The free market will fix it

>the free market will fix it

>Advocating for any economic system other than Keynesian mixed economics

>Advocating for any government system other than constitutional republic

>if only the factories and farms were collectively owned humanity would live happily ever after

>malthusian

fucking this.

>this weird autistic guy that spent the last ten years screaming about jews at the top of his lungs in run down Bavarian beer halls seems reasonable, let's trust him

>Humans are rational actors

>trust me, the wealth will trickle down

>workers can efficiently run an entire factory through collective decision making

>vote Democrat it's in your self interest you dumb sister fucking three toothed trailer park trash piece of shit #fuckwhitepeole #whitepeoplebelike

> invisible hand

>whites and Asians are irrational actors

>the problem is that we have a fiat currency

>regulations and taxes are the reason I'm not a muli billionaire owner of a chain of steel mills and coal mines

>temporarily embarassed millionaire

I unironically whole heartily agree with this

> free governance is better than good governance

Basically this.

consitutional monarchy is better every single time

I don't understand why anyone would prefer Keynesianism. It's only popular because it justifies government spending.

Fine, keep your national human pets for tourist bucks. You still gonna rely on an elected parliament.

...

Government spending is good.

If you have a kid with a 3.5 GPA but no money, and you pay for that kid to go to college, that kid will pay more money in income taxes throughout his life.

Not only will the government end up in a better fiscal spot, but he'll be more likely to create a stable family, or participate in democracy, or do other productive things for society.

There is a place for public sector investment that neoclassical economics does not address.

and you state that like there will be no side effects of such a program.

>not being a temporarily embarassed millionaire

cuck

Well, if the positive ones outweigh the negative ones >50% of the time, it's a good idea.

You're assuming a lot about the worth of a government that does this. Why does it deserve the benefit of tax money and more people contributing to society?

And its very difficult to measure that before the fact.

Much of the current heightened costs of college can be blamed on the current loan program created near unlimited demand.

In addition the market has been flooded with people with degrees, watering down their value.

If you want the government to pay for your college you should join the military

But of course, the value of a college education will then go down, and people may just go to college because it's subsidized or free, even though they do not need to.

The simplest route to these sorts of things is through wealth creation via more laissez-faire policies (or really lack of policy), which is efficient and forces people to have to use their own money. When people put their own money on the line, decisions are typically made better.

How about you support government programs that are likely to turn a profit, and oppose most of the ones that aren't?

Investments and entitlements aren't the same thing. You can't really have a healthy economy without the former.

>implying some dumb frogposter knows better than the market to allocate resources
>implying the profit incentive isn't responsible for all mankind's achievements

back to (((pl*bbit)))

>which is efficient

Well, we tried that.

We got the Great Depression.

As it turns out, 100% free markets are prone to cyclical shocks, market failures, and uncontrolled externalities.

Laissez-faire economics is only one part of the puzzle.

I only mean more laissez-faire policies, not total laissez-faire.

And the Great Depression was made worse by monetary policy and the Smoot–Hawley Tariff. It's not as if such a thing is normal to a free market.

>the government will fix it

all of them should be hung for compromising national security

Assange is not burger

Well, flagship "free market" policies such as the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and union busting seem to have been largely ineffective at making the country more competitive economically.

On the contrary, deliberate interference seems to have produced better results.

Certainly, it worked wonders for the economies of South Korea and Japan.

sorry to meme, but that's a feature, not a bug.

market crashes are an essential part of a healthy company, by allowing capital to reallocate and redistribute, and eliminating weak institutions. Avoiding crashes should not be the goal of an economy, it should be allowed to, or perhaps even encouraged to crashes when the market dictates. Crashes happen when there are toxic practices and trends, and like diarrhea, it purges and cleans a marketplace and allows it to start over.

shit not company but economy

I'm interested to see what examples you'd come up with as to economies that benefited from economic crashes.

South Korea and Japan protected their national companies, today Japan is doing horrible and South Korea is only high tech or dog tier.

The same could be said about minimum wages.

except when 50% of the population can't even buy food and starts chimping out and capitalism finally enters the dustbin of history

oh wait that's a good thing

Every economy benefit from economic crashes, if they happen naturally.

What about minimum wages? The real minimum wage is 0.

>posting that meme chart

People are compensated more through benefits now.

Anyway, the goal of a national economy is not to be competitive, but to be efficient. Of course when the government subsidizes or assists certain industries, they become more competitive. But of course it is an irrational (inefficient) policy.

In 1955 they were both ruins.

South Korea was poorer than the Congo in the aftermath of the Korean War.

