Socialist paradise Venezuela introduces food rationing

Seaneh

Ah yes, Noam Chomsky, a man regarded as one of the most important academics of our time, a "loony" and an "extremeist".
Pardon me if I don't take much notice of your input from here on in.

Davarus Walrus

Seaneh wrote: »

Ah yes, Noam Chomsky, a man regarded as one of the most important academics of our time, a "loony" and an "extremeist".
Pardon me if I don't take much notice of your input from here on in.

Yet you'll summarily dismiss the output of Friedman with the nonchalant air of a man who thinks his ideology is no longer in need of question.

Chomsky is a wonderful linguist and intellectual. His ivory tower views on economics don't hold that much relevance outside academia. He's the Kevin Myers of economic debate. A fly in the ointment.

KyussBishop

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Yet you'll summarily dismiss the output of Friedman with the nonchalant air of a man who thinks his ideology is no longer in need of question.

Like...Friedman? :pac:

I think we can safely say that Friedman's ideology - Monetarism - isn't something anyone has to bother questioning anymore, given how spectacularly it failed.

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

Chomsky is a wonderful linguist and intellectual. His ivory tower views on economics don't hold that much relevance outside academia. He's the Kevin Myers of economic debate. A fly in the ointment.

Out of curiosity, do you know what Chomsky's economic views are?

diveout

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's pretty much where it falls down - the appeal of Libertarianism is the great-sounding ideals/principles, and the soundbytes used to rally around them - but you won't find a complete description of a Libertarian political/economic system, that won't have holes poked into it easier than wet toilet paper.

This is why Libertarian tomes (and well...arguments in general), often rely on huge obfuscated texts, and semantic tricks (redefining taxes as 'stealing' and other nonsense) - if there wasn't an effort to hide all the flaws with obfuscation, nobody would ever believe it.

It (and 'free market' views in general) are a set of nice sounding myths/parables, making big promises, that never turn out as promised in reality, or have some ridiculous caveat ("oh, well we forgot about all those poor people who can't afford 'x' - it's working very nice otherwise though and it's their fault anyway, lets just forget about them!").

It appears to me the rise of libertarianism, not just economic but social also, is an inevitable response to nations like the UK, the US, and Ireland's increasing nanny statism and the over reaching arms of government sticking their oars into everyday life, into small business, into speech, and into family. If this nanny statism did not grow with every year, I don't think you would see so many people leaning towards libertarianism.

SupaNova2

Huh markets are a myth that don't deliver?

Quite the opposite, markets absent retarding regulations do just that, deliver. Markets are also a great equaliser. It wasn't long ago that blocky cell phones were for the rich or well off, a couple of years later nokia 3210's were in everyone's pocket. I was in Kuala Lumpur last week, and on the sky train I was surrounded by iPads, iPhones, and best of Samsungs offerings. It didn't take a 5 year government plan.

The latest breakthroughs in technology while only initially available to the rich, make there way to the masses in a short amount of time, whether its home appliances, air travel or digital technology.

Here is a nice article by Joe Kent:
http://joekent.liberty.me/2014/05/03/my-year-as-a-billionaire/?refer=libertyme

Grayson

diveout wrote: »

It appears to me the rise of libertarianism, not just economic but social also, is an inevitable response to nations like the UK, the US, and Ireland's increasing nanny statism and the over reaching arms of government sticking their oars into everyday life, into small business, into speech, and into family. If this nanny statism did not grow with every year, I don't think you would see so many people leaning towards libertarianism.

"Nanny statism" is a myth. Sure we outlaw stuff, but I don't think it's bad that we ban asbestos from schools. I don't think it's bad that we remove children from physically abusive parents.

We've seen most major industries become deregulated over the last few years. That's part of what caused the banking crises, it was a lack of proper oversight.

The ease of doing business surveys have been ranking Ireland very high for years. The one point we always score highly on is the ease of opening and running a business. Ireland is ranked 15 in the world over all. the US and UK are ranked higher. That's out of 189 countries. Both Ireland and the UK have actually risen in the Index (The US has changed 0 places to stay at number 4). So it's not like there's a rise in regulations that are stifling business.

