Legitamate Market Force?

[big_lefty]

I was talking about the liberty of having the government make the decision for you, or not

And what decisions are you claiming the Swedish government makes for its citizens?

Oh yes it is. That is the hing upon which all these discussions are based, peoples standard of living, particularly those at the bottom.

Wha? Now ~all~ discussion are about the SOL?
Let me try this again. We are talking about laws which protect consumers. The purpose of them is to keep people from being harmed, not to improve their SOL.

The Left contends that Nanny should take of all of us, all the time.

Sweeping generalization, hyperbole, cliche, and Genetic Fallacy, as in "the left supports health and safety regulations, the left wants to government to take are of us, so that establishes the folly of health and safety regulations."

The link you were responding to was about regulation, and you asked for an example of how regulation hurts, you got it, and it illustrates exactly what I claimed it would.

Three problems again;

1) Nowhere in the material was a cause and effect relationship established. Correlation is not causation.

2) The material was a biased sample, using only data from Sweden when it was in recession. I pointed this out to you before.

3) It wasn't even established that Sweden's regulations were significantly more extensive. A conclusion cannot follow from an unproven premise.

Therefore, your example illustrates nothing.

Well since our government is destrying our currency in an effort to cover up said recession with the Fed, and since we have a global economy, and were basically in the same recession, I'd say the comparison was very fair in regards to the topic it covers.

But we're talking about data from the mid to late 90s, remember. to get an accurate picture, you'd need data covering a long period of time.
Try getting, say, 20 years of data from both countries. It wold give you a more accurate picture, but it would not establish cause and effect.

BTW, I provided you with today's economic indicators on both countries.
You can see there is no significant difference between Sweden and the US.
So, if we were using your reasoning, that would prove that your conclusion is false. But it actually proves nothing, because evidence of cause and effect is missing.

You know damn well that we were discussing regulation vs non-regulation

Yes, and how, specifically, are you claiming regulation has infringed on liberty in Sweden?
You can't just say "liberty is infringed because there is regulation" and call that an argument.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: big_lefty And what decisions are you claiming the Swedish government makes for its citizens?

Technically, they created it for themselves with the bureaucracy, so none would be my answer.



As for the rest of that, didn't I clear that up on my last post?


Clearly it was a misunderstanding.

[big_lefty]

Technically, they created it for themselves with the bureaucracy, so none would be my answer

.

So you are reversing your previous statement?

As for the rest of that, didn't I clear that up on my last post? Clearly it was a misunderstanding

No offense, but your posts are very short on explanation, so nothing has been cleared up. You tend to post one line statements which often don't answer the question.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa Okay, but first you have to prove that state regulations embody "democratic prerogatives" -- which strikes me as a dubious assumption. It's like saying that, just because wages exist, they ought to exist and be regulated. To me, what you say lacks an understanding of conditionality. Your argument is simply locked into the status quo. Yes, it can generally be said that regulations should exist under certain conditions for certain reasons, but it doesn't mean this need is absolute. For example, in a state-capitalist system we need wages and regulations, but in a different society people may be able to act for different reasons, under other circumstances. Grandpa h.

I am making a pragmatic point that assumes that the economic system we have is the system that we have. This is not a discussion about the desirability of a Capitalist economy, this is a discussion about the definition of "free market" within a Capitalist economy. It is a discussion about what hand is guiding the market. If my OP had been "Would those who believe Jesus was God incarnate tell me if they believe he was ever angry", I would not expect to get responses from people insisting I prove Jesus existed. 'Tis another topic for another thread, methinks.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison You went beyond just this. You tried to tie this to the natural or "free" market, which is simply not congruent.

Yes. That is just what I did, and asked for those who felt that regulation by a government that got it's marching orders from the consumer was wrong, to explain why they felt this way. My point is that this is completely congruent. My point is that the power behind the regulations (a free and democratically empowered public) is the self-same group that should be driving the market. I asked for you to explain the incongruence that you see. I am asking for you to explain how the public is somehow not the public. I am asking for you to explain , if "I" the voter is not a different entity from "I" the consumer, why "I" should not be allowed to influence the market through my vote. So, go ahead and explain it.

