crisis itself has nothing to do with free-market capitalism.

As I understand it, companies that were too big to be allowed to fail without ruining the economy engaged in activity that carried an unacceptable risk of failure.

Free-market capitalism isn't working if it's producing ruined economies, so it seems reasonable to say the free-market failed here.

(I say this as someone who's significantly libertarian.)

I appreciate his point, but I met an economist from the Federal Reserve at a party yesterday who disagrees that this will make things worse. I asked him what he thought about the bailout. He doesn't like the idea of a bailout either, but he doesn't see any alternative at this point. Without some sort of government intervention, he predicts we'll see way more banks close, more people make a run on the market and stop investing, and just a pretty much horrid downward spiral as credit continues to contract and companies start laying people off to cut costs. He feels it wouldn't be a recession--it would be an outright depression the likes of which America hasn't seen since the Great Depression. I'll agree with Ron Paul that the system needs an overhaul and that the bailout isn't a long-term solution. But it is a band-aid that will get us through this crisis where people are on the verge of being evicted from their homes. To continue the medical analogy, we can't go into surgery until we stabilize the patient.

I understand Ron Paul can do no wrong, but I understood this the same context as chilaxe.

This crisis more than anything stemmed from a lack of transparency of information, no police was there to catch the frauds. If you define that as regulation, then for once I'd say you need more regulation in that kind of areas, like we need authority to uphold crucial laws.

>> ^chilaxe:
Is it really accurate to say this has "nothing to do with free-market capitalism?"

an emphatic yes

has anyone here heard of 1921? probably not right? Thats because when that recession hit, the government didn't step in and the market corrected itself in less than 6 months.

how about 1929? probably yes right? The great depression was caused by government intervention. Case in point, when people were on the streets starving in bread lines and eating ketchup sandwhiches, the government was busy burning 10,000,000 acres of crops and slaughtering 6,000,000 pigs! Yes you heard that right! The government was operating on the principle that if they reduced the supply they would increase prices and thus help out the farmers. Absolutely insane!

This is the same school of economic thought we have with us today, its the same erroneous thought Paulson and Bernake subscribe to. They think that the government can turn on the printing press and solve all the problems (of course they aren't naive, this makes them a lot of money--Paulson made $50 million last year). If that was true, why don't we just keep on the printing press even when the economy is good? Why not print the money to solve all our healthcare and energy problems--shoot why not cure poverty if we can just infuse money out of thin air into economies to fix them?

The government doesn't create wealth. The government cant improve the economy, it can't fix a recession, all it can do is take from A and give to B. All it can do is take your money and give it to AIG or Fannie Mae. It can create money, but it cannot create wealth--that is something only the market can do.

Chilaxe and SDGundamX are both right, this has everything to do with free market capitalism. Everyone in North America has just been brainwashed to drool and scream, "laisser faire, laisser faire!"

^can you name a single prominent free-market economist in any seat of power (federal reserve, current administration, treasury, etc.)

What leads you to believe the prevailing school of economics is the Austrians? 25 years ago there were maybe 12 prominent Austrian economists in the entire world. Our society is very much run by the Chicago/Keynesian school, and has been for the last century.

*sigh* Not electing this man is the greatest mistake this country has made in a long time...

Upvote for Paulitics.

>> ^chilaxe:
> He's saying the financial crisis itself has nothing to do with free-market capitalism.

yes. because although i understand the confusion, i wouldn't agree that:

>"it seems reasonable to say the free-market failed here"...

only because he's saying that this is NOT a free market.
not the way he describes, and endorses, a truly free market in his book.

it's just sold as one, by people who want the markets to give them preferential treatment. in most cases, by those on the supply side.

that's why paul is asserting that this crash can't be blamed on a free market.

^Whichever definition of 'free market' that we use, the cause of the crisis appears to be not enough regulation.

The entire financial sector was improperly managing risk, and without a bailout, the whole economy tanks, costing us more.

>> ^chilaxe:
Is it really accurate to say this has "nothing to do with free-market capitalism?"


I don't think so.

Free Marketeers consider any and all oversight or regulation as a bane to profits, and that's a big part of what caused the problem.

It reminds me of current preachers of communism, how capitalists claim that until a perfect exact system is reached, it isn't truly 'free markets'. Russia apparently didn't do it correctly. And the US didn't have entirely free markets, so I guess that is to blame

Rougy, don't be too hard on profit-seeking behavior . Encouraging it is generally the straightest path to efficiency and innovation.

The reason the banks were "financing risky assets with short-term market borrowing"* is that it ennabled increased efficiency and growth, which is good for everybody (when it works).


*"What really caused the financial crisis?," Marginal Revolution.

"*sigh* Not electing this man is the greatest mistake this country has made in a long time..."

Uhhhh, he's still able to be voted for, November is a couple months away.....you can write yer grandmother in for fuckssake!!!-A vote for Skeletor or CoalBummer (same tools, different cabals perhaps???), is simply "spilling one's seed on the ground" as it were....No real power in a vote wasted on either of them, simply a free-pass to business as usual-however, the feeeeling most shall predictably succomb to is what has been placed on,above,under,and in every orifice of their robot apparatus, and that easily tweaked at will.......Tweak your own for a change- and perhaps practice telling yourselves the truth about simple shit......The simple shit being, shit can look however you want it to on TV, and other such whimsical ideas....What say you NetRuunnner??

>> ^chilaxe:
^Whichever definition of 'free market' that we use, the cause of the crisis appears to be not enough regulation.
The entire financial sector was improperly managing risk, and without a bailout, the whole economy tanks, costing us more.

If we assume the problem was improperly managed risk to be the issue that needs regulation, what specifically would the regulation specify? Would congress pass a new lay stipulating:
1. All companies must diverse their holdings into at least X areas.
2. No companies are allowed to make choices which have risk > Y.
3. Companies with cannot have %Z of investments with risk > Q.
4. Risk is determined by the Department of Risk Analysis.

How can you justify such a law, even if it had some perceived good? The government would essentially be running the business for them if it is legally dictating all the decisions it makes. If it helps on wallstreet, why would you stop there? Why not have the government manage risk for ALL business owners?

Theres really a much simpler, and more effective regulation to specify, how about the government makes this a law:

1. All businesses which take a greater risk than their their diversified portfolio or their % of overall investment allows, and subsequently suffer unrecoverable losses, shall be sold off in an elegant and undramatic fashion to its competitors, who did manage their risk, at a price determined mutually beneficial. Said company, who properly managed risk, shall be rewarded with a greater market share than before.

>> ^imstellar28:How can you justify such a law, even if it had some perceived good?

Banks create money, that's the way the gov elected to do it, they give high value dollars, and allow the banks to multiply them. This practice means all of these lending institutions perform a necessary function of the government, a functions which needs to be regulated in order for money to have any value at all.

These virtual mints need to run by rules which keep the money system under control, since many regulations were repealed in our march towards laissez-faire the money system which is based on debt and real-estate, which can not expand forever, will necessarily crumble.

As for all the claims that "it's not really free market" the free market is an abstraction, like a circle, they don't, and can't exist. Moving too far towards free markets creates this sort of cyclical collapse.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
W H Y W A S N ' T T H I S M A N M A D E P R E S I D E N T ?


BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE SMART ENOUGH NOT TO VOTE FOR HIM

>> ^MarineGunrock:
W H Y W A S N ' T T H I S M A N M A D E P R E S I D E N T ?


I hope everyone remembers 6 months ago when i was saying that this guy was a fucking genius, dispensing ass kickings and crippling counter arguments time after time after time........

Shame i'm not in the country to have voted for him.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
W H Y W A S N ' T T H I S M A N M A D E P R E S I D E N T ?
[edit]
Show me a man that has a better understanding of our economy. Without a doubt, the economy is now the most important issue facing America today.
He NEEDS to be president. NOW.



Sorry dude, but a lot of us wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Yes, Ron Paul is one of the smartest men in congress when it comes to certain aspects of the economy. He understands the markets, and our economic history almost more than anyone.

But, after watching him for the last two years I've come to realize that his knowledge is based 100% in theory, and not in reality. He couldn't give less of a shit about your and my reality, or the reality that faces huge swaths of this country. He doesn't give one shit.

