Mr. Obama, keep those trade walls down
CommanderSock @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:48 pm
The world from East to West is slowly setting itself on fire...
Sapio @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:57 pm
Streaker Streaker:
Sapio Sapio:
People can not commit.... fraud.
You're immediately talking about regulating the economy.
No fraud is not regulating the economy. Fraud hurts the economy and it hurt individual choose. If you believe that I believe in no rules at all then I have misrepresented my self or you are misinterpreting me. I think you have misinterpreted me. I have never stated that I believe in no regulation I believe in very few, but fraud must be stamped out.
Think of it this way. When I commit fraud I'm inferring on your right to conducted fair business , thus I'm responsible. How I'm to be pushed is for another post. In another words I can not do any (fraud) which damages another individual right.
CommanderSock @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:01 pm
Somalia has no rules.
What a great place to live and do business.
Streaker @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:07 pm
Sapio Sapio:
Streaker Streaker:
Sapio Sapio:
People can not commit.... fraud.
You're immediately talking about regulating the economy.
No fraud is not regulating the economy. Fraud hurts the economy and it hurt individual choose. If you believe that I believe in no rules at all then I have misrepresented my self or you are misinterpreting me. I think you have misinterpreted me. I have never stated that I believe in no regulation I believe in very few, but fraud must be stamped out.
Think of it this way. When I commit fraud I'm inferring on your right to conducted fair business , thus I'm responsible. How I'm to be pushed is for another post. In another words I can not do any (fraud) which damages another individual right.
Good, but if you want to come down hard on fraud you're talking about a lot of regulation.
Thanos @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:24 pm
I love how the dichotomies in the argument make the heads of the economic Darwinists literally explode. I don't know how any serious-minded person, expecially after the social and economic destruction of the last six months, can still believe that the market is somehow magicallygoverned and guided by those compelled only by good intentions. I'm as much as anyone else against excessive government regulation that stifles growth and damages productivity. But I'm also completely against having a market free-for-all that is guaranteed to result in criminals scoring the most profits while most everyone else gets screwed. This isn't socialism I'm promoting here, it's simply an acknowledgement that unhindered free marketeerism is inevitably disasterous for the vast majority of citizens. Sensible regulation designed to choke off the loopholes that the malicious and criminal-minded always try to exploit, is on everyone's best interest, period.
Sapio @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:41 pm
Streaker Streaker:
Good, but if you want to come down hard on fraud you're talking about a lot of regulation.
That is were I think we differ. I think you do not get to create regulations. You need to create laws. They are different. Even then I would create less than we have now.
RUEZ @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:53 pm
Axeman Axeman:
RUEZ RUEZ:
The right is a supporter of free trade. Almost every job I've had since I was a teenager has been in an industry that relied on sales to Americans. We buy stuff from them and they reciprocate. It's things like this protectionism that make you reevaluate your relationship. But hey, keep on being ignorant it looks good on you.
Free Trade is not a "left" or "right" position. People with more socialist beliefs can be equally in favour of free trade as conservatives. Historically, however, Conservative governments in Canada and Republican governments in the US have been MORE protectionist, not less.
I never claimed the left didn't support free trade. I never brought up the left at all. If you look up I highlighted what I did say.
Axeman @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:13 pm
RUEZ RUEZ:
I never claimed the left didn't support free trade. I never brought up the left at all. If you look up I highlighted what I did say.
I know. I just thought that my point was worth making, in general. It seems to me that people on the political right seem to support free trade as part of their ideology, yet it's conservative governments, historically, that are fastest to put up protectionist barriers.
RUEZ @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:19 pm
Axeman Axeman:
... yet it's conservative governments, historically, that are fastest to put up protectionist barriers.
Such as?
Proculation @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:35 pm
Thanos Thanos:
I love how the dichotomies in the argument make the heads of the economic Darwinists literally explode. I don't know how any serious-minded person, expecially after the social and economic destruction of the last six months, can still believe that the market is somehow magicallygoverned and guided by those compelled only by good intentions. I'm as much as anyone else against excessive government regulation that stifles growth and damages productivity. But I'm also completely against having a market free-for-all that is guaranteed to result in criminals scoring the most profits while most everyone else gets screwed. This isn't socialism I'm promoting here, it's simply an acknowledgement that unhindered free marketeerism is inevitably disasterous for the vast majority of citizens. Sensible regulation designed to choke off the loopholes that the malicious and criminal-minded always try to exploit, is on everyone's best interest, period.
Your comment is based on false premises:
First, the crisis is not a problem with the free market. On the contrary, it's because there was too much interventionism from the state.
Second, interventism from the state is disastrous for the vast majority of the citizens, not the free market. Free market balances the supplies and the prices so that everybody can get a product at the best price possible. Interventionism tends to create a shortage, so inflation, and only the rich can get the product. So, a "socialist" view would want more free market.
