http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013...ncome.html

Read it, I dare you :billgates:

I have no problem with a mixed economy. The problem is that in every case that government intervenes in the market place..it goes to damn far. Thus..I have to on principle oppose ALL government intervention.
I am fully aware this is not going to happen and the best that can be expected is to slow down the government as much as possible. Do I think there are market solutions possible to things the government sticks it's nose into?..Yes. I also agree that some things the government does are beneficial. It just always costs more and ends up beyond it's original scope. That is just the nature of governmental bureaucracies. They are inherently wasteful and do not have to respond to market signals since they get to confiscate their funding instead of competing for revenue in the free market.

The problem I have with this article is that the author fails to point out the fact that the things he claims are necessary for government to be involved in...It does poorly. My question to him...Why is that?

Because it's Yglesias, an intellectual giant akin to RobertN.

(04-01-2013 04:42 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I have no problem with a mixed economy. The problem is that in every case that government intervenes in the market place..it goes to damn far. Thus..I have to on principle oppose ALL government intervention.
I am fully aware this is not going to happen and the best that can be expected is to slow down the government as much as possible. Do I think there are market solutions possible to things the government sticks it's nose into?..Yes. I also agree that some things the government does are beneficial. It just always costs more and ends up beyond it's original scope. That is just the nature of governmental bureaucracies. They are inherently wasteful and do not have to respond to market signals since they get to confiscate their funding instead of competing for revenue in the free market.

The problem I have with this article is that the author fails to point out the fact that the things he claims are necessary for government to be involved in...It does poorly. My question to him...Why is that?

I figured you'd be bothered by the fact that he claims gov't sets up capitalism...he claims it's essential to capitalism (well beyond solid contract enforcement).

Gov't gets out of the way for capitalism, it doesn't structure it.

(04-01-2013 04:44 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Because it's Yglesias, an intellectual giant akin to RobertN.

So much for the benefits of a university education. A lot of people get dumber.

That guy is an affront to morality. He sounds like Wesley Mouch. And his previous article on the Mercatus Center's freedom rankings is just as bad.

Quote:Without a central bank minding the store properly, the entire macroeconomy will fall into periodic recessions lasting months or years.

Yes, thank goodness that hasn't happened since the Fed was created.

(04-01-2013 05:01 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 04:42 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I have no problem with a mixed economy. The problem is that in every case that government intervenes in the market place..it goes to damn far. Thus..I have to on principle oppose ALL government intervention.
I am fully aware this is not going to happen and the best that can be expected is to slow down the government as much as possible. Do I think there are market solutions possible to things the government sticks it's nose into?..Yes. I also agree that some things the government does are beneficial. It just always costs more and ends up beyond it's original scope. That is just the nature of governmental bureaucracies. They are inherently wasteful and do not have to respond to market signals since they get to confiscate their funding instead of competing for revenue in the free market.

The problem I have with this article is that the author fails to point out the fact that the things he claims are necessary for government to be involved in...It does poorly. My question to him...Why is that?

I figured you'd be bothered by the fact that he claims gov't sets up capitalism...he claims it's essential to capitalism (well beyond solid contract enforcement).

Gov't gets out of the way for capitalism, it doesn't structure it.

Yes..That bothers me also.

The only PURE form of capitalism that's ever existed was on a Pirate ship...

(04-02-2013 11:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The only PURE form of capitalism that's ever existed was on a Pirate ship...

Yeah, thanks for that brilliant insight...

(04-02-2013 12:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 11:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The only PURE form of capitalism that's ever existed was on a Pirate ship...

Yeah, thanks for that brilliant insight...

Any time, dude...

(04-02-2013 12:03 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 11:53 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The only PURE form of capitalism that's ever existed was on a Pirate ship...

Yeah, thanks for that brilliant insight...

WTF do you have against Pirates?....Arrrrggghhh..*****.