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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (198179)	4/21/2023 6:05:01 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218028

You are speaking of "free markets" as some sort of divine principle independent of human emotion. Well, yes, and no... Yes, only because... by definition... "divine principle" of necessity is determined by some creative force independent of human emotion... not by those who would make themselves our gods, or speak for them, because "it feels right" ? But, all that means in context of our discussion here... is that we might also argue about what "divine principle" really is... as opposed to what various others might intend and try to impose on you as a requirement for you... to accept as its meaning that which they prefer. I don't have time for that conversation, just now. Otherwise... No. That's a total misunderstanding of philosophy, economics, and of history... which errs significantly in misunderstanding all of what drives human society, while wrongly claiming that self interest is "emotion". That profoundly mis-states the actual drivers in the aggregate of almost all human activity... and particularly deflects from the discriminators that are what tends to determine success in competition... or not... including "in markets" or as "winning a trade"... but that taken in proper context is broadly true in physical reality as a Darwinian principle... where success (survival) isn't a function of how you feel... but of self control enabling successful action as carefully calculated (or, well practiced) to manipulate real world outcomes... whether that means farmers figuring out agriculture works better than foraging and doing more of it... or more properly planning the best route for the new freeway... etc. Success in competition may be dramatic... as in result of "better" choices made at tipping points... or it may impose incremental advantages that accumulate almost imperceptibly over time... That's not saying "emotion" doesn't exist, or that it doesn't influence people's decision making... but, reality is... as it has always been... that those who unthinkingly (or in result of being taught to) embrace emotion as the driver of their decision making... whether on a personal or societal level... are far more likely to have a hard go of it... Reality doesn't care how you feel. People competing against you by manipulating you into adopting error... and behaving how they want you to in result... are happy enough to have you make that error. That out of the way... social acknowledgement of "individual rights" in western and thus "global" social awareness is the liberal end product of the humanist movement... the most meaningful result of the intellectual development and newly emergent awareness occurring in result of the enlightenment. What preceded that... was (mostly) the entire span of recorded human history in which kings owned everything and everyone... as the big guy who swung a sword the best told everyone else around him what to do... and if he wasn't stupid... also managed to stay alive long enough to organize a tribe to fend off the neighbors encroachments... and/or succeed well enough in living with or encroaching on them. That's the shared origin of and still the shared philosophical basis of (most western religion and) monarchy, capitalism, socialism and communism... the basic assumption that someone else has a natural right to tell you what to do... and an resulting, inevitable, and ongoing fight over boundaries... and "who" rules within them. But, the introduction into western culture of change in a generalized understanding of freedom and rights as a moral imperative superior to both political and economic interests... has American roots. The English colonists in northeastern America... were participants in shaping events in Europe and Europe's intellectual development from at least the mid to late 1500's... while English expatriates gradually adopted, and adapted to their own culture, the local native American understanding of inherent individual freedom... which in its fullest development was more or less unique to native culture in that corner of the Americas. They adopted it... and melded it into that understanding which eventually became expressed within the European intellectual framework: the American Revolution overtly declaring "we are not owned or ruled by a king"... led in turn to the French... as conducted outside the American's inherent adoption of that cultural shift. The American experience conditioned the outcome, here... and, the conflict engaged also had economic drivers, and consequences in result... but, both the origin of the conflict, as a direct result of American's cultural adoption of the native moral understanding of individual liberty... and the arguments made and won in European intellectual circles... were primarily moral and political arguments... not ones that set out intending to "re-invent the economic system". That it did that as well... was as much a happy coincidence as a result of any particular intent... beyond that parallel interest in avoiding paying the King's taxes. "Free markets" are not... cannot be... a divine principle in themselves... nor do they pretend to any grant of any divine right... as is claimed to be the case by those advocating capitalism, socialism and communism... as they are the unreformed inheritors of the "divine right of kings" to rule. However, divinity aside... free markets ideals definitely are BASED in a particular set of principles... as are all other human constructions... whether those principles are ever stated, or stated accurately, or not. I'm advocating that we should expound on what those principles are... and on their history, origins, and intentional biases... Those elements should not be