PDA

View Full Version : General Politics It's time we return to the Free Market


ChiefaRoo
10-12-2012, 10:19 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g-o0kD9f6wo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

stevieray
10-12-2012, 10:26 AM
bravo

Bump
10-12-2012, 10:31 AM
well said

ChiefaRoo
10-12-2012, 10:42 AM
Listening to Milton Friedman articulate the Free Market is like a breath of fresh air after the last four years of being under the redistributionist seige of the Obama administration.

Amnorix
10-12-2012, 10:42 AM
I agree with every word. I disagree with any notion that society can operate on some presumption that most, or even many, people will reject base human instincts. It's unrealistic fantasy.

BUT unrestrained capitalism is also very bad. Without restraint, capitalism can be very destructive as those who hold power wield it to their own exclusive interests. Only governmental regulation can check that power. People sneer at environmental laws, but only because their open lands and clean waters are taken for granted, and they never saw the Cuyahoga River CATCH ON FIRE, etc.

Amnorix
10-12-2012, 10:42 AM
Listening to Milton Friedman articulate the Free Market is like a breath of fresh air after the last four years of being under the redistributionist seige of the Obama administration.


Comical.

ChiefaRoo
10-12-2012, 10:58 AM
Comical.

Comical like this?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PCtemaHgjyA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

RubberSponge
10-12-2012, 12:30 PM
Comical like this?

Naw, comical like this. Study it out, buddy!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=244591b0852c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

La literatura
10-12-2012, 12:42 PM
Listening to Milton Friedman articulate the Free Market is like a breath of fresh air after the last four years of being under the redistributionist seige of the Obama administration.

He's not black, he's red!

Mr. Kotter
10-12-2012, 12:44 PM
...BUT unrestrained capitalism is also very bad. Without restraint, capitalism can be very destructive as those who hold power wield it to their own exclusive interests. Only governmental regulation can check that power. People sneer at environmental laws, but only because their open lands and clean waters are taken for granted, and they never saw the Cuyahoga River CATCH ON FIRE, etc.

The Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Too bad ideological RWNJ's are incapable of understanding that though.

J Diddy
10-12-2012, 01:05 PM
I agree with every word. I disagree with any notion that society can operate on some presumption that most, or even many, people will reject base human instincts. It's unrealistic fantasy.

BUT unrestrained capitalism is also very bad. Without restraint, capitalism can be very destructive as those who hold power wield it to their own exclusive interests. Only governmental regulation can check that power. People sneer at environmental laws, but only because their open lands and clean waters are taken for granted, and they never saw the Cuyahoga River CATCH ON FIRE, etc.

See turn of 20th century factories for proof of this.

ChiefaRoo
10-12-2012, 01:07 PM
Naw, comical like this. Study it out, buddy!

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=244591b0852c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Stupid. You're comparing a random old lady in a rope line to the VP of the US.

ChiefaRoo
10-12-2012, 01:10 PM
I agree with every word. I disagree with any notion that society can operate on some presumption that most, or even many, people will reject base human instincts. It's unrealistic fantasy.

BUT unrestrained capitalism is also very bad. Without restraint, capitalism can be very destructive as those who hold power wield it to their own exclusive interests. Only governmental regulation can check that power. People sneer at environmental laws, but only because their open lands and clean waters are taken for granted, and they never saw the Cuyahoga River CATCH ON FIRE, etc.

Nobody is arguing your point on the environment. No one. That being said you can't look for new resources and materials without risk. For example you have to get the oil safely out of the ground. You have to transport it safely, refine it safely, etc. etc. When Governmental environmentalism attacks the reasonable risk of the free market and the discovery and use of resources is where the line is crossed and liberty dies.

La literatura
10-12-2012, 01:14 PM
Take a stand and light yourself on fire.

Donger
10-12-2012, 01:16 PM
BUT unrestrained capitalism is also very bad.

I suppose it's good that we don't then.

Donger
10-12-2012, 01:17 PM
Take a stand and light yourself on fire.

Are you feeling okay?

RubberSponge
10-12-2012, 03:00 PM
Stupid. You're comparing a random old lady in a rope line to the VP of the US.

No, that random old lady is you in 15yrs.

Comical.

ChiefaRoo
10-12-2012, 03:38 PM
No, that random old lady is you in 15yrs.

Comical.

Are you a child or just retarded?

Amnorix
10-12-2012, 03:59 PM
Nobody is arguing your point on the environment. No one. That being said you can't look for new resources and materials without risk. For example you have to get the oil safely out of the ground. You have to transport it safely, refine it safely, etc. etc. When Governmental environmentalism attacks the reasonable risk of the free market and the discovery and use of resources is where the line is crossed and liberty dies.