Japan managed 10% a year economic growth for most of the 60s, and the lost decade hasn't reversed their economy to anything even vaguely resembling where they were before the boom.

Not saying they haven't improved, almost every country today has, I'm saying it was due to their governments being very protective. Not a lot of freedom or open market and in the end it will hurt them, we can already see where it brought Japan.

>almost every country today has

Not as fast as either one. Not even close. They grew more in individual decades than many countries on earth have since WW2.

>in the end it will hurt them

Compared to what? Give me an example of an economy that did better than them.

US, EU, Japan, China, etc...

Bubbles that form must be popped, because when something is over valued, too much capital flows in that direction. The housing crash of 08 ended the banking practices of overly investing in securities and CDOs. Mortgage bundles are not worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The crash corrected this and allowed capital to flow back where it is more needed, such as energy and technology sectors.

>you can't hang people who aren't from your own country

Median household income is lower now adjusted for inflation than it was in 1999.

I'm going to go ahead and say that the '08 crash was a net negative to the United States in every practical respect.

Yes, then of course one might add the economic help both countries received from the US and allies post world war 2.

Take a look at European countries, as an example.

I am still not denying that they have grown and become big economies, but they way it happened was not natural nor was it good economically. Japan today has been in a deflation for over 20 years.

>they way it happened was not natural nor was it good economically

What I'm getting is

>sure, it works in practice
>but does it work in theory

Because I can't think of a free market economy that performs better than South Korea or Japan.

When I think "better economies" I think of Northern Europe.

But Rhine Capitalism isn't pure capitalism either. It's quite interventionist and paternalistic.

If I were going to shill for free markets, the best I could do is Hong Kong and Switzerland, which would mean that free markets have a niche use for economies based on banking.

Just because it's not good doesn't mean it can't work for a while.

As the user above said, performance is not everything in an economy. Stabilization and efficiency are far better measurements if one wants to rank economies.

We've yet to see truly free market economies in our era, Sweden was, relative to the rest of the world, very laissez-faire post world war II and has never seen anything as positive since. Today, in a not so free economy and tons of socialist policies northern Europe are doing horribly.

The problem is you are attaching and attempting your internal subjective values on an external objective mechanism. A knife is useful, but don't try to dull the blade because someone cut themselves. If median incomes are lower, than this is a result not of policy but environmental factors, and they should be lower then. Not all good times party fun yeah man XD can be sustained, because resources and capital are scarce. And the FED and government trying to keeping this meme alive is akin to keeping a stage four cancer patient in a permanent coma to let him live. Let it die to make room for something new.

attempting to impose

sorry im hungover

>Crashes happen when there are toxic practices and trends, and like diarrhea, it purges and cleans a marketplace and allows it to start over.
Yes and the only way to clean the marketplace is through regulation dumb fuck.
How come free market fags never seem to account for HUMAN GREED?
Do they somehow forget about the most recent example in 2008?

A large reason why the crash happened in the first place is because of the deregulation of the derivatives market..........

>government spending will fix it

False, a meme forced by leftists.

In fact, the government was at the height of the boom the biggest purchaser of mbs's.

Lel this delusion

Compare Hong Kong to mainland China

lol cool meme bro

profit incentive is the driver of an economy. otherwise known as self-interest or GREED KEK

regulation isn't an agent of change, it is artificial preservation of something that should be allowed to change naturally, formaldehyde to the corpse of dead capital. 08 was necessary as are almost all crashes.

t. Autistic austrian cultist

poorer yes in a worst state now.

How come socialism never seem to account for human greed?

>muh regulation

Regulation had nothing to do with 07-08

>having a government

>advocating for any government system

More of a Chicago school guy

t. Braindead Marxist

>having a government that consumes 50 percent of the national income

>he thinks political freedom is more important than economic freedom

This is top shelf retardation m8

>How about you support government programs that are likely to turn a profit, and oppose most of the ones that aren't?

In that case I dont think free college will turn a profit, and even if it did that would still eliminate lots a lots of programs, because helping people is not always profitable

>Well, flagship "free market" policies such as the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and union busting seem to have been largely ineffective at making the country more competitive economically.

The problem here is we were//are competing with the much cheaper labor markets of asia and soon africa. the best we can hope for is to make our own laber market cheap enough that it will not be worth shipping products here accross the sea.

Until global labor prices level out the US worker will be at a disadvantage. Period

Who are you quoting?

Keynesianism + autocracy

>he believes the 1920s had a 100% free market
>he probably believes Herbert Hoover did nothing as well

>mfw 2008 will be purposefully misconstrued and misunderstood for the rest of the century just as 1929 was for the 20th century

JUST
KILL
ME
NOW

Give me your take on 2008 right now and stop shitposting. Actually state an argument.

