Newspeak Alert!

[SDEngineer]

[quote=sdduuuude]I have no response to this.
I feel like Microsoft Excel that has just encountered a circular reference.[/quote]

I think my overall point was that a commodity based monetary system is no panacea to the economy.

It simply substitutes one set of problems for another.

No matter what, governments will always wind up controlling, to a certain extent, whatever currency method is created. Whether the government intervention and oversight is excercised wisely or not is what determines how well that economy will behave. In the recent past, it hasn’t been excercised wisely – it poured gas on the fire when it should have been trying to find the water hose instead.

[underdose]

[quote=underdose]I challenge you to paint a realistic scenario in which the housing bubble would have occurred with actual free markets, absent the Fed’s loose money, the FDIC, and Fanny and Freddie providing an artificial secondary market.[/quote]

[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
[/quote]

You failed to address my initial challenge. You merely deflected with a completely unrelated topic. That’s a cheap ploy and indicates you can not refute my points. Since you are effectively conceding that government regulation caused all our current woes, any attempts to condemn free markets for the sins of government intervention fall entirely flat.

Nevertheless, I will accept your counter challenge. There has never been a truly free market economy. It is an unattainable ideal. It requires strong limitations on the power of the government. The government, being made up of greedy, power hungry and often corrupt human beings, goes to great lengths to slander and undermine free markets. The false promise of socialism, “An all wise state will take care of everybody,” is very seductive. Too many people are not smart or informed enough to recognize the flaws in this promise (The state is not all wise but made of very fallible people. The state produces nothing and can not make good on the offer to provide without seizing by force from those who do produce. The offer to take care of while simultaneously forcibly taking from is a gross contradiction.) Those who buy into socialism are all too eager to abdicate power to the government. Therefore, so long as human nature is what it is, free markets are not attainable.

Should we abandon an ideal just because it is unattainable? Perfect health is unattainable. Should we just go kill ourselves then? Of course not. We strive to get as close to perfect health as we can. We push back against the constant onslaught of diseases. We should also push back against the constant attempts by government to usurp more power.

Even if free markets were attainable, would they work perfectly? Of course not. Nothing that involves people will ever work flawlessly. We have a spectacular knack of screwing things up. But knowing that, what’s the best we can achieve? What’s the least of all evils? What system would minimize the negative impact of people’s screw ups? A decentralized system fits that bill. A centralized power has unchecked ability to wreak unbounded destruction. Our founding fathers recognized that and devised a decentralized system of checks and balances. Is it flawless? Hell, it gave us 8 years of George W. Bush. But at least he left peacefully after 8 years instead of seizing power with an iron fist. Just because our system has its hiccups doesn’t mean we should abandon it in favor of totalitarianism.

There are no examples of free market economies. However, there are many examples of the alternatives, and they have yielded some horrible atrocities. The United Soviet Socialist Republic comes to mind, which gave us Stalin’s terror and eventually imploded in economic failure. This is not what we want! If we value freedom, we need to rediscover limitations on our government’s power. We should not hand them more rope with which to hang us.

[underdose]

[quote=underdose]I challenge you to paint a realistic scenario in which the housing bubble would have occurred with actual free markets, absent the Fed’s loose money, the FDIC, and Fanny and Freddie providing an artificial secondary market.[/quote]

[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
[/quote]

You failed to address my initial challenge. You merely deflected with a completely unrelated topic. That’s a cheap ploy and indicates you can not refute my points. Since you are effectively conceding that government regulation caused all our current woes, any attempts to condemn free markets for the sins of government intervention fall entirely flat.

Nevertheless, I will accept your counter challenge. There has never been a truly free market economy. It is an unattainable ideal. It requires strong limitations on the power of the government. The government, being made up of greedy, power hungry and often corrupt human beings, goes to great lengths to slander and undermine free markets. The false promise of socialism, “An all wise state will take care of everybody,” is very seductive. Too many people are not smart or informed enough to recognize the flaws in this promise (The state is not all wise but made of very fallible people. The state produces nothing and can not make good on the offer to provide without seizing by force from those who do produce. The offer to take care of while simultaneously forcibly taking from is a gross contradiction.) Those who buy into socialism are all too eager to abdicate power to the government. Therefore, so long as human nature is what it is, free markets are not attainable.

Should we abandon an ideal just because it is unattainable? Perfect health is unattainable. Should we just go kill ourselves then? Of course not. We strive to get as close to perfect health as we can. We push back against the constant onslaught of diseases. We should also push back against the constant attempts by government to usurp more power.

