The problem with intervention
-
Erik Midtskogen wrote:
Sorry. No sale. Oil refinery capacity has been "scaled back" for decades. The last major oil refinery construction in the U.S. was sometime in the 1970's.
And do you know why no oil refineries have not been built in the US? Because the government prevented refining companies (who pushed to have them built) from doing so.
Erik Midtskogen wrote:
As for the other nefarious side-effects of government tinkering in industry, you can thank the U.S. and Swiss governments for the fact that we can post on forums on the Web. Without NASA, the Navy, and CERN, we would have no mini/microcomputers, no networks, and no network protocols to go web surfing with. Governments provide the infrastructure and often do the basic research (the expensive stuff that you never hear too much about), and then private profiteers move in to reap the rewards of the taxpayer's investments by bringing the stuff the final leg of the trip to market. If everything were left to private enterprise with little to no government intervention, the result would be anarchy and a lack of progress in fundamental advance of the sciences. We tried it before prior to the first World War, and people starved to death in our streets.
I didn't refer to government-sponsored research. I was referring specifically to attempts to control free markets inevitably failing, so these things are irrelevant to what I was saying.
Erik Midtskogen wrote:
The best is somewhere in the middle. Communism didn't work where it was tried, and dog-eat-dog capitalism only served to make a few robber barons filthy rich while most other people worked 16 hour days and often starved even then. The places where life is the best for the average person are all places that have "moderated capitalism": the U.S., Europe, Japan, Australia. To the extent that the laissez-faire or the communist extremists take control, the average citizen ends up suffering.
Capitalism requires sets of rules in order to properly work. But again, those rules are irrelevant to government attempts to intervene in and define free markets. Communism and socialism entail market intervention, whereas the "moderated capitalist" nations you listed only seem to suffer when the government attempts to intervene.
Red Stateler wrote:
And do you know why no oil refineries have not been built in the US? Because the government prevented refining companies (who pushed to have them built) from doing so.
Cite? Not that I don't believe you, I really have no idea.
Red Stateler wrote:
the "moderated capitalist" nations you listed only seem to suffer when the government attempts to intervene.
And the populace seems to suffer when they don't. Capitalism encourages behavior that is mitigated by having mutually-interested parties: greed to the detriment of either party. Problem is, you can't legislate enlightened (mutual) self interest. It has to be a social norm, and unfortunately it's ceasing to be one. I have no problem with someone making an honest buck. More power to you. I have a big problem with dishonest money and money earned at the expense of society (called 'externalized costs' in economics).
-
Erik Midtskogen wrote:
Sorry. No sale. Oil refinery capacity has been "scaled back" for decades. The last major oil refinery construction in the U.S. was sometime in the 1970's.
And do you know why no oil refineries have not been built in the US? Because the government prevented refining companies (who pushed to have them built) from doing so.
Erik Midtskogen wrote:
As for the other nefarious side-effects of government tinkering in industry, you can thank the U.S. and Swiss governments for the fact that we can post on forums on the Web. Without NASA, the Navy, and CERN, we would have no mini/microcomputers, no networks, and no network protocols to go web surfing with. Governments provide the infrastructure and often do the basic research (the expensive stuff that you never hear too much about), and then private profiteers move in to reap the rewards of the taxpayer's investments by bringing the stuff the final leg of the trip to market. If everything were left to private enterprise with little to no government intervention, the result would be anarchy and a lack of progress in fundamental advance of the sciences. We tried it before prior to the first World War, and people starved to death in our streets.
I didn't refer to government-sponsored research. I was referring specifically to attempts to control free markets inevitably failing, so these things are irrelevant to what I was saying.
Erik Midtskogen wrote:
The best is somewhere in the middle. Communism didn't work where it was tried, and dog-eat-dog capitalism only served to make a few robber barons filthy rich while most other people worked 16 hour days and often starved even then. The places where life is the best for the average person are all places that have "moderated capitalism": the U.S., Europe, Japan, Australia. To the extent that the laissez-faire or the communist extremists take control, the average citizen ends up suffering.
