tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post434749722854678367..comments2024-03-25T15:17:04.488-07:00Comments on Captain Capitalism: There Is No Such Thing as "Market Failure"Captain Capitalismhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05620212946121617985noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-48773268348351378032017-01-12T08:53:48.196-08:002017-01-12T08:53:48.196-08:00A look under the hood at most "market failure...A look under the hood at most "market failures" reveals that they are usually the result of stupid government economic intervention. The sub-prime housing bubble was a direct result of stupid government policy. I like to ask leftards who talk about "market failures" about the crash of 1920. they've all heard about the crash of '29, when government stepped in to "solve" the problem, sparking the Great Depression. But no one has heard of the Crash of '20, when the government did NOTHING, and the economy miraculously recovered from a short recession in a few months, sparking the roaring twenties. (incidentally, the roaring twenties was the only period in the last hundred years or so when consumer purchasing power actually increased, but no worries, as the federal reserve stepped up to insure that purchasing power has been destroyed ever since then. Webley Silvernail.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-28183415617824102472015-10-05T04:02:08.808-07:002015-10-05T04:02:08.808-07:00Market failure exists but it's not the recessi...Market failure exists but it's not the recession, it's the missalocation of resources that happened before the recession. The recession is the market correcting the failure. When government intervents it is less like slowly pulling the bandaid as it is more like putting the bandaid back on and then slowly peeling it off again. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-51890852134711523312015-10-04T03:08:51.270-07:002015-10-04T03:08:51.270-07:00Captain, please. It doesn't matter even if you...Captain, please. It doesn't matter even if you could prove with absolute certainty that non-intervention would have brought about a correction much faster in every single one of those cases.<br /><br />Market failure is much more than macroeconomic hiccups. You have market failure in the microeconomy whenever there are externalities involved in a transaction.Red Knightnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-31783773398016080332015-09-29T15:44:56.512-07:002015-09-29T15:44:56.512-07:00All human institutions fail. The difference with m...All human institutions fail. The difference with market failure is that it corrects itself. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-23615591575351836502015-09-28T15:10:00.103-07:002015-09-28T15:10:00.103-07:00It's worth noting that the government didn'...It's worth noting that the government didn't do much in 1907, either. I believe JP Morgan got a group of bankers together, and they more or less decided to pony up a certain amount of capital and strongarmed banks and borrowers into writing off a boatload of debt. It was over in 1908 (when the Cubs won their second consecutive, and most recent, World Series). <br /><br />The Fed was theoretically a response to this, and would have (I believe) been intended by Morgan to be a more robust version of his bank. I believe that Morgan did not foresee (or did not care) that it would end up greatly strengthening government.Bike Bubbahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193546045614393425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-75292493066904229452015-09-27T18:25:33.380-07:002015-09-27T18:25:33.380-07:00During and after the Panic of 1893, there was NO g...During and after the Panic of 1893, there was NO gov't intervention. That was just as bad, if not worse, than the Great Depression. However, it was over and done with after a mere four years because there was NO government intervention. Contrast that with the Great Depression, which was STILL going on until the onset of WWII pulled us out of it. The Great Depression would have ended years sooner had FDR and company kept their hands OFF the economy...<br /><br />MarkyMarkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-87759519057971029572015-09-27T08:07:30.438-07:002015-09-27T08:07:30.438-07:00Related is a question I've been pondering. Wh...Related is a question I've been pondering. Why is there no decent definition of capitalism. The stock "private ownership of the means of production" means what exactly, especially "compared to what"? i saw on argument on a site called world socialism.org that asserted the Communist Bloc of the 20th century had not socialism but "state capitalism. Of course, socialism is really just some level of government connected ownership of production with smooth-talk enslavement of the workers in that production. <br /><br />Considering this, I came up with the following definition of capitalism. In its most egalitarian form, capitalism is an individual liberty to improve oneself through investing surplus in additional income-generating capacity. Government (in general, feudal lords, Popes all want to limit the liberty to improve oneself to some higher level of individuals that those smelly old commoners. <br /><br /><i>Capitalism is a system in which the individual is permitted to retain their personal earnings over that required for subsistence and use this “profit” to purchase additional productive capacity, such as training, machines, real estate, etc., i.e., capital, to better themselves vice spending it on non-productive consumption. Capital is nothing more than retained “old labor” that is put to use producing additional income.<br /><br />Socialism in contrast uses government to limit the individual ownership of productive capacity up to total socialism where the individual is permitted no ownership of productive capacity except for their direct personal skills and may be prevented by the overseers from using their skills in a job that requires them, instead being assigned other work.</i>JK Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-73315202128847683712015-09-27T07:53:14.188-07:002015-09-27T07:53:14.188-07:00How do you come up with this stuff? Better questi...How do you come up with this stuff? Better question, how come no one else does?<br /><br />Markets don't fail. I love it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-13805350247939723662015-09-27T07:16:45.752-07:002015-09-27T07:16:45.752-07:00Market failures exist in the economic sense of the...Market failures exist in the economic sense of the word... But it is indeed debatable if government intervention actually fixes them. It's also likely that government intervention causes them... Like ultra low interest rates leading to record high household debt and housing bubbles. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-78367385413979499262015-09-27T02:50:40.451-07:002015-09-27T02:50:40.451-07:00But the problem in having the government "jus...But the problem in having the government "just prevent bad things" is that it is antithetical to a free market. The nanosecond the government intervenes the market is no longer a market, but a hybrid, that neither operates nor behaves as it normally would if it were completely void of government interference. <br />-------------------<br /><br />Not so sure it's this cut and dry. That raises the utilitarian argument if government/central planning intervention/investment of <br />'x' monetary units to create 'x+y' units if hypothetical production is a worthwhile one. Technically it's no longer a free market, but maybe capitalism is improved by allowing smart people with good ideas to get funded when they may have otherwise not, but 'good ideas' is of course subjective. The bailouts may have helped capitalism by stemming the bleeding in the weaker sectors, allowing healthier ones to thrive instead of being dragged down.grey enlightenmenthttp://greyenlightenment.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-65515836019901419942015-09-27T02:08:24.826-07:002015-09-27T02:08:24.826-07:00""Market failure" is when the mark...""Market failure" is when the market "fails" to provide the optimal outcome for society. It is NOT at its peak efficiency, NOT delivering the most utility to the people, NOT delivering its maximum goods and services, and therefore is failing the population."<br /><br />Each of those definitions simply translates from leftoid speak into:- the market isn't delivering the result "I" wanted. Therefore the government must intervene to force the result "I" think is desirable.<br /><br />And of course, follows all the frequently undesirable often unintended consequences of market intervention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8358039.post-78935470814510217352015-09-26T21:02:25.913-07:002015-09-26T21:02:25.913-07:00A lot of those "market failures" were in...A lot of those "market failures" were intentionally engineered. <br /><br />Coincidental bank runs up until the setting up of private banks to issue "credit money" in 1913?<br /><br /> Uh-huh.<br /><br />SM777noreply@blogger.com