The Bailout Reader

[Taco John]

I thought I'd share this resource from the Mises institute. They're calling it "The Bailout Reader" and it's essentially a resource of common sense explinations that anyone can understand without needing to have an MBA in economics to comprehend.

The first thing that you might notice is that the Austrian School of Economics has been talking about this impending situation for years (even decades), while the more "mainstream" economists have been telling you things like "the economy is fundamentally strong and sound."

Check it out:
The Bailout Reader (http://mises.org/story/3128)


Also, another valuable resource to follow along with the developments in real time...

The Lew Rockwell Blog:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/

And also, some of the most eye-opening, mind expanding reading you could possibly do in a time like now:

The Road to Surfdom (http://books.google.com/books?id=fLovVMN6swkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hayek&ei=x_PeSILXDI-4swPhi-TeDg&sig=ACfU3U2-i2SKriEFQ8TRIOt_O9THx9A99Q#PPA266,M1)

[Kraut]

Your right about certain experts predicting this years ago. I did not know the Austrian story but I do know that certain individuals in our country have been beating the drums for years. I'm not for this bailout. What are your thoughts on what we should do?

[WilliamTheIrish]

Thanks for posting that. A lot of these articles I've already perused. But to have them all in the same place is very helpful.

[Taco John]

Your right about certain experts predicting this years ago. I did not know the Austrian story but I do know that certain individuals in our country have been beating the drums for years. I'm not for this bailout. What are your thoughts on what we should do?


One word: liquidate.

The market will correct itself if we let it. Rather quickly too. But the longer we try to forstall it, the deeper the hole we dig.

This is like a crack in our windshield. We do what we can to ignore it and make it work for us, but eventually winter comes and the crack is now a full blown fissure. We can slop all the "repair glue" on it that we want but that crack isn't going away - it's only going to get worse. Eventually, it's going to fail. We can either plan to replace it now before the winter comes, or we can wait until we're driving down I-64 at full speed and have it fall in our laps. Either way, the market is eventually going to make the correction, whether we like it or not.

[Taco John]

I did not know the Austrian story....

:)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EpATNp5DjYI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EpATNp5DjYI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Kraut]

One word: liquidate.

The market will correct itself if we let it. Rather quickly too. But the longer we try to forstall it, the deeper the hole we dig.

This is like a crack in our windshield. We do what we can to ignore it and make it work for us, but eventually winter comes and the crack is now a full blown fissure. We can slop all the "repair glue" on it that we want but that crack isn't going away - it's only going to get worse. Eventually, it's going to fail. We can either plan to replace it now before the winter comes, or we can wait until we're driving down I-64 at full speed and have it fall in our laps. Either way, the market is eventually going to make the correction, whether we like it or not.

Your thoughts have been what I've been thinking. We need to let the market correct itself. To me the last thing we need is more government control. To me it has been obvious that the government has been unable to do anything right lately. Why should we now let them start taking control of our economic markets? that would be a recipe for disaster!!

[Taco John]

The good news is that after the dark comes the sun. The darkness of Teddy Roosevelt's failing progressivism and its deceitful Keynesian economics system is about to come to a bitter close, and the dawn of libertarianism is starting to peak over the horizon. Like with progressivism, it won't come over night, but the next century will see real human progress at the expense of the progress of central government.

I would encourage anyone who is a free thinker to explore the economics of liberty, and learn why nothing like this could ever happen in an economics system that has integrity built into it.

Tu ne cede malis

[banyon]

The good news is that after the dark comes the sun. The darkness of Teddy Roosevelt's failing progressivism and its deceitful Keynesian economics system is about to come to a bitter close, and the dawn of libertarianism is starting to peak over the horizon. Like with progressivism, it won't come over night, but the next century will see real human progress at the expense of the progress of central government.


1. TR had nothing to do with Keynes.

2. I do not wish to join you in your quest to transform the 21st century back into the 19th.

[Kraut]

I like how Washington is trying to push this through on the weekend. Seems a bit fishy to me. They know the tax payers are against this bailout. So what a better time to push it through then on the weekend when the people can't voice their opinion. These guys in D.C. make me sick.