Our freedom of speech hasn't changed except in the UK where people can now get jailed for using twitter. Strangely that's something that more right wing people like.

libertarianism is like the UKIP. It allows people to be intolerant and greedy but claim that it's a form of idealism. The myths that allow it's formation are the same old stories we hear again and again. The Government is stifling us, the government allow too much emigration, the government hate businesses..... None of it is based on any factual evidence, just on people fears and/or greed.

Grayson

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Huh markets are a myth that don't deliver?

Quite the opposite, markets absent retarding regulations do just that, deliver. Markets are also a great equaliser. It wasn't long ago that blocky cell phones were for the rich or well off, a couple of years later nokia 3210's were in everyone's pocket. I was in Kuala Lumpur last week, and on the sky train I was surrounded by iPads, iPhones, and best of Samsungs offerings. It didn't take a 5 year government plan.

The latest breakthroughs in technology while only initially available to the rich, make there way to the masses in a short amount of time, whether its home appliances, air travel or digital technology.

Here is a nice article by Joe Kent:
http://joekent.liberty.me/2014/05/03/my-year-as-a-billionaire/?refer=libertyme

I can't see how that article is related to what you wrote.

Although I wouldn't mind a billionaire sugar mommy my self.

SupaNova2

Grayson wrote: »

"Nanny statism" is a myth. Sure we outlaw stuff, but I don't think it's bad that we ban asbestos from schools. I don't think it's bad that we remove children from physically abusive parents.

When people refer to "Nanny statism" they are not talking about banning asbestos or removing children from abusive parents.

SupaNova2

Grayson wrote: »

I can't see how that article is related to what you wrote.

Bad eyesight perhaps. :cool:

osarusan

SupaNova2 wrote: »

When people refer to "Nanny statism" they are not talking about banning asbestos or removing children from abusive parents.

What are they referring to? give us some examples of what you consider 'nanny statism'.

Bedtimebaby

Grayson wrote: »

Can you define what it means to be greedy?

SupaNova2

Nanny Statism.

Ones that would personally affect me are gaming related ones. Just f**k off and let me play poker if I want to.

Bedtimebaby

osarusan wrote: »

What are they referring to? give us some examples of what you consider 'nanny statism'.

Telling a company that they can't sell large soft drinks.

diveout

SupaNova2 wrote: »

When people refer to "Nanny statism" they are not talking about banning asbestos or removing children from abusive parents.

I would certainly be referring to clandestine courts where government can remove children on shaky criteria for abuse and without substantive evidence, which is not required in these courts like it is in criminal courts, or parents losing custodial access over not taking their kid to McDonalds. Or if lobbyists get their influence on this nonsense like using logic is a form of domestic abuse.

https://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/how-saying-no-to-mcdonald-s-might-lead-to-dad-losing-custody-165611460.html

http://www.menstoppingviolence.org/docs/Controlling%20Behavior%20List.pdf

"Abuse" has now extended to all sorts of behaviors that it means what ever the expert in the room thinks it means, and without any judicial accountability [judges are exempt from civil action] where can one have their checks and balances in such a system.

The fact that divorces often take longer than the actual duration of the marriage and there is a phenomenal bottomless pit of money to be made out of it by lawyers, and lawyers in particular who are pally with local judges, then yes, it is a racket and more reason why the state should stay out of it as much as possible.

Just use the language of protection and the state can get away with all sorts of micro controls.

Bedtimebaby

Grayson wrote: »

I can't see how that article is related to what you wrote.

Although I wouldn't mind a billionaire sugar mommy my self.

It's related because it shows how the free market allows comapny's too innovate so quickly that a relatively poor person can have better products than a billionaire 5 years ago. We have it so good today precisely because people seeking profit endeavoured to continually provide better products to compete with the competition.

Grayson

SupaNova2 wrote: »

When people refer to "Nanny statism" they are not talking about banning asbestos or removing children from abusive parents.

They are. They refer to the government interfering in peoples abilities to do something they feel they should be allowed to do.

