Well Ghost, I am not an economist, so I don't really know if that is the truth or not. I just know that deregulation has been bad business in the US. Not bad for business, bad business for the working man and woman.

[snip]Make a point with proof Tolstoy. I never said anything about you being a dumb ignorant hick. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth. And what exactly do you mean by Appealing to Authority? You mean stating facts? I know. Those can get in the way some time.[/snip]

You said I was unejucated, and I nedded to reed newspapers and watch the news on the teeveee. Maybe I misunderstood you. I can tell you from my own experience that just about every news story I've been a part of has gotten the basic facts wrong and the analysis is even more wrong (an unfortunate effect of journalists reporting on subjects they have no knowledge of, and feeling they need to 'dumb it down' for an audience they think is even more ignorant than they are).

If newspapers, television newsreaders, and ivory tower academics are what you rely on for your information, it's no wonder you're so out of touch with reality.

C-K, have you ever asked yourself which powers we don't meet or vote for which control *every single agency in the executive branch, plus the entire judicial branch*?

... that's not really a proper basis for criticism.

Everyone who runs the institutions is duly appointed. That's not to say that they're completely free from outside influences, but due to the accountability of the Fed Chair, as well as the rotating terms of the member-bank presidents, the impact that one cabal can have on the financial system is greatly diluted.

And to levy the general complaint that "business" profits from the actions of the Fed is a poor train of thought, since the Fed is designed to benefit American, well, business.

C-K, that was my argument. That the deregulation gave these institutions free reign to do whatever they wanted. And this caused our problem. Are you keeping up with the entire conversation?

Tolstoy: where do you get your information?

"TGM - concur. Over-regulation can cause crises as easily as under-regulation. Just try and open a business in Russia and you'll learn why very quickly."

I reject the concept of under-regulation.

jimgov, how can I give a proof that a market free than has ever existed would tswork? I can't. But that doesn't make me wrong, it just means that the experiment hasn't been done yet. You might as well go to the theoretical physicists and say "Well, where's your proof?" since the LHC hasn't any results yet.

What I can say however is this (paraphrasing Friedman): When you compare like with like, I know no exception to the principle that the free a people, the more prosperous they have been. (end paraphrase) There is no reason to suppose that any further extension of freedom beyond the evidence would suddenly break that rule.

C-K. You misunderstood me. Instead of me reading off a laundry list of, say, all of the times that congress was obstructionistic to the sitting president over the past 20 years, that would take me forever. It is just common knowledge. That was my point.

I admitted, ghost, that I wasn't an economist. I don't claim to be one. It is just that a theory that hasn't been tested on a scale this large is just a theory. You may very well be right. I just can't prove it.

Ghost your argument is too general, and is flawed, your assumptions are invalid

In 98% of cases, I agree with the principles of deregulation proposed by TGM.

However, I fully support the existence of the Fed, the FDIC, and at the very least the SEC. The Fed and the FDIC for my previously-mentioned reasons; watchdog/regulator institutions to guarantee that business is conducted in the open, and that proper reporting and accounting standards are adhered to.

Also if anyone cares to bother, I am an economist ^_^

"Well Ghost, I am not an economist, so I don't really know if that is the truth or not. I just know that deregulation has been bad business in the US. Not bad for business, bad business for the working man and woman."
You don't know that though, it has always been your apriorism. I've presented you with an argument against that very claim, and you have been unable to refute it, but still you believe the same thing. Could there ever any evidence that would, in fact, change your position?

Sure freedom means free reign to do what you want. But if you're stupid, you go bust. The bubble would have been impossible without government. You MUST refute that if you are to keep your case watertight.

bbdaniels, I subscribe to the Austrian school of thought regarding monetary policy.

Yeah, that SEC sure did a bangup job uncovering the massive Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme. Kudos to those regulators! Just think of how many investors would've been ruined if they hadn't caught on to him right away!

Oh, wait...

The original duty of the FED was to create a stable value for currency, a fixed set of "rules" for trade. It has been used instead to vary the value of currency in reaction to the state of the economy. Greenspan and the like have done a pretty good job predicting the market. The problem is that it was never within the scope.

Re: Austrian -- as far as, say, Mises-Hayek is concerned, certainly too-liberal monetary regimes do encourage booms and busts.

But what institution would you propose to set the money supply?

"Ghost your argument is too general, and is flawed, your assumptions are invalid"

At least I have an argument. You say that my assumptions are invalid. Which, Why? You say that my logic is flawed. Where, How? You say my argument is too general, but how can anyone isolate a specific part of the economy to talk about?

no regulation = 1928/9. you can't create a false duality like you have

Tolstoy: the SEC was lied to by his accountants. And they have enough trouble keeping an eye on the other $30 trillion invested to be really truly bothered about a few billion here and there. The fact that that was the biggest scam uncovered really does credit to the SEC in keeping order in the larger financial markets.

bbdaniels, I subscribe to the Austrian school of thought. That means competing monies.

josh: that was true until the collapse of the Gold Standard and then again of the Bretton Woods system. The Fed adapted to the demands of a floating-exchange-rate regime quite adroitly.

Of course, ghost. I am waiting to see evidence. I see claims and such, but no proof. I guess that, since I am not an economist, I may be wrong. But I just don't think so. Maybe you are right. But, without dismantling the entire US economic system and starting over, we have to work with the system we have.

regulation created /facilitated the conditions of the collapse, therefore all regulation is bad. that's a bit general. regulation is necessary to some degree to prevent monopolies from forming.

1928/9 had a fed, it had regulation. I've got to sleep soon, so cannot answer you fully regarding the Great Depression.

As for the false duality you allege, where is the third option between Free Markets and Government Regulations?

Competing monies with a stable supply of each, you mean? It's economically sound, but politically extraordinarily difficult to enact. My preference for the Fed is because of the international political system we have, not the one we'd like to have.

(I'll admit that I would actually *theoretically* prefer a move to a single world currency, which in some ways is a further extension of the very same ideals.)

bbdaniels,

The SEC should never have taken his accountants' word for anything. They screwed up and didn't do their job, plain and simple. And the SEC never uncovered it - his sons (so the story goes) ratted him out.

For the record I'd like to state that I'm not anti-capitalist or communist or anything like that. I love the world we're living in and my family's stake depends on it. I am, however, against the manipulation of our society by a select few. This is wrong. Personally, I see evidence of this and it makes me mad. To me it's the same as The best players on this site agreeing to always work together. That is what is happening on a world economic scale. That should be enough of a reason to do something about it. For me the words of Greenspan about the Federal Reserves independence from any law is enough to make me angry enough to at least try to inform people about what is really happening.

TGM: same re: bed, cheers! where are you located?

But thanks for the conversation, ghost. Have a good one.

Tolstoy, they have to! They can't re-check every single record that comes in, and you can't fault them for getting one or two wrong every DECADE. Like I said, the relative smallness of the sums involved only tell the story of how good a job the SEC is doing on a larger scale.