(USSA) United Socialist States of America...

[andyman]

this is the new trend it seems

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_bi_ge/aig

They really sell the idea that the federal reserve is part of the u.s. government in that one

[scared?]

i mean the socialism has gone as far as communism now...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_bi_ge/aig_99

[andyman]

old... the articles are different though, looks like she edited some stuff

[andyman]

this is the new trend it seems

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_bi_ge/aig

They really sell the idea that the federal reserve is part of the u.s. government in that one

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_ ... all_street

[seremtan]

What if every restaurant was Taco Bell?

i'd just go underground and grab a rat burger off edgar friendly

[R00k]

This Mikko guy seems to have disappeared. I wonder why?

[Grudge]

THE MARKET SHOULD BE FREE TO DO WHATEVER IT WANTS, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD JUST STAY AWAY

[GONNAFISTYA]

...UNTIL IRRESPONSIBLE BUSINESSES LOSE ALL THEIR MONEY AND BEG THE GOVERNMENT FOR A (CORPORATE) WELFARE CHEQUE WHILE CLAIMING IF THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS TEH UNIVERSE WILL EXPLODE.

[Peenyuh]

..AND UNTIL A FORUM OF GAMERS DECIDE DIFFERENTLY.

[werldhed]

...UNTIL IRRESPONSIBLE BUSINESSES LOSE ALL THEIR MONEY AND BEG THE GOVERNMENT FOR A (CORPORATE) WELFARE CHEQUE WHILE CLAIMING IF THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS TEH UNIVERSE WILL EXPLODE.

Wasn't it just yesterday that McCain was saying that the gov't shouldn't bail out AIG? Today he's saying that he supports the gov't's move.

Gotta love the repubs claiming to be "small gov't" and "less regulation"...

...except when it has to do with who you can marry, what is taught in school, what language you speak, what god you worship, your privacy, and any time there's the possibility that they'll lose money.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Events such as these remind me to make sure that I laugh at moronic people (usually "conservative" right-wingers) who bitch about "lazy" welfare moms and street bums getting $40 a week of their money. They're the same people who then immediately turn around and say things like "but industry needs propping up so that the wealth can 'trickle down' to the rest" whenever a company fucks up and (grudgingly I'm sure) takes a cash grab.

And just for kicks I'm gonna go ahead and bet $100 that pretty much anyone who's "pro free market" has forgotten about the billions of "emergency funds" for a couple of select airlines after 9/11....airlines that were already running themselves into the ground.

It's funny...corporations have actually convinced people to feel sorry for them during those "hard times" when they don't have a bottomless pot of gold to exploit others like they do on any other normal day.

[seremtan]

Wasn't it just yesterday that McCain was saying that the gov't shouldn't bail out AIG? Today he's saying that he supports the gov't's move.

flip flop flip flop

i think mccain's just doing it to prove he can get away with it because the voters are so dumb

[Tsakali]

sex would suck

[andyman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73KlhUq ... ture=email

[andyman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvcgGp5m ... ture=email

PT 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_RFIXcj4ik&feature=user

[Mikko_Sandt]

The funny thing about "free open markets" is that - given time and no restraints - they ultimately end up as a monopoly. This has always made me chuckle because if you know what a monopoly is then you'll know that it's the same as a communist system...one all-powerful company that dominates a market with no alternatives for consumers....which is what regulation helps prevent

Blaming laissez-faire for creating monopolies is quite absurd considering the fact that most monopolies are state owned. The US may have a bit less monopolies in general than Europe so you're not so much run by monopolies as Europe is. Also, even if a monopoly was not created by the state its existence usually stems from regulation. There are natural monopolies of course that can and do exist under laissez-faire but explicitly blaming laissez-faire for creating monopolies is absurd considering the much worse alternative.

For more examples of the necessity of regulation (rather than the cut throat approach) look into the history of Hawaii, Guatemala, Cuba, Argentina, Honduras, Iraq (duh)...and several other countries to see how unfettered markets lead to horrible outcomes for "the common good"...all in the name of deregulated control of a market.

None of these states were even close to a free market economy.

[scared?]

lol the moron is back...

