Elitist view or rational thing?

[steelish]

Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?

The federal government regulated the life out of the free market. THAT contributed greatly to this subprime mess.

[the_moirae]

Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?

i dont think anybody would say the market is free at all

The "Market" has never really been free....

The federal government regulated the life out of the free market. THAT contributed greatly to this subprime mess.

I often avoid even reading threads like this because I get to angry, but I feel compelled to say: among the things I trust least in this world is Big Business running rampant sans regulation. Disagreeing with the (i.m.h.o.) self-centered, free market dogma may lead to me being labeled a socialist, but hey - I'm jiggy w'it.

[denuseri]

I often avoid even reading threads like this because I get to angry, but I feel compelled to say: among the things I trust least in this world is Big Business running rampant sans regulation. Disagreeing with the (i.m.h.o.) self-centered, free market dogma may lead to me being labeled a socialist, but hey - I'm jiggy w'it.

I am right there with you when it comes to mistrusting what has proven over time to be perhaps the single greatest evil unleashed upon the world in recorded history.

The Institution of the Corperation.

[DuncanONeil]

I am right there with you when it comes to mistrusting what has proven over time to be perhaps the single greatest evil unleashed upon the world in recorded history.

The Institution of the Corperation.

Why are corporations "evil"?

[Thorne]

Why are corporations "evil"?

It's quite obvious, really. They provide consumers with things that they really want, at prices which most of them can afford, all while providing jobs and benefits to their workers. And to top it off, they have the unmitigated gall to actually make a profit!

How evil can they get?

[steelish]

It's quite obvious, really. They provide consumers with things that they really want, at prices which most of them can afford, all while providing jobs and benefits to their workers. And to top it off, they have the unmitigated gall to actually make a profit!

How evil can they get?

This made me snicker.

[Kendal]

Economics is not a precise science (is it really a science). Economists can't agree amongst themselves most times.Economists are like astrologers advising Kings.

You call the people who read internet blogs "clueless". The reason they are clueless is because the economists writing the blogs they are reading are clueless. The public are not supposed to be experts or know. If they knew then what value does an economic phD have. Their job is to be convinced. It's like a jury. The jurors are not legal experts. The lawyers present their cases and the lawyer who presents the most plausible, logical and easy explanation is the one deemed to be right. Saying people are clueless is like a lawyer saying the jury was clueless after it returns a verdict against his client. Perhaps they are right and the lawyer is wrong. Perhaps those clueless blog readers are right and you are wrong.

But it does not matter because right is whatever the jury or blog reader think. Economy is all about trust and confidence in promises. America was ticking over nicely one day then crash the next. The machines are still in the factories. The oil is still in the ground and the oranges on the trees. The crash was all about loss of confidence and herd behavior. It takes just one sentence from a president or fed bank chairman and the stock market drops or rises ten percent and zillions magically appear or disappear. Europe did not suffer from the crash the same as american and moved out faster because European leaders told the people there was no problem and the people believed them and the problem went because of they believed. A self fulfilling prophecy. The army will win the battle if the soldiers believe they will. The soldiers will believe if the King believes and the King will believe if the astrologer can convince him he will. It is the same with the economy.

So to answer your question - let the economists advise but not decide. Let the president decide based on what astrologer (if any) he believes. Let the people believe the president and then whatever the president said will come to pass.

How's that for a theory. Didn't take me years, just a crate of beer to come up with that little thesis.

PS -You will do a written exam or thesis to be read by econmists to decide if you get your doctrate. I would throw you inot a hall full of people and say to you - convince them. Then I ask the people if you should get your degree. If they are clueless you know your fate. If they are conviced then congratuations doctor tedteague !!

[Thorne]

But it does not matter because right is whatever the jury or blog reader think.

This is so far beyond right that it's unfathomable. If I can convince some people that the moon is made of green cheese, does that make me right? Hogwash! It just makes me persuasive. That's why we have to rely on evidence, not on rhetoric. But evidence is tedious, boring, dull, and it goes downhill from there. Rhetoric is much more exciting, and much more enjoyable. Entire religions are based upon this, as well as most political systems.

Economy is all about trust and confidence in promises.

Which is why economy cannot be a science. It's far closer to a religion.

So to answer your question - let the economists advise but not decide. Let the president decide based on what astrologer (if any) he believes. Let the people believe the president and then whatever the president said will come to pass.

Oh, yeah. This will work.

How's that for a theory. Didn't take me years, just a crate of beer to come up with that little thesis.

That would have been my guess.

[Kendal]

This is so far beyond right that it's unfathomable. If I can convince some people that the moon is made of green cheese, does that make me right?
Yes to all intense purposes it will if you are selling shares in a cheese mining space expedition. Yes you are right that the moon's composition is a scientific fact. You are comparing economics to astonomy. Are you are saying economics is a science which can be proven like astronomy.

Which is why economy cannot be a science. It's far closer to a religion.
Here you are saying the opposite. Make your mind up. If we sitick on this side of the fence then if you convince millions of people there is a god then those people will act just the same as if it is a fact and it will make no differnce fact or fiction. You doubt me - tell the devout muslims, christians and jews of the world there is no god.

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:
So to answer your question - let the economists advise but not decide. Let the president decide based on what astrologer (if any) he believes. Let the people believe the president and then whatever the president said will come to pass.
Oh, yeah. This will work.

Isn't that what the campaign platform was all about? Hope & Change?

Actually I have been wondering when he is going to stop campaigning!