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.
As far as the Nirvana fallacy goes, our argument is not that a free market is perfect, at all. The argument is that allowing people to interact and trade freely is 1) morally superior and 2) leads to better results than someone imposing their master plan on society...as counterintuitive as that might sound.
Said another way...there is no utopia, and no person or group knows how best to “run” everyone’s lives. Central planners can never have the aggregate knowledge that the market does.
The market isn’t magical. It’s a massive web of people who work together using their particular expertise to create things of value, trade, etc. The top-down approach runs on the assumption that a person or committee has more knowledge and wisdom than the collective knowledge of everyone else.
The other advantage is it isolates those who are not involved from direct costs of losses (like TARP). It also promotes awareness of what you're using, because there's no regulation other than contractual agreements, you have to be mindful of the risks, thus making people more prudent.
The other advantage is it isolates those who are not involved from direct costs of losses (like TARP). It also promotes awareness of what you're using, because there's no regulation other than contractual agreements, you have to be mindful of the risks, thus making people more prudent.
True...false sense of security. That made me think of Bob Murphy’s example of the guy who designed an intersection or roundabout with no traffic signs, and then walked backwards into it to prove how safe it was. People tend to pay more attention instead of going on autopilot.
Depends on how many people are sane enough to understand that doing the same things time and again and expecting different results is not sane.
Precisely 'what' have we been doing for the last 3 or more decades?
Quote:
The real choice isn't between government and the "market." It's between a system responsive to the needs of most Americans and one more responsive to the demands of the super-rich, big business and Wall Street -- whose economic and political power have grown dramatically over the last three decades.
Trying to craft in law a series of rules that apply to a system that has almost infinite parameters, and is inherently chaotic, such that it constrains it and reduces risk. However by doing that you must, rationally, provide some form of harm reduction (because there must be a real or perceived benefit), thus permitting harm to befall the uninvolved. You also introduce unintended consequences such that both those using that system, and the rest who are politically connected to the rule makers (and that includes voters) are impacted sometimes positively, sometimes negatively.
Far better to just state, you guys go play over there at your own risk, and don't come crying to us when you put out your eye.
Trying to craft in law a series of rules that apply to a system that has almost infinite parameters, and is inherently chaotic, such that it constrains it and reduces risk. However by doing that you must, rationally, provide some form of harm reduction (because there must be a real or perceived benefit), thus permitting harm to befall the uninvolved. You also introduce unintended consequences such that both those using that system, and the rest who are politically connected to the rule makers (and that includes voters) are impacted sometimes positively, sometimes negatively.
Far better to just state, you guys go play over there at your own risk, and don't come crying to us when you put out your eye.
Re: bold: that is what the Glass-Steagall Act accomplished:
The Glass-Steagall Act: What It Is and Why It Matters
The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which has been partially repealed, prevented commercial banks from making risky investments with customer deposits.
In 1999, after decades of lobbying and proposed legislation, some Glass-Steagall provisions were repealed as part of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Institutions could participate in both commercial and investment activities.
But critics of the repeal said it crossed a firewall between commercial and investment banking, and may have led to the Great Recession of 2008. Joseph Stiglitz, winner of a Nobel Prize in economics and a professor at Columbia University, wrote in a 2009 Vanity Fair opinion piece:
“Commercial banks are not supposed to be high-risk ventures; they are supposed to manage other people’s money very conservatively. It is with this understanding that the government agrees to pick up the tab should they fail. Investment banks, on the other hand, have traditionally managed rich people’s money — people who can take bigger risks in order to get bigger returns.”
It prevented commercial banks from making investments with customer deposits in high risk ventures.
It wasn't go play over there, but don't come crying.... because it also indemnified customer losses with public funding. It was you must not play over there, because we're covering losses.
To accomplish my statement, there would have needed to be no indemnity, and director liability. Then the directors of Lehmans might have thought, hmm, you know we're on the hook for this $768B we might want to rethink our strategy. Even if they did not, at least the public would not be covering the costs, and, other corps who invested in Lehmans (through trading derivatives) would be more diligent since only Lehmans would be the money pot they could recover their investment from.
I think it's pretty obvious to see what the free market has accomplished thus far with private prisons and private military contractors
If you like private prisons and private military contractors you're going to love the private police and the private Judiciary that puts you in the private jail
I think it's pretty obvious to see what the free market has accomplished thus far with private prisons and private military contractors
If you like private prisons and private military contractors you're going to love the private police and the private Judiciary that puts you in the private jail
Cabin fever has set in, time to bash the libertarians lol
Private prisons arent really private and neither are military contractors. Both are approved,funded, regulated by govt (with our stolen money) and operate in protected bubbles free from competition.
Cabin fever has set in, time to bash the libertarians lol
Private prisons arent really private and neither are military contractors. Both are approved,funded, regulated by govt (with our stolen money) and operate in protected bubbles free from competition.
I guess private prisons will be funded in your utopia by getting workers with no leverage to sign a contract which once they end they get locked up.
Or is it trespassing on property or theft that allows a private individuals to decide who gets locked up, maybe in their basement.
Lets face it, this dream has nothing to do with freedom, its about slavery.
Cabin fever has set in, time to bash the libertarians lol
Private prisons arent really private and neither are military contractors. Both are approved,funded, regulated by govt (with our stolen money) and operate in protected bubbles free from competition.
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.