He is a "free-market" fundamentalist, and thinks that somehow, CEO's everywhere are totally honest, good men who would only do awesome and honest and good things if that darn government oversight would stop, you know, overseeing stuff. Anyone who's had their eyes open, their heart beating and their lungs taking in breath over the last couple decades understands the exact opposite, and has watched these very same awesome CEO's tear our economy apart, slash our wages, steal our healthcare benefits and 401k's, and walk away with enormous bonuses worth more than most countries GDP.

Ron Paul's ideas of a "free market" are theories, and dangerous ones at that. His theories are one of those "if only" ideas/concepts that have NEVER ever been put into practice anywhere.

I would take a tanked economy with guidance under Barney Frank, than a "free-market" in a country that now has forced-prayer in schools, abortions made illegal, and "states rights" putting an end to anti-discrimination laws, integrated schools, and usher in every completely nutball right-wing extreme-christianist wedge issue you could ever imagine, shoved down the throats of us citizens.

Yes, Obama could do well with putting Paul somewhere in his cabinet, or in the FED or somewhere. But his domestic policies are utterly frightening, and the dude who he just supported for POTUS is one of the most crappy, hacked-out straight-up-white-dude's out there, with a completely laughable and outrageous platform.


Ron Paul is way more of a christianist fundie than you are allowing yourself to understand. "States rights" is a code-word. It's a lie. It's real meaning is to give the states their right to enforce some of the most backward, draconian laws every considered.

i like RP's version of "free" markets, in that they have to be transparent and policed.

but total "freedom" would just expose even more of the greed in all of us, and free markets aren't suitable for the production of everything we need.

The claim, "there is no such thing as a free market" is incorrect. There are free markets, millions of them. The "free market" is not a single, static entity, nor is it some high level abstraction. In Soviet Russia, under the grip of communist rule, there were free markets. In Nazi Germany under fascist rule there were free markets. In Soviet Russia, despite the fact that 99% of farmlands were state-owned and controlled, official policy was that all farmers were allowed to use 1% of their land as they see fit--in order to provide food for themselves and their family. Yet this 1% of land formed a "black market" (a free market) which comprised over 30% of the nations crops!

If you don't think a free markets exist, stop at the next garage sale you see. What regulations are in place? Do you pay taxes on any of the transactions? Is there government oversight, or anti-trust law in force? Are there minimum or maximum prices set on the goods?

The truth is many "subsets" of markets are completely free of regulation, these "sub-markets" are actually entire markets in themselves, which are properly labeled as "free markets". One does not need all of the "sub-markets" which comprise a countries economy to be free, nor do they even need a majority for the theory to be valid. The theory works irregardless of the number of "sub-markets" free of regulation. The implications of the theory is that given two identical "sub-markets", the "sub-market" free of regulation will be superior. Historically, this data point has been recorded across millions of "sub-markets" in thousands of countries over hundreds of years and not once, not once, (try to find one) has it ever been proven false.

The smallest market is a single buyer and a single seller trading one good for another. If you want proof a free market exists, offer the next person you see $20 for anything on his person. Try to haggle and see what is the best thing you can get. Now tell me how government regulation could have improved the process for both parties.

Adding millions of sellers, millions of buyers, and millions of goods changes nothing about the underlying principle of voluntary cooperation. Two people trade because each thinks they benefit. That is free market theory. It predicts that given a choice, two people will trade if and only if both perceive that they gain something from the transaction. This simple fact leads to many corollaries such as supply and demand curves. It is a theory as firmly planted in science and reality as the theory of gravity.

>> ^imstellar28:
Theres really a much simpler, and more effective regulation to specify, how about the government makes this a law:
1. All businesses which take a greater risk than their their diversified portfolio or their % of overall investment allows, and subsequently suffer unrecoverable losses, shall be sold off in an elegant and undramatic fashion to its competitors, who did manage their risk, at a price determined mutually beneficial. Said company, who properly managed risk, shall be rewarded with a greater market share than before.


Sounds good to me, but I think we're in a problem more complex than that. Since these are banks, we'll see some pretty disastrous effects ripple through the economy as businesses and people's ability to get credit disappears.

I want the losers to lose, but I don't want innocent bystanders to lose too.

As far as regulation, I think the main regulations needed have to do with making the risks more transparent, and getting people to stop misrepresenting risk on a large scale.

I've been looking for some sort of consensus amongst economists on the topic, and the only consensus I'm seeing is that something should be done -- only non-economist ideologues (like Paul, and House Republicans) are saying the right action is to more vigorously pursue inaction.

I don't think a $700bn taxpayer funded gift basket to the fuckwads that screwed up the global economy is fair, but it might avert a wider disaster. I think it shouldn't be a gift basket, it should be like bankruptcy -- that the government nationalizes these organizations, brings in new leadership, cleans house, and sells the thing back to the shareholders, like what Sweeden did in a similar situation. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

I'm watching and waiting to see how it'll really shake down, because the politics on this are intense, and complex, and mostly in the hands of an increasingly unpredictable Republican party.

The only question now is whether the Democrats will fold to these shenanigans, or try to lead on the issue and give us a real rescue bill. Guess we'll have to wait until Thursday to find out.

It must be frustrating to be Ron Paul, having a front row seat watching other people fuck up your country.

I supported Ron Paul, I respect Ron Paul, but I don't trust Ron Paul. The only real Messianic figure in this election has been Ron Paul, who is assumed to be the sole arbiter of truth in this corrupt and terrible world.

I enjoy his views on civil liberties and the Iraq War, but if I were asked to choose between Paul and Obama or even Paul and Hillary, I would not pick Paul.

>> ^imstellar28:
Adding millions of sellers, millions of buyers, and millions of goods changes nothing about the underlying principle of voluntary cooperation. Two people trade because each thinks they benefit. That is free market theory. It predicts that given a choice, two people will trade if and only if both perceive that they gain something from the transaction. This simple fact leads to many corollaries such as supply and demand curves. It is a theory as firmly planted in science and reality as the theory of gravity.


So, you think having absolutely no regulations on the market will result in the best economy? That it's that simple, that it's a science as just as true as gravity?
What about anti trust laws? Laws against price fixing? Since it's as true as gravity, obviously not have these laws would result in a better economy.

The point of the government intervening is to HELP free markets, to help them stay free and operate. To enhance competition, to ENHANCE the benefits of a free market. This is not me arguing for socialism, this is arguing against fundamentalist capitalists like yourself who rely entirely on theory
Why must it be exactly pure free markets? Is it just the simplicity that is so appealing to you?

^vermeulen
What about anti trust laws? Laws against price fixing?

This is a common complaint about the free market, which is why I posted a video response:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-and-Dr-Armentano-discuss-Anti-Trust-and-Monopolies

Historically, who do you think has lobbied for anti-trust laws? Its not the consumer...

So I've heard a lot of complaints about the free market, but can you guys help me create a list of specific problems you have? Here is what comes to mind:
1. greed/excessive profits
2. monopolies
3. dangerous goods
4. predatory selling/false advertising (merged)
5. false advertising
6. excessive supply
7. insufficient supply
8. worker's rights (added)

^Maybe add "insufficient workers' rights" (in non-unionized fields) and merge "false advertising" into "predatory selling"? What's an example of "excessive supply"?

>> ^imstellar28:
^vermeulen
What about anti trust laws? Laws against price fixing?
This is a common complaint about the free market, which is why I posted a video response:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-and-Dr-Armen
tano-discuss-Anti-Trust-and-Monopolies
Historically, who do you think has lobbied for anti-trust laws? Its not the consumer...


Once a company has a monopoly, the rational action would always be to create additional barriers to entry for other companies, and then cut costs and product/service quality, and raise prices.

That's what monopolies have done historically; why would they behave differently in a purely laissez-faire market?

>> ^chilaxe
Once a company has a monopoly, the rational action would always be to create additional barriers to entry for other companies, and then cut costs and product/service quality, and raise prices.
That's what monopolies have done historically; why would they behave differently in a purely laissez-faire market?

This is another common complaint of the free market system. Unfortunately for monopolies, history has shown that no company has ever actually succeeded in pulling it off. There is actually a really humorous example of a group of German chemical companies which tried to do this to Dow (know his name?) Obviously it didn't work as Dow Chemicals is one of the most successful chemical makers in the world. I actually posted a video response to this as well:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Thomas-Woods-A-Shocking-Presentation-of-American-History

Fast-forward to 24:00, the story is about 4 minutes, and its actually quite hilarious how Dow defeated the German monopoly.

Monopoly and price fixing would can hurt the free market, and is possible under a free system.... how can you deny that.