Making people wear seatbelts is an example. Or making people vaccinate their children. Or stopping smoking in public places like crèches. These are all things that some people view as unnecessary intrusions. Personally I think that seatbelts are fine and I think the eradication of small pox wasn't a bad thing. Smoking around children is pretty bad too.

The "nanny state" is a construction of people who want to place "the government" as the enemy.
Strangely most libertarians and right wingers are actually in favour of more controls socially and less controls on business. It's not unusual to find ones that think the government interferers too much yet is anti abortion and anti gay marriage. Considering how free people are to do business here and how liberal we are socially (with the exception of gay marriage-which is changing and of course abortion), we should be a libertarian paradise but most libertarians wouldn't think so .

Bedtimebaby

Grayson wrote: »

They are. They refer to the government interfering in peoples abilities to do something they feel they should be allowed to do.

Making people wear seatbelts is an example. Or making people vaccinate their children. Or stopping smoking in public places like crèches. These are all things that some people view as unnecessary intrusions. Personally I think that seatbelts are fine and I think the eradication of small pox wasn't a bad thing. Smoking around children is pretty bad too.

The "nanny state" is a construction of people who want to place "the government" as the enemy.
Strangely most libertarians and right wingers are actually in favour of more controls socially and less controls on business. It's not unusual to find ones that think the government interferers too much yet is anti abortion and anti gay marriage. Considering how free people are to do business here and how liberal we are socially (with the exception of gay marriage-which is changing and of course abortion), we should be a libertarian paradise but most libertarians wouldn't think so .

If you met a libertarian who regularly murdered people would you use that as an argument against libertarianism?

I believe in minimal government interference, I don't care if gay people marry or of someone wants to marry a chair.

Ultimately I believe we should govern a countey with the objective of maximising the happiness of it's citizens. IMO the free market plays a big role in maximising happiness.

SupaNova2

Grayson wrote: »

Making people wear seatbelts is an example. Or making people vaccinate their children. Or stopping smoking in public places like crèches. These are all things that some people view as unnecessary intrusions. Personally I think that seatbelts are fine and I think the eradication of small pox wasn't a bad thing. Smoking around children is pretty bad too.

All these are compatible with a private system, so I would not expect too much complaint from libertarians. A private road company would have the right to mandate seatbelt use or refuse entry, so I have no problem with governments setting any rules of the road. Smoking would obviously be banned in any privately owned creche if they want to do anything other than go bankrupt. While I have heard people complain about seatbelts in this manner, I have never seen anywhere someone complain about smoking bans in creches!!!

diveout

Bedtimebaby wrote: »

If you met a libertarian who regularly murdered people would you use that as an argument against libertarianism?

I believe in minimal government interference, I don't care if gay people marry or of someone wants to marry a chair.

I don't actually see why marriage by the state exists in the first place.

diveout

diveout wrote: »

I don't actually see why marriage by the state exists in the first place.

That's one somewhat Libertarian thing I agree with and it would get around the homophobes as well.

Grayson

Bedtimebaby wrote: »

It's related because it shows how the free market allows comapny's too innovate so quickly that a relatively poor person can have better products than a billionaire 5 years ago. We have it so good today precisely because people seeking profit endeavoured to continually provide better products to compete with the competition.

We're in a massive recession because of a lack of banking regulation. The world is fecked from global warming because of a lack of regulation.

No-one is arguing for a communist or fascist state, but free market capitalism ala the Chicago school is impractical. There need to be rules in place to prevent the worst excess of a free market.

Bedtimebaby

Grayson wrote: »

We're in a massive recession because of a lack of banking regulation. The world is fecked from global warming because of a lack of regulation.

No-one is arguing for a communist or fascist state, but free market capitalism ala the Chicago school is impractical. There need to be rules in place to prevent the worst excess of a free market.

Yes there should be rules, but the minimum that is needed. We're actually not in a recession though. It is one of the best times ever to be alive.

SupaNova2

Grayson wrote: »

We're in a massive recession because of a lack of banking regulation. The world is fecked from global warming because of a lack of regulation.

