Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Mar '13 14:02
    Agree or disagree?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Financial_Markets
  2. 19 Mar '13 15:06
    Most people react instead of think? They buy when they should sell and sell when they should buy. People who make money are people who can leave the money in the market and don't need it.

    Rigged? Not really, but easily manipulated? Sure.
  3. 19 Mar '13 16:01
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Agree or disagree?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Financial_Markets
    What's legal and what's illegal is negotiable. Fact of life.
  4. 19 Mar '13 17:14
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Agree or disagree?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Financial_Markets
    The advocates of "central planning" which you wouldn't ordinarily associate with Reagan, but which include a great many neocons, and even traditional conservatives, all want to take the risk out of markets. When the risk is gone, it is no longer a market.

    What is both good and bad, is that it is impossible to remove the risk. One would have to know what is in the minds of millions of people in the market, making billions or trillions of decisions about buying and selling. The bad, is that the FED pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the market may distort its true condition, making it look very bullish, in the short term, but hiding its real character to the non professional investor.

    The good is that the market as long as it operates at all, will override the distortions, and buyers and sellers that are able to interpret the data properly will be rewarded. The distortions make the market trickier, and harder for novices to decipher.

    So, to the thread title, the market isn't totally rigged, but the over-complications, and ability of big money players to "move" it, make it more risky for novices.
  5. 22 Mar '13 12:45
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The advocates of "central planning" which you wouldn't ordinarily associate with Reagan, but which include a great many neocons, and even traditional conservatives, all want to take the risk out of markets. When the risk is gone, it is no longer a market.

    What is both good and bad, is that it is impossible to remove the risk. One would have to know w ...[text shortened]... plications, and ability of big money players to "move" it, make it more risky for novices.
    I think it is worse than you think. Max Keiser explains.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_YKaHkKR74
  6. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    22 Mar '13 19:57
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Agree or disagree?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Group_on_Financial_Markets
    EXTRA! EXTRA!

    It's cold in Nunavut!

    Read all about it!
  7. 23 Mar '13 17:32
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    I think it is worse than you think. Max Keiser explains.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_YKaHkKR74
    Max's reasoning is interesting. He may well be right. One thing for sure is that our markets are far from free, and whatever bad that happens can't be blamed of laissez faire.
  8. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    23 Mar '13 18:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Max's reasoning is interesting. He may well be right. One thing for sure is that our markets are far from free, and whatever bad that happens can't be blamed of laissez faire.
    Sure it can. Laissez faire is inherently contradictory: if you leave corporations, magnates and captains of industry free to do what they want, that means you leave them free to rig the market. In particular monied interests can and will use their money to influence the government, and use government as their tool to gain control of sectors of the economy and financial institutions. It's fantasy to believe that there can ever be "small government" coexisting alongside "big business". You get what you pay for.
  9. 23 Mar '13 19:46
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    Sure it can. Laissez faire is inherently contradictory: if you leave corporations, magnates and captains of industry free to do what they want, that means you leave them free to rig the market. In particular monied interests can and will use their money to influence the government, and use government as their tool to gain control of sectors of the econo ...[text shortened]... ever be "small government" coexisting alongside "big business". You get what you pay for.
    If the market can be rigged, it is strictly due, as it always has been, to the interference of the State. Markets involve competition between producers for the business of consumers. The notion that all the so called captains conspire with each other, even when they are competing is quite naive. What they often do is to bribe or otherwise influence government to violate markets in their favor.

    That failing was obvious in the events leading up to the 2008 blow up. It was government and quasi government agencies, Fannie and Freddie supported by powerful Congressmen and Senators, as well as more than one President.

    Small government needs not be ineffective government. And big business, isn't inherently more evil or angelic than small or medium sized business. People getting pay checks don't really care the size of the business whose name is on the paycheck.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Mar '13 19:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    If the market can be rigged, it is strictly due, as it always has been, to the interference of the State. Markets involve competition between producers for the business of consumers. The notion that all the so called captains conspire with each other, even when they are competing is quite naive. What they often do is to bribe or otherwise influence gov e getting pay checks don't really care the size of the business whose name is on the paycheck.
    Your religious devotion is touching. And it's always interesting to see someone using the "Big Lie" technique as you constantly do regarding the causes of the Great Recession. Just because you've convinced yourself doesn't mean you'll be able to convince anyone else when the facts so obviously refute your hypothesis (not yours, of course, but far out right wing spin).
  11. 23 Mar '13 20:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Your religious devotion is touching. And it's always interesting to see someone using the "Big Lie" technique as you constantly do regarding the causes of the Great Recession. Just because you've convinced yourself doesn't mean you'll be able to convince anyone else when the facts so obviously refute your hypothesis (not yours, of course, but far out right wing spin).
    You have done nothing to refute the so called "big lie". An argument without an argument.