Capitalism requires sets of rules in order to properly work. But again, those rules are irrelevant to government attempts to intervene in and define free markets. Communism and socialism entail market intervention, whereas the "moderated capitalist" nations you listed only seem to suffer when the government attempts to intervene.
The government prevented ExMob from setting up new oil refineries? Do tell. Where? In Yellowstone National Park? Or was it the tree-huggers who did that? Never can tell those two groups apart, you know...
-
A push from Congress and the White House for huge increases in biofuels, such
as ethanol, is prompting the oil industry to scale back its plans for refinery
expansions.That could keep gasoline prices high, possibly for years to come.
The world is large and complex. The infinite interrelationships between causes and effects are not understood on even the most rudimentary levels (which is why the stock market can't be modelled). Whenever a government interferes the natural progression of the market, regardless of how good its intentions or goals are, the result is more often than not negative as the repercussions of its actions simply can't be predicted. In this case, the US government (in its zeal to capitalize on anti-Big Oil sentiment) is pushing for ethanol production increases to reduce energy costs. As a result, we have seen a 7% increase in food prices in the US, expensive tortillas in Mexico, overcapacity of ethanol refineries and now, scaled back investment into oil refining capacity, which is the bottleneck causing gasoline prices to be so high. Add that to legislation criminalizing arbitrarily defined "unconscionably high" profits and a new set of taxes on oil companies, and the problem is only worstened. The entire leftist concept of state intervention in markets is deeply flawed.
Red Stateler wrote:
The entire leftist concept of state intervention in markets is deeply flawed.
For whom? The oil companies don't give a crap. In fact, they're ecstatic to have yet another excuse to keep raking in record profits. And since you've invested in them, that's great for you too. As long as you are making lots of money, who give a crap about the effects of high gas prices on the economy?
Whenever an appliance, gadget, or other kind of technology you own breaks or stops performing, pray to Science for it to be saved (fixed). If it doesn't change, don't worry... just keep praying. Science works in mysterious ways! - Someone on the Internet
-
I hate to break this to you, but chaos theory cannot model markets. But it is true that the free market is non-linear. It is not true that it is consequently unstable as demonstrated by the long-term stability of the markets. In other words, your "theory" does not hold water when compared to reality as an unstable market would result in a failed market. And that's obviously not the case. Now I do agree that there have been various attempts to model free market economies with varying degrees of success. However, that's completely irrelevant to my question as to how the market is "fundamentally artifical and manipulated". You've failed to even attempt that.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The other problem which goes back more than 70 years is the Federal Reserve which I've written a little about in another post here abouts. They had a chair at the table at Bretton Woods and were no doubt at least partially responsible for the institutional loop holes that have allowded them to reach the point today of pretty much owning the US Federal government while being a completely unaccountable private club with a secret membership. If you want to know more I'd recommend watching Aaron Russo's "America From Freedom to Fascism".
Holy Cow! My tin foil hat must be REALLY broken!
Red Stateler wrote:
your "theory" does not hold water when compared to reality as an unstable market would result in a failed market. And that's obviously not the case.
Yeah, now. That's why the Federal Reserve was established, and accompanying regulatory law. Much of the stability we enjoy is enforced.
-
I agree that ham-fisted tinkering with the markets by government can be a bad thing--especially if their application is inconsistent or even capricious. One recent example would the the sudden rewriting of the tax laws on Canadian oil trusts that gave those investors a 50% haircut and sent investors of oil sands development running for the exits. But if you really want to see economic instability, just take your hands completely off the wheel. Economic depressions in industrialized countries were far worse before governments started asserting control through policy and controlling money supply through central banks. Even just having a society where a "free" market can exist requires some sort of centralized organization of authority. Anyone who owns a patent or even physical property only "owns" those assets because governmental forces (i.e. the police) will assert that person's ownership rights. In Burundi, if someone steals your idea and beats you to market with it, your only recourse is to hire a private militia.
I'm not advocating financial anarchy (ask Zeppelin for that). I'm pointing out the fact that the free market system is both complex beyond modelling and is self-balancing. Whenever the government (which has the authority of force) attempts to intervene and alter that balance, it affects other unforseen aspects of the economy. Humanity simply cannot adaquately govern economies, which is why communism and socialism inevitably results in a far greater degree of misery for many more people. That does not, however, preclude policies designed to create a stable environment (which is certainly required) for free markets. That includes currency, national security, etc..
