If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClearPolitics)   Obama "We tried free markets. It didn't work." Now we are going to try something else   (realclearpolitics.com) divider line 291
    More: Unlikely, free markets, Florida Today, Florida Atlantic University  
•       •       •

3132 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Apr 2012 at 9:26 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



291 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-11 12:40:18 PM

I alone am best: skullkrusher: for the sake of clarity, gameshowhost, a pure free market is impossible IRL. Once we recognize that the textbook assumptions of efficient markets will not happen on their own in the vast majority of cases (if ever), we are left to figure out how to make them happen. This is when the notion that government can step in and fix some of the problems comes up. However, once that happens, it is no longer a free market so, logically speaking, real life free markets are fooked from the get go, logically speaking

You should not say impossible. I'm almost positive a pure free market would be possible. Not to say it would be a good thing but I could see it working.


I think technology can bring us closer to a market that adheres to the assumptions of efficient markets for certain goods but we'll never have perfect information. There is no way for all participants to have access to all the information about the commodity and the markets derived from it
 
2012-04-11 12:44:07 PM

sprawl15: yert: xenophon10k: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Trickle down!

/yeah... I remember being told how I would be greatly trickled down upon
//the trickling continues

Bukkake capitalism.

I'm thinking it's a bit more scatological.

shiatake capitalism?


Think of what would be raining down on us if Santorum took office.
 
2012-04-11 12:45:25 PM

derpdeederp: The technological and productive wealth of our nation seems to have trickled down. How do you explain the poor having all those refridgerators, X-Boxes. computers and cell phones.


Because as an economy we've replaced access to credit as a substitute for real wages?
 
2012-04-11 12:45:54 PM

Jackson Herring: i.imgur.com


OMG- it says "Stair of the DOG 2022." A futuristic dog lift for a time when all dogs are obese.
 
2012-04-11 12:46:20 PM
STAIR
OF THE
DOG
2022
 
2012-04-11 12:47:55 PM
Free markets work. Further, free markets are more rational, ethical, and fair.

Command economies don't work. Further, command economies are noteworthy for irrationality, coercion, inequity, and corruption.
 
2012-04-11 12:53:20 PM

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: sprawl15: yert: xenophon10k: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Trickle down!

/yeah... I remember being told how I would be greatly trickled down upon
//the trickling continues

Bukkake capitalism.

I'm thinking it's a bit more scatological.

shiatake capitalism?

Think of what would be raining down on us if Santorum took office.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-11 12:54:11 PM
Fed don't believe in Freedom to FAIL.

/Some enterprising entrepreneur engeneerial fabricator Jackwagon believes he can convert gas powered vehicles to CNG cheaper than the State run option that starts around $10K how many hoops should he be required to jump through to sell to someone looking for a cheaper version than said option?
//Answer. What a Free Market might look like. (new window)
 
2012-04-11 01:07:05 PM

relcec: This comment about inflation alone gets you favorited.
Oh please, please, tell us a little bit about your theories on inflation. this is great stuff.


You should have had me favorited a long time ago as "don't argue with this guy. you will lose." I have soundly thrashed you in every argument we've had.

But, since you asked:

Inflation happens in every system. It is a function of using an abstract unit of exchange and has existed since the Lydians first invented coinage in the 500s BC.

Inflation is not bad. It's supposed to happen. The more people work, the more the value of their work-energy represented in money is added to the money supply. So the money supply should always be increasing.

The problem with inflation is that the first things that go up in value are the largest commodities humans can buy: Property. It sets the standard by which every other purchasable thing on the planet is priced. When property spikes, inflation trickles down and everything else slowly adjusts accordingly; next comes housing, then stocks, manufacturing and shipping, entertainment, and finally consumer products, right on down to chocolate bars going up 5 cents at the corner store. It usually takes 5-10 years for the smallest consumer good to adjust medially against a property spike.

