What a convincing argument, "I'm wrong because Peter Schiff says so". If you had actually posted something specific that Peter Schiff said, then at least he could have made an argument for you, but currently, you have none. Since there is nothing to argue with, I will point out that Peter Schiff could easily be replaced with a tape recorder. He's been saying the same thing for almost 20 years, he was right once. He runs an investment company, or at least tries to, I say this because he has costed his clients as almost much money as his father has, who is currently in jail for being a lair and crook. Hopefully the same fate will soon befall his son Peter.

11/16/2010 11:25:24 AM

We've been through this probably 5 times before, and you can never back up anything you say. Are you just digging your heels into the sand at this point?

11/16/2010 1:06:33 PM

I get told that I'm wrong because "Peter Schiff said so", and I'm the one who doesn't back up what I say?

11/16/2010 1:20:14 PM

I give detailed explanations for why you're wrong. I've never deferred to Schiff in lieu of an actual argument. I have, however, defended his record from your erroneous claims that Euro Pac lost people money hand over fist. If you got into the market in 2008, yeah, maybe you lost money, but that no way proves your point.

11/16/2010 1:34:35 PM

Quote :

"I give detailed explanations for why you're wrong."

It's usually opinions, your posts rarely have any sort of hard evidence behind them, and you don't know enough economic theory to back up anything you say on the subject, so they tend to be fairly lacking.

Quote :

"I have, however, defended his record from your erroneous claims that Euro Pac lost people money hand over fist. If you got into the market in 2008, yeah, maybe you lost money, but that no way proves your point."

You haven't defended his record in this thread. I haven't ever seen you defend his record, nor has anyone else, if you look into reviews of EuroPac, they are all terrible, it's not just me saying they have terrible performance.

Here's another gem from Peter Schiff:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/16/gb.01.html
Aired August 16, 2007
BECK: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on just a second. Peter, you honestly are sitting here making the prediction that the U.S. dollar is going to collapse?

SCHIFF: Yes. I think it`s going to lose at least 50 percent of its value, maybe more.

BECK: In what time period?

SCHIFF: It could happen over the course of just a couple of years. Maybe even sooner.


It's been three years, how many more do you think it'll be? Let me guess, "a couple years, maybe sooner"?

11/16/2010 3:51:17 PM

Some pretty good reviews both for and against at this link, with Lukester being most interesting

http://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/euro-pacific-capital/

Look, he got the decoupling theme wrong and likely had clients down big percentages. The question is at what point did he abandon the trade and realize that emerging markets wouldn't decouple? He also apparently got people in large at the March bottom, but we (at least I, I'm not bothering to look into this much detail) don't know if he outpaced the S&P 500 or not.

He still could be right about the dollar, he still could be wrong. Personally, I vote to just leave Schiffs advice out of this thread as its readily available if we want to find it.

11/16/2010 7:08:14 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, the economy's bad, lets make it worse! Let's unlearn all the great things we've accomplished since 1907."

What have we accomplished? Recessions still happen, and with increasing depth and ferocity as of late. Price shocks still happen. Wealth disparity is happening.

I'm not quite sure how implementing Austrian theories is "unlearning" anything.

Maybe you posted it before in your statist manifesto, but I'm not understanding where the state is intelligent or efficient at controlling the money supply as you seem to think they are or can be.

11/16/2010 7:11:47 PM

Quote :

"Some pretty good reviews both for and against at this link"

Considering the rating is 2 out of 5, I'd say it's bad.

Quote :

"He still could be right about the dollar, he still could be wrong."

No, he was wrong. He gave a timeline, and it was wrong.

Quote :

"What have we accomplished?"

A truly free market could be easily manipulated and cornered, thankfully we don't have that.

Quote :

"I'm not understanding where the state is intelligent or efficient at controlling the money supply as you seem to think they are or can be."

You need to think about what intelligence is. The state is able to provide that intelligence, which will always have the potential to be better than without it.

11/16/2010 7:55:44 PM

Quote :

"A truly free market could be easily manipulated and cornered"

My head imploded from the irony.

Quote :

" I'd say it's bad."