[Mikko_Sandt]

Is freedom of speech affected? I imagine you would say that the individuals' right to broadcast is affected, but under a purely capitalist system an average person like me wouldn't own a TV station, but I do own a stake in the BBC as a licence payer (not that I support that system, I think it should be tax funded) to an institution which continually has to justify its status.

But your ability to protest is limited. Even if you wanted to watch only commercial channels or pay channels you'd still be forced to pay for something you don't want.

I don't know about Freddie and Fanny but we've had banks bailed out over here and well, I'm curious as to what the alternative is. I mean would people lose their life savings if they had it in an account there? Can't we punish only those who were in charge of the risky decisions, or are ordinary savers culpable too for their "bad investments"?

But individuals are at fault if they choose a risky bank to take care of their money. And here government intervention comes into play again: because individuals are guaranteed that they don't lose their savings in case of a bank crash they pay less attention to the quality of the bank. It's like when you buy stock: if the stocks you bought come down you are not asking the government to compensate for your losses.

There are tons of problem in the current fractional reserve system most of which would be gone if we were to move toward a pure gold standard or even significantly raise reserve requirements (ie, the fraction of deposits banks are required to keep in reserves). The current crisis arose because of government intervention, because the Fed kept interest rates low (which increases consumption at the expense of saving) and because Fannie & Freddie were allowed to get involved in the mortgage market in the first place.

Are you aware that the tragedy of the commons was originally an argument for regulation? How would you refute this interpretation? Needless to say it makes a lot more sense to me that way.

Note that the argument is not against privatization: it's for preserving a common pool resource. I question the foundation of this argument: why have a common pool resource in the first place?

What's the difference between laws and regulation? Why can't it just be illegal to pollute a publicly owned resource? Do you think the government's role should be to protect property rights and only property rights? If so, how have you arrived at this view?

Even if a resource is publicly owned that doesn't mean it's actually beneficial to keep it from pollution. Often the cost of polluting is less than the cost of not polluting. A good example of this is, of course, a situation where all activity involving pollution is banned. This would take mankind right back to the Medieval period. A benefit/cost calculation is in order but regulations in the US actually prohibit benefit/cost calculations in certain situations. The regulatory network concerning environmental protection in the US is largely inefficient.

I think the government's role is to protect individual liberties which include economic liberties. I don't see any technical reason for government intervention in economic affairs.

[seremtan]

The funny thing about "free open markets" is that - given time and no restraints - they ultimately end up as a monopoly. This has always made me chuckle because if you know what a monopoly is then you'll know that it's the same as a communist system...one all-powerful company that dominates a market with no alternatives for consumers....which is what regulation helps prevent

Blaming laissez-faire for creating monopolies is quite absurd considering the fact that most monopolies are state owned. The US may have a bit less monopolies in general than Europe so you're not so much run by monopolies as Europe is. Also, even if a monopoly was not created by the state its existence usually stems from regulation. There are natural monopolies of course that can and do exist under laissez-faire but explicitly blaming laissez-faire for creating monopolies is absurd considering the much worse alternative.

sorry but you missed his point entirely here. without regulations explicitly forbidding the formation of private monopolies (i.e. the kind of regulation that exists today, at least in euroland), monopolies or near-monopolies are a distinctly possible outcome. all companies seek to increase their market share; the maximum market share is of course 100%, i.e. monopoly

[R00k]

But your ability to protest is limited. Even if you wanted to watch only commercial channels or pay channels you'd still be forced to pay for something you don't want.

We are forced to pay for something we don't want in exactly the same way with our privately-owned cable packages. Contrary to your statement earlier, you can't call the cable company and ask them to remove just the Fox News channel from your lineup. You have to buy packages.

But individuals are at fault if they choose a risky bank to take care of their money. And here government intervention comes into play again: because individuals are guaranteed that they don't lose their savings in case of a bank crash they pay less attention to the quality of the bank. It's like when you buy stock: if the stocks you bought come down you are not asking the government to compensate for your losses.

There are tons of problem in the current fractional reserve system most of which would be gone if we were to move toward a pure gold standard or even significantly raise reserve requirements (ie, the fraction of deposits banks are required to keep in reserves). The current crisis arose because of government intervention, because the Fed kept interest rates low (which increases consumption at the expense of saving) and because Fannie & Freddie were allowed to get involved in the mortgage market in the first place.

