Generalizing regulations together is one of the biggest points of contention I have. It gives the impression all rules are inherently bad, which is simply not true.Genevieve wrote: All of these supposed regulations only made the economy worse and the currency weaker.
Also the "strength" of the dollar is quite a misnomer. Having such a strong dollar is part of the reason we have a trade deficit, because our goods and services are inherently more expensive, and that's a whole other can of worms. From your argument and Hayek reference it's clear you're arguing against inflationary practices. But, in the real world a steady dose of inflation (~3%) is actually very healthy, and indicates a growing economy. Your graph is quite alarmist and misleading, and using chained data across almost 400 years is taking things WAY out of context. The main factor in that spike in prices is unchaining our dollar to gold, which is one of the single biggest factors in our recovery of the great depression, but that's a separate conversation.
On the point again, how can you say it's irrelevant? A few loans going bad aren't supposed to cripple an entire economy. The fact that investment banks could own commercial banks, buy their assets and securitize them to be sold on the market is precisely the reason the bursting bubble had the impact it did, because people would pile on credit just to invest in those securities. It isn't a crisis about home loans, but debt in general, which has only been seen before in the great depression. Had the glass-steagall act (enacted in 1933 to recover us from depression) hadn't been repealed, we would not be talking about this right now and the crisis would've been another small blip on the radar like the tech bubble.
Thinking about it so simply is ignoring the substance of what government is. The government is the representative bank and body of the people at large. Maybe you've heard of the Social Contract? There was a time in American history, namely after WW2, that we were indisputably the most industrial and productive country on the planet. Young people went to college almost free of charge, unemployment was simply not a problem, all the technology and machinery being used around the world was invented and built here in the states, and our middle class was the envy of the world. The government wasn't deeply divided into two like it is today. Even if there were points of contention, politicians would "do whatever it takes" to go forward, compromised and actually delivered on its promises.Genevive wrote:Government itself is a failed experiment. Might as well limit it if it has to exist.
It may seem all cool and edgy to sit in your chair and say government should just disappear, but the idea is laughable and simply doesn't equate into the real world.
While many of these protestors are ridiculous in so many ways, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Considering the danger, it seems appropriate to disrupt society a bit to bring attention to this. The real danger now, just as it was at the start of the depression, is catastrophic debt deflation, and we've only just started digging that hole. This is private outstanding debt as a percentage of GDP:
Government CAN enact policies to ease the pressure this presents on consumers and more importantly the middle class, who hold the brunt of this debt, and an example was the recovery act (stimulus bill). But it simply was not far reaching or comprehensive enough and will keep us on life support for only so long. We know our congress is willing to take steps in this direction, and movements like occupywallstreet can help change public opinion, putting some amount of pressure on politicians to write the best policy. All you have to do is point out the shift in unemployment trends after the stimulus bill was passed:
To show policies like this CAN work, and while not easy in the slightest, it is politically feasible for our politicians to do this. Basking in unrealistic self-satisfying anarchic thought is not going to help the problem or even move the conversation into the right direction.
TL;DR: The only thing that can solve the problem is government policy, and it's actually quite possible it may be willing to do that, we just have to put the right pressures on it.
you know if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't talk about it. Why even reply if you had zero substance to add for your argument other than some video of a CPAC of all things?