Good in that, a sentient being apparently wrote them and gave more than a cursory "he lost me all my money".

Quote :

"No, he was wrong. He gave a timeline, and it was wrong."

He was wrong on the statement he gave to Beck, this is largely irrelevant to how he actually traded.

Quote :

"The state is able to provide that intelligence, which will always have the potential to be better than without it."

The State via the Fed has been trying to provide it for 87 years and hasn't done any better of a job than without it.

11/16/2010 8:41:51 PM

Btw, if this robosigner/foreclosure fraud thing is no big deal, just some paperwork messups, why are the banks trying for a SECOND time to get their fuckupsfrauds retroactively forgiven

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/11/tomorrow-congress-will-try-by-secret.html

Or, is this what you mean by "state intelligence"?

11/16/2010 9:12:56 PM

if you want to know what I meant by "intelligence", you should look it up in the dictionary.

11/17/2010 12:08:59 AM

No, I full well know what you meant. I suppose it's way easier to just be an ass than to go through with the argument you know you'll lose?

11/17/2010 6:36:45 AM

This post by Alex Tabarrok seems relevant. It seems there is no evidence that intelligence, in the form of a Government run central bank, has helped anything. Almost as if intelligence is irrelevant in the face of poor incentives.

Quote :

"2013 will mark the 100th anniversary of the Fed. What have we got for our money? Surprisingly little. Inflation is clearly higher in the post-Fed era as is price variability. Deflation is lower, although there is nothing to fear from secular deflation. Barsky, Miron, Mankiw and Weil did find that the Fed dramatically reduced seasonal interest rate variability. I have always found this result puzzling--money is easy to store and seasons are predictable so why aren't interest rates smoothed without a very elastic money supply? In anycase, it's not obvious that smoother rates are better, although there could be small gains. The big question, of course, is the variability of output. It used to be thought that output variability had decreased post-WW II but, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Romer's work (see also Miron) has shown that when measured on a consistent basis there is no substantial decline in volatility comparing pre-WW 1 to post-WW II. (Note that is generously giving the Fed a pass on the Great Depression!) Selgin, Lastrapes and White have an excellent review of the empirical literature on inflation, output and other variables and conclude: "The Federal Reserve System has not lived up to its original promise. Early in its career, it presided over both the most severe inflation and the most severe (demand-induced) deflations in post-Civil War U.S. history. Since then, it has tended to err on the side of inflation, allowing the purchasing power of the U.S.dollar to deteriorate considerably. That deterioration has not been compensated for, to any substantial degree, by enhanced stability of real output. Although some early studies suggested otherwise, recent work suggests that there has been no substantial overall improvement in the volatility of real output since the end of World War II compared to before World War I. A genuine improvement did occur during the sub-period known as the Great Moderation But that improvement, besides having been temporary, appears to have been due mainly to factors other than improved monetary policy. Finally, the Fed cannot be credited with having reduced the frequency of banking panics or with having wielded its last-resort lending powers responsibly." The Fed has surely been among the better of the central banks which would make it interesting to run a similiar analysis in other countries. "

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 9:43 AM. Reason : http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/11/has-the-fed-been-a-failure.html]

11/17/2010 9:42:29 AM

I apologize for not noticing your double post, I must have overlooked it.

Quote :

"My head imploded from the irony."

The market will be manipulated one way or another, might as well be by a body that has to answer to it's citizens.

Quote :

"Good in that, a sentient being apparently wrote them and gave more than a cursory "he lost me all my money"."

One good review in a sea of bad ones.

Quote :

"He was wrong on the statement he gave to Beck"

That was just the first one I found, Schiff is quite the pundit, it wouldn't be tough for me to find more.

11/17/2010 10:03:36 AM

Quote :

"The market will be manipulated one way or another, might as well be by a body that has to answer to it's citizens. "

Hahaha, when has the Fed ever answered to "its citizens"? How are they held accountable for their mistakes? And how exactly would a free market be manipulated?

11/17/2010 10:26:41 AM

Quote :

"How are they held accountable for their mistakes?"

Fed is accountable to the government, government is accountable to citizens.

