Sub-prime Bail Out

[Radar]

That is pure bullshit.

Robbery has absolutely NOTHING to do with capitalism. Capitalism is the free and voluntary exchange of goods and/or money on a value-for-value basis.

Any form of crime (robbery, fraud, etc) is not capitalism.

Markets can EASILY exist without any kind of government regulations or intervention. In fact they thrive without such intervention.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Radar

Markets can EASILY exist without any kind of government regulations or intervention. In fact they thrive without such intervention.

The stock markets could not exist without that regulation. To make it work - to establish rules so that trades are fair and equitable - only people trained in those laws and regulations can perform that trading. A free market as described would only subvert free market stock trading into a corrupt and avoided market. What makes stock markets so useful? They are safe and regulated places to conduct free market trading.

There is no way around some government regulations in all free markets.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by tw

The stock markets could not exist without that regulation. To make it work - to establish rules so that trades are fair and equitable - only people trained in those laws and regulations can perform that trading. A free market as described would only subvert free market stock trading into a corrupt and avoided market. What makes stock markets so useful? They are safe and regulated places to conduct free market trading.

There is no way around some government regulations in all free markets.

The stock market...and ALL markets could easily exist and would thrive without any government intervention or regulation and would make sure that all trades were fair and equitable because they would be voluntary.

Without government involvement in markets, we'd still have laws against fraud, theft, endangering others, etc.

Free-markets do not lead to corruption or to criminal activity. Government regulations do lead to corruption and criminal activity especially when it comes to the markets.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Radar

The stock market...and ALL markets could easily exist and would thrive without any government intervention or regulation and would make sure that all trades were fair and equitable because they would be voluntary.

Wow. Attitudes that underly Marxist socialism - from Radar. If Radar has posted accurately, then no stock market ever need exist. We are all honest and equal. We all treat one another with equality and impartiality every time. Stocks would be traded freely on any street without all that market regulation. That only possible if we all live according to principles that permit Marxist socialism.

Why do stock markets exist? Trading of stocks on the street, as in Radar's model, never works. Stocks need a controlled environment (NASDAQ, LSE, the Frankfort Exchange, etc) because stock exchanges only work in the safe and well defined environment of regulated exchanges. Radar says none of the world stock markets need exist. We don't need brokers. We don't need regulations and laws. We don't need all that bureacracy. The problem with this Radar world: stock markets exist because those standards, control and regulation are necessary. Without regulations of markets, then anarchy would reign.

There is a fine line between too much regulation and insufficient regulation. So we have numerous financial instruments with various types of regulation. But in every case, some regulation and laws are always required. No way around that imposed 'level playing field' to make free market economies work.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by tw

Wow. Attitudes that underly Marxist socialism - from Radar. If Radar has posted accurately, then no stock market ever need exist. We are all honest and equal. We all treat one another with equality and impartiality every time. Stocks would be traded freely on any street without all that market regulation. That only possible if we all live according to principles that permit Marxist socialism.

Why do stock markets exist? Trading of stocks on the street, as in Radar's model, never works. Stocks need a controlled environment (NASDAQ, LSE, the Frankfort Exchange, etc) because stock exchanges only work in the safe and well defined environment of regulated exchanges. Radar says none of the world stock markets need exist. We don't need brokers. We don't need regulations and laws. We don't need all that bureacracy. The problem with this Radar world: stock markets exist because those standards, control and regulation are necessary. Without regulations of markets, then anarchy would reign.

There is a fine line between too much regulation and insufficient regulation. So we have numerous financial instruments with various types of regulation. But in every case, some regulation and laws are always required. No way around that imposed 'level playing field' to make free market economies work.

You're taking a huge leap and claiming I've said things I didn't. I said markets could exist and thrive without any government regulation. Without regulations on these markets, anarchy would most certainly NOT ensue. To claim that without government regulations, the markets wouldn't be regulated privately is laughable. To claim the markets wouldn't be held to standards, including standards that require honesty in trading, is on the verge of retarded.

Markets would exist without any regulation at all. They would be organized, held to standards, and regulated privately. We would still have brokers, and traders, etc. because most people would feel more confident trading stocks with these people than with a guy trading stock certificates from the trunk of his car. What would the problem be with going to a store on the street to buy stocks? I don't see one.

