Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack
I don't think either you or Bob realize it, but you guys are all a lot closer on this subject than you may appreciate. You are all really talking about the problem of "crony capitalism" but just placing different emphasis of which side of the two-headed beast you hate more: corrupt politicians or the capitalists that have managed to buy them.
If one thinks of economic favors as having a marketplace, there is a supply and demand. I dare say that there's a lot of supply of economic favors for sale... just look at how much (how little!) Perry "sold" the Girdasil law for, in TX. Allegedly between $5,000 and $30,000:
Perry's 'contributions' from Merck/Gardasil MUCH larger than $5,000 | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Revolution
Remember too that if there were no economic favors to be sold, then there would be none for "the corporations" to buy. We'd by much, much better off if the gov't were not allowed to meddle in the economy (including currency and interest rates).
People like bbundy believe that "if only the right people get elected" or "if only people would quit being stupid and elect good people" (like Obama, </sarcasm>).
The problem here is that megalomaniacs, narcissists, and psychopaths are exactly the ones who WANT to rise to power, who have an ADVANTAGE in rising to power, and are exactly the WRONG people to rise to power. And this is what keeps happening.
The other problem is that even with good people in power, central economic planning DOES NOT WORK. The reason for this is that knowledge in society is spread out among millions of economic actors, each of whom makes economic decisions for themselves, knowledge which cannot be known to any committee so that they can guide society better than if they were left alone. To think otherwise is called THE FATAL CONCEIT. (Yes this includes central banking). This is Hayek's argument.
The wrong assumption that lefties and statists make is that if the free market is left alone (but with individual rights protected and contracts enforced), the results will be less optimal than if a committee with noble intentions and godlike powers were granted power. In a free market, all transactions are VOLUNTARY on both sides. When you have "regulation" (wherein gov't creates rules which micromanage), what you have is a guy with a gun whose made-up rules are sold to the highest bidder.
Lefties believe that a free market tends towards the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. There are boatloads of evidence showing the opposite. That the adoption of (classical) liberalism in trade (aka economic freedom aka laissez faire), since the Enlightenment is what has created, and grown, the middle class.
This belief the lefties have produces results exactly the opposite of that intended. You then get concentration of wealth as the regulatory environment is more and more twisted to protect Big Biz, costs go up, and startup competition is quashed. Health care is THE best example of this, in the past 5 decades.
I don't understand bbundy's firm belief that gov't does better than the private sector in many areas. (Other than wage war lol) Perhaps he could explain where he thinks the proper role of the gov't is, and what things it should and shouldn't run. (I can't imagine him saying that he would like gov't food, gov't clothes, gov't cars, and gov't housing for everyone. He seems to like the idea of gov't cellphones and gov't internet though lol).