PS
did you see all the earmarks attached to this BS bill?

[Taco John]

1. TR had nothing to do with Keynes.

Not directly. His policies opened the door for Keynes, The Federal Reserve, massive government intervention in both markets and military, and more evils.


2. I do not wish to join you in your quest to transform the 21st century back into the 19th.


Your mischaracterization aside, your progressivist house of cards is crumbling down right before your eyes. The pendulum will swing back in the other direction whether you like it or not.

[Taco John]

Also, another valuable resource to follow along with the developments in real time...

The Lew Rockwell Blog:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/

[banyon]

Not directly. His policies opened the door for Keynes, The Federal Reserve, massive government intervention in both markets and military, and more evils.

Which policies would that be?


Your mischaracterization aside, your progressivist house of cards is crumbling down right before your eyes. The pendulum will swing back in the other direction whether you like it or not.

I guess this is the kind of unbridled, wild-eyed idealism I should just expect from someone who swore that Ron Paul would win the Republican nomination. Nearly every rational source sees this for the deregulation nightmare it is, not the converse despite your bizarro attempts to paint it otherwise. Basically to believe what you do, as usual, you have to ignore the inconvenient facts: 1) that GLB led the way to the co-mingling of motgage securities and investment banks which allowed far greater risk than was prudent, 2) that voluntary bond/bank ratings were in this instance an abysmal failure, and 3) that a total lack of corporate accountability here replete with out of control corporate bonuses and financial overreaching weren't at the heart of the problem.

[Taco John]

I guess this is the kind of unbridled, wild-eyed idealism I should just expect from someone who swore that Ron Paul would win the Republican nomination. Nearly every rational source sees this for the deregulation nightmare it is, not the converse despite your bizarro attempts to paint it otherwise. Basically to believe what you do, as usual, you have to ignore the inconvenient facts: 1) that GLB led the way to the co-mingling of motgage securities and investment banks which allowed far greater risk than was prudent, 2) that voluntary bond/bank ratings were in this instance an abysmal failure, and 3) that a total lack of corporate accountability here replete with out of control corporate bonuses and financial overreaching weren't at the heart of the problem.


I'm well aware of the propaganda attempt to paint this as a market failure, and convince people that if we just would give government even more control, we could fix this thing. The propaganda job might work, but eventually, the people are going to see that the emporer has no clothes when the market correction becomes too big for the politicos to handle.

[Taco John]

One more resource to add before I head to poker...

Some of the most eye-opening, mind expanding reading you could possibly do in a time like now:

The Road to Surfdom (http://books.google.com/books?id=fLovVMN6swkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hayek&ei=x_PeSILXDI-4swPhi-TeDg&sig=ACfU3U2-i2SKriEFQ8TRIOt_O9THx9A99Q#PPA266,M1)

[banyon]

I'm well aware of the propaganda attempt to paint this as a market failure, and convince people that if we just would give government even more control, we could fix this thing. The propaganda job might work, but eventually, the people are going to see that the emporer has no clothes when the market correction becomes too big for the politicos to handle.

I see, so you don't really have any substantive reply to any of the points I raised. Did the mises site not have an article directly on point?

[BucEyedPea]

My gawd, banyon is attracted to free-marketers like a fly is to fly-paper.:shake:

[Mr. Flopnuts]

The problem is the market isn't free. It's been manipulated by the Fed for roughly 7 decades. As long as that's the case, we need HEAVY regulation.

[banyon]

My gawd, banyon is attracted to free-marketers like a fly is to fly-paper.:shake:

I thought you had me on ignore because you weren't capable of mounting any kind of substantive reply to my critiques of your posts.

[BucEyedPea]

The problem is the market isn't free. It's been manipulated by the Fed for roughly 7 decades. As long as that's the case, we need HEAVY regulation.

Fannie and Freddie aren't private. So we need regs because it's the taxpayer's money that backs them up. When it's private no one needs to regulate to ensure survival, solvency and success of an operation because the market will punish them—harshly. In F/F case these guys need to be put in jail.