Without government intervention the playing field is always level. It's government that makes things unfair and tilts the playing field. Government regulations allow politically influential businesses to gain an unfair advantage over new start-ups or prevents new businesses from starting up at all.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Radar

You're taking a huge leap and claiming I've said things I didn't. I said markets could exist and thrive without any government regulation. Without regulations on these markets, anarchy would most certainly NOT ensue. To claim that without government regulations, the markets wouldn't be regulated privately is laughable. To claim the markets wouldn't be held to standards, including standards that require honesty in trading, is on the verge of retarded.

What are toy industry benchmarks begging for? Government regulations. Standards so that their 'fly by night' peers must also protect kids from lead paint and date rape drugs. The most responsible American toy manufactures - those who voluntarily announced dangerous toys as soon as the problem was discovered (ie Mattel) want regulations to create a level and productive free market.

If stock markets could exist without regulations, then nobody needs a stock market. All trading would be on the street. Why do stock markets create so much trading and capital investment? To repeat what you avoid: because without those regulations, then stock trading will halt due to the anarchy. If what you are saying had any truth, then all stock markets would fail completely. Stock markets would have no purpose. Why do stock markets exist? Why do commodity exchanges exist? Because productive trading cannot exist without regulations - a standard, level, safe, and predictable trading floor (virtual or real). Anarchy (also called widespread criminal activity) would create near zero trading.

The only reason stock, bond, commodity, etc markets exist is because that is where the regulations exist and are enforced. Even the private markets demand certain government regulations so that their trading is secure, honest, and liquid.

Name one trading exchange that exists without government regulation? Smuggling? What happens when smuggling markets become legal - conform to laws? Trading increases. Everyone is wealthier. People stop getting shot down in the streets. Name that market that thrives better due to zero regulations? It does not exist. If you knew markets would be better with zero regulations, then why do you not list 100 of them? Because they do not exist. A certain amount of regulation always results in a more productive and profitable market.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by tw

What are toy industry benchmarks begging for? Government regulations. Standards so that their 'fly by night' peers must also protect kids from lead paint and date rape drugs. The most responsible American toy manufactures - those who voluntarily announced dangerous toys as soon as the problem was discovered (ie Mattel) want regulations to create a level and productive free market.

The toy industry does a very good job at regulating itself. They VOLUNTARILY recall toys that do not meet their high standards. Mattel is a great company and is certainly not responsible when people in China don't stick to the standards they've laid out, but they immediately recalled toys and took a hit on their reputation. Government regulatiosn don't give "confidence". Also, claims of "date rape" drugs are false. GHB is not a date rape drug. It's a party drug used by ravers. From what I understand these toys didn't even have GHB on them, they had another chemical that metabolized into GHB when inside the human body.

Originally Posted by tw

If stock markets could exist without regulations, then nobody needs a stock market.

That is 100% False.

Originally Posted by tw

All trading would be on the street.

Again, entirely false. Most people don't want to buy or sell stock with a guy working from the trunk of his car. They want to work with reputable businesses.

Originally Posted by tw

Why do stock markets create so much trading and capital investment? To repeat what you avoid: because without those regulations, then stock trading will halt due to the anarchy.

That is an outright lie. Without government regulations stifling business, the stock markets would continue to exist, see triple their current trading volume, and would have much greater returns on investments.

Originally Posted by tw

If what you are saying had any truth, then all stock markets would fail completely. Stock markets would have no purpose. Why do stock markets exist? Why do commodity exchanges exist? Because productive trading cannot exist without regulations - a standard, level, safe, and predictable trading floor (virtual or real). Anarchy (also called widespread criminal activity) would create near zero trading.

Why do farmer's markets exist? To have a central place where people can buy vegetables from many farms. Stock markets exist so investors have a single place where they can buy or sell stocks from various companies. These would still exist. Trading would easily continue without any government regulations. The trading floor would be MORE predictable, safe, level, and held to better standards without government involvement. Government regulations don't prevent criminal activity, they promote it.

Originally Posted by tw

The only reason stock, bond, commodity, etc markets exist is because that is where the regulations exist and are enforced. Even the private markets demand certain government regulations so that their trading is secure, honest, and liquid.

