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

[Stuxnet]

YHPM

Fern
P&N Moderator

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
It actually makes you look more pathetic because you can't fight your own fights because you don't know shit son. Here's my macro again: :lips:

I don't fight fights on the Internet, son. They don't mean anything to me which is why I don't let little turds like you demand that I justify my opinions. I'll give cliffs, I'll have mature discussions and provide evidence when I'm dealing with someone who's generally interested, but that's usually as far as I go because, as you've so aptly demonstrated in this thread, even when you hit someone over the head with a heaping pile of supporting evidence and data, they won't flinch at completely disregarding it if they're mind is already absolute. It's all a big waste of time.

Now, if someone else wants to go through the trouble of showing you the ins and outs of why you're stupid, then yes... I will watch .

Well, there certainly was a 'heaping pile' of something coming from you, but it surely wasn't evidence or data.

You are unable to even admit you're wrong on a reading comprehension level:

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
What is this, a popularity contest? I don't give a fvck if idiots don't agree with me. Like i said, you idiots live in a bizarro universe. You want pwnage and self pwnage? Look no further than seeing jbourne with egg on his face.

Originally posted by: jbourne77
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

http://www.econ.wisc.edu/works...Eggertsson%20paper.pdf

Can government policies that increase the monopoly power of firms and the militancy of unions increase output? . . . these policies are expansionary when certain "emergency" conditions apply. These emergency conditions - zero interest rates and deflation - were satisfied during the Great Depression in the United States. Therefore, the New Deal, which facilitated monopolies and union militancy, was expansionary . . .

This conclusion is contrary to the one reached by a large previous literature, . . . that argues that the New Deal was contractionary. The main reason for this divergence is that the current model incorporates nominal frictions so that inflation expectations play a central role in the analysis. The New Deal has a strong effect on inflation expectations in the model, changing excessive deflation to modest inflation, thereby lowering real interest rates and stimulating spending.

You don't seem to get it, Phokus. Popularity contest or not, this is why you're perceived to be such a twit. You don't recognize that your source is merely an alternate viewpoint. It doesn't trump the original source just because of the time line, and certainly not just because YOU happen to agree with it.

If anyone is tooling about with a purported "end-all be-all" argument, it's you; except you don't have one. All you have is an opposed view, just like I do. That's it.

And this is why you're retarded. I wasn't implying my source was right and yours was wrong. Notice how i bolded a couple of words in your quote. I was pointing, for the millionth time, how you thought YOUR link was the 'informed' and 'learned' position and presented it as the authoritative position yet you didn't know the existence of other economists who produced papers which concluded otherwise.

And besides that, i thought your previous page was your 'ending'. Man, your self ownage is just embarrassing to watch.

I mean, that's just sad on your part

Again, relevant: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2304414&enterthread=y

You're going to accuse me of lacking reading comprehension (nice edit, champ ) when you've taken one word - "informed" - as literally as possible and as far out of context as possible and built an entire faux case around it, even after having the true meaning/intent spoon fed to you countless times?

Get the fuck out of here :laugh:

You know what kid, when you're so misunderstood by EVERYONE, maybe - JUST MAYBE - they're not the problem .

 

[Phokus]

YHPM

Fern
P&N Moderator

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
It actually makes you look more pathetic because you can't fight your own fights because you don't know shit son. Here's my macro again: :lips:

I don't fight fights on the Internet, son. They don't mean anything to me which is why I don't let little turds like you demand that I justify my opinions. I'll give cliffs, I'll have mature discussions and provide evidence when I'm dealing with someone who's generally interested, but that's usually as far as I go because, as you've so aptly demonstrated in this thread, even when you hit someone over the head with a heaping pile of supporting evidence and data, they won't flinch at completely disregarding it if they're mind is already absolute. It's all a big waste of time.

Now, if someone else wants to go through the trouble of showing you the ins and outs of why you're stupid, then yes... I will watch .

Well, there certainly was a 'heaping pile' of something coming from you, but it surely wasn't evidence or data.

You are unable to even admit you're wrong on a reading comprehension level:

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
What is this, a popularity contest? I don't give a fvck if idiots don't agree with me. Like i said, you idiots live in a bizarro universe. You want pwnage and self pwnage? Look no further than seeing jbourne with egg on his face.

