BMW Receives U.S. Federal Support During Economic Crisis

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by bigearl

You are misunderstanding what I wrote. That's the gov't acting vs not acting, not the market. And the market didn't fluctuate on it's own. This was a reaction to commodities speculation and housing finance practices. Not just another black friday tailspin that never pulled up. This is no longer a market correction.

The way you and others have been wording themselves implies that markets do nothing. Bold - Lol wut?

[bigearl]

Markets don't do anything, people do. It's a cute convenience to anthropomorphise the "market". If you're arguing that no action should be taken despite the depth of or the precipitating event of a market collapse, then you are just out playing in philosophy land because that's an impractical solution in the modern money system. If you just want to talk philosophy, then more power to you. If you are talking about the real world, then economic philosophy as dogma falls apart about as quickly as every other school of philosophy.

[HeHasReturned]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Eff CHINA.. and EFF Japan.

I often laugh at the fear mongering that people have in regards to China, a country that would shrivel up like a grape in the sun if American business pulled out. If President Obama put a tax on all imported goods from China, killing incentive for American corporations, America's jobless rate would drop like metal ball off the Empire States,

So what's your point?

Username has been doing quite a good job of responding to you. Try responding to him

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by bigearl

Markets don't do anything, people do. It's a cute convenience to anthropomorphise the "market". If you're arguing that no action should be taken despite the depth of or the precipitating event of a market collapse, then you are just out playing in philosophy land because that's an impractical solution in the modern money system. If you just want to talk philosophy, then more power to you. If you are talking about the real world, then economic philosophy as dogma falls apart about as quickly as every other school of philosophy.

I do not criticize everyone who makes generalizations for the sake of simplicity. I mean, anyone here can sit here and tell you that there is no such thing as a collective of anything. However, using "markets" is a lot more simpler than saying "the individuals who make up the market and act separately but respond simultaneously to prices..."

The notion that only individuals act is one that is deeply rooted philosophy, notably of Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises. I'm not "arguing out of philosophy land." What market collapse are you talking about? You do realize that our "modern money system" is the actual problem? This fractional-reserve banking system is the key; the easy money policies of the fed causes malinvestments that distort actual wealth and prices, so the market, or the individuals who make up the market if you prefer, react by ridding themselves of items who are not as valuable as they once thought. TARP is just continuing the problem, considering it is the poison and not the cure. It is only pumping more easy credit into the system in the hopes of satisfying the concept of a circular flow, or spending/consumption, model of the economy. The only dogma is acting as if Bernanke has all the solutions to our problem; I for one want the plans of the many instead of the plans of the very, very few.

Also, the "lol wut" comment was directed as the idea that market corrections are not a response to speculative bubbles and bad government policies, such as the government mandated housing market you've mentioned. I'm just wondering why you did not address that instead of going off on random accusations of dogmatic philosophies? You wouldn't happen to read Krugman's blog would you?

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by a_Username

I find it hard to acknowledge any argument that is supposed to defend the markets while also saying a central bank has a "necessary duty." I.e., stop trying to defend capitalism by using government planning.

What are you talking about? This comment doesn't even make any sense. Defend capitalism by using government planning? What? Acting as a lender of last resort IS a primary duty of a central banking entity or a reserve bank.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

What? Acting as a lender of last resort IS a primary duty of a central banking entity or a reserve bank.

Which has nothing to do with capitalism. That's mercantilism.

There's a huge difference and we primarily operate as a mercantilist economy, minus most of the tariff policies nowadays. The Fed's "quantitative easing" to affect the "balance of trade" is straight from the mercantilist playbook.

Most people think we're a capitalist society but we aren't really any longer since the mercantilist economic philosophy became government policy in the Lincoln administration and took root without congressional opposition during the Civil War.

Our country once had a vigorous debate about the nature of economic policy before the Civil War with Henry Clay (and a young Lincoln) championing the "American System" which was nothing more than British mercantilism that was abandoned for Capitalism after we gained independence from Britain.

Mercantilism has been our Government's economic policy, under the banner of "Capitalism", since 1861.

