Getting free money just for passing 'Go' ... sounds a touch "welfare state" does it not?I Wear Pants;932964 wrote:Well I mean at some point you have to abandon free market principles because the unfettered free market breaks itself down in the long run. We've all played Monopoly.
The unfettered free market has never broken down because it has never been tried. You would be surprised how a completely free market from top to bottom with sound free market money and government upholding the rule of law and property rights can lift all boats and is much more equitable for everyone involved than our current crony corporatist/centrally planned mess.I Wear Pants;932964 wrote:Well I mean at some point you have to abandon free market principles because the unfettered free market breaks itself down in the long run. We've all played Monopoly.
Monopoly is not the free market. In fact it is the antithesis of it.I Wear Pants;932964 wrote:Well I mean at some point you have to abandon free market principles because the unfettered free market breaks itself down in the long run. We've all played Monopoly.
An unfettered free market is a literal equivalent to the game of Monopoly. Eventually someone would make enough acquisitions to own everything. Unless you were including anti-trust laws in your "upholding the rule of law" argument. In which case I agree.Cleveland Buck;932997 wrote:The unfettered free market has never broken down because it has never been tried. You would be surprised how a completely free market from top to bottom with sound free market money and government upholding the rule of law and property rights can lift all boats and is much more equitable for everyone involved than our current crony corporatist/centrally planned mess.
How so?majorspark;933008 wrote:Monopoly is not the free market. In fact it is the antithesis of it.
In monopoly the prices are fixed, properties are owned by the government, and the supply of money grows every time someone passes go.I Wear Pants;933012 wrote:How so?
I personally would include some way of breaking up monopolies that threaten the market, though I'm not even sure how exactly it would work, and even without that it is still superior to what we have today.I Wear Pants;933010 wrote:An unfettered free market is a literal equivalent to the game of Monopoly. Eventually someone would make enough acquisitions to own everything. Unless you were including anti-trust laws in your "upholding the rule of law" argument. In which case I agree.
I am sure you played Monopoly? Its not about competition. Its about eliminating it. Its about owning everything. One guy wins. Someone should come out with a sister game called Dictatorship. The object of the game would be to use the current political system to eliminate your political opponents until you have attained full control. When you pass go you get 200 political henchman. You would have suppress the press cards. As you gain more henchman you could control more and more. Instead of hotels you set up massive government bureaucracies. When your opponents land on one of your bureaucracies you fleece them of their wealth and knock of some of their henchmen. You get popular people pieces by using a number of your henchmen to excoriate and demonize the rich guys along with your political rivals. Eventually your political power chokes off your rivals and you win. You are the dictator. You have formed a dictatorship.I Wear Pants;933012 wrote:How so?
If you're a good competitor you attempt to eliminate your competition. Which is what happens when corporations grow too big unchecked. Ma Bell, Microsoft in the 90s, etc.majorspark;933043 wrote:I am sure you played Monopoly? Its not about competition. Its about eliminating it. Its about owning everything. One guy wins. Someone should come out with a sister game called Dictatorship. The object of the game would be to use the current political system to eliminate your political opponents until you have attained full control. When you pass go you get 200 political henchman. You would have suppress the press cards. As you gain more henchman you could control more and more. Instead of hotels you set up massive government bureaucracies. When your opponents land on one of your bureaucracies you fleece them of their wealth and knock of some of their henchmen. You get popular people pieces by using a number of your henchmen to excoriate and demonize the rich guys along with your political rivals. Eventually your political power chokes off your rivals and you win. You are the dictator. You have formed a dictatorship.
If you are a good competitor you attempt to out do them. Elimination is not the goal. Yes some go out of business because of unwise business decisions. We have laws to take care of those that use their market share to unjustly charge consumers. Enforcement is the problem. Take it up with your government. Camping out with a bunch of miscreants in a public park is not helping solve the problem.I Wear Pants;933078 wrote:If you're a good competitor you attempt to eliminate your competition. Which is what happens when corporations grow too big unchecked. Ma Bell, Microsoft in the 90s, etc.
