Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Markets

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 9:51:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

beautiful summary .. though I much prefer Teddy Roosevelt.

In 1913 he stated the following: "There once was a time in history when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people. In the present day the limitation of governmental power, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations who can only be held in check through the extension of governmental power."

he also stated rather eloquently "The key to Mr. Wilson"s position is found in the statement I have just quoted, when he says that "The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it." This is a bit of outworn academic doctrine which was kept in the schoolroom and the professorial study for a generation after it had been abandoned by all who had experience of actual life. It is simply the laissez-faire doctrine of the English political economists three-quarters of a century ago. It can be applied with profit, if anywhere at all, only in a primitive community under primitive conditions"."

"Moreover, Mr. Wilson is absolutely in error in his statement, from the historical standpoint."

Did I ever tell you how much I love the Teddy???
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.

Regulation is not an evil. Over-regulation is an evil.

Corporations are not benign enterprises that only provide goods and services to the public, they are also extremely fierce competitors that will skin you alive if you let them, and without regulation protecting consumers, corporations will indeed skin you alive.

Once enough people are fleeced, the crash becomes inevitable. Better to have some regulation set in place to prevent such occurrences than to have no regulation and complete and utter "free markets".

Also, keep in mind that the US Dollar is "government regulation". To have "free markets" per your #1 point, you'd have to abolish the dollar, and have people trade based upon whatever currencies they devise. It would be ridiculously inefficient. Contracts would be unenforceable. It would be anarchy.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 10:39:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.


Those were definitely periods in which free markets prevailed.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 10:48:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 10:39:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.


Those were definitely periods in which free markets prevailed.

Those "free markets" caused the crashes.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 6:45:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 10:48:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:39:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.


Those were definitely periods in which free markets prevailed.

Those "free markets" caused the crashes.

Bro, do you even economy?

Free market economists accurately predicted both crashes, because of awful government economic policies.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 7:24:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 10:48:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:39:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.


Those were definitely periods in which free markets prevailed.

Those "free markets" caused the crashes.

After all trade barriers serve as a safeguard against economic bubbles.....
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 7:26:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. reduce barriers to trade and other market imperfections resulting from government involvement
3. Profit.

There you go.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:03:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 9:51:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

beautiful summary .. though I much prefer Teddy Roosevelt.

In 1913 he stated the following: "There once was a time in history when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people. In the present day the limitation of governmental power, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people

And in the present day, the 21st century, the 3rd millenium, government is once again destroying liberty. AND it's destroying the infrastructure. Not only is it a suffocating mother, it's totally incompetent.

But nothing seems to deter the faithful.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:08:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 7:26:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. reduce barriers to trade and other market imperfections resulting from government involvement
3. Profit.

There you go.

I think, with true marxist believers, you have to find a way to show them that profit is a good thing. So, for instance, if you take a job, you want one that pays more than the gas money you spend getting to the job. That's profit. It's a good thing.
This space for rent.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:16:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 10:48:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:39:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.


Those were definitely periods in which free markets prevailed.

Those "free markets" caused the crashes.

Sorry, that was confusing. I meant that those weren't periods during which the markets could really be called 'free'.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:21:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually - sounds snotty, but I have to say: Just a course in econ 101 would cure a lot of leftover marxism. But a course in the fundamental forces of economics, not a course on political theories. So, for instance, to understand that there's a sort of calculus to money - money that is static, "just sitting there" is of zero value to anyone, including the person holding it. Only money that is moving - is buying, selling, or investing, is of any economic interest. That right there will cure some of the misconceptions behind "income redistribution". Redistribution is about political power, it's not an economic thing, because the money that is shuffled around does little good (which is why the American poor are still with us - they were given a fish, not taught how to fish)
This space for rent.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:53:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 6:45:08 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:48:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:39:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.


Those were definitely periods in which free markets prevailed.

Those "free markets" caused the crashes.

Bro, do you even economy?

Free market economists accurately predicted both crashes, because of awful government economic policies.

PFFFFTTTT

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:56:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 7:24:48 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:48:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:39:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.


Those were definitely periods in which free markets prevailed.

Those "free markets" caused the crashes.

After all trade barriers serve as a safeguard against economic bubbles.....

I realize your being sarcastic however ..

We do realize that free-trade is now inevitable, and so at this point that discussion is over. BUT the impacts varies from country to country.
Even then, this is pretty much irrelevant. The context of this seems to be more about domestic policies, not foreign ones on the economy. As such, nice Strawman.
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:57:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 8:03:51 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:51:26 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

beautiful summary .. though I much prefer Teddy Roosevelt.

