“If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal swimmer Michael Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him in a pool and he sank, you wouldn’t call it a ‘failure of swimming’. So, when markets have been weighted down by inept and excessive regulation, why call this a ‘failure of capitalism’?” - Peter Boettke
A man walks into a store to buy a toaster and they give him a bank for free.
There’s more to the financial crisis than regulation.
BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal > swimmer Michael > Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him in > a pool and he > sank, you wouldn’t call it a ‘failure of > swimming’. So, when > markets have been weighted down by inept and > excessive > regulation, why call this a ‘failure of > capitalism’?” - Peter Boettke Stupid analogy.
excessive regulation? point out the example there as I dont see much regulation at all, nonethless excessive.
tvPM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > excessive regulation? point out the example there > as I dont see much regulation at all, nonethless > excessive. http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml
BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal > swimmer Michael > Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him in > a pool and he > sank, you wouldn’t call it a ‘failure of > swimming’. So, when > markets have been weighted down by inept and > excessive > regulation, why call this a ‘failure of > capitalism’?” - Peter Boettke i dont get it. he sank cuz he was high…
BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal > swimmer Michael > Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him in > a pool and he > sank, you wouldn’t call it a ‘failure of > swimming’. So, when > markets have been weighted down by inept and > excessive > regulation, why call this a ‘failure of > capitalism’?” - Peter Boettke Fine, but how do you explain the fact that the sinking started (and proceeded the most rapidly) before any regulations were added? The “he was high” analogy sounds a lot better here. +5 for creativity!
what does a long list of government agencies have anything to do with the financial sector and its supposed excessive regulation? Do you honestly think that regulation caused this “failure of capitalism” and not the fact that lack of regulation was a main problem?
“Capitalism without failure is like Christianity without Hell.”-Warren Buffett
that was the dumbest warren buffet quote i’ve ever heard
We don’t have capitalism - it’s a mixed economy, part capitalism, part socialism, part cronyism. The argument that there was not regulation is absurd. If anything, there was too much regulation which favored certain agencies, i.e., Freddie and Fannie, who were levered up to 100 times (more than any hedge fund, you hear?). Lack of regulation was not the main problem. It’s not a problem of regulation, rather, a problem of being a mixed economy with lobbyist, politicians, special interests, feeding fuel to the fire.
BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal > swimmer Michael > Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him in > a pool and he > sank, you wouldn’t call it a ‘failure of > swimming’. So, when > markets have been weighted down by inept and > excessive > regulation, why call this a ‘failure of > capitalism’?” - Peter Boettke Unregulaed capitalism would suggest I could swim with a motor attached to my back.
regulation = lawyers. Lawyers suck. The more they make, the more they need. They’re killing the golden goose!
CDS “market” Subprime & Alt-A loans lax or non-existent regulation didn’t do us any good. I agree the mixed economy point, and yes those different stakeholders lead to some problems, but the lack of regulation in certain areas certainly hurt. In hindsight, having a CDS Exchange, tighter lending requirements for homes, those “excessive regulations” could have saved us a world of hurt.
BosyBillups Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We don’t have capitalism - it’s a mixed economy, > part capitalism, part socialism, part cronyism. > > The argument that there was not regulation is > absurd. If anything, there was too much > regulation which favored certain agencies, i.e., > Freddie and Fannie, who were levered up to 100 > times (more than any hedge fund, you hear?). > > Lack of regulation was not the main problem. It’s > not a problem of regulation, rather, a problem of > being a mixed economy with lobbyist, politicians, > special interests, feeding fuel to the fire. I don’t consider Freddie/Fannie as regulation. That was an attempt at fastforwarding the American dream for all and in turn hoping to reduce crime, homelessness, etc etc. It was a political platform for an attempt at change before change was due. That isn’t regulation, thats a dream. Technically, regulation sytmies capitalism’s growth and the Freddie/Fannie situation did just the opposite, stimulated growth far beyond what the system could tolerate. The attempt to fast-forward sent us to 2040 but we were still in 2008.
DanLieb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BosyBillups Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > “If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal > > swimmer Michael > > Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him > in > > a pool and he > > sank, you wouldn’t call it a ‘failure of > > swimming’. So, when > > markets have been weighted down by inept and > > excessive > > regulation, why call this a ‘failure of > > capitalism’?” - Peter Boettke > > Unregulaed capitalism would suggest I could swim > with a motor attached to my back. As could all your competition - making you ALL faster swimmers and encouraging each other to be faster than that.
so true. And then, you could lever yourself so you actually had 1000 motors on your back but only have money to pay for 1 of them, and then you jump in the pool and the water ruins your motor and they dont work and are worthless…
tvPM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In hindsight, having a CDS > Exchange, tighter lending requirements for homes, > those “excessive regulations” could have saved us > a world of hurt. What created loose lending requirements? Believe it or not, banking and the real estate markets are the most regulated out of any other markets (save Nuclear waste). Also loose lending was in part due to central bankers, quasi-regulators. Seems that excessive regulation are almost impossible in good times as the head of corps, banks, firms, have the regulators in their pockets. Why would a regulator want to ruin a boom party? I know, hindsight… But how about if the regulators let banks fail and banks knew that - would they lend so freely in the future? Seems darwinism is the best regulation out there.
tvPM Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so true. And then, you could lever yourself so you > actually had 1000 motors on your back but only > have money to pay for 1 of them, and then you jump > in the pool and the water ruins your motor and > they dont work and are worthless… And then you as a swimmer are out of business, with a stained reputation, and other swimmers have the example that having too many motors on your back will put you out of business. Or, we can have a competition where the judges pull off the motors one by one depending on how big of a swimmer you are, or rather, how big your reputation is. The bigger you are, the more the judges will keep you afloat. And if you pay them enough, they will make sure you win. Thus, no need to worry about 1000 motors in the future… you’ll always win.