Can someone please show me an example of when un-regulated financial markets actually worked?

[techs]

If I am reading history correctly, financial markets really took off in the late 1800's. In the time referred to as the "gay '90's", which was a time of booms and busts in the markets, which in turn led to severe recessions during the the busts.
And the swings continued up til the most de-regulated period of all, the 1920's, which led to the great depression.
Then from the time of FDR, once WW2 was over the US regulated its markets and had the greatest and longest economic surge in our history, without any huge financial crisis'es.
Right up til the Reagan deregulation years. Which gave us the Savings and Loan fiasco.
So exactly what do deregulation activists point to as their example of success of de-regulation.

 

[teclis1023]

Take a look at E.H. Carr and Karl Polanyi. They've got pretty great insight into pre-1944 markets, and the effects of (non)regulation.

 

[PokerGuy]

Can you reign in your simpleton theories and just post one or two at a time?

kthx

 

[teclis1023]

He's got a very good point, PokerGuy. De-regulated markets haven't had nearly the success or stability that advocates would want you to believe. The most stable markets have always been regulated. The myth of free-markets really needs to be unveiled. Regulation can be a very good thing, when administered properly.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Can you reign in your simpleton theories and just post one or two at a time?

kthx

???

What is simpleton, and what multiple theories do you see here? Are you just too daft to read a single paragraph to get the meaning? He put in a bit if history and is asking a simple question.

Show us a successful example of deregulation.

 

[ScoobMaster]

They key phrase is "When administered properly"

The tricky part is to answer "How MUCH regulation". How far is too far and when does regulation end and control and manupulation begin?

IMHO (disclosure: my point of view is very Libertarian, and I am a free-market kinda guy) i would always err on the 'too little" versus "too much" side. I favor as little regulation and government intervention as possible, and NONE if it isn't warranted.

 

[Atreus21]

Can you point to any time in history when a completely command economy hasn't brought despair?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
They key phrase is "When administered properly"

The tricky part is to answer "How MUCH regulation". How far is too far and when does regulation end and control and manupulation begin?

IMHO (disclosure: my point of view is very Libertarian, and I am a free-market kinda guy) i would always err on the 'too little" versus "too much" side. I favor as little regulation and government intervention as possible, and NONE if it isn't warranted.

Excellent post, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Some markets cannot operate "properly" without some regulartion, but as Scoob said, that is a very, very delicate balance.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
They key phrase is "When administered properly"

The tricky part is to answer "How MUCH regulation". How far is too far and when does regulation end and control and manupulation begin?

IMHO (disclosure: my point of view is very Libertarian, and I am a free-market kinda guy) i would always err on the 'too little" versus "too much" side. I favor as little regulation and government intervention as possible, and NONE if it isn't warranted.

Hi Scoob,

Absolutely, regulation has to be administered properly. That's the fundamental policy-maker's dilemma. I'm less of a libertarian than you (from what you type) but I can appreciate your point of view.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: ScoobMaster
They key phrase is "When administered properly"

The tricky part is to answer "How MUCH regulation". How far is too far and when does regulation end and control and manupulation begin?

IMHO (disclosure: my point of view is very Libertarian, and I am a free-market kinda guy) i would always err on the 'too little" versus "too much" side. I favor as little regulation and government intervention as possible, and NONE if it isn't warranted.

Excellent post, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Some markets cannot operate "properly" without some regulartion, but as Scoob said, that is a very, very delicate balance.

When you have free market advocates dictating how much regulation we can have in the financial markets, we have disasters like the one we have now.

If you want to see banking done right, look no further than canada, where they aren't nearly as in bad shape that we are

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...opinion/28tedesco.html

Oh but that's too much government coddling you say? Well, better that then having you idiots ruin the world economy.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
When you have free market advocates dictating how much regulation we can have in the financial markets, we have disasters like the one we have now.

If you can manage, trying not thinking in such absolute terms. It will open up a world of options for you.

When you say "free market advocates", you're describing an entire spectrum of people, not just free market purists.

When you get there, let me know and we'll continue.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
When you have free market advocates dictating how much regulation we can have in the financial markets, we have disasters like the one we have now.

If you can manage, trying not thinking in such absolute terms. It will open up a world of options for you.

When you say "free market advocates", you're describing an entire spectrum of people, not just free market purists.

When you get there, let me know and we'll continue.

scoob said he would err on 'too little' regulation vs. 'too much' and you agreed with him.

