Gubmint and How Gubmint Works

Are we going to actually argue that govt makes energy supply better? Pretty much every county has a govt sponsored monopoly with it's energy supplier.

aircooled wrote: Certainly, but any law that effectively says "do not create fake emergencies and shortages to drive prices up wildly", sounds a bit like "do not stick your fingers in the moving gears"

Huh?

Creating a false emergency to increase profit or intentionally maiming oneself to collect benefits are both incidences of fraud.

Accidents happen, but government's selective application of existing law is the underlying issue.

The point is that it is pretty sad that you have the government make a law that says "do not commit fraud" and then constantly monitor people / companies to make sure they don't, even thought it is pretty obvious to almost everyone that fraud is not something you should do. Then have companies and people complain that they don't want the government "nannying" them all the time, when it is pretty clear that if the government didn't they would go hog wild.

Many times the government is forced to create some pretty strange laws that seem to cover some pretty ridiculous things (e.g. the tax law that requires that bartered items be recorded as income, as noted in another thread, to keep people from bartering ridiculous things such as office buildings and such to avoid taxes). Many of those laws tend to be very broad and not really intended to be enforced in many cases (such as small scale bartering). A side effect of that, as you have noted, is that you end up with a situation where the government ends up selectively enforcing those laws, which they pretty much have to, and that can easily result more ridiculous situations.

It sounds like we need some sort of balanced mix of government and private industry in an effort to minimize the amount of inept service and expert screwing. Both sides are the enemy if allowed to run wild.

You mean pretty much what we have now? Free market economy with guidlines and rules overseen by the government to attempt to "control" the playing field?

ignorant wrote:

Type Q wrote:

Nashco wrote: Take a look at damn near all big business; there are widespread layoffs going on and they always start at the bottom and slowly work their way up. How does it make sense that the administration and management stays the same size while the people doing actual work shrinks? If 100 people manage 1000 people, then that 1000 is reduced to 500, don't you need 50 fewer people managing? Bryce

Thanks for making a point that I was going to. Its a feature of any large organization. I have seen more than one company I worked for thinking about adding executives while cutting worker bee's.

Exactly.... So I'm going to become an executive and I suggest you do the same.

That is the problem we are having... our exec's bonuses are now based on how many man hours they can save the company

The problem we have today, with Enron being just one example, is that we don't have any free market economy system in place. The Expert Screwers, as Glenn from the PRC calls them, pay the Inept government and effectively capture them. We wind up with the worst of both sides. Greenspan was quoted as saying "I bet you think fraud is a bad thing." He thought that the market should weed out securities fraud itself. Well, when the fraudsters are controlling the PoPo there to police them, that system has failed. I will point out that Enron was so deep into the Clinton Administration (and vice-versa), that the Administration was flying around the world brokering deals for them. Ron Brown was killed while on such a mission, one that would have screwed the people of the former Yugoslavia into higher energy rates than they had before, making bunches of money for Enron, the Clintons, and whoever was in charge of whatever they called the former Yugoslavia. I think that one fell through when Brown's plane mysteriously ran into a mountain. Another similar deal did go through for Indonesia, if I recall. I think it finally fell apart with the demise of Enron.

To be fair the Bush administration was also very well connected with Enron (Texas, energy, not hard to believe) and where the ones that sat back watched them do their worst.

The Dr. is right though, the new form of "Going Hog Wild" is to get hooks in the current government and manipulate the oversite...

...who watches the watchmen...

..who watches the watchers of the watchmen...

I can't wait until the masses understand that there is no Republican or Democrat, there is no Government or Industry there are only Profiteers and Peasants.

John Brown wrote: I can't wait until the masses understand that there is no Republican or Democrat, there is no Government or Industry there are only Profiteers and Peasants.

Amen.

The feudal system, gotta love it!

Damn you Morpheus, why did I take the red pill?

I'm listing the Federal government as a dependent on my taxes.

The_Jed wrote:

John Brown wrote: I can't wait until the masses understand that there is no Republican or Democrat, there is no Government or Industry there are only Profiteers and Peasants.

Amen. The feudal system, gotta love it!

Considering we live with the futile system, I found it appropriate.

SVreX wrote: I'm listing the Federal government as a dependent on my taxes.

I am going to try that!!!

aircooled wrote: Yet another example of the government being required to make rules to keep people (companies) from doing things that are clearly absurd.

