Presidential Election

[Manoil]

Aww, I wish the presidential election involved more hugs and kisses between the candidates as well. It would mean world peace, mang.

Yeah... and.. we should all be... y'know... more sophisticated and shit.

Back to the election, what do you guys think of McCain having bailed on both Letterman and the friday debate?

EDIT:
And now, he's got back into it.

[Psychoul]

lol, i think he tried to suck as much support he can by being present in the more serious economic debate meeting. What an ass, and Obama, wow, hasnt been impressing me lately either. But, ill svote for the Lesser of two evils. EH?

[Mismatch]

But, ill svote for the Lesser of two evils.

That would be McCain

[Psychoul]

But, ill svote for the Lesser of two evils.

That would be McCain

i would like you to persuade me if that is the case. i was thinking Obama, BUT maybe you can persuade me.

[Goretheglowingone]

i say put em all on pedestals and FUCKING SHOOT EM! if we kill em all, we wont have problems... other than a over loaded wood chipper that is..

[Manoil]

i say put em all on pedestals and FUCKING SHOOT EM! if we kill em all, we wont have problems... other than a over loaded wood chipper that is..

As much as killing the ones we blame because of their occupation would be amusing, it'd only create more problems. Libertarians don't seem to understand that so well.

[MR Snake]

You know.. knowing how retarded some Americans are.. electing Bush TWICE just makes me want to prepare for the apocalypse more with a bunker and plenty of canned food.

But then.. Obama appears to be good, appears to be meaning he probably has alot of Spindoctors on staff.

Someone who looks great pre-election does not guarantee he or she will be so after.
But seriously.. in the first year Bush proved that he is a lackey retard and he still got re-elected.

This is the stupidity that got McDonalds sued for serving too hot coffee when some dumb bitch took the librty of spilling it on herself.

[Mismatch]

But, ill svote for the Lesser of two evils.

That would be McCain

i would like you to persuade me if that is the case. i was thinking Obama, BUT maybe you can persuade me.

I suppose that the reasons for not voting for them democrats are the usual ones. They tend to regulate chit more than the Republicans, and thus they increase the amount of government intervention in the economy. Coincidentally government intervention sortta <a href="http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displ ... 71">caused the current crisis</a>.
With the current crisis being blamed (by the Democrats) on the free market, a Democratic president will most likely result in a free for all government intervention surge which will strengthen the government and, as a result, decrease rights of citizens like overpowered governments often do.

On a more personal level I dare say that Obama seems to be a tad too friendly with Iran, calling for open (and conditionless) dialogue with one of todays worst dictatorships.

[VasikkA]

They tend to regulate chit more than the Republicans, and thus they increase the amount of government intervention in the economy. Coincidentally government intervention sortta <a href="http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displ ... 71">caused the current crisis</a>.

Boulderdash. Economic bubbles and the consequent crises are caused by human emotions(=greed) surpassing economic rationale. Regulation exists because market participants(consumers, producers, financial intermediaries, you, me etc.) do not have full information and understanding of the underlying risks in the economy. Thus, regulation and governmental interventions are needed in a less-than-perfect economy to prevent and dampen the consequences of such crises.

Simply put, you're completely wrong.

[Mismatch]

Simply put, you're completely wrong.

You, good Sir, should stop reading Keynes (he was a retard), and instead join the merry band of Friedman followers.

And you're a filthy commie.

[Manoil]

They tend to regulate chit more than the Republicans, and thus they increase the amount of government intervention in the economy. Coincidentally government intervention sortta <a href="http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=displ ... 71">caused the current crisis</a>.

Boulderdash. Economic bubbles and the consequent crises are caused by human emotions(=greed) surpassing economic rationale. Regulation exists because market participants(consumers, producers, financial intermediaries, you, me etc.) do not have full information and understanding of the underlying risks in the economy. Thus, regulation and governmental interventions are needed in a less-than-perfect economy to prevent and dampen the consequences of such crises.

Simply put, you're completely wrong.

Yeah, Mismatch I gotta side with VasikkA on this one (and well-done on a very efficient explanation of regulation to you, VasikkA). It was the lack of any sufficient regulation that allowed the lendors to be selling loans off to people who (in many cases, obviously) couldn't afford them. These loans were sold to other companies, and so on, and so forth, to create liquidity in the system for profit. What's important is that, because we had declared them as valuable and legitimate, corporations from other countries across the world have invested in the system.

