Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (137928)	7/6/2001 1:48:22 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584515

Ted Re..Tim, I think that most would consider your desires a little reactionary. Less taxes and regulation is from another time...it worked to some degree then but its unlikely to work now. I know I have said this before but I will say it again, people who think like you do[and this is not intended as a put down] need to be in places where reg. is not necessary at this time. For an example, I suggested before the Australian outback. Another possibility is some of the more agrarian states in Africa. I met a guy a while back who is thinking of emigrating to the country that used to be called Rhodesia. He really likes that the laws are few and there is little taxation.<<<<< I thought you liberals were shooting for freedom, not more taxation and more regulation. Given a choice, I would take the outback over your ridiculous utopia anytime., Wasn't that what our country was founded upon, freedom, not stifling taxation and regulation. However, to do anything right usually requires additional thinking and planning....not the strong suit for entrepreneurs Don't you have inventors mixed up with entrepreneurs. Thinking and planning are the strong suits of successful entrepreneurs. I would have not allowed the land to have been so mercilously exploited [strip burning, open mining, deforestation, etc] and allowed them to abuse and enslave so many people including children<<<<<<< I doubt if there is a county or small town in this country that would allow that anymore. Back then in the 1800's, slavery and child slavery were common in most countries, not just this one. The robber barrons just took advantage of it. Certainly, Bill Gates is a modern day version; just different times and different methods, but the outcome was the same. Most historians suggest we lost alot in the process of developing this nation. <<<<< Sure, but this country also gained a lot more than we lost, which is why we now are the richest nation in the world. Our companies have gone from being some of the most wasteful, to being the most productive in the world. Japan, isn't even close in productivity. You are talking about practices that are long gone by. Its believed only the robber barons truly benefitted.<<<<<<< While there is no doubt that the robber barons profited immensely, the country as a whole also benefited.

To: tejek who wrote (137928)	7/6/2001 11:57:44 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584515

>>>>> Tim, I think that most would consider your desires a little reactionary. >>>>> Ted, I think some clarity is lost when too much revolves around labels that are interpreted differently by different people. "Liberal", classically meant supporting a greater degree of freedom, but not calls for less taxes and regulation are not just "conservative", but "reactionary". "Liberal" is used as an attack phrase by some conservatives, and "reactionary" is used as an attack by some liberals. The word has some negative connotations, but the direct meaning is either just very conservative (which of course liberals consider negative), or one who reacts negatively to liberals (which is or is not negative depending on what your view on the actions of liberals is), or someone who wants to return some things to the way they used to be. This is not intrinsically bad or good overall, but has to be examined on a case by case basis. >>>>> Less taxes and regulation is from another time...it worked to some degree then but its unlikely to work now. >>>>> The fact that something was done at another time should not be considered a strike against it. Even the most radical slashing of taxes and regulation would work in the sense that it could be implemented, some good would come of it and life would go on, the question is would it be a net benefit or basically a bad thing. I'm not arguing for a state close to anarchy but rather a less extreme cut of government. Many regulations and government programs are not even beneficial let alone necessary, so in my opinion cutting them back would work very well. The Australian outback is subject to the same laws and regulations as the rest of Australia (except probably things like zoning), and can't really be called a place of low taxes and regulations. The US is one of the most free countries in the world. The fact that I complain about it not being free enough doesn't mean I want to emigrate to a country where things are even less free. >>>>> or that they just don't have the complex problems found in dense, urban environments with many diverse cultures. >>>>> If things are so complex that is a good argument for less regulation because the people making the regulations are not omniscient fonts of infinite wisdom, but instead flawed individuals like the rest of us. They can not have detailed real time information about such a complex system and they are subject to the same biases and emotions that we are all subject to. Have you ever read any Hayek, or anything about Public Choice Economics? >>>>> I agree that real life is a messy jumble but I don't think it needs to result in development that rapes the land. After all, the development occurrs because there is demand for the resource and not because some guy wants to get rich quickly. However, to do anything right usually requires additional thinking and planning....not the strong suit for entrepreneurs. >>>>> If the development had been heavily planned it would have probably resulted in much slower growth. I agree with the idea of environmental protection but 1 - It was not an important theme back then, and any planning would have had more to do with giving power to bureaucrats, or favors to their friends, or perhaps redistribution of wealth, then environmental protection, and 2 - A wealthy developed country can afford using some of the wealth and perhaps sacrificing some growth for environmental protection, a lot better then a developing country can. >>>>> Many mines were built so poorly that when the easy mineral had been gotten, the mine had to be closed because it would cost too much and be too dangerous to access the rest of the ore. It was much easier to jump to a new mine. Today those same mines [with remaining ore] have to be rebuilt at today's costs to access the ore that is still there. >>>>> The main factor is that our extraction technology is much better now. Even if the mines were designed better back then the extra product from them would not have been all that great. The technology and wealth of today allows for better designs with more safety and more production. >>>>> To see that played out today look at the countries that still have great mineral wealth like Nigeria or Mexico or Venezuala. As with those countries, the loss for the society at large isd much greater than the gain. Its believed only the robber barons truly benefitted. >>>>> The US still has great mineral wealth. We have more extractable mineral wealth (using today's technology and measured either in dollars or tons) today then we did before the "robber barons" got to it. We have a great demand for minerals so we import a lot but we also mine a lot. The gain from extracting the resources back in the 19th century was the development of our country, and America as a whole gained enormously. Even many of the individuals that you say where "abused", and "enslaved" benefited. Sure their jobs stunk by today's standards but they wanted them because it led to a better life then say being a sharecropper or farm laborer. Similarly people working for American companies in the third world today have lousy pay and working conditions compared to Americans but they do better then many other people in these countries and they want to work for these companies because of that. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to eliminate the worst abuses but both the robber barons in US history and foreign investment in third world countries have been beneficial to far more then those making the immediate profits. Tim