BF2S Forums Damn the deficit: Full speed ahead on health care

FatherTed wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

(not picking on you) Funny how two of the big economic powerhouses (by England i'll include GB) are socialist. I thought librul economics are dooomed to fail

And they're both in decline, not ascension. GB has exactly one pillar of economics out of three keeping it afloat (Services, Resource Extraction and Manufacturing make up the trifecta). You better pray your government doesn't allow your banks to destroy your economy because it will never recover.

the comment was more aimed at the lowing-esque school of thought, that anything liberal is inherently communist and thus, evil, muslim and possibly black. and/or ginger.

but i'll bite. Every western economic powerhouse (of importance) is having..issues at the moment, so i wouldn't say it's too much to do with us being socialised - perhaps even as a lack of socialisation. The only people who seem to be weathering this are the lovely places like China (sort of), and only because (of) THEY GET SHIT DONE OR NO RICE FOR YOU mentality.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-27 19:42:29)

FatherTed wrote:

oh, you're sort of like our conversatives then. i'm not a dirty moooslim commie librul either, but apparently in yankee-land i would be. i don't know, all this politics stuff is rather dull.

note to self; self medication does not cure a cold.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-27 19:46:32)

JohnG@lt wrote:

As for me being anti-liberal... Well I'm a libertarian, a classical liberal if you will. I believe in true freedom, both in social aspects and in those financial. I don't want my actions dictated for me and I want economic forces to destroy bad companies and reward good ones. As I said, the entire concept of socialism in a liberal context is a paradox. There is absolutely nothing liberal or freeing about adopting socialist policies. Socialism is nothing more than an ultra-conservative economic and social approach. I find it amusing that the staunchest opponents of the status quo are also the staunchest advocates of socialism. It's a paradox of being 'unenlightened', to borrow their own term, to what reality is.

Socialism is just another word for Democracy. Both put you at the mercy of the mob.

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I don't want my actions dictated for me and I want economic forces to destroy bad companies and reward good ones.

Give us an example of where this theory hasn't failed utterly.
You need regulation or you end up with monopolies.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I can't think of a time when allowing the government to run wild hasn't resulted in money and hence power winding up in the hands of a small number who then monopolise the situation.

FEOS wrote:

I don't think he can provide one because there has never been a true pure free market...which kind of shoots your argument right in the ass.

Phrozenbot wrote:

Whether you realize it or not Dilbert, your standard of living is significantly better because of free market enterprise.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-29 04:38:42)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Whether you realize it or not Dilbert, your standard of living is significantly better because of free market enterprise.

I realise that, but its regulated free market enterprise which gives us this, not unregulated winner takes all capitalism.
A totally free market leads to accumulation of wealth and power by a handful of people.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But in free markets as soon as someone becomes rich and powerful they use that power and wealth to impose regulation which cements their dominance.
Free markets will never happen for this reason.

The few brief periods of free markets have all ended badly with money and power in the hands of a few.

Phrozenbot wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Not at all.
Create a totally free market and it will rapidly gravitate to corporatism or oligopoly.
I never said privatise profits and socialise losses, under a regulated market losses shouldn't get so big and nor should profits.

Well it wouldn't, again, be a truly free market, but yes your mixed economy would gradually move that way with big over-sized government. Small limited government would eliminate that. No one would be getting hand-outs, subsidies, mercantilistic regulation that keeps foreign competitors out or at a disadvantage, regulation that stifles out someone's competitors etc. Well maybe not completely, but significantly to where it wouldn't be such a problem it is today. Politicians can be bought you know, and it's worse when they wield more power. They can give it up to those evil robber barons, or money-men if you want to call them that. Goldman Sachs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and plenty of unions have done a good job of that here in the states with some not-so-savory outcomes for the rest of us 'plebeians'.

One problem with a free market is companies can grow beyond a safe level, and morons can gain control of them through force of character as opposed to ability. Boards and shareholders move to slowly to control them.
eg GM, it should never have got so big it couldn't be allowed to fail, and the banks should never have been allowed to loan huge multiples of their assets.

I'm not really getting your point. What are you trying to say? That the government should decide who should and shouldn't be running [insert company]? That they decide when a company is too big and needs to be divided and into how many parts? They thought it was a good idea to force banks to make subprime loans with the Community Reinvestment Act, provide the easy credit with low interest rates from the Federal Reserve (certainly cheaper than what a true free market would dictate), and have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantee over half of all subprime loans, inflating housing prices to ridiculous levels. How has that worked for us?

Not to mention the SEC's complete incompetency with handling Berny Madoff. The government doesn't know better than the private sector, and the private sector has natural disciple and rewards those for successful business ventures in a free market. You tend to manage money better when it's yours, even if it is based on greed. The government and their infinite wisdom, however, have done a really good job keeping their centrally planned economies in check.

The best economy is a market which is sufficiently well regulated that it behaves almost as a fully free market, but without the colossal risks a truly free market contains.

Free markets don't create colossal risks. Knowing that there is seemingly endless amounts of credit to invest foolishly abroad no matter how ridiculous, but having the assurance of being bailed out from the government, results in colossal risk. It's called moral hazard, and the free markets don't intensify it. In fact, they make sure those who fail to compete and make irrational investments go out of business. Better managed, more competent businesses can then buy those assets to make better use of them. Basically, it's the markets way of shifting workable assets from one hand, to a better one.

I'm sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth about privatizing profits and socializing losses, but your support for large government that has to regulate the market does exactly what I've described. We're witnessing it today, I shouldn't have to provide further proof... the government stimulus here in the US and abroad will wear off and we will continue to see more blood on the streets, along with more bailouts. The last time I read about total notional derivatives from the BIS, they've gone up since the crisis. There you go, banks and everyone else chasing shadow money again because what's to worry?

And Aussie, I don't got time to explain, but maybe you might want to read this from the Ludvig Von Mises Institute.

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I'd like to pull away government officials Pensions, so they'd have to come up with a workable Social Security act. Also would like to pull away their health care, so they'd have to come up with a reasonable health care proposal. 

Seriously why should those who make the laws be awarded for constant failures?

There's also the thought process that if they could come up with a Good Social health care it will free up money for business's to reinvest in hiring. Health care expense is not cheap and that money could be used to grow out, which means more taxable payroll income and more taxable goods money.