Ah, so you approve of regulation as long as it creates an outcome you want?
I believe protections against theft, murder, and slavery are the only legitimate functions of a government, yes. Fraud falls under the theft category.
This was happening long before the government got involved or the federal reserve was created. Nineteenth Century.
Fractional reserve banking has been around since the 17th century. The Fed is not the first central bank of the US.
If the market was being lied to, it was lying to itself and believing its own lies.
You realize "the market" is short-hand for all actors in it, not some monolithic being, right?
So we should take off the few leashes we have in place for oversight and regulation?
How does ending fractional reserve banking or the Fed "take off leashes"? The Fed has no oversight and fractional reserve banking is simply fraudulent.
I have no desire to return to unregulated boom-and-bust economics.
And now we have regulated boom-and-bust economics, because we still have fractional reserve banking and a central bank to prop it up.
I believe protections against theft, murder, and slavery are the only legitimate functions of a government, yes. Fraud falls under the theft category.
And we're back to this again. I suspect we'll end up going in circles here, so this is the last I'll say on this topic: the function of government is to serve the needs of the people. If the people demand that the government implement regulation then that becomes a government function.
Fractional reserve banking has been around since the 17th century. The Fed is not the first central bank of the US.
I see. Is there a /t/conspiracy tribe I wasn't aware of? The US economy has always been defrauded and lied to -- by the US government?
You realize "the market" is short-hand for all actors in it, not some monolithic being, right?
I do. I also realize that it doesn't regulate itself as well as you seem to believe it would if only it were left alone.
And now we have regulated boom-and-bust economics, because we still have fractional reserve banking and a central bank to prop it up.
No, the boom-and-bust cycles returned because we stopped enforcing regulation and started allowing businesses to have unhealthy influence over the government. The answer is not to strip the government of the functions demanded by its citizens but to restore accountability.
If the people demand that the government implement regulation then that becomes a government function.
If all men got together and voted that all women should make themselves sexually available at request at any time, and it was made into law, would you support that? Where is the line you draw regarding the power of the government? I've stated my line.
I see. Is there a /t/conspiracy tribe I wasn't aware of?
Nice one! What's next, I'm a poop head?
The US economy has always been defrauded and lied to -- by the US government?
You said it, not me. At worst the government is an enabler. But you know what else a central bank does well? Funds war efforts.
the boom-and-bust cycles returned because we stopped enforcing regulation and started allowing businesses to have unhealthy influence over the government.
The boom-and-bust cycles never ended, where are you getting the idea they "returned"? At what point was there not a boom-bust cycle? All we've got now is an institution that dampens the busts so they are only "recessions" until it can't do it any more and the dam breaks, then we get a "Great Recession".
If all men got together and voted that all women should make themselves sexually available at request at any time, and it was made into law, would you support that? Where is the line you draw regarding the power of the government? I've stated my line.
You're disturbingly fond of slippery slope arguments.
You said it, not me. At worst the government is an enabler. But you know what else a central bank does well? Funds war efforts.
The boom-and-bust cycles never ended, where are you getting the idea they "returned"? At what point was there not a boom-bust cycle? All we've got now is an institution that dampens the busts so they are only "recessions" until it can't do it any more and the dam breaks, then we get a "Great Recession".
The "market corrections" that followed government regulation didn't destroy people's lives. They didn't bring the economy down for the entire nation. We had recessions, yes, but nothing like what came back in 1989, 2001 and again in 2007. It's not a coincidence that these more extreme "corrections" began as we started to deregulate or relax regulations on our industries across the board.
You're disturbingly fond of slippery slope arguments.
I'm asking where you draw the line, what is the limit of government to regulate people in your opinion?
The "market corrections" that followed government regulation didn't destroy people's lives. They didn't bring the economy down for the entire nation. We had recessions, yes, but nothing like what came back in 1989, 2001 and again in 2007. It's not a coincidence that these more extreme "corrections" began as we started to deregulate or relax regulations on our industries across the board.
I'm asking where you draw the line, what is the limit of government to regulate people in your opinion?
I'm going to quote a saying often attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes: your right to swing your fist is limited by the proximity of my face. When my actions create a detriment to you and there seems to be no way to resolve it, we turn to the government as the arbiter of last option.
It doesn't really look like the numbers agree with that assertion. source
Really? History tells of record unemployment in post-war America? People losing their life savings in market panics? People losing their homes because of it? Or are you going to fall back on the typical apologetic that it was because of World War II?
When my actions create a detriment to you and there seems to be no way to resolve it, we turn to the government as the arbiter of last option.
Define detriment.
Really? History tells of record unemployment in post-war America? People losing their life savings in market panics? People losing their homes because of it? Or are you going to fall back on the typical apologetic that it was because of World War II?
Not sure what you are alluding to here. The Federal Reserve System was adopted in 1913, so when exactly before that was "record unemployment" and "people losing their life savings"? Because the panics before were quite mild compared to what would come after the Fed was created.
Poverty, unemployment and so forth typically qualify.
Not sure what you are alluding to here. The Federal Reserve System was adopted in 1913, so when exactly before that was "record unemployment" and "people losing their life savings"? Because the panics before were quite mild compared to what would come after the Fed was created.
Mild? I'm not sure what history you're referring to but it has nothing to do with the Nineteenth Century compared to the Twentieth.
That's incredibly vague. Does getting fired by your employer qualify? Employer going out of business from a competitor qualify?
Was the employer reckless? Was the problem preventable? Did they bring everyone else down with them? Is it something that can be prevented with regulation? Then yes.
And yet estimated levels of unemployment in the 19th century were never about 10%.
And again, I don't know what history you're referencing. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. That being the case I'm finished arguing here. The last comment is yours.
I believe protections against theft, murder, and slavery are the only legitimate functions of a government, yes. Fraud falls under the theft category.
Fractional reserve banking has been around since the 17th century. The Fed is not the first central bank of the US.
You realize "the market" is short-hand for all actors in it, not some monolithic being, right?
How does ending fractional reserve banking or the Fed "take off leashes"? The Fed has no oversight and fractional reserve banking is simply fraudulent.
And now we have regulated boom-and-bust economics, because we still have fractional reserve banking and a central bank to prop it up.
And we're back to this again. I suspect we'll end up going in circles here, so this is the last I'll say on this topic: the function of government is to serve the needs of the people. If the people demand that the government implement regulation then that becomes a government function.
I see. Is there a /t/conspiracy tribe I wasn't aware of? The US economy has always been defrauded and lied to -- by the US government?
I do. I also realize that it doesn't regulate itself as well as you seem to believe it would if only it were left alone.
No, the boom-and-bust cycles returned because we stopped enforcing regulation and started allowing businesses to have unhealthy influence over the government. The answer is not to strip the government of the functions demanded by its citizens but to restore accountability.
If all men got together and voted that all women should make themselves sexually available at request at any time, and it was made into law, would you support that? Where is the line you draw regarding the power of the government? I've stated my line.
Nice one! What's next, I'm a poop head?
You said it, not me. At worst the government is an enabler. But you know what else a central bank does well? Funds war efforts.
The boom-and-bust cycles never ended, where are you getting the idea they "returned"? At what point was there not a boom-bust cycle? All we've got now is an institution that dampens the busts so they are only "recessions" until it can't do it any more and the dam breaks, then we get a "Great Recession".
You're disturbingly fond of slippery slope arguments.
Which is why I ask about /t/conspiracy.
The "market corrections" that followed government regulation didn't destroy people's lives. They didn't bring the economy down for the entire nation. We had recessions, yes, but nothing like what came back in 1989, 2001 and again in 2007. It's not a coincidence that these more extreme "corrections" began as we started to deregulate or relax regulations on our industries across the board.
I'm asking where you draw the line, what is the limit of government to regulate people in your opinion?
http://i.imgur.com/mC0ukiG.png
It doesn't really look like the numbers agree with that assertion. source
I'm going to quote a saying often attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes: your right to swing your fist is limited by the proximity of my face. When my actions create a detriment to you and there seems to be no way to resolve it, we turn to the government as the arbiter of last option.
Really? History tells of record unemployment in post-war America? People losing their life savings in market panics? People losing their homes because of it? Or are you going to fall back on the typical apologetic that it was because of World War II?
Define detriment.
Not sure what you are alluding to here. The Federal Reserve System was adopted in 1913, so when exactly before that was "record unemployment" and "people losing their life savings"? Because the panics before were quite mild compared to what would come after the Fed was created.
Poverty, unemployment and so forth typically qualify.
Mild? I'm not sure what history you're referring to but it has nothing to do with the Nineteenth Century compared to the Twentieth.
That's incredibly vague. Does getting fired by your employer qualify? Employer going out of business from a competitor qualify?
And yet estimated levels of unemployment in the 19th century were never about 10%.
Was the employer reckless? Was the problem preventable? Did they bring everyone else down with them? Is it something that can be prevented with regulation? Then yes.
And again, I don't know what history you're referencing. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. That being the case I'm finished arguing here. The last comment is yours.