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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cirrus who wrote (2237)	10/3/2006 3:18:30 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Yes, after certain point. Some economists have said that when public control of GDP moves past 30% you start getting negative returns. So, moving the money away from the realm of a personal decision to a political decision is what, in fact, causes the harm?

To: cirrus who wrote (2237)	10/3/2006 3:30:05 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

We rely on the political system to achieve common goals.... True, but the problem is that money spent by politicians does not efficiently utilize the knowledge available in society. Sowell explores this in his KNOWLEDGE AND DECISIONS, a book that might add to your understanding of views opposite yours.

To: cirrus who wrote (2237)	10/3/2006 5:44:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

If that's the case it would appear that the basis for your opinion is more ideological than economic Its an economic idea but it has a lot of ideological connections. The idea being that generally the market is a more efficent way to determine the alocation of resources than political decision making. There are some areas where it seems hard or even impossible to effectively use market forces, and also if there is no government to keep the peace, deter or defeat outside attack, and settle disputes its possible for the market economy to break down. Furthermore even when the market might be more efficent it might be deicded that some other goal is more important in a particular situation. For example you might have some form of government action to try and increase equality or reduce poverty. But if too much of the economy is decided based on political means the impact on efficency will be such that the situation will not on the whole be as good as if a more free market system was used. Picking up trash is not really something that has to be a government run activity. Better examples would be the military, police, and courts. That such expenditures are paid from taxes levied by the political system doesn't mean they are harmful. The taxes themselves are harmful. The activities may be beneficial. As I said before sometimes the benefit is greater than the harm/cost, but the harm should always be recognized. There are certain government actions that are probably required to maintain a stable society. There are other roles where private action would be problematic, and where government action would provide a strong obvious benefit, and a benefit that is apparently greater than the cost in economic terms and in terms of liberty. Recognizing that fact isn't a good argument for large government. Much of the federal government's activities don't clearly fall in to either of those areas.