Originally posted by: jbourne77
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

http://www.econ.wisc.edu/works...Eggertsson%20paper.pdf

Can government policies that increase the monopoly power of firms and the militancy of unions increase output? . . . these policies are expansionary when certain "emergency" conditions apply. These emergency conditions - zero interest rates and deflation - were satisfied during the Great Depression in the United States. Therefore, the New Deal, which facilitated monopolies and union militancy, was expansionary . . .

This conclusion is contrary to the one reached by a large previous literature, . . . that argues that the New Deal was contractionary. The main reason for this divergence is that the current model incorporates nominal frictions so that inflation expectations play a central role in the analysis. The New Deal has a strong effect on inflation expectations in the model, changing excessive deflation to modest inflation, thereby lowering real interest rates and stimulating spending.

You don't seem to get it, Phokus. Popularity contest or not, this is why you're perceived to be such a twit. You don't recognize that your source is merely an alternate viewpoint. It doesn't trump the original source just because of the time line, and certainly not just because YOU happen to agree with it.

If anyone is tooling about with a purported "end-all be-all" argument, it's you; except you don't have one. All you have is an opposed view, just like I do. That's it.

And this is why you're retarded. I wasn't implying my source was right and yours was wrong. Notice how i bolded a couple of words in your quote. I was pointing, for the millionth time, how you thought YOUR link was the 'informed' and 'learned' position and presented it as the authoritative position yet you didn't know the existence of other economists who produced papers which concluded otherwise.

And besides that, i thought your previous page was your 'ending'. Man, your self ownage is just embarrassing to watch.

I mean, that's just sad on your part

Again, relevant: http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2304414&enterthread=y

You're going to accuse me of lacking reading comprehension when you've taken one word - "informed" - as literally as possible and far out of context as possible and built an entire faux case around it, even after having the true meaning/intent spoon fed to you countless times?

Get the fuck out of here :laugh:

Gahahahahaha, ok man, besides reading comprehension, i don't think you even know the meaning of individual words mean. If you think only knowing one side of an argument is being 'learned' and 'informed, then you're truly a moron.

Just read how arrogant you sound:

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

How does that NOT scream "absolute" and "black and white" like you said? You're just mad i schooled your ass after showing you there WAS another intellectual side of the argument that you were ignorant about.

GTFO of whatever shit economics program you're in ASAP, gg.

:laugh:

Every participation in a thread requires an end. Here's mine:

:laugh:

You know what kid, when you're so misunderstood by EVERYONE, maybe - JUST MAYBE - they're not the problem

Oh no, I think we've found out the problem:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2304414&enterthread=y

 

[Fern]

Please stop hijacking this thread

I'm referring to jBourne77 and Phokus.

T.I.A.

Fern
P&N Moderator

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Just read how arrogant you sound:

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

How does that NOT scream "absolute" and "black and white" like you said? You're just mad i schooled your ass after showing you there WAS another intellectual side of the argument that you were ignorant about.

So you've reached rock bottom and have since begun to dig. Who would have thought that such a seemingly innocuous statement would have cut you so, so deep. The only thing absolute and black and white in the above is your ridiculously extreme interpretation of my original statement and your completely overblown reaction to it.

Let me help you with the big words: "Absolute" would have been more along the lines of "regulation is never good". That's absolute. That's black and white. I merely said I have a skeptical eye. Next time I'll be sure to go more extreme; maybe I can get that little vein on your forehead to pop :laugh: .

Like I said earlier, you really, REALLY need thicker skin.

GTFO of whatever shit economics program you're in ASAP, gg.

Such class! :laugh: . It's funny, people keep trying to explain to you why you can't be taken seriously. Then you say you don't care about whether you're taken seriously... then you react and overreact like 9 year old kid for pages on end trying to convince everyone you're not a lunatic.

Either stop pretending not to care or actually stop caring. The middle ground makes you... pitiful.

Fern: roger that

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

ok "bro"

I'm not sure which is the right way, so I can't answer your question. However, most of you seem hellbent that regulation is bad so just prove it. I agree that we should have a balance but I am always hesitant of running headlong into anything (see iraq) with the republicans. You guys want to cry about more regulation but its going to happen.

I hope my answer was good enough for my bro.

Nope (not good enough).

Firstly you mischaracterize my position in thois thread. I'm saying the whole question is bogus. See this from my previous post:

I can't think of any unregulated financial market, seems to me they've all been regulated in some way - some poorly regulated and others better regulated.

