<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9qmj4trja7w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
did you have a difficult time understanding that? maybe if you listened to the rest of his point you could grasp it. he is exactly right.
any student of history should know that capitalism without rules will fail. "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," George Bush
Of course capitalism needs rules. There has never been a shortage of rules. The issue is that the rulemakers are less intelligent and motivated than the capitalists they regulate. So, the capitalists find ways around the rules, either by finding loopholes or by developing completely new products/services which are not subject to the rules. There will never be a system of rules so complete that it will eliminate booms and busts. Nor should we aspire to building one, since by doing so we would lose the long-term benefits of living in a capitalistic economy.
I disagree. And it is funny that some righties scream about the fact that we are a Christian nation, but look the other way when it comes to usury. Usury( interest) is anti-Christian, so it should thus be Anti-American, if we are consistent with our principles. Eliminate usury and get rid of the Fed, booms and bust will also go by the wayside. Google: F A Hayek.
You disagree that there can never be a regulatory scheme which, in advance, anticipates all possible ways of overcoming that regulatory scheme? Sorry, but on this planet that is as close to an absolute truth as one can get. People with the proper incentives will always be able to overcome any roadblocks to making a buck. Which is a good thing, on average. I'm actually familiar with Hayek. I'm more of the Irving Fisher school of thought, though, which is more fatalistic about the inevitability of booms and busts. The problem with saying that if you get rid of the Fed, you will eliminate booms and busts, is that there were booms and busts before the Fed, too. I don't think booms and busts are a bad thing, either, because the long-run benefits are greater than a more stable, lower growth economy. The difference between 3% average growth, with a smattering of booms growing at 5% and busts growing at 1%, and 2% "steady and she goes" growth is enormous over time. Don't want to be subject to "usury"? Don't borrow money. But, since nearly every product or service you buy is financed or, at some point, was financed, the prices of those products and services reflect the "usury" lenders charged to the providers. So, even if you don't borrow, you do indirectly. If you get rid of interest, you shut down the lending markets. Maybe you want to live in a world in which there is no lending, but most people don't. Such a world would probably regress technologically so that we'd go back to living like the original Christians. I don't see any point in doing that. If you happen to be someone who gets nailed during the bust, it is probably because of some flaw on your part like people who were the last ones to try to flip real estate or the people who bought the dip on the Nasdaq all the way down to the lows. Hey, we can't all be winners in life.
When you do actually become one, you will deal with what is called survivors guilt. That's all I can really say on the subject.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that I already am one. I live in Manhattan and make above the average (not median) income here and have for nearly a decade after graduating from one of the perennially-ranked top 5 b-schools and have consulted to CEOs of some of the most well-known companies in America. I don't feel guilty at all. In fact, I feel happy that I was able to do those things instead of someone else who wanted to same opportunities (and believe me, there was tons of competition). I think that feelings like guilt are genetically-caused and I just don't have those genes. So, I say again, we can't all be winners in life.
You're right about booms & busts, but usury used to be illegal; generally speaking, no one could charge over 21%. The problem was the usury laws were at the state level, which was fine before interstate banking became legal. Once it did, the usury laws were thrown out by the Supreme Court. The solution, of course, is to ban this at the Federal level, but the bankers' and payday lender's lobby is too strong to allow that to happen. A large part of the reason our economy became so finance oriented in the run-up to 2008 had to do with usury no longer being illegal. A large part of the solution to making sure 2008 doesn't happen again is banning it federally.