BF2S Forums The results of regulation... in all it's glory.

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

System works both ways.

America needs to be a lot more economically nationalist like Australia. Shit, the gov has huge ads saying "BUY AUSTRALIAN MADE OR WERE FUCKED COZ OUR KIDS WONT HAVE JOBS" ads.

If the US just started pouring its money in properly they could rebuy all the Chinese debt. And fuck, China needs Iraqi oil and Afghani pipelines.

Well, just like systems of ethics, free trade only works if it's a two way street. If one side has protectionist economic practices it puts everyone else who is trading freely at a disadvantage. We here in America tend to use a one size fits all approach when it comes to setting economic and trading policies. What we need to do is match our own trade regulations to those of our trading partners. You protect an industry and we'll do the same. You peg your currency to ours (hello Chinese) and we'll inflate our currency to the point it makes you unable to do so any longer.

To truly protect your country, fuck free trade. NAFTA fucked over North America pretty much.

Protectionist practices do not work. They do not make you wealthy. Unless you're out there exploiting other countries natural resources you have no way to gain wealth.

What happens when every nation in the world throws up tariff barriers to trade to protect their own industries? Exactly, you end up with a system that resembles an open market anyway, just with inflated prices for no reason.

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

To truly protect your country, fuck free trade. NAFTA fucked over North America pretty much.

Protectionist practices do not work. They do not make you wealthy. Unless you're out there exploiting other countries natural resources you have no way to gain wealth.

What happens when every nation in the world throws up tariff barriers to trade to protect their own industries? Exactly, you end up with a system that resembles an open market anyway, just with inflated prices for no reason.

The future would pretty much consist of major trade blocs (EU) and it is already happening... Long term wise, it would be economically beneficial to the US if China does not become so rich. Well you already have US corps making kids work at 10cents an hour and selling the products back cheap, thats why the US spends so much every year on well... useless shit sometimes.

You have an inflated price to support your industry, which will support future jobs for your people, well thats the way I see it. You don't necessarily have to completely cut off or make tariffs extremely high, but just high enough to support American industries.

Sure, break the unions and I'll agree. Until then? Fuck no.

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

The future would pretty much consist of major trade blocs (EU) and it is already happening... Long term wise, it would be economically beneficial to the US if China does not become so rich. Well you already have US corps making kids work at 10cents an hour and selling the products back cheap, thats why the US spends so much every year on well... useless shit sometimes.

You have an inflated price to support your industry, which will support future jobs for your people, well thats the way I see it. You don't necessarily have to completely cut off or make tariffs extremely high, but just high enough to support American industries.

Sure, break the unions and I'll agree. Until then? Fuck no.

Or regulate unions... Unions are just one large business conglomerate started with good intentions and now it's based on greed.

Lawl, why is the answer to always regulate crap? You really don't appreciate your freedoms at all.

The word freedom is becoming more and more misused ... the more freedom you have Galt the more will your freedoms be exploited by unjust characters ...

JohnG@lt wrote:

The problem with regulation is that you are essentially setting up a system of morals for businessmen. As with any system of moral code it puts those who either wish to follow them, or who are hampered by them, at a disadvantage against those who do not follow the same code.

Not really, as long as the rules are enforced thoroughly and those who don't follow them are put out of business or in prison quickly and before they do too much damage I don't see the difficulty.

In this case it would put the western world at a serious disadvantage against an unscrupulous economic opponent like the Chinese.

I thought we were talking about a countries internal regulations, you can't regulate other countries.
If people choose to do business with the Chinese, Nigerian scam artists and so on its up to them to assess the risk.

The government shouldn't be used to save people from their own stupidity. Maybe you want to be coddled. I do not.

The govt should be there to protect people from criminals, isn't that why you have Police, courts, prisons and so on?

Or is your argument a woman who gets raped is stupid, going out of doors knowing there are potential rapists out there?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-15 15:09:45)

konfusion wrote:

A lack of regulation allowed the banks to fail the way they did. What we need is not more regulation, but more effective regulation in smaller doses. We don't need red tape tripping everyone up, obviously, but it'd be good if banks didn't get away with this really risky stuff they knew they were getting into.

-kon

Well, that's the problem. Most of them DIDN'T know what they were getting into. The problem really lies in the fact that ratings agencies like Moody's were swamped so they were rubberstamping securities graded AAA when they should've been unrated instead. Yes, the banks themselves should've done their own homework but they're really at the end of the line in this case. The real blame lies at the feet of the mortgage brokers for being fraudulent and at the feet of the ratings agencies for being swamped and fraudulent because of this. The banks were just the most visible symbol for everyones hatred.

People like my aunt down in Florida who had a field day the last few years selling people homes they couldn't afford with little if any background checks should be the ones taking the punishment.

FEOS wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The Chinese can bankrupt the US at any given time so I'd be a tad careful with that ...

System works both ways.

