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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (111422)	2/17/2008 12:53:59 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

the powerful will always* take advantage of the less powerful in whatever for of society one is in.* To the extent this is true, its best to have limited government. With larger more involved government you have more ability for people to use that power to take advantage of others. More ability for government officials to do so, and also more ability for corporations and rich individuals to manipulate the government to server their own ends against everyone else.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (111422)	2/17/2008 10:16:34 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Skeeter, >the straight forward answer to the question i asked is that an oversupply of goods and services suggests trickle up ought to be applied and an under supply of goods and services suggests that a trickle down approach ought to be applied< By the way skeeter, I understood your question but because you actually even asked it, I knew it would lead to another debate over very basic economics. I didn't want to start another discussion where you went off on more political rants, started accusing me of saying and believing things I don't believe so you could attack me etc.... To begin with, it is the economic policies of government and its institutions that tend to lead to the types of excesses and imbalances you describe above. Then the political hacks and idiots want to do more tinkering to stay in office. If it's wasn't so sad I'd have to laugh at the stupidity. There is rarely a valid reason for the government to interfere in the personal preferences of consumers and businesses to save/invest vs. consume as you suggest above. There is no "right" level of each. Preferences and needs change over time and healthy economies can readily adjust to those changes. However, since savings and investment is where long term growth and increased standards of living come from, you certainly don't want to pursue policies that expand consumption and punish savings in order to achieve shorter term stability. That goes triple in a country like the U.S. where consumption is rewarded and saving is often punished. (ask Bernanke and Greenspan for the explanation, I'm tired of this) It is that kind of policy interference (geared toward short term stability rather than long term economic health) that causes so many longer term problems.