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The entire leftist concept of state intervention in markets is deeply flawed.
For whom? The oil companies don't give a crap. In fact, they're ecstatic to have yet another excuse to keep raking in record profits. And since you've invested in them, that's great for you too. As long as you are making lots of money, who give a crap about the effects of high gas prices on the economy?
Whenever an appliance, gadget, or other kind of technology you own breaks or stops performing, pray to Science for it to be saved (fixed). If it doesn't change, don't worry... just keep praying. Science works in mysterious ways! - Someone on the Internet
Al Beback wrote:
In fact, they're ecstatic to have yet another excuse to keep raking in record profits.
I think this is a case of the oil companies just finding a convenient scapegoat. They don't WANT to build more refineries because it would cause oil prices to drop, but that would seem unethical, so they need a reason. Talk of investing in alternative fuels is the perfect scapegoat. "Well, if you're not going to be buying our oil, why should we invest in infrastructure?" While true, it's beside the point.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
your "theory" does not hold water when compared to reality as an unstable market would result in a failed market. And that's obviously not the case.
Yeah, now. That's why the Federal Reserve was established, and accompanying regulatory law. Much of the stability we enjoy is enforced.
Patrick Sears wrote:
Yeah, now. That's why the Federal Reserve was established, and accompanying regulatory law. Much of the stability we enjoy is enforced.
They control monetary stability. Stable currency is one of those contructs required for free markets to function. That, however, is quite a separate thing than my topic: The results of attempts to manipulate the market.
-
Al Beback wrote:
In fact, they're ecstatic to have yet another excuse to keep raking in record profits.
I think this is a case of the oil companies just finding a convenient scapegoat. They don't WANT to build more refineries because it would cause oil prices to drop, but that would seem unethical, so they need a reason. Talk of investing in alternative fuels is the perfect scapegoat. "Well, if you're not going to be buying our oil, why should we invest in infrastructure?" While true, it's beside the point.
Patrick Sears wrote:
I think this is a case of the oil companies just finding a convenient scapegoat. They don't WANT to build more refineries because it would cause oil prices to drop, but that would seem unethical, so they need a reason.
You make it sound like there's no competition in the market place... Companies like Valero and Frontier Oil are involved in refining but not drilling oil. They buy crude on the market, refine it and sell it for a profit...The margin of which has not changed greatly in past years. They have a vested interest in increasing capacity as demand increases. It is against their interests to reduce or scale back expansion of their production.
-
A push from Congress and the White House for huge increases in biofuels, such
as ethanol, is prompting the oil industry to scale back its plans for refinery
expansions.That could keep gasoline prices high, possibly for years to come.
The world is large and complex. The infinite interrelationships between causes and effects are not understood on even the most rudimentary levels (which is why the stock market can't be modelled). Whenever a government interferes the natural progression of the market, regardless of how good its intentions or goals are, the result is more often than not negative as the repercussions of its actions simply can't be predicted. In this case, the US government (in its zeal to capitalize on anti-Big Oil sentiment) is pushing for ethanol production increases to reduce energy costs. As a result, we have seen a 7% increase in food prices in the US, expensive tortillas in Mexico, overcapacity of ethanol refineries and now, scaled back investment into oil refining capacity, which is the bottleneck causing gasoline prices to be so high. Add that to legislation criminalizing arbitrarily defined "unconscionably high" profits and a new set of taxes on oil companies, and the problem is only worstened. The entire leftist concept of state intervention in markets is deeply flawed.
-
I hate to break this to you, but chaos theory cannot model markets. But it is true that the free market is non-linear. It is not true that it is consequently unstable as demonstrated by the long-term stability of the markets. In other words, your "theory" does not hold water when compared to reality as an unstable market would result in a failed market. And that's obviously not the case. Now I do agree that there have been various attempts to model free market economies with varying degrees of success. However, that's completely irrelevant to my question as to how the market is "fundamentally artifical and manipulated". You've failed to even attempt that.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The other problem which goes back more than 70 years is the Federal Reserve which I've written a little about in another post here abouts. They had a chair at the table at Bretton Woods and were no doubt at least partially responsible for the institutional loop holes that have allowded them to reach the point today of pretty much owning the US Federal government while being a completely unaccountable private club with a secret membership. If you want to know more I'd recommend watching Aaron Russo's "America From Freedom to Fascism".
