Robert Reich explains the "Free Market" in a nutshell.

[Sallow]

Seriously?

The underlying point is sound. "Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

"Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Wrong.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

How's that?

Really?

Man you were never good at this.

Pets.com issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

Pets.com isn't the government.

Do you really need to be schooled about shit like this?

Oh yeah. You do.

The US Treasury issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

School me. LOL!

Treasury Bond (T-Bond) Definition | Investopedia

 

[danielpalos]

This is a pretty concise high level talk about the "Free Market".

Milton Friedman uses a pencil to school Reich

Friedman's economic voodoo show lead to several collapses already.

Not sure why you want to trot this idiot out again.

Even in his own commentary he mentions government before bashing it.

it is about optimizing our duopoly of a public sector and a private sector for division of labor and specialization purposes.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism isn't some sort of natural result of private enterprise. That's a bullshit assessment. It is the result of laws, regulations, security and infrastructure all built and set up by the government. That's what sets up an environment where business can be conducted.

Another perfect example of my point: A government-centric view of capitalism.

There are two pieces to the puzzle: Government and industry, the implementation of capitalism, without which the system itself is absolutely irrelevant.

Both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic. You and Reich start with government, it is your intellectual foundation.

"Macro" means both sides must be fully recognized and addressed. They are not here. As usual.
.

Capitalism wasn't even around before government.

A necessary component of Capitalism is the government.

None of you or your anti-government compatriots advocate removing patents, copyrights, land deeds, limited liability, bankruptcy, or a plethora of other things, provided at tax payer expense that assists in the accumulation of wealth.

I clearly point out that "both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic", and you try to paint me as "anti-government".

Yes, the binary thought processes of obedient hardcore partisan ideologues, always amusing.
.

It's not "binary". And it's "symbiotic" only in the sense that Capitalism must have, as a necessary component, a fully functional government in which to operate. Governments, however, have existed without the presence of Capitalism. Capitalism arose as a reaction to the precept that wealth should only be controlled by Royalty. It came out of mercantilism, which held that profit, land ownership and commerce should be available to everyone.

Okay, but do you recognize any good from Capitalism?

capital gains.

 

[danielpalos]

Another perfect example of my point: A government-centric view of capitalism.

There are two pieces to the puzzle: Government and industry, the implementation of capitalism, without which the system itself is absolutely irrelevant.

Both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic. You and Reich start with government, it is your intellectual foundation.

"Macro" means both sides must be fully recognized and addressed. They are not here. As usual.
.

Capitalism wasn't even around before government.

A necessary component of Capitalism is the government.

None of you or your anti-government compatriots advocate removing patents, copyrights, land deeds, limited liability, bankruptcy, or a plethora of other things, provided at tax payer expense that assists in the accumulation of wealth.

I clearly point out that "both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic", and you try to paint me as "anti-government".

Yes, the binary thought processes of obedient hardcore partisan ideologues, always amusing.
.

It's not "binary". And it's "symbiotic" only in the sense that Capitalism must have, as a necessary component, a fully functional government in which to operate. Governments, however, have existed without the presence of Capitalism. Capitalism arose as a reaction to the precept that wealth should only be controlled by Royalty. It came out of mercantilism, which held that profit, land ownership and commerce should be available to everyone.

Yes, a very government-centric way of looking at it, as I said.
.

Capitalism, by it's very nature, is government centric.

Government merely helps capitalism flourish in Nature; through that form of social Nurture.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, a very government-centric way of looking at it, as I said.
.

Capitalism, by it's very nature, is government centric.

Yes, I have no doubt that a person from your political perspective views that as an absolute.
.

Well feel free to point out where a capitalist economy sprang up without a government. With links and all.

Because I can certainly do the opposite.

And here's the second time you're arguing against something I didn't say.

Something I didn't say.

For the THIRD TIME, "both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic".

I just can't get you folks to be honest. Why do you suppose that is?
.

Because many on the Left are dishonest.

How else can you explain their long love affair with Karl Marx?

some on the left may aspire to a secular and temporal, Commune of Heaven on Earth where "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" may become a social reality such that Man has not the need for the Expense of Government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Money" is created when the government borrows it.

Wrong.

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

How's that?

Really?

Man you were never good at this.

Pets.com issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

Pets.com isn't the government.

Do you really need to be schooled about shit like this?

Oh yeah. You do.

The US Treasury issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

School me. LOL!

Treasury Bond (T-Bond) Definition | Investopedia

Accounting Basics | Explanation | AccountingCoach

 

[Sallow]

Really?

Man you were never good at this.

Pets.com issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

Pets.com isn't the government.

Do you really need to be schooled about shit like this?

Oh yeah. You do.

The US Treasury issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

School me. LOL!

Treasury Bond (T-Bond) Definition | Investopedia

Accounting Basics | Explanation | AccountingCoach

Oh goody.

Now the United States is comparable to a single family household.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pets.com issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

Pets.com isn't the government.

