Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you kidding the market is not organic. A market has needs it doesn't just spring up like a daisy. Markets need certain factors to exist and without those factors they simply do not exist in any real scale. The fact that you cannot really cite any examples of an organic market really do not do you any favors in this regard since something that is that "organic" and "versitile" should be springing up everywhere it can.
Everything you have said is pretty much wrong and demostrably so to the point of being ridiculous.
You are in an organic market right now. Your claim is identical to calling the weather a cause of meteorology. And you expect me to make a claim that contradicts everything that I have studied for over 25 years that coexists with the fact that the market acts organically. The fact is that markets do spring up on their own when they can. You can't expect daisies to "spring up" immediately when you pour concrete over the ground that you expected the growth. That is what we are doing right now!
You are in an organic market right now. Your claim is identical to calling the weather a cause of meteorology. And you expect me to make a claim that contradicts everything that I have studied for over 25 years that coexists with the fact that the market acts organically. The fact is that markets do spring up on their own when they can. You can't expect daisies to "spring up" immediately when you pour concrete over the ground that you expected the growth. That is what we are doing right now!
This is ridiculous. The market we are in right now is purely a product of the American Government's stability. The fact that you say a government can pour concrete over the ground just further demonstrates my point. A market system is something that needs to be cultivated. It doesn't just exist "organically" and markets don't spring up on there own when they can. Markets need both security and stability, without basic security and stability they simply do not exist. Furthermore the level of complexity they reach is determined purely on the quality and duration of that security and stability. A market will not exist without those things. Thus why markets in Post Roman Europe only took off when you had either strong Monarchies, or strong Republics during the early modern period.
This is ridiculous. The market we are in right now is purely a product of the American Government's stability. The fact that you say a government can pour concrete over the ground just further demonstrates my point. A market system is something that needs to be cultivated. It doesn't just exist "organically" and markets don't spring up on there own when they can. Markets need both security and stability, without basic security and stability they simply do not exist. Furthermore the level of complexity they reach is determined purely on the quality and duration of that security and stability. A market will not exist without those things. Thus why markets in Post Roman Europe only took off when you had either strong Monarchies, or strong Republics during the early modern period.
End of Story.
So we should pour more concrete over the ground to spring up more economic growth. That's a Krugman if I had ever heard one. By the way, a Krugman is a somewhat recent meme based on a certain bonehead economist. When you pull a Krugman, you basically claim that we need to do more of what caused a problem to get out of it.
This is ridiculous. The market we are in right now is purely a product of the American Government's stability. The fact that you say a government can pour concrete over the ground just further demonstrates my point. A market system is something that needs to be cultivated. It doesn't just exist "organically" and markets don't spring up on there own when they can. Markets need both security and stability, without basic security and stability they simply do not exist. Furthermore the level of complexity they reach is determined purely on the quality and duration of that security and stability. A market will not exist without those things. Thus why markets in Post Roman Europe only took off when you had either strong Monarchies, or strong Republics during the early modern period.
End of Story.
The security and the stability the markets need is the knowledge that the markets would be able to make the decisions themselves without government meddling in the form of regulations, high start-up costs and inflation caused by increased money supply, or any stimuli of any sort, while at the same time protecting property rights and maintaining the rule of law. Without government meddling, there would be booms and busts, sure, but the booms wouldn't be so big, and when it busts, the pain wouldn't be widespread. It will be sharp, but will be limited to the sector concerned. Most importantly, taxpayers won't be on the hook for it. After all, how else does the government get the funds to stimulate, if not by loading it onto the backs of the taxpayers? It's both immortal and ineffective. If you must regulate, do so at the state level so that they can do so based on the needs of the state and also because the result of any bad decisions do not affect the result of the economy. The federal government has no role in this.
The security and the stability the markets need is the knowledge that the markets would be able to make the decisions themselves without government meddling in the form of regulations, high start-up costs and inflation caused by increased money supply, or any stimuli of any sort, while at the same time protecting property rights and maintaining the rule of law. Without government meddling, there would be booms and busts, sure, but the booms wouldn't be so big, and when it busts, the pain wouldn't be widespread. It will be sharp, but will be limited to the sector concerned. Most importantly, taxpayers won't be on the hook for it. After all, how else does the government get the funds to stimulate, if not by loading it onto the backs of the taxpayers? It's both immortal and ineffective. If you must regulate, do so at the state level so that they can do so based on the needs of the state and also because the result of any bad decisions do not affect the result of the economy. The federal government has no role in this.
You are so used to living in Dystopia that you don't even want to try to achieve Utopia. You may not get Utopia, but you might get something close (a Ron Paul presidency).
You are so used to living in Dystopia that you don't even want to try to achieve Utopia. You may not get Utopia, but you might get something close (a Ron Paul presidency).
Correct. I'm a realist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a Krugman if I had ever heard one. By the way, a Krugman is a somewhat recent meme based on a certain bonehead economist. When you pull a Krugman, you basically claim that we need to do more of what caused a problem to get out of it. 
