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'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.