Democrats, explain yourselves.. [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Crystallas

01-26-2012, 05:20 AM

The government really doesn't interfere that much in the economy. At least not as much as you think.

We live in a large complex society. We are not going to allow companies to sell poison, and just wait for the market to correct itself.

They interfere with every transaction. They, not us. Us meaning, we are supposed to have representative government, but we don't. Well, actually we kind of do, they represent their friends, but not the interest of the majority.
Every single fabricated item is interfered with by the government. That means all goods produced. Services have the least amount of interference, and if you do service work/desk job, you may live your life never noticing much interference other than in the transactions and maybe an audit/inspection from time to time.

Also, this idea that poison would be sold on the market without regulation, at any greater of a rate that it is sold now is utterly false. There is always an adjustment period, and to assume that the idea of transitioning regulation to a market approach is done overnight, is asinine. A transition is always required, that includes transparency, otherwise there will be problems and the market, no matter what, self-corrects itself. Because, if you haven't figured this out yet, the market is the people. The market is larger than the government can ever be. The market represents the people more accurately, faster, and is safer than a central planning system that can, in no possible way, know the needs of the people or the peaceful wills of their lives.

JtotheIzzo

01-26-2012, 07:28 AM

Ron Paul 2012!

RidonKs

01-26-2012, 08:02 AM

yeah what about that
yeah!!

ILLsmak

01-26-2012, 08:35 AM

StateProperty

01-26-2012, 09:22 AM

i mean... have you guys seen 2 gay dudes having sex? that shit must be nasty.

i definitely want government to tell us what we should and shouldn't do in our private lives.
Yeah, tell them they can't marry. That'll keep them from having sex for sure.

Balla_Status

01-26-2012, 11:05 AM

What about the opposite question addressed to Republicans?

Social conservatives and liberals are irrational people.

And nobody really answered the question.

Jailblazers7

01-26-2012, 02:36 PM

Social conservatives and liberals are irrational people.

And nobody really answered the question.

Because people fundamentally disagree about the performance of markets. Its really not difficult to understand why some people support regulation.

Droid101

01-26-2012, 02:43 PM

Stop Legislating Morality

KevinNYC

01-26-2012, 02:56 PM

(Not all democrats share the exact same views and so I'm generalizing with what I'm about to say. Not trying to paint everyone with one brush, it's just easier to address everyone at once than to go person by person).

Okay, so democrats, explain yourself on this.

Why is it, that it's okay for the government to interfere so much in the economy, but it's not okay for them to interfere in your personal lives or overseas?

Democrats in general seem to want less overseas spending, less wars, less nation building, etc. Which I agree with. They also don't want government telling people what to do with their body or with their personal decisions (marijuana, gay marriage, etc). All stuff I agree with.

Yet... when it comes to the economy it's a different story. You guys want government shackles in all directions.

Why?

It's basically because we know 19th Century American history and what a shithole America was turning into when Big Business was unimpeded in any way and was allowed to act as criminal organizations, harming the environment, workers and the competitive free-market itself. Essentially, the individual citizen-consumer had no power against the massive wealth of entrenched interests. I'm a Democrat because a free-market needs regulation to avoid things like gangsterism or corporate armies. Regulation prevented the US from becoming an oligarchy like most of South America. As far back as Adam Smith, it was recognized that a free market could not operate outside of laws and regulations.

I think you are a libertarian or at least have those views. Libertarianism is a luxury ideology that pops up in the affluence of a strong, functioning state. It's something you can worry about when you and your family are pretty safe and secure and not working 16 hour days in a factory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs) To lot of people today who don't know about 19th century America or how America could have turned out, take for granted the foundation that our affluent society has been built on and assume that society would have just turned out that way, if government was never involved.

Also I like weekends.

Crystallas

01-26-2012, 04:39 PM

It's basically because we know 19th Century American history and what a shithole America was turning into when Big Business was unimpeded in any way and was allowed to act as criminal organizations, harming the environment, workers and the competitive free-market itself. Essentially, the individual citizen-consumer had no power against the massive wealth of entrenched interests. I'm a Democrat because a free-market needs regulation to avoid things like gangsterism or corporate armies. Regulation prevented the US from becoming an oligarchy like most of South America. As far back as Adam Smith, it was recognized that a free market could not operate outside of laws and regulations.

I think you are a libertarian or at least have those views. Libertarianism is a luxury ideology that pops up in the affluence of a strong, functioning state. It's something you can worry about when you and your family are pretty safe and secure and not working 16 hour days in a factory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs) To lot of people today who don't know about 19th century America or how America could have turned out, take for granted the foundation that our affluent society has been built on and assume that society would have just turned out that way, if government was never involved.

Also I like weekends.

I'm confused. So you're interpretation of the 19th century is somehow an assumption of what libertarianism represents? Are you going to cherry pick facts from that make your case? Or are you ignoring the massive portion of the century that evolved technology and quality of life for people in this country, that grew from absolutely nothing, into the largest economy the world has ever seen. Yeah, let's ignore that part, and then use the ignorant robber baron argument. While you're at it, blame slavery on the market. Then, use inaccurate psychobabble to back up the premise of your argument. :rolleyes:

Pardon my impatience, but you have to make an accurate argument. Try understanding where a legitimate libertarian comes from their conclusions, not someone at college that read a few books out of protest and said, "Oh yeah, that's the way to go". Here, I have devised a simple test to see whether you have an accurate impression of what a libertarian is. Just ask yourself, do you think libertarians are similar to anarchists? If the answer is yes, then you really have no clue whatsoever. Perhaps you don't care to know or understand. That's your prerogative, and in that case, why should anyone accept the arguments from someone who shuns off diverse thinking? Here, the OP asked a question about hypocrisy, and every half-attempt was a dodge of sorts. A parrot, repeating a source of extreme bias, with little or no comprehensive thoughts to back anything up.

TheMan

01-26-2012, 04:43 PM

Pretty sure it was deregulation that got the economy in the mess it's in so not quite sure what you're getting at. Fail all around.

/thread

DeuceWallaces

01-26-2012, 04:56 PM

Crystallas

01-26-2012, 04:58 PM

The myth of deregulation. Which deregulation was this exactly? Or are you guys ignoring the fact that there was never deregulation in whole, just selective deregulation(that favored the elites, not true deregulation, which nobody here supports), while even more regulation was tacked on at the same time(the additional regulations heavily outweighed those that were cut.)

Crystallas

01-26-2012, 04:59 PM

How come Republicans want a regulation free market, but want to step in and tell you who you can marry, whether or not you can have an abortion, buy a prostitute, or use drugs?

He isn't a republican, and I'm not sure if he is a libertarian either.

KevinNYC

01-26-2012, 05:08 PM

So you're interpretation of the 19th century is somehow an assumption of what libertarianism represents?

My assumption of what a libertarian society would be like is essentially the first 20 minutes of The Seven Samurai.

Crystallas

01-26-2012, 05:21 PM

My assumption of what a libertarian society would be like is essentially the first 20 minutes of The Seven Samurai.

Never seen it. But a libertarian society is not possible, that is where many get hung up. It is an ideology. You can not force any one ideology onto a a mass sample of individuals. Everyone thinks differently and the best solutions are always debatable, because what works for one person may not work for another. Now, using an ideologically motivated method to add balance to the society, this is possible, especially at the federal level, allowing a bottom-up approach. You can have both a libertarian leader and a socialistic government. That is just how diverse libertarianism can be, if you took the time to actually get information from a non-biased source. When most other solutions demand imperialism and grow the plutocracy, from both mainstream ideologies in the spectrum, libertarianism is the cog that allows for the checks and balances to make sure that the people retain as much power as possible.

The Real JW

01-26-2012, 05:26 PM

He isn't a republican, and I'm not sure if he is a libertarian either.

He's a trollitarian. :oldlol:

TheMan

01-26-2012, 05:44 PM

I say let gays get married. They'll realize how much it sucks and call for divorces soon after.
I can't remember which comedian said it but the joke goes...

I'm for gay marriage, let them be as miserable as the rest of us.

SlayerEnraged

01-26-2012, 06:05 PM

brantonli

01-26-2012, 07:02 PM

Never seen it. But a libertarian society is not possible, that is where many get hung up. It is an ideology. You can not force any one ideology onto a a mass sample of individuals. Everyone thinks differently and the best solutions are always debatable, because what works for one person may not work for another. Now, using an ideologically motivated method to add balance to the society, this is possible, especially at the federal level, allowing a bottom-up approach. You can have both a libertarian leader and a socialistic government. That is just how diverse libertarianism can be, if you took the time to actually get information from a non-biased source. When most other solutions demand imperialism and grow the plutocracy, from both mainstream ideologies in the spectrum, libertarianism is the cog that allows for the checks and balances to make sure that the people retain as much power as possible.

I thought libertarian is basically believing that the government should enforce the law and various other public services (army, police etc) and nothing else.

Now, what actually goes into the law books is another question.

TheCommish

01-27-2012, 12:33 AM

Pretty sure it was deregulation that got the economy in the mess it's in so not quite sure what you're getting at. Fail all around.
Er...no... All of you who say that it was deregulation that got the economy all messed up have obviously drank the Democrats (and the fake conservative Republicans) kool aid. It was BECAUSE of government interference that caused the crash. It was the government, through acts such as the Community Reinvestment Act that made banks lend to low income families. These borrowers naturally were more likely to be subprime.

Why did the gov do this? They wanted everyone to fulfill the "American Dream" of home ownership. If the gov didnt interfere, then banks that have common sense wouldnt have invested so much into the subprime market. And even if some did, they would have gone belly up and the other banks would gobble up their market share, reabsorb the workers who lost their jobs, and made sure to learn from the failed banks' mistakes.

But the gov decides to bail them out, thus creating a terrible precedent. Banks now will gamble all they want with their depositors money since there is no downside risk as their sugar daddy, aka the Federal Reserve, will always bail them out.

TheCommish

01-27-2012, 12:42 AM

i think the private sector interferes as much with the government as the government does with it.

Exactly. That is the symptom of big government. When the government decides to enact hopeless regulation on top of other hopeless regulation, they either create new agencies or expand existing agencies to enforce these hopeless regulations. This situation is a natural breeding ground for corruption, bribery, and lobbying.

You watch all those Occupy Wall Street protestors yelling and screaming about big corporations buying influence in Washington DC. Yet, most of them believe that MORE regulation is needed to solve the problem. NO! The solution to the problems is to SCALE BACK the government and LET THE FREE MARKET REGULATE ITSELF. That way, the big corps won't be able to bribe and lobby since the government wouldn't be in a position to influence the markets by passing ridiculous laws and giving bailouts to failed companies.

falc39

01-27-2012, 01:18 AM

Libertarianism is individualism on a deeper level... I think that's why people like me are drawn to it. It fits my personality so closely. When I was growing up, I never was the type who tried to impose myself on others, whether it be my religion, beliefs, goals, etc. I like to encourage others but always to achieve things on their own and independently. If you embrace individuality you also embrace libertarianism deep-down at least to some degree. I don't think many people know how deep libertarianism is philosophically... a lot of people probably think it is a joke... But it can seriously change your life (in a good way).

Unlike other political views, libertarianism is very applicable on a personal level. One of the great libertarian books is Harry Browne's 'How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World'. Definitely worth reading and it doesn't even talk about politics much. It is libertarianism on a personal level/scale. If you're observant, you will find out that a lot of mainstream self-help books practice or are guided by libertarian principles or mindsets.

Also, this idea that poison would be sold on the market without regulation, at any greater of a rate that it is sold now is utterly false. There is always an adjustment period, and to assume that the idea of transitioning regulation to a market approach is done overnight, is asinine. A transition is always required, that includes transparency, otherwise there will be problems and the market, no matter what, self-corrects itself. Because, if you haven't figured this out yet, the market is the people. The market is larger than the government can ever be. The market represents the people more accurately, faster, and is safer than a central planning system that can, in no possible way, know the needs of the people or the peaceful wills of their lives.

I always think this when I see someone rant against the free-market. I always feel like yelling at them: "Don't you realize that you are part of the free-market! To say that the free-market doesn't work is like saying you don't work and that you shouldn't be able to make your own choices!" :oldlol:

Oh yeah, and my favorite oxymoron... Any politician who says they believe in the people but also that the free market failed and we need to do something (impose force) to fix it.

joe

01-27-2012, 01:40 AM

First of all, I don't think anyone should be a democrat or republican. I think you should be neutral and make a decision to vote for the candidate whose plan you think is going to work best. Secondly, why should the gov. interfere with an individuals life? The economy is a world wide issue. Gov shouldn't have any control over personal life.

How is the economy not my personal life? The government bans products. It takes my money through taxes to give it to companies I may or may not support. It tells me that I can't work until a certain age. It tells me that I have to be paid X amount of money. It tells me what type of currency I'm allowed to use. Its excessive regulations make it harder for me to start a business. Its litigious culture makes it harder for me to find work.

Now, let's just say you happen to agree that all of the above things are positives. That the government should do all of those things. Well, how is that any different than republicans telling you that you can't get married if you're gay?

Dasher

01-27-2012, 01:42 AM

The ending of child labor is one of the best accomplishments of The American government.

joe

01-27-2012, 01:50 AM

The concept of true capitalism is, to me, even more ridiculous than communism.

Obviously neither one will ever happen because they are both paper ideas. However, the government should be required to bring everything towards a middle class. The super rich should be taxed super hard. The middle class should be getting more of that money.

Ideally, I'd like to see the middle and lower-middle class get all of the tax breaks and maybe get rid of all of these super low class benefits. At least, for parents.

Maybe if you are less than 18 and your family lacks money you should get a certain aid from the government to pursue your education, but we don't need crack heads getting welfare checks.

Most of the divide between Republican and Democrat has to do with GOD. The average american is stupid. They say REPUBLICANS LOVE GOD, HATE ABORTION OK! And they keep thinking that people need to work for everything they receive. What is lost on them is that fact that these people are middle and lower middle class people, so they would receive a huge benefit for voting straight democrat. But they'd rather not go to hell for condoning abortion.

-Smak

Word of the day: incentive.

If the government took all the money from the rich, and gave it to the middle class.. why would anyone strive to be rich?

Why would anyone spend countless hours, endure the hard work of creating a new product... if all of their profits after X will be taken?

Why not just go and get a desk job if that's the case, and save the head ache?

But wait... if nobody is striving to be rich, and nobody is starting businesses, there won't be any desk jobs!

Socialism and wealth distribution indeed will bring equality. We'll all be equally starving to death.

Capitalism will bring great inequality. Some people will be extremely rich, some people will be rich, some people will be slightly less rich, and some people will be rich compared to those in socialist countries. Crappy deal.

joe

01-27-2012, 01:51 AM

The ending of child labor is one of the best accomplishments of The American government.

No, the ending of child labor is one of the great accomplishments of capitalism and free markets. Taking the credit for that is one of the best accomplishments of the American government.

JtotheIzzo

01-27-2012, 01:52 AM

Republicans and Democrats are essentially the same,the only real difference where they will generate 3% of their revenue from, the Democrats want to tax the rich, the Republicans want to cut services.

THAT'S IT

Everything else is the exact same.

