Cartels seem to arise when government over-regulates. Drug cartels are a picture perfect example of this.
08-23-2017 11:18 PM
#6901
| |
|
Cartels seem to arise when government over-regulates. Drug cartels are a picture perfect example of this. |
08-23-2017 11:28 PM
#6902
| |
Thing is, you're not going to find many people who consider drug laws, especially anti-cocaine laws, to be over-regulation. | |
| |
08-23-2017 11:35 PM
#6903
| |
Interesting article... | |
| |
08-24-2017 12:08 AM
#6904
| |
|
glad you like Wictor. He's a different breed. |
08-24-2017 12:15 AM
#6905
| |
|
It certainly is the case that cartels thrive where there is insufficiency and ineffectiveness of government execution in its area of oversight. The insufficiency and ineffectiveness is perfectly natural, though, since the government being designated as having total oversight creates moral hazard that deters any others from stepping in and solving the problems. This means that when government can't solve the problem (a thing that happens normally), the problem won't be solved. In free markets, instead of there being one potential problem solver like when government monopolizes, there are unlimited numbers of problem solvers. This is why free markets have a history of solving problems and governments do not. |
08-24-2017 10:24 AM
#6906
| |
| |
08-24-2017 01:40 PM
#6907
| |
| |
08-24-2017 11:38 PM
#6908
| |
| |
08-25-2017 12:11 PM
#6909
| |
|
I've never heard the term in my studies. So I looked it up and notice Joe Stiglitz has popularized it (or helped to do so). It's worth noting that his thesis regarding why market fundamentalism doesn't work is contradicted by his explanation for why it doesn't work. He makes a common mistake of saying that we don't have a free market therefore when our non-free market failed it means the free market failed. This sounds really stupid when put in direct terms like I did, but trust me it's a very common mistake. |
08-25-2017 06:10 PM
#6910
| |
08-25-2017 06:48 PM
#6911
| |
|
If it seems I make generalizations like this, it is not my intention and I apologize. |
08-26-2017 11:14 AM
#6912
| |
| |
08-26-2017 11:17 AM
#6913
| |
| |
08-26-2017 11:31 AM
#6914
| |
|
That is not and has never been what I have stated. In fact, I have stated the opposite, that it is a faulty system and that failures happen in it. The difference is that I use facts and reason to analyze economics, markets, and government -- unlike how most people do it: with emotion. |
08-26-2017 11:34 AM
#6915
| |
Explain to me how the 2008 housing crisis could have been avoided if the US had a fully free market system instead, because I was under the impression that it happened, was led to happen and was allowed to happen precisely because there was no real regulation about what was going on there; noone knew what exactly was going on except the big banks devising their "financial instruments", which afterwards led to cries by the masses to actually start putting MORE regulations on the big banks to prevent this from happening ever again | |
| |
08-26-2017 11:35 AM
#6916
| |
| |
08-26-2017 12:20 PM
#6917
| |
|
Because the balance sheet changes regarding subprime loans and then collateralizing them was created by government policy. The model was created and popularized by GSE's (government institutions), and they gave private banks both explicit and implicit guarantees of bailouts. Could a free market of financial institutions do this on their own? Sure. Anything is possible. But the scenario that actually happened was created by government. The ability for a free market to create it in a hypothetical is very tiny. |
08-26-2017 03:55 PM
#6918
| |
Ok ok | |
| |
08-26-2017 04:00 PM
#6919
| |
Also | |
| |
08-26-2017 04:14 PM
#6920
| |
|
The video does a pretty good job in its explanation of what happened. What it described is NOT free market. It described how private entities and government worked together. That is NOT free market. This is crony capitalism and in some cases corporatism or fascism. Free market advocacy is the furthest thing from crony capitalism and what the video describes. |
Last edited by wufwugy; 08-26-2017 at 04:28 PM. | |
08-26-2017 04:16 PM
#6921
| |
| |
08-26-2017 04:22 PM
#6922
| |
|
I wonder why they present it as "prove when they're wrong" when the effect is just when telling somebody they're wrong. |
08-26-2017 04:28 PM
#6923
| |
|
Crony capitalism is a more accurate descriptor than the one I previously used. Edited. |
