Let's Put the Conservative Market Theory to Bed for Good, Shall We?

I really don't see you making a good case here. I don't think conservatives have ever really pushed for complete hands off of the markets. There is a significant difference between letting a herd graze where it wants to and not making sure it doesn't stampede when it gets panicked. Consider the latest situation. I know there are a lot of people who are shouting "It's a bailout." If you had $100 stock that you got $2 for, rich or poor, you would hardly call it a bailout. If you were employed (and had that same stock as a basis for your retirement plan) and now you might not be that is hardly a bailout. I would say, all in all the market played out just right and caveat emptor.

In one sense you should never have your hands completely off the markets, not as long as there exist people who follow the teachings of P.T. Barnum. The solution could equally be one of openness as well as that of regulation. The so called conservative market theory requires markets to be both free and open; in practice they are neither.

Let us be frank here, the stock market is a form of legalized gambling. Yet within the market not everything is a gamble. In a free and open system you would know which instruments are safe, which are risky and be able to determine your best and most logical path to your goal. But when instruments are misrepresented the system needs both correction and compassion to the people who bought in good faith. Would you use the same lack of compassion to those who bought lead contaminated toys for their children before the scandal was made known?

Regulation is needed to keep the system free and open. Regulation is not needed for the sake of regulation, or to keep smart people from making more than the not so smart.

I have to agree with Christopher B. here............your case is weak.

The Laissez-faire capitalism that you speak of is not Conservative economics. Laissez-faire economics hasn't been used in years.

Conservative economics focuses on :

- smaller government
- less regulation
- lower taxes
- stronger states, weaker Federal government
- strong defense
- secure borders/enforced immigration laws
- low interest rates
- free trade
- high levels of home ownership
- low inflation
- a strong currency
- solid trade agreements

If you don't like any of that, then you're just looking for a handout.

Actually, it more like a loan at this point as well, though it could sour into a loss for taxpayers it's not expected too with the buyout from another company according to the news.

Sounds to me like a bunch of tripe. You all have had your way for eight years, and now you're bailing out a giant firm, totally against everything you all preach. That's not hands off the market, that's oh, my God, the big boys are suffering, so let's change the frickin rules, because, well, because. You guys are pathetic. While it was just the consumers cashing in their chips, no one was yelling bailout. Your whole model is a house of cards.

Though it could SOUR? LOL, if the chance to nail the taxpayer is there, it WILL sour, bet your a** on it.

Cristopher,
Of course I have compassion for the little guy, but you all never have, till the big guy got hurt, give it a rest, your model is exposed for what it is, BS.

Your ilk passed a very draconian credit bill, that had absolutely no compassion, even though a large part of Bankruptcies was proven to be caused by health episodes, and none of you had compassion for the little guy, but on this, we're supposed to, and the only reason, obviously, is because the conservative model was never supposed to apply to the elite getting crushed in the market, only the middle and lower classes. Pathetic.

You're operating under the fallacy that the economic policies that have been applied have anything at all to do with free market laissez faire. The policies we've had for the last 8 years are bascially the same as the ones we've had for the last 80.

Here's the thing: Republican politicians like to apply the rhetoric of "free markets" and capitalism, but they never actually mean it. Just the fact that banks and big corporations are getting balied out, in itself, cancels out any honest use of the term "free market" being applied here. You don't see that?

It is not free market capitalism that has gotten into this mess, because we have not had free market capitalism in this country since the New Deal, at the latest, but the devolution into socialism began with the Federal Reserve Act and Income Tax Act of 1914.

Today, we have full-blown socialist central planning; complete with wage controls, price-fixing, subsidies for business big and small, bailouts, protectionist tariffs all over the place, oppressive taxation, competition-stifling regulation and bureaucratic regimentation, amd state-sanctioned cartels in the pharmaceutical industry, weapons manufacturing industry, and the mother of all Marxist planned-economy stalwarts; the partnership between the government and the central-banking cartel, with the monopoly control over the nations money supply, a fiat money system based on debt, fractional-reserve banking, artificial manipulation of interest rates, and regimentation of the entire nations banking system.

How the hell do you blame what's happening now on "free markets?" Are you kidding me?

It is not a lack of government intervention thats destroying our economy, its the presence of it!