They fool you with fluff issues that never get resolved, and one group aligns with God and rural people while the other group aligns with minorities and the environment, but these issues have unavoidable ends and don't really matter.

The US is a one party system and this works out very well for them (has there ever been a ground swell change on foreign policy from one admin to the next? no. exactly...one party system).

The trouble is the general population is comprised of drama queens who freak out and massively overreact to everything that happens.

but this feeds the machine and keeps the one party system truckin.

Dasher

01-27-2012, 01:57 AM

No, the ending of child labor is one of the great accomplishments of capitalism and free markets. Taking the credit for that is one of the best accomplishments of the American government.
The Free Market is fine with continuing the practice of child labor, as it the practice of child labor continues unmolested in many parts of the world.

Also I'd like to know what onerous regulations have kept you from starting a business.

joe

01-27-2012, 02:01 AM

The Free Market is fine with continuing the practice of child labor, as it the practice of child labor continues unmolested in many parts of the world.

Also I'd like to know what onerous regulations have kept you from starting a business.

Pick a department:

http://www.regulations.gov/public/component/main?main=UnifiedAgenda

Don't buy the propoganda that we've had deregulation in the US. We have more regulation now than ever. We have regulatory bodies that act independently, spitting out regulations from their office in DC at rapid rates. Most of them are small and may even sound sensible on the surface. But when you add them all up it becomes a quagmire for businesses (especially small) to deal with.

Dasher

01-27-2012, 02:08 AM

Pick a department:

http://www.regulations.gov/public/component/main?main=UnifiedAgenda

Don't buy the propoganda that we've had deregulation in the US. We have more regulation now than ever. We have regulatory bodies that act independently, spitting out regulations from their office in DC at rapid rates. Most of them are small and may even sound sensible on the surface. But when you add them all up it becomes a quagmire for businesses (especially small) to deal with.
I am asking specifically what regulations have stopped you from pursuing business ownership.

I know there are onerous regulations out there, but I also know that there are good regulations on the books.

joe

01-27-2012, 02:11 AM

I am asking specifically what regulations have stopped you from pursuing business ownership.

I know there are onerous regulations out there, but I also know that there are good regulations on the books.

I've never tried to start a business, I'm way too poor for that man. lol. My post was just demonstrating that government meddling in the economy does affect people on a personal level.

What regulations on the books do you think are good? Out of curiousity

The Real JW

01-27-2012, 02:13 AM

joe

01-27-2012, 02:18 AM

Capitalism ended child labor, guys! You heard it here first. Ethics obviously come first to companies operating in a hypothetically-unregulated system of capitalism. Generating profit comes second to that!

If all you need is a government law to end child labor, why don't all the poor countries around the world just pass child labor laws? I guess they just are evil people who want their kids to work 12 hour days in factories, huh?

Dasher

01-27-2012, 02:19 AM

I've never tried to start a business, I'm way too poor for that man. lol. My post was just demonstrating that government meddling in the economy does affect people on a personal level.

What regulations on the books do you think are good? Out of curiousity
Brady Bill, though it should be expanded to cover rifles and the gunshow loophole should be closed. Drive-bys in my city dropped overnight when assault rifles were banned.

Car safety regulations have saved my life.

The Real JW

01-27-2012, 02:21 AM

If all you need is a government law to end child labor, why don't all the poor countries around the world just pass child labor laws? I guess they just are evil people who want their kids to work 12 hour days in factories, huh?

Why don't all the poor countries around the world just pass laws to cure hunger? I'm tired of them complaining about having hungry citizens.

Dolphin

01-27-2012, 02:22 AM

joe

01-27-2012, 02:36 AM

Brady Bill, though it should be expanded to cover rifles and the gunshow loophole should be closed. Drive-bys in my city dropped overnight when assault rifles were banned.

Car safety regulations have saved my life.

I'm sad to hear that you live in a city where you actually have to worry about drive-bys. However, there is no clear evidence either way that gun laws increase or decrease crime. So I'm not sure if that's the strongest argument.

What about licensing requirements? Why do I need a license just to be a barber? Why can't I just buy an office, turn it into a barbershop, and put some signs up around town?

Why are regulators forcing beauty salons to remove their foot-nibbling fish?:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776729360609465.html

Absolutely pointless. These fish were a huge "hook" for some of these salons, and many were getting more business and hiring more people thanks to the attention the fish drew. They also spent a whole bunch of money on tanks and the fish themselves.

From the article:

The issue: cosmetology regulations generally mandate that tools need to be discarded or sanitized after each use. But epidermis-eating fish are too expensive to throw away. "And there's no way to sanitize them unless you bake them for 20 minutes at 350 degrees," says Lynda Elliott, an official with the New Hampshire Board of Barbering, Cosmetology and Esthetics. The board outlawed fish pedicures in November.

And that brings up another regulation. Why does every tool need to be discarded or sanitized after each use? Why can't people just make their own decisions? If you think your barber is being gross with his tools, you haev a great recourse. Just don't show up! Do we really need to be wasting taxpayer money for this?

THESE are what regulations are. It's not saving the environment in 99% of cases. It is just harassing business people and making them waste their money and time. Money and time that could be spent hiring people or growing the business.

joe

01-27-2012, 02:41 AM

Why don't all the poor countries around the world just pass laws to cure hunger? I'm tired of them complaining about having hungry citizens.

You're making my argument for me.

Child labor ends when people become prosperous enough to leave their kids at home, or send them to school. Nobody WANTS their kids working long days in factories or on the farm. They do it because, if they don't, the kids and family will starve. Or be living out on the streets.

It was the 19th century free enterprise, capitalism, zero % income tax, and small government environment that ended child labor. If you don't believe me, perhaps you and I will both be lucky enough to see the return of child labor in America, thanks to our shunning of capitalism in the 21st century.

IGOTGAME

01-27-2012, 02:51 AM

Pick a department:

http://www.regulations.gov/public/component/main?main=UnifiedAgenda

Don't buy the propoganda that we've had deregulation in the US. We have more regulation now than ever. We have regulatory bodies that act independently, spitting out regulations from their office in DC at rapid rates. Most of them are small and may even sound sensible on the surface. But when you add them all up it becomes a quagmire for businesses (especially small) to deal with.

not even the biggest sane proponents of free market capitalism would argue that there should be no regulation at all. it is just silly.

The Real JW

01-27-2012, 02:59 AM

You're making my argument for me.

Child labor ends when people become prosperous enough to leave their kids at home, or send them to school. Nobody WANTS their kids working long days in factories or on the farm. They do it because, if they don't, the kids and family will starve. Or be living out on the streets.

It was the 19th century free enterprise, capitalism, zero % income tax, and small government environment that ended child labor. If you don't believe me, perhaps you and I will both be lucky enough to see the return of child labor in America, thanks to our shunning of capitalism in the 21st century.

Oh, all we have to do is end poverty then!

See, there will always be people poor enough to accept inhumane and substandard working conditions. You need to have a government to enact and enforce laws that prevent these things. There has to be a balance. If corporations were given carte blanche to hire whoever they please and pay them any amount they please, do you think they wouldn't do it? Why hire an adult and pay him minimum wage when you can hire a bunch of kids to work for nearly nothing? Unfortunately, any system of capitalism needs to have regulation to prevent things like child labor, unfair wages, price fixing, monopolies and other illegal activities. Having such regulation doesn't mean that the markets can't remain free and unmanipulated. It simply combats the unethical practices that I mentioned.

KeylessEntry

01-27-2012, 03:06 AM

yeah we should get rid of all regulations so business can really prosper, that way people will be really motivated because the only thing people are motivated by is moneyyyy. deregulation works so well, look at places like mexico, china and india where corporations make crap for americans to consume while externalizing health and environmental costs on the locals, i want to live in a place like that!!

joe

01-27-2012, 03:18 AM

Laborers went to the government to protect their rights in the 1800's and on. Such things as child labor, working conditions, hours, wages, etc.

This is a fact. Not something the government has fed us. Fact as in there are thousands of documented accounts of citizens going to government offices and demanding better working conditions and governments creating laws that protect said citizens.

Factory owners and such were not the catalyst for change in this regard. The workers and the government were.

Read up on it. Sure, there were owner who were good guys too. They however didn't create new legislation that had to be followed by all. They weren't the ones making sure other owners and such were following said legislation as well. Guess who was doing that? Politicians and bureaucrats.

Free markets of some sort and democracy of some sort go hand in hand as far as progressing the rights of every day people throughout the last many centuries (in that people began to hold much more power and could force those in power ie. factory owners to do what they really didn't want to do such as give up concessions).....but what was the tool to enact and enforce this progress? Duh duh duh.....The government and its agencies.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I think you're really missing out on the meat of the topic. I do find what you said genuinely interesting, about there being documented cases of people asking the government for better work conditions. Those would be really interesting to read.

But there's a logical truth you're ignoring, which is that child labor was not invented during the industrial revolution. It has existed for all of human history. Children have always had to work. Think of agricultural societies. Hunting and gathering societies. I'd venture to say that nearly all pre-industrial society involved kids working. For the simple fact, that back then, you worked just to survive. You planted food in the ground and hoped you got rain. Kids were busting their ass in those days..

So, child labor was not born out of the industrial revolution. It was not like kids just danced and sang songs before 1800, basically.

Early on in the American industrial revolution, kids did have to work in the factories. But as technology, profits, and wealth grew for the factory owners, so too did the wages of the employees. Factories expanded, hired more people, and began creating different positions. Cities grew around the booming industry. Contrary to their grandfathers lives of farming, poor men could now attain a "manager" job, if he was a good enough worker.

This created the middle class. This propelled America to be the greatest economic super power maybe in history. This is what made people rich enough to be able to keep their kids at home. And it wasn't because of government. It was the opposite- because there was zero income tax and very little regulation. Because government allowed free people to save, invest, start businesses, sell products, and chase riches.

The government did pass laws along the way. But the federael gov. didn't outright ban child labor until the 1930's. Child labor had already been nearly erased by then, for factory working families.

States did pass their own regulations, but they mostly weren't outright bans, just restrictions. And child labor was already declining by the time these regulations were widespread.

Sarcastic

01-27-2012, 03:38 AM

Yea yea yea. More cheap labor with piss poor conditions

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?pagewanted=all

KevinNYC

01-27-2012, 04:40 AM

Er...no... All of you who say that it was deregulation that got the economy all messed up have obviously drank the Democrats (and the fake conservative Republicans) kool aid. It was BECAUSE of government interference that caused the crash. It was the government, through acts such as the Community Reinvestment Act that made banks lend to low income families. These borrowers naturally were more likely to be subprime.

Why did the gov do this? They wanted everyone to fulfill the "American Dream" of home ownership. If the gov didnt interfere, then banks that have common sense wouldnt have invested so much into the subprime market. And even if some did, they would have gone belly up and the other banks would gobble up their market share, reabsorb the workers who lost their jobs, and made sure to learn from the failed banks' mistakes.

But the gov decides to bail them out, thus creating a terrible precedent. Banks now will gamble all they want with their depositors money since there is no downside risk as their sugar daddy, aka the Federal Reserve, will always bail them out.

Um, Swing and a Miss. (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2008/10/subprime_suspects.html?from=rss)

Let me get this straight. Investment banks and insurance companies run by centimillionaires blow up, and it's the fault of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and poor minorities?
These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper—economic know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and, occasionally, by prejudice.
.....
And the notion that the Community Reinvestment Act is somehow responsible for poor lending decisions is absurd

Here's why.
The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn't apply. There's much more. As Barry Ritholtz notes in this fine rant (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html), the CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on packages of subprime debt.

http://howdidthishappen.org/myths/

Myth #4: The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the current financial crisis

The Facts
Several media figures have attempted to connect the financial crisis to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), originally passed in 1977 and since amended. However, according to housing experts, a large number of subprime loans were not made under the CRA, which applies only to depository institutions. Additionally, a study released earlier this year by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

However, the claim that the CRA is responsible for the current crisis ignores several crucial facts: - The CRA does not cover independent mortgage companies, which issued the vast majority of the loans underlying the crisis. The act applies only to depository banks and thrifts (savings and loan associations) that are federally insured. According to University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, just 20 percent of the subprime mortgages since the late 1990s were issued by CRA-covered lenders. Thus, 80 percent subprime loans were made by lenders not regulated by the CRA. - The CRA actually created more responsible lending. San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Janet L. Yellen rejected the “tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending,” and noted “that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.” - The act was passed in 1977, well before the subprime loan bonanza occurred. In fact, the Bush administration’s weakening of the CRA coincided with the subprime boom. - Banks did not engage in an orgy of reckless subprime lending to meet CRA obligations; they did so for they same reason they always do: to make money. Only this time, deregulation allowed them to get paid not just for making the loans, but for turning them into securities and trading them

Just for fun, here are the top 25 subprime lenders. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/the_subprime_25/) The vast majority of these are not community banks covered by the CRA. Even the ones that sound your regular bank got into subprime through a subsidiary that did not take deposits and was not covered by CRA. Have you ever seen a Countrywide branch or an Ameriquest branch where you could go make a deposit? No you didn't. That's because they are mortgage originators and not community banks and not subject to the CRA. In fact, in 2006 only 10% of subprime loans were made by CRA institutions. 90% were companies like on this list and were funded by Wall Street not by depositors.

1. Countrywide Financial
2. Ameriquest Mortgage/ACC Capital Holdings
3. New Century Financial
4. First Franklin/National City/Merrill Lynch
5. Long Beach Mortgage/Washington Mutual
6. Option One Mortgage/H&R Block
7. Fremont Investment & Loan/Fremont General
8. Wells Fargo Financial/Wells Fargo
9. HSBC Finance/HSBC Holdings
10. WMC Mortgage/General Electric
11. BNC Mortgage/Lehman Brothers
12. Chase Home Finance/JPMorgan Chase
13. Accredited Home Lenders/Lone Star Funds V
14. IndyMac Bancorp
15. CitiFinancial/Citigroup
16. EquiFirst/Regions Financial/Barclays Bank
17. Encore Credit/ECC Capital/Bear Stearns
18. American General Finance/American International Group (AIG)
19. Wachovia
20. GMAC/Cerberus Capital Management
21. NovaStar Financial
22. American Home Mortgage Investment
23. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding/Capital One Financial
24. ResMAE Mortgage/Citadel Investment Group
25. Aegis Mortgage/Cerberus Capital Management

Mortgage companies made crazy subprime loans and Wall Street bought up those crazy subprime loans for one reason. Money. They were the type of loans that were most expensive for consumers and packed with hidden fees, so they made the most money for the banks. When Wall Street bought the loans from the mortgage companies, they paid the most for subprime, so the mortgage companies decided they needed more of the crazy loans and that is when lending standards went out the window. Why did Bearn Stearns and Lehman Brothers fail? They weren't covered by the CRA. Why did Merrill Lynch have to be sold in a fire sale? They weren't covered by the CRA.