Do you really need to be schooled about shit like this?

Oh yeah. You do.

The US Treasury issues $100 million in bonds.
Why does that generate wealth? Spell it out so you can prove your claim.

School me. LOL!

Treasury Bond (T-Bond) Definition | Investopedia

Accounting Basics | Explanation | AccountingCoach

Oh goody.

Now the United States is comparable to a single family household.

Oh goody, a moron thinks that adding to government assets and liabilities automatically generates wealth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What you fail to comprehend is government has given us the crony corrupt capitalism we have today. The little geek thinks we need more government intrusion to fix this. Do you fail to see the idiocy of his argument?

That's pretty much a standard wrong-wing approach, any more, to almost any issue—deny the role that their own ideology had in creating a problem, and propose to solve or mitigate that problem with even heavier doses of the same crap that caused it in the first place.

exactly, more soviet management didn't fix soviet management. Simple but still too complicated for a liberal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

Literally one of the dumbest claims, ever.

 

[Sallow]

Capitalism wasn't even around before government.

A necessary component of Capitalism is the government.

None of you or your anti-government compatriots advocate removing patents, copyrights, land deeds, limited liability, bankruptcy, or a plethora of other things, provided at tax payer expense that assists in the accumulation of wealth.

I clearly point out that "both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic", and you try to paint me as "anti-government".

Yes, the binary thought processes of obedient hardcore partisan ideologues, always amusing.
.

It's not "binary". And it's "symbiotic" only in the sense that Capitalism must have, as a necessary component, a fully functional government in which to operate. Governments, however, have existed without the presence of Capitalism. Capitalism arose as a reaction to the precept that wealth should only be controlled by Royalty. It came out of mercantilism, which held that profit, land ownership and commerce should be available to everyone.

Yes, a very government-centric way of looking at it, as I said.
.

Capitalism, by it's very nature, is government centric.

Government merely helps capitalism flourish in Nature; through that form of social Nurture.

Preaching to the choir, buddy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The money supply doesn't multiply on its own. Money is created by the FED when the government borrows it. It stands to reason then that you have no objection to the national debt.

1) money does, in effect, grow on its own, as Republicans invent new things, if the Fed is doing its job

2) of course I object to national debt. All conservatives and libertarians do. National debt refers primarily to fiscal matters. You are a liberal so this subject will be way over your head.

 

[Sallow]

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

Literally one of the dumbest claims, ever.

Not really sure how you figure this..

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Folks that buy the bonds get a nice return when it matures.

In the meantime? The government is able to finance things like bridges, roads, schools, and other things.

Much of these things are used by private industry to conduct business, and thus, generates wealth in private sector.

Basically a win-win unless you are you.

 

[Dad2three]

What "accurate" macro picture do you want?

Capitalism isn't some sort of natural result of private enterprise. That's a bullshit assessment. It is the result of laws, regulations, security and infrastructure all built and set up by the government. That's what sets up an environment where business can be conducted.

At the present time, it's lopsided and we are feeling the effects.

What you fail to comprehend is government has given us the crony corrupt capitalism we have today. The little geek thinks we need more government intrusion to fix this. Do you fail to see the idiocy of his argument?

Government sets the rules for the market. Big money interests have too much influence over the rule making process. Isn't that Reich's argument. I fail to see your point. He is not asking for more government intrusion, he is asking for more balanced rule making.

Why has capitalism become corrupted? Because big gov has allowed to. Now to think that big gov is going to fix the problem, is terribly naive. The little dweeb speaks with forked tongue.

It's our government, it's up to us to demand change. I don't see how Reich is wrong for pointing it out.

Did you watch and comprehend the video? He is condemning free market capitalism, when that not at issue and terribly disingenuous. We have crony capitalism run and controlled by big gov. Yes big gov is the problem...but do you know the little twerp's history? He is a big gov statist leftist. So sorry, but I find him a little joke.

The former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has conceded that the global financial crisis has exposed a "mistake" in the free market ideology which guided his 18-year stewardship of US monetary policy.


"I have found a flaw," said Greenspan, referring to his economic philosophy. "I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."



"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,"



He suggested his trust in the responsibility of banks had been misplaced: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of

 

[Dad2three]

Capitalism, by it's very nature, is government centric.

Yes, I have no doubt that a person from your political perspective views that as an absolute.
.

Well feel free to point out where a capitalist economy sprang up without a government. With links and all.

Because I can certainly do the opposite.

And here's the second time you're arguing against something I didn't say.

Something I didn't say.

For the THIRD TIME, "both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic".

I just can't get you folks to be honest. Why do you suppose that is?
.

Oh yes, Mac, I am "government-centric" in pointing out that no government, no capitalism, but you are the other hand are what in pointing out this symbiosis?

Like, dude, so above everything, right?

You're "government-centric" because you're a leftwing partisan ideologue and create threads, like this, that promote other government-centric leftwing partisan ideologues.

