Rising gas prices are due to free market forces...

page: 24
19
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Again, I already provided a link that points out that all the roads were built almost exclusively by government. That is what proved you wrong. All you have proved is that road construction increased considerable in the 50ties. This doesn't change that fact that ole route 66 was built by the government in the first place.

As far as Standard Oil is concerned, you are still trying to blame government for the actions of criminals. Just because Standard Oil found a way around the law doesn't mean that it is the governments fault. It is not the fault of government that people commit crimes.

That you continue to ignore that points I have made that prove you wrong, demonstrates to me that you don't care about the truth, you only care about winning the debate. It is a continuing example of everything that is wrong with this nation, and degradation of our nations moral fiber.




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Sections nine is restrictions on Congress. Its purpose is to state what congress can not do in regulating commerce, and what congress can not do is very strictly defined, while what congress can do in the regulation of commerce is very broad.

So where does it say in US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 that congress can not make laws to prevent speculators from adding approximately $.60 to every gallon of gas U.S. consumers purchase, screwing over literally everyone in the country except the speculators?

What???? Your happy paying out $20 to $30 bucks a month or more to wall street gamblers?

Unless you are one of those skimming off the rest of the country, what in the world convinced you to support such wide spread fraud against your own best economic interests?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b


What???? Your happy paying out $20 to $30 bucks a month or more to wall street gamblers?

Unless you are one of those skimming off the rest of the country, what in the world convinced you to support such wide spread fraud against your own best economic interests?



Poet, that is all I can gather from this blind defense of something they claim isn't free market in the first
place.

It's NOT free market, but we must protect it at all costs??? Really?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bugman82
 




The artificial values were created by the mortgage lenders creating exotic loan packages with balloon payments and other such nonsense to justify loaning people more money than they could afford to pay back.


Sombody had to have enough money to lend to cover the mortgage on the houses. That money comes from the Fed. Without the Fed that money wouldn't have been there to lend.



You need to provide an actual argument that proves the Fed Res role in the formation of the bubble.


In a free market that money wouldn't have been there.
edit on 1-3-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bugman82
 




The artificial values were created by the mortgage lenders creating exotic loan packages with balloon payments and other such nonsense to justify loaning people more money than they could afford to pay back.


Sombody had to have enough money to lend to cover the mortgage on the houses. That money comes from the Fed. Without the Fed that money wouldn't have been there to lend.



You need to provide an actual argument that proves the Fed Res role in the formation of the bubble.


In a free market that money wouldn't have been there.
edit on 1-3-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)


But the Fed was there, we have been this way for nearly 100 years...
This bubble was engineered by the banks leveraging free market politicians
to dismantle sound regulatory practice.

You don't find it at all fishy that this mortgage industry worked for almost a century,
but ultimately failed following several, historical acts of deregulation?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bugman82
 




The artificial values were created by the mortgage lenders creating exotic loan packages with balloon payments and other such nonsense to justify loaning people more money than they could afford to pay back.


Sombody had to have enough money to lend to cover the mortgage on the houses. That money comes from the Fed. Without the Fed that money wouldn't have been there to lend.



You need to provide an actual argument that proves the Fed Res role in the formation of the bubble.


In a free market that money wouldn't have been there.
edit on 1-3-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)


again if this is not a free market than why not eliminate speculation?

Why don't you answer this question?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bugman82
 




The artificial values were created by the mortgage lenders creating exotic loan packages with balloon payments and other such nonsense to justify loaning people more money than they could afford to pay back.


Sombody had to have enough money to lend to cover the mortgage on the houses. That money comes from the Fed. Without the Fed that money wouldn't have been there to lend.



You need to provide an actual argument that proves the Fed Res role in the formation of the bubble.


In a free market that money wouldn't have been there.
edit on 1-3-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)


But the Fed was there, we have been this way for nearly 100 years...
This bubble was engineered by the banks leveraging free market politicians
to dismantle sound regulatory practice.


You agree then that the banks (all part of the Fed) made the bubble, not the free market.



You don't find it at all fishy that this mortgage industry worked for almost a century,
but ultimately failed following several, historical acts of deregulation?


