What the hell is "economic freedom"?

[Sewer]

?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It has to do with how resources are allocated.

[Sewer]

It has to do with how resources are allocated.

Hmm, tell me more.

[k-onmmunist]

The complete separation of State and Economy, much as with State and Church.

[opebo]

Its a misnomer for Power.  You feel 'free' when you have power over others.

[Lief 🗽]

Freedom from want and hunger, the knowledge that your employment situation is fairly safe, and a strong social safety net ready to catch you if you ever fall.

[Phony Moderate]

Its a misnomer for Power.  You feel 'free' when you have power over others.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The libertarian version?

The freedom to overwork employees, the freedom use children as part of your workforce, the freedom cut corners on production, the freedom to overlook health code violations, the freedom to engage in predatory pricing, the freedom to discriminate in hiring practices, the freedom to not pay your employees any additional benefits, and the freedom to bust and intimidate workers from organizing.

[Sewer]

The complete separation of State and Economy, much as with State and Church.

So economic anarchy?

[k-onmmunist]

The libertarian version?

The freedom to overwork employees, the freedom use children as part of your workforce, the freedom cut corners on production, the freedom to overlook health code violations, the freedom to engage in predatory pricing, the freedom to discriminate in hiring practices, the freedom to not pay your employees any additional benefits, and the freedom to bust and intimidate workers from organizing.

No, that sounds like the Keynesian perspective of libertarianism. Sorry, you failed.

[k-onmmunist]

The complete separation of State and Economy, much as with State and Church.

So economic anarchy?

Essentially, yes.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It has to do with how resources are allocated.

Hmm, tell me more.

It comes down to whether individuals are free to obtain and allocate capital and labor, or if they are forced into a system of allocation by others.

[Хahar 🤔]

No such thing.

[Vepres]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness. However, excessive government spending, things like an individual mandate to have health insurance, and such are clearly anti-economic freedom.

Freedom from want and hunger, the knowledge that your employment situation is fairly safe, and a strong social safety net ready to catch you if you ever fall.

That's so 1960s

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

[Mint]

Freedom from serfdom to state or corporate powers, basically.

[Vepres]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Those people don't have to take the loans, freedom hater.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Freedom from theft of your capital.

[Vepres]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Those people don't have to take the loans, freedom hater.

Because only a Nazi would oppose irresponsible lending

[Mint]

Freedom from serfdom to state or corporate powers, basically.

Oh and before someone decides to be cute and point out 'corporations' are government created entities that just plays into my point, thank you very much.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Uh, yeah, he has the freedom to take risks, and to accept responsibility when those risks turn sour. It would not be in any bank's best interest to make such loans.

Stop trying to re-define freedom into "non-freedom".

[Alexander Hamilton]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Those people don't have to take the loans, freedom hater.

Because only a Nazi would oppose irresponsible lending

The only irresponsibility is on the part of people who would sign a contract without ensuring they could finance it, no matter if it is the banker or the client. That is their problem, not mine.

[Vepres]

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Uh, yeah, he has the freedom to take risks, and to accept responsibility when those risks turn sour. It would not be in any bank's best interest to make such loans.

Stop trying to re-define freedom into "non-freedom".

Banks misleading people which causes them to lose capital, without which your freedom goes down significantly, is inherently anti-market and hurts the country.

The freedom to whatever you want with your money so long as it doesn't damage the competitiveness of the market nor is very unethical. For example, regulating banks would add economic freedom because the bank's best interests conflicted with the interests of the market's competitiveness.

No, it wouldn't. Government regulation always decreases freedom, never increases.

Really? So a bank CEO having the "freedom" to allow his company to give sub-prime loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify thereby causing all the people to lose freedom when they dive into bankruptcy gives the country more freedom. Hardly.

Those people don't have to take the loans, freedom hater.

Because only a Nazi would oppose irresponsible lending

The only irresponsibility is on the part of people who would sign a contract without ensuring they could finance it, no matter if it is the banker or the client. That is their problem, not mine.

[quote]Empathy n.: 1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Empathy is for those who know they are wrong, so instead they use emotions to try and justify their error.