The Crisis Of Capitalism In 11 Minutes

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1331858541' post='2401553']
Because free market means free of legalized violence. Corporatism might creep in from a state of free markets. In fact, with human corruption, it is inevitable that systems will corrupt.[/QUOTE]

Which would entail the abolition of the state. and not simply in one country, but globally. Yes?



[QUOTE] Which regulations removed caused the collapse?

Misregulation, certainly. A history of insuring losses, certainly. But "de"-regulation? [/QUOTE]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html



[QUOTE] I'm not attempting to model anything. I'm advocating leaving people alone, and not favoring one business over another. I'm not offering you lollipops and sunshine. [/QUOTE]

Yes you are. I think. I don't see how you imagine a social system whereby people 'left each-other alone' except in a utopian society. Violence is a fundamental fact of nature. Chimpanzees go to war with each other. There has never been a non-violent society.



[QUOTE] Thus the term German socialism. Yes, they are different. That doesn't mean it's not central planning. Subsidies are a form of central planning. Legal tender laws, central planning. A private bank that controls the money supply, central planning. Manipulation of interest rates, providing "low income" loans up to 938K, all central planning.
[/quote]

But it's not just different means. a society like the Soviet Union had substantial more influence over the particulars of the economy that the US does now.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Hasan, I pretty much agree with everything Winchester said. However I'd like to add that your New York Times article about Greenspan doesn't point to a single specific law that caused the economic collapse. With all due respect, I can point to the Fed printing money and guarenteeing rates as what caused the economic collapse. Why is it that the Libertarians are the ones that predicted the collapse and not the ones who claim we need more regulation?

[4588686]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1331881585' post='2401714']
Hasan, I pretty much agree with everything Winchester said. However I'd like to add that your New York Times article about Greenspan doesn't point to a single specific law that caused the economic collapse. With all due respect, I can point to the Fed printing money and guarenteeing rates as what caused the economic collapse. Why is it that the Libertarians are the ones that predicted the collapse and not the ones who claim we need more regulation?
[/quote]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouriel_Roubini"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouriel_Roubini[/url]


Marxism also provides a very comprehensive account of the crash. George Soros (not a Marxist but a Kensyian) wrote an extremely interesting analysis of the crash shortly after it occurred. Just because a theory can account for a phenomena or predict something doesn't validate it, as Popper pointed out a while ago.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331883232' post='2401719']
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouriel_Roubini"]http://en.wikipedia....Nouriel_Roubini[/url]


Marxism also provides a very comprehensive account of the crash. George Soros (not a Marxist but a Kensyian) wrote an extremely interesting analysis of the crash shortly after it occurred. Just because a theory can account for a phenomena or predict something doesn't validate it, as Popper pointed out a while ago.
[/quote]

Peter schiff wrote several interesting accounts before it happened. Soros never saw it coming and Keynesian economics is partly what caused it.

[RezaMikhaeil]

Here is a Washington Post article that Schiff wrote about it [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/15/AR2008101503166.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/15/AR2008101503166.html[/url]

Or you can watch Peter Schiff predicting the Economic Collapse specifically: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4UBibsI5E4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4UBibsI5E4[/url]

[4588686]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1331883372' post='2401720']
Peter schiff wrote several interesting accounts before it happened. [/QUOTE]


As I linked, the Keynesian [color=#000000][font=sans-serif]Nouriel Roubini also predicted the crash. [/font][/color]

[QUOTE] Soros never saw it coming[/QUOTE]

[url="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/george-soros-the-face-of-a-prophet/"]http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/george-soros-the-face-of-a-prophet/[/url]

[QUOTE]and Keynesian economics is partly what caused it.
[/quote]

I disagree with that. Keynesianism has been on the retreat since Reagan and Greenspan himself noted that deregulation overanticipated the capacity of markets to self correct. Is Greenspan a Kenynesian?. The Heydays of Keynesianism never saw such a crash.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331883789' post='2401724']I disagree with that. Keynesianism has been on the retreat since Reagan and Greenspan himself noted that deregulation overanticipated the capacity of markets to self correct. Is Greenspan a Kenynesian?. The Heydays of Keynesianism never saw such a crash.
[/quote]

I don't care what Greenspan said. Him and Bernanke are liars and always have been. Listen to Peter SChiff on what caused the collapse. He was right about the collapse and what caused it before it happened.

[4588686]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1331884074' post='2401725']
I don't care what Greenspan said. Him and Bernanke are liars and always have been. Listen to Peter SChiff on what caused the collapse. He was right about the collapse and what caused it before it happened.
[/quote]

[url="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm"]http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm[/url]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331884887' post='2401727']
[url="http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm"]http://econfaculty.g...lan/whyaust.htm[/url]
[/quote]

Well if you want to turn this into a debate about Austrian economics that's fine but this article is irrelevant to the fact that Bernanke and Greenspan have lied repeatedly on their claims and Peter Schiff was right on the economic collapse. Not only that but Bernanke continues to lie. I'm willing to bet that he lies so much that QE3 will be instated. I'm so confident in this point that I'm willing to put money on it.

