[Samseau]

(04-19-2011 05:44 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

Fisto, I've provided a few links with quite a bit of info on them and you seem to be completely disregarding them in order to talk about basic libertarian ideologies. Libertarianism will never work, mainly because this country is too large, too powerful, and too interconnected with the outer-world, to give everything up and start fresh based on "basic fundamental capitalism". It's unrealistic. You can be a proponent of a system that will never come about, but that's up to you.

And even if we ever truly did live in a purely capitalistic system do you think you would be on the higher end of it? You have to realize that unless you're pretty damn well off, and have the right level of connections and knowledge/skill/power, then you're going to be one of the many peasants (not meant offensively) who are going to make money for the elite.

If you want to be a proponent of a system like that, then I hope you can convince the rest of the population that they should give up whatever comfort they have already, and all of the social rights they've gained throughout the years, to go back to, basically, feudalism.

Completely and utterly ridiculous. Libertarianism has nothing to do with economic reality. You remind me of girls who say they hate assholes even though they have sex with you later that night.


I don't care what your political bent is, I think we can all agree on the following:

There exists a best way to generate maximum economic efficacy.

This way is known as "free-market", but free-market is just a short-hand for promoting individual rights and competition. You can make up whatever clever arguments you want that argue for more government controls, but the simple fact is that in a system of billions of people a government is incapable of managing large systems of information like a free-market. The current system will collapse until a new free-market order arises to replace it, just like OldNemesis's shithole Soviet Union collapsed. It's unbelievable that OldNemesis criticizes free-markets when your the country you left behind is a living testament to the failure of anything that denies reality.

And just like every girl who falls for assholes, so too will every country bend to the sway of capitalistic principles. Not because capitalism is cool, but because it is superior for managing people and money.

So..... moving on from this basic fact, we can move onto a separate issue: What about the losers in a free-market system?

It's true, a free-market system has winners and losers. Those who present better businesses win and others go out of business. The free-market has no sympathy for those who starve, and I don't find this aspect very appealing. So here's how you reconcile the desire to take care of the poor with the desire to produce lots of wealth:


- Institute a constitutional republic like America of the 1820's.
- Institute a flat tax on all income, property, corporations, and sales of 15%.

Of the 15% universal flat tax, you take 20% of the money and put it for military use, and the other 80% of the money goes to a national dividend.

Then take the national dividend and redistribute it equally to all citizens.


The above system is easy, free-market, simple, deals with poverty, avoids huge government bureaucracy, and generates tons of wealth.




And would I vote for Ron Paul? He's so superior to anyone else running it would be intellectually dishonest not to vote for him.

[Tuthmosis]

(04-19-2011 04:53 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Tuthmosis,

I like your posts but, why don't you just copy and past the articles from paul krugman and the NYT instead of acting like these are your own conclusions?

LOL, fisto! I appreciate a well-placed, intelligent jab. But I could say the same thing about you and Rand Paul and a host of public Libertarians. Thanks for the love on my posts--right back at you.

Frankly, I'm not in the mood--or necessarily equipped--to write a term paper on this board on economic or political theory, but I'll tell you that Krugman's views are grounded in many prevailing Progressive views. It would be dishonest to attribute them to him alone, and even to the discipline of economics, when they're the aggregate views of several thinkers. I don't think I remotely implied that I was making original assertions. I could cite sources, but I doubt anyone wants to read any of that.

That said, I whole-heartedly disagree that our problem is that we haven't de-regulated enough. If you look at models of a completely de-regulated, Libertarian paradises, you get Somalia, other similar nations in Africa, and--to a lesser extent--China.[1] No thanks.

[1] Andy Cobb, "Somalia: Libertarian Paradise," 06 June 2009, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/somalia-libertarian-parad_n_197763.html> (cited 19 April 2011).

[kerouac]

Samseau, I won't argue with you because I think you are illogical and maybe slightly retarded. As for libertarians, Ayn Rand fans, it's unfortunate you have these views because they are incompatible with the real world. If you want to have an ideological argument about your views start a libertarianism thread, we are way beside the point.