The problem is that Republican politicians and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have their half of the country convinced that we have free market capitalism, and that half is just economically illiterate enough to believe it, and they know from listening to Rush that they're supposed to like free markets, so they don't complain about whats happening. Then the Democrat politicians and Naomi Klein and Paul Krugman have their half of the country believing that what we have is free market capitalism, and they're just gullible enough to believe it, and they can see that things are screwed up, so naturally they denounce free market capitalism and demand more government intervention, which is the cause of the problem to begin with!!

What a mess!

Free, unfettered markets produce a natural equilibrium; costs and prices, wages and profits, supply and demand, capital investment and interest, consumption and savings; all this operates on a natural and self-adjusting rhythm. Because when all people are left free and uncoerced, to produce, trade, buy, sell, and invest, according to nothing but their own self-interest, only mutually-desired transactions are made, because the government is not there as a third-party to every transaction, using the force fo law to stifle competition, deny the presence of free enterprise, or provide special protection, privelege, or advantage for anyone.

In a free market, if a bank went under due to fraud and mismanagement, there would be no bailout. Only the honest banks would survive. Of course, if there was no government intervention to coerce people into using and accepting worthless paper fiat money that a central banking cartel prints from out of thin air inflating at will, then our current boom-bust cycle economy wouldn't be possible.

Read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson," or Gene Callahan's "Economics for Real People." One of them ought to set you straight.

" You're operating under the fallacy that the economic policies that have been applied have anything at all to do with free market laissez faire. The policies we've had for the last 8 years are bascially the same as the ones we've had for the last 80.

Here's the thing: Republican politicians like to apply the rhetoric of "free markets" and capitalism, but they never actually mean it. Just the fact that banks and big corporations are getting balied out, in itself, cancels out any honest use of the term "free market" being applied here. You don't see that?"

Duh? My point exactly, Steve Bachman. The idiocy of the Conservative spiel is just that.

As for true conservative economics, Even stupider stuff. All I know is you idiots have had your head for eight years, and the results are a hypocritical mess. I don't want to become an economist, and don't need to to know total hypocrisy when I see it. Baffle someone else with BS, I'm not buying it, you all are just running with any excuse you can, at this point.

There are some conservatives who do advocate little or no control over businesses, and I don't think this is always a good thing; I think it can lead to things like price gouging and other forms of cheating. although I do think captalism is prefferable, I also don't think that it should be totally unregulated either.

Thanks Ellen. I think the same, I just get tired of the hypocrisy around here.

"I don't want to become an economist, and don't need to to know total hypocrisy when I see it."

Not only do you not "want to become an economist," but clearly you would rather just remain completely ignorant of economics in general, but still retain the audacity to accuse others of "BS" or of being a hypocrite.

If you could direct me to one thing I wrote that qualifies as "hypocrisy," then I would oblige you from your blissful ignorance.

It would probably be fruitless effort, though, as clearly you have your mind made up that you know everything even though you'll admit to knowing nothing.

I do find it utterly amazing, though, the sheer gullibility of so many people these days.
Surely everyone can see that the government has taken on the responsibility of controlling interest rates, credit expansion, aggregate money supply, regulating business, licensing, subsidizing, redistributing wealth, bailing out banks and corporations, managing international trade through arbitrary tariff manipulations and quotas; leaving absolutely nothing to the freedom and self-interest of individuals. And yet, when it all falls apart; when the economy is teetering on the edge and people are losing their asses and its about to collapse; it's blame the "free market!" "We need more government controls!"

Unbelievable.

My question is how many banks will the Feds have to supply "emergency funding"?

With the housing market still taking a dive, and credit impossible to get .......

who's next?

Excuuuse me, Mr. Bachman, but weren't you the one telling me what I believed? Now I'm unbelievable? I think you assume a bit too much, like that I could give a sh*t what you think about anything, much less economics. Conservatives have been putting out hooey on this free markets crap for as long as they've been in the politics business. You're all just a front for the big business, big elite sphere. We've had more than enough from you all, so don't tell me any more crap about how what you've done just wasn't enough, we should do more. We've done quite enough to bankrupt a whole class of the middle class with this open market crap, and no one gave a rats a** till the big boys started feeling the heat. Crawl back under your "Free Market" rock, and don't bother those of us that have to clean up your mess, ok?

You're an idiot.

You can't blame the mess we're in right now on free markets because we haven't had free markets. Apparently you're too stupid to grasp that concept, even after I've gone out of my to try and spell it out for you. Actually, you have claimed to realize this truth, but then in your very next sentence you revert back to referring to "conservative economics" as though it were *free market economics*.

