Newspeak Alert!

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=bubble_contagion]How about making sure that Government will not interfere or influence the market economy, house prices in particular.[/quote]

Pure market economies are overrated anyway. Without regulation, markets overreact in both directions. We’re currently reaping the rewards of what a highly unregulated market does when the drivers are not rational actors, but real human beings who have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted.[/quote]

Sort of an engineer’s version of Hegel.

Well put.

[underdose]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=bubble_contagion]How about making sure that Government will not interfere or influence the market economy, house prices in particular.[/quote]

Pure market economies are overrated anyway. Without regulation, markets overreact in both directions. We’re currently reaping the rewards of what a highly unregulated market does when the drivers are not rational actors, but real human beings who have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted.[/quote]

Yeah, you’re right. Real human beings have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted and incompetent. Don’t forget corrupt. That’s why we need an all powerful government regulating everything. Because the government is not made up of real human beings. That are greedy. Or shortsighted. Or incompetent. Or corrupt. Oh crap! Kind of begs the question, who will regulate the regulators?

I strongly disagree with you, SDEngineer. Free markets are grossly underrated. All of the failings of the market lately have been caused by government distortions but inaccurately blamed on free markets because the Republicans have misapplied the term. 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. It simply couldn’t happen. Loanable funds would have dried up, interest rates would have shot up because of the shortage, and it would have been more lucrative to save and deposit in the bank than to speculate on houses. But that didn’t happen because the government intervened and tried to regulate the markets with low interest rates and stimulus packages.

America is founded on the principle that the rights of the individual are sacred and a strong centralized government is a threat to those rights. Democracy is part of that de-centralization of power. We don’t want to give up our vote, do we? The free market is another part of that de-centralization. It’s truly heartbreaking how few Americans grasp that and how many want to throw that right away in favor of a stronger centralized nation-state.

[underdose]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=bubble_contagion]How about making sure that Government will not interfere or influence the market economy, house prices in particular.[/quote]

Pure market economies are overrated anyway. Without regulation, markets overreact in both directions. We’re currently reaping the rewards of what a highly unregulated market does when the drivers are not rational actors, but real human beings who have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted.[/quote]

Yeah, you’re right. Real human beings have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted and incompetent. Don’t forget corrupt. That’s why we need an all powerful government regulating everything. Because the government is not made up of real human beings. That are greedy. Or shortsighted. Or incompetent. Or corrupt. Oh crap! Kind of begs the question, who will regulate the regulators?

I strongly disagree with you, SDEngineer. Free markets are grossly underrated. All of the failings of the market lately have been caused by government distortions but inaccurately blamed on free markets because the Republicans have misapplied the term. 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. It simply couldn’t happen. Loanable funds would have dried up, interest rates would have shot up because of the shortage, and it would have been more lucrative to save and deposit in the bank than to speculate on houses. But that didn’t happen because the government intervened and tried to regulate the markets with low interest rates and stimulus packages.

America is founded on the principle that the rights of the individual are sacred and a strong centralized government is a threat to those rights. Democracy is part of that de-centralization of power. We don’t want to give up our vote, do we? The free market is another part of that de-centralization. It’s truly heartbreaking how few Americans grasp that and how many want to throw that right away in favor of a stronger centralized nation-state.

[underdose]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=bubble_contagion]How about making sure that Government will not interfere or influence the market economy, house prices in particular.[/quote]

Pure market economies are overrated anyway. Without regulation, markets overreact in both directions. We’re currently reaping the rewards of what a highly unregulated market does when the drivers are not rational actors, but real human beings who have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted.[/quote]

Yeah, you’re right. Real human beings have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted and incompetent. Don’t forget corrupt. That’s why we need an all powerful government regulating everything. Because the government is not made up of real human beings. That are greedy. Or shortsighted. Or incompetent. Or corrupt. Oh crap! Kind of begs the question, who will regulate the regulators?

I strongly disagree with you, SDEngineer. Free markets are grossly underrated. All of the failings of the market lately have been caused by government distortions but inaccurately blamed on free markets because the Republicans have misapplied the term. 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. It simply couldn’t happen. Loanable funds would have dried up, interest rates would have shot up because of the shortage, and it would have been more lucrative to save and deposit in the bank than to speculate on houses. But that didn’t happen because the government intervened and tried to regulate the markets with low interest rates and stimulus packages.

America is founded on the principle that the rights of the individual are sacred and a strong centralized government is a threat to those rights. Democracy is part of that de-centralization of power. We don’t want to give up our vote, do we? The free market is another part of that de-centralization. It’s truly heartbreaking how few Americans grasp that and how many want to throw that right away in favor of a stronger centralized nation-state.