[Samseau]

You think there's no connection between a betrayal of sound economics and rising oil and food prices?

You're a funny guy, Keroac. You got me laughing.

Quote:

That said, I whole-heartedly disagree that our problem is that we haven't de-regulated enough. If you look at models of a completely de-regulated, Libertarian paradises, you get Somalia, other similar nations in Africa, and--to a lesser extent--China.[1] No thanks.

Deregulation implies the protection of individual rights. No need for straw-mans.

[hydrogonian]

Correct me if I'm wrong Kerouac, but the core of your position is that there is no such thing as a free market when it is fully deregulated. Regulation imposes rules which are needed to keep the playing ground from being completely corrupted.

I agree with Kerouac.

The free market is a complete myth, in the modern age. The US government isn't bought and sold because of "lack of a free market". Its bought and sold because there is more of a free market here than has ever existed for a superpower. When the government is controlled by corporations and the rich to the extent that it is, under the guise of a free market, democracy doesn't exist and your freedom to choose doesn't exist. That can't possibly be what libertarians want. The USA doesn't even rank in the top ten of most effective democracies on the planet. That's embarrassing given our rhetoric. The state of our democracy isn't because the country isn't free enough.

Lack of a free market is what enables there to be a middle class. In a total free market, the rich win and everyone else gets paid shit and gets taxed to no end. If the market were ever to be totally free, that is the lower class in which everyone on this board would fall without exception. That has been the natural default mode of civilization for its entirety, save the latter half of this century. The creation of the middle class in this country was progress. Now that progress is losing a lot of ground fast.

I believe that unregulated capitalism is the natural way of things in areas with low population density. That is, animals live in a purely competitive environment as did early humans. However, I believe that the same philosophy is counter to the interests of society. Especially high population societies. You can't have the same system in high population countries without extreme poverty, crime and widespread low quality of life. That isn't a functional society, but a broken one that is set up for the benefit of the very few. The serfs are kept on-board with the program with the promise that "they too can make it" but in reality they lead lives of of borderline poverty in which they have to struggle to survive.

Until the USA government does everything that it can to halt the exponential population growth in this country, through both immigration reform and other measures, then no rational person can be on board with a government that is more deregulated and less socialist than it already is.

I don't agree with either major party, nor do I agree with many of the secondary party factions. However, a free market to me means a rigged market. That's hard to dispute given the way things are currently run.

[Duke Castile]

I find it very telling that all you "regulation" proponents always say to have freedom in the economy and in society means a this country would turn into Somalia. That's absurd. Freedom doesn't mean anarchy, it never has. The laws would be more focused on protecting an individual's rights, so the whole Somalia thing is kind of silly. Anyway, we all know we aren't going to agree with each other. All I was pointing out was the relationship between supply and demand in regards to Oil originally. I think we can all agree that Gov't spending is bad for the economy and the U.S. dollar. Given that truth, shrinking the size of gov't makes sense. Whatever, I'm back to talking about balling hot ass.

Sam, glad you stepped in and pointed out Adam Smith's invisible hand.

[Duke Castile]

Ps kerouac, just saw your links, I was replying on my phone

Tuthmosis, I came to my conclusions from studying micro and macro economics, combined with my own philosophy.

[hydrogonian]

Balling ass!!

[CupCake]

(04-14-2011 03:35 PM)Lumiere Wrote:  

Every news story about rısıng oıl prıces claıms that a scare story ın the mıddle east (latest beıng lıbya) beıng the cause but ıt does not make any sense

I dont see any damn petrol statıons runnıng dry

I dont see any queues of cars down the block at petrol statıons or any petrol ratıonıng goıng on

Why

Inflation. More dollars chasing the same amount of goods means higher prices. See: Peter Schiff.

[CupCake]

I don't understand how anyone can think that our economy is "freer than ever" from government intervention. The fact that the Federal Reserve exists at all is contrary to this opinion. It creates money and credit out of nothing, producing economic bubbles in the process, and effectively subsidizes entire industries. All of this without the consent of the people and beyong Congress' oversight.