Nice the way you mention just one factor, yet it is the other side that are biased. It was governments that wanted the cheap credit to flow . Allowing poor people the dream of owning their own home was a vote winner. Central banks done their bit lowering interest rates. The resulting borrowing binge gave way to boom time taxes and allowed giveaway welfare budgets that ensured re-election, so governments didn't give a **** about regulation.

Why don't the unbiased left or the self proclaimed unbiased pragmatic centrists ever care to mention such market interference?

Grayson

Bedtimebaby wrote: »

Yes there should be rules, but the minimum that is needed. We're actually not in a recession though. It is one of the best times ever to be alive.

Ok, we're not in a recession since technically a recession is two quarters of negative growth, but the economy is still bad. there's still excessive unemployment and we have a massive debt. Climate change is real and getting worse.

I will agree that this is one of the best times and places to be alive. I say one of the best because there's still small differences between say here and the nordic countries which are performing better.
But, nonetheless, we are in one of the safest countries, in one of the safest times in history.

Most "liberals" would be libertarian in a lot of ways. personally I'd consider myself more of an existentialist, because I do strongly believe in the freedom of the individual.

But I believe the states primary duty is to protect it's citizens. That means at it's basics having an army & police to uphold order but more than that I believe a state has a duty to improve it's citizens lives.
That's why I'm in favour of free healthcare. I'm in favour of free education because education has proven to be the biggest single factor in social mobility. I'm in favour of regulations which improve the public good, like say blocking certain additives in food, limiting emissions to improve air quality and other stuff like that. I don't think that most companies would have more than a cursory environmental policy unless they are made to.

Grayson

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Nice the way you mention just one factor, yet it is the other side that are biased. It was governments that wanted the cheap credit to flow . Allowing poor people the dream of owning their own home was a vote winner. Central banks done their bit lowering interest rates. The resulting borrowing binge gave way to boom time taxes and allowed giveaway welfare budgets that ensured re-election, so governments didn't give a **** about regulation.

Why don't the unbiased left or the self proclaimed unbiased pragmatic centrists ever care to mention such market interference?

Are you actually saying that the removal of regulations which then allowed cheap credit, was actually a form of regulation/government interference and is therefore bad?

That's messed up logic.

SupaNova2

Grayson wrote: »

Are you actually saying that the removal of regulations which then allowed cheap credit, was actually a form of regulation and is therefore bad?

Huh, what I said was clear, there were market interferences that unbiased pragmatists such as yourself never mention, what's your logic for not mentioning them?

What regulation was removed that allowed cheap credit?

Suryavarman

Grayson wrote: »

We're in a massive recession because of a lack of banking regulation. The world is fecked from global warming because of a lack of regulation.

No-one is arguing for a communist or fascist state, but free market capitalism ala the Chicago school is impractical. There need to be rules in place to prevent the worst excess of a free market.

The financial sector is probably the most heavily regulated sector of the economy. What regulations would have prevented this recession?

jank

Karl Stein wrote: »

Three times.

So you are denying that the USSR funded any parties, countries, armies, revolutionaries post 1945 until 1991?

Grayson

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Huh, what I said was clear, there were market interferences that unbiased pragmatists such as yourself never mention, what's your logic for not mentioning them?

What regulation was removed that allowed cheap credit?

Glass–Steagall. It's removal led to all kinds of dodgy credit products being traded and led to the banking crises.

jank

Oh and LOLZ that a discussion on the death rattle of the socialist paradise in Venezuela has turned into 'Libertarianism sucks'... and we are somehow religious? ROFL

And those taking their time to discredit free markets have not at all opined at the topic at hand. Suppose better not reality get into the way.

SupaNova2

Grayson wrote: »

Glass–Steagall. It's removal led to all kinds of dodgy credit products being traded and led to the banking crises.

Maybe you can explain to me how the removal of glass steagall-lead to dodgy products? Or why Canada, who never had such a regulation never suffered a banking crisis?

:pac: And you do realize those dodgy credit products were derivatives of the bad mortgages enabled by the very government market interference in mortgage lending discussed in the articles I linked?