Do you not think it is possible for the government to aid in the free market?
Such as to enhance competition?

I consider myself a libertarian, but I do think it is possible for some type of control of the markets to be beneficial.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^chilaxe
Once a company has a monopoly, the rational action would always be to create additional barriers to entry for other companies, and then cut costs and product/service quality, and raise prices.
That's what monopolies have done historically; why would they behave differently in a purely laissez-faire market?
This is another common complaint of the free market system. Unfortunately for monopolies, history has shown that no company has ever actually succeeded in pulling it off. There is actually a really humorous example of a group of German chemical companies which tried to do this to Dow (know his name?) Obviously it didn't work as Dow Chemicals is one of the most successful chemical makers in the world. I actually posted a video response to this as well:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Thomas-Woods-A-Shocking-
Presentation-of-American-History
Fast-forward to 24:00, the story is about 4 minutes, and its actually quite hilarious how Dow defeated the German monopoly.


When people say "monopoly," they're not referring only to 100% pure monopolies. Wiki:

[The government stated:]

"The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Company charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and which more often leaves no profit to the competitor, whose costs are ordinarily somewhat higher."
...
Standard's president, John Rockefeller, had long since retired from any management role. But, as he owned a quarter of the shares of the resultant companies, and those share values mostly doubled, he emerged from the dissolution as the richest man in the world.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

>> ^vermeulen:
Monopoly and price fixing would can hurt the free market, and is possible under a free system.... how can you deny that.
Do you not think it is possible for the government to aid in the free market?
Such as to enhance competition?
I consider myself a libertarian, but I do think it is possible for some type of control of the markets to be beneficial.


"Monopolies" are one of the popular scapegoats for politicians to use to gain power, and one of the most misunderstood talking point for socialists. In truth, the only "true" monopolies around the world and throughout history are borne of government. I tend to draw a distinction by calling these "self-sustaining monopolies" because of way in which they are financed: with an unlimited stream of forcibly appropriated money rather than a choice to pay by consumers.

First, let's agree on one thing: in order to become a monopoly in a free market where every transaction is mutually agreeable rather than forced by the will of the clueless majority (like a tax or inflation), a company had to offer a great product that people wanted and that benefited them. As much as you may hate Microsoft, for example, Windows has changed the world for the better. As have Intel's processors. Now, many would consider these companies monopolistic. According to socialist theory, AMD should not exist. Intel was so large and dominant, that being such disabled any competition from forming without government intervention. What happened in the real world was that as a result of being large and dominant, and perhaps overcharging and under-delivering, a window of opportunity was created that allowed an AMD to come in and kick netburst's ass with the athlon series. They exist because of what Intel tried to do, not the opposite.

Here's the part that really busts the socialist's brains: If Intel had chosen not to overcharge and under-deliver, no window of opportunity would have existed. They would have effectively become a monopoly that was delivering a great product at a price no one could better. So... what's the problem with that? There isn't one. And while I agree that it can't last, socialists erroneously assume that a monopoly is inherently bad. It isn't, it just can't stay good. And when it doesn't stay good, it can't preserve it. Because even a monopoly can't put poop in a box and sell it, they are not immortal and all-powerful where they no longer need to deliver a product to service or prevent private capital not available for buyout from coming in and supplanting their marketshare.

The monopolies you need to be afraid of are the ones that are self-sustaining or government helped and enabled. Get companies AWAY from colluding with or taking advantage of government specific powers. When a company lobbies for a tax credit that another company or industry doesn't get, or a subsidy, or no-bid contract, or a bailout, or legislation crippling their competitor, that's when you need to be alarmed. So... be alarmed now, because this is everywhere and people are stupidly blaming the market when it is enablements in government like high taxes and an inflationary money making it possible.

lithuania has a fairly free market because it's fucking corrupt, and i can tell you it's not beneficial to the consumer. the lies they get away with in unregulated advertising are shocking. of course they do it, because they can and it works.

corruption is what humans do unless someone with a bigger gun tells them not to.

individual freedom will always fuck up the common good. crime does pay. if you legalise business practices which are currently criminal, you'll get more of it, not a magical balanced free utopia.

Imstellar, in your version of a free market, who would stop Microsoft dominating the place with shitty software? I think we need MORE regulation there, not less. How is it efficient for microsoft to keep churning out that crap? you are asking for everything to be a marketing, bribery and advertising contest.

here on the sift we have a free market of ideas and video uploads, and look what happens, a bunch of cliques and lolcats and vote whores and the noise level is so high that you can't find the good shit without watching 10 crappy videos. Can you imagine what it would be like here if siftbot stopped checking for sock puppet accounts?

>> ^MINK:
lithuania has a fairly free market because it's fucking corrupt, and i can tell you it's not beneficial to the consumer. the lies they get away with in unregulated advertising are shocking. of course they do it, because they can and it works.
corruption is what humans do unless someone with a bigger gun tells them not to.
individual freedom will always fuck up the common good. crime does pay. if you legalise business practices which are currently criminal, you'll get more of it, not a magical balanced free utopia.
Imstellar, in your version of a free market, who would stop Microsoft dominating the place with shitty software? I think we need MORE regulation there, not less. How is it efficient for microsoft to keep churning out that crap? you are asking for everything to be a marketing, bribery and advertising contest.
here on the sift we have a free market of ideas and video uploads, and look what happens, a bunch of cliques and lolcats and vote whores and the noise level is so high that you can't find the good shit without watching 10 crappy videos. Can you imagine what it would be like here if siftbot stopped checking for sock puppet accounts?


You're confused, I blame the all-encompassing buzzword of the day "regulation" for this, people don't understand the markets and have come to take it as meaning "government making it all better and overseeing greed." Government indeed has desirable functions in law enforcement and offering recourse through courts for disputes. They should NOT be price-fixing, monopolizing money, or handing out taxpayer money under socialist ideals of directing industry or "enhancing market confidence," this has collusion and corruption written all over it. Politicians are humans and someone spending millions of his own money to get in a low-salary position of controlling other people's money is probably going to be a more harmful source of greed than any businessman. Because even though Henry Ford became a millionaire, thousands of people got cars out of the deal. Not sure the same would have come from government expenditures...

But many would consider this form of corporate wealth redistribution "regulating" the market. I don't.

Your example of false advertising is an example of where law enforcement should take place. Can I sell a product that purports to do something it doesn't? No, that's a swindle, the contract was not upheld, and you can go to government-provided courts to be compensated. Similar things apply to other swindles, though in most cases even the government can't prevent you from falling for some e-mail scam to a Nigerian clearing house. Unless, of course, you agree to have them snoop all your incoming e-mail to check for this stuff. I'd hope you understand that that's a pretty stupid of you, though, for giving up your privacy in order to protect yourself from being gullible. Not understanding cost/benefit ratios is a huge socialist mistake. They're always missing the potential costs and focusing on the benefit.

Gun bans, for example, have the intention of reducing violence but in reality remove the deterrent criminals otherwise have against a society that does have them, causing crime to increase. Plus, it makes you defenseless to oppressive government. The utopian allure of creating a "perfect" society where no gun crime exists and everyone can live in peace and trust is what gets them to miss the greater cost incurred that any thinking man would have foreseen.

The Fed is another one. Fractional reserves caused a lot of bank runs in the old days. Instead of banning this practice, they backstopped it with a central bank, but the central bank price fixed interest rates, causing a crash in 29. Further temporary socialist measures turned it into a fifteen year depression, a nuclear explosion compared to the firecrackers of the original problem. Then the FDIC was created. This incentivized a lot of risk and borrowing, which has helped the current problem fester. See how the failure to correctly solve one problem has led to a cascade of "solutions" that create even more problems that beget even more solutions? That's socialism, my friends. It just builds and builds until eventual collapse.

I would say that another socialist mistake you are making is that law enforcement itself is a proper regulatory measure. Not when they're selective, they're not. There is plenty of legislation out there that legalizes something for one industry, but not the other. Banks can loan out money they don't have at interest. Any other industry, and you're thrown in jail for fraudulent lending practices.

LOLskers at your Microsoft argument, too. Who prevents Microsoft from churning out crap? Consumers, mayhaps? People were free to not adopt Windows ME or Vista, and that's exactly what happened, their sales were disappointing for both. Anyone investing in Microsoft don't like failures leading to lost earnings. But Microsoft is smart and continues to sell XP, which is a perfectly good OS even today. But if they currently get any tax credits or subsidies, they shouldn't. No company should have access to forcibly appropriated money, period.