Did anyone see this?
Don't know how the Rs didn't win on this having control over 3 branches of govt though. Still pretty incriminating.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[banyon]

Fannie and Freddie aren't private. So we need regs because it's the taxpayer's money that backs them up. When it's private no one needs to regulate to ensure survival, solvency and success of an operation because the market will punish them—harshly. In F/F case these guys need to be put in jail.

they were made more private. You, of couse, ignore that reality.

[BucEyedPea]

Rockwell's blog has been intense. I've been checking it every few hours.

Did you see this one?
Holy f'in shyat! Hyperinflation territory!

Writes Steve Fairfax:

The Federal Reserve has released statistics showing a dramatic change in bank reserves in the two-week period September 10 to September 24.

Banks are now holding reserves that are 268% of requirements. Typically, and as recently as August, reserves are 4 to 5% over requirements.

Banks normally make overnight loans of "excess" reserves to other banks short of reserves. Now they aren't. In times like these, bankers are like all conservatives: They start to worry more about return OF principal than return ON principal. If they make an overnight loan to the next bank to fail, they might not be repaid in a timely manner, or ever.

This could be the "lockup" that Congressmen have referred to when reporting on the sobering closed-door briefings from the Billionaire Bailout Boys.

There are many other things worth noting. As mentioned earlier, the monetary base had a VERY large increase. It went up by over 7.6% in two weeks!

The Mogambo Guru will be needing CPR!. That's a very large creation of money, well into hyperinflation territory. Compounding 7.6% in two weeks for 26 periods gives a 680% increase per year.

I'd like to hope that the Fed will reduce the monetary base, but of course that is difficult, and this is an election year, and there are so many good reasons why creating ever greater amounts of money seems like a good idea at the time...

[Mr. Flopnuts]

We positively, without a doubt, IMO, need to liquidate.

[banyon]

Rockwell's blog has been intense. I've been checking it every few hours.

Did you see this one?
Holy f'in shyat! Hyperinflation territory!

Writes Steve Fairfax:

The Federal Reserve has released statistics showing a dramatic change in bank reserves in the two-week period September 10 to September 24.

Banks are now holding reserves that are 268% of requirements. Typically, and as recently as August, reserves are 4 to 5% over requirements.

Banks normally make overnight loans of "excess" reserves to other banks short of reserves. Now they aren't. In times like these, bankers are like all conservatives: They start to worry more about return OF principal than return ON principal. If they make an overnight loan to the next bank to fail, they might not be repaid in a timely manner, or ever.

This could be the "lockup" that Congressmen have referred to when reporting on the sobering closed-door briefings from the Billionaire Bailout Boys.

There are many other things worth noting. As mentioned earlier, the monetary base had a VERY large increase. It went up by over 7.6% in two weeks!

The Mogambo Guru will be needing CPR!. That's a very large creation of money, well into hyperinflation territory. Compounding 7.6% in two weeks for 26 periods gives a 680% increase per year.

I'd like to hope that the Fed will reduce the monetary base, but of course that is difficult, and this is an election year, and there are so many good reasons why creating ever greater amounts of money seems like a good idea at the time...

You, of course, ignore the reality I've posed.

[Logical]

The good news is that after the dark comes the sun. The darkness of Teddy Roosevelt's failing progressivism and its deceitful Keynesian economics system is about to come to a bitter close, and the dawn of libertarianism is starting to peak over the horizon. Like with progressivism, it won't come over night, but the next century will see real human progress at the expense of the progress of central government.

I would encourage anyone who is a free thinker to explore the economics of liberty, and learn why nothing like this could ever happen in an economics system that has integrity built into it.

Tu ne cede malisI am sorry but our system in the late 1700s and the 1800s was pretty much a similar system to Libertarianism as a broad based system it fails far more segments of society than the system put together by Roosevelt. Now the current system is not much at all like the Roosevelt driven economic system. This system is flawed, no doubt, but it really is not at all the same as the one implemented by Roosevelt.

