Robin Hood in Reverse - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Turnips5;37158905]like child porn!![/quote] I don't support the initiation of force against anyone, such as forcing children to participate in pornography against both their own will and their parents will, if that's what you're implying. [quote]remember, free market always wins and we have no right to interfere with that. ron paul 2012, kids[/QUOTE] I don't actually support Ron Paul or all of his views, but he does appear to hold a lot of views I consider to be good (like voluntarism and free markets). And yes, my argument is that there is no ethical justification to be made for an individual or group of individuals forcefully interfering with other people's natural rights to private property, and their right to free, voluntary interaction/exchange with others.

What does that even mean

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37157197]yeah ok. stop posting on the internet if you think nobody wants telecommunications.[/QUOTE] People decide how many telecommunication networks to build by buying service. By financing telecommunication companies, Canada is purchasing more telecommunication service than the people of Canada want. The artificially high demand pushes the market off equilibrium. Knowing a thing or two about supply-demand curves, I can tell you that as demand rises, price rises. Thanks for keeping me sharp. [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37157197]Lol you act like Austrian economics is credible enough that it matters who came up with it. Unless to point out the biggest crackpot of the bunch.[/QUOTE] What about Milton Friedman and his observations in [i]A Monetary History of The United States[/i]? His works seem to do the Austrian School a lot of justice. [QUOTE=yawmwen;37158377]Hahahahaha. Please tell that to Foxconn, it seems they must have missed the memo.[/QUOTE] Working conditions and emission standards. Take a look at the United States during its early industrial periods. The entire nation was a mess from factory pollution, but eventually our quality of life increased to the point where we can do things like clean up the great lakes and save the animals. People have a list of priorities and it is believed that early industrial nations will eventually move down that list so long as their quality of life increases. Sweatshops are the best thing these people got, it's better then growing a field of shitty yams that nobody wants to buy. African countries that are so fucked that industrialism doesn't exist are much worse off than these developing industrial countries. It is believed that China will eventually be a fully developed country with adequate-enough (1,000,000 people is alot of mouths to feed) living conditions.

[QUOTE=Noble;37144532]Yeah, I get that from socialists all the time, its all good [editline]8th August 2012[/editline] Competition. They'd want to offer services that appeal to people with lower incomes. There is money to be made off of low-income people. Consider Wal-Mart as an example of the concept. Wherever there is a demand for something, the market will attempt to meet it.[/QUOTE] You would think that, but consider this: I work for an HVAC company (refrigeration and air conditioning). They offer cuts and discounts to people who work for the railroad, who make metric asstonnes of money. But the little old lady who's barely swinging by on Social Security and Medicare whose heater died on her, and it's -20F outside? Nope, no discount, $4K lady pay-up. [QUOTE=Kopimi;37144633]so make basic emergency services even more expensive for the poor and pay for toll roads everywhere you go and have your service prioritized on how much money you have (what if the mansion pays more and you have to save one building) and deal with corporations trying their best to nickel and dime you in emergency situations all so that you can avoid paying taxes, because it's your country and everyone else is on their own[/QUOTE] Let's not forget the house in Tennessee that was allowed to burn to the ground because the people didn't pay their yearly (or was it monthly?) fee, even though the people offered to pay right there and then for it. [QUOTE=Noble;37155159]My argument is that they are bad because they stifle competition and create inefficiency in the market, one example is by creating barriers to entry which keep competitors out of the market. They often act as protectors of big business more than protectors of consumers. Without the FDA, new drugs could come onto the market at a much faster pace. People could get life saving drugs faster when they aren't being held up by bureaucrats in an extremely slow process of approval.[/QUOTE] Yeah, we could totally be popping all kinds of cancer-curing super pills* by now. *Side-effects of cancer-curing super pills may include vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, ulcers, prolonged priapism, infertility, blindness, obesity, diabetes, diabeetus, excessive body hair, crabs, death, and ingrown toenails. Basically your argument of "companies should be able to sell what-ever they want, even if it could prove dangerous" is a load of hooey. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The free market is like a steam engine. It's a powerful machine capable of doing a lot of useful work, but without a [b]governor[/b] it will literally work itself to pieces.