Quote :

"And how exactly would a free market be manipulated?"

Easy, by cornering.

11/17/2010 10:56:51 AM

It's so easy that it hasn't worked in...~150yrs?

11/17/2010 11:19:15 AM

^^ Those sure are some vague answers. How is the Fed accountable to the government? They are not audited, don't really have to answer any questions, and have no real oversight.

And even if they were accountable to the government, how is the government accountable to its citizens? Who oversees them and what can be done when the citizens disagree with their policies?

Quote :

"Easy, by cornering."

Please give an example.

11/17/2010 11:28:19 AM

Quote :

"How is the Fed accountable to the government?"

I'll google that for you.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#8
The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and twice annually on its plans for monetary policy to the banking committees of Congress. Fed officials also testify before Congress when requested.

To ensure financial accountability, the financial statements of the Federal Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors are audited annually by an independent outside auditor. In addition, the Government Accountability Office, as well as the Board's Office of Inspector General, can audit Federal Reserve activities.

Quote :

"how is the government accountable to its citizens? Who oversees them and what can be done when the citizens disagree with their policies?"

We vote. That is how citizens in a democractic republic hold thier government accountable. If citizens do not agree with it's government's policies, they can vote out those officials and put in ones they do agree with.

Quote :

"Please give an example."

Let me google that for you as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornering_the_market#Historical_examples

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 11:41 AM. Reason : ]

11/17/2010 11:41:17 AM

I am aware of the supposed accountability, but I am asking about the reality. Alan Greenspan even admits that the Fed is independent and doesn't answer to any government organization. Yes, Congress could get rid of the Fed, but why would they get rid of their cash cow that allows them to buy so many votes?


And I guess I should have been more specific about the example. Please provide an example of a situation in which someone could benefit by attempting to corner a free market. What is the incentive and how would it be accomplished?

11/17/2010 12:08:48 PM

Quote :

"I am aware of the supposed accountability, but I am asking about the reality."

That is the reality. If the american citizens wanted to get rid of the Fed, they would elect a congress that would do so.

Quote :

"why would they get rid of their cash cow that allows them to buy so many votes?"

If my vote is bought, then someone owes me some checks. Unless you by bought you mean that american citizens are "bought" by the financial stability and success that the Fed provides.

Quote :

"And I guess I should have been more specific about the example. Please provide an example of a situation in which someone could benefit by attempting to corner a free market. What is the incentive and how would it be accomplished?"

I went through the trouble of googling something you easily could of yourself and you don't even bother to read it? You want me to read it to you as well? Cornering allows you to manipulate prices. If you don't undersant how that allows you to beneficial, I can't help you.

11/17/2010 1:43:41 PM

Quote :

"That is the reality. If the american citizens wanted to get rid of the Fed, they would elect a congress that would do so."

Sort of like they elected a President to end our wars and reverse the Patriot Act? Good thing the citizens have so much control. When there are thousands of issues that are important to people, do you really think any representative is going to represent all of their preferences? Not to mention that once they get in office, they are under no obligation to do what they said they would.

Quote :

"If my vote is bought, then someone owes me some checks. Unless you by bought you mean that american citizens are "bought" by the financial stability and success that the Fed provides."

You can't really be this ignorant. Votes are not bought by offering a check, they are bought by promising things such as security, better education, better health care, and other things which require lots of money to provide, especially when the organization providing them is as inefficient as the government is.

Quote :

"I went through the trouble of googling something you easily could of yourself and you don't even bother to read it? You want me to read it to you as well? Cornering allows you to manipulate prices. If you don't undersant how that allows you to beneficial, I can't help you."

Were any of the examples in that link successful in allowing the cornerer the ability to manipulate prices as you say? In many cases it seems like it ended up ruining the cornerer instead of benefitting them at all. In a truly free market with low barrier to entry, how exactly would one corner the market?