Even if free markets were attainable, would they work perfectly? Of course not. Nothing that involves people will ever work flawlessly. We have a spectacular knack of screwing things up. But knowing that, what’s the best we can achieve? What’s the least of all evils? What system would minimize the negative impact of people’s screw ups? A decentralized system fits that bill. A centralized power has unchecked ability to wreak unbounded destruction. Our founding fathers recognized that and devised a decentralized system of checks and balances. Is it flawless? Hell, it gave us 8 years of George W. Bush. But at least he left peacefully after 8 years instead of seizing power with an iron fist. Just because our system has its hiccups doesn’t mean we should abandon it in favor of totalitarianism.

There are no examples of free market economies. However, there are many examples of the alternatives, and they have yielded some horrible atrocities. The United Soviet Socialist Republic comes to mind, which gave us Stalin’s terror and eventually imploded in economic failure. This is not what we want! If we value freedom, we need to rediscover limitations on our government’s power. We should not hand them more rope with which to hang us.

[underdose]

[quote=underdose]I challenge you to paint a realistic scenario in which the housing bubble would have occurred with actual free markets, absent the Fed’s loose money, the FDIC, and Fanny and Freddie providing an artificial secondary market.[/quote]

[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
[/quote]

You failed to address my initial challenge. You merely deflected with a completely unrelated topic. That’s a cheap ploy and indicates you can not refute my points. Since you are effectively conceding that government regulation caused all our current woes, any attempts to condemn free markets for the sins of government intervention fall entirely flat.

Nevertheless, I will accept your counter challenge. There has never been a truly free market economy. It is an unattainable ideal. It requires strong limitations on the power of the government. The government, being made up of greedy, power hungry and often corrupt human beings, goes to great lengths to slander and undermine free markets. The false promise of socialism, “An all wise state will take care of everybody,” is very seductive. Too many people are not smart or informed enough to recognize the flaws in this promise (The state is not all wise but made of very fallible people. The state produces nothing and can not make good on the offer to provide without seizing by force from those who do produce. The offer to take care of while simultaneously forcibly taking from is a gross contradiction.) Those who buy into socialism are all too eager to abdicate power to the government. Therefore, so long as human nature is what it is, free markets are not attainable.

Should we abandon an ideal just because it is unattainable? Perfect health is unattainable. Should we just go kill ourselves then? Of course not. We strive to get as close to perfect health as we can. We push back against the constant onslaught of diseases. We should also push back against the constant attempts by government to usurp more power.

Even if free markets were attainable, would they work perfectly? Of course not. Nothing that involves people will ever work flawlessly. We have a spectacular knack of screwing things up. But knowing that, what’s the best we can achieve? What’s the least of all evils? What system would minimize the negative impact of people’s screw ups? A decentralized system fits that bill. A centralized power has unchecked ability to wreak unbounded destruction. Our founding fathers recognized that and devised a decentralized system of checks and balances. Is it flawless? Hell, it gave us 8 years of George W. Bush. But at least he left peacefully after 8 years instead of seizing power with an iron fist. Just because our system has its hiccups doesn’t mean we should abandon it in favor of totalitarianism.

There are no examples of free market economies. However, there are many examples of the alternatives, and they have yielded some horrible atrocities. The United Soviet Socialist Republic comes to mind, which gave us Stalin’s terror and eventually imploded in economic failure. This is not what we want! If we value freedom, we need to rediscover limitations on our government’s power. We should not hand them more rope with which to hang us.

[underdose]

[quote=underdose]I challenge you to paint a realistic scenario in which the housing bubble would have occurred with actual free markets, absent the Fed’s loose money, the FDIC, and Fanny and Freddie providing an artificial secondary market.[/quote]

[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
[/quote]

You failed to address my initial challenge. You merely deflected with a completely unrelated topic. That’s a cheap ploy and indicates you can not refute my points. Since you are effectively conceding that government regulation caused all our current woes, any attempts to condemn free markets for the sins of government intervention fall entirely flat.

Nevertheless, I will accept your counter challenge. There has never been a truly free market economy. It is an unattainable ideal. It requires strong limitations on the power of the government. The government, being made up of greedy, power hungry and often corrupt human beings, goes to great lengths to slander and undermine free markets. The false promise of socialism, “An all wise state will take care of everybody,” is very seductive. Too many people are not smart or informed enough to recognize the flaws in this promise (The state is not all wise but made of very fallible people. The state produces nothing and can not make good on the offer to provide without seizing by force from those who do produce. The offer to take care of while simultaneously forcibly taking from is a gross contradiction.) Those who buy into socialism are all too eager to abdicate power to the government. Therefore, so long as human nature is what it is, free markets are not attainable.