The "rich are winning" because the rich and the government currently work together to control where the country's money goes without the consent of the people. This is obviously not the sign of a "free" system. If people are given allowed to choose what they use as money and how they spend it, prosperity is created. In other words, the government needs to "GTFO".

(04-19-2011 09:10 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

I believe that unregulated capitalism is the natural way of things in areas with low population density. That is, animals live in a purely competitive environment as did early humans. However, I believe that the same philosophy is counter to the interests of society.

Capitalism CAN'T be counter to society's interests because it is governed by society's self interest (everyone's mutual benefit). It's the very definiton of capitalism.

[oldnemesis]

(04-19-2011 04:36 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

5 countries or whatever it is that comprises opec is "many competitors"?

You know, it was not that difficult to Google it and find that there are twelve countries in OPEC, which is a little more than just "five".

Then, after looking through those countries, you'd find out that quite a few major oil exporters who are present on the market (i.e. competitors) are not members of OPEC. Now you're American, so I wouldn't expect you to know such major oil exporting countries like Norway (3rd place) or Russia (2nd place), but even you should know about Canada and Mexico.

This is a major issue I had when discussing things with libertarians in past. All of them often made bogus claims, which were so damn easy to counter. The fact that this information was very easy to find makes me wonder how much your word is worth if you throw in completely false claims as a fact?

Quote:

You're conveniently acting like taxes aren't taxes if they aren't federal. Sorry I didn't say that to you in my first post, "all taxes that bump up the price of oil are not the result of a free market"

I would expect you to have more control about your state and local governments (after all, isn't "get power back to the states" your agenda item?). But it doesn't even matter. You said that "the large gov't tax on gas that really inflates the price". Now, in last few months, where oil price went here in CA from 3.10 to 4.25, no government tax was increased. So the government is not pushing the prices up.

[Sonsowey]

Over the last 20-30 years lots of very dirt poor people have seen big improvements in their lives. Look at the number of people survivin on $1 a day, or $2 a day, and you´ll see that it´s drastically dropped.

Happily, this means more people can eat.

But of course, more demand without big supply increase = price spike.

Traders may be manipulating it to a degree, but it´s also simply the fact that more people are eating more food than ever before, wheras supply has not significantly increased for a while.

Fuckin fat americans

[oldnemesis]

(04-19-2011 07:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I don't care what your political bent is, I think we can all agree on the following:
There exists a best way to generate maximum economic efficacy.

Yes, it is. The problem is that everyone sees this "best way" differently. My definition of "the best" is very unlikely to match yours, for example.

Quote:

This way is known as "free-market", but free-market is just a short-hand for promoting individual rights and competition. You can make up whatever clever arguments you want that argue for more government controls, but the simple fact is that in a system of billions of people a government is incapable of managing large systems of information like a free-market.

And we have this only one truly free market. Which is a global market. And cartels are part of it. So much for promoting individual rights.

Quote:

The current system will collapse until a new free-market order arises to replace it, just like OldNemesis's shithole Soviet Union collapsed. It's unbelievable that OldNemesis criticizes free-markets when your the country you left behind is a living testament to the failure of anything that denies reality.

This means your theory failed, there is no free market in Russia or in any other ex-republics. If you knew the history, you'd know that in Europe pretty much every country went through some large transformations even in XX century - and apparently none of those changes resulted in a completely free market. Apparently there is no such free market in any country around the world except those which do not have the government.

Quote:

And just like every girl who falls for assholes, so too will every country bend to the sway of capitalistic principles. Not because capitalism is cool, but because it is superior for managing people and money.

You really think Communist China would collapse before the USA? From what I read they're doing very well, and I would bet on them.

Quote:

The above system is easy, free-market, simple, deals with poverty, avoids huge government bureaucracy, and generates tons of wealth.

Honestly your idea is so incredibly stupid that it makes no sense even discuss, as you obviously do not know even the basics of the economy.

Well, now I understand what kind of people voted Bush into the office. I really should push my kids into the private school, this level of "education" is completely unacceptable.