In fact, the article you link has the following to say:
Although there have been many attempts to corner markets in everything from tin to cattle, to date very few of these attempts have ever succeeded; instead, most of these attempted corners have tended to break themselves spontaneously. Edwin Lefèvre in chapter 19 of his 1923 classic Reminiscences of a Stock Operator writes very few of the great corners were profitable to the engineers of them.[citation needed] The party attempting to corner a market can become very vulnerable due to the size of their position, especially if their attempt becomes widely known. If the rest of the market senses weakness, it may resist any attempt to artificially drive the market any further by actively taking opposing positions. When the price starts to move against the cornerer, they are in a very difficult position, as it is likely to be impossible to exit much of their position without catastrophically moving prices against themselves. In such a situation, many other parties will be able to profit from the cornerer's need to unwind their position.

11/17/2010 2:01:43 PM

Quote :

"Sort of like they elected a President to end our wars and reverse the Patriot Act?"

Chances are that's not the main reason they elected him. But if it was the only reason, then he will not be elected again, and they will elect someone who will. And this is what we are talking about when we say "some level of accountability".

Quote :

"When there are thousands of issues that are important to people, do you really think any representative is going to represent all of their preferences?"

People don't agree on everything, a representative will only try and represent what most believe. And you're taking issue with democracy and republics? Because I'll readily admit that they suck, they are just way better than any of the alternatives.

Quote :

"they are bought by promising things such as security, better education, better health care, and other things "

That's not "buying their votes", that's called "doing what the voters want them to".

Quote :

"Were any of the examples in that link successful in allowing the cornerer the ability to manipulate prices as you say? "

Yes, they were, please read the link.

Quote :

"In many cases it seems like it ended up ruining the cornerer instead of benefitting them at all."

I didn't say it was easy. The fact is that the market can be, and is, manipulated. That was the point I was making, and I believe I've proven it.

11/17/2010 3:11:00 PM

Quote :

"Chances are that's not the main reason they elected him. But if it was the only reason, then he will not be elected again, and they will elect someone who will. And this is what we are talking about when we say "some level of accountability"."

Oh... yay, we get to try again every four years to hope that we can get what we want accomplished. I guess you're right when you say "some level of accountability", if you just mean ever so slightly more than 0, but not enough to effectively have any control.

Quote :

"That's not "buying their votes", that's called "doing what the voters want them to"."

Yes, doing what the voters want them to do using other peoples' money to do it. The point is, it takes money to "do what the voters want", and this money must come from somewhere. If they were not able to print it, it would make this process much more difficult. The Fed is good for government, and government is good for the Fed. They're just not much good for us.

Quote :

"I didn't say it was easy. The fact is that the market can be, and is, manipulated. That was the point I was making, and I believe I've proven it."

I read the link, and have still yet to see a case that really strengthens your position, let alone proves it. Please specify which case you think proves your point.

11/17/2010 4:23:55 PM

Quote :

"I guess you're right when you say "some level of accountability", if you just mean ever so slightly more than 0"

And I guess you are wrong when you say the government is not accountable to anyone, as if an administration could do something like remove social security or double taxes without facing the consequences. You say the government has no accountability because it doesn't do the things that you want it to, but the fact is that it is held very accountable by it's citizens. Perhaps not on tiny issues that the public is fairly divided over, but on significant important topics, the government has a very large level of accountability.

Quote :

"Yes, doing what the voters want them to do using other peoples' money to do it."

It's the voter's money, they can do what they want with it. The only people who could claim this are felons.

Quote :

"I read the link, and have still yet to see a case that really strengthens your position, let alone proves it."

My statement was that the market could and has been cornered, my link proved that. The statement that it hasn't been done a lot since the mid 1800's is valid, but in a considerable part due to the fact that the government has put forth efforts to stop the cornering of markets and the development of monopolies.

11/17/2010 5:41:13 PM

Kris, again I think you are intelligent which is why your positions are baffling to me.

Maybe it's just genetic or something and you can't help it.

If you want to live your life as an ideologue that refuses to be grounded in reality go ahead. It's a fruitless venture though.

There are millions of "educated" people that don't know dick. Do you really want to be lumped in with these people? Economics professors at Harvard aren't rich because they spend their time all day brainwashing people with false ideology instead of participating in the real world.

11/17/2010 7:28:18 PM

Quote :

"It's the voter's money, they can do what they want with it."

