Yeah, no shit, Greenspan, because you and your Fed cronies have essentially told big banks, "If you do stupid shit, fuck it, we'll give you more money." Humans are greedy, and if you tell them, "You can do whatever the fuck you want and you'll be protected" they're going to do whatever the fuck they want. So it's YOUR fault. This is fucking stupid.
The best regulation that we don't have is failure. If the fat cats could go under like everyone else they wouldn't run these derivative scams and fractional reserve lending. End the fed or kiss this country goodbye.
What a joke, Greenspan himself removed the incentive for self interest by essentially guaranteeing that the banks would be bailed out upon failure. Furthermore this in-fact makes it uncompetitive for a bank not to take on the riskier deals, as it will fall behind its competitors, who are also insured to do the same.
RON PAUL 2012, deregulation and deconstruction of the Fed is the only way - get back to the true old American Capitalism.
Good way for Greenspan to scapegoat the banks so no one pays attention to the actions of the Fed. The Fed kept interest rates artificially low and expanded the suppy of credit that led to the housing bubble.
@FarmingFractals So simple, yet thick skull socialists are still saying the same thing. Yeah, just throw some regs on it cause that's worked in the past.
I'm sorry. How did he 'destroy deregulation'? He made a statement without providing any facts surrounding the situation. Deregulation was not the problem. Government intervention as a safety net for corrupt companies was the problem.
you can't be in the middle. you're either a socialist or you believe in free markets. we know socialism doesn't work, no free society has ever existed that doesn't organize its economic activity in one way or another through free enterprise. there is no alternative so far discovered to free markets, and if you really look at this crisis and others like it you will see that the failure is not with the market, but with the government that thought it knew best.
@Welsh77 what a load of tosh! ""there is no alternative so far discovered to free markets" WHAT? what about totalitarian in china where its only partially free? north korea is communist- these are not free markets but what is produced is what the government decides to make- there is no also market mechanism to allocate these resources.
I would be interested to hear you justify your claim that it is all the governments fault! You should try at least as opposed to assertinga partially false view
The mistake Greenspan did, was to put interest rates artificially low by printing money. At the same time govt. was promising banks that they did not have to worry about default, as fannie and freddie would step to the rescue. There go, the best self-interest is to take the highest risks, as the losses would fall on someone else. The market worked as expected, and the govt and fed interfere that paved the way. Any understanding austrinaeconomy could see this happening.
I think what Greenspan meant that was deregulation would work as he presumed no institution would partake in actions that would wipe itself and it's industry out.... Which when you think about it, was a logical (but flawed) assumption to make! In all I blame the Govt more than Wall Street, if the Govt made these lenders face up to their actions, we would have had a few very tough years but we would have emerged with a stronger (and smaller) financial system.
Greenspan is a Piece of trash. glass stegall repeal REQUIRED REPEAL OF ALL GSEs fannie freddie, etc. AND FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO STOP GIVING WALLSTREET LOW and ZERO INTEREST RATE LOANS TO GAMBLE WITH! THIS IS BULL . GTH fake-RANDIST GREENSPAN HOMO
This is one of the most important statements of the 21st century. Mr. Greenspan admits he was wrong to have killed so many regulations. Beware of politicians, such as Republicans, who say "the markets regulate themselves". It's a lie. Monopolies and Subprimes are two huge examples of this lie.
@ruirodtube Subprime lending is a great example of government regulation trashing the economy. The Affordable Housing Act resulted in terrible lending practices.
@CaramelMarshmallow There was no regulation in subprime lending. No oversight. No investigation. Banks were conducting since 2001 a "lenders lie" by giving millions of people loans they couldn't repay, lying on the statements, because subprime had more risk, and therefore more profit to them. Firms were rating those subprime AAA, saying later those were "opinions", and all the gvt agencies were looking away because they didn't want to regulate the markets.
@ruirodtube Between 1992 and 3004 Fannie Mae's affordable housing goals were raised from 30% to up to 55% of all her loans that were mandated to be issued to low income housing buyers. When FNMA entered receivership Sept. 7 2008 she had asset of $5.6TN - she issued nearly half of the U.S $12TN mortgage market. If you were in the mortgage business, this was your competition. This and the Fed's near zero interest rates for 8 years constitutes massive regulation, or interference in the market.
@ruirodtubeYour looking at a symptom of Keynesian economics.Paul Volcker, one of Obama's economic advisers said "the amount of credit creation which is reflected on the asset and liability side of the finance and investment firms has come home to roost. The credit/gnp in the market use to be even, but now its 300%-400%." This is how the fed creates an illusion of prosperity, but really its just leverage and consumption, instead of savings and production.Don't be fooled by the machine
This is not a case against deregulation. This is actually the opposite. He is saying that the incentives under the excessive amount of banking regulation were so poor that when they romoved one part of it, the whole system fell apart. The government was forcing banks to make riskier loans than they would have under free-market conditions, and guaranteeing the bundles of subprime loans so that they would get a higher rating and be more appealing to investors, among other things.
@eklipst2x He didn't say that. You did. The free market system is as flawed as the pure socialist system. When people can hide and offset risk onto another entity that will always lead to disaster. I agree that the government should not force banks to increase mortgage lending, but the excessive lending was ALSO spurred by market incentives to keep the derivatives party going. Telling yourself regulation is the problem is an easy way to sleep at night, but it won't help us avoid this again.
The irony of the whole thing is that whenever there is a financial crisis (like in 2008) what does the government do? Governments help the big banks take over the small ones. They say, "More efficient." No! It really just makes the monetary system even more brittle. The total monopoly of Bank-Debt Money is killing us over and over again! We need MORE diversity and interconnectivity in our monetary system, not less.
Do any of you read Ludwig Mises? Capitalism can work, and has, it is the basis for innovation and technological advancement. Do you believe that the government would have created something like the internet of it's own will and given us the power that it has? Hell no. It was brought to us by the market. Look at Steve Jobs as the most recent example, he epitomizes the innovation that occurs in a free market. He changed the entire world through capitalism.
Governments seek power, as they have done through all of history. The more they get, they more they want. It is because the government itself is subject to the same corruptions that the market is, only it also wields the power to write laws. That is why true free enterprise can ONLY function when government and corporations are separate entities.
Human nature is corrupt, but I would rather deal with it in a free market where a corporations' greed will bury them eventually, (through lawsuits, bad PR, etc) than live in a system where those SAME people ALSO have the ability to write laws and regulations that usually hamper productivity and put more financial strain on small businesses. The only time the government should regulate a corporation is if it is directly infringing on personal property or rights.
What we have now is not capitalism, it is a system where the biggest players get to write laws and always make their money back through the Federal Reserve. It's corporate socialism for the big corporations and capitalism for everyone else. Those banks should have fallen, THAT would have been CAPITALISM. In a truly free market they would reap what they sow instead of being bailed out at our expense while the smaller banks crumble with no help. Smaller banks would have prospered in their demise.
@TruthRisen Sorry to burst your bubble, but computers and the internet were created by the federal government. This idealism that government has no positive place in society can only be believed if you forget the last 150 years. The highways, trains, airplanes, power grid, computers, satellites, solar energy, and nuclear energy were all possible from a federal governments effort to create them.
Listen, you're a foaming at the mouth, confused idiot who cannot understand something without misrepresenting and marginalizing everyone to fit into your skewed concepts of what the ideology is. You fail to detect nuance, or how Monetarists, Austrians, Fiscal, et all. are resoundingly different. You also cannot talk about things in a calm, reasonable or rational fashion. You're like the Glen Beck of youtube. Good for you.
Why do you think *All* libertarians are students of Milton Friedman? The middle class? Where did it come from? Ever heard of a thing called "The division of labor"? Specialization? Global warming? What about property rights? Do industrialists have the "right" to destroy the planet? Who owns the planet? Individuals or a community comprised of individuals? Many Libertarians lean towards the latter. Do you think that the system we live in now is a "Capitalist" system? Why can't you speak calmly?
You've been antagonizing me and these ideas, and notice I haven't made one militant comment on "DA EVILS OB SOCALIZM" because I, a rational, critical thinking human being, know that these matters are not so open and shut, and just because Che loved to shoot women and children doesn't mean that Noam Chomsky is a monster.
@KCatalano88 WTF? Shall I answer MY question for you? BTW shoot your self in the fucking face for that comment on Chomsky - and SOCIALISM and communism are different. And my position is based on 1) CRITICAL importance for change 2) Reality of the world 3) A jawdropping but VERY plausible prediction - NONE of which are refutable.
Now MORON lets do the wealth concentration thing.
1) The model of economists for people IS FUCKING INSANE and has NOTHING to do with people. In fact there are only 2
@StunnedByStupidity types of people who act like economists. 1) economists and 2) well I wont spoil the fun:
':: Us, the psychopaths : Game theory and market democracy :: ' on youtube
And this is backed by this:
'Research Contends Stock Traders More Reckless than Psychopaths ' google it. Now I don't know how much you know about the psychopathic personality but if Greenspan thinks they are 'rational' he is fucking INSANE! BTW its also just about impossible for anyone to kill a person without
@StunnedByStupidity either being vigorously drilled and dehumanised OR BEING A PSYCHOPATH. Thats right wars are fought by PSYCHOPATHS and the brain washed - the basis of CAPITALISM expansion over the last several hundred years!
Corporations have nasty traits AS WELL:
':: Corporation : Clinical Diagnosis (PCLR) :: ' on you tube.
BTW Ayn Rand SHOUTS psychopath! So the whole ideology is psychopathic! Even Adam Smith thought capitalists should be kept from political influence!
@StunnedByStupidity The drive for doing NON MANUAL work is THE DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what capitalists CLAIM. There was NO noticeable reduction in desire to make money when taxes were 70-95% during 'the golden age' of capitalism than there is now. And paying people more GETS WORSE RESULTS!!!!
'RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us ' on you tube
Happiness DOES NOT increase with more money below a VERY low level (around $20,000 per year). It does increase
@StunnedByStupidity above this level but only if you have no friends - where it will SLOWLY and by diminishing returns increase up to $50-75,000 per year - still WAY lower than the BAT SHIT CRAZY delusion we both know you harbour in you moronic brain that one day you will be a millionaire...
