Unintended Consequences

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

You mean people who plan economics through government incentives and punishments don't understand it?

Because the free market always finds a way around the gate. But it does often get hurt by the unfair handouts. And the people on the giving end can do less to produce good products and services with that extra help.

The problem is many if not most of the people in the legislature are lawyers, not businessmen/women, not economist they haven't the slightest how their plans affect the broader economy and many simply dont care, they double speak out of both sides of their mouths all the time and yet many people who vote for them are too ignorant to see or understand it.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Ironduke

President Bush (MBA Harvard). Is he an ivory tower academic?

Left off the numerous doctors above them, huh? Well, no idea what an ivory tower academic is. Some people consider any college education ivory tower, I chose to stop at graduate work since nearly all graduate work involves thesis and teaching.

[Ironduke]

Originally Posted by tbone

Left off the numerous doctors above them, huh? Well, no idea what an ivory tower academic is. Some people consider any college education ivory tower, I chose to stop at graduate work since nearly all graduate work involves thesis and teaching.

MBAs aren't academics.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Ironduke

President Bush (MBA Harvard). Is he an ivory tower academic?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The problem is many if not most of the people in the legislature are lawyers, not businessmen/women, not economist they haven't the slightest how their plans affect the broader economy and many simply dont care, they double speak out of both sides of their mouths all the time and yet many people who vote for them are too ignorant to see or understand it.

Last I heard, attorney's were second to businessmen in terms of office holders.

Regardless, the problem has nothing to do with whether or not someone understands business. Government runs NOTHING like a business. The problem is not having people who understand that we need a very, very small government.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Last I heard, attorney's were second to businessmen in terms of office holders.

Regardless, the problem has nothing to do with whether or not someone understands business. Government runs NOTHING like a business. The problem is not having people who understand that we need a very, very small government.

Government doesn't run like business right now and some aspects of government can never be run like a business. You're missing the point, the LEGISLATORS make laws that affect, me, you and BUSINESS along with laws that affect government. If you dont know what you're doing should you really be creating laws that regulate business and our economy? Just something to think about.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Government doesn't run like business right now and some aspects of government can never be run like a business. You're missing the point, the LEGISLATORS make laws that affect, me, you and BUSINESS along with laws that affect government. If you dont know what you're doing should you really be creating laws that regulate business and our economy? Just something to think about.

Who says government has to be run like a business? That is not the function of government and it does not follow that someone who was successful in business would be successful in government and vice versa.

You cannot possibly expect legislatures to be versed in all fields of public policy - there are somethings that they will not know - that is not to say of course that ignorance is an excuse for bad legislation. It however highlights an important function of our republic - that it allows for many voices to be heard within the legislative process so that a person can get as many perspectives as possible on a bill and that with so many factions, consensus is needed in order to get the bill passed. So naturally at least some economic friendly policies will pass even if not all of it does.

Sure there should be a business (or economic) perspective but it can't be dominate, just like you imply that a bunch of lawyers poorly legislate the economy, so would a bunch of business men poorly legislate privacy and liberty.

So what is the solution here? To ensure as many factions are heard and use our republican process to ensure the diversity of opinion while ensuring no one perspective becomes to dominate with power.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Ironduke

MBAs aren't academics.

As I said, not sure what people's definitions of academics are so I included them. Some people consider anyone with a college degree an "ivory tower academic." My point was to show how stupid of a comment this was, but thanks for jumping on the last two people I posted out of several and driving that point into the ground. You sure do know how to stay on topic and not divert!

Unless you can provide a universally accepted definition that would exclude all or select master's degrees, I stand by my post. Anyone who is required to submit a thesis and defend it in a liberal arts institution could be considered an academic by some people.

I, of course, would agree the online MBA's or those granted from for profit "educational" institutions would not qualify the same as Harvard.

An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution in post-secondary (or tertiary) education. He or she is nearly always an advanced degree holder who does research.

Academia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In case you are unaware, a thesis is research.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Government doesn't run like business right now and some aspects of government can never be run like a business. You're missing the point, the LEGISLATORS make laws that affect, me, you and BUSINESS along with laws that affect government. If you dont know what you're doing should you really be creating laws that regulate business and our economy? Just something to think about.

Government should not be regulating business. Regulations just stifle competition and provide a false sense of safety.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Government should not be regulating business. Regulations just stifle competition and provide a false sense of safety.

some regulation is necessary.

what makes you think any company is going to "do the right thing" just for the sake of it being right?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Government should not be regulating business. Regulations just stifle competition and provide a false sense of safety.

I always have the same reply to that arguement. I agree with one condition. You replace all human beings with computers who always make logical rational decisions. In that context I agree 100%.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by 7960

some regulation is necessary.

what makes you think any company is going to "do the right thing" just for the sake of it being right?

When did I ever state a company would "do the right thing just for the sake of it being right"?

Companies do the "right thing", because if they do not, another company will, and then the company that did not do "the right thing" will go out of business or have to change its policy so that it is doing "the right thing". But this will only happen in an environment where entry into the market is easy. Regulations and patents make this extremely difficult.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I always have the same reply to that arguement. I agree with one condition. You replace all human beings with computers who always make logical rational decisions. In that context I agree 100%.

You would agree regulations stifle competition only if human beings were replaced with computers? What?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

You would agree regulations stifle competition only if human beings were replaced with computers? What?

The freemarket approach would work fine if people were computers. In the real world people make bad decisions, people are greedy and do things for thier own personal gain, sometimes they do things that are harmful even to themselves. PEOPLE are the problem with the system that you propose. Because people will be... people...regulation is a necesary evil and we could not survive without it.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

When did I ever state a company would "do the right thing just for the sake of it being right"?

Companies do the "right thing", because if they do not, another company will, and then the company that did not do "the right thing" will go out of business or have to change its policy so that it is doing "the right thing". But this will only happen in an environment where entry into the market is easy. Regulations and patents make this extremely difficult.

Patents are an enforecemnt of intellectual property rights. Property rights are the core of a freemarket system. You don't even understand the concept that you are pushing.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Patents are an enforecemnt of intellectual property rights. Property rights are the core of a freemarket system. You don't even understand the concept that you are pushing.

People at one time thought you could own people too. No, it is you that does not understand.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The freemarket approach would work fine if people were computers. In the real world people make bad decisions, people are greedy and do things for thier own personal gain, sometimes they do things that are harmful even to themselves. PEOPLE are the problem with the system that you propose. Because people will be... people...regulation is a necesary evil and we could not survive without it.

First of all, you have explained nothing.

Second of all, I could just as easily say "people are the problem with the system you propose".

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

First of all, you have explained nothing.

Second of all, I could just as easily say "people are the problem with the system you propose".

You aren't making any sense.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

People at one time thought you could own people too. No, it is you that does not understand.

I wear trousers. Pancakes are yummy. You don't understand. I mean really.

What does slavery have to do with intellectual property rights? Are you trying to equate patents with slavery?!

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I wear trousers. Pancakes are yummy. You don't understand. I mean really.

What does slavery have to do with intellectual property rights?