Your next President?

[Dolorous Jason]

"The people " can decide , comrade,  and you can't argue the results. The 10th amendment says so.  LOL

[olafberserker]

even in the face of clear cut evidence to the contrary.

you would know about this (see the oh so expensive and hard to get ID's)

[Durango 95]

There is some clear cut evidence about I.D.'s?

[olafberserker]

There is some clear cut evidence about I.D.'s?

 

[CBWx2]

even in the face of clear cut evidence to the contrary.

you would know about this (see the oh so expensive and hard to get ID's)

as would you (see the oh so rampant voter fraud) 

[CBWx2]

On another note (Vinny P will be happy about this), I heard an interview with Ben Carson on NPR tonight. The guy sounds like a tool. He kept going on about how he's not left or right, he's just about common sense. Then he was confronted by a woman who called in and basically said he was being disingenuous, because every thing he was promoting was part of the right wing agenda. His response was the biggest load of hypocritical, pretentious nonsense I've heard on that station in a good while. Can't even do it justice reciting from memory. I'm eagerly awaiting the transcript to be released.

[Dolorous Jason]

On another note (Vinny P will be happy about this), I heard an interview with Ben Carson on NPR tonight. His response was the biggest load of hypocritical, pretentious nonsense I've heard on that station in a good while.

That's saying a lot ...

[VinBucFan]

Is anyone shocked that CBW - a guy who compared Dr. Carson to the Unabomber (apparently before hearing him speak, lol) - doesn't like Carson?

Lol, I mean seriously? If Daily Kos like Carson so would CBW. He wouldn't know why he liked him, but he would.

[dbucfan]

Is anyone shocked that CBW - a guy who compared Dr. Carson to the Unabomber (apparently before hearing him speak, lol) - doesn't like Carson?

Lol, I mean seriously? If Daily Kos like Carson so would CBW. He wouldn't know why he liked him, but he would.

Others will get an opportunity to evaluate the interview when a link to the conversation is posted.

[John Galt?]

There is no such thing as a "free market."

A "true" Free Market is purely hypothetical but is useful for discussing the exchange of specific items, but not overall economic systems.

When most people write/say "free markets" they really mean "relatively free markets". For instance; "The market for TVs is relatively free compared to the market for emergency medical service because you can't price shop while having a heart attack."

 Markets are the creation of government. Remove government from having a role in economic development and what you get is a plutocracy, of the wealthy, for the wealthy, by the wealthy.

This is false by definition of "create". Markets are created by suppliers who create/invent/produce a product or service for which there is a demand. No government created the market for cars, Benz, Ford, et al did. The government did improve the market by paving roads, creating traffic laws, etc. but if the govt. had paved roads and no one had invented the auto, the market would not exist.


I will say that government can improve markets by establishing standards (weights and measures, etc.) coining a standard currency, and preventing predatory or unfair trade practices, and I agree without some govt. things will degrade back to a darkages style serfdom (or Plutocracy if you like). But it is also true and apparent that govts can also hinder market development via excess regulation and interference in free entry and/or price movement.

About the only things the govt. has created a market for is military hardware and lawyers, neither of which has improved humanity.


People create markets, people create governments, governments ONLY create laws to regulate markets HOPEFULLY for the benefit of the people.

[VinBucFan]

There is no such thing as a "free market."

A "true" Free Market is purely hypothetical but is useful for discussing the exchange of specific items, but not overall economic systems.

When most people write/say "free markets" they really mean "relatively free markets". For instance; "The market for TVs is relatively free compared to the market for emergency medical service because you can't price shop while having a heart attack."

 Markets are the creation of government. Remove government from having a role in economic development and what you get is a plutocracy, of the wealthy, for the wealthy, by the wealthy.

This is false by definition of "create". Markets are created by suppliers who create/invent/produce a product or service for which there is a demand. No government created the market for cars, Benz, Ford, et al did. The government did improve the market by paving roads, creating traffic laws, etc. but if the govt. had paved roads and no one had invented the auto, the market would not exist.


I will say that government can improve markets by establishing standards (weights and measures, etc.) coining a standard currency, and preventing predatory or unfair trade practices, and I agree without some govt. things will degrade back to a darkages style serfdom (or Plutocracy if you like). But it is also true and apparent that govts can also hinder market development via excess regulation and interference in free entry and/or price movement.

About the only things the govt. has created a market for is military hardware and lawyers, neither of which has improved humanity.


People create markets, people create governments, governments ONLY create laws to regulate markets HOPEFULLY for the benefit of the people.

CBW modified his response to roughly conform with your comments, although he will tell you he didn't modify anything!

Btw, it took him 2 posts to NOT modify anything :-)

[John Galt?]

Markets are created by humans and by definition they are created "free."