Now the HUNDREDS of peer reviewed papers that show that income inequality causes a DECREASE in social mobility, happiness, life expectancy, freedom of the press, democracy, empathy, friendliness,
@StunnedByStupidity and an INCREASE, in bullying in schools, obesity, drug taking, violent crimes, rates of incarceration, sexism, racism, homophobia, in fact just about EVERY social indicator is -ve affected by wealth concentration!
'Talk - Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett - Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger ' on you tube
Oh, and there is the rate of growth - which has HALVED since the high taxed period.
The POOR create the jobs (again standing your version of reality on its
'Hartmann - Fox News Doesn't Know Jack about Economics or Food Stamps ' on you tube
BTW the corporations are sitting on $2,000,000,000,000 - AND THEY WANT MORE! They have made out like fucking bandits:
'Shocking Fact About Rich Americans ' on you tube - just TRY to fucking justify that level of fucking greed. Oh and the HIGH TAXED Scandinavian countries ARE THE BEST COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET and how many Americans want that wealth distribution?
This polarized, black and white method of observing economics is one of the biggest reasons why nobody can seem to come to a consensus. There is no "Flawless" system, and Libertarians don't believe their infallible (The intelligent ones.) But there is cause and effect, and 2008's massive bubble-burst and consequential deleveraging started in the Fed, and ended in the Banks. You're the shameless one for politicizing a science.
@KCatalano88 Yeah and THE best ways have already been abandoned. Libertarians are based on an anti science anti reality and INSANE model of humanity - which BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION dont do facts nor empiricism. The problem is the group of people that are attracted to this nutty ideology are the most bigoted, arrogant and nasty element of society (that statement is SCIENTIFICALLY backed BTW)- and they dress it up in propaganda a 5 year old could see through The FED DID WHAT THE CAPITALISTS WANTED
You uh, do realize there are hundreds upon hundreds of schools of thought within Libertarianism? Even disagreements within those schools? Why are those people who believe in Non-Agression "Nasty"? Do you really believe that Libertarians oppose social and economic justice? The fed did what "Capitalists" wanted? Which "Capitalists"? Crony capitalists? Corporatists? Austrian economists don't even believe that interest rates can be fixed because it skews the mechanism..
...of price discovery. It seems for someone who is so diametrically opposed to Libertarianism, you know very little or next to nothing about it. I'm stunned by your stupidity, stunnedbystupidity.
@KCatalano88 And price discovery after the greatest crash in human history and the GREATEST THREAT TO LIFE ON THE PLANET - IGNORED BY THE FUCKING MARKET - LIKE I SAID YOU ARE FUCKING INSANE...
Speak sensically, calm, and with reason or don't speak at all. The fact that you can espouse nonsense like this, screaming, probably all white-knuckled as your pound your keys somewhere on the cross-roads of bedlam and hell, and then have the audacity to call anyone else a loon or insane is mind boggling.
@KCatalano88 The primary school is the Austrians. And you will find on you tube the overwhelming majority back Koch bollocks and Ron Paul - BTW if libertarianism is right because of so may different 'schools' so is communism, fascism and anarchism... This hair splitting is TYPICAL right wing loon territory... Look Greenspan is a Randian freemarketeer -as are the majority of the scum who support Paul...And yes NASTY and you will point to the dissenting capitalist class eh? PLEASE FUCK OFF LOON...
Okay, so Greenspan WAS a member of the Objectivist "Collective" 30 years ago but he's effectively gone against everything he's believed in since. There's nothing "Free market" about Greenspan. What similarities does Libertarianism have to Communism? Or Fascism? They're the polar opposite, the method of political action supported by Libertarians is non-violence. Volition. Not using force to achieve political, social or economic goals. You clearly don't understand, buddy.
@KCatalano88 Yeah UNDER PROTEST - and AGAIN with the dis-ingenuousness - he has not gone in the diametric opposite way he has leaned where ever possible towards it (BTW AGAIN right wingers are stunning hypocrites - see Rand and health care and Greenspan and government job, Koch and price fixing - it is part of their fucking make up). And markets ARE FUCKING FREER than when he took power - this mythical fucking 'free market' that you INSANE wankers profess has ner happened and NEVER WILL
@StunnedByStupidity because NO ONE fucking wants them - you'd have to be INSANE to or be a nasty Libertarain fucking bigot... And reread your logic and stop being wilfully stupid on the communism thing... And spare me all the BOLLOCKS about what libertarianism is SUPPOSED to be IT LEADS TO FASCISM - you moron...
I just don't understand where you're drawing these ideas from. Rand does not speak for libertarians. Greenspan does not speak for libertarians, quite the opposite. He's become quite Keynesian. How are markets "freeer"? By dissipating Glass Steagall? Libertarians mostly opposed that measure. If a "market" is made "free", by enabling someone to fraud someone else, that is not "Freedom". Nobody has the right to act fraudulently. That's what they believe.
@KCatalano88 WTF? Look libertarians are MONSTROUS selfish bastards which fit in with Randian insanity... Greenspan is mainstream libertarianism - look moron you might have some out there version of the philosophy but the version that is being pushed mainstream is that pushed by the Koch think tanks - CATO, CEI, Heritage, etc... And libertarians were against market liberalization? OK, you've lost me now I bet you are for unions, taxes and government as well - SPARE ME LUNATIC...
Koch has nothing to do with the CATO Institute besides marginal influence. There's a difference between Market Liberalisation and De-regulating crime. You are speaking in a broad, sweeping rhetoric and you're making broad generalizations without citing any context. This conversation was pointless, despite how fascinating your black-and-white up-is-down lunacy may be. Please, I implore you, read more, think more, and talk less.
@KCatalano88 This getting PATHETIC now. David Koch SET UP CATO - and the brothers have gicven AT LEAST $100 MILLION to maintaining the think tanks - sheez... And hair split all you fucking like you moron (this is EXACTLY my initial point about you disingenuous wankers). And ***I*** am speaking in broad generalisations? OH THE FUCKING IRONY... And stay away from the ballot box moron - you protofascist...
Well I didn't know that! Regardless that's one (1) valid point you've made without addressing any one of the twenty some odd questions I've asked you, or asking you to clarify the things you've already said. Getting the last word doesn't legitimize your argument and it doesn't mean you "win", so unless you intend to actually counter-argue the things I've said or speak to something pertaining to the context of the argument, then fuck off.
Dude. Artificially depressed key interest rates in relation to the recession, M1 quantification, The Axiom of non-aggression, "Deregulating Criminal Acts" versus "Market Liberalization", "Many libertarians believe in social and economic justice", "Bleeding Heart Libertarianism", et all. You didn't address a single thing I said pertaining to any of my comments or questions. You just attacked a scarecrow of your own construction. Congratulations, you can debate yourself.
@KCatalano88 Look up .monetarism' PUSHED BY THE LIBERTARIAN MILTON FUCKING FRIEDMAN - sheez... And aggression is what CAPITALISM is based on - profits drop as completion and market saturation maifests - THUS THE MILITARY TO FORCE OPEN NEW MARKETS AND SEAL RESOURCES - you ever read a fucking book? And deregulation WAS criminal and pushed by people like Wendy FUCKING Gramm - a leader of a LIBERTARIAN THINK TANK - and GREENSPAN A FUCKING LIBERTARIAN - and THE CAPITALIST CLASS!
@StunnedByStupidity And I am DYING to hear how libertarians suggest social justice happens under their freemarket fucking rules - LIKE I KEEP FUCKING SAYING - YES - THESE WANKERS ***CLAIM*** ALL KINDS OF FUCKING MORAL BOLLOCKS - ***BUT THE FUCKING REALITY IS THE DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE****. And the reason I didn't address these complete BOLLOCKS is because they are so fucking OBVIOUSLY wrong! Its like you asking me why the world is flat - WHEN IT FUCKING ISN'T!
@StunnedByStupidity class come from? How it the 'free market' gona fight global warming? How THE FUCK is the next crash gona be handled? How THE FUCK can we have any more growth on this finite planet?
@StunnedByStupidity And, having already waited 30 FUCKING YEARS, how much longer does the middle and working classes have to wait for a fucking pay rise?
@KCatalano88 It leads to fascism because FIRST it reduces wealth distribution (cutting taxes, destroying unions/worker collective action), and all breaks on MASSIVE power and wealth concentration. It then liberalises government enough for the rich to get their tentacles entwined. It then slaughters the greater part of democracy by cutting back on government - ITS VERY SIMPLE MORON. Oh and BTW this is NOT conjecture:
This is an oversimplification packed with loaded statements, you can't *really* believe that political constructions follow such a formulaic path. This is no different from a quasi-libertarian Novacian saying "Charity leads to communism!". What is wealth? How does a "Rich capitalist" obtain wealth in a volitional and collaborative society? Is "wealth" the corrupter, the catalyst? What can be corrupted if the parameters of law are succient?
@KCatalano88 Oh here we go again - mopre fucking hair splitting. Look MORON I aint claiming (contrary - and ironically after you childish protestation - to your straw man) that there are ANY absolutes - the point is drifts TOWARDS you insane ideology MAKES THINGS WORSE - the greater the drift the worse it gets! Sheez... And the capitalist does it by EXPLOITATION - BUT THIS IRRELEVANT - it doesnt matter how its the fact that money and power have been excessively concentrated
@StunnedByStupidity MAKING THINGS WORSE FOR EVERYONE! And Law is CORRUPTED by power - you are like some fucking 5 year old - should I talk in baby language - ga ga goo goo... Yes dear on some planet where abstractions exists I'm sure all this makes sense to a child but reality is littered with complexity... And the ONLY negatives from redistribution is increase in suicide - now WANKER you have painted yourself into a VERY VERY VERY VERY tricky corner - which you are about to CATASTROPICALLY
@StunnedByStupidity lose. What are the negative effects fo wealth CONCENTRATION - I suggest you run at this point 'cos this is gona come out VERY bad for you...
What are the negative consequences of pure re distributional egalitarianism? How does that effect capital formation? How does that effect capital investment? Where does "Wealth" come from? Where do jobs come from?
Buddy, I recommend you stop having these knee jerk reactions, and go read some things. You have this very ugly, misinformed idea of what Libertarians believe and it correlates to nothing but a misrepresentation. "Biggoted"? People who believe in individual liberties are biggots? Nasty? Racist? Where are you coming up with this stuff?
