We did build that.

 

You know, there are huge cities in China, with planned roads, prebuilt office buildings, residential, commercial, and factories already to use.  Roads, electricity, water, wifi.  Planned and built at government expense.  They sit empty. 

 

Meanwhile economic prosperity existed before public utilities, before roads were paved, before government subsidized railroads or canals.

 

Success created the roads, the utilities, all the things Barrack Obama and Elizabeth Warren claim is the cause of success.

About these ads

14 Comments

Filed under Capitalism

14 responses to “We did build that.

  1. There is such a disconnect between the mindless dribble of these “civil servants” and reality. I own a small business, and we are successful in spite of the government, not because of them.

    “If the person that ran for office was the same person that now resides there, this country would be where its founders intended.”

  2. RSWillf

    Ah, it’s either one or the other, right? And so that chinese place must count against any public intervention …

    lack of public infrastructure makes it difficult for private businesses to prosper. Lack of private business makes it (almost) useless to build the public infrastructure in the first place.

    Neither private nor public are sufficient, and both are necessary. The fact that you cannot see this is what makes you an extremist.

    • Oh my little Troll, Once again you are wrong.
      “Neither private nor public are sufficient, and both are necessary.” Both are not necessary. If infrastructure was necessary for a business to grow, they would build it even if the government wasn’t there to provide it (as has been shown when numerous companies throughout history built roads, canals, trains, housing developments, distribution centers, utilities on the company dime when they needed them to prosper).
      Yes public infrastructure is wonderful and is a great advantage of the prosperity that capitalism brings, but it is dependent on wealth being created by the private sector. Wealth can be created in the absence of public infrastructure, infrastructure cannot be created in the absence of wealth. When you have both working together, you’d be an idiot to claim that they do not reinforce one another (when infrastructure is properly directed) but one of them always, always, always has to come first. The fact that I can see this basic fact of economics, history, and common sense, doesn’t make me an extremist, it just makes me sane.

      Now as a capitalist, not an anarchist, I will state that wealth cannot be consistently created in the absence of laws and a Classically Liberal system that protects contract and property rights and a police and court system to enforce them. So please do not think I am advocating no government.

      However it’s odd that you call me an extremist as I think any intelligent person understands the context of this statement is rebutting the incredibly extreme “You didn’t build that” comments of Obama and Elizabeth Warren. In that context, which I think it’s safe to say any informed person would understand this post is in, this is a forceful counterbalance not an extreme position. Also anyone who would understand the context of this blog as a whole understands I have nothing but contempt for anarchists. This is merely a statement that government doesn’t get to claim that people would not succeed if it didn’t pave some road. People would still succeed and prosper…maybe not as well at first, but succeed they would, with or without government infrastructure.

    • Long before there was infrastructure this is what happened:
      People moved out to an area but they needed supplies, tools, etc. to continue to stay there so some of those people started businesses. With those businesses came other business and more people. The people got together and decided that further infrastructure would be good but let’s face it that was paid and supported by those with money (business) long before there was a formal government.
      Based on this I contend that without the business the infrastructure would not have occurred so it was the business that made it all happen as if no business ever opened the people would have moved on.
      So business existed prior to infrastructure; they just supported it as it made it easier for customers or potential customers to get to them – gee who would have guessed that they would support and fund that, which would make them more money. It’s called investment – a capitalistic concept if I ever heard one!

  3. RSWillf

    ah, great! We agree! to collect taxes you need people to collect them from! Amazing discovery. Too bad historical precedence was not my point.

    Key word you both missed: “to prosper” (i’m not sure you see the difference). And of course I knew this was in reference to what Obama said (not that I particularly like the guy or care about defending him).

    He said that hard work and intelligence are not *sufficient* to be successful, not that they are not *necessary*. He also never said that public infrastructure is sufficient. He said such infrastructure is necessary (and you didn’t build that).

    Now, your little story about the city in China proves that such infrastructure is not sufficient. Good. You missed the point. You should have shown that it is not necessary, which is what Obama said. See the difference? You attacked a straw man.

    Since you seem confused, I’ll spell it out for you: give me one example of a modern successful (“to prosper”) state where the infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, …) hasn’t been built with massive support from the government. Otherwise your story is just a fairy tale, a fantasy that has no historical base.

    It would also be great if you could post such answer not here, but on that global digital network first developed by private companies, not this web thing invented at CERN built on that Internet thing developed by DARPA. Oh there is none? Surprise surprise. Please give your fairy tale story of how private businesses would have created a better internet (except that they didn’t, and actually tried to choke this one). You’ve got no historical base for your extreme claims, and it’s not helpful to point out that *some* part of the infrastructure is managed by private companies (this wordpress, I suppose). That would completely miss the point. Again.

