Imbalance of information is only one of the three major failure modes of the free market. Externalities both positive and negative, and natural monopolies are the other two.
Riiiiight. Because so many new LCD factories opened up in the last few years to take advantage of the amazing opportunity presented by price fixing. The free market works incredibly well in theory. If only it worked so well in the real world.
I like paying taxes. My tax money buys me civilization. I just hate freeloaders who want civilization without paying for it. If you don't like civilization, don't live in it. There is plenty of unclaimed land all over the world where you can live without paying taxes to anyone. Have fun!
It's nice how the free market automagically corrects any abuses of the free market. I mean here were a bunch of companies colluding to overcharge for a product, and yet, magically, no consumers were harmed. Yay magical free market, thy invisible hand protects and looks after us all.
Centurion: Has what sir? Pilate: Spiwit! Centurion: Yes, he did sir. Pilate: No, no. Spiwit, siw. Um, bwavado. A touch of dewwing-do. Centurion: Oh. Ahh, about eleven, sir.
And that is the most content-free post I've seen in a while. Have you ever known any anarchists? Been to any anarchist gatherings? Read any books by anarchists? Why don't you go read the wikipedia page about anarchism to get you started. It's like you are claiming red is blue; anyone who has ever seen the colors red and blue will simply laugh at you.
I think YOU need to go look up anarchism. Seriously. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, I've studied anarchism for twenty years. You seem to have some serious misconceptions about it, I suggest you actually read something written by an anarchist, any anarchist. Anarchism does not mean 'no government.' It means, no RULER. That is to say, no government by force. If everyone agrees to socialist of communist practices, it is still anarchism.
Strict property rights anarchists are the ones who love to impose their ideas about property on those who don't own property. Adam Smith himself wrote, in Wealth of Nations, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." So you see, insofar as individualist anarchism seeks to protect the property of the haves from the have-nots, it is inherently oppressive. The fellow who coined the term 'anarchist', Pierre Proudhon, claimed that "Property is Theft!"
Please try to get educated on a subject before commenting on it and proving yourself to be an ignorant loudmouth. You obviously completely misunderstand anarchism: you know nothing of its history and roots, its many branches and philosophies, or it's current directions and activities. And you have the gall to tell me to look it up!
Nazi's weren't Socialists any more than the USSR was a Republic, or the DPRK is a Democratic Republic. They were fascists, the 'third path' between capitalism and communism. Countries call themselves all kinds of things that they really aren't. Shocking, I know.
Ultra right and ultra left are anarchists. There are two main branches of anarchism, social anarchism and individualist anarchism. They are similar except for beliefs about property. Don't try to shoehorn well defined words into your belief system, use words as other people use them if you want to be understood.
The CRA is completely voluntary. Loans given under the CRA have a lower default rate. Banks operating under the CRA repackage and resell the mortgages less often. Clinton's actions helped prevent this crisis from being much worse than it is.
But you haven't shown anything. Look at arrest statistics, employment statistics, educational statistics: everywhere you look, you will see institutionalized racism in America, unless you are deliberately blind.
You haven't actually read the NYT piece I linked to, have you? All your questions are answered therein. Take out Clinton and Hoover, and it still isn't nearly equal. Averages over 100 year do tend to um, average out anomalies.
I guess I just have more faith in my country, my government, and people in general than you do. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see if that is wise or stupid on my part.
Spin this however you like, but the stock market grew at 8.4% average under Democrats over the last 100 years. It grew at 0.4% under Republicans. Face facts, Democrats are better for the economy. Just look at the chart.
This chart compares two forty year averages, so the effects of 'bubbles' are averaged out. Spin it any way you want, but over a HUNDRED YEARS the averages are 8.4% growth under Democrats, 0.4% under Republicans. Face facts, when people who believe in government get in power, government works, the economy grows and everyone does better. When government haters get into power, government fails, the economy tanks, and everyone except the well connected cronies do worse.
Clinton cut government waste and turned the economy around. Carter was a successful president who did much good for the country, considering the mess it was in when he got it. Bush Jr. was terrible, worse than Reagan. You may want ot look at this chart. Sure it is from the NYT, but the figures are correct.
No, every time the Republican controlled government sticks its nose into something, it turns to shit, because Republicans do not believe in government. When a party that believes government is good and can work controls things, things get better.
The facts speak for themselves. The stock market has grown by an average of 8.4% under Democratic leadership over the last 100 years, but only 0.4% under Republicans. We can see plain as day what government can do when we believe in it, and how it fails when we don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Imbalance of information is only one of the three major failure modes of the free market. Externalities both positive and negative, and natural monopolies are the other two.
Riiiiight. Because so many new LCD factories opened up in the last few years to take advantage of the amazing opportunity presented by price fixing. The free market works incredibly well in theory. If only it worked so well in the real world.