Furthermore, your violence and polemical reactions indicates that you're speaking primarily from a defensive, if not insecure stance. Your ability to marginalize, over-simplify, and demonize ideologies that you don't understand speaks for your staggering ignorance and high-school level of maturity.
@KCatalano88 Look my 'violence' is NOTHING compared to what you WANKERS are doing - NOTHING... And I'm insecure? WTF? So being APPALLED at what you fuckers are doing to the fucking people of the planet and biosphere is 'insecurity'? SEEK HELP...
What about artificially maintaining a low key interest rate for way too long, allowing for reserve requirements to be circumvented and the M1 to become over-leveraged? The poncey bastard.
"I made a mistake in presuming government regulations wouldn't favor particular corporations while making it impossible for small businesses to sustain themselves." Ah look, a single sentence that destroys regulation
Hey, by the way, everyone, scroll down about halfway down the page, and you'll see that vindician wants to abolish the state so that he can go around killing people and taking their stuff.
Alan Greenspan believed in a ideology peddled by Ayn Rand a Russian lady who wrote a book in the 50s called 'Atlas Shrugged' which championed selfishness as a positive means of doing business, and look where that got the world! Greenspan should be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff!
this country wasn't discovered by israel.yet we have a jewish fed .look we have to tax the rich jews and get the money back they stole from america.the gop will defend them because they support the jews.tax the rich jews.
The REAL philosophy of society, reality, and human nature: even the charitable are only looking after themselves, selfishness is unavoidable, individuals determine the greateness of society. The quality of the people determines the quaity of their government, their businesses, their society. You don't need government for a good society, you need good people. There are many ways to regulate "evil doers", including beating them up, use of laws, police, or social rejection. Individuals run it all
Okay, this vid only proves why deregulation MUST occur. We have not had capitalism in this country for over a century. We have corporatism / fascism. That is when BIG governemnt and BIG business are in bed with each other. The kind of regulations from government we have had for decades actually SUPPORTS the big banks, big corproations, and SHAFTS the American people. If there was no regulation, banks could not feed off taxpayer money through the bailouts, and would think twice before bad loan
@wusldusl1000 Yes, and they can pretty much do it when they want to. The government cannot influence, cause the Fed and any other Central Bank are a private bank.
@tonygmilan7 See how you are indeed the idiot! I NEVER said bank runs would occur with 100% reserve banking, but that the Profit-motive will always inevitably transform any "free market full-reserve banking system" INTO A FRACTIONAL RESERVE SYSTEM, which unavoidably leads to "bank runs"!! Why don't you get your facts straight before speaking?
@vindician Again... GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT!! I never said a full-reserve bank system could not be profitable, BUT THAT IT DOES NOT MAXIMIZE PROFITS (can you actually understand the difference?). PROFIT MAXIMIZATION can just be achieved with a fractional reserve system. That's why in a free market, a greedy banker on the lack of regulation will ALWAYS choose a fractional reserve bank over a full reserved one!! Or how do you plan to FORCE them to go for a full-reserve banking? With coercion?
@jrvillela A full-reserve system maximizes profit just like any other industry. You don't maximize profit by committing fraud. You don't have to force full-reserve banking on anyone, you need only combat fraud and counterfeiting. Anarchism doesn't mean a society void of rules. Violations of private property, such as fraud and counterfeiting, wouldn't be tolerated in a private law society.
I hope all you Ron-Paulonites realize that Ron's medicine for the economy is simply a stronger dose of the medicine promoted by Greenspan, i.e. the faith that self-interest and the magical hand of the market will bring about harmony in our economic life.
@vindician Greenspan has promoted freer (deregulated) financial markets since at least the 90's. But you're right, he's not as fundamentalist in his faith in the "classical" economic model as is Ron Paul.
@Goodworker Oh yeah? Howcome the Federal Register increases by 80,000 pages per year? Howcome there were 115 different agencies regulating and supervising the US financial markets in 2008? Howcome there were more than 12,000 full time regulators on the federal level alone?
Give one example, ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of Greenspan advocating deregulation of the financial markets.
Like everyone else, you don't know the first thing about the financial markets.
@vindician One example? You could start by watching the above 17 seconds-long video, in which Greenspan essentially says that although he use to be a staunch proponent of laissez-faire economics, he now recognizes that this model has some serious flaws when applied in real life.
@Goodworker Greenspan is and was a liar for the regime and later on a liar for himself. Just because a government bureaucrat says he is for laissez-faire doesn't mean he is or ever was. Greenspan never worked for a more free economy. To the contrary, he cemented the banking-congress cartel we have today. Central banks, fiat money and fractional-reserve has nothing to with laissez-faire. This you would know if you knew the first thing about economics and the financial markets. But you don't.
@vindician And if your statement about increasing red tape and agencies were true during the 90's and 00's, it clearly shows that better regulation does not necessarily follow from this fact. Clearly, some sectors of the financial markets that were not properly regulated and an individualistic and greedy environment cultivated by this self-interested/laissez-faire economic model are responsible for the bubble and crisis that followed.
@Goodworker Every single aspect of the financial sector was over regulated. What uneducated people like you fail to understand is that it is precisely the regulations that give financial institutions all their privileges. Thanks to the regulation, they can leverage up 40 times, create money out of thin air and get bailed out when things go bad. Only an orwellian tool like yourself would concede that the markets are "free" despite all the agencies, pages of regulations and full time regulators.
@vindician True! A free market has NEVER existed, and most likely it never will. Just think about this: in order to exist a market requires A STATE in order (1) to protect private property, (2) to protect competition (since capitalists naturally tend to collude and displace the competition forming cartels and monopolies), (3) to issue the money the market needs as "mean of exchange", and (4) to protect society from the externalities the same market creates. In other words: a FREE market is BS!!
@jrvillela The state can't protect private property because its very existance violates private property. The free market doesn't require any state. Neither cartels or monopolies have ever endured without government protection. The market can and have produced private money for 1000s of years, and it has also dealt with so called externalities quite well without the state. Your every assumption is wrong, maybe because you've never read an economics or text book in your entire life.
@vindician "The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government". GUESS WHO WROTE THAT, YOU RETARDED MORON?!!
@jrvillela Adam Smith was in many ways a statist. His claim that a free market needs a state is of no more importance or weight than Greenspan's or any other pro-state advocate. A market can't be perfectly free with a state. It can be very free even with a state, if the role of the state is significantly limited. It does not require a state though.
Paul Samuelson had a degree too. He wrote the most used economics text book in history, yet he was adamant that the USSR would overtake the US.
@vindician So you are calling "the father of the invisible hand" A STATIST?!! HAHA!! AMAZING!! Equally ridiculous things I have heard just from god believers. Ok, so I got your idea of a "Free Market" A MARKET THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED!! JUST IN YOUR MIND AND IN THE MINDS OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS!! How is that less uthopic as, for example, a society free of state and free of markets where all economic decisions are taken based on the availability of resources and science?
@jrvillela Adam Smith was not an anarchist. He thought the state was legitimate = statist. Utopia is simply a society that is incompatible with human nature. Anarcho-capitalism is very compatible with human nature = not a utopia. I really don't understand why you get so worked up. It's not that revolutionary, and there are many instances of private law societies in history.
@vindician Really? Well, that's funny, cuz I'm Anarchist too, just I think we can get rid of the State and the Market altogether! Now, when you bring up "human nature" you are getting into serious troubles, you know? Because if evolutionary biology has made something clear is that the concept of "nature" is not absolut and static: but always changing, always adapting itself to the environment. What do you mean then with "human nature"?
@jrvillela I don't want to get rid of the market, I want to get rid of the state, or at least let people create stateless societies without being aggressed against.
Humans act purposefully, and the purpose of action is to improve the individual's welfare. Humans are also individualistic creatures.
@jrvillela If you don't want a market, does it mean you don't want people to trade and cooperate? What on earth is coercive about audits? Do you even know what an audit is?There is nothing coercive about respecting people's property rights. Or do you think people should be free to murder and steal at will?
The American West had a very well functioning private law system before government took it over, as had Iceland and Ireland among others.
@vindician No, it means that trade won't be necessary, not that I don't want them to trade. And where the heck do you see cooperation in a market economy? I just see fierce competition all around!! Yes, I know what an audit is, and it implies control from an exterior agency who wants to hold you accountable for something. No, there is nothing coercive about respecting ppl's rights, but private property of the means of production is what is coercitive!!
@jrvillela What do you mean trade won't be necessary? There is cooperation all over the market. Every workplace, every business, every store. We cooperate with each other every single day. What is wrong with holding people accountable? That is a good thing, a necessary thing for any functioning society. And there is absolutely nothing coercive about private property. Without it, the society degenerates down to a hellish nightmare of violence and misery.
@vindician COOPERATION?!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!! That's called: BUSINESS!! We don't cooperate for the sake of helping each other: just a bunch of individuals looking for their own benefit!! That's not cooperation: that's self-interest!! And certainly the lowest form of self-interest: just for the money!!
What's wrong with holding people accountable? In a coercitive society: nothing!
@jrvillela Cooperation isn't about helping each other, although that is a consequence of cooperation. It's about voluntary exchange in order to achieve mutually advantageous outcomes. Self-interest promotes cooperation. And like I said, in your world it would be nothing wrong with burning downs someone's house, because you're not allowed to hold anyone accountable for doing so.
@vindician "Without P.P. the society degenerates down to a hellish nichtmare of violence and misery"?!! Look, I could laugh about that claim, but I will keep it respectful: For about 194,000 years human beings lived without any P.P. whatsoever, also the native American societies didn't know anything about P.P. until the arrival of the Colonizers in the West. That idea you have of "hellish nightmare" is not fact based but the product of decades of endoctrination and capitalistic propaganda.
@jrvillela Many native Americans had very strong concepts about private property. Not to mention the fact that they in many cases lived a very brutish existence and fought bloody wars against each other. In other words, they were human.
@vindician Again: I invite you to study history. But not just the recent one: the history since "Homo Sapiens" first appeared on earth 200,000 years ago. Today, thanks to Anthropology and the advances in Genetics we have come to know many aspects of how human beings lived long before writing appeared. To begin I strongly recommend you Jared Diamond's superb "Guns, Germs and Steel". But beware: it will radically change the way you have been thinking about us and our history!!
