Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (259961)	7/11/2010 11:33:27 AM
From: grusum	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

"The kind of free markets I believe in are those with a heavy dose of regulation to make sure that nothing criminal is going on.." then the regulating agencies get captured by the criminals, and the very crime you seek to eliminate gets enabled. the free market does self regulate, no matter what anyone chooses to believe. and it does a better job of regulating because of self-interest. government regulation works against itself. buyer-beware works on reputation, which is much more trustworthy than government guarantees and regulation.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (259961)	7/11/2010 1:01:52 PM
From: ggersh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Well said!

To: RetiredNow who wrote (259961)	7/11/2010 4:37:34 PM
From: James Hutton	Respond to of 306849

"The kind of free markets I believe in are those with a heavy dose of regulation to make sure that nothing criminal is going on, but if the private enterprises, like banks, take too much risk, then you let them fail and let them go through bankruptcy proceedings with no government interference. This is how free markets should work. Free market mechanisms would punish the very people who took too much risk, including the house buyer who bought more house than he could afford and the banker who lent him the money to do it, even though the house buyer couldn't provide proof of income. The free markets would wipe out the banker and the home buyer, but leave all the responsible people intact." This is pretty close to what I and probably most of the people on this thread would believe. However, whether that is "moral" or not is another question, since "moral" is such a relative term. For example, in a free market, one who (let's say) follows all the rules and makes a fortune, should be allowed to stick it under his mattress and take it to the grave with him. Many would consider it immoral to hoard that wealth and not share it with the poor. Again, this is kind of academic, because, as you say, both political parties have completely corrupted the free markets.