[QUOTE=Lazor;37132771]These days? Presidential races from like a 150 years ago make ours look damn civil[/QUOTE] but we don't have extreme badasses like teddy roosavelt these days he lived because he willed himself to live(until he died that's because he lost the will to live)

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;37162026]Yeah, we could totally be popping all kinds of cancer-curing super pills* by now. *Side-effects of cancer-curing super pills may include vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, ulcers, prolonged priapism, infertility, blindness, obesity, diabetes, diabeetus, excessive body hair, crabs, death, and ingrown toenails. Basically your argument of "companies should be able to sell what-ever they want, even if it could prove dangerous" is a load of hooey. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The free market is like a steam engine. It's a powerful machine capable of doing a lot of useful work, but without a [b]governor[/b] it will literally work itself to pieces.[/QUOTE] surprised nobody mentioned the thalidomide babies in argument about fda

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37159428]People decide how many telecommunication networks to build by buying service. By financing telecommunication companies, Canada is purchasing more telecommunication service than the people of Canada want. The artificially high demand pushes the market off equilibrium. Knowing a thing or two about supply-demand curves, I can tell you that as demand rises, price rises. Thanks for keeping me sharp. What about Milton Friedman and his observations in [i]A Monetary History of The United States[/i]? His works seem to do the Austrian School a lot of justice. Working conditions and emission standards. Take a look at the United States during its early industrial periods. The entire nation was a mess from factory pollution, but eventually our quality of life increased to the point where we can do things like clean up the great lakes and save the animals. People have a list of priorities and it is believed that early industrial nations will eventually move down that list so long as their quality of life increases. Sweatshops are the best thing these people got, it's better then growing a field of shitty yams that nobody wants to buy. African countries that are so fucked that industrialism doesn't exist are much worse off than these developing industrial countries. It is believed that China will eventually be a fully developed country with adequate-enough (1,000,000 people is alot of mouths to feed) living conditions.[/QUOTE] Those companies in china won't offer better working conditions unless someone forces them to do so. Now of course you might say that it's the people that will do this in a free market by not buying from them, but if that were true working conditions would already be better, people just don't give a damn/don't even know. The government needs to step in before any improvement of working conditions and emission standards are made.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37159428] Working conditions and emission standards. Take a look at the United States during its early industrial periods. The entire nation was a mess from factory pollution, but eventually our quality of life increased to the point where we can do things like clean up the great lakes and save the animals. People have a list of priorities and it is believed that early industrial nations will eventually move down that list so long as their quality of life increases. Sweatshops are the best thing these people got, it's better then growing a field of shitty yams that nobody wants to buy. African countries that are so fucked that industrialism doesn't exist are much worse off than these developing industrial countries. It is believed that China will eventually be a fully developed country with adequate-enough (1,000,000 people is alot of mouths to feed) living conditions.[/QUOTE] Um working conditions didn't magically improve. They improved when workers got fed up with being little more than chattle and parents got fed up with having their children constantly kidnapped.

I've argued and stomped on all your points before noble, why are you still raging on about the same stupid shit

[QUOTE=Van-man;37158030]In short: Absolutely no regulation = fucks shit up. Too much regulation = [B]ALSO[/B] fucks shit up. It's all about finding that sweet spot that's a perfect compromise between those two. Instead of going [I]fully retarded anarchistic[/I], [B]OR[/B] [I]1984[/I].[/QUOTE] Sweet jesus, someone reasonable

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37163698]Um working conditions didn't magically improve. They improved when workers got fed up with being little more than chattle and parents got fed up with having their children constantly kidnapped.[/QUOTE] Well historically when the GDP of a country rises more wealth comes into the country, the country is able to buy more efficient manufacturing machines. The efficient machines will put many manufacturers out of work (bottlers fired by bottling machines) and then these people will go to school to learn how to provide a service. There are four things that create economic growth, more workers, better workers, more tools, better tools. Better workers and tools is responsible for 90% of economic growth. Historically countries don't just stay making textiles, they eventually buy more efficient technology and that frees up its people to do bigger and better things, and wealth gets created. We didn't buy our technology, we created it. Theoretically developing countries should go through its developing sweatshop periods faster because they can copy first world technology. On the subject of banking regulations, I think the real issue is the fed is printing too much money. The Federal Funds Rate is the typical interest rate banks have to pay on money loaned to them by the federal reserve. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_funds_rate[/url] Lately the Federal Funds Rate has been disgustingly low. 0.25%. The Fed sets the value of the money by printing or destroying the money. The Fed is setting the value of a dollar too low, one dollar cost 0.25% of a dollar. By printing so much money the federal reserve has extended its role past a lender of the last resort. Banks will buy bad securities cuz they want that federal reserve $$$ that they are giving out in historically high volumes. This kind of money printing is fucky with the economy in many ways. It discourages savings so people have a harder time paying debts, with a shitty savings interest rate. It encourages debt with interest rates that are too low. It inflates the price of goods, makes it harder for people to retire. FFR graph: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Funds_Rate_1954_thru_2009_effective.svg[/url]