@vindician And damn it! You are starting to speak like those religious freaks I debate with about god! No I don´t think it is right to murder, and it is exactly because I'm against stealing that I oppose private property of the means of production!! What do you know about its origins? Do you know when and how it appeared? It was a fucking robbery against the society and its origins are full of all those things you consider wrong!!
@vindician Well, the abolishion of Private Property does not mean nobody will own anything, everybody will have their house, personal belongings required for a living, and so on, but just the means of production become common property.
With "origins" I mean the "historical origins of Private Property (P.P.)". Contrary to what most ppl believe, P.P. has not always existed: and its origins is a history of violence, abuse, exploitation, deception, murder and thef.
@jrvillela How can anyone own a product, if one can't own what produces it. Without private property there are no market prices, and without market prices there is no way of coordinating production over time. it would be impossible to know how much to produce of what, not to mention making investments.
Private property comes from the ownership of your body. You rants about murder and violence is completely nonsensical.
Actually, private property does not come from having ownership of one's body. If that were true then only bodies would be upheld as property, because all else would simply be the application of one's body upon materials. If you take a piece of wood, and craft it, then would you say you now own that beam? You could claim this, sure, but then you would have to first claim that the piece of wood was also yours, along with the tree it was taken from and the land the tree grew upon.
And if that is the claim, then you must first demonstrate why this land was created first for you, and you alone. I do not believe you can do this, and if you cannot, then your claims of legitimate ownership are null and void before you even begin.
If however, you do not make this claim, and claim only that the wood was unclaimed until you made use of it, then you run into another problem, since the derivative of ownership in this model stems ONLY from the application of your body upon material
This then means that if I take your crafted piece of wood and craft it further, it now becomes MINE, and no longer YOURS. The application of my body upon the material presented to me is precisely the same claim as yours upon the uncrafted piece of wood. The only way to prevent this transfer of ownership would be to withhold the piece of wood from me, to deny me the opportunity to make it my own.
Who prevents me from simply taking it from you, if I am able to do so? Oh, yeah, the State. ;)
The State is the true origin of the notion of private property, because only the State can seek to legitimately arbitrate between two claims of ownership. All else is merely a contest of personal might between the two of us, in which case all claims are rendered invalid save for the most basic: the most forceful (that is, the possessor of the greatest level of coercion) takes all.
Thus, anarcho-capitalism is not only a contradiction in terms, but also merely a return to Jungle Law, not freedom.
The only tenable anarchistic society is the anarcho-communist model (which is, in fact, the ACTUAL communist model), which details a lack of both private property AND a lack of a State. In this model there is no arbiter, but there is also no need for one, as divisions of property (the catalyst for conquest and competition) have also been removed.
Of course, this model has its own issues, as it would need to be adopted by ALL before it could become efficient, and any transitory period will fail.
Why? Because any transitory period will remain capitalist until the framework of capitalism is removed entirely. As demonstrated by any and all attempts to achieve this, such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, this goal is unattainable with our human mindset; so long entrenched within the notion of personal loss and gain manifested by wealth and ownership.
Do not forget: the Soviet Union was never communist, it merely had a Communist Party that instituted State-run capitalism.
Therefore, anarchistic society from either direction is unattainable, for the notion of property dissolves without the coercion of the State to back it up (resulting in the tyranny of the individual), and the transition to a property-less society results in the tyranny of the State's coercion as it seeks to impose such a lacking.
The only true path to freedom is by elevating the body (the only TRUE possession anyone has), and the ability to maintain it's health above property in legislation.
Thus, private property and the exercise of control over it is both permitted and defended by the State, but only where it does not infringe upon the ability of another person to maintain their body. That is, for example: no individual can prevent another individual from taking food to prevent starvation simply because they 'own' it, or prevent another individual from medical access for a similar reason.
Yet who determine the conditions and criteria for such need and entitlement?
Well, that is best determined by an executive and legislative government that is directed by the populace to satisfy the wishes and opinion of the majority of people, with appropriate legislation detailing what cannot be imposed upon an individual by this very government.
In short: political democracy, individual rights and socialization of wealth and resources that are deemed necessary for human survival and dignity within our society.
@Lodatzor Political democracy is an anathema to individual rights, as is the socialization of wealth and resources. Far from being necessary for human survival and dignity, democracy and socialization have proven the very downfall of humanity.
You speak of socialization. Humans make societies, it's part of being human (humanity).
Pherhaps you meant something more along the lines of socialism.
Since democracy has proven the downfall of humanity. What do you have to compare it to? What is so much greater about "humanity" where there is not democracy?
@Robin90modell Yes, I meant the expropriation of private property and distribution of said property by the state to its favored constituents.
The issue of democracy vs. dictatorship vs. oligarchy etc is a secondary one. It is not how the state is governed that is important, but how large a role the state plays. The democracies of today are far more invasive than the monarchies of old.
Only a free society is a humane one, and democracy has done much harm to human freedom.
It's better in democracies compared to non democratic countries.
A country without a high degree of freedom of speech can not a true democratic country. I can agree though that many countries claim to have democracies, when in reality that part is very weak. The fairness around the russian elections for instance is quite debated. That doesn't mean democracy is not a good polititical form.
With a "non invasive" government, others would just fill that void.
@Robin90modell I'm not particularly interested in democracy. It has a very socially corrosive, corruptive influence and a natural tendency to evolve into a total state. Nor does democracy prevent systemic violations of individual rights. To the contrary, democracy provided intellectual and moral cover for even the most egregious violations and atrocities, the US being a case in point.
The idea that others would fill the void of a non invasive government doesn't qualify as an argument.
@Robin90modell I'm not defending the monarchies of old. I'm advocating a stateless, private property based society in the Rothbardian-Hoppean tradition.
Which is impossible. As I have noted (and you have thus far failed to address), the upholding of private property is impossible to perpetuate in lieu of a state. If there is no-one to stop me taking your stuff other than yourself, and I win, then guess what: you don't have any stuff.
Private property rights requires the existence of a State. Murray Rothbard is an intelligent fool.
@Lodatzor A word of advice: read before commenting. I have never advocated the return to violations of old, I've advocated freedom. I'm not sure which argument you 'think' you've debunked, but a safe bet is that you haven't debunked anything at all.
There are numerous examples of upholding property rights without the state, and I've cited several of them. So again, you lie instead of argue. This is of course typical for shills and liars for the regime.<
Greenspan, just another Jew that robbed the people blind.
Gonzoidzz 1 month ago
Yeah, no shit, Greenspan, because you and your Fed cronies have essentially told big banks, "If you do stupid shit, fuck it, we'll give you more money." Humans are greedy, and if you tell them, "You can do whatever the fuck you want and you'll be protected" they're going to do whatever the fuck they want. So it's YOUR fault. This is fucking stupid.
Drahthaar422 1 month ago
The best regulation that we don't have is failure. If the fat cats could go under like everyone else they wouldn't run these derivative scams and fractional reserve lending. End the fed or kiss this country goodbye.
jneil2007 1 month ago
What a joke, Greenspan himself removed the incentive for self interest by essentially guaranteeing that the banks would be bailed out upon failure. Furthermore this in-fact makes it uncompetitive for a bank not to take on the riskier deals, as it will fall behind its competitors, who are also insured to do the same.
RON PAUL 2012, deregulation and deconstruction of the Fed is the only way - get back to the true old American Capitalism.
accountNo9 1 month ago 11
Good way for Greenspan to scapegoat the banks so no one pays attention to the actions of the Fed. The Fed kept interest rates artificially low and expanded the suppy of credit that led to the housing bubble.
FarmingFractals 1 month ago 4
@FarmingFractals So simple, yet thick skull socialists are still saying the same thing. Yeah, just throw some regs on it cause that's worked in the past.
tadaa11 1 month ago
I'm sorry. How did he 'destroy deregulation'? He made a statement without providing any facts surrounding the situation. Deregulation was not the problem. Government intervention as a safety net for corrupt companies was the problem.
grimasatemyhamster 1 month ago
you can't be in the middle. you're either a socialist or you believe in free markets. we know socialism doesn't work, no free society has ever existed that doesn't organize its economic activity in one way or another through free enterprise. there is no alternative so far discovered to free markets, and if you really look at this crisis and others like it you will see that the failure is not with the market, but with the government that thought it knew best.
Welsh77 2 months ago
@Welsh77 what a load of tosh! ""there is no alternative so far discovered to free markets" WHAT? what about totalitarian in china where its only partially free? north korea is communist- these are not free markets but what is produced is what the government decides to make- there is no also market mechanism to allocate these resources.
I would be interested to hear you justify your claim that it is all the governments fault! You should try at least as opposed to assertinga partially false view
jackworlidge1 1 month ago
It's not deregulation, you morons. It's about the government subsidizing subprime mortgages, the Fed setting low interest rates, etc.
LogicalFlawDetector 2 months ago
The mistake Greenspan did, was to put interest rates artificially low by printing money. At the same time govt. was promising banks that they did not have to worry about default, as fannie and freddie would step to the rescue. There go, the best self-interest is to take the highest risks, as the losses would fall on someone else. The market worked as expected, and the govt and fed interfere that paved the way. Any understanding austrinaeconomy could see this happening.
Warzoooooo 2 months ago
Again and constantly screwed by the Jew
snaredrum110 2 months ago
Free markets? That sounds like a good idea. Why don't we try that for a change? Ron Paul 2012!
SloterMFmeyer 2 months ago
@SloterMFmeyer - lol
anonymoose711 2 months ago
Or as Rick Perry would say ... "Oops"
Ericwvb2 2 months ago
I think what Greenspan meant that was deregulation would work as he presumed no institution would partake in actions that would wipe itself and it's industry out.... Which when you think about it, was a logical (but flawed) assumption to make! In all I blame the Govt more than Wall Street, if the Govt made these lenders face up to their actions, we would have had a few very tough years but we would have emerged with a stronger (and smaller) financial system.
thedaaawg12 2 months ago
This man is either a gullible fucking imbecile or a corrupt bribe-taking shill. Take your pick.
mykebulvai 2 months ago
Greenspan is a Piece of trash. glass stegall repeal REQUIRED REPEAL OF ALL GSEs fannie freddie, etc. AND FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO STOP GIVING WALLSTREET LOW and ZERO INTEREST RATE LOANS TO GAMBLE WITH! THIS IS BULL . GTH fake-RANDIST GREENSPAN HOMO
infotechsailor 2 months ago
He knew what would happen and he knew him and his friend would do a shit load of money on that scam.
fenhrir 2 months ago
even when he gets a somwhat hardball question. no real followup. This man is the greatest financial criminal of ALL TIME.
