patrick.net

Please be polite.

Wiki has a pretty good page on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

But in answer to your actual question, certainly. If I didn't then my comments would be total gobbledy-gook and you wouldn't feel a need to resort to such snide comebacks.

All that said, I perhaps should have included this quote from you instead of the above: "Assuming labor is indeed a supply and demand market, the working class will not suffer any loss since wages will be forced higher by competition"

Hmmm, sounds like the "invisible hand" at work!

Polish-
I think you are confused about a couple of things.
#1--I don't think you really understand what Socialism is. Why don't you do a little research--it might open your eyes so you can respond more intelligently.
#2--You seem to believe that Democrats and liberals want Socialism. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Hope that helps you...

Nomograph/winston says

AdHominem says

the free market by definition does not allow for things like minimum wage. A free market can have some regulations (in fact it must) such as penalties for fraud, breech of contract etc… but there can be no free market when restrictions on price, wage etc… are brought into the picture.

In other words, regulations YOU approve of are okey dokey, but regulations you don’t approve of are not.
If there is no regulation of labor, their can be no border enforcement or immigration laws to hamper free market labor. Are you suggesting we have completely open borders? Anything less is, by your definition, is government interference in markets (i.e. tyranny).

No, in other words government should not infringe on the rights of people to make contracts (free market) with one another. No one has the right to tell me what is and isn't fair with regards to commerce, even if it is "for my own good". Government's role is to protect freedom, that is what our Declaration of Independence stated. Once government starts telling the market what price or wage isn't fair the market isn't free.

Your border analogy wouldn't pass a 6th grade reasoning exam. Protecting American borders and regulating who and what is allowed in and out has nothing to do with whether or not there is a free market in wages.

Are you afraid of freedom?

AdHominem says

Are you afraid of freedom?

Why do you keep asking that. We've already established that Nomo is a freedom hater. As am I. And several others here.

Nomograph says

shouldn’t I be able to make a contract with a Colombian farmer to grow, extract, process and import cocaine and heroin into the US?

Yes. And if it were legal it would also be rather unprofitable.

Nomograph says

make any claims I want about said product

No, not if they are fraudulent statements.

Nomograph says

Shouldn’t I be able to put heroin in soda and sell it to kids?

I didn't know you could make heroin soda, but with their parents permission this ought to be legal.

But I know that kind of freedom can be scary to you and the other Winston's

Nomograph says

Obviously you haven’t studies history.

Obviously you haven't studied ("studies") grammar.

If people could legally grow their own, drugs would probably cost about what a head of lettuce costs.
Or maybe a sack of flour if it requires refining.

Nomograph says

The actual reason for the two income problem is that beginning in the early 60’s households began to have two incomes and housing prices adjusted accordingly. Prior to that 99% of households were single income, with the wife staying at home.

Did you notice how I took the only statement you made out of your post and the rest was Ad Hominem?

In response to your false statement: OK, so women started working outside the home. This meant more income. The money to pay these women was not taken from men, rather it was created out of thin air (printed and or added to the balance sheets on banks). This is INFLATION.
Your FED and the corrupt fractional reserve banking system made this possible.

Perhaps you could get your logic correct before you go accusing others of needing an education.

Furthermore there is an explosion in credit and deficit spending beginning in the 1980's. Do you really care to debate that? And is not the FED's inflationary policy NECESSARY to allow the credit expansion that finances these credit expenditures?

PolishKnight says

Free market “laissez faire conditions” (not anarchy government) have worked for most of human history

What the hell kind of nonsense is this?

Human history was mostly dictatorships (monarchies, empires, warlords, etc.) ruling over subsistence farmers and fighting endless wars.

The idea of "Free Markets" was considered radical and new when Wealth of Nations was published.

The very idea of "economics" is something that you simply can't apply to the world prior to the 1800s. Pre-industrial society simply does not work the same way as post-industrial society, and it's absurd to compare them.

PolishKnight says

Nonetheless, your little game provides me with the opportunity to elaborate on my answer, namely, that free markets have largely existed throughout history and that socialist intervention and redistribution are new (after all, it would hardly be radical or “progressive” if it was the default all along.)

Uh, sure, if you define "throughout history" as "the second half of the 19th century".

Marx saw what horrors could be created when a small group of powerful people controlled all the wealth (first monarchies, then the monopolistic industrials that nearly destroyed civilization in the late 19th and early 20th century).