The last thing that goes up, however, are employee wages. Especially minimum wage. There are some states that have not adjusted their minimum wage since the 70s (the minimum wage in Wyoming is $2.13 for employees receiving tips.). This is why HIGH inflation is prohibitively bad for the working class because their wages never keep up and their incomes are always shrinking against the real value of fiat.

I've always wanted a metric that sees federal minimum wage tied to inflation. If that were the case, it would be around $10-$12/hr right now.

Likewise with unemployment, it's not bad either. There needs to be some liquidity in the labor market (a happy medium seems to be around 5%), otherwise there is no labor mobility. Low unemployment brings just as many problems as high unemployment.

Really, the solution is to keep employment low but not to the detriment of inflation, and vice versa. It's a careful balance, always offset over time by demographic indicators such as baby booms, pop culture trends, foreign wars, inept administrations and voodoo economic theories.

Are you learning anything yet?
 
2012-04-11 01:16:08 PM
STAIR
OF THE
DOG
2022

How does that fat dog who is too old/fat/arthritic to climb the stairs get up onto that dog-lift?
 
2012-04-11 01:17:55 PM

Zeno-25: i.imgur.com


I have to admit, I wasn't expecting to see furry scat porn on the Politics tab today.
 
2012-04-11 01:28:15 PM

gameshowhost: [i55.tinypic.com image 600x326]


Judging by your sarcastic pic, I take it you think it's not?

*holds laughter for the moment*
 
2012-04-11 01:33:59 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: We have never had free markets. We have had banking-controlled corporatism.



Free markets are a myth. we have1, 2 or 3 players in every market that controls that particular market. and they all answer to Mr. Banker.
 
2012-04-11 01:35:17 PM

Aarontology: BillCo: aybe something that is about 2,700 pages long and we don't get to know what is in it until it is passed

I wished I worked for you because I could just whine and complain about how doing my job is too hard and be rewarded for it like you do with your elected officials.


Hey! Just like a union worker!

/This is what corporatists actually believe.
 
2012-04-11 01:36:38 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: MyRandomName: We havent had free markets in decades. We now have a market where it is cheaper to pay off a senator than compete in the marketplace. Closer to Russia than a free market. Industry is so ingrained with politics that hey now spend as much on lobbying as marketing. Half the regulations on the books are designed by industry to make the barrier to entry so high as to root out competition before it starts. To say we are in a free market is a sign of retardation.

Please tell us what period of time In US History you believe had the proper relationship between government and business.


None ideally. The government needs to go back to pure regulations, not favorited regulations. Closest there has been was the break up of ma bell. Government should enforce regulations in deceptive market manipulation, ot should not fund business which leads to cronyism. It should be a 3rd party observer, not a 1st party. Government is entirely too chained up with business. A blatant example is California and sign visibility. Many towns passed laws that mad new business sign size fairly small, all current business exempt of course. Easiest way and cheapest is a big old sign on your store front, bit that is no longer allowed. Allowing a senator to provide direct benefit to a business is an abuse of regulation. They should be third party. Nail a business for deceptive advertisement, nail them for illegal waste dumps, etc. There should be zero regulations that benefit one business or industry at the expense of another. Recessions have gotten steadily longer since he federal government began trying to control the market and economy. People are irrational, there is no control. It is better to have a quick sharp bust, allowing business to temporarily fail, than prop up failing business in an attempt to manage bust cycles.
 
2012-04-11 01:38:14 PM

Sgygus: How does that fat dog who is too old/fat/arthritic to climb the stairs get up onto that dog-lift?


Another dog lift. Ad infinitum.
 
2012-04-11 01:38:38 PM

Linux_Yes: PC LOAD LETTER: We have never had free markets. We have had banking-controlled corporatism.


Free markets are a myth. we have1, 2 or 3 players in every market that controls that particular market. and they all answer to Mr. Banker.


Free markets according to Linux Yes is the banishment of the choice of Windows

/I keed. I just like laughing at the Linux OS at every opportunity
 
2012-04-11 01:44:42 PM

relcec: Ishkur: Dr Dreidel: How does this apply to trading currency for goods and services? After all, if I pay $200 to WalMart for a new TV, in your example, I'm out $200 and WalMart cackles greedily; but in reality, WalMart is richer and I have $200 worth of TV.

