Newspeak Alert!

[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.

[Noob]

Someone a lot smarter than me made a point regarding regulation that makes sense to me. The economy is clearly and has clearly been regulated–just look at all the sox requirments in place now. Its a joke to think that we have had anything near a “free market”. The current economic problems were not caused by a free market, but by a mis-regulated market. More regulation is not the fix. Why should we trust the same government that mis-regulated the market in the first place to get it right this time around?

[Noob]

Someone a lot smarter than me made a point regarding regulation that makes sense to me. The economy is clearly and has clearly been regulated–just look at all the sox requirments in place now. Its a joke to think that we have had anything near a “free market”. The current economic problems were not caused by a free market, but by a mis-regulated market. More regulation is not the fix. Why should we trust the same government that mis-regulated the market in the first place to get it right this time around?

[Noob]

Someone a lot smarter than me made a point regarding regulation that makes sense to me. The economy is clearly and has clearly been regulated–just look at all the sox requirments in place now. Its a joke to think that we have had anything near a “free market”. The current economic problems were not caused by a free market, but by a mis-regulated market. More regulation is not the fix. Why should we trust the same government that mis-regulated the market in the first place to get it right this time around?

[Noob]

Someone a lot smarter than me made a point regarding regulation that makes sense to me. The economy is clearly and has clearly been regulated–just look at all the sox requirments in place now. Its a joke to think that we have had anything near a “free market”. The current economic problems were not caused by a free market, but by a mis-regulated market. More regulation is not the fix. Why should we trust the same government that mis-regulated the market in the first place to get it right this time around?

[Noob]

Someone a lot smarter than me made a point regarding regulation that makes sense to me. The economy is clearly and has clearly been regulated–just look at all the sox requirments in place now. Its a joke to think that we have had anything near a “free market”. The current economic problems were not caused by a free market, but by a mis-regulated market. More regulation is not the fix. Why should we trust the same government that mis-regulated the market in the first place to get it right this time around?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.

It’s not a surprise that communism, fascism and totalitarian states choose socialism as their ultimate goal. Obviously, none of them (Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia) succeeded and, in point of fact, they exploded or imploded massively. What is unstated in this desire (the socialist state) is that the state wishes to accrue as much power unto itself as possible (as evidenced by Benito Mussolini’s remark when his chauffeured car hit and killed a little girl: “What is one small child in the Will of The State?”) and keep that power.

The Soviet state quickly co-opted the principles of Marx and abandoned all promises of elections, right of franchise and civic involvement and became the ruthless machine that not only gave us “Papa” Joe Stalin, but Lavrenti Beria and the NKVD (later the KGB).

Mussolini’s adherence to the “Futurist” movement (it promised a Utopian future where all enjoyed equal rights) was also junked in favor of totalitarianism (a term he coined) and an all-knowing, all-controlling State.

Free market capitalism, even in it’s somewhat imperfect form, is far better than the other alternatives. Even the mild mannered Socialism of modern Sweden or Mitterand’s France is still an abysmal failure, as evidenced by the economic situation in France right now and the continued deterioration of the EU and the ECB. The U.S. might be in dire straits, but I guarantee the dynamism of the American economy and the self-righting mechanisms it contains will carry us through and do so in far better fashion than the Europeans. That might sound Pollyanna, but it’s a huge improvement over letting Helicopter Ben and his minions dictate policy and run the printing presses until they completely debase and devalue the currency.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.

It’s not a surprise that communism, fascism and totalitarian states choose socialism as their ultimate goal. Obviously, none of them (Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia) succeeded and, in point of fact, they exploded or imploded massively. What is unstated in this desire (the socialist state) is that the state wishes to accrue as much power unto itself as possible (as evidenced by Benito Mussolini’s remark when his chauffeured car hit and killed a little girl: “What is one small child in the Will of The State?”) and keep that power.

The Soviet state quickly co-opted the principles of Marx and abandoned all promises of elections, right of franchise and civic involvement and became the ruthless machine that not only gave us “Papa” Joe Stalin, but Lavrenti Beria and the NKVD (later the KGB).

