Huston

How far does your history go? State-guided economy came about as a response to the 1930s? Yet we have the Napolean III urban renewal of Paris in the 1800s. We have Rome expanding trade routes through the use of a military war machine, the United States is very much like Rome in this regard. The Axial Age (800-200 BC) showed the appearance of coinage (dug out with slave labour) to use in markets in order to serve the military states of the time. The State guided economy is as old as Egypt and Sumer.

Capitalism has had interest rate adjustments and stimulus. Capitalism has always relied on the state in order to exist.

Odd how you can it is an absurd theory to say it is mispriced or misplaced "value" when you gave a link to the Great Panic of 1837. If we take the preceding and subsequent Great Panics, all involved rampant speculation. If we take one of the notable figureheads of the Occupy movement David Greaber in his book Debt the First 5000 Years, capitalism, especially since the advent of the stock market, was strife with fraud and rampant speculation.

But in the end, it was not really socialism. Just obligation or the notion that slaves must be treated within a certain level of care. The rich and nobility are created through a system of artificial privilege brought about through the state. More like champagne obligation.

Seems to be the same issue with capitalism. Then again, capitalism has never existed without extensive government intervention into markets. All industries are heavily financialized. The "sovereign" debt crises occurred after the bail out of indebted capitalist institutions and neo-liberalized institutions. The central bank system that made the west the way it was, was all debt driven, eventual the "capitalist" west imploded with unsustainable level of debt. There is no way to avoid it when your currency relies on the bond market. More debt.

Yes, they blame to problem on the federal reserve. but you obviously don't get it. They know a how many countries that have been ruined through central banking. It is obvious. I would rather listen to them then you. Can I vocabulize my argument, no. not like them. So since i cannot, i will leave this forum. I hate politics. Go play that game if you want. I did say that the Carter and Clinton regulations.. or deregulations and such were Republican ideas. I just name the party in power at the time.. oh well.

Oh boohoo.. personal insult. And you fabricating my argument for is is not? Fuck you.. you are projecting you know. You know.. the temper remark. Your projecting, unless you want to substantiate that. Good luck. Since you went crying off to the mod, I say fuck to this forum. Do not confuse essentric with a bad temper.

You are the one spinning. there are many causes. Really. obviously not clear enough. And what if Greenspan is wrong? So it is said. Bullshit. You are making up your own oppenent by creating a strawmen. THAT is insulting. What about your behavior? Because it is willfully given Bullshit you miss represent my argument by making claims that I do not agree with. Stop with the strawmen. You did more than disagreed, you made shit up about what I represent. It does not. You are making it up. I do not agree with the republican. You are playing the partisan card. Not me. Greenspan is playing a theoritical game. I have no confidence in him. The market is not a theory. He was a part of the problem yes. He is incompetent. Why should I listen to anything he says. Asshole. Don't make shit up then. If you want to play a partisan card, you are making shit up. Simple as that.

You are the one spinning. The legislation was first introduced during the Nixon era. I am just giving names of the administration that was in control at the time. I do not give a shit about left or right.. or Republican or Democrat. I would like to know what those deregulations were. It can't be 'deregulation' when their was never regulations concerning transparency in the first place. And of all people.. since he is misrepresented.. Ron Paul is one that is trying to make transparency with the FED, well.. he also put a bill for ending the fed to... he is keeping his options open. The former one is looking the most likely to go somewhere. Edit: Transparency is not a regulation, it is a fundamental principle of a free-market. You’re an idiot. Stop constructing strawmen. You are the one stuck in this false dichotomy. What? You stuck in a dichotomy? Oh, certainly. Look asshole. This was one of the pieces. I already said that. Many others things caused. You make this more simpler than what it is. If you have an ideal of what a SOCIETY is, then that is SOCIALISM. yes, Romans were socialist. They coersed others into their ideal society. Just like any religion would. Options like republican or democrat. I am not going to be simple like you. Ideologically driven spinster. Just like I will not exercise a silly little ignore option. You are the one attacking me by spinning my argument. I will not hide when I am being attacked. FUCK! STRAWMAN! I don’t give a shit what Republicans think, I don't even know what they think. I know what one of thinks, but obviously he didn't represent the GOP, and that is why he never won the GOP. So stop making up my argument for men, because that is not my argument. So? Can you please say something. I don't care about Greenspan. Greenspan was part of the problem. I have no confidence that man. Just like I mentioned the regulations passed under Carter and Clinton, which were both republican plans, but the democrates supported and drove the regulation (oddly enough, the call the repeal of glass-steagal as deregulation... deregulations are just more regulation), so your false dichotomy is just that. False!

