Home Non Cigar Related

Less Government, Not More.

«1

Comments

  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    I Tivo'd it and have watched most of it. Stossel is great. He did a nice one on education a couple of years ago.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    YES!!


    im fairly sure that i have said somewhere on this board that every time the government puts their hands in something it just goes to hell.
    ...and that any government run program is bound to fail.



    i wish more people would see this.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    kuzi16:
    ...and that any government run program is bound to fail.
    Whereas private industry is always a glowing success... like when we took Fannie and Freddie private -- then they screwed everything up so we have to go babysit them again.

    Also, in my industry, it is commonly said that 70% of software development projects fail. I think it's more accurate to say that monumental undertakings, regardless of the funding and managing parties, are more subject to failure.

    The United States government has existed in excess of 200 years. How many companies in existence today were in existence then? Will the United States exist in another 200 years? How many companies in existence today will exist in 200 years? Before you rattle off your list, take a look at how many companies have died within the last six months that would have been on your list 2 years ago (Bear Sterns, AIG, WaMu, Merrill Lynch, etc.....)
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    but in a free market system a failure is just showing that you are doing it wrong.those comanies on your "list" failed because they made bad decisions. they deserved to fail. failure is as important as success. ALL government programs fail. SOME private industry fails. whats better?
    the US will some day fail as well... but who is better at telling me how to run my life or my business :
    me?
    or the government?


    the government is not in the solution. people are the solution.

    people want to succeed. people have the means to run a business. the government does not because it was not created to do that. if you regulate failure out of existence then success will also be regulated out of existence. there will be too much paperwork to succeed. there will be to many things to hold you down.


    saying that the US has lasted longer than some companies is a very large disconnect. the government has changed from its inception. We do not have the same government we had when the US was created. we also dont have the same companies. I dont need a blacksmith. my needs have changed. the people have changed. that is a very weak argument. 200 years ago the US was a very different place than it is today and 200 years from now the US will not look like it does today. I dont expect ANY company to still be around 200 years from now. over a long enough time line everything will fail even the sun the stars and the universe.
    our changing needs will make the market change into what we need. . Government regulation would/could prevent that.

    private industry has made the US one of the greatest nations in the world. private industry as made us one of the most advanced civilizations to ever exist. private industry has given the opportunity for millions to succeed in life.

    it is not and has never been the governments job to make sure we succeed. it should not be, either. when the government gets out of the way people have a better chance of success. when they stick their noses in things they *** it up. show me proof other wise and i will believe you.

    if i am not mistaken it was the government pretty much forcing freddie and fanny to make those loans. see what happened?
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    kuzi16:
    ALL government programs fail.
    I take exception to this absolutist statement. My argument is that an equal percentage of private enterprises and government programs "fail." Also, as I pointed out in another post, "failure" is largely a matter of perspective (car, oil changes, etc).

    Let's see.. what did the government do right? Well, they've proven time and again that they can win wars. Umm.. they built the Interstates.. Last I checked, I think that was pretty successful, although you would probably argue it wasn't because those roads always need to be maintained and they won't last forever without another nickel thrown into them. Nancy Reagan's "Say No to Drugs" campaign was, in my opinion, quite successful, of course you would probably argue that it wasn't because people still do drugs. Oh, look.. I just found a whole freaking article about how successful our government has been. When you make an absolute statement like that, you set yourself up for failure.

    Also, your point about "change" is exactly the point I am making with these programs. For whatever reason, people expect a government program to run without maintenance from its inception to eternity. And yet, we recognize in private industry that things are always changing. The point is to manage and maintain things well. When we choose to ignore them (cut funding, focus on other things), we can naturally expect those programs to decline. The same holds true with business.