VICSWEB1 2 months ago
This is one of the most important statements of the 21st century. Mr. Greenspan admits he was wrong to have killed so many regulations. Beware of politicians, such as Republicans, who say "the markets regulate themselves". It's a lie. Monopolies and Subprimes are two huge examples of this lie.
ruirodtube 2 months ago
@ruirodtube Subprime lending is a great example of government regulation trashing the economy. The Affordable Housing Act resulted in terrible lending practices.
CaramelMarshmallow 2 months ago
@CaramelMarshmallow There was no regulation in subprime lending. No oversight. No investigation. Banks were conducting since 2001 a "lenders lie" by giving millions of people loans they couldn't repay, lying on the statements, because subprime had more risk, and therefore more profit to them. Firms were rating those subprime AAA, saying later those were "opinions", and all the gvt agencies were looking away because they didn't want to regulate the markets.
ruirodtube 2 months ago
@ruirodtube I should've said government involvement instead of regulation. The government gave an incentives for these practices.
CaramelMarshmallow 2 months ago
@ruirodtube And the banks should've been allowed to fail, either way.
CaramelMarshmallow 2 months ago
@ruirodtube Between 1992 and 3004 Fannie Mae's affordable housing goals were raised from 30% to up to 55% of all her loans that were mandated to be issued to low income housing buyers. When FNMA entered receivership Sept. 7 2008 she had asset of $5.6TN - she issued nearly half of the U.S $12TN mortgage market. If you were in the mortgage business, this was your competition. This and the Fed's near zero interest rates for 8 years constitutes massive regulation, or interference in the market.
TheScotthutch 2 months ago
@ruirodtubeYour looking at a symptom of Keynesian economics.Paul Volcker, one of Obama's economic advisers said "the amount of credit creation which is reflected on the asset and liability side of the finance and investment firms has come home to roost. The credit/gnp in the market use to be even, but now its 300%-400%." This is how the fed creates an illusion of prosperity, but really its just leverage and consumption, instead of savings and production.Don't be fooled by the machine
tadaa11 1 month ago
Ask the Right question . Who are the banks that make up the FED. and who owns the most none voting shares . Than watch them dance
Nemesis1ism 2 months ago
This is not a case against deregulation. This is actually the opposite. He is saying that the incentives under the excessive amount of banking regulation were so poor that when they romoved one part of it, the whole system fell apart. The government was forcing banks to make riskier loans than they would have under free-market conditions, and guaranteeing the bundles of subprime loans so that they would get a higher rating and be more appealing to investors, among other things.
eklipst2x 3 months ago
@eklipst2x He didn't say that. You did. The free market system is as flawed as the pure socialist system. When people can hide and offset risk onto another entity that will always lead to disaster. I agree that the government should not force banks to increase mortgage lending, but the excessive lending was ALSO spurred by market incentives to keep the derivatives party going. Telling yourself regulation is the problem is an easy way to sleep at night, but it won't help us avoid this again.
mgroves80 2 months ago
The irony of the whole thing is that whenever there is a financial crisis (like in 2008) what does the government do? Governments help the big banks take over the small ones. They say, "More efficient." No! It really just makes the monetary system even more brittle. The total monopoly of Bank-Debt Money is killing us over and over again! We need MORE diversity and interconnectivity in our monetary system, not less.
CosmicFork 3 months ago
Do any of you read Ludwig Mises? Capitalism can work, and has, it is the basis for innovation and technological advancement. Do you believe that the government would have created something like the internet of it's own will and given us the power that it has? Hell no. It was brought to us by the market. Look at Steve Jobs as the most recent example, he epitomizes the innovation that occurs in a free market. He changed the entire world through capitalism.
TruthRisen 3 months ago
Governments seek power, as they have done through all of history. The more they get, they more they want. It is because the government itself is subject to the same corruptions that the market is, only it also wields the power to write laws. That is why true free enterprise can ONLY function when government and corporations are separate entities.
TruthRisen 3 months ago
Human nature is corrupt, but I would rather deal with it in a free market where a corporations' greed will bury them eventually, (through lawsuits, bad PR, etc) than live in a system where those SAME people ALSO have the ability to write laws and regulations that usually hamper productivity and put more financial strain on small businesses. The only time the government should regulate a corporation is if it is directly infringing on personal property or rights.
TruthRisen 3 months ago
What we have now is not capitalism, it is a system where the biggest players get to write laws and always make their money back through the Federal Reserve. It's corporate socialism for the big corporations and capitalism for everyone else. Those banks should have fallen, THAT would have been CAPITALISM. In a truly free market they would reap what they sow instead of being bailed out at our expense while the smaller banks crumble with no help. Smaller banks would have prospered in their demise.
TruthRisen 3 months ago
@TruthRisen Sorry to burst your bubble, but computers and the internet were created by the federal government. This idealism that government has no positive place in society can only be believed if you forget the last 150 years. The highways, trains, airplanes, power grid, computers, satellites, solar energy, and nuclear energy were all possible from a federal governments effort to create them.
mgroves80 2 months ago
@mgroves80 you're a complete and utter idiot...
DREwestcoast 2 months ago
@DREwestcoast Making personal attacks doesn't make a point. Try replying with a counter argument next time.
mgroves80 1 month ago
I want my SEVENTEEN seconds back.
gustoonz 3 months ago
rothschild puppet - we're all fucked...
HugoBastard 3 months ago
The real fail is : "specifically banks and others". That's a language fail
fra2603 3 months ago
Listen, you're a foaming at the mouth, confused idiot who cannot understand something without misrepresenting and marginalizing everyone to fit into your skewed concepts of what the ideology is. You fail to detect nuance, or how Monetarists, Austrians, Fiscal, et all. are resoundingly different. You also cannot talk about things in a calm, reasonable or rational fashion. You're like the Glen Beck of youtube. Good for you.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 answer the question or FUCK OFF
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
Why do you think *All* libertarians are students of Milton Friedman? The middle class? Where did it come from? Ever heard of a thing called "The division of labor"? Specialization? Global warming? What about property rights? Do industrialists have the "right" to destroy the planet? Who owns the planet? Individuals or a community comprised of individuals? Many Libertarians lean towards the latter. Do you think that the system we live in now is a "Capitalist" system? Why can't you speak calmly?
KCatalano88 3 months ago
You've been antagonizing me and these ideas, and notice I haven't made one militant comment on "DA EVILS OB SOCALIZM" because I, a rational, critical thinking human being, know that these matters are not so open and shut, and just because Che loved to shoot women and children doesn't mean that Noam Chomsky is a monster.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 WTF? Shall I answer MY question for you? BTW shoot your self in the fucking face for that comment on Chomsky - and SOCIALISM and communism are different. And my position is based on 1) CRITICAL importance for change 2) Reality of the world 3) A jawdropping but VERY plausible prediction - NONE of which are refutable.
Now MORON lets do the wealth concentration thing.
1) The model of economists for people IS FUCKING INSANE and has NOTHING to do with people. In fact there are only 2
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity types of people who act like economists. 1) economists and 2) well I wont spoil the fun:
':: Us, the psychopaths : Game theory and market democracy :: ' on youtube
And this is backed by this:
'Research Contends Stock Traders More Reckless than Psychopaths ' google it. Now I don't know how much you know about the psychopathic personality but if Greenspan thinks they are 'rational' he is fucking INSANE! BTW its also just about impossible for anyone to kill a person without
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity either being vigorously drilled and dehumanised OR BEING A PSYCHOPATH. Thats right wars are fought by PSYCHOPATHS and the brain washed - the basis of CAPITALISM expansion over the last several hundred years!
Corporations have nasty traits AS WELL:
':: Corporation : Clinical Diagnosis (PCLR) :: ' on you tube.
BTW Ayn Rand SHOUTS psychopath! So the whole ideology is psychopathic! Even Adam Smith thought capitalists should be kept from political influence!
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity The drive for doing NON MANUAL work is THE DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE of what capitalists CLAIM. There was NO noticeable reduction in desire to make money when taxes were 70-95% during 'the golden age' of capitalism than there is now. And paying people more GETS WORSE RESULTS!!!!
'RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us ' on you tube
Happiness DOES NOT increase with more money below a VERY low level (around $20,000 per year). It does increase
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity above this level but only if you have no friends - where it will SLOWLY and by diminishing returns increase up to $50-75,000 per year - still WAY lower than the BAT SHIT CRAZY delusion we both know you harbour in you moronic brain that one day you will be a millionaire...
Now the HUNDREDS of peer reviewed papers that show that income inequality causes a DECREASE in social mobility, happiness, life expectancy, freedom of the press, democracy, empathy, friendliness,
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity and an INCREASE, in bullying in schools, obesity, drug taking, violent crimes, rates of incarceration, sexism, racism, homophobia, in fact just about EVERY social indicator is -ve affected by wealth concentration!
'Talk - Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett - Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger ' on you tube
Oh, and there is the rate of growth - which has HALVED since the high taxed period.
The POOR create the jobs (again standing your version of reality on its
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity fucking head):
'Hartmann - Fox News Doesn't Know Jack about Economics or Food Stamps ' on you tube
BTW the corporations are sitting on $2,000,000,000,000 - AND THEY WANT MORE! They have made out like fucking bandits:
'Shocking Fact About Rich Americans ' on you tube - just TRY to fucking justify that level of fucking greed. Oh and the HIGH TAXED Scandinavian countries ARE THE BEST COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET and how many Americans want that wealth distribution?
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity AGAIN this is gona come as a shock to a right wing bigot about how many Americans are 'socialist when exposed to the FACTS:
'Thom Hartmann: 92% of Americans are SOCIALISTS!' on youtube
You maybe thinking that aint right... How could that be? Well because so many Americans are carrying BULLSHIT around in their head:
'Papantonio: What "Shared Sacrifice" Means To A Republican ' on youtube
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity And I could go ON AND ON AND ON. But I wont because WE BOTH KNOW I'm WASTING MY TIME... Will leave this as a final:
'Rachel Maddow: Why elections matter, in one graph ' on youtube
Now MORON - you might like to WAKE THE FUCK UP!
