So, Governments and encroachment

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

12-20-2011, 10:50 AM

#61

Braineack

Boost Czar

iTrader: (62)

Join Date: May 2005

Location: Chantilly, VA

Posts: 79,493

Total Cats: 4,080

Guess which government has enormous influence over every major economic decision...

12-20-2011, 12:03 PM

#62

JasonC SBB

Elite Member

Join Date: Jul 2005

Posts: 6,420

Total Cats: 84

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaen99

....You just gave synonyms for self-regulating markets while attempting to claim it wasn't that,

What I meant to say was, self-regulation of corporations doesn't exist, but market-based regulation does, and works, as long as customers have the power to vote with their wallets, and the gov't enforces property rights and contracts (see below).

Quote:

What you are advocating, at least if I understand it correctly, already exists.

It does, in some industries. It doesn't, in the financial system, because the very lifeblood of it all, the currency/monetary system, is controlled by a cartel/oligopoly. The creation of the Fed is quite a yarn in its own. See book "Creature from Jekyll Island".

Quote:

This is the problem I have with the "no government" argument of binary thinking.

In a Minarchy, the purpose of gov't is to protect property and individual rights and enforce contracts. The existence of gov't protected cartels such as the Federal Reserve, and of gov't protected guilds, such as the AMA, are violations of those principles.

If you dare open your mind, read the free pdf "Machinery of Freedom". I myself don't necessarily agree with it 100%, but it gave me a lot of food for thought.

12-20-2011, 08:37 PM

#63

blaen99

Elite Member

Thread Starter

iTrader: (6)

Join Date: Sep 2010

Location: Seattle, WA

Posts: 3,611

Total Cats: 25

Quote:

Originally Posted by hustler

I long for the Bush era of contracting over what we have now. I agree with you for the most part, but I do not blame the contractor because federal contracting enables it. The federal contracting system is flawed because it assumes that procurement procedure will foster reasonable pricing. Unfortunately, it does not. It creates a microcosm where the grantee management of contracts and funds provide a gap where costs can be inflated to the maximum allowable for each award. This maximum allowable is also deemed the upper limit for "reasonableness", so the contracting officer cannot disallow it.

If the federal contracting officer had the ability to come down and slap the hand of the offender, this would go away. However, the government's MO is to award the funds, then at the end of the contract, after the A133 audit, see if there is enough fraud to warrant an investigation. I can't tell you what that minim dollar figure is, but it's above $400,000.00. Basically, what I'm saying is that if you steal/scam/cheat less than $400,000 of tax funds, you won't be prosecuted or even investigated.

This is wrong, and should be severely punished in my eyes. But...this whole topic here seems to be a giant clusterfuck of "HEY, EVERYONE AGREES ON THIS!", which brings into question "Okay, so everyone agrees on this. What do we do?"

Quote:

In the Bush era, a few choice contractors scored cash, but in my experience the work was completed. Under this administration the focus is providing funds to a select group of people

And yet, this is the point I disagree with you. I remember the Bush era distinctly, do no bid contracts ring a bell? I firmly believe that Bush did the same thing, but just used different policies. Granted, if you are referring to Sr instead of Jr, I retract my statement and am completely wrong.