I think the real scary thing about all this, besides the fact that you don't understand it, is that you seem to be implying that a government office operating on forcibly appropriated money is capable of greater efficiency than the private sector. Maybe it comes close for laying pavement and picking up garbage. But in the grander scheme, no. It wasn't the case with Chernobyl and it ain't today, buddy. You take a hell of lot of innovations and products for granted if you believe that.

Okay this is my interpretation of what he is saying:

No one listens to Austrian school economists.
Instead we look at the Keynesians to give us a solution even though they were the architects of the system that caused the problem.

The problem isn't an inherent problem within free market capitalism but rather it's a failing in the government oversight that is supposed to support the free market economy.

The problem isn't that we have a regulated system but that the current form of regulation isn't working effectively.

The answer isn't to create more regulation. The answer is to fix the broken regulation we already have.

Injecting more money now is inevitably going to lead to a devaluation in the dollar. Yes it's true that if we don't do this there are going to be tough times but if we do we are seriously risking a total collapse of an economy that affects the entire world.

It's prudent to re-look at the way we regulate the economy but if we inject too much cash into the system or look at other ways of increasing government interference in the economy today then the situation will become much worse tomorrow.

>> ^FishBulb:
Okay this is my interpretation of what he is saying:


Without defining what you think regulation is, I don't know how to respond. Government can't direct or stabilize transactions between millions of people and industry, that was sort of the problem to begin with. The interventions that have inadvertently perverted capitalistic incentive and self-regulation are too numerous to list. It's hard for the common man to understand how it happened, it was a chain reaction from trying to prevent banks from ever going bankrupt because this is perceived as bad for the economy (just this sector, I know, it's hilarious). Let me give an example. If you're a big bank and the central bank via the approval your government friends you helped get elected says it will bail you out if you lose your risky bets on real estate, what action are you likely to take that you otherwise wouldn't have taken? Now that you don't have to worry so much about bankruptcy, you go ahead and hedge billions of dollars of other people's money on subprime and junk bonds when Wall Street was rating them triple A. This yields such a high return, you can offer 5% yields on savings account. Even though people are skeptical of returns this high, they can't pass it up because the Federal Government insures deposits up to $100,000 to dissuade runs on the fractional reserve system. As more depositors choose this bank for the high yield, other banks are forced to do the same thing to compete or lose all their business to this bank. Yeah, you see where this is going.

Here's something else that led to an abandonment of lending standards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_reinvestment

Basically, in the name of social progress, a bored congress one day decided to pass a bill that forced banks to make loans to extremely low income people. Apparently, the government felt that banks were discriminating or something by having lending standards at all. You can't make this stuff up if you tried. This stuff has ALL of its roots in government backstops and interventions, not spontaneous evolution of man becoming more greedy.

But yes, they should certainly be enforcing laws against the infringement of rights (which derive from property) and providing courts. The constitution would be a good start. *ba-doom boom ching*

>> ^MINK:
lithuania has a fairly free market because it's fucking corrupt, and i can tell you it's not beneficial to the consumer. the lies they get away with in unregulated advertising are shocking. of course they do it, because they can and it works.
corruption is what humans do unless someone with a bigger gun tells them not to.

You are mixing up two systems: economic systems and political systems. Lies are fraud. Fraud is illegal. People who commit fraud go to jail. That is not the jurisdiction of the market (economics) it is the jurisdiction of law enforcement (government).

Imstellar, in your version of a free market, who would stop Microsoft dominating the place with shitty software? I think we need MORE regulation there, not less. How is it efficient for microsoft to keep churning out that crap? you are asking for everything to be a marketing, bribery and advertising contest.

I think BansheeX addressed this already. Monopolies are not inherently bad, they are only "bad" (from a consumer's standpoint) if they produce low quality products at high prices. I put "bad" in quotes because even this isn't "bad". Absent of regulation, consumers only trade when they feel they are gaining something. If they didn't think they were gaining anything from a buggy version of Windows, they wouldn't buy it. You miss the point about monopolies because you aren't considering the alternatives. Nobody has the right to buy a product, if nobody wants to produce it. You aren't entitled to bug-free, low cost software, nor are you entitled to software at all. What if Microsoft didn't even exist? What if people didn't even have the option of buying buggy high-priced software? How would that be better for the consumer? The mere existence of Microsoft and the option they provide improves the life of the consumer. And they exist because what it supply's is in demand. That fact does not change whether it is the only company, or 1 of 1000 companies.

