Fight the good fight House Repubs :).

[luckydevil]

We're left to decide between which better: the socialist Republican RX program or the socialist Democrat RX program

Sadly this is true

Sometimes I really wonder -- we're just not making ourselves loud enough. We've got to start participating in the process, and I think, sign up with the party that will do the most good. I think that's the Republican Party and it needs some new hands at the helm

That is why alot of libertarians are becoming republicans. Barry Goldwater was one of the best republicans ever in this country( he was a well known libertarian). The republican party in theory anyway is the party of capitalism.

[gbear]

Lucky devil, you're still not answering why we would want multiple utility companies as a better option to a government regulated one.

Why should the consumer desire to pay the startup costs twice?

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by luckydevi
Sadly this is true
That is why alot of libertarians are becoming republicans.

Actually, that's one of the biggest reasons I left the GOP to become a Libertarian!!!

[luckydevil]

"What your arguement fails to take into account is the time lag. It says that the moment the monopoly tries to gouge, another company will come along and gouge a little less."

You seem to be starting from the Marxist concept that all profit is gouging. These theories have been refuted a million times before.

As for other companies 'ripping off the drug', government action to stop it is NOT the protection of monopoly and instead is the rightful protection of intellectual property, therefore government action is justified. True monopoly would be where the government makes it illegal for another drug company to create another drug of its own that has the same effect while being a different chemical altogether.

[luckydevil]

Lucky devil, you're still not answering why we would want multiple utility companies as a better option to a government regulated one.

You have to ask yourself is government regulation moral. I think you know where I stand on this. I believe the only thing you can ask from a company is not engage in fraud and use force. Sure a government regulated one might be better for you, but is it right? There is truly something wrong with the argument well if it is good for me lets call on politicians to force companies to serve our common good, never mind what the companies feel, never mind if it is wrong. This is fascism. In the end you will end up hurting yourself.

With all that being said, history is clearly on my side with this statement. The private market is clearly superior to the public market in terms of serving the consumer and efficiency.

[Posse81]

The President is for a child tax credit to low income families. Ready to call HIM as socialist?

[luckydevil]

Yes, he is socialist-lite. He is the lesser of two evils.

[Posse81]

Oh yeah, and hes not the only Republican backing the plan. In fact, the House GOP will bring a another tax bill to the floor this week that extends the child tax credit to the low income families that were left out the first time around.

Fight the good fight, House Republicans...

[luckydevil]

Yes you are right. I do not disagree with you.

[Posse81]

Originally posted by luckydevi
Yes you are right. I do not disagree with you.

Cheers, Lucky. You make your argument in good faith...

[gbear]

"Rightful protection of intelectual property"? That sounds like justification for government allowing or creating a monopoly to me. I'm okay with that as I said before.

For the record, fascism is not the same thing as socialism. Both are words thrown about on this board in a Mcarthyistic fasion. Regulating economies is socialist, it need not be fascist. I'm not talking about a dictator doing it or using a belligerent nationalistic policy (the trademarks of a fascist regime).

Not all profit is gouging. However, there are certainly times where companies are tempted to take advantage of a society. My simple rule on the utilitities, is that if the government allows them to make a profit such that capital still flows to the idea, but the consumer is better off than without the controls, then the government intervention is a good thing.

"The private market is clearly superior to the public market in terms of serving the consumer and efficiency."

In generall I agree. Without capitalism, there is no inovation and economies stagnate. However, there are points where the free market does not serve the consumer as well as a regulated one. You yourself in the paragraph above say "Sure a government regulated one might be better for you, but is it right." So do you admit that a regulated company can be in the best interest of me, the consumer? shocking. So long as regulation isn't to the point where investment becomes unattractive, it can be a good thing. Why should a town pay for two electric generators, and how can you possibly call that more efficient when one would have worked? Is there something inherently moral in higher prices?

Please keep in mind that higher utility prices are hurtful to the economy as a whole as well. One need only look at how our economy has responded as the cost of energy changes. Higher energy prices mean less profit economy wide. I think an arguement can be made for keeping those prices down being a more efficient way to a booming economy.

You seem awefully sure of yourself on the whole history thing, and yet most industrial capitalist countries have opted for atleast some monopoly control (often times utilities are used with the justification above). So what examples of an economy without any monopoly control can you give?

I'd also submit that there are other areas as well where government intervention is good such as industries where lack of information reigns. I like my FDA warnings for example.

[luckydevil]

Just what to repeat this quote

"Lucky devil, you're still not answering why we would want multiple utility companies as a better option to a government regulated one."

That is akin to asking why we would want people to be free as opposed to enslaved. We clearly have a different view, you argue from a collectivist standpoint, I from a individualist stand point.

"For the record, fascism is not the same thing as socialism."

Many would disagree with this. Some of the greatest economicts thinkers ever would disagree, including Rand.

"Rightful protection of intelectual property"? That sounds like justification for government allowing or creating a monopoly to me. I'm okay with that as I said before.

Like I said before government does have a place in society, to protect our rights.



There are alternatives. For example, people can and often do switch back and forth between gas and electricity for their heating. Similarly, both gas and electricity can be mains supplied, or gas can be bottled and electricity could come from smaller generators. The mere fact that there is a gap between the minimum price luckydevi Inc would still want to supply at and the price at which consumers would switch to generator or gas does not mean that luckydevi Inc is a monopolist. Are you arguing against excess profits, if you are than in effect you are arguing against profit.

[gbear]

huh? "That is akin to asking why we would want people to be free as opposed to enslaved. "

That's a logic leap I just don't follow.

As for fascism not equaling socialism, they don't in my dictionary. One is government taking over for the benefit of a dictator, one is government taking over for the benefit of the people (and in this case the economy) it serves.

I'm not in favor of complete government control, but when it comes to the things I want controled, its' for the benefit of the people of the U.S. not Bush. I think my opinions on Bush are well known :-).

The differnce in price in your example doesn't make you a monopolist. That's just where I would draw the line for utilities. That's my line for intervention, and the fact that there is a gap on utilities (which are needed for the rest of the economy), just goes to show how government intervention can in fact be a good thing for the economy.

I get that you are against it. I also get that you are against it for philosophical reasons. We'll probably always disagree on that. I just don't think those philosophical reasons translate into Economics as you suggest.

[luckydevil]

I like this quote by Rand on the issue of socialism and fascism

"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."

[Prosperity]

I hate Ayn Rand, which is ironic considering my username is the main character from her famous book Anthem

She is basically against one person helping another for unselfish reasons