hidden... not just because our freedom requires we have the right to free speech... but, because ignoring that, while failing to understand the systems we adopt... subjects us, again, to others control, manipulation, and to being made others property, again... Capitalism, socialism and communism... originate in and are based on a shared set of "materialistic" principles... they are "economic systems" that were devised to rationalize and legitimize "what is"... to defend (and rigidify) particular class interests in class warfare... in which the structuring of economic activity, and class, are the primary organizing principles... And, that includes that "ownership" of others is not only historical reality, it is, in principle, both "assumed" and morally "allowed" as legitimate... and it is intended and imposed in result in the degree to which adherence to that set of principles occurs. That outcome is a historical requirement of the principles applied... as it is the foundation of their development. Whether you are the property of another person... or the property of the state... the "same" outcomes are imposed on you by "economic systems" requiring you are owned by others... in some degree... rightly controlled and directed by others, treated as others property... in some degree. They are all "economic systems"... based in amoral materialistic principles... that are based in and include requiring that you are "material" subject to the control of the system... and whoever holds power. They are not MORAL systems... or social systems... that put people first. Socialism... is anti-social... but, in that, not uniquely so. It's just "more of the same old"... with a new label applied to distract from the fight over who gets to be king. The principles behind "free markets" definitely are NOT the same as those advocated by... or dictated to us... by those favoring "some central authority" claiming a divine right to direct everything... to tell you what to believe, what to think, what to say, what to do... while converting your rights and freedoms into "grants of privilege" ? And, that is, as I note... where the informality of "free markets" as (not) an "economic system" emerges. Unlike other "economic systems" free markets have no "goal" in an intended result... they have no specific outcome that is intended to be imposed... as free markets are merely the outcome in markets of (rules requiring respect for) human's individual freedoms... thus insisting that our rights and freedoms extend into a need for imposing limits in others market behavior, without which, some will seek to violate our rights, including our right to own ourselves... but, also, our right to full, free expression in our market behavior... without interference... to that point our own choices interfere with others equal right. So, our having an equal right to participate in the economy without interference means... no monopoly, no fraud... no obstruction to market participation... a shared agreement to abide by the rules... and adequate enforcement of the rules... without which you don't have free markets... but markets governed by other rule sets. That means... "rule of law" has to exist... with the rules enforced within the same rule set... not imposing new obstacles... What we have today... instead... is monopoly, frauds allowed to be practiced by licensing them... huge impositions of obstructions to participation... many of which operate obstructions as "toll booths"... with essentially no enforcement of the rules... with penalties that, on the off chance caught, boil down to paying a licence fee to be allowed to defraud the public... And... "rule of law" is broken... dysfunctional... not only imposing obstacles to participation... but in operation tolerating monopoly (though technicall "illegal") while merely licensing frauds... erecting barriers in disproportion... in practice reinforcing class structures... The misdirection in politics... typically insists that the evils naturally resulting from the impositions of the isms... are the products of error resulting from our freedom from those isms... not the natural result of the suppression of our freedoms... subjecting us, again, to others ownership and control ? Those advocating "laissez-faire" capitalism as requiring "no intervention"... claiming "free markets" and "no rules" constraining market behavior are the same thing... are misleading you... to advocate in self interest. But, communists and socialists are happy to allow and participate in the lie... as they also oppose your having freedom ? Rules imposed as a limiting constraint on otherwise unfettered market behavior isn't unique. The question in terms of conflicts between choices of "economic systems" is... which rules imposed... why... and for whose (primary, or unique) benefit ? I'm adding to that conflict by insisting on ALSO exposing the history and origins, the thinking behind, and the inherent biases in, those "principles" that also do exist behind all the choices of isms or "economic systems" on offer. But, "free markets" are not an "self contained" (and self-referential) economic system based in different interpretations of the principles of materialism, as the others are... free markets are instead the extension of the principles of a moral system... into the economic sphere. Rule sets imposed as a layer of additional limits placed on top of other "rule sets" also (if only temporarily) possible... so, rules imposed in result of some conflict over top of other "systems"... that would otherwise happily ignore it... can masquerade as something they are not... for a time... while claiming the advantages won in result are not only consistent with... but a product of... adopting their principles. Free markets, alone, are the market adjunct in rule sets required by adopting a moral