Propagandists call it deregulation. It was changes in regulation, reregulation. If you wanted to loan your 401K to earn for yourself the mortgage fees i'm pretty sure it would be against the regulations.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta


reply to post by Bugman82
 



again if this is not a free market than why not eliminate speculation?

Why don't you answer this question?


I answered it at least twice overtly. Third time. Speculation is supposed to be a source of income and credit to producers. Credit is supposed to be harder to come by. It should be based on savings and not inflationary currency.
edit on 1-3-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


In the magical kingdom of the free market, nobody would need any money,

Just like in the good ole USSR, right comrade?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


In the magical kingdom of the free market, nobody would need any money,

Just like in the good ole USSR, right comrade?



I see what your getting at. Yes the basics do sound Utopean. But so does democracy and everybody knows we live in a democracy.

You can't have a freedom without free market. The closer to free market the closer to freedom



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by mastahunta


reply to post by Bugman82
 



again if this is not a free market than why not eliminate speculation?

Why don't you answer this question?


I answered it at least twice overtly. Third time. Speculation is supposed to be a source of income and credit to producers. Credit is supposed to be harder to come by. It should be based on savings and not inflationary currency.
edit on 1-3-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)


I will get to one of your points later in more detail... But the fact is, this is the system in place,
so why would you champion a free market force that does not apply to a managed economy?
It is like introducing elbowing to basketball, changes the game a lot, you shouldn't blame the
game of basketball for the bloody fights that occur, but many will. Well in this, you blame
the existence of the game and the rules, but you fail to admit that your side has introduced
the elbows into the mix, but continue to blame the existence of rules as the cause of the chaos.

Trying to create these regulatory schemes based upon free market theory is exactly how the most
hair brained and corrupted practices get put into practice. It is your inclination to want a Free
Market along with your side of the argument, but in this desire, you guys design and support
Frankenstein ideas that in merit only benefit the Oligarchs of the world.

Because conservatives put so much faith in free markets it is up to you to create an environment
where they can thrive. However when this is put to task you elect politicians that make ground
pollution legal, bank fraud legal, insurance rescission legal or even something like Citizens United
which is the free market idea (as it exists in practice) applied to politics. Money equates speech?

So you fail to recognize that this free market idea, is an IDEA, then when people apply this idea
to the world you swear up and down that they are not your ideas. well infact they are, it is just
that you do not own the idea and the practice of that idea is generally used to create economic
control and benefit for the rich.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


In the magical kingdom of the free market, nobody would need any money,

Just like in the good ole USSR, right comrade?



I see what your getting at. Yes the basics do sound Utopean. But so does democracy and everybody knows we live in a democracy.

You can't have a freedom without free market. The closer to free market the closer to freedom


Yes, but it is how that is fostered my friend, if the free market is being used as a
catalyst to make it easier to start a lemonade stand or a repair shop it is a fabulous
force. But if it is being used as an excuse to dump carcinogens into ground water, than
it is not beneficial. Point is, it can be used to justify both endeavors. Now if you
apply this force to forces that are so rich there is no way to impede or change their
roll in the system they dominate, it becomes tyrannical.

You can't have freedom if two or three companies are dictating all the terms of existence,
pricing and contracts. Next give them the freedom to own all politicians and major sources
on information as well. In their competitive nature is where all this was born and this naked
competitive nature is one of the primary forces of the free market doctrine, as opposed to
moderation.

Free market is like applying the rules of driving to every human activity, it makes sense
when you are driving, maybe even walking, riding a bike. But apply a one size fits all
view of everything produces some nasty results in certain combinations, which is what
we are seeing now.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Can't have a free market with the current system because no one knows what anything is really worth.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


If the free market justifies crime then the English language justifies crime.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by mastahunta
 


If the free market justifies crime then the English language justifies crime.


The primary difference between the free market and the heavily regulated markets of today is that in free markets man exploits man, but in these heavily regulated markets it's the other way around.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Can't have a free market with the current system because no one knows what anything is really worth.


But there is tons of free market to be found, herein dwells the copout.
I can call 10 different pizza places and order a pizza based upon the one
I like the best or even the cheapest price. So does this mean the is no
free market? I mean based upon the last six responses you have offered
I would have to believe that me being able to get 10 different pizza's
is not free market because there is fiat currency or the federal reserve.