Mussolini’s adherence to the “Futurist” movement (it promised a Utopian future where all enjoyed equal rights) was also junked in favor of totalitarianism (a term he coined) and an all-knowing, all-controlling State.

Free market capitalism, even in it’s somewhat imperfect form, is far better than the other alternatives. Even the mild mannered Socialism of modern Sweden or Mitterand’s France is still an abysmal failure, as evidenced by the economic situation in France right now and the continued deterioration of the EU and the ECB. The U.S. might be in dire straits, but I guarantee the dynamism of the American economy and the self-righting mechanisms it contains will carry us through and do so in far better fashion than the Europeans. That might sound Pollyanna, but it’s a huge improvement over letting Helicopter Ben and his minions dictate policy and run the printing presses until they completely debase and devalue the currency.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.

It’s not a surprise that communism, fascism and totalitarian states choose socialism as their ultimate goal. Obviously, none of them (Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia) succeeded and, in point of fact, they exploded or imploded massively. What is unstated in this desire (the socialist state) is that the state wishes to accrue as much power unto itself as possible (as evidenced by Benito Mussolini’s remark when his chauffeured car hit and killed a little girl: “What is one small child in the Will of The State?”) and keep that power.

The Soviet state quickly co-opted the principles of Marx and abandoned all promises of elections, right of franchise and civic involvement and became the ruthless machine that not only gave us “Papa” Joe Stalin, but Lavrenti Beria and the NKVD (later the KGB).

Mussolini’s adherence to the “Futurist” movement (it promised a Utopian future where all enjoyed equal rights) was also junked in favor of totalitarianism (a term he coined) and an all-knowing, all-controlling State.

Free market capitalism, even in it’s somewhat imperfect form, is far better than the other alternatives. Even the mild mannered Socialism of modern Sweden or Mitterand’s France is still an abysmal failure, as evidenced by the economic situation in France right now and the continued deterioration of the EU and the ECB. The U.S. might be in dire straits, but I guarantee the dynamism of the American economy and the self-righting mechanisms it contains will carry us through and do so in far better fashion than the Europeans. That might sound Pollyanna, but it’s a huge improvement over letting Helicopter Ben and his minions dictate policy and run the printing presses until they completely debase and devalue the currency.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.

It’s not a surprise that communism, fascism and totalitarian states choose socialism as their ultimate goal. Obviously, none of them (Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia) succeeded and, in point of fact, they exploded or imploded massively. What is unstated in this desire (the socialist state) is that the state wishes to accrue as much power unto itself as possible (as evidenced by Benito Mussolini’s remark when his chauffeured car hit and killed a little girl: “What is one small child in the Will of The State?”) and keep that power.

The Soviet state quickly co-opted the principles of Marx and abandoned all promises of elections, right of franchise and civic involvement and became the ruthless machine that not only gave us “Papa” Joe Stalin, but Lavrenti Beria and the NKVD (later the KGB).

Mussolini’s adherence to the “Futurist” movement (it promised a Utopian future where all enjoyed equal rights) was also junked in favor of totalitarianism (a term he coined) and an all-knowing, all-controlling State.

Free market capitalism, even in it’s somewhat imperfect form, is far better than the other alternatives. Even the mild mannered Socialism of modern Sweden or Mitterand’s France is still an abysmal failure, as evidenced by the economic situation in France right now and the continued deterioration of the EU and the ECB. The U.S. might be in dire straits, but I guarantee the dynamism of the American economy and the self-righting mechanisms it contains will carry us through and do so in far better fashion than the Europeans. That might sound Pollyanna, but it’s a huge improvement over letting Helicopter Ben and his minions dictate policy and run the printing presses until they completely debase and devalue the currency.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Underdose: A series of excellent posts, thank you.

It’s not a surprise that communism, fascism and totalitarian states choose socialism as their ultimate goal. Obviously, none of them (Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia) succeeded and, in point of fact, they exploded or imploded massively. What is unstated in this desire (the socialist state) is that the state wishes to accrue as much power unto itself as possible (as evidenced by Benito Mussolini’s remark when his chauffeured car hit and killed a little girl: “What is one small child in the Will of The State?”) and keep that power.