[oldnemesis]

(04-19-2011 09:28 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Freedom doesn't mean anarchy, it never has.The laws would be more focused on protecting an individual's rights, so the whole Somalia thing is kind of silly.

This is where you gonna have a problem. For example, how you gonna protect individuals from bank frauds (fake banks, "banks" which would steal your money) without regulations?

[Samseau]

(04-20-2011 08:18 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Quote:

This way is known as "free-market", but free-market is just a short-hand for promoting individual rights and competition. You can make up whatever clever arguments you want that argue for more government controls, but the simple fact is that in a system of billions of people a government is incapable of managing large systems of information like a free-market.

And we have this only one truly free market. Which is a global market. And cartels are part of it. So much for promoting individual rights.

Lets try some logic. Look at how I defined free-market: that which promotes individual rights. You just stated there are no individual rights on the world scene. therefore there is no free market

Quote:

Quote:

The current system will collapse until a new free-market order arises to replace it, just like OldNemesis's shithole Soviet Union collapsed. It's unbelievable that OldNemesis criticizes free-markets when your the country you left behind is a living testament to the failure of anything that denies reality.

This means your theory failed, there is no free market in Russia or in any other ex-republics. If you knew the history, you'd know that in Europe pretty much every country went through some large transformations even in XX century - and apparently none of those changes resulted in a completely free market. Apparently there is no such free market in any country around the world except those which do not have the government.

After each collapse of every government in European history it becomes more free-market than it was before (READ: more individual rights). And in the cases when it became less free-market, more people died.

Quote:

Quote:

And just like every girl who falls for assholes, so too will every country bend to the sway of capitalistic principles. Not because capitalism is cool, but because it is superior for managing people and money.

You really think Communist China would collapse before the USA? From what I read they're doing very well, and I would bet on them.

Present day China isn't going anywhere if America dies. They will go down like a lead balloon. If China wants to be a true powerhouse they need to complete their transition to greater free-market system (READ: more individual rights). Right now they give people some property rights but deny other necessary rights (need freedom of capital, freedom of association, freedom of speech, SOME patient protection)

By the way, China decided Communism was retarded, bailed on the stoneage Soviet trashy Russian Communism and sold themselves to the capitalism gods of the USA back in the 70's, so I wouldn't use China as the posterboy for Communism.

Quote:

Quote:

The above system is easy, free-market, simple, deals with poverty, avoids huge government bureaucracy, and generates tons of wealth.

Honestly your idea is so incredibly stupid that it makes no sense even discuss, as you obviously do not know even the basics of the economy.

Well, now I understand what kind of people voted Bush into the office. I really should push my kids into the private school, this level of "education" is completely unacceptable.

wanna compare pedigree's mr. nemesis? i've only read the following books but i'm better educated than nearly everyone I meet on the topic of economics

Karl Marx:

communist manifesto
excerpts of Das Kapital
the early works including alienated labor

hayek:

fatal conciet
road to serfdom

smith:

excerpts of wealth of nations

friedman:

captialism and freedom

simon:

ultimate resource


jens o parsson (a keynesian):

dying of money

kelley ross:

http://friesian.com/capit-1.htm
http://friesian.com/capit-2.htm#business
http://friesian.com/trade.htm



Please educate me Mr Nemesis. Teach me the secret economic lore of the long forgotten soviet lands

[Duke Castile]

(04-20-2011 08:38 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(04-19-2011 09:28 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Freedom doesn't mean anarchy, it never has.The laws would be more focused on protecting an individual's rights, so the whole Somalia thing is kind of silly.

This is where you gonna have a problem. For example, how you gonna protect individuals from bank frauds (fake banks, "banks" which would steal your money) without regulations?

Dude, you aren't allowed to steal from people in a free market. That is a violation of an individual's rights. Before you ask, no you aren't allowed to murder them either. Or burn down their house or kill their dog. You don't need "regulations" for that. Anti fraud laws are just fine. That is not a regulation on a free market.

[oldnemesis]

(04-20-2011 09:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Lets try some logic. Look at how I defined free-market: that which promotes individual rights. You just stated there are no individual rights on the world scene. therefore there is no free market

You may be surprised, but nobody really cares how YOU define free market. It is a well-known term which has a clear definition. If you change the definition, then do not use the well-known terms - do not call a color "white" if you want it to be "white with a little red and blue".

What you're talking is your personal "ideal market", which I have no desire to discuss until you build up some foundation why we should even consider it. Especially if you think how vague your definition is, as it gives you plenty of room to play with what you consider free market and what you do not.

Quote:

After each collapse of every government in European history it becomes more free-market than it was before (READ: more individual rights). And in the cases when it became less free-market, more people died.

Since you claimed that it happened after EACH collapse, I can give you just one example where exactly the opposite happened. Look on what happened in Germany after Hitler became the Chancellor.

Quote:

wanna compare pedigree's mr. nemesis? i've only read the following books but i'm better educated than nearly everyone I meet on the topic of economics

The obvious problem with reading books versus getting formal education in economics (optional in Russian schools, but mandatory in the school I studied, and it is also mandatory in most Universities; I spent three years total studying it) is that you yourself decide what to read. And most people in this situation only read what they would like to read, and ignore everything else. Your choice of book selection confirms it.

Quote:

Please educate me Mr Nemesis. Teach me the secret economic lore of the long forgotten soviet lands

To understand properly what happened you'd have to look on the history and economy of Russia since 1861 (there were some important decisions which were made earlier, but 1861 is the year most historians agree to be the point of no return). No, it is not enough to read Marx, and from the list of your books I conclude you have absolutely no idea what really happened in Soviet Union. Which, of course, doesn't stop you from making far-reaching claims about it.

[oldnemesis]

(04-21-2011 12:56 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

Dude, you aren't allowed to steal from people in a free market. That is a violation of an individual's rights.

Dude, the question I asked you was very specific: how YOU gonna protect individuals from bank frauds (fake banks, "banks" which would steal your money) without regulations? And you answered with something very generic "you aren't allowed to steal from people". Really? You are not allowed to steal right now either, but we still have thieves. How your "free market" would change that?

Sp please explain your answer - are you assuming that the humanity gonna change overnight and nobody would ever try to steal in your free market? I would assume it is not going to happen, and there will be SOME crooks and people with malicious intentions - for example, they can set up a classic Ponzi scheme, by setting up a bank/fund which promises high dividends, use new money to pay old lenders, accumulate a lot of money and leave to Bahamas. So please enlighten us, how are you going to protect individuals from crooks like that if you don't have any regulations, and everyone is free to call themselves a bank? Please be specific or just say you didn't really think about it, I am not interested in abstract answers like you gave above.

[Duke Castile]

Goddamn you're not very bright, you still have people who police the country for criminals in a free country. Criminals that violate freemarket laws are still prosecuted. Certain laws that exist would simply be gone because they have no bearing on individual rights. Certain police agencies would still carry out their functions. Are you too obtuse to get that? Why is this so unbelievable? Laws don't PREVENT crimes from happening anyway, they're a deterrent but their main function is to punish when violated. Do you even understand how supply and demand curves interact? Do you understand the FED's tools to fight inflation and minimize "recessions" or depressions is a bandaid? Every economist will say that price controls and gov't meddling often has unintended and harmful results. I never said that people would willingly follow the law, you keep jumping to unfounded conclusions that aren't even logical.

[kerouac]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/...as-prices/

Quote:

With gas prices surging to $4 a gallon, one of President Obama's solution to break the back of rising costs is to have Attorney General Eric Holder form a task force to examine alleged fraud or manipulation of oil markets.

[oldnemesis]

(04-21-2011 08:02 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Goddamn you're not very bright, you still have people who police the country for criminals in a free country.

Oh, I got it. Instead of admitting that you cannot answer my very simple question, you brought up a lot of bullshit about the police. Now tell me, you the Bright One, WHO are you going to prosecute in the case I mentioned above, when the creator of a Ponzi scheme has already left the country with all the money? And you cannot prevent it happening, because as long as he keeps paying dividends you cannot prosecute him for fraud, and once he stopped, you cannot prosecute him either because he's out.
Apparently you're just not a man enough to admit that there is no reasonable answer which would fit the libertarian ideology, because none of you really thought about it, you all just repeat the propaganda. Which is a typical story with libertarians, I'd have to say, who are no different from any other cult.

Now I really wonder if anyone would seriously consider libertarian ideology in a country where everyone gets some good school education...

[Samseau]

(04-21-2011 05:55 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(04-20-2011 09:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Lets try some logic. Look at how I defined free-market: that which promotes individual rights. You just stated there are no individual rights on the world scene. therefore there is no free market

You may be surprised, but nobody really cares how YOU define free market. It is a well-known term which has a clear definition. If you change the definition, then do not use the well-known terms - do not call a color "white" if you want it to be "white with a little red and blue".

Do you even read the links you post

wikipedia Wrote:

A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce taxes, private contracts, and the ownership of property.

Thanks for shutting yourself down.

Quote:

What you're talking is your personal "ideal market", which I have no desire to discuss until you build up some foundation why we should even consider it. Especially if you think how vague your definition is, as it gives you plenty of room to play with what you consider free market and what you do not.

There is no personal ideal market. There is the real world and the vast empirical data to support the thesis that free-market economies prosper while everything else fails miserably.

P.S.: Still dodging the fact that you left your soviet shithole for a country built on free-market enterprise?

Quote:

Quote:

After each collapse of every government in European history it becomes more free-market than it was before (READ: more individual rights). And in the cases when it became less free-market, more people died.

Since you claimed that it happened after EACH collapse, I can give you just one example where exactly the opposite happened. Look on what happened in Germany after Hitler became the Chancellor.

You didn't read.

Quote:

Quote:

wanna compare pedigree's mr. nemesis? i've only read the following books but i'm better educated than nearly everyone I meet on the topic of economics

The obvious problem with reading books versus getting formal education in economics (optional in Russian schools, but mandatory in the school I studied, and it is also mandatory in most Universities; I spent three years total studying it) is that you yourself decide what to read. And most people in this situation only read what they would like to read, and ignore everything else. Your choice of book selection confirms it.

Just because I ignore bullshit does not mean I've wasted my time; the same way I don't read most feminist literature.

Regardless any dispute over economics always comes down to an interpretation of the data, and the lack of a control. This is why there can never be a definitive end to the debate.

However, it IS possible to proclaim the superiority of one theory over others, and free-market fundamentals have always won in the long run... can't be a coincidence.

Quote:

Quote:

Please educate me Mr Nemesis. Teach me the secret economic lore of the long forgotten soviet lands

To understand properly what happened you'd have to look on the history and economy of Russia since 1861 (there were some important decisions which were made earlier, but 1861 is the year most historians agree to be the point of no return). No, it is not enough to read Marx, and from the list of your books I conclude you have absolutely no idea what really happened in Soviet Union. Which, of course, doesn't stop you from making far-reaching claims about it.

So do you believe in free-will? All of Russia's problems are traceable back to events 150 years ago?

Why don't we just blame all of mankind's problems on Adam and Eve while we're at it

[Samseau]

(04-22-2011 02:29 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/...as-prices/

Quote:

With gas prices surging to $4 a gallon, one of President Obama's solution to break the back of rising costs is to have Attorney General Eric Holder form a task force to examine alleged fraud or manipulation of oil markets.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obama-h...peculators

Quote:

And for today's case of pure unadulterated idiocy:

( RTR ) 04/21 02:30PM OBAMA SAYS HAS ASKED ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CREATE TEAM TO "ROOT OUT" FRAUD, MANIPULATION IN OIL MARKETS THAT COULD HIT GAS PRICES
( RTR ) 04/21 02:31PM OBAMA, IN PREPARED REMARKS, SAYS TEAM'S FOCUS WILL INCLUDE OIL MARKET TRADERS AND SPECULATORS
( RTR ) 04/21 02:31PM OBAMA SAYS WILL MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE IN OIL MARKET IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR THEIR OWN SHORT-TERM GAIN
Number of mentions of the one true satanic culprit for oil price explosion? Zero. For everything else there is scapegoating. And again. And again.

[oldnemesis]

(04-22-2011 07:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Do you even read the links you post

wikipedia Wrote:

A free market is a market in which there is no economic intervention and regulation by the state, except to enforce taxes, private contracts, and the ownership of property.

Thanks for shutting yourself down.

My point was that "free market" has a very specific definition which has nothing to do with "promoting individual rights". So where exactly does it say "promoting individual rights", in enforcing taxes? Or maybe enforcing property ownership or private contracts? They were or are enforced (up to some level) in pretty much every country around the world, including such non-free-market countries like Soviet Union or North Korea. So could you please explain why you ever quoted that?

Quote:

There is no personal ideal market. There is the real world and the vast empirical data to support the thesis that free-market economies prosper while everything else fails miserably.

Your idea fails exactly when you understand that there is no such thing as "absolutely free market", and most countries, including US, have dramatically limited their market.

Quote:

P.S.: Still dodging the fact that you left your soviet shithole for a country built on free-market enterprise?

There were different reasons, but unfortunately it would take more life experience to understand than you would ever have in your whole life. Sufficient to say that my reasons had nothing to do with market (which was something I didn't really care, nor I believe in a truly free market), and your speculations are ill-grounded.

Quote:

You didn't read.

Why? Germany did very well. Look what happened with German economy from 1932 to 1938 despite the real lack of free market? It all went south because of things completely irrelevant to the market. Same actually happened with Soviet Union, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and so on.

Quote:

So do you believe in free-will? All of Russia's problems are traceable back to events 150 years ago?

Well, I wouldn't expect you to know Russian history, but it still amazes me you're jumping into discussion where you don't have even the basic knowledge, and are trying to interpret very complex situation just using one very simple angle.

To give you an idea, compare the growth of Russian economy in early 1900s (with free market) with the same economy in 1939 (after twenty years of planned economy with the least free market around). The best example, of course, would be Russia losing the WWI with market economy, and winning WWII with non-market economy, but there were other reasons as well for that, so it makes sense to compare just the overall prosperity of the country.

[playa_with_a_passport]

(04-19-2011 12:56 AM)Jim Kirk Wrote:  

This all pre-dates Obama, the whole lot. All the Veterans after WW2 got cheap mortgages and bought houses in the ‘country’ because the FedGov settled lower class/welfare minorities in white neighborhoods in the Cities which promptly caused whitefolks to leave. I wish I could take some of you to some old spots in East NY and upper Manhattan where my ancestors lived 120 years ago – you have stained glass and religious statues on par with anything in Europe in neighborhoods that look like the highway into Berlin at the end of WW2.

This only tells part of the story, Only White GI's were given mortgages to live in the suburbs, Blacks and other non-white immigrant GI's were SOL. In fact, some towns in Long Island(Levittown) would not even allow Blacks to live there even if they could pay cash for the whole house.Therefore, the powers that be at that time (Robert Moses and others) created a permanent underclass and all the problems that come with it in NYC by allowing poor/lower class Whites(before WWII most housing project residents were White) to get low cost mortgages out in Long Island and not allowing Blacks to do the same and enjoy all the benefits that come from home ownership (Equity, Good Schools, better public services, green space.) Once the Whites moved out, the services were reduced drastically since the civil servants who did those services(sanitation, fire, police, teachers) were for the most part lower status White. No wonder some parts of the Bronx and Brooklyn looked like Lybia looks now.

Keeping Blacks broke(A lot of trade apprenticeships didn't allow Black in) and warehousing them in projects sounded like a great idea back then but now like Barry's once esteemed reverend once said, the proverbial
"chickens are coming home to roost." So Jim, New York State taxes would probably be the lowest in the country if the State didn't spend a vast percentage of its revenue(Prisons, Police, projects, schools, Medicaid,Welfare, etc) taking care of the Grand children of the Blacks they refused to give mortgages to back in the 50's.