Economic woes are the result of regul...

Economic woes are the result of regulation and intervention

There are 34 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Dec 27, 2008, titled Economic woes are the result of regulation and intervention. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

In his guest commentary, 'This is a great time to invent a truly rational economy,' , Bill Branyon characterizes the inevitable consequences of government interference in the marketplace as the 'current crisis ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Yep

Asheville, NC

#1 Dec 28, 2008
Brilliant response, Mr. Peck! Branyon is a deluded progressive socialist democrat, like most of the clueless masses in NC.
Paul Varner

Orange Park, FL

#2 Dec 28, 2008
not sure I really understand what the Author is "for"... all I know is that the fellow named "Branyon" , whose column appeared last week, is totally "out there" and needs to be kept totally "out there".
hauntedheadnc

Greer, SC

#3 Dec 28, 2008
Indeed, because everybody knows that businesses, poor persecuted darlings that they are, would never, ever, ever do anything bad at all and can be trusted implicitly. Why, just look at Love Canal. And it certainly wasn't industry that polluted the Cuyahoga River to the point that it caught fire back in the 1960's, no sirree!. And more recently, just look at how not a single penny of the federal bank bailout money went toward lavish corporate retreats or executive bonuses. Yes... It's high time we let big business do whatever the hell it wants!
weaver

AOL

#4 Dec 28, 2008
It really takes someone void of the facts to assert that regulation and gov. intervention caused this mess. It's more rewriting of history. We see it all the time.
Gordon Smith

Taylorsville, NC

#5 Dec 28, 2008
Tim,

Is it also fair to attribute economic boomtimes to government interference? The government is involved in good times and in bad, and since you've admitted that there is no real-world example of libertarian capitalism in action, it seems you're working on a statement of faith.
curtis brown

Marble, NC

#6 Dec 28, 2008
I thought the economic woes were partly caused by having regulations but the Bush administration choosing not to inforce some of them. Regulations are a necessary evil.

Since: Aug 07

Asheville, NC

#7 Dec 28, 2008
curtis brown wrote:
I thought the economic woes were partly caused by having regulations but the Bush administration choosing not to inforce some of them. Regulations are a necessary evil.
Actually, the Bush administration 31% over the Clinton administration and 26% over banking to Clinton's 3%. He also called for oversight for Fannie and Freddie on numerous occasions but blocked by Dodd and Frank.
Skeptic

Maxton, NC

#8 Dec 28, 2008
Tim,

I think that our collective greed is as much at fault as anything else.

We, as a society, no longer feel the need to save for that house or car. We feel entitled to everything the next guy has, and feel that it is OK to borrow to get it.

Why should a guy making $30K be "entitled" to a $350K house? Seems Chris Dodd and Barney Frank think he is, and the banks went along with it.
Kaibab

Charlotte, NC

#9 Dec 28, 2008
9/38/07 Interview with John Bogle. FORTUNE magazine named him one of the four giants of the 20th century in the investment industry. TIME magazine called him one of the world's 100 most powerful and influential people.

"The financial sector of our economy is the largest profit-making sector in America. Our financial services companies make more money than our energy companies — no mean profitable business in this day and age. Plus, our healthcare companies. They make almost twice as much as our technology companies, twice as much as our manufacturing companies. We've become a financial economy which has overwhelmed the productive economy to the detriment of investors and the detriment ultimately of our society.

It's just gotten totally out of hand. My estimate is that the financial sector takes $560 billion a year out of society.

One thing is, I believe, to have a federal standard of fiduciary duty for money managers. They've come from eight percent ownership of American business to 74 percent ownership of American business. It's staggering, over unbelievable change. Without any rules as to how they're supposed to behave."

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09282007/tr...
The Truth

Charlotte, NC

#10 Dec 28, 2008
Economic philosophies are only as good as the people who attempt to put them into practice. In a perfect world, everything would work according to plan.

BTW, the amount of money spent on "regulation", has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the regulation, only the cost to the taxpayer. But thanks for pointing out how the last administration managed to significantly increase the burden of big government, all the while claiming to embrace conservative values, whatever the hell that means.

