No, not at all. A truly free market has never existed, but we have something that we refer to as the free market which periodically fails. You know this as well as I do. Were you really unable to figure this out?
What proof is there that the boom and bust cycles are a result of some inherent flaw in capitalism, though?
The earliest major economic depression that hit the US (post revolution) which I could find appears to be the "Panic of 1837". This first "bust" of the economy sounds as if it was a direct result of government tampering with the monetary supply. This is the page I got the info from: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h967.html
Link Cliffnotes: The government decided it didn't want to be paid in gold-backed banknotes printed by individual states/banks any longer, but only in actual gold. This immediately devalued the paper currency which most of the population used, leading to a depression which lasted ~6 years.
Again, I'm not trying to use this one example as proof of my position. If there are reasons why this isn't an applicable example, or if there were earlier successful interventions by the government into the nation's economy, then please post that info.
I just think it's a little disingenuous to claim the boom and bust cycles are a direct result of government deregulating the economy -- shouldn't we first learn why the government initially felt the need to regulate the economy at all?
Idealism? If anything, I'm a cynic -- I'm saying that busts happen, and it's idealistic to think that we can create an economy in which everyone is taken care of. Instead, why not accept that capitalism -- even with its flaws -- is still a vastly more successful system than the known alternatives?
Political theater?
After 9/11, was it political theater when the Left cried about what the government was doing in response? When big things happen those in power will respond in a way that furthers their ideology and agenda... not out of some evil conspiracy, but simply because they must respond and they do so with what they believe to be the best answers according to their beliefs.
Our current situation is no different... those in power will respond to the economic problem with their own ideas, and those with different ideas will complain. This is common sense. It's not political theater, it's politics. If anything YOU are engaging in political theater by setting up your own little dichotomy by implying you must either agree with Obama or be hysterical. You know, it's not honest to automatically reject debate by discounting criticism across the board.
I noticed you said "free markets have never existed" and then said "when free markets fail," and then expressed exasperation when someone didn't understand your inconsistency. Well let me express a little exasperation (using your logic)... you know full well that we refer to as socialism is heavy government intervention in the economy / welfare state. And democrats in general favor more intervention / welfare. "You know this as well as I do. Were you really unable to figure this out?"
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Nowhere did I create a dichotomy that implied if you didn't agree with Obama you must be hysterical. If you are shrieking "SOCIALISM" however, then you are hysterical because it is an attempt to use a politically charged word to incorrectly label policies you disagree with.
The definition of free market that I was using is a pretty well accepted concept across the political spectrum. As for 'socialism', 'we' do not use the word socialism like that at all. People who either don't know what the word means or are trying to advance an agenda use the word like that.
What I find amazing is that it is junk bond dealers that managed to destroy the stock market.
These companies like bear stearns managed to somehow destroy our economy.
They did it by basically ignoring some rules of investing. They put all their eggs in one investment medium. For years I have heard from financial planners, "You need to deversify." Real estate from time to time has a tendency to go through these tough times and anyone who was not living under a rock would know that.
These companies like bear stearns managed to somehow destroy our economy.
They did it by basically ignoring some rules of investing. They put all their eggs in one investment medium. For years I have heard from financial planners, "You need to deversify." Real estate from time to time has a tendency to go through these tough times and anyone who was not living under a rock would know that.
We don't? Seems to me that's exactly how we use it. Who really talks about workers owning the means of production? Nobody? The way it has been commonly used for 50 years is basically describing heavy government control of the economy and large welfare state policies. Even some Libs around here lately have said the military is socialistic. They don't mean troops own the means of production, they mean it's economically controlled and has a welfare state structure to it.
I believe you're trying to diffuse criticism of the government's actions by claiming it's all "hysterical." Look at the way people are using the word instead of engaging in your political theater.
the government wasn't regulating the market. During the land boom of the 1820's and 30's, you coudl buy land with bank notes. That changed because andrew jackson was an ignorant shithead that wanted to show Philadelphia bankers (mainly nicolas biddle) who was boss, and required land purchasers to pay with gold bullion. bubbled popped, economy went in the shitter. At the time, the second bank of the united states acted as a defacto central bank and was largely owned by the US government.
the first american depression occurred shortly after the revolution, and another in jeffersons second term after the non-intercourse act nuked the us merchant and maritime industry. By my rough count, the us has been through 7 depressions (1780's, 1805-1808, 1838-1842, 1870's, 1890's, 1907-?, 1929-1939, and possibly 1970's, time frames of course are approximate). the longest periods of time w/o a depression and periods with the greatest economic stability were the period of the second bank of the US (infact, the us immediately went into recession and dealt with 30 years of banking instability after jackson killed it) and the period from 1939-present, under the federal reserve. Yes the federal reserve existed since 1912, however it didn't have enough authority to do anything remotely near what it does now.
Anyways economys are obviously cyclical because the world isn't static. Assuming that markets move toward equilibrium (they don't always, in some circumstances), they are always playing catchup, becaus eof changing technology, demographics, resources, social and political climate, natural disasters and all sorts of other factors. Information of that people use in the market is 1) delayed 2) imperfect, and the people who operate in the market are not always rational (herd mentality, group think, pure stupidity). As such, the economy has a tendency to 'overshoot' then 'correct,' or in other words, when taken across the entire economy, to engage in booms and busts.
because free market capitalism has never existed just like true communism has never existed, because they are both based around hypotheticals that ignore the fact that people are involved.
i hope you aren't talking about the CRA, because i've personally debunked this claim of your at least twice now.
Well you're half right. That is the way it has been commonly used by the right to fearmonger against government programs that they disagree with. You can criticize the programs of the Obama administration very easily (and far more accurately) without attempting to use loaded phrases that dishonestly represent them. Claiming that we're becoming socialist is ridiculous hysteria.
Calling people hysterical who are freaking out about socialism is also a very strange application of the phrase 'political theater'. I mean I could see it being called an ad hominem attack, something like that, but I'm not really sure how it would be theater. Anyways, since you've already decided I'm part of a campaign to defend the Obama administration by marginalizing its critics unfairly, what's the point in worrying about it?
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Than you know it was the money changers that brought ROME down . IF you think otherwise History shows exactly how it happened. Theresult was the Dark ages. After this last bit of bullshit . We going to go threw. It won't be back to the darkages. It will be time of enlightenment. The Money changers will all be killed. All those who support them till the end shall perish also.
Nemesis 1
Lifer
- Dec 30, 2006
- 11,366
- 2
- 0
Morgan Stanley started this whole thing. I told you guys In America, The King is Rothschild His cronies are Morgan Read about his will. Opens eyes.
Warberg rockefeller Morgan and others are traitors to America , They conspired against America . They have Publicly admitted it. Bush Clinton Carter Ronney. They all have said a One world government was coming. And they were helping to bring .
THAT IS TREASON. IF your an AMERICAN citizen you cann't plane in overthrow or soverty changes. These men all publicly admitted to Treason . Yet the Judicial system has done nothing .
Yet these same leaders say were a nation of laws. What they mean is . Will give you laws you have to follow . Were Above them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 313
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter