Liberal Forum

RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 7:07 am » wrote:
Yes, but no, Carter re-inflated the dollar after to some degree Ford stabilized it and the economy, so Carter deserves the blame for his own actions and the resulting problems.

And it began with LBJ, not Nixon, although he did worsen the problem.

Not to mention, inflating the dollar is "acceptable" if not recommended by liberal economists like Krugman, but opposed by Free Market supporters.

Agreed on Johnson - but so-called "free market supporters" - whatever you think that means - vote for and empower the type of people who triple our national debt, fight wars of choice off budget, give the world's most powerful communist nation unfettered access to the world's largest consumer market, those sorts of things.

I don't know what you think you mean when you say "free market." I go to the market regularly, and if I want so much as a packet of ketchup, I have to pay. It's not free.

If you are talking about capitalism, and trying to float the idea that capitalism should or even CAN exist unregulated, then let me educate you: The stock market attracts TRILLIONS of anonymous dollars, looking for improvement. The trust investors show is predicated on the fact that Wall Street exchanges are regulated by the government. Just imagine if it were NOT regulated by government. All that money, and no one watching...

But that's a fantasy. All that money simply would not be there, but for the government's licensing and regulating of the market. Free Enterprise works on Main Street, where businesses are closely held and principals are managing their OWN risks. But given that Wall Street actors have access to literally billions of anonymous dollars, they demand scrutiny. The actual owners of capitalist companies (share holders) have no legal right to give any orders, look over the books at a moment's notice, walk into the back office, demand answers from staff. They have zero day-to-day oversight. And every last person handling the money - right up to the CEO - is an EMPLOYEE. Employees tend to put their own interests above those of the companies they work for - yes, even CEOs. So the system is DESIGNED to rely on government oversight for credibility.

The problem today is that the oversight has been corrupted - hence the golden parachutes from nose-diving firms: unheard of before all of the deregulation that you assure us Reagan only falsely promised but did not deliver. CEOs are no longer remunerated based on anything RESEMBLING performance, and their interests are no longer cheek by jowl with their companies' interests. The company can go bankrupt while the CEO receives compensation far beyond contractual stipulations - compensation sufficient to make one comfortable for several lifetimes, in bonuses alone. Maybe this sad arrangement is what you mean by a "free market" - regulatory agencies in the pockets of bad actors, and CEOs acting more often as parasites than as shepherds and husbanders of companies' assets and future viability.

It becomes difficult to divine the meaning of words uttered by the types of fellows who change the definitions of terms willy nilly, to satisfy a partisan agenda. Just a few months back, Obie investing a relative pittance in G.M. was nothing less than full blown socialism. But when Heritage saw that Singapore, doing the same thing and more of it, had a wildly successful economy as a result - well. suddenly that practice became "capitalism." The meaning of socialism is - well, it depends on the thread, and often it changes several times even in a single conversation with you. You've gone with everything from declaring it has no precise meaning, to posting a definition which defined regulating the market as socialism. You're all over the board.

I have to assume that "free market" is an equally amorphous term, whose definition you will change to suit your argument of the moment. Why must you dissemble, and what do you hope to gain by it?