Alan Greenspan Believes Ben Bernanke Must Stop QE

Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by Silver2012, Jun 9, 2013.

  1. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    Well that didn't add anything of real substance. You're focussing on the "building a perfect giraffe" project and ignoring the sheep, goats and cows that you can't imagine and could ALSO be developed alongside the "functional giraffe" project.

    Edit: Oh, and when can I expect my brothel?
     
  2. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    @Rinchin. Interesting transition path. Food for thought, thanks.
     
  3. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think there are two reasons why the vast majority of citizens regard government's role as providing services in the absence of (or even competing with) private enterprise:

    1. that is the only system they have ever known, and
    2. governments are the only organisation that have the capacity to reach every market as a whole

    The first point has been discussed many times before and is analogous to "In the Country of the Blind the One-Eyed Man is King" and in the end is a pointless discussion as it is only our own experiences (or ignorances) that frame the debate.

    The second point though carries more weight as it must be asked, "Why does the government have the capacity to reach every market as a whole, or, is it even desirable that it does?" and "Does the government have the ability to do provide the best service?"

    The second question can generally be answered in the negative, which then begs the question "Why does the government get away with it?" which in response also answers the first question, "Through coercion, law, and the point of a gun."

    At what point in time did we grudgingly accept that maybe 50% or more of our incomes would be taken from us and spent in a manner that maybe 50% or more of the time we disagree with and probably 50% or more of the time doesn't benefit us directly by people who 90% of the time we despise? Whenever that time was, it was at that point when the government's capacity to reach every market resulted in our independence being taken from us and we would live and work for the government before we live and work for ourselves. Because it's selfish remember to want to look after yourself first.

    For those that continue to think that the Government is the best providor of services, maybe you need to analyse your own spending habits:

    Do you buy groceries from a private enterprise or the Government Fruit Shop?
    Do you buy cars from a private manufacturer or the Government Factory?
    Do you eat at private restaurants or the Government Cafeteria?

    Now I'm rambling. :rolleyes: :lol:

    @Julie, I'll accept your story about the 150 people killed in a factory fire, and accept that Government legislation regarding fire escapes may well have prevented more deaths, not that it helped the countless thousands who have died in industrial accidents since, but also ask you, weren't Pol Pot, Idi Amin, hitler, caucescu, stalin etc leaders of governments?
     
  4. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Could we just redefine "charities" as private enterprises contracted to provide services? :/
     
  5. leo25

    leo25 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,585
    Likes Received:
    1,939
    Trophy Points:
    113

    you sure do love that giraffe analogy :D


    By no means do I think the government are the best provider of services. I just think each have their role. I still believe government or some governing body are good to get super large scale project running. The issue with the private sector is that everyone wants to do it a different way and nothing ends up getting done in an organise and structured way. I don't think the government should come up with an idea, but more so they should implement something that the majority of people want and what they know will be in the best interest of the people. And here is the issue atm because theses days they do not listen to the people most of the time and worse off they do not direct money to where the people will gain from it. This is an issue with the current government rather then the idea of a government.
     
  6. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    @Shiney! I interpreted it as a potential pathway to overcome your point one. I could be wrong.
     
  7. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we are on the same page bordie.

    The voting process for Rinchin's "charities" sound very much like a private company tendering a contract. And yes, it would be an alternative to the status quo (Point One).

    Now doesn't that sound like a business opportunity? :)
     
  8. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    I presume you're aware of the extremely large, extremely complicated, extremely well organised, extremely long lived private sector projects like Gorgon LNG. Millions of people will benefit massively over multiple generations. It's simply a nonsense to suggest that only the govt can achieve such. Shows like Ultimate Factories or Super-duper Machines (or whatever they're called :p ) are everyday practical demonstrations of what is really achievable beyond the few iconic govt forced brain farts which can be seen. As much as you may love a particular Perfect Giraffe it is no reason to steal from the people who wanted a cow (or a brothel/casino complex).
     
  9. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    And yes I'm loving my giraffe analogy :D

    That laryngeal nerve thing is a pretty cool story (first read about it a few years ago in one of Dawkins' books).
     
  10. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The private sector can manage and organise large scale projects by themselves. Take a look at our largest transport companies, shopping centres, mining companies, or banking companies, or telecommunications etc. You mightn't agree with the product, but it is certainly managed, organised and produces a profit ie a benefit to the stakeholders.

    As far as the latter part of your post I quoted, i agree, although I question whether it is a problem with our current government alone, it is endemic to all governments, just read the world news :lol: :(
     
  11. wrcmad

    wrcmad Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    6,644
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Northern NSW
    Oh 5hit! I just forgot why I stack.... :| :lol:
     
  12. leo25

    leo25 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,585
    Likes Received:
    1,939
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I think your misunderstand what i mean by a super large project. I'm talking on the scale that requires work over the entire country and needs to be standardized over all sates. e.g. roads, copper, power lines, fiber etc. In comparison the Gorgon gas project is small. I would love to see how any private company would manage or fund these projects.

