Believers in free markets are fighting back. - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-09-2009, 06:44 PM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Believers in free markets are fighting back.

Quote:

Believers in free markets are fighting back
Regulation not greed has pushed banks to the edge of ruinEamonn Butler
“If you bound the arms and legs of gold-medal swimmer Michael Phelps, weighed him down with chains, threw him in a pool and he sank, you wouldn't call it a ‘failure of swimming'. So, when markets have been weighted down by inept and excessive regulation, why call this a ‘failure of capitalism'?”

That view, expressed by the George Mason University professor Peter Boettke, found much favour among the free-market eggheads who assembled in New York this weekend to discuss the financial crisis. Up to now the Keynesians have made the running. Greed, they say, has brought down the world economy. Only massive public spending can revive it. And with the Masters of the Universe now gasping on the floor, the G20 summit in April will give them a final kick in the tax havens. That'll teach them.

But now the believers in free markets and small government have regrouped. The meeting was called by the Mont Pelerin Society, founded in 1947 to preserve liberal ideas. Early members included Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek and George Stigler. Their view - as expressed by The Ascent of Money author Niall Ferguson - is that capitalism isn't dead, though the global banking regulations embodied in Basle 2 should be. It took regulators ten years to perfect Basle 2, but far from making things safer for bank customers, it pushed banks to the brink of ruin
.


Believers in free markets are fighting back | Eamonn Butler - Times Online

Actually, on reading it properly this article is kind of shite and full of logical fallacies and leaps of faith- see if you can spot them.

I could write a better article in defense of the free market meself.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 03:31 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Ok, cause I was under the impression you started the thread because you agreed with these people.

I can't be bothered reading more than the bits you quoted.

That said, the one fallacy that keeps, I say, keeps, coming back to whup me upside the head, is this:

are we to believe the bankers, the captains of finance, are little children who cannot exercise any judgment or wisdom of their own? Oh, if the regulations are structured wrong (or whatever), they'll just run us all into the ground? Is that it?

I don't buy it.

I am a novice, but if anything, had the vague impression that the regulatory yoke on the movement of money had, if anything, eased over the last thirty years.

Is this another meme to make someone look good? Another 'Roosevelt=fascist' line?
__________________

__________________
Kieran McConville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 08:33 AM   #3
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:40 PM
Didn't make it past the second sentence of the title in the article before thinking wtf.

I found this a good synopsis of the effect of specific deregulation policy decisions on competition and consolidation in the finance industry.

Anatomy of the financial crisis

Barry Eichengreen
23 September 2008

Getting out of our current financial mess requires understanding how we got into it in the first place. The dominant explanation, voiced by figures as diverse as Thomas Friedman and John McCain, is that the fundamental cause was greed and corruption on Wall Street. Though not one to deny the existence of base motives in the institutional investor community, I would insist that the crisis has roots in key policy decisions stretching back over more than three decades.

At the domestic level, the key decisions in the United States were to deregulate commissions for stock trading in the 1970s and then to eliminate the Glass-Steagall restrictions on mixing commercial and investment banking in the 1990s. In the days of fixed commissions, investment banks could make a comfortable living booking stock trades for their customers. Deregulation meant greater competition, entry by low-cost brokers like Charles Schwab, and thinner margins. The elimination of Glass-Steagall then allowed commercial banks to encroach on the investment banks’ other traditional preserves. (It was not only commercial banks of course, but also insurance companies like AIG that did the encroaching.)

In response, investment banks to survive were forced to branch into new lines of business like originating and distributing complex derivative securities. They were forced to use more leverage, funding themselves through the money market, to sustain their profitability. Thereby arose the first set of causes of the crisis: the originate-and-distribute model of securitisation and the extensive use of leverage.

It is important to note that these were unintended consequences of basically sensible policy decisions. It is hard to defend rules allowing price fixing in stock trading. Deregulation allowed small investors to trade stocks more cheaply, which made them better, off other things equal. But other things were not equal. In particular, the fact that investment banks, which were propelled into riskier activities by these policy changes, were entirely outside the regulatory net was a recipe for disaster.

Similarly, eliminating Glass-Steagall was a fundamentally sensible choice. Conglomeratisation allows financial institutions to better diversify their business. Combining with commercial banking allows investment banks to fund their operations using a relatively stable base of deposits rather than relying on fickle money markets. This model has proven its viability in Germany and other European countries over a period of centuries. These advantages are evident in the United States even now, with Bank of America’s purchase of Merrill Lynch, which is one small step helping to staunch the bleeding.

Again, however, the problem was that other policies were not adapted to the new environment. Conglomeratisation takes time. In the short run, Merrill, like the other investment banks, was allowed to lever up its bets. It remained outside the purview of the regulators. As a self-standing entity, it was then vulnerable to inevitable swings in housing and securities markets. A crisis sufficient to threaten the entire financial system was required to precipitate the inevitable conglomeratisation.

The other key element in the crisis was the set of policies giving rise to global imbalances. The Bush Administration cut taxes, causing government dissaving. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates in response to the 2001 recession. All the while the financial innovations described above worked to make credit even cheaper and more widely available to households. This of course is just the story, in another guise, of the subprime, negative-amortization and NINJA mortgages pushed by subsidiaries of the like of Lehman Brothers. The result was increased U.S. consumer spending and the decline of measured household savings into negative territory.

Of equal importance were the rise of China and the decline of investment in much of Asia following the 1997-8 crisis. With China saving nearly 50 per cent of its GNP, all that money had to go somewhere. Much of it went into U.S. Treasuries and the obligations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This propped up the dollar. It reduced the cost of borrowing for U.S. households by, on some estimates, 100 basis points, encouraging them to live beyond their means. It created a more buoyant market for Freddie and Fannie and other financial institutions creating close substitutes for their agency securities, feeding the originate-and-distribute machine.

Again, these were not outright policy mistakes. The emergence of China is a good thing. Lifting a billion Chinese out of poverty is arguably the single most important event in our lifetimes. The fact that the Fed responded quickly to the collapse of the high-tech bubble prevented the 2001 recession from becoming worse. But there were unintended consequences. Those adverse consequences were aggravated by the failure of U.S. regulators to tighten capital and lending standards when abundant capital inflows combined with loose Fed policies to ignite a ferocious credit boom. They were aggravated by the failure of China to move more quickly to encourage higher domestic spending commensurate with its higher incomes.

Now we are all paying the price. As financial problems surface, a bloated financial sector is being forced to retrench. Some cases, like the marriage of BofA and Merrill, are happier than others, like Lehman. But either way there will be downsizing and consolidation. Foreign central banks like China’s are suffering immense capital losses for their unthinking investment. As the People’s Bank and other foreign central banks absorb their losses on U.S. Treasury and agency securities, capital flows toward the United States will diminish. The U.S. current account deficit and Asian surplus will shrink. U.S. households will have to begin saving again. All this is of a piece.

The one anomaly is that the dollar has strengthened in recent weeks against pretty much every currency out there. (The one exception is the yen, which is being supported by Mrs. Watanabe keeping more of her money at home.) With the U.S. no longer viewed as a supplier of high-quality financial assets and the appetite of foreign central banks for U.S. treasury and agency securities falling off, one would expect the dollar to weaken. The dollar’s strength reflects the reflex action of investors rushing into U.S. treasuries as a safe haven. It is worth recalling that the same thing happened in early August 2007, when the Subprime Crisis first erupted. Once investors realised the extent of U.S. financial problems, the rush into treasuries subsided, and the dollar resumed its decline. Now, as investors recall the extent of U.S. financial problems – and even more so as they realise the U.S. Treasury debt is going to rise significantly as the authorities are forced to recapitalise the banking system – we will again see the dollar resume its ongoing decline.

Emphasising greed and corruption as causes of the crisis leads to a bleak prognosis. We are not going to change human nature. We can’t make investors less greedy or to prevent them from cutting corners when they see doing so as in their self interest. But emphasising policy decisions as the mechanism amplifying these problems into a threat to the entire financial system suggests a more optimistic outlook. Policy mistakes may not always be avoidable. Unintended consequences cannot always be prevented. But they at least can be corrected. Correcting them, however, requires first looking more deeply into the root causes of the problem.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 04:18 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Obama is declaring war on business and private sector innovation. He seems to think all stockholders are rich, forgetting about middle class investments. I think he is batshit crazy.
__________________
Oregoropa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 04:43 PM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:40 AM
i think that when we use religious-y words to describe the free market, we've become batshit crazy as a society.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 05:31 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think that when we use religious-y words
we've become batshit crazy as a society.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 07:49 PM   #7
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Here's what I want to know, in the existence of humanity, is this economic system, capitalism, the free market whatever really the best way we can go about creating wealth or increasing quality of life on this planet? I mean is this really the best thing we can come up with, watching some numbers go up and down, based on speculation from moment to moment by a relatively small group of people, who seem to wield way too much power in how our lives are governed? Can we not create something better? This is what I don't get.
__________________
LJT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 08:51 PM   #8
The Fly
 
Hobo13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sunny San Diego
Posts: 72
Local Time: 06:40 AM
Well, it beats Communism. And if we did'nt have to spend so much money defending ourselves life would be a little better... perhaps.
__________________
Hobo13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 08:55 PM   #9
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 02:40 PM
No doubt, I just don't get the reliance on something so random.
__________________
LJT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 09:13 PM   #10
The Fly
 
Hobo13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sunny San Diego
Posts: 72
Local Time: 06:40 AM
If you're talking about defense, it's still a dangerous world.
__________________
Hobo13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 09:23 PM   #11
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 02:40 PM
no not defence just our economic system in principle...I get the need for defence.
__________________
LJT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 09:44 PM   #12
The Fly
 
Hobo13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sunny San Diego
Posts: 72
Local Time: 06:40 AM
I don't mind capitalism. It's the greed that disturbs me. You got it right about the small group of people and the power. Unfortunately,power is not easily given up.
__________________
Hobo13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 11:21 AM   #13
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJT View Post
No doubt, I just don't get the reliance on something so random.


it's sad to see your faith in the free markets wavering. perhaps you need to watch more CNBC to reaffirm why it is you believed in them in the first place, and then you can head to Wall Street and dunk your head into the East River so that you're faith in capitalism is born again (and again and again).

sing your heart out!
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2009, 06:14 PM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LJT View Post
Here's what I want to know, in the existence of humanity, is this economic system, capitalism, the free market whatever really the best way we can go about creating wealth or increasing quality of life on this planet? I mean is this really the best thing we can come up with, watching some numbers go up and down, based on speculation from moment to moment by a relatively small group of people, who seem to wield way too much power in how our lives are governed? Can we not create something better? This is what I don't get.


There's nothing better than being free.


"Hi Ho, Hi Ho, its off to work we go."
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2009, 10:29 PM   #15
LJT
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
LJT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Belfast
Posts: 5,039
Local Time: 02:40 PM
It's not really freedom when we seem so chained to the whims of so few, based on something as obtuse as random guesses.
__________________

__________________
LJT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com