Did the TV pop out of thin air? No, it required materials to build it. Those materials are finite. They were taken (re: bargained) from somewhere and assembled, each step along the process putting value into the finished product.

The more things that get made, the more value is put into them, the more is eventually converted into an abstract form of transaction ie: money. Just like how all energy eventually converts to heat, all value in an economic system eventually converts to money. This is why we have inflation, and why in any contiguous system, the amount of money that circulates steadily increases.

Investments is a whole 'nother shell game that I won't get into.


And then there was a challenger!

This comment about inflation alone gets you favorited.
Oh please, please, tell us a little bit about your theories on inflation. this is great stuff.

 
2012-04-11 01:48:22 PM
Or it could clip my entire reply to that for some reason. Go Go Gadget Comment button...

Whatever, I was gonna say they aren't his theories. And you're ignorant. And then I had this wonderful list of reasons that you're going to have to imagine now, because I don't feel like typing them over again.

/And the award for Least Helpful Post of the Day goes tooooooo....
 
2012-04-11 01:51:17 PM

Zeno-25: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: sprawl15: yert: xenophon10k: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Trickle down!

/yeah... I remember being told how I would be greatly trickled down upon
//the trickling continues

Bukkake capitalism.

I'm thinking it's a bit more scatological.

shiatake capitalism?

Think of what would be raining down on us if Santorum took office.

[i.imgur.com image 640x591]


Now that's just spectulation, but on the other hand we know exactly what we're getting with Obama

floppingaces.net
 
2012-04-11 01:53:43 PM

Ishkur: Dr Dreidel: How does this apply to trading currency for goods and services? After all, if I pay $200 to WalMart for a new TV, in your example, I'm out $200 and WalMart cackles greedily; but in reality, WalMart is richer and I have $200 worth of TV.

Did the TV pop out of thin air? No, it required materials to build it. Those materials are finite. They were taken (re: bargained) from somewhere and assembled, each step along the process putting value into the finished product.

The more things that get made, the more value is put into them, the more is eventually converted into an abstract form of transaction ie: money. Just like how all energy eventually converts to heat, all value in an economic system eventually converts to money. This is why we have inflation, and why in any contiguous system, the amount of money that circulates steadily increases.

Investments is a whole 'nother shell game that I won't get into.


So, like I said (or implied) - it depends how many externalities, or things that happen outside my giving WalMart $200 for a TV, you want to count. Your OP: "If you make money, that means someone somewhere else has to have lost some - seemed to imply that every transaction works that way.

On a long enough timeline, wealth is neither created nor destroyed - unless you define the "currency of the cosmos" as "mass + energy" (which I think simplifies to "lowest energy state", n'est-ce pas?).
 
2012-04-11 01:56:30 PM
Further concentrating wealth among a tiny segment of the population is 'free markets'? Nice troll headline, retardmitter.
 
2012-04-11 01:56:49 PM

relcec: Bear151556: Mike Judge predicted the current state of the GOP back in 2006...

Carl Sagan described it in 1980 (though he cribbed from Darwin and...Burroughs?): there is "natural" selection, where random factors like terrain, number and type of predators, availability of mates for breeding and the like "select" desirable traits to be passed on; and "artificial" selection, like how we went from wild dogs to domesticated breeds in ten thousand years or so. Ditto cows (bred to produce more milk) and corn (bred to produce bigger kernels).

The GOP is trying to artificially select "job creators", but are instead selecting GOP voters. Much like how medical science is trying to save as many humans as possible, but are succeeding only in saving those who really shouldn't be (like the Cleavons of the world).

// git'cher hands off mah junk!


GOP trying to artificially create job creators? is that really what you want to focus on?


The fark are you arguing? That the current GOP is not singularly focused on "what's good for the job creators"?

