01 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThe answer would depend on how many people the government was making better off, relative to how many people it was making worse off.
Some might be better off some might be worse off.
Is it gummints business to make innocent people worse off?
01 Apr 11
Originally posted by whodeyAgain you ignore externalities; even if (that's IF) the high speed lines themselves could not be operated at a profit, it's entirely possible, even likely, that they would save the country money.
The high speed rail suggestion is just a Big Government scam. Not only would they cost billions of tax payer money, they would require billions more to keep up and running. It would then become just another money losing scam like Amtrack robbing the American people of even more tax money.
01 Apr 11
Originally posted by whodeyhttp://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/identifying-ireland%E2%80%99s-ghost-estates/
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2010/12/21/ghost-town-mongolia-inside-chinas-empty-cities/
So what can we make of this? Is it central planning run amock?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_estate
Of course in Ireland the scale is possibly less ambitious but the principle is the same and has no obvious resemblance to central planning. Just good old capitalism run amok.
😛
02 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by TeinosukeWrong: The answer is the gummint has no business making innocent people who are going about their own business, minding their own business etc, worse off.
The answer would depend on how many people the government was making better off, relative to how many people it was making worse off.
You see punishing innocent people is not the business of gummint.
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by finneganYet another example of a market shaped by gummint regulation (as per ATY's example) and therefore not an example of capitalism. a.k.a blasting a hole in your own foot.
http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/identifying-ireland%E2%80%99s-ghost-estates/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_estate
Of course in Ireland the scale is possibly less ambitious but the principle is the same and has no obvious resemblance to central planning. Just good old capitalism run amok.
😛
02 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, that's not what I said dolt, a bum in a cardboard box can be a capitalist, there is no minimum property holding requirement, if you want to play with the example I gave No1, then if two bums camped out on some private property that they have received permission to do so recognise that the other fellows rightfully acquired card board box is his, and that the box he sleeps in belongs to himself then they are capitalists. The state may (rather than protecting capitalism, or making capitalism possible as No1 makes out) want to intefere in all kinds of ways making it impossible for these two to go about their peaceful capitalist life style.
I thought it just took one bum and a cardboard box?
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by WajomaSo what happens when the bigger bum beats up the smaller one and takes his box? Capitalism just magically vanishes?
No, that's not what I said dolt, a bum in a cardboard box can be a capitalist, there is no minimum property holding requirement, if you want to play with the example I gave No1, then if two bums camped out on some private property that they have received permission to do so recognise that the other fellows rightfully acquired card board box is his, and that t ...[text shortened]... ds of ways making it impossible for these two to go about their peaceful capitalist life style.