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
And for what it's worth, Greenspan is probably the one man most responsible for this recession, more than anyone else.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
But, but libertarians cannot be wrong on ANYTHING... It's reality that is wrong or blame government - cos capitalism is FLAWLESS...
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
This polarized, black and white method of observing economics is one of the biggest reasons why nobody can seem to come to a consensus. There is no "Flawless" system, and Libertarians don't believe their infallible (The intelligent ones.) But there is cause and effect, and 2008's massive bubble-burst and consequential deleveraging started in the Fed, and ended in the Banks. You're the shameless one for politicizing a science.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 Yeah and THE best ways have already been abandoned. Libertarians are based on an anti science anti reality and INSANE model of humanity - which BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION dont do facts nor empiricism. The problem is the group of people that are attracted to this nutty ideology are the most bigoted, arrogant and nasty element of society (that statement is SCIENTIFICALLY backed BTW)- and they dress it up in propaganda a 5 year old could see through The FED DID WHAT THE CAPITALISTS WANTED
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
You uh, do realize there are hundreds upon hundreds of schools of thought within Libertarianism? Even disagreements within those schools? Why are those people who believe in Non-Agression "Nasty"? Do you really believe that Libertarians oppose social and economic justice? The fed did what "Capitalists" wanted? Which "Capitalists"? Crony capitalists? Corporatists? Austrian economists don't even believe that interest rates can be fixed because it skews the mechanism..
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88
...of price discovery. It seems for someone who is so diametrically opposed to Libertarianism, you know very little or next to nothing about it. I'm stunned by your stupidity, stunnedbystupidity.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 And price discovery after the greatest crash in human history and the GREATEST THREAT TO LIFE ON THE PLANET - IGNORED BY THE FUCKING MARKET - LIKE I SAID YOU ARE FUCKING INSANE...
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Speak sensically, calm, and with reason or don't speak at all. The fact that you can espouse nonsense like this, screaming, probably all white-knuckled as your pound your keys somewhere on the cross-roads of bedlam and hell, and then have the audacity to call anyone else a loon or insane is mind boggling.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 MORON
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
And which libertarians omit economics as an empirical science? Where are you deriving these conclusions from?
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 The primary school is the Austrians. And you will find on you tube the overwhelming majority back Koch bollocks and Ron Paul - BTW if libertarianism is right because of so may different 'schools' so is communism, fascism and anarchism... This hair splitting is TYPICAL right wing loon territory... Look Greenspan is a Randian freemarketeer -as are the majority of the scum who support Paul...And yes NASTY and you will point to the dissenting capitalist class eh? PLEASE FUCK OFF LOON...
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Okay, so Greenspan WAS a member of the Objectivist "Collective" 30 years ago but he's effectively gone against everything he's believed in since. There's nothing "Free market" about Greenspan. What similarities does Libertarianism have to Communism? Or Fascism? They're the polar opposite, the method of political action supported by Libertarians is non-violence. Volition. Not using force to achieve political, social or economic goals. You clearly don't understand, buddy.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 Yeah UNDER PROTEST - and AGAIN with the dis-ingenuousness - he has not gone in the diametric opposite way he has leaned where ever possible towards it (BTW AGAIN right wingers are stunning hypocrites - see Rand and health care and Greenspan and government job, Koch and price fixing - it is part of their fucking make up). And markets ARE FUCKING FREER than when he took power - this mythical fucking 'free market' that you INSANE wankers profess has ner happened and NEVER WILL
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity because NO ONE fucking wants them - you'd have to be INSANE to or be a nasty Libertarain fucking bigot... And reread your logic and stop being wilfully stupid on the communism thing... And spare me all the BOLLOCKS about what libertarianism is SUPPOSED to be IT LEADS TO FASCISM - you moron...
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
I just don't understand where you're drawing these ideas from. Rand does not speak for libertarians. Greenspan does not speak for libertarians, quite the opposite. He's become quite Keynesian. How are markets "freeer"? By dissipating Glass Steagall? Libertarians mostly opposed that measure. If a "market" is made "free", by enabling someone to fraud someone else, that is not "Freedom". Nobody has the right to act fraudulently. That's what they believe.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 WTF? Look libertarians are MONSTROUS selfish bastards which fit in with Randian insanity... Greenspan is mainstream libertarianism - look moron you might have some out there version of the philosophy but the version that is being pushed mainstream is that pushed by the Koch think tanks - CATO, CEI, Heritage, etc... And libertarians were against market liberalization? OK, you've lost me now I bet you are for unions, taxes and government as well - SPARE ME LUNATIC...
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Koch has nothing to do with the CATO Institute besides marginal influence. There's a difference between Market Liberalisation and De-regulating crime. You are speaking in a broad, sweeping rhetoric and you're making broad generalizations without citing any context. This conversation was pointless, despite how fascinating your black-and-white up-is-down lunacy may be. Please, I implore you, read more, think more, and talk less.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 This getting PATHETIC now. David Koch SET UP CATO - and the brothers have gicven AT LEAST $100 MILLION to maintaining the think tanks - sheez... And hair split all you fucking like you moron (this is EXACTLY my initial point about you disingenuous wankers). And ***I*** am speaking in broad generalisations? OH THE FUCKING IRONY... And stay away from the ballot box moron - you protofascist...
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Well I didn't know that! Regardless that's one (1) valid point you've made without addressing any one of the twenty some odd questions I've asked you, or asking you to clarify the things you've already said. Getting the last word doesn't legitimize your argument and it doesn't mean you "win", so unless you intend to actually counter-argue the things I've said or speak to something pertaining to the context of the argument, then fuck off.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 I have ducked NOTHING. You however have run like a child.
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
Dude. Artificially depressed key interest rates in relation to the recession, M1 quantification, The Axiom of non-aggression, "Deregulating Criminal Acts" versus "Market Liberalization", "Many libertarians believe in social and economic justice", "Bleeding Heart Libertarianism", et all. You didn't address a single thing I said pertaining to any of my comments or questions. You just attacked a scarecrow of your own construction. Congratulations, you can debate yourself.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 Look up .monetarism' PUSHED BY THE LIBERTARIAN MILTON FUCKING FRIEDMAN - sheez... And aggression is what CAPITALISM is based on - profits drop as completion and market saturation maifests - THUS THE MILITARY TO FORCE OPEN NEW MARKETS AND SEAL RESOURCES - you ever read a fucking book? And deregulation WAS criminal and pushed by people like Wendy FUCKING Gramm - a leader of a LIBERTARIAN THINK TANK - and GREENSPAN A FUCKING LIBERTARIAN - and THE CAPITALIST CLASS!
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity And I am DYING to hear how libertarians suggest social justice happens under their freemarket fucking rules - LIKE I KEEP FUCKING SAYING - YES - THESE WANKERS ***CLAIM*** ALL KINDS OF FUCKING MORAL BOLLOCKS - ***BUT THE FUCKING REALITY IS THE DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE****. And the reason I didn't address these complete BOLLOCKS is because they are so fucking OBVIOUSLY wrong! Its like you asking me why the world is flat - WHEN IT FUCKING ISN'T!
Now, MY TURN - where did the middle
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity class come from? How it the 'free market' gona fight global warming? How THE FUCK is the next crash gona be handled? How THE FUCK can we have any more growth on this finite planet?
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity And, having already waited 30 FUCKING YEARS, how much longer does the middle and working classes have to wait for a fucking pay rise?
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
How does Libertarianism lead to Fascism? Isn't the definition of Fascism a collusive state corporatism? Isn't that what Libertarians hate the most?
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 It leads to fascism because FIRST it reduces wealth distribution (cutting taxes, destroying unions/worker collective action), and all breaks on MASSIVE power and wealth concentration. It then liberalises government enough for the rich to get their tentacles entwined. It then slaughters the greater part of democracy by cutting back on government - ITS VERY SIMPLE MORON. Oh and BTW this is NOT conjecture:
'The Whitehouse Coup (1933) 1 of 3 ' on youtube
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity Oh and the republicans (that have been taken over by the most agressive capitalists interests) are opposed to how many of these:
'14 signs of fascism-The USA turning into a fascist country? ' on you tube
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity
This is an oversimplification packed with loaded statements, you can't *really* believe that political constructions follow such a formulaic path. This is no different from a quasi-libertarian Novacian saying "Charity leads to communism!". What is wealth? How does a "Rich capitalist" obtain wealth in a volitional and collaborative society? Is "wealth" the corrupter, the catalyst? What can be corrupted if the parameters of law are succient?
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 Oh here we go again - mopre fucking hair splitting. Look MORON I aint claiming (contrary - and ironically after you childish protestation - to your straw man) that there are ANY absolutes - the point is drifts TOWARDS you insane ideology MAKES THINGS WORSE - the greater the drift the worse it gets! Sheez... And the capitalist does it by EXPLOITATION - BUT THIS IRRELEVANT - it doesnt matter how its the fact that money and power have been excessively concentrated
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity MAKING THINGS WORSE FOR EVERYONE! And Law is CORRUPTED by power - you are like some fucking 5 year old - should I talk in baby language - ga ga goo goo... Yes dear on some planet where abstractions exists I'm sure all this makes sense to a child but reality is littered with complexity... And the ONLY negatives from redistribution is increase in suicide - now WANKER you have painted yourself into a VERY VERY VERY VERY tricky corner - which you are about to CATASTROPICALLY
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity lose. What are the negative effects fo wealth CONCENTRATION - I suggest you run at this point 'cos this is gona come out VERY bad for you...
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
What are the negative consequences of pure re distributional egalitarianism? How does that effect capital formation? How does that effect capital investment? Where does "Wealth" come from? Where do jobs come from?
KCatalano88 3 months ago
Buddy, I recommend you stop having these knee jerk reactions, and go read some things. You have this very ugly, misinformed idea of what Libertarians believe and it correlates to nothing but a misrepresentation. "Biggoted"? People who believe in individual liberties are biggots? Nasty? Racist? Where are you coming up with this stuff?
