|
Post by Azaziel on Dec 1, 2010 6:09:03 GMT 10
The dilemma is that, in a truly free market, monopolies quickly arise, and markets are no longer free. The alternative? Regulation, and markets are no longer free. Yes, but it is the type of regulation, and most governments think they know the answer, when they have no idea
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 1, 2010 6:11:22 GMT 10
Philip, our first pump priming was to use our surplus, so it cost us nothing, if we had to borrow for that , things would have been different, and also we have China to thank for buying and continues to buy vast quantities of our natural resources Terry we are in debt, but have budgeted to clear it in a few years.
|
|
|
Post by Azaziel on Dec 1, 2010 6:11:24 GMT 10
In other words, fiscal regulation had been handed over to people ideologically opposed to regulation (i.e., free-market capitalists) and the Fed was, in a sense, privatized. Yes, there is a lot wrong with the picture and much needing to be fixed. No. In a true free market system, the market would self regulate. However, we have a mixed economy, not true free markets. Under this model, what has happened is that the Federal Reserve has proven ineffective at predicting and controlling the economy. In fact, their interference led directly to the Dot Com bubble and the Housing bubble. The government itself was a direct contributor to the Housing bubble, by requiring lenders to issue sub-prime loans - in other words, lend money to those who did not qualify under normal lending practices, nor could afford to pay back the mortgage, under the ideology of getting more people to have a part of the so-called "American Dream," which seems to somehow involve home ownership. This policy was started under that idiot, Jimmy Carter, and expanded under President Clinton. Even Bush picked up the mantra of home ownership. If interest rates were left to find their own, true level without being held artificially low, and normal, sane lending practices were followed (requiring a potential buyer to put 10 -15% down), then the housing bubble would not have happened. Max, the problem in the US is that all players were in bed with each other for their own profit and agenda, which is different from what the US actually needed and required
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 1, 2010 6:13:57 GMT 10
Yes, but it is the type of regulation, and most governments think they know the answer, when they have no idea Especially when they hand over regulation to those ideologically opposed to regulation.
|
|
|
Post by Azaziel on Dec 1, 2010 6:14:19 GMT 10
Philip, our first pump priming was to use our surplus, so it cost us nothing, if we had to borrow for that , things would have been different, and also we have China to thank for buying and continues to buy vast quantities of our natural resources Terry we are in debts, but have budgeted to clear it in a few years. Philip, yes we are from 2nd priming, but I am referring to our 1st priming, I could be wrong but I think we were the only country that didn't need to borrow straight up, and I believe our 2nd priming could have been better handled
|
|
|
Post by Azaziel on Dec 1, 2010 6:16:07 GMT 10
Yes, but it is the type of regulation, and most governments think they know the answer, when they have no idea Especially when they hand over regulation to those ideologically opposed to regulation. Agreed, that is why our system worked, and the government should keep its hands off our sysytem,and excatly why it failed in the US
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 1, 2010 16:39:25 GMT 10
so far, it has worked here. There's your key phrase. It will have to be paid for, eventually. They were economic basket cases anyway, they just didn't realize it yet. No amount of "pump priming" would have helped. High taxation to support a socialist welfare state is unsustainable. High taxes are a disincentive to business and labor alike.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 1, 2010 20:30:39 GMT 10
Consider the Swedish Model with high taxes, high welfare, low unemployment and impressive economic growth (4.6% in the second quarter of 2010), with the lowest deficit in the EU, expected to clear by 2012. There is also Denmark's fiscal position, with "extensive government welfare measures... remains among the strongest in the EU." (See also: Denmark a unique mix of welfare, economic growth). I'd say the elephant in the room here is, while carrying on a treat about stimulus and welfare spending, turning a blind eye to spending in Iraq and Afghanistan (this too will need to be paid off, along with outstanding debts from earlier conflicts). I'd further say that a well regulated socialist economy is more sustainable than a laizze faire martial economy.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 2, 2010 1:40:06 GMT 10
I'd say the elephant in the room here is, while carrying on a treat about stimulus and welfare spending, turning a blind eye to spending in Iraq and Afghanistan (this too will need to be paid off, along with outstanding debts from earlier conflicts). I'd further say that a well regulated socialist economy is more sustainable than a laizze faire martial economy. There's the thing. We shouldn't be running around making "The world safe for democracy." (thank you very much, Woodrow Wilson, may you fry in hell for giving us WWI and the Federal Reserve. "Progressive indeed.)
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 2, 2010 2:23:49 GMT 10
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
Thomas Jefferson
|
|