Or, if you look at it a different way: Yet another example of government regulations distorting the market to a clearly absurd degree, then blaming private industry when it suddenly gets FUBARed by a huge correction happening all at once instead of incrementally in flexible response to market conditions.

aircooled wrote: The point is that it is pretty sad that you have the government make a law that says "do not commit fraud" and then constantly monitor people / companies to make sure they don't, even thought it is pretty obvious to almost everyone that fraud is not something you should do. Then have companies and people complain that they don't want the government "nannying" them all the time, when it is pretty clear that if the government didn't they would go hog wild. Many times the government is forced to create some pretty strange laws that seem to cover some pretty ridiculous things (e.g. the tax law that requires that bartered items be recorded as income, as noted in another thread, to keep people from bartering ridiculous things such as office buildings and such to avoid taxes). Many of those laws tend to be very broad and not really intended to be enforced in many cases (such as small scale bartering). A side effect of that, as you have noted, is that you end up with a situation where the government ends up selectively enforcing those laws, which they pretty much have to, and that can easily result more ridiculous situations.

^^^this. it's almost like "if people weren't constantly trying to screw each other over, we wouldn't be saddled with all this nonsense." but screwing the other guy is the american way.

nocones wrote: You mean pretty much what we have now? Free market economy with guidlines and rules overseen by the government to attempt to "control" the playing field?

Somalia is a 100% free market. how's that workin' out for them?

Buzz Killington wrote: Somalia is a 100% free market. how's that workin' out for them?

I see the smiley, but there is absolutely no correlation between Somalia and a true free market of any kind. Even in a 100% unregulated economy, there are little things called "property rights" and "contractual law" that make for actual Capitalism and not the might-makes-right anarchy that most people seem to think is capitalism.

"Capitalism," in Ayn Rand's definition, "is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

I don't know of a better person to define capitalism, whether you agree with her or not. I don't think any of us have seen real capitalism in our lifetimes...

Duke wrote: Or, if you look at it a different way: Yet another example of government regulations distorting the market to a clearly absurd degree, then blaming private industry when it suddenly gets FUBARed by a huge correction happening all at once instead of incrementally in flexible response to market conditions.

OK. But we where referring the the California / Enron situation, it appears you are thinking of something else.

The government regulations distorting the market was was California keeping power cost unnaturally low (not to an absurd degree) which led up to the situation (the partial deregulation created a loophole with Enron ran into at full speed). And of course the massive manipulation done by Enron which definitely was absurd.

The blaming private industry was eventually done to Enron (out of business, jail time, and a suicide I believe). I don't think there are many who will consider them innocents in this case.

And the response to market conditions was of course Enron creating false energy shortages and emergencies (fake fires, fake power plant maintenance etc.) to cause blackout and huge increase in the cost of electricity (which, by the way, Enron was responsible for generating almost none of). There was a bit of a potential power shortage, but not remotely close to what happened.

So, to restate it in your format:

Yet another example of government regulations distorting a market that created a situation where private industry felt compelled to exploit by manipulating the market to the extreme absurdity, affecting millions of people negatively, helped along by strong ties to the people that were supposed to be regulating them.

Or to put it another way, the government tripped (stupidly) and industry came in and stole their (the CA taxpayers) wallet. There are no innocents in this case, but the intent involved was clearly FAR worse for industry.

http://www.businessweek.com/2001/01_07/b3719001.htm

Fraud is a crime - that's where that whole "contractual law" thing comes in. Theft != capitalism.

Duke wrote: I see the smiley, but there is absolutely no correlation between Somalia and a true free market of any kind. Even in a 100% unregulated economy, there are little things called "property rights" and "contractual law" that make for actual Capitalism and not the might-makes-right anarchy that most people seem to think is capitalism.

and property rights and contractual law require legislation and regulation to enforce them. and because of both the inherent imprecision of language and simple human nature, people will always push the edge of what is allowed under those laws. they will always look to find loopholes to gain an advantage over someone else. and then you end up right back where we are.

Ayn Rand's philosophy of capitalism is just that...philosophy. it is theoretical and suffers from the same weaknesses as any other "philosophy" when applied in the real world. it fails to account for a fundamental aspect of human nature...there aren't a lot of Hank Reardens in the world.

lol Ayn Rand. She thought about it real hard so it must be true.

http://www.playboy.com/articles/ayn-rand-playboy-interview/index.html (NSFW just in case)

bat E36 M3 crazy!

To Buzz, Glenn and Iggy:

Did any of you three actually read what I wrote? I didn't even bother saying whether I agreed with her viewpoint (which isn't capitalism, as an end, it's called objectivism) just that that is how she defined capitalism. I did this to show that capitalism hasn't been tried in the US in recent history.

Capitalism IS a philosophy, just as socialism is a philosophy - saying pure philosophies don't work in the real world is irrelevant to the point I was making.

I would still say the U.S. is a capitalist society. Maybe its not some sort of pure capitalism that runs on fairy dust and dreams but it is capitalist