patrick.net

bgamall4 says

Basically, Ayn Rand and her political brothers, the libertarians, allowed the banksters to have freedom to screw everyone while everyone else had less freedom.

Self interest has nothing to do with the banksters other than Randians, Libertarians are agin them.

If you think otherwise you not have any idea what you are talking about

bgamall4 says

So the libertarians said they wanted free markets, but gave so much freedom to the banksters, who should have been like the police, not involved in the markets, the power to control the markets with their newfound freedom.

Fuck no, you are clueless, it is cronyism and has nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

indigenous says

Fuck no, you are clueless, it is cronyism and has nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

As I understand it, libertarianism is pretty much every man for himself.

rooemoore says

As I understand it, libertarianism is pretty much every man for himself.

Then you do not understand it. The cohesive elements are free exchange, the non aggression policy, debatable but the rule of law, comparative advantage, private property, and maybe a few others that I don't know about.

indigenous says

Fed will save us all

Hmm, not popular on this site, but here is an article that backs up your thinking, as well as others:

http://nypost.com/2014/08/20/fed-optimism-will-give-way-to-total-economic-meltdown/

indigenous says

rooemoore says

As I understand it, libertarianism is pretty much every man for himself.

Then you do not understand it. The cohesive elements are free exchange, the non aggression policy, debatable but the rule of law, comparative advantage, private property, and maybe a few others that I don't know about.

Exactly. Boiled down, that is pretty much every man for himself. Seems to be the polar opposite of Marxism. That notion is probably comforting to libertarians. Of course the polar opposite of an extreme is an extreme.

As a society we need to find a better balance between protecting people from others vs protecting people from themselves. Sometimes we err on the side of caution and go to far in the latter category.

rooemoore says

Exactly. Boiled down, that is pretty much every man for himself. Seems to be the polar opposite of Marxism. That notion is probably comforting to libertarians. Of course the polar opposite of an extreme is an extreme.

viewed through a pejorative lens yes, as opposed to the comfort of the nanny state?

The key difference to me is the practical enforcement of ethics through the market place. The lack of it occurs in the government system we have now awash in corruption.

Of course you do realize that cronyism is not part of the market?

indigenous says

The key difference to me is the practical enforcement of ethics through the market place.

"practical" has different meanings for different people. What you see as a "nanny state" others see as a place where the common good trumps an individual's good.

I would agree that there are probably thousands of examples of government being too intrusive. Weeding those out among the majority that provide a stable and safe society is the tricky part.

indigenous says

Of course you do realize that cronyism is not part of the market?

Of course, but it happens. It would happen in a libertarian government too. Nothing is pure and the ends justifying the means is often how corruption begins.

"The cohesive elements are free exchange"

Of land tenancy? Of health care?

"free exchange" of such critical needs in such limited supply is a fucking pipe dream.

As is "free exchange" with the developing world. The average american can't compete with 2 billion+ potential factory workers overseas and south of us living at a dramatically shittier standard of living.

"His monthly salary of 3,500 to 4,500 yuan ($580 -$740) -- depending on overtime -- is higher than the average wage, but only because his job requires more risks -- the ink has toxic fumes."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/02/world/asia/china-migrants-mental-health/

rooemoore says

Of course, but it happens. It would happen in a libertarian government too. Nothing is pure and the ends justifying the means is often how corruption begins.

That is the point it can't doesn't happen in the free market.

Regulation has no meaning if the rule of law is abolished, and it has been for quite a while now. There is no problem with too little regulation, just with government abolishing the rule of law, not prosecuting clear cut fraud and other major (war, financial, collusion, violations of the sherman acts etc.) crimes.

mell says

Regulation has no meaning if the rule of law is abolished

True

mell says

violations of the sherman acts

That is a meme that is irrelevant to the economy.

bgamall4 says

The banksters are well versed in libertarian language and the libertarians see them deregulate but refuse to fail.

The main thing the banksters want is support from citizen groups, which give them thumbs up to the Fed that determines who gets to M&A

Are as far as the other goes who knows, I hear a lot less complaints from the Ds than from the libertarians about the banks. But at the end of the day it is the citizen groups that make the banks money.

Bellingham Bill says

"The cohesive elements are free exchange"

Of land tenancy? Of health care?

Huh?

indigenous says

rooemoore says

Of course, but it happens. It would happen in a libertarian government too. Nothing is pure and the ends justifying the means is often how corruption begins.

That is the point it can't doesn't happen in the free market.

Don't forget world peace while you're at it!

bgamall4 says

indigenous says

Are as far as the other goes who knows, I hear a lot less complaints from the Ds than from the libertarians about the banks.

Except the libertarians spend so much time blaming the borrowers because the are racist, or a lot of them are, that they forget the banks set it up and are at financial fault for this lending.

It's the government who is at the financial fault of this. It's the government who bailed out the banks, it's the government who imposed regulations that favors the big banks.

The FED is a government entity and without it the top major banks would have never been able to grown to such size. the same can be said to the federal government as well.

bgamall4 says

The Fed is not the government. It is a private bank and I have the court case to prove it.

Err.. Wrong. It has private shareholders but its appointed are appointed by the government. In fact the charter was established and approved by congress.

bgamall4 says

Sorry, the fault is with the central bank.

A central bank operates in accordance with the central government. Also the housing bubble started well before Tim and Hank, Alan G. to be more exact.

bgamall4 says

The Fed is not the government, but is a Zionist organization owned by banks controlled by Rockefellers and Rothschilds: http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html

Once again not privately owned. Congress had approved its authorization. The President and senate hand picks the board governors. The Chair and Vice chair is hand picked by the president among the board of governors. Also the board of governors is required to have annual reports of their operations to the speaker of the house.

Sorry but none of this would occur if the FED was a private entity. Once again it's all controlled by the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#Structure

I don't think it is as bad as that picture statement says. A man can still make it based on his merit in America.

The assertion at the beggining of this thread was that some of you will get it but most of you won't.

But now after 60 some odd posts I have decided that some of you will get it but most won't...