No, I'm not arguing that people were forced to buy SUVs. Not even a little bit. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying that people were convinced that the SUV was what they wanted. People did previously buy station wagons. And they bought minivans. They simply bought what the advertising sold them. Eventually, they added their own demands, like ones that didn't blow up or roll over at <20mph. I don't know how old you are, but the SUV basically sold because people bought its tough guy you're too cool for a minivan/station wagon packaging. They've changed a lot even since the mid-late 90s, but slowly and lagging behind other vehicles technologically.
Trimmed your post because the section was pretty long. You acknowledge while at the same time dismiss that DARPA played a role in creating the technology. Interesting that they contributed yet deserve no credit.
Also, it's a bit absurd to say every time government helps create something of value it's blind luck. Of course government channels its money into private companies. That's how it funds technological advance. It is in a unique position because it invests in research and development without rights to the technology nor does it want them. It injects money where the markets won't necessarily. Government injected lots of money into taking computers that moths often sabotaged into punch card room sized, and then smaller, computers. Government injected lots of money into silicon valley as well. Sometimes it helps. Not always or even often, but it's okay once in a while for it not to be the evil that will destroy the earth. It really doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition.
I didn't say that it's because of blind luck, but rather that it's less efficient (i.e. costs more money) than when the market does it, and on average won't satisfy consumer needs as well as the market doing it.
S*** flows downhill my friend. I pollute my lake, it flows downstream in your section of river. I have rights to my property, I can dump what I want in my lake. Unless you want some rule about what I can put into my lake.
And there you go again. Enforcement has to come from some central authority, unless you mean you hire someone to kick my ass or kill me.
This would be handled by property rights. That infringes on my property. Just because you own a house doesn't mean you can shoot garbage out of a rocket into my yard, as long as it's done from your yard.
And groundwater and soil pollution problems are absolutely able to be investigated, and the actual cost of doing so isn't astronomical. Part of the cost problem is our old friend state licensing. Everything from the geologists associated with the investigation, to the drillers used to advance borings and monitoring wells, to the labs used to analyze the samples, have to be licensed to admissible to the state DEPs. In a private-law society, you'd have environmental consulting firms similar to the type we have today, although instead of producing reports for the state DEP, they'd be more like private investigators, hired by property owners to build evidence for a tort case.
That is patently false. It's amazing that you actually think this, but I can only assume you're not aware of the facts. Read the books I mentioned. What happened is almost entirely driven by two things: the free, unencumbered derivatives market; and ego. I mean, I have a pretty low opinion of people in general, but the hundreds of billions of dollars played around with based on egos involved was still shocking.
it was in lying to people about the quality of these instruments and then taking the opposite position on those instruments.
yes, this is the fraud I'm talking about.
The government stepped in after the fact with the bailout. If they hadn't bailed out the financial system, it's not just Goldman that would've failed. The whole system would've crashed. The scramble after Lehman's demise as described in Too Big To Fail was fascinating.
If the book is based off of the HBO movie, then it's grossly distorted and overly bias. It made it look like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Ben Bernanke, and Nancy Pelosi were the good guys lol and the government came in a saved the economy from complete collapse, from something worse than the Great Depression. But the fact of the matter is that if we were on the brink of something that bad, imagine what we're on the brink of now. The government didn't solve these problems, they just postponed the day of reckoning.
And the whole system should have crashed as it is fundamentally flawed. When businesses partake in irresponsible practices, they must suffer the consequences, not get bailouts from the taxpayers. Fwiw the government bail outs propping up this system is making things worst. If things would have crashed we could have had a market correction and we'd be back to growth again by now.
Indeed, most businesses perceive their moral imperative to be maximizing profit. That's why as improva says, one of them is going to bring a gun to your toy game. Businesses' goals are usually opposed to society's. They quickly regress to the least they can do to get their product out in the name of efficiency and maximizing profit.
For the love of God take a marketing class. Business' whose goal is aim to just "get their product out in the name of efficiency" will not succeed. Yes, business' aim to maximize profit (so you got half of that right), but that's done by satisfying consumers better then the competition.
To say that business' goals are opposed to society's is utterly absurd. Assuming the business isn't getting benefits from the government, they are both aligned. Henry Ford acted in his own interest when he revolutionized cars, and he advanced society. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs acted in their interests and they advanced society. The whole paradigm you are operating from is dangerous to the advancement of society.
The Fed did not create derivatives. And interesting how DARPA's influence counts for nothing yet the Fed causes every excess of wall st's. There was only one moral hazard present when these things took off, and it wasn't easy credit. That moral hazard did impact what derivatives had to be made of. That was the implicit guarantee that fannie and freddie had, but the impact it had was that no one would buy derivatives of fannie and freddie mortgages because they didn't need it so wall st had to create their own.
