Repubs. focus on debt wrong?

#151
#151
utgibbs said:
Highly dubious.

AS was an Enlightenment figure who truly believed the market would lead to equality.

He would be appalled at today's state of affairs. In fact, he deplored capital flight (but assumed it could never happen as entrepreneurs would be motivated by nationalism to keep production within borders), corporations as we have discussed, he would be unequivocably against corporate personhood which he would regard as anathema, he favored protectionism, etc. He would be appalled to see the want amidst the enormous productive capacity of the world.

You have been trying pass off a red herring as fine turbot. But the truth is, the orientation is unambiguous, and even the details are far closer to me than your fealty to neoliberalism.
Click to expand...

the market would lead to equality if the feds would stay out of it. There will always be someone to under cut someone elses prices.
 
#152
#152
NEOCON said:
the market would lead to equality if the feds would stay out of it. There will always be someone to under cut someone elses prices.
Click to expand...

Some critics disagree, that a free market with little or no intervention would result in exactly the opposite. One doesn't have to look long or hard to find examples of government intervention in order to ensure competition in the marketplace.
 
#153
#153
NEOCON said:
the market would lead to equality if the feds would stay out of it. There will always be someone to under cut someone elses prices.
Click to expand...

Wonder how many people would by car insurance if the feds weren't involved?
 
#156
#156
By the way sport, car insurance is driven by lenders not government. The majority of people who don't buy insurance choose not to because they don't have a lender forcing them. Not everyone drives with insurance kid. This is why there is UMBI and UMPD.

But don't let reality stop your fantasy.
 
#159
#159
NEOCON said:
the market would lead to equality if the feds would stay out of it. There will always be someone to under cut someone elses prices.
Click to expand...

If there is one thing Marx has always been right about, it is that this is not the case.

Especially since the system cannot survive without massive state inputs. It has never survived without it.
 
#160
#160
utgibbs said:
Highly dubious.

AS was an Enlightenment figure who truly believed the market would lead to equality.

He would be appalled at today's state of affairs. In fact, he deplored capital flight (but assumed it could never happen as entrepreneurs would be motivated by nationalism to keep production within borders), corporations as we have discussed, he would be unequivocably against corporate personhood which he would regard as anathema, he favored protectionism, etc. He would be appalled to see the want amidst the enormous productive capacity of the world.

You have been trying pass off a red herring as fine turbot. But the truth is, the orientation is unambiguous, and even the details are far closer to me than your fealty to neoliberalism.
Click to expand...

Alrighty then
 
#161
#161
Let's not confuse "free market" with a complete lack of government regulation.

I would imagine even the most staunch free marketers recognize a role for regulatory frameworks designed to promote transparency and accuracy in statements of risk (financial in particular).

It's when you get into market distorting policies (e.g. ethanol subsidies) that we see true intervention that picks winners/losers and almost always have negative externalities.

Insurance mandates are akin to licensing/reporting regulations designed to ensure that parties engaging in an activity can cover the consequences of their actions. As such, they have considerably less market distorting effect.
 
#163
#163
volinbham said:
Alrighty then
Click to expand...

Was "fealty to neoliberalism" too strong?

I'm not sure what the issue is, though. Clearly the orientation is unambiguously congruent. In regards to what details we can apply in our own historic time, there is a lot more agreement between AS and utgibbs than AS and neoliberalism.
 
#164
#164
volinbham said:
Let's not confuse "free market" with a complete lack of government regulation.

I would imagine even the most staunch free marketers recognize a role for regulatory frameworks designed to promote transparency and accuracy in statements of risk (financial in particular).

It's when you get into market distorting policies (e.g. ethanol subsidies) that we see true intervention that picks winners/losers and almost always have negative externalities.

Insurance mandates are akin to licensing/reporting regulations designed to ensure that parties engaging in an activity can cover the consequences of their actions. As such, they have considerably less market distorting effect.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you can say the above with a straight face in our own historic time. In fact, the exact opposite has been soup du jour for at least 30 years.

However, ethanol subsidies are certainly a function of powerful lobbies influencing rational and democratic decisions in the hallways of DC.
 
#165
#165
volinbham said:
Let's not confuse "free market" with a complete lack of government regulation.

I would imagine even the most staunch free marketers recognize a role for regulatory frameworks designed to promote transparency and accuracy in statements of risk (financial in particular).

It's when you get into market distorting policies (e.g. ethanol subsidies) that we see true intervention that picks winners/losers and almost always have negative externalities.

Insurance mandates are akin to licensing/reporting regulations designed to ensure that parties engaging in an activity can cover the consequences of their actions. As such, they have considerably less market distorting effect.
Click to expand...

I'm glad somebody here gets it.

:hi:
 
#166
#166
Seems equality of outcomes if one overarching piece here that continues to be floated as a desirable outcome and that's utter crap. All of the redistiribution silliness tossed about here in the name of fairness or equality absolutely overlooks the main driver of the failures of socialistic policy. Humans thrive on competition, period. It isn't debatable and isn't going to go away.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#167
#167
BigPapaVol said:
Seems equality of outcomes if one overarching piece here that continues to be floated as a desirable outcome and that's utter crap. All of the redistiribution silliness tossed about here in the name of fairness or equality absolutely overlooks the main driver of the failures of socialistic policy. Humans thrive on competition, period. It isn't debatable and isn't going to go away.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I think you have misread your Origin of the Species.
 
#169
#169
NEOCON said:
I'm glad somebody here gets it.

:hi:
Click to expand...

It gets confusing when you say government is evil, inefficient, wrong, etc only then to turn around and say:

Except it is absolutely necessary for the free market and to keep Capital's social metabolic reproduction stable.
 
#171
#171
utgibbs said:
Keep telling yourself that, and maybe one day even you will believe it. :p
Click to expand...
There is no doubt that you've proven it, regularly. As to competition driving man, there is no debate, unless you give a crap about the lowest common denominator, which I don't.
 
#172
#172
BigPapaVol said:
There is no doubt that you've proven it, regularly. As to competition driving man, there is no debate, unless you give a crap about the lowest common denominator, which I don't.
Click to expand...

It's not competition, but how well the species harmonizes with its environment that is the crucial driver.

PS - the way I've turned over the financial professionals on this forum tells a much different story.
 
#173
#173
utgibbs said:
It's not competition, but how well the species harmonizes with its environment that is the crucial driver.

PS - the way I've turned over the financial professionals on this forum tells a much different story.
Click to expand...

Good Grief. Harmonizing with the environment is the biggest load of esoteric and meaningless crap I've ever heard.

I have yet to see you turn over anyone that knows jack about finance.
 
#174
#174
BigPapaVol said:
Good Grief. Harmonizing with the environment is the biggest load of esoteric and meaningless crap I've ever heard.

Or "competition"

I have yet to see you turn over anyone that knows jack about finance.
Click to expand...

I've had droski big pimpin' Super-Keynes.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top