So Marx proposed a third way, and as we all know that third way simply didn't work.

So that's how we wound up with the fourth way, which is the modern mixed-market economy that has driven unprecedented growth in global standards of living over the last 70 years.

There are perfectly measurable examples of all four of these economies, and the mixed market model has been infinitely better than any of them.

The closest example that anyone can come up with of a laissez faire economy that wasn't a complete clusterfuck is probably the late 1800s (post civil war) -- the period commonly called the "gilded age", and the one that free market fundamentalists look to as the ideal economic model.

Lets see how that worked out:

- Wealth gaps about the same as under monarchies (this is a *bad thing* for almost everyone. Nobody on this message board would have been included in the old definitions of "upper" or "middle" class. Only an idiot or a billionaire would defend it)

- Environmental damage that we still haven't recovered from in many areas (some of the great lakes weren't suitable for drinking water until the 1970s!)

- Perpetual corporate-fueled wars (just ask south america)

- Monopoly pricing situations on many basic necessities, notably food, transportation, and energy (monopolies are the *opposite* of free markets)

You think socialism appeared on the scene because people were so happy with the way things were going at the time? Do you realize that organized labor, environmental safeguards, and government regulation formed in order to *prevent* industrial economies from embracing socialism? It was small business owners who asked the government to intervene, to break up the monopolies, to protect intellectual property, and generally to protect them from the standard oils and us steels that were making any competition impossible.

Capitalism DOES NOT WORK WITHOUT REGULATION. It simply devolves into monopolies, which are exactly the same as socialism.

People who think businesses should just be allowed to do whatever they want without repercussion are falling for the repeatedly disproven claim that markets self correct. There was absolutely no market mechanism that was going to stop standard oil from bleeding every penny that they could out of the public and crushing any technology that threatened their monopoly -- at least not in human timeframe.

The claim that government regulation is the same thing as socialism is intellectually dishonest (or intellectually ignorant more likely). It's spewed by people who know nothing about macro economics and even less about running a business. Hell, they usually can't even handle their own personal finances.

Nomograph says

You are free to use any exchange medium you see fit, rather than rely upon your government.

This is untrue. There used to be private currencies, but that is no longer legal.

Nomograph/Winston says

You are free to use any exchange medium you see fit, rather than rely upon your government.

In a world where gubmint makes it legal to pay with potatoes and gold or silver bars you might be a genius. Here you are just a misguided liar Winston.

Nomograph says

Currency is NOT a meant to be a store of wealth.

Perhaps in your world Winston. But here on earth...

Aristotle defined the characteristics of a good form of money:

1.) It must be durable. Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time.

2.) It must be portable. Money hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size.

3.) It must be divisible. Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be 'fungible'. Dictionary.com describes fungible as:

"(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."

4.) It must have intrinsic value. This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself.

"It is provided to you as a courtesy by your government."

Actually, currency existed well before our government did. The US government adopted gold because Americans already excepted it universally. They later pulled a bait and switch on the US public.

AdHominem says

tatupu70 says
Affordability has only gotten better over time
maybe in the flyover states, but then again there is a reason they are flyover states.

I know this is a Bay Area centered website, but that statement cracks me up. I've lived on both coasts but given the choice, I'll live in the Midwest every time. There are a lot of good jobs in the Bay Area, no doubt, but what else is appealing? The astronomical cost of living? The cold summers? The horrible traffic? The "keep up with the Jones" attitude? No thanks.

AdHominem says

Nomograph/Winston says
You are free to use any exchange medium you see fit, rather than rely upon your government.
In a world where gubmint makes it legal to pay with potatoes and gold or silver bars you might be a genius. Here you are just a misguided liar Winston.

Of course it's legal. Nobody will get thrown in jail for paying off a debt with potatoes. It's just not legal tender, so the service provider is under no obligation to accept potatoes, just as he is under no obligation to accept mastercard or visa.

Kevin says

Capitalism DOES NOT WORK WITHOUT REGULATION. It simply devolves into monopolies, which are exactly the same as socialism.

Please define regulation. Was it government regulation that has brought us a market more varieties of beer than you can drink in a night on the town? Or was it government "regulation" that brought us salvation for AIG/Goldman at the expense of Joe sixpack and Lehman Bro.?

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

Nomograph/Winston says

You are free to use any exchange medium you see fit, rather than rely upon your government.

In a world where gubmint makes it legal to pay with potatoes and gold or silver bars you might be a genius. Here you are just a misguided liar Winston.

