Oh I see, so now you agree a economy is basically the continuous flow of money. and that the health of an economy is determined by the strength of that current?Varegg wrote:
It just sounded like one transfer money for transfers sake ... and that would be ridiculous ... and pointless ...
...and a lack of proper regulation. As I've told John... it's not a matter of quantity of regulation -- it's a matter of quality of regulation.lowing wrote:
The trail of failure of the housing market can be traced DIRECTLY back to govt. intervention in that market.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not exactly a fan of Friedman, but I'll admit that the failings of Reagan probably had more to do with politics than with Friedman.lowing wrote:
Who says the wave has to end? Economy is nothing more than a cyclic transfer of money, there should be no end to it.
His theory that govt. intervention and bureaucracy is the enemy of a thriving society or economy has not been put to the test, since it has never materialized.
I would assume that Friedman would not have advocated the level of defense spending that Reagan engaged in. Where both Friedman and Reagan were wrong, however, is the relinquishing of regulations -- especially on the financial sector. The irresponsible behavior of the mortgage market that led to the economic crash in late 2008 began during Reagan's era. Things only got worse in terms of recklessness thereafter.
The problem is that the private sector is currently too focused on short term growth to logically assess long term growth and sustainability.
Mixed economies are the most stable, but they require competent policymakers and regulators. Unfortunately, America has always had problems with this.
Nope ...lowing wrote:
Oh I see, so now you agree a economy is basically the continuous flow of money. and that the health of an economy is determined by the strength of that current?Varegg wrote:
It just sounded like one transfer money for transfers sake ... and that would be ridiculous ... and pointless ...
A economy are way more diverse than that ...
But the most important parts are to find the correct balance, Turqs point in the post above is good example ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Then you can explain to me how an economy thrives when money is stagnant, regardless as to how much of it there is.Varegg wrote:
Nope ...lowing wrote:
Oh I see, so now you agree a economy is basically the continuous flow of money. and that the health of an economy is determined by the strength of that current?Varegg wrote:
It just sounded like one transfer money for transfers sake ... and that would be ridiculous ... and pointless ...
A economy are way more diverse than that ...
But the most important parts are to find the correct balance, Turqs point in the post above is good example ...
What makes it more "diverse" or complicated are the varous avenues money can take while in movement. The concept of what I said is exactly correct.
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-11 10:15:22)
Sorry you think govt. solves problems. Govt. is the biggest problem/instigator in any economy. Supply and demand needs no govt. intervention to work. Take govt. and political agenda out of the market and their would be no need for govt. IN the market.Turquoise wrote:
...and a lack of proper regulation. As I've told John... it's not a matter of quantity of regulation -- it's a matter of quality of regulation.lowing wrote:
The trail of failure of the housing market can be traced DIRECTLY back to govt. intervention in that market.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not exactly a fan of Friedman, but I'll admit that the failings of Reagan probably had more to do with politics than with Friedman.
I would assume that Friedman would not have advocated the level of defense spending that Reagan engaged in. Where both Friedman and Reagan were wrong, however, is the relinquishing of regulations -- especially on the financial sector. The irresponsible behavior of the mortgage market that led to the economic crash in late 2008 began during Reagan's era. Things only got worse in terms of recklessness thereafter.
The problem is that the private sector is currently too focused on short term growth to logically assess long term growth and sustainability.
Mixed economies are the most stable, but they require competent policymakers and regulators. Unfortunately, America has always had problems with this.
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-11 09:37:40)
Lowing,lowing wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76frHHpoNFs&feature=related
please watch and comment. How can you argue against this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lWk4TC … re=related
at minute 4:30
Friedman says he's in favor of a carbon tax... and it sounds like he would probably be in favor of market solutions like cap and trade.
So Lowing, does that mean that you agree with carbon tax and cap and trade to solve the problem of polution. after all if no liberal can raise issue with what he says, then I suppose no one else can either. So Lowing would you like a carbon tax? or should we just regulate polution? because the first one is a greed based solution and the second one is a half baked solution coming from the bureaucratic halls of ineptitude.
Personally why wait for the market to weasel out a solution, just regulate polution if local polution is a problem.
The rest is more general comments not directed at you Lowing.
Its funny to hear him say that the new deal was unwise but "necessary" seems he acknowledges that the idea that the market fixes everything doesn't pan out in the real world. Although to his credit he lays the blame for the great depression at the feet of the federal reserve system, but makes a mistake in statig that the federal reserve is a part of the govt when its really a union of banks that have been given control over teh monetary supply... in effect its a bank monopoly whose goal is to set the inflation rate at 2% annually. So that's error #1.
Milton basically says, greed creates demand, greed fills demand, wants and desires = greed, sure that sounds right. people are not angels, people act in their self interests, sure, people are ugly and nasty.... people in business are greedy, people in congress are greedy, consumers are greedy and all will trample you to death if teh conditions are right for a stampede, if you learned anything in high school, you learned that much.
As far as regulation goes, regulation moderates greed and the nasty effects of greed. and don't forget that regulation creates things like patents, and other regulations that bar people from entering the market place. If people, groups or corporations were permitted to act with unbridled greed within thiese artifical bubbles/spheres without regulation on their actions, we would all suffer for it. And as Friedman indicates At minute 0:55 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTK2ul76 … re=related when he is talking about trucking in the video that there should not be a barrier to enter into trucking and I would say that that applies to other areas of the economy as well, although the union lead trucking industry was right wing whipping boy back in the 1980's ala BJ and The Bear. Now if those barriers to entry to areas of the economy came down, then various regulations would be unnecessary because you would have permitted market conditions to exist in those markets. I would somewhat agree with that sentiment as a whole and I would include in that, the areas of medicine, pharmaceuticals, lawyering, accounting, stock brokering, every occupation you can think of, and include patents and other means for securing so called intellectual property or licenses to trade directly on stock exchanges etc etc. Then you have a market.... but you can't single out he message to get rid of regulation controlling the bad acts of people and corporations operating in legally created protective bubbles that bar entry to the occupation or use of the resource without first popping those bubbles. In miltons words "the most efective anti-monopoly leglistion you can possibly have, would be free trade." at minute 6:23 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTK2ul76 … re=related and in that he means getting rid of barriers to entry.
So, if you have protective spheres around market actors that prevent others from entry into the market or prevent people from using the courts to right harmful acts like in tort reform, then you need more and more regulation to protect the public. the two things go hand in hand. less regulation menas less regulation on both sides of the equation.
In other words, take his whole message as a whole, and cut out the selective hearing.... its just like the selectivity people show regarding the constitution, I want this part of the 14th Amendment but not that other part, or I like the first amendment but dam the second amendment.. but its clear to me that the American psychy is driven by selctive hearing.
The area that I most disagree with him is on the idea that govt should only regulate regarding externalities, but if the situtation is a contract situation between two people then the govt should play no role. He uses the example of air bags in cars saying govt shouldn't mandate those. Well he's wrong because there's an obvious power imbalance between the car maker and the consumer. Unless of course you get rid of tort reform which is a regulatory regime placed over the courts and the common law to redress injuries do to faulty cars, then there might be some market force to counter the power imbalance between consumer and car meker. Yes, tort reform is a regulation barring people from suing and protecting business interests, just the same as artificial regulation barriers bar entry into professions and fields of industry.
Finally
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brBvdjoN … re=related at minute 0:00
Milton says minimum wage laws causes poverty... he way off of the rails on that one.... ROFL... at minute 0:45 he smiles, he couldn't even say that one with a straight face. But anyway, I found him hilariously ubsurd and a master of spin.
Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2010-08-11 11:15:11)
The fundamental disagreement between us is that you assume the market should always clear itself without intervention. I don't think the market clearing itself unhindered is always the best option.lowing wrote:
Sorry you think govt. solves problems. Govt. is the biggest problem/instigator in any economy. Supply and demand needs no govt. intervention to work. Take govt. and political agenda out of the market and their would be no need for govt. IN the market.Turquoise wrote:
...and a lack of proper regulation. As I've told John... it's not a matter of quantity of regulation -- it's a matter of quality of regulation.lowing wrote:
The trail of failure of the housing market can be traced DIRECTLY back to govt. intervention in that market.
Mixed economies are the most stable, but they require competent policymakers and regulators. Unfortunately, America has always had problems with this.
Sometimes government solves problems. Sometimes it causes them. For me, it's not an all or nothing situation. Circumstances dictate what the best course of action is, but more often than not, a certain amount of regulation is needed.
Hang on wait what? I thought you didn't like a carbon tax?So Lowing would you like a carbon tax? or should we just regulate polution? because the first one is a greed based solution and the second one is a half baked solution coming from the bureaucratic halls of ineptitude.
Personally why wait for the market to weasel out a solution, just regulate polution if local polution is a problem.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I already pay a tax for emissions, every year I gotta shell out 25 bucks to prove my car does not emit pollution. Cap and trade sucks ass in my book, It is ridiculous to have one company "save" pollution, only to sell the rights to pollute to someone else. It is non-sense.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Lowing,lowing wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76frHHpoNFs&feature=related
please watch and comment. How can you argue against this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lWk4TC … re=related
at minute 4:30
Friedman says he's in favor of a carbon tax... and it sounds like he would probably be in favor of market solutions like cap and trade.
So Lowing, does that mean that you agree with carbon tax and cap and trade to solve the problem of polution. after all if no liberal can raise issue with what he says, then I suppose no one else can either. So Lowing would you like a carbon tax? or should we just regulate polution? because the first one is a greed based solution and the second one is a half baked solution coming from the bureaucratic halls of ineptitude.
Personally why wait for the market to weasel out a solution, just regulate polution if local polution is a problem.
Finally
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brBvdjoN … re=related at minute 0:00
Milton says minimum wage laws causes poverty... he way off of the rails on that one.... ROFL... at minute 0:45 he smiles, he couldn't even say that one with a straight face. But anyway, I found him hilariously ubsurd and a master of spin.
You say he is way off on minimum wage, he explains himself, why don't you?
lowing, do you consider soldiers and marines and sailors part of the "govt" as opposed to private contractors? If so, and you support our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, does that not mean you believe government is capable of solving problems?lowing wrote:
[
Sorry you think govt. solves problemst.
It seems the "government" to you is just a catch-all term for any domestic policy you do not agree with... hard to know what exactly you are talking about sometimes.
Can't you just say all government is just public financing of private contractors? The line between the two is very grey, sometimes it is hard to tell the difference at all.
government solved the problem of his empty checking account
Tu Stultus Es
Do you have any idea of what you're talking about?lowing wrote:
I already pay a tax for emissions, every year I gotta shell out 25 bucks to prove my car does not emit pollution.
The right goes to the highest payer, hence the cost is transferred to the consumer, and there is thus a market pressure to reduce emissions.Cap and trade sucks ass in my book, It is ridiculous to have one company "save" pollution, only to sell the rights to pollute to someone else. It is non-sense
Its the free market applied to pollution, seems perfect to me.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
perfect is a wild overstatement
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I don't see how its not perfect, put a price on CO2 emissions, jack it up steadily year on year, use the proceeds for renewable energy research.
Much better than cap and trade.
Much better than cap and trade.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
wait i thought you were talking about cap and trade... my bad. it's still not perfect, there are a few chinks with respect to evenness and "controllability" so to speak.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I was thinking of carbon tax, got mixed up between lowing griping about tax and cap and trade.
Cap and trade is more a recipe for corruption with all the waivers, subsidies and advantage for the current polluters.
