Matthias said:
I have no problem seeing unprofitable companies fail. Failure my painful in the short run, but in the long run it spurs growth by rearranging resources to more effective uses. Bailing out failed companies only prolongs bad practices at the expense
Fantastic. You'd be sitting on a cinder of a country, financially speaking, saying, "Well, at least I held onto my principles."
You do not understand that government cannot create wealth... it can only redistribute wealth and pick winners and losers.
(A) This is absolutely not true. The government can create value by investing in infrastructure which spurs development and growth and, yes, wealth.(B) The job of the government is not to enrich the richest. The job of the government is to enact the social policies which the electorate put them into office to do. If that is lassaiez-faire capitalism, that's what it is. If that is inspecting your food to make sure you don't die of a bacteria, that's what it is. If that's taking a little off the top to make sure that seniors can retire with some dignity, that's what it is.
The government is not a profit center. The government is our agreed-upon mechanism of social organization.
You have an errant belief that markets cannot correct themselves. History has always proven otherwise. Government magically correcting markets? Um, not so much.You are also wrong that government creates wealth. Where do you think the government gets the money to pay for those bridges and roads? Do you think it magically falls from the sky? No, it's ripped from taxpayers and distributed to a special interest group. Do others benefit? Absolutely. But it's not a multiplier effect given the inherent delays, waste, fraud and inefficiencies that come with every government handout. If this was such a grand idea, why don't we do this perpetually? It's akin to alchemy, right? Why didn't this work for Japan? They did it bigger and better than anyone else and they've only been saddled with massive debts that its population is struggling to service. And our budget deficits are much, much worse.
You make the mistake thinking that by government throwing money at "investment" it will automatically spur "development" and "growth." The problem is that the government has a horrible track record of investing taxpayer money towards the most efficient and valuable uses. Hence development and growth is minimized, if not re-tarded.
And, finally, the job of the government is neither to "enrich the richest" nor "enact the social polices which the electorate put them into office to do." The job of government is to protect and to enforce
rights. Do you know what those are?
So, I really have to know... you are an LHUCKS' alias, right?
A lot of naked assertions in here. Maybe you should try putting some clothes on some of them.Your concept of government, however, is flawed. Government is a social maximizer which extends beyond the small circle of rights. You don't have a "right" to have a stop light at a busy intersection, but most people think that it's generally a good idea as it reduces accidents, saves trips to the hospital, etc. So the government puts in, maintains, and monitors the stop light. This has absolutely zero to do with any "rights" issue. People think that it's just generally a good idea. The EPA, the DOJ, the SEC, the FDA... all these are conceptually stop lights (there's some cross-over into rights issues, but they're basically just civil enforcers). But to answer your question of do I know what rights are, my answer is yes, and probably much better than you do. I'm an attorney; are you?
You also have an errant faith in markets. Markets are, unfortunately, not self-correcting. I've worked in anti-trust; I've looked back at the genesis of it in the 1930's; I've worked on market manipulation cases; and I have friends who have worked in the investment banking industry. Believe me: the market is often, and regularly, manipulated. That doesn't mean that government always fixes it; it doesn't. But the government at least provides a check on an unbridled market. Look back at Adam Smith, the father of economics: he abhorred monopolistic cartels. He did not believe in a completely free, lassaiez-faire marketplace.
You have your history wrong. You have your concepts wrong. And you have assertions that have no factual support. Otherwise, you provided an enlightening and enriching perspective.