[MplsBison]

Paulson's Plans

We've made it no secret that we prefer market-based solutions to market-based problems. That said, looking at the mess surrounding subprime lending and the subsequent housing meltdown, it's hard not to fault the government. Those old enough remember the Community Redevelopment Act of 1977, which in essence compelled banks with U.S. charters to lend to people who didn't have sterling credit histories. The idea was to help poor, deserving minorities get access to credit and homeownership. But banks and mortgage lenders started putting marginal credit risks into homes they clearly couldn't afford. Today, according to Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) , the unwinding of this problem will cost upward of $460 billion in the U.S., and more than $1 trillion globally.

[Milton Bradley]

Ah, so it's a Welfare State problem manifesting itself down the line.


Too bad the only solution they can "see" is to take a little more of that same medicine. ( As if we can actually afford to up the dosage again. )


1929 here we come.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison Paulson's Plans

This is getting tiresome. Opinion piece. No data involved. Just someone else repeating the "saw" that government regulation causes trouble, but with no supporting evidence.

Are you implying that this current crisis was caused by government regulation? If you are, I suggest you do it this way - The government (or some specific agency of the government) enacted law A that required all lenders to offer loans to customers with credit ratings and/or income ranges that fell below a standard that was previously adhered to. Once that standard was lowered, X amount of loans became high risk loans. As previously shown through market history and statistical analysis, when X amount of loans are granted in this high risk category, Z percentage will end up in default. If you take the known (X) quantity of high risk loans and the Z percentage defaults and compare it to D (the average profit margin of said group of lenders) you can see that law A, mandating these new levels, was the root cause of this crisis.

But not only that, you must also show that absent this law, the market would have never behaved in a similar manner. You have not even come close to doing this. From my understanding, the issue was more closely related to the fact that the lenders got so caught up in the profits they were making on the immediate closing cost and fee returns, that they were deliberately encouraging people to take loans that they were themselves sceptical about, banking (as it were) on ever increasing housing value growth and figuring that they were smart enough and so much ahead of the curve as to not get caught behind the leverage 8 ball. They fubiced up.

But back to my point.What you have done is more like this - You say: Blue smells bad and I can prove it. Right here in this article, John Doe says , "Blue smells bad." Now, how can you argue with me when I have quoted someone who agrees with me?

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 This is getting tiresome. Opinion piece. No data involved. Just someone else repeating the "saw" that government regulation causes trouble, but with no supporting evidence.

Thanks for confirming that you did not even bother to click the link.


If you had you would have seen that it was a spot by CNN covering the plan treasury secretary Henry Paulson has just announced that would change the way the government regulates the economy.


You know, the guy you idolize because he gets to be in charge of the largest group of regulators in the world?

Are you implying that this current crisis was caused by government regulation?

No.


As reported by the CNN link, treasury secretary Henry Paulson is saying that the crisis was caused by government (mis)regulation.

not only that, you must also show that absent this law, the market would have never behaved in a similar manner. You have not even come close to doing this.

According to Paulson, things would have been different if our current regulations were not in place as they exist today.



Try actually clicking the link next time.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison Thanks for confirming that you did not even bother to click the link. If you had you would have seen that it was a spot by CNN covering the plan treasury secretary Henry Paulson has just announced that would change the way the government regulates the economy. You know, the guy you idolize because he gets to be in charge of the largest group of regulators in the world? No. As reported by the CNN link, treasury secretary Henry Paulson is saying that the crisis was caused by government (mis)regulation. According to Paulson, things would have been different if our current regulations were not in place as they exist today. Try actually clicking the link next time.

I did click the link. I read the link. Can you show me where in the link he establishes, in the manner I suggested, how a specific law or set of laws caused this crisis? Or does he just say, "Man, our current set of regulations suck and caused this problem." Ummm?

[lsbskins1]

I would also point out that he does not say that we ought not regulate. Let's say that a Bush appointee would be disposed to agree with me (a mighty big leap of faith) and ignore the fact that he says that he believes the market should regulate the market. What he would be saying if he agreed with me would be that years of attrition have allowed the current set of regulations to become utterly useless, not that regulating is bad.

[MplsBison]

From the link:

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has proposed sweeping new financial reforms that would in many ways be an improvement over the dysfunctional system we now have.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I am making a pragmatic point that assumes that the economic system we have is the system that we have. This is not a discussion about the desirability of a Capitalist economy, this is a discussion about the definition of "free market" within a Capitalist economy.