If this latest round of the fleecing of America by corporate kleptocrats doesn't convince people it is time for a change, then God help us.

What effective regulation does is force people who would otherwise exploit the system for their own personal gain to either be honest or go to prison.

End of story.
OUTSPOKEN

Princeton Junction, NJ

#11 Dec 28, 2008
G-hogg wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the Bush administration 31% over the Clinton administration and 26% over banking to Clinton's 3%. He also called for oversight for Fannie and Freddie on numerous occasions but blocked by Dodd and Frank.
You have cited a couple of Congressmen that have been very instrumental in the economic crisis we are in and these individuals should never been allowed by the other congress members or the administration officials that should have sounded alarm.
I blame the media for not doing their job - they let us down. I know they will poor mouth and whine but let the government get into their way and they will holler foul.

Since: Feb 07

Asheville, NC

#12 Dec 28, 2008
Gordon Smith wrote:
Is it also fair to attribute economic boomtimes to government interference?
Yes, the government is responsible for boom-bust business cycles by manipulating the money supply and interest rates.

The "boomtimes" are entirely artificial and must inevitably bust. It is a falsification of reality by the government and this causes malinvestment, poverty, inflation and unemployment -- none of which are articles of "faith."

These booms help the rich and well-connected and the busts hurt the poor and middle class.(Just recall the so-called "Roaring 20s" and the subsequent wrenching Great Depression.)

It is not the job of the government to run the economy and its interference is the cause of the (artificial) booms and (very real and painful) busts.

What we see in the economy today is a repeat of the ill consequences of intervention and regulation of an otherwise free market that continually seeks equilibrium. The only thing preventing those market corrections is the disastrous meddling of government in the economic affairs of free individuals.

For a more detailed analysis of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, I recommend reading Ludwig von Mises on the subject. As Rothbard succinctly states:

"The classical, and now the Mises, theories have been generally scorned by modern writers, and mainly for this reason: that Mises locates the cause of business cycles in interference with the free market, while all other writers, following Mitchell, cherish the idea that business cycles come from deep within the capitalist system, that they are, in short, a sickness of the free market. The founder of this idea, by the way, was not Wesley Mitchell, but Karl Marx."

http://mises.org/story/1558

Here is a brief explanation:

http://mises.org/story/672
local

Asheville, NC

#13 Dec 28, 2008
so, what level of regulation is needed or desired?

a completely free market is called chaos...

where are the lines?

Since: Feb 07

Asheville, NC

#14 Dec 28, 2008
local wrote:
so, what level of regulation is needed or desired? a completely free market is called chaos
1. Far from being "chaos," a completely free market is called freedom -- freedom from interference. It's key characteristic is social cooperation and the pursuit of happiness. It is individuals making free choices and seeking their own rational long-term self-interest that makes social cooperation work.

2. What level of regulation? Absolutely none. However, markets, individuals and governments must be compelled to refrain from violating the rights of others. It is the proper role of government to constrain markets under the rule of law; but this is not regulation. Regulation is interference and manipulation.

As I stated recently at the Mountain Xpress in response to a question about ethics:

http://www.mountainx.com/news/2008/122308capi...

“Capitalism does indeed rely on ethical behavior and this is what makes it the only moral social system.

People can be dishonest or manipulating regardless of the political-economic system they live under. Their villainy is not a consequence of the system. This is a universal ethical issue, not a particular political one.

Capitalism demands that people abstain from violating the rights of their neighbors and is not properly constructed without reference to an over-arching and objective rule of law (over against the rule of man) which constrains, prohibits and penalizes predation and willful disregard.

This is the definition of free markets. Any market that is not constrained by the rule of law is not free. These enforceable constraints, along with the free market forces of supply and demand, are its “checks and balances.” Beyond this, individuals are free to conduct their voluntary, peaceable economic affairs as they see fit and to their own profit.

