Conquer Club

mpjh wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

mpjh wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:You are correct that markets can and do correct themselves.

This is not true, and it has never been proven with either economic theory or practice. Beyond a certain point of market destabilization, there is not mathematical model that predicts any self correction. This is why the capitalist classes always freak out when deflation raises its ugly head, because they know there is no market force counteracting it.

You aught not depend so much on mathematical models... they are not the same thing as real life. Mathematical models cannot take into account all of the tiny real life intricacies that actually shape reality. Models are better left to airplanes and cars.

Ahh so you have no theory for markets, nothing to test against reality, nothing to evaluate, just a belief that markets work. That is religion, not economics.

There is plenty of historical data that supports the natural ebb and flow of a free market system. Your models are all based on intervention, which stifles a free market system.

For example, on 9-11, we were attacked. this caused a mild ripple in our economy when it really should have impacted us much harder. For the perpetrators part, it was a perfectly timed attack because it occurred perfectly at a time when our markets should have recessed a bit to correct inflated housing values to peoples salaried incomes. The Fed, wanting to avoid the market slide at that time, opted to drop interest rates, promoting lending, stabilizing the markets... but too much. The actual natural correction never occurred and as a result, lending was cheap and easy, people borrowed more than they could afford on 1 to 7 year arm's, and when they weren't savvy enough to get out of those houses, they got caught in the jacked up interest rates, leading to a foreclosure nightmare.

You know the rest of the story. You can blame it on deregulation if you want too, but I believe that it was this (among other bad government policies) that caused this mess... not a self regulating market, as you would have people believe. You, it seems, simply want to support government handouts at the expense of the rich.

mpjh wrote:
My point is exactly that markets are NOT self correcting and that is why so many get screwed in our economic system.

I think im just a minor semantic distinction away from you here. Id say they do correct, but they dont correctly perfectly (either theoretically or practically i suppose). Id liken it somewhat sloppily to a student who studies for his math test but still only gets a C or a B grade. Did they do something? Yes. Will it lead to negative consequences? Yes.

I think we only disagree as to where exactly to draw the line.

Snorri1234 wrote:The "capitalism without limits" crowd are as stupid and unaware of human behaviour as communists. The do exactly the same thing as communists, that is; they ignore any proof that their system is retarded simply because the idea is so awesome. I challenge any "capitalism wins everything"-people to a debate.

It will be fun.

I am not going to read this entire thread; mainly for the reason that it is the same old argument repeated again and again on this forum.

Capitalism and communism, in their purest of states, are two perfect ways to run society.

However, humans are not perfect, therefore, that which they implement is also imperfect.

So, in a perfect world, capitalism and communism (extremes) would be great ways to run a society. However, in a world full of power-hungry, greedy politicians and bureaucrats, socialism (moderate) seems the best way to run a government (pure opinion).

"Moderation? It's mediocrity, fear, and confusion in disguise." - Way of the Peaceful Warrior

In a world like this, what else do we have to go on?

Simon Viavant wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:
This was a recession that resulted naturally and relatively quickly corrected itself. We never hear about this, I think, because nothing really came of it. We only hear about the Great Depression, which, Ironically, was deepened and lengthened by big government plans and intervention. Then, it was WWII that corrected that. Not the best way to end economic strife, if you ask me.

What the f*ck do you think WWII was? It was a fucking lot of government spending.

Conservatives act like world war two was some natural event like an earthquake or something that somehow got us out of the recession.

Sure it was spending, and it is my understanding that it was a debt that was only recently paid off. But it put the people to work, it was supported by the people because we had to fight a war against an enemy that attacked our country. It was not an unjust war and it spurred a time of great prosperity afterward. The alternative to that was to let the Japanese attack us again?

The other differing factor is that the money used to finance the war didn't to large political supporting banks. It went to fighting the war. Even you have to realize that there is a difference... The top banks can fail, its okay. They only made up something like 7 percent of the economy. We now have to look at the real possibility of hyper inflation if / when the economy picks back up again.

Where do you get this clap trap. The science of economics does not depend on a "belief" that markets are efficient allocators of resources, it depends on a mathematical modeling of economic activity, tested against reality. So far the business cycle continues to plague our economy, generally brought on by overproduction (bubbles), and we have had two catasthrophic collapses in the last 100 years. We have, in this country, the greatest disparity between the poor and the wealthy; we have the worst health care system in the developed world, i.e. the most expensive and the least effective; we have a collapsed educational system for the vast majority of people; and we have a public burdened by debt beyond any possibility of resolving except through bankruptcy.

No one has seen any unregulated market that produces any sustainable economic society. No one even has a theory that allows for one in any realistic sense.