08-29-2017 01:52 PM
#6924
| |
|
Sounds like Crooked is setting up to run again in 2020. Lmaomageddon |
09-02-2017 02:19 PM
#6925
| |
| |
09-02-2017 02:20 PM
#6926
| |
| |
09-02-2017 02:27 PM
#6927
| |
| |
| |
09-02-2017 03:30 PM
#6928
| |
| |
09-08-2017 05:36 PM
#6929
| |
|
Kid Rock bringing a bazooka to a butter knife fight. |
09-09-2017 12:32 AM
#6930
| |
what is happening... | |
09-09-2017 01:11 PM
#6931
| |
|
Winning Michigan may come easy. What I wonder is if his plan is to run for President in 2024 and do so without attending any debates. His years as Michigan senator could give him legitimacy in the eyes of those who want to see candidates at debates while not attending debates and instead campaigning in this new, fascinating way could be a nail in the coffin on the corrupt media/establishment's hold on politics. |
09-09-2017 01:21 PM
#6932
| |
|
Where is he speaking? Is it not really illegal to do any form of campaigning where you are also earning money such as at gigs? |
09-09-2017 01:22 PM
#6933
| |
|
are you just jumping on the back of thinking another trump like victory is now a certain (which it isn't obviously). I don't get why you're a fan or you would want him to win. |
09-09-2017 04:42 PM
#6934
| |
|
So far, it sounds like he is somebody who is not interested in screwing people over like politicians are doing (with few exceptions). It seems there is credibility to this idea given that he is not a politician who does politics for self-benefit and special interests appeasement. |
09-09-2017 04:44 PM
#6935
| |
| |
09-09-2017 04:48 PM
#6936
| |
|
This isn't valid for you it's valid for idiots who don't pay attention. If you think that is enough to make a difference in the vote, fair, realise you don't come across the better for it even if that is your point. If you wanted to make that point clearer as some sort of prediction then you may come across as some sort of knowledge but the %s aren't on for that to be solid imo. |
09-09-2017 04:51 PM
#6937
| |
|
I know you think you are but it's only on levels that don't happen but we aren't going anywhere on this. |
09-09-2017 05:01 PM
#6938
| |
|
I believe that the average entrepreneur is VASTLY superior at knowing how to manage an economy than the average politician (and the average voter). This is because essentially what entrepreneurs do on a day to day basis is a microcosm of a robust economy. What many others do tends to be more detached or of distorted incentives, and it's easier for them to not spot a bad economics idea for what it is. The average entrepreneur may not understand how government restrictions are bad for people, but he KNOWS they are due to experience, so he is more prone to not do what has become standard practice among politicians and voters: hurting people because they believe the wrong things or don't know better. |
09-09-2017 05:06 PM
#6939
| |
| |
09-09-2017 05:09 PM
#6940
| |
|
There is actually a lot of evidence that shows the average successful entrepreneur tends to just get very lucky. Then we can get into how anecdotal evidence is literally the worst thing possible to support an argument. How policies that make you feel good aren't those that do good (i.e. what most people not clued up agree with). In fact you can find most people don't agree with regulation in their workplace as it prohibits them from making money no matter how but in general agree with it for everyone else because it doesn't impact them daily. |
09-09-2017 05:13 PM
#6941
| |
|
So you'd be excited in the same way for anyone who had nothing to go off? Or just those with all the negative shit he has to go off. |
09-09-2017 05:16 PM
#6942
| |
|
Levels of what don't happen? I'm not referring to any of the 3d chess stuff. |
09-09-2017 05:22 PM
#6943
| |
|
That people tend to want reduced restrictions for themselves but not others is a real problem. I'm referencing entrepreneurs because they tend to be different than laborers in this regard, at least as far as I can tell. Entrepreneurs getting lucky is not relevant to my point because gaining great success as an entrepreneur is not and doesn't create much of the ideas that go along with entrepreneurship. |
09-09-2017 05:24 PM
#6944
| |
|
Yeah I as I said it's one of those you don't think you are but you are. He things this therefore she thinks that therefore etc etc. It's like old poker thinking. It works on level one & two but anything else is just crap. |
09-09-2017 05:33 PM
