Did the 2008 Financial Crisis Mark the End of Free-Market Economics?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Economics Failure
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of the 2008 financial crisis on the concept of free-market economics. Participants explore the failures of major financial institutions and the subsequent government interventions, questioning whether these events signify the end of free-market principles or highlight the need for regulatory oversight. The conversation touches on theoretical, practical, and historical aspects of economic systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the crisis represents a significant failure of free-market economics, suggesting that government bailouts contradict the principles of a self-correcting market.
  • Others propose that the financial industry is unique in its need for government intervention, as the collapse of major institutions could lead to widespread economic panic and loss of consumer savings.
  • There is a contention regarding the effectiveness of regulations, with some claiming that existing regulations were poorly designed and ineffective, while others argue that the institutions were not sufficiently regulated.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the notion that markets operate naturally without oversight, suggesting that human factors and constructed market rules contribute to economic instability.
  • A later reply questions the characterization of the crisis as solely a result of deregulation, pointing out that some regulations were in place but ineffective, and that hedge funds, which are less regulated, have not faced the same failures.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the role of deregulation, the necessity of government bailouts, and the overall viability of free-market economics in light of the crisis.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of deregulation and regulation, as well as the assumptions about market behavior and the role of government intervention. Unresolved questions about the nature of financial institutions and their regulation persist.

  • #211
gravenewworld said:
Free economics doesn't exist. I challenge you to find me a market completely run by free market economics.

The problem with free markets is that they can produce oligopolies and monopolies by natural barriers that come with certain markets.

Whats your point? Just because a certain ideology has not been implemented or adopted by existent and previous societies , you come to the faulty conclusion that it will not work.

At one period in human history, virtual all societies on Earth had slave populations. If someone like you were to say to an abolitionist, 'society would descend into chaos if we did not have slavery, show me a prosperous society without slavery',there would not be steps taken to eliminate slavery
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #212
noblegas said:
Whats your point? Just because a certain ideology has not been implemented or adopted by existent and previous societies , you come to the faulty conclusion that it will not work.

At one period in human history, virtual all societies on Earth had slave populations. If someone like you were to say to an abolitionist, 'society would descend into chaos if we did not have slavery, show me a prosperous society without slavery',there would not be steps taken to eliminate slavery
That post to which you are replying is from November last year.
 
  • #213
Interview w/ Stanford economist John Taylor, author of the widely used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_rule" governing money rates.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=OWE0YzIwN2VkYzBkYWNjMDczMThjODVjMjZlNjI2N2E=" , 6:00.
Commenting on French President Nicolas Sarkozy's statement:
"The all powerful market that is always right, that's finished."
Taylor:
"Absolutely not. [...]If you look at this carefully, don't be idealogical about it, don't be political. [Then] we see a crisis that was caused, prolonged, and made more severe by government policy, not by failures in markets."

Which agrees w/ what I've read/seen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #214
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1884183"

Proves that one of the axioms of a free market model is demonstrably false(equal access to data). The existence of bargains is due to inherent information deficits during the exchange process.

This speaks volumes about capitalism in general really.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #215
mihna said:
Proves that one of the axioms of a free market model is demonstrably false(equal access to data). The existence of bargains is due to inherent information deficits during the exchange process.

That hurts my head to read, could you translate it?

**** happens, but we need to learn something useful from our success as well as our failure...with out crying and apologizing too much.
 
  • #216
DrClapeyron said:
That hurts my head to read, could you translate it?

**** happens, but we need to learn something useful from our success as well as our failure...with out crying and apologizing too much.

They ran a game theory simulation w/ 2 people(representing buyer and seller). With stakes in two different outcomes(representing a market exchange). One side would have access to more information then the other. The party with less data is basically left with two options. 1. Hold out as long as possible to try to deduce more information from the informed party, which would lower his losses. Or opt out of the exchange all together and hope making the deal is more important to the informed party then a bargain.

One of the tenets of free-market exchange is equal access to information across the board but the existence of a "bargain" shows this is false. Untrue axioms...don't bode well for a theory
 
  • #217
mihna said:
They ran a game theory simulation w/ 2 people(representing buyer and seller). With stakes in two different outcomes(representing a market exchange). One side would have access to more information then the other. The party with less data is basically left with two options. 1. Hold out as long as possible to try to deduce more information from the informed party, which would lower his losses. Or opt out of the exchange all together and hope making the deal is more important to the informed party then a bargain.

One of the tenets of free-market exchange is equal access to information across the board but the existence of a "bargain" shows this is false. Untrue axioms...don't bode well for a theory
That's not one of my tenets, and most here would call me a free market "radical extremist".:biggrin: But free enterprise isn't some cooked up theory, it's just what most people do when free to do so. It's a consequence of economic liberty, not some "system" imposed by government.

Besides, in that simulation, unequal access to information was assumed, not proven. It simply showed the result of assuming unequal access to info in the simulation.

If I ran a simulation assuming that all cars were blue, would the result "prove" that all cars are blue?
 
  • #218
mihna said:
One of the tenets of free-market exchange is equal access to information across the board but the existence of a "bargain" shows this is false. Untrue axioms...don't bode well for a theory
Information symmetry is not an axiom, it is a variable in microeconomics.
 
  • #219
Free market never fails without government intrusion

Socialism has a long history of fails not capitalism
 
  • #220
MFriedmam said:
Free market never fails without government intrusion

Socialism has a long history of fails not capitalism

:rolleyes:

The free market failed pretty badly last year. Without government intrusion. Libertarian economics is for the simple minded.

By the way "MFriedmam", socialism is not the only other option to free market capitalism and mere government intervention in markets is not socialism. Go back and learn economic terms before you go throwing them around.
 
  • #221
Mgt3 said:
:rolleyes:

The free market failed pretty badly last year. Without government intrusion.
Without government intrusion? On which planet?
 
  • #222
This is America, we have an American-market. The idea of free-market is for women, children and wimpy college nerds. We are the star quarterback on the #1 ranked school: get as many girls as you can while the going is good. That my friend, is the American-market.
 
  • #223
Mgt3 said:
:rolleyes:

The free market failed pretty badly last year. Without government intrusion. Libertarian economics is for the simple minded.

By the way "MFriedmam", socialism is not the only other option to free market capitalism and mere government intervention in markets is not socialism. Go back and learn economic terms before you go throwing them around.
:rolleyes: You might try looking up "free market". "Mere government intervention" may not be socialism, but it's certainly not a free market either. It's called a "mixed economy".

The failure you referred to was a failure of the mixed economy, not of a free market. It not only would not, but could not have happened in a free market for reasons obvious to anyone with a mediocre knowledge of what happened.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
9K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
28K
Replies
6
Views
5K