system... requiring freedom. Others can and do mimic elements of those rules sets... seeking short term political advantage... only without really "meaning it"... Buyer beware. Free markets... are not an "stand alone" economic system... but a set of constraints applied on economic behavior... which, in itself, diverges from the amoral formal structures of other deterministic economic systems... capitalism, socialism, communism... each of which pose themselves as "self contained"... intending to dictate social structures based on economic organizing principles... No difference between capitalism, socialism, communism, and kings... other than who gets to be king. Freedom in markets is merely the extension of our rights and individual freedoms into the market... Free markets... don't exist as a "system of philosophy"... that elevates the gods of free markets into those who rule over us... the way that amoral MATERIALSTS attempt to do by whatever means necessary... Humans manipulate. They tend to act in accordance with what is best for them and their family. You can never get rid of bias and self-interest. Exactly... which is why you need to be aware of it... channel it to good purpose and effect by enabling competition WITHIN the rules... while containing its errors... and not... as you are doing... work to FOSTER more of the worst of human behavior... in its tendency to immorality. In error, still... in claiming "you can never get rid of bias and self interest"... first as bias and self interest are very different things. Self interest... you don't want to get rid of... but foster better understanding of it and more skillful expression of it in relation to economic choices and "the rules"... while enabling competition, and improvement in competition. And, bias is real... but not immutable... easily made inconsequential in the aggregate... as long as one person's choices made in (error in) self interest... aren't allowed to and don't work to violate others rights... as imposing obstacles to participation, etc. People have a right to be stupid... and you can't legislate an end to stupidity... but, you can legislate an end to stupidity being made actionable in freely violating others rights... No Fed means the Market sets all rates. I understand that in theory. But that's not the reality of the situation. Yes. It is... If the Fed doesn't have an (probably unconstitutional) grant of monopoly power to set rates... rates will be set by market function rather than by the deliberate imposition of corruption of market function. The Fed is used as a mode for the self-preservation of society. LOL! Yeah... exactly. Only the "society" they are preserving... is the society of the very few connected to the banks... hands deep in their pockets... where only those few connected cronies get to print free money... give it to themselves and their "friends"... and use that power to print / steal and take the value of the work done by everyone else... The difference between Silicon Valley Bank and "systemically important"... means one set of rules for these guys... another set of rules for those guys... based only on that fiction created for that purpose in generating that benefit for "club members" ? And, as George Carlin noted... When they failed... it turned out SIVB was just as "systemically important" as any other bank... and they jumped through all sorts of hoops to prevent it proving that the entire banking system is totally bankrupt... which it is... and clearly would be recognized as... if you understood QE as "accumulated banking system losses recycled as "a special money for use by bankers"... ? Free markets are useless when there is a major banking crisis and the financial system is ready to crumble. Free markets are deficient because they let whatever happens, happen. Bullshit. Free markets are useless... when you make them useless by NOT ALLOWING them to work. Free markets WORK... exactly because they REQUIRE frauds and liars who are outed to fail... The problem arises when the frauds and liars fail... and the politicians protect them by preventing them from failing... and then PROMOTE them to run everything... and steal everything... because... failures, frauds and liars... are the best thing to promote... and who we want "running things for us" ? The banks FAILED in 2008... and, now, because "bailed out"... things are VASTLY worse... Free markets WORK... because, WHEN ALLOWED... they "let the chips fall" EARLY ENOUGH that the failures, frauds and liars FAIL... and the system winnows out the losers, kicking them to the curb... instead of putting them, as required by the politicians... in charge of first stealing everything... and then destroying everything that's left... And, that's where we are today... because markets have been PREVENTED from fixing failure... Pure libertarianism is an abstraction. Economically speaking, pure libertarianism would create the same iniquities as capitalism does, but since it based on free markets, which, in turn, is ultimately based on Freedom, Human Freedom, regardless of the source or inspiration of the Freedom revealing itself. Pure "anything" is an abstraction... and, a distraction... from enabling practical applications of truths that we can all see easily enough... The "debate" on all this is... dishonest. Not conducted in good faith. They know its all true... but, being corrupt... they prefer the corruption and its payday... for themselves... to enabling any more general success for "the people". The power junkies and their supporting cast of sycophants need "the people" being dependent... so what they DO, as opposed to say... is designed to foster greater dependency... and nothing else does that nearly as well as failure... including economic failure... so, that's what they produce. The reason the pols won't enable a more successful national