Maybe your last sentence is over my head, but bottom line is this -- you need to balance the needs of the economy and the wonderful channeling of productivity that is the beating heart of capitalism on the one hand with and against the needs of society in general.

(waits to see how TJ explodes at the very use of the word society).

So while I agree that environmental laws are good in general, for example, I find it very problematic that they have more or less prohibited the construction of new refineries for 30 years. SURELY we need to refine petroleum products and SURELY we must do the best we can to make them as environmentally safe as possible, but they can't just be BLOCKED from being built. That's overregulation.

This balancing includes the COSTS of regulation against economic necessities, since regulation is a cost in terms of both time and money, and restrains capitalism. Restraints on capitalism aren't necessarily bad, but capitalism itself must be allowed to flourish except as REASONABLY necessary.

ChiefaRoo
10-12-2012, 06:31 PM
Maybe your last sentence is over my head, but bottom line is this -- you need to balance the needs of the economy and the wonderful channeling of productivity that is the beating heart of capitalism on the one hand with and against the needs of society in general.

(waits to see how TJ explodes at the very use of the word society).

So while I agree that environmental laws are good in general, for example, I find it very problematic that they have more or less prohibited the construction of new refineries for 30 years. SURELY we need to refine petroleum products and SURELY we must do the best we can to make them as environmentally safe as possible, but they can't just be BLOCKED from being built. That's overregulation.

This balancing includes the COSTS of regulation against economic necessities, since regulation is a cost in terms of both time and money, and restrains capitalism. Restraints on capitalism aren't necessarily bad, but capitalism itself must be allowed to flourish except as REASONABLY necessary.

I agree with you. That being said the EPA and other Govt org's under Obama have overreached and that has strangled our economic recovery. Obama is somehow beholden to the far left enviro types. Carbon credits, expensive oil, cap and trade it's all crap and it's designed to add a layer of control which I vehemently am against. Reasonable people can find a balancing point. This administration has been all my way or the highway from day one. It's time for them to go.

Taco John
10-13-2012, 12:46 AM
I agree with every word. I disagree with any notion that society can operate on some presumption that most, or even many, people will reject base human instincts. It's unrealistic fantasy.

BUT unrestrained capitalism is also very bad. Without restraint, capitalism can be very destructive as those who hold power wield it to their own exclusive interests. Only governmental regulation can check that power. People sneer at environmental laws, but only because their open lands and clean waters are taken for granted, and they never saw the Cuyahoga River CATCH ON FIRE, etc.


Properly enforced property laws are the government regulation needed. The Cuyahoga River caught on fire because government wasn't enforcing property laws and even worse, government was ALLOWING a "certain acceptable level" of pollution.

Taco John
10-13-2012, 12:50 AM
(waits to see how TJ explodes at the very use of the word society).


I don't explode any more than if someone used the words "boogey man." It's a word that means different things to different people - amorphous and vapid. Society begins and ends differently for you than it does for someone else. If you can't define it, then it doesn't really mean anything. It's just an intellectually dishonest word that people use to make emotional pleas. One thing is for sure - "society," whatever it is, doesn't give a flying **** about you or me.

I would rather people speak about something concrete, like "the nation" as opposed to something airy fairy like "society."

La literatura
10-13-2012, 12:50 AM
Properly enforced property laws are the government regulation needed. The Cuyahoga River caught on fire because government wasn't enforcing property laws and even worse, government was ALLOWING a "certain acceptable level" of pollution.

Enforcing property laws costs money. If you want stronger enforcement, you need more money.

Comrade Crapski
10-13-2012, 02:54 AM
Listening to Milton Friedman articulate the Free Market is like a breath of fresh air after the last four years of being under the redistributionist seige of the Obama administration.

Obama adheres to the moonbat narrative that America prospers only at the expense of the rest of the world, a zero-sum fallacy common among progressives who can't or won't understand the way free enterprise works.

RubberSponge
10-13-2012, 05:36 AM
Listening to Milton Friedman articulate the Free Market is like a breath of fresh air after the last four years of being under the redistributionist seige of the Obama administration.

No, that random old lady is you in 15yrs.

Comical.

Are you a child or just retarded?

It's okay, Mildred. Accept your fate as the old lady.

patteeu
10-13-2012, 07:30 AM
I agree with every word. I disagree with any notion that society can operate on some presumption that most, or even many, people will reject base human instincts. It's unrealistic fantasy.

BUT unrestrained capitalism is also very bad. Without restraint, capitalism can be very destructive as those who hold power wield it to their own exclusive interests. Only governmental regulation can check that power. People sneer at environmental laws, but only because their open lands and clean waters are taken for granted, and they never saw the Cuyahoga River CATCH ON FIRE, etc.

