Comments on: Don’t Blame Free Markets, They Never Existed http://www.bearishnews.com/post/1666 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:38:35 +0000 hourly 1 By: Capitalism Debate by thehappycynic - Pearltrees http://www.bearishnews.com/post/1666/comment-page-1#comment-4033 Capitalism Debate by thehappycynic - Pearltrees Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:39:06 +0000 http://www.bearishnews.com/?p=1666#comment-4033 [...] she’s too honest and sharp to be appointed to a position where she could have some impact. Laissez Faire Economic Policies and Financial Crises home • contact • blog • fb • twitter to experience pearltrees [...] [...] she’s too honest and sharp to be appointed to a position where she could have some impact. Laissez Faire Economic Policies and Financial Crises home • contact • blog • fb • twitter to experience pearltrees [...]

]]> By: Ted Gemberling http://www.bearishnews.com/post/1666/comment-page-1#comment-2442 Ted Gemberling Sat, 12 Feb 2011 01:28:53 +0000 http://www.bearishnews.com/?p=1666#comment-2442 Mr. Sharp, Your analysis seems to assume that markets should never be regulated. Like anything else in life, regulation can be done badly and worsen the situation. For example, no one denies that errors in regulation made the Gulf Oil Spill more likely. They rewarded and punished the wrong behaviors. But this is no argument that regulation couldn't have prevented the spill. The best examples I know of for this are the two notorious nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. It seems the best explanation of why the first was less serious was that the American nuclear industry was regulated while the Soviet one wasn't, or barely. Or take a look at the big earthquakes in Haiti and Chile last year. The Chile earthquake was actually of much higher magnitude, but the damage was limited because Chile’s building industry was highly regulated. Haiti today really shows the fruits of deregulation: it hasn’t recovered after over a year. Mr. Sharp,
Your analysis seems to assume that markets should never be regulated. Like anything else in life, regulation can be done badly and worsen the situation. For example, no one denies that errors in regulation made the Gulf Oil Spill more likely. They rewarded and punished the wrong behaviors. But this is no argument that regulation couldn’t have prevented the spill.

The best examples I know of for this are the two notorious nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. It seems the best explanation of why the first was less serious was that the American nuclear industry was regulated while the Soviet one wasn’t, or barely.

Or take a look at the big earthquakes in Haiti and Chile last year. The Chile earthquake was actually of much higher magnitude, but the damage was limited because Chile’s building industry was highly regulated. Haiti today really shows the fruits of deregulation: it hasn’t recovered after over a year.

]]> By: Paul Monica, Shut Up About Goldman Sachs http://www.bearishnews.com/post/1666/comment-page-1#comment-1347 Paul Monica, Shut Up About Goldman Sachs Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:25:37 +0000 http://www.bearishnews.com/?p=1666#comment-1347 [...] Glass-Steagall was enacted to prevent banks from gambling with other people’s money. Throughout history banks have always gotten greedy and put customer funds at risk. Unless they are outlawed from doing so, as Glass-Steagall largely did. And please don’t blame “free markets” for bank schemes. This is an issue of decriminalization, not deregulation. [...] [...] Glass-Steagall was enacted to prevent banks from gambling with other people’s money. Throughout history banks have always gotten greedy and put customer funds at risk. Unless they are outlawed from doing so, as Glass-Steagall largely did. And please don’t blame “free markets” for bank schemes. This is an issue of decriminalization, not deregulation. [...]

]]> By: misanthropope http://www.bearishnews.com/post/1666/comment-page-1#comment-1059 misanthropope Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:33:54 +0000 http://www.bearishnews.com/?p=1666#comment-1059 i think your headline makes a good point but your article supports it only weakly. the Fed's merits or vices are not responsible for the vanishingly small frequency of free markets. it is simply the fact that players with influence in any market will naturally have more to gain from collusion than competition. there are charges that can be laid at the feet of the central banks of the world, but "the fed is bad because the economy is manipulated because the fed is bad" is not among the strongest. the historical evidence is not overwhelming that central banks decrease stability in the economy. the present crisis, in my view at least, can be attributed more easily to the moral hazard associated with the KNOWN stabilizing effect of the fed being played too recklessly by the large financial institutions. i think your headline makes a good point but your article supports it only weakly. the Fed’s merits or vices are not responsible for the vanishingly small frequency of free markets. it is simply the fact that players with influence in any market will naturally have more to gain from collusion than competition.

there are charges that can be laid at the feet of the central banks of the world, but “the fed is bad because the economy is manipulated because the fed is bad” is not among the strongest. the historical evidence is not overwhelming that central banks decrease stability in the economy. the present crisis, in my view at least, can be attributed more easily to the moral hazard associated with the KNOWN stabilizing effect of the fed being played too recklessly by the large financial institutions.

]]>