We are not the market. We are the people. My life means more to me than a supply / demand equation or a calculation of my marginal preferences.
A market does not exist unless two (or more) people voluntarily trade things. Great. So does mine. That's why I don't want anyone else telling me what they think I derive pleasure from. The only people who actually try to do this are central planners and socialists because they are forced to make artificial markets.
Your life is nothing without the market. You want to live without the market, go live in isolation somewhere. All the buying and selling that all of us do every day is the market. The market is not a thing. Just like the internet is not a thing. It's lots of computers communicating with each other. Some of us want to have the freedom to buy and sell as we please. Some of us think we have the right to coerce others to do as we wish, such as yourself, despite the fact there isn't a shred of evidence that says you have the right to do so.
Am I missing something? The 72 year old who took out 4 million in loans with a pay back date of 30 years and had no income. Also just watching the Senators listening to all the sob stories my sense was yes the bankers need a good kick up the a$$ but so too do the morons who took out the mortgages the so called no income poops. You cannot legislate to prevent stupidity. Kind Regards non recourse
Just posted this link in another thread. Australia's sub prime mortgage scandal grows http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/08/australias-sub-prime-mortgage-scandal-grows/
Yep when you allow banks to create 97% of money the banks should be the most highly regulated industry in the world. They only need two regulations to do that. A glass-stegal type act and a 100% reserve on standard deposits.
Actually, from some things I have read all you may need is to redefine a bank deposit as a bailment (i.e. what happens when you entrust your clothes to the dry cleaner or put your wheat into a general pool for storage) rather than as a debt. I'm not a lawyer but I think this distinction was broken as a result of a number of legal cases (notably in England) back in the late 1600's or early 1700's. Why is your money on deposit in a bank treated differently to physical commodities? Because the legal tradition says it is different. Apparently up until the key legal cases a monetary deposit for safekeeping/transacting etc was considered a bailment under common law.
^ That's very interesting. So many things became part of legal frameworks/legislation, simply because they'd been around so long they were considered 'normal'. Never mind that they aren't good for the country (eg negative gearing... doesn't get touched because there's a stigma associated with it, and it is 'normal' now). One of the other problems is that due to globalisation, it is not profitable for a country to have 100% reserves, especially when competing with other countries who don't have 100% reserve requirements and who may be prospering for it. No point being the martyr country who is doing it right, but suffering badly for the privilege. But in case I just confused anyone, I don't like FRB
Seems like someone did his homework "mystery of banking" by rothbard goes into detail about that distinction and grave error that was made which was one of the first slow steps to current situation.
Yes. Mystery of banking was the main source (I've recommended on here that people read this a few times). I respect Rothbard's qualifications as a good historian and he put a great case but people aren't perfect (hence the caveat). I also saw a video saying the same thing but they may have simply read Rothbard as well. Dogmatix: The argument is essentially that FRB is ENABLED by this distinction.
Correct..a coner stone of Common Law ,and even Codified Law like Tax and Criminal ,is the concept "precedent". It can produce some wierd scenarios however in the main its is dynamic over time slowly adjusting for the times.
If they cut a few corners to provide credit to those who would not otherwise receive it, its 'predatory lending'. If they don't, the narrative is 'heartless banks turns down battler doing it tough'. Either way it will look bad for the institution. There is also an agent-principal problem at work here.
And yet, you believe in the notion that we are free to sell our freedom away into slavery. An inevitable result of "market freedom" taken to its logical extreme. Me, I reject that outright - even if I would have to coerce you to do so, because my humanity (i.e. "the people" in me) knows it's wrong. Some things are not for sale. While we are at it, let's follow this free market train of thought: You must support all forms of drug trafficking and prostitution, because to curb this activity would be against market freedom. Nuclear weapons technology should also be freely available to those with the desire to sell and those that want to buy. It's a free market, after all.
Seriously, there is way too much re-education involved to get from these viewpoints to where we are. If you equate freedom with slavery something is really wrong. Initiating fraud, force or violence against another person is always wrong. A free market does not mean people will have the "freedom" to do this. Eg FRB is ONLY in existence at the massive level because our freedoms wrt money have been taken away.
How to restrict freedom of the market? What stops the freedom to do wrong things legally? There are worse things than prostitution and in some cases prostitution serves a (perverted) need. Once you restrict some part of the market, how is that a free market? For example, say some prescription medicine can be turned into ecstasy, so do you restrict its movements by setting trade rules etc or you just let it flow free? If your answer is restriction is part of life, then how is that different from the current situation? Lots of things fall into free trade commerce, some things are restricted due to political or safety issues.
Again jpanggy, I can understand and sympathise with where you are coming from with these concerns. They are good concerns that go to highlight that you are one of the everyday decent people who are worried about deviants doing bad things to good people. However, as I said the freedom libertarians talk about is essentially freedom to choose what you want to do but recognising that you are acting in a society that exists for everyone's welfare. It is not okay to steal, murder, defame, etc (more precisely initiate force, fraud or violence on another person or their property) but beyond that anything goes. (Note: Libertarian does not equal Libertine. I would hazard a guess that most of the guys espousing freedom on here are the former rather than the latter) Why should I care if someone wants to take ecstasy if it doesn't impact on me? (This does not mean I am not allowed to raise concerns or even be willing to apply a mild form of peer pressure to help them if I saw it as a problem but in the end I cannot forcibly stop them against their will.) Why should I care if some pharmacist makes it from prescription drugs? As long as he labels it correctly, he's not doing anything wrong. So on and so forth regarding your concerns about freedom really entails. [In case it's not clear, freedom to form and join a group/association/religion etc who believe that certain actions should be totally taboo (i.e. no swearing, prostitution, abortion or whatever) is completely fine as long as the group does not force people to abide by their beliefs (e.g. invoke a death penalty sentence on a woman if she commits adultery).] [Edit: as someone said, with increased freedom comes increased responsibility. In the end all people are the true owner of themselves and no coercive entity may dictate their behaviour as it impacts on themselves. It is my right to squander or grow my meagre resources as I see fit.]