If your response was "B-b-b-b-but the GOP of 20 or 40 years ago! Or the Democrats now or then!", go find somewhere else to argue. That's not the point I was making.
 
2012-04-11 01:56:52 PM

I alone am best: Since you know so much about money and what rich people are doing with it I assume youre rich?


Rich is a relative term. What do you consider "rich"? I'm "rich" enough that the GOP's idiotic tax plans would benefit me personally and I'm "rich" enough that I'm able to take considerable advantage of investment income tax breaks. I'm not rich enough to not work, however.
 
2012-04-11 02:04:00 PM
Mildot
Now that's just spectulation, but on the other hand we know exactly what we're getting with Obama

Look at how stupid you are!
 
2012-04-11 02:12:38 PM

Deftoons: gameshowhost: [i55.tinypic.com image 600x326]

Judging by your sarcastic pic, I take it you think it's not?

*holds laughter for the moment*


Considering that you're 'blaming' gov't intervention for its role in the allocation of public goods/services? Yeah, you're way off.

/you did nail the part re: subsidies for private goods/services - i think we're all down with the elimination of those

MyRandomName: The government needs to go back to pure regulations, not favorited regulations.


Never gonna start heading in that direction until private influence is minimized in the entire political process. Publicly financed elections, strict limits on lobbying, etc etc. That kind of 'socialism' (or "rules", as they used to be called) will not stand in our bootstrappy independentistic republic.
 
2012-04-11 02:24:51 PM

Dr Dreidel: So, like I said (or implied) - it depends how many externalities, or things that happen outside my giving WalMart $200 for a TV, you want to count. Your OP: "If you make money, that means someone somewhere else has to have lost some - seemed to imply that every transaction works that way.

On a long enough timeline, wealth is neither created nor destroyed - unless you define the "currency of the cosmos" as "mass + energy" (which I think simplifies to "lowest energy state", n'est-ce pas?).


True.... and over a long enough timeline none of us really own anything. On a millenial scale, we're all renting.

And on a long enough timeline, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics DOES disprove evolution, but that requires acknowledging that thermal equilibrium in the Universe will occur in the order of googolplex years from now (if it is achievable at all), which is a number so large you can't write it down without your hand getting tired.

Does anything that occurs on the scale of the age of the Universe or Milky Way have any bearing to the comparatively brief moment where a non-descript planet circling an average yellow star germinated life on some of its surface for some determinate amount of time?

Yeah, if you want to get macro enough, you can completely annihilate the micro by shrinking it down to insignificance. But that's not the Universe we interact with.

Maybe that was hubiestubert's original point, but at the same time it's quite a useless assertion to make. The reason why I disagree is because, ultimately, we do not have access to infinite properties of anything (we're stuck on this Earth and its limited resources for the time being). And that's a good thing, because Capitalism -- and all economic systems, for that matter -- is driven by scarcity, which causes value. Abundance is worthless; it has no value. That's why no one can sell air, unless the people they're selling it to are suffocating. Scarcity is important. If everything were infinite and we could all magic goods out of thin air, then nothing would be worth anything and there'd be no economics.

The essence of all trade is surplus for surplus. If you get from somewhere, that means someone else is depleted of it, and you deplete yourself of something to get it. This is rarely ever a balanced equation. Some people get more than others from transactions, other people get less. This is why its improper to say you can create wealth from nothing, and likewise it is improper to say wealth creation is zero-sum. All transactions have results that are somewhere in the middle. Money is a keen abstraction that, while inaccurate and volatile most of the time, is supposed to track all this. And it does, in a very hazy, vague, ballpark-figure kinda way.

But the key to all this theorizing is the inherent fact that there is a finite quantity of stuff about. Economics is simply the study of who gets what (while politics is the study of how).
 
2012-04-11 02:43:58 PM

relcec:
What a libertarian named Bill Clinton might look like as he is repealing glass-steagall...oh sorry, it's a corporatist democrat, widely hailed by fark idiots like yourself as the best democrat president since FDR, and the only kind of democrat that exists at this point...