>REEEEEEEE WHY WON'T PEOPLE BLAME BIG GUBMEN FOR 1929 AND 2008 LIKE I DO
it's almost as if you have a retarded fringe view or something

The system you're seeking only works in a world devoid of all human life. There's never been a truly laissez-faire economy, because anyone with power tends to tamper. This was true in the 1920's US (Coolidge and Mellon), nor that exemplar of industrial development England in the century prior (Corn Laws, and most of the Parliaments that sat after Castlereagh). This is just cursory - the nature of human development and governments as primarily social institutions (ie. areas of heavy human interaction) ensures there will always be people looking to tilt things the way they think they should be.

Government forced private banks to reduce their lending standards and issue subprime loans. These loans then entered the derivatives market like a ticking time bomb. When the foreclosures started, the bomb went off, destroying the derivatives market and nearly dragging down the global financial market with it.

Government, the banks, speculators and the borrowers were responsible, in that order.

In the 1970s the community reinvestment act was passed but lacked strong enforcement until the late 1990s. The act demanded standards for mortgages and loans for homes be lowered to levels that would allow minorities or poor people who had previously been too untrustworthy or had poor credit and wouldn't have gotten said loans. Banks had to make the choice to face stiff fines or take on the risk and boot the problem of these people possibly not repaying down the road. These people couldn't afford the 20% downpayment that was commonly asked for, and would likely never repay these loans. That's why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stepped in to help with these very, very risky mortgages, because the banks were rightly complaining that they were being asked to shoulder unthinkable amounts of risk. There was no guarantee that these two federal giants would ever pay out if shit hit the fan, but the only other choice was for the government program to fail - something that was unlikely to happen for political reasons. So people banked on the feds stabilizing this stupidly risky environment they had created.

The dot-com bubble pops in the early oughts and the economy is on the decline, but housing in select parts of the country are exploding in value. Restrictive housing laws cause housing prices to go through the roof in coastal California, Pheonix, NYC, etc, and to combat these high prices in specific regions the national laws on aiding "expanding access to housing" begin to be overused. Housing became the new bubble, as the value of housing in these regions blew out of control. Because housing had always been safe, and the federal government was in play, it created a moral hazard for banks and investment funds to pour into the bubble, driving it higher.

But everyone thought housing was safe. Even international investments were tied up in the US housing market. Value going up like crazy, a government guarantee? >>>

I don't know. I mean Glass Steagall was written specifically to prevent another 1929, yet when it was repealed, banks did the exact thing it was mean to prevent resulting in 2008.

To be honest though... Maybe if we deregulate everything we will turn into 3rd world shit hole and people will finally understand economics, but I suspect people will be blaming big government even when they are living in a stateless society.

What wasn't to like? I mean, it wasn't an actual guarantee, but would the government, with access to taxpayer money and the ability to print more, allow itself to fail? It was a terrible set-up.

Fannie and Freddie had almost no oversight over all of this. Republican lawmakers actually tried to reign them in, but Democrats blocked them because to reign these out-of-control organizations back in would be "to restrict housing for the poor," aka the people who were getting loans they could never and would never pay back.

So the values of these houses were highly inflated, making it even more likely these poor people would not repay the loans. But the gravy train kept rolling, and more and more federal dollars rolled into "affordable housing" as housing costs rose in these high-price housing enclaves. So it should have never been allowed to happen, but government forced banks to make shitty, shitty loans. Then the bubble should have popped early, but it was allowed to grow and grow because government poured more money into the never-ending-hole that was the bubble they were themselves helping to inflate.

2008 is a lesson in why you don't let government fuck and then try to unfuck things it doesn't understand.

College debt bubble is next pham

I can't wait. All those delicious non-collateralized debt obligations. Half of all American universities will have closed by 2035

I see one basic hole in this explanation.

>banks forced to take financial risk
>banks don't just pull out of the housing industry altogether

That's where Fannie and Freddie came in, insuring and also helping pay for these risky loans.

You just told me that there was no guarantee they would pay out.

As it stands, Lehmen Brothers got fucked, and a lot of investors lost their shirts.

Wasn't most of the loans in question giving out by banks who didn't actually do the due diligence to make sure people could pay back the loans.

I mean if you run Lehman brothers, don't you have PHD people on staff to check the books or something?

I mean really, you do this for a living, why not bother to check the loans?

>expecting banks to just give up half their business

Lel

>2008 is a lesson in why you don't let government fuck and then try to unfuck things it doesn't understand.
this is ironic because big gubmen bailouts in 2008 is probably the reason we're not all eating out of dumpsters now