Of course it’s legal. Nobody will get thrown in jail for paying off a debt with potatoes. It’s just not legal tender, so the service provider is under no obligation to accept potatoes, just as he is under no obligation to accept mastercard or visa.

I guess I'll send a few thousand pounds of spuds to the IRS this year then smartguy.

Nomograph says

When women entered the workplace en masse, the currency supply must be adjusted to enable the exchange of this new supply of service.

Yes, that is what I said. It is called INFLATION. (the expansion of the money supply). All of a sudden you have more money chasing goods and services and prices go up. Thank you FEDERAL RESERVE.

Since credit is another form of money, expanding credit is INFLATION too. Hence since the beginning of the 1980's true inflation (as opposed to the government CPI fabrication) has accelerated.

We have yet to fully realize all of the effects from the creation of all this funny money.

"When women entered the workplace en masse, the currency supply must be adjusted to enable the exchange of this new supply of service. "

Did we get about 800 billion more women in the past 2 years or something?

theoakman says

“When women entered the workplace en masse, the currency supply must be adjusted to enable the exchange of this new supply of service. ”
Did we get about 800 billion more women in the past 2 years or something?

Yes, we did. We was hiding under a rock and all comed out at once 'cuz we heard thar was money in them thar hills. And we'll crawl back under it when we please, taking all the money with us.

And chocolate. Prepare for a chocolate shortage.

AdHominem says

Or was it government “regulation” that brought us salvation for AIG/Goldman at the expense of Joe sixpack and Lehman Bro.?

Actually it was lack of regulation that caused that mess...

AdHominem says

tatupu70 says
AdHominem says
Nomograph/Winston says
You are free to use any exchange medium you see fit, rather than rely upon your government.
In a world where gubmint makes it legal to pay with potatoes and gold or silver bars you might be a genius. Here you are just a misguided liar Winston.
Of course it’s legal. Nobody will get thrown in jail for paying off a debt with potatoes. It’s just not legal tender, so the service provider is under no obligation to accept potatoes, just as he is under no obligation to accept mastercard or visa.
I guess I’ll send a few thousand pounds of spuds to the IRS this year then smartguy.

You can try it, I suppose. But like I said in my post, the US Government is under no obligation to accept the potatoes.

AdHominem says

Yes, that is what I said. It is called INFLATION. (the expansion of the money supply). All of a sudden you have more money chasing goods and services and prices go up. Thank you FEDERAL RESERVE.

Wrong again. If there are all these women entering the workforce and producing goods and services, don't you think that there might be more goods and services too?? So it's more money chasing more goods. No inflation. Just like increasing the money supply with increasing population doesn't cause inflation either. You make the mistake of assuming all else constant in your theories--which is almost never the case.

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

Or was it government “regulation” that brought us salvation for AIG/Goldman at the expense of Joe sixpack and Lehman Bro.?

Actually it was lack of regulation that caused that mess…

Yeah, like we hadn't defined what too big to fail meant, and the Fed didn't have enough printing presses. If only Bernanke knew that interest rates were too low, he could have printed enough money to pay for all the bad loans sooner.

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

Nomograph/Winston says

You are free to use any exchange medium you see fit, rather than rely upon your government.

In a world where gubmint makes it legal to pay with potatoes and gold or silver bars you might be a genius. Here you are just a misguided liar Winston.

Of course it’s legal. Nobody will get thrown in jail for paying off a debt with potatoes. It’s just not legal tender, so the service provider is under no obligation to accept potatoes, just as he is under no obligation to accept mastercard or visa.

I guess I’ll send a few thousand pounds of spuds to the IRS this year then smartguy.

You can try it, I suppose. But like I said in my post, the US Government is under no obligation to accept the potatoes.

But they are obligated to accept Federal Reserve Notes? Sounds like a monopoly to me. Where are the cries for regulation?

AdHominem says

And I’m sure we are all better off today because one income is not enough but when two people work 40+ hours a week families are more stable, there is less stress and life expectancies go up. Thank you Big Brother and Federal Reserve for saving us from the freedom of a sound monetary system.

Where did you get the idea that one income isn't enough? One income is plenty--especially if you're content to drive a Hyundai instead of a Beamer, and live in a modest 1500 sq ft house instead of a 3000sq ft. mansion. And one income is more than enough to live the same lifestyle that people lived a generation ago...

