from what george soros presented because it suggests in a fact that what laissez-faire means is it's not the law markets to do whatever they want on price terms. what it says in effect is that what you do is you start when you look a 9 markets with a presumption against regulation, but that you can find certain circumstances where it's invocation will, in fact, lead to general kinds of improvements enand that you're regulation is always calibrated to that particular problem, and if we have time and go into the specifics of regulations, you can actually show how the pre-1944 reaction judges had a better sense of how to regulate than the modern judges who lost the presumption against government regulation. now, in also applies to financial markets. i would regard it as a characteristic to say you don't want any form of insurance or any form of regulation, but the key question to ask is it's not whether you have regulation, but actually what the kind of techniques you're going to use to dpeel with the regulations that you have. everybody i think understands that when you're starting to

and one of the interesting things is if you go back to the height of the english laissez-faire all of the judges that wrote about this issue understood this particular distinction, and they were aware that the particular arrangements with respect to the refusals to deal that might work in the competitive markets would not work in the effort. so how does this start to break itself of? of me see what can explain, i might take an extra minute or two. in the competitive law it is the only way you can get to an effective equilibrium is to allow people to refuse to deal with other individuals. if in fact you're going to force the transactions you have the resources going in a dizzying array one person after another and can never figure out the dirt is the employee and the vice versa so that is a system is essentially going to define his conversion ordinary market behavior and everything will collapse but once you start to have a natural monopoly that is a single supply of the market of lower-cost and a legal monopoly given from the states. now you have an asymmetry. the only one to move the

thank god the laissez faire policies of our dear president field marshal bobo have protected us as he so eloquently stated in his state of the [making chimp noises] >> jon: i think that last parted was a feces throw for emphasis. >> very expressive. >> jon: no matter which party gains tupper hand in 2011, it leads to a dystopia in america governed by apes. >> both: yes. >> jon: no third option might lead to that not happening? >> both: no. ...was it something big? ...or something small? ...something old? ...or something new? ...or maybe, just maybe... it's something you haven't seen yet. the 2nd generation of intel core processors. stunning visuals, intelligent performance. this is visibly smart. >> jon: welcome back. made... made... made in america used to mean something. mostly that we had jobs. [laughter] here in america. but with so many of these jobs going overseas, america has but one choice. jason jones has more. >> for years america faced a great threat. >> socialism is coming our way. >> we want to go to iraq. >> do we really want to change america into sweden? >> but when sw

talk about the end of laissez faire. prepare for the turn of the master. >> john maynard keynes, hayek, round two. state economists. >> john papola, what are we seeing? >> the gentleman with the beard and friar tuck is a certain federal chairman. i will leave it to the audience. it is also my dad. >> that is your dad? >> how about the other fellow? >> he is surrounded by people who represent the broker- dealers, the actual big money spenders that the fed interacts with. they have an odd relationship with the agency where they sit on his board but also buy securities with it and sometimes turn to it when they get in a pinch. >> who is the fellow sitting on the right of ben bernanke? someone thought it was timothy geithner. >> it is not. it is no one in particular. there is no name associated with that particular man in the real world. >> what do you try to accomplish with the video? >> we are trying to get the understanding of the economic argument between these two people and the argument to the keynesian approach revers

they think this is the great revolutionary transformative moment, because it is goodbye to the laissez-fairedoctrine into the rugged individualism, that characterized american ideology and society for decades. now there is a new ethos of community and interdependence. we are citizens and the same community and the same society and now we are in the same boat. we have to help one another. it is not time for social darwinism, survival of the fittest. this is what a society really is. it is a national community of people who are interdependent. >> nicely said and i was thinking that roosevelt referring to himself as humble, you can imagine roosevelt haters and maybe even jim's dad would have find it politely laughable when fdr would refer to himself as humble and any circumstance. more fodder for the roosevelt critics. i agree with susan and one thing that she said that really said a lot to me was the way that, and you will see this all through this book and all of jim's writing, it works so well on the level almost a fiction it is written so politically especially the expert -- excerpt which i

what we just endured for the government and the federal reserve and if we weren't wearing our laissez-faire blinders we would see clearly this is a failure of capitalism and so on and so forth. well, i talk a little bit about this in "meltdown" that was the "new york times" bestsellers two years ago. and a lot of this is in "roll back," but in "meltdown" i hope the roll of the interest rates. interest rates turn out to be the most interesting thing in the world because they play a coordinating function in the economy. you can't just intervene in the economy and say, i think interest rates should be even lower so let's do it and i bet there will be no consequences. no, haack who won the nobel peace prize in 198 but i know the nobel prize has been a bit poisoned in years but hayek's win of nobel prize but he won it for saying the exact opposite what the nobel team wanted him to say. this is a boom/bust cycles. the interest rates sets the economy on kind of a sugar high that it crashes from but hayek says interest rates are supposed to act as a break. they're supposed to be a break on our ambi