Should we abandon an ideal just because it is unattainable? Perfect health is unattainable. Should we just go kill ourselves then? Of course not. We strive to get as close to perfect health as we can. We push back against the constant onslaught of diseases. We should also push back against the constant attempts by government to usurp more power.

Even if free markets were attainable, would they work perfectly? Of course not. Nothing that involves people will ever work flawlessly. We have a spectacular knack of screwing things up. But knowing that, what’s the best we can achieve? What’s the least of all evils? What system would minimize the negative impact of people’s screw ups? A decentralized system fits that bill. A centralized power has unchecked ability to wreak unbounded destruction. Our founding fathers recognized that and devised a decentralized system of checks and balances. Is it flawless? Hell, it gave us 8 years of George W. Bush. But at least he left peacefully after 8 years instead of seizing power with an iron fist. Just because our system has its hiccups doesn’t mean we should abandon it in favor of totalitarianism.

There are no examples of free market economies. However, there are many examples of the alternatives, and they have yielded some horrible atrocities. The United Soviet Socialist Republic comes to mind, which gave us Stalin’s terror and eventually imploded in economic failure. This is not what we want! If we value freedom, we need to rediscover limitations on our government’s power. We should not hand them more rope with which to hang us.

[underdose]

[quote=underdose]I challenge you to paint a realistic scenario in which the housing bubble would have occurred with actual free markets, absent the Fed’s loose money, the FDIC, and Fanny and Freddie providing an artificial secondary market.[/quote]

[quote=urbanrealtor]I challenge you to paint a large world-ranked economy that functioned on true free-market practice and had a functional democratic state.
[/quote]

You failed to address my initial challenge. You merely deflected with a completely unrelated topic. That’s a cheap ploy and indicates you can not refute my points. Since you are effectively conceding that government regulation caused all our current woes, any attempts to condemn free markets for the sins of government intervention fall entirely flat.

Nevertheless, I will accept your counter challenge. There has never been a truly free market economy. It is an unattainable ideal. It requires strong limitations on the power of the government. The government, being made up of greedy, power hungry and often corrupt human beings, goes to great lengths to slander and undermine free markets. The false promise of socialism, “An all wise state will take care of everybody,” is very seductive. Too many people are not smart or informed enough to recognize the flaws in this promise (The state is not all wise but made of very fallible people. The state produces nothing and can not make good on the offer to provide without seizing by force from those who do produce. The offer to take care of while simultaneously forcibly taking from is a gross contradiction.) Those who buy into socialism are all too eager to abdicate power to the government. Therefore, so long as human nature is what it is, free markets are not attainable.

Should we abandon an ideal just because it is unattainable? Perfect health is unattainable. Should we just go kill ourselves then? Of course not. We strive to get as close to perfect health as we can. We push back against the constant onslaught of diseases. We should also push back against the constant attempts by government to usurp more power.

Even if free markets were attainable, would they work perfectly? Of course not. Nothing that involves people will ever work flawlessly. We have a spectacular knack of screwing things up. But knowing that, what’s the best we can achieve? What’s the least of all evils? What system would minimize the negative impact of people’s screw ups? A decentralized system fits that bill. A centralized power has unchecked ability to wreak unbounded destruction. Our founding fathers recognized that and devised a decentralized system of checks and balances. Is it flawless? Hell, it gave us 8 years of George W. Bush. But at least he left peacefully after 8 years instead of seizing power with an iron fist. Just because our system has its hiccups doesn’t mean we should abandon it in favor of totalitarianism.

There are no examples of free market economies. However, there are many examples of the alternatives, and they have yielded some horrible atrocities. The United Soviet Socialist Republic comes to mind, which gave us Stalin’s terror and eventually imploded in economic failure. This is not what we want! If we value freedom, we need to rediscover limitations on our government’s power. We should not hand them more rope with which to hang us.

[underdose]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Pure market economies do involve regulation. Regulation has to exist to ensure that fradulent participants are punished, and contractual agreements are being honored. That’s where most people get it wrong. People think a free market is where everyone is free to do what they want and that the participants are required to be perfect citizens. This is dead wrong.

A free market requires that it’s participants are free from others infringing upon their rights, and to do this, transactional rules and regulations are needed.