As I said, one could argue that a market can exist without government if you lived in a barter and trade society. In fact, those early "free" markets, created by people, were barter and trade markets. However, markets as we know them today didn't begin to manifest themselves until the governments of the world began to mint coins, and to imbue them with a relatable value, and until they created the legal infrastructures to enforce contract laws. The Code of Ur-Nammu, written by the ancient Sumerians, and The Code of Hammurabi, a set of laws implemented by a Babylonian king dating around 1800 BC is a perfect example of such an occurrence.

Modern markets are the creation of government. There is no need to create a separate thread to debate it, because to argue to the contrary is absolutely absurd, and can be refuted with a few short senteces.

The only thing absurd is your assertion that modern markets are the creation of government. If anything the opposite is true, modern government is the creation of the markets. The FAA didn't create aircraft, the invention and proliferation of airplanes CAUSED the need for a regulatory body. The FCC didn't invent radios, TVs etc. it was the rapidly growing broadcast market that caused the need for standards which led to the FCC.

Modern markets are the creation of inventors, producers, and suppliers NOT the govt. People with minds create modern products and other people with minds see the value in such products and that creates the market. The govt. then regulates how such products can be built, takes money from the inventors and builders, tells the sellers what to pay their workers and the conditions they work in, but the govt. does not create or invent the product or the market.

Despite what you'd have us believe, Al Gore DIDN'T invent the internet, and despite Obama's statement, business owners DID build that.

[CBWx2]

The definition of create is to bring into existence, or to cause to come into being. Saying that markets were created simply from people conceptualizing and making things is akin to suggesting that human beings are created simply by the act of having sex. Sex doesn't create human beings, it is merely the process in which an egg is fertilized. The fertalized egg must then have a womb in which to implant itself, otherwise it never becomes anything more than just a fertalized egg. Inventors, producers, suppliers, and consumers = fertilized egg. Governments = womb. To suggest that modern markets would have came into being without governments is to suggest that a fertilized egg can become a human being without a womb.

The primary way in which governments create markets is by creating and valuing their own currencies. The creation of money provided people with an instrument of value that allowed them to acquire things, eliminating the forced reliance on harvest surpluses, animal byproducts, etc. as the only form of currency. The creation of money is solely responsible for the rise of the merchant class. Without it, the would be merchant would've been forced to rely on farming, hunting, or gathering for a living, rather than merchandising.

Also, as a devout capitalist, I'm sure you would agree that money is the driving force behind innovation. In a society absent money, where is the incentive to innovate? The would be inventor would have been right next to the would be merchant, tending to the fields, or braving the wilderness in order to acquire things. Had Wilber and Orville Wright been forced to farm to meet their basic needs , I highly doubt they would have had the time or motivation to invent the airplane. Had Nikola Tesla been forced to hunt and fish in order to meet his basic needs, I highly doubt he would have had the time or motivation to invent the radio. And if everyone else in a civilization were relegated to the same means of survival, I highly doubt there would be a market for airplanes or radios to begin with. Fertilized egg, meet womb.

[Dolorous Jason]

Hey comrade, looks like you are losing yet another argument.  Oh well . Keep fighting the good fight , Useful Idiot.

[VinBucFan]

The definition of create is to bring into existence, or to cause to come into being. Saying that markets were created simply from people conceptualizing and making things is akin to suggesting that human beings are created simply by the act of having sex. Sex doesn't create human beings, it is merely the process in which an egg is fertilized. The fertalized egg must then have a womb in which to implant itself, otherwise it never becomes anything more than just a fertalized egg. Inventors, producers, suppliers, and consumers = fertilized egg. Governments = womb. To suggest that modern markets would have came into being without governments is to suggest that a fertilized egg can become a human being without a womb.

The primary way in which governments create markets is by creating and valuing their own currencies. The creation of money provided people with an instrument of value that allowed them to acquire things, eliminating the forced reliance on harvest surpluses, animal byproducts, etc. as the only form of currency. The creation of money is solely responsible for the rise of the merchant class. Without it, the would be merchant would've been forced to rely on farming, hunting, or gathering for a living, rather than merchandising.

Also, as a devout capitalist, I'm sure you would agree that money is the driving force behind innovation. In a society absent money, where is the incentive to innovate? The would be inventor would have been right next to the would be merchant, tending to the fields, or braving the wilderness in order to acquire things. Had Wilber and Orville Wright been forced to farm to meet their basic needs , I highly doubt they would have had the time or motivation to invent the airplane. Had Nikola Tesla been forced to hunt and fish in order to meet his basic needs, I highly doubt he would have had the time or motivation to invent the radio. And if everyone else in a civilization were relegated to the same means of survival, I highly doubt there would be a market for airplanes or radios to begin with. Fertilized egg, meet womb.

More "NOT shifting".