Here is an example of how government creates problems.

[Galen]

Here is an example of how government creates problems that the free market solves quite easily.

[David Horn]

(05-19-2017, 10:33 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-19-2017, 05:48 AM)Galen Wrote: Here is an example of how government creates problems that the free market solves quite easily...

Right, red tape is a problem, I also hate red tape. And yet, there are things that government does better than the private sector.

I'm not into something like "Nuclear Weapons International, Inc. "

The private sector is extremely short sighted, and, worse, ethically ambiguous.  We have the EPA because the Cuyahoga River caught fire, Love Canal was a community built on a hazardous waste dump and too many other bad practices to name ... only a few of them originating in the public sector.  The same logic applies to the SEC, CPSC, and a hundred other agencies and oversight bureaus and commissions.  Whining seems to happen when things are actually going well, on the assumption that will continue in that fashion without the oversight.  

Not a chance.

[Warren Dew]

(05-19-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: The same logic applies to the SEC, CPSC, and a hundred other agencies and oversight bureaus and commissions.  Whining seems to happen when things are actually going well, on the assumption that will continue in that fashion without the oversight. 

First time I've heard of the financial crisis characterized as "actually going well".

[pbrower2a]

(05-20-2017, 05:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-19-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: The same logic applies to the SEC, CPSC, and a hundred other agencies and oversight bureaus and commissions.  Whining seems to happen when things are actually going well, on the assumption that will continue in that fashion without the oversight. 

First time I've heard of the financial crisis characterized as "actually going well".

Recovery. Things start to go right. There are fewer bankruptcies. Jobs open, and people laid off go back to work. Personal debt starts getting cut into, and loans in default are lesser in number and severity.

One does not go from the delusional prosperity of a bubble through the recognition of its failure to an achievement of prosperity that fits the delusion of the late bubble overnight. But frauds must be liquidated. Delusions of paper profits must become recognition of their falsity. It's like saying that the first step to sobriety after a drunken bunge is the hangover.

[Warren Dew]

(05-20-2017, 09:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(05-20-2017, 05:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-19-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: The same logic applies to the SEC, CPSC, and a hundred other agencies and oversight bureaus and commissions.  Whining seems to happen when things are actually going well, on the assumption that will continue in that fashion without the oversight. 

First time I've heard of the financial crisis characterized as "actually going well".

Recovery. Things start to go right. There are fewer bankruptcies. Jobs open, and people laid off go back to work. Personal debt starts getting cut into, and loans in default are lesser in number and severity.

One does not go from the delusional prosperity of a bubble through the recognition of its failure to an achievement of prosperity that fits the delusion of the late bubble overnight. But frauds must be liquidated. Delusions of paper profits must become recognition of their falsity. It's like saying that the first step to sobriety after a drunken bunge is the hangover.

The fact that there were frauds and a delusional bubble prove that the regulation was not performing its intended job.  Why keep it around when it doesn't work?

[Odin]

(05-19-2017, 10:33 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Right, red tape is a problem, I also hate red tape. And yet, there are things that government does better than the private sector.

I'm not into something like "Nuclear Weapons International, Inc. "

Black-and-white absolutist thinkers like Galen are incapable of nuanced thinking.

[Galen]

(05-19-2017, 10:33 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-19-2017, 05:48 AM)Galen Wrote: Here is an example of how government creates problems that the free market solves quite easily.

Right, red tape is a problem, I also hate red tape. And yet, there are things that government does better than the private sector.

I'm not into something like "Nuclear Weapons International, Inc. "

Given the competence shown by the US government at Hanford I really don't see the problem.

You are starting to show Eric the Obtuse levels of clueless here Alphabet.

[Galen]

(05-20-2017, 03:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-20-2017, 09:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Recovery. Things start to go right. There are fewer bankruptcies. Jobs open, and people laid off go back to work. Personal debt starts getting cut into, and loans in default are lesser in number and severity.

One does not go from the delusional prosperity of a bubble through the recognition of its failure to an achievement of prosperity that fits the delusion of the late bubble overnight. But frauds must be liquidated. Delusions of paper profits must become recognition of their falsity. It's like saying that the first step to sobriety after a drunken bunge is the hangover.

The fact that there were frauds and a delusional bubble prove that the regulation was not performing its intended job.  Why keep it around when it doesn't work?

In fact, many of the frauds survived by the Fed and TARP.  AIG and the too big to fail banks are prime examples of this.   It seems far more likely that the liquidation would have been much faster and the one percent almost certainly would have lost much in this process.

Seems like an appropriate outcome to me.

[Galen]

(05-20-2017, 03:55 PM)Odin Wrote:

(05-19-2017, 10:33 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Right, red tape is a problem, I also hate red tape. And yet, there are things that government does better than the private sector.

