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

[Rangoric]

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.

That's the thing that bugging me and why I didn't think that was a reply. Phokus was talking about without gov spending in the bit I was talking about. Going back and rereading it though I realize that he that I missed an assumption the first time I read it. He assumed that 1943 GDP levels would have been gained in 1936 in order to meet their criteria. However GDP doesn't need to do that to pull one out of a depression.

I absolutely threw it out... I wasn't going to go on a data hunt just to refute his weak implications.

I know that you threw it out for a reason, I was more looking for why, as the first time I read it I was curious as to what others would say about it, but I missed something so all is good

(Quote of what I am talking about below since I had to go to page 4 or so to find it with the bit I kinda missed the first time bolded)

"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."

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

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.

That's the thing that bugging me and why I didn't think that was a reply. Phokus was talking about without gov spending in the bit I was talking about. Going back and rereading it though I realize that he that I missed an assumption the first time I read it. He assumed that 1943 GDP levels would have been gained in 1936 in order to meet their criteria. However GDP doesn't need to do that to pull one out of a depression.

I absolutely threw it out... I wasn't going to go on a data hunt just to refute his weak implications.

I know that you threw it out for a reason, I was more looking for why, as the first time I read it I was curious as to what others would say about it, but I missed something so all is good

(Quote of what I am talking about below since I had to go to page 4 or so to find it with the bit I kinda missed the first time bolded)

"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."

I already addressed that point with Phokus many posts back, and he completely ignored it. He's clearly just trolling.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

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.

That's the thing that bugging me and why I didn't think that was a reply. Phokus was talking about without gov spending in the bit I was talking about. Going back and rereading it though I realize that he that I missed an assumption the first time I read it. He assumed that 1943 GDP levels would have been gained in 1936 in order to meet their criteria. However GDP doesn't need to do that to pull one out of a depression.

I absolutely threw it out... I wasn't going to go on a data hunt just to refute his weak implications.

I know that you threw it out for a reason, I was more looking for why, as the first time I read it I was curious as to what others would say about it, but I missed something so all is good

(Quote of what I am talking about below since I had to go to page 4 or so to find it with the bit I kinda missed the first time bolded)

"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."

Without government spending, the already unprecendented 11% over the greatest 4 year gdp growth in US history would have had to be even higher to make up for that, which is why the authors of that study are on crack.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Rangoric

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.

That's the thing that bugging me and why I didn't think that was a reply. Phokus was talking about without gov spending in the bit I was talking about. Going back and rereading it though I realize that he that I missed an assumption the first time I read it. He assumed that 1943 GDP levels would have been gained in 1936 in order to meet their criteria. However GDP doesn't need to do that to pull one out of a depression.

I absolutely threw it out... I wasn't going to go on a data hunt just to refute his weak implications.

I know that you threw it out for a reason, I was more looking for why, as the first time I read it I was curious as to what others would say about it, but I missed something so all is good

(Quote of what I am talking about below since I had to go to page 4 or so to find it with the bit I kinda missed the first time bolded)

"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."

I already addressed that point with Phokus many posts back, and he completely ignored it. He's clearly just trolling.

I didn't ignore it, i missed it, but regardless:

But regardless, for the authors' premise to be correct, they'd only have to establish growth in '36 (or any relevant year) would've been higher w/o the cited FDR policies than with, not that GDP had to be higher in '36 than '43.

Taking 1 specific year out of several is dumb. A more accurate view would be several years in a row and see what the aggregate GDP growth was. Would you take the recent bounce in the stock market as proof of a healthy recovery in the markets?

 

[JD50]

Can we stop arguing about Phokus's mental state please, we all know he's borderline retarded, I'd just like to see him pwned some more. TIA.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Without government spending, the already unprecendented 11% over the greatest 4 year gdp growth in US history would have had to be even higher to make up for that, which is why the authors of that study are on crack.

The assumption that the '36 GDP needed to be at '43 levels is an assumption you made, not what the authors said.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: Phokus

Without government spending, the already unprecendented 11% over the greatest 4 year gdp growth in US history would have had to be even higher to make up for that, which is why the authors of that study are on crack.

The assumption that the '36 GDP needed to be at '43 levels is an assumption you made, not what the authors said.

Good point, I've been wondering where that came from.

 

[Stuxnet]

Guys, don't self pwn yourselves too hard.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: Phokus

Without government spending, the already unprecendented 11% over the greatest 4 year gdp growth in US history would have had to be even higher to make up for that, which is why the authors of that study are on crack.

The assumption that the '36 GDP needed to be at '43 levels is an assumption you made, not what the authors said.

To assume GDP growth/GDP levels is not really an 'assumption', it's something that's used to determine the state of the economy. If you're going to say that the recession ended in 43 but would have ended in 36 if not for FDR, it's only fair to see how much growth you would need in the mythical 1936 recoevery to equal the 'real' recovery of 1943

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Guys, don't self pwn yourselves too hard.

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.

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

:lips:

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Taking 1 specific year out of several is dumb.

Which is why I added the "(or any relevant year)" part. Regardless, you're the one who initially brought up '36, and insisted it be compared to '43.

A more accurate view would be several years in a row and see what the aggregate GDP growth was.

A more accurate view of what? That's just unclear. And you still haven't talked about why employment remained in double-digits while GDP was growing at record rates. It took until 1941 to return to anything close to full employment. If high unemployment wasn't, as the UCLA study suggests, due to FDR's labor policies, what was it due to?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: Phokus

Without government spending, the already unprecendented 11% over the greatest 4 year gdp growth in US history would have had to be even higher to make up for that, which is why the authors of that study are on crack.