Holy Cow! My tin foil hat must be REALLY broken!
Red Stateler wrote:
chaos theory cannot model markets
No, quite, it show that beyond a certain level of complexity you can't model markets, but at the time the economists didn't know that because chaos theory didn't exist. The very fact of the apparent
Red Stateler wrote:
long-term stability of the markets
should be your first clue that they're not 'true' markets because chaotic systems are not inherantly stable. The market is fundamentally artifical and manipulated for a start by having a secretive unaccountable private club as the sole authority that issues $dollars$. Then having another even more secret and private club in Switzerland which exists basically so that Central Banks can borrow non existent money from one another to hide debts and manipulate the value of currencies. Another example: For decades the World Bank conspired with others to periodically crash the value of one African currency after another, sucking the life out of the poorest people in the world until they finally realised there was nothing left to suck. Just a few years ago Argentina got thumped by the same system for daring to 'drag down' the value of the dollar conveniently sweeping $400 Billion dollars off the worlds debt burden at the same time. This was not something that just happened. It was preplanned, pre announced, wagered on by those in the know, and then carried out. Causing real hardship for ten of thousands of clueless ordinary people who no doubt wondered why 'the market' wasn't working for them. When you own money itself you don't need to worry about chaos theory or economic models, the real economy can be ignored and when it comes back to bite you somebody else can be made to pay in real wealth for your paper debt. As I said if that's the 'Free' market I want none of it.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
I'm not advocating financial anarchy (ask Zeppelin for that). I'm pointing out the fact that the free market system is both complex beyond modelling and is self-balancing. Whenever the government (which has the authority of force) attempts to intervene and alter that balance, it affects other unforseen aspects of the economy. Humanity simply cannot adaquately govern economies, which is why communism and socialism inevitably results in a far greater degree of misery for many more people. That does not, however, preclude policies designed to create a stable environment (which is certainly required) for free markets. That includes currency, national security, etc..
H.U.A. I just wanted to make sure the point was made that "free markets" aren't actually "free" or even really all that "natural", the way many people who rail against "leftists" seem to believe. They are governed by complex bodies of law, and those who write those laws become surrogates for direct manipulators. Many of the laws that govern commerce in America today are practically written by lobbyists on behalf of powerful corporations that have purchased access to the legislative process. So on the one side, we have a few people who want government to directly intervene and say that certain things such as, for example, the rampant despoiling of our natural resources is not OK. But what we currently have in America is a bit more like the fox guarding the hen-house, as companies that are allowed to "self-regulate" rarely fail to take advantage of this trust and make profits by doing things that have negative externalities. The classic example of this was Enron and the whole California electric supply deregulation mess that resulted in the brown-outs a few years ago. But I think you and I aren't really all that widely in disagreement. Maybe I'm not as much of a lefty as I think.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The entire leftist concept of state intervention in markets is deeply flawed.
For whom? The oil companies don't give a crap. In fact, they're ecstatic to have yet another excuse to keep raking in record profits. And since you've invested in them, that's great for you too. As long as you are making lots of money, who give a crap about the effects of high gas prices on the economy?
Whenever an appliance, gadget, or other kind of technology you own breaks or stops performing, pray to Science for it to be saved (fixed). If it doesn't change, don't worry... just keep praying. Science works in mysterious ways! - Someone on the Internet
Al Beback wrote:
For whom? The oil companies don't give a crap. In fact, they're ecstatic to have yet another excuse to keep raking in record profits. And since you've invested in them, that's great for you too. As long as you are making lots of money, who give a crap about the effects of high gas prices on the economy?
