Dispelling the Big Government Myth

[Boss]

Yeah, can't argue. There are always "exceptions" to the rule, and coincidentally, those "exceptions" always happen to go in my favor. Capitalism is fine as long as I can leverage it for my agenda, but outside of that, it is evil.
.

Well, "free market" has nothing to do with agendas. It's the fair and honest voluntary trade of goods and services between parties for remuneration with price determined by supply and demand. Everyone's "agenda" is served in a free market. It's the most fair and equitable system known to man. Government can serve as an agent to protect and promote it OR to corrupt and destroy it. THAT is where "agendas" come in.

For me, the smartest approach is finding a proper equilibrium between "free" market dynamics and efficient regulation - finding and maintaining the place where capitalism is restrained too much by regulation, and that's a loaded and subjective phrase. I'm in the financial services industry, and I saw first hand how a lack of regulation played a role in the Meltdown.

On the other hand, you appear to be hinting that there are those who are perfectly fine to "corrupt and destroy" capitalism, and I'd have to admit that you're right. Just as libertarian thought too simplistically knee-jerks towards free markets and de-regulation, the other end of the spectrum considers capitalism to be an overriding evil that must be stopped at very opportunity and replaced with government.

For me, it's about equilibrium.
.

Okay, you could say that zoning laws played a role in widespread prostitution in Las Vegas. But prostitution in Vegas didn't happen because of the lack of proper zoning laws. We repealed Glass-Steagall and then applied new legislation which superseded the free market. So it wasn't really the deregulation as much as it what happened in the wake of it. I mean. we could argue all day about the various factors involved with the "Meltdown" but suffice it to say, the entire debacle was the result of government interference in normal free market trade. It was never the free market that was the problem.

Again, there is a GREAT distinction between capitalism and free market capitalism or a free market capitalist system. Crony capitalism (corporatism) is a huge problem and it's corrupt and destructive to it's core. That's NOT free market capitalism but many people confuse it as such. It all just gets lumped in together. Hell, Communist Russia used capitalism... it wasn't a free market system.

I believe trying to achieve some arbitrary and subjective "equilibrium" between government regulation and free market capitalism is a futile effort wrought with potential disaster. Free market doesn't need government manipulation. The laws of supply and demand ensure a natural equilibrium. To the extent government regulation plays any useful role, it should be to ensure and promote a fair free market. All too often, special interests and lobbyists exploit the powers of government to leverage an advantage over the free market and that's when we see problems.

We'll disagree on the Meltdown. Greenspan & Co. (and others) aggressively refused to exercise their authority to regulate derivatives - he even admitted he couldn't understand CMO's - and those very same derivatives (led by CMO's, CDO's and CDS's) overloaded, completely distorted and wrecked the system regardless of the various machinations of the two silly political parties. The laws of supply and demand brought us down, because the supply of derivatives was infected.

A "free" market needs efficient and effective regulation to avoid those very distortions, and Greenspan's notion of a free market regulating itself were proven dramatically wrong. It didn't. Our economic system became, and in some ways remains, fraudulent in many core areas. We apply and enforce rules of conduct across our society to avoid fraud, anarchy and damage. There is no good reason - outside of politics - to exempt our financial system from that approach.
.

Well, I'm not an expert on banking and finance, I just know what I've read. The Meltdown all began with the repeal of the major parts of Glass-Steagall. In the wake of that, government backed sub-prime loans that the free market would have never made. So this is sort of like having a sick patient on the operating table with 15 surgeons doing all sorts of different procedures at the same time.. the patient dies... then everyone says the sick patient died due to natural causes.

There are numerous reasons behind the meltdown but they all center around government meddling in the affairs of the free market system to some degree. It was not a failure of the free market system itself.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, can't argue. There are always "exceptions" to the rule, and coincidentally, those "exceptions" always happen to go in my favor. Capitalism is fine as long as I can leverage it for my agenda, but outside of that, it is evil.
.