You need all the building block in order to figure out the problem. You're focus is too short term. Why do you say conservative. I'm not conservative despite your delusion. Huh? You need proper context for this. I don't see how this can be derived from what I said.. you're confusing. Now should I being doing this... not that i can understand your question. Can you rephrase it, because I am having trouble understanding why I should be the one doing it. Again. Market fundamental should tell a bank how much they should leverage. If they are stupid enough to make a bad bet and loose, thats capitalism. You are an idiot, you deserve to fail. The free-market then balances out. However, central banking made it possible for banks to become extremely leverage. That is why the Banks were panicing when Andrew Jackson closed down the Second Bank of the United States Huh? I have no clue why you are making shit up of what I said. Stop it. your embarrasing yourself making shit up. Why should I only be blaming Bush. Why should I only have to focus on him, when the problem started way before him. I don't get it. You're lack of argument is embarrasing. Statist. Let me clarify to you what I think a socialist is. A socialist is someone who appeals to some ideal applied to all. Since we are all equal... whatever that means. Redistribution of welath.. that is pretty much taxation, coersive taxation on income. Whatever. Oh.. gee still no argument. Why don't you try to explain it.. you know, arguing.

You didn't point out any facts. Do you really think they will say or even realize that such things may have risks. You must not forget that under Clinton, the commercial banks were allowed to merge with investment banks. This is the source of this article. They took those loan made indescriminately to the poor and then repackaged them into a wall street. The article spends most of its time criticizing Austrian economists. They were the only ones who saw this thing coming. The article is just playing the typical state good private bad. The state never saw this coming. At this moment the Austrian have gained by confidence.

If you want to think short term. But that is obviously flawed thinking. Things happen right away... always? You will have to be very careful in supporting this. there are various factors, each making it worse and worse. At some point, it will fail. How unfortunate for Bush, huh? Actually.. how unfortunate for Alan Greenspan. Huh? Huh? Huh? Have I ever made a comment on Harper or Bush? They are somehow different? WTF? Stop making up fake arguments. I hate people who attack strawman, especially the ones they constructed themselves. The crows are smarter than you farmer man. Another strawman.. fuck! However, I don't see why we went off the gold standard, however when ever gold has been manipulated, or debased, it has been the state for war profiteering. The Lincoln greenback was purely a confidence back note for the sake of the war machine. Currency devaluation or debauching has always been a wartime move. The end of the gold standard under Nixon, the artificially lowering of interest rates and borrowing cheap money from around the world for the war on terror, Rome debasing their gold coins. You name it. Obviously currency should be by private organizations that are not given the power to use force like governments. Individual banks that have no security blanket to fall back on will make smarter decisions when it comes to risk. States always resort to fake growth, whether it is through direct slavery or fiat money or other forms currency devaluation. It is all power, and the more centralized it is, the risks of failure are greater. Which is worse: A localized flood, or a global flood? If you cannot back up your argument, why bother misrepresenting your opponent by making things up? You apparently are black and white, I am not. I am not a statist, so playing the false left right paradigm will do you no good. You were a waste of my time. How unfortunate.

Well, this idea of implementing tariff or other cost expensies is what Hoover and FDR both did which caused the Great Depression to be even worse than what it should have been. they always pick the worse time for these things. Just like Obama and the health regulations in the 'stimulus' bill. I swear these politicians are no different than Maria Antoinette. Good humanitarian.. just so detatched from reality.

Oh? I have yet to see it was the lack of regulations. Again, the Carter administration forced banks to take on risky loans.. aka subprime loans. Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Notice the word regulation. The Clinton administration made it even worse. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...-bush-or-mccain Damn socialism. We got to help people out! FFS! Of course. They have done more harm than good, so they don't benefiet any nation. Of course it is inflation. Inlation of the money supply. Why do you think prices never changed before that. if you used gold, it will still buy the same amount as a hundred years ago. As for wages, ff course wages went up. Obviously not enough though, and actually decreased in the US.. not sure about Canada. But of course, in the end it would create an endless unsustainable cycle.. like Weimar Germany.. Argentina or Zimbabwe.

The regulations that make it possible for central banking. Central banks are the lender of last resort. It made it possible for banks to take risky loans... although apparently in the US, back in the days of Carter, banks were forced to make risky loans. There's two ineffective regulations. It should also be noted that under the establishment of the FED, the USD has massively devalued. For a hundred years, five dolar bought the same amount of good.. like say a weeks worth of food. Now it can barely buy one meal. Central banks have ruined countries all over the world.. so much for that Rothchildian idea.