I am not suggesting regulation contributed to this crisis. I am suggesting (and pretty much every sane person on Earth, including most economists, agree with me) that the market was responsible. You lose.
...the crisis happened after the removal of said regulations, not during a period of stronger regulation and more protection from failure. I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out. Correlation does not imply causation, but lack of correlation sure as hell implies lack of causation. - Spidermonkey.
I am merely asking you what regulations were removed, which presumably you are suggesting would have prevented this crisis?
Arguing "the market" was resonsible makes about as much sense as suggesting gravity is responsible for all plane crashes. Market forces operate on human behavior, but human behavior is ultimately the cause of the crisis itself. The question then becomes WHAT human behavior was responsible, and I would suggest that the removal of risk by government authorities was, at the very least, a significant contributor.
Yes, seriously. You are cherry picking. What you are trying to pass off as facts are mere opinions, and crazy opinions at that.
That interests rates were lowered, and lowered significantly, from 2000 to 2004 is not an opinion, it is a fact.
I was talking about how class mobility is changing (i.e. how it is collapsing). And yes, heritage is full of shit. That isn't even contentious.
Are you suggesting that the Treasury Department, Urban Institute, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and the Census Bureau are full of shit? None of the research cited was done by Heritage.
Yes, because the economy has been standing still all that time
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downc ... 20Spending
Ignoring the projections at the right of the graph (those are a response to the current crisis, as are the 2009 and to a lesser extent 2008 numbers) the general trend is clearly downwards.
Are you getting tired of being owned yet?
Your figures are as a percentage of GDP, not real figures. The links are cited proved, unequivocably, that public spending INCREASED at a rate of about 3% annually since the late 1970's. Your defense to this is "GDP grew faster than government spending", which is hardly a defense at all.
Again, this is a fact (not an opinion): In 1970, total government expenditure in the UK was 21.6 Billion Pounds (200 Billion pounds adjusted for inflation), it was 557 Billion pounds in 2007. Are you trying to suggest that 200 Billion > 557 Billion?
You have not produced any facts
Except for the fact that interest rates decreased steadily from 2000 to 2004. Are you disputing that? Or that government spending, adjusted for inflation, increased from 1970 to 2007? That fact was referenced. Oh, and the references to the Treasury Department and the Census Beureau on income mobility. Those were facts as well. Try again.
Todd D. wrote: have not necessarily claimed a public outcome. You're blatantly making shit up again. Most people actually just call that "lying", but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you're merely delusional, rather than intentionally deceptive.
Outstanding rebuttal. You should join the debate team. What's next, "I know you are but what am I"?
WOAH! Wikipedia! What a reliable source!
Sigh. Try Dictionary.com then, which includes (amongst other things) in their definition of market:
5. trade or traffic, esp. as regards a particular commodity: the market in cotton.
6. a body of persons carrying on extensive transactions in a specified commodity: the cotton market.
7. the field of trade or business: the best shoes in the market.
10. a region in which goods and services are bought, sold, or used: the foreign market; the New England market.
You can't define a market the same way you can define a planet or a force. It isn't a thing, it is just something you (and people like you) made up.
You really have reached a new level of delusion when you begin to deny concepts like a market for goods and services.
LOL appeal to authority! Seeing as your silly rants fly in the face of mainstream economics anyway, you are hardly in a position to get pissy about qualifications. My qualifications are in science, and the ability to think and reason clearly. They are sufficient.
Obviously they are not, since you are apparently suggesting 1) That the study of allocation of resources and human behavior can not properly be classified as a "science", 2) That there is not such thing as a global "market" for goods and services, 3) That my views fly in the face of mainstream econ (without describing what theories those are, and what "mainstream" economist or economic theory contradicts it), note that this would also contradict point 1.