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 : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gpowell who wrote (8091)	4/18/2006 2:30:32 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

Would you agree that even in this hypothetical circumstance Lerner is still a socialist? Yes, because he's presumptive and doesn't want the market to decide. He thinks he knows better than a market what is in the social interest, and that's the pretense to knowledge that leads to destruction. A democratic government can legitimately define what is good, but it has to let the private sector deliver it. Maybe the private sector discovers through the invisible hand of unprofitability that what government thinks is good, is actually bad. This is usually the way it works, and maybe this is what Lerner is saying. It is interesting though that Lerner's concession contains the seeds of its own demise. It's like Soviet Union. It wasn't a practical state. Once this impracticality of some arbitrary social ideal is discovered the state mechanism has to be reconstructed, the unprofitable enterprise dictated by pretense has to be dismantled, and the result when taken to fullness, is capitalism. Thus, and contrary to Marx, socialism eventually ends up back in capitalism. So socialism destroys itself. This is all well and good, but it does render unto poverty the lives of many of those that happen to have their lives captured by the socialist experiment.