The Soviet state quickly co-opted the principles of Marx and abandoned all promises of elections, right of franchise and civic involvement and became the ruthless machine that not only gave us “Papa” Joe Stalin, but Lavrenti Beria and the NKVD (later the KGB).

Mussolini’s adherence to the “Futurist” movement (it promised a Utopian future where all enjoyed equal rights) was also junked in favor of totalitarianism (a term he coined) and an all-knowing, all-controlling State.

Free market capitalism, even in it’s somewhat imperfect form, is far better than the other alternatives. Even the mild mannered Socialism of modern Sweden or Mitterand’s France is still an abysmal failure, as evidenced by the economic situation in France right now and the continued deterioration of the EU and the ECB. The U.S. might be in dire straits, but I guarantee the dynamism of the American economy and the self-righting mechanisms it contains will carry us through and do so in far better fashion than the Europeans. That might sound Pollyanna, but it’s a huge improvement over letting Helicopter Ben and his minions dictate policy and run the printing presses until they completely debase and devalue the currency.

[Arraya]

Money is essentially an abstraction and not constrained by the laws within which material and energy systems must operate. In fact money grows exponentially by the rule of compound interest. Growth based models in finite spaces will fail by definition. They will become canabilistic and unstable before collapse.

A monetary system based on infitite debt growth is not rational. Not even in the ball park.

The invisible hand is a silly superstition on par with santa clause.

Gold is a human abstraction just as fiat, it requiries faith to work. Natural resources do not. Anything in reality would be better than what we use. The rest of the world is already planning on it.

The relationship between prices and natural resources is nonlinear. In other words, the market does not reflect long-term declines in natural resources such as oil. The market is like the float in a carburetor: as the engine demands more gas, the float falls and allows more gas to flow in from the tank. But the float has no information concerning the amount of gas left in the tank until the fuel line is unable to keep up with demand.

The members of the American economics profession performed a vital practical role in maintaining this unique system of corporate socialism American style. It was their role to prevent the American public from achieving a correct understanding of the actual workings of the American economic system. Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of ‘laissez faire religion, based on a conception of a society composed of competing individuals.’ However false as a description of the actual U.S. economy, this vision in the mind of the American public was in practice ‘transferred automatically to industrial organizations with nation-wide power and dictatorial forms of government.’ Even though the arguments of economists were misleading and largely fictional, the practical — and beneficial — result of their deception was to throw a ‘mantle of protection … over corporate government’ from various forms of outside interference. Admittedly, as the economic ‘symbolism got farther and farther from reality, it required more and more ceremony to keep it up.’ But as long as this arrangement worked and there could be maintained ‘the little pictures in the back of the head of the ordinary man,’ the effect was salutary — ‘the great [corporate] organization was secure in its freedom and independence.’

Bernake should just break out a ouija board and wear a red robe. Economic dogma meet thermodynamics.

[Arraya]

Money is essentially an abstraction and not constrained by the laws within which material and energy systems must operate. In fact money grows exponentially by the rule of compound interest. Growth based models in finite spaces will fail by definition. They will become canabilistic and unstable before collapse.

A monetary system based on infitite debt growth is not rational. Not even in the ball park.

The invisible hand is a silly superstition on par with santa clause.

Gold is a human abstraction just as fiat, it requiries faith to work. Natural resources do not. Anything in reality would be better than what we use. The rest of the world is already planning on it.

The relationship between prices and natural resources is nonlinear. In other words, the market does not reflect long-term declines in natural resources such as oil. The market is like the float in a carburetor: as the engine demands more gas, the float falls and allows more gas to flow in from the tank. But the float has no information concerning the amount of gas left in the tank until the fuel line is unable to keep up with demand.

The members of the American economics profession performed a vital practical role in maintaining this unique system of corporate socialism American style. It was their role to prevent the American public from achieving a correct understanding of the actual workings of the American economic system. Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of ‘laissez faire religion, based on a conception of a society composed of competing individuals.’ However false as a description of the actual U.S. economy, this vision in the mind of the American public was in practice ‘transferred automatically to industrial organizations with nation-wide power and dictatorial forms of government.’ Even though the arguments of economists were misleading and largely fictional, the practical — and beneficial — result of their deception was to throw a ‘mantle of protection … over corporate government’ from various forms of outside interference. Admittedly, as the economic ‘symbolism got farther and farther from reality, it required more and more ceremony to keep it up.’ But as long as this arrangement worked and there could be maintained ‘the little pictures in the back of the head of the ordinary man,’ the effect was salutary — ‘the great [corporate] organization was secure in its freedom and independence.’