However, you assume the state is appropriate for preventing companies from bilking the customer. Hence, desirability and conditionality both come into play, and are, in my view, important aspects of the discussion. Do we want to mainatin the state-capitalist system or go beyond it? Surely, this question isn't irrelevant to assessing what "free market" means (assuming we should put this discussion in a free market context, seeing as to how we don't really have one).

Grandp ah.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison From the link:

That was claiming, not establishing. If I say, "Eating peanuts makes you smarter," I am making a claim. If I say " Three groups of teenagers were studied over a four year period. The first group ate peanuts twice a day. The second group ate peanuts twice a week. The third group had no peanuts in their diet. They came from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, each studied 2 hours a day and each participated in the same school curriculum. The first group scored an average of 1200 on their SATs. The second group scored an average of 1050 and the last scored an average of 925. From this data, we conclude peanuts make you smarter," that is establishing a claim. Not literally, because there are many variables not addressed in my example, but you get the point. You post a lot of claims. Rarely do you post claims that are in any way, shape or form, even close to being established.

I could probably take as fact from what you posted that reforms have been proposed. Are they "sweeping"? Not established. Is the system dysfunctional? Claimed, but not established. But let's say I agree that the system is dysfunctional. I could feel it is dysfunctional because the regulations are not strong enough, while you feel it is dysfunctional because it involves government control. Nothing in that statement establishes anything. So, I will ask you again: Can you provide any actual support for the claims you are making? I am not asking you to post a similar claim from another individual, I am asking you to back your claims with something of substance.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa However, you assume the state is appropriate for preventing companies from bilking the customer. Hence, desirability and conditionality both come into play, and are, in my view, important aspects of the discussion. Do we want to mainatin the state-capitalist system or go beyond it? Surely, this question isn't irrelevant to assessing what "free market" means (assuming we should put this discussion in a free market context, seeing as to how we don't really have one). Grandp ah.

If you want to debate the appropriateness of the state-capitalist system, that is not a debate for this thread. This thread is a debate about whether or not it is appropriate, within the confines of our state-capitalist system, to allow the hand of the people to affect the market through the state.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 If you want to debate the appropriateness of the state-capitalist system, that is not a debate for this thread. This thread is a debate about whether or not it is appropriate, within the confines of our state-capitalist system, to allow the hand of the people to affect the market through the state.

I say yes, if you have the consensus of the governed.


I don't think this is a decision that can be arrived at by Executive Order.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 That was claiming, not establishing.

You can not ignore the credibility of the treasury secretary.


You do not have anywhere close to the same credibility has him.



Whatever he claims establishes the truth because of his high ranking position.


Your claims must be proven, on the other hand, because you have no credibility.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison You can not ignore the credibility of the treasury secretary. You do not have anywhere close to the same credibility has him. Whatever he claims establishes the truth because of his high ranking position. Your claims must be proven, on the other hand, because you have no credibility.

So, if the Pope claims the sun revolves around the earth, that becomes established truth because of his high ranking position? Give me a break.

[grandpa]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote by: lsbskins1 If you want to debate the appropriateness of the state-capitalist system, that is not a debate for this thread. This thread is a debate about whether or not it is appropriate, within the confines of our state-capitalist system, to allow the hand of the people to affect the market through the state.

Logic seems to be the answer to this debate.
It is a fundamental issue with this thread, or any similar thread. If you want to debate topics in full and in public, you should be prepared for a wide variety of fundamental issues to be involved. Otherwise we're merely engaging in a form of intellectual cowardice.

Obviously, in a discussion about regulation within the state-capitalist system, it is only logical to analyze the basic nature of such regulation and how it relates to how the system functions. This is done when discussing state-Communist systems all the time.

Ideology is also at issue. What do you make of these words?

Supremely confident that they possess fundamental and immutable truths of human nature, economics and politics, faithful believers in market theology are remarkably innocent of intellectual curiosity and thus incapable of dealing effectively with accumulating scientific knowledge, with technological innovations, and with the flux of social, political and economic emergencies and opportunities. In the face of all these daunting issues, the "conservatives'" response is simple and unequivocal: "don't expect us to do anything about it - just let the market decide."

The State Religion, by Ernest Partridge - Democratic Underground

Grandpa h.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So, if the Pope claims the sun revolves around the earth, that becomes established truth because of his high ranking position?

The pope does not have a high ranking position in the field of physics.


So no, his claims would not establish the truth.




The treasury secretary has a high ranking position in the field of the US economy.