    Or look up how successful private companies were with rural electrification (e.g. Tennessee Valley). Oh, they failed?

    I know it’s painful to admit, but *sometimes* government intervention is necessary to create the conditions for future businesses to exist. See, I don’t say *always*, I’m not an extremist. Life is more complex than that little picture you like paint. Sometime government creates disasters, other times private companies do. The stuff you’re peddling here is analytically sloppy, and historically baseless.

    And since I think you are an intelligent person this tells more about your fears and your need to see the world in black vs white, good vs evil, private vs government, etc, than about any reality of how things actually work.

    • My silly little troll, perhaps you don’t get anything but let’s first deal with your “non-defense” of Obama which sounds awfully like a defense…and a hack job at that.

      “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

      To people who can read, obviously not trolls like you, he specifically says hard word and intelligence didn’t do anything. That’s what he said. It comes from having a fifth grade reading level. He says that there are smart and hard working people out there who didn’t succeed, and he says the the difference is government help. He also never said that public infrastructure is sufficient. ” He didn’t say it was sufficient, but he does make it quite clear that it is the deciding factor as he dismisses intelligence and hard work. He makes it clear without government you are nothing.

      And I didn’t miss you point “prosper” I pointed out that it is difficult to prosper without infrastructure, but not impossible. And I love how people always point to CERN and the government creating the internet, it just sat there for years. It was the private sector that made it useful. And it was the private sector, not government, that created the infrastructure of cell phone communication. All those cell towers weren’t there 2 decades ago, all of them were built by private companies. And it is an industry that has prospered creating it’s own infrastructure….so much for “You’ve got no historical base for your extreme claims”. And given that that private companies were able to build such an infrastructure on their own, I assume that Gatess and Jobss and Ellisons of the world would probably have come up with some computer communication system on their own had there not beeb a rather underused system not already there where they could build on. It’s just being intelligent, they saw no reason to reinvent the wheel when they didn’t have to.

      Also I would point you to Hong Kong, which had minimal government infrastructure projects from 1947 to the 1980’s (the period when it went from a who cares colony to an economic powerhouse). Many of the roads and utilities were put in by private industry because they needed them. Yes there was a good deal of government construction (specifically in land reclamation) but industry often out paced government in building of what we consider infrastructure, because they built what they needed when they needed it.

      I would also remind you the many airfields in the early day were done by private construction and the foundations for the modern air industry was built on private not public money. But again you’d have to know something other than the hideously overused talking point of “the government created the internet.” Also you do know that all the original electric companies, a major piece of infrastructure, were private? And you notice with Tennessee Valley you stated the reason why it failed in your own statement…it was rural, i.e. there was no population density to sustain such a need. That doesn’t mean all the private electric companies in populated areas were failing.

      And also, as I have pointed out numerous times on this blog, privately run infrastructure, such as privately run roads, are statistically more efficient, have fewer traffic problems, are better taken care of, and actually run at a profit. Obama lists schools as infrastructure in his speech but ignores that charters and private schools time after time are showing again government control isn’t the answer.

      As opposed to what you and Obama claim intelligence and work is sufficient to be successful…yes you can go further if you have someone else to build on but a intelligence and hard word creates whether they have something to build on or not.

      And here’s the other point you and your ilk missed. The benefits provided by infrastructure are pretty much offered to everyone (there are exceptions and I will deal with them in a full blog later), everyone starts from essentially the same starting line and it is hard work and intelligence that makes a difference. Government had silicon chips since the 1960’s but it took a Steve Jobs to create the personal computer.

      “I know it’s painful to admit, but *sometimes* government intervention is necessary to create the conditions for future businesses to exist. ” No the conditions are that there are people there who want something. If there is a want, the infrastructure will be built to meet that want whether the government builds it or not. Beyond providing the legal structure of capitalism, government is never necessary. If there is a want and a need it will be provided, maybe not on the instant gratification time structure some may want, maybe not with the price being deferred to others, but the free market will always, always, always provide where there is a need and a want.
      People like you just don’t like that you have to pay for your wants and needs, rather than taxing someone else for them.

