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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Giordano Bruno who wrote (109467)	10/7/2007 9:45:45 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

There's a lot of wishing on a star in his comments. The spending programs could certainly be reduced and executed much more efficiently. For example, do we need to spend more on defense than all the rest of the world put together? If our massive spending on defense was efficient, we would have no enemies at all. Yet, with all of that spending, we are always ill-prepared at the start of any conflict that develops. Ron Paul is an attractive candidate, but he just doesn't get the fact that we have prospered because we are a mixed socialist/capitalist economy. No purely capitalistic society could exist, as the social divisions would be too vast. And purely socialistic economies are not as efficient of those that have a peppering of private enterprise in them. The question has never been socialism or capitalism. The question has always been the definitions of and the mix of the two. For example, I don't think a banking industry managed by the Fed, and supported by our tax money, while the huge profits go to people who didn't take any risk, is either capitalistic or socialistic, and is just a big mess. It is the worst of both worlds.