[Winchester]

http://mises.org/daily/5954/Chamber-of-Corporatism
[quote]From time immemorial, business interests have attempted to use the power of government to enhance their own profitability and to limit the freedom of competitors. In modern times we call this rent seeking, and the chambers of commerce excel at it.
Chambers and other lobbying arms of the business community are in the game of socializing their costs and privatizing their profits. Naturally, these groups will seek to lower taxes on their profits, for example, but they will often enthusiastically support statewide income taxes or sales taxes that will cost the larger population plenty, but will disproportionately benefit business groups.
[/quote]
Trusting government but not business is at least as foolish as trusting business but not government.

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1331897093' post='2401737']
[url="http://mises.org/daily/5954/Chamber-of-Corporatism"]http://mises.org/dai...-of-Corporatism[/url]

Trusting government but not business is at least as foolish as trusting business but not government.
[/quote]

Government is elected and acts according to laws. It is designed to pursue the public interest rather than private interests. Government can be corrupt but I certainly trust it more than walmart unrestrained.

[4588686]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1331891371' post='2401729']
Well if you want to turn this into a debate about Austrian economics that's fine but this article is irrelevant to the fact that Bernanke and Greenspan have lied repeatedly on their claims and Peter Schiff was right on the economic collapse. Not only that but Bernanke continues to lie. I'm willing to bet that he lies so much that QE3 will be instated. I'm so confident in this point that I'm willing to put money on it.
[/quote]

I'm not sure how they lied. You may find this article interesting.

[url="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-villain/8901/"]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/the-villain/8901/[/url]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331904806' post='2401766']
Government is elected and acts according to laws. It is designed to pursue the public interest rather than private interests. Government can be corrupt but I certainly trust it more than walmart unrestrained.
[/quote] So you trust the government because it acts according to the law, even thou usually it doesn't act according to the law. And yet you don't trust a private corporation that is forced to obey the laws? That doesn't quite make sense.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331859329' post='2401568']

Yes you are. I think. I don't see how you imagine a social system whereby people 'left each-other alone' except in a utopian society. Violence is a fundamental fact of nature. Chimpanzees go to war with each other. There has never been a non-violent society.


[/quote]
And there won't be. What I oppose is legalized violence. Utopias generally have complex rules and grave punishments (and some hope that after enough hideous murder, people will turn into nice communists). I don't expect human nature to change. I don't expect peace. What I'm looking for is the reduction of legalized violence. I'm looking for an end to pre-crime legislation. I don't think people will quit trying to gain the advantage government possesses. That will always be a battle. Your answer appears to be more government. I think you should look at who supports regulation through their money. I think you should ask yourself why everything keeps getting more expensive, rather than less. You've uncritically accepted Alan Greenspan as someone expecting the free market to correct itself, while he ran a monopoly that manipulated the money supply, lowering interest rates and benefited a select group of very rich people. I don't see how anyone could take his words remotely seriously when he speaks of markets correcting themselves. You know how that happens? You let businesses fail. Propping them up doesn't help markets correct. That's like giving more money to your crack-addicted nephew.

As for your article, the government encouraged the lending practices. You should look at the level of "low income" that Fannie and Freddie help. I'd say 900K mortgages aren't "low income" unless you're Mitt Romney. How would derivatives cause a housing bubble? Spreading risk reduces the affect of a failure. And where did the money to lend come from? Certainly not that paragon of the free-market, our banking system! Think about our monetary system--it does not operate on the principles espoused by the likes of Schiff or Rothbard, both incorrigible free-marketeers. It does operate in accord with our wise regulators, and the history of monetary expansion is the history of the business cycle.

http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1331925585' post='2401917']
And there won't be. What I oppose is legalized violence. Utopias generally have complex rules and grave punishments (and some hope that after enough hideous murder, people will turn into nice communists). I don't expect human nature to change. I don't expect peace. What I'm looking for is the reduction of legalized violence. I'm looking for an end to pre-crime legislation. I don't think people will quit trying to gain the advantage government possesses. That will always be a battle. Your answer appears to be more government. I think you should look at who supports regulation through their money. I think you should ask yourself why everything keeps getting more expensive, rather than less. You've uncritically accepted Alan Greenspan as someone expecting the free market to correct itself, while he ran a monopoly that manipulated the money supply, lowering interest rates and benefited a select group of very rich people. I don't see how anyone could take his words remotely seriously when he speaks of markets correcting themselves. You know how that happens? You let businesses fail. Propping them up doesn't help markets correct. That's like giving more money to your crack-addicted nephew.

As for your article, the government encouraged the lending practices. You should look at the level of "low income" that Fannie and Freddie help. I'd say 900K mortgages aren't "low income" unless you're Mitt Romney. How would derivatives cause a housing bubble? Spreading risk reduces the affect of a failure. And where did the money to lend come from? Certainly not that paragon of the free-market, our banking system! Think about our monetary system--it does not operate on the principles espoused by the likes of Schiff or Rothbard, both incorrigible free-marketeers. It does operate in accord with our wise regulators, and the history of monetary expansion is the history of the business cycle.

[url="http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf"]http://mises.org/boo...toryofmoney.pdf[/url]
[/quote]Enlightenting read on the link you provided. Makes me realize why none of the primary candidates are seriously addressing the economy. Allthough, with the world economic woes, I don't think they really have viable political options to address our national economy.

I would assume you are investing in gold, Winnie.