KCatalano88 3 months ago
Furthermore, your violence and polemical reactions indicates that you're speaking primarily from a defensive, if not insecure stance. Your ability to marginalize, over-simplify, and demonize ideologies that you don't understand speaks for your staggering ignorance and high-school level of maturity.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 Look my 'violence' is NOTHING compared to what you WANKERS are doing - NOTHING... And I'm insecure? WTF? So being APPALLED at what you fuckers are doing to the fucking people of the planet and biosphere is 'insecurity'? SEEK HELP...
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
What about artificially maintaining a low key interest rate for way too long, allowing for reserve requirements to be circumvented and the M1 to become over-leveraged? The poncey bastard.
KCatalano88 3 months ago
@KCatalano88 Yeah I remember the CAPITALIST CLASS protesting every day about that eh? You fucking guys are shameless...
StunnedByStupidity 3 months ago
"I made a mistake in presuming government regulations wouldn't favor particular corporations while making it impossible for small businesses to sustain themselves." Ah look, a single sentence that destroys regulation
tek510 3 months ago
@tek510 Well put.
H1TMANactual 3 months ago
Comment removed
tek510 3 months ago
Hey, by the way, everyone, scroll down about halfway down the page, and you'll see that vindician wants to abolish the state so that he can go around killing people and taking their stuff.
Lodatzor 3 months ago
Alan Greenspan believed in a ideology peddled by Ayn Rand a Russian lady who wrote a book in the 50s called 'Atlas Shrugged' which championed selfishness as a positive means of doing business, and look where that got the world! Greenspan should be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff!
RonanG 3 months ago
@RonanG him and the other Randians in Washington!
dirtycelinefrenchman 3 months ago
this country wasn't discovered by israel.yet we have a jewish fed .look we have to tax the rich jews and get the money back they stole from america.the gop will defend them because they support the jews.tax the rich jews.
mow1717 4 months ago
If anything, he is saying the opposite of what the title states.
donques 5 months ago
whoops never mind i got that backwards
donques 5 months ago
what a crook
TruthTheSpeaker 5 months ago
GLASS-STEAGALL is the first step to solve...
and its not a crisis...it is the SYSTEM...
throw them out or die....
artregal 5 months ago
The REAL philosophy of society, reality, and human nature: even the charitable are only looking after themselves, selfishness is unavoidable, individuals determine the greateness of society. The quality of the people determines the quaity of their government, their businesses, their society. You don't need government for a good society, you need good people. There are many ways to regulate "evil doers", including beating them up, use of laws, police, or social rejection. Individuals run it all
theaterofdreamswrite 5 months ago
Okay, this vid only proves why deregulation MUST occur. We have not had capitalism in this country for over a century. We have corporatism / fascism. That is when BIG governemnt and BIG business are in bed with each other. The kind of regulations from government we have had for decades actually SUPPORTS the big banks, big corproations, and SHAFTS the American people. If there was no regulation, banks could not feed off taxpayer money through the bailouts, and would think twice before bad loan
theaterofdreamswrite 5 months ago
lol this was not a fault of deregulation, it was a fault of centralbank system.
how can a market be free, with a centralbank pushing money into a system with no real countervalue? that was the beginning of the crisis.
NO FED, FREE THE ECONOMIE
wusldusl1000 5 months ago 9
@wusldusl1000 Yes, and they can pretty much do it when they want to. The government cannot influence, cause the Fed and any other Central Bank are a private bank.
A private bank that controls the money supply!
BastiaanV2 5 months ago
@wusldusl1000 Actually even if you end the fed it won't free the economy, as there is nothing to free.
The fed is not holding the economy back. The damage is done, and ending the fed will not really improve our situation.
Neosaigo 4 months ago
@wusldusl1000
"Economie" ? Really? No wonder why what you said was so stupid. Lack of regulation for Financial Derivatives caused this to happen.
pbmdh 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tonygmilan7 See how you are indeed the idiot! I NEVER said bank runs would occur with 100% reserve banking, but that the Profit-motive will always inevitably transform any "free market full-reserve banking system" INTO A FRACTIONAL RESERVE SYSTEM, which unavoidably leads to "bank runs"!! Why don't you get your facts straight before speaking?
jrvillela 6 months ago
@vindician Again... GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT!! I never said a full-reserve bank system could not be profitable, BUT THAT IT DOES NOT MAXIMIZE PROFITS (can you actually understand the difference?). PROFIT MAXIMIZATION can just be achieved with a fractional reserve system. That's why in a free market, a greedy banker on the lack of regulation will ALWAYS choose a fractional reserve bank over a full reserved one!! Or how do you plan to FORCE them to go for a full-reserve banking? With coercion?
jrvillela 6 months ago
@jrvillela A full-reserve system maximizes profit just like any other industry. You don't maximize profit by committing fraud. You don't have to force full-reserve banking on anyone, you need only combat fraud and counterfeiting. Anarchism doesn't mean a society void of rules. Violations of private property, such as fraud and counterfeiting, wouldn't be tolerated in a private law society.
vindician 6 months ago
I hope all you Ron-Paulonites realize that Ron's medicine for the economy is simply a stronger dose of the medicine promoted by Greenspan, i.e. the faith that self-interest and the magical hand of the market will bring about harmony in our economic life.
Goodworker 7 months ago
@Goodworker Greenspan hasn't promoted free markets since the 1960s, so as usual, you're dead wrong.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician Greenspan has promoted freer (deregulated) financial markets since at least the 90's. But you're right, he's not as fundamentalist in his faith in the "classical" economic model as is Ron Paul.
Goodworker 6 months ago
@Goodworker Oh yeah? Howcome the Federal Register increases by 80,000 pages per year? Howcome there were 115 different agencies regulating and supervising the US financial markets in 2008? Howcome there were more than 12,000 full time regulators on the federal level alone?
Give one example, ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of Greenspan advocating deregulation of the financial markets.
Like everyone else, you don't know the first thing about the financial markets.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician One example? You could start by watching the above 17 seconds-long video, in which Greenspan essentially says that although he use to be a staunch proponent of laissez-faire economics, he now recognizes that this model has some serious flaws when applied in real life.
Goodworker 6 months ago
@Goodworker Greenspan is and was a liar for the regime and later on a liar for himself. Just because a government bureaucrat says he is for laissez-faire doesn't mean he is or ever was. Greenspan never worked for a more free economy. To the contrary, he cemented the banking-congress cartel we have today. Central banks, fiat money and fractional-reserve has nothing to with laissez-faire. This you would know if you knew the first thing about economics and the financial markets. But you don't.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician And if your statement about increasing red tape and agencies were true during the 90's and 00's, it clearly shows that better regulation does not necessarily follow from this fact. Clearly, some sectors of the financial markets that were not properly regulated and an individualistic and greedy environment cultivated by this self-interested/laissez-faire economic model are responsible for the bubble and crisis that followed.
Goodworker 6 months ago
@Goodworker Every single aspect of the financial sector was over regulated. What uneducated people like you fail to understand is that it is precisely the regulations that give financial institutions all their privileges. Thanks to the regulation, they can leverage up 40 times, create money out of thin air and get bailed out when things go bad. Only an orwellian tool like yourself would concede that the markets are "free" despite all the agencies, pages of regulations and full time regulators.
vindician 6 months ago
Comment removed
jrvillela 6 months ago
Comment removed
jrvillela 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vindician True! A free market has NEVER existed, and most likely it never will. Just think about this: in order to exist a market requires A STATE in order (1) to protect private property, (2) to protect competition (since capitalists naturally tend to collude and displace the competition forming cartels and monopolies), (3) to issue the money the market needs as "mean of exchange", and (4) to protect society from the externalities the same market creates. In other words: a FREE market is BS!!
jrvillela 6 months ago
@jrvillela The state can't protect private property because its very existance violates private property. The free market doesn't require any state. Neither cartels or monopolies have ever endured without government protection. The market can and have produced private money for 1000s of years, and it has also dealt with so called externalities quite well without the state. Your every assumption is wrong, maybe because you've never read an economics or text book in your entire life.
vindician 6 months ago
Comment removed
jrvillela 6 months ago
Comment removed
jrvillela 6 months ago
Comment removed
jrvillela 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vindician "The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government". GUESS WHO WROTE THAT, YOU RETARDED MORON?!!
www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/Wealth-Nations.pdf
YES, ADAM SMITH!! (pp. 580 -AS YOU SEE I HAVE READ MORE THAN YOU EVER DID IN YOUR FUCKIN' ENTIRE LIVE (P.S. I HAVE A DEGREE IN ECONOMICS!!)
jrvillela 6 months ago
@jrvillela Adam Smith was in many ways a statist. His claim that a free market needs a state is of no more importance or weight than Greenspan's or any other pro-state advocate. A market can't be perfectly free with a state. It can be very free even with a state, if the role of the state is significantly limited. It does not require a state though.
Paul Samuelson had a degree too. He wrote the most used economics text book in history, yet he was adamant that the USSR would overtake the US.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician So you are calling "the father of the invisible hand" A STATIST?!! HAHA!! AMAZING!! Equally ridiculous things I have heard just from god believers. Ok, so I got your idea of a "Free Market" A MARKET THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED!! JUST IN YOUR MIND AND IN THE MINDS OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS!! How is that less uthopic as, for example, a society free of state and free of markets where all economic decisions are taken based on the availability of resources and science?
jrvillela 6 months ago
@jrvillela Adam Smith was not an anarchist. He thought the state was legitimate = statist. Utopia is simply a society that is incompatible with human nature. Anarcho-capitalism is very compatible with human nature = not a utopia. I really don't understand why you get so worked up. It's not that revolutionary, and there are many instances of private law societies in history.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician Really? Well, that's funny, cuz I'm Anarchist too, just I think we can get rid of the State and the Market altogether! Now, when you bring up "human nature" you are getting into serious troubles, you know? Because if evolutionary biology has made something clear is that the concept of "nature" is not absolut and static: but always changing, always adapting itself to the environment. What do you mean then with "human nature"?
jrvillela 6 months ago
@jrvillela I don't want to get rid of the market, I want to get rid of the state, or at least let people create stateless societies without being aggressed against.
Humans act purposefully, and the purpose of action is to improve the individual's welfare. Humans are also individualistic creatures.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician Well, I do want to get rid of the market AND of the state. Yes, humans are individualistic creatures who can't survive without a society.
jrvillela 6 months ago
@jrvillela If you don't want a market, does it mean you don't want people to trade and cooperate? What on earth is coercive about audits? Do you even know what an audit is?There is nothing coercive about respecting people's property rights. Or do you think people should be free to murder and steal at will?