I like paying taxes. My tax money buys me civilization. I just hate freeloaders who want civilization without paying for it. If you don't like civilization, don't live in it. There is plenty of unclaimed land all over the world where you can live without paying taxes to anyone. Have fun!
It's nice how the free market automagically corrects any abuses of the free market. I mean here were a bunch of companies colluding to overcharge for a product, and yet, magically, no consumers were harmed. Yay magical free market, thy invisible hand protects and looks after us all.
fuck you looser
Tighter is better.
Centurion: Has what sir?
Pilate: Spiwit!
Centurion: Yes, he did sir.
Pilate: No, no. Spiwit, siw. Um, bwavado. A touch of dewwing-do.
Centurion: Oh. Ahh, about eleven, sir.
Did it sing "Bicycle Built for Two," slowing down and getting deeper as it ran out of power? Because that would have been awesome.
And that is the most content-free post I've seen in a while. Have you ever known any anarchists? Been to any anarchist gatherings? Read any books by anarchists? Why don't you go read the wikipedia page about anarchism to get you started. It's like you are claiming red is blue; anyone who has ever seen the colors red and blue will simply laugh at you.
I think YOU need to go look up anarchism. Seriously. I'm an anarcho-syndicalist, I've studied anarchism for twenty years. You seem to have some serious misconceptions about it, I suggest you actually read something written by an anarchist, any anarchist. Anarchism does not mean 'no government.' It means, no RULER. That is to say, no government by force. If everyone agrees to socialist of communist practices, it is still anarchism.
Strict property rights anarchists are the ones who love to impose their ideas about property on those who don't own property. Adam Smith himself wrote, in Wealth of Nations, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." So you see, insofar as individualist anarchism seeks to protect the property of the haves from the have-nots, it is inherently oppressive. The fellow who coined the term 'anarchist', Pierre Proudhon, claimed that "Property is Theft!"
Please try to get educated on a subject before commenting on it and proving yourself to be an ignorant loudmouth. You obviously completely misunderstand anarchism: you know nothing of its history and roots, its many branches and philosophies, or it's current directions and activities. And you have the gall to tell me to look it up!
That's not what Godwin's law says. Go look it up.
Nazi's weren't Socialists any more than the USSR was a Republic, or the DPRK is a Democratic Republic. They were fascists, the 'third path' between capitalism and communism. Countries call themselves all kinds of things that they really aren't. Shocking, I know.
Ultra right and ultra left are anarchists. There are two main branches of anarchism, social anarchism and individualist anarchism. They are similar except for beliefs about property. Don't try to shoehorn well defined words into your belief system, use words as other people use them if you want to be understood.
Which is why it is easy for people to overlook or deny. There is always a semi-plausible alternative explanation.
The CRA is completely voluntary. Loans given under the CRA have a lower default rate. Banks operating under the CRA repackage and resell the mortgages less often. Clinton's actions helped prevent this crisis from being much worse than it is.
Nobody ordered the banks to do anything. The CRA is completely voluntary.
But you haven't shown anything. Look at arrest statistics, employment statistics, educational statistics: everywhere you look, you will see institutionalized racism in America, unless you are deliberately blind.
Every place in the world has a liberal slant compared to America.
Sorry, America is full of hope now, and your tired old cynicism does nothing except make you look like a poor loser.
So why would people have more faith in the stock market under Democratic leaders, hmmmm?
You haven't actually read the NYT piece I linked to, have you? All your questions are answered therein. Take out Clinton and Hoover, and it still isn't nearly equal. Averages over 100 year do tend to um, average out anomalies.
Okay, take out Hoover and you've still only got %4 under Republicans.
I guess I just have more faith in my country, my government, and people in general than you do. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see if that is wise or stupid on my part.
Spin this however you like, but the stock market grew at 8.4% average under Democrats over the last 100 years. It grew at 0.4% under Republicans. Face facts, Democrats are better for the economy. Just look at the chart.
This chart compares two forty year averages, so the effects of 'bubbles' are averaged out. Spin it any way you want, but over a HUNDRED YEARS the averages are 8.4% growth under Democrats, 0.4% under Republicans. Face facts, when people who believe in government get in power, government works, the economy grows and everyone does better. When government haters get into power, government fails, the economy tanks, and everyone except the well connected cronies do worse.
Clinton cut government waste and turned the economy around. Carter was a successful president who did much good for the country, considering the mess it was in when he got it. Bush Jr. was terrible, worse than Reagan. You may want ot look at this chart. Sure it is from the NYT, but the figures are correct.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html
There is a huge difference between government run by people who believe government is evil, and government run by people who believe it can do good.
No, every time the Republican controlled government sticks its nose into something, it turns to shit, because Republicans do not believe in government. When a party that believes government is good and can work controls things, things get better.
The facts speak for themselves. The stock market has grown by an average of 8.4% under Democratic leadership over the last 100 years, but only 0.4% under Republicans. We can see plain as day what government can do when we believe in it, and how it fails when we don't.