Do you have any examples of unregulated financial markets? If not the question is a ridiculous one and lacks any meaning or significance. If there is no example of any unregulated financial market whatsoever, there certainly cannot be an example of a successful one. (I might as well challenge you to name an example of an unsuccessful unregulated finacial market, and when you cannot claim that as proof that unregulated finacial markets are always successful and thus superior to regulated ones)

So if you're demanding an example of a successful unregulated financial market, you're (apparently) as misguided as the OP.

If there are no examples of any unregulated financial markets whatsoever, the original question is false as are any conclusions drawn from it.

Like you though, I'm waiting for someone (preferably the OP) to give me an example.

Fern

Ok I didn't read your post first of all and I didn't think we were so daft as to assume the question was regarding the entire economy but sections within it. Show me an example of an unregulated or underregulated market that is in good shape. No economy is without regulation. Hell Ghengis kahn had a regulated economy in some fashion. You guys are like 3 year olds. If the question isn't phrased exactly one way you all argue for a day and a half about it. Jeezus christ you people don't work do you?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Easy, the Gold standard. The economy started turning around when we left it and currency devaluation took place. In fact, how quickly countries left the gold standard was an accurate indicator of which country would experience an economic turnaround first.

The US didn't officially leave the gold standard until 1971 or so. Yes, the fixed price of gold was adjusted by FDR's administration, but that was in '33-34, wasn't it? So how does that explain unemployment still being in double digits until '41?

 

[Double Trouble]

I must say this thread was very entertaining and informative. jbourne77 and fern provided some good info, phokus removed any doubts about his apparent learning disability.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Phokus
Easy, the Gold standard. The economy started turning around when we left it and currency devaluation took place. In fact, how quickly countries left the gold standard was an accurate indicator of which country would experience an economic turnaround first.

The US didn't officially leave the gold standard until 1971 or so. Yes, the fixed price of gold was adjusted by FDR's administration, but that was in '33-34, wasn't it? So how does that explain unemployment still being in double digits until '41?

We could really open the floodgates and talk about Morgenthau's admissions (and gross embarrassment) over HOW they set the gold standard, but that might be a too off-topic.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Phokus
Easy, the Gold standard. The economy started turning around when we left it and currency devaluation took place. In fact, how quickly countries left the gold standard was an accurate indicator of which country would experience an economic turnaround first.

The US didn't officially leave the gold standard until 1971 or so. Yes, the fixed price of gold was adjusted by FDR's administration, but that was in '33-34, wasn't it? So how does that explain unemployment still being in double digits until '41?

Sorry, i was thinking of Europe. However, the gold standard was suspended by FDR during that time, so same effect. When you look at the countries that left (or suspended gold) in the case of the US, the output increased almost immediately and those that stayed on gold, the output declined. When you're in a recession/depression, you want an expansionist monetary policy.

Now as to the 'double digit' unemployment question, that's a dubious question. Remember where you're starting from in 1933: 25%, so it had a long ways to go down before it reached single digits. You're not going to go from 25% unemployment rate to under 10% in a few years. These were unprecedented times for the world (not just the US) and the understanding of their economic situation was still in it's infancy. While some countries went off the gold standard, others did not. Trade was affected. It took a while for them to figure out how to fix their fucked up banks. This is not your natural recession where you can sorta leave it alone and it'll fix itself in a few years because it's the natural business cycle, there were real structural problems that were difficult to figure out and it took a while to sort it out. We didn't even have the bretton woods agreement until the mid 40's, when the countries decided how to work out their differences in international monetary policy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 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.

Keynesian economics are not 'trickle down' economics. In fact, Keynesian economics directly criticizes 'trickle down'.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rangoric
Um just because I found it a curious number. Why is the GDP info Phokus mentioned anecdotal and therefore just tossed out?

Might seem odd but I am curious as to why it got thrown out so easily.

I dont believe anybody tossed it out did they? I for one addressed it before he lost his mind and tossed a temper tantrum towing the line about black and white.

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.

Haha, 'tanked', you mean like the great depression? Look how the gdp went up again right after.

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

These are some of the highest sustained growth rates in US history.

You have no idea what are you talking about do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937


Now try this, look at your graph. You see the part where it dips? Note the year where it starts to dip.

This is hard stuff I know!

And yet the real GDP growth (accounting for inflation) under FDR's presidency is pretty huge. So, what's your point?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: 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.

Keynesian economics are not 'trickle down' economics. In fact, Keynesian economics directly criticizes 'trickle down'.

You are quite right, I was editing my original sentence and forgot to delete Keynesian.