Seeking Alpha

jhooper

jhooper
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View jhooper's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    "But marriage has yet to cause a national or global crisis"

    Oh yeah.

    http://bit.ly/JJH7WX

    And when has banking never really been regulated?

    http://bit.ly/JJHa4N
    http://bit.ly/JJHa4R

    Again, gov can regulate with regards to force and fraud, because the populace can give the gov a grant of force. The gov can't regulate with regards to voluntary transactions based on free association in such a way to make sure no such interactions ever result in failure. Think about that. If gov employees could guarantee that investments never go bad, then they should be able to institute perfect rules from the beginning. In that case the, since we've always had regulators and have always had problems, they clearly can't deliver on their promise of no bad investments.

    This is not true of laws against force and fraud. Gov can clearly do what it claims, in convicting people based on the rules of evidence found in the process designed to limit that force. What this also suggests is that instead of having taxes collected to fund police, it may be better to make police private. How many times have people called the police only to be told, "We're to busy for that"? If they are being paid by the caller, they would be on their way the same way a home security system provider responds to complaints.

    Gov regulators don't operate this way. The come into your property and search your information before you have even been accused of a crime. They impose penalties without a court, and if you do go to court and win, guess who gets to still come in and check things out? Of course, this time they are angry. They can cause you to have so many costs if they target you, that they can shut you down even if you win in court.

    In other words they get to spy on you. Just like the Patriot Act. We punish the innocent with such practices, and subsidize the guilty. Because if you are spending resources on both the guilty and the innocent, you won't have as much as you could have on the guilty.

    If the bill of rights and the presumption of innocence are going to be discarded for the sake of "regulating" business (private, voluntary associations as opposed to fraud), then the standard needs to be perfection to mitigate the risk of the dangers you unleash by doing that.
    May 25, 2012. 03:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    Are you suggesting that there are limits to what regulators can do?

    By the way, a straw man is when I say, "you hate all regulations", when what I really said was, "I think there are limits to what regulators can do".

    Exploring what the limits of regulators can do, be it marriage or a bank (which is just another form of association) is completely legitimate. You just don't want to answer it because you know the answer hurts your position.
    May 25, 2012. 02:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    Should the police decide who marries whom? After all some marriages don't end up so well.
    May 25, 2012. 01:44 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    How about this.

    I know you hate regulation, but the only alternative to regulation is throwing people in jail after people get killed.
    May 25, 2012. 12:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    I guess you just want no gov then.
    May 25, 2012. 11:47 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    So you think the Partiot Act was necessary to regulate terroism?
    May 25, 2012. 11:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    Are you saying everyone wants safe, affordable food?
    May 25, 2012. 10:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    Then I guess the Patriot Act is a good thing. After all we need to stop terroism.
    May 25, 2012. 10:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Europe's Pain Is America's Gain, Not Bane [View article]
    History definitely has some great examples. China under Mao, trade was neglected. After his death it opened up.

    http://bit.ly/Ky7Edx

    Its a simple principal. Look at the movie Castaway. A single island inhabitant has the ultimate in trade barriers, yet the lack of people with which to trade creates a very austere lifestyle. You can only consume what you can produce, and since you have to do everything yourself, there just isn't time to make lots of different things. Life gets so austere, even though you own all the wealth, that you are ready to risk your life to go find other humans with which to trade. Such examples are the foundations of what economies are - the sum total of human action in pursuit of an ever higher standard of living as a barrier against death.

    I like the "Man from La Mancha" version. "See life as it should be, rather than it is." Which was a reason to justify fantasy in the face of stark realities. However, if we allow it, the reality of what we can do by taking advantage of how nature works (production only comes from learning not coercion), can make our reality even better than our dreams.
    May 25, 2012. 10:07 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Europe's Pain Is America's Gain, Not Bane [View article]
    "just disallow imports from countries that don't meet our announced requirements." "prices rise"

    That's exactly what a tariff is. There is no getting around it. It is what it is. The outcome will still be no jobs, but now everything costs more. Car factories and textile mills won't come roaring back to life. The problem isn't that other countries don't make themselves less attractive for investment, the problem is that we do it to ourselves.

    We have an income tax that rewards consumption (gotta get that aggregate demand going don't you know), we have a CB that wants to create a wealth effect so people will consume (again aggregate demand), and we do fiscal stimulus to get consumers going. Then we wonder why after all this encouragement that they are buying cheap gadgets?

    I'm telling you that whenever you trade, over time you will get more and have to work less. In theory you could have a completely unemployed domestic populace that has a very high standard of living. They live off capital (stored labor), that is constantly growing and providing enough to live off of. This would occur because there would be plenty of economic opportunity, and contrary to what the luddites think, robots would be welcome and so would immigrants.

    Comparative advantage, ever expanding choice, and ever growing technology would provide limitless opportunities that would constantly be improving our standard of living. Just because we have allowed gov to create bad domestic economic policies, doesn't mean we should double down on that with bad foreign trade policies as well. I've read that some of our highest tariffs are on some of the worlds poorest countries.
    May 25, 2012. 09:22 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    Gov employees can't regulate with regards to voluntary transactions. That would require them to have superior market knowledge. The only way they could have that is if the public granted them thant knowldge. If the public already had that knowledge, then why would they need to give it to gov?

    Think about the value special market knowledge would have. If gov employees knew how to make sure all investments made a great return, why in the world would they accept a few million from gov when they have knowledge that is worth billions or trillions.

    If FDIC regulators know how to build the bank that every consumer wants, but that no banker will provide, then they could leave the FDIC, start the perfect bank, and get every bank customer in the country to patronize it. Of course they don't do this, so the only conclusion is that they don't have special market knowledge.
    May 25, 2012. 09:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    Free markets, markets free from force and fraud, eventually purge bad investments. Gov imposed force and fraud on markets bails out bad business. Eventually, there is so much bad business that the gov notes issued for the bailouts lose more and more of their value, which reduces their purchasing power. An expropriation tax reduces purchasing power, thus gov policies that don't raise expropriation taxes but that issue notes for bailouts is also a tax.

    Dodd Frank has the same effect of raising interest rates, at the same time the Fed is trying to lower interest rates. If you don't want corrupt business practices to be rewarded, don't give the gov the power to regulate voluntary transactions. When you do, all you do is create the economics for business to buy politicians and eventually the rules will be written that crush new and smaller competition.

    Again, are you seeing a growth in the number of banks, or are the larger banks getting bigger and bigger?
    May 25, 2012. 06:29 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    Sorry. Tiny buttons.
    May 24, 2012. 10:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    If you advocate for gov reg of vol transfer, then you create the economics for pol to be bought. Then they will be bought by the highest bidder. Then the will write the rules to eliminate the smaller competitor. Again are the number of banks increasing?
    May 24, 2012. 08:58 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
    Because some of the bankers are just small time local folks that are getting crushed by the policies you are advocating for.
    May 24, 2012. 08:29 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
6,157 Comments
6,263 Likes