However, under a Socialist system, or an Interventionist system, which we have in America, the violation of individual rights is endemic to the system; and that infringement is perpetrated by the very institution established to guard their preservation: The government.”
Ghost Dog

Waterloo, IA

#15 Dec 28, 2008
The Bush administration, from the beginning, set the mood, the tone of the debacle we have experienced in the home mortgage crisis. Bush's "Ownership Society" promotion along with his pal Phil Gramm's legislation that removed 66 years of controls, allowing gambling with morgages in their underground casino of derivatives and credit default swaps, caused the fraud and corruption while failing in it's enforcement of the rules job. The Presidency is the "enforcer" the position that makes people obery the law, the rules, the regulations. "W" followed in his daddy's and Reagan's footsteps, everything for the corporations and the Wall Street crooks, along with their business partners and friends and let the poor, the taxpayers, the blue collar workers, the middle class pay for it and take the loss. "W" and Cheney felt that there were no laws to obey if they wanted to do something. They destroyed the evidence of their activities, millions of e-mails, hid their activities and looked the other way while the Paulson's and Olsen's of Goldman Sachs, et al, stole the mortgage money and hid it in Phil Gramm's Swiss bank, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Lischtenstein and other places. Even Madoff was hiding money overseas, investigators are now trying to track his money, lots went to Israeli banks and companies, good place for jews to hide wealth from the USA, the IRS.
Ghost Dog

Waterloo, IA

#16 Dec 28, 2008
Totally "free markets" as proposed by timpeck only allow crooks to steal, as the deregulation by Reagan allowed crooks like Keating and Neil Bush to steal from depositors. Crooks like Ken Lay to steal from the energy users/homeowners/business owners of California. Crooks like the ones at Worldcom who built mansions they got to keep while investors lost everything. Good thing "W" and the Repugs didn't get their way with investing Social Security money in the Stock Market, lots of retirees would be bankrupt, well more than are now from the Reaganomics crisis. Who did the "Enforcer", "W", put in prison throughout all this theft? Martha Stewart! Maybe "W" and his administration should have investigated Madoff and others who actually stole Billions rather than go after Martha because she didn't like "W" or Repugs.

“California Real ID”

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#17 Dec 28, 2008
timpeck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the government is responsible for boom-bust business cycles by manipulating the money supply and interest rates.
The "boomtimes" are entirely artificial and must inevitably bust. It is a falsification of reality by the government and this causes malinvestment, poverty, inflation and unemployment -- none of which are articles of "faith."
These booms help the rich and well-connected and the busts hurt the poor and middle class.(Just recall the so-called "Roaring 20s" and the subsequent wrenching Great Depression.)
It is not the job of the government to run the economy and its interference is the cause of the (artificial) booms and (very real and painful) busts.
What we see in the economy today is a repeat of the ill consequences of intervention and regulation of an otherwise free market that continually seeks equilibrium. The only thing preventing those market corrections is the disastrous meddling of government in the economic affairs of free individuals.
For a more detailed analysis of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, I recommend reading Ludwig von Mises on the subject. As Rothbard succinctly states:
"The classical, and now the Mises, theories have been generally scorned by modern writers, and mainly for this reason: that Mises locates the cause of business cycles in interference with the free market, while all other writers, following Mitchell, cherish the idea that business cycles come from deep within the capitalist system, that they are, in short, a sickness of the free market. The founder of this idea, by the way, was not Wesley Mitchell, but Karl Marx."
http://mises.org/story/1558
Here is a brief explanation:
http://mises.org/story/672
Good post.

Unfortunately, most people will just believe what the state tells them to believe.

Most people will not follow your links -- they might learn something...