When the real estate downfall hit, alongside the devaluing of the American Dollar, it became obvious that the loan was staggeringly more than the value of the house itself, and people started bailing on their loans and leaving their homes because it was the best choice available. The leftover loans, that have been sold from company to company and are now worth absolutely nothing, are the cause of destruction of so many giant financial instituitions / etc-- which, by the way, doesn't not just affect our country, but as previously stated, others as well. This entire scenario was hypothesized before and prompted legislation, but it didn't pass. Too much money in getting people hooked into monthly payments...

And because of that, because of the greed of a few, we're witnessing this entire country spiral downward ridiculously fast. Now, the bailout is questionable. Bush and Co. are screaming chaos and telling us to be afraid and to support the dying companies, but they've cried wolf so many damn times you can't trust a fucking word they say. It's going to take careful consideration in the creation and execution of the bailout to make sure they fix things, but aren't taking more resources than necessary and can't repeat the mistake in the future.

By the way...
Mismatch, Regulation is only truly applicable in a free market economy, where the government steps in because private companies are looking out for themselves, not consumers. This entire concept can only truly exist in Capitalism. Unless there's some error or confusion in my logic, VasikkA would have no interest or knowledge of regulation if he was a Commie. If the mood really strikes you to call names, call him a Liberal; I know most conservatives see it as an insult or a swear word... or, if you feel even more immature than simply calling names, you could just call him pody words.

[Mismatch]

Yeah, Mismatch I gotta side with VasikkA on this one

y'know, this just makes me more sure than I'm right.

It was the lack of any sufficient regulation that allowed the lendors to be selling loans off to people who (in many cases, obviously) couldn't afford them. These loans were sold to other companies, and so on, and so forth, to create liquidity in the system for profit. What's important is that, because we had declared them as valuable and legitimate, corporations from other countries across the world have invested in the system.

dingdong, 'ere comes the shitmobile.

You are, as in most cases wrong. In fact most people even agree on the fact that one factor in the crisis was <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1221786 ... tml">"fair value accounting"</a>, as regulated by the government.

Mismatch, Regulation is only truly applicable in a free market economy, where the government steps in because private companies are looking out for themselves, not consumers. This entire concept can only truly exist in Capitalism.

True capitalism is not regulated, thus the word free market.

If the mood really strikes you to call names, call him a Liberal;

twat

[Kashluk]

In your "true capitalism" and "world free market" we end up very quickly in a situation where we have a few select monopolies and the whole free market idea comes crumbling down. It's like communism - a nice idea, but doesn't work that way. Reasons, as always, purely human ones - we don't work like the ideal marketing analysis supposes we do. So we have to regulate the system and the markets in subtle ways to protect it from itself. And as a side effect, ease the swifts of highs and lows, inflation, depressions etc. to make life more tolerable to us, silly mortal flesh beings called humans. Some naive economists (anarchists?) still enforce the idea of getting rid of all regulations and protective systems involved, but they have become quite logically a minority. Since the rest have actually realised that it's not the way to go.

I suggest you take little look at pages like www.nber.com (national bureau of economic research) for example or read a book, like, Economics for Dummies.

[Mismatch]

In your "true capitalism" and "world free market" we end up very quickly in a situation where we have a few select monopolies and the whole free market idea comes crumbling down.

Do we now? Do you have any evidence to support this notion, any at all?
By non regulated, I don't mean a no-laws free for all. Compaines are still obliged to follow laws, and may not commit fraud and such, or in a Microsoftish manner close part of the market to the competition.

In a free market companies compete freely, creating <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_d ... ">creative destruction</a>, which will benefit us all.

I suppose that you do, in fact, realize (the latter parts of your post supports this) that I'm challenging the notion that governments need to give the market pushes in the 'right' direction rather than allow it to live it's own life.


For instance, take this american rescue package, which is supposed to ease the crisis. It only sends signals that it's aye okay for banks and chit to act irrationally, since they cant loose. If they do, the government bails them out. It's a if Susan'd take us all to vegas and tell us that if we win, we may keep them moneys, but if we loose he'll cover the losses. Somehow I dare say that this would not encourage rational behavuiour, now would it.

Most Americans get this (why do we Europeans feel we may call them stupid is to me a mystAAAAry), and thus they oppose the rescue plan.

It's like communism - a nice idea

well, no... Communism isn't even a nice idea. Communism is, in it's very core, a rather horrible idea, since it rests on the notion that the government may (and must), at wish, (with force) seize private possessions. At it's very core it violates our human rights. This can hardly be considered a 'nice' idea.

[Kashluk]

Well I did judge you a bit too quickly. We both agree then that the wild anarchy supported by some does not work for "free market" (or preferrably the term "perfect competition market").

I do, however, support rescue packages to some degree. It's one of those mechanisms / actions to protect the humane aspect of markets, often ignored when drawing charts and analysing SATC, MR, profits, demand etc. A lot of banks will go down, bringing a lot of jobs and thus lives down as well. Yes, free market repairs itself in time and the markets themselves don't necessary "suffer" at all in long-term, but this is supposed to make it easier for the people behind the numbers.

I agree, that it's a big signal shouting: "Yeah, give out crappy loans in the future as well!" but to undermine such messages we'll just need more actions, legislation or perhaps just a new, fresh point of view in the banking business. A guy walks near to a pit, slips and falls in the pit - another man walking by can either A) give out a great deal of effort in rescue attempt or B) just keep on walking. B is the rational thing to do, but A is just how modern western democracies tend to think about things. Ethics are a big part of business as well ( - maybe in the past it was religion, superstition, racial ideology...).

Oh, and apologies for the crippled metafor about communism. Just couldn't resist, especially when I just the other day had a whole lot of laughs on this chick who didn't understand the difference between communism and communitarism. She also thinks private ownership of guns should be banned and people who have shooting as their hobby could store their weapons at the firing range. Hm.... :dance:

[Mismatch]

I can see where you're coming from, tho' I still disagree with the whole rescue package thingy.

Interesting reading:
<a href="http://mises.org/story/3029">Here</a>
<a href="http://mises.org/story/3030">And here</a>

There is in the operation of the market no compulsion and coercion. The state, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, does not interfere with the market and with the citizens' activities directed by the market. It employs its power to beat people into submission solely for the prevention of actions destructive to the preservation and the smooth operation of the market economy. It protects the individual's life, health, and property against violent or fraudulent aggression on the part of domestic gangsters and external foes. Thus the state creates and preserves the environment in which the market economy can safely operate.

Now that's the proper role of the government in a free market, and I dare say that these 'pushes' in the right direction can not be considered part of it.


I am rather sure that you are already familiar with this Kash, but some may gain a little from from it.

Oh, and apologies for the crippled metafor about communism.

np, I liek talking 'bout it.

[VasikkA]

Simply put, you're completely wrong.

You, good Sir, should stop reading Keynes (he was a retard), and instead join the merry band of Friedman followers.

And you're a filthy commie.

The issue here isn't 20th century economists and their imaginary, non-existant economic models. We're dealing with real problems here.

As you should know, world economy is far from perfect. Market imperfections do exist. There will always be irrationalilty(we're human, right?), less-than-perfect competition and information gaps between market participants. This is a fact. In order for an unregulated market to thrive, these imperfections cannot exist. This is where regulation steps in.

The main objective of regulation is not to socialize the economy, but to reduce these market imperfections in a number of ways; by reducing the information gap between company executives and investors through disclosure, minimizing fraudulent behavior through legislation and limiting exposure to risk. All these actions increase transparency, decrease transaction costs and risk premiums in the economy making the economy more liquid and efficient. The economy does a better job in serving its core function, i.e. reallocating wealth and risk.

In an unregulated market, market imperfections would be exploited and market bubbles would be more frequent and more severe. This creates distrust in the economy and ultimately leads to a collapse. A functional laissez-faire capitalism is a utopian illusion.

You should not confuse beneficiary regulation with governmental fuckups, such as the creation of Phoney and Fraudy or The Community Reinvestment Act(referring to the link you posted). Politicians are known of their ability to make bad decisions. After all, it's their job.

And you're a filthy feminazi.

[Kashluk]

Kansantaloustieteet for the win I've actually spent quite a few moments wondering how our funky language turns 'economics' into 'people's business sciences'. It's all North-Korea all over again, Nico help me!

[Mismatch]

As you should know, world economy is far from perfect. Market imperfections do exist. There will always be irrationalilty(we're human, right?), less-than-perfect competition and information gaps between market participants. This is a fact. In order for an unregulated market to thrive, these imperfections cannot exist. This is where regulation steps in.

And how, exactly do we know which regulations are beneficial? Much like how the Federal Reserve caused the depression, any government branch in charge of regulating chit will fuck up, as you yourself state in quite an enlightened fashion:

The main objective of regulation is not to socialize the economy

But the result more often than not IS, in fact, a socialization of the economy.

laissez-faire

I actually own a t-shirt with this very text written upon it.

I had planned to write more, but I had to work..... so this post may be, at best, confused.

[Redeye]

Can't find a good 9-11 jumper video with Van Halen's Jump playing.

Have to settle for Python.