and global economic enterprise... is that they're not being paid to do that... and, they don't care who gets hurt by what they do instead, by the lies they tell, and those they enable... as long as they get theirs. And, when the inevitable failure occurs on a massively larger scale than it would without their interference fostering fraud... they'll blame the evils of "free markets"... that didn't exist... and not take ownership of the smoking hole they engineered... in order to use the failure as an excuse for taking more $ and power away from you... I wish you would elaborate on this concept of "Free Markets" and how you plan to get around the interference of human bias and self-interest. I don't live in a Utopia. Its not rocket science... it is NOT as some will claim... about "getting government out of the way"... as success enabled by "the right rules" requires the right rules being well enough enforced that there is compliance with rules... as the system of rules is seen as "a benefit" generally to those complying... and not seen as a system of oppression... Its not possible, IMO, to get there on an ad hoc basis... that the same error in origins of socialism that has socialism now using their (actual) opposition to capitalism and (hypothetical opposition to) monarchy... in fostering both... as a hybrid form of national socialism... fills those voids where socialism fails... The same as in everything... first principles matter more than ad hoc efforts in "pragmatism" driving decisions based in the failure to understand the primary functions of the underpinnings... So, it means getting government to succeed in being in the way... to interfere with the wrong things... while ensuring government is not empowered in becoming the problem... All it requires is... government enforcing the RIGHT rules... instead of the wrong ones ? But, "the right rules"... will be focused on ??? What's needed to "make it work"... is not taking from one to give to another... which is true in every sphere ($, power, rights, etc.) but "ensuring a level playing field"... so that the rewards generated... are the product of meeting market needs... and not of meeting politicians preferences. The Fed... is "the wrong rules"... another century plus old legacy of "old money" exploiting the ignorant... and the serial failures imposed by "errors in" understanding... that have continually fostered economic failure since the 1850's... The emergence of socialism and central banking... are not "coincidences" in timing ... ? U.S. political history... from the War of 1812 on... has been largely defined by the fight over "the need" for central banking... and the political and economic debacles that result every time we enable it. Study the debates in Congress over the establishment, or not, of the bank... and the content of the debate then... is, if anything, vastly better informed about banking than that you see today... while nothing else has changed in terms of "the results" delivered... But, of course... "enforcement of rules" fails, too... when the effort is intended to fail and enable error... when "enforcement" is itself (see SEC, IRS, etc.) a part of the fraud being practiced ? When the rules themselves align with "fairness" and "reality"... people "buy in" to the effort... rather than work to undermine it... so, social cohesion (or the lack of it) is also a metric providing a good measure of and a "sanity check" on whether government is enforcing the right rules... and doing that well.... instead of using power to foster corruption... forcing some to suffer... and enabling others to profit from their suffering... That doesn't mean others are wrong in claiming "more" government... only opens up paths to enable more error in wrongful interference ? And, when those doing that... believe government can dictate "outcomes" by imposing rules that "create" the desired outcomes ? Central planning has been proven a failure every time its been tried... which doesn't stop them trying... even knowing it will fail ? Why would that be ? Because... there's $ to be made from having power over "the rules"... rather more than flows from enforcing PRINCIPLES... that allow people to compete without any of the various forms of corruption and fraud that work in preventing their success... Free markets... only work when corruption is "in hand"... when you have "the rule of law" instead of "rule by men"... No one does live in a utopia... But, "wished for" perfection being an hypothetical abstraction, with belief in its existence being dependent on our ignorance of reality... is not a reason to ignore the obvious lies being told to you by choosing to be ignorant ? I don't plan to "get around" the interference of human bias and self interest... rather than expect it and "channel" or exploit its expectation... But, advocating "we need the interference"... when it is the interference itself that is the source of corruption, and failure... and when its adoption as a "benefit" requires that we must apply those amoral principles... empowering others to subjugate us... because they tell us that is the path to freedom... ? At some point... the light will come on... but, likely not until the "failure" being generated, now, is forced to be recognized... Coming soon... to an economy near you... I don't expect any of the current crop to "see the light" and "implement reforms"... to push the economy back onto the green side of the economic ledger. Socialism "works" only as long as we produce more than it consumes... and when the politicians run out of other people's money to spend... the system fails. That's what's coming... And, when the failure they've created happens... in spite of their efforts to layer fraud on top of fraud... ? They will be "moved out of the way"... and "equal and opposite" change will occur... Rinse, repeat...