MSimon wrote:
His philosophy was to acknowledge that individuals are looking after their own interests. You see anything in the recent debacles that refutes that?
In this country, no...but the US is so dramatically individualistic that if we weren't a superpower we would be termed mentally ill.
MSimon wrote:
The second part of his philosophy was that competition of interests was the best safeguard of our wealth and liberty. That government was not up to the job. You see anything in the recent debacles that refutes that?
Umm, the
ENTIRE debacle refutes that. We have seen exactly what happens when for profit organizations are asked to regulate themselves.
The interests that were represented were those of the bankers, investors and other large monied people. Those without the resources to buy the necessary information were not allowed to participate in the competition.
Reagan liked Adam Smith. But he got Smith wrong. He publicized and everyone else went along with the idea that Smith said the invisible hand concept was that
"self interest leads to maximum standard of living and guards our wealth and liberty"
Read the Wealth of Nations. He mentioned the invisible hand concept once on it was that "
ENLIGHTENED self interest..." The rest of Adam Smith talked about how crucial government is for the proper functioning of economies...THAT is what capitalism is based on. The competition between private interests and public interests.
I would also like to point out that enlightened self interest is almost an oxymoron. Adam Smith's capitalism demands perfect knowledge and adequate time for analysis for ALL participants. This is an impossibility.
Only those with extreme resources can even come close to that ideal. The person making less than about $300K a years hasn't a chance.
MSimon wrote:
Because, in the end, the cartels always design the controls for their benefit. You see anything in the recent debacles that refutes that?
Actually, you find that LACK of government is a refuge of cartels.
All the cartels in the world are founded out of countries that are essentially anarchies. They are either led by people with no power (Columbia) or religious/social extremists with no interest in governing, only ruling (Saudi Arabia).
However properly functioning government PREVENTS cartels. The US and Australia could easily form a cartel on wheat. The majority of wheat production in the US and Australia is owned by about a dozen players. They have tried and failed to form cartels BECAUSE the US and Australian governments have prevented it.
MSimon wrote:Government is always the death of competition and the refuge of cartels.
I won't argue with that but remember that "government" doesn't have to mean a king or constitution or voting or anything. A business is it's own government. An excess of business is just as stifling as an excess of federal regulation.
The real question is, do you want to trust people whose stated goal is to separate you from your property (for profit businesses, this is typically done by selling you things) or someone whose stated goal is for you to follow the procedure (bureaucracy).
Reagan was too limited....
The scariest phrase in the English language is NOT "I am from the government and I'm here to help." The scariest phrase is simply "I am here to help." Especially when said by someone you didn't call first.