Crystallas

01-27-2012, 05:30 AM

1. Countrywide Financial
2. Ameriquest Mortgage/ACC Capital Holdings
3. New Century Financial
4. First Franklin/National City/Merrill Lynch
5. Long Beach Mortgage/Washington Mutual
6. Option One Mortgage/H&R Block
7. Fremont Investment & Loan/Fremont General
8. Wells Fargo Financial/Wells Fargo
9. HSBC Finance/HSBC Holdings
10. WMC Mortgage/General Electric
11. BNC Mortgage/Lehman Brothers
12. Chase Home Finance/JPMorgan Chase
13. Accredited Home Lenders/Lone Star Funds V
14. IndyMac Bancorp
15. CitiFinancial/Citigroup
16. EquiFirst/Regions Financial/Barclays Bank
17. Encore Credit/ECC Capital/Bear Stearns
18. American General Finance/American International Group (AIG)
19. Wachovia
20. GMAC/Cerberus Capital Management
21. NovaStar Financial
22. American Home Mortgage Investment
23. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding/Capital One Financial
24. ResMAE Mortgage/Citadel Investment Group
25. Aegis Mortgage/Cerberus Capital Management

For a minute there, I thought you were linking Obama's and Romney's biggest campaign contributors.

A.M.G.

01-27-2012, 05:48 AM

Crystallas

01-27-2012, 06:25 AM

Crystallas

01-27-2012, 06:29 AM

Yea yea yea. More cheap labor with piss poor conditions

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?pagewanted=all

If you like the unintended consequences of Communist China, then you'll love the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Except in Soviet Russia, fall loves you.

Sarcastic

01-27-2012, 11:18 AM

If you like the unintended consequences of Communist China, then you'll love the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Except in Soviet Russia, fall loves you.

Are those the only options that are available to us? Full blown socialism or completely free markets? There is no middle ground?

KeylessEntry

01-27-2012, 01:38 PM

Are those the only options that are available to us? Full blown socialism or completely free markets? There is no middle ground?

We live in the middle ground. The USA has some very "socialist" aspects. Police, firefighters, public school.... these are all things that are all socialist in nature. In a truly 100% capitalist society, you would have to pay for police to come respond to a burglar at your house, you would have to pay for the firefighters to respond to a fire, and you would have to pay to send your children to school, and if you couldnt afford it your children would not have access to education.

Another socialist idea is corporate bailouts and subsidies. In a truly 100% capitalistic society you would never bail out a corporation because that goes directly against the core of capitalism - "sink or swim" based on your performance in the market. When a company fails in a capitalist society, the company goes bankrupt and all the employees lose their jobs, because they were not able to be competetive in the open marketplace. The government cherry picked certain corporations and gave them taxpayer money, thats about as socialist as it gets. We are giving less and less welfare to poor people and more and more welfare to the rich and corporate elite. If we were really living in a capitalist society, we would not allow corporate welfare to continue.

IGOTGAME

01-27-2012, 02:09 PM

The biggest problem with this country is that people don't vote their interest. They vote for what they hope they will one day be. Because of this, most will never get where they want.

unbreakable

01-27-2012, 02:11 PM

what a stupid fukking question :facepalm

republicans piss me off

bagelred

01-27-2012, 02:11 PM

You guys want government shackles in all directions.

Why?

You are showing alot of ignorance and subject to a lot of propaganda with this last statement. Sheer stupidity.

LJJ

01-27-2012, 02:27 PM

The ending of child labor is one of the best accomplishments of The American government.

You meant outsourcing instead of ending right?

Because that is what actually happened.

Jello

01-27-2012, 02:56 PM

We live in the middle ground. The USA has some very "socialist" aspects. Police, firefighters, public school.... these are all things that are all socialist in nature. In a truly 100% capitalist society, you would have to pay for police to come respond to a burglar at your house, you would have to pay for the firefighters to respond to a fire, and you would have to pay to send your children to school, and if you couldnt afford it your children would not have access to education.
So those are the only socialist aspects of the USA you could think of?:lol

Another socialist idea is corporate bailouts and subsidies. In a truly 100% capitalistic society you would never bail out a corporation because that goes directly against the core of capitalism - "sink or swim" based on your performance in the market. When a company fails in a capitalist society, the company goes bankrupt and all the employees lose their jobs, because they were not able to be competetive in the open marketplace. The government cherry picked certain corporations and gave them taxpayer money, thats about as socialist as it gets. We are giving less and less welfare to poor people and more and more welfare to the rich and corporate elite. If we were really living in a capitalist society, we would not allow corporate welfare to continue.
I don't really understand what youre trying to say here. Are you advocating bailouts which fall under corporate welfare? Or are you saying we should let them fall and expand socialist programs to support those that become unemployed?

KeylessEntry

01-27-2012, 03:15 PM

So those are the only socialist aspects of the USA you could think of?:lol

There are a lot more. Basically you can make the argument that any public good or service that is funded by tax dollars is a form of socialism. Transportation systems, national parks, medicare, medicaid, required automobile insurance, public libraries, NASA... tons of examples of the evils of socialism can be seen in america.

I don't really understand what youre trying to say here. Are you advocating bailouts which fall under corporate welfare? Or are you saying we should let them fall and expand socialist programs to support those that become unemployed?

I am saying that they only call it "welfare" when they are giving free tax dollars to poor people, they call it "bailouts" or "stimulus" when they are giving free tax dollars to the rich.

I think we should have let the banks and corporations fail. That way, nonfailures and new companies would have naturally filled in the void left in the marketplace by the failures, just like capitalism intended.

KevinNYC

01-27-2012, 07:03 PM

Another socialist idea is corporate bailouts and subsidies. In a truly 100% capitalistic society you would never bail out a corporation because that goes directly against the core of capitalism - "sink or swim" based on your performance in the market. When a company fails in a capitalist society, the company goes bankrupt and all the employees lose their jobs, because they were not able to be competetive in the open marketplace. The government cherry picked certain corporations and gave them taxpayer money, thats about as socialist as it gets. We are giving less and less welfare to poor people and more and more welfare to the rich and corporate elite. If we were really living in a capitalist society, we would not allow corporate welfare to continue.

The bailouts were done to save capitalism. Two concepts that folks need to know when thinking about our recent financial crisis. These aresystemic risk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk), which is the risk to financial system and Too interconnected to Fail (http://www.acefinmod.com/docs/TooInterconnectedToFail_15112009.pdf), both of these deal with the idea that if some companies grow too big and too interconnected, if they fail, they can bring down other healthy companies.

Combating systemic risk and interconnected-ness has to be part of our reforming the financial systems. However some folks are determined that we do address that issue. In fact when the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was going to issue it's report, the Republican Members voted to ban the following words (http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/covering_the_republicans_crisi.php)

"Wall Street"
"shadow banking"
"interconnection"
"deregulation"

Crystallas

01-27-2012, 07:13 PM

Bailouts have absolutely nothing to do with capitalism. Now you are mixing your *ism's.

Bailouts are a product of inflationary economics, saltwater, or even fractional reserve banking. It has nothing directly to do with any *ism, and that includes socialism and capitalism.

brantonli

01-27-2012, 07:49 PM

Imagine if you lost your pension, partially or the whole thing.

That's very likely what would've happened if the US government had not bailed out firms like AIG, the IB industry. Even if your pension was not in those industries, the spread of credit crunch would've closed funds that your pension fund was linked to and bankrupt stocks and bonds that your fund had holdings in, thus reducing your pension.

Now imagine if everybody lose part of their pension. What kind of political backlash would you get?

I firmly believe that investment banks should have more regulation. The problem is that because we human beings invented money, there's virtually no limit as to what we can do with that with money. In fact, you can structure as complex a deal as possible, because unlike in the real world, there are no laws of physics or mathematics to bind you, so you can spring your imagination as far as possible.

As for the transmission between bad subprime loans to the rest of the economy, the fundamental reason is that lenders lost the reason to be cautious, here's why:

1. Lenders give out loans.
2. Lenders sell loans to banks.
3. Banks package the loans into thousands and thousands into one big securitized debt.
3.5. Rating agencies rate them all AAA, regardless of what the underlying physical asset is.
4. Banks sell these securitized debt in tranches to things like pension funds, investors.

Assumptions underlying:

1. The American housing market continues to rise, hence justifying the securitized debt.

The big problem is 1 and 4. Since the banks and lenders don't have to keep the loans on their books, they don't bother with the quality of loans (hence subprime). The funds don't bother checking because the ratings agencies have stamped them all AAA, so as far as they were concerned they were investing in US T-bill-grade items.

Now if somebody can tell me how deregulation can solve this, I would like to hear it.

joe

01-27-2012, 08:59 PM

Something to consider: Do markets respond to the problems/needs of those without money?

Do we agree with Ebeneezer Scrooge when he argues that the very poor should die already and decrease the surplus population? Or do we agree with the ghosts that taught him otherwise? Were those ghosts actually communists and therefore a pack of inherently evil Stalinists?

Honest inquiry to libertarians: Are libertarians Social Darwinists?

What do you mean by social darwinist?

The markets will find ways to adjust to any income level. That's why we have things like Payless shoe stores, mcdonalds has a dollar menu, thrift stores, generic brand food, dollar stores, etc.

Will it respond to people with absolutely zero money? No. But that's not such a huge problem if you understand what a libertarian society would look like. There wouldn't be welfare programs, but there would be a lot less poverty to begin with. Business and jobs would be popping up everywhere. Products would flood the market at affordable prices. A majority of the population will be middle class.

For the very poor, you just have to rely on charity. When people aren't paying any income tax and more of the population has extra cash (or gold certificates:D ), that isn't such a bad thing. And it will be a lot easier to lift yourself from poverty.

Not to mention, you could have non profit soup kitchens. Food drives. Homeless shelters. People would definitely donate to things like this if they knew there was no government welfare.

Edit: Your post kind of goes into the idea that libertarians are more heartless people. I really don't see that in myself or from the ones I talk to. I think it's just more, we don't want the charity coming from the government. For both practical and moral reasons. But when it comes to private charity I don't think you'll find one libertarian who doesn't love it and support it.

joe

01-27-2012, 09:22 PM

Now if somebody can tell me how deregulation can solve this, I would like to hear it.

Community Reinvestment Act. Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac. Guaranteed reserves for banks. Artificially low interest rates.

All product of the government. All the biggest reasons for the housing bubble and crash.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html

The low interest rates of the early 2000s may explain the growth of the housing bubble, but they don't explain the poor quality of these mortgages. For that we have to look to the government's distortion of the mortgage finance system through the Community Reinvestment Act and the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ).

In a recent meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, Barney Frank--the chair of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime supporter of Fannie and Freddie--admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it. Renting, he said, would have been preferable. Now he tells us.

Long-term pressure from Frank and his colleagues to expand home ownership connects government housing policies to both the housing bubble and the poor quality of the mortgages on which it is based. In 1992, Congress gave a new affordable housing "mission" to Fannie and Freddie, and authorized the Department of Housing and Urban Development to define its scope through regulations.

Shortly thereafter, Fannie Mae, under Chairman Jim Johnson, made its first "trillion-dollar commitment" to increase financing for affordable housing. What this meant for the quality of the mortgages that Fannie--and later Freddie--would buy has not become clear until now.

On a parallel track was the Community Reinvestment Act. New CRA regulations in 1995 required banks to demonstrate that they were making mortgage loans to underserved communities, which inevitably included borrowers whose credit standing did not qualify them for a conventional mortgage loan.

To meet this new requirement, insured banks--like the GSEs--had to reduce the quality of the mortgages they would make or acquire. As the enforcers of CRA, the regulators themselves were co-opted into this process, approving lending practices that they would otherwise have scorned. The erosion of traditional mortgage standards had begun.

Shortly after these new mandates went into effect, the nation's homeownership rate--which had remained at about 64% since 1982--began to rise, increasing 3.3% from 64.2% in 1994 to 67.5% in 2000 under President Clinton, and an additional 1.7% during the Bush administration, before declining in 2007 to 67.8%. There is no reasonable explanation for this sudden spurt, other than a major change in the standards for granting a mortgage or a large increase in the amount of low-cost funding available for mortgages. The data suggest that it was both.

joe

01-27-2012, 09:44 PM

Oh, all we have to do is end poverty then!

See, there will always be people poor enough to accept inhumane and substandard working conditions. You need to have a government to enact and enforce laws that prevent these things. There has to be a balance. If corporations were given carte blanche to hire whoever they please and pay them any amount they please, do you think they wouldn't do it? Why hire an adult and pay him minimum wage when you can hire a bunch of kids to work for nearly nothing? Unfortunately, any system of capitalism needs to have regulation to prevent things like child labor, unfair wages, price fixing, monopolies and other illegal activities. Having such regulation doesn't mean that the markets can't remain free and unmanipulated. It simply combats the unethical practices that I mentioned.

If employers could pay a higher wage than their competitors, and provide safer work conditions, and in exchange attract better employees, do you think they wouldn't do it?

All of the things you fear about a free market are things that would be self-regulated. Companies are not going to price fix, because that opens the door for a competitor to enter the market and take their business. You pay an adult more than a kid because adults are better workers. You build safe facilities to attract better employees. If a monopoly is satisfying the market, why do we need to break it up? If their prices are too high, again, it opens th door for a competitor.

KevinNYC

01-27-2012, 11:33 PM

Community Reinvestment Act. Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac. Guaranteed reserves for banks. Artificially low interest rates.

All product of the government. All the biggest reasons for the housing bubble and crash.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html

Joe, I've posted the links before, but the story that Wallison and Pinto are pushing is just false. Their numbers don't hold up at all. They are ideological hacks. In fact in 2002-03 Wallison was claiming Fannie and Freddie were not serving the poor, BECAUSE they weren't making subprime loans like the private companies backed by Wall Street. (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/02/wallison-reinvents-history-%E2%80%93-and-his-own-positions-on-the-causes-of-the-crisis/) Pinto seriously fudges his data and the definition of what a subprime loan is in order to make it look like Fannie and Freddie had more subprime loans that they did. Wallison was on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and he couldn't even get the other Republican commissioners to agree with his report which he issued alone. The Commission investigated Pinto's claims and when they found what he was saying didn't add up and he never responded to their memo (http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-docs/2010-08-09%20FCIC%20Staff%20Analysis%20of%20Housing%20Data %20and%20Comparison%20with%20Ed%20Pinto%20Analysis .pdf). On page 219-220 of the FCIC report (http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf), they explicitly reject Pinto's claim's about the CRA. When you look at

Pinto's numbers (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/why-wallison-is-wrong-about-the-genesis-of-the-u-s-housing-crisis/) you see that the loans he tries to pretend are subprime actually defaulted at about the national average or about 1/3 the rate of actual subprime loans.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Unbenannt1.png

The story of Fannie and Freddie is they were bad companies and probably engaged in accounting fraud and definitely abused the lobbying system to "capture" the regulators. However they didn't cause the crisis, they were victims of the housing bubble popping. They went under because they were dangerously undercapitalized, they simply didn't have enough cash to cover their risks. But they were late to the party. For the first several years of the bubble they bought only regular conforming (i.e not subprime mortgages,) they got into subprime only after years of having companies like Ameriquest, Argent and Countrywide steal their market share. That is, they followed the lead of the all the subprime companies backed by Wall Street.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

Hotlantadude81

01-28-2012, 01:12 AM

-Why do republicans preach family values when many can't hold themselves up to the standards they preach?