Nomograph says

The fact is that cars are MUCH cheaper now than they were a generation ago. The amount of labor I exchange for a vehicle is MUCH less than the amount of labor my father exchanged for a vehicle. In fact, cars are so much cheaper today that almost everyone has one, and most people have several.

A "generation ago" it was very unusual to buy a car on credit. Today, almost everyone finances or leases their cars. If you're going to compare car ownership and costs, you need to compare the method of payment that was used to make those purchases. Ease of credit policies infuses an unnatural flow of money into the economy; excessive money chasing goods which drives inflation. The fact that more people own cars today, or that most own several is not a valid point when comparing to other generations that typically owned their car outright. A person that "owns" 2 cars worth $60,000 that has financed $55,000 doesn't actually own much. The same point can be made for housing. When 20% down payments were common a generation ago, can we really compare ownership and the prices then as compared to the peak of the housing bubble when 0% down was common?

Nomograph says

I don’t know why anyone would demand that the government store their wealth for them.

Me neither. That is why taxes ought to be almost zero (no income tax). And there should be competing currencies instead of the Federal Reserve Note monopoly.

Nomograph says

The fact is that cars are MUCH cheaper now than they were a generation ago.

I suppose we make 10X what our parents made right? Nice try. This just doesn't hold water. And we haven't even began to discuss housing.

Oh, and Tatu perhaps in your neck of the woods one income (for someone with a good income of course) can buy you a 30 year mortgage payment on a comfortable house. But in a large percentage of the country one income will not even buy you a 30 year mortgage that is "affordable."

Nomograph says

simply prove my statement wrong?

I don't need to prove you wrong when you and everyone else here knows that Federal Reserve Notes are the only "legal tender for all debts public and private." It is a monopoly, and to make matters worse they keep devaluing the currency.

Are you really this childish NOMO?

Nomograph says

Complete bullshit. Are you saying that barter is illegal? I can pay for something using ANY exchange medium as long as the seller is willing to accept it.
My neighbor just sold me two heads of homegrown spinach. I paid for these with a bag of homegrown oranges. Are you trying to say that we broke the law?

We are legally FORCED to accept FED minted currency as money. Barter is a grey area. How does one pay sales tax when dealing in potatoes, oranges, and spinach? How does one declare income to be taxed when bartering.
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html --a link on declaring bartering income to the US government.

If you do this on a small scale with your neighbor it is not considered illegal. If you do this on a larger scale I would bet you'd be made to be a public example of a tax cheater. Obviously, I am no expert on barter, or US tax code, but a bartering transaction is generally considered to be part of the underground economy, and could be considered illegal if done as part of a commercial enterprise.

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/four-ways-youre-unknowingly-cheating-on-taxes.html

"So taking turns mowing lawns with your neighbor without claiming the “barter income” is okay, but trading website design work with a landscaping business requires claiming barter income. If you’re part of a barter exchange or network, it sounds like that’s automatic grounds for claiming it as income."

However, if you want to actually issue a competetive currency to the US dollar, you would absolutely be charged with a federal crime. "However, under the Constitution (Article I, section 8, clause 5), Congress has the exclusive power to coin money of the United States and to regulate its value. The United States Mint is the only entity in the United States with the lawful authority to mint and issue legal tender United States coins."
http://www.usmint.gov/pressroom/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=press_release&id=710

Nomograph says

Complete bullshit. Are you saying that barter is illegal? I can pay for something using ANY exchange medium as long as the seller is willing to accept it.

You are quite self rightous for someone that is just flat out wrong. You do not have the "freedom" to coin and use your own currency, as many banks did in the 1800's. Nor do you have the "freedom" to pay with, or accept payment via barter, except under very strict circumstances.

AdHominem says

Kevin says

Capitalism DOES NOT WORK WITHOUT REGULATION. It simply devolves into monopolies, which are exactly the same as socialism.

Please define regulation. Was it government regulation that has brought us a market more varieties of beer than you can drink in a night on the town?

No, but it was regulation that brought us 5 major telephone carriers to choose from rather than one. So far as I know, beer has never been an industry under threat from monopolies (largely due to the very low cost of entering the market).

Or was it government “regulation” that brought us salvation for AIG/Goldman at the expense of Joe sixpack and Lehman Bro.?

You're conflating some unrelated things.

The crisis itself was largely the result of a lack of regulation (as long as everyone's making money, why regulate it, right?). Lehman failed because nobody intervened and they were insolvent.