As much as I would like to dispute that I can't. Bill Clinton was arguably the best president we have had since FDR but as a progressive he was hated on both sides for being able to play the corporatist game as well as the Republicans. The damage done by that signing is obvious, but most Americans would have no idea what you are talking about. Clinton himself I think has referred to this as a "mistake" but I am more inclined to believe it was a political calculation.
 
2012-04-11 02:58:33 PM

BeesNuts: BillCo: Oh yeah, we need more government control. Maybe something that is about 2,700 pages long and we don't get to know what is in it until it is passed. And don't forget to add a couple of dozen new agencies to monitor the whole thing. Nothing like adding more employees to the federal government to pump up the ol economy.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

You know who complains about how many pages something is?

Children. That's who.


No, he's sort of right.

The explosion of bills' length has come with the intervention of lobbyist who want to see very narrow definitions put into legislation. They're narrow and clearly spelled out, into minute detail, to give folks not wiggle room, but to clearly define what they can and cannot do--and often in such fine detail that it's hard to parse, if you're not already doing it. It is to give legal cover for practices already in place, and force others in the market to follow them, as opposed to give them room to innovate. It's not a design flaw, it's by very much by design. It's to hobble competition, and that should be addressed.
 
2012-04-11 03:01:09 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: We have never had free markets. We have had banking-controlled corporatism.


With both sides of Congress in their pockets. No such thing as a free market in this country...and probably not seen anything like a free market in 100 years.
 
2012-04-11 03:30:02 PM

hubiestubert: BeesNuts: BillCo: Oh yeah, we need more government control. Maybe something that is about 2,700 pages long and we don't get to know what is in it until it is passed. And don't forget to add a couple of dozen new agencies to monitor the whole thing. Nothing like adding more employees to the federal government to pump up the ol economy.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

You know who complains about how many pages something is?

Children. That's who.

No, he's sort of right.

The explosion of bills' length has come with the intervention of lobbyist who want to see very narrow definitions put into legislation. They're narrow and clearly spelled out, into minute detail, to give folks not wiggle room, but to clearly define what they can and cannot do--and often in such fine detail that it's hard to parse, if you're not already doing it. It is to give legal cover for practices already in place, and force others in the market to follow them, as opposed to give them room to innovate. It's not a design flaw, it's by very much by design. It's to hobble competition, and that should be addressed.


That's not his point. But you're point is salient and I can't denigrate it meaningfully. But that's a function of the revolving door and our affinity for organizations like ALEC and the Family, rather than the length of the bills themselves. The length isn't the problem, the content is. And more length means more content. But a long bill could just as easily need to be that long to deal with all the surrounding legal implications of implementation.

/Pretty sure his point was "government dumb. bill long. ungawa."
 
2012-04-11 03:46:49 PM

BeesNuts: /Pretty sure his point was "government dumb. bill long. ungawa."


True, but even a broken clock is right twice a day...
 
2012-04-11 04:12:08 PM

hubiestubert: BeesNuts: /Pretty sure his point was "government dumb. bill long. ungawa."

True, but even a broken clock is right twice a day...


lol. fair. But I can still wish it were an atomic clock, can't I?
 
2012-04-11 05:10:59 PM

GAT_00: We have had free markets in this country, and no government interference. That was history up until the 1900s and it was farking terrible. These thinly controlled government markets aren't any better.

Capitalism is terrible. We need something else, or we need to heavily moderate it with so-called "socialistic" elements.


That's what I was thinking, it is entirely possible he's talking about before monopoly laws when Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel where on their way to owning everything, kinda like Wal-Mart and Disney today.
 
2012-04-11 05:21:03 PM
Fart_Machine
derpdeederp: The technological and productive wealth of our nation seems to have trickled down. How do you explain the poor having all those refridgerators, X-Boxes. computers and cell phones.

Because as an economy we've replaced access to credit as a substitute for real wages?


Nope, its because as technology becomes obsolete/dated and productive efficiency increase to produce said technology it becomes cheaper and more easily accessible to all segments of society. Its almost as if the economic wealth that is created from new technology and increases in productivity trickle down over time to all members of society.

