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: TimF who wrote (150813)	9/3/2002 2:49:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586132

An interesting Post by "Neocon" on another thread If socialism worked, it would be more or less correct. No child should grow up in squalor; life chances are not at all equal, and although there is nothing wrong with uneven luck, there should be limits to the disadvantage of low birth; and if government could ensure general prosperity, and a reasonable allocation of rewards, why not? The problem is that socialism does not work, and that it has moral flaws of its own. Capitalism has proven to be a much more reliable instrument of economic growth and technological innovation; the politicization of the economy is merely an invitation to corruption; freedom must be curtailed too much to make planning effective; and merit tends to be snubbed, so that the talented and hardworking are exploited for the sake of the dull and lazy. The welfare states of Europe are not truly socialist, but quasi- capitalist, and even they are having problems with hampered economic growth and competitiveness. Liberalism, in the last hundred years, has generally been less ambitious than the "social democracies" of stern Europe, and, in any case, has rarely aspired to true socialism. However, it has taken an optimistic view of government's ability to affect the economy, and of the ability of government to solve social problems, at least hastening the pace of change markedly. The problem is that economics is like meteorology: although it understands something of the underlying dynamics of the phenomena studied, it has little predictive power for the long term, and without the ability to predict, one cannot very well take steps to control. Similarly with social problems: they are often too complex, and, in any case, would require a degree of control over the subjects that no one would tolerate, for us to be very ambitious about taking effective action. Conservatives are much more skeptical about the role of government, especially the federal government, and take a more modest position about addressing social and economic problems. A true conservative, as distinct from a libertarian, is not intrinsically hostile to government, and, indeed, thinks it can play a constructive role. But he is leery of wasting resources on half- baked schemes, and conscious of the way the hand of government can weigh heavily on people, even when benevolent. His default position is against ambitious initiatives, which does not mean that he cannot be persuaded that a particular program has merit, only that the case must be strong to win assent. Message 17937787

To: TimF who wrote (150813)	9/3/2002 3:03:35 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586132

Calling him a crackpot is just an ad-hominem attack. You provide no evidence for the assertion and even if it is true 1 - I posted two other sources, and 2 - Crackpots are right sometimes, if they make a rational argument (and this person did) then you have to either show a flaw in the argument or in the premises otherwise you are addressing the person and ignoring the issue. Tim, okay, I generally think he is crackpot but he was right when he said that the Reps. held Clinton back from doing more. I think Clinton did a great job but the Reps. were a pain in the ass and a bit of a whining group, and made accomplishing more difficult. ted

To: TimF who wrote (150813)	9/3/2002 3:06:58 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586132

Calling him a crackpot is just an ad-hominem attack. You provide no evidence for the assertion and even if it is true 1 - I posted two other sources, And yes, I commented on one of the others. It did not show much more than what my original links showed......which is that GM was not alone in helping the demise of the streetcar. They were helped by some municipalities. So what? And why the hell are you defending GM? Unless you are GM Jr. or some other Corporate Jr., you do not stand to gain from GM screwing us..........so why do you care? ted