All the things people hate about government spending are straight from mercantilist policies.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by 8cd03gro

What are you talking about? This comment doesn't even make any sense. Defend capitalism by using government planning? What? Acting as a lender of last resort IS a primary duty of a central banking entity or a reserve bank.

It's amazing to me that this is what people constitute as capitalism. A central bank is at the top of the fractional reserve hierarchy; it's "duties" are the product of Keynes's ridiculous fallacies and econometrics. The gold standard, not paper notes, is the money of the free market.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by a_Username

It's amazing to me that this is what people constitute as capitalism. A central bank is at the top of the fractional reserve hierarchy; it's "duties" are the product of Keynes's ridiculous fallacies and econometrics. The gold standard, not paper notes, is the money of the free market.

And I have been saying for a very long time that we are not a true capitalist society, nor are we a completely free market. Our current model is much, much, much more complex than that, meaning a lot of notions reflective of "pure" economic models are irrelevant.

Which is why economic theory and arguments based off of it are little more than interesting conversation. It's a lot like predicting the weather....they know how it's supposed to work.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

And I have been saying for a very long time that we are not a true capitalist society, nor are we a completely free market. Our current model is much, much, much more complex than that, meaning a lot of notions reflective of "pure" economic models are irrelevant.

Any person who has any knowledge of history whatsoever should know that we are far from a free society or free market nor have we ever been so. Our current model is frankly crap; it's full of Keynesian, nay mercantile, fallacies. The problem I have is that people always blame the market. It just can't be the Federal Reserve, our government policies and laws, unions, etc.

I do not see how explaining what has happened and the solution for it to be "irrelevant." It is in "pure" economic models that every failure and success can be deduced from.

Which is why economic theory and arguments based off of it are little more than interesting conversation. It's a lot like predicting the weather....they know how it's supposed to work.

To the contrary, most economists denied that something like this could happened. They got too comfortable with their equations while being blind to actual economics.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by a_Username

The problem I have is that people always blame the market. It just can't be the Federal Reserve, our government policies and laws, unions, etc.

True, and I'd go so far as to say most, if not all, of the major economic downturns in the US were directly caused by government intervention. Even as far back as the panic of 1837 was caused by government policy.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Eff CHINA.. and EFF Japan.

I often laugh at the fear mongering that people have in regards to China, a country that would shrivel up like a grape in the sun if American business pulled out. If President Obama put a tax on all imported goods from China, killing incentive for American corporations, America's jobless rate would drop like metal ball off the Empire States,

So what's your point?

Actually I at this point I fear we've fed China a bit too much. We're way too co-dependent to pull all our business dealings out of China, but if we did somehow manage to do it, China is (in my opinion) strong enough to come knocking on our door if you know what I mean. What they lack in technology (that gap is quickly closing too) they make up for in sheer numbers.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Berean

Which has nothing to do with capitalism. That's mercantilism.

There's a huge difference and we primarily operate as a mercantilist economy, minus most of the tariff policies nowadays. The Fed's "quantitative easing" to affect the "balance of trade" is straight from the mercantilist playbook.

Most people think we're a capitalist society but we aren't really any longer since the mercantilist economic philosophy became government policy in the Lincoln administration and took root without congressional opposition during the Civil War.

Our country once had a vigorous debate about the nature of economic policy before the Civil War with Henry Clay (and a young Lincoln) championing the "American System" which was nothing more than British mercantilism that was abandoned for Capitalism after we gained independence from Britain.

Mercantilism has been our Government's economic policy, under the banner of "Capitalism", since 1861.

All the things people hate about government spending are straight from mercantilist policies.

Man, all these educational postings in here, who needs college! I'll just soak it all up from you guys! Good stuff though, seriously.

[Byron]

What about most of GM'S money going to GM in Brazil? Just a another to large to fail oh well I guess I will just pay back my loan with worthless dollars do to inflation.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Byron

What about most of GM'S money going to GM in Brazil? Just a another to large to fail oh well I guess I will just pay back my loan with worthless dollars do to inflation.