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.

Technology Stocks : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (50418)	7/9/1998 4:04:00 PM
From: freeus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

****off topic*** I'll take the soapbox. Read "Why Government doesnt Work" by Harry Browne. All of the so-called "public good" things you mentioned (except possible highways) could be done more efficiently by the private sector. Government run amok, which is what we have now, is dangerous to our personal freedoms and economic health. Personally I dont need the SEC either: I think we would have a private overseeing agency because people would demand it. More and more people are depending upon government to "protect" their interests and their life, but government, while it supposedly protects, get powerful enough to destroy and does it to many individuals with no remorse or penalty. I can quote from some of the material I have at home if you have any particular subject you want to hear about on how the private sector can do it better. Freeus

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (50418)	7/10/1998 8:13:00 AM
From: Geoff Nunn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

*OT* Chuz - re: the trucking business, and ways in which the federal government has benefited it, the role played by the Interstate Commerce Commission (now defunct) shouldn't be overlooked. At first, the ICC benefited trucking unwittingly. It did so by maintaining artificially high rates on railroad services (tarriffs), causing trucking to rapidly grow beginning in the nineteen twenties. It benefiting trucking additionally when it established, in the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, a cartel to protect trucks from having to compete among themselves. As you probably know, the ICC was created in the late nineteenth century in response to complaints about the railroads. To simplify a complex story, the biggest complaint usually had to do with high rates on "short haul" routes in which the railroads had monopolies. In contrast, on long haul routes there was often fierce competition and rates were low. So low, in fact, the railroads would often join together and form cartels ("pools") in which they would practice price fixing. Unfortunately for the railroads, the cartel agreements had a way of breaking down because of secret rebates which favored large shippers. Although the larger shippers received low rates, smaller shippers complained about "discriminatory pricing." These two complaints, monopoly prices and discriminatory pricing, lead to the creation of the ICC in 1887. What has been the effect of the ICC on railroad and trucking rates? A number of economists have studied this issue, including Nobel Laureate George Stigler, and they concluded that ICC regulation lead to less competition and higher rates in both cases. The evidence is overwhelming that the ICC was created to protect the very businesses it was supposed to regulate -- not consumers. Stigler studied the issue in his doctoral dissertation, and concluded that the ICC had been "captured" by railroad interests, and later trucking interests. Others have suggested that the ICC was a stalking horse for business interests from the beginning. My point in raising this issue is that government programs are sometimes heavily tinged with special interest influence. The ICC is not an isolated example. I could produce a long list of examples but one will suffice. In the last years of the Reagan Administration, the federal government spent approximately $27 bil. on farm subsidies. (considerably more than it spent on beekeeper subsidies, BTW). I'm unaware of any respectable argument among economists that this was money well spent. The usual argument is that it distorts the agricultural markets and reduces efficiency. The $27 bil. is simply a response to a powerful special interest -- the farm lobby -- I can think of no other explanation. Can you? One can make a case for government stockpiling of foodstuffs but these programs go well beyond that. Geoff

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (50418)	7/10/1998 10:26:00 AM
From: Dennis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

OT Wow, I guess I hit a soar spot!!! Well, lets see................. OK, If the federal government was run like Dell than everyone would be a lot better off. One word........ Efficiency. The Fed is FINALLY realizing that they have to be lean and mean to be effective. I am not saying Welfare, for example, should be cut. I am saying it should be run properly so that the TRULY needy get what they deserve. I have a neighbor who lives directly in back of us, I know he is milking the welfare system, says he can't work because of a back injury yet he drives a big rig on the side. I'm sure we could both tell all kinds of horror stories. This is the greatest country in the world............but there is always room for improvement, isn't there??? The federal government is so out of touch with reality they cannot be effective in many cases. It is the nature of the beast. They are to far removed from the situation. That is why I say less federal taxes and more local taxes so that people in their own towns, cities, etc. can use the money more effectively. Why are private schools more effective than public, because they have more control over their own fate. They are more efficient. Of course local governments cannot be responsible for national defense, etc. So let the big boys concentrate on that. They can't fix everything. Delegate authority, like any great company. Your turn. :o) Soap box out