Are absolute free market proponents naive?

I believe the opposite is true...those that believe in gov't regulations on the free market are naive. There will always be dishonesty by some, that's inherent. The problem is the gov't tries to prevent dishonesty through regulation. That is impossible, the dishonest ones will always figure a way around the regulations.

The best thing about a free market is you're able to choose who you do business with. You can also choose to be dishonest yourself to try to counter dishonest businesses you may encounter. Most people are to scared, or lazy, to take on someone they feel is cheating them. If you want something you have to fight for it. You don't need the federal gov't to take care of you, you just need to stand up for yourself.

It is indeed a bit naive. I believe that an absolute free market in fact ends, not in anarchy like you said, but in the creation of a super monopoly as firms buy each other up and get larger and larger, until you have a huge conglomerate in control of virtually all of the nation's economy. After all, in a totally free market there's no laws to prevent huge monopolies from buying up or forcing out all their competitors.

So absolutely we must be willing to be flexible when it comes to regulation of the market and understand that there are times when we must step in and make sure that the market stays competitive. All nations throughout history have striven to find the correct balance between public regulation/control and private sector/market freedom. There is no reason why we as a country, can't try more of one or the other over time and see how it helps. That is the great strength of our republic.

With regards to the financial industry, I am thrilled to see the financial reform bill on the floor for public debate. It can only help to have everyone's ideas out there, because the financial industry can not be allowed to play games with our money anymore.

You have very poor understanding of economics.

Economic "anarchy" as you call it is impossible. Free markets rely on a foundation of the rule of law. As long as a "vicious" person must freely negotiate with me to get my money, he has ZERO power over me. If he is to ruthless in his efforts, I can simply find another vendor.

You say "Of course there shouldn't be unnecessary regulation, but that doesn't mean all regulation is bad", and i agree. The quesiton is where to draw that line. Every free market advocate would agree that the rule of law is CRITICAL to the successful operation of a free market. Only the naive like Jon Stewart continue to confuse market advocates with anarchists. But those regulations should be focussed on preventing fraud and making sure that people enter into deals with all the necessary facts. The regulation should not control the nature of deal.

This is the essential difference. When a company wants to divide risk up into clever derivatives it absolutely should be allowed to do so. But what went wrong recently was that those derivatives' risks weren't clearly labelled. Partly this was because of the implicit guarantees of Fan/Fred, but also because the ratings agencies that the government requires be used (and the govt requires that you use one of their favored three) all did TERRIBLE jobs of assessing that risk. Some smaller ratings agencies DID spot the risk. But the Tri-opoly that the govt has propped up did not. The result is that banks, fund managers, and everyone though they were buying things with high return and near zero risk. That's not healthy.

The solution is not to restrict the activity but to make sure that the information about the deal is as good as it can be, and the BEST way to accomplish that is to make sure that every party of the deal knows that the burden IS ON THEM to make sure they have the information. if they think "Oh well, the government's got my back", they won't do the R&D. That means that the burden is on the SEC to predict EVERY possible problem. The SEC hasn't got that kind of manpower. The individual must bear responsibility for their own investments. The SEC's role should be about making sure that everyone is required to disclose the information needed.

No, just idealists. Philosopher John Locke, whose ideas shaped America, famously had no problem with the hoarding of money. But this was because to Locke money was not needed to live and sustain oneself, as the rights of land ownership, life and liberty were protected by the government. You could get land, live on it, grow food on it and live happily without ever being subject to those with stockpiles of cash. Unfortunately Locke didn't forsee that the world would become more and more dependent on money for self support. Even if you own enough land to grow food you owe monetary taxes on it. Since we need money we are dependent on people who have money to give us, and this resulted in some pretty vicious abuses in the 19th century of this country. So a little regulation is needed, but we have to be careful we don't make money the center piece of liberty and tyranny.

Carrefour stores are the equivalent of Walmart in Europe.

There are Carrefour stores in GREECE, PORTUGAL, ITALY and SPAIN.

The very countries that are going broke right now.

There are NO Carrefour stores in Germany, Sweden, or Norway, the prosperous countries that are being called upon to bail out the Carrefour nations.

The UK has Asda, which is owned by Walmart.

The USA has, of course, Walmart itself.

All of the countries that have these stores have a ruinous trade deficit.

How soon will the USA and UK follow Greece and Portugal into bankruptcy?

Couldn't agree more, this is the age of get rich quick. They don't care that they are killing the golden goose. I can't complain, during most of my life people were reasonable not, I have to win every contest. There used to be negotiations, now if one party doesn't like the others offer they just get up and walk away. I don't know how much their egos come into play. Greed is very powerful and we can't trust the banks to regulate themselves. They have the notion the money is in their banks for one reason. To make themselves filthy rich. I'm very disheartened by the direction the country is going. I don't care if I drop dead tomorrow.

I do not think anyone has to worry about us ever again having an absolutely free market. If you repealed 1500 regulations you would not even have put a dent in the mountain.

But honestly, who do you think rips you off more? Businessman or Bureaucrat?

*

Yes...You would have to be. The US would have a few monopolies controlling everything. Anti-trust laws have prevented much of the M&A activity we would have seen form the worlds top corporations. The standard of living would be terrible. We would be poisoned by water, air, food, and products. There would be no agency to investigate such occurrences. No one would invest...there would be no reason to. Monopolies would have all the money they needed, and there would be no assurance investors would not be cheated. There is no free-market is people do not trust the market. Corporations would be the slaves masters, and the US citizens the slaves.

There is no such thing as a free market...someone is paying, sometimes dearly.Look at what Reagan and the killing fields of Central and South America did.Witness the diamond mines of Southern Africa, the oil cartels, the corn lobby in America...the list goes on and on.

Again the magic hat free marketers pull rabbits from is simply this;

Greater risk equals greater reward. They say "Allow greater risk taking!" and 'Voila!' there are greater rewards.

However there are two sides to this coin. Greater risk also means greater losses. Betting more chips at the table sure makes the wins bigger but when you lose your shirt to house did you really come out ahead?