As far as charity goes... Yeah, my niece tried to get help from a church one time and to get help they basically had to join the church. So yeah, they were using their "charity" as a recruitment tool.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/27/413611/north-carolina-gop-lawmaker-calls-for-bringing-back-public-hangings-starting-with-abortion-providers/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/26/411865/new-hampshire-republicans-propose-bills-that-prevent-police-from-protecting-domestic-abuse-victims/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/23/408931/colorado-republicans-push-bill-to-allow-guns-in-schools/

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/24/410115/tennessee-lawmaker-compares-homosexuality-to-pedophilia-prostitution-murder/

Thinks like this is what makes people dislike republicans.

joe

01-28-2012, 01:14 AM

Joe, I've posted the links before, but the story that Wallison and Pinto are pushing is just false. Their numbers don't hold up at all. They are ideological hacks. In fact in 2002-03 Wallison was claiming Fannie and Freddie were not serving the poor, BECAUSE they weren't making subprime loans like the private companies backed by Wall Street. (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/02/wallison-reinvents-history-%E2%80%93-and-his-own-positions-on-the-causes-of-the-crisis/) Pinto seriously fudges his data and the definition of what a subprime loan is in order to make it look like Fannie and Freddie had more subprime loans that they did. Wallison was on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and he couldn't even get the other Republican commissioners to agree with his report which he issued alone. The Commission investigated Pinto's claims and when they found what he was saying didn't add up and ]

I'm not just relying on that one Forbes article or those two authors for that information. The government and fed were instrumental in setting the stage for the housing bubble. They incentivized banks to act irresponsibly. And you didn't address the community reinvestment act. Or the very existence of the FDIC and what that does to bankster decision making.

DFish

01-28-2012, 01:42 AM

Lakers Legend#32

01-28-2012, 04:01 AM

You do know Mitt Romney does not give a damn about you, right?

KevinNYC

01-28-2012, 04:20 AM

I'm not just relying on that one Forbes article or those two authors for that information. The government and fed were instrumental in setting the stage for the housing bubble. They incentivized banks to act irresponsibly. And you didn't address the community reinvestment act. Or the very existence of the FDIC and what that does to bankster decision making.

When you say the government, it would help to be more accurate, because the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with it and the FDIC certainly had nothing to do with. Government also prevented the bubble from hitting Texas because local consumer finance laws prevented the crazy loans that were everywhere in Florida, California, and Nevada. Specifically a loan could not be for more than 80% of the home. A lot of Federal regulators fell down on the job in the last decade.

I covered the CRA in this thread with this post. (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6804945&postcount=62)

Long story short, the vast majority of the institutions that made subprime loans did not have community branches (thus CRA didn't apply) and the did not take deposits (thus FDIC didn't apply)

Also did you miss this sentence?
On page 219-220 of the FCIC report, (http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf) they explicitly reject Pinto's claim's about the CRA.

brantonli

01-28-2012, 04:23 AM

I'm not just relying on that one Forbes article or those two authors for that information. The government and fed were instrumental in setting the stage for the housing bubble. They incentivized banks to act irresponsibly. And you didn't address the community reinvestment act. Or the very existence of the FDIC and what that does to bankster decision making.

The FDIC is there to prevent bank runs, and to limit your losses if the bank goes under. But it does not cover what bankers really use to gamble, investment funds (FDIC only covers deposits, not investment) so FDIC doesn't encourage the finances innovation we see on Wall Street.

And I admit I'm a novice at the history and beginngs of this recession, but to me ultimately the failure still resides in the fact that lenders can now get those subprime loans off their books, which completely reduces their incentive to make good loans regardless of whatever regulation there is. There's a great excerpt in 'A Colossal Failure of Common sense' written by a Lehman VP where he actually goes to one of the areas with tons of subprime lending and overheads the lenders basically taking shit about the customers but also how they couldn't care less because they were only doing the lending, the firm was t going to keep the loans.

But to pretend the government had absolutely no effect on this crisis is of course silly. Of course the govt was involved, the low interest rates not withstanding but to pretend that's the sole (or leading) cause, rather than an array of causes is also silly.

And btw, the Fed's interest rate is really only the discount rate at which distressed name can borrow from the Fed, the other major reason why interest rates were so low despite a boom time was because countries like China were buying huge amounts of Treasury bills, thus lowering interest rates.

joe

01-28-2012, 05:54 AM

I'm a strong proponent of free market capitalism. But only the nuttiest of the nutty (anarcho-capitalists) believe we don't need laws to prevent things like fraud and unethical practices. Congratulations at reaching that level, joe.

I do think we need laws to prevent fraud.. brah. And it depends what you mean by unethical practices.

Crystallas

01-28-2012, 06:04 AM

I do think we need laws to prevent fraud.. brah. And it depends what you mean by unethical practices.

Lots of people make assumptions quick, and try to change the subjects, or reverse the topic by throwing labels on us(thus incorrectly making further assumptions on our positions.)

I'm not sure where you were going with this topic, or what you expected, but I am not surprised.

How did it start? If you dislike a democratic policy or Obama, you automatically are a republican? If you have these views, you automatically have some psychological impediment. If you dislike certain regulations, you are automatically for complete deregulation immediately! LOL!
Oh, the best one was the guy that made an extremist argument, then responded with a hypocritical but why are you going to extremes? "Only I can go to extremes! How dare you!"

:roll:

All to avoid a simple intelligent discussion. This is polarization, and it has only begun.

joe

01-28-2012, 06:17 AM

Lots of people make assumptions quick, and try to change the subjects, or reverse the topic by throwing labels on us(thus incorrectly making further assumptions on our positions.)

I'm not sure where you were going with this topic, or what you expected, but I am not surprised.

How did it start? If you dislike a democratic policy or Obama, you automatically are a republican? If you have these views, you automatically have some psychological impediment. If you dislike certain regulations, you are automatically for complete deregulation immediately! LOL!
Oh, the best one was the guy that made an extremist argument, then responded with a hypocritical but why are you going to extremes? "Only I can go to extremes! How dare you!"

:roll:

All to avoid a simple intelligent discussion. This is polarization, and it has only begun.

Ya. I appreciate people like Kevin, Brantonli, Ridonks, and others. Because though they disagree with a lot of what we say, they're cool about it and just debate their own view.

Where was I going with this topic.. hmm, idk. Democrats are just intriguing to me. I feel that a lot of them are libertarians but just don't know it. When you go through public school and you're told to worship the government your whole life, it's hard to wash that out of your brain. I know for me I faced some huge cognitive dissonance when I first really learned about free markets... (I grew up democrat. It took me months to finally accept that minimum wage was actually a bad thing. With the facts right in front of my face. lol)

joe

01-28-2012, 06:23 AM

What about the opposite question addressed to Republicans?

I would pretty much ask them this..

How come Republicans want a regulation free market, but want to step in and tell you who you can marry, whether or not you can have an abortion, buy a prostitute, or use drugs?

Both sides seem pretty inconsistent to me.

Crystallas

01-28-2012, 06:28 AM

Ya. I appreciate people like Kevin, Brantonli, Ridonks, and others. Because though they disagree with a lot of what we say, they're cool about it and just debate their own view.

Where was I going with this topic.. hmm, idk. Democrats are just intriguing to me. I feel that a lot of them are libertarians but just don't know it. When you go through public school and you're told to worship the government your whole life, it's hard to wash that out of your brain. I know for me I faced some huge cognitive dissonance when I first really learned about free markets... (I grew up democrat)

Oh, I understand. I grew up in a family of socialists in a very liberal city. I was a socialist myself, until I visited many, and even lived in a few socialist countries. That is when I challenged myself and started questioning everything. I don't hate government, I hate imperialism, federalism, a central planned government. These things are truly destructive, especially when you force the polices on a population that does not endorse the ideals.

joe

01-28-2012, 06:45 AM

Oh, I understand. I grew up in a family of socialists in a very liberal city. I was a socialist myself, until I visited many, and even lived in a few socialist countries. That is when I challenged myself and started questioning everything. I don't hate government, I hate imperialism, federalism, a central planned government. These things are truly destructive, especially when you force the polices on a population that does not endorse the ideals.

Ya, my family is pretty much entirely democrat. Most of the town I grew up in is as well.

My favorite college teacher I ever had (sociology teacher), was a marxist. He used to say that humans just had to "pass through" capitalism, as a way to create enough technology and resources. And then, after that, we could share all the excess resources we've created.

He's the one who got me into politics, as I didn't give two shits about it before college. I always just thought of myself as a democrat. Wholeheartedly supported Obama..

Then one day, I was watching Bill Maher, and I realized.... this is what I hate republicans for. They just watch Glen Beck and that's where they get all their opinions. Just like me with Bill Maher and such. So I started forcing myself to watch Bill O'reilley, Morning Joe, etc. Republican shows. Read Republican news sites.

Somewhere along there I started hearing Peter Schiff, Mark Faber (spelling?), Judge Napolitano, etc. And I was just like... whoa. These ideas are powerful.

I still make sure to watch democrat shows and stuff now. You just got to make sure you don't fall into the trap of getting all your information from the people you agree with..

You took an interesting path. Why were you living in socialist countries? Which ones? What were some specific things you saw that were really bad? Really curious to hear that..

There's a guy I was working for, an Asian fellow who moved here from China. He told me about how his Grandfather starved to death in the 70's, before China became more of a free economy. We talk about how the US is going in the same direction China used to be. It's so sad.

brantonli

01-28-2012, 06:52 AM

Something to lighten the mood of this thread:

http://www.hachisvertas.net/temp/pau-gasolaurios.gif

Absolutely no relevance to this thread, but I found it hilarious.

RidonKs

01-28-2012, 09:31 AM

Something to lighten the mood of this thread:

http://www.hachisvertas.net/temp/pau-gasolaurios.gif

Absolutely no relevance to this thread, but I found it hilarious.
:roll: that's f*cking amazing, i'm laughing my ass off

A.M.G.

01-28-2012, 04:31 PM

Yes, markets are made up of ALL people, every last one. So of course they respond, and much quicker than any central planned government can.

Your Scrooge metaphor is strange, because you can cherry pick, as your example demonstrated, by painting Scrooge and Stalin in one paragraph.

If you are a compassionate person, why would you steal from the poor to give to the rich, because that is what we are doing. How is that for Social Darwinism?
Keep in mind I want to have a civil discussion. No personal attacks, no incoherent rants. Lettuce avoid attempts to shout each other down, as well as fallacious argumentation. We should both keep an open mind to the others points.

With that in mind, I have many things to say to you:

Markets are made up of ALL people? Last I checked it was made up of sellers and buyers. So what happens to those without income? Those who can't buy? Or those without enough income to buy basic necessities? I am honestly asking, not just rhetorical questions. I am legitimately curious.

Because from where I'm standing, the market has no reason to respond to your problems unless you can pay for it. Which is fine for people with jobs. Well actually it isn't always fine because things like health care and quality legal representation are exorbitantly expensive even in the current version of America.

I suppose that in an unregulated economy "the market" would establish a minimum wage? I suppose that "the market" would enforce health and safety standards? And obviously "the market" would prevent companies from cutting corners in relation to the environment.

Or are you suggesting that all the functions of government, other than legislation, law enforcement and the military, should be privatized? So that "the market" can ensure that all children get an education? So that "the market" can issue driver's licences and engage in diplomacy and plan cities and fight forest fires and plow snow and provide disaster relief?

Also, what happens to democracy in a society with a powerless government? Or are we fine with living in a plutocracy (who am I kidding, the United States is already a plutocracy)? But seriously, if we hand over ALL the power in a society to captains of industry and CEOs, do we hold referendums to decide what they can do to us? Or does it become a society where money is literally power, where the people have no power other than as consumers, which they never exercise? Again, what am I talking about? That's how it already is.

On a side note, I'm really, really unclear on what you mean when you say that the Scrooge metaphor is strange because I can "cherry pick by painting Scrooge and Stalin in one paragraph". I honestly don't know what you mean by that. I "cherry picked by painting them in one paragraph." Please explain. That metaphor, especially calling the ghosts communists, was facetious btw.

On another side note, you said something about If I was a compassionate person why would I "Steal from the poor and give to the rich?" How are we doing that? Genuinely curious what exactly you meant. Unless you are referring to tax rates that favour the rich? And then you said that is social darwinism. I thought social darwinism was the belief that we should do nothing to keep the poor alive, because they are unfit to live (only the strong survive, literally), as demonstrated by their inability to earn money, and that by letting them die we would improve the gene pool.

If I employed any fallacious argumentation, please point it out.

A.M.G.

01-28-2012, 04:54 PM

What do you mean by social darwinist?

The markets will find ways to adjust to any income level. That's why we have things like Payless shoe stores, mcdonalds has a dollar menu, thrift stores, generic brand food, dollar stores, etc.

Will it respond to people with absolutely zero money? No. But that's not such a huge problem if you understand what a libertarian society would look like. There wouldn't be welfare programs, but there would be a lot less poverty to begin with. Business and jobs would be popping up everywhere. Products would flood the market at affordable prices. A majority of the population will be middle class.

For the very poor, you just have to rely on charity. When people aren't paying any income tax and more of the population has extra cash (or gold certificates:D ), that isn't such a bad thing. And it will be a lot easier to lift yourself from poverty.

Not to mention, you could have non profit soup kitchens. Food drives. Homeless shelters. People would definitely donate to things like this if they knew there was no government welfare.

Edit: Your post kind of goes into the idea that libertarians are more heartless people. I really don't see that in myself or from the ones I talk to. I think it's just more, we don't want the charity coming from the government. For both practical and moral reasons. But when it comes to private charity I don't think you'll find one libertarian who doesn't love it and support it.
Look up what social darwinism is. Although it has been used as racist propaganda in the past, when I ask if libertarians are social darwinists, I am asking if they believe that the poor deserve to suffer, that they deserve to live in poverty, that perhaps if they die it would be good for society.

You make good points about the markets adjusting to income levels, providing inferior products to the poor. Of course everyone is trying to save money. Except when they totally don't.

You seem to have a very idealistic vision of "what a libertarian society would look like." "Businesses and jobs popping up everywhere", well doesn't that sound grand? I'm sure no one would be exploited in a regulation free economy.

And if you end up without a job or with an absurdly low paying job (can't imagine how that would happen in a regulation free capitalist economy) and you can't afford to live, don't worry, if people decide you deserve to live, you'll get some charity. For sure. People are not greedy and selfish at all.

I'll ask you this though, and I've asked this before, in a society in which the government has no power in most aspects of society, what becomes of democracy? If everything is privatized, business leaders hold all the power. Are they subject to democratic control, or is it a plutocracy? Albiet in your mind a super-prosperous plutocracy.

I know government is flawed, corrupt, inefficient, ineffectual, indecisive, partisan, nepotistic. But in my mind the solution is to improve government. For the public to become more politically aware and informed. To exercise their democratic power. For the current broken version of government to be fixed. For corrupt politicians to be tarred and feathered and shamed out of ever running for office again. For stronger laws and regulations preventing corporations and industry lobbyists controlling the government and buying politicians. For the people to find candidates who have integrity and will actually work for the public good, instead of always electing the first wealthy two-faced professional bull-sh*tter that puts out a campaign ad on TV. God ****ing forbid, right?