[BucEyedPea]

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/Current/


http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023154.html


I put a Fed Reserve graph up in my thread on this "Bailout being a bailout of a previous bailout etc."

[Amnorix]

One more resource to add before I head to poker...

Some of the most eye-opening, mind expanding reading you could possibly do in a time like now:

The Road to Surfdom (http://books.google.com/books?id=fLovVMN6swkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hayek&ei=x_PeSILXDI-4swPhi-TeDg&sig=ACfU3U2-i2SKriEFQ8TRIOt_O9THx9A99Q#PPA266,M1)


For God's sake man, it's SERF. SERF

Unless it's the road to catching a breaker at Laguna Beach, it's spelled with an "E".

Edit: Sorry, I try not to be a dick about spelling/grammar issues, but I couldn't take the massively-larged sized typo.

[patteeu]

I like how Washington is trying to push this through on the weekend. Seems a bit fishy to me. They know the tax payers are against this bailout. So what a better time to push it through then on the weekend when the people can't voice their opinion. These guys in D.C. make me sick.

PS
did you see all the earmarks attached to this BS bill?

They're doing it on the weekend because they're afraid of what will happen with the financial system on Monday if they don't have a deal in place.

[patteeu]

Which policies would that be?




I guess this is the kind of unbridled, wild-eyed idealism I should just expect from someone who swore that Ron Paul would win the Republican nomination. Nearly every rational source sees this for the deregulation nightmare it is, not the converse despite your bizarro attempts to paint it otherwise. Basically to believe what you do, as usual, you have to ignore the inconvenient facts: 1) that GLB led the way to the co-mingling of motgage securities and investment banks which allowed far greater risk than was prudent, 2) that voluntary bond/bank ratings were in this instance an abysmal failure, and 3) that a total lack of corporate accountability here replete with out of control corporate bonuses and financial overreaching weren't at the heart of the problem.

You left out the part where democrats and their allies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged the mortgage industry to make ever more risky loans in the pursuit of progressive outcomes and where they ran interference for any attempts to reform the GSEs in light of that rising risk.

[patteeu]

For God's sake man, it's SERF. SERF

Unless it's the road to catching a breaker at Laguna Beach, it's spelled with an "E".

Edit: Sorry, I try not to be a dick about spelling/grammar issues, but I couldn't take the massively-larged sized typo.

The Road to Surfdom would be a good Beach Boys album title.

[Ari Chi3fs]

Nothing like having the govt own everyone's home.

[banyon]

You left out the part where democrats and their allies at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged the mortgage industry to make ever more risky loans in the pursuit of progressive outcomes and where they ran interference for any attempts to reform the GSEs in light of that rising risk.

How about the part where Bush promoted that in a White House initiative?

[SHTSPRAYER]

How about the part where Bush promoted that in a White House initiative?


That was Bush's biggest mistake; buying into the socialist dem ideology.

[banyon]

That was Bush's biggest mistake; buying into the socialist dem ideology.

What a sucker, ha! And he even had control of Congress.

When we sucker McCain, we won't even have to sucker the Republican reps since we're in control. It's too bad you guys always elect such easily manipulated dopes who are too incompetent to even be held responsible for their actions.

[SHTSPRAYER]

What a sucker, ha! And he even had control of Congress.

When we sucker McCain, we won't even have to sucker the Republican reps since we're in control. It's too bad you guys always elect such easily manipulated dopes who are too incompetent to even be held responsible for their actions.

Yeah, McCain pretty much buys into the "if I'm nice to Dem's, they'll be nice to me" theory, too.

Bipartisanship = do what the libs want, and when it inevitably blows up, we all get to take the blame.

[banyon]

Yeah, McCain pretty much buys into the "if I'm nice to Dem's, they'll be nice to me" theory, too.

Bipartisanship = do what the libs want, and when it inevitably blows up, we all get to take the blame.

It's really a shame your guys are such unaccountable pussies and you just keep re-electing them.

[SHTSPRAYER]

It's really a shame your guys are such unaccountable pussies and you just keep re-electing them.


