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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (13893)	9/24/2003 2:40:45 PM
From: gpowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Implied in your statements is a distrust of the free market. That government can spend money productively was never questioned - there are numerous examples. The point is that to the extent that wealth and decision making is concentrated the process of discovery is bounded. Over the long run, whenever wealth and power have been concentrated there results fewer innovations, lower wealth, and less technological density and advancement. You suggested that a decision to buy a doughnut is a waste of resources and that those resources would be more productively used by a central authority. Decisions made through a market process as opposed to the political process are superior in the long run because they convey a more distinct sense of constraints and trade-offs. Markets maximize information and transmit feedback thus enabling the correction of errors and adaptation to changing conditions. Feedback mechanisms are critical in maximizing efficiency because it is unlikely that any one individual will have enough knowledge to be consistently right the first time in his decisions. When decisions are concentrated, you effectively eliminate this feedback mechanism. But innovation cannot happen without education, research, and development, and without multi-million investments in these areas you cannot get anything fundamental nowdays. Thigh-master at most. This statement isn’t supportable by history or common sense. Certainly some areas of research need massive funding and it isn’t improper for public goods to be used in such purposes – regardless of whether there is a positive return on investment. Just as it isn’t improper to provide some type of public assistance. But one should understand the tradeoff you are making when you decide to use public resources for public goods :-) After being a contributor to the science of nonlinear dymamic, pattern formation and chaotic behavior of complex systems about 20 years ago, I do not appreciate this kind of populistic interpretations like "spontaneous order" etc. Your attempt to demonstrate your superiority was funny. The concept of spontaneous order as applied to economics predates your education in nonlinear dynamics by about 70 years. The point is that a non-centralized government is an efficient innovation consistent with a capitalist system. Apparently your eloquence and succinctness is grossly self-overstated since I don't understand your flowery slogans. Not everyone is in politics. I can’t in one paragraph make up for your ignorance.