Wait, so if I don't want to support the war and want to opt out of social security, I don't have to pay for those things? Can I get my money back for the bailouts while we're at it? I didn't realize that I got to do what I want with my money, I thought if I did what I wanted with it I would be imprisoned. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote :

"My statement was that the market could and has been cornered, my link proved that."

Except that if none of the examples of "cornering" that you can come up with A) achieve the desired result of allowing the cornerer to manipulate the market, and B) occur under a free market, then your original point that a free market can be manipulated has not been proven at all. So I'm still waiting for a specific example.

11/17/2010 11:00:27 PM

Quote :

"Wait, so if I don't want to support the war and want to opt out of social security, I don't have to pay for those things?"

I said "the voters" not "each voter"

Quote :

"Except that if none of the examples of "cornering" that you can come up with A) achieve the desired result of allowing the cornerer to manipulate the market"

But there were examples, did you read the link?

Quote :

"So I'm still waiting for a specific example."

I gave you specific examples, but apparently you can't read a link so fine, here's a list.

Harlem Railroad - 08/24/1863 AND 05/17/1864
Prairie du Chien Railroad - 11/06/1865
Michigan Southern Railroad - 04/04/1866
Erie Railroads - 11/16/1868
Northwestern Railroad - 11/23/1872
Northern Pacific Railroad - 05/09/1901
Piggly Wiggly - 03/20/1923
RCA - 03/13/1928

Those are a few of the biggest examples, but there are far more.

[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 11:28 PM. Reason : ]

11/17/2010 11:27:27 PM

Odd. we had a government for every single one of the instances you mention. I guess Government fails to achieve the good you claim it does. More importantly, if I remember right, for a few of those you mention the Government was instrumental in the fraud.

Quote :

"Next, the battle shifted to the legislatures of New York and New Jersey, where agents for each side generously spread around bribe money, hoping for favorable legislation. Gould himself appeared in Albany, carrying a trunk that was, the New York Herald reported, "stuffed with thousand-dollar bills which are to be used for some mysterious purpose in connection with legislation." "

Had the legislature not existed or had its power constrained in some way, it could not have been bribed.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 9:54 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/18/2010 9:44:17 AM

So are you talking about attempts to corner a market of goods and services, or corner a stock market? Because the examples you gave are just examples of buying up shares of stock in order to inflate the price. That is completely different than someone manipulating a free market economy.

Additionally, most railroads were heavily subsidized by the government at the time, pushing out competition and creating an unfair advantage for certain companies. That is why you see so many examples of market abuse in the railroad industry. It has nothing to do with free markets.

So, I still don't see one example that backs up your claim that free markets can be successfully manipulated in a way that takes advantage of the consumer.

11/18/2010 9:58:34 AM

Quote :

"we had a government for every single one of the instances you mention."

One without the kind of powers we have now. Notice how we haven't really had any in the last several decades.

Quote :

"Had the legislature not existed or had its power constrained in some way, it could not have been bribed."

Again, you're arguing against things that have already been fixed.

Quote :

"So are you talking about attempts to corner a market of goods and services, or corner a stock market? Because the examples you gave are just examples of buying up shares of stock in order to inflate the price. That is completely different than someone manipulating a free market economy."

No they aren't, stop trying to backpedal.

Quote :

"Additionally, most railroads were heavily subsidized by the government at the time, pushing out competition and creating an unfair advantage for certain companies. That is why you see so many examples of market abuse in the railroad industry. It has nothing to do with free markets."

I knew you would say that, thus I put notable ones in other industries which you have completely ignored.

Quote :

"So, I still don't see one example that backs up your claim that free markets can be successfully manipulated in a way that takes advantage of the consumer."

I could put up a list of millions and you would say the same thing. These are all examples that any rational economist would agree are instances of market cornering and price manipulation,yet you, in an effort to put your head in the sand, will continue to stick your fingers in your ears against. You can't just ignore reality that doesn't fit your worldview.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 10:14 AM. Reason : ]

11/18/2010 10:07:10 AM

Quote :

"These are all examples that any rational economist would agree are instances of market cornering and price manipulation,yet you, in an effort to put your head in the sand, will continue to stick your fingers in your ears against."