Somebody is getting cranky. :rolleyes:

I guess I hit a sore spot. Put some baby powder on it and catch a nap.

[Taco John]

they were made more private. You, of couse, ignore that reality.

Made more private? ROFL

That's like a white person getting a tan and saying that now they're more "black."

[Taco John]

For God's sake man, it's SERF. SERF

Unless it's the road to catching a breaker at Laguna Beach, it's spelled with an "E".

Edit: Sorry, I try not to be a dick about spelling/grammar issues, but I couldn't take the massively-larged sized typo.

Yeah, we already got this correction by Banyon. Soooo... Thanks!

[banyon]

Made more private? ROFL

That's like a white person getting a tan and saying that now they're more "black."

Yeah, it was 1968, there was legislation and everything. Then there was further deregulation in 1999 when they were allowed to comingle with investment banks.

Part of this problem we actually agree on, that is the monetary component. Without inflated reserve ratios the investment banks could not have overextended themselves so far on this junk. Additionally, the constitution of money as debt creates the ever growing need for debt that was the main tidal force in this scenario.

But the deregulatory aspects were a part of the problem as well. "private" doesn't mean "infallible" or "trustworthy".

[Taco John]

Part of this problem we actually agree on, that is the monetary component. Without inflated reserve ratios the investment banks could not have overextended themselves so far on this junk. Additionally, the constitution of money as debt creates the ever growing need for debt that was the main tidal force in this scenario.


Indeed. And their current solution is to print more money by extending magical credit to these financial institutions that the taxpayers are on the hook for. The trickle down effects of this is going to be massive inflation, with the poor getting hurt the most. As per usual, another do-good government program ultimately accomplishing the exact opposite of what it was designed for. It won't stop with housing either. The piper is going to be calling for social security before too long, and we'll have another one of these emergency sessions to extend more magical credit to this socialist boondoggle.


But the deregulatory aspects were a part of the problem as well. "private" doesn't mean "infallible" or "trustworthy".

No one has made a case that private means "infallible" or "trustworthy," -- just more efficient, fundamentally sound, and responsive to the needs of the people than government solutions. When government intervenes and create artificial market conditions, debt is always going to be the ultimate result. It's all fun for a season, but eventually the season ends and that debt comes due. American's might not have figured it out yet, but eventually that credit is going to run dry for good, and we're going to have to travel through a chasm. When that happens, this whole discussion about regulation will be moot because these progressive institutions will be bankrupt and insalvagable.

Eventually, the gravy train will end. The good news is that our enslavement to big government and it's system of big debt will end. The bad news is, we'll pay a steep price for this reform.

[banyon]

Indeed. And their current solution is to print more money by extending magical credit to these financial institutions that the taxpayers are on the hook for. The trickle down effects of this is going to be massive inflation, with the poor getting hurt the most. As per usual, another do-good government program ultimately accomplishing the exact opposite of what it was designed for. It won't stop with housing either. The piper is going to be calling for social security before too long, and we'll have another one of these emergency sessions to extend more magical credit to this socialist boondoggle.

We also agree that the bailout is an unnecessary fiasco.


No one has made a case that private means "infallible" or "trustworthy," -- just more efficient, fundamentally sound, and responsive to the needs of the people than government solutions. When government intervenes and create artificial market conditions, debt is always going to be the ultimate result. It's all fun for a season, but eventually the season ends and that debt comes due. American's might not have figured it out yet, but eventually that credit is going to run dry for good, and we're going to have to travel through a chasm. When that happens, this whole discussion about regulation will be moot because these progressive institutions will be bankrupt and insalvagable.


Markets are "more responsive to the needs of the people"? By definition, they are not, their only concern is profit maximization which excludes many values which should and must be a part of a healthy functioning society. Basically, that's the reason we have a government in the first place because the market cannot address these other important values.

Efficiency should not be the highest end of humanity.

[Taco John]

Markets are "more responsive to the needs of the people"? By definition, they are not, their only concern is profit maximization which excludes many values which should and must be a part of a healthy functioning society.

