Braineack

iTrader: (62)

those ------- fat cats. i should hand this laptop back.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

I'll take my chances over the governent regulated outcomes.

Have you ever considered that pretty much everything you've posted relies upon a perfect decisions making process and perfect product from our elected officials?

Pick whichever side you like best, then consider that the other will probably take control at least once every 3-terms. I wish I were rich like a Vanderbilt, but I'd rather take my chances where I am, on my own, than rely on Pelosi, Reid, and Hussein to make decisions for me on things like how much money I can make and what kind of hobbies I can have.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

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.


Though a little long, that Rolling Stone link that blaen posted is worth reading. It's a perfect microcosm of the lack of (or lack of enforcement of) fraud controls.

As a bonus, there is an even longer but even more interesting article on some entrepreneurial guys in their early 20s that managed to become big-time international arms dealers and won a $300 million contract from the Bush Administration's small business initiative.

JasonC SBB

+1

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).

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Self-reliance, honor, dignity, freedom, oh how I mourn thy passing!

My television bears witness that shame has died as well. It was good when there were acts that a person was ashamed to commit; a little voice was telling you that something was not right to do though you were capable of the act.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Start a pattern of behavior; I see no reason to stop.
You got a habit, got to have it 'til it's finished don't drop
The Charlie Chan's chopped, Pabst pitcher been poured
You got a spare kidney and your liver looks bored
So stop ------- around
You're buying the next round

You wanna be a Thompson, Hemingway, Bukowski
Banging Bill Burroughs lived to 83
You're famous and you're rich, (You're a ------- ********)
Quit acting like a bitch

And no one likes you!

Sparetire

.