What risky practices would those be?
Who's "Wall Street"?
Isn't risk part of investing?
You have been living in a cave.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue right now. A government cap on corporate growth is not compatible with free market economics.
I'm talking about safeguards against economic depression. "Cap" is your word. Please don't put it in my mouth.
I'm referring to your theoretical cap on corporate growth. How can you call it "free market economics" when market share is pre-determined by the government -
Again, your words, not mine. For someone so sensitive to strawmen, you're building them left and right here...
Once a business assumes this label, what incentive is there for them stop taking excessive risks?
Agreed. I haven't said anything different. You said:
There is no such thing as "too big to fail". No company should ever be given such a label.
And I reminded you that right or wrong the label exists.
They were counter-points to an argument I never made, ergo, strawmen.
You made a vague stab at the "any regs mean no Free Market" popular misunderstanding of the overall concept of the Free Market.
I have asked you to restate or further expand upon your position.
Oh. I implied it, did I? You must be very perceptive, reading into people's thoughts like that.
I was being polite with "implied". You dance around it, trying to pretend you knew what you were talking.
Again, you have the floor. You can keeping trying to tell me what you 'meant' say all day long, but that don't mean crap. Let's hear it. Tell us all about the 'Free Market' and appropriate rules and regulations.
I can't back off a POV I never held, and I can't clarify a point I never made. I'll stop referencing logical fallacies as soon as you stop using them to support your position.
That's the problem, when you're vague and make general remarks, no one knows what you mean. So tell me.
Ones that protect people from coercion and fraud.
Anything else?
Tax cuts.
Temporary programs designed to offer transitional assistance to families living in poverty.
Of course, the fallout might have been smaller - even non-existent - had the government adhered to free market principles in the first place.
Tax cuts to whom? The unemployed. The homeless. The failed companies.
How much would the these "transitional programs" cost? House, feeding, educating, moving millions of people.
Again, you make the mistake of focusing on 'free' and not 'market'. I agree the level playing field does not exists. But that is the fault of Government and big corporations.
But to make it exist, to bring it into existence and NOT endure and entire economic collapse and rebuilding of the system -- that is the rub.