    Blacksmiths are one thing... the failure of enterprises such as Enron is quite another. What percentage of companies have gone out of business because they screwed up, versus the number that went out of business because they felt like it?
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    you are right about people. they do expect alot out of a government. ... alot that it is not designed to do. the government was designed to make laws and keep the peace. that is all. nowhere does it say that government should give you health care, of a job, a good economy, everything you want or need. It is my job to ensure i live the life i want to lead. not the governments

    a quick scroll down on the article you linked to talks of social security and how its successful. how so? by eating up tons of tax dollars? by spending more than it is taking in? thats not success. I mean seriously, you link me to a very leftist site and want me to NOT disagree with it? and what about medicade? i hear its gunna be bankrupt by 2017. thats not successful. and what about all the people that need that money they have gotten used to? how is that compasionate?

    all of this may or may not be true.
    but it doesnt matter.

    do you want less government?

    i do.

    and i dont want the government to do what people of their own free will would do ...and usually do better.
    I also want less taxes.
    I want less government intervention in my life. i suspect many of us do. less taxes means less control over MY money. the money I earned. MINE. the government didnt EARN any of that money. they just took it. the government takes my money and spends it on things that i dont want more than half the time. how is that fair to me? how is that even right?


    and i dont care if you dont like my statement that government run programs suck. im gunna say it anyway.



    now im gunna stick out my tongue and ignore you like im 5.






    see what this election year has done? ... make ME act 5 in front of my frineds... geeez


    no really, the fact of the matter is neither extreme is going to happen in the US any time soon. we wont be communist. we wont be a pure free market.

    i would rather be closer to a free market than not. I fight for every chance i get to stay away from government regulation because i do want less limits on my life. I dont want to see the US (and thus myself and my family) go the way of every other socialized country. i know that some regulation will always be there but as little as i can as to keep me away from the failure that is the USSR, the opressive government that is China, the poverty that is Cuba, the theft of private business that is Venezuela... you get my point.
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    kuzi16:
    ALL government programs fail.
    I feel certain this will be news to the U.S. military. Also, the entire Common Law system, the private property system, the private corporation, the railroad system, the interstate highway system, the navigable waterway system, the broadcast television industry, the telecom industry, the electrical utility industry, the cable television industry, the internet, our food supply, etc., and so forth and so on.

    All of these markets/industries are creatures that owe their very existence to gov't funding and/or regulation, and none of them have failed in the sense we're talking about (catastrophic collapse out of existence). In fact, I'd argue there's no such thing as a "private" market or a "private" industry. All of them -- even black markets -- rely on physical and/or legal infrastructure provided by the gov't.
    kuzi16:
    if i am not mistaken it was the government pretty much forcing freddie and fanny to make those loans. see what happened?
    It's not the case that Fannie and Freddie caused the mortgage crisis. Fannie and Freddie made a lot of sub-prime loans. Those loans were always guaranteed by the federal gov't. The problem that developed was that purely private lenders looked at Fannie and Freddie and said, hey, that looks like a money-maker, we want in on that action. So they started making a lot of sub-prime loans. Way too many. And then selling other, extremely leveraged financial instruments based on those loans. The failure of all that private debt is what triggered our current crisis.

    I'm not saying Fannie and Freddie didn't get carried away and create a problem. I'm just saying their problem wasn't what caused the crisis we have.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    ok so maybe that blanket statement is a bit overdone. but, if EVERYTHING is regulated nobody will be happy. not everything can be regulated, i mean, how can you regulate what is in my heart? the differences in people will always keep us a way from a pure life of regulation. that system will always break down. a pure free market will have a bunch of little failures.the system wont fail but a few people that didnt do things right will.

    i just cannot get on board on the government bailing out everyone for everything all the time. that will fail.
    if you cant fail what is driving you to succeed? if there is no drive to succeed then there is automatic failure.