You're wrong. Markets aren't in existence for the purpose of profit. Profit is nothing but a byproduct of the market. It's this fundamental misunderstanding of markets that clouds you from reality.

Markets exist to satisfy demand. Nothing more. You have something I want (a good or service), and I have something you want (units of credit - ie. dollars). It just so happens that there is a demand for wealth, and thus the market is a vehicle to fulfill this demand. The demand for wealth will never go away, no matter how much you try to regulate. All you do when you create big government is pave inroads for this demand to be fulfilled through corruption.



Basically, that's the reason we have a government in the first place because the market cannot address these other important values.

As though government can. :rolleyes:


Efficiency should not be the highest end of humanity.

Says who?

[banyon]

You're wrong. Markets aren't in existence for the purpose of profit. Profit is nothing but a byproduct of the market. It's this fundamental misunderstanding of markets that clouds you from reality.

No, I don't have any misunderstanding that in a capitalist market-based economy, the point is to make profit. Just because you've removed the argument to a different level of abstraction might impress some of the more slack-jawed people you argue with, it doesn't change the fact that theory or practice, that's what people in our system are attempting to do. They're trying to amass profit, they're not trying to win a Nobel Peace prize.

Markets exist to satisfy demand. Nothing more. You have something I want (a good or service), and I have something you want (units of credit - ie. dollars). It just so happens that there is a demand for wealth, and thus the market is a vehicle to fulfill this demand. The demand for wealth will never go away, no matter how much you try to regulate. All you do when you create big government is pave inroads for this demand to be fulfilled through corruption.

See, this is why it's hard to take your economic arguments seriously. With unmerited arrogance, you dismiss my post as not understanding the fundamentals, and then you stray off and start talking about the "supply and demand of wealth". You sound like John McCain trying to talk down to Obama unsuccessfully in the debate Friday when you pull this faux intellectual arrogance stuff. Wealth is the result of the distribution pattern, it's not what's being supplied or demanded. I'll say this for the umpteenth time, you really need to broaden your economic knowledge beyond a mishmash of far-libertarian websites.



As though government can. :rolleyes:


And if governments don't exist to address societal values besides profit and the distribution of goods, what is it you think they exist for?


Says who?

Me. I said that.

[Taco John]

No, I don't have any misunderstanding that in a capitalist market-based economy, the point is to make profit. Just because you've removed the argument to a different level of abstraction might impress some of the more slack-jawed people you argue with, it doesn't change the fact that theory or practice, that's what people in our system are attempting to do. They're trying to amass profit, they're not trying to win a Nobel Peace prize.


You. are. wrong.

The majority of people who participate in the market are trying to satisfy a demand. I buy gas, because I have a demand for gas. I buy groceries because I have a demand for groceries. Sure people try to profit from this demand. No one said that they didn't. But the market doesn't exist for profit. It exists to because people have needs.


See, this is why it's hard to take your economic arguments seriously. With unmerited arrogance, you dismiss my post as not understanding the fundamentals, and then you stray off and start talking about the "supply and demand of wealth".

You show a fundamental lack of understanding of what the market even is. But then, all socialists do. I don't expect that you'll ever see the truth on the market because you think, apparently, that it should exist to generate nobel prizes or some such nonsense...


You sound like John McCain trying to talk down to Obama unsuccessfully in the debate Friday. Wealth is the result of the distribution pattern, it's not what's being supplied or demanded. I'll say this for the umpteenth time, you really need to broaden your economic knowledge beyond a mishmash of far-libertarian websites.

I certainly don't want to adopt your socialist misunderstanding of the market.



And if governments don't exist to address societal values besides profit and the distribution of goods, what is it you think they exist for?

One reason: to confiscate wealth.

[banyon]

You. are. wrong.

The majority of people who participate in the market are trying to satisfy a demand. I buy gas, because I have a demand for gas. I buy groceries because I have a demand for groceries. Sure people try to profit from this demand. No one said that they didn't. But the market doesn't exist for profit. It exists to because people have needs.

