SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : BuSab

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (652)5/18/2009 11:22:52 AM
From: grusum   of 23934
 
"One of the things that I believe is that the same rules that apply on a micro scale also apply on a macro scale. The laws of economics for an individual are the same as they are for a family, a business, a city, a state, a country, a planet...."

yes, i believe that this is absolutely key to understand.

and economics (at least the essential parts) is not hard to understand. just understand free market principles and everything else falls into place. understand free market principles and it is easy to see why the government is screwing up EVERY time they get involved. free markets evolve and adapt to changes. government rules and regs don't. as long as a rule is in force, the consequences are without end. even if the rule was initially 'good', the bad consequences eventually get there.

my moment of epiphany came as a consequence of thinking about the FDIC. all my life until recently i thought is was a good thing. after all, they made sure that everyone's money in a bank was safe. don't worry, the government guarantee's your money, therefore no runs on banks. very good, or so i thought. but look at the consequences.. the banks didn't have to be careful because the FDIC would pay for any mistakes. so no one was watching the store. banks could make goofy loans with no consequences because no one cared. but if the FDIC never came into existence people would be watching banks like crazy. if a bank made questionable loans the public would take its money out and put it in a safer institution pronto. the banks wouldn't dare make risky loans and the housing crises could have never got started. and as a result banks would be much safer than they are today. yes, there would be a failure or two. each failure would sharpen the public's gaze on their bank and very few would lose money by putting it in a bank. but that option of failure is needed to make the banks strong.

anyway, from that realization everything else began to fall into place. it's like you said, you don't have to be a genius to understand this stuff. it's good to talk to someone who understands free markets a little.. not many do.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext