Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Two Can Play This Game

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Sam Grove — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:44:13 -0000

It was the heavily regulated investment and commercial banks that crashed and burned the "system".

Hmmm, does regulation coordinate business failure into systemic crises?

That is, businesses are always failing in a pattern that might be described as noise.

By attempting to regulate business, the noise is brought together into a crisis node because political interventions cause coordinating signals that lure businesses into collective response patterns.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

muirgeo — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:26:20 -0000

If McCain goes up

among likely voters another 2% and Obama falls another 2%, expect another

10%+ day for the Dow.

Posted by: indiana jim

Wow...yeah because if only we had a Republican president the Dow would be doing much better. Smokin some good stuff hey?

21 Jan 1993 DOW 3400 Clinton takes office

21 Jan 2001 DOW 9800 Clinton leaves office Bush takes office

21 Jan 2009 DOW 9000 Bush leaves office Obama takes office

21 Jan 2017 DOW 20,000 Obama leaves office..... Clinton takes office

Re: Two Can Play This Game

John V — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:47:23 -0000

Muirgeo,

You make no sense (big surprise):

You quote me saying that we don't have Freer Markets because:

"those who govern don't want it....never have and never will."

but then you follow this truthful statement with:

Yeah we don't have a free market like you would argue for because when we get them 90-95% of the people aren't happy with it. A system that works for 5% or less of the people is not a practical system. That's why in the modern civiized world they don't exist. Been there done that... no thanks."

So we never had them, never will. You agree. Mind you, I'm talking about absolute purity here. I'm talking about market structure with enough freedom to be all-around basically free enough for "free markets" to be a seriously considered as a culprit problems. But then you follow with a statement talking about WHEN we had them...even though you just admitted we never had them. (???)

I also said that we don't have them because those who govern don't want them...never have, never will. And who governs?? The top end of that 5% you think are the only ones who gain from free market...but I just said we don't have them because that group DOESN'T want them.

It's right there and you keep dodging it.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Methinks — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:36:41 -0000

Seth,

Your ignorance is astonishing - not as astonishing as Muirdiots, but you're getting there. "Wall Street" is not an institution. It's a catch all term used by idiots - a.k.a. journalists - for all that goes wrong, making your intended cleverness not clever but just dumb.

You don't even know what you mean when you say "Wall Street". Enron, was an energy company. WorldCom was a sleazy telecom and so was Qwest. But when they blew up due to the fraud their officers perpetrated, they became "Wall Street" scandals.

Your post is proof that you don't know what a Wall Street firm is or what it does. Similarly, you have no idea what "Main Street" is and neither to do the dumbasses on TV who spoon feed these terms to you.

I'll tell you something I doubt you'll understand now, but you may one day. Financial institutions - whether investment banks or hedge funds - produce liquidity. It's a product we take for granted and it can't be seen, you can't smell it and you can't touch it. But, when it disappears, so does the ability of entrepreneurs to raise capital and jobs and prosperity dry up. So, if you want to kill financial institutions in some sort of act of revenge for the dumbasses in government bailing out the dumbass institutions who took too much risk, go ahead. It'll be you paying the price for that.

Notice one more thing. The "lightly regulated" hedge funds which everyone feared as a "shadow banking" system and which were supposed to present so much systemic risk didn't end up presenting any risk at all. Hedge funds have been blowing up left and right without bailouts (thank God) without bringing down the whole system. It was the heavily regulated investment and commercial banks that crashed and burned the "system".

Re: Two Can Play This Game

sethstorm — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:16:00 -0000

We now have proof that Wall Street is a god that failed -- a poverty-inducing and economically destructive institution that humankind should finally learn must be kept on an extraordinarily tight leash, lest it continue to wreak havoc in the lives and on the fortunes of innocent parties.

Well, if you wish to pile it on the government, how about not discounting what role Wall Street played? They took advantage of what influence they had with the government. The taxpayers were only close if they were significant shareholders(and part of the problem).

Of course, all is good when you can throw the losses on Main Street and call it a "free market". Doubly so when you quote Schumpeter when people complain of their losses. Even more when you bless tax havens as morally correct and demonizing the regulators who pursue.[/sarcasm]

In short, Main Street sees revenge and a very good time for which it can be exacted.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

vidyohs — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:49:50 -0000

Balls, Bullocks, and Balderdash! Those who seek to blame free markets for the financial woes of today are mental midgets pursuing a mental midget theology.

That there are many mental midgets as a result of government education is understandable.

Muirduck, trumpit, nunya, et. al, sisters-under-the-skin.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

indianajim — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:48:19 -0000

Yep, the Drudge page shows McCain rising and Obama sinking among likely

voters with the margin too close to be significant. If McCain goes up

among likely voters another 2% and Obama falls another 2%, expect another

10%+ day for the Dow.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Unit — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:27:25 -0000

Muirgeo's solutions always involve giving more power to the bureaucrats. His goal is to centralize power in the hands of a few inept government officials.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Methinks — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:49:18 -0000

Oh no, LCJ, he's far too pre-occupied with mastering ebonics (see post @8:17 pm) to distract the homies from his white man moobs to apply anything to anyone. For that, the children of California can be grateful.

I can only imagine what sort of single digit IQ offspring he's foisting on the rest of us.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Oil Shock — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:20:55 -0000

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING!!

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING!!

