[luke warm]

i still don't see why allowing the market (consumers) a choice is wrong

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Oct 16 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

i still don't see why allowing the market (consumers) a choice is wrong

The consumers don't care about the impact on the environment on future generations, or for that matters current generations. It's a well known fact taught in any introductory economics class that people behaving rationally are likely to choose an auction even when has a net loss, if the individual gain is higher than that person's individual loss (gain for person of having a nice tv is lower than loss for humanity of the damage to the environment).

Essentially, people know what's good for them and they don't care if it's worse for everyone else. That's why I would consider a completely free consumer market 'wrong' in many cases such as this one. I have no problem with the government intervening in such a case.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Oct 16 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 16 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

i still don't see why allowing the market (consumers) a choice is wrong

The consumers don't care about the impact on the environment on future generations, or for that matters current generations. It's a well known fact taught in any introductory economics class that people behaving rationally are likely to choose an auction even when has a net loss, if the individual gain is higher than that person's individual loss (gain for person of having a nice tv is lower than loss for humanity of the damage to the environment).

Essentially, people know what's good for them and they don't care if it's worse for everyone else. That's why I would consider a completely free consumer market 'wrong' in many cases such as this one. I have no problem with the government intervening in such a case.

so if you had a choice between two products of similar quality, say big screen tv sets, you'd choose the one that cost more to operate?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Oct 16 2009, 05:27 PM, said:

so if you had a choice between two products of similar quality, say big screen tv sets, you'd choose the one that cost more to operate?

Um, what? I have no idea where you got that from.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Oct 16 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

i still don't see why allowing the market (consumers) a choice is wrong

I don't think anyone said it is "wrong". The concept is that free markets are ineffective in self-regulating for the greater public good.

[kenberg]

awm, on Oct 14 2009, 04:11 PM, said:

It seems pretty clear that Ayn Rand would be opposed to helping the starving poor. This is not just opposition to government involvement, but also to charitable contributions. It's "socialism" in her view, and if they are poor and starving it's their own fault.

Some of the right wing does claim to be disciples of Ayn Rand. In fact, some bridge players even claim to follow her. So I don't think it's true that "everyone" supports helping the poor.

I read a little Ayn Rand many (like fifty) years ago. I am not prepared for a quiz, but I am pretty sure that she did not oppose helping the poor. I recall her writing approvingly of something akin to the joy of giving. Not a centerpiece of her philosophy I am sure, but it is not crazy to think that a person would take pleasure in helping another human being, and I think that met with her approval. The objection was to the government making this decision for us.
Don't take me too much to task for this, I am definitely no follower of Ayn Rand. When you are twenty you read such things along with Sartre and Kerouac. Existence precedes essence and all that jazz. I can't really tell you much about that one either.

[cherdanno]

luke warm, on Oct 16 2009, 05:00 PM, said:

i still don't see why allowing the market (consumers) a choice is wrong

I agree. We should just make sure that the market actually sees all the hidden costs. E.g. a carbon tax would be ideal for that.

[Winstonm]

The brilliance of Patraeus - How "the surge" really worked. From TimesOnline:

Quote

September 9, 2007
AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow.

It now appears the Surging Sunni are demanding a cost of living raise:

Quote

Oct 25, 2009 09:00 EST

Two suicide car bombs exploded in downtown Baghdad Sunday, killing at least 136 people and delivering a powerful blow to the heart of the fragile city's government in the worst attack of the year, officials said

(We never should have let them have that collective bargaining agreement.)

[PassedOut]

The US cannot occupy Iraq forever. When the US withdraws, the Iraqis will arrange matters among themselves.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Oct 25 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 25 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

The brilliance of Patraeus - How "the surge" really worked.  From TimesOnline:

Quote

AMERICAN forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The tactic has boosted the efforts of American forces to restore some order to war-torn provinces around Baghdad in the run-up to a report by General David Petraeus, the US commander, to Congress tomorrow.

It now appears the Surging Sunni are demanding a cost of living raise:

Quote

Oct 25, 2009 09:00 EST

Two suicide car bombs exploded in downtown Baghdad Sunday, killing at least 136 people and delivering a powerful blow to the heart of the fragile city's government in the worst attack of the year, officials said

(We never should have let them have that collective bargaining agreement.)

The US cannot occupy Iraq forever. When the US withdraws, the Iraqis will arrange matters to suit themselves.

Although I agree with you that the U.S. cannot stay forever in Iraq, it is not so clear that the Military-Industrial complex agrees:

Quote

Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen all spoke out against Obama’s campaign pledge to get U.S. troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Gen. Ray Odierno, now commander in Iraq, went on record with Tom Ricks as wanting to keep 30,000 or so troops in Iraq until 2015, years after the 2011 withdrawal deadline called for in the Status of Forces Agreement. He did so in March 2009, after Obama had taken office.  Only recently, Odierno noted that the insurgency in Iraq might drag on for another five, ten or fifteen years.

In an Oct. 20 story in Rupert Murdoch’s TimesOnline, Odierno said he might not be able to live up to Obama’s withdrawal pledges due to increasing levels of violence in Iraq. This pronouncement came out the same day Obama promised Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that he would pull troops out on schedule.

The "long-war" faction will not yield easily - since the end of the cold war, the Military-Industrial complex has had no common enemy - but now "terrorsim" is being fitted with that moniker, and thus is now the basis for fighting the "long war".

[Winstonm]

Any thoughts on why zero Republicans are against an increase - or at least simply questioning the increase instead of blanket support?

Quote

Republicans wholeheartedly endorsed McChrystal's appeal while Democrats were more skeptical.