Paul Krugman "hits the nail on the head" in re: Obamacare

[TakeAStepBack]

Ayn Rand isn't a libertarian. In fact, she despised libertarians. But, such knowledge would require a grasp on the historical record. A concept completely and utterly foreign to people like Shallow and Krugman. They simply just make shit up and run with it.

And a libertarian country has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nothing. But this is the type of debate skill long expected and provided by jokes like Shallow.

 

[Sallow]

This reminds me of what liberals think of the free market system.
Despite that from the beginning of mankind and still true today - in every single society and nation on earth - to the degree that a society departs from a free market system - is the exact same degree of poverty in that society. And the nations that use the free system the most - have the best standards of living for the common man. Period.
Over the past 20 years, America is departing from the free market system into a corporate/oligarchy system...and guess what? The standard of living for the common man is in decline, and will continue to decline.
The same is true for healthcare - the further we depart from a free market system - the further the quality will decline.

Wait, what?

What the fuck are you talking about.

Most of man's history has been populated with conservative forms of governance such as Monarchies, Aristocracies and Theocracies. The "Free Market" was a Liberal idea that was formulated as a rejection to the notion that all things belong to the chosen few. And it was formulated by the Merchant class that believed they should be able to determine how best to use their skills.

That, of course, was subject to it's own form of repression once many of the wealthier corporations discovered that banding together instead of competing was much more profitable. Hence the government began to regulate to keep the market "Free".

What you have seen over the last 20 years is a dismantling of regulations and a rise of people that conservatives have supported in this endeavor.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What you've seen over the last 100+ years is the coupling of business and government, not business and business.. We call it corporatism. The government "regulates" the market by destroying competition, not creating freedom.

Jeebus.

 

[Sallow]

Ayn Rand isn't a libertarian. In fact, she despised libertarians. But, such knowledge would require a grasp on the historical record. A concept completely and utterly foreign to people like Shallow and Krugman. They simply just make shit up and run with it.

And a libertarian country has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nothing. But this is the type of debate skill long expected and provided by jokes like Shallow.

You guys are hilarious.

Really.

We should all play... Who is the libertarian..

 

[Sallow]

What you've seen over the last 100+ years is the coupling of business and government, not business and business.. We call it corporatism. The government "regulates" the market by destroying competition, not creating freedom.

Jeebus.

Ever heard the term, "Regulatory Capture"?

No..guess not.

I've seen it. First hand. Close up.

 

[dblack]

What you've seen over the last 100+ years is the coupling of business and government, not business and business.. We call it corporatism. The government "regulates" the market by destroying competition, not creating freedom.

Jeebus.

Ever heard the term, "Regulatory Capture"?

No..guess not.

I've seen it. First hand. Close up.

Yep. Why do you support it?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You guys?

Really.

We should all play... Who is the libertarian..

If you understood history, or had a pinky finger full of knowledge, you wouldn't be debating off a false premise. But of course, you are ignorant, you make shit up. You run with it, and you refuse to look back once you've embarked on a course.

Ayn Rand Q&A on Libertarianism - The Ayn Rand Institute

Q: What do you think of the libertarian movement?

In 1971 she wrote:

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,”

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. [FHF 71]

This is the part where you ignore your own faliings and continue on as though it never happened.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What you've seen over the last 100+ years is the coupling of business and government, not business and business.. We call it corporatism. The government "regulates" the market by destroying competition, not creating freedom.

Jeebus.

Ever heard the term, "Regulatory Capture"?

No..guess not.

I've seen it. First hand. Close up.

Yep. Why do you support it?

Regulatory capture is essentially a way of displacing government failures onto other people. it exists, sure. It's also a failure of government in regulatory design. It's not a hostile take over of government by corporations. Only Statist apologists would consider that.

And, of course Shallow supports it. All interventionsts support it. They just scream about what it is from a back-asswards point of view.

 

[Sallow]

What you've seen over the last 100+ years is the coupling of business and government, not business and business.. We call it corporatism. The government "regulates" the market by destroying competition, not creating freedom.

Jeebus.

Ever heard the term, "Regulatory Capture"?

No..guess not.

I've seen it. First hand. Close up.

Yep. Why do you support it?

Cause I gotta eat.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Because you have no principles. Thats why you support it.

 

[Sallow]

Ever heard the term, "Regulatory Capture"?

No..guess not.

I've seen it. First hand. Close up.

Yep. Why do you support it?

Regulatory capture is essentially a way of displacing government failures onto other people. it exists, sure. It's also a failure of government in regulatory design. It's not a hostile take over of government by corporations. Only Statist apologists would consider that.

And, of course Shallow supports it. All interventionsts support it. They just scream about what it is from a back-asswards point of view.

Why don't you just say..you don't understand it.

Yeah..it is a "hostile takeover" and it generally happens because of greed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Right on que and without any surprise. So, the poor government is helpless to the power of corporations, right?

Like I said, your type view it back-assward from what it really is. You actually support it, because it is YOU that doesn't understand it.

 

[Sallow]

Because you have no principles. Thats why you support it.

The type of "support" I provide is fixing technology.

That's it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure;

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sallow]

Right on que and without any surprise. So, the poor government is helpless to the power of corporations, right?

Like I said, your type view it back-assward from what it really is. You actually support it, because it is YOU that doesn't understand it.

People in government are what? Less greedy then corporate types?

Do tell.

 

[Sallow]

Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure;

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay.

Your solution to this is what?

Less regulations, right?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[4] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government. However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture.

Recent evidence suggests that even in mature democracies with high levels of transparency and media freedom more extensive and complex regulatory environments are associated with higher levels of corruption

(including regulatory capture).[5]

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sallow]

Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[4] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government. However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture.

Recent evidence suggests that even in mature democracies with high levels of transparency and media freedom more extensive and complex regulatory environments are associated with higher levels of corruption

(including regulatory capture).[5]

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which totally ignores the fact that the SEC, when "captured", made things "worse" by not doing anything.

 

[Dot Com]

it proves that Repubs were for it BEFORE they were against it (A Democrat puts it forward) Obamacare = Romneycare = Heritagecare. If anything, you insurance co apologists should be angry at Heritage.

No, dumbass...

It proves that Heritage wrote a white paper and got their asses reamed for it.

Let me clue you in on something......Heritage<>Republican.

Got it.

If we wanted Obamacare, we had six years to pass it. I am sure the demodorks would not have gotten in the way.

you still not "man up" & start a new acct after losing your wager. You promised to leave the board if 44 won reelection, which he did. Stop wasting my time son

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[4] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government. However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture.(including regulatory capture).[5]

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which totally ignores the fact that the SEC, when "captured", made things "worse" by not doing anything.

Christ. On. Crutches.

That is exactly what it is saying. it didn't miss anything. You just have to belly up to the pretzel logic bar for another helping of The government did it's best Brandy.