Video61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:55 am, "Marcello" <Marce...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> <Vide...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:7c1f96e7-bf34-49e3-b843-139a95f6541f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 1:39 am, "Marcello" <Marce...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "Michael Price" <nini_...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>
news:4337892d-1489-404e-bb97-176b606184cf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> "did the Laissez-faire free market create the perfect storm not seen
>>>> since the great depression?"
>>>> No because the financial system is miles away from Laissez-faire
>>>> free market. There's something called the Federal Reserve System.
>>>> You might have heard of it.
>>>> ___________________________________________
>>>> The problem is that you have too many people who think Laissez-faire
>>>> means
>>>> total hands off in all matter, no rules, no judicial system, and
>>>> unregulated
>>>> monetary policy. As a result, you have people blaming corruption in
>>>> government, unpunished breaking of cor****ate laws, and ridiculous
>>>> monetary
>>>> supply by the Fed on what they think represents a laissez-faire
economy.
>>> perhaps the english translation of laissez-faire will help you. it
>>> means leave it alone in english. so if that is what the faithful do,
>>> then do not be surprised and outraged at this, "you have people
>>> blaming corruption in
>>> government, unpunished breaking of cor****ate laws, and ridiculous
>>> monetary
>>> supply by the Fed" on government intervention. the markets were left
>>> onto themselves.
>> So you are of the assumption there is laissez-faire in existence? When
in
>> your lifetime has the government EVER left the system alone? There is
a lot
>> of blame going around and its almost humorous that any would blame a
>> laissez-faire system when we have nothing even remotely close to one.
>
> laissez-faire as someone else pointed out, means as little government
> foot print as possible. thus opening up a giant hole for private
> sector corruption., which includes corrupting government. small
> government means fewer checks and balances, less openness.
Your interpretation. It can also mean that the individual take
responsibility. That means the individuals at 'the bottom' are included.
If you really apply 'laissez-faire' across the board, that means the
upper class has the inability to enforce inequity.
There is no point in muddling the issue in what humans are capable of.
Because, no matter what label you attach, humans will get away with what
they can.
Philosophical argument are just arm chair posturing in the real world.
But most would live in their dream world.
So usenet........
|