[underdose]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=bubble_contagion]How about making sure that Government will not interfere or influence the market economy, house prices in particular.[/quote]

Pure market economies are overrated anyway. Without regulation, markets overreact in both directions. We’re currently reaping the rewards of what a highly unregulated market does when the drivers are not rational actors, but real human beings who have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted.[/quote]

Yeah, you’re right. Real human beings have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted and incompetent. Don’t forget corrupt. That’s why we need an all powerful government regulating everything. Because the government is not made up of real human beings. That are greedy. Or shortsighted. Or incompetent. Or corrupt. Oh crap! Kind of begs the question, who will regulate the regulators?

I strongly disagree with you, SDEngineer. Free markets are grossly underrated. All of the failings of the market lately have been caused by government distortions but inaccurately blamed on free markets because the Republicans have misapplied the term. 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. It simply couldn’t happen. Loanable funds would have dried up, interest rates would have shot up because of the shortage, and it would have been more lucrative to save and deposit in the bank than to speculate on houses. But that didn’t happen because the government intervened and tried to regulate the markets with low interest rates and stimulus packages.

America is founded on the principle that the rights of the individual are sacred and a strong centralized government is a threat to those rights. Democracy is part of that de-centralization of power. We don’t want to give up our vote, do we? The free market is another part of that de-centralization. It’s truly heartbreaking how few Americans grasp that and how many want to throw that right away in favor of a stronger centralized nation-state.

[underdose]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=bubble_contagion]How about making sure that Government will not interfere or influence the market economy, house prices in particular.[/quote]

Pure market economies are overrated anyway. Without regulation, markets overreact in both directions. We’re currently reaping the rewards of what a highly unregulated market does when the drivers are not rational actors, but real human beings who have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted.[/quote]

Yeah, you’re right. Real human beings have a tendency to be greedy and shortsighted and incompetent. Don’t forget corrupt. That’s why we need an all powerful government regulating everything. Because the government is not made up of real human beings. That are greedy. Or shortsighted. Or incompetent. Or corrupt. Oh crap! Kind of begs the question, who will regulate the regulators?

I strongly disagree with you, SDEngineer. Free markets are grossly underrated. All of the failings of the market lately have been caused by government distortions but inaccurately blamed on free markets because the Republicans have misapplied the term. 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. It simply couldn’t happen. Loanable funds would have dried up, interest rates would have shot up because of the shortage, and it would have been more lucrative to save and deposit in the bank than to speculate on houses. But that didn’t happen because the government intervened and tried to regulate the markets with low interest rates and stimulus packages.

America is founded on the principle that the rights of the individual are sacred and a strong centralized government is a threat to those rights. Democracy is part of that de-centralization of power. We don’t want to give up our vote, do we? The free market is another part of that de-centralization. It’s truly heartbreaking how few Americans grasp that and how many want to throw that right away in favor of a stronger centralized nation-state.

[urbanrealtor]

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

Ever.

In history.

Even once.

No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.

For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.

I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.

If you can find one I am willing to listen.

Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.

Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul.

[urbanrealtor]

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

Ever.

In history.

Even once.

No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.

For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.

I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.

If you can find one I am willing to listen.

Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.

Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul.

[urbanrealtor]

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

Ever.

In history.

Even once.

No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.

For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.

I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.

If you can find one I am willing to listen.

Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.

Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul.

[urbanrealtor]

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

Ever.

In history.

Even once.

No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.

For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.

I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.

If you can find one I am willing to listen.

Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.

Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul.

[urbanrealtor]

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

Ever.

In history.

Even once.

No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.

For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.

I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.

If you can find one I am willing to listen.

Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.

Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul.

[SDEngineer]

[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.

Ever.

In history.

Even once.

No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.

For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.

I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.

If you can find one I am willing to listen.

Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.

Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul. [/quote]

Well put, but we do have examples of very close to true free market economics (at least within the nation itself) close at hand.

The U.S. during the mid 1800’s, when laissez faire capitalism was the rule (internally anyway – externally, the US government was protectionist, as was typical for the time).

Extreme wealth polarization with a tiny class of industrialists having the vast majority of wealth, a small middle class consisting of educated professionals like lawyers and doctors, and the vast majority of citizens living barely above subsistence wages was the result.

In history, this has been the end result of EVERY capitalist economy unchecked by governmental regulation.

There’s a very good REASON that Karl Marx’s theories were popular at one time – when they were written, capitalism didn’t really look so good to most people. Those who haven’t studied the history of capitalism tend not to realize that most of the reason why Karl Marx’s theories seem silly today is that most of the developed nations have discarded the laissez faire capitalism which was the rule in his day – and compared to which, communism did indeed seem preferable for most people.