America needs to be a lot more economically nationalist like Australia. Shit, the gov has huge ads saying "BUY AUSTRALIAN MADE OR WERE FUCKED COZ OUR KIDS WONT HAVE JOBS" ads.

If the US just started pouring its money in properly they could rebuy all the Chinese debt. And fuck, China needs Iraqi oil and Afghani pipelines.

Just how much of that repaid TARP money do you think is going to our Chinese debt-holders? Exactly fucking none...that's how much.

Excellent read
http://www.michaelturton.com/mandarins.pdf

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The word freedom is becoming more and more misused ... the more freedom you have Galt the more will your freedoms be exploited by unjust characters ...

Your point? The government shouldn't be used to save people from their own stupidity. Maybe you want to be coddled. I do not.

Not necessarily their own stupidity but from others greed and exploits ... so you believe one freedom is to rip off stupid people?

And even very intelligent people can be tricked you know ...

There are laws against fraud and theft. You need nothing more.

How do you rip someone off if you can't lie to them about what you are selling and can't outright steal their money? You can't. The people that whine for regulations are the people that go to Vegas, play poker without understanding the game and then lose their life savings. Is it the casinos fault the person risked everything on something he didn't understand? No, and millions of people do this exact thing every day on the stock market and in other securities yet I don't see you or anyone else writing legislation to make the game of poker safer for people to play. You would no doubt laugh at a person if they suggested the game would be more fair if everyone played with their cards face up on the table... but it's what people who scream 'regulation! regulation!' essentially are asking for.

There are winners and losers in life. If you act the fool you should expect to end up the latter. There aren't any reset buttons.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-16 06:05:36)

Varegg wrote:

There is a tiny difference between gambling and what I'm talking about tbh ...

Not the way most people 'invest' their money. You're trying to protect the little guy, I get that. But unless you're going to rig the game so that he never has a chance of losing, he will cry.

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

There is a tiny difference between gambling and what I'm talking about tbh ...

Not the way most people 'invest' their money. You're trying to protect the little guy, I get that. But unless you're going to rig the game so that he never has a chance of losing, he will cry.

Hence why I earlier stated that an unregulated market is just as bad as an overly regulated market ...

Ok, define regulation then.

Varegg wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Hence why I earlier stated that an unregulated market is just as bad as an overly regulated market ...

Ok, define regulation then.

I'll let wiki do that for me ...

My stance is as few regulations as possible but some are highly necessary ...

lawl, you should read what you linked to:

Regulatory economics is the economics of regulation, in the sense of the application of law by government that is used for various purposes, such as centrally-planning an economy, remedying market failure, enriching well-connected firms, or benefiting politicians (see capture). It is not considered to include voluntary regulation that may be accomplished in the private sphere.

So true.


Basically, you don't know what regulations you want, you just know that regulations are required... because it's what you've been taught or heard from someone else. Got it.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-16 10:40:37)

Varegg wrote:

^^

There is much much more to read on that page Galt explaining both sides of a regulated market ... both sides can cherrypick single lines to prove their point if you look closer ...

And I never claimed I was for regulations for regulations sake ...

Heck ... the latest regulation in Norway is that it is forbidden to display tobacco or products that may look like tobacco starting next year ... that means I must ask a clerk to find a pack of Luckies and a chocolate covered marzipan stick

I didn't cherry pick, it was the opening paragraph to the page you linked. Read what Milton Friedman wrote inside the criticism section. His arguments are exactly the ones I've been making.




On a side note, I've yet to read one of the mans books but I came to almost the exact same conclusions regarding economics that he did in his time. I feel vindicated every time I see his name mentioned when I back one of my points

PureFodder wrote:

You're asking for a wild boom/bust economy that it ultimately extremely harmful to a country. Take for example fishing. If you don't regulate fishing someone will eventually decide to trawl the fish to extinction for short term gains, with the plan to get out of the market when the fish stocks collapse. At this point you can't go back, the fish are gone and you've lost the resource.

Without regulation someone will eventually decide to screw any system over for short term gains, quite possibly in an entirely legal way. It's very harmful to the economy.

Also without the relative stability created by regualtion in markets it is almost imposible to engage in long term planning as you have no idea what the conditions will be like in a year or a decade.

There's a good reason why every first world country has government regulation and central government planning, it's what actually works.

False. Every first world country has government regulation and central government planning because of the Institutional Imperative. It also came to pass because politicians happen to be people that covet power for themselves and have enough of a god complex to think that they can actually run something as infinitely complex as a first world economy. Add in the fact that politicians are a bunch of hacks who steal each others ideas and it's how we end up with stupidity like the Climate Exchange. Some politician saw it in Spain and said 'Hey, we should do that too'.

Regulation does NOT smooth out the boom and bust cycle. What it does is make the booms and busts bigger when they occur. But hey, that works for those who like regulations because then when the big busts come they can consolidate more power unto themselves while using bastardized Keynesian economics to 'dig us out' of the mess that they created in the first place.