Originally posted by the New York Times

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
...
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
...
'Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
...
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Originally posted by the Washington Post

In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.

Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more "affordable" loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.
...
The agency neglected to examine whether borrowers could make the payments on the loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. From 2004 to 2006, the two purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans, creating a market for more such lending. Subprime loans are targeted toward borrowers with poor credit, and they generally carry higher interest rates than conventional loans.
...
Fannie and Freddie finance about 40 percent of all U.S. mortgages, with $5.3 trillion in outstanding debt. Owned by private shareholders but chartered by Congress, they are exempt from state and local taxes and receive an estimated $6.5 billion-a-year federal subsidy because they can borrow money more cheaply than other investors. In return, they are expected to serve "public purposes," including helping to make home buying more affordable.
...
"Congress and HUD policy folks were trying to do a good thing," he said, "and it worked."

Since HUD became their regulator in 1992, Fannie and Freddie each year are supposed to buy a portion of "affordable" mortgages made to underserved borrowers. Every four years, HUD reviews the goals to adapt to market changes.

In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.

KyussBishop

diveout wrote: »

It appears to me the rise of libertarianism, not just economic but social also, is an inevitable response to nations like the UK, the US, and Ireland's increasing nanny statism and the over reaching arms of government sticking their oars into everyday life, into small business, into speech, and into family. If this nanny statism did not grow with every year, I don't think you would see so many people leaning towards libertarianism.

Social Libertarianism is something US/Right/Austro-Libertarianism just tries to trumpet, in order to co-opt support for its economic goals (I doubt the people in control really give much of a shít about social libertarianism, beyond this use); the left and social democrats around the world, have been supporting social libertarianism for 100+ years in various forms - Libertarians aren't pushing anything new there.

US/Right-Libertarianism is being financially backed/astroturfed by people who have their oars dipped deeply into the state, and who depend upon government subsidies and favourable treatment by government, for their profits - anti-statism is a smokescreen for fooling people into supporting big business and the wealthy gaining control over politics, the economy and society.

The whole point of removing power from the state, is to put it into the hands of big business and the wealthy (who buys up privatized state assets/monopoly-markets? massive financial firms, not 'small business') - while promising lying, that we'll all magically slip into a harmonious utopia that will prevent that consolidation of power from happening.


Look at the big promises, and look at the results of enacting their policies in reality - the promises are lies, used to sell NeoLiberalism - not Libertarianism.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Huh markets are a myth that don't deliver?

Quite the opposite, markets absent retarding regulations do just that, deliver. Markets are also a great equaliser. It wasn't long ago that blocky cell phones were for the rich or well off, a couple of years later nokia 3210's were in everyone's pocket. I was in Kuala Lumpur last week, and on the sky train I was surrounded by iPads, iPhones, and best of Samsungs offerings. It didn't take a 5 year government plan.

The latest breakthroughs in technology while only initially available to the rich, make there way to the masses in a short amount of time, whether its home appliances, air travel or digital technology.

Here is a nice article by Joe Kent:
http://joekent.liberty.me/2014/05/03/my-year-as-a-billionaire/?refer=libertyme

Absent regulations i.e. laws, markets like we see today wouldn't exist - good luck operating a market without even a law/regulation defining private property, or criminalizing robbery.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Absent regulations i.e. laws, markets like we see today wouldn't exist - good luck operating a market without even a law/regulation defining private property, or criminalizing robbery.

I agree.

Bedtimebaby

KyussBishop wrote: »

Social Libertarianism is something US/Right/Austro-Libertarianism just tries to trumpet, in order to co-opt support for its economic goals (I doubt the people in control really give much of a shít about social libertarianism, beyond this use); the left and social democrats around the world, have been supporting social libertarianism for 100+ years in various forms - Libertarians aren't pushing anything new there.

US/Right-Libertarianism is being financially backed/astroturfed by people who have their oars dipped deeply into the state, and who depend upon government subsidies and favourable treatment by government, for their profits - anti-statism is a smokescreen for fooling people into supporting big business and the wealthy gaining control over politics, the economy and society.