Cap and trade is more a recipe for corruption with all the waivers, subsidies and advantage for the current polluters.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Yeah I think I do...My state makes a killing charging every mother fucker with a car 25 bucks to prove their car passes emiissions guide lines.Dilbert_X wrote:
Do you have any idea of what you're talking about?lowing wrote:
I already pay a tax for emissions, every year I gotta shell out 25 bucks to prove my car does not emit pollution.The right goes to the highest payer, hence the cost is transferred to the consumer, and there is thus a market pressure to reduce emissions.Cap and trade sucks ass in my book, It is ridiculous to have one company "save" pollution, only to sell the rights to pollute to someone else. It is non-sense
Its the free market applied to pollution, seems perfect to me.
It does not go to the highest payer. Each company is allowed to pollute "X" anount of emissions, companies that don't max out their allotted emissions can sell it to whoever wants to pollute more than their alloted share.
How exactly is this saving emissions when you will always max out?
@lowing: You have problems understanding key economic principles already being explained to you in this thread, both by me and by others so I'm not going down that road with you again ...
The flaw concerning Friedmans economic POV is that he didn't factor in that the people running the Friedman economic model wouldn't follow it 100%, a totally free flowing economy without any kind of regulation would be so totally misused and infected with corruption it simply can't work ... the human greed factor would overthrow it ... kinda like the situation is now only worse ...
Not disputing that Friedmans ideas are brilliant, he is after all prolly the brightest economic mind in the last century, even got a honorary Nobel price in economic theory if I remember correctly
The flaw concerning Friedmans economic POV is that he didn't factor in that the people running the Friedman economic model wouldn't follow it 100%, a totally free flowing economy without any kind of regulation would be so totally misused and infected with corruption it simply can't work ... the human greed factor would overthrow it ... kinda like the situation is now only worse ...
Not disputing that Friedmans ideas are brilliant, he is after all prolly the brightest economic mind in the last century, even got a honorary Nobel price in economic theory if I remember correctly
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
How very superior of you. Nothing like someone that can not explain their reasoning simply dismissing the need to, through intellectual superiority. Explain how an economy is not a flow of money through a society.Varegg wrote:
@lowing: You have problems understanding key economic principles already being explained to you in this thread, both by me and by others so I'm not going down that road with you again ...
The flaw concerning Friedmans economic POV is that he didn't factor in that the people running the Friedman economic model wouldn't follow it 100%, a totally free flowing economy without any kind of regulation would be so totally misused and infected with corruption it simply can't work ... the human greed factor would overthrow it ... kinda like the situation is now only worse ...
Not disputing that Friedmans ideas are brilliant, he is after all prolly the brightest economic mind in the last century, even got a honorary Nobel price in economic theory if I remember correctly
He never said the govt. had no place. He said the govt. has no place in our personal lives and decisions. He said the govt. has no place propping up companies. He basically said competition with supply and demand should prevail. Not govt. regulation.
$25 per person? Wow thats a real killing. Try $8/gallon fuel, $5 going to the state.lowing wrote:
Yeah I think I do...My state makes a killing charging every mother fucker with a car 25 bucks to prove their car passes emiissions guide lines.
I don't agree with cap and trade, however one route is to reduce the cap every year, or more efficient companies make more money and are able to buy out their opposition - putting them out of business.It does not go to the highest payer. Each company is allowed to pollute "X" anount of emissions, companies that don't max out their allotted emissions can sell it to whoever wants to pollute more than their alloted share.
How exactly is this saving emissions when you will always max out?
Except when its simply wrong or against the national interest, for example owning slaves or reliance on ME oil. The free market hasn't solved either.He never said the govt. had no place. He said the govt. has no place in our personal lives and decisions. He said the govt. has no place propping up companies. He basically said competition with supply and demand should prevail. Not govt. regulation.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-12 02:25:00)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
No 25 dollars per car. and they just imposed an Ad Valorem tax. Big brother is getting theirs for sure.Dilbert_X wrote:
$25 per person? Wow thats a real killing. Try $8/gallon fuel, $5 going to the state.lowing wrote:
Yeah I think I do...My state makes a killing charging every mother fucker with a car 25 bucks to prove their car passes emiissions guide lines.I don't agree with cap and trade, however one route is to reduce the cap every year, or more efficient companies make more money and are able to buy out their opposition - putting them out of business.It does not go to the highest payer. Each company is allowed to pollute "X" anount of emissions, companies that don't max out their allotted emissions can sell it to whoever wants to pollute more than their alloted share.