In 1913 he stated the following: "There once was a time in history when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people. In the present day the limitation of governmental power, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people

And in the present day, the 21st century, the 3rd millenium, government is once again destroying liberty. AND it's destroying the infrastructure. Not only is it a suffocating mother, it's totally incompetent.

But nothing seems to deter the faithful.

...WUT?

WTF r u talking about? That tells me nothing.
Thank you for voting!
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 9:04:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 7:26:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. reduce barriers to trade and other market imperfections resulting from government involvement
3. Profit.

There you go.

I certainly hope you aren't ignoring industries which are most efficient when controlled by a single firm. The general rules of a free market in one industry don't perfectly expand to every other industry in every way, as I'm sure you know.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 9:06:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 7:26:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. reduce barriers to trade and other market imperfections resulting from government involvement
3. Profit.
4. Crash
5. Sub-prime Mortgage Crisis
6. Investors Leave the US
7. Many homeless as a result of property being of no value
8. Stimulate the economy
9. Economy comes back from a completely deadlocked system perpetuated by the free-market
10. Rise of the Libertarians, who in the face of objective facts become so ideological that they still want free markets even after all this crap happens. Fear-mongering ensues. False dichotomy of freedom versus tyranny employed.
11. Denounce liberal policies that are working by using said dichotomy
12. Read Ayn Rand
13. B!tch about it on DDO
14. Lose ability to critical analysis for walking talking sound bites, slogans, and brainwashing, while accusing others to do the same. Employ a silly argument of "I'm against COERCION" to try and make a point...but ask them "WHY?!" and get ... well .. nothing really.
15. Start pumping out factually wrong info about Liberals (denounce them as tyrants for not liking the free-market...compare them to Marxists and continue on with your day)
There you go.

Fixed.
Seems like this is how we got here :P
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 10:18:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 9:04:05 AM, drhead wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:26:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. reduce barriers to trade and other market imperfections resulting from government involvement
3. Profit.

There you go.

I certainly hope you aren't ignoring industries which are most efficient when controlled by a single firm.
Not entirely true. Industries only benefit from monopolization when there is a homogenous demand. That is to say, when there is no variation among the wants of the consumers, competing firms create waste, but when there is variation monopolization creates waste.

The general rules of a free market in one industry don't perfectly expand to every other industry in every way, as I'm sure you know.

Laissez faire is the most pragmatically optimal policy in regards to economics.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 10:40:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 10:18:17 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/4/2013 9:04:05 AM, drhead wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:26:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. reduce barriers to trade and other market imperfections resulting from government involvement
3. Profit.

There you go.

I certainly hope you aren't ignoring industries which are most efficient when controlled by a single firm.
Not entirely true. Industries only benefit from monopolization when there is a homogenous demand. That is to say, when there is no variation among the wants of the consumers, competing firms create waste, but when there is variation monopolization creates waste.

The general rules of a free market in one industry don't perfectly expand to every other industry in every way, as I'm sure you know.

Laissez faire is the most pragmatically optimal policy in regards to economics.

Except when the Great Depression ensues, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the early 90's recession (Savings and Loans Crisis), the panic of 1819, Panic of 1796, 2008 Great Recession, Panic of 1907 .......
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 10:50:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 9:06:18 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:26:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. reduce barriers to trade and other market imperfections resulting from government involvement
3. Profit.
4. Crash
OK how did you get here?

Crashes are the result of market bubbles; such as those caused by subsidization, stimulus spending, bailouts, and so on. When such market imperfections push output beyond it's potential, the short term supply becomes greater than the long term supply, resulting in a boom, followed by a bust.
5. FED lowers discount rate to stimulate the economy
6. Low discount rate accommodates sub-prime lending
7. Sub-prime lending crisis
8. Investors Leave the US
9. Stimulus spending
10. Economic boom
11. Progressives think they solved the problem
12. Progressives start pumping out factually wrong info about economics
13. Economic bust due to an unsustainable short term supply
There you go.

Fixed.
Seems like this is how we got here :P

Fixed
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 11:05:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 8:56:45 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:24:48 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:48:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:39:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.


Those were definitely periods in which free markets prevailed.

Those "free markets" caused the crashes.

After all trade barriers serve as a safeguard against economic bubbles.....

I realize your being sarcastic however ..

