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.
Nothing but an interested layman myself, and I actually feel bad for making fun of Ron Paul, who is a smart guy with, I believe, good intentions - although a lot of his followers are perhaps not quite as sophisticated in their thinking as he is.
I guess it boils down to the old doggerel - "For forms of government let fools contest; Whate'er is best administer'd is best". Fiat money adds another set of tools to tune an economy. But if the people making monetary policy aren't capable of using said tools, fat lot of good they'll do. If you have a competent and conscientious central bank authority, the tools are of lesser importance.
Some will claim that it's just a matter of letting everything work out naturally without government "getting in the way", a belief as unproven as the opposite Marxist viewpoint that letting government work out everything to the most minute detail will somehow benefit everybody. I perosnally subscribe to much more pragmatic approach - make the best of what is already in place, rather than uproot-and-replace. Suboptimal, but stable, is OK with me.
I appreciate your candor and I wish I had the time to devote to understanding economics better than I do.
While I generally am a strong supporter of Ron Paul, it is primarily for his views on foreign policy and empire, which he seems alone among many on Congress who makes the argument that our foreign policy and empire are directly tied to economic and vice versa. I see this fairly clearly.
However, the idea more Libertarian minded folks (economically speaking) have of letting markets ' find their own mean ' to me seems disastrous for the simple fact that human beings are simply subject to greed easier than they are to breathing. On this, what is to stop someone from urinating in a bottle and calling it Gatorade, until someone gets sick or catches on. So they go out of business after raking in a few million dollars selling bunk.
On the other side of this, the bureaucracy that comes with more centralized government is inclined towards a similar greed but instead of money it seems to be power and influence, as was obvious by aspects of the former Soviet Union or even most Banana Republics with their gated communities.
I can't help but notice that as soon as financial regulations were eased, the greed seeped in faster than most could imagine and gave rise to the birth of exotic financial instruments, bundled together with junk, given a AAA rated stamp of approval which was then bought up by pension plans and banks that weren't investment banks. When it fell apart, it fell hard and we are still reeling from it, yet not one single person has went to jail or even faced any criminal charges for what amounts to the largest financial scam in human history that impacted the whole of the world.
So there is in my mind a need for regulation, be it in economics, consumer goods, currency, whatever. It also seems to me that this regulatory body must and absolutely must be isolated from the influence of the industry in which it regulates. As it stands today, I don't know how much more the working class in America can handle another financial bubble like this last one we are still currently feeling. I want people who take risk and invest in various economic instruments to get as filthy stinking rich as the market place allows, just not at the expense of doing it off the backs of workers.
Silver standard? *shrugs* I just don't know but I do know that the current models aren't helping anyone but the very top niche of the country.
However, the idea more Libertarian minded folks (economically speaking) have of letting markets ' find their own mean ' to me seems disastrous for the simple fact that human beings are simply subject to greed easier than they are to breathing. On this, what is to stop someone from urinating in a bottle and calling it Gatorade, until someone gets sick or catches on. So they go out of business after raking in a few million dollars selling bunk.
This is more a failing of how libertarians explain letting markets work. What they don't add is that companies and individuals will be at risk, no more free ride from liability. Companies will only be able to take on risk they can cover. We will also see competition in private regulators, companies such as UL Labs, ISO and Consumer Reports will thrive as people seek out the best regulators. The best part is they will be liable for their failings also, unlike today when regulators negotiate a compromize that is wrong, they arn't liable in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
I can't help but notice that as soon as financial regulations were eased, the greed seeped in faster than most could imagine and gave rise to the birth of exotic financial instruments, bundled together with junk, given a AAA rated stamp of approval which was then bought up by pension plans and banks that weren't investment banks. When it fell apart, it fell hard and we are still reeling from it, yet not one single person has went to jail or even faced any criminal charges for what amounts to the largest financial scam in human history that impacted the whole of the world.
So there is in my mind a need for regulation, be it in economics, consumer goods, currency, whatever. It also seems to me that this regulatory body must and absolutely must be isolated from the influence of the industry in which it regulates. As it stands today, I don't know how much more the working class in America can handle another financial bubble like this last one we are still currently feeling. I want people who take risk and invest in various economic instruments to get as filthy stinking rich as the market place allows, just not at the expense of doing it off the backs of workers.
Silver standard? *shrugs* I just don't know but I do know that the current models aren't helping anyone but the very top niche of the country.
Regulations were just changed, the game was still in tact. I like what Nassim Taleb says about regulations.
This is more a failing of how libertarians explain letting markets work. What they don't add is that companies and individuals will be at risk, no more free ride from liability. Companies will only be able to take on risk they can cover. We will also see competition in private regulators, companies such as UL Labs, ISO and Consumer Reports will thrive as people seek out the best regulators. The best part is they will be liable for their failings also, unlike today when regulators negotiate a compromize that is wrong, they arn't liable in any way.
Liability? Joes Widgets that sells Gatorade like sports drink but really is using bovine urine to fill their bottles. They get busted after people start getting sick, so they are liable to the tune of millions of dollars, but Joe's Widgets doesn't have millions of dollars, since Joe's share of the corporate take is most of the profit and Joe's Widgets files bankruptcy. Joe opens up 'Bob's Gatorade' as Joe's Widgets is no longer in business since whatever assets it had were wiped out, although Joe don't really care as he sips a Mai Tai in the Caymans.
Liability? Joes Widgets that sells Gatorade like sports drink but really is using bovine urine to fill their bottles. They get busted after people start getting sick, so they are liable to the tune of millions of dollars, but Joe's Widgets doesn't have millions of dollars, since Joe's share of the corporate take is most of the profit and Joe's Widgets files bankruptcy. Joe opens up 'Bob's Gatorade' as Joe's Widgets is no longer in business since whatever assets it had were wiped out, although Joe don't really care as he sips a Mai Tai in the Caymans.
Joe can't do a lot when he is in jail for harming others. Plus if he could not get insurance to cover his potential harm he would nt be in business. Insurance companies wold regulate and so would individuals through watch dog groups.
Corporate liability is a government gift, in free markets government gifts don't happen.
Joe can't do a lot when he is in jail for harming others. Plus if he could not get insurance to cover his potential harm he would nt be in business. Insurance companies wold regulate and so would individuals through watch dog groups.
Corporate liability is a government gift, in free markets government gifts don't happen.
But "Joe" isn't "Joe's Widgets", this is the incorporated name of a company that is its own entity and Joe is not liable for people getting sick any more than the CEO from PG&E was for the mess at Hinkley, CA.
But "Joe" isn't "Joe's Widgets", this is the incorporated name of a company that is its own entity and Joe is not liable for people getting sick any more than the CEO from PG&E was for the mess at Hinkley, CA.
Currently yes, under a free market he would be liable. Corporations would have very limited charters, executives would not be able to hide behind corporate shields. Force and fraud would still be against the law.
A corporation is a government created and protected entity, take away government protection and Joe goes to jail for fraud and the harm he caused.
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.