I do not agree with giving up on the concept of a well-governed democratic society, and simply handing over control to the supposedly benevolent and all-knowing "market". Sorry, not trying to belittle your beliefs, by all means explain to me why I am wrong about libertarianism.

Rasheed1

01-28-2012, 05:04 PM

I Like some of the libertarian ideas, but I have to agree with AMG here that you cannot eliminate all regulations and not expect greed and manipulation to take its place..

We had regulations and even those have been undermined in favor of a rigged game.

I like libertarians, but sometimes they sound like college dorm room students with fantastic ideas that arent practical and dont fit in the real world.

Governments will only be as good as the people running them. The pure ideological argument against government is as kooky as the pure ideological argument for it..

these institutions are simply tools to be used by the public for the greater good of the public.

Crystallas

01-28-2012, 05:15 PM

Keep in mind I want to have a civil discussion. No personal attacks, no incoherent rants. Lettuce avoid attempts to shout each other down, as well as fallacious argumentation. We should both keep an open mind to the others points.

With that in mind, I have many things to say to you:

Markets are made up of ALL people? Last I checked it was made up of sellers and buyers. So what happens to those without income? Those who can't buy? Or those without enough income to buy basic necessities? I am honestly asking, not just rhetorical questions. I am legitimately curious.

Because from where I'm standing, the market has no reason to respond to your problems unless you can pay for it. Which is fine for people with jobs. Well actually it isn't always fine because things like health care and quality legal representation are exorbitantly expensive even in the current version of America.

I suppose that in an unregulated economy "the market" would establish a minimum wage? I suppose that "the market" would enforce health and safety standards? And obviously "the market" would prevent companies from cutting corners in relation to the environment.

Or are you suggesting that all the functions of government, other than legislation, law enforcement and the military, should be privatized? So that "the market" can ensure that all children get an education? So that "the market" can issue driver's licences and engage in diplomacy and plan cities and fight forest fires and plow snow and provide disaster relief?

Also, what happens to democracy in a society with a powerless government? Or are we fine with living in a plutocracy (who am I kidding, the United States is already a plutocracy)? But seriously, if we hand over ALL the power in a society to captains of industry and CEOs, do we hold referendums to decide what they can do to us? Or does it become a society where money is literally power, where the people have no power other than as consumers, which they never exercise? Again, what am I talking about? That's how it already is.

On a side note, I'm really, really unclear on what you mean when you say that the Scrooge metaphor is strange because I can "cherry pick by painting Scrooge and Stalin in one paragraph". I honestly don't know what you mean by that. I "cherry picked by painting them in one paragraph." Please explain. That metaphor, especially calling the ghosts communists, was facetious btw.

On another side note, you said something about If I was a compassionate person why would I "Steal from the poor and give to the rich?" How are we doing that? Genuinely curious what exactly you meant. Unless you are referring to tax rates that favour the rich? And then you said that is social darwinism. I thought social darwinism was the belief that we should do nothing to keep the poor alive, because they are unfit to live (only the strong survive, literally), as demonstrated by their inability to earn money, and that by letting them die we would improve the gene pool.

If I employed any fallacious argumentation, please point it out.

First off, none of what you are saying, is accurate in assumption, nor why are you giving me this debate topic, as if these are my beliefs.

See: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6809278&postcount=89

Secondly, the market is made up of all people. Every last one. Every single human being, even some that are no longer alive. So yes, the last you checked, wasn't a very accurate gumshoe job of sniffing out who and what the market is. You are confusing demography into the topic, that is a very fictitious direction to attempt to push the argument into. Yes, the details matter a great deal here, because once you ignore fine details, the argument is skewed.

The market has every reason to respond to all needs. The market is the most generous force and the most brutal at the same time, but most importantly, we the participants(yes, every single human being on earth) mold the market consciously and unintentionally. And if you wanted to understand how the market worked, then you wouldn't look to force it as a first line of input, because when you force the market, it only helps a small few, mainly the rich.

An unregulated market does not exist, nor will it ever. I feel like a broken record here, but we are the market, every single human being. The argument for an unregulated market, is a translation for a non-manipulated market, because we are compassionate people, we don't like seeing the nine bad things that are done for every one good(opposed to the non-manipulated market which does self correct itself through the people, if the people want to move the market into that direction, and you may still see three bad things happen for every seven good.)

I do ultimately want to see as much localization as possible, not privatization, like your assumption. Like I said in my prior posts, I do not support a central planned government whatsoever. I also support transition, and not just throwing up a switch, and saying "vola" CHANGE.

So you choose to use the argument for not all people are buyers and sellers, however, this is false. But if you applied that to your next argument(and remove the selective thinking) then you would understand completely how the government steals from the poor and gives to the rich.
If an opportunity exists, but only the rich can afford to take advantage of it, ie: paying to get government permission, following the codes, ect, then the poor suffer the most, and in turn, their family suffers as well. At the same time, you force another lower-class family to pay taxes on income, sales, property, ect to give aid to those who could potentially start such production, but who ultimately gets that money? Those that can afford to read the millions of pages of legislation passed to find benefits, yes, the rich. The poor get stiffed and they have to pay. This is a viscous cycle, and people wonder why the lowest classes resort to black market trading, drugs and gang lifestyles. Not only is it malicious to the lowest classes, it is absolutely racist.

When you take someone out for dinner, does the person you treat for dinner spend your money as wisely as you do? They may not order the priciest thing, unless of course, this example is no good to you, because you may only visit massive corporate chains which have cheap menus($7-15 meals). Regardless, those who have little or no accountability of how they spend your money, will spend it. There is little repercussion for a politician to spend your money, why on earth would you want them to spend your money, when you could spend it yourself and help those around you?

I spend my nights volunteering with kids, weekends volunteering with homeless, I coach kids basketball and tutor high schoolers in math, all out of my own goodness. I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk. So I am very selfless and passionate about seeing a major change. I am not just theory, I am experienced by practice.

joe

01-28-2012, 05:27 PM

I'll ask you this though, and I've asked this before, in a society in which the government has no power in most aspects of society, what becomes of democracy? If everything is privatized, business leaders hold all the power. Are they subject to democratic control, or is it a plutocracy? Albiet in your mind a super-prosperous plutocracy.

I hear this pretty often and I'll do my best to explain.

You say that if everything is privatized, business leaders will hold all the power. My response is.. what power? Businesses have no "power," unless the corrupt government gives it to them. There is nothing to fear from business, because the only way for a business to survive is by pleasing its customers. It's not like a government, which can grow into a nasty beast and force you to follow its decree.

They are subject to the regulations of the market. That is, if they don't keep making good products at affordable prices, they will go out of business. No special breaks for big companies. No subsidies, no bailouts.

And if you end up without a job or with an absurdly low paying job (can't imagine how that would happen in a regulation free capitalist economy) and you can't afford to live, don't worry, if people decide you deserve to live, you'll get some charity. For sure. People are not greedy and selfish at all.

There's two ways to tackle this, the practical, and the moral.

Practical: Yes, it's true that some people will 'slip through the cracks' in a libertarian type society. But when you introduce welfare, the cracks keep getting bigger, and in response, the government safety net grows. And once government is subsidizing the poor, its only a matter of time before they start growing in other areas. The growth of government leads to higher taxes, more regulations, less savings, less investment, less business, less jobs, less growth, and on and on. Once that happens you no longer will have an efficient market.

But it's not like people aren't charitable. There is evidence that people are more charitable when they know the government won't be subsidizing the poor.

Moral: You have to let people make their own decisions. No matter what economic system we have, people will make bad decisions with their life. It may seem noble to want to use the government to help such people, but what are you really doing in that case? You're forcefully taking one groups money and giving it to another. Whether or not you feel the first group "needed" the money, it was still theirs. If people make bad decisions, they need to depend on their family and private charity. It's not morally right to expect a complete stranger to pay for your mistakes.

I know government is flawed, corrupt, inefficient, ineffectual, indecisive, partisan, nepotistic. But in my mind the solution is to improve government. For the public to become more politically aware and informed. To exercise their democratic power. For the current broken version of government to be fixed. For corrupt politicians to be tarred and feathered and shamed out of ever running for office again. For stronger laws and regulations preventing corporations and industry lobbyists controlling the government and buying politicians. For the people to find candidates who have integrity and will actually work for the public good, instead of always electing the first wealthy two-faced professional bull-sh*tter that puts out a campaign ad on TV. God ****ing forbid, right?

I do not agree with giving up on the concept of a well-governed democratic society, and simply handing over control to the supposedly benevolent and all-knowing "market". Sorry, not trying to belittle your beliefs, by all means explain to me why I am wrong about libertarianism.

The only way to improve government, is to shrink it. Our founding fathers knew that, because they studied the history of Europe and understood how powerful governments dominate and tyrannize the people. The problem with government, is that government ='s the use of force. The more power you give them, the more ability they have to use force to get their way. It's not long before "their way" becomes restrictive laws against the freedom of the people, high taxes, and poverty for everyone but themselves. Have you read about the NDAA? I'm sure you've heard of the Patriot Act. How about a man being arrested for educating the Occupy Wall Street crowd on Jury Nullification (a right we as American citizens are supposed to have)? (http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/25/is-advocacy-of-jury-nullificat)

If government is powerful, business will always lobby for its power. The solution you call for is a more powerful government (increased regulations, stricter laws), to help battle an.. already corrupt government. How do you think that story will end?

What we need is a less powerful government so the businesses have nothing to lobby for. If businesses are simply forced to act within the confines of the market, they can never gain any power. Unless you're just a sucker for funny commercials...

A.M.G.

01-28-2012, 07:54 PM

Speaking to both crystallas and joe:

Maybe I assumed (incorrectly?) that libertarians want a totally deregulated economy and almost no government.

I mean I can see how a powerful government that has been hijacked by the rich and by big business is a bad thing. A really bad thing. And unfortunately that is what you have in the U.S.

However, my view is that the problem is not the powerful government, but the fact that big business is allowed to exercise such undue influence over this powerful government. There is a difference. It would be possible for responsible legislators to pass laws that restrict influence peddling and lobbying. It is conceivable to freeze big business out of government. I don't know how exactly, but there has to be a way other than massively shrinking government.

I mean you guys paint big business/the rich as these plutocratic boogie men that corrupts government and is actively keeping the poor down through the government, right? And your solution is essentially to enforce less regulations on big business? Surely you can see that the problem in this scenario is big business at least as much as government (probably much more so)? You don't see how a society with less government would simply allow the greedy boogie men of big business to be even more powerful, with less potential democratic control?

Perhaps you could expand on the concept of "localizing" government and shrinking the federal government. Maybe I misunderstand. Because my initial reaction is to ask questions like:

- With no federal government, who enforces civil rights? Because states and municipalities in the South lost that privilege for all eternity.

- Wouldn't smaller local governments be just as subject to corruption and lobbying and nepotism as a federal government. And actually have less power to keep big international corporations and business lobbies in check, even if they did have integrity?

- How local are we talking? Do you not see how some really ****ing kooky laws would come into being if the United States became a patchwork of city states? The U.S. wouldn;t even be a single nation anymore.

- If you are talking about increasing the autonomy of state governments, you do remember that there was a Civil War to stop states from allowing slavery? The Southern states actually had to be forced to stop the practice of slavery. And then they had to be forced again to stop the practice of racial segregation. Not suggesting that slavery or segregation would necessarily come back, but at least recognize WHY the U.S. needed to have a powerful federal government. And don't rule out some states eventually going off the reservation if left entirely to their own devices.

- Without a federal government, who interprets and enforces the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? That is what the Judicial branch of the federal government is right? It's so that all Americans are in the same boat rights wise.

- Doesn't the federal government facilitate the monetary system? In other words, they issue currency. Do you still allow the federal government to do that.

I guess what I'm asking is what do you really mean when you say that the federal government should be shrunk/downsized/whatever?

Finally:

Crystallas - "You are confusing demography into the topic, that is a very fictitious direction to attempt to push the argument into. Yes, the details matter a great deal here, because once you ignore fine details, the argument is skewed." I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that demographics have no place in this debate? At the very least explain why demographics have no place in the debate. And what fine details are you talking about? Seriously, please explain.

Also, I am interested by your distinction between the deregulated market and a non-manipulated market. But you didn't explain the difference very clearly.

brantonli

01-28-2012, 07:59 PM

The market has every reason to respond to all needs. The market is the most generous force and the most brutal at the same time, but most importantly, we the participants(yes, every single human being on earth) mold the market consciously and unintentionally. And if you wanted to understand how the market worked, then you wouldn't look to force it as a first line of input, because when you force the market, it only helps a small few, mainly the rich.

Then explain why externalities exist, if market responds to all needs. There's a reason why a term called 'market failure' exists in Economics, and it's not an oxymoron.

You say that if everything is privatized, business leaders will hold all the power. My response is.. what power? Businesses have no "power," unless the corrupt government gives it to them. There is nothing to fear from business, because the only way for a business to survive is by pleasing its customers. It's not like a government, which can grow into a nasty beast and force you to follow its decree.

Absolutely not. You mistakenly think that all firms are the same in terms of market power, and they are not. Some markets have monopolies, others have perfectly competitive firms. Natural monopolies are ones with very high 'sunk costs' (costs that are not recoverable if the firm exits the market) and continously lower and lower average costs. These mean they have barriers to entry, so that new entrants find it VERY difficult to enter the market, and hence it is difficult to dislodge natural monopolies, and that's why in most countries, natural monopolies are actually state-owned, or subject to intense regulation (think electric networks, trains, telecommunications, water works, gas pipes, things that require HUGE upfront costs but then cost relatively little to maintain). These are the businesses that can (and will) take advantage of people if not regulated properly, because other entrants cannot dislodge them.

And if you research further into this, you'll actually find that all firms that are profit-maximising cause something called Social Deadweight Loss, but they are (supposed) to make up for it through innovation.

I hate to say this, but.....this is fairly basic Economics 101, high school level stuff. I respect your opinions man, and I love this thread and others, but...

joe

01-28-2012, 08:56 PM

Absolutely not. You mistakenly think that all firms are the same in terms of market power, and they are not. Some markets have monopolies, others have perfectly competitive firms. Natural monopolies are ones with very high 'sunk costs' (costs that are not recoverable if the firm exits the market) and continously lower and lower average costs. These mean they have barriers to entry, so that new entrants find it VERY difficult to enter the market, and hence it is difficult to dislodge natural monopolies, and that's why in most countries, natural monopolies are actually state-owned, or subject to intense regulation (think electric networks, trains, telecommunications, water works, gas pipes, things that require HUGE upfront costs but then cost relatively little to maintain). These are the businesses that can (and will) take advantage of people if not regulated properly, because other entrants cannot dislodge them.

And if you research further into this, you'll actually find that all firms that are profit-maximising cause something called Social Deadweight Loss, but they are (supposed) to make up for it through innovation.

I hate to say this, but.....this is fairly basic Economics 101, high school level stuff. I respect your opinions man, and I love this thread and others, but...

I respect your opinion too, no worries. I like the conversations in here, it's so strange how different people can have such entirely different views on the same problems..

What you said is high school level stuff, but what is the high school teaching people exactly? High Schools teach us that World War 2 and big government spending got us out of the great depression. We celebrate Christopher Columbus and are rarely told the other side of the story. We're not taught about the recession of 1921, a great example of markets correcting a recession.

A majority of us are taught at government schools, and it's no surprise that the cirriculum is very pro-government.

I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but the facts are right there for all to see. They twist history around and tell us half the story. Why should economics be any different? They don't even teach austrian economics in most colleges. From what I hear, it's rarely even mentioned as a sidenote (you took college economics, right? did they even mention austrian school?).

As far as sunk costs, I really don't see it as a problem the market couldn't overcome on its own. If the monopoly holding company isn't doing a good job, competitors will find a way to contest their market share. If it takes a lot of money just to get started in an industry, that's just one more obstacle for an entrepreneur to overcome. These are creative people. I think human ingenunity will overcome problems like that.

Edit: could you explain a bit more how sunk costs could form monopolies? I get it but I'm not seeing why it's the problem you think it is. What makes you feel that way?

Norcaliblunt

01-28-2012, 09:11 PM

http://youtu.be/4VaSh8MMo34

The bottom line is history has shown us that government is all we got, it does'nt matter if you are Democrat or Republican. Regardless of what you believe about regulation, or planned economies, congress should always be able to create currency debt free and not have to borrow at interest.

brantonli

01-28-2012, 09:12 PM

Lol don't worry, I was never educated in the US, in fact I hardly know any US history, and the history I do know is, well, history rather than economic history (although I'm taking a module of that now at uni), so no chance of me being corrupted by pro-govt policies.

And I'm fully aware of the Austrian school of economics (rofl, almost sounds like my uni), in fact they gave us one of the most important tools in the Economist's toolkit: marginalism (fascinating concept, used almost everywhere, including in the market structures, which is what I was going on about in Natural monopolies and perfectly competitive markets). But the biggest reason why they aren't mentioned much is just because they aren't mainstream. Simple as that. And nope, they haven't mentioned it in uni.

And one big reason I like mainstream more is because mainstream economics relies on models, a simplification of the real world that is true, but it also makes complete logical sense when explained and can be proven to be true.

As far as sunk costs, I really don't see it as a problem the market couldn't overcome on its own. If the monopoly holding company isn't doing a good job, competitors will find a way to contest their market share. If it takes a lot of money just to get started in an industry, that's just one more obstacle for an entrepreneur to overcome. These are creative people. I think human ingenunity will overcome problems like that.

It's that sentence in bold that is the key.

The whole point of mentioning sunk costs is that ordinarily markets CANNOT overcome them, or is incredibly difficult. Imagine if AT&T continued owned all the broadband in the US, and continually bought the rights to more wavelengths, thereby controlling telecommunications market. How will a firm compete with that, buy their own shares? But AT&T own them remember. Now you may say that somebody will come along and somehow innovate a new way of communicating, but how long will that take? How long will customers suffer under a monopoly with no real market competition?

And sunk costs aren't the only factors, if a new entrant somehow does enter the market, monopolies love to use 'predatory pricing' strategies to force new companies to bankruptcy and to scare potential ones off.

joe

01-28-2012, 09:53 PM

Can you give an example of a sunk cost created monopoly? I'm going to google it as well. And here's my response to your post..

Lol don't worry, I was never educated in the US, in fact I hardly know any US history, and the history I do know is, well, history rather than economic history (although I'm taking a module of that now at uni), so no chance of me being corrupted by pro-govt policies.

And I'm fully aware of the Austrian school of economics (rofl, almost sounds like my uni), in fact they gave us one of the most important tools in the Economist's toolkit: marginalism (fascinating concept, used almost everywhere, including in the market structures, which is what I was going on about in Natural monopolies and perfectly competitive markets). But the biggest reason why they aren't mentioned much is just because they aren't mainstream. Simple as that. And nope, they haven't mentioned it in uni.

And one big reason I like mainstream more is because mainstream economics relies on models, a simplification of the real world that is true, but it also makes complete logical sense when explained and can be proven to be true.

It's that sentence in bold that is the key.

The whole point of mentioning sunk costs is that ordinarily markets CANNOT overcome them, or is incredibly difficult. Imagine if AT&T continued owned all the broadband in the US, and continually bought the rights to more wavelengths, thereby controlling telecommunications market. How will a firm compete with that, buy their own shares? But AT&T own them remember. Now you may say that somebody will come along and somehow innovate a new way of communicating, but how long will that take? How long will customers suffer under a monopoly with no real market competition?

And sunk costs aren't the only factors, if a new entrant somehow does enter the market, monopolies love to use 'predatory pricing' strategies to force new companies to bankruptcy and to scare potential ones off.

Those two examples (predatory pricing and the broadband example) are not logical, in that the goal of a business person is to make a profit.

Let's look at the broadband example. If AT&T can buy broadband, why couldn't a competitor? You might say that AT&T might just offer way more money to the broadband dealers than their competitors. Well, overspending is not a good way to turn a profit. Especially not by forcefully overspending on all the new broadband that is released.

In other words, you'd lose more money by trying to put your competitors out of business, than just letting them share the market with you.

Predatory pricing fails for two reasons. 1) A company would lose a lot of money by lowering prices so drastically as to put a competitor out of business. And 2) businesses survive off of their good name and reputation. If WalMart was practicing predatory pricing, and then immediately jacking up prices the second their competitors are out of business, what will that do for their reputation?

And besides, there's really no market that could truly be monopolized. If AT&T were able to monopolize broadband, there are other ways to communicate. If a beef company had a monopoly, there's other things to eat. People just wouldn't use these services until the price came down to a reasonable level.

Crystallas

01-29-2012, 12:18 AM

Crystallas - "You are confusing demography into the topic, that is a very fictitious direction to attempt to push the argument into. Yes, the details matter a great deal here, because once you ignore fine details, the argument is skewed." I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that demographics have no place in this debate? At the very least explain why demographics have no place in the debate. And what fine details are you talking about? Seriously, please explain.

Also, I am interested by your distinction between the deregulated market and a non-manipulated market. But you didn't explain the difference very clearly.

A market self-regulates. It is impossible to have an unregulated market, because regardless of what, the people will regulate the industries through a bottom-up approach. If you manipulate the market, you take a big government, and that government becomes a cookie jar that the elite corporatists have access to, as well as a priority over. If not the corporatists, it could be any power hungry individual or group.

An example of deregulation would be: "The Congress and or Executive Cabinet shall write no law that garners restriction on the trade of any goods or services."
An example of non-manipulation would be: "The Congress and or Executive Cabinet shall write no law that prohibits the contents of a good or service from being disclosed to the parties of exchange."

The difference is huge, because you can deregulate the market by the government, but this never truly deregulates the market. However, full transparency and certification is retained by public or private foundations, and at the exchange of goods. You can no longer manipulate the market to allow your buddies an unfair regulation, but at the same time, the voice of the people(not the lawmakers, preferably at as local of a level as possible) can confirm safety for both the consumer and bystander.

Demographics have no place in this debate if you believe in individual rights. Once you place people in groups, that is automatic discrimination. We should, by a bare minimum, learn this from history of not only a few nations, but every civilization ever.

I am an advocate of recognizing individuality in every form. I embrace diversity. When you have a central planned government, you begin to have a one-size fits all method. This is where discrimination begins, as well as carrying on this idea that groups of people now, have to pay for the mistakes of the past. We, as individuals can learn from history, however, the government, as a bureaucracy, does not. At the local level, the people can determine what suites their needs best. You also allow competing theories, opposition, and free expression to satisfy the needs of those who need the help the most, where a central planned government is driven politically.

Let's try to stay away from the possibilities in extreme situations as rebuttals for the conversation. This is how we get stalemated in finding our common grounds and progressing our lives. Probability and best interests are far more realistic. Otherwise we can debate semantics all night, and I can remind you that the civil war was not fought over black slavery, but it was fought over secession. It should be pretty obvious, because if it was fought over slavery, there were better ways to end black American slavery. I make this clear, because black American slavery was not the only form of slavery in US history. It was a problem that occurred for all races in all cultures worldwide. My grandparents were bloody beaten slaves.

Then explain why externalities exist, if market responds to all needs. There's a reason why a term called 'market failure' exists in Economics, and it's not an oxymoron.

Sort it out. Give me some examples. And if you give me an example of where the people could have helped through the market, but the government got in the way, then I can't explain it, because then that wouldn't be the fault of the people.

Sarcastic

01-29-2012, 12:22 AM

Ma Bell is an example of a sunk cost created monopoly.

Crystallas

01-29-2012, 12:33 AM

Ma Bell is an example of a sunk cost created monopoly.

Thank all of those telecommunication subsidies, and the back door deals made by the federal government to create Ma Bell, the powerhouse.

Hotlantadude81

01-29-2012, 01:38 AM

Crystallas

01-29-2012, 01:53 AM

Joe... If you want to talk politics, go over to the rottentomatoes forum. They're looking for some republicans to argue back and fourth with.

But... he has already stated that he is not a republican, and his positions are not very republican either.

Hotlantadude81

01-29-2012, 02:18 AM

But... he has already stated that he is not a republican, and his positions are not very republican either.
When did he say this?

When you start a thread the way he did that lead me to believe that he was/is.

brantonli

01-29-2012, 04:55 AM

Can you give an example of a sunk cost created monopoly? I'm going to google it as well. And here's my response to your post..

Those two examples (predatory pricing and the broadband example) are not logical, in that the goal of a business person is to make a profit.

Let's look at the broadband example. If AT&T can buy broadband, why couldn't a competitor? You might say that AT&T might just offer way more money to the broadband dealers than their competitors. Well, overspending is not a good way to turn a profit. Especially not by forcefully overspending on all the new broadband that is released.

In other words, you'd lose more money by trying to put your competitors out of business, than just letting them share the market with you.

Predatory pricing fails for two reasons. 1) A company would lose a lot of money by lowering prices so drastically as to put a competitor out of business. And 2) businesses survive off of their good name and reputation. If WalMart was practicing predatory pricing, and then immediately jacking up prices the second their competitors are out of business, what will that do for their reputation?

And besides, there's really no market that could truly be monopolized. If AT&T were able to monopolize broadband, there are other ways to communicate. If a beef company had a monopoly, there's other things to eat. People just wouldn't use these services until the price came down to a reasonable level.

As I already said, things like natural monopolies (which was normally state-owned) are examples of sunk cost created monopolies. Water works, trains, national electricity grids etc. Here's a nice link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly Now true, it is very possible for technology to make such monopolies redundant (e.g. canals being usurped by railways), but how long are you willing to subject the people to such monopolies? Just say to them 'Hey, never mind about that monopoly, eventually something will come along and replace it, in the mean time, just endure it!'

And the point of the predatory pricing is that of course you are sacrificing short term profit for long term profits. I should've said that obviously, after they have lowered their prices to below costs and driven the competitor out of the market, they then drag it back up and wait for the next foolish entrant to try and enter the market.

Now I must stress that this is a theoretical exercise. Can I point to a specific case where companies did do this? No, because I never studied it in detail, but to me it makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't a monopoly sacrifice short term profit for long term gains? And using Wal-Mart is a bad example anyway, because the retail market is extremely competitive. Think of a water works company. Huge up front costs (reservoirs, laying pipes, water treatment). What if a competitor wants to enter the market? Build another set of pipes, another set of reservoirs, etc?

If you have a natural, uncontestable monopoly, the whole point is that you do NOT need to listen to the needs of the market but rather the needs of your firm.

As for the broadband example, that would be an example of buying up your factor production (what you use to produce your product) and controlling it. The classic example is De Beers, who basically had a monopoly on diamond production in the 20th century. And absolutely you'll be overbidding for it, but if you have tons of cash to burn, other companies are very small and trying to get into the market, why wouldn't you sacrifice SR profits for long term gains? Makes good business sense to maintain your monopoly power as long as possible.

Crystallas

01-29-2012, 05:36 AM

As I already said, things like natural monopolies (which was normally state-owned) are examples of sunk cost created monopolies. Water works, trains, national electricity grids etc. Here's a nice link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly Now true, it is very possible for technology to make such monopolies redundant (e.g. canals being usurped by railways), but how long are you willing to subject the people to such monopolies? Just say to them 'Hey, never mind about that monopoly, eventually something will come along and replace it, in the mean time, just endure it!'

And the point of the predatory pricing is that of course you are sacrificing short term profit for long term profits. I should've said that obviously, after they have lowered their prices to below costs and driven the competitor out of the market, they then drag it back up and wait for the next foolish entrant to try and enter the market.

Now I must stress that this is a theoretical exercise. Can I point to a specific case where companies did do this? No, because I never studied it in detail, but to me it makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't a monopoly sacrifice short term profit for long term gains? And using Wal-Mart is a bad example anyway, because the retail market is extremely competitive. Think of a water works company. Huge up front costs (reservoirs, laying pipes, water treatment). What if a competitor wants to enter the market? Build another set of pipes, another set of reservoirs, etc?

If you have a natural, uncontestable monopoly, the whole point is that you do NOT need to listen to the needs of the market but rather the needs of your firm.

As for the broadband example, that would be an example of buying up your factor production (what you use to produce your product) and controlling it. The classic example is De Beers, who basically had a monopoly on diamond production in the 20th century. And absolutely you'll be overbidding for it, but if you have tons of cash to burn, other companies are very small and trying to get into the market, why wouldn't you sacrifice SR profits for long term gains? Makes good business sense to maintain your monopoly power as long as possible.

Lawrence Reed is a specialized expert in natural monopoly economics in both controlled and free markets. I would suggest looking into his research, which he uses facts from as many angles as possible to both formulate and apply multiple economic schools of thought to the problems and provide the evidence to support many angles to what and why for every monopolistic scenario in history.

Here is one where he clearly spells out the facts within the Rockefeller/Standard Oil monopoly. It's about an hour, but if you truly want answers, then I suggest you check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA6BVRiUKyQ

RidonKs

01-29-2012, 11:38 AM

Those two examples (predatory pricing and the broadband example) are not logical, in that the goal of a business person is to make a profit.

Let's look at the broadband example. If AT&T can buy broadband, why couldn't a competitor? You might say that AT&T might just offer way more money to the broadband dealers than their competitors. Well, overspending is not a good way to turn a profit. Especially not by forcefully overspending on all the new broadband that is released.

In other words, you'd lose more money by trying to put your competitors out of business, than just letting them share the market with you.
this is and has been your single biggest hang-up in every single conversation i and anybody else has every had with you. you say "well that can't happen, it's illogical and doesn't fit into my framework for the perfectly self-interested rational business person, nobody would behave that way". and yet -- *GASP* -- it happens. all the time. how could that be? maybe it's because your ideological mold of how you think the world should or even could be is total fantasy. maybe the world isn't like that. you can't just reject actual existing concepts because they don't pan out under your pre-existing rationale. that's bogus argumentation.

joe

01-29-2012, 06:53 PM

joe

01-29-2012, 06:58 PM

When did he say this?