    people are lazy. if they get a chance to get something for "free" they will take it. nobody can keep up on the demand for everything being free. it is a radical argument but it shows my point and the direction we are heading. im not saying that we will reach that point but we are moving in that general direction. there is very little personal responsibility anymore. if you fail everyone expects the government to take care of you now. that isnt their job. and it isnt fair to the people that want to do well. I dont want to give up more of my money because i have been successful. is it greed? maybe. did it drive me to do good things? probably. should i be rewarded for not being a mooch on the system
    i think so.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    urbino:
    ... the private property system, the private corporation...
    umm ... not government run. those should never be run by government. EVER.
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    But they are entirely creatures of the gov't. Without gov't, they wouldn't even exist. That was my point.
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    kuzi16:
    ok so maybe that blanket statement is a bit overdone. but, if EVERYTHING is regulated nobody will be happy. not everything can be regulated, i mean, how can you regulate what is in my heart? the differences in people will always keep us a way from a pure life of regulation. that system will always break down. a pure free market will have a bunch of little failures.the system wont fail but a few people that didnt do things right will.

    i just cannot get on board on the government bailing out everyone for everything all the time. that will fail.
    if you cant fail what is driving you to succeed? if there is no drive to succeed then there is automatic failure.

    people are lazy. if they get a chance to get something for "free" they will take it. nobody can keep up on the demand for everything being free. it is a radical argument but it shows my point and the direction we are heading. im not saying that we will reach that point but we are moving in that general direction. there is very little personal responsibility anymore. if you fail everyone expects the government to take care of you now. that isnt their job. and it isnt fair to the people that want to do well. I dont want to give up more of my money because i have been successful. is it greed? maybe. did it drive me to do good things? probably. should i be rewarded for not being a mooch on the system
    i think so.
    I don't think anybody's arguing for total regulation, kuzi. Nor for total prevention of failure. What governments in capitalistic societies have always tried to do is smooth out the harshest peaks and valleys in the business cycle. That's good for society, and it's good for business, too. Long, steady growth and slower, shallower contractions allow better long-range business planning, making companies more profitable over the long run, the labor market more stable, wages more stable, etc.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    the problem is:
    there is no real way to regulate any market. the price will be decided by supply and demand no matter what you do to try and change it.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    oh... and ill try not to stick my tongue out at you guys again.





    no promises.
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    kuzi:
    the problem is: there is no real way to regulate any market. the price will be decided by supply and demand no matter what you do to try and change it.
    Of course. I don't think anybody's talking about regulating prices. Regulation tends to be aimed at more structural goals, not at pricing details. So you don't see the government telling, I don't know, restaurants, say, how much to charge for a piece of beef. You do see the government telling the restaurant and all the processors upstream of it, all the way to the rancher, that they have to meet certain health and safety requirements to ensure (with reasonable probability) that that piece of beef isn't going to make its consumer sick.

    Does all that regulation add to the cost of the beef? Yes. Does it impose headaches on the restaurant and the rancher and all the processors in between? Yes. But the consumer confidence it creates brings so much additional consumption to the market, the benefits to everybody concerned outweigh those costs. The businesses make more money because more restaurant meals are consumed because consumers feel confident they can try a new restaurant or a new dish and not get food poisoning. More profits, more restaurants, and more jobs ensue. The consumer benefits by not getting sick. Society at large benefits from the added tax revenues from this larger market in restaurant meals, and by the consumer not getting sick and missing work, and not requiring medical treatment they may not have insurance to cover (which the rest of us ultimately pay for).

    I'm not trying to paint a rosier-than-reality picture. I'm just trying to point out that, contrary to many critiques, including recent ones by the McCain campaign, government involvement in "private" enterprise often does grow the pie. Businesses benefit from it, in addition to incurring costs.