You're batting a thousand. You are wrong again. You may want to read the writings of famous economists (Several have won the Nobel prize in economists) like Robert J. Barro, Walter Block, James Buchanan, Donald J. Boudreaux, Richard M. Ebeling, David Friedman, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Higgs, Israel Kirzner, Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, Mark Skousen, Thomas Sowell, Vernon Smith, Mark Thornton, Richard Timberlake, and Walter Williams. Perhaps then you wouldn't be so clueless when it comes to economics.

Originally Posted by tw

Name one trading exchange that exists without government regulation?

Farmer's Markets, Computer Fairs, Swap Meets, etc.

Also, remember that not having government regulations is not the same as being unregulated. Self-regulation in the markets is what is called for. Government regulations CREATE uncertainty, unfairness, etc. in the markets.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Radar

In fact they thrive without such intervention.

...and unchecked they do it to the point of completely and dangerously exhausting resources in a mad frenzy and permit wild, uncontrolled fluctuations that lead to disastrous boom/bust cycles.

Originally Posted by Radar

The more people who lose their houses, the more affordable houses become and others who act more responsibly and don't have as much money will be able to buy them at the lower price.

I absolutely do not want a government bailout, but some regulation in the loan industry would have prevented this mess from happening in the first place.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

...and unchecked they do it to the point of completely and dangerously exhausting resources in a mad frenzy and permit wild, uncontrolled fluctuations that lead to disastrous boom/bust cycles.



I absolutely do not want a government bailout, but some regulation in the loan industry would have prevented this mess from happening in the first place.

There is a ton of regulation in the loan industry and it didn't prevent this from happening because no amount of government regulation can prevent people from doing stupid things like buying more house than they can afford. The loan companies didn't do anything wrong. Let me repeat that...

THE LOAN COMPANIES DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG!

They lent money to people who promised they would pay back loans and who said they understood that when the fed raises interest rates, their payments would rise. But greedy people bought houses they couldn't afford and flipped them or bought more of them without thinking that the bubble would eventually burst.

Government meddling in the markets is what created this problem. If we got rid of the unconstitutional federal reserve, they wouldn't control the money supply and we might have something to back up our money rather than the promises of government.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Radar

But greedy people bought houses they couldn't afford and flipped them or bought more of them without thinking that the bubble would eventually burst.

...and pure, unrestricted capitalism would change this, how? I tend to think an unchecked market would be a lot worse and the fluctuations would be extremely violent, far reaching, and long lasting. The actions of the stupid and irresponsible will never change and aren't going to go away, regardless what market they're placed into.

Originally Posted by Radar

If we got rid of the unconstitutional federal reserve, they wouldn't control the money supply and we might have something to back up our money rather than the promises of government.

...and go to what, gold? Tell me how we should go about that transition without the market being instantly, dangerously cornered.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

...and pure, unrestricted capitalism would change this, how? I tend to think an unchecked market would be a lot worse and the fluctuations would be extremely violent, far reaching, and long lasting. The actions of the stupid and irresponsible will never change and aren't going to go away, regardless what market they're placed into.

The exact opposite is true. Without government meddling, corrections in the market wouldn't be huge like they are right now. The government tries to prevent corrections and eventually the dam bursts and the money floods out of the market. An unhampered, free-market capitalist market without government interference wouldn't let the pressure build that high. Changes, fluctuations, and corrections would be more slight and more frequent.

The actions of the stupid and irresponsible won't change. The actions of the government to stop people from making stupid decisions for themselves should. Those who make poor decisions should have to live with the consequences of those decisions. This is how we learn to make better choices and to choose our actions more wisely.

It also opens the door for others to benefit by being able to buy a house. Why should those who work hard, save their money, and think carefully about what they will do be forced to pay the bill of others who acted irresponsibly? When those people lose their houses...as they should...the others who saved and acted wisely can move in and buy a house at a more reasonable price.

It's nature. In order for the lion to eat, the gazelle who wanders from the group must die. It also teaches the others to stay close

Originally Posted by Kitsune

...and go to what, gold? Tell me how we should go about that transition without the market being instantly, dangerously cornered.

It doesn't have to be gold. It can be any hard asset or commodity with a limited supply like Diamonds...Platinum...oil....etc.