Fed rates had little to do with the mortgage products wall st directed their mortgage companies to offer. As viable lendees ran out, they had to start making more ridiculous loans to keep providing the raw material. It was theorized that this was okay because bundling de-risked the derivative. That's where ego really drives the thing. These guys knew they were on a runaway trains (that they built) heading for each other right in the middle of a city, but they did it anyway.
Fannie and freddie cooked the books to seem like they were complying with the CRA, but ultimately they too decided to get in on the action based on ego - it was their turf and they'll be the biggest ones on it. They acted not at government's behest, they acted as a private company trying to regain market share.
As I noted above, lying about the quality of the instruments you are selling and cooking the books is fraud. Fraud is not legal under capitalism.
Also note that the Fed's monetary policy created the environment that led to the creation of a lot of the derivatives. Regarding, DARPA, my arguments above still stand. Don't see how those arguments about dumping billions of dollars at something will get you something (but no the best and not the most efficiently), how government directed research is inefficient, how other things like ARPANet already existed, and how it wasn't what made the internet what it is, are related to the Fed.
I'll have to find a link that can explain it better than I can.
What has government done with our money explains it in as simple terms as you'll find.
No, I had a qualifier you failed to include. If my qualifier is wrong, I'd be happy to hear it.
Ever hear of the Dutch tulip bubble? It happened hundreds of years before and thousands of miles away from Alan Greenspan. Bubbles are naturally occurring phenomena in trade. They have been illustrated in multiple studies.
lol there's a lot of history behind the Tulip bubble, and without typing out another post as long as my last one, it didn't happen for no reason. Basically, coinage laws served to create more money than what the market demanded. This acute increase in the supply of money served to foster an atmosphere that was ripe for speculation and malinvestment, which manifested itself in the intense trading of tulips. In the modern day, central banks (Greenspan) are the ones who cause acute increases in the supply of money.
It's really pointless for you to keep bringing up Greenspan, when he represents something so ridiculously far away from what I'm arguing for. In fact, throughout his tenure, he was one of the largest targets for criticism from the theorists that I'm representing in this thread.
A law needs to be decided upon and enforced. Without enforcement, eventually voluntary compliance will be withdrawn by somebody.
Not sure what this has to do with my advocacy for no prior restraint. I agree with the above, will just add that enforcement is present in both anarchism and minarchy.
If you voluntarily sign a contract and there is no presiding authority you can simply voluntarily decide to say the hell with the contract. Non-hierarchical associations by definition have no presiding authority. It is a society that relies upon an individual allowing him or herself to be punished. Which is fine until you try to make that a real person.
we're going around in circles. in anarchy and minarchy there is enforcement, it just doesn't come from a monopoly State.
It says that federal laws supersede state ones when there are conflicting ones. It can't be any clearer than that really where more power rests. Really, it's not the 10th amendment that protects the authority of states. It's the description of the branches of government that do. That Congress is populated by a distribution of statesmen and is a check and balance against the other branches. If the 10th amendment had been an article, and amendments were prohibited, then you might have something.
Federal laws can supersede state ones *in certain cases,* i.e. if the authority for that law was expressly granted to the Federal Government. The point was that not a lot of authority was granted to the Federal government. For example, feds going into california and shutting down marijuana dispensaries is unconstitutional, as the federal government has no authority to outlaw drugs.
Right (on the first part). There was no way to pay off debts or back paper currency without a central government. In fact, paying off war debt is probably the biggest of the driving factors for rewriting the founding document.
That's not true. They would have paid them off, my point was that the difficult times (recession) after the war made the people more open to a slightly more centralized system, not that the existing one wouldn't have worked. Similar to how the government intervenes in markets, then when things get fucked up they blame it on capitalism and use that to impose more regulations and expand their power even more. It was pointing the blame somewhere that didn't deserve and using that to fuel your agenda.
I can't see into other universes where the Constitution was not written to say what would've happened if it weren't. I can surmise only that a loose confederation with independent states may at best look like the EU. Assuming the War of 1812 could still be won without a federal army.
it wouldn't have a central bank, so it'd be incredibly different than the EU. Also the fact that the states would be smaller with less people means the state governments would be a lot more localized than European countries that belong to the EU.
cute. but there's clearly a difference between a dictionary definition and the meaning the word takes when you are using it in an economic context.
I never said free markets are bad because there are barriers. You stated that any time there are a couple of companies in an industry, a whole bunch more naturally spring up in utopian wonderfulness to bring consumer happiness back to the market. I stated that it's not easy to enter markets whether there is a regulation or not. And that it's not easy because there are factors that block people's ability (a barrier) to do so. And that therefore you cannot support the assertion that every market will be entered no matter what it takes if only there wasn't a rule somewhere. That's what I said. Not markets=bad.
you're just looking at this thing totally wrong, you're looking at this too narrowly. I mean, yeah it might be impossible for 299.95 million of the people in America to start X business, but you don't need 299.95 million of X business to have enough competition to reach a price equilibrium. You usually only need a couple. And if there are no barriers to entry created by the government, you will get enough to achieve perfect competition. I might not have the capital or the brains to enter, but others will.