Don't tell me communism is good,

[CoryKS]

Add the caveat "in numbers greater than those wherein everyone knows everyone else or inter-dependance is not personally obvious" and that's not a bad thumbnail aphorism, Bushido.

Or as Eric S Reynolds so perfectly stated it: "Love doesn't scale."

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Found a synopsis of the article

http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03/the_dunbar_numb.html

 

[Blade96]

It let this poor guy live 55 years without an anus...

A happy ending to farmer's anus woes

[20:27 February 27 2011] Global Times EXCERPT: A farmer from Jiayu county of Hubei Province has lived 55 years without an anus, after being born with congenital anal atresia in the Wuhan Union Hospital. But now doctors have reshaped a new fundament for him in January.
<<<SNIP>>>As his economic situation improved, Wu went to the Wuhan Hospital at the end of last year, where Dr Li Zhibiao examined him and framed operation plans. Wu accepted an artificial anus, and three days later, could excrete like normal people.
END EXCERPT
As his economic situation improved? I thought communism was about everyone being equal?

They're not communists ya Don

 

[CoryKS]

It let this poor guy live 55 years without an anus...

Yup, communism nearly rectum.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Yup, communism nearly rectum.

You didn't....... nope... you did

 

[CoryKS]

You didn't....... nope... you did

Gimme a break, it's Friday afternoon.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Gimme a break, it's Friday afternoon.

I already did, just imagine what I would have done it it where Monday

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Much like what Bill Mattocks said about communism, the theory of free market capitalism and the practice of it are two different things.
Sure pure free market capitalism would be great, but you sound as if you know how it works, a large part of the economy works like this, the financial sector is capitalized through taxpayer money by either the Treasury discount window or bond sales or in the current scheme, borrowing from the discount window at almost 0% then buying long term bonds paying 3 or 4%.

Suck it up that is the way it works, governments always find ways to use taxpayer money to capitalize the financial sector in a free market economy. And the government will always bail out the financial sector because to do anything less would cause greater chaos.

You can talk about "free market capitalism" all you like but like the unicorn it doesn't exist.

Not sure what you are railiing against me about when you say "suck it up." I just find it funny that you keep saying that in a free market, governments bail out corporations, then claim that free markets don't exist. But you will use the fact that people like Bill prop up the ideal of a free market, and use the bailouts (something most free marketers don't like) as an example of what the free market does, even though that is the antithesis of what a free market is, and then you say, yet again, that the free market doesn't actually exist.

In other words, you want to have it both ways.

 

[Ramirez]

Not sure what you are railiing against me about when you say "suck it up." I just find it funny that you keep saying that in a free market, governments bail out corporations, then claim that free markets don't exist. But you will use the fact that people like Bill prop up the ideal of a free market, and use the bailouts (something most free marketers don't like) as an example of what the free market does, even though that is the antithesis of what a free market is, and then you say, yet again, that the free market doesn't actually exist.

In other words, you want to have it both ways.

The suck it up wasn't against you actually, it was just a general comment against those who are against bailouts but would idealize a free market, my point is that a totally free market sounds great but it doesn't exist, much like communism which sounds ideal but in reality will never exist.

The "free market" that Bill champions is an ideal, the "free market" that deregulation and guys like Greenspan tried to implement lead to the bailouts.


Even Greenspan admits that his free market ideology didn't take into account reality.

 

[crushing]

Even Greenspan admits that his free market ideology didn't take into account reality.

That reminds me of various comments that communism and fascism are mutually incompatible. Well, maybe on paper they are.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

The suck it up wasn't against you actually, it was just a general comment against those who are against bailouts but would idealize a free market, my point is that a totally free market sounds great but it doesn't exist, much like communism which sounds ideal but in reality will never exist.

The "free market" that Bill champions is an ideal, the "free market" that deregulation and guys like Greenspan tried to implement lead to the bailouts.


Even Greenspan admits that his free market ideology didn't take into account reality.

Fair enough. I just can't be one to call the even half-assed "deregulation" (even though there are thousands of them still there) as a free market.]

I just don't think that you can use the concept of a free market against someone who believes in it based on mere (slight) deregulation of the U.S. economy as showing how bad the free market is.

As you say, the free market does not exist.

 

[Ramirez]

Fair enough. I just can't be one to call the even half-assed "deregulation" (even though there are thousands of them still there) as a free market.]

I just don't think that you can use the concept of a free market against someone who believes in it based on mere (slight) deregulation of the U.S. economy as showing how bad the free market is.

As you say, the free market does not exist.

And I would say that if you completely deregulate there would be complete chaos. Here is an example, using insurance because insurance is the sector I work in.

Every insurance company has to hold capital requirements, a minimum required amount to cover their liabilities, so do banks to cover their risk. As part of the regulation this amount is less if held in the safe investments of government bonds (makes sense, you don't want the firm investing in the lottery to cover its liabilities).

The reason AIG almost failed is that the regulators didn't realize their interest rate swaps were an insurance and they didn't have to hold any capital requirments for it (this hits the bottom line).

So you may say fine, AIG should just fail, meaning millions of pension plans, the investment banks that had the counter party risks (Goldman for eg.) etc. would have failed.

Can you imagine the chaos after that?

As long as financial firms depend of the bond market, you will always have government intervention...and bonds are a debt owed to you, the US taxpayer.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

And I would say that if you completely deregulate there would be complete chaos. Here is an example, using insurance because insurance is the sector I work in.

I will address this part, because I think it is the most pertinent.

I would agree with you that de-regulation will not work. The system has evolved to such a beast that mere de-regulation will not solve the problem, and would only make it worse.

Unless, I believe, if that de-regulation was done so incrementally that it would become a free market in at least the amount of time it took to create what we have now, which for the U.S. would be about 150 years.

But it will never happen.

 

[Sukerkin]

Ordinarily a subject I'd be quite keen to put my relevant expertise to work on ... but past experience here has taught me that I wouldn't make much impact (which given the general reputation of economists these days I don't actually much mind anymore ).

However, there has never been, is not and never will be a free market. Indeed, free markets are inherently unstable and destructive even in modelled form.

Laissez Faire economics was pretty close to operating one, at least in terms of trade but that too ended 'badly' (tho' the Empire did okay out of it for a while at the expense of other nations).