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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (8796)	2/28/1998 10:58:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 20981

>>The lack of control of monopolies, and the failure to provide a safety net for the individual are characteristics of the kind of extreme laissez-faire capitalism so enthusiastically promoted by many who contribute to this thread. All forms of monopoly are anathema to free markets, monopoly distorts the transmission of accurate supply and demand information. Socialism, on the other hand, embraces state monopoly and often abets private monopoly, for instance, the ICC was set up by reformers to combat the monopoly RR's but within a decade they wound up controlling the ICC! In the 1920's trucking offered severe competition to the RR's so the fix was to get trucking regulated by the ICC! - to protect RR's, not consumers. History has shown that without the help of government, private monopoly cannot endure. I believe it was evil old RR who began the process of deregulation of trucking (altho it may have been Jimmy C. who started the process). I know RR was the one who wanted to abolish the ICC, he did strip it of most of its powers to aid monopolies during the 1980's, but it survived due to lingering pork. In 1995, it was officially abolished. >>failure to provide a safety net: Get real, close to 50% of working people's incomes goes to taxes and taxes are at historically high levels. If that's an example of an uncaring laissez-faire capitalistic society, I would hate to consider what your ideal of a socialistic society would be! It is not extremism to want a little more balance. >>It seems strange to me that they claim to want less government interference in their lives when in fact that is precisely what they ARE getting. Via the Clintons and company, they sure are.