Well, "free market" has nothing to do with agendas. It's the fair and honest voluntary trade of goods and services between parties for remuneration with price determined by supply and demand. Everyone's "agenda" is served in a free market. It's the most fair and equitable system known to man. Government can serve as an agent to protect and promote it OR to corrupt and destroy it. THAT is where "agendas" come in.

For me, the smartest approach is finding a proper equilibrium between "free" market dynamics and efficient regulation - finding and maintaining the place where capitalism is restrained too much by regulation, and that's a loaded and subjective phrase. I'm in the financial services industry, and I saw first hand how a lack of regulation played a role in the Meltdown.

On the other hand, you appear to be hinting that there are those who are perfectly fine to "corrupt and destroy" capitalism, and I'd have to admit that you're right. Just as libertarian thought too simplistically knee-jerks towards free markets and de-regulation, the other end of the spectrum considers capitalism to be an overriding evil that must be stopped at very opportunity and replaced with government.

For me, it's about equilibrium.
.

Okay, you could say that zoning laws played a role in widespread prostitution in Las Vegas. But prostitution in Vegas didn't happen because of the lack of proper zoning laws. We repealed Glass-Steagall and then applied new legislation which superseded the free market. So it wasn't really the deregulation as much as it what happened in the wake of it. I mean. we could argue all day about the various factors involved with the "Meltdown" but suffice it to say, the entire debacle was the result of government interference in normal free market trade. It was never the free market that was the problem.

Again, there is a GREAT distinction between capitalism and free market capitalism or a free market capitalist system. Crony capitalism (corporatism) is a huge problem and it's corrupt and destructive to it's core. That's NOT free market capitalism but many people confuse it as such. It all just gets lumped in together. Hell, Communist Russia used capitalism... it wasn't a free market system.

I believe trying to achieve some arbitrary and subjective "equilibrium" between government regulation and free market capitalism is a futile effort wrought with potential disaster. Free market doesn't need government manipulation. The laws of supply and demand ensure a natural equilibrium. To the extent government regulation plays any useful role, it should be to ensure and promote a fair free market. All too often, special interests and lobbyists exploit the powers of government to leverage an advantage over the free market and that's when we see problems.

We'll disagree on the Meltdown. Greenspan & Co. (and others) aggressively refused to exercise their authority to regulate derivatives - he even admitted he couldn't understand CMO's - and those very same derivatives (led by CMO's, CDO's and CDS's) overloaded, completely distorted and wrecked the system regardless of the various machinations of the two silly political parties. The laws of supply and demand brought us down, because the supply of derivatives was infected.

A "free" market needs efficient and effective regulation to avoid those very distortions, and Greenspan's notion of a free market regulating itself were proven dramatically wrong. It didn't. Our economic system became, and in some ways remains, fraudulent in many core areas. We apply and enforce rules of conduct across our society to avoid fraud, anarchy and damage. There is no good reason - outside of politics - to exempt our financial system from that approach.
.

Well, I'm not an expert on banking and finance, I just know what I've read. The Meltdown all began with the repeal of the major parts of Glass-Steagall. In the wake of that, government backed sub-prime loans that the free market would have never made. So this is sort of like having a sick patient on the operating table with 15 surgeons doing all sorts of different procedures at the same time.. the patient dies... then everyone says the sick patient died due to natural causes.

There are numerous reasons behind the meltdown but they all center around government meddling in the affairs of the free market system to some degree. It was not a failure of the free market system itself.

The government didn't have anything to do with the ratings agencies giving (selling, actually) AAA ratings to crap CMO's, which were sold as AAA's (treasury-level safety) to investors and funds and groups and banks and municipalities and larger governments. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that AIG was selling credit default swaps to layer after layer after layer of buyers without needing even $1 in reserves to cover those swaps. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that Merrill and other banks were buying swaps on the very securities they selling. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that the banks were cramming CMO's and even more hideous CDO's with all kinds of garbage credit, including paper that had nothing to do with mortgages.

And that's the thing. Had the government been regulating all of the above, the Meltdown would not have happened. The loans that were initially backed by the government would have had to stay with their initial issuer, and credit standards would have remained MUCH higher. And there wouldn't have half a trillion in credit default swaps betting against the US economy.
.

 

[Tehon]

In the wake of that, government backed sub-prime loans that the free market would have never made.

Reagan legalized sub-prime loans. He deregulated the market. It was the private lenders that accumulated the bulk of sub-prime loans that were fed into the system.

 

[Boss]

Well, "free market" has nothing to do with agendas. It's the fair and honest voluntary trade of goods and services between parties for remuneration with price determined by supply and demand. Everyone's "agenda" is served in a free market. It's the most fair and equitable system known to man. Government can serve as an agent to protect and promote it OR to corrupt and destroy it. THAT is where "agendas" come in.

For me, the smartest approach is finding a proper equilibrium between "free" market dynamics and efficient regulation - finding and maintaining the place where capitalism is restrained too much by regulation, and that's a loaded and subjective phrase. I'm in the financial services industry, and I saw first hand how a lack of regulation played a role in the Meltdown.

On the other hand, you appear to be hinting that there are those who are perfectly fine to "corrupt and destroy" capitalism, and I'd have to admit that you're right. Just as libertarian thought too simplistically knee-jerks towards free markets and de-regulation, the other end of the spectrum considers capitalism to be an overriding evil that must be stopped at very opportunity and replaced with government.

For me, it's about equilibrium.
.

Okay, you could say that zoning laws played a role in widespread prostitution in Las Vegas. But prostitution in Vegas didn't happen because of the lack of proper zoning laws. We repealed Glass-Steagall and then applied new legislation which superseded the free market. So it wasn't really the deregulation as much as it what happened in the wake of it. I mean. we could argue all day about the various factors involved with the "Meltdown" but suffice it to say, the entire debacle was the result of government interference in normal free market trade. It was never the free market that was the problem.

Again, there is a GREAT distinction between capitalism and free market capitalism or a free market capitalist system. Crony capitalism (corporatism) is a huge problem and it's corrupt and destructive to it's core. That's NOT free market capitalism but many people confuse it as such. It all just gets lumped in together. Hell, Communist Russia used capitalism... it wasn't a free market system.

I believe trying to achieve some arbitrary and subjective "equilibrium" between government regulation and free market capitalism is a futile effort wrought with potential disaster. Free market doesn't need government manipulation. The laws of supply and demand ensure a natural equilibrium. To the extent government regulation plays any useful role, it should be to ensure and promote a fair free market. All too often, special interests and lobbyists exploit the powers of government to leverage an advantage over the free market and that's when we see problems.

We'll disagree on the Meltdown. Greenspan & Co. (and others) aggressively refused to exercise their authority to regulate derivatives - he even admitted he couldn't understand CMO's - and those very same derivatives (led by CMO's, CDO's and CDS's) overloaded, completely distorted and wrecked the system regardless of the various machinations of the two silly political parties. The laws of supply and demand brought us down, because the supply of derivatives was infected.

A "free" market needs efficient and effective regulation to avoid those very distortions, and Greenspan's notion of a free market regulating itself were proven dramatically wrong. It didn't. Our economic system became, and in some ways remains, fraudulent in many core areas. We apply and enforce rules of conduct across our society to avoid fraud, anarchy and damage. There is no good reason - outside of politics - to exempt our financial system from that approach.
.

Well, I'm not an expert on banking and finance, I just know what I've read. The Meltdown all began with the repeal of the major parts of Glass-Steagall. In the wake of that, government backed sub-prime loans that the free market would have never made. So this is sort of like having a sick patient on the operating table with 15 surgeons doing all sorts of different procedures at the same time.. the patient dies... then everyone says the sick patient died due to natural causes.

There are numerous reasons behind the meltdown but they all center around government meddling in the affairs of the free market system to some degree. It was not a failure of the free market system itself.

The government didn't have anything to do with the ratings agencies giving (selling, actually) AAA ratings to crap CMO's, which were sold as AAA's (treasury-level safety) to investors and funds and groups and banks and municipalities and larger governments. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that AIG was selling credit default swaps to layer after layer after layer of buyers without needing even $1 in reserves to cover those swaps. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that Merrill and other banks were buying swaps on the very securities they selling. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that the banks were cramming CMO's and even more hideous CDO's with all kinds of garbage credit, including paper that had nothing to do with mortgages.

And that's the thing. Had the government been regulating all of the above, the Meltdown would not have happened. The loans that were initially backed by the government would have had to stay with their initial issuer, and credit standards would have remained MUCH higher. And there wouldn't have half a trillion in credit default swaps betting against the US economy.
.

Uhm... YES... the government had a hand in ALL of it! They backed billions in loans that should've never been made. They repealed Glass-Steagall and passed Fannie, Freddy, National Affordable Housing Act and American Dream Downpayment Act, while manipulating interest rates through the Fed. All of this MEDDLING in free market systems contributed to what transpired and to ignore that is just plain dishonest or dumb, one or the other.

 

[Boss]

Reagan legalized sub-prime loans. He deregulated the market. It was the private lenders that accumulated the bulk of sub-prime loans that were fed into the system.

It wasn't until Clinton and Bush that legislation was passed which led to the meltdown. It wasn't the deregulation, it was what transpired after it.

 

[Mac1958]

For me, the smartest approach is finding a proper equilibrium between "free" market dynamics and efficient regulation - finding and maintaining the place where capitalism is restrained too much by regulation, and that's a loaded and subjective phrase. I'm in the financial services industry, and I saw first hand how a lack of regulation played a role in the Meltdown.

On the other hand, you appear to be hinting that there are those who are perfectly fine to "corrupt and destroy" capitalism, and I'd have to admit that you're right. Just as libertarian thought too simplistically knee-jerks towards free markets and de-regulation, the other end of the spectrum considers capitalism to be an overriding evil that must be stopped at very opportunity and replaced with government.

For me, it's about equilibrium.
.

Okay, you could say that zoning laws played a role in widespread prostitution in Las Vegas. But prostitution in Vegas didn't happen because of the lack of proper zoning laws. We repealed Glass-Steagall and then applied new legislation which superseded the free market. So it wasn't really the deregulation as much as it what happened in the wake of it. I mean. we could argue all day about the various factors involved with the "Meltdown" but suffice it to say, the entire debacle was the result of government interference in normal free market trade. It was never the free market that was the problem.

Again, there is a GREAT distinction between capitalism and free market capitalism or a free market capitalist system. Crony capitalism (corporatism) is a huge problem and it's corrupt and destructive to it's core. That's NOT free market capitalism but many people confuse it as such. It all just gets lumped in together. Hell, Communist Russia used capitalism... it wasn't a free market system.

I believe trying to achieve some arbitrary and subjective "equilibrium" between government regulation and free market capitalism is a futile effort wrought with potential disaster. Free market doesn't need government manipulation. The laws of supply and demand ensure a natural equilibrium. To the extent government regulation plays any useful role, it should be to ensure and promote a fair free market. All too often, special interests and lobbyists exploit the powers of government to leverage an advantage over the free market and that's when we see problems.

We'll disagree on the Meltdown. Greenspan & Co. (and others) aggressively refused to exercise their authority to regulate derivatives - he even admitted he couldn't understand CMO's - and those very same derivatives (led by CMO's, CDO's and CDS's) overloaded, completely distorted and wrecked the system regardless of the various machinations of the two silly political parties. The laws of supply and demand brought us down, because the supply of derivatives was infected.