Bernake should just break out a ouija board and wear a red robe. Economic dogma meet thermodynamics.

[Arraya]

Money is essentially an abstraction and not constrained by the laws within which material and energy systems must operate. In fact money grows exponentially by the rule of compound interest. Growth based models in finite spaces will fail by definition. They will become canabilistic and unstable before collapse.

A monetary system based on infitite debt growth is not rational. Not even in the ball park.

The invisible hand is a silly superstition on par with santa clause.

Gold is a human abstraction just as fiat, it requiries faith to work. Natural resources do not. Anything in reality would be better than what we use. The rest of the world is already planning on it.

The relationship between prices and natural resources is nonlinear. In other words, the market does not reflect long-term declines in natural resources such as oil. The market is like the float in a carburetor: as the engine demands more gas, the float falls and allows more gas to flow in from the tank. But the float has no information concerning the amount of gas left in the tank until the fuel line is unable to keep up with demand.

The members of the American economics profession performed a vital practical role in maintaining this unique system of corporate socialism American style. It was their role to prevent the American public from achieving a correct understanding of the actual workings of the American economic system. Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of ‘laissez faire religion, based on a conception of a society composed of competing individuals.’ However false as a description of the actual U.S. economy, this vision in the mind of the American public was in practice ‘transferred automatically to industrial organizations with nation-wide power and dictatorial forms of government.’ Even though the arguments of economists were misleading and largely fictional, the practical — and beneficial — result of their deception was to throw a ‘mantle of protection … over corporate government’ from various forms of outside interference. Admittedly, as the economic ‘symbolism got farther and farther from reality, it required more and more ceremony to keep it up.’ But as long as this arrangement worked and there could be maintained ‘the little pictures in the back of the head of the ordinary man,’ the effect was salutary — ‘the great [corporate] organization was secure in its freedom and independence.’

Bernake should just break out a ouija board and wear a red robe. Economic dogma meet thermodynamics.

[Arraya]

Money is essentially an abstraction and not constrained by the laws within which material and energy systems must operate. In fact money grows exponentially by the rule of compound interest. Growth based models in finite spaces will fail by definition. They will become canabilistic and unstable before collapse.

A monetary system based on infitite debt growth is not rational. Not even in the ball park.

The invisible hand is a silly superstition on par with santa clause.

Gold is a human abstraction just as fiat, it requiries faith to work. Natural resources do not. Anything in reality would be better than what we use. The rest of the world is already planning on it.

The relationship between prices and natural resources is nonlinear. In other words, the market does not reflect long-term declines in natural resources such as oil. The market is like the float in a carburetor: as the engine demands more gas, the float falls and allows more gas to flow in from the tank. But the float has no information concerning the amount of gas left in the tank until the fuel line is unable to keep up with demand.

The members of the American economics profession performed a vital practical role in maintaining this unique system of corporate socialism American style. It was their role to prevent the American public from achieving a correct understanding of the actual workings of the American economic system. Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of ‘laissez faire religion, based on a conception of a society composed of competing individuals.’ However false as a description of the actual U.S. economy, this vision in the mind of the American public was in practice ‘transferred automatically to industrial organizations with nation-wide power and dictatorial forms of government.’ Even though the arguments of economists were misleading and largely fictional, the practical — and beneficial — result of their deception was to throw a ‘mantle of protection … over corporate government’ from various forms of outside interference. Admittedly, as the economic ‘symbolism got farther and farther from reality, it required more and more ceremony to keep it up.’ But as long as this arrangement worked and there could be maintained ‘the little pictures in the back of the head of the ordinary man,’ the effect was salutary — ‘the great [corporate] organization was secure in its freedom and independence.’

Bernake should just break out a ouija board and wear a red robe. Economic dogma meet thermodynamics.

[Author]

Posts