So you use the principle to fit the environment which is exactly what
corporations do. Its free market when it serves them and it is regulated
when it doesn't.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


Democracy doesn't sound Utopian, it sounds difficult and complicated, and that is what it is. but it also sound realistic, especially when you introduce representative government. And Democracies have existed for thousands of years now.

Free markets sound Utopian, are supposed to work automatically as if by some invisible force, unrealistically idealistic, and there has never been a successful free market.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Brother, that same invisible force - "the unseen hand" - that you use to dismiss free market principles as nothing more than Utopian idealism is the exact same force you laud when it comes to a democratic representative government.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by poet1b
 


Brother, that same invisible force - "the unseen hand" - that you use to dismiss free market principles as nothing more than Utopian idealism is the exact same force you laud when it comes to a democratic representative government.





I am sorry to chime in to something you posted towards Poet, but the unseen hand doesn't
always work well in every situation that is possible. It also doesn't function the way many
would have me believe which is why I engaged on this unpopular crusade. For example,
free market theorists believe that prices will typically decrease when there is more
competition in a market place. This is theory that will supposedly lead to a decrease in
the prices that currently stands as high or too high. But that economic belief does not
apply to everything equally and in some cases the opposite is true. The mainstream
availability of brewed retail coffee has exploded in the last ten years, but the price of
the coffee has not decreased, it has markedly increased.In the case of 7-11 coffee
over 100% in ten years. But the cost of Airplane tickets has stayed fairly stable,
in some cases decreased even though petrol has increased over 250%. Technology
is cheaper, while service fees associated with that technology has increased dramatically.
Bananas are stable, but root veggies are well up. So as you can see, where is the
market based reason in any of this? I think because applying a one size fits all law to
unique things is a failure of understanding or trying to understand each market or item.
And this is one instance of one of the free market laws that many take as true. There
are other portions where the world doesn't adhere to the laws either. This is a good part
of what Poet and I have been trying to point out for 24 pages here.

Clearly representative democracy has its severe cracks, so why do we regulate that, but not
economics where cracks also appear?
edit on 1-3-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 





For example, free market theorists believe that prices will typically decrease when there is more competition in a market place.


This is a gross oversimplification. Market forces, regardless of the system in place, are bound by certain laws such as supply and demand. Regardless of how much competition there may be, if the demand outpaces the supply, then there will be no drop in prices simply because there is massive competition. However, limit that competition and it follows that prices will not only remain high but will likely be inflated by the legalized cartels supplying the demand.




Clearly representative democracy has its severe cracks, so why do we regulate that, but not economics where cracks also appear?


Free and unregulated markets is a principle that declares government has no business regulating the market place, it is not declaring that markets are naturally unregulated, they clearly are by the forces of supply and demand, diminishing returns and other economic principles. The strongest regulation are the buyer themselves.

You have already offered up a refutation of the buyer being the regulator that was a cogent point when you pointed to the phenomenal success of Coca-Cola, a company who has profited off of an empty calorie soda that demonstrably causes more harm than good. This point should not be ignored, but in pointing to this fact you are simply pointing a regulation in place by the buyers that you don't like. I don't like it either, but at least it is not a regulation that requires you or I succumb to the general approval of this crap product. There is quite clearly a demand for the product so there will quite clearly be suppliers, that so many have created a demand for empty calorie toxic soft drinks - even with the understanding of the damage it does - points to psychological problems with individuals on an aggregate level.

It is arguably irrational to keep paying for a liquid that is killing you, yet people keep doing it, and the more cogent point to that is that even in the face of prohibition of this soda, as long as the demand exists there will be suppliers. The same principle I am speaking to is found in democracies. Natural law and the assertion that individuals are in possession of unalienable rights that preexist governments is the lynchpin of freedom, not the ability to freely elect government officials, and the demand should be that government zealously protect these unalienable rights, but under a democracy - a pure unrestricted democracy - the majority can simply just vote away these unalienable rights and authorize the awesome force of the state to deny and disparage these rights. This is just as arguably irrational as drinking toxic soda regularly.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 21  22  23    25  26 >>

log in

join