The whole point of removing power from the state, is to put it into the hands of big business and the wealthy (who buys up privatized state assets/monopoly-markets? massive financial firms, not 'small business') - while promising lying, that we'll all magically slip into a harmonious utopia that will prevent that consolidation of power from happening.


Look at the big promises, and look at the results of enacting their policies in reality - the promises are lies, used to sell NeoLiberalism - not Libertarianism.

On what basis do you believe "the people in control" don't care about social libertarianism?

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that removing power from the government is done with the sole motivation of giving "big business" the power?

Augmerson

jank wrote: »

Just goes to show that time and again when the state interferes and tries to centrally manage an economy disaster awaits around the corner.

Like bailing out banks?

Bedtimebaby

KyussBishop wrote: »

Absent regulations i.e. laws, markets like we see today wouldn't exist - good luck operating a market without even a law/regulation defining private property, or criminalizing robbery.

What is this tripe?

Who's arguing for the complete removal of government?

I await one of your quasi aspergers responses about dictionary definitions.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Nice the way you mention just one factor, yet it is the other side that are biased. It was governments that wanted the cheap credit to flow . Allowing poor people the dream of owning their own home was a vote winner. Central banks done their bit lowering interest rates. The resulting borrowing binge gave way to boom time taxes and allowed giveaway welfare budgets that ensured re-election, so governments didn't give a **** about regulation.

Why don't the unbiased left or the self proclaimed unbiased pragmatic centrists ever care to mention such market interference?

Market interference is pretty much a myth, seeing as without government 'interference', markets wouldn't exist in the first place.

All 'market interference' means is, 'government doing something I don't like, instead of just doing what I do like, such as providing the laws/regulations that allow markets to exist in the first place'.


You want self-regulation of the banking industry, yet here you are blaming government, for letting the banking industry self-regulate to the point that it allowed them to create a crisis, and your solution is...more self-regulation???

I think the banking industry have amply proved, that they can't be trusted to self-regulate - probably can't be trusted with the power to create money at all.

osarusan

KyussBishop wrote: »

All 'market interference' means is, 'government doing something I don't like, instead of just doing what I do like, such as providing the laws/regulations that allow markets to exist in the first place'.

Exactly.

KyussBishop

Bedtimebaby wrote: »

What is this tripe?

Who's arguing for the complete removal of government?

I await one of your quasi aspergers responses about dictionary definitions.

What was your old username? You post a lot like jank.

SupaNova2

KyussBishop wrote: »

Market interference is pretty much a myth, seeing as without government 'interference', markets wouldn't exist in the first place.

All 'market interference' means is, 'government doing something I don't like, instead of just doing what I do like, such as providing the laws/regulations that allow markets to exist in the first place'.

Only a myth if you are being picky about language and want to be awkward and go against the language that everyone uses for the sake of brevity. We have a rough sense of what is meant by interference and regulation. To use price controls as an example, right now the government doesn't regulate the price of mobile phones, nor does it interfere in to help one group of participants in the market over another. There isn't much interference in the mobile phone market. However, government do interfere with prices in the mortgage market with the intent of favouring those with poor credit.

Karl Stein

Alas, the thread has gone full circle jerk. Ah well. Anyhoo, a bit of balance is needed.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

I was in Kuala Lumpur last week

How did you get there? By Boeing* or Airbus*? Did they have Rolls Royce* engines? Honeywell* avionics?

*Boeing enjoyed huge growth and made great advances in technology and production due to huge orders being placed by the USGov.

*Airbus can trace its roots back to Concorde which was a transnational government led project.

*Rolls Royce was bankrupt in the 70's and was bailed out by the UK government.

*Honeywell experienced huge growth and advances in technology during and after WWII from USGov orders.

and on the sky train

Built with public money.

I was surrounded by iPads, iPhones, and best of Samsungs offerings.

Silicon valley can attribute much of its success to having access to publicly funded research. The internet was created in the public domain.

SupaNova2

Karl Stein wrote: »

Built with public money.

