Politics
Out of context: Reply #16607
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- ********0
Oh yea thats what i meant on greenspan. Couldnt think of his words but thats what i was talking about.
Well for starters greenspan made a huge mistake. Hopeful with good intentions doesnt change the fact it was a dumb decision. As far as self regulating system dealing with it i dont think it was self regulating enough. Low interest rates are a nice thing to promote growth but than there are handfuls of other things like gov guaranteeing loans. These things give an appearence of free markets but really its just a badly rigged system.
Think about gaming. And how in multiplayer people use glitches to abuse the system. Its unethical but legal. They fuck up game play. For all people. Now if u aim more for a free market system u get less bad coding style rules and less glitches(I know theres something there on metaphor but dont think im explaining it well)... ill work on it later....
So i dont think there was a healthy invisible hand regulating itself. And all invisible hand will be somehow regulated. A lot of regulation can do as much damage as a few bad regulations. I think what needs to be done is to scale back the complexity of regualtions, open transparencies and identify the types of incentives they lead to. Most regulation nowadays seems to promote detrimental incentives. Take health insurance. So many tax incetives for companies to provide it. I just want some contacts that cost liek 100 bucks. Id have no problem buying them on my own but i do pay a little for insurance. The eye company can run a ton of tests and charge the insurance like 500 bucks. My incentive is to continue with this gross perversion of markets because i get insurance cheap through a company that gets hell tax incentives to provide it. Costs would less. Simple. But my incentives to cave to bad policy i continue to do because it is a positive incentive to me with losses passed on to all people.
I think free markets dont come without a boom and bust. i do think the boom and bust is smaller and the losses arent passed on to others. But its hard to say.
How would a more free market work today to prevent collapse? I dont think it can. We're already so infalted that if we went more free market we'd take a hit. All the government employees would need to find a job, we'd have to find a balance with the world labor rates. It would be tough. But better in long run for more stability and less boom and busts. A price to pay for our forced growth. Unless we could do it in a smart way, and i pray the deregualtors look at all consequences and arent lobbyied.
On the other hand we can keep passing the buck and get closer to a giant total collapse. Grow government, print more money for the rich to buy a ton of commodities until our paper currency collapses. And we will than really see a wealth gap and what happens.
Ukit i know free market isnt without its negatives, i jsut think the negatives are less than the current setup. Look at where we are and u can try to blame free markets which always seems to be the culprit. But it never is. Example how many bankers/managers were arrested for what they did? Not any because it was all legal and guided by current policy.