So-called "conservative" politicians do not *really* believe in free markets. They believe in intervening to help an elite class bleed the rest of us.
The so-called "conservatives" who continue to vote for them do so because they are gullible and ignorant, not because they have ostensible understanding of the actual forces at work.

The reality is that our present economic crisis has been brought about completely by a state-sanctioned banking cartel that plunders the public via a hidden wealth redistribution scam called inflation, that is 100% a product of government intervention, not free individuals and businesses acting on the free market.
The whole sordid system is made worse because of the encumbering obstacles put into the path of genuine free enterprise and capital formation and job growth, by the government's own regulatory agencies.

This is not my opinion or "conservative" ideology or ideology of any kind, it is simple fact. You would do well to take some time and learn about it; you might find a little bit of knowledge about the things that obviously piss you off so much to be gratifying.

I've tried to be nice and point you in the right direction so you wouldn' be such an ignoramus lashing out at illusions that are put in front of you by politicians and elitist-controlled media to misdirect and deceive you.
They got you right where they want you, and you're too much of an ass to take the time to figure any of it out. You'd rather call people names who are trying to help you out.

Denouncing freedom and demanding the government do something to stop it is exactly what they want you to do; and you and so many others keep falling for it, over and over and over.
But the lack of freedom and government control of our economic life is exactly what is the problem.

And since government intervention and the government's central bank is exactly what has caused this mess, and I'm the one who is advocating freedom; how do you rationalize calling this "my" mess? Aren't you the one who is demanding more of the same?

I've taken the liberty to check on your stuff, and I admit, you aren't what I thought you were, another lousey Bushiter, but then, you're the one supporting Ron Paul, and I'm the idiot? Good Luck with that, and as for all the personal attacks, KMA, di**head, like I give a sh*t what your misguided a** thinks about anything.

Ron Paul is as much of a crackpot as Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards. But at least he raised a ton of money. I give him credit for at least doing that.

"Sounds to me like a bunch of tripe. You all have had your way for eight years, and now you're bailing out a giant firm, totally against everything you all preach."

Then maybe we should elect a full-time Conservative, instead of a part-time one, like this President. If we could accomplish that, Liberal politicians wouldn't advance past the dog-catcher level....LOL.

Oh, pulleze. You all have had your day in the sun (eight years of days) to prove yourselves, and you have, obviously, already wrecked the economy, and now you want do overs? Not hardly. Your credibility is soo over. Suck eggs, Burt.

PONHROS -

After recent events, Liberal politics are on the way out again. Obama is in trouble, and Hillary is still apologizing. Meanwhile, the only Centrist in this race is over in Iraq and Jordan (talking with King Abdullah).

I've been watching the Obama numbers tank this week on Nielsen, Rasmussen, RealClearPolitics, and every other poll that matters. He's no "rock star" any more.

Rock star or not, and I think that may change again, with all the kudos he's getting for his speech on race, the next president will be either him or Hill, you can count on that. When they get old doddering McBush in front of the cameras talking about bombing Iran, or expanding the War on Terror, a joke, at this point, it should be called a War of Error, McBushycakes hasn't got a prayer with either.

PONHROS -

Well I've been watching Liberal politics for many years, and one thing rings true every time : once you're down, you're out. Liberals tend to eat their own.

I would prefer the two experienced candidates go up against each other. Obama was just a distraction. He may still prove a thorn in Hillary's side in Denver, but his days are numbered now...............Race speech or not.

Not likely.

Have you been watching Obama's numbers plummet in the past week?

Rasmussen has him down 7 points.
CBS has him down 5.
RealClearPolitics has him down 5.

It looks more likely than ever.

We'll see. Either way they are both better than McBush.

I see Hillary and McCain as the Centrists, with Hillary as a slightly Left-Centrist and McCain as a slightly Right-Centrist. That's after examining both their websites and comparing that data to the NY Times comparison on each of issues they did last Sunday in the Politics section. I think its a fairly accurate comparison.

But both are better than the nutty Leftist BS of Obama.

"Ron Paul is as much of a crackpot as Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards."

Yeah I agree. Did he seriously think enough people in this country would actually really want freedom? What a crackpot.