Taxed from private individuals and businesses.

I don't deny that governments can do good things with the taxes they collect, but I think in most cases it can be done better by private industry.

I got to KL by Boeing.:)

Grayson

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Maybe you can explain to me how the removal of glass steagall-lead to dodgy products? Or why Canada, who never had such a regulation never suffered a banking crisis?

:pac: And you do realize those dodgy credit products were derivatives of the bad mortgages enabled by the very government market interference in mortgage lending discussed in the articles I linked?

You are actually arguing that the government failed to provide enough oversight. How is less government intervention better? If anything the government should have been stricter and stopped banks from risky lending.

If you'd read the article you'd posted you'd see the following

HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.

They had feck all standards and that's why there was a subprime bubble. Those mortgage bundles were then sold on. That was illegal under Glass–Steagall. But of course that wasn't there any more, thanks to lobbying by the banks. So the dodgy bundles were repackaged and sold on and other banks took on the risk as well.

Bedtimebaby

KyussBishop wrote: »

Market interference is pretty much a myth, seeing as without government 'interference', markets wouldn't exist in the first place.

All 'market interference' means is, 'government doing something I don't like, instead of just doing what I do like, such as providing the laws/regulations that allow markets to exist in the first place'.


You want self-regulation of the banking industry, yet here you are blaming government, for letting the banking industry self-regulate to the point that it allowed them to create a crisis, and your solution is...more self-regulation???

I think the banking industry have amply proved, that they can't be trusted to self-regulate - probably can't be trusted with the power to create money at all.

They don't have the power to create money, only central banks do.

When people refer to government interference it's with respect to market interference, not the structures with which a market can operate and you know that so drop it.

SupaNova2

Grayson wrote: »

They had feck all standards and that's why there was a subprime bubble. Those mortgage bundles were then sold on. That was illegal under Glass–Steagall. But of course that wasn't there any more, thanks to lobbying by the banks. So the dodgy bundles were repackaged and sold on and other banks took on the risk as well.

Really can you show me where in Glass Steagall CDO's sales were made illegal or an article discussing it?

SupaNova2

Grayson wrote: »

You are actually arguing that the government failed to provide enough oversight. How is less government intervention better? If anything the government should have been stricter and stopped banks from risky lending.

If government weren't buying almost half the mortgage market and bad loans due to policy, a lot of those loans would not have been made. By buying such loans off mortgage lenders, those mortgage lenders did not have to worry about having bad loans or their balance sheet, not their problem if they can sell them off, why worry.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Only a myth if you are being picky about language and want to be awkward and go against the language that everyone uses for the sake of brevity. We have a rough sense of what is meant by interference and regulation. To use price controls as an example, right now the government doesn't regulate the price of mobile phones, nor does it interfere in to help one group of participants in the market over another. There isn't much interference in the mobile phone market. However, government do interfere with prices in the mortgage market with the intent of favouring those with poor credit.

The definitions of 'interference' and 'regulation' are intentionally left broad, so that free market supporters can make them mean whatever they like - and then complain when someone uses a meaning of them that they dislike.

That's how the free-market framing of debates works - try to force people to use their (non-dictionary/legal-standard) definition of words, and then complain that 'oh free-market-supporters everybody uses our definition and knows what that means', when that's not true).

Just by merely existing, government 'interferes' with markets - so 'interference' isn't an inherently bad thing, even if it's the negative connotations you're emphasizing.


If you want to talk about specific bad policies, grand, but speaking in generalities about 'interference' and 'regulations' - like they can only be bad, or have a disposition towards being bad - is just a way of trying to slant the debate in a particular direction.

KyussBishop

SupaNova2 wrote: »

Taxed from private individuals and businesses.

We can go even further back here too: And put into circulation by government in the first place.

KyussBishop

Bedtimebaby wrote: »

They don't have the power to create money, only central banks do.

When people refer to government interference it's with respect to market interference, not the structures with which a market can operate and you know that so drop it.

Ah I see you're peddling you silly banking theories again :pac: Being a central bank, I'm sure the Bank of England knows how it all works.