But, as with religion, the true believers will continue to look for the "market" that self-regulates in the face of all the contrary evidence.

mpjh wrote:Where do you get this clap trap. The science of economics does not depend on a "belief" that markets are efficient allocators of resources, it depends on a mathematical modeling of economic activity, tested against reality. So far the business cycle continues to plague our economy, generally brought on by overproduction (bubbles), and we have had two catasthrophic collapses in the last 100 years. We have, in this country, the greatest disparity between the poor and the wealthy; we have the worst health care system in the developed world, i.e. the most expensive and the least effective; we have a collapsed educational system for the vast majority of people; and we have a public burdened by debt beyond any possibility of resolving except through bankruptcy.

No one has seen any unregulated market that produces any sustainable economic society. No one even has a theory that allows for one in any realistic sense.

But, as with religion, the true believers will continue to look for the "market" that self-regulates in the face of all the contrary evidence.

Yes, and non believers will continue to make the world a dark and disparaging place to live in. If we had a government that simply upheld laws instead of meddling in every aspect of life, true capitalism would work beautifully. Just as in religion, lack of faith will always cause the shit to hit the fan, with out fail.

No, those of us that think science is a tool for exploring the nature of the universe, which includes our economic viability, will continue to look for evidence of the truth, rather than repeat right-wing blather. We want evidence not fairy tales.

mpjh wrote:No, those of us that think science is a tool for exploring the nature of the universe, which includes our economic viability, will continue to look for evidence of the truth, rather than repeat right-wing blather. We want evidence not fairy tales.

I happen to think that science is a tool that will ultimately prove that God exists. Your models, in a perfectly predictable and controllable environment, are suitable. But when they are in such an environment as the economy, you are no better off trying to predict the weather. You will, at some point, make a mistake, and it will likely be colossal.

So if science isn't you tool for understanding the economy, Milton Friedman is turning in his grave, then what is, tossed bones?

mpjh wrote:So if science isn't you tool for understanding the economy, Milton Friedman is turning in his grave, then what is, tossed bones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

You should listen to Peter Schiff... he could teach you a thing or two, rest assured.

You are pathetic. You can't defend anything you have said. You refuse to respond directly to any of the criticisms of the standard economic model. You spout pure pablum straight from Hannity's talking points. They you try and shuffle me off on some weirdo on the internet. If you weren't up to this argument, you should have stayed out of it.

So you want a government that just upholds laws, they would be the laws that previous governments put in place I assume, at what point in history do you think new legislation should have been abandoned ?

Ahh, to what post are you referring?

captain.crazy wrote:

mpjh wrote:So if science isn't you tool for understanding the economy, Milton Friedman is turning in his grave, then what is, tossed bones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

You should listen to Peter Schiff... he could teach you a thing or two, rest assured.

I sincerely hope that you only listened to Peter Schiff and didnt put your life savings into his investment schemes last year......of course he has some very good excuses for their dismal failure Its not too late though, simply put every last dime you have into gold, including pensions of course, and stock up on tinned goods

mpjh wrote:You are pathetic. You can't defend anything you have said. You refuse to respond directly to any of the criticisms of the standard economic model. You spout pure pablum straight from Hannity's talking points. They you try and shuffle me off on some weirdo on the internet. If you weren't up to this argument, you should have stayed out of it.

Peter Schiff predicted this chaos that is our economy in early 2006. He is not just some weirdo on the internet. and you asked how I would "model the economy" so I gave you an answer. I wouldn't. Its an organic culture, not to rely on science, because, as they say in the markets when asked what will happen tomorrow, "your guess is as good as mine." You can't predict whether GM will be torn to pieces tomorrow in bankruptcy court, or what that will do to the supporting businesses, or what that will to to the other automakers, because there is no way to predict how investors will react to events like these. Nor can you even come close to guessing what OTHER factors will play a part on the markets.

All you can do is cheer Obama on as he attacks private industry, prints money and destroys this country, while making no attempt at all of offering your own understanding of how markets should work, my guess is that you have no idea, you just pretend to.

comic boy wrote:So you want a government that just upholds laws, they would be the laws that previous governments put in place I assume, at what point in history do you think new legislation should have been abandoned ?

You fail to make any sense at all.

mpjh wrote:Ahh, to what post are you referring?

Sorry I didnt want to take up half a page with a quote, I was refering to the crazy guys ramble about Obama daring to want to change anything by introducing new legislation.

comic boy wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

mpjh wrote:So if science isn't you tool for understanding the economy, Milton Friedman is turning in his grave, then what is, tossed bones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

You should listen to Peter Schiff... he could teach you a thing or two, rest assured.

I sincerely hope that you only listened to Peter Schiff and didnt put your life savings into his investment schemes last year......of course he has some very good excuses for their dismal failure Its not too late though, simply put every last dime you have into gold, including pensions of course, and stock up on tinned goods

Feel free to elaborate on that. I don't think that he has offered any bad advice. As for his gold suggestions, that hasn't proven to be a bad idea yet, or haven't you heard, Russia wants a gold standard global economy.

Gold will collapse again, as it always does along with all other commodities. Tinned goods turn to poison after a time.

Better thing to learn to get along with your fellow man, regulate the markets to our mutual benefit, and raise healthy, educated, compassionate families.

mpjh wrote:Gold will collapse again, as it always does along with all other commodities. Tinned goods turn to poison after a time.

Better thing to learn to get along with your fellow man, regulate the markets to our mutual benefit, and raise healthy, educated, compassionate families.

Thats the nicest thing you have posted yet. Too bad its folly.

Gold looks to have been doing pretty good for the last decade:

Yeah, all you religious nuts think negotiation and cooperation with your fellow man is folly. You want some god or "invisible hand" to solve your problems.

Sorry, you are going to have to learn to get along with the rest of us.

mpjh wrote:Yeah, all you religious nuts think negotiation and cooperation with your fellow man is folly. You want some god or "invisible hand" to solve your problems.

Sorry, you are going to have to learn to get along with the rest of us.

Thats not what I was talking about. And getting along with others doesn't mean that I have to be robbed by my government so that you can eat. Get off you ass and get a job. I wouldn't want to let you think that you are entitled to anything that you aren't willing to work for. If you are hungry, I have weeds in my back yard that you can pull.

captain.crazy wrote:

mpjh wrote:Where do you get this clap trap. The science of economics does not depend on a "belief" that markets are efficient allocators of resources, it depends on a mathematical modeling of economic activity, tested against reality. So far the business cycle continues to plague our economy, generally brought on by overproduction (bubbles), and we have had two catasthrophic collapses in the last 100 years. We have, in this country, the greatest disparity between the poor and the wealthy; we have the worst health care system in the developed world, i.e. the most expensive and the least effective; we have a collapsed educational system for the vast majority of people; and we have a public burdened by debt beyond any possibility of resolving except through bankruptcy.

No one has seen any unregulated market that produces any sustainable economic society. No one even has a theory that allows for one in any realistic sense.

But, as with religion, the true believers will continue to look for the "market" that self-regulates in the face of all the contrary evidence.

Yes, and non believers will continue to make the world a dark and disparaging place to live in. If we had a government that simply upheld laws instead of meddling in every aspect of life, true capitalism would work beautifully. Just as in religion, lack of faith will always cause the shit to hit the fan, with out fail.

And I dont make sense

comic boy wrote:

captain.crazy wrote:

mpjh wrote:Where do you get this clap trap. The science of economics does not depend on a "belief" that markets are efficient allocators of resources, it depends on a mathematical modeling of economic activity, tested against reality. So far the business cycle continues to plague our economy, generally brought on by overproduction (bubbles), and we have had two catasthrophic collapses in the last 100 years. We have, in this country, the greatest disparity between the poor and the wealthy; we have the worst health care system in the developed world, i.e. the most expensive and the least effective; we have a collapsed educational system for the vast majority of people; and we have a public burdened by debt beyond any possibility of resolving except through bankruptcy.

No one has seen any unregulated market that produces any sustainable economic society. No one even has a theory that allows for one in any realistic sense.

But, as with religion, the true believers will continue to look for the "market" that self-regulates in the face of all the contrary evidence.

Yes, and non believers will continue to make the world a dark and disparaging place to live in. If we had a government that simply upheld laws instead of meddling in every aspect of life, true capitalism would work beautifully. Just as in religion, lack of faith will always cause the shit to hit the fan, with out fail.

And I dont make sense

perfectly. Sorry that you don't get it. Capitalism is where we all "work together" not some of us work while some of us watch.

maybe you all have heard this one...

This story is not true, but illustrates the point.

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single
student before-- but had once, failed an entire class. The class had
insisted that Socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one
would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said okay, we will have
an experiment in this class on Socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade--
no one would fail, and no one would receive an A.

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students
who studied hard were upset... and the students who studied little were happy. But,
as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even
less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride so they studied
very little. The second test average was a D. Nobody was happy. When the 3rd test
was given, the average was an F.

The scores never increased... while bickering, blame and name calling resulted in hard
feelings; shortly no studying was being done. All failed, to their great surprise, and
the professor told them that Socialism would ultimately always fail, because the harder
it is to succeed, the greater the reward; but when government takes the reward away,
no one tries and neither the individual nor the group succeeds.