I'm not into something like "Nuclear Weapons International, Inc. "

Black-and-white absolutist thinkers like Galen are incapable of nuanced thinking.

A statement from a man who ignores glaring evidence that government intervention causes increased costs and shortages.  Perhaps a simpler explanation of the process using Venezuela will make this clearer to you.





I am sure this explanation will also be lost on you.

[David Horn]

(05-20-2017, 05:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-19-2017, 01:53 PM)David Horn Wrote: The same logic applies to the SEC, CPSC, and a hundred other agencies and oversight bureaus and commissions.  Whining seems to happen when things are actually going well, on the assumption that will continue in that fashion without the oversight. 

First time I've heard of the financial crisis characterized as "actually going well".

Well, I didn't hear anyone arguing that less oversight was needed at the time either ... and that's my point.

[David Horn]

(05-20-2017, 03:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The fact that there were frauds and a delusional bubble prove that the regulation was not performing its intended job.  Why keep it around when it doesn't work?

This smacks of the man who, having killed his parents, demands special treatment as an orphan.  Under GWB, the GOP gutted the oversight functions everywhere, as they do when things are going well, then wail that they didn't work in their diminished form when they are really needed.  Even worse, having seen the need for greater oversight, effectively denied BHO enough authority to right the ship -- not that BHO was a paragon in this regard either.

We are a government of human beings.  No institution can overcome galloping hubris when it is exercised by those in power.

[David Horn]

(05-20-2017, 07:12 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-19-2017, 10:33 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(05-19-2017, 05:48 AM)Galen Wrote: Here is an example of how government creates problems that the free market solves quite easily.

Right, red tape is a problem, I also hate red tape. And yet, there are things that government does better than the private sector.

I'm not into something like "Nuclear Weapons International, Inc. "

Given the competence shown by the US government at Hanford I really don't see the problem.

You are starting to show Eric the Obtuse levels of clueless here Alphabet.

Hanford?  Really?  This is a WW-II site that was contaminated before we actually understood the extent of what that means.  Even at that, they put it where it is because it sits in a desert.  More to the point, it made the materials that ended that war, for good or ill, so it had to be somewhere.

I worked on nuclear remediation at one point in my career.  Everyone familiar with Hanford assumed it was beyond redemption.  How do you mitigate billions of cubic yards of contaminated soil?  In the early '90s, the estimate to get the job done was $50Biillion.  That's roughly $100Billion in today's money.  Worse, it was expected to take 30+ years to finish.

[David Horn]

(05-20-2017, 07:18 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-20-2017, 03:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-20-2017, 09:02 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Recovery. Things start to go right. There are fewer bankruptcies. Jobs open, and people laid off go back to work. Personal debt starts getting cut into, and loans in default are lesser in number and severity.

One does not go from the delusional prosperity of a bubble through the recognition of its failure to an achievement of prosperity that fits the delusion of the late bubble overnight. But frauds must be liquidated. Delusions of paper profits must become recognition of their falsity. It's like saying that the first step to sobriety after a drunken bunge is the hangover.

The fact that there were frauds and a delusional bubble prove that the regulation was not performing its intended job.  Why keep it around when it doesn't work?

In fact, many of the frauds survived by the Fed and TARP.  AIG and the too big to fail banks are prime examples of this.   It seems far more likely that the liquidation would have been much faster and the one percent almost certainly would have lost much in this process.

Seems like an appropriate outcome to me.

Do you honestly believe that the power brokers would have allowed a solution that impoverished them?  That's especially true when the GOP is in power, so advocating for the impossible is just blowing smoke.  If you want to sideline the wealthy and powerful, you need to do exactly the reverse of what you seem to believe is right: disallow outside money in campaigns at all levels by publicly funding them.  This will require an amendment to the Constitution, so put on your hip-waders.  You'll be spending a lot of time actually draining the swamp, not just talking about it.

[Odin]

(05-20-2017, 07:34 PM)Galen Wrote: A statement from a man who ignores glaring evidence that government intervention causes increased costs and shortages.  Perhaps a simpler explanation of the process using Venezuela will make this clearer to you.

You don't fucking get it, that is exactly the absolutist thinking I'm talking about. Banning companies from dumping toxic waste into rivers is exactly the same as the idiocy in Venezuela for morons like you.

[Galen]

(05-21-2017, 08:31 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-20-2017, 07:18 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-20-2017, 03:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The fact that there were frauds and a delusional bubble prove that the regulation was not performing its intended job.  Why keep it around when it doesn't work?

In fact, many of the frauds survived by the Fed and TARP.  AIG and the too big to fail banks are prime examples of this.   It seems far more likely that the liquidation would have been much faster and the one percent almost certainly would have lost much in this process.

Seems like an appropriate outcome to me.