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;37162026]You would think that, but consider this: I work for an HVAC company (refrigeration and air conditioning). They offer cuts and discounts to people who work for the railroad, who make metric asstonnes of money. But the little old lady who's barely swinging by on Social Security and Medicare whose heater died on her, and it's -20F outside? Nope, no discount, $4K lady pay-up.[/quote] That's just anecdotal evidence. There may be a variety of reasons why they do that. Either way I'm not arguing that every firm would consist of a bunch of people charitable enough to offer such discounts. It's fair to say that some would, though. [quote]Let's not forget the house in Tennessee that was allowed to burn to the ground because the people didn't pay their yearly (or was it monthly?) fee, even though the people offered to pay right there and then for it.[/quote] It really is their own fault for not paying, 100%. That aside, maybe the company could have worked out a deal to pay on the spot and I don't know the story behind exactly why they didn't. Maybe they didn't want to set an example of having people not paying premiums every month, but just waiting until their house catches on fire and saying "here's $50, go put the fire out please". They can't fund themselves that way, it's unsustainable. That doesn't mean every private fire company couldn't find a way to deal with these issues, though. Regardless, it isn't a "free" service in any sense, you'll pay for it one way or another, whether it's tax money or something else. I'm just advocating a [i]voluntary[/i] means of paying for it. [quote]Yeah, we could totally be popping all kinds of cancer-curing super pills* by now. *Side-effects of cancer-curing super pills may include vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, ulcers, prolonged priapism, infertility, blindness, obesity, diabetes, diabeetus, excessive body hair, crabs, death, and ingrown toenails.[/quote] Yeah, because the managers would really like to take their multi-billion dollar firm and use it to sell dangerous drugs to their customers. That's really going to be great for business and their reputation. I can just imagine all the shareholders who would be rushing to invest in this company! In reality though, they would send their drugs out for testing. They would ensure this drug will not do more harm then good, or else people will quickly stop buying this drug, which will cut revenue, and their business will be in trouble. The profit incentive pushes companies to [i]necessarily[/i] have to provide safe, working drugs if they want to succeed on the market. [quote]Basically your argument of "companies should be able to sell what-ever they want, even if it could prove dangerous" is a load of hooey. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The free market is like a steam engine. It's a powerful machine capable of doing a lot of useful work, but without a [b]governor[/b] it will literally work itself to pieces.[/QUOTE] I disagree entirely. I think that with a "governor", you create more problems than you solve. The super-rich will just use this "governor" for their own advantage through political donations, like getting them to pass laws that harm their competitors, and give them an edge in the market. Get the "governor" out, and you create a more level playing field where the big firms have to actually [i]compete[/i]. Competition is what they are afraid of, and that's why they like regulation that has a low marginal cost to them but massive marginal cost to new competitors to help kill them in their infancy, before they have a chance to grow.

No they won't, they'll just make deals with each other to keep the prices high. The rich using the government for their own advantage trough political donations is a flaw in your election system, it is a completely separate issue, has nothing to do with this. You seem for some reason to believe corporations give two fucks about their customers, but time and time again they prove that they don't. They won't just start testing drugs by themselves if they don't have to, why would they? They'll just cover up anything bad that might happen, and by the time we find out they've already made billions selling the drug. Corporations and even more so investors care about money, fast money. They don't give a fuck about the long term consequences as long as they can make a fuckton of money as fast as possible.

