June 23, 2011
– Comments (8)
Ben Bernanke please watch this video.
Word to your mother.
Wasn't Greenspan the most laissez-faire Fed chairman in its history?? You had Brooksley Born of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) lobbying Congress to allow her agency to regulate OTC derivatives and Greenspan & friends succeeded in stopping her because they believed the market should be left alone. She resigned in disgust. Laissez-faire has already been tried. We don't let drivers on the road self-regulate themselves, do we?
Laissez-faire advocates have no answer to the too-big-to-fail problem. Do we mandate capital controls? No, because the market should be left alone right? We don't want government dictating to gigantic TBTF banks capital controls or else that's evil communism/socialist/fascism. Sarcasm aside, it doesn't make sense. Countries like Canada or China have just a handful of banks which are TIGHTLY regulated. That's what we need.
Yes, we need to be more like China (sarcasm.)
Seriously though, I believe in the possibility of true free markets. In a true free market (under my definition), people produce and trade goods and services for sound money. Governments do not interfere with this process EXCEPT to assure that markets respond to the basic supply and demand laws.
Governments can intervene by
A) breaking up monopolies - this guarantees that corporations do not collude to artificially disrupt supply.
B) enforce banks to maintain sound money - requiring full reserves.
This is not pure laissez-faire. Yes I recognize the irony that my system requires government regulation to maintain "free" markets.
Whether this is practically possible or not I do not know. I do not know the best way to transition from our current relic system to my recommendation. I do not know how to convince people and other nations to follow suite. I do, however, maintain hope that those smarter than me can figure it out.
Please let me know what you think about my system and if you would tinker with it. I would likely add rules about 0 donations to politicians and limit the amount of money campaigns can use etc. (I literally came up with this system right now).
Very entertaining Betapeg!
Those damn Chinese Canadian bastards!
Franky, I don't think that it requires a lot of regulation to get what you desire.
A) Remove intellectual property laws.
B) Remove goverment protections for banks.
As far as the contribution thing, just enforse current bribery and racketeering laws.
Remove government protections for banks so that when they fail, everyone loses their savings including other banks which in turn fail themselves. That sounds like a great plan.
It's a better plan than giving them a license to steal Betapeg.
I'm sure anyone who has ever lost their life savings because their bank failed would beg to differ. This is what we need. Not "anything goes" policy.
#6) On June 24, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Betapeg (50.54) wrote:
Where was your concern when Obama handed over the retirement savings of GM bondholders over to the auto unions Betapeg?
Bond market investments and savings in a bank are two completely different things. Nobody should worry their savings deposit in the bank is going to zero. A bond holder assumes the risk of the entity selling the bond so I say tough luck to GM bondholders. A bank is supposed to be a safe place to store cash instead of under the matress. It's like asking me where my concern was for people who saw their 401k drop 50%. Uh, that's the risk you take. Nobody should have to shoulder such risk simply depositing cash into a savings account at a local bank. So your question is invalid.