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 : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (276898)	9/18/2010 2:59:31 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Koan, What are you calling social expenditure?? that is a new term for me ... Don't confuse supply side economics with Austrian economics ... Supply side economics -- usually is used in a narrow sense and associated with Laffer's curve -- which has not been discredited -- he simply asserted that it was possible to reduce the tax burden in such a way to increase revenues. This may or may not be possible, depending upon the real pool of savings. Austrian economics has a much longer history and the fundamental principles Mises put forth in his masterwork Human Action have not been refuted. Everything that has happened in the last century and this one have served to show that his theory is absolutely correct on all major points. Why they continue to teach the lies of Keynesian economics in school has to do with those in power trying to retain that power. One of the quickest way to dumb down the populace is putting in place a public education system to indoctrinate them -- it starts in the grade schools, continues into high school and on into college. The reason that people can't understand basic arguments like the one put forward by Shostak is because economic theory has been supplanted by class warfare and the politics of envy -- You keep saying capitalism is flawed and can never work [of course this misses that for years we have tilted away from true capitalism and every corporation has wanted more and more government as long as it protected its business -- so we have the patchwork of tax favors we call tax law, same with other regs on commerce and environment] -- so you want to replace what remaining vestiges of capitalism we do have with a benevolent dictator -- or central planning based on majority vote -- but what you fail terribly to realize is this: There would be no real wealth to fight over in the first place -- if we first hadn't had some semblance of a free market where folks were incentivized to amass capital and produce real goods. Now you are willing to buy a monetary solution -- and argue over the redistribution of paper (straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel) -- while the policies against free enterprise continually shrink the real pie of goods and services. Read the Shostak article I posted and make an intelligent comment -- not an emotional response -- for that's all it is when you say capitalism failed -- when our system has tilted increasingly away from it in so many regards. The mess we are in is not a failure of capitalism -- and the conclusion is not that we need socialism or marxism -- but that we need to return to giving all folks the oppty to succeed or fail -- no government guarantees, except the right to compete in the marketplace unfettered by special rules for those who have paid their favorite politician, directly or indirectly. 90% of the people who post on here say we'd be in the deepest depression had the government not printed wads of money -- gave GS 1 dollar per 1 dollar of lousy bets on AIGs crap. It's just accepted -- without proof. I say it isn't true. They could have gone belly-up, GM could have gone belly-up and it'd have been painful but we'd be better off for it now. Similarly there was an oppty for markets to clear during the end of the dot-com technology boom. Had we let it happen -- we'd be in a much better position now. What you fail to recognize is CRONY capitalism has failed or oligopoly has failed -- that is NOT the failure of free enterprise -- because the key adjective is missing free. And the aforementioned systems failed only to help the common man -- they have succeeded in spades for what they were designed for -- to protect the very rich and powerful -- to help them line their pockets to an extent never seen before -- and you tell me government meddling is the solution. WTF??! We need less government -- less so-call protection -- every time a new consumer-protection comes out I want to puke. Under O I probably won't be able to afford health insurance for my wife -- why -- because the sumbitch has said I must buy HIS f'n cadillac policy or be taxed more -- f' government solutions to my problems. I don't want them or need them. There is a place for government -- but telling me what to buy, where I can buy it -- next they will be telling me when and where to poop ... enough already.