#6945
| |
|
I'd trust the average plumber who has run his own business for 20 years to do a better job as President than the average politician. They are among the people who produce the most in an economy and they do so on merit, problem solving, and hard work. They are also the front line regarding taking the brunt of the negative force of government while also experiencing the positive force of restrained government. Politicians, academics, bureaucrats, even lots of different types of laborers, don't have this to the same degree. |
09-09-2017 05:36 PM
#6946
| |
| |
09-09-2017 05:41 PM
#6947
| |
|
I'm referring to one who runs a company. There is often a big difference between those who run a company and those who work at the company. |
09-09-2017 05:46 PM
#6948
| |
| |
09-09-2017 05:48 PM
#6949
| |
|
It's very common. |
09-09-2017 06:21 PM
#6950
| |
Don't forget the average has-been rock star can make a good governor, as long as he has rallies with lots of fireworks and guitars. | |
09-09-2017 06:39 PM
#6951
| |
|
Defo overqualified given the standards we're used to. |
09-10-2017 03:18 AM
#6952
| |
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/...co-trump/4715/ | |
| |
09-11-2017 02:58 AM
#6953
| |
Of course I agree* on the definition, but let's see if we can keep agreeing when these happen with real world examples | |
| |
09-11-2017 02:59 AM
#6954
| |
ITT i learned that Herman Cain would have been one hell of a great excellent tremendous amazing president | |
| |
09-11-2017 10:45 AM
#6955
| |
He very well could've been if he hadn't tried to skip over the "parlay your over-the-top personality and the perception that you're a successful business man into a successful reality tv show" stepping stone, which we now know leads directly to the white house. | |
09-12-2017 01:06 PM
#6956
| |
|
I came across one of my favorite metaphors in a long time: Trump supporters are the asshole of the body. Social justice, political correctness, restrictions on freedom, cultural Marxism, tax productivity and spend on rent seekers -- all rotten food shoveled down throats. The asshole says enough and spits it out hot and painfully. |
09-12-2017 09:04 PM
#6957
| |
Is this true? | |
| |
09-12-2017 10:13 PM
#6958
| |
|
It's a messy term. The definition you cited is not consensus, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus anyways. I should have said "identity politics" because that cuts to the heart of what people who say "cultural Marxism" don't like about their idea of "cultural Marxism". |
09-12-2017 10:16 PM
#6959
| |
|
That definition is a good example of how people can think they're talking about the same thing yet aren't. Most who think "cultural Marxism" don't think it's a conspiracy but an idea that permeates cultures. Some who don't use it labeled the idea as depending on conspiracy. Both are kinda right and kinda wrong. |
09-16-2017 02:15 AM
#6960
| |
| |
| |
09-16-2017 02:17 AM
#6961
| |
| |
| |
09-16-2017 02:26 AM
#6962
| |
| |
| |
09-16-2017 12:45 PM
#6963
| |
|
I corrected to "identity politics". "Cultural Marxism" works for certain crowds and not for others. Here is probably the wrong crowd. |
09-16-2017 04:33 PM
#6964
| |
Yes, I know you have corrected yourself, and yet you chose to use it in the first place. I meant "why use it at all" | |
| |
09-20-2017 11:10 PM
#6965
| |
|
Looks like Graham/Cassidy healthcare bill could have what it needs to pass. |
09-20-2017 11:43 PM
#6966
| |
|
A silver lining may be that it appears the bill is structured in such a way that would make it very hard for states to not solve more problems than their politicians currently are. |
09-21-2017 05:36 AM
#6967
| |
| |
09-21-2017 05:42 AM
#6968
| |
Do you like it when they pass bills in secret, wuf? When only two senators know the content of said bill? | |
| |
09-21-2017 06:44 AM
#6969
| |
| |
09-21-2017 02:39 PM
#6970
| |
|
I am uninterested in what Kimmel, Seder, or Cassidy say about the bill or say about healthcare in general. I care about the facts and about the good economics and statistics reasoning that helps explain the facts. The points made by the three people I mentioned don't include much of that. |
09-21-2017 05:23 PM
#6971
| |
| |
| |
09-21-2017 06:50 PM
#6972
| |
| |
| |
09-22-2017 05:58 AM
#6973
| |
3rd straight night he's on this | |
| |
09-22-2017 01:00 PM
#6974
| |
| |
09-27-2017 03:16 PM
#6975
| |
|
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-for-seat.html |