How exactly is this saving emissions when you will always max out?
I don't see a problem with that, haven't given it much thought though. I just think cap and trade is bullshit.
Slave ownership is hardly a personal decision. How do you know what the free market can do regarding oil. The free market has never been able to try has it?
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-12 02:36:08)
Cap and trade is BS, carbon tax is the only real way of applying pure market forces to CO2 emissions.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Can we all agree we are getting fucked by the people we elect?
We all can make better decisions on how we make money and spend our money and live our fucking lives.......
We all can make better decisions on how we make money and spend our money and live our fucking lives.......
Love is the answer
Reason have been tried on you so many times lowing it's laughable ... it's been explained over and over again and you just don't get it ... besides I never said economy wasn't a flow of money, it most certainly is ... but it's so much more than that ...lowing wrote:
How very superior of you. Nothing like someone that can not explain their reasoning simply dismissing the need to, through intellectual superiority. Explain how an economy is not a flow of money through a society.
Yeah ... that sounds just fine but doesn't quite work IRL ... reality is that when government doesn't involve itself it all goes totally wrong, without any kind of regulations it will cost more to tidy up than to prevent the damage from happening ...lowing wrote:
He never said the govt. had no place. He said the govt. has no place in our personal lives and decisions. He said the govt. has no place propping up companies. He basically said competition with supply and demand should prevail. Not govt. regulation.
Government shouldn't have to be propping up companies but sorrily they do have to ... other wise the law of the old wild west would prevail, the debate is how much regulation is needed for it to work near perfect ...
And we do have a market based on the principles of supply and demand ... it's just a tad tweaked in comparison to a totally free unregulated market ... some tweaks are bad but most of them are good ...
And I never stated that Friedman stated there is no place for government, where did you get that information?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Varegg you are so full of shit. You gave me the when I said an economy is a flow of money through a society. As if I was so wrong it was laughable. Now explain how it is not a flow of money through an economy. As far as your, "it is so much more than that", no it isn't. The only thing that makes it more complicated are the various avenues money travels.Varegg wrote:
Reason have been tried on you so many times lowing it's laughable ... it's been explained over and over again and you just don't get it ... besides I never said economy wasn't a flow of money, it most certainly is ... but it's so much more than that ...lowing wrote:
How very superior of you. Nothing like someone that can not explain their reasoning simply dismissing the need to, through intellectual superiority. Explain how an economy is not a flow of money through a society.Yeah ... that sounds just fine but doesn't quite work IRL ... reality is that when government doesn't involve itself it all goes totally wrong, without any kind of regulations it will cost more to tidy up than to prevent the damage from happening ...lowing wrote:
He never said the govt. had no place. He said the govt. has no place in our personal lives and decisions. He said the govt. has no place propping up companies. He basically said competition with supply and demand should prevail. Not govt. regulation.
Government shouldn't have to be propping up companies but sorrily they do have to ... other wise the law of the old wild west would prevail, the debate is how much regulation is needed for it to work near perfect ...
And we do have a market based on the principles of supply and demand ... it's just a tad tweaked in comparison to a totally free unregulated market ... some tweaks are bad but most of them are good ...
And I never stated that Friedman stated there is no place for government, where did you get that information?
Sorry I disagree...The world did not explode when Eastern Airlines collapsed, or Pan AM, or Trans World. The world would not explode if GM collapsed. And it should have.
You can not give me one example where govt. regulation was good. regarding the economy...Several years ago the govt controlled the phone company. Since govt. got out of the business the industry has exploded with inventiveness that has revolutionized all of our lives. A far cry from good ole' ma bell.