    Also the Gorgon LNG is not complete yet so the success of the project can't be said. Looks like project cost keeps blowing out... also Chevron is not the most ethical company and the way they manage things is very questionable.
     
  13. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,717
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    Optus, Three, Virgin, Coles, Westfield, Nestle, Unilever... How many examples of complex networks with large capital requirements do you need? And you're picking on cost blowouts when focussing on the NBN and roads? :lol: Unlike the NBN, Chevron can't tell competitors not to advertise competing projects, can't forcibly purchase other people's assets and can't dictate what price will be paid for its products.
     
  14. leo25

    leo25 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,585
    Likes Received:
    1,939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How are these anywhere near as large?? Does Virgin or Coles have to go to every singe street in the entire country to lay down infrastructure?

    This is very questionable. I'm sure they have made their fair share of threats to get their way.
     
  15. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,064
    Likes Received:
    3,292
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia

    I see where you're coming from mmm....shiney! so I'll try and get behind you and see how the targets line up.

    Actually that argument has been covered well by a former premier of Victoria, one Henry Bolte, hero of Jeff Kennett, who famously said:

    but to follow the argument through, the one I remember is:

    "I don't know why these people are so worried about the Vietnam War besides more people die on the roads."


    ;)
     
  16. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,613
    Likes Received:
    4,396
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deaths on German roads (2010) 4.5 people per 100,000. Deaths on Cambodian roads 12.1 people per 100,000. Damn the government and their irresponsible funding of transport infrastructure. ;)

    Deaths in German concentration camps 5.8 million Jews (you do the deaths per 100,000 jules), Pol Pot's Cambodia about 2million. That's a damn lot of highways (or loways) travelled.

    Brought to you by your local national government.

    The one thing governments do effectively is kill.

    Yes, this thread has been officially Godwinned. :lol:
     
  17. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,064
    Likes Received:
    3,292
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    I believe Godwin requires the H word.
    The government says so.

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inSuqXWcqpM[/youtube]

    Free false teeth for all.

    p.s. comparing Germany and Cambodia obviously evil despots create better drivers. Hence if we had only evil despots the road toll would drop.

    Actually...........
     
  18. leo25

    leo25 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,585
    Likes Received:
    1,939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's been a great discussion. Though tomorrow i should probably allocate more time to work :p especially when I have a project due soon :(
     
  19. Rinchin

    Rinchin New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Zealand

    Yip spot on bordsilver. The ultimate aim is irrelevant in a way. We can bang on about libertarian principals until the giraffes come home and will get nowhere. Its way too far outside anyones experience. Its not enough to simply see the evil gvernment contributes and the viability of alternatives. If you cant explain it to an low iq ten year old you will never get traction towards real change with the public in western democracies.

    Talking of change in a direction towards more government sells well, talking big picture utopian endgame senarios because people are attracted and conditioned towards the warm fuzzies this gives them. They struggle to see the opotunities for corruption and abuse the path from now to this big picture opens up.

    To actually effect change towards the a world without this corruption we kind of have to take baby steps as to not scare those who don't understand. Thats why I was exploring how we could initiate this change while keeping as much of what is known, avoiding as much percieved change as possible. Only this way could we SHOW those doubters the benefits of cutting government out of the action.

    The reality is that people freak out where the funds are going to come from to support their needs be it roads, hospitals or welfare payments. This blinds the average voter who cant understand that the money has to come from somewhere even if its government spending it. Either our taxes or our future through burrowing/printing etc.

    I don't think you would need to change much to give voters an empowering experience. In the grand scheme income tax contributes bugger all towards the vast amounts governments spend. Allowing voters to vote with their dollars could catalyse social change in a totally non threatening way, even allow those who resist this change to choose the existing governement structure with their contribution if they desire. You would not need many successful charaties/parties to grow belief that the traditional government might not be the cost efficient model.

    Of course once traction was gained taxes from companies and sales could be introduced. This is where I envision real changes would speed up. Companies could publish where they intend their tax to be spent and use this to develop their brands. Well I shop at store X because they support party Y.

    As the "duties" of traditional government gradually get taken over by the new system and the funding gradually dries up people would begin to see how needless it was in the first place.
     
  20. hawkeye

    hawkeye New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    What about taking it from a different angle.

    Do the ends justify the means? We can talk about what benefits we get from government force all day long but does that justify the means?

    Let's say for example that a hacker was able to lift 1 million dollars from a relatively rich person's bank account. He then donated that 1 million dollars to a children's hospital. As a result the hospital was able to buy new equipment and several children that were on long waiting lists were able to get operations and improve their quality of life significantly. Now you tell me. Was it right or wrong for the hacker to do what they did? Think of the suffering children when you make your decision...
     

Share This Page