I pointed out that Reich's piece is one-sided and you didn't like it. Not my problem. I actually can see the big picture, your ideology prohibits you from doing so.

And yes, you folks are beginning to convince me that I am indeed above most of the lies and nastiness here. But it remains a fascinating place to observe for me.
.

A Critique of the Chicago School of Economics:

CHILE: THE LABORATORY TEST

Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.

The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.

The results were exactly what liberals predicted.


Chile: the laboratory test

 

[Sallow]

What you fail to comprehend is government has given us the crony corrupt capitalism we have today. The little geek thinks we need more government intrusion to fix this. Do you fail to see the idiocy of his argument?

Government sets the rules for the market. Big money interests have too much influence over the rule making process. Isn't that Reich's argument. I fail to see your point. He is not asking for more government intrusion, he is asking for more balanced rule making.

Why has capitalism become corrupted? Because big gov has allowed to. Now to think that big gov is going to fix the problem, is terribly naive. The little dweeb speaks with forked tongue.

It's our government, it's up to us to demand change. I don't see how Reich is wrong for pointing it out.

Did you watch and comprehend the video? He is condemning free market capitalism, when that not at issue and terribly disingenuous. We have crony capitalism run and controlled by big gov. Yes big gov is the problem...but do you know the little twerp's history? He is a big gov statist leftist. So sorry, but I find him a little joke.

The former Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has conceded that the global financial crisis has exposed a "mistake" in the free market ideology which guided his 18-year stewardship of US monetary policy.


"I have found a flaw," said Greenspan, referring to his economic philosophy. "I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."



"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms,"



He suggested his trust in the responsibility of banks had been misplaced: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief."

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of

He found out people were greedy and was shocked, simply shocked, I tells ya.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

Literally one of the dumbest claims, ever.

Not really sure how you figure this..

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Folks that buy the bonds get a nice return when it matures.

In the meantime? The government is able to finance things like bridges, roads, schools, and other things.

Much of these things are used by private industry to conduct business, and thus, generates wealth in private sector.

Basically a win-win unless you are you.

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Moving the goalposts? Shocker.
You said issuing bonds generates wealth.
Pets.com didn't generate wealth when they issued bonds.
Glad I could educate you, even if only a tiny bit.

 

[Dad2three]

Well feel free to point out where a capitalist economy sprang up without a government. With links and all.

Because I can certainly do the opposite.

And here's the second time you're arguing against something I didn't say.

Something I didn't say.

For the THIRD TIME, "both must work hand in hand, they are symbiotic".

I just can't get you folks to be honest. Why do you suppose that is?
.

Oh yes, Mac, I am "government-centric" in pointing out that no government, no capitalism, but you are the other hand are what in pointing out this symbiosis?

Like, dude, so above everything, right?

You're "government-centric" because you're a leftwing partisan ideologue and create threads, like this, that promote other government-centric leftwing partisan ideologues.

I pointed out that Reich's piece is one-sided and you didn't like it. Not my problem. I actually can see the big picture, your ideology prohibits you from doing so.

And yes, you folks are beginning to convince me that I am indeed above most of the lies and nastiness here. But it remains a fascinating place to observe for me.
.

Big picture is that you want to cut taxes, regulations, get rid of unions to "unleash" the free market and kibosh all these "statist" bonds and the captains of industry.

News flash. Plutocracy is not much different than Monarchy.

Wow, you really got me there. Now let's see where I ACTUALLY stand on those issues:

• Income taxes: Add two, new, higher brackets, Post 28: Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US? | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
• Regulations: Strengthen them, Post 27: A Tale of Two Financial Collapses | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
  
• Unions: Save them, strengthen them, Post 15: The realities of Labor Unions | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
• Captains of Industry: Their critical role in the Meltdown, Post 88: A reminder of how democrats led us to this mess | Page 9 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This really is fun.

Are you embarrassed yet? You've lied multiple times on this thread alone and you completely whiffed on those accusations, holy crap, a silver platter for me.

I'm gonna guess you're not embarrassed, huh?


.

WE had plenty of laws and regulations on the books with both Ronnie's S&L crisis AND Dubya's subprime ponzi scheme, it was THE REGULATORS ON THE BEAT THAT FAILED, MAINLY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!!

 

[boedicca]

Robert Reich is an addle brained Oompah Loompah.

 

[Sallow]

Issuing bonds generates wealth.

Literally one of the dumbest claims, ever.

Not really sure how you figure this..

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Folks that buy the bonds get a nice return when it matures.

In the meantime? The government is able to finance things like bridges, roads, schools, and other things.

Much of these things are used by private industry to conduct business, and thus, generates wealth in private sector.

Basically a win-win unless you are you.

Bonds provide a means to finance infrastructure spending and other needful government projects.

Moving the goalposts? Shocker.
You said issuing bonds generates wealth.
Pets.com didn't generate wealth when they issued bonds.
Glad I could educate you, even if only a tiny bit.

Didn't move ANY goalposts.