That's true, but it's also true that there are an equally large group of people who think that a little regulation is good so a lot of it must be better. They're the people who say that Republicans are against clean water and clean air simply because they don't agree with imposing costly obligations to make our already clean air and water even cleaner in any and every case where technology exists to do so.

BTW, I'm sure you agree with this, but the simpletons of the world (like Kotter) need to have these things spelled out.

bandwagonjumper
10-13-2012, 01:59 PM
The only people who love the free market are academics. Companies don't like the free market. There like a closed market with few competitors were there can stitch up there profit. Do you think Apple likes the free market? Do you think the big three in Detroit liked the free market? Question for the more informed ones but is capitalism and free market the same?

patteeu
10-13-2012, 02:04 PM
The only people who love the free market are academics. Companies don't like the free market. There like a closed market with few competitors were there can stitch up there profit. Do you think Apple likes the free market? Do you think the big three in Detroit liked the free market? Question for the more informed ones but is capitalism and free market the same?

You're right that big companies don't like free markets. That's why the proper role of government in a capitalistic system is to counter anti-market efforts on the part of big market players without instituting anti-market factors of their own.

La literatura
10-13-2012, 02:56 PM
Question for the more informed ones but is capitalism and free market the same?

I think that's an important distinction that doesn't have much discussion. We are capitalist, not free market. Capitalism is a system of economics that includes government intervention in the markets.

ChiefaRoo
10-13-2012, 08:33 PM
The only people who love the free market are academics. Companies don't like the free market. There like a closed market with few competitors were there can stitch up there profit. Do you think Apple likes the free market? Do you think the big three in Detroit liked the free market? Question for the more informed ones but is capitalism and free market the same?

True, companies like monopolies but they are very few of them and the Govt. has anti-trust laws for true monopolies.

aturnis
10-13-2012, 10:59 PM
Listening to Milton Friedman articulate the Free Market is like a breath of fresh air after the last four years of being under the redistributionist seige of the Obama administration.

Mitt Romney is a huge fan of redistribution, without it, he'd be broke. Wish my dad would redistribute a million dollars into my bank account.

bandwagonjumper
10-14-2012, 03:38 AM
True, companies like monopolies but they are very few of them and the Govt. has anti-trust laws for true monopolies.

I don't know if your are republican or democrat but a republican could argue that the government should stay out of the market and any market imperfection rectify themselves. I don't believe that but I maybe biased.

Mr. Flopnuts
10-14-2012, 04:06 AM
well said

I figured you would be the one who would say it, but since you didn't, I guess I'll have too. That guy is a politician. Is he the one who started the whole "Yeah, yeah, but the other side isn't any better" schtick?

NEVER any accountability for flaws, just a finger pointing to the flaws of others. Accountability is a dying breed. And I blame the previous generations ability to parent their children. We've devolved into a bunch of spoiled, petulant children disguised as 35-50 year old adults.

patteeu
10-14-2012, 05:50 AM
Mitt Romney is a huge fan of redistribution, without it, he'd be broke. Wish my dad would redistribute a million dollars into my bank account.

Romney donated his entire inheritance to charity. Is that what you're talking about?

patteeu
10-14-2012, 05:51 AM
I don't know if your are republican or democrat but a republican could argue that the government should stay out of the market and any market imperfection rectify themselves. I don't believe that but I maybe biased.

You're thinking of the Libertarians.

banyon
10-14-2012, 07:48 AM
Romney donated his entire inheritance to charity. Is that what you're talking about?

Was that before or after he was already a billionaire?

RNR
10-14-2012, 07:52 AM
Was that before or after he was already a billionaire?

Do not get me wrong it is a wonderful thing that he donates generously. But it is much easier to do when you are so wealthy you don't need or even miss the money~

patteeu
10-14-2012, 07:56 AM
Was that before or after he was already a billionaire?

He's never been a billionaire so I guess it's before. As far as timing is concerned though, it was shortly after his father's death.

patteeu
10-14-2012, 07:58 AM
Do not get me wrong it is a wonderful thing that he donates generously. But it is much easier to do when you are so wealthy you don't need or even miss the money~

That's certainly true, but it's entirely misleading for anyone to say he inherited his wealth. He's self made even though he's not a full blown Horatio Alger.

banyon
10-14-2012, 07:59 AM
Also if "return to the free market" means a directionless void where multinational corporations do whatever they want and wield more influence than many nations and where other countries with actual economic strategies continue to take our industries and eat our lunch, no thanks.

banyon
10-14-2012, 08:02 AM
He's never been a billionaire so I guess it's before. As far as timing is concerned though, it was shortly after his father's death.