A "free" market needs efficient and effective regulation to avoid those very distortions, and Greenspan's notion of a free market regulating itself were proven dramatically wrong. It didn't. Our economic system became, and in some ways remains, fraudulent in many core areas. We apply and enforce rules of conduct across our society to avoid fraud, anarchy and damage. There is no good reason - outside of politics - to exempt our financial system from that approach.
.

Well, I'm not an expert on banking and finance, I just know what I've read. The Meltdown all began with the repeal of the major parts of Glass-Steagall. In the wake of that, government backed sub-prime loans that the free market would have never made. So this is sort of like having a sick patient on the operating table with 15 surgeons doing all sorts of different procedures at the same time.. the patient dies... then everyone says the sick patient died due to natural causes.

There are numerous reasons behind the meltdown but they all center around government meddling in the affairs of the free market system to some degree. It was not a failure of the free market system itself.

The government didn't have anything to do with the ratings agencies giving (selling, actually) AAA ratings to crap CMO's, which were sold as AAA's (treasury-level safety) to investors and funds and groups and banks and municipalities and larger governments. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that AIG was selling credit default swaps to layer after layer after layer of buyers without needing even $1 in reserves to cover those swaps. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that Merrill and other banks were buying swaps on the very securities they selling. The government didn't have anything to do with the fact that the banks were cramming CMO's and even more hideous CDO's with all kinds of garbage credit, including paper that had nothing to do with mortgages.

And that's the thing. Had the government been regulating all of the above, the Meltdown would not have happened. The loans that were initially backed by the government would have had to stay with their initial issuer, and credit standards would have remained MUCH higher. And there wouldn't have half a trillion in credit default swaps betting against the US economy.
.

Uhm... YES... the government had a hand in ALL of it! They backed billions in loans that should've never been made. They repealed Glass-Steagall and passed Fannie, Freddy, National Affordable Housing Act and American Dream Downpayment Act, while manipulating interest rates through the Fed. All of this MEDDLING in free market systems contributed to what transpired and to ignore that is just plain dishonest or dumb, one or the other.

Okay, this is where I usually just give up. I live this stuff every day. You're entitled to your opinion.
.

 

[Tehon]

Reagan legalized sub-prime loans. He deregulated the market. It was the private lenders that accumulated the bulk of sub-prime loans that were fed into the system.

It wasn't until Clinton and Bush that legislation was passed which led to the meltdown. It wasn't the deregulation, it was what transpired after it.

Which legislation was that exactly?

 

[Boss]

Okay, this is where I usually just give up. I live this stuff every day. You're entitled to your opinion.
.

Well, like I said... we can get into a lengthy discussion of all the many facets of what caused the meltdown. I'm sure you probably have much better insight on what went down and I'm not disputing you. My point has been that the overarching problem wasn't the free market capitalist system, it was governmental interference to various degrees.

 

[Boss]

Reagan legalized sub-prime loans. He deregulated the market. It was the private lenders that accumulated the bulk of sub-prime loans that were fed into the system.

It wasn't until Clinton and Bush that legislation was passed which led to the meltdown. It wasn't the deregulation, it was what transpired after it.

Which legislation was that exactly?

Mentioned in post #24 above.

 

[Iceweasel]

The market should not be conflated with capitalism. The market is a way to distribute commodities that is independent of the method of production.

I don't see how it can be separated. We could be limited to small very economical ugly cars to motor around in if a totalitarian government took over the market. Or we could have a 850hp Dodge if we wanted one.

 

[Tehon]

The market should not be conflated with capitalism. The market is a way to distribute commodities that is independent of the method of production.

I don't see how it can be separated. We could be limited to small very economical ugly cars to motor around in if a totalitarian government took over the market. Or we could have a 850hp Dodge if we wanted one.

The government intervening in the market, dictating that we drive economical cars, is a political decision that doesn't in itself prevent the cars from being produced by the capitalist method of production.