Between 'too little' and 'too much', guess which one we had in the USA?

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Phokus
scoob said he would err on 'too little' regulation vs. 'too much' and you agreed with him.

Between 'too little' and 'too much', guess which one we had in the USA?

Well, that's over simplifying it Phokus. It's not just that we had too little regulation, but also that our regulation was unprepared for the type of banking that was happening. I'm hardly an economist, but I would argue that it had a lot to do with the merger between policy-making and private-sector-interests.

Anytime you let the regulatees write the regulations, you're bound for disaster.

A properly and healthily regulated market will generally encourage stable, strong growth. But this doesn't provide the massive short-term returns that hedge funds and risky investment bankers love. Unfortunately, the failures of these funds and bankers affects everyone, which is why regulation is merited.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
When you have free market advocates dictating how much regulation we can have in the financial markets, we have disasters like the one we have now.

If you can manage, trying not thinking in such absolute terms. It will open up a world of options for you.

When you say "free market advocates", you're describing an entire spectrum of people, not just free market purists.

When you get there, let me know and we'll continue.

scoob said he would err on 'too little' regulation vs. 'too much' and you agreed with him.

Between 'too little' and 'too much', guess which one we had in the USA?

Have you looked at the economy under 'too much'? Many economists believe FDR dragged the GD on years beyond it's natural duration due to the amount of regulation and nationalization. So it's easy for you to sit there, isolate a moment in time, and use it to make a huge, generalized case against free markets.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: Phokus
scoob said he would err on 'too little' regulation vs. 'too much' and you agreed with him.

Between 'too little' and 'too much', guess which one we had in the USA?

Well, that's over simplifying it Phokus. It's not just that we had too little regulation, but also that our regulation was unprepared for the type of banking that was happening. I'm hardly an economist, but I would argue that it had a lot to do with the merger between policy-making and private-sector-interests.

Anytime you let the regulatees write the regulations, you're bound for disaster.

A properly and healthily regulated market will generally encourage stable, strong growth. But this doesn't provide the massive short-term returns that hedge funds and risky investment bankers love. Unfortunately, the failures of these funds and bankers affects everyone, which is why regulation is merited.

:thumbsup:

 

[Red Irish]

I certainly see a need for some form of control. I do not advocate a laissez-faire approach as I feel that greed represents one of humanity's main motivations. Moreover, contrary to the tenets of Keynesian "trickle down" economics, most of the money stays at the top.

I don't think this debate would be occurring if we were not currently experiencing the results of letting everyone do as they please.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
When you have free market advocates dictating how much regulation we can have in the financial markets, we have disasters like the one we have now.

If you can manage, trying not thinking in such absolute terms. It will open up a world of options for you.

When you say "free market advocates", you're describing an entire spectrum of people, not just free market purists.

When you get there, let me know and we'll continue.

scoob said he would err on 'too little' regulation vs. 'too much' and you agreed with him.

Between 'too little' and 'too much', guess which one we had in the USA?

Have you looked at the economy under 'too much'? Many economists believe FDR dragged the GD on years beyond it's natural duration due to the amount of regulation and nationalization. So it's easy for you to sit there, isolate a moment in time, and use it to make a huge, generalized case against free markets.

And i posted a link to canada, that socialist country you free marketers love to deride. They're ranked as having the soundest banking system by the world economic forum (US was ranked 40th) and have shielded themselves much better against the subprime mess than we have. Obama praised their banking system, which probably means we'll never adopt any of their policies because you free market fundamentalists will scream 'socialism' and obstruct any chance of change.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
When you have free market advocates dictating how much regulation we can have in the financial markets, we have disasters like the one we have now.

If you can manage, trying not thinking in such absolute terms. It will open up a world of options for you.

When you say "free market advocates", you're describing an entire spectrum of people, not just free market purists.

When you get there, let me know and we'll continue.

scoob said he would err on 'too little' regulation vs. 'too much' and you agreed with him.

Between 'too little' and 'too much', guess which one we had in the USA?

Have you looked at the economy under 'too much'? Many economists believe FDR dragged the GD on years beyond it's natural duration due to the amount of regulation and nationalization. So it's easy for you to sit there, isolate a moment in time, and use it to make a huge, generalized case against free markets.