So then record profits are a bad thing? You should realize that about 30% of the "record profits" experienced by Exxon are artificial compared to previous years because the value of the dollar has declined by that much and because almost all oil is imported from abroad. Adjusted for inflation (and neglecting the plummeting dollar), it's also at a historic average. But if you think that buying oil stocks is a sufficient hedge against rising prices, then why don't you do that?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
chaos theory cannot model markets
No, quite, it show that beyond a certain level of complexity you can't model markets, but at the time the economists didn't know that because chaos theory didn't exist. The very fact of the apparent
Red Stateler wrote:
long-term stability of the markets
should be your first clue that they're not 'true' markets because chaotic systems are not inherantly stable. The market is fundamentally artifical and manipulated for a start by having a secretive unaccountable private club as the sole authority that issues $dollars$. Then having another even more secret and private club in Switzerland which exists basically so that Central Banks can borrow non existent money from one another to hide debts and manipulate the value of currencies. Another example: For decades the World Bank conspired with others to periodically crash the value of one African currency after another, sucking the life out of the poorest people in the world until they finally realised there was nothing left to suck. Just a few years ago Argentina got thumped by the same system for daring to 'drag down' the value of the dollar conveniently sweeping $400 Billion dollars off the worlds debt burden at the same time. This was not something that just happened. It was preplanned, pre announced, wagered on by those in the know, and then carried out. Causing real hardship for ten of thousands of clueless ordinary people who no doubt wondered why 'the market' wasn't working for them. When you own money itself you don't need to worry about chaos theory or economic models, the real economy can be ignored and when it comes back to bite you somebody else can be made to pay in real wealth for your paper debt. As I said if that's the 'Free' market I want none of it.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Your argument is based entirely on secret conspiratorial clubs. Being sane, I therefore dismiss it.
-
I hate to break this to you, but chaos theory cannot model markets. But it is true that the free market is non-linear. It is not true that it is consequently unstable as demonstrated by the long-term stability of the markets. In other words, your "theory" does not hold water when compared to reality as an unstable market would result in a failed market. And that's obviously not the case. Now I do agree that there have been various attempts to model free market economies with varying degrees of success. However, that's completely irrelevant to my question as to how the market is "fundamentally artifical and manipulated". You've failed to even attempt that.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The other problem which goes back more than 70 years is the Federal Reserve which I've written a little about in another post here abouts. They had a chair at the table at Bretton Woods and were no doubt at least partially responsible for the institutional loop holes that have allowded them to reach the point today of pretty much owning the US Federal government while being a completely unaccountable private club with a secret membership. If you want to know more I'd recommend watching Aaron Russo's "America From Freedom to Fascism".
Holy Cow! My tin foil hat must be REALLY broken!
Red Stateler wrote:
I hate to break this to you, but chaos theory cannot model markets. But it is true that the free market is non-linear. It is not true that it is consequently unstable as demonstrated by the long-term stability of the markets.
Where do you get that chaos implies unstable? Many chaotic systems don't have a single steady state yet are stable around a so called "strange attractor". Weather is chaotic even though it is very stable. There might be some reason that it doesn't work, but your statement as it stands doesn't make any sense.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
-
H.U.A. I just wanted to make sure the point was made that "free markets" aren't actually "free" or even really all that "natural", the way many people who rail against "leftists" seem to believe. They are governed by complex bodies of law, and those who write those laws become surrogates for direct manipulators. Many of the laws that govern commerce in America today are practically written by lobbyists on behalf of powerful corporations that have purchased access to the legislative process. So on the one side, we have a few people who want government to directly intervene and say that certain things such as, for example, the rampant despoiling of our natural resources is not OK. But what we currently have in America is a bit more like the fox guarding the hen-house, as companies that are allowed to "self-regulate" rarely fail to take advantage of this trust and make profits by doing things that have negative externalities. The classic example of this was Enron and the whole California electric supply deregulation mess that resulted in the brown-outs a few years ago. But I think you and I aren't really all that widely in disagreement. Maybe I'm not as much of a lefty as I think.