When you start a thread the way he did that lead me to believe that he was/is.

Sorry, maybe I should've been cclear. I'm more libertarian than anything but I feel funny using a label. I'm still trying to figure out what I "am" and what I believe as I go along..

I specifically addressed democrats because this site has a lot of them. If this site was more republican I'd be asking about that

Hotlantadude81

01-29-2012, 07:18 PM

Sorry, maybe I should've been cclear. I'm more libertarian than anything but I feel funny using a label. I'm still trying to figure out what I "am" and what I believe as I go along..

I specifically addressed democrats because this site has a lot of them. If this site was more republican I'd be asking about that

Fair enough. But political discussions often start with one side calling the side out. I'm not huge on following politics because there isn't a lot we can do I'm afraid. I do however have a clear conscience since I haven't voted for any of these corporate welfare loving folks.

Just the same, there are some guys there that would debate more.

KevinNYC

01-29-2012, 09:38 PM

this is and has been your single biggest hang-up in every single conversation i and anybody else has every had with you. you say "well that can't happen, it's illogical and doesn't fit into my framework for the perfectly self-interested rational business person, nobody would behave that way". and yet -- *GASP* -- it happens. all the time. how could that be? maybe it's because your ideological mold of how you think the world should or even could be is total fantasy. maybe the world isn't like that. you can't just reject actual existing concepts because they don't pan out under your pre-existing rationale. that's bogus argumentation.

RidonKs just laid it out for you and you go ahead do the exact same thing he just told you to think about.

Maybe you're right. I don't doubt a monopoly could happen but I just don't think it's worth having the government break it up. I don't think they'll cause a big enough problem for a long enough time to justify it.

Things like predatory pricing are purely theory, and such a case has never been really proven (it's really damn hard to prove even if it was happening, though). Sunk costs or high entry costs are just obstacles that entrepreneurs would have to climb.

But say you could think of a monopoly situation where it is clearly advantageous for the government to break it up. Okay fine. But that sets standards and precedents for them to do more in the future. If the government could just stick to only doing a couple things, there wouldn't be an issue. But it's been shown they can't.

It's that logic that makes me almost want to give in to anarchism, but I do see the govenment is totally needed for a few things.

Monopolies can and do happen. Read up on why the US became the first country to institute anti-trust laws

Predatory pricing can and does happen. Standard Oil used to drive smaller, local oil companies out of business.

How come companies don't charge for Internet browsers? Hugely important and popular piece of software and Netscape used to charge for theirs. Then Microsoft came along and used predatory pricing to destroy Netscape.

You need to compare your theories to what actually happens in the real world. This is how realists work. They modify their understanding of how the world works based on experience and evidence from the real world. Ideologues do not. They just discount things that aren't explaining by their theory or by claiming their theory does explain what happened if even the facts don't support it (see every post, I've had on Peter Wallison in this thread.)

Crystallas

01-29-2012, 09:47 PM

You need to compare your theories to what actually happens in the real world. This is how realists work. They modify their understanding of how the world works based on experience and evidence from the real world. Ideologues do not. They just discount things that aren't explaining by their theory or by claiming their theory does explain what happened if even the facts don't support it (see every post, I've had on Peter Wallison in this thread.)

I posted a response to Standard Oil and about monopolies, and what actually happened in reality, and not in theory by some ideologues, as you like to simply brush everything off with some witty name-calling.

kentatm

01-29-2012, 10:12 PM

Maybe you're right. I don't doubt a monopoly could happen but I just don't think it's worth having the government break it up. I don't think they'll cause a big enough problem for a long enough time to justify it.

Things like predatory pricing are purely theory, and such a case has never been really proven (it's really damn hard to prove even if it was happening, though). Sunk costs or high entry costs are just obstacles that entrepreneurs would have to climb.

wow, not only are you naive on how businesses act in the real world, you don't know your history well at all.

joe

01-30-2012, 02:39 AM

RidonKs just laid it out for you and you go ahead do the exact same thing he just told you to think about.

Monopolies can and do happen. Read up on why the US became the first country to institute anti-trust laws

Predatory pricing can and does happen. Standard Oil used to drive smaller, local oil companies out of business.

How come companies don't charge for Internet browsers? Hugely important and popular piece of software and Netscape used to charge for theirs. Then Microsoft came along and used predatory pricing to destroy Netscape.

You need to compare your theories to what actually happens in the real world. This is how realists work. They modify their understanding of how the world works based on experience and evidence from the real world. Ideologues do not. They just discount things that aren't explaining by their theory or by claiming their theory does explain what happened if even the facts don't support it (see every post, I've had on Peter Wallison in this thread.)

That is not at all a case of predatory pricing. Predatory pricing involves taking losses to undercharge for a product, just long enough to put your competitor out of business. Then, raising your prices back up.

Did Microsoft take huge losses by not charging for internet explorer? No.

Did Microsoft destroy all competition in the internet browser market? No. Firefox, google chrome, etc.

Did microsoft start charging for internet explorer once its competitors were "out of business?" No.

What you are commenting on is a case of market competition leading to reduced prices for consumers. And then calling it predatory pricing.

joe

01-30-2012, 02:57 AM

wow, not only are you naive on how businesses act in the real world, you don't know your history well at all.

Most economists agree that predatory pricing is something you'd rarely if ever see in the real world. The short term pain is not worth the long term gain, especially since the long term gain may never come.

KevinNYC

01-30-2012, 03:02 AM

KevinNYC

01-30-2012, 03:03 AM

I posted a response to Standard Oil and about monopolies, and what actually happened in reality, and not in theory by some ideologues, as you like to simply brush everything off with some witty name-calling.

So you want to watch a one hour lecture by some guy funded by the Koch Brothers? Yikes.

Also he is not even the primary source for his info. John McGee is the one who did the original work in 1958 or 50 years after the trial. This is what you call revisionist history, so I see your one-hour video of second-hand revisionist history and see you a 50 page paper of corrective history (http://www.alderantitrust.com/docs/V-B-1.pdf), that reviews McGee use of the record from the antitrust-trial against Standard Oil and calls it into question for overlooking or ignoring evidence. Also McGee only looked at the trial record, where predatory pricing was only one anti-competitive method Standard Oil was accused of. So most of the trial record would be about other things, like how Standard oil used railroad rebates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_T._Bush#cite_note-3) which were kind of secret kickbacks to Standard Oil and were alleged to have provided the majority of Standard's profits. McGee also did not look at the Rockefeller papers or the Bureau of Corporations Report (http://books.google.com/books?id=E0xJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA333&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q=predatory&f=false) sent to the Attorney General. The Bureau of Corporations is now the Federal Trade Commission. So his work, was not a avery good work of history.

One work that did study the Rockefeller Papers is this biography of John D. Rockefeller (http://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/0679438084). If you go to Amazon, you can search the book for "Thompson." Colonel Thompson worked for Standard Oil and his writings there is a letter to JD Rockefeller that Standard was 1/4 of its oil at cost in order to drive local competitors out of business. So Standard Oil was not making any profit from about 9,000 customers.

Standard Oil was pretty clever about how they did this. They didn't cut all their prices in an area. They only cut the prices for a customer that had switched to a competitor. They were also devious about how they did this part. They often used bogus companies to do it. They would set up a company, let's call it Bogus Oil Inc. Bogus Oil would go ONLY to the customers that switched and over them oil at cost or below cost. This way they could argue it wasn't Standard Oil that was doing it and if another Standard customer found out, they wouldn't be pissed at Standard for not giving them the cheap rate. Once the local competitor went out of business, rates went up.

So their practice of predatory pricing was selective.

Also predatory pricing goes the other way too. Standard Oil was in all aspects of the oil business and it bought the vast majority of the oil it refined. They controlled the majority of pipelines in the US and if someone else tried to build a pipeline, Standard would go to the local oil suppliers and offer 20 cents more a barrel and buy up all the available oil...predatory costing, I guess you who call it. Then once they drove the other pipeline out of business, the local supplier would be left with one customer and Standard could lower their prices.

joe

01-30-2012, 03:20 AM

Like a lot of laws, people are enamored with the intent of anti-trust, and not its actual effects.

Anti-trust law is used randomly, with no set definition of what a monopoly is. Some companies are broken up, some equally sized companies aren't. Sometimes a "monopoly" is when there is no competition in an entire industry, other times it is much more specific. For instance, when the government wouldn't allow v05 and Suave to merge, because that would cause a monopoly on the "bargain shampoo industry."

This kills business mens initiative, making them unsure of what will be considered illegal. We may never know what potential innovations we lost this way. As former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan said:

"No one will ever know what new products, processes, machines, and cost-saving mergers failed to come into existence, killed by the Sherman Act before they were born. No one can ever compute the price that all of us have paid for that Act which, by inducing less effective use of capital, has kept our standard of living lower than would otherwise have been possible."

What if two companies merge because one is ready to go out of business.. but the government stops the merger? You are now basically forcing a weak company to stay in the market, which will probably end up going bankrupt anyway.

What if a compnay has a monopoly, but is still offering a great service? The government sues them and breaks them up.. and now we're left with an overall less efficient product?

For every 1 time a monopoly is rightfully broken up under anti-trust, there's way more times when its simply another case of government making the market less efficient.

KevinNYC

01-30-2012, 03:27 AM

Most economists agree that predatory pricing is something you'd rarely if ever see in the real world. The short term pain is not worth the long term gain, especially since the long term gain may never come.

They never read Sam Walton's book. He explicitly talks about undercutting local stores, even if you have to sell at a loss. Walmart was able to do this because of the profits of other stores.

One Walmart manager talked about how they trained to do this. You go to the other store and buy they top 50 in a department. Then you set prices at that local Walmart at 10 percent less. Then when you drive that guy out of business, you hike your prices. However the key is to hike them slowly over 90-120 days to the price of other Walmarts. The long term gain is you now have virtually exclusive access to a local market.

joe

01-30-2012, 03:33 AM

Microsoft has taken huge losses on several of its products at first. Their development was subsidized by the profits from the operating system. Microsoft would also routinely threaten OEM computer makers not to do things like not to offer a competitor's office software or not to offer an OS other than Windows. And if they did, Microsoft would jack up their price on Windows. putting them at competitive disadvantage.

Also Firefox is open-source software and was developed by a non-profit and it was released 3 years after the Justice Department started the anti-trust case against Microsoft. Obviously Chrome came out even later. If you remember Microsoft was changing Windows so that Internet Explorer would be the best browser on it and other companies couldn't get access to that code. Chrome would never exist if Microsoft was able to continue that practice.

Microsoft made tons of money on their operating system, and decided they could get by with giving Internet Explorer away for free. That's not predatory, that's great business. And us, the consumers, are the better for it. It's like Nintendo giving away a copy of Super Mario with every Super Nintendo.

If another company wanted to create their own internet browser, there was nothing stopping them. But the market was set at FREE. If you aren't able to make your product for that price, then you can't compete.

OEM's didn't HAVE to use Windows. They could have used whatever they wanted. If Microsoft would only do business with those who exclusively used Windows, that's their right. It's their product, they can sell it to who they want to sell it to. Nobody was holding a gun to anybody's head.

Explain to me how Microsoft was somehow restricting a market that it itself invented?

And are we really arguing that it's bad for a company to give something away for free? I don't usually say this but... SMH

joe

01-30-2012, 03:37 AM

They never read Sam Walton's book. He explicitly talks about undercutting local stores, even if you have to sell at a loss. Walmart was able to do this because of the profits of other stores.

One Walmart manager talked about how they trained to do this. You go to the other store and buy they top 50 in a department. Then you set prices at that local Walmart at 10 percent less. Then when you drive that guy out of business, you hike your prices. However the key is to hike them slowly over 90-120 days to the price of other Walmarts. The long term gain is you now have virtually exclusive access to a local market.

If Wal Mart raises prices too high, competition will pop back up. Even if they put one competitor out of business, their stores and workers will all still be there. Someone else can buy it up and challenge walmart again. They can't keep prices low forever.

Also, your whole argument is semingly based on the idea that you "own" wal-marts products. That you have a right to them at a certain price. Or that, you have a right to low prices in general. Wal mart owns its products and can charge whatever it wants for them. But if they charge too much, people will look for an alternative. That is market regulations. If you use the government to restrict monopolies, you end up spending a lot of money, doing not much else than making the market less efficient. And ultimately, raising prices or lowering the standard of living, thanks to the government blockading the free market.

Crystallas

01-30-2012, 04:00 AM

So you want to watch a one hour lecture by some guy funded by the Koch Brothers? Yikes.

Also he is not even the primary source for his info. John McGee is the one who did the original work in 1958 or 50 years after the trial. This is what you call revisionist history, so I see your one-hour video of second-hand revisionist history and see you a 50 page paper of corrective history (http://www.alderantitrust.com/docs/V-B-1.pdf), that reviews McGee use of the record from the antitrust-trial against Standard Oil and calls it into question for overlooking or ignoring evidence. Also McGee only looked at the trial record, where predatory pricing was only one anti-competitive method Standard Oil was accused of. So most of the trial record would be about other things, like how Standard oil used railroad rebates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rufus_T._Bush#cite_note-3) which were kind of secret kickbacks to Standard Oil and were alleged to have provided the majority of Standard's profits. McGee also did not look at the Rockefeller papers or the Bureau of Corporations Report (http://books.google.com/books?id=E0xJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA333&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q=predatory&f=false) sent to the Attorney General. The Bureau of Corporations is now the Federal Trade Commission. So his work, was not a avery good work of history.

One work that did study the Rockefeller Papers is this biography of John D. Rockefeller (http://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/0679438084). If you go to Amazon, you can search the book for "Thompson." Colonel Thompson worked for Standard Oil and his writings there is a letter to JD Rockefeller that Standard was 1/4 of its oil at cost in order to drive local competitors out of business. So Standard Oil was not making any profit from about 9,000 customers.

Standard Oil was pretty clever about how they did this. They didn't cut all their prices in an area. They only cut the prices for a customer that had switched to a competitor. They were also devious about how they did this part. They often used bogus companies to do it. They would set up a company, let's call it Bogus Oil Inc. Bogus Oil would go ONLY to the customers that switched and over them oil at cost or below cost. This way they could argue it wasn't Standard Oil that was doing it and if another Standard customer found out, they wouldn't be pissed at Standard for not giving them the cheap rate. Once the local competitor went out of business, rates went up.

So their practice of predatory pricing was selective.

Also predatory pricing goes the other way too. Standard Oil was in all aspects of the oil business and it bought the vast majority of the oil it refined. They controlled the majority of pipelines in the US and if someone else tried to build a pipeline, Standard would go to the local oil suppliers and offer 20 cents more a barrel and buy up all the available oil...predatory costing, I guess you who call it. Then once they drove the other pipeline out of business, the local supplier would be left with one customer and Standard could lower their prices.

I noticed you didn't bother to watch the video, and disregard the source, which destroys your entire argument. I'm not a Koch supporter, but I am not going to just say, "Hey! this guy is somehow linked to someone else that is bad, therefore they are wrong." That is a poor way to address an argument. Your KevinNYC, well, I know of a Kevin in NYC that is linked to a mass murder, therefore it is only logical for me to disregard anything you say. You switch the argument to something you want to hand pick and defend, and distort the subject. This is misleading, and extraordinarily inaccurate to progress.