Thanos @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:51 pm
Proculation Proculation:
Thanos Thanos:
I love how the dichotomies in the argument make the heads of the economic Darwinists literally explode. I don't know how any serious-minded person, expecially after the social and economic destruction of the last six months, can still believe that the market is somehow magicallygoverned and guided by those compelled only by good intentions. I'm as much as anyone else against excessive government regulation that stifles growth and damages productivity. But I'm also completely against having a market free-for-all that is guaranteed to result in criminals scoring the most profits while most everyone else gets screwed. This isn't socialism I'm promoting here, it's simply an acknowledgement that unhindered free marketeerism is inevitably disasterous for the vast majority of citizens. Sensible regulation designed to choke off the loopholes that the malicious and criminal-minded always try to exploit, is on everyone's best interest, period.
Your comment is based on false premises:
First, the crisis is not a problem with the free market. On the contrary, it's because there was too much interventionism from the state.
Second, interventism from the state is disastrous for the vast majority of the citizens, not the free market. Free market balances the supplies and the prices so that everybody can get a product at the best price possible. Interventionism tends to create a shortage, so inflation, and only the rich can get the product. So, a "socialist" view would want more free market.
1) The financial collapse was the result of unregulated cowboy capitalism in the United States being allowed to run amuck. It also didn't help very much when Wall Street is staffed mostly by a bunch of 24 year olds wearing red suspenders who were brought up believing that Gordon Gecko was a positive role model.
2) Proper regulation efficiently enforced would prevent market excesses and effectively negate the need for any further government intervention. If you oppose intervention of the Liberal/NDP/Democratic type, which is generated out of the ridiculous old class-warfare Marxist nonsense, then I'm 100% with you in being against it. But I also oppose what can only be seen as an almost insane optimism that an unsupervised market can be trusted to police itself. There are too many examples over the last several decades where the health of the market and the investments of millions of innocent shareholders were deliberately and maliciously damaged by individuals or cabals of crooked managers who were quite clearly interested soley by their own selfishness. If your theory is correct, then please explain to everyone how the market was served best by the antics of Enron?
Sorry, but I think you're just pushing a discredited theory. You're not paying to much attention to how much the theory is negated by the actions of those who are clearly motivated by evil and harmful intentions.
Axeman @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:54 pm
RUEZ RUEZ:
Such as?
Well, protectionism was the defining characteristic of the Republican party in the USA up until the Eisenhower presidency. Henry Clay's ideas were the basis of the party. Lincoln was one of its biggest supporters.
Under the Bush II government, we could talk about "Import Certificates", which were the brain child of Warren Buffet. This is basically tariffs without the use of the word "tariff".
Thatcher, Mulroney and Reagan were also big fans of free trade in the media, while creating de-facto protectionist rider clauses on every aspect of the trade deals (things like environmental standards, red-tape regulations, inspections, and counterveiling mechanisms. Trade Blocs are protectionist, just on a multi-lateral level. The entire creation of the EU and NAFTA are, when seen from the outside, protectionist by nature. Being "in the club" necessarily means that there are others who AREN'T in the club. Trade Blocs were key creations under 1980s conservative governments around the world
RUEZ @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:59 pm
Axeman Axeman:
RUEZ RUEZ:
Such as?
Well, protectionism was the defining characteristic of the Republican party in the USA up until the Eisenhower presidency. Henry Clay's ideas were the basis of the party. Lincoln was one of its biggest supporters.
Under the Bush II government, we could talk about "Import Certificates", which were the brain child of Warren Buffet. This is basically tariffs without the use of the word "tariff".
Thatcher, Mulroney and Reagan were also big fans of free trade in the media, while creating de-facto protectionist rider clauses on every aspect of the trade deals (things like environmental standards, red-tape regulations, inspections, and counterveiling mechanisms. Trade Blocs are protectionist, just on a multi-lateral level. The entire creation of the EU and NAFTA are, when seen from the outside, protectionist by nature. Being "in the club" necessarily means that there are others who AREN'T in the club. Trade Blocs were key creations under 1980s conservative governments around the world
commanderkai @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:31 pm
Thanos Thanos:
1) The financial collapse was the result of unregulated cowboy capitalism in the United States being allowed to run amuck. It also didn't help very much when Wall Street is staffed mostly by a bunch of 24 year olds wearing red suspenders who were brought up believing that Gordon Gecko was a positive role model.
Just curious, what do you call Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Those aren't private corporations, but public ones. Now, no doubt Wall Street fucked up, but those two "government corporations" were the ones who started this entire situation, do you disagree?
Proculation @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:47 pm
Thanos Thanos:
1) The financial collapse was the result of unregulated cowboy capitalism in the United States being allowed to run amuck. It also didn't help very much when Wall Street is staffed mostly by a bunch of 24 year olds wearing red suspenders who were brought up believing that Gordon Gecko was a positive role model.
Like I said, you based your opinion on false premises. Bill Clinton passed laws to help citizens to buy houses (read, push banks to give credit thinking that the government was endorsing the loans).
If the government had let the market play, the banks would have thought 2 times before giving loans to unsolvable people.
Sorry but you have it all wroung.