The assumption that the '36 GDP needed to be at '43 levels is an assumption you made, not what the authors said.

To assume GDP growth/GDP levels is not really an 'assumption', it's something that's used to determine the state of the economy. If you're going to say that the recession ended in 43 but would have ended in 36 if not for FDR, it's only fair to see how much growth you would need in the mythical 1936 recoevery to equal the 'real' recovery of 1943

No, you'd only need to show GDP would've been theoretically higher in '36 than it actually was, but for FDR's policies. And where do the authors even say the gauge for recovery was GDP alone? GDP is just one gauge among many.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Genx87
Anybody else get the feeling Phokus is frantically googling anything he can and posting it without much thought just to post look what I found?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

Actually, the paper i 'found' via google directly referenced and contradicted your UCLA paper and i quoted the relevant portion of the paper that showed FDR's policies were expansionary.

You lazily linked to a ucla paper and called it 'informed'.

You live in a bizarro universe.

I am starting to wonder if we arent all in bizzaro world right now. Really, you dont say you found it via google? No shit? And here I thought you had that in your library of well read studies on the era.

Really making this easy.

Actually, this was referenced in one of the many blogs i read a while ago and i had the link saved at home. The 'found' was in quotes was because i had to use google to search for it again because i didn't have it in my favorites at work. Your use of 'found/google' suggests this is the first time i've seen the paper, which is why i put it in quotes.

You're right, this is 'easy', because you self own yourself so many times, i'm having pity for you right now.

But you want to know the REALLY sad thing? You're actually attacking the search engine you THINK i use to 'find' these materials, rather than the fact that their mere existence makes you look incredibly ingorant, especially for a doctoral candidate in economics.

I think that any PhD-holding economist should be stripped of his creds if he/she fails to submit to your worldview. Those jackasses have the audacity to shape their own opinions and make interpretations that go against your, obviously far more credible, sources.

You are so high, mighty, and righteous that you can't even begin to see the hypocricy and arrogance you've put on display. "A" posts link to study demonstrating why he believes what he believes. "B" posts own links that disagree with "A"'s links, declares victory, says ggpwnz0|2ed, and states that everyone who doesn't agree is a "retard".

Every participation in a thread requires an end. Here's mine: You are a tool, and a stupid one at that. What makes you a stupid tool, you ask? Your complete disregard for common sense and your complete inability to acknowledge the possibility that multiple opinions can be reached from the same data and information. You operate in your own little world of absolutes, and you won't hesitate to launch an idiotic crusade of epic proportions in pursuit of proving - TO YOURSELF - that you're not a stupid tool.

It also doesn't help that you act like a 9 year old, prepubescent twat who just lost a Quake match.

Jokus is to the left what Butterbean is to the right. The only difference between those two morons is that one was facing west, the other east, when they were dropped on their heads.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Genx87
Dude we have moved well beyond that topic in this thread and onto your mental state. Try to keep up.

*waits for Phokus to produce psychiatric documents proving his sanity*

Facts and logic!

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I haven't read through the thread but did anyone give an example?

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Before you break your arm so smugly patting yourself on your back, maybe you ought to show that an un-regulated financial market has ever actually existed.

so thats a no. Ok thanks

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus

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

:lips:

I'm sorry my presence here is such a threat to you. I did you favor by recognizing your ramblings for what they were (ambiguous, incomplete tripe) and just moving on, but you just had to press the issue. Looks like these guys are a little more interested in calling you on it.

Go ahead, paste your little macro again as if it's significant in some way . This should be interesting.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I haven't read through the thread but did anyone give an example?

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Before you break your arm so smugly patting yourself on your back, maybe you ought to show that an un-regulated financial market has ever actually existed.

so thats a no. Ok thanks

You and me, bro.

I'm still waiting for an example of ANY unregulated financial market, whether successful or not.

Fern

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Corn
Jokus is to the left what Butterbean is to the right. The only difference between those two morons is that one was facing west, the other east, when they were dropped on their heads.

:laugh:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Which is why I added the "(or any relevant year)" part. Regardless, you're the one who initially brought up '36, and insisted it be compared to '43.

Because that's what the authors brought up. "or any relevant year" still sounds like you're looking at 1 particular year

A more accurate view of what? That's just unclear.

A more accurate view of GDP growth. You're not going to look at the recent stock market run up and conclude that the markets are healthy again until we are sure it's not just a 'dead cat's bounce'.

And you still haven't talked about why employment remained in double-digits while GDP was growing at record rates. It took until 1941 to return to anything close to full employment. If high unemployment wasn't, as the UCLA study suggests, due to FDR's labor policies, what was it due to?

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.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
I haven't read through the thread but did anyone give an example?

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Before you break your arm so smugly patting yourself on your back, maybe you ought to show that an un-regulated financial market has ever actually existed.

so thats a no. Ok thanks

You and me, bro.

I'm still waiting for an example of ANY unregulated financial market, whether successful or not.

Fern

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.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Corn
Jokus is to the left what Butterbean is to the right. The only difference between those two morons is that one was facing west, the other east, when they were dropped on their heads.

:laugh:

Calling me on what? That you should only look at one year's GDP instead of several? LOL Ok.

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:

 

[Stuxnet]

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 genuinely 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 their mind is already absolute. It's all a big waste of time. Tack on the fact that you're a complete juvenile, and there's just no motivation at all.

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 .

 

[Phokus]

Talk about relevant:

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

 

[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

 

[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