And i posted a link to canada, that socialist country you free marketers love to deride. They're ranked as having the soundest banking system by the world economic forum (US was ranked 40th) and have shielded themselves much better against the subprime mess than we have. Obama praised their banking system, which probably means we'll never adopt any of their policies because you free market fundamentalists will scream 'socialism' and obstruct any chance of change.

There you go, working in absolutes so you can pigeon hole everyone to make an argument .

The informed are wary of regulation for a reason, because we've learned from it:

UCLA Economists Determine FDR Prolonged GD by 7 Years
Cliffs notes for the above, interpreted by businessandmedia.org

There's oodles more out there on the subject, but my point is that there's reason to not dive in head first. Several of us have already told you that we're not opposed to regulation, we just want to be careful with it and not overstep bounds. I know that makes it really hard for you to level charges of 'obstructionism' and accuse us of being fundamentalists, so it's much easier for you to lump us all into one 'extreme' category.

Like I said, quit thinking in such absolutes. It's handicapping you. Teclis and others have made great points, and not at the exclusion of regulation. Unfortunately, those points appear to be lost on you .

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
When you have free market advocates dictating how much regulation we can have in the financial markets, we have disasters like the one we have now.

If you can manage, trying not thinking in such absolute terms. It will open up a world of options for you.

When you say "free market advocates", you're describing an entire spectrum of people, not just free market purists.

When you get there, let me know and we'll continue.

scoob said he would err on 'too little' regulation vs. 'too much' and you agreed with him.

Between 'too little' and 'too much', guess which one we had in the USA?

Have you looked at the economy under 'too much'? Many economists believe FDR dragged the GD on years beyond it's natural duration due to the amount of regulation and nationalization. So it's easy for you to sit there, isolate a moment in time, and use it to make a huge, generalized case against free markets.

And i posted a link to canada, that socialist country you free marketers love to deride. They're ranked as having the soundest banking system by the world economic forum (US was ranked 40th) and have shielded themselves much better against the subprime mess than we have. Obama praised their banking system, which probably means we'll never adopt any of their policies because you free market fundamentalists will scream 'socialism' and obstruct any chance of change.

There you go, working in absolutes so you can pigeon hole everyone to make an argument .

The informed are wary of regulation for a reason, because we've learned from it:

UCLA Economists Determine FDR Prolonged GD by 7 Years
Cliffs notes for the above, interpreted by businessandmedia.org

There's oodles more out there on the subject, but my point is that there's reason to not dive in head first. Several of us have already told you that we're not opposed to regulation, we just want to be careful with it and not overstep bounds. I know that makes it really hard for you to level charges of 'obstructionism' and accuse us of being fundamentalists, so it's much easier for you to lump us all into one 'extreme' category.

Like I said, quit thinking in such absolutes. It's handicapping you. Teclis and others have made great points, and not at the exclusion of regulation. Unfortunately, those points appear to be lost on you .

That article is hilarioius, especially considering between 1933 and 1940, we saw some of the highest sustained growth rates in GDP in this country:

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html

Considering economists are so bad at even predicting current day recessions, i really don't put much grain of salt into a study that doesn't even get it's facts right.

Respond to me and i'll show you WHY the study is terrible (the numbers are beyond unrealistic)

 

[Genx87]

Those rates were coming off a crash and were they real or inflated by govt spending policy? In 37 when FDR cut back govt expenditures in the economy, the economy tanked and subsequently we had a recession within the depression.

The GD is considered to have run through WWII. And you will note in WWII gpd growth rates were extremely low. And our unemployment problem wasnt solved until we employed 16 million men in the armed services starting in 42.

I'll take the word of FDRs treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau on the plans they implemented during the 30s.

We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get jobs. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot

Anyways your black and white world will bite you in the ass everytime. Since you speak out again free market thinkers are we to conclude you are a closed market command control economy kind of guy?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
When you have free market advocates dictating how much regulation we can have in the financial markets, we have disasters like the one we have now.

If you can manage, trying not thinking in such absolute terms. It will open up a world of options for you.

When you say "free market advocates", you're describing an entire spectrum of people, not just free market purists.

When you get there, let me know and we'll continue.

scoob said he would err on 'too little' regulation vs. 'too much' and you agreed with him.

Between 'too little' and 'too much', guess which one we had in the USA?

Have you looked at the economy under 'too much'? Many economists believe FDR dragged the GD on years beyond it's natural duration due to the amount of regulation and nationalization. So it's easy for you to sit there, isolate a moment in time, and use it to make a huge, generalized case against free markets.

