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 Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: shades who wrote (37033)	7/26/2005 7:06:55 PM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 110194

I agree that government can do positive things. Although I have minarchist leanings, I do recognize that government can act in the interest of the public, even well beyond the "necessary evil" level of government. I agree there's a role for public education. But, the federal system (in which government is devolved to the most local level possible) works well, and I also think that government should not do what private enterprise can do better. I also think that there should be strictly defined limits on government power. In my view, limited government is itself in the public interest. Why should a government with a constant presence in your financial life stay out of your bedroom? (what the limits ought to be is debatable.) There is no free lunch. Whether the government pays for health care or the current hodgepodge of self-insurance, employer insurance, and Medicare/Medicaid, the costs don't change. Legislative decisions or executive orders can't change prices without also affecting supply. For example, in most of Canada (which, except for Quebec, is under single payer), some procedures can't be done for any price. The intentions are good, but I think it's a catastrophic mistake to evaluate a policy by intentions alone.