[QUOTE=Noble;37167486]Yeah, because the managers would really like to take their multi-billion dollar firm and use it to sell dangerous drugs to their customers. That's really going to be great for business and their reputation. I can just imagine all the shareholders who would be rushing to invest in this company! In reality though, they would send their drugs out for testing. They would ensure this drug will not do more harm then good, or else people will quickly stop buying this drug, which will cut revenue, and their business will be in trouble. The profit incentive pushes companies to [i]necessarily[/i] have to provide safe, working drugs if they want to succeed on the market.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide[/url] Yeah, this is why we have the FDA. I'm pretty sure some lady won a medal for suspending the sale of Thalidomide until pregnancy testing was done despite being pressured by the drug company selling it not to.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37167675]No they won't, they'll just make deals with each other to keep the prices high.[/quote] Price fixing is unstable, they can't keep it up forever. They will be fighting a continuous battle against a flood of new innovation and competitors. There could be agreements to fix the price, but again, it's not something that would last very long. [quote]The rich using the government for their own advantage trough political donations is a flaw in your election system, it is a completely separate issue, has nothing to do with this.[/quote] It's a problem with the state. If you set up the existence of a state with a monopoly on force, the wealthy and powerful will just use the state to their advantage in any way they can. They aren't stupid. [quote]You seem for some reason to believe corporations give two fucks about their customers, but time and time again they prove that they don't. They won't just start testing drugs by themselves if they don't have to, why would they? They'll just cover up anything bad that might happen, and by the time we find out they've already made billions selling the drug. Corporations and even more so investors care about money, fast money. They don't give a fuck about the long term consequences as long as they can make a fuckton of money as fast as possible.[/QUOTE] I think you highly overestimate the ability of corporations to do these things. Independent auditing would quickly put them in check, and people would also be hesitant to buy from a company that doesn't have a good track record of providing good products. They don't necessarily have to care about their customers in a literal sense, even though many of them do and I find it ridiculous to say they all don't, but they do necessarily have to care about meeting their demand in order to be successful. [QUOTE=Fenderson;37167815][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide[/url] Yeah, this is why we have the FDA. I'm pretty sure some lady won a medal for suspending the sale of Thalidomide until pregnancy testing was done despite being pressured by the drug company selling it not to.[/QUOTE] What about all the people who died because the FDA kept the drugs off the market through a long approval process? The death toll of that easily dwarfs the damage (deformed babies) caused by one drug company making a mistake. What about Vioxx? That was an FDA approved drug, that ended up killing tens of thousands of people, even though the FDA was informed of the dangers early on, they didn't do anything. The manufacturer pulled the drug off the market voluntarily when the studies came out confirming that the drug was dangerous.

[QUOTE=Rents;37165314]Sweet jesus, someone reasonable[/QUOTE] Well I try, but it's hard at times. [sp]You perverts >:( [/sp]

[QUOTE=Noble;37168793] What about all the people who died because the FDA kept the drugs off the market through a long approval process? The death toll of that easily dwarfs the damage (deformed babies) caused by one drug company making a mistake.[/quote] This isn't an isolated incident. Monsanto was able to release a bunch of genetically modified food without adequately testing it. Now we are coming back later and studies are showing that the shit might be dangerous. [quote]What about Vioxx? That was an FDA approved drug, that ended up killing tens of thousands of people, even though the FDA was informed of the dangers early on, they didn't do anything. The manufacturer pulled the drug off the market voluntarily when the studies came out confirming that the drug was dangerous.[/QUOTE] The USA is hardly an example of effective regulatory practices. We are owned by the corporation. Just because the FDA doesn't work now, doesn't mean the concept itself is flawed.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37169759]The USA is hardly an example of effective regulatory practices. We are owned by the corporation. Just because the FDA doesn't work now, doesn't mean the concept itself is flawed.[/QUOTE] And to think he wants [B]LESS[/B] regulation. There isn't too much regulation in the US, but it's the [I]wrong[/I] type, since it favors big companies.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37167344]Well historically when the GDP of a country rises more wealth comes into the country, the country is able to buy more efficient manufacturing machines. The efficient machines will put many manufacturers out of work (bottlers fired by bottling machines) and then these people will go to school to learn how to provide a service. There are four things that create economic growth, more workers, better workers, more tools, better tools. Better workers and tools is responsible for 90% of economic growth. Historically countries don't just stay making textiles, they eventually buy more efficient technology and that frees up its people to do bigger and better things, and wealth gets created. We didn't buy our technology, we created it. Theoretically developing countries should go through its developing sweatshop periods faster because they can copy first world technology. On the subject of banking regulations, I think the real issue is the fed is printing too much money. The Federal Funds Rate is the typical interest rate banks have to pay on money loaned to them by the federal reserve. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_funds_rate[/url] Lately the Federal Funds Rate has been disgustingly low. 0.25%. The Fed sets the value of the money by printing or destroying the money. The Fed is setting the value of a dollar too low, one dollar cost 0.25% of a dollar. By printing so much money the federal reserve has extended its role past a lender of the last resort. Banks will buy bad securities cuz they want that federal reserve $$$ that they are giving out in historically high volumes. This kind of money printing is fucky with the economy in many ways. It discourages savings so people have a harder time paying debts, with a shitty savings interest rate. It encourages debt with interest rates that are too low. It inflates the price of goods, makes it harder for people to retire. FFR graph: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Funds_Rate_1954_thru_2009_effective.svg[/url][/QUOTE] I think you should read this. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States#Organized_labor_to_1900[/url] People didn't just change their business practices. It was collective bargaining. Unfortunately collective bargaining doesn't work as well in places like China since the government or corporation tends to violently break up unions before they form.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37169759]This isn't an isolated incident. Monsanto was able to release a bunch of genetically modified food without adequately testing it. Now we are coming back later and studies are showing that the shit might be dangerous.[/quote] Yeah, and the FDA approved it, giving everyone the false sense of security that because it has a government stamp of approval, it's totally safe. [QUOTE=Van-man;37169810]And to think he wants [B]LESS[/B] regulation. There isn't too much regulation in the US, but it's the [I]wrong[/I] type, since it favors big companies.[/QUOTE] Less [i]government[/i] regulation yes, and more [i]market[/i] regulation. A voluntary and self-correcting system, rather than government dictating what individuals are allowed to do with their private property.