Why in the world would people want a guy who actually believes in the Constitution to be President, when they can stick with the status quo, and get platitudes and meaningless slogans? Why would anyone want to try liberty, when we can continue to be plundered by banksters and forced to pay a tax on life, to fund an expansive, intrusive welfare-warfare state that sucks up about half of the fruits of everyone's labor?

Man, that Ron Paul guy needs to get a clue.

Mr. Bachman,
There are things about Paul that are good, but to embrace him for those, and disregard the considerable bad, is something I could never do. Perhaps if you don't have that kind of baggage, and you can get that temper under control, you should run, at some point in the future, and I might be able to support you.

"Conservative economics focuses on :

- smaller government
- less regulation
- lower taxes
- stronger states, weaker Federal government
- strong defense
- secure borders/enforced immigration laws
- low interest rates
- free trade
- high levels of home ownership
- low inflation
- a strong currency
- solid trade agreements"

Yeah okay. I guess thats why after 28 years of "conservative" dominance in government, we have:

- the biggest, most intrusive, most costly government ever in the history of the world
- more bureaucracy than ever before
- huge deficits
- record national debt increasing at ever-accelerating rate
- overworked military in shambles, from pointless wars of aggression and world-policing
- non-existent borders/non-enforced immigration laws
- disasterous boom/bust cycles from interest rate manipulation
- managed trade with high tariffs and special advantage for priveleged interests
- record foreclosures with home owners being mulcted by predatory banking cartel
- dollar being destroyed, while the FED plunders money-holders to bail out JP Morgan (a FED stockholder, btw)
- weakest dollar ever (wiping out middle class and fixed-income earners)

Not to mention, Bret, you're "conservative economics" enumeration is self-contradicting in many respects. While the only true economic policy to achieve any of the positive things you listed is "get the government out of the economy," I'll remain realistic and recognize that politicians will never agree to that; so when a "conservative economics" policy is attempted via central planning, government cannot possibly intervene in the economy to produce "strong defense" (in the sense that conservatives think of "strong defense," anyhow) and still have "smaller government," "stronger states" and "low taxes." And when government tries to have "strong defense" and "low taxes" at the same time, there is no possible way you will have "low inflation" and "strong currency."
And you especially cannot force artificial "low interest rates" and hope to retain "low inflation" and "strong currency."

Conservatives are no better than so-called liberals in this regard. Central economic planning is central economic planning, no matter which party is doing it and no matter what the stated purpose of the planning is. And no matter what the stated ends of central planning are, it always ends up the same way: in disaster for the many, and riches for the few.

Free markets (that means no arbitrary government planning at all) are the only way scarce resources are allocated in a rational manner that results in real growth and prosperity for the most people.

Steve Bachman -

"Yeah okay. I guess thats why after 28 years of "conservative" dominance in government, we have.............."

Nope.

We have all those negatives because we've had Presidents who didn't understand economics. We also had Presidents who were only "part-time" Conservatives. This isn't a buffet where you can take what you want, and leave what you don't want.

Economics is like a recipe. Put in enough yeast, and the bread will rise.................not enough and it won't. Unfortunately, we've put in the wrong ingredients in the wrong amounts. Then, when the bread tastes like crap, we blame in on the economists......lol.

And Steve, I'll take Ron Paul over Kucinich or Edwards any day.

I actually liked a few of his policies. His problem was in his presentation. He just isn't a good salesman of his ideas. Maybe a little repackaging?

I totally agree with this article. The market should always decide who succeeds. The fact is that if the government didn't bail these industries out, they would figure out how to profit on their own. CEOs would truly be responsible or they would die.

I mean their careers would die.

ITs not that the presidents didn't understand economics, Bret. Its just that they didn't care. They wanted guns and butter, and they were determined to have both, no matter what it cost the average American worker, businessman and investor.
They've all known full well what they were doing. They just didn't give a rats ass.

Why would thyey? Its not like they are the ones who suffer from their own policies. Their kids aren't getting shot up in the Middle East enforcing some misguided geopolitical life-size game of "Risk." They are not the ones who actually have to pay off the national debt that they accrue. We are. The tax-payers are. They and all their priveleged cronies get to be tax-consumers their whole lives. Their bankster partners get to profit from us being put in debt.

Do you not see a perverse set of incentives here? Why in the world would any cognizant person not vote for Ron Paul? He's the only one who even recognized the roots of our problems, let alone offered solutions for them!

Man, I feel like I live in the Twilight Zone sometimes.

How is old Rod, anyway? lol.