It's really a stupid thing to be arguing about, but I guess my "abstraction" reference wasn't clear enough. Referring to "markets" and a "market based system" you can either be talking on the particularized micro level (i.e., one good versus the other) or in the more general socioeconomic sense. I meant the reference to profit being the goal in the latter sense of course.


You show a fundamental lack of understanding of what the market even is. But then, all socialists do. I don't expect that you'll ever see the truth on the market because you think, apparently, that it should exist to generate nobel prizes or some such nonsense...

It's sad that you think calling someone a name and saying they don't understand passes for argument on the subject. What's wrong, couldn't argue the actual point I made? You also missed the sarcasm wrt the Nobel Prize line. In this thread, I think the McCain-Obama debate analogy is right on the mark.

I certainly don't want to adopt your socialist misunderstanding of the market

"understanding" would at least be a start. The fear people have of reading views that disagree with their own is usually a sign of a shaky hold on one's ideology.


One reason: to confiscate wealth.

This is so obtuse it doesn't even merit a reply.

[Taco John]

It's really a stupid thing to be arguing about, but I guess my "abstraction" reference wasn't clear enough. Referring to "markets" and a "market based system" you can either be talking on the particularized micro level (i.e., one good versus the other) or in the more general socioeconomic sense. I meant the reference to profit being the goal in the latter sense of course.


As evidenced by your posts, if you don't get the fundamentals right, you're not going to understand what is happening on the follow-through.



It's sad that you think calling someone a name and saying they don't understand passes for argument on the subject. What's wrong, couldn't argue the actual point I made? You also missed the sarcasm wrt the Nobel Prize line. In this thread, I think the McCain-Obama debate analogy is right on the mark.

Argue against your actual point? What actual point? You missed the actual point.



"understanding" would at least be a start. The fear people have of reading views that disagree with their own is usually a sign of a shaky hold on one's ideology.

This would explain why you constantly try to censor my and Buc's point of view. Thanks for the insight.



This is so obtuse it doesn't even merit a reply.

It's true. The evidence is incontravertible.

[banyon]

As evidenced by your posts, if you don't get the fundamentals right, you're not going to understand what is happening on the follow-through.

Argue against your actual point? What actual point? You missed the actual point.

blah, blah, blah. You clearly lost track of where the argument was long ago. I addressed where you thought I "missed" your brilliant point.
There's no "fundamental" that I missed. It's silly to keep arguing with someone who just ignores 3/4 of your post and keeps prattling on as if they made some great points.


This would explain why you constantly try to censor my and Buc's point of view. Thanks for the insight.

Why do you and her think you're being "censored"? I guess that'd be another sign of your tenuous hold if disagreement = censorship.


It's true. The evidence is incontravertible.

If you're going to attempt to use big words, at least spell them correctly.

[Taco John]

I just wanted to bump this thread for anyone looking for additional resources to understand this whole "frozen credit" drama...

I thought I'd share this resource from the Mises institute. They're calling it "The Bailout Reader" and it's essentially a resource of common sense explinations that anyone can understand without needing to have an MBA in economics to comprehend.

The first thing that you might notice is that the Austrian School of Economics has been talking about this impending situation for years (even decades), while the more "mainstream" economists have been telling you things like "the economy is fundamentally strong and sound."

Check it out:
The Bailout Reader (http://mises.org/story/3128)


Also, another valuable resource to follow along with the developments in real time...

The Lew Rockwell Blog:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/

And also, some of the most eye-opening, mind expanding reading you could possibly do in a time like now:

The Road to Surfdom (http://books.google.com/books?id=fLovVMN6swkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hayek&ei=x_PeSILXDI-4swPhi-TeDg&sig=ACfU3U2-i2SKriEFQ8TRIOt_O9THx9A99Q#PPA266,M1)

[Taco John]

Something important to note:

Our current financial system is a debt based system. To get a better understanding of what this means to the every day person, here is a great video which explains the debt based system concept in layman's terms.


Watch this video keeping in mind that this crisis is about the problem of a credit freeze:


Money as Debt
<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-9050474362583451279&hl=en&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>