Recommended Posts
RonD1120 58
QuoteQuote
The fallacy in the theory is that the government is terribly inefficient in solving the problems for which they have responsibility.
IMO, it's becoming ever more reasonable to classify people in SC debates as those that favor markets, and those that favor government.
Markets, by definition, have many buyers and many sellers. In a market transaction, if I don't like what's on the table, I move on to the next buyer/seller. Likewise, markets are known to produce cost effective excellence through competition.
Government offers neither of these. You can't walk away from a transaction with a government, nor is there any competition to produce cost effective excellence in government.
For those people that favor government, they tend to have a negative view of their fellow man when it comes to markets. Ah, you can't trust men in market situations. Yet, they'll take some of their fellow men, elevate them into position of governments, and trust them. Their view makes no sense to me.
We stand together here. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint so succinctly.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
+1
DanG 1
QuoteFor those people that favor government, they tend to have a negative view of their fellow man when it comes to markets. Ah, you can't trust men in market situations. Yet, they'll take some of their fellow men, elevate them into position of governments, and trust them. Their view makes no sense to me.
I don';t favor government over markets (except for such things as justice, military protection, regulation, etc.) but I'd like to point out that your statement makes as much sense if you reverse the nouns:
QuoteFor those people that favor markets, they tend to have a negative view of their fellow man when it comes to government. Ah, you can't trust men in government. Yet, they'll take some of their fellow men, elevate them into position of market makers, and trust them. Their view makes no sense to me.
- Dan G
Quote
your statement makes as much sense if you reverse the nouns:
Interesting exercise, DanG. I disagree with your assessment. If I find a market maker difficult to deal with, I simply move on to another one. Can't make that decision when it comes to a government.
I am not saying that government does not have a role in our society, BTW. The items you pointed out are vital roles for government: justice, military, and regulations that promote functioning markets.
We are all engines of karma
DanG 1
I admit it's not a perfect analogy, but I think people tend to forget that both government and markets are made up of people. People generally look out for their perceived self-interest, so absolute trust in either one is foolish.
As far as dealing with a bad market, mobility is not always practical. You pretty much have to deal with the banking, oil, and real estate industries. Those industries are becoming dominated by fewer and fewer companies, with greater and greater power. Markets only work when there is mobility and competition. I think we're seeing less of both.
- Dan G
As far as dealing with a bad market, mobility is not always practical. You pretty much have to deal with the banking, oil, and real estate industries. Those industries are becoming dominated by fewer and fewer companies, with greater and greater power. Markets only work when there is mobility and competition. I think we're seeing less of both.
- Dan G
Quote
People generally look out for their perceived self-interest, so absolute trust in either one is foolish.
One can argue that markets work best when people do act in their strict self-interest. Agreed, absolute trust has no place in that environment.
Quote
As far as dealing with a bad market, mobility is not always practical. You pretty much have to deal with the banking, oil, and real estate industries. Those industries are becoming dominated by fewer and fewer companies, with greater and greater power. Markets only work when there is mobility and competition. I think we're seeing less of both.
Agreed. In a competitive market, poor performers drop out of that market. There must be replacements that come in, otherwise that market may reach a point where it's no longer functioning. That can, and does, cause problems.
We are all engines of karma
jgoose71 0
QuoteQuotePeople should probably read what Lincoln said during the debates.
True, but when you compare what he said to what Douglas said..... He is the more 'liberal' when it came to blacks. Then when you look at Grant and his signing of the 1871 Klan Act effectively killed the first iteration of the KKK. It is pretty easy to make the claim that the republicans were more supportive of blacks than the other political parties at the time.
The second iteration of the KKK was started again by a book and play called 'The clansmen'. The writer, Thomas Dixon, Jr., said the purpose of his book was to "revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!" So given this, it would also be safe to say that democrats at the time were not the party that supported black rights.
Kind of goes along with what I read on "stolenhistory.com"
http://stolenhistory.org/category/democratic-party-history/
Quote
Speaking to two Governors on Air Force One, then President LB Johnson was quoted saying, “”I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” according Ronald Kessler’s Book in relation to the Law.
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
SkyDekker 1,123
QuoteIMO, it's becoming ever more reasonable to classify people in SC debates as those that favor markets, and those that favor government.
And there are probably some who think both are equally important.
jclalor 12
I want my 7 minutes and 56 seconds back.
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuote
your statement makes as much sense if you reverse the nouns:
Interesting exercise, DanG. I disagree with your assessment. If I find a market maker difficult to deal with, I simply move on to another one. Can't make that decision when it comes to a government.
Actually you can. You even have options regarding how to do so. You can move to a location within the jurisdiction of a different government. Alternately, you can participate in government, including, but certainly not limited to, voting out the politicians with whom you disagree about policy.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Quote
Actually you can. You even have options regarding how to do so. You can move to a location within the jurisdiction of a different government. Alternately, you can participate in government, including, but certainly not limited to, voting out the politicians with whom you disagree about policy.
Much easier in a market.
We are all engines of karma
IMO, it's becoming ever more reasonable to classify people in SC debates as those that favor markets, and those that favor government.
Markets, by definition, have many buyers and many sellers. In a market transaction, if I don't like what's on the table, I move on to the next buyer/seller. Likewise, markets are known to produce cost effective excellence through competition.
Government offers neither of these. You can't walk away from a transaction with a government, nor is there any competition to produce cost effective excellence in government.
For those people that favor government, they tend to have a negative view of their fellow man when it comes to markets. Ah, you can't trust men in market situations. Yet, they'll take some of their fellow men, elevate them into position of governments, and trust them. Their view makes no sense to me.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites