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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (214855)	1/25/2007 11:18:33 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

Feel free to provide a detailed guide to how we know when non-competitive systems are preferred. That's what I've been telling you. as a general rule, competitive systems are better, and I think the data widely supports this I'm asking again WHAT DATA? Obviously competitive systems, when they are actually competitive (medicine is not that competitive) can drive price down and quality up but that is not always the case. To say that is almost always the case is to assume facts not in evidence. Again, free markets are a theory, not a reality. Profits aren't evil, some people are sometimes evil. Outsized profits made through corruption (say, ExxonMobil or the AMA) is just as evil and just as damaging as people who whack other people upside the head and steal from them. I don't know about public utilities but private utilities are pretty closely regulated as far as I can tell. When, however, the likes of Enron start manipulating energy flows in order to create huge profits for themselves then that's a very big problem. Remember the blackouts in California and the Enron traders cackling about how grandma is going to be outta power? That's evil. Do you want a 100% for-profit military? If not, why not? If so, why?