Peter Schiff on Joe Rogan Experience

$uperman said:
I'm personally also against 100% free market. I just want a small government and a big free market.

In my vision of a small government and a big free market. The citizens are so rich that they can afford healthcare for themselves. People that can't afford healthcare should get charity money. I think most people would prefer to give to charity than pay high taxes.



I think there is not a 100% free market country. It is a spectrum. The countries with more economic freedom are doing better on average than the countries with a less economic freedom.

Source: https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Click to expand...
ah so you live in a fantasy land? noted

so what are you talking about then, if there are NO 100% free market countries then how do you know its "common sense" or that its a workable solution in todays world? Lol America ranks 18th on that list, behind the UK which has far more social programs than you do. With far better regulations that protect the consumers.

Step your game up 'Murica
 
i like that british guy that goes on Jimmy Dore much better

he you know actually seems to know what he's talking about
edit: it's a Scot, named Mark Blyth
 
ultramanhyata said:
And if you love free-market capitalism move to Somalia.
Click to expand...

Capitalism doesn't mean a failed state.

The countries with the most economic freedom are:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. New Zealand
4. Switzerland
5. Australie
6. Ireland
 
SBJJ said:
The worst thing is that from what I’m seeing. His fund lost money but he may have actually made money from his personal investments
Click to expand...
Think about that for a second; He took money from people, lost it, but somehow made a personal profit. Read between the lines: he's a fucking con-man.
 
$uperman said:
Capitalism doesn't mean a failed state.

The countries with the most economic freedom are:

1. Hong Kong
2. Singapore
3. New Zealand
4. Switzerland
5. Australie
6. Ireland
Click to expand...

So you believe in mixed economies, not purely capitalistic ones. Glad we were able to get there so quickly.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Guy doesn't make money investing; he makes money convincing rubes that he's good at investing.
Click to expand...

Well, there's clearly a market for a snake oil salesman who fulfills the free market fantasies of neckbeards everywhere. And he plays that role and profits handsomely from it.

Checkmate, statists.
 
$uperman said:
People who call themselves Trotsky should move to Cuba or Venezuela or North Korea to enjoy socialism.
Click to expand...

People who rag on socialism should be cast into the desert where they don't have to deal with our nasty education, roads, and clean drinking water - to enjoy capitalism.
 
Trotsky said:
People who rag on socialism should be cast into the desert where they don't have to deal with our nasty education, roads, and clean drinking water - to enjoy capitalism.
Click to expand...

You can also have a free market education. When companies compete you will get better and cheaper products/services, because companies compete on price and quality.

In a capitalistic society, you can also have an infrastructure and clean drinking water.
 
$uperman said:
Since when is Somalia a capitalistic country?
Click to expand...
Extremely low taxes and basically no government regulations to businesses; everything you need for a free market paradise.
You like guns? You might really like it there.
 
transistor_inventors_hr.jpg


Look at these big government leeches, who got their PhDs in Physics virtually for free from socialist (non-for-profit) universities, inventing the transistor on the taxpayer's dime, without a profit motive. In a proper capitalist economy they could all be hedge-fund managers or corporate middlemen at Starbucks.
 
$uperman said:
Can you imagine how much wealthier those countries would be if they had smaller government, lower taxes, and no stupid wars?
Click to expand...

maybe this is true in some cases, but in many ways its the world wars that made us insanely wealthy. not only that, but government/private partnerships (socialism?!?!?!). silicon valley exists in large part because the government (taxpayers) paid universities and private businessmen to build and develop allllllllll sorts of shit out there on the west coast during ww2.

and many countries that are high on the human development index, every single year, are......socialist. im not saying that we should all become socialist, but i am saying there there is more than one way to organize your country in such a way that the people are free and happy.
 
$uperman said:
No. The "free market" is more efficient than the government.
Click to expand...

meh.

blanket statements like this shouldnt be made about such a large concept.

have you ever sent a letter somewhere with the post office? they will take a letter for you thousands of miles for CENTS. they also maintain road names, mailbox numbers, and all sorts of other shit that fedex will never see a profit in.
 
HunterSdVa29 said:
i like that british guy that goes on Jimmy Dore much better

he you know actually seems to know what he's talking about
edit: it's a Scot, named Mark Blyth
Click to expand...

Blyth would clean the floor with the Schwiffer Sweeper. I would love to see that debate.
 
JonnyRingo84 said:
meh.

blanket statements like this shouldnt be made about such a large concept.

have you ever sent a letter somewhere with the post office? they will take a letter for you thousands of miles for CENTS. they also maintain road names, mailbox numbers, and all sorts of other shit that fedex will never see a profit in.
Click to expand...

