-
We are all familiar that the terrible Chernobyl disaster was part and parcel of the incompetence of the command and control economy of the Soviet Union. While true, we seem to now be vitnessing a comparable disaster, caused not by incompetence, but the profit motive. Here's a good place to start - " This Could Become Chernobyl on Steroids "
-
In a free market, monopoly, and even oligopoly are nearly impossible Well, I 100% disagree, and I think to the contrary, that it can be logically demonstrated that in a purely free market - monopoly or oligopoly are nearly impossible to avoid in the long run. The barriers to entry into markets DO NOT only come from government - they also come from capital
-
Also, you did not address my comment about your comparison of poker to the economy. If you prefer, I could compare it instead to a game of Monopoly? (TM) It is true, of course, that an economy is NOT a zero sum game. Neither is the game Monopoly (TM). In Monopoly (TM), there is more currency circulating, more houses and more hotels as the game goes
-
"do you actually have a suggestion as to how better allocate resources for engaging in business ventures than the free market? " No - let's assume that the free-market is the Lamborghini of economies - the best, most efficient, etc. My point is that, like a Lamborghini, it needs regular maintenance and intelligent steering. A person guided
-
If it takes money to make money, how did anyone ever become wealthy in the first place? The same way the Boston Red Sox (who have less money) can sometimes beat the New York Yankees (who have more money). It happens, it just doesn't happen usually, because the Yankees larger payroll confers a significant advantage. If those were soap factories instead
-
Regardless of this definition, however, how is it necessarily the case that winners will always find it easier to keep on winning and losers willalways find it easier to keep on losing? Well, it is true that it is nearly always easier to start a business venture or a career with more funding as opposed to less . So those who start with more will always
-
Argument: A pure "free-market" is not a stable situation, but is rather merely a transitory phase preceding corporatism & authoritarian government. 1. In a free market economy, some win (retain profits) while others lose (go bankrupt) 2. In general, "it takes money to make money" - those who retain profits will benefit from "economies
-
America in Decline: Why Germans Think We're Insane http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27187.htm A look at our empire in decline through the eyes of the European media. By Democrats Ramshield January 04, 2011 " AlterNet " December 29, 2010 -- As an American expat living in the European Union, I’ve started to see America
-
"Life insurance for 300k You could die any time in the next 1-15 years Or take 250k now!" Oh, come on, we're talking about really old and sick people here. I bet a slick broker could get a much bigger cut than that. Try talking to some people with alzheimers, you could probably sell them a pat on the back. What would voluntarism's
-
"Is there a website where I can sign up?" Uh, it's called Wall Street: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=LPHI If there are any major famines, wars or pestilences in the U.S. your investment will go through the roof.