 

[Iceweasel]

The market should not be conflated with capitalism. The market is a way to distribute commodities that is independent of the method of production.

I don't see how it can be separated. We could be limited to small very economical ugly cars to motor around in if a totalitarian government took over the market. Or we could have a 850hp Dodge if we wanted one.

The government intervening in the market, dictating that we drive economical cars, is a political decision that doesn't in itself prevent the cars from being produced by the capitalist method of production.

Who's going to build cars that aren't legal to own? Or heavily taxed.

 

[Tehon]

Reagan legalized sub-prime loans. He deregulated the market. It was the private lenders that accumulated the bulk of sub-prime loans that were fed into the system.

It wasn't until Clinton and Bush that legislation was passed which led to the meltdown. It wasn't the deregulation, it was what transpired after it.

Which legislation was that exactly?

Mentioned in post #24 above.

The overwhelming majority of sub-prime loans were made by private banks who sold off the mortgages in the secondary market. They were not affected by government attempts to make housing more affordable.
Countrywide alone had close to twenty percent of the market.

 

[Tehon]

The market should not be conflated with capitalism. The market is a way to distribute commodities that is independent of the method of production.

I don't see how it can be separated. We could be limited to small very economical ugly cars to motor around in if a totalitarian government took over the market. Or we could have a 850hp Dodge if we wanted one.

The government intervening in the market, dictating that we drive economical cars, is a political decision that doesn't in itself prevent the cars from being produced by the capitalist method of production.

Who's going to build cars that aren't legal to own? Or heavily taxed.

No one. Capitalists are going to build cars they can sell legally. That's the situation currently.

Whether the market is free or whether government dictates a set of rules the production of commodities will be organized by a system of capitalist means.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

which pretty much covers all of them with the exeptions of Paul and Amash

Well, there are a few more. Cruz and Lee for sure. Pretty much all of the Freedom Caucus.

forgot about them

 

[Boss]

The overwhelming majority of sub-prime loans were made by private banks who sold off the mortgages in the secondary market. They were not affected by government attempts to make housing more affordable.
Countrywide alone had close to twenty percent of the market.

The government intervening in the market, dictating that we drive economical cars, is a political decision that doesn't in itself prevent the cars from being produced by the capitalist method of production.

Ted Bundy was a charming and handsome man who got a bum rap for being a serial killer.

That's the kind of willfully ignorant statement you're making about government interference. Doesn't matter what anyone says, you're going to come back with this sort of mindless rebuttal. Apparently, you're a shill for Big Gov.

A free market is no longer a free market when the government is interfering. It's then a government-influenced market. A sober person is no longer sober once they start consuming liquor. You can argue that drinking water is still drinking water after you bathe in it but that just makes you a stupid person.

 

[regent]

The smaller government allows more governing by those not in government, but in money..

 

[Boss]

The smaller government allows more governing by those not in government, but in money..

Explain?

 

[Tehon]

The overwhelming majority of sub-prime loans were made by private banks who sold off the mortgages in the secondary market. They were not affected by government attempts to make housing more affordable.
Countrywide alone had close to twenty percent of the market.

The government intervening in the market, dictating that we drive economical cars, is a political decision that doesn't in itself prevent the cars from being produced by the capitalist method of production.

Ted Bundy was a charming and handsome man who got a bum rap for being a serial killer.

That's the kind of willfully ignorant statement you're making about government interference. Doesn't matter what anyone says, you're going to come back with this sort of mindless rebuttal. Apparently, you're a shill for Big Gov.

A free market is no longer a free market when the government is interfering. It's then a government-influenced market. A sober person is no longer sober once they start consuming liquor. You can argue that drinking water is still drinking water after you bathe in it but that just makes you a stupid person.

A free market is no longer a free market when the government is interfering. It's then a government-influenced market.

I didn't say otherwise.

 

[Boss]

I didn't say otherwise.

I guess you should clarify because that's how it sounded.