Liberaltarianism

[Requia ☣]

Yes but in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian system there wouldn't be a reserve requirement at all.

[LMNO]

Yes but in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian system there wouldn't be a reserve requirement at all.

That's what I was thinking...  Sounds like a constraint on the free market.

[Adios]

But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.

As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.

"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.

In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.

and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.

the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.

Are you serious? Did you even study the way it was all done?

Okay, honest question. Have you done your own homework or are you a parrot as far as this goes?

[Doktor Howl]

Back on topic, I'm not sure I want the libertarians on my side.

It would be like having David Duke endorsing a right wing nut.

[Disco Pickle]

and isn't this argument more of the DEY TOOK UURRR JERRBS mess?

Holy shit.  I didn't realize you were a fucking idiot.  Sorry for bothering you.

hey, no problem.  was a nice little chat we were having.

I'm no fan of NAFTA, as it gives privileges to certain companies, rather than letting the price and quality of goods decide.

eliminating tarrifs while mandating that firms prefer one countries goods over another kinda fucks up the entire concept.

[Disco Pickle]

But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.

As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.

"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.

In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.

and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.

the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.

Yeah, 1929 is on the phone for you.

fractional reserve.

that existed then too.

[Requia ☣]

Back on topic, I'm not sure I want the libertarians on my side.

It would be like having David Duke endorsing a right wing nut.

I don't think it matters, libertarians have never proved to be more than an annoyance.

[Doktor Howl]

and isn't this argument more of the DEY TOOK UURRR JERRBS mess?

Holy shit.  I didn't realize you were a fucking idiot.  Sorry for bothering you.

hey, no problem.  was a nice little chat we were having.

Not really.  You were using a strawman argument.  That's not very nice.

[Doktor Howl]

But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.

As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.

"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.

In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.

and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.

the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.

Yeah, 1929 is on the phone for you.

fractional reserve.

that existed then too.

I see.  It had nothing to do with stock pumping, or any other bad practices.  My bad. 

[Doktor Howl]

Back on topic, I'm not sure I want the libertarians on my side.

It would be like having David Duke endorsing a right wing nut.

I don't think it matters, libertarians have never proved to be more than an annoyance.

Or a source of humor.  I think they got a dog catcher elected once, somewhere in Montana or some shit.

[Disco Pickle]

Yes but in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian system there wouldn't be a reserve requirement at all.

this is wrong.

it would actually be a more secure banking system as you can't lend out money you don't have, or have a central bank entering numbers into a ledger to create money.

[Doktor Howl]

Yes but in anything even remotely resembling a libertarian system there wouldn't be a reserve requirement at all.

this is wrong.

it would actually be a more secure banking system as you can't lend out money you don't have, or have a central bank entering numbers into a ledger to create money.

Yes, because there was never a crash before the federal reserve was formed, right?

[Disco Pickle]

But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.

As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.

"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.

In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.

and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.

the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.

Are you serious? Did you even study the way it was all done?

Okay, honest question. Have you done your own homework or are you a parrot as far as this goes?

I've done a LOT of reading, but I can't have read everything.  

I'm always open to new sources of info.

[Doktor Howl]

But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.

As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.

"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.

In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.

and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.

the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.

Are you serious? Did you even study the way it was all done?

Okay, honest question. Have you done your own homework or are you a parrot as far as this goes?

I've done a LOT of reading, but I can't have read everything.  

I'm always open to new sources of info.

Well, there's always that "reality" thing.  But most people don't consider it a credible source.

[Adios]

But that's not much different from what goes on now, except we socialize loss in our current system, where in a free(er) market, those fucks would be sleeping in the streets, as no one would do business with them.

As shown with the current economic woes, "those fucks" in the street would not be the CEOs, board members, or Presidents of companies.

"Those fucks" would be the innocent employees of the failed companies who are now jobless, and the thousands of people whose mortgages are fucked because of the actions of said executives.

In short, the punishment is not meted out among the criminals, but rather the victims.

and the banks wouldnt have failed like they did with a reserve requirement closer to sanity.

the overleveraging wouldnt have been possible.

Are you serious? Did you even study the way it was all done?

Okay, honest question. Have you done your own homework or are you a parrot as far as this goes?

I've done a LOT of reading, but I can't have read everything.  

I'm always open to new sources of info.

Okay, bear with me a moment.

Free market fails in Somalia. You say the are doing it wrong.
Tariff (NAFTA) failed. You say they are doing it wrong.

Deregulation in the financial industry failed. You say they are doing it wrong.

Every example that is proven as a failure of what you want is written off as 'they are doing it wrong'.

Perhaps....well....could it be the ideas that are wrong?