Hard to tell if thats true, since most of the data that would show that Romney will not share with the public.

VAChief
10-14-2012, 08:04 AM
Romney donated his entire inheritance to charity. Is that what you're talking about?

And now thankfully Brigham Young will never run out of magic underwear.

patteeu
10-14-2012, 08:16 AM
Hard to tell if thats true, since most of the data that would show that Romney will not share with the public.

That's nonsense. Romney's financial disclosure forms (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/romney-disclosure/index.html) are public and they indicate that he's worth a little more than $260 million.

According to this HuffPo article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-not-a-billionaire-rich_n_1900949.html), he could have been a billionaire if he'd have continued his private sector career instead of turning to public service. Instead, he sacrificed hundreds of $millions in potential compensation to devote his time to saving the Salt Lake olympics, serving the people of Massachusetts, and offering his services to the people of the United States. What a greedy guy!

banyon
10-14-2012, 09:28 AM
That's nonsense. Romney's financial disclosure forms (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/romney-disclosure/index.html) are public and they indicate that he's worth a little more than $260 million.

According to this HuffPo article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-not-a-billionaire-rich_n_1900949.html), he could have been a billionaire if he'd have continued his private sector career instead of turning to public service. Instead, he sacrificed hundreds of $millions in potential compensation to devote his time to saving the Salt Lake olympics, serving the people of Massachusetts, and offering his services to the people of the United States. What a greedy guy!

that tells you how much he is worth, but doesn't tell you how he got there which was the argument

patteeu
10-14-2012, 09:41 AM
that tells you how much he is worth, but doesn't tell you how he got there which was the argument

You think he became a billionaire and somehow gave away or somehow squandered 3/4ths of it? The guy is super generous, but that seems pretty implausible to me.

banyon
10-14-2012, 10:08 AM
You think he became a billionaire and somehow gave away or somehow squandered 3/4ths of it? The guy is super generous, but that seems pretty implausible to me.

I don't think that. I think his family gave him a substantial amount of seed capital with which he had the luxury of speculating with and much of it probably came through off shore accounts. I also think he had a substantial safety cushion in that if he screwed up the family would bail him out. That's not exactly the inspirational portrait people would prefer to paint.

patteeu
10-14-2012, 10:16 AM
I don't think that. I think his family gave him a substantial amount of seed capital with which he had the luxury of speculating with and much of it probably came through off shore accounts. I also think he had a substantial safety cushion in that if he screwed up the family would bail him out. That's not exactly the inspirational portrait people would prefer to paint.

There's no doubt that growing up in a wealthy family gives a guy some advantages that aren't available to most of us, but educational advantages and cushion or not, I don't see any valid reason for trying to argue that the guy isn't self-made. (Or generous for that matter).

banyon
10-14-2012, 10:24 AM
There's no doubt that growing up in a wealthy family gives a guy some advantages that aren't available to most of us, but educational advantages and cushion or not, I don't see any valid reason for trying to argue that the guy isn't self-made. (Or generous for that matter).

No, I emphasized seed capital so I meant above and beyond the normal advantages of education and privilege associated with being born into the elite caste.

patteeu
10-14-2012, 10:41 AM
No, I emphasized seed capital so I meant above and beyond the normal advantages of education and privilege associated with being born into the elite caste.

I don't know how much seed money Romney started out with, but it's pretty common for people born to wealthy families so I don't know what you're talking about. If we're wondering whether Romney had a head start compared to Clarence Thomas, he did. If we're wondering whether Romney made it big by virtue of a silver spoon to the extent of someone like Ted Kennedy, I think it's pretty clear that he didn't.

Different people have different benefits. Romney's was a nice one, but it could have been a lot nicer if he hadn't donated his entire inheritance to charity. Barack Obama grew up in a pretty privileged environment too. Not as wealthy as Romney, but still significantly better than the average guy. And it wouldn't shock me if he benefited from some form of affirmative action or preferential treatment on the basis of race/ethnicity/national origin along the way either, but I don't think we know one way or the other about that.

mikey23545
10-14-2012, 11:02 AM
No, I emphasized seed capital so I meant above and beyond the normal advantages of education and privilege associated with being born into the elite caste.

If only he had blown his brains out when he realized he was a member of the filthy elite, huh?

He deserves every bit of shame you can cast upon him for having the gall to have been born into the family he so brazenly chose.

banyon
10-14-2012, 04:24 PM
If only he had blown his brains out when he realized he was a member of the filthy elite, huh?

He deserves every bit of shame you can cast upon him for having the gall to have been born into the family he so brazenly chose.

Not shame. Just not credit for being some kind of genius who lifted himself up by his own bootstraps. No need to jump from one extreme to the other.