Since: Aug 07

Asheville, NC

#18 Dec 28, 2008
Ghost Dog wrote:
The Bush administration, from the beginning, set the mood, the tone of the debacle we have experienced in the home mortgage crisis. Bush's "Ownership Society" promotion along with his pal Phil Gramm's legislation that removed 66 years of controls, allowing gambling with morgages in their underground casino of derivatives and credit default swaps, caused the fraud and corruption while failing in it's enforcement of the rules job. The Presidency is the "enforcer" the position that makes people obery the law, the rules, the regulations. "W" followed in his daddy's and Reagan's footsteps, everything for the corporations and the Wall Street crooks, along with their business partners and friends and let the poor, the taxpayers, the blue collar workers, the middle class pay for it and take the loss. "W" and Cheney felt that there were no laws to obey if they wanted to do something. They destroyed the evidence of their activities, millions of e-mails, hid their activities and looked the other way while the Paulson's and Olsen's of Goldman Sachs, et al, stole the mortgage money and hid it in Phil Gramm's Swiss bank, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Lischtenstein and other places. Even Madoff was hiding money overseas, investigators are now trying to track his money, lots went to Israeli banks and companies, good place for jews to hide wealth from the USA, the IRS.
You have been shown about 50 times that this is a lie. But you are the Mother of all liars.

Since: Aug 07

Asheville, NC

#19 Dec 28, 2008
Ghost Dog wrote:
Good thing "W" and the Repugs didn't get their way with investing Social Security money in the Stock Market, lots of retirees would be bankrupt, well more than are now from the Reaganomics crisis.

Who did the "Enforcer", "W", put in prison throughout all this theft? Martha Stewart!
The idea for investing SS in the stock market came from Gingrich and Clinton.

Back to civics. The President is the Executive Branch. Martha Stewart's case falls under the Judicial Branch.
local

Asheville, NC

#20 Dec 28, 2008
timpeck wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Far from being "chaos," a completely free market is called freedom -- freedom from interference. It's key characteristic is social cooperation and the pursuit of happiness. It is individuals making free choices and seeking their own rational long-term self-interest that makes social cooperation work.
2. What level of regulation? Absolutely none. However, markets, individuals and governments must be compelled to refrain from violating the rights of others. It is the proper role of government to constrain markets under the rule of law; but this is not regulation. Regulation is interference and manipulation.
As I stated recently at the Mountain Xpress in response to a question about ethics:
http://www.mountainx.com/news/2008/122308capi...
“Capitalism does indeed rely on ethical behavior and this is what makes it the only moral social system.
People can be dishonest or manipulating regardless of the political-economic system they live under. Their villainy is not a consequence of the system. This is a universal ethical issue, not a particular political one.
Capitalism demands that people abstain from violating the rights of their neighbors and is not properly constructed without reference to an over-arching and objective rule of law (over against the rule of man) which constrains, prohibits and penalizes predation and willful disregard.
This is the definition of free markets. Any market that is not constrained by the rule of law is not free. These enforceable constraints, along with the free market forces of supply and demand, are its “checks and balances.” Beyond this, individuals are free to conduct their voluntary, peaceable economic affairs as they see fit and to their own profit.
However, under a Socialist system, or an Interventionist system, which we have in America, the violation of individual rights is endemic to the system; and that infringement is perpetrated by the very institution established to guard their preservation: The government.”
Define "The rule of law" that does not include any regulatory oversight.

What you get in a completely unregulated market is Maddof's ponzi scheme and much, much worse...Your answer, I'm sure is "buyer beware"...and you are right...but that leads to hording money and resources for fear of criminals and finally, chaos.

You live in a lovely world where everyone plays by the rules of fairness and intelligent judgment...It must be wonderful there...Do the unicorns talk?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Asheville Citizen-Times Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr Willy 162,045
News Robert Dean Taylor found guilty in 1993 1st deg... (Jul '08) 8 hr Hmmmm 22
News Man charged with defacing desk in Buncombe jail (Mar '09) Jun 19 Laughing 21
News Accident reported on I-40 west near exit 55 (Jul '08) Jun 17 Andy Sipowicz 151
News Lustar building to be sold | BUSINESS | Ashevil... (Mar '08) Jun 16 The Clever Kid 14
News Defense rests in Clark murder trial (Nov '08) Jun 15 edcar26 20
News Haywood County arrests, incidents (Mar '09) Jun 8 usespellcheck 3
More from around the web