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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (520466)	11/7/2012 9:13:32 PM
From: greenspirit	7 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

The problem is short term vs long term. Liberals only look at the short term "create wealth" equation, it's the long term where the government model breaks down, because it depends on the creative energy of the private sector to survive and continue working. Eventually printing money with nothing to back it destroys the economy. Many people on the far left thought the former Soviet Union had the perfect model of equality and fairness, until the 40 or 50 year point, when the failures of the system became obvious to everyone. The left lives in a paradigm of arrogance where they believe the model they will build will be superior to ones created throughout history.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (520466)	11/7/2012 9:13:46 PM
From: neolib	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

does is just as productive Nonsense. I never said that and indeed said the opposite. Do you think that if it is not "just as productive" this is the difference between creating wealth, vs not being able to in principle? If you thought that, it would mean that only the most efficient producer of any given item created wealth and all less efficient ones don't create wealth. Is that what you really think? it just has to get appropriations, and force the product on the consumers, Again, irrelevant nonsense. The method of funds transfer has nothing to do with the utility of the transaction. If someone produces one lb of potatoes and someone else eats one lb of potatoes, the overall utility does not depend on how funds are transferred between, or for that matter even whether either one of them enjoyed the transaction. They both could have had guns at their heads. Again, something Libertarians cannot understand. The same is true for every other type of commerce and transaction that people engage in. Why is this difficult to wrap your brain around? The fact that one sort of society is more pleasant to live in, and might well be MORE wealthy is irrelevant to the question of whether governments can or cannot produce wealth. Surely you can comprehend that if I buy medical insurance via monthly payments to an insurance company, then visit a Doc for services, and the insurance company pays, that the economic effect, other than an efficiency component, is no different than if I went without insurance and instead paid out of my pocket, and it for damn sure does not depend on whether I have happy or angry thoughts in my head while doing the transaction. It would not change (other than an efficiency component) if the government were the insurance company, or whether the government forced my to participate, or how I felt about being forced to participate.