I never claimed that they aren't examples of market cornering and price manipulation. They obviously are. They just aren't examples of manipulation of a free-market economy. Because those examples do not exist. And there are many rational economists who would agree with me.

Quote :

"No they aren't, stop trying to backpedal."

Are you claiming that they aren't examples of cornering the stock market? Or are you claiming that cornering the stock market is the same as cornering the consumer economy? You aren't really trying to say that Piggly Wiggly cornered the market on groceries in 1923, are you?

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 10:28 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 10:19:23 AM

Quote :

"I never claimed that they aren't examples of market cornering and price manipulation."

I still don't see one example that backs up your claim that free markets can be successfully manipulated in a way that takes advantage of the consumer

Quote :

"They just aren't examples of manipulation of a free-market economy. Because those examples do not exist."

Because your definition of a free market doesn't exist. You're changing goalposts.

Quote :

"Are you claiming that they aren't examples of cornering the stock market? Or are you claiming that cornering the stock market is the same as cornering the consumer economy?"

Irrelevant to whether it allows to manipulate prices.

11/18/2010 11:06:46 AM

Quote :

"Because your definition of a free market doesn't exist. You're changing goalposts."

You said that a free market can be manipulated, and I asked how. You attempted to use examples that are not applicable to manipulation of a free market to prove your point. So if you admit that they are not applicable to "my definition of a free market", then I guess you still have yet to explain how free markets can be manipulated.

Quote :

"Irrelevant to whether it allows to manipulate prices."

Not really, because the question is not whether it is possible to merely manipulate prices, but whether it is possible to gain an advantage over the consumer in a market economy. If I own a product, I can charge whatever outrageous price I want for it, but nobody has to buy it. If someone buys up all of the stock of a particular company in order to inflate the price, why do consumers care? There is no need for them to purchase that stock, and the value of the stock is only what people are willing to pay for it. That is why attempting to corner the stock market is a very risky thing. People can decide at any time that the stock is not worth what you are asking.

11/18/2010 11:19:02 AM

Quote :

"You said that a free market can be manipulated, and I asked how. You attempted to use examples that are not applicable to manipulation of a free market to prove your point."

You asked for examples, I showed you them, then you said "that's not a REAL free market". You're changing goalposts. Cornering markets is one of the many failures in free markets, there are many more that cause the pricing system to fail.

Quote :

"Not really, because the question is not whether it is possible to merely manipulate prices, but whether it is possible to gain an advantage over the consumer in a market economy."

Being able to manipulate prices does give an advantage over the consumer.

Quote :

"If someone buys up all of the stock of a particular company in order to inflate the price, why do consumers care?"

It causes the pricing system to fail, it a very similar mechanism to how monopolies cause the pricing system to fail.

11/18/2010 12:31:18 PM

Quote :

"You asked for examples, I showed you them, then you said "that's not a REAL free market"."

And I also explained why it would not be applicable to a REAL free market (the unfair advantages in the railroad industry were a direct result of government subsidies). So what I'm asking for is a situation in a true free market in which someone could take advantage of a consumer. How could it be accomplished? I think in reality is impossible, but you like to say that it's inevitable.

Quote :

"Being able to manipulate prices does give an advantage over the consumer."

Not if the consumer has no need to pay the prices because of other alternatives.

Quote :

"It causes the pricing system to fail, it a very similar mechanism to how monopolies cause the pricing system to fail."

Yes, but exploitative monopolies could not survive in a free market, which brings us all the way back to the original question, how could one manipulate a free market (in a way which gives them an unfair advantage over the consumer)?

11/18/2010 1:15:29 PM

Quote :

"And I also explained why it would not be applicable to a REAL free market (the unfair advantages in the railroad industry were a direct result of government subsidies). "

You're ignoring the examples I gave that you can't write off with "oh it was railroad".

Quote :

"So what I'm asking for is a situation in a true free market in which someone could take advantage of a consumer. How could it be accomplished?"

Google "market failure", cornering the market is just one, although I know you'll just dig your head in the sand to ignore them, just like you have this one.