Do you honestly believe that the power brokers would have allowed a solution that impoverished them?  That's especially true when the GOP is in power, so advocating for the impossible is just blowing smoke.  If you want to sideline the wealthy and powerful, you need to do exactly the reverse of what you seem to believe is right: disallow outside money in campaigns at all levels by publicly funding them.  This will require an amendment to the Constitution, so put on your hip-waders.  You'll be spending a lot of time actually draining the swamp, not just talking about it.

Could they have imposed the situation they wanted without government force?  Why do you think Morgan and Rockefeller supported the progressive agenda in the early twentieth century?

You could try actually learning some economic history but there really isn't much chance of that happening.

[Galen]

(05-21-2017, 06:25 PM)Odin Wrote:

(05-20-2017, 07:34 PM)Galen Wrote: A statement from a man who ignores glaring evidence that government intervention causes increased costs and shortages.  Perhaps a simpler explanation of the process using Venezuela will make this clearer to you.

You don't fucking get it, that is exactly the absolutist thinking I'm talking about. Banning companies from dumping toxic waste into rivers is exactly the same as the idiocy in Venezuela for morons like you.

They do both have something important in common that is a violation of property rights by government.  You might want to consider that a lack of property rights was the cause of this situation.  Socialist governments and our own government are among the biggest polluters on earth.  Considering what happened to some workers at Area 51 it seems unlikely to be solved anytime soon.

[David Horn]

(05-21-2017, 06:55 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-21-2017, 08:31 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-20-2017, 07:18 PM)Galen Wrote:

(05-20-2017, 03:35 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: The fact that there were frauds and a delusional bubble prove that the regulation was not performing its intended job.  Why keep it around when it doesn't work?

In fact, many of the frauds survived by the Fed and TARP.  AIG and the too big to fail banks are prime examples of this.   It seems far more likely that the liquidation would have been much faster and the one percent almost certainly would have lost much in this process.

Seems like an appropriate outcome to me.

Do you honestly believe that the power brokers would have allowed a solution that impoverished them?  That's especially true when the GOP is in power, so advocating for the impossible is just blowing smoke.  If you want to sideline the wealthy and powerful, you need to do exactly the reverse of what you seem to believe is right: disallow outside money in campaigns at all levels by publicly funding them.  This will require an amendment to the Constitution, so put on your hip-waders.  You'll be spending a lot of time actually draining the swamp, not just talking about it.

Could they have imposed the situation they wanted without government force?  Why do you think Morgan and Rockefeller supported the progressive agenda in the early twentieth century?

You could try actually learning some economic history but there really isn't much chance of that happening.

Laisse faire is, by definition, the disinvolvement of government in the economy.  Power always exists, so eliminating public power guarantees that private power will dominate.  Public power is not without issues; I won't be the first to admit that.  It is, nonetheless, subject to constraint.  For a real-time example, look at our President trying to operate in the public sphere as he did in the private sphere.

[Odin]

(05-22-2017, 11:36 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: He casts stones from his glass house, labeling others religious zealots, not recognizing his own zealotry regarding the free market / supposedly libertarian beliefs. I have helped elect Libertarian politicians and can appreciate libertarian thought, but like all things we cannot be doctrinaire and obsessed with "the big idea."

Galen is a classic one-track personality. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

I always tell these people, if charity could solve all social problems why did government get involved in the first place? Their usual answer is some conspiracy theory involving "liberal elites", showing that deep-down they are the exact same sort of crazies who voted for Trump.

[Warren Dew]

(05-23-2017, 07:11 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-22-2017, 11:36 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: He casts stones from his glass house, labeling others religious zealots, not recognizing his own zealotry regarding the free market / supposedly libertarian beliefs. I have helped elect Libertarian politicians and can appreciate libertarian thought, but like all things we cannot be doctrinaire and obsessed with "the big idea."

Galen is a classic one-track personality. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

I always tell these people, if charity could solve all social problems why did government get involved in the first place? Their usual answer is some conspiracy theory involving "liberal elites", showing that deep-down they are the exact same sort of crazies who voted for Trump.

Our government got involved for the same reason they always get involved:  there were votes to be bought.

[Galen]

(05-23-2017, 07:11 AM)Odin Wrote:

(05-22-2017, 11:36 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: He casts stones from his glass house, labeling others religious zealots, not recognizing his own zealotry regarding the free market / supposedly libertarian beliefs. I have helped elect Libertarian politicians and can appreciate libertarian thought, but like all things we cannot be doctrinaire and obsessed with "the big idea."

Galen is a classic one-track personality. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

I always tell these people, if charity could solve all social problems why did government get involved in the first place? Their usual answer is some conspiracy theory involving "liberal elites", showing that deep-down they are the exact same sort of crazies who voted for Trump.

It got created because a relatively small group of people want to live at the expense of everyone else.  Then there is that little matter of wielding power over the little people.