We do realize that free-trade is now inevitable, and so at this point that discussion is over. BUT the impacts varies from country to country.
Even then, this is pretty much irrelevant. The context of this seems to be more about domestic policies, not foreign ones on the economy. As such, nice Strawman.

So you think foreign policy has no impact on domestic policy? Now more than ever international trade plays a huge role in the domestic economy, and it's role will only continue to grow as means of trade because easier due to increased communication and faster means of transportation.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 11:26:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 11:05:04 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/4/2013 8:56:45 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:24:48 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:48:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:39:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.


Those were definitely periods in which free markets prevailed.

Those "free markets" caused the crashes.

After all trade barriers serve as a safeguard against economic bubbles.....

I realize your being sarcastic however ..

We do realize that free-trade is now inevitable, and so at this point that discussion is over. BUT the impacts varies from country to country.
Even then, this is pretty much irrelevant. The context of this seems to be more about domestic policies, not foreign ones on the economy. As such, nice Strawman.

So you think foreign policy has no impact on domestic policy?
Not what I said, I said for you to make this conclusion you have to be out of context, the context of OP was domestic, not foreign.
I do agree that foreign policy does have impact on domestic, but just saying "free trade" as a solution ignores two vital points: 1) when free trade was not around, it was because another actor didn't want free trade, trade only works with two actors agreeing on it and 2) the need for this second actor negates the monopoly of power the state exercises in a foreign land; it can only use it's monopoly to formulate policies on it's own, as such this indicates a foreign, not domestic policy, which is what I was saying.
Now more than ever international trade plays a huge role in the domestic economy, and it's role will only continue to grow as means of trade because easier due to increased communication and faster means of transportation.

Agreed here.
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 11:33:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 10:50:09 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/4/2013 9:06:18 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:26:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. reduce barriers to trade and other market imperfections resulting from government involvement
3. Profit.
4. Crash
OK how did you get here?

Crashes are the result of market bubbles; such as those caused by subsidization, stimulus spending, bailouts, and so on. When such market imperfections push output beyond it's potential, the short term supply becomes greater than the long term supply, resulting in a boom, followed by a bust.

I got here by the sub-prime mortgage crisis; banks not being forced to do background checks on those trying to get a mortgage (and having risky income) and using it for means of investment is what the problem was. While those people took on the calculated risk of owning a home, those property values increased regularly, and the culture of the US makes property almost god-like to hold, though some maintain it's their fault (which is certainly true to a degree) they can hardly be blamed. If they couldn't afford it they would simply sell it...but property like that is a long-term investment, not short term so not surprisingly we have some defaulters..
Continue the defaulting, and we have a major problem; property loses value instead of increasing it, and people will sell their valueless homes when their neighbors all defaulted. The Banks took on more risk to make money and got burnt. This whole thing could have been avoided if they were mandated to do an income check on those looking to get a mortgage, and then making a calculated decision, but deregulation resulted in them having the choice of investing in unrated mortgages for higher monies and results in this. Moral of the story: in this case deregulation was bad. The risks were too high and Banks faced with the choice of giving it to people or not didn't care if someone defaulted. They would have the property and could sell it instead. But it didn't turn out that way, and the economy tanks as a result.

(see video I posted earlier)

5. FED lowers discount rate to stimulate the economy
6. Low discount rate accommodates sub-prime lending
7. Sub-prime lending crisis
8. Investors Leave the US
9. Stimulus spending
10. Economic boom
11. Progressives think they solved the problem
12. Progressives start pumping out factually wrong info about economics
13. Economic bust due to an unsustainable short term supply
There you go.

Fixed.
Seems like this is how we got here :P

Fixed
Thank you for voting!
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 12:50:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Regulation is not an evil. Over-regulation is an evil.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 1:29:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 11:26:32 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 11:05:04 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/4/2013 8:56:45 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:24:48 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:48:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:39:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.


Those were definitely periods in which free markets prevailed.

Those "free markets" caused the crashes.

After all trade barriers serve as a safeguard against economic bubbles.....

I realize your being sarcastic however ..

We do realize that free-trade is now inevitable, and so at this point that discussion is over. BUT the impacts varies from country to country.
Even then, this is pretty much irrelevant. The context of this seems to be more about domestic policies, not foreign ones on the economy. As such, nice Strawman.

