Home › Forums › Other › Ron Paul Wins Alaska and Washington State + Several State GOP Chairman Positions
- This topic has 96 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM #742781May 3, 2012 at 11:08 AM #742803
sdrealtor
Participantblah blah
May 3, 2012 at 11:27 AM #742807markmax33
Guest[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=markmax33]Did you want something safe an effective or did you want the FDA? There are private label certs on meats all the time. You did notice the $450M Medicare scandal didn’t you? The GOV is much less efficient than the free market. It is proven every day in the news.[/quote]
You haven’t read The Jungle, have you?There are things Government always is more efficient at: National Defense and Highways are two obvious examples. There are things the private sector does extremely well. Working in biotech I can tell you that drug discovery doesn’t work without both government and free market factors in play. The free market is great at bringing products to market and making them affordable to the mass market. But overall the free market is TERRIBLE at swing-for-the-fences, so crazy it just might work ideas. The very internet we are using would not really exist without government help. Otherwise we’d probably have a patchwork of AOL/Compuserve type networks and company intranets; think mid to late 90s.
History has clearly shown regulated free markets work best of all. Blanket statements about free market or government always being better are at best overly simplistic and at worst ignorant.[/quote]
Are you crazy? Show me a regulated market and I’ll tell you the impact the GOV had and what would have happenned. How is your crystal ball better than mine? How do you know the internet wouldn’t have been invented 10 years earlier if the GOV taxed at 10% less and had less regulations? Your analogy is little more than Monday morning quarterbacking. What can be evaluated at a high level is the impact and innovation highly regulated industries have VS low regulated industries and by FAR the fewer regulations the more productive the sector will be. I can give a million examples.
There are plenty of examples in medicine alone. Compare plastic surgery pricing and innovation VS the rest of the medicine. It is light years ahead. The consitution lays out where the GOV is required and roads and national defense are on the list.
How in the world can you claim that all the money the GOV spends and fails on swings-for-the-fence ideas, if returned to the public and not stolen from them wouldn’t have yielded better results?
May 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM #742809ParticipantDid he really try to compare the market for elective cosmetic surgery to the rest of “the medicine”?
May 3, 2012 at 12:02 PM #742812
CoronitaParticipantRon Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012 Ron Paul 2012
May 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM #742816all
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Did he really try to compare the market for elective cosmetic surgery to the rest of “the medicine”?[/quote]
Cut this, cut that… same difference.May 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM #742817Anonymous
Guest[quote=sdrealtor]Did he really try to compare the market for elective cosmetic surgery to the rest of “the medicine”?[/quote]
The rest of medicine: Cured smallpox, polio, and hundreds of other diseases that were the major causes of death throughout human history, particularly children.
Plastic surgery: Bigger boobs.
It’s close, but I’d give the win to plastic surgery.
May 3, 2012 at 12:12 PM #742818zk
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]
You haven’t read The Jungle, have you?There are things Government always is more efficient at: National Defense and Highways are two obvious examples. There are things the private sector does extremely well. Working in biotech I can tell you that drug discovery doesn’t work without both government and free market factors in play. The free market is great at bringing products to market and making them affordable to the mass market. But overall the free market is TERRIBLE at swing-for-the-fences, so crazy it just might work ideas. The very internet we are using would not really exist without government help. Otherwise we’d probably have a patchwork of AOL/Compuserve type networks and company intranets; think mid to late 90s.
History has clearly shown regulated free markets work best of all. Blanket statements about free market or government always being better are at best overly simplistic and at worst ignorant.[/quote]
The problems with your idea, poorgradstudent, are that, even in the simplified and abbreviated version you present 1)it doesn’t translate into a sound bite and 2)it doesn’t fit with any radical ideologies. So you can’t sell it to simple-minded people or those with short attention spans. And if you lose those two groups, it’s tough to win an election.
May 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM #742819Participant[quote=harvey][quote=sdrealtor]Did he really try to compare the market for elective cosmetic surgery to the rest of “the medicine”?[/quote]
The rest of medicine: Cured smallpox, polio, and hundreds of other diseases that were the major causes of death throughout human history, particularly children.
Plastic surgery: Bigger boobs.
It’s close, but I’d give the win to plastic surgery.[/quote]
That is the funniest thing I’ve heard in a long time.
May 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM #742831sdduuuude
ParticipantI like Ron Paul, not because I think he will be the next great president, but because he is starting to give people, especially young people, a perspective on our government, government spending, and crony-capitalism that I believe is right-on.
The sad thing here is that MM does Ron Paul a terrible disservice in the way he attempts to lend support.
I’d be glad to step in and support some of these ideas with some reasonable arguments, but I just can’t bring myself to align myself with MM, especially when I see him fall prey to people, like harvy or henry or whoever he is and pri_dick, who just goad him into saying stupid things.
His (MM’s) overly defensive position is beyond annoying and when the “killer argument” brings us to plastic surgery, I’m out..
Oh, and to FLU’s point – if this weren’t a real-estate blog that is now full of Ron Paul posts …
I mean – look at that redfin graph to the right. The blue line is out-of control !
May 3, 2012 at 2:30 PM #742833GuestYou could start with explaining how private-sector is going to do a better job of “inspecting our meats.”
Seriously though, are the functions of agencies like the FDA/USDA/FAA/NTSB etc. really going be better served by a yet-untested private solution?
(Question is for sduude, not mm)
May 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM #742837Participant[quote=harvey]
Seriously though, are the functions of agencies like the FDA/USDA/FAA/NTSB etc. really going be better served by a yet-untested private solution?(Question is for sduude, not mm)[/quote]
People evolved from protozoa to where they were few decades ago without FDA. If anything FDA slows down the evolution by making it possible for the weak to linger.
May 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM #742839Participant[quote=harvey]You could start with explaining how private-sector is going to do a better job of “inspecting our meats.”
Seriously though, are the functions of agencies like the FDA/USDA/FAA/NTSB etc. really going be better served by a yet-untested private solution?
(Question is for sduude, not mm)[/quote]
Hey harvey. Thanks for asking. I’m not sure I really need someone to inspect my meat and if I did, I’m pretty sure I could find someone to do it for less than the FDA.
I also tend to put some faith in people. I don’t think our meat is safe because we have the FDA. I think it is safe because there aren’t any ranchers/butchers in the world that want to kill people with their meat. It is bad for business. Yes, people make mistakes and get sloppy and even greedy, so you need some way to keep that from happening.
Likely this role could be fulfilled by insurance companies. Killing people with food you sell is bad business and insuring companies that kill people with food they sell is even worse. If I could see a stamp on there that says “Insured by xxx financial” then I would know that there is someone who is protecting not only my interest but their own interests as well by making sure that meat is safe.
Businesses like Consumer Reports could take on an increasing role as well.
Also, I would like to see the role of government be more of a facilitator than funder. Maybe they certify several capable inspectors who could compete for the inspection business and earn reputations for certifying meat that doesn’t kill people.
And, after all is said and done – if the private market can’t provide a way to ensure that the meat is safe, then the market for meat would probably dry up, which means the FDA has been keeping an industry in business that shouldn’t be which means a whole lot of malinvestment.
I’m not saying or implying this is the case in that particular market, but just showing how sometimes these government agencies that people think they need can bring about unintended consequences.
May 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM #742840ParticipantIf the market for meat dried up would it be a boom for jerky?
May 3, 2012 at 2:56 PM #742841Participant[quote=sdrealtor]If the market for meat dried up would it be a boom for jerky?[/quote]
Nice.
See, if I were MM, I would totally freak out and get pissed off …
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.