gas over $4 is here! is $5 gas far behind ?
in [Cars]
|
From: Rudy Canoza on 24 May 2007 17:00 On May 24, 1:12 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...(a)localnet.com> wrote: > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > >>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market > >>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do > >>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of > >>>>> course, > >>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down > >>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We > >>>>> saw > >>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they > >>>>> let the > >>>>> price controls off, the bread was available. > > >>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become > >>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism. > >>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies. > > >>> Ya znaiyu. > > >>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current > >>>> corporate model is wrong. > > >>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's > >>> not like what you advocated earlier. > > >> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries, > >> why shouldn't it be democratic too? > > > Because it's not a country and not an economy. It's a company that's > > privately owned. jeffy's tacit acceptance of why Wal-Mart is not run "democratically" noted. > >>>> And while the price feedback mechanism is > >>>> generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I > >>>> think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is > >>>> ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to > >>>> regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs. > > >>> Law suits would just create case law which would mean regulation from > >>> the judicial branch. Obviously that alone isn't sensible since > >>> administration is the purview of the executive branch. > > >>>> And the > >>>> cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the > >>>> system, but the feedback system is broken by the political influence of > >>>> the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. > > >>> It's broken because there is unlimited demand. > > >> What do you mean? > > > With every post, you show you don't understand a thing about economics. > > The consumers of medical care don't internalize the cost of the care. > > To them, the medical care appears "free", so they want too much of it. > > More care is demanded by consumers than is available at that price. > > This is the "world of hypochondriacs" argument, No. > it doesn't reallly hold up to experience. It absolutely holds, jeffy. When the consumer faces little or no out- of-pocket expense for using some resource, he'll want to use more of it. This is elementary price theory stuff, jeffy, but we know you don't know anything about that. > > Medical care is no different from any other good or service. There is a > > cost to providing the stuff, and there's no reason suppliers shouldn't > > make a profit in doing a good job of supplying the goods or service. > > No one has argued that doctors and hospitals should go penniless. You have implicitly that there is something "wrong" with medical care being supplied by profit-seeking business entities. YOU are wrong and stupid for holding that value. The profit motive is a powerful one for getting resources allocated. There is nothing "holy" about medical care that means it "ought" to be supplied only by non-profit- seeking organizations. > >>>> We need to take the money out > >>>> of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to > >>>> respond to the needs of their constituents. > > > Getting to decide how several trillion dollars are spent is valuable. > > Why would you think huge resources wouldn't be spent to be in that > > position? > > Because it runs counter to democracy. No, it doesn't, but that's beside the point. Having government decide winners and losers is bad government. It's not their appropriate role. The fact is, jeffy, that having the power to decide winners and losers *is* valuable, and people will devote resources, lots of them, to trying to be the ones to exercise that power. You won't keep the resources out; you can't. You can blabber on as long as you want with your holier-than-thou bullshit about "counter to democracy", but resources *will* be expended to try to be the ones who exercise that power. So, having arrived at that fundamental truth, you're faced with a choice. EITHER you eliminate most of the ability of government to decide winners and losers, thereby making control of the government less valuable; OR, you try to make the system whereby resources flow toward trying to seek political power a transparent system, so at least you know who's trying and to what extent. There is no other choice. > > If you want to get the money out of politics, you first need to get rid > > of the ability of politicians to decide winners and losers. Then > > running for office won't seem so attractive. > > Congressmembers should decide based on their consciences and the will of > their constituents, not based on who gives them money. You naive simpleton. > >>> If there's no money in being in office, won't people take bribes and > >>> later try to make money by "consulting", AKA paying bribes? > > >> Pay them enough, and police bribery. As it is, bribery (aka campaign > >> contributions) is legal. Get stronger laws on consulting. > > > Won't work. Getting to be the "decider" is too valuable. It will draw > > the money one way or another. > > There's always corruption, there's always jail. Resources flowing toward being the ones controlling the levers of governmental power is simply not going to be stopped. It isn't inherently corrupt.