The American West had a very well functioning private law system before government took it over, as had Iceland and Ireland among others.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician No, it means that trade won't be necessary, not that I don't want them to trade. And where the heck do you see cooperation in a market economy? I just see fierce competition all around!! Yes, I know what an audit is, and it implies control from an exterior agency who wants to hold you accountable for something. No, there is nothing coercive about respecting ppl's rights, but private property of the means of production is what is coercitive!!
jrvillela 6 months ago
@jrvillela What do you mean trade won't be necessary? There is cooperation all over the market. Every workplace, every business, every store. We cooperate with each other every single day. What is wrong with holding people accountable? That is a good thing, a necessary thing for any functioning society. And there is absolutely nothing coercive about private property. Without it, the society degenerates down to a hellish nightmare of violence and misery.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician COOPERATION?!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!! That's called: BUSINESS!! We don't cooperate for the sake of helping each other: just a bunch of individuals looking for their own benefit!! That's not cooperation: that's self-interest!! And certainly the lowest form of self-interest: just for the money!!
What's wrong with holding people accountable? In a coercitive society: nothing!
jrvillela 6 months ago
@jrvillela Cooperation isn't about helping each other, although that is a consequence of cooperation. It's about voluntary exchange in order to achieve mutually advantageous outcomes. Self-interest promotes cooperation. And like I said, in your world it would be nothing wrong with burning downs someone's house, because you're not allowed to hold anyone accountable for doing so.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician "Without P.P. the society degenerates down to a hellish nichtmare of violence and misery"?!! Look, I could laugh about that claim, but I will keep it respectful: For about 194,000 years human beings lived without any P.P. whatsoever, also the native American societies didn't know anything about P.P. until the arrival of the Colonizers in the West. That idea you have of "hellish nightmare" is not fact based but the product of decades of endoctrination and capitalistic propaganda.
jrvillela 6 months ago
@jrvillela Many native Americans had very strong concepts about private property. Not to mention the fact that they in many cases lived a very brutish existence and fought bloody wars against each other. In other words, they were human.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician Again: I invite you to study history. But not just the recent one: the history since "Homo Sapiens" first appeared on earth 200,000 years ago. Today, thanks to Anthropology and the advances in Genetics we have come to know many aspects of how human beings lived long before writing appeared. To begin I strongly recommend you Jared Diamond's superb "Guns, Germs and Steel". But beware: it will radically change the way you have been thinking about us and our history!!
jrvillela 6 months ago
Comment removed
jrvillela 6 months ago
@vindician And damn it! You are starting to speak like those religious freaks I debate with about god! No I don´t think it is right to murder, and it is exactly because I'm against stealing that I oppose private property of the means of production!! What do you know about its origins? Do you know when and how it appeared? It was a fucking robbery against the society and its origins are full of all those things you consider wrong!!
jrvillela 6 months ago
@jrvillela You're against private property because you're against stealing and murder. Tell me, how can one steal anything if nobody owns anything?
And what "origins" are you talking about? Think you lost me there.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician Well, the abolishion of Private Property does not mean nobody will own anything, everybody will have their house, personal belongings required for a living, and so on, but just the means of production become common property.
With "origins" I mean the "historical origins of Private Property (P.P.)". Contrary to what most ppl believe, P.P. has not always existed: and its origins is a history of violence, abuse, exploitation, deception, murder and thef.
jrvillela 6 months ago
@jrvillela How can anyone own a product, if one can't own what produces it. Without private property there are no market prices, and without market prices there is no way of coordinating production over time. it would be impossible to know how much to produce of what, not to mention making investments.
Private property comes from the ownership of your body. You rants about murder and violence is completely nonsensical.
vindician 6 months ago
@vindician
Actually, private property does not come from having ownership of one's body. If that were true then only bodies would be upheld as property, because all else would simply be the application of one's body upon materials. If you take a piece of wood, and craft it, then would you say you now own that beam? You could claim this, sure, but then you would have to first claim that the piece of wood was also yours, along with the tree it was taken from and the land the tree grew upon.
Lodatzor 5 months ago
And if that is the claim, then you must first demonstrate why this land was created first for you, and you alone. I do not believe you can do this, and if you cannot, then your claims of legitimate ownership are null and void before you even begin.
If however, you do not make this claim, and claim only that the wood was unclaimed until you made use of it, then you run into another problem, since the derivative of ownership in this model stems ONLY from the application of your body upon material
Lodatzor 5 months ago
This then means that if I take your crafted piece of wood and craft it further, it now becomes MINE, and no longer YOURS. The application of my body upon the material presented to me is precisely the same claim as yours upon the uncrafted piece of wood. The only way to prevent this transfer of ownership would be to withhold the piece of wood from me, to deny me the opportunity to make it my own.
Who prevents me from simply taking it from you, if I am able to do so? Oh, yeah, the State. ;)
Lodatzor 5 months ago
The State is the true origin of the notion of private property, because only the State can seek to legitimately arbitrate between two claims of ownership. All else is merely a contest of personal might between the two of us, in which case all claims are rendered invalid save for the most basic: the most forceful (that is, the possessor of the greatest level of coercion) takes all.
Thus, anarcho-capitalism is not only a contradiction in terms, but also merely a return to Jungle Law, not freedom.
Lodatzor 5 months ago
The only tenable anarchistic society is the anarcho-communist model (which is, in fact, the ACTUAL communist model), which details a lack of both private property AND a lack of a State. In this model there is no arbiter, but there is also no need for one, as divisions of property (the catalyst for conquest and competition) have also been removed.
Of course, this model has its own issues, as it would need to be adopted by ALL before it could become efficient, and any transitory period will fail.
Lodatzor 5 months ago
Why? Because any transitory period will remain capitalist until the framework of capitalism is removed entirely. As demonstrated by any and all attempts to achieve this, such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, this goal is unattainable with our human mindset; so long entrenched within the notion of personal loss and gain manifested by wealth and ownership.
Do not forget: the Soviet Union was never communist, it merely had a Communist Party that instituted State-run capitalism.
Lodatzor 5 months ago
Therefore, anarchistic society from either direction is unattainable, for the notion of property dissolves without the coercion of the State to back it up (resulting in the tyranny of the individual), and the transition to a property-less society results in the tyranny of the State's coercion as it seeks to impose such a lacking.
The only true path to freedom is by elevating the body (the only TRUE possession anyone has), and the ability to maintain it's health above property in legislation.
Lodatzor 5 months ago
Thus, private property and the exercise of control over it is both permitted and defended by the State, but only where it does not infringe upon the ability of another person to maintain their body. That is, for example: no individual can prevent another individual from taking food to prevent starvation simply because they 'own' it, or prevent another individual from medical access for a similar reason.
Yet who determine the conditions and criteria for such need and entitlement?
Lodatzor 5 months ago
Well, that is best determined by an executive and legislative government that is directed by the populace to satisfy the wishes and opinion of the majority of people, with appropriate legislation detailing what cannot be imposed upon an individual by this very government.
In short: political democracy, individual rights and socialization of wealth and resources that are deemed necessary for human survival and dignity within our society.
There's a word for that: liberal.
Lodatzor 5 months ago
@Lodatzor Political democracy is an anathema to individual rights, as is the socialization of wealth and resources. Far from being necessary for human survival and dignity, democracy and socialization have proven the very downfall of humanity.
vindician 5 months ago
@vindician
You speak of socialization. Humans make societies, it's part of being human (humanity).
Pherhaps you meant something more along the lines of socialism.
Since democracy has proven the downfall of humanity. What do you have to compare it to? What is so much greater about "humanity" where there is not democracy?
Robin90modell 4 months ago
@Robin90modell Yes, I meant the expropriation of private property and distribution of said property by the state to its favored constituents.
The issue of democracy vs. dictatorship vs. oligarchy etc is a secondary one. It is not how the state is governed that is important, but how large a role the state plays. The democracies of today are far more invasive than the monarchies of old.
Only a free society is a humane one, and democracy has done much harm to human freedom.
vindician 4 months ago
@vindician
You haven't given any examples. Freedom of speech for instance, is something old monarchies rarely had.
Robin90modell 4 months ago
@Robin90modell Freedom of speech has nothing to do with democracy and has routinely been curbed in democracies, even today.
vindician 4 months ago
@vindician
It's better in democracies compared to non democratic countries.
A country without a high degree of freedom of speech can not a true democratic country. I can agree though that many countries claim to have democracies, when in reality that part is very weak. The fairness around the russian elections for instance is quite debated. That doesn't mean democracy is not a good polititical form.
With a "non invasive" government, others would just fill that void.
Robin90modell 4 months ago
@Robin90modell I'm not particularly interested in democracy. It has a very socially corrosive, corruptive influence and a natural tendency to evolve into a total state. Nor does democracy prevent systemic violations of individual rights. To the contrary, democracy provided intellectual and moral cover for even the most egregious violations and atrocities, the US being a case in point.
The idea that others would fill the void of a non invasive government doesn't qualify as an argument.
vindician 4 months ago
@vindician
Oh, I forgot, how do you defend that the "monarchies of old" had slavery?
Robin90modell 4 months ago
@Robin90modell I'm not defending the monarchies of old. I'm advocating a stateless, private property based society in the Rothbardian-Hoppean tradition.
vindician 4 months ago
@vindician
Which is impossible. As I have noted (and you have thus far failed to address), the upholding of private property is impossible to perpetuate in lieu of a state. If there is no-one to stop me taking your stuff other than yourself, and I win, then guess what: you don't have any stuff.
Private property rights requires the existence of a State. Murray Rothbard is an intelligent fool.
Lodatzor 3 months ago
@vindician
Oh really? So, presumably if we were to go back to having kings and feudal lords, everything would be rosy and civilized again?
Lodatzor 3 months ago
@Lodatzor A word of advice: read before commenting. I have never advocated the return to violations of old, I've advocated freedom. I'm not sure which argument you 'think' you've debunked, but a safe bet is that you haven't debunked anything at all.
There are numerous examples of upholding property rights without the state, and I've cited several of them. So again, you lie instead of argue. This is of course typical for shills and liars for the regime.<