For example, on critical element of a free market is that of property rights. Property rights must be upheld, and violations of property rights (theft) must be punshed for a free market to remain free. This can be considered a kind of regulation, yet it is a critical part of the free market.[/quote]

Okay, my last sequential post. A lot was said since I was on last night, so there was a lot to respond to…

sdduuuude, you are my hero for making this point. I make the same distinction. The term “regulation” is overloaded. We should be more precise and say whether we are referring to “rule of law” or “market manipulation”. I favor “rule of law” regulation (and incidentally, the inaccurately much-reviled-as-an-anarchist Ayn Rand did too. She said that is exactly what government’s role should be, protecting private property rights.) But market manipulation regulation is at direct odds with rule of law regulation because it allows (encourages) the government to violate private property rights instead of protecting them.

[underdose]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Pure market economies do involve regulation. Regulation has to exist to ensure that fradulent participants are punished, and contractual agreements are being honored. That’s where most people get it wrong. People think a free market is where everyone is free to do what they want and that the participants are required to be perfect citizens. This is dead wrong.

A free market requires that it’s participants are free from others infringing upon their rights, and to do this, transactional rules and regulations are needed.

For example, on critical element of a free market is that of property rights. Property rights must be upheld, and violations of property rights (theft) must be punshed for a free market to remain free. This can be considered a kind of regulation, yet it is a critical part of the free market.[/quote]

Okay, my last sequential post. A lot was said since I was on last night, so there was a lot to respond to…

sdduuuude, you are my hero for making this point. I make the same distinction. The term “regulation” is overloaded. We should be more precise and say whether we are referring to “rule of law” or “market manipulation”. I favor “rule of law” regulation (and incidentally, the inaccurately much-reviled-as-an-anarchist Ayn Rand did too. She said that is exactly what government’s role should be, protecting private property rights.) But market manipulation regulation is at direct odds with rule of law regulation because it allows (encourages) the government to violate private property rights instead of protecting them.

[underdose]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Pure market economies do involve regulation. Regulation has to exist to ensure that fradulent participants are punished, and contractual agreements are being honored. That’s where most people get it wrong. People think a free market is where everyone is free to do what they want and that the participants are required to be perfect citizens. This is dead wrong.

A free market requires that it’s participants are free from others infringing upon their rights, and to do this, transactional rules and regulations are needed.

For example, on critical element of a free market is that of property rights. Property rights must be upheld, and violations of property rights (theft) must be punshed for a free market to remain free. This can be considered a kind of regulation, yet it is a critical part of the free market.[/quote]

Okay, my last sequential post. A lot was said since I was on last night, so there was a lot to respond to…

sdduuuude, you are my hero for making this point. I make the same distinction. The term “regulation” is overloaded. We should be more precise and say whether we are referring to “rule of law” or “market manipulation”. I favor “rule of law” regulation (and incidentally, the inaccurately much-reviled-as-an-anarchist Ayn Rand did too. She said that is exactly what government’s role should be, protecting private property rights.) But market manipulation regulation is at direct odds with rule of law regulation because it allows (encourages) the government to violate private property rights instead of protecting them.

[underdose]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Pure market economies do involve regulation. Regulation has to exist to ensure that fradulent participants are punished, and contractual agreements are being honored. That’s where most people get it wrong. People think a free market is where everyone is free to do what they want and that the participants are required to be perfect citizens. This is dead wrong.

A free market requires that it’s participants are free from others infringing upon their rights, and to do this, transactional rules and regulations are needed.

For example, on critical element of a free market is that of property rights. Property rights must be upheld, and violations of property rights (theft) must be punshed for a free market to remain free. This can be considered a kind of regulation, yet it is a critical part of the free market.[/quote]

Okay, my last sequential post. A lot was said since I was on last night, so there was a lot to respond to…

sdduuuude, you are my hero for making this point. I make the same distinction. The term “regulation” is overloaded. We should be more precise and say whether we are referring to “rule of law” or “market manipulation”. I favor “rule of law” regulation (and incidentally, the inaccurately much-reviled-as-an-anarchist Ayn Rand did too. She said that is exactly what government’s role should be, protecting private property rights.) But market manipulation regulation is at direct odds with rule of law regulation because it allows (encourages) the government to violate private property rights instead of protecting them.

[underdose]

[quote=sdduuuude]
Pure market economies do involve regulation. Regulation has to exist to ensure that fradulent participants are punished, and contractual agreements are being honored. That’s where most people get it wrong. People think a free market is where everyone is free to do what they want and that the participants are required to be perfect citizens. This is dead wrong.

A free market requires that it’s participants are free from others infringing upon their rights, and to do this, transactional rules and regulations are needed.