Conservatives don't oppose a legal construct that determines its course and society-imposed limits. The SEC is recognized as a necessary entity to ensure market transparency (to prevent Enron-type debacles...But that was due to fraud) and there are shared desires to ensure that private companies don't endanger public safety or the public good. However, those are restraints on the free market and not active participation in it. The point that I was making was not an endorsement of anarchy, but a comment on what happens when individuals who believe their market interference will produce an expected result. Being an exceedingly complex system, such interference (whether it be "mandating" production or nationalizing an industry) typically produces highly undesirable and unforseen consequences.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I hate to break this to you, but chaos theory cannot model markets. But it is true that the free market is non-linear. It is not true that it is consequently unstable as demonstrated by the long-term stability of the markets.
Where do you get that chaos implies unstable? Many chaotic systems don't have a single steady state yet are stable around a so called "strange attractor". Weather is chaotic even though it is very stable. There might be some reason that it doesn't work, but your statement as it stands doesn't make any sense.
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
Andy Brummer wrote:
Where do you get that chaos implies unstable? Many chaotic systems don't have a single steady state yet are stable around a so called "strange attractor". Weather is chaotic even though it is very stable. There might be some reason that it doesn't work, but your statement as it stands doesn't make any sense.
I didn't. I said markets are inherently stable. I also said that chaos theory can't model markets (at least not in any usable way). He's the one who said that markets are governed by chaos theory and therefore unstable (at least that's what I gathered).
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
Where do you get that chaos implies unstable? Many chaotic systems don't have a single steady state yet are stable around a so called "strange attractor". Weather is chaotic even though it is very stable. There might be some reason that it doesn't work, but your statement as it stands doesn't make any sense.
I didn't. I said markets are inherently stable. I also said that chaos theory can't model markets (at least not in any usable way). He's the one who said that markets are governed by chaos theory and therefore unstable (at least that's what I gathered).
You're right. What happened to the old espier going off on random rants ignoring responses to just post whatever crap you felt like going on about that minute? Have you been taking your medication?
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
-
Conservatives don't oppose a legal construct that determines its course and society-imposed limits. The SEC is recognized as a necessary entity to ensure market transparency (to prevent Enron-type debacles...But that was due to fraud) and there are shared desires to ensure that private companies don't endanger public safety or the public good. However, those are restraints on the free market and not active participation in it. The point that I was making was not an endorsement of anarchy, but a comment on what happens when individuals who believe their market interference will produce an expected result. Being an exceedingly complex system, such interference (whether it be "mandating" production or nationalizing an industry) typically produces highly undesirable and unforseen consequences.
Red Stateler wrote:
there are shared desires to ensure that private companies don't endanger public safety or the public good.
Unfortunately these are not quite universally shared or we might indeed have a socialist utopia. From 'United States Banker's Association Magazine, 1924 "Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through the process of law the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." Need I say more.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
there are shared desires to ensure that private companies don't endanger public safety or the public good.
Unfortunately these are not quite universally shared or we might indeed have a socialist utopia. From 'United States Banker's Association Magazine, 1924 "Capital must protect itself in every possible way, both by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through the process of law the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming an imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. It is thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves that which has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." Need I say more.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Unfortunately these are not quite universally shared or we might indeed have a socialist utopia.
Where did I say "universally shared". I said "shared".
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Need I say more.
Yes you do. What's the relevance of this unsubstantiated and unreferenced (you mention a magazine, but not the author) quote? Can you reconcile the fact that this quotation seems to urge that people lose their homes with the fact that there are currently more homeowners in the US than every before in history? Can you also explain why it references a goal to create a 2-party system as a means to divide voters, when there has been a 2-party system in this country since just a few years after its founding (i.e. over a hundred years before this quote)? Can you reconcile why the central bank was founded some 60 years after the 2-party system?
-
You're right. What happened to the old espier going off on random rants ignoring responses to just post whatever crap you felt like going on about that minute? Have you been taking your medication?
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder
Strange attractors only seem to occur when the scalars involved are small. I'm no math guru but I gather that's what Faignbaums constant is all about? I don't think markets where you can get double digit growth and six figure inflation would be orbitting a strange attractor or even several. I could well be wrong but we'll never find out because as I said it's all a moot point anyway when the table isn't flat in the first place. Red can dismiss me as a Tin Foil Hat wearer ( I can't stand hats ) but that doesn't negate any of the evidence. The first prerequisite of a free market is freedom and when so many of those involved never had it and the rest of us are loosing it then there really is no such thing.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.