Joe sixpack isn't footing the bill for anything, because joe sixpack doesn't pay fuckall in taxes. It's people like me and other $250k+ folks who are paying for it, in the form of the taxes that we're going to be paying in the future to pay down debt.

...and it also has nothing to do with regulation.

You can certainly argue that we should have just let AIG and other financial entities fail, but most people who actually have to deal with the very real ramifications of the collapse of the entire global economy will disagree with you.

Nomograph says

YOUR INABILITY to convince others to accept your form of payment.

Oh, it is my fault government created a monopoly on money and then proceeded to devalue it by over 95%.

Way to go Winston! Big Brother forever!

Kevin says

Lehman failed because nobody intervened and they were insolvent.

It is called fraud. There was plenty of regulation. It was not enforced.

Kevin says

It’s people like me and other $250k+ folks who are paying for it

Oh, that and the printing press. Everyone pays taxes. Even illegal aliens, maybe not income tax but we are all taxed. And then they devalue the currency anyway so yeah, we all pay.

By the way congrats on the high taxable income!

CBOEtrader says

I am making an argument for a constitutionally limited central government to do its job without overstepping its legal authority.

Exactly A constitutional republic. Where "leaders" must abide within the confines of the law of the land and whose job is to enforce that law not write an endless barrage of spending and regulatory bills so long that no one reads, so expensive that no one can pay for them, and so restrictive that we cannot presume the pursuit of happiness anymore without Big Brother's permission. Wasn't it supposed to be the other way around?

By the way CBO thanks for your comments. It is nice that someone can contribute without resorting to Ad Hominem.

Nomograph says

AdHominem says

government created a monopoly on money and then proceeded to devalue it by over 95%.

I am a saver. People say that inflation punishes savers, which is completely incorrect. Inflation punishes people who are foolish enough to store their wealth in currency. I store my wealth in property and business ownership. If I were to liquidate my assets I would be worth at least several million dollars, yet I am completely immune to inflation. You can be too, if you give up on the idea of a government-run wealth management system. Are you afraid of freedom, AdHominem?

It seems to me this is a perfect example of Elitism. NOMO, you don't know what it is like to grow up in poverty. You don't know what it is like not to have more than a few hundred bucks in a savings account.

You are an elitist. Your BIG BROTHER makes it possible for YOU to preserve your wealth at the expense of the peasants, who have essentially no chance of ever achieving what you have. And with every regulation, every tax, every dollar they print they make it harder for the little guy to climb the ladder. They are literally removing the rungs.

Congratulations you have proven my point. YOU ARE A LOYAL PARTY MEMBER WINSTON.

Why are you afraid of freedom? Because it will cost you your elite position?

AdHominem says

Oh, and Tatu perhaps in your neck of the woods one income (for someone with a good income of course) can buy you a 30 year mortgage payment on a comfortable house. But in a large percentage of the country one income will not even buy you a 30 year mortgage that is “affordable.”

That is just patently false.

CBOEtrader says

You always seem to leave out the fact that Reagan’s tax cuts created MORE governemnt tax revenues, not less.

The problem with analyzing the effects of the tax cuts is that Reagan spent money like a drunken sailor. And he came in during a bad recession. So, of course governmental revenue will increase when the Government spends money to get the economy out of recession. When people go back to work, they start to pay taxes, and revenue increases.

The real question is Reagan had spent all that money getting the US out of the recession without the tax cuts, where would Government revenue have been in that case?

The oft-repeated lie that tax cuts increases revenue has been proven false many times over.

The most commonly cited case for this is the 1980s "tax cuts".

What most people don't know (or pretend not to) is that there were no tax cuts. The top marginal rates changed, but the total amount of taxes that people were paying didn't change much at all. What Reagan did was tax reform, not tax cuts -- his changes were designed at the outset to be revenue neutral. It was tax simplification, not tax reduction.

What it did do was shift the tax burden away from businesses and high income earners and onto the middle class, largely through the elimination of most deductions.

The increase in revenue came because the recession that Volker triggered to stop inflation finally ended. Yes, revenues go up when people are making more money -- who knew?

Flash forward now to the Bush tax cuts -- they did not increase government revenue.
Flash backward to the cuts of the 1960s -- they did not increase government revenue.

And, of course, the implication of the "tax cuts increase revenue" theory is that raising taxes will reduce revenue -- but there are no examples of this happening at the federal level.