So don't invest with a fund? E-trade ftmfw.Dilbert_X wrote:
Financials are still making money, here's why.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers … vings.html
So, when has trade ever been free by your definition?JohnG@lt wrote:
Are you referring to the heavy Mercantilist time period in our nations history rife with government sponsored monopolies like Union Pacific, the highest tariffs in our nations history, and widespread graft and favoritism? Is that the one you're talking about? Because that sure as shit wasn't free trade economics. No, that time period is exactly what liberals try to bring back every time they pile on regulations.Turquoise wrote:
...and what we tried during the Gilded Age didn't work either...JohnG@lt wrote:
Right, because what y'all have been doing for the past 100 years has worked so well. Trying to stop free will is a fruitless endeavor. There will always be new products and new services and new loopholes that people will create. Unless you keep the laws simple and punish those that don't follow them severely, all you do is create scofflaws and then everyone takes the entire system for a joke.
When I was a kid I used to love playing in the sand at the beach. I wouldn't build sand castles, I would build a wall to keep the ocean out. I'd spend hours working on it until the tide came up and then spend another half hour or so mending holes and building it higher as the surf came up. Eventually I'd lose my battle. You're trying to stop the ocean with flimsy sand walls and wondering why it isn't working.
So that's your solution, don't invest if you don't like the rules as they are set up.JohnG@lt wrote:
So don't invest with a fund? E-trade ftmfw.Dilbert_X wrote:
Financials are still making money, here's why.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers … vings.html
Never. The closest we've ever come is post-1970s when Keynesian theory met stagflation and fell out of favor. Keynes is neo-mercantilism. This is why I argue so vehemently against him, and can't understand why the left in this country is so in love with him (except that his theory is easy to understand since laymen think of wealth as nothing more than zero sum piles of gold or currency).Turquoise wrote:
So, when has trade ever been free by your definition?JohnG@lt wrote:
Are you referring to the heavy Mercantilist time period in our nations history rife with government sponsored monopolies like Union Pacific, the highest tariffs in our nations history, and widespread graft and favoritism? Is that the one you're talking about? Because that sure as shit wasn't free trade economics. No, that time period is exactly what liberals try to bring back every time they pile on regulations.Turquoise wrote:
...and what we tried during the Gilded Age didn't work either...
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-08-08 19:11:33)
So, essentially, all we really have to go by with a truly free market is pure conjecture and theory. It reminds me of Marxism, in that there has never been a successful labor revolution that has resulted in Marx's ideal of a labor collective running everything.JohnG@lt wrote:
Never. The closest we've ever come is post-1970s when Keynesian theory met stagflation and fell out of favor.Turquoise wrote:
So, when has trade ever been free by your definition?JohnG@lt wrote:
Are you referring to the heavy Mercantilist time period in our nations history rife with government sponsored monopolies like Union Pacific, the highest tariffs in our nations history, and widespread graft and favoritism? Is that the one you're talking about? Because that sure as shit wasn't free trade economics. No, that time period is exactly what liberals try to bring back every time they pile on regulations.
What a conservative view to take...Turquoise wrote:
So, essentially, all we really have to go by with a truly free market is pure conjecture and theory. It reminds me of Marxism, in that there has never been a successful labor revolution that has resulted in Marx's ideal of a labor collective running everything.JohnG@lt wrote:
Never. The closest we've ever come is post-1970s when Keynesian theory met stagflation and fell out of favor.Turquoise wrote:
So, when has trade ever been free by your definition?
By the same token, as long as there have been governments, there has never been a situation where the market has been allowed to completely operate with the level of freedom you're advocating, and as such, we have no real world evidence that it would work as well as you assume -- nor would it necessarily result in fewer monopolies or oligopolies.
Eh... I prefer the term "skeptical." A lot of the reason why I don't side with libertarians on economic issues is that it seems they often advocate things that have yet to be tested in reality.JohnG@lt wrote:
What a conservative view to take...Turquoise wrote:
So, essentially, all we really have to go by with a truly free market is pure conjecture and theory. It reminds me of Marxism, in that there has never been a successful labor revolution that has resulted in Marx's ideal of a labor collective running everything.JohnG@lt wrote:
Never. The closest we've ever come is post-1970s when Keynesian theory met stagflation and fell out of favor.
By the same token, as long as there have been governments, there has never been a situation where the market has been allowed to completely operate with the level of freedom you're advocating, and as such, we have no real world evidence that it would work as well as you assume -- nor would it necessarily result in fewer monopolies or oligopolies.
Only because it's far too lucrative for politicians to monkey around in the private sector. We live in the Age of Pull and the age won't end short of a revolution or a revolutionary President who stamps out the corruption instead of playing the game. Neither will happen in my lifetime... c'est la vie.Turquoise wrote:
Eh... I prefer the term "skeptical." A lot of the reason why I don't side with libertarians on economic issues is that it seems they often advocate things that have yet to be tested in reality.JohnG@lt wrote:
What a conservative view to take...Turquoise wrote:
So, essentially, all we really have to go by with a truly free market is pure conjecture and theory. It reminds me of Marxism, in that there has never been a successful labor revolution that has resulted in Marx's ideal of a labor collective running everything.
By the same token, as long as there have been governments, there has never been a situation where the market has been allowed to completely operate with the level of freedom you're advocating, and as such, we have no real world evidence that it would work as well as you assume -- nor would it necessarily result in fewer monopolies or oligopolies.
It's easy to defend something you know will never be implemented and thereby cannot conclusively be proven wrong. It's much like religion in that respect, since no one can prove or disprove the existence of deities.
If nothing else, we at least are both against pork and corruption.JohnG@lt wrote:
Only because it's far too lucrative for politicians to monkey around in the private sector. We live in the Age of Pull and the age won't end short of a revolution or a revolutionary President who stamps out the corruption instead of playing the game. Neither will happen in my lifetime... c'est la vie.Turquoise wrote:
Eh... I prefer the term "skeptical." A lot of the reason why I don't side with libertarians on economic issues is that it seems they often advocate things that have yet to be tested in reality.JohnG@lt wrote:
What a conservative view to take...
It's easy to defend something you know will never be implemented and thereby cannot conclusively be proven wrong. It's much like religion in that respect, since no one can prove or disprove the existence of deities.
Yet you wish to keep handing them the tools to do so... It's like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.Turquoise wrote:
If nothing else, we at least are both against pork and corruption.JohnG@lt wrote:
Only because it's far too lucrative for politicians to monkey around in the private sector. We live in the Age of Pull and the age won't end short of a revolution or a revolutionary President who stamps out the corruption instead of playing the game. Neither will happen in my lifetime... c'est la vie.Turquoise wrote:
Eh... I prefer the term "skeptical." A lot of the reason why I don't side with libertarians on economic issues is that it seems they often advocate things that have yet to be tested in reality.
It's easy to defend something you know will never be implemented and thereby cannot conclusively be proven wrong. It's much like religion in that respect, since no one can prove or disprove the existence of deities.
Keeping up with that analogy, I view both the elite rich and the government as foxes, while the henhouse is for the rest of society to dwell in.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yet you wish to keep handing them the tools to do so... It's like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.Turquoise wrote:
If nothing else, we at least are both against pork and corruption.JohnG@lt wrote:
Only because it's far too lucrative for politicians to monkey around in the private sector. We live in the Age of Pull and the age won't end short of a revolution or a revolutionary President who stamps out the corruption instead of playing the game. Neither will happen in my lifetime... c'est la vie.
Yeah, except one has no real power over our daily lives while the other has very real power over our lives. I'd rather keep the latter as week as possible.Turquoise wrote:
Keeping up with that analogy, I view both the elite rich and the government as foxes, while the henhouse is for the rest of society to dwell in.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yet you wish to keep handing them the tools to do so... It's like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.Turquoise wrote:
If nothing else, we at least are both against pork and corruption.
It's inevitable that foxes will determine our fate, but I would rather see the foxes fight each other before they get to us.
Both have power. In fact, in day to day existence, it's generally special interests (mostly in the form of corporate lobbyists) that manipulate government -- thereby affecting us through policy.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, except one has no real power over our daily lives while the other has very real power over our lives. I'd rather keep the latter as week as possible.Turquoise wrote:
Keeping up with that analogy, I view both the elite rich and the government as foxes, while the henhouse is for the rest of society to dwell in.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yet you wish to keep handing them the tools to do so... It's like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.
It's inevitable that foxes will determine our fate, but I would rather see the foxes fight each other before they get to us.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-08-08 19:34:03)
Well it looks like the DOW dumped off its mini-bubble after the Fed spread a little reality on the wall street party.Harmor wrote:
Good earnings. I suspect the DOW will jump tomorrow or by the end of the week.
Yep...looks like I was wrong. This is deeper than I thought. So much for the 'summer of recovery'.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Well it looks like the DOW dumped off its mini-bubble after the Fed spread a little reality on the wall street party.Harmor wrote:
Good earnings. I suspect the DOW will jump tomorrow or by the end of the week.
...
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-08-15 10:18:46)
Last edited by Harmor (2010-08-22 09:27:52)
big inventors are where its atHarmor wrote:
Looks like the small inventor is really feeling the uncertainty in the stock market:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/busin … r=2&hp