“If we had a free market, then business owners could get away with very nasty things, like causing the current crisis we are in now.”
“No government does not work.”
“If consumption is reduced, then it hurts the economy, since business owners loose business.”
“Although a free market can work in a small city, if you apply it to a whole country, you will see nasty results.”
i think its being overly generous to call them ‘arguments’ 
Theft is hard work. Reminds me of this poster I saw, by the Home Office (UK), that said “Thieves work office hours too!”. How candid of it.
-Jon
Wait, I meant to say “Anarchy does not succeed.”
As a matter of fact, those politically connected players who are largely responsible for the current crisis (CEOs and other executives of large banks, Fed chairmen, politicians and pressure groups like ACORN) are “getting away” fairly easily, don’t you think? Not just that, they even pass bailout legislation for each other, thus making a profit out of a crisis at the expense of regular working people.
Free markets punish irresponsible behavior. Banks that decide to give out loans to virtually everyone will eventually face bankruptcy with no bailout options. That’s a deterrent just in case, but it is questionable whether in the absence of fractional reserve banking and easy government credit we’d even have to deal with bad incentives of our current kind and consequently, with economic crises of such dimensions
This claim lacks basic economic understanding I’m afraid.
That’s not an argument.
Generally, as soon as someone comes up with a claim that has no backing explanation attached to it, demand one or discard the claim.
Reduced consumption shows a shift in customers’ time preference. At some point in time, people might want to start saving for future projects, e.g. college funds, instead of buying a new TV or car. They might also be scared by recent economic developments, e.g. the financial crisis, and become concerned about a tightened budget in the near future due to job cuts, therefore altering their buying habits.
In both cases, interfering with the economy to “stimulate consumption” would simply be working against customer preference. It won’t benefit the economy as a whole either, but rather producers of short-term goods and services at the expense of long-term producers. “Stimulating consumption” is thus not intended to be an “economic boost”, but rather a redistribution of profits from long-term goods and services producers to short-term producers.
See second point.
“Trickle-down theory does not work, because people act in their own self interest.”
“Obama is good because he gives people hope.”
“In anarchy, protection rackets will form and replace private police.”
Which moron came up with this shining gem?
So did Hitler. Who cares?
And that’d be because…?
-Jon
I don’t know, because my dad said so?
My parents.
My mom, I said that humans act to benefit themselves, and my mom said this.
Oh, one more thing. I keep noticing that people think that “fear” is causing the crisis. Isn’t it mal-investment?
I’m sure he can give you reasons for saying that. As it stands, he hasn’t.
So ask them what’d be their opinion of Hitler. Would he be good because he instilled “hope” in people?
She has a strange way of contradicting what you say by affirming it.
Ask what is the fear caused by. It isn’t for no good reason…
-Jon
Dad: “If a CEO of a company buys a lot of stock before buying a company, knowing the price will go up, is it okay?”
Me: “I see nothing wrong.”
Dad: “He just commited fraud with insider information! Since you support this fraud, you support fractional reserve banking.”
“Liberterians hold no coercion as an ideal, like Jesus. They support the whole human race dying before this ideal is violated.” (I think)
“Taxation is not robbery. It is what they are used for that counts. For example, a chair is used for sitting, but a table is used for placing articles on.”
Dude, your parents are dumber than a sack of hammers. We all lost interest in their idiotic arguments a long time ago.
It’s still funny in its naked stupidity.
For seriously?
Sweet!!! That means I get to take whatever I want from Eliot’s dad!.. That is, as long as I use it correctly.
Wait, what about the argument that some goods are hard to provide (like fire protection) through the free market, therefore a different system is needed.
I argued fire insurance, but my dad cried fowl that people got their fire put out for free because it would affect others. What is the problem
What if I rush to his defense?
I don’t really know what it is that makes classical liberals cling to state industries so much. Maybe the shiny uniforms, or the tight command structure? After all, being granted a title and a uniform by the state raises your importance by at least 5 points.
Seriously though, if something’s difficult to provide in the market, government will most certainly not be an adequate provider either. If one proclaims the opposite, but still believes in free markets in other areas of life, that’s a contradiction; after all, if government is able to manage important things such as education, healthcare or protection, why shouldn’t we burden it with producing our tennis shoes as well?
Fire insurance for an individual household will not automatically extend to one’s neighbors unless specifically declared in the contract. In that case, it’d be a charitable action and I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Your dad may, however, come up at some point in time with better examples, such as the free rider problem with early warning systems for natural disasters. We can address this from several angles:
It may well be that among homeowners’ associations in larger communities, the cost for “public goods” will be shared equally.
If an individual A is not bound by contract to pay for these services and relies on watching his neighbor B to find out what’ll happen, he’s putting himself at great risk. What happens if A decides to sleep late on a given day, but B decides to leave the area while A’s still dreaming? A is not at all receiving the same service as B without paying for it.
Whenever you observe a beautiful woman or smell a pleasant perfume or enjoy a neighbor’s garden structure, you’re basically engaging in the same behavior. Instead of paying for a bordello to satisfy your lusts, you count on people doing it for free. If somebody ever claims that free rider problems are a reason for government to exist, demand the implementation of a Bureau for Sexual Free Riding Affairs (BSFRA) to prevent lascivious nerds from abusing the efforts of beauty-conscious women.
How about this one:
Q: Would you rather see 10% of the people voting in a presidential election or 90% of the people?
A: Neither, I am against government.
Q: Well, I think 90% is better and the fact that Obama brought out all these people to vote is great.
I walked off at that point…
Your father cried fowl because he has the intelligence of a turkey.
The only thing that is free in this scenario, is the tolerance people exercise towards your genetically defective progenitors.
It’s amazing how you turned out alright, although constantly displaying your parent’s stupidity has gone from novelty to annoyance.
Maybe you should find a new schtick.
1.) If we had free market, we would have government caused problems? If there was logic in that statement I would respond to it.
2.) How would you know? We have never had no government, and the current situation is not “working”. Government is not a necessity, but an extension of the people here to supposedly make our lives easier (despite what its actually doing).
3.) False, if consumption is reduced producers will raise their prices to try and get the previous profits. Ironic since government intervention in the markets has reduced consumption, and yet this person is arguing that a free market, where there will be less restrictions on the consumers and producers will cause less consumption. This argument obviously shows a lack of basic economic understanding.
4.) A free market would allow producers and consumers to determine through price, supply and demand what needs to be bought and sold at each price. Without the hinderance of minimum wages, taxation and other government policies, the producers could make greater profits while charging less. This would in turn lead to greater employment and even greater consumption.