For example, on critical element of a free market is that of property rights. Property rights must be upheld, and violations of property rights (theft) must be punshed for a free market to remain free. This can be considered a kind of regulation, yet it is a critical part of the free market.[/quote]

Okay, my last sequential post. A lot was said since I was on last night, so there was a lot to respond to…

sdduuuude, you are my hero for making this point. I make the same distinction. The term “regulation” is overloaded. We should be more precise and say whether we are referring to “rule of law” or “market manipulation”. I favor “rule of law” regulation (and incidentally, the inaccurately much-reviled-as-an-anarchist Ayn Rand did too. She said that is exactly what government’s role should be, protecting private property rights.) But market manipulation regulation is at direct odds with rule of law regulation because it allows (encourages) the government to violate private property rights instead of protecting them.

[underdose]

[quote=SDEngineer]

I agree with you that Greenspan (and the Fed in general) should NEVER have held that much power over currency, and the Fed should have remembered that one purpose behind regulation is to regulate not only the downside of the economy, but the upside as well, so that bubbles don’t form as easily, or grow as large.
[/quote]

This goes back to my original question, who is regulating the regulators? If anyone is “deregulated”, it’s the Fed. But the markets aren’t deregulated, not so long as the Fed exists, because the Fed is doing the regulating. The Fed may be doing it very poorly and inconsistently, but they are still regulating in the sense of trying to manipulate the economy. Any call for more regulation is simply a call for some agency, if not the Fed then someone similar, having even more power than the “too much” that Greenspan already had. That’s a pretty big contradiction.

Incidentally, the Fed was established in 1913. The Fed’s role in the stock market bubble of the 1920’s is well documented. The recurrent claims above that the free markets are to blame for the Great Depression are patently false.

[underdose]

[quote=SDEngineer]

I agree with you that Greenspan (and the Fed in general) should NEVER have held that much power over currency, and the Fed should have remembered that one purpose behind regulation is to regulate not only the downside of the economy, but the upside as well, so that bubbles don’t form as easily, or grow as large.
[/quote]

This goes back to my original question, who is regulating the regulators? If anyone is “deregulated”, it’s the Fed. But the markets aren’t deregulated, not so long as the Fed exists, because the Fed is doing the regulating. The Fed may be doing it very poorly and inconsistently, but they are still regulating in the sense of trying to manipulate the economy. Any call for more regulation is simply a call for some agency, if not the Fed then someone similar, having even more power than the “too much” that Greenspan already had. That’s a pretty big contradiction.

Incidentally, the Fed was established in 1913. The Fed’s role in the stock market bubble of the 1920’s is well documented. The recurrent claims above that the free markets are to blame for the Great Depression are patently false.

[underdose]

[quote=SDEngineer]

I agree with you that Greenspan (and the Fed in general) should NEVER have held that much power over currency, and the Fed should have remembered that one purpose behind regulation is to regulate not only the downside of the economy, but the upside as well, so that bubbles don’t form as easily, or grow as large.
[/quote]

This goes back to my original question, who is regulating the regulators? If anyone is “deregulated”, it’s the Fed. But the markets aren’t deregulated, not so long as the Fed exists, because the Fed is doing the regulating. The Fed may be doing it very poorly and inconsistently, but they are still regulating in the sense of trying to manipulate the economy. Any call for more regulation is simply a call for some agency, if not the Fed then someone similar, having even more power than the “too much” that Greenspan already had. That’s a pretty big contradiction.

Incidentally, the Fed was established in 1913. The Fed’s role in the stock market bubble of the 1920’s is well documented. The recurrent claims above that the free markets are to blame for the Great Depression are patently false.

[underdose]

[quote=SDEngineer]

I agree with you that Greenspan (and the Fed in general) should NEVER have held that much power over currency, and the Fed should have remembered that one purpose behind regulation is to regulate not only the downside of the economy, but the upside as well, so that bubbles don’t form as easily, or grow as large.
[/quote]

This goes back to my original question, who is regulating the regulators? If anyone is “deregulated”, it’s the Fed. But the markets aren’t deregulated, not so long as the Fed exists, because the Fed is doing the regulating. The Fed may be doing it very poorly and inconsistently, but they are still regulating in the sense of trying to manipulate the economy. Any call for more regulation is simply a call for some agency, if not the Fed then someone similar, having even more power than the “too much” that Greenspan already had. That’s a pretty big contradiction.

Incidentally, the Fed was established in 1913. The Fed’s role in the stock market bubble of the 1920’s is well documented. The recurrent claims above that the free markets are to blame for the Great Depression are patently false.

[Author]

Posts