Comment: Thanks for making my point

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Best example I can give... (see in situ)

Thanks for making my point

Like you said, free speech rights are subordinate to the rule of law, i.e., the Constitution, and markets are subordinate to the rule of law, i.e., the Constitution. This is precisely the point I made in the last paragraph of my post. And that point is a competitive capitalist market economy requires rules. Rules to prevent anti-competitive monopolies from interfering with price discovery based on supply and demand. Rules to eliminate Too Big To Fail banks that inhibit the efficient allocation of resources. And rules to ensure merit, not privilege, determines winners and losers in the market. So why are you down voting my post and comments that agree with my position?

Furthermore, you said it's illegal to commit fraud. The first clip below is Inspector General of TARP Neil Barofsky, he says "fraud" by the nine largest banks caused the financial crisis. The second link is former prosecutor William Black, he helped obtain 1000 felony convictions of elite bankers after the 1980's Savings and Loan meltdown. In the radio interview, he lays out compelling evidence of Wall Street fraud that hasn't been prosecuted. At least listen to the first five minutes. So why aren't free market disciples like you snakepit, who just said fraud is illegal, concerned about unchecked fraud in the "free" market? Particularly when the CBO says it will cost taxpayers 8.6 Trillion to prop up failing banks. In the last link you'll hear about the 8.6 Trillion.

And why aren't free market "capitalists" demanding an end to TBTF banks. You just said free market capitalism has rules, well doesn't that include allowing banks to fail when CEO's commit fraud and bankrupt the business? (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)