[QUOTE=Noble;37170946]Yeah, and the FDA approved it, giving everyone the false sense of security that because it has a government stamp of approval, it's totally safe. Less [I]government[/I] regulation yes, and more [I]market[/I] regulation. A voluntary and self-correcting system, rather than government dictating what individuals are allowed to do with their private property.[/QUOTE] Yea, these are problems with a [I]lack[/I] of regulation from the FDA, not too much of it.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37159428] What about Milton Friedman and his observations in [i]A Monetary History of The United States[/i]? His works seem to do the Austrian School a lot of justice. [/QUOTE] Friedman was a monetarist, and part of the Chicago School of Economics. The whole point of monetarism is that increasing the supply of money increased GDP, which is not "austrian" at all. "Monetarists argue that there was no inflationary investment boom in the 1920s. Instead, monetarist thinking centers on the contraction of the M1 during the 1931-1933 period, and argues from there that the Federal Reserve could have avoided the Great Depression by moves to provide sufficient liquidity. In essence, they argue that there was an insufficient supply of money." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism[/url]

[QUOTE=Noble;37170946]Yeah, and the FDA approved it, giving everyone the false sense of security that because it has a government stamp of approval, it's totally safe. Less [i]government[/i] regulation yes, and more [i]market[/i] regulation. A voluntary and self-correcting system, rather than government dictating what individuals are allowed to do with their private property.[/QUOTE] Market self regulation doesn't work. The very idea that companies will look to the long term when the average CEO is not thinking about the long term profit and shareholders aren't pushing for long term profits either is ridiculous. They're not going to, it's going to cost them money to do that. Companies like Monsanto have proved that they have the potential for nearly endless money while holding a near monopoly and absolutely throwing out any level of ethics, morals, and safety.