Isn't that technically a result of tremendous financial backing and mandated tasks, rather than selection of tasks based on market forces? And as such, it doesn't in any way indicate efficiency at the task, and rather just lists a series of tasks which one entity will attempt to do, and the other won't? You mention Fedex suggesting that they're less efficient - if I'm reading you correctly - at "maintain(ing) road names, mailbox numbers" but it's kind of apples to oranges since you're listing things Fedex simply doesn't even attempt to do. Where I live, UPS delivers on the weekend, and the federal postal service doesn't. I won't be disingenuous and say "UPS is most efficient at delivering on a Sunday than the post office is!" because one is attempting a task that the other isn't. To say that a person who doesn't jump rope is inefficient at it because they don't do it seems an odd way to discuss who is most efficient at jumping rope, but that seems like precisely what you're doing here in relation to respective mail delivery options.

It's a given that markets tend to find efficient solutions to problems to a degree that non-market driven (IE - government) don't - so in a sense, the market is driven by efficiency in a way that government organizations aren't. The problem is - as I believe is the subtle point of the fellow making the excellent post about transistors above - that the market is motivated in such a way that it oftentimes won't even try and do something that falls out of a certain subset of activities. For instance, private enterprise stands to make a *far* more efficient rocket than the government has ever come close to, from a cost perspective - but without the government saying "Hey, let's be inefficient with our resources and create a rocket that will shoot someone into space" when that wasn't even a thing, the market would never even consider that as an option. The non-market driven government has the long term vision to invest in something like that and throw money into the pit - whereas the market driven organizations almost exclusively avoid money pits, even if the long term payoff is civilization changing.

They fill different roles and, in many ways, markets are more efficient than government organizations - oftentimes *far* more efficient - but that efficient, cost/profit given approach limits the scope of what solutions markets will even seek, so the government mandated options are oftentimes the ones to push progress in wild, civilization changing directions. It's not a peeing match so much as a recognition that both bring very distinctive things to the table - and yes, raw efficiency is one of the ones that markets tend to bring, even if it's not an absolute rule.
 
Last edited:
Not A Theist said:
if I'm reading you correctly - at "maintain(ing) road names, mailbox numbers" but it's kind of apples to oranges since you're listing things Fedex simply doesn't even attempt to do.
Click to expand...

wont do. its not profitable.

Where I live, UPS delivers on the weekend, and the federal postal service doesn't. I won't be disingenuous and say "UPS is most efficient at delivering on a Sunday than the post office is!" because one is attempting a task that the other isn't. To say that a person who doesn't jump rope is inefficient at it because they don't do it seems an odd way to discuss who is most efficient at jumping rope, but that seems like precisely what you're doing here in relation to respective mail delivery options.
Click to expand...

ups does deliver on weekends.

also, they deliver things for amazon. amazon has deemed it more profitable to just pay the ups to do it for many routes.

It's a given that markets tend to find efficient solutions to problems to a degree that non-market driven (IE - government) don't - so in a sense, the market is driven by efficiency in a way that government organizations aren't. The problem is - as I believe is the subtle point of the fellow making the excellent post about transistors above - that the market is motivated in such a way that it oftentimes won't even try and do something that falls out of a certain subset of activities. For instance, private enterprise stands to make a *far* more efficient rocket than the government has ever come close to, from a cost perspective - but without the government saying "Hey, let's be inefficient with our resources and create a rocket that will shoot someone into space" when that wasn't even a thing, the market would never even consider that as an option. The non-market driven government has the long term vision to invest in something like that and throw money into the pit - whereas the market driven organizations almost exclusively avoid money pits, even if the long term payoff is civilization changing.
Click to expand...

yea, i agree with this. i mentioned it in my earlier post. silicon valley, and arguably west coast development, would not exist if it were not for corporate/public partnerships.

They fill different roles and, in many ways, markets are more efficient than government organizations - oftentimes *far* more efficient - but that efficient, cost/profit given approach limits the scope of what solutions markets will even seek, so the government mandated options are oftentimes the ones to push progress in wild, civilization changing directions. It's not a peeing match so much as a recognition that both bring very distinctive things to the table - and yes, raw efficiency is one of the ones that markets tend to bring, even if it's not an absolute rule.
Click to expand...

yea i agree. i just dont think its ALWAYS the case that private ventures are efficient, and govt is always trash in this regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,073
Messages
55,465,521
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top