Is Capitalism God-Ordained?

[freeRadical]

Think about that for a minute…

If you have to ask permission (license, permit, compliance, etc) you are not FREE.

Government can enforce objective laws justly. But a “regulation” that favors one business over another or provides the slightest advantage to some turns a Free Market into a “controlled market.”

A controlled market is a mixture of freedom and controls—with no principles, rules, or theories to define either.

Since the introduction of controls necessitates and leads to further controls, it is an unstable, explosive mixture which, ultimately, has to repeal the controls or collapse into dictatorship.

Licenses and permits aren’t really regulations per se, they are taxes on enterprise basically.

There is more to government regulation then licenses and fees. I agree that government shouldn’t favor one business over another but it seems that you are arguing in semantics again, something you have done before.

What is the difference between a regulation that applies to all businesses equally and an “objective law”? It seems like you don’t like the word regulation and prefer using the phrase “objective law” but I have a feeling we are talking about the same thing, just using different words.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Is a truth in lending law an objective law? Should banks be required to disclose their terms in writing before the contract is signed?

No, truth in lending laws are not objective because they do not apply to all.

If a individual does not demand to see and understand the terms of a contract…that individual has no business entering into a contract.

A regulation requiring honest banks to do something they always do is ludicrous. But it makes politicians “feel” good.

A bank that cheats a customer by not disclosing certain terms of a contract is guilty of fraud and should be punished accordingly. Fraud is an objective law that applies to all. Additional regulations are not necessary

 

[freeRadical]

No, truth in lending laws are not objective because they do not apply to all.

If a individual does not demand to see and understand the terms of a contract…that individual has no business entering into a contract.

A regulation requiring honest banks to do something they always do is ludicrous. But it makes politicians “feel” good.

A bank that cheats a customer by not disclosing certain terms of a contract is guilty of fraud and should be punished accordingly. Fraud is an objective law that applies to all.

Did I say anything about lending laws? I merely said that you can still have a free market with government regulation, they are not mutually exclusive. And then you devolve in semantics, like you always do.

What is the difference between a regulation and a law?

EDIT: I though this post was a reply to me but now I see that it was a reply to stinkcat. I will still leave it here unedited.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No, truth in lending laws are not objective because they do not apply to all.

If a individual does not demand to see and understand the terms of a contract…that individual has no business entering into a contract.

A regulation requiring honest banks to do something they always do is ludicrous. But it makes politicians “feel” good.

A bank that cheats a customer by not disclosing certain terms of a contract is guilty of fraud and should be punished accordingly. Fraud is an objective law that applies to all. Additional regulations are not necessary

Who is harmed by truth in lending laws? Clearly the banks are in no way harmed because our banking sector has thrived. Consumers are no worse off because of the laws. So who is the one being harmed here?

 

[freeRadical]

Something is terribly wrong, and it wasn’t engineered by the government.

Of course it is, it is the result of bad government policy.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

Who is harmed by truth in lending laws? Clearly the banks are in no way harmed because our banking sector has thrived. Consumers are no worse off because of the laws. So who is the one being harmed here?

Exactly-- in the absence of any moral standard at the bank, what is wrong with a lawmaker, who works full-time anyway, at least making a guideline that protects the consumer?

 

[ThomasJMullally]

Of course it is, it is the result of bad government policy.

Since the trillion-dollar investment pools held in abeyance are transnational (well, down to lowest denominator such as Cayman), no government is doing anything.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Since the trillion-dollar investment pools held in abeyance are transnational (well, down to lowest denominator such as Cayman), no government is doing anything.

Some of the stuff involved in the crash, such as the collapse of jumbo lenders such as Thornberg mortgage, or firms such as Lehman brothers were essentially not related to government policy and more related to the increased tolerance of risk of that time.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

Some of the stuff involved in the crash, such as the collapse of jumbo lenders such as Thornberg mortgage, or firms such as Lehman brothers were essentially not related to government policy and more related to the increased tolerance of risk of that time.

Hear, hear! The governments can’t keep up with these guys. The situation argues for even stronger, more draconian measures on the one hand, against the big fish and everything else you abolish the agencies and fully deregulate a la ZC over there… .

 

[freeRadical]

Some of the stuff involved in the crash, such as the collapse of jumbo lenders such as Thornberg mortgage, or firms such as Lehman brothers were essentially not related to government policy and more related to the increased tolerance of risk of that time.

Maybe they weren’t directly related to government policy but I think one could argue that they could be indirectly related to it.

Not to mention, the Fed choosing to bail out some financial institutions and not others, such as the whole Lehman brothers fiasco.

 

[freeRadical]

Hear, hear! The governments can’t keep up with these guys. The situation argues for even stronger, more draconian measures on the one hand, against the big fish and everything else you abolish the agencies and fully deregulate a la ZC over there… .

The government doesn’t want to keep up with them. This is what the Fed wants. Cheap credit and massive borrowing and spending. The only thing the Fed is concerned with is inflation, as long as inflation is below their “magic” number, they could care less about anything else.