"And SAVE A PRETZEL FOR THE GAS JETS!"Tobias Fünke;933058 wrote:[video=youtube;BhDhDRvHaGs][/video]
Elimination of the adversary is the goal of any true competitor.majorspark;933085 wrote:If you are a good competitor you attempt to out do them. Elimination is not the goal. Yes some go out of business because of unwise business decisions. We have laws to take care of those that use their market share to unjustly charge consumers. Enforcement is the problem. Take it up with your government. Camping out with a bunch of miscreants in a public park is not helping solve the problem.
Profit is the main goal. I have learned this lesson the hard way. A niche in the market is what I am after. A share of the cream of the crop. You may be surprised to know some businesses refer potential customers to each other. Usually its along the lines of I am a high volume shop. If you want custom work check this shop out and vise versa. Not always the case but that is how I have learned to make money.I Wear Pants;933095 wrote:Elimination of the adversary is the goal of any true competitor.
Quite true, depends on the market and company. But anyone who has the resources to be both a high volume and custom work business would obviously try to get rid of everyone else.majorspark;933097 wrote:Profit is the main goal. I have learned this lesson the hard way. A niche in the market is what I am after. A share of the cream of the crop. You may be surprised to know some businesses refer potential customers to each other. Usually its along the lines of I am a high volume shop. If you want custom work check this shop out and vise versa. Not always the case but that is how I have learned to make money.
I don't know anything about the sociology of voting and the like but I could imagine how this could be true. The energy of the tea party swept the House into Republican hands. How much energy would they put behind Romney? I almost think, if Romney gets the nomination, the Tea Party would be better served to focus on the Senate end let Obama win. If Obama is in the white house and there are conservatives in both houses of Congress, I think government ends up being smaller than if Romney were in there.jhay78;932951 wrote: which is why I think it would actually be harder for him to beat Obama than it would for someone else with bolder conservative ideas.
Yeah, yeah I hear this all the time but "not being a fan" is different than suing him in federal court for his socialist programs. No Child Left Behind for the first time gave the federal government control over the means of production of education for every school child in America. Obamacare did not expand federal control over the means of production of health insurance (It gave an expanded role for States in the means of production and requires people to participate in private markets). No Child Left Behind, was by definition, much more socialist and yet not a single Republican attorney general felt heat to sue in federal court. You may "not be a fan" of W but the Tea Party simply did not hold him to the same standard as Obama. Period.jhay78;932952 wrote:The next sign I see at a Tea Party rally saying "George W. Bush is my hero" will also be the first.
While I would never ever wish for 4 more years of Barry, I do think you are correct in that the TEA Party would get deeply involved in the Senate and select House races and leave Romney to fair on his own. Shocking to think I agree with a Boat post.BoatShoes;933239 wrote:I don't know anything about the sociology of voting and the like but I could imagine how this could be true. The energy of the tea party swept the House into Republican hands. How much energy would they put behind Romney? I almost think, if Romney gets the nomination, the Tea Party would be better served to focus on the Senate end let Obama win. If Obama is in the white house and there are conservatives in both houses of Congress, I think government ends up being smaller than if Romney were in there.
Ronald Reagan's other economic adviser Bruce Bartlett disagrees. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/majorspark;933225 wrote:Art Laffer thinks 9-9-9 is a wonderful plan.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/reagan-economist-art-laffer-cains-999-is-a-wonderful-plan/
And what candidate has consistently asserted this mission for decades?QuakerOats;933261 wrote:I think the Tea Party would clearly be in favor of simply eliminating the entire Department of Education (I assume that means No Child Left Behind would go with it) along with the DOE and the federal EPA and on an on ....... all worthy goals to champion. The sooner we can reduce the federal government by 50% and return power back to the states, the better.
As usual Bartlett is spot-on. He is, of course, demonized by the FairTax proponents, most of whom appear to have little to no grasp of economics or simply support a bad plan as a political commentary on the current tax regime.BoatShoes;933282 wrote:Ronald Reagan's other economic adviser Bruce Bartlett disagrees. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/
