Okay, pimptight, I say the only way to have real liberty is to have no government at all. You think there is a difference between a free market and real liberty. That doesn't make any sense. On order to have anything other than a free market you need to restrict people, all people from acting as they would in the state of nature. How do you do that without a government? For that matter how could you be free if someone else has a prior claim on the fruit of your labor. Pick a resolution along these lines. And we'll have a debate.
Glass-Steagal, and the separation of commercial and investment banking. Please make your case of how this regulation limited freedom and liberty.
I don't favor or oppose the act on those grounds. I probably don't know enough about it to make an informed decision. Based on what I do know, I think it was an impotent reactionary attempt to prevent another banking panic. If courts had been treating deposit deposit banks as money warehouses, instead of ruling, in the event of a banks run, that money deposited with the bank becomes the property of the bank, acts like Glass Steagall would not have been necessary.
OK, I need to know what you are versed in then. BTW, in your scenario, there is no credit, or capital for business growth. Banks could only loan money it had of its own.
You mean where courts treat deposit banks as money warehouses? They could still pyramid debt. They just couldn't use demand deposit accounts to do it. The depositor would have to know that his money is at risk. There would be a clear distinction between interest bearing investment accounts and demand deposit and/or savings accounts for which there would be a fee, eliminating the need for Glass Steagal. But yes, there would definitely be less expansion of credit. There would also be a coordinating function between investment and consumption, which would greatly reduce speculative bubbles.
I really want to talk about the absence of government. If you prefer a particular government system, I'd like to argue for my ideal system of no government against your ideal government.
This is the problem. I don't have a ideal government. I look at individual solutions for individual problems. Banking - capital allocation is broken - I have a solution for this Education - the cost for the delivery of education should have been drastically reduced - I have a way to deploy this Energy - energy efficiency could have us energy independent within a decade - I have a plan to to deploy this Corrupt government - money and lobbying are the mechanism being used to corrupt our government - I have a plan to manage both feux monopolies - destroying market integrity - see corrupt government and already existing laws being enforced To me this is the Adams/Jefferson debate. I don't choose a side. I say they were both right depending on the individual scenario being discussed. I believe they both knew this as well, or else how could they be friends, and have respect for each other?
Off to bed for me. will check in on this tomorrow. I can't deal in vague language man. It is a exercise in futility to me.
I wasn't aware that I use vague language. I'm not even sure what that means. You say you don't prefer any particular system, but it looks, to me, like if the solutions you have in mind were implemented, you would have your ideal system. So, your ideal system is the current system minus the problems you see with it. If that's the case then there are all kinds of things we disagree about. You seem to think that government can be used to fix societies problems, to some extent, at least. I disagree. Would you say that that in itself too vague to deal with?
See, with education i want to tear down almost all government structure, with campaign finance and lobbying I want to add government structure, for feux monopolies I think the existing regulations are just fine. So on three different scenario's, I have 3 different paths forward. Instead of saying vague language, I should have said I don't deal in ideology. If I could state a ideological position I guess it would be that I believe in no regulation, until a problem presents itself that demands it.