Then you do something similar with the facts presented by many period, up until current experts on the subjects. McGee's documents were only a portion of the argument, however, you link to one of the many opposing arguments that does not dispel the facts of the market, provided by Reed. To be fair, I had already read the Dalton argument sometime around 4 years ago, and they continue to distort the facts against their argument, and continue to thrive on their own specialty, which is the fallacy of free market predatory price cutting. The only time a predatory price cut can work, is if the government subsidizes it's goods or services to an unfair advantage(which Dalton proves fairly well, that the government did in fact, give Standard Oil advantages over it's competitors). At that point, you have two groups, one group who recognizes the root problem, and biased apologists, who may side with the company or want to cover up the governments mistakes for their own ideologically motivated reasons.

So I see your raise of a 50 page document, and ask you to watch an easy 1 hour video. I already, in good faith and with a clear conscious admit to have read it and your argument demonstrates that you, again, look for the quickest way to brush off opposition.

Actually, I have to address this, if you want others to take you seriously.
First, you accuse opposing outlooks to be a psychological flaw. (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6801508&postcount=25)
Then you have dodge topics by reverting attention to other arguments that you prefer to make throughout the thread.
And all through any opposing argument, you find a need to slip in personal attacks on differing beliefs.

Crystallas

01-30-2012, 04:11 AM

Microsoft made tons of money on their operating system, and decided they could get by with giving Internet Explorer away for free. That's not predatory, that's great business. And us, the consumers, are the better for it. It's like Nintendo giving away a copy of Super Mario with every Super Nintendo.

If another company wanted to create their own internet browser, there was nothing stopping them. But the market was set at FREE. If you aren't able to make your product for that price, then you can't compete.

OEM's didn't HAVE to use Windows. They could have used whatever they wanted. If Microsoft would only do business with those who exclusively used Windows, that's their right. It's their product, they can sell it to who they want to sell it to. Nobody was holding a gun to anybody's head.

Explain to me how Microsoft was somehow restricting a market that it itself invented?

And are we really arguing that it's bad for a company to give something away for free? I don't usually say this but... SMH

I actually worked with the whole NCSA/lynx scene on open source projects, early in the 90s. We were building a web browser for *nix systems, and it eventually became universalized not long after. I actually did a lot of open source developing in the 90s, so I get a kick out of some perceptions people get, if they only remember or recognize what happened within one market(windows) when the majority of the internet ran on, and still does run on, a widely open source kernel(bsd/unix/linux.)

How dare Microsoft make a web browser. LMAO. We knew this was coming, we were one-upping them on ASP/CGI and J# web development. Internet Explorer was crap until IE6 came out, but the reason why it was so big and successful for such a long time, was because most office workers did not have permissions to install third party software onto the systems.

Netscape didn't market their browser that well, and Netscape was also subject to competition. Like joe said, the consumer ultimately won.

KevinNYC

01-30-2012, 04:30 AM

This kills business mens initiative, making them unsure of what will be considered illegal. We may never know what potential innovations we lost this way.

So you're saying that businessmen who are the position of monopolizing the market don't have access to lawyers? Wha?

What if two companies merge because one is ready to go out of business.. but the government stops the merger? You are now basically forcing a weak company to stay in the market, which will probably end up going bankrupt anyway.

Please find a single example where this has ever happened. Actual antitrust cases involve cases like the instance of the shampoos you mention, Unilever would have controlled 90% of the market. This would give them a giant advantage over competitors when negotiating slotting fees with supermarkets and drugstores. And the merger of Unilever and Alberto-Culver did go through. Unilever bought them, but for the merger they had to sell the US right for the VO5 and Rave brands They kept all the other Alberto Culver brands. They still have Mrs. Dash and Molly McButter and several hair care brands like Nexxus, TRESemm

KevinNYC

01-30-2012, 05:11 AM

JOE,

Regarding Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, you can read the Justice Department's Finding of Fact. (http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#iv) These were not overturned on appeal and that's why Microsoft chose to settle. It's not theoretical.
Microsoft was using its monopolistic power to stifle innovation in several technologies I thought you were concerned about innovation.

Once Walmart drives a store out of business it returns its prices to normal. These prices are generally low, but they are profitable. The idea that a new competitor is going to spring up is ridiculous when you have the example of what happened to the first guy. The monopolistic company can drive them out of business just as easily as the first. There are small towns all over this country with empty stores and available workers, but why open a store when Walmart is your town? Again. This is not theoretical. This has happened. You own a commercial building within a mile of a Walmart and you want to start a business. Do you actually think you would try to compete directly in Walmart's market? Would you like to pitch that to the loan officer at a bank or a group of investors?

Um, I never thought I owned Walmart's products. wtf? My concern is Walmart is using coercive, antcompetitive practices. If a company just has a giant market share, that in and of itself, is not illegal. Using coercive practices to establish that monopoly is. You can have an legal monopoly if you hold the patent on a valued technology. That's legal. If I start telling you, if you want to buy my desired product, then you also have to buy my other products (Hi, Microsoft!), that's coercive tying and it's illegal. I think you are missing the understanding of what is legal monopoly and what is an illegal one.

Crystallas, if IE was shit until 6.0 and you and I know that it was, how did the consumer win? Also if their computers came from the OEM with Netscape as their internet browser, then the office workers wouldn't have run into that problem. Which brings up Microsoft's threats to the OEM. Microsoft did not win on the quality of its product which was a loss to consumers

And I did try to watch the video, but, ****, did you actually watch that whole thing? That whole thing could have lasted 10 mins tops. I kept trying to jump to the point where he got to the predatory pricing part, so I googled him and looked at some of his articles and responded to his source material. I think my time was better spent.

Crystallas

01-30-2012, 06:05 AM

Crystallas, if IE was shit until 6.0 and you and I know that it was, how did the consumer win? Also if their computers came from the OEM with Netscape as their internet browser, then the office workers wouldn't have run into that problem. Which brings up Microsoft's threats to the OEM. Microsoft did not win on the quality of its product which was a loss to consumers

And I did try to watch the video, but, ****, did you actually watch that whole thing? That whole thing could have lasted 10 mins tops. I kept trying to jump to the point where he got to the predatory pricing part, so I googled him and looked at some of his articles and responded to his source material. I think my time was better spent.

The consumer won, because competition emerged. The demands of the user changed, and so did the software. If Netscape was bundled onto windows, then you are just changing the particular software that gets that advantage. How fair would it be, when dozens of other browsers existed, some that I preferred over Netscape? AOL had this advantage as well for ISPs, as it was bundled onto windows and macs as well. If you really think about how extremely complex the web era was, and how much technology was around, left for the consumer to research, we sorted out all of the options fairly quick. Nobody knew what was going to stick and what would not. IE on Windows was perfectly fair. Heck, Netscape couldn't keep up with the changes, neither could Microsoft. That's why MS bought Spyglass to create Internet Explorer, so it could allow active desktops(which failed miserably), however, IE survived.

The businesses that did not want to allow workers to surf the web on company time, did not allow third party browsers. But people were still able to use Internet Explorer, thus, driving up the usage numbers. However, this is a very inaccurate scope of choice, because people at home downloaded alternative browsers, and it was free to them.
For the business to allow third party software, they would be required a license fee to legally do so. The developers of open source software still try to maintain a method of revenue to fund the projects, therefore every single non-IE browser required the business to obtain the license to distribute the software onto their systems, because these were for profit. When I was a part of CopyNight(old group based on working with copyright laws and all of the Copyright Acts/UCC) around 98-00, we would constantly fight to allow tolerance of how the end user in a business environment should be separated. Well, we were talking with computer illiterate legislators allover the country, so it took a LONG time until tolerance was accepted. Bare in mind, this was around the same time the MPAA and RIAA took advantage of their bought congress, and forced the Net Act down our throats. Oh wait, history repeats itself again! *cough, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA!*

As far as the video: Yes, I did watch all of it, and read quite a bit more than a muckrak summary found on a blog, when it comes to my research and understanding of economics. Hell, it is my profession specialty, so I am pretty much on top of most reports and journals in real-time. Most, not all. And I don't limit myself to selective reading/viewing from my personal bias. I love reading alternative economics and opposition alike. (I don't discriminate :D )

KevinNYC

01-30-2012, 03:50 PM

Sarcastic

01-30-2012, 04:01 PM

Most economists agree that predatory pricing is something you'd rarely if ever see in the real world. The short term pain is not worth the long term gain, especially since the long term gain may never come.

Which economists are these? I've never heard of an economist anywhere that defends monopoly power, and says it's meaningless.

Crystallas

01-30-2012, 06:48 PM

Of course the best thing for the consumer would have been being able to select from a range of browsers or ISPs to include when buying a new PC and for an innovator like Netscape to be rewarded in the marketplace.

I am a dilletante in economics, buy have been reading about it for quite a while now.

Two questions: what do you think of the concept of antitrust laws in general and what do you think of the Microsoft case in particular?

Netscape wasn't much of an innovator, it were the people who built such mosiac code for multiple applications. Those individuals were the true innovators and they all moved onto bigger and better things. The brand means very little, other than for nostalgia purposes. But come on, I'm not a conservative(true sense of the word), I am not trying to create a historical society that prevents new generations of growth.

I judge these cases mainly on outcomes. While I personally dislike Microsoft and Apple(*nix guy for 20 years), Microsoft, as far as anti-trust goes, gets a lot of blame for acting naturally in their sector to meet demands of the consumers and businesses alike.
If your goal is to limit competition in the marketplace, nearly all anti-trust laws limit competition in the real world, while retaining the appearance of helping competition. The SATA, specifically, because to just use anti-trust as a blanket term, could include reasons for why anti-trust laws are good, but not used or enforced today(unless selectively).

My favorite anti-trust is Intel vs AMD. Unlike Microsoft, Intel is well documented for bullying distributors and using predatory pricing methods. Yet, it is rarely ever discussed. Sure, there have been court cases around the world, but these two companies avoided litigation when possible, for the sake of their competition. Intel is a liked company, so people choose to overlook their practices.

Once Netscape's programmers dispersed to other jobs of their liking(or maybe even retired), the bulk of the code was bought out by others(including Microsoft), and only the branding franchise remained. In this segue of inevitable change, the lawyers fabricated a scheme, and of course, with the world full of Microsoft haters, it was easy to make this case bigger than it really was.

LJJ

01-30-2012, 07:05 PM

What if a compnay has a monopoly, but is still offering a great service?

http://i.imgur.com/plLe7.jpg

A.M.G.

02-05-2012, 04:11 AM

A market self-regulates. It is impossible to have an unregulated market, because regardless of what, the people will regulate the industries through a bottom-up approach. If you manipulate the market, you take a big government, and that government becomes a cookie jar that the elite corporatists have access to, as well as a priority over. If not the corporatists, it could be any power hungry individual or group.

An example of deregulation would be: "The Congress and or Executive Cabinet shall write no law that garners restriction on the trade of any goods or services."
An example of non-manipulation would be: "The Congress and or Executive Cabinet shall write no law that prohibits the contents of a good or service from being disclosed to the parties of exchange."

The difference is huge, because you can deregulate the market by the government, but this never truly deregulates the market. However, full transparency and certification is retained by public or private foundations, and at the exchange of goods. You can no longer manipulate the market to allow your buddies an unfair regulation, but at the same time, the voice of the people(not the lawmakers, preferably at as local of a level as possible) can confirm safety for both the consumer and bystander.

Demographics have no place in this debate if you believe in individual rights. Once you place people in groups, that is automatic discrimination. We should, by a bare minimum, learn this from history of not only a few nations, but every civilization ever.

I am an advocate of recognizing individuality in every form. I embrace diversity. When you have a central planned government, you begin to have a one-size fits all method. This is where discrimination begins, as well as carrying on this idea that groups of people now, have to pay for the mistakes of the past. We, as individuals can learn from history, however, the government, as a bureaucracy, does not. At the local level, the people can determine what suites their needs best. You also allow competing theories, opposition, and free expression to satisfy the needs of those who need the help the most, where a central planned government is driven politically.

Let's try to stay away from the possibilities in extreme situations as rebuttals for the conversation. This is how we get stalemated in finding our common grounds and progressing our lives. Probability and best interests are far more realistic. Otherwise we can debate semantics all night, and I can remind you that the civil war was not fought over black slavery, but it was fought over secession. It should be pretty obvious, because if it was fought over slavery, there were better ways to end black American slavery. I make this clear, because black American slavery was not the only form of slavery in US history. It was a problem that occurred for all races in all cultures worldwide. My grandparents were bloody beaten slaves.

"The people will regulate the industries through a bottom-up approach."

Please explain what you mean by this. What do you invision this bottom-up approach as?

"However, full transparency and certification is retained by public or private foundations, and at the exchange of goods."

I still don't fully understand the significance of this distinction, nor do I understand why the dismantling of the federal government is required to achieve this.

"Demographics have no place in this debate if you believe in individual rights. Once you place people in groups, that is automatic discrimination. We should, by a bare minimum, learn this from history of not only a few nations, but every civilization ever."

You truly believe that the existence of different economic classes in America has no place in this debate? You truly believe that if we try to forget that there are different ethnicities that bigotry and discrimination will go away? People are individuals and members of groups simultaneously. For example, all black people are individuals, but Jim Crow affected all of them. Another example would be that gay people are all individuals, but they are all prevented from enjoying the same marriage rights under law as heterosexuals in most states. And by the same token, working poor people are all individuals, but most of them are being exploited as cheap labour so that rich people can get richer.

That is why demographics can't be ignored, because we can't possibly address every issue for every single person, but we can fix problems that affect large groups.

"We, as individuals can learn from history, however, the government, as a bureaucracy, does not. At the local level, the people can determine what suites their needs best."

For one thing, the government does "learn from history" in that new laws and constitutional amendments and supreme court rulings change the way society functions based on historical paradigms. The federal ban on slavery. Women being allowed to vote. Blacks being allowed to vote. Prohibition being repealed. Abortion being legalized. Etc, etc. That wasn't some little town hall meeting deciding that. That was the big assed federal government telling everyone that slavery was done, everyone that women could vote no matter what your chauvinist traditions dictated, that attempting to prohibit alcohol caused more problems than it solved. It took public action, but the government put it into action and forced the knuckle heads in these situations to make a change or suffer the consequences.

For another thing, at the local level, if left entirely to their own devices, there are constituencies that would still have segregation and might see a return to it, and there are some that would make homosexuality illegal again, or would make some random branch of christianity the official religion, etc, etc. Those are not extreme scenarios, those are things that probably would happen. Believe it or not, people at the local level often make unbelievably horrible and stupid decisions. The federal government is actually supposed to protect the civil and constitutional rights of individuals in situations where lower levels of government **** up. It doesn't always succeed or it takes its sweet time. But never forget that state and municipal governments have had to be forced by the federal government to abondon shit like Jim Crow.

The Civil War was fought over secession. But the main reason the South was trying to secede was because they wanted to keep slavery legal. I would like to know what better ways to end black slavery there were.