And i posted a link to canada, that socialist country you free marketers love to deride. They're ranked as having the soundest banking system by the world economic forum (US was ranked 40th) and have shielded themselves much better against the subprime mess than we have. Obama praised their banking system, which probably means we'll never adopt any of their policies because you free market fundamentalists will scream 'socialism' and obstruct any chance of change.

There you go, working in absolutes so you can pigeon hole everyone to make an argument .

The informed are wary of regulation for a reason, because we've learned from it:

UCLA Economists Determine FDR Prolonged GD by 7 Years
Cliffs notes for the above, interpreted by businessandmedia.org

There's oodles more out there on the subject, but my point is that there's reason to not dive in head first. Several of us have already told you that we're not opposed to regulation, we just want to be careful with it and not overstep bounds. I know that makes it really hard for you to level charges of 'obstructionism' and accuse us of being fundamentalists, so it's much easier for you to lump us all into one 'extreme' category.

Like I said, quit thinking in such absolutes. It's handicapping you. Teclis and others have made great points, and not at the exclusion of regulation. Unfortunately, those points appear to be lost on you .

That article is hilarioius, especially considering between 1933 and 1940, we saw some of the highest sustained growth rates in GDP in this country:

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html

Considering economists are so bad at even predicting current day recessions, i really don't put much grain of salt into a study that doesn't even get it's facts right.

Respond to me and i'll show you WHY the study is terrible (the numbers are beyond unrealistic)

LMFAO

There are dozens of studies, books, and articles written on the subject, but since materials composed by highly regarded economists aren't good enough for you - your own personal feelings on the matter are certainly more reliable - then I think you and I are through. Those stupid Nobel Laureats... you should edumacate them on Phokinomiks and set the record straight! On a totally unrelated note, I wonder what MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING DOES TO GDP?! :laugh:

They don't call you the new dmcowen for nothing, do they :laugh: .

 

[Stuxnet]

Here you go, Phokus... I'm really just here to help:

GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)

For the purposes of our discussion, the G bites you in the ass.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Can you reign in your simpleton theories and just post one or two at a time?

kthx

???

What is simpleton, and what multiple theories do you see here? Are you just too daft to read a single paragraph to get the meaning? He put in a bit if history and is asking a simple question.

Show us a successful example of deregulation.

techs has been posting numerous stupid threads like this where he pretends to pose a legitimate question, but is actually just trying to advocate his socialist positions. He puts forth idiotic simpleton theories that can neither be confirmed nor tested in any meaningful way.

As I said in the other thread. Yes, we get it techs, you like socialism, high taxes, big government, lots of regulation etc. That's fine. No need to create a bunch of threads with the same point over and over again.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Those rates were coming off a crash and were they real or inflated by govt spending policy? In 37 when FDR cut back govt expenditures in the economy, the economy tanked and subsequently we had a recession within the depression.

The GD is considered to have run through WWII. And you will note in WWII gpd growth rates were extremely low. And our unemployment problem wasnt solved until we employed 16 million men in the armed services starting in 42.

I'll take the word of FDRs treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau on the plans they implemented during the 30s.

We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get jobs. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot

Anyways your black and white world will bite you in the ass everytime. Since you speak out again free market thinkers are we to conclude you are a closed market command control economy kind of guy?

You know who advocates socialism? Socialists. You know who Advocates free market fundamentalism? Republicans. Now guess where democrats and european social democrats are in that spectrum.

But anyway, since you responded, here is why the UCLA study is unrealistic:

The authors set 1943 as the year we recovered from the GD. They claim 1936 was the 'real' year of recovery if it wasn't for FDR. If 1936 was the real recovery year, the required levels of GDP growth to get to the 1943 levels would have been 16.9% for 4 years straight. That would have been a total increase of 86% The best 4 consecutive years of growth in the US history was 75%, that's 11% less than what these idiots were projecting. To call that projection 'beyond unprecedented' would be an understatement.

 

[Genx87]

jbourne77 it is funny that Phokus is so intent on dividing and conquering any argument as you are either with him or against him. Sounds like a Bush wanna be. Anyways the point if my response is he will try to paint anybody who questions a level of regulation as some kind of anarchist who desires zero regulation.

Personally I believe there has to be a framework for a market to exist or it leads to anarchy, abuse, and fraud. But since I dont believe the govt should be taking every industry and controlling it from washington I am some free market anarchist in his eyes.