Re: Two Can Play This Game

muirgeo — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:17:42 -0000

STUPIT

Re: Two Can Play This Game

LowcountryJoe — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:13:14 -0000

Oh snap! Not another spin on the muir-go-round. All this talk of pressure bandages and 60 trillion dollar leverages is so alarmist. Ducktor, the cummulative value of all the loans used to provide a mortage on all homes not owned outright might be 60 trillion but that does not mean that all home values will be going to zero or that everyone will suddenly default on the mortgage loans [at least not like the flakey so-called victims that you stick up for in these instances of non honored contracts and foreclosures].

Please, Ducktor, get your own pressure bandage and firmly place it over your soup-cooler [or your keyboard]. Better yet, scrap the pressure bandage and make it a Huggies (or similar diaper) to place over your mouth...you don't know your subject and yet you are talking way too much shit!

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Guest — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:12:18 -0000

Muirgeo, do you not see how often and how blatantly you contridict yourself? This is silly.

First you say that free-markets don't exist, then you say that when we had them 95% of the poeple didn't want them? Ummmm, okaaaaay...

"Yeah... I'm a stupit because I don't believe in what you choose to believe in based on faith."

Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 28, 2008 7:42:49 PM

...Irony, defined.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

muirgeo — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:04:46 -0000

Some embeciles think it is okay to give a loaded gun to a child, as long as they are watched very closely.

ROTFL.

Posted by: Oil Shock

That WOULD be imbecilic. Kinda like assuming private credit rating agencies could oversee and self regulate OTC derivatives ... only a dope would think that could work.

Yeah best not to even give the baby the loaded gun. Baby only gets a pacifier from now on and a BPA-free one at that.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Methinks — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:01:51 -0000

If one of your kids get shot ( God forbid ), how many of you would want to punish the responsible. I mean the one that gave the loaded gun?

he shoots, he scores.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Methinks — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:00:45 -0000

Yeah we don't have a free market like you would argue for because when we get them 90-95% of the people aren't happy with it. - Useful Idiot

But, idiot, you said we don't have one and never had one! So how could 95% (or any percentage of the population) be unhappy with something that doesn't exist and has never existed? Or do you make a similar habit of hating Santa and the Easter Bunny and for similar reasons?

I know you won't understand these next words (as you don't understand any words) but I'll try anyway: Don't bother replying. The only thing you will do is provide more evidence that you're an intractable moron. This is the lesson we have all learned in the past two years of you publicly smearing your stupidity all over the comment section.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Methinks — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:54:16 -0000

Yeah... I'm a stupit because...

Oh, there are so many reasons and so many ways in which you are an idiot. Your inability to spell "stupid" is just one of the ways your idiocy manifests itself. But just one of many many many.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

muirgeo — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:50:58 -0000

We dont have a freer market with enough freedom to be worthy of being blamed for anything because those who govern don't want it....never have and never will.

Posted by: John V

It would take a hell of a saleman to honestly sell what you want to more then 5% of the people.

It's like you're sitting in front of a 100 people crowd telling them about this great idea on how to divide dinner. You tell them 5 of the people can eat all the food they want then the other 95 can have the scraps. And they are supposed to think you have a great idea?

Re: Two Can Play This Game

muirgeo — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:42:49 -0000

Muirdiot, you are an idiot.

Posted by: Methinks

Yeah... I'm a stupit because I don't believe in what you choose to believe in based on faith.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Mike — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:40:04 -0000

"Likewise, apparently no proof is required to believe that free markets work because not one single free-marketeer here can provide any evidence to support their claim. Your arguments are all prosaic and faith based."

let's see: life expectancy in the US in 1820 --> apx 30 years. Average income in US in 1820, roughly $2,500.

Today, life expectancy roughly 80 years, average income apx 50,000.

In entire world from dawn of man until 1800, life expectancy varied b/w 22 and 30, and living standards did not improve (global average income in 1820 around $1,000.

What characterized the pre-1820 world? Mercantilism, feudalism, and all manner of -isms that had nothing to do with "freedom."

It was not by the grace of regulation and good government that something changed.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Oil Shock — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:33:18 -0000

Some embeciles think it is okay to give a loaded gun to a child, as long as they are watched very closely.

ROTFL.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Oil Shock — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:32:28 -0000

If one of your kids get shot ( God forbid ), how many of you would want to punish the responsible. I mean the one that gave the loaded gun?

Re: Two Can Play This Game

Methinks — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:25:53 -0000

Muirdiot, you are an idiot.

Thank you for once again regaling us with your infinite stupidity.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

John V — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:15:32 -0000

Muirgeo,

We don't have a pure free market because it's virtually impossible for far too many to resist the urge to rule others.

We dont have a freer market with enough freedom to be worthy of being blamed for anything because those who govern don't want it....never have and never will.

Re: Two Can Play This Game

muirgeo — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:14:58 -0000

Blaming free markets is fashionable and no proof is required.

Posted by: Methinks

Likewise, apparently no proof is required to believe that free markets work because not one single free-marketeer here can provide any evidence to support their claim. Your arguments are all prosaic and faith based.

Well actually we all know that's BS as well. Back in the good old days... about 3 weeks ago now... the pages of this blog were filled with innuendo showing less regulated markets were the more efficient (even if they weren't truly free). Now using the same argument that relative deregulation caused this catastrophe is illegitimate because the markets weren't truly free. How convenient for a battered ideology.