"Freedom" thread or something

Someone's wearing his snarky shorts today.

rogerthat wrote: Acting in one's self interest does not always serve the best interests of the world at large.  It's oft-repeated by free market-advocates but it's just a myth.  Of course there's a built in assumption in said myth that the decision made to serve one's self interest would always be the most rational one but practical experience shows that things like greed or fear or ambition override rationality all too frequently. Why would an incumbent CEO of GM bother about the ignition switch problem (if I am not mistaken, that is the issue?) if he's very likely not going to be the one who has to face the music when it blows up? Another thing I'd like to say is the theory that competition would somehow take care of these greedy oligarchs seems to ignore the financial dimension of the marketplace.  The marketplace is not just a location where goods are bought and sold.  It is also a place where money multiplies and often by a mindboggling factor.  And that puts the player with say a large market share as well as large share capital at a totally different level.  You can never ever create a level playing field on the financial side because the larger player gets money at far more favourable terms which it can use to shut out upstarts before they have half a chance.

He's quite obscure, I never heard of him before a year ago. He was not a big name, and by the time he passed away in the 90s efficient market hypothesis and de regulation was pretty much law of the land, so I hate to say but it seems he was outcasted ideologically. 

Edited by JJLehto - April 11 2014 at 13:09

I propose grains or rice instead. We would all be filthy rich. 

Failcore wrote: I vote we replace our entire economy on a system that uses shiny beads.

Edited by JJLehto - April 11 2014 at 15:16

It's ok, that will add some thrills to the trip, like riding a roller-coaster in a CIA theme park 

Edited by rogerthat - April 11 2014 at 23:37

Ah good man, went right to the Levy Institute so I didn't have to post even more of their stuff here

About deficits, it depends on the overall alignment of domestic business plus international trade of an economy.  China has huge piles of public debt which people have been writing to warn about but as against that, it also has huge current account surpluses and maintains enormous reserves.  You could say they use the cushion of a very stable BoP position to invest in the future.  Whereas India has lower debt than some other emerging or even advanced economies but has managed only modest surpluses at the best of times.  In short, deficits are not inherently bad or good but the govt has to be competent enough to manage the genie once they let it out of the bottle.  Somehow I don't think they are a very good idea for democracies.  Deficit spending appeals to populist notions of politicians and they will invariably indulge in it even where it is not warranted.  

Edited by rogerthat - April 12 2014 at 01:00

Well, at any rate, a locally run program is a lesser evil as long as its budgets are managed tightly.  Inefficiency 'expands' when everything is managed from the centre by bureaucrats out of touch with reality.