tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-552220532629250363.post4428563999813985132..comments2023-07-08T07:30:22.439-07:00Comments on Jon's Political Ramblings: Response to Joel's CommentJon Perlowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05668426868582255096noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-552220532629250363.post-59544682728620215952007-12-24T14:07:00.000-08:002007-12-24T14:07:00.000-08:00Hey Jon -- interesting blog. I'm not sure I agree...Hey Jon -- interesting blog. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I agree with the statement "The more government tries to create a better society, the worse off we are". <BR/><BR/>Collective goods like air quality, endangered species, and child labor/sex laws are examples where state-imposed limitations on our freedom has resulted in a world that is better off.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09275139084196519103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-552220532629250363.post-20065380473954554992007-12-23T08:04:00.000-08:002007-12-23T08:04:00.000-08:00Responding to Jon's Post: "Response to Joel's Comm...Responding to Jon's Post: "Response to Joel's Comment"... :-)<BR/><BR/>Jon: <I>"I think it's interesting to note that many of the people that propose government try to solve these problems are also well-educated people enjoying a comfortable upper-middle class socio-economic life style. In their case, the mantra is, "I am smarter than you so I should run your life and prevent you from making bad decisions."</I><BR/><BR/>Either that or "I've been very lucky in this world and feel some obligation to try to give back to those who have been less lucky."<BR/><BR/>Jon: <I>The more government tries to create a better society, the worse off we are. In my previous entry on healthcare, I discussed how government made healthcare much worse in this country by creating a system of employer-provided health insurance that removed the natural pressures normally present in free markets to innovate and lower costs over time.</I><BR/><BR/>Your original healthcare post is an excellent one, though you end with an unjustifiable conclusion based on some questionable comparisons. It's hard to justify a completely free market for healthcare on the basis of the success of the free market of luxury goods like computers, Dodge Neons, or Lead Generation machines (ie Google). Healthcare is a basic necessity, a public asset. Even if you pushed for privatizing police or <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlb3_5jGqiE" REL="nofollow">fire</A> (industries which I noticed you avoided), I think that you'd agree that these would need to be highly regulated, unlike markets for general luxury goods.<BR/><BR/>Jon: <I>As long as a few hundred people determine how an enormous amount of our nation's wealth is spent, this will always be to the benefit to the wealthiest and those most connected to the government. It does not benefit the vast majority of Americans. Only the free market which perfectly aggregates everybody's demands for products and services can efficiently allocate our resources.</I><BR/><BR/>I won't attempt to defend pork-barrel spending or the role of special interests in the current system. At the same time, I don't buy the perfect solution for all resource allocation challenges. What's the Free Market answer to National Security? Or pollution? Or Education? Doesn't a Free Market educational system help create a virtual Caste system??<BR/><BR/>Jon: <I>It's done by the Federal Reserve which prints money to fund all the corporate welfare and militaristic spending our Congress passes. See Federal Reserve and the Inflation Tax. The inflation tax is the most regressive tax of all.</I><BR/><BR/>This is another complex issue. Certainly the Fed policies have been far from perfect. However, the frequency and severity of recessions has certainly improved since the establishment of the Fed (though, of course, they have not disappeared). I suppose you'll argue that we're overdue for an economic tsunami, though only time will tell. Certainly, there have been benefits to the liquidity and monetary expansion afforded by the Fed, though it's difficult to justify how much is "appropriate" and the market certainly appears to agree with you that we've gone too far (as reflected in the value of our currency). It probably would not be such a bad thing if the Fed would be more conservative and allow for natural market corrections now and again...<BR/><BR/>As much as it's less sexy to take middle-of-the-road stands, I will not defend all of the actions of the existing government (or quasi-government institutions) but also refuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. Is dissolving the Federal Reserve or the Department of Education really the right answer? If something is slightly broken, shouldn't we try to fix it (saving the good parts, learning our lessons) instead of disposing of it altogether and starting from scratch (in a game where some people already have the lead)?joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12007649307878205885noreply@blogger.com