    Does the balance always come out right? No, of course not. But it simply isn't the case that only the private sector -- without gov't involvement -- can grow the economy, and any gov't involvement is always a net drag on the economy.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    and im just saying that the more regulation there is the worse off a nation tends to become. when/where will the regulation be too much? when it turns south we will know. i feel we are close. i dont want more so i will fight any additional regulation to help prevent this.


    i want less regulation not NO regulation. zero regulation is anarchy. cant have that.
    i argue in an extreme to make points. most systems are far to vast to use as an example. simplify and over emphasize to clarify.

    i will not give up my argument for less regulation as a general rule. you cant be free and regulated at the same time
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    kuzi16:
    and im just saying that the more regulation there is the worse off a nation tends to become. when/where will the regulation be too much? when it turns south we will know.
    We will know it was one or the other, but not necessarily which one. (Actually, it could also be due to some externality, but let's leave that aside for now.) The 1929 crash was due to too little regulation. Our current problem looks to me like the same, but opinions differ.
    kuzi16:
    you cant be free and regulated at the same time
    And if you privilege freedom to the exclusion of all other social goals, it's perfectly legitimate to oppose nearly all regulation. But most of us value freedom along with other things, like some degree of security, stability, predictability, etc. To the extent those things are desired by the members of a society, there's going to have to be regulation.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    Maybe some of the California contingent will throw their 2 cents in about the resounding successes of deregulation within the power industry.

    Don't get me wrong ... I think that deregulation can be a great thing, and it can be a terrible thing. To simply wish things could be the way they were, with less rules to govern everything, is a naive way of looking at things. You said yourself that the world has changed and will continue to change. Should we get rid of the FAA? Let planes fly wherever they want, it's their right! Everybody does a lot of griping about the NTSA... I say we put them on a shelf. The terrorists would have a field day. Oh.. safety regulations are OK? Then quit moaning about not being allowed to smoke in public places... ooh, touchy subject on that one, I'm sure. So safety regulations which don't infringe on your overall right to casually enjoy yourself are the only ones we'll allow? Whoops, where do we file these silly drinking-and-driving laws? Hmmm... oh wait, I think this might all be a bit more complex than a single paragraph on an internet message board.

    Also, in case it isn't already abundantly clear from several of my earlier posts (barring my selfish knee-jerk panic reaction when the bailout was first voted down) --- I think the bailout is a horrible, horrible idea and we will pay for it for many years to come. But I firmly believe that individuals working on behalf of our government are no less likely to succeed on their large-scale projects than individuals working for large corporations (like Bank of America). Hell, the government outsources most of those projects to private industries anyway. So to whom can we attribute the failure when things don't work out?
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    Hmmm... oh wait, I think this might all be a bit more complex than a single paragraph on an internet message board.

    thats why there are threads and threads of us posting more and more about things like this.

    ill go back to saying that there will be a point where there is too much regulation and people will not like to "micro managed" by the government. things will go south quickly at that point. I feel that we are closer to that than most people think. I dont wanna see things go south and i feel that the amount of regulation we have may be too much but not so much that it is keeping good things from happening. in my mind we have reached the point where more and more would be worse and worse.


    about letting planes fly anywhere...
    after a few crashes they (airlines) would come up with a system that would keep it from happening. a self regulation of a private industry could (and would if they wanted to make a profit) work there.
    smoking in public? hmmm, let patrons to those establishments decide. if they dont want smoke in their lungs/eyes/whatever then the establishment will lose money. if they want to profit, they would make it smoke free. ... or have a TRUE smoke free area.
    safety regulations on cars? dont most people want safe cars? wouldnt a safer car draw more buyers? the deathmobile wouldnt last tool long on the open market.
    drinking and driving laws... hmmmm that seems to be a different animal. the victim did not make a purchase and did not have a choice to get hit and maybe killed. ... but the guy who got behind a wheel did. so... your right to swing a fist ends where my nose begins? it comes down to who made a choice in the matter. if the person it is harming made a choice to put them in real danger and they did it anyway well...to damn bad. if there was no choice behind it at all, then there is a problem.

    just a thought. it may need some work.
  • LukoLuko Posts: 2,004
    dutyje:
    kuzi16:
    ...and that any government run program is bound to fail.
    Whereas private industry is always a glowing success... like when we took Fannie and Freddie private -- then they screwed everything up so we have to go babysit them again.

    Also, in my industry, it is commonly said that 70% of software development projects fail. I think it's more accurate to say that monumental undertakings, regardless of the funding and managing parties, are more subject to failure.

    The United States government has existed in excess of 200 years. How many companies in existence today were in existence then? Will the United States exist in another 200 years? How many companies in existence today will exist in 200 years? Before you rattle off your list, take a look at how many companies have died within the last six months that would have been on your list 2 years ago (Bear Sterns, AIG, WaMu, Merrill Lynch, etc.....)
    So I'm getting confused in this thread if you're talking about regulation vs. deregulation or government-run programs vs. privatization, because they're two totally different animals.
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    Excellent point, Luko. The two tend to get conflated. That's not entirely inappropriate, however, since the fundamental complaint is that gov't is bad at stuff, and private entities are good at stuff. In terms of my response, then, whether the gov't is good at regulating what private entities do or good at doing it its damn self, is sort of beside the point.

    My point is simply that gov't involvement of some kind is necessary, and often salutary.
  • ebitlerebitler Posts: 57
    Although I believe some Gov't is a necessary evil; I think my favorite founding father Thomas Jefferson said it best...... "A Government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away."
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    I would like to point out that the Drinking and driving thing is a criminal law and not a safety regulation as well. There is a huge difference there. It doesn't apply to the arguement for government regulation because it is a law made to protect people. Without laws there would be anarchy and that can't happen. But I totally agree that less, not NO, government regulation is better for the nation. If you want the government to take more of your money and tell you what you can and can't do with it then I think that should be your right. But don't impose their will on me and my pocket book.
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    ebitler:
    Although I believe some Gov't is a necessary evil; I think my favorite founding father Thomas Jefferson said it best...... "A Government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away."
    Well, again, I don't think anybody's arguing for a gov't that gives you everything.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,633 ✭✭✭✭
    urbino:
    ebitler:
    Although I believe some Gov't is a necessary evil; I think my favorite founding father Thomas Jefferson said it best...... "A Government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away."
    Well, again, I don't think anybody's arguing for a gov't that gives you everything.
    no but we are getting closer and closer to that.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    If people don't want to be killed by a drunk driver, can't they just elect to stay off the roads and not to drive anywhere? Isn't this similar to choosing not to eat in an establishment that allows smoking? Obviously, it's extreme to make a point. If you don't like the politicians that wrote the laws, elect some new ones. That's the same as choosing not to visit an establishment that allows / doesn't allow smoking.
  • LukoLuko Posts: 2,004
    Here lies Lester Moore, four slugs from a .44. No Les no more.

    Quick, what movie? First to answer correctly gets something, at some point.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    Toombstone in the graveyard!
  • LukoLuko Posts: 2,004
    PuroFreak:
    Toombstone in the graveyard!
    Damn, i hope you're wrong cause that's not where i remember it from, and i look pretty darn foolish if I can't get my own question right. I'll be back...I'm off to the googles.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,131 ✭✭
    Luko:
    PuroFreak:
    Toombstone in the graveyard!
    Damn, i hope you're wrong cause that's not where i remember it from, and i look pretty darn foolish if I can't get my own question right. I'll be back...I'm off to the googles.

    Haha, yes it is on a a gravestone in the the background in that movie. It is on a real gravestone in the old ghost town also.
  • LukoLuko Posts: 2,004
    PuroFreak:
    Luko:
    PuroFreak:
    Toombstone in the graveyard!
    Damn, i hope you're wrong cause that's not where i remember it from, and i look pretty darn foolish if I can't get my own question right. I'll be back...I'm off to the googles.

    Haha, yes it is on a a gravestone in the the background in that movie. It is on a real gravestone in the old ghost town also.

    If you can't win, change the rules. New game - name the western I was thinking of. Hint, there was a shoot-out.
Sign In or Register to comment.