The rise of the middle class in the U.S. was principally due to the socialist refinements in our capitalist system which started in the late 1800’s and accelerated during the 1900’s – largely the unions, which actually gave labor a voice in the distribution of the profits of their work.

[SDEngineer]

[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.

Ever.

In history.

Even once.

No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.

For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.

I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.

If you can find one I am willing to listen.

Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.

Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul. [/quote]

Well put, but we do have examples of very close to true free market economics (at least within the nation itself) close at hand.

The U.S. during the mid 1800’s, when laissez faire capitalism was the rule (internally anyway – externally, the US government was protectionist, as was typical for the time).

Extreme wealth polarization with a tiny class of industrialists having the vast majority of wealth, a small middle class consisting of educated professionals like lawyers and doctors, and the vast majority of citizens living barely above subsistence wages was the result.

In history, this has been the end result of EVERY capitalist economy unchecked by governmental regulation.

There’s a very good REASON that Karl Marx’s theories were popular at one time – when they were written, capitalism didn’t really look so good to most people. Those who haven’t studied the history of capitalism tend not to realize that most of the reason why Karl Marx’s theories seem silly today is that most of the developed nations have discarded the laissez faire capitalism which was the rule in his day – and compared to which, communism did indeed seem preferable for most people.

The rise of the middle class in the U.S. was principally due to the socialist refinements in our capitalist system which started in the late 1800’s and accelerated during the 1900’s – largely the unions, which actually gave labor a voice in the distribution of the profits of their work.

[SDEngineer]

[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.

Ever.

In history.

Even once.

No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.

For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.

I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.

If you can find one I am willing to listen.

Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.

Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul. [/quote]

Well put, but we do have examples of very close to true free market economics (at least within the nation itself) close at hand.

The U.S. during the mid 1800’s, when laissez faire capitalism was the rule (internally anyway – externally, the US government was protectionist, as was typical for the time).

Extreme wealth polarization with a tiny class of industrialists having the vast majority of wealth, a small middle class consisting of educated professionals like lawyers and doctors, and the vast majority of citizens living barely above subsistence wages was the result.

In history, this has been the end result of EVERY capitalist economy unchecked by governmental regulation.

There’s a very good REASON that Karl Marx’s theories were popular at one time – when they were written, capitalism didn’t really look so good to most people. Those who haven’t studied the history of capitalism tend not to realize that most of the reason why Karl Marx’s theories seem silly today is that most of the developed nations have discarded the laissez faire capitalism which was the rule in his day – and compared to which, communism did indeed seem preferable for most people.

The rise of the middle class in the U.S. was principally due to the socialist refinements in our capitalist system which started in the late 1800’s and accelerated during the 1900’s – largely the unions, which actually gave labor a voice in the distribution of the profits of their work.

[SDEngineer]

[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.

Ever.

In history.

Even once.

No Ayn Rand (or Heinlein) does not count.

For that matter I challenge you to name the biggest economy ever that fit those criteria.

I don’t say this just to be rhetorical.

If you can find one I am willing to listen.

Last I checked though, it is not a coincidence that liberal democracy (as in classical not contemporary liberalism) sprung up around the same time as industry. Democracy exists as a political check on capitalism. The free market is the opposite of democracy because it involves unequal voting. Two people’s “wealth votes” are by definition not equal.

Please refrain from using “sheeple”, “our country was founded on…”, “you liberals…”, or anything about Ron Paul. [/quote]

Well put, but we do have examples of very close to true free market economics (at least within the nation itself) close at hand.

The U.S. during the mid 1800’s, when laissez faire capitalism was the rule (internally anyway – externally, the US government was protectionist, as was typical for the time).

Extreme wealth polarization with a tiny class of industrialists having the vast majority of wealth, a small middle class consisting of educated professionals like lawyers and doctors, and the vast majority of citizens living barely above subsistence wages was the result.

In history, this has been the end result of EVERY capitalist economy unchecked by governmental regulation.

There’s a very good REASON that Karl Marx’s theories were popular at one time – when they were written, capitalism didn’t really look so good to most people. Those who haven’t studied the history of capitalism tend not to realize that most of the reason why Karl Marx’s theories seem silly today is that most of the developed nations have discarded the laissez faire capitalism which was the rule in his day – and compared to which, communism did indeed seem preferable for most people.

The rise of the middle class in the U.S. was principally due to the socialist refinements in our capitalist system which started in the late 1800’s and accelerated during the 1900’s – largely the unions, which actually gave labor a voice in the distribution of the profits of their work.

[Author]

Posts