[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I guess I haven't considered the future of my children as an "interesting contest" but agree it would be interesting.

The contest between free market versus government controlled market would be more than interesting.

The outcome would determine, on the one hand, whether the future of your children is a place in a static society in which most are on the distant economic bottom, and with the very few at the very wealthy top. Good luck with that.

Or, on the other hand, whether they are free to make their way to whatever level they are comfortable.

The long-term value proposition here may be if such action could accelerate global transformation towards a more free market. Would this offset potential short-term losses? What's really our endgame, to be true to an American-centric vision or transform others?

The "end game" is toward a more free U.S. market. It is to end the trajectory toward national fiscal insolvency, and to replace it with a move to solvency by an more open and competitive market.

But the raising of corporate costs often results in benefits for the consumer or workforce.

They usually result in rising product costs for consumers. Any temporary short term gains by the workforce are soon offset by the rising costs throughout the economy and the ensuing inflation.

Many corporate officers are certainly well intentioned stewards of their ship, but if history is any measure shareholder value is a difficult vice.

A more difficult vice is maintaining uncompetitive policy in the face of competition. Such a face would lead to zero shareholder value.

I don't see how this is a fake rise in GDP but perhaps a fake rise in shareholder value.

Isn't GDP the value of domestic product. If the value is artificially inflated by government manipulation which creates rising costs, the monetary face value rises without a rise in production. The rise in value is simply a rise in cost.

That's a pretty generic rebuttal of Keynesian economics. So how do you make the argument to the people that they need to sacrifice short-term gain for long-term sustainability? Couldn't you make the same argument about the vision for the ACA?

Just go Nike--Just do it. That's how government got big and entangled itself with the corporate world, giving us the Big Government/Big Business complex. It didn't make an argument to the people. It just went about dismantling the constitutional order gaining more and more power to do what it wished. The control of the "economy" required replacing market forces with political control and the consequent transfer of individual freedom to government's freedom to do as it wishes. It was natural for a centralized government to create a more centralized "market" under the control of its regulations. It is not a new model, just a different version that is supposed to create social order and justice. We have argued over the details of why that doesn't work, why socialism or Marxism or communism don't work. At least not work in a way satisfactory to Americans. Though that view is changing. At any rate, what has happened is that instead of stability, we have constant change and a trajectory toward economic collapse. And justice is merely that which is preferred by prevailing government. And rendered for those who are in the moment preferred by government.

And it's not about the form of the argument. It's about the substance. The form of the argument can be applied to any government imposition, or removal of that imposition.

The substance of the oligarchic nexus between Big Government and Big Business which includes the ACA is not only the trajectory to economic collapse, but the loss of constitutional unalienable rights.

I think people expect Government to provide a sense of stability that they don't believe will come from the free market alone. It's funny, even with all these "oppressive regulations" how much corruption and manipulation of the market is out there? It's massive.

Would ending all regulation lead to more stability? I don't believe this for a second.

Don't be such a crackpot extremist. I didn't say ALL regulation. Government has its place, and constitutional regulation can be beneficial. And corruption is inherent in human nature. It applies in all forms of government or human relations. Virtue is required even in the most despotic regimes for the process to work for the benefit of all rather than only for the few.

As for stability--where in the record of Big Government/Big Business do you find stability? Government regulations are pumped out by the thousands every year. The legal environment is constantly changing. As is the social environment. Morays are changing apace. And we are heading for financial collapse.

I'm not sure what "progressive ideology" I've ever expounded on???

You don't expound it. You exude it.

But certainly we're competing with nations that are playing by a different set of rules.

-spence

And if we play by their rules we become like them. Cogs in a top down all powerful government in tandem with highly centralized Big Business, rigidly heading toward economic nightmare.