Of course, this is completely different when using an accounting definition for wealth where people expect actual dollars to flow down from one segment of society to the next. Thats just stupid.
 
2012-04-11 05:31:41 PM

marfar: GAT_00: We have had free markets in this country, and no government interference. That was history up until the 1900s and it was farking terrible. These thinly controlled government markets aren't any better.

Capitalism is terrible. We need something else, or we need to heavily moderate it with so-called "socialistic" elements.

That's what I was thinking, it is entirely possible he's talking about before monopoly laws when Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel where on their way to owning everything, kinda like Wal-Mart and Disney today.


Wal*Mart and Disney are certainly not on their way to owning everything. Or even most things. Or even a very large amount of things. Target and Kmart and Costco and Macy's and Best Buy and Amazon and a million other stores exist. Paramount and NBC and Sony/Columbia and Fox and Time Warner and a million other movies studios and TV networks exist.
 
2012-04-11 07:17:08 PM

Gwyrddu: I like how subby is confusing tax cuts for the rich and the free market.


It looks like just a failed troll, actually.

/Pro tip, trollmitter: Don't lie about the actual quotes.
 
2012-04-11 08:35:40 PM

BillCo: Oh yeah, we need more government control. Maybe something that is about 2,700 pages long and we don't get to know what is in it until it is passed. And don't forget to add a couple of dozen new agencies to monitor the whole thing. Nothing like adding more employees to the federal government to pump up the ol economy.

Yeah, that's the ticket.


I would laugh at the right's interpretation of "Obamacare" if it weren't such a woefully sad commentary on how far our nation has sunk.

Rather than implement a public health plan, which every other developed country in the world has (except for perhaps a couple of EU countries that actually know how to regulate unlike the USA), the American legislature and executive branches saw fit to recycle some conservative ideas from 2 decades ago, pump it with 2,700 pages worth of window dressing regulations that the health insurance industry likely knows how to circumvent, and top it off with massive corporate welfare subsidies.

The mandate wasn't socialism when folks like Gingrich were in favor of it, and it isn't socialism now. It's corporate welfare that will likely spell the end of medicare once subsidized private health insurance kicks in. Once that happens, the teabaggers will still be crying socialism, and the democrats will still be chiding the left for 'letting perfect be the enemy of the good'
 
2012-04-12 01:36:47 AM

WhyteRaven74: cman: No one is saying to make businesses above the law. Th

Really? Have you noticed how many people have been making excuses for what banks did a few years back? Trying to justify not punishing BP for their snafu in the gulf? And I could go on and on. Hell the coal industry in Appalachia exists on being above the law.


Your ignorance is showing.
 
2012-04-12 03:07:49 AM

BillCo: Oh yeah, we need more government control. Maybe something that is about 2,700 pages long and we don't get to know what is in it until it is passed. And don't forget to add a couple of dozen new agencies to monitor the whole thing. Nothing like adding more employees to the federal government to pump up the ol economy.

Yeah, that's the ticket.


Why do you want to go to such extremes?
 
2012-04-12 05:23:16 PM

BeesNuts: Or it could clip my entire reply to that for some reason. Go Go Gadget Comment button...

Whatever, I was gonna say they aren't his theories. And you're ignorant. And then I had this wonderful list of reasons that you're going to have to imagine now, because I don't feel like typing them over again.

/And the award for Least Helpful Post of the Day goes tooooooo....


if you think the following nonsense is a valid explanation for inflation, you have no literally not the vaguest idea of anything that you are trying to talk about:

The more things that get made, the more value is put into them, the more is eventually converted into an abstract form of transaction ie: money. Just like how all energy eventually converts to heat, all value in an economic system eventually converts to money. This is why we have inflation, and why in any contiguous system, the amount of money that circulates steadily increases.

find any source that agrees that literally simply creating things that have some value creates inflation. I'll be waiting, ya f*cking idiot.
 
Displayed 41 of 291 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report