OK, explain this to me like I'm a complete idiot because I don't get it: Part Duh.

[HughBeaumont]

Last week, I asked all of y'all to do the impossibly exclusive and think like a Republican, because I'm just apparently not as smart as them to see how the magic of tax-cutting will lead us to prosperity.

Well, we all agree that there are many mitigating factors for the economic crapcake we've been handed. Wealth inequality, rampant tax cutting, ignorance of social safety nets, alternative energy and universal health care in favor of military/"defense" spending, etc.

But it's beyond a given, and many economists agree, that widespread deregulation, starting in the Reagan era and continuing unabated through the next three administrations, has got to be one of the chief culprits of this mess.

Free Market trumpeters (mostly Repukes, moderates and neo-libs) argued that rules and regulations stifled prosperity and discouraged investment and competition, not getting that our pre-Reagan predecessors kind of put these stringent rules in place for our own good. You know, so we DIDN'T have S & L, DIDN'T have bubbles of all kinds, DIDN'T end up with Robber barons lording over millions of poor people, DIDN'T have financial piracy and glanced-over Ponzi schemes and DIDN'T end up with multiple recessions, massive debt and credit issues.

The thing is, people have addictions. Whether it's word puzzles, collecting/gathering, the internet, caffeine, sex, methamphetamine, cocaine, porn, cigarettes or movies, addictions come in all forms and severities. Greed can be just as bad an addiction as anything I've mentioned above, yet it's one of the few addictions that can destroy the user AND its surroundings. If history tells us anything, it's that bad apple sociopaths (and there are many) who are given the keys to the kingdom very rarely act in the best interests of the economy, their customers, their businesses, the environment or humanity in general.

Turns out that a wild-west climate on Wall Street and with Big Business has done nothing except make a handful of rich, responsibility-void criminals disgustingly richer and left the rest of us, and our kids, and our grandkids with the bill.

Which leads me to another bit of wrong-wing wisdom that I heard the other day; one which needs explained to this apparent complete idiot because . . . well, because no matter HOW many times it's repeated, I just don't get it:

"The reason we're seeing today's economic failure is simply because the markets weren't allowed to be free enough. Meddling by several entities is what caused this, and it needs to stop."

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

"Not allowed to be free enough". Oh hell, that's right.

You know, because the Gramm/Leach/Biley act and Garn/St Germain bill, both of which pretty much shot pre-Reagan regulations to hell and allowed Wall Street to turn S&Ls and real estate into their personal mints, just WEREN'T ENOUGH.

A giant lowering of taxes on the wealthy (which, if you believe Republicans, should have made them hire thousands per WEEK! I mean, all that MONEY they get to keep! Surely they'll use it for good and not be greedy, right?) just wasn't enough.

Deregulating every industry under the sun from air traffic to telecommunications for the past 35 years so giant corporations can merge and take over the small fish under the guise of "encouraging competition" just WASN'T ENOUGH.

Zero-sum Globalization JUST WASN'T ENOUGH!!!!

I see. "Business can regulate itself. Just leave it alone".

Er. Yeah.

Explain this to me like I'm a complete IDIOT because I don't get it.

Next in our series will no doubt take from the grab-bag (or tea-bag) of RW regurgitation such as "Peace through Strength", "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" or my favorite: "Offshoring overall is good for the economy, period".

[aquart]

1. Simple. The free market regulates by death.

Republicans don't mind if you die.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. It's kind of like the butterfly effect in time travel theories

That if you step on a butterfly, you profoundly affect everything else, potentially to disastrous outcomes.

Their asinine argument is that government intrusion risks the same thing. basically, they have a utopian view of free markets, where if no government existed, everything would be fine economically. The more government regulation that exists (the more butterflies that get stepped on), the greater the potential for a disastrous outcome. It's not in any way based upon, well, anything we've known from human history, quite frankly.

I'd check out their typical favorites from Ayn Rand to find out more about their delusions.

[HughBeaumont]

4. Govern-a-phobia and Tax-o-phobia.

South America in the 70s and 80s proved these ideas to be disastrous. Argentina and Chile turned away from distributed economic development to become pro-Big Business, which led to widespread unemployment and deficits. You'd think America would learn from history, but they were too busy listening to Reagan and his team of jokers telling them "You're rich. What's good for the rich is good for YOU also!" And then he raised their taxes and lowered the wealthy's. And then he raised the limit on thrifts. And then piracy happened. And then all the recessions. A portrait, PORTRAIT of success, I tells ya.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. We'd have to start reading history to learn from it.

And clearly, we are allergic to that. I don't think there is a single shred of evidence in any civilization that finds a direct correlation between cutting taxes and creating jobs, except perhaps where taxes are so outrageously high that the government literally takes almost all of one's money, which hasn't happened since formal feudalism existed.

[Idealism]

3. The beauty in their flawed logic is that no market on earth is "Free"

Or rather, no market on earth is completely free. There are regulation and stipulations that proponents of Free markets can point to and claim are "distorting" the marketplace. Things like environmental standards, health and safety regulations, EPA guidelines, etc. all mean that the militant stupidity of free market fundamentalists can continue with the old tired canard "the market failed because it is being distorted." Well, if that is the case then we are opposed to a "free market" - because no one in the US except CEOs will argue that safety standards should be eliminated in the name of corporate profits.

[HughBeaumont]

6. Kick for the morning crue

:kick: