Congratulations. You now have a study that has successfully concluded that half the country, (the republican half) tend to be skeptical of climate science, and tend to prefer free markets. I'm sure the data could just as easily suggest that those who believe in gun ownership also oppose abortion. This is hardly a breakthrough and should not be considered legitimate data for any purposes other than political ammunition, I suspect it's original intent. To take this and conclude that people who believe in free markets, reject science, reject empirical evidence, and reject reason is utter nonsense.
If you want an academic, intellectual, and scholarly tome on free markets, pick up any of Thomas Sowell's many books. There is volumes of historical and factual evidence to suggest that free markets are very functional, indeed still far superior to the layers and layers of government bureaucracy we have today whose negative consequences we so quickly ascribe to, laissez faire capitalism. You can't have one system that constantly squelches competition, protects and bails out massive mismanaged corporations, and then blame capitalism.
I dare say that the idea of downloading my brain and consciousness to a hard drive and living in an ever upgrading state of android/robot really gives me a semi. I've always wanted to see the edge of the world. I wonder what an extra 200 years of existence would do for my paradigms and philosophies.
It's also the natural end result of un- or under-regulated capitalism. The stable state of any market is a monopoly, where the market either starts as a monopoly or begins as a competitive field where the top competitor either purchases, merges with, or destroys all other competition. When you couple human greed with this system, you inevitably get wage depression at the bottom levels and inflation at the higher levels, as demonstrated quite well here in the US over the last decade.
I like your comment but I'm inclined to disagree. No corporation could ever hold a legitimate monopoly without the aid of government protectionism, i.e. regulated industries. For one company to hold 25% of any given market in a truly capitalist society would require tremendous amounts of skill and fiscal mastery. The only reason we have such large monstrosities in some American industries, oil, and pharmaceuticals, just to name a couple, is because the burden of regulatory compliance is far too high for smaller firms wanting to compete.
It is common for corporations to beat the drum of government intrusion on one side and beg for more industry regulations on the other because it minimizes the need to be smart business operators and enables their sloth and greed.
One more point and correct me if I'm wrong on this. Inflation and wage depression are not caused by a large wealth gap but by large debts and poor monetary policy, right? Inflation is historically a very common practice that governments use to reduce massive debt burdens.
I think these are important distinctions to draw because if we are not careful, we might find ourselves staring at our own rotting flesh and begging for more of the poison that caused the disease in the first place. Your thoughts?
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations. You now have a study that has successfully concluded that half the country, (the republican half) tend to be skeptical of climate science, and tend to prefer free markets. I'm sure the data could just as easily suggest that those who believe in gun ownership also oppose abortion. This is hardly a breakthrough and should not be considered legitimate data for any purposes other than political ammunition, I suspect it's original intent. To take this and conclude that people who believe in free markets, reject science, reject empirical evidence, and reject reason is utter nonsense. If you want an academic, intellectual, and scholarly tome on free markets, pick up any of Thomas Sowell's many books. There is volumes of historical and factual evidence to suggest that free markets are very functional, indeed still far superior to the layers and layers of government bureaucracy we have today whose negative consequences we so quickly ascribe to, laissez faire capitalism. You can't have one system that constantly squelches competition, protects and bails out massive mismanaged corporations, and then blame capitalism.
I dare say that the idea of downloading my brain and consciousness to a hard drive and living in an ever upgrading state of android/robot really gives me a semi. I've always wanted to see the edge of the world. I wonder what an extra 200 years of existence would do for my paradigms and philosophies.
It's also the natural end result of un- or under-regulated capitalism. The stable state of any market is a monopoly, where the market either starts as a monopoly or begins as a competitive field where the top competitor either purchases, merges with, or destroys all other competition. When you couple human greed with this system, you inevitably get wage depression at the bottom levels and inflation at the higher levels, as demonstrated quite well here in the US over the last decade.
I like your comment but I'm inclined to disagree. No corporation could ever hold a legitimate monopoly without the aid of government protectionism, i.e. regulated industries. For one company to hold 25% of any given market in a truly capitalist society would require tremendous amounts of skill and fiscal mastery. The only reason we have such large monstrosities in some American industries, oil, and pharmaceuticals, just to name a couple, is because the burden of regulatory compliance is far too high for smaller firms wanting to compete. It is common for corporations to beat the drum of government intrusion on one side and beg for more industry regulations on the other because it minimizes the need to be smart business operators and enables their sloth and greed. One more point and correct me if I'm wrong on this. Inflation and wage depression are not caused by a large wealth gap but by large debts and poor monetary policy, right? Inflation is historically a very common practice that governments use to reduce massive debt burdens. I think these are important distinctions to draw because if we are not careful, we might find ourselves staring at our own rotting flesh and begging for more of the poison that caused the disease in the first place. Your thoughts?