3 ms·

I hate Trump, but this piece doesn't seem to prove or argue anything at all. It's basically free market fanaticism, it says that economic metrics are good in sp

I hate Trump, but this piece doesn't seem to prove or argue anything at all. It's basically free market fanaticism, it says that economic metrics are good in spite of protectionism and not because of it because how could it be otherwise? Invisible hand, etc. It's totally begging the question. If the free market economy is so resilient to threats, why didn't it thrive also in 2008?

jacquesm 10mo ago
That's a good question. So, 2008 was a major problem and financial institutions brought that on themselves. But that's - fortunately, even though there were significant knock on effects - limited to one very important slice of the market, not unlike say when Enron went bust or when the .com bust happened. The rest of the free market is what pulled us out of those things. Free markets are on balance a good thing, assuming a level playing field and regulations to curb externalization and monopolization as well as cartel forming.
- consp 10mo ago
  So you are arguing for a regulated market, not a free one. Heavy anti-trust legislation and enforcement is needed for a healthy economy. This might lower the year-over-year stock raise but at least keeps the negative excesses somewhat in check (monopolization, power concentration, rent-seeking).
  - jacquesm 10mo ago
    All markets are to some degree regulated. Saying that these are then not free markets is a fairly hardcore libertarian viewpoint, which tries to make it a 'black and white' issue, whereas in reality things are often more nuanced.
epolanski 10mo ago
I think 2008+ if anything shows that free market economies indeed are resilient to threats even in the worst times.
- Al-Khwarizmi 10mo ago
  So, there are threats and the economic data is fine (like now) -> the free market works great because it works fine in spite of the threats. There are threats, the economic data falls into the gutter, but eventually recovers (not without real and quite lasting negative consequences for many people) -> the free market works great because hey, if you held SP500 you were still fine in the long run. It's like a religion. If things go well it's thanks to God, if things go wrong maybe God is testing or punishing you but all will eventually be fine (in the worst case, after death). The free market is a lot like a god for its followers.
- dgb23 10mo ago
  The financial markets collapsed in 2007/2008 and survived because of government intervention.
  - epolanski 10mo ago
    I well remember what happened in 2008 (caused by government's deregulation by the way, not "technocratic managerialist", whatever it means). Despite the severity of what happened, jobs rapidly recovered and were around the same pre-financial crisis levels (and well above US averages) in a matter of few years and workers earnings were at or above 2008 levels (inflation adjusted) by 2016. All in all, as severe 2008 was, I don't see how free market economy made it more, rather than less severe. It's at best an opinion.
    - dgb23 10mo ago
      "Caused by government deregulation" could also be phrased as "not prevented by regulation, while caused by financial markets". The rest of the market recovered quickly once the government re-arranged debt and prevented a full collapse. But the lesson was that private debt was accumulating too quickly on a shaky basis, catalyzed by financial markets making the issue orders of magnitudes worse. Rapid private debt accumulation is still not discussed enough today for my taste.

jacquesm 10mo ago

That's a good question. So, 2008 was a major problem and financial institutions brought that on themselves. But that's - fortunately, even though there were significant knock on effects - limited to one very important slice of the market, not unlike say when Enron went bust or when the .com bust happened. The rest of the free market is what pulled us out of those things. Free markets are on balance a good thing, assuming a level playing field and regulations to curb externalization and monopolization as well as cartel forming.

consp 10mo ago
So you are arguing for a regulated market, not a free one. Heavy anti-trust legislation and enforcement is needed for a healthy economy. This might lower the year-over-year stock raise but at least keeps the negative excesses somewhat in check (monopolization, power concentration, rent-seeking).
- jacquesm 10mo ago
  All markets are to some degree regulated. Saying that these are then not free markets is a fairly hardcore libertarian viewpoint, which tries to make it a 'black and white' issue, whereas in reality things are often more nuanced.

epolanski 10mo ago

I think 2008+ if anything shows that free market economies indeed are resilient to threats even in the worst times.

Al-Khwarizmi 10mo ago
So, there are threats and the economic data is fine (like now) -> the free market works great because it works fine in spite of the threats. There are threats, the economic data falls into the gutter, but eventually recovers (not without real and quite lasting negative consequences for many people) -> the free market works great because hey, if you held SP500 you were still fine in the long run. It's like a religion. If things go well it's thanks to God, if things go wrong maybe God is testing or punishing you but all will eventually be fine (in the worst case, after death). The free market is a lot like a god for its followers.
dgb23 10mo ago
The financial markets collapsed in 2007/2008 and survived because of government intervention.
- epolanski 10mo ago
  I well remember what happened in 2008 (caused by government's deregulation by the way, not "technocratic managerialist", whatever it means). Despite the severity of what happened, jobs rapidly recovered and were around the same pre-financial crisis levels (and well above US averages) in a matter of few years and workers earnings were at or above 2008 levels (inflation adjusted) by 2016. All in all, as severe 2008 was, I don't see how free market economy made it more, rather than less severe. It's at best an opinion.
  - dgb23 10mo ago
    "Caused by government deregulation" could also be phrased as "not prevented by regulation, while caused by financial markets". The rest of the market recovered quickly once the government re-arranged debt and prevented a full collapse. But the lesson was that private debt was accumulating too quickly on a shaky basis, catalyzed by financial markets making the issue orders of magnitudes worse. Rapid private debt accumulation is still not discussed enough today for my taste.