 

[freeRadical]

Exactly-- in the absence of any moral standard at the bank, what is wrong with a lawmaker, who works full-time anyway, at least making a guideline that protects the consumer?

There is nothing wrong with it. You seem to think that people who advocate for free markets, free enterprise, and private ownership of the means of production are against all regulation. This is not true.

The government’s sole job is to protect people from other people so there is nothing wrong with the government trying to protect the consumer from the producer.

However, the problem is the government usually messes it up somehow. Instead of making simple, clean laws that apply to everyone equally, they make overly complex and burdensome laws that usually have the opposite effect of their intended effect.

Government is supposed to set up the rules of the game and play umpire, impartially. Instead, they end up playing the game and become very biased.

The problem with regulation is that the regulator usually gets taken over by the regulated. It has happened many times in the history of the US.

 

[freeRadical]

Since the trillion-dollar investment pools held in abeyance are transnational (well, down to lowest denominator such as Cayman), no government is doing anything.

Inaction can be a government policy. The fact is they want this. They want massive borrowing and spending, financial speculation, and easy credit. That’s what they want.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

The government doesn’t want to keep up with them. This is what the Fed wants. Cheap credit and massive borrowing and spending. The only thing the Fed is concerned with is inflation, as long as inflation is below their “magic” number, they could care less about anything else.

Sounds like you are bemoaning the same thing that I was at the beginning of the thread: massive borrowing and spending without any decent purpose. Just to spin the wheels enough and break through the activity year prior so we can claim “growth”. (You see, I was advocating for negative growth to allow for more leisure time and help save the planet, usually considered socialist concepts.)

 

[freeRadical]

Sounds like you are bemoaning the same thing that I was at the beginning of the thread: massive borrowing and spending without any decent purpose. Just to spin the wheels enough and break through the activity year prior so we can claim “growth”. (You see, I was advocating for negative growth to allow for more leisure time and help save the planet, usually considered socialist concepts.)

Of course I am against massive borrowing and spending, I’m not a Keynesian.

But what I am talking about and what you were talking about are not the same thing.

You where using “wealth” and “productivity” in a philosophical sense while I was using them in their strict economic sense.

What is negative growth? You want the economy to contract?

How can you have more leisure time and save the planet without higher growth?

More productivity leads to more leisure time.

More economic growth leads to better means to save the planet.

It sounds to me like you want us to regress.

Economic growth is not bad, it is good for people. It increases their standard of living and well-being.

 

[freeRadical]

Sounds like you are bemoaning the same thing that I was at the beginning of the thread: massive borrowing and spending without any decent purpose. Just to spin the wheels enough and break through the activity year prior so we can claim “growth”. (You see, I was advocating for negative growth to allow for more leisure time and help save the planet, usually considered socialist concepts.)

One more thing: It seems to me like you are equating Keynesian macroeconomic policies with free markets, free enterprise, and private ownership of the means of production. They are not synonymous.

 

[ThomasJMullally]

Of course I am against massive borrowing and spending, I’m not a Keynesian. … What is negative growth? You want the economy to contract?
… More productivity leads to more leisure time/ More economic growth leads to better means to save the planet. It sounds to me like you want us to regress. Economic growth is not bad, it is good for people. It increases their standard of living and well-being.

Ahhh, yes-- we can have our cake and eat it too. Same old ideas that got us here. And what do you want the Fed to do, nothing? Reading the tea leaves remotely is their only job.

I just think we seem to have hit some kind of glass ceiling on “progress” that we keep banging against it and falling back down. If we stopped pushing so hard for short-term growth and accepted a major contraction (the one that should have happened six years ago), better things might start to happen. (Again, really sounds like same as what you are saying…)

I have to find a book I started to read recently. I started a book by a business writer, documenting that Sweden and 80% of other countries now have higher social mobility than the USA.

 

[freeRadical]

Ahhh, yes-- we can have our cake and eat it too. Same old ideas that got us here. And what do you want the Fed to do, nothing? Reading the tea leaves remotely is their only job.

I don’t want a Fed at all.

I just think we seem to have hit some kind of glass ceiling on “progress” that we keep banging against it and falling back down. If we stopped pushing so hard for short-term growth and accepted a major contraction (the one that should have happened six years ago), better things might start to happen. (Again, really sounds like same as what you are saying…)

Well, we did have a contraction, that’s what a recession is.

They only reason it seems like we have hit a “glass ceiling” is because we have a government that encourages borrowing and spending and discourages savings and investment.

Higher productivity, through savings and investment, is the true engine of economic growth, not consumer spending.

No, we are not saying the same thing.

 

[freeRadical]

I have to find a book I started to read recently. I started a book by a business writer, documenting that Sweden and 80% of other countries now have higher social mobility than the USA.

Most other countries also have higher costs of living and higher taxation then the US. Europe is about to implode on itself, especially if something goes wrong with Germany and Germany isn’t looking top good right now.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Have you ever heard of Enron or Worldcom?

Have you ever heard of market failures?

Yes and yes.