The rates are only one part of what caused our current problems. Another very important part was legislation passed in '99 that removed a key regulation, preventing banks from operating in the private investment market. This was enacted after the Great Depression, because unregulated banks helped cause it. Once that regulation was gone, banks were able to buy and sell these securities bundles that included tons of bad loans. When the loans went bust, they lost a ton of money, and they went bust too.

There was no way for the customers to know that their bank had purchased bad investments. What you are essentially saying is that the onus is on the customer of the bank to not put his money in a "risky" bank - but at the same time, also saying that no bank should be forced to disclose how it operates, to anyone. This is fallacious logic.

Note that the argument is not against privatization: it's for preserving a common pool resource. I question the foundation of this argument: why have a common pool resource in the first place?

If you think there is nothing wrong with corporations owning every park, pond, tree, lake in the country, including the Grand Canyon, then we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on much of anything.

Even if a resource is publicly owned that doesn't mean it's actually beneficial to keep it from pollution. Often the cost of polluting is less than the cost of not polluting. A good example of this is, of course, a situation where all activity involving pollution is banned. This would take mankind right back to the Medieval period. A benefit/cost calculation is in order but regulations in the US actually prohibit benefit/cost calculations in certain situations. The regulatory network concerning environmental protection in the US is largely inefficient.

I think the government's role is to protect individual liberties which include economic liberties. I don't see any technical reason for government intervention in economic affairs.

Again: if the question of whether there is anything wrong with pollution comes down to a simple economic cost/benefit analysis to you, we aren't going to agree on much. If we run that analysis against a company that is dumping waste into a river, we may decide that none of the chemicals are known to be toxic, and therefore allow them to do it. Then, 15 years from now, we may have deformed babies before we ever realize that we didn't know enough. It has happened plenty of times in the past.

[GONNAFISTYA]

For more examples of the necessity of regulation (rather than the cut throat approach) look into the history of Hawaii, Guatemala, Cuba, Argentina, Honduras, Iraq (duh)...and several other countries to see how unfettered markets lead to horrible outcomes for "the common good"...all in the name of deregulated control of a market.

None of these states were even close to a free market economy.

Exactly. They never had the chance to become one because the whole thing was set up for one company to control it all (usually an American company). You're right...there is no free market economy in those states because that wasn't even the goal. The goal was complete deregulation and profit for a select few.

My point with those countries was that they were invaded/overthrown/meddled with EXPLICITLY BECAUSE the corporations were allowed to go in (unregulated) and take control. I guess you've never heard of what happened in Bolivia when they privatized the water supply. A corporation was allowed to walk in and own all the water...EVEN THE FUCKING RAIN!! Needless to say the people revolted and "ran the company out of town". Hawaii was overthrown because the kings of the sugar industry wanted it that way. Cuba is still purposefully held back by bullshit sanctions (corporate supported) to suppress local growth. Need I go on? Basically these were "free markets" set up to be raped by those who knew how to.

Do you not know history and are you willingly ignorant to what's going on or are you thoroughly convinced free markets are infallible? I'm sorry to say but after reading your other posts in this thread it feels like having an argument with a religious person.

[GONNAFISTYA]

BTW...the "Fed" is not the government. It's private.

[werldhed]

Even if a resource is publicly owned that doesn't mean it's actually beneficial to keep it from pollution. Often the cost of polluting is less than the cost of not polluting. A good example of this is, of course, a situation where all activity involving pollution is banned. This would take mankind right back to the Medieval period. A benefit/cost calculation is in order but regulations in the US actually prohibit benefit/cost calculations in certain situations. The regulatory network concerning environmental protection in the US is largely inefficient.

I think the government's role is to protect individual liberties which include economic liberties. I don't see any technical reason for government intervention in economic affairs.

Conservation will always cost more monetarily than polluting. Suggesting we should never do so because of that is a pretty weak argument.

[Grudge]

So what's the value of clean water? Clean air? How do you put a monetary value on that?

It's like putting a monetary value on your kids, or your parents. What are they worth?

Mikko, you're a retard.

[seremtan]

mikko doesn't 'do' externalities