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) on 24 May 2007 21:47 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > > Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>>Jeffrey Turner wrote: > >>>>Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free market > >>>>>under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do > >>>>>indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of course, > >>>>>but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down > >>>>>state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. We saw > >>>>>that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they let the > >>>>>price controls off, the bread was available. > >>>> > >>>>And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to become > >>>>billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism. > >>>>Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies. > >>> > >>>Ya znaiyu. > >>> > >>> > >>>>I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the current > >>>>corporate model is wrong. > >>> > >>>Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's > >>>not like what you advocated earlier. > >> > >>It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries, > >>why shouldn't it be democratic too? > > > > 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how > > many shares you have. > > 2) Because the workers don't own the company. > > But they are at least as dependent on it as those who do. Kings and > queens are mostly ornamental now, it's about time to do the same with > private monarchs. > You mean if you start a business and build it up, you can be dethroned by the workers even though you still entirely own the company? Or do you mean that the CEO and those running the company as decided by the owners, the shareholders, are going to be second guessed by the non-owners, the workers, and replaced? > >>>>And while the price feedback mechanism is > >>>>generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I > >>>>think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is > >>>>ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to > >>>>regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs. > >>> > >>>Law suits would just create case law which would mean regulation from > >>>the judicial branch. Obviously that alone isn't sensible since > >>>administration is the purview of the executive branch. > >>> > >>> > >>>>And the > >>>>cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the > >>>>system, but the feedback system is broken by the political influence of > >>>>the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. > >>> > >>>It's broken because there is unlimited demand. > >> > >>What do you mean? > > > > I mean that people will pay anything, demand anything, when it comes to > > health care because their life is on the line. It's hard to have the > > market or anything including government policy limit this demand. > > Right now the market does limit it. But it's very inefficient and > adds tremendously to the cost. That's the system that's broken, and > it's not being fixed because of the influence of the insurance and > pharmaceutical lobbies. > Right now demand in socialist health care systems is limited by a top down government cap on medical services. In the US, if you pay for the service, you can have it because the availability is based on ability to pay, obviously with protections for emergency and other needs, assistance for the poor, etc. > >>>>We need to take the money out > >>>>of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to > >>>>respond to the needs of their constituents. > >>> > >>>If there's no money in being in office, won't people take bribes and > >>>later try to make money by "consulting", AKA paying bribes? > >> > >>Pay them enough, and police bribery. As it is, bribery (aka campaign > >>contributions) is legal. Get stronger laws on consulting. > > > > You just said they shouldn't be able to make much money in office. > > I said they shouldn't be open to bribery or "contributions." > I wasn't entirely clear on what you were saying. I did take it though to mean that you want to take the money out of running for politics due to that being what you said. -- "There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed and drug into buses in the middle of the night." "How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.", George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
From: Rudy Canoza on 25 May 2007 00:14 Jeffrey Turner wrote: > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free >>>>>> market >>>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do >>>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of >>>>>> course, >>>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down >>>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. >>>>>> We saw >>>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they >>>>>> let the >>>>>> price controls off, the bread was available. >>>>> >>>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to >>>>> become >>>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism. >>>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies. >>>> >>>> Ya znaiyu. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the >>>>> current >>>>> corporate model is wrong. >>>> >>>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's >>>> not like what you advocated earlier. >>> >>> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries, >>> why shouldn't it be democratic too? >> >> 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how >> many shares you have. >> 2) Because the workers don't own the company. > > But they are at least as dependent on it as those who do. Irrelevant. Tenant are at least as dependent on their apartment as the landlord is, but they don't get to vote on any aspect of the management of the building; nor should they. They can vote with their feet: if they don't like the management of the building, they can move. > Kings and > queens are mostly ornamental now, it's about time to do the same with > private monarchs. It's not time to do away with private property, jeffy, and it's not time to give employees and customers an explicit say in how the company is run. It's worth noting they already do have an implicit say, but just not a controlling one. Nor should they. >>>>> And while the price feedback mechanism is >>>>> generally adequate, it breaks down in the case of externalities. I >>>>> think the Libertarian "lawsuit model" of dealing with those is >>>>> ridiculously cumbersome and we need a democratically elected gov't to >>>>> regulate harms that aren't properly addressed by natural costs. >>>> >>>> Law suits would just create case law which would mean regulation from >>>> the judicial branch. Obviously that alone isn't sensible since >>>> administration is the purview of the executive branch. >>>> >>>> >>>>> And the >>>>> cost of healthcare should be telling us that we have to change the >>>>> system, but the feedback system is broken by the political >>>>> influence of >>>>> the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. >>>> >>>> It's broken because there is unlimited demand. >>> >>> What do you mean? >> >> I mean that people will pay anything, demand anything, when it comes to >> health care because their life is on the line. It's hard to have the >> market or anything including government policy limit this demand. > > Right now the market does limit it. That's a good thing. > But it's very inefficient False. > and adds tremendously to the cost. False. The cost is what it is. >>>>> We need to take the money out >>>>> of running for office in order to allow our elected politicians to >>>>> respond to the needs of their constituents. >>>> >>>> If there's no money in being in office, won't people take bribes and >>>> later try to make money by "consulting", AKA paying bribes? >>> >>> Pay them enough, and police bribery. As it is, bribery (aka campaign >>> contributions) is legal. Get stronger laws on consulting. >> >> You just said they shouldn't be able to make much money in office. > > I said they shouldn't be open to bribery or "contributions." Controlling the government is valuable, and resources will be expended to be the ones exercising that control. That's just how it is. You can't stop it any more than you can stop the tides.
From: Jeffrey Turner on 25 May 2007 06:27 Rudy Canoza wrote: > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: > >> >> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >> >>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>> >>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free >>>>>> market >>>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do >>>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of >>>>>> course, >>>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down >>>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. >>>>>> We saw >>>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they >>>>>> let the >>>>>> price controls off, the bread was available. >>>>> >>>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to >>>>> become >>>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism. >>>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies. >>>> >>>> Ya znaiyu. >>>> >>>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the >>>>> current >>>>> corporate model is wrong. >>>> >>>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's >>>> not like what you advocated earlier. >>> >>> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some countries, >>> why shouldn't it be democratic too? >>> >> 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how >> many shares you have. >> 2) Because the workers don't own the company. > > jeffy just doesn't "get" private property. A house is private. A car is private. A mom-and-pop store might be considered private. It is a travesty of language to call an institution that spans all fifty states and crosses the globe employs over a million people "private." --Jeff -- We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. --Franklin D. Roosevelt
From: Rudy Canoza on 25 May 2007 10:30
Jeffrey Turner wrote: > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >> >>> >>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>> >>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jeffrey Turner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The freedom of personal and politic rights, democracy, the free >>>>>>> market >>>>>>> under the rule of law including private property, these as a unit do >>>>>>> indeed lead to prosperity. It is possible to screw things up, of >>>>>>> course, >>>>>>> but there's no way that the Chinese model under Mao works. Top down >>>>>>> state planning doesn't work. Setting prices just reduces supply. >>>>>>> We saw >>>>>>> that with the bread in the Soviet Union. Just about the day they >>>>>>> let the >>>>>>> price controls off, the bread was available. >>>>>> >>>>>> And just look at all those hardworking Russians who were able to >>>>>> become >>>>>> billionaires in just a few years since the collapse of Communism. >>>>>> Warren Buffett is a slacker compared to those industrious Russkies. >>>>> >>>>> Ya znaiyu. >>>>> >>>>>> I tend to agree about top-down planning, that's why I think the >>>>>> current >>>>>> corporate model is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Each owner of each company is deciding for himself what to do. That's >>>>> not like what you advocated earlier. >>>> >>>> It's still top down. Wal*Mart has a bigger economy than some >>>> countries, >>>> why shouldn't it be democratic too? >>>> >>> 1) It is a publicly traded company and it is democratic based on how >>> many shares you have. >>> 2) Because the workers don't own the company. >> >> jeffy just doesn't "get" private property. > > A house is private. A car is private. A mom-and-pop store might be > considered private. It is a travesty of language to call an institution > that spans all fifty states and crosses the globe employs over a million > people "private." No, it's not a travesty at all. You, as a stupid socialist, just don't like it. It's a private enterprise, period. It isn't publicly owned, even though its shares are publicly traded. There is no rationale, none whatever, for Wal-Mart to be run "democratically". |