The attack on free markets

The Baltimore Examiner ^ | 2008-12-07 | James A. Dorn

[1rudeboy]

It’s considerably ironic that Mr. Dorn deals with your concern in the first two paragraphs.

[B4Ranch]

The free trade agreements are socialism or don’t you recognize that? The free trade markets operating under free trade agreements are not private free markets.

Don’t bother replying.

[1rudeboy]

I’m just curious as to what sort of “conservative” pathology results in free trade being blamed for the subprime meltdown, or an economic recession in general.

[Texas Federalist]

The free trade markets operating under free trade agreements are not private free markets.

So the government dictating from whom and to whom businesses can buy and sell goods overseas is actually a "free" market? That makes absolutely no sense.

[B4Ranch]

Some FReepers think it is but I don’t.

[1rudeboy]

It really places them in an, um, unique position: arguing against government intervention by advocating government intervention.

[Cacique]

bookmark bump

[LowCountryJoe]

There wouldn’t need to be trade agreements in the first place if there wasn’t a large percentage of the voting public who just could not accepted the fact that other people demand imported goods. Unfortunately, there are too many people that wish to use government as a tool for keeping imported products out — thinking that those that demand foreign goods must be protected from getting what is perceived as good value. The trade agreements, therefore, seek to lower trade barriers...but they always manage to sneek in provisions that protect some industries and shield them from competition.

[JasonC]

The private market is currently vote with every dollar it has, in spades, to trust only the government and to damn everyone else.

You do not have to like this for it to be true.

[JasonC]

Anyone who can borrow at 1-3 and lend at 10-20 can get money for bearing risk, which is not quite the same as free. Normally bankers take most of the profits available doing so. Right now, no one is, the possible profits are going begging and unused, and the government is the creditor in a position to take advantage of that, to any extent it desires. And yes, that means it can make money effortlessly and without consequence.

You don't like this because it doesn't fit the ideological picture of goodness you've been raised on since Reagan. Tough freaking toenails, it is still true. Private bankers can take the risks and narrow the epic credit spreads currently out there, any time they choose. But they are choosing not to, in craven fear. When they abdicated, government gets their jobs.

Facts are even more stubborn than ideological blockheads.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Right now, no one is, the possible profits are going begging and unused, and the government is the creditor in a position to take advantage of that, to any extent it desires. “

Or to take advantage of losses because the governments motives are purely political and profits and debt are meaningless. The Obama/Pelosi buzz phrase “ protect taxpayers” when they plan on spending any dime returned, and MORE. The banks wont lend because they were loaned, not given the money, until forced to loan and lose.

[JasonC]

It would be far preferable if private sector actors took risks seeking profits, made them and kept them and their successes reinforced those who judged well. And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. As a fact, instead, our bankers are incompetent, clueless, scared, and not doing their jobs. Yes it would be nice if sensible technocrats at the Fed or Treasury did it for them, rather than Pelosi and Frank and their pack of barking moonbats. But if no one listens to said technocrats, even if their own party, there is nothing for it. Yes it would be better if the congress agreed to force the UAW to cut wages as a condition for assistance, for example, and stupid of the Dems to refuse that condition. But refuse it they did, and cutting everyone's wages with a lower dollar instead, is not a superior policy.

You don't get a margin for error and you don't get any points for being less idiotic than socialist Dems.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”...and you don’t get any points for being less idiotic than socialist Dems. “

Yes you do because they won two elections and now have White House and congress and finally have to defend their positions. So we have no incentive to help them nationalize every major industry (punishing successes rewarding failure) even if you happen to think it is the lesser of two evils. That “lesser of two evils” argument was used to promote McCain and you can see how well that worked. Call it the “I stand for nothing” argument=’I inspire no one” argument.

[JasonC]

They don't have to defend anything, and they don't.

You don't have to help them do anything, but that is only because you are utterly irrelevant. If congress won't act then the treasury will, and then the new administration will.

Practical men live in reality, ideologues do not. You have no power because the last particle of practicality left your head about 3 exits back. You are only prepared for a world in which businessmen are flawless enterprising brave and resourceful. As a fact, they are currently a pack of cringing incompetent cowards throwing every cent they have at the government, begging it to save them.

Someone will be a banker. If bankers won't, then the Fed or treasury will. Parties have nothing to do with that, nor ideologies, nor blame, nor defense, nor spin, nor fairy tale stories of any description. Private bankers have abdicated. Public ones in the civil service will therefore take over and do their jobs, until they recover their nerve.

Your opinion about that development has exactly nothing to do with it being necessary or its occurring.

[Pelham]

That’s a nice attempt to whitewash investment banking’s role in the whole fiasco. Their enthusiasm for subprime paper exceeded the wildest imaginations of the do-gooders who were promoting the CRA. Wall Street couldn’t get enough of that garbage paper to repackage and sell to suckers all across the globe, so they were extending credit lines to the thousands of subprime storefront lenders popping up all over the country.

If we still had the Glass-Steagall Act in force then we wouldn’t have had investment banks crowding into the mortgage market and fueling the toxic loans that exploded with spectacular effect.