So you think foreign policy has no impact on domestic policy?
Not what I said, I said for you to make this conclusion you have to be out of context, the context of OP was domestic, not foreign.
I do agree that foreign policy does have impact on domestic, but just saying "free trade" as a solution ignores two vital points: 1) when free trade was not around, it was because another actor didn't want free trade, trade only works with two actors agreeing on it and 2) the need for this second actor negates the monopoly of power the state exercises in a foreign land; it can only use it's monopoly to formulate policies on it's own, as such this indicates a foreign, not domestic policy, which is what I was saying.
Now more than ever international trade plays a huge role in the domestic economy, and it's role will only continue to grow as means of trade because easier due to increased communication and faster means of transportation.

Agreed here.

When one state tips the scale through intervention, it would be a mistake to counter with more intervention. This only promotes more intervention by both states at an exponential rate. The best option would be to negotiate the removal of trade barriers, and if that fails, the best alternative would be to let the market be.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 1:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 11:33:56 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 10:50:09 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/4/2013 9:06:18 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:26:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. reduce barriers to trade and other market imperfections resulting from government involvement
3. Profit.
4. Crash
OK how did you get here?

Crashes are the result of market bubbles; such as those caused by subsidization, stimulus spending, bailouts, and so on. When such market imperfections push output beyond it's potential, the short term supply becomes greater than the long term supply, resulting in a boom, followed by a bust.

I got here by the sub-prime mortgage crisis; banks not being forced to do background checks on those trying to get a mortgage (and having risky income) and using it for means of investment is what the problem was. While those people took on the calculated risk of owning a home, those property values increased regularly, and the culture of the US makes property almost god-like to hold, though some maintain it's their fault (which is certainly true to a degree) they can hardly be blamed. If they couldn't afford it they would simply sell it...but property like that is a long-term investment, not short term so not surprisingly we have some defaulters..
Continue the defaulting, and we have a major problem; property loses value instead of increasing it, and people will sell their valueless homes when their neighbors all defaulted. The Banks took on more risk to make money and got burnt. This whole thing could have been avoided if they were mandated to do an income check on those looking to get a mortgage, and then making a calculated decision, but deregulation resulted in them having the choice of investing in unrated mortgages for higher monies and results in this. Moral of the story: in this case deregulation was bad. The risks were too high and Banks faced with the choice of giving it to people or not didn't care if someone defaulted. They would have the property and could sell it instead. But it didn't turn out that way, and the economy tanks as a result.

(see video I posted earlier)

But you listed that as coming after the crash.
5. FED lowers discount rate to stimulate the economy
6. Low discount rate accommodates sub-prime lending
7. Sub-prime lending crisis
8. Investors Leave the US
9. Stimulus spending
10. Economic boom
11. Progressives think they solved the problem
12. Progressives start pumping out factually wrong info about economics
13. Economic bust due to an unsustainable short term supply
There you go.

Fixed.
Seems like this is how we got here :P

Fixed
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 3:03:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 1:29:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/4/2013 11:26:32 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:

When one state tips the scale through intervention, it would be a mistake to counter with more intervention. This only promotes more intervention by both states at an exponential rate. The best option would be to negotiate the removal of trade barriers, and if that fails, the best alternative would be to let the market be.

The idea is that politics trumps economics. Intervention tends to invariably be politically motivated, so applying economic concepts of maximal efficiency to such a situation is foolhardy. The more effective solution is a political solution, whether it be trade sanctions, trade alliances, or outright belligerence and warfare.

At 12/4/2013 8:21:05 AM, v3nesl wrote:
Actually - sounds snotty, but I have to say: Just a course in econ 101 would cure a lot of leftover marxism. But a course in the fundamental forces of economics, not a course on political theories. So, for instance, to understand that there's a sort of calculus to money - money that is static, "just sitting there" is of zero value to anyone, including the person holding it. Only money that is moving - is buying, selling, or investing, is of any economic interest. That right there will cure some of the misconceptions behind "income redistribution". Redistribution is about political power, it's not an economic thing, because the money that is shuffled around does little good (which is why the American poor are still with us - they were given a fish, not taught how to fish)

This is contradictory to no end. Most democrats advocating for increased welfare payments are fully cognizant that they want to encourage the money multiplier effect, i.e. your advocacy of "moving money". That money moving, courtesy of "income redistribution", is pure economics, and it's apparently working.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 7:14:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 1:29:54 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/4/2013 11:26:32 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 11:05:04 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/4/2013 8:56:45 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:24:48 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:48:49 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/3/2013 10:39:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 12/3/2013 6:42:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. ?????
3. Profit.

4. Crash, a la 1929 or 2008.


Those were definitely periods in which free markets prevailed.

Those "free markets" caused the crashes.

After all trade barriers serve as a safeguard against economic bubbles.....

I realize your being sarcastic however ..

We do realize that free-trade is now inevitable, and so at this point that discussion is over. BUT the impacts varies from country to country.
Even then, this is pretty much irrelevant. The context of this seems to be more about domestic policies, not foreign ones on the economy. As such, nice Strawman.

So you think foreign policy has no impact on domestic policy?
Not what I said, I said for you to make this conclusion you have to be out of context, the context of OP was domestic, not foreign.
I do agree that foreign policy does have impact on domestic, but just saying "free trade" as a solution ignores two vital points: 1) when free trade was not around, it was because another actor didn't want free trade, trade only works with two actors agreeing on it and 2) the need for this second actor negates the monopoly of power the state exercises in a foreign land; it can only use it's monopoly to formulate policies on it's own, as such this indicates a foreign, not domestic policy, which is what I was saying.
Now more than ever international trade plays a huge role in the domestic economy, and it's role will only continue to grow as means of trade because easier due to increased communication and faster means of transportation.

Agreed here.

When one state tips the scale through intervention, it would be a mistake to counter with more intervention. This only promotes more intervention by both states at an exponential rate. The best option would be to negotiate the removal of trade barriers, and if that fails, the best alternative would be to let the market be.

...this literally has NOTHING to do with what I said above.
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 7:24:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 1:31:00 PM, DanT wrote:
At 12/4/2013 11:33:56 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 10:50:09 AM, DanT wrote:
At 12/4/2013 9:06:18 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:26:10 AM, DanT wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:02:45 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
1. Remove government involvement.
2. reduce barriers to trade and other market imperfections resulting from government involvement
3. Profit.
4. Crash
OK how did you get here?

Crashes are the result of market bubbles; such as those caused by subsidization, stimulus spending, bailouts, and so on. When such market imperfections push output beyond it's potential, the short term supply becomes greater than the long term supply, resulting in a boom, followed by a bust.

I got here by the sub-prime mortgage crisis; banks not being forced to do background checks on those trying to get a mortgage (and having risky income) and using it for means of investment is what the problem was. While those people took on the calculated risk of owning a home, those property values increased regularly, and the culture of the US makes property almost god-like to hold, though some maintain it's their fault (which is certainly true to a degree) they can hardly be blamed. If they couldn't afford it they would simply sell it...but property like that is a long-term investment, not short term so not surprisingly we have some defaulters..
Continue the defaulting, and we have a major problem; property loses value instead of increasing it, and people will sell their valueless homes when their neighbors all defaulted. The Banks took on more risk to make money and got burnt. This whole thing could have been avoided if they were mandated to do an income check on those looking to get a mortgage, and then making a calculated decision, but deregulation resulted in them having the choice of investing in unrated mortgages for higher monies and results in this. Moral of the story: in this case deregulation was bad. The risks were too high and Banks faced with the choice of giving it to people or not didn't care if someone defaulted. They would have the property and could sell it instead. But it didn't turn out that way, and the economy tanks as a result.

(see video I posted earlier)

But you listed that as coming after the crash.

...So?
Hey! OCD .. show me where I claimed to list these in chronological order!

5. FED lowers discount rate to stimulate the economy
6. Low discount rate accommodates sub-prime lending
7. Sub-prime lending crisis
8. Investors Leave the US
9. Stimulus spending
10. Economic boom
11. Progressives think they solved the problem
12. Progressives have ACTUALLY solved the problem because they don't make philosophical assumptions or models (such as everyone acting within their rational self-interests which got DanT burnt on his last debate against OMGJustinBeiber, or the laws of supply and demand which cannot possibly account for all factors in the economy due to it being far too simplistic)
13. Progressives start pumping out factually correct info about economics...most free-market economists and champions recant earlier positions .. including the one DanT will really hate...the greatest Federal Reserve Chairman of all time: Alan Greenspan.
13. Economic gain due to a sustainable long term supply, and an economic policy voided of silly ideological philosophies and instead reverts to observations in the economy as a basis for economic policies instead.
14. Progressives continue to champion the policies of great men such as Hamilton, Clinton, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Et Cetera.
There you go.

Fixed.
Seems like this is how we got here :P

Fixed
Thank you for voting!