as I said before I'm reacting to that "magic of the market" trope. It really does annoy me.
Supply and demand really is an incredibly powerful thing. However I think where it goes wrong is with some people thinking that the solution is to back off and let everyone do what they want without interference. Sounds nice, but that results in the powerful preying on the weak and uninformed.
Kickstarter backers who get a game key in exchange for early backing of a game ARE the most passionate fans... but that doesn't mean they're the best suited to reviewing a game, because they already have a stake in how it's perceived.
Also, people (not picking on gamers, this is a human thing) tend to justify decisions after the fact. If I spent money on something, I will subconsciously find ways to believe that it was a good idea to do so. Someone who spent a lot of money before the game even came out might be even more motivated to do that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Regulation...
It's not, as such...
Erm, yes it does.
Now I'm confused.
Particularly since you'll find other distortions, e.g. subsidies, in play as well if you dig a bit.
I think it's worth noting that there could be a market that isn't 100% free but mostly operates that way. There may not be a market that is totally and entirely free from interference but that isn't a very useful standard to apply (IMO).
"the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."
I interpret that to mean supply and demand is allowed to operate freely. So you don't have things like price floors or tariffs. Regulations about, for example, collusion actually promote the operation of a free market.
I don't think haggling is a requirement for a free market. What characterizes a free market (to me) is choice and supply and demand. If I don't want Yoplait I can buy Dannon instead. And they are both constrained in their pricing by the existence of their competitors - charge too much and people won't buy because they have other choices. The fact that I can't approach the teller and offer 79 cents for the yogurt instead of 85 doesn't make it not a free market.
A true Free Market would have no such regulations.
Free market doesn't mean unregulated market. In fact an unregulated market is almost certain to not be a free market given enough time. If there are regulations preventing collusion, monopoly abuse and the like then it can be a free market via regulation.
There is no such thing as a free market. If you ever find one, point me to it. I want to see what that looks like.
"A free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."
Don't most markets in the US meet this definition? When I buy a banana or a used car, is the price set by a government, or the banana/used car cartel, or is it set by supply and demand? Or do you have some other definition of "free market"?
In an actually free market there would be a balance between the demand side and the supply side with either actor having the choice to take part or decline to take part in a transaction without being forced to do so by a situation created by either side.
Are you suggesting that every service and product you come into contact with is managed by collusion among the market players? If not, then it seems to me that you have the option of various competitors. Each of them is trying to produce a product or service with characteristics and prices that will entice you to purchase. What's not free about it?
I'm excluding certain markets such as broadband (in some areas) and utilities where there really isn't competition or perhaps not meaningful competition.
In your link the sentences made sense and contained actual phrases that linked together. It also contained actual policies and idea's for how he would do stuff as opposed to Trump's "I have great plans, big plans, the best plans"...
Exactly my point. What did you think I was trying to say?
Despite the claims made in this article, the fact is that every usage of this law has been in a case where a person has knowingly destroyed evidence of either their own wrongdoing or the wrongdoing of a friend.
So maybe it hasn't been abused yet. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
It's all well and good that they'll have to pay back the customers they swindled. But it's probably impossible to calculate the potential losses that could have occurred for all the people who maybe couldn't get a loan (or got a higher rate than they should have) because Wells Fargo was screwing around with accounts in their name.
In theory fraudulent transactions can be removed from one's credit history, though I have never tried it.
You have to be joking. Justice is for the little people...
That has nothing to do with Michael's comment. He isn't saying the executives will be held to account, he's saying it's possible this started and spread organically as a result of the incentive structures, rather than being "conceived and executed by upper management" as you claimed.
Which might make sense if we were talking about a few, or even a few dozen people doing it across the entire company, but when we're talking about literally thousands of employees the idea that no-one in management had so much as a hunch that something fishy might be going on before the investigation pointed it out to them goes right out the window.
Sounds like willful ignorance to me - I'm guessing they made sure that they didn't know what was going on. Sounds exactly like Volkswagen: "I don't want to hear about it, just make it happen or you're fired".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No paper trail, no legitimacy.
No one is denying Sanchez or her lawyer the opportunity to examine the documents in the case. At the appropriate time, ie, when she is not actively fleeing from the appropriate authorities, ie, not arrested or in custody, ie, not a fugitive.
What part of the Freedom of Information Act permits ICE to deny a request on the basis that the requester is a fugitive? And if there is any, did ICE cite that in their denial?