The point is that Monopolies which don't satisfy their customers are never monopolies (or even alive) for long--again, just look what AMD did to Intel. Intel provided a window of opportunity where competition was profitable and someone took the risk and usurped them.

Though I in no way truly understand the specifics of what's going on with this current economic crisis, I do know this: That where in a bad place that's going to get worse before it gets better and has the potential to "crater".

WHAT really scares me is that this bailout, to borrow an early analogy, is a only a band aid, BUT is being presented as a definitive treatment to the general public. So that whenever this bill/bailout is passed, those involved will immediately cliam "LOOK at me and how I just saved the economy" and then have no Real plan to fix what's going on.

thanks for the replies guys.

>> ^chilaxe:
He's saying the financial crisis itself has nothing to do with free-market capitalism.
As I understand it, companies that were too big to be allowed to fail without ruining the economy engaged in activity that carried an unacceptable risk of failure.
Free-market capitalism isn't working if it's producing ruined economies, so it seems reasonable to say the free-market failed here.
(I say this as someone who's significantly libertarian.)



But Ron Pauls philosophy is not to bandaid problems. What he thinks it should be looked at is, not capitalism did fail, but i can fail, due to greed, and sheer laziness. Lets face it this all happens because the majority of americans, including many of those in positions of power are lazy! thats all it is.

I dunno, ron paul is 73, and healthy as fuck, john mccain is 72 and has had cancer a couple times... Not that i'm saying laziness causes cancer, but it probably doesn't help. But I can tell you one thing laziness causes, OTPS, Out of Touch People Syndrome, kinda like john mccain, just always peicing together whats seems to be at that very meeting what is going on and whos side he's on, he is intellectually lazy and border line alzheimers.

Ive said it before and I'll say it again, it's a set up, they set it up so obama will win, social neo-con capitalism for all. Hes the new face, the new face of the hand that feeds you. And this time his hand are empty, and hes hungry.

>> ^imstellar28:but can you guys help me create a list of specific problems you have?

"real" free markets depend on pre-existant non-opt-outable contracts, such as stipulations about currency, and fraud. A completely free market would not have currency, property(physical or intellectual),or contract, as these are all arbitrary constraints on market activity.

The "Free for me" sort of libertarian economy, to the point that anything like it has existed, has always historically expanded to wider regulation, because it is at its core based on arbitrary social contract which the powerful in the market attempt to, and due to lack of constraints do, modify according to their interests.

It's cheaper/easier to modify the social contract then to build a better product. The less regulation you have, the more true that is.

>> ^dgandhibut can you guys help me create a list of specific problems you have?
"real" free markets depend on pre-existant non-opt-outable contracts, such as stipulations about currency, and fraud. A completely free market would not have currency, property(physical or intellectual),or contract, as these are all arbitrary constraints on market activity.

^the printing of money, and contractual enforcement are roles of the government.

a market is trade between two people. thats it. nothing else. the only difference between a market and a free market is that coercion from third-parties is illegal.

you are having problems with the free market because you are trying to mix political and economic systems. if two people are trading, how are is their trade impeded or forced by a third party (the government) printing money? if two people enter a contract, and one person violates the terms that is fraud. as I said, fraud is illegal, and it is the role of the government to enforce laws.

republicans: here's your election write-in.

>> ^imstellar28:the only difference between a market and a free market is that coercion from third-parties is illegal.

Property = third party coercion. Q.E.D.

^dgandhi
Property = third party coercion. Q.E.D.


How can a statement be simultaneously an assertion and a proof? Coercion is a verb (a conscious action), property is a noun (a thing). How can a verb = a noun?

Interesting video, thanks for posting it.

For anyone who is unable to view the video or would just prefer to read the content in text form, we have created a transcript of the video here:

http://public.youtranscript.com/zs/38.html

Thanks, YouTranscript

WOW it took a while to get to the comment box. Clearly a lot of discussion.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by carneval.