[QUOTE=Noble;37167486]That's just anecdotal evidence. There may be a variety of reasons why they do that. Either way I'm not arguing that every firm would consist of a bunch of people charitable enough to offer such discounts. It's fair to say that some would, though.[/quote] This is just in a small town, and the only reason they offer discounts for rail-roaders is because one of the co-owners is married to one. That's it. Is it still fair to the little old lady who froze her ass off because she couldn't afford what was needed to be done? [quote]It really is their own fault for not paying, 100%. That aside, maybe the company could have worked out a deal to pay on the spot and I don't know the story behind exactly why they didn't. Maybe they didn't want to set an example of having people not paying premiums every month, but just waiting until their house catches on fire and saying "here's $50, go put the fire out please". They can't fund themselves that way, it's unsustainable. That doesn't mean every private fire company couldn't find a way to deal with these issues, though. Regardless, it isn't a "free" service in any sense, you'll pay for it one way or another, whether it's tax money or something else. I'm just advocating a [i]voluntary[/i] means of paying for it.[/quote] The problem with that is that they missed ONE payment, the most recent one. It's still a heartless and shitty thing to do. [quote]Yeah, because the managers would really like to take their multi-billion dollar firm and use it to sell dangerous drugs to their customers. That's really going to be great for business and their reputation. I can just imagine all the shareholders who would be rushing to invest in this company! In reality though, they would send their drugs out for testing. They would ensure this drug will not do more harm then good, or else people will quickly stop buying this drug, which will cut revenue, and their business will be in trouble. The profit incentive pushes companies to [i]necessarily[/i] have to provide safe, working drugs if they want to succeed on the market.[/quote] I'm sure things would be "over-looked". They'd send their drugs off for testing at the cheapest place they can find. How many people would have to die before it turns out Getoffyouracidone is actually quite terrible for your kidneys and liver, and the company realizes they need to get their shit tested somewhere else? [quote]I disagree entirely. I think that with a "governor", you create more problems than you solve. The super-rich will just use this "governor" for their own advantage through political donations, like getting them to pass laws that harm their competitors, and give them an edge in the market. Get the "governor" out, and you create a more level playing field where the big firms have to actually [i]compete[/i]. Competition is what they are afraid of, and that's why they like regulation that has a low marginal cost to them but massive marginal cost to new competitors to help kill them in their infancy, before they have a chance to grow.[/QUOTE] You have NO idea what a governor is in reference to a steam engine, do you? This little gizmo right here: [img]http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/8766/steam20engine205.jpg[/img] Its entire purpose is to ensure that the steam engine doesn't run away from itself, it regulates the amount of steam going into the engine based on how fast it's going. Without it, the engine would literally run out of control and self-destruct. Like any machine, things need to be fine-tuned. You can't just put as much gas into an engine as you want in the hopes that it'll run faster or more efficiently, it'll just flood or stall out.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;37169820]I think you should read this. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States#Organized_labor_to_1900[/url] People didn't just change their business practices. It was collective bargaining. Unfortunately collective bargaining doesn't work as well in places like China since the government or corporation tends to violently break up unions before they form.[/QUOTE] The Chinese economy has been growing very rapidly. Firms are competitive in attracting talented workers, so long as people are free to choose which firm to work at. This is why countries with a high index of economic freedom tend to have a high average salary. I've heard that some firms in China are outsourcing because the cost of labor is too high in wake of their monster 10% a year GDP increases. Collective bargaining can occur only when there isn't 100 other people lined up to take your job, you could argue that unions are the result of economic growth and that without them firms will be competitive in setting wages anyway. [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37172665]Friedman was a monetarist, and part of the Chicago School of Economics. The whole point of monetarism is that increasing the supply of money increased GDP, which is not "austrian" at all. "Monetarists argue that there was no inflationary investment boom in the 1920s. Instead, monetarist thinking centers on the contraction of the M1 during the 1931-1933 period, and argues from there that the Federal Reserve could have avoided the Great Depression by moves to provide sufficient liquidity. In essence, they argue that there was an insufficient supply of money." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism[/url][/QUOTE] The Chicago School combines Keynesianism with the Austrian School. A lot of Friedman's observations support Austrian theories such as the view that bubbles are the result of liquidy crunches and the free market philosophy. Lol, Friedman believed that doctors shouldn't be required to have medical licenses.

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37132683]Maybe it would be if we cut defense spending (ie stop fixing things that aren't broken, M9s are fine and 1911s aren't any better or worse) stopped bailing out failing businesses, cut out the war on drugs, stopped trying to push for increased gun control, stopped running state-sponsored ads about the dangers of tobacco or alcohol or whatever, stopped trying to send aid to countries that don't utilize it properly (eg Haiti), etc. Romney's tax plan doesn't work with what we're currently doing, but we're really in a time where we need to drastically cut on government spending.[/QUOTE] Actually an M9 is a piece of shit. Also no one is hardly fielded with a sidearm, just rifles.

i don't get why people still try to claim that competition is what would make services affordable and of a high quality in a free-market society. didn't the industrial period pretty much show that the upper class would rather work with each other and form monopolies so they can get as rich as possible doing whatever?

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37175184]i don't get why people still try to claim that competition is what would make services affordable and of a high quality in a free-market society. didn't the industrial period pretty much show that the upper class would rather work with each other and form monopolies so they can get as rich as possible doing whatever?[/QUOTE] One of the roles of government is to ensure the rules of the game are fair and to encourage competition.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37175859]One of the roles of government is to ensure the rules of the game are fair and to encourage competition.[/QUOTE]If only that would happen. But these said upper class individuals are now the ones who ARE our government.

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37175859]One of the roles of government is to ensure the rules of the game are fair and to encourage competition.[/QUOTE] Yes, by regulating.