Quote :

"Yes, but exploitative monopolies could not survive in a free market"

Why not? Economics would indicate that they would flourish.

11/18/2010 1:23:51 PM

Quote :

"Google "market failure", cornering the market is just one, although I know you'll just dig your head in the sand to ignore them, just like you have this one."

I am already aware of hypothetical failures of a free market, as well as why they are fallacious. You are the one claiming that free markets can be manipulated, so the burden of proof is on you.

Quote :

"You're ignoring the examples I gave that you can't write off with "oh it was railroad"."

All of the examples are examples of attempting to buy up stock to raise the price. I've already addressed that this is completely irrelevant to a market economy. If the price of one stock rises beyond what the public wants to pay, there are alternative investment options for them. This in no way indicates that consumers are being exploited.

Quote :

"Why not? Economics would indicate that they would flourish."

What economics? There simply would be no way to maintain an exploitative monopoly without the use of force behind it. Consumers will always have other options.

[Edited on November 18, 2010 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2010 1:32:23 PM

Hey, only the government is allowed to manipulate prices. Oh, and the banks. Well, I guess they are one in the same at this point, right?

11/18/2010 2:16:22 PM

Quote :

"You are the one claiming that free markets can be manipulated, so the burden of proof is on you."

I have proven it, you keep trying to restate terms and move goalposts.

Quote :

"All of the examples are examples of attempting to buy up stock to raise the price. I've already addressed that this is completely irrelevant to a market economy."

These were market corners. They were able to manipulate the price due to eccessive market power. That's manipulating the market.

Quote :

"There simply would be no way to maintain an exploitative monopoly without the use of force behind it."

Why not? The monopolist has several tools that work to his advantage. Economies of scale, monopsony on suppliers, ability to drop temporarily drop prices below shut-down levels to force competitors out. The advantages are numerous, and the rise of the large powerful corporation makes these advantages obvious.

11/18/2010 3:15:14 PM

Quote :

"I have proven it, you keep trying to restate terms and move goalposts."

Okay, you keep telling yourself that.

11/18/2010 3:24:53 PM

and you keep ignoring it.

11/18/2010 3:49:18 PM

This is impressive

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30389

11/28/2010 10:55:45 AM

The socialists are beating us

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112306280.html

11/28/2010 9:18:12 PM

Germany is less socialist than America, if I remember the Freedom Index rankings.

That said, why would any crow about their country have a massive trade surplus? Keep in mind, a trade surplus means you are running a capital deficit, you are exporting your investment dollars. Is it really a good thing when foreigners can't find anything in your country worth investing in? what about when your own people prefer to invest overseas rather than at home?

Sure, America sucks because much of our capital surplus is going towards government debt. But I don't think Germany is paying down its government debt.

11/28/2010 11:38:54 PM

Quote :

"Germany is less socialist than America, if I remember the Freedom Index rankings."

I wouldn't mind having their personal income tax rates or their government spending as a percentage of GDP here then.

11/28/2010 11:56:05 PM

I'd rather settle for their sensibly lax regulatory environment.

11/29/2010 12:57:38 AM

Then we have a deal sir.

11/29/2010 11:19:32 PM

man the economy just keeps getting weaker, we really needed to throw more dems out of office in that last election, gridlock isnt going to help anything right now.

The unemployment rate should trend down now that unemployment benefits are ending and all the unemployed people will need to go get a job. That will be a big boost to the economy to get all those people working instead of receiving checks every month and consuming.

12/4/2010 4:00:44 PM

China failing bond auctions

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-24/china-fails-to-complete-sale-of-treasury-bills-amid-cash-squeeze-at-banks.html

US Dollar index up 5% from a November low

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=DXY:IND

Jobless claims lowest since July of '08

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/12/lowest-jobless-claims-since-july-2008/

EU spreads widening and now beginning to affect Germany

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-30/german-government-bonds-climb-in-2010-as-fiscal-crisis-roils-euro-region.html

The US is going to blow up? Is that after the other nations in the world beat us to it or what?

12/31/2010 12:29:55 PM