      Also too bad you can’t read and could see that historical precedence was a point of the original article, so it was relevant and your trying to call me on it was, what’s the phrase, ” analytically sloppy”

    • Also, may I add, I love your hypocrisy. I am an extremist for using the word “always” even though history backs me up on my point. But you use a word like “necessary” in “government intervention is necessary to create the conditions for future businesses to exist.” And a statement like that isn’t extremist. Despite the fact that to make such a point would be to prove a negative (i.e. “this never would have happened if government wasn’t here”) which last time I check was logically impossible. (The fact that you use the conditional sometimes does not negate the fact you are claiming there are situations where the private sector would not have eventually stepped in to fill the void). But I’m the extremist.

  4. RSWillf

    I understand it might be difficult for you to understand, but no, I don’t care about Obama. I don’t even vote in the USA, you can go and vote Charles Manson if you want. And I am the ultimate authority about what I think or don’t think about Obama.

    I like how you post the transcript and then you write “he specifically says hard word (?work?) and intelligence didn’t do anything”. Well he didn’t say that. Where are those words? You must have a very special definition of “specifically says” because those words are not there. He said that they are not sufficient to succeed (“somebody along the line gave you some help”). I see that you cannot see the difference, and that’s why you’re an extremist. There’s a difference between something being non sufficient and that something being useless. You put words into his mouth. But I don’t care, let’s move on …

    Thanks for the little fairy tale about Gates and Jobs. You’re dreaming of a word that never existed. You could always come up with unfalsifiable counter-factual fairy tales where your wet dreams of free market turned into reality, but this time you failed to do even that. The story you made up is falsifiable and false. Apple tried to push the proprietary AppleLink for many years, had no profit incentive to open it up, and it’s failed. If we had waited for Apple to invent the Internet we would have remained without internet. So much for your “they saw no reason to reinvent the wheel when they didn’t have to.” They tried, spent a lot of money and failed. The model created by DARPA and CERN proved to be far superior because it was opened up for everybody to use and experiment with, since they didn’t need to make any profit with it.

    That model has now created a huge industry that can profit from that initial public investment. A good return on the public investment and a win-win.

    You’re just making this stuff up as you go, without bothering to check. You couldn’t possibly come up with a worst example. Microsoft tried everything possible to cripple internet, browsers and java, and has been condemned in court for it. Oracle was never a major player in this. The web is still driven by the W3C and still led by Tim Berners-Lee since no sane person would trust private companies with this.

    Thanks also for Hong Kong, a city colony whose infrastructure needs are nowhere comparable to those of major countries and with a unique political, historical and geographical situation, and whose public intervention was still major compared to the actual situation. Not much rural Hong Kong there to cover with infrastructure, eh?. You could have also pointed to Liechtenstein or Vinland then. If this is your only success story then you’re proposing to build skyscrapers with sand, since that worked so well to build toy houses when you were a little kid on the beach. Yes, let’s apply to the US what (I falsely believe) has worked so well with Hong Kong.

    Let’s look instead at the largest economies in order: USA, China, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Brazil, Italy, India, Canada, Russia, … they all built their infrastructure with major public investments. Your little theory is historically baseless.

    I don’t have time now for the rest of your fantasies, but let me copy your sentence:
    “the free market will always, always, always provide where there is a need and a want.”

    let’s read that again because it’s so good
    “the free market will always, always, always provide where there is a need and a want.”

    now read this from a Nobel laureate

    “There can be no doubt that there are many such services, known to to the economists as ‘public goods’, which are highly desirable but cannot be provided by the market mechanism because if they are provided they will benefit everybody and cannot be confined to those who are willing to pay for them. From the elementary tasks of the protection against crime or the prevention of the spreading of contagious diseases and other health services, to the great variety of problems which the large urban agglomerations raise most acutely, the required services can only be provided if the means to defray their costs are raised by taxation. This means that, if these services are to be provided at all, at least their finance, if not necessarily also their operation must be placed in the hands of agencies which have the power of taxation.”

    so “there can be no doubt”, “highly desirable”, “cannot be provided by the market”, “can oly be provided … by taxation”. Pretty clear eh?

    You see, you seem to be an intelligent person, but you’re so engulfed in your extremist positions that you fail to see the obvious and make inane statements like “the free market will always, always, always provide where there is a need and a want.”. You make stuff up as you go and you don’t know even the sources from the authors that you should consider on your side.

    The above quote is from Hayek. He was a pragmatic and respected intellectual. You are an extremist, a free market fundamentalist, as Stiglitz says.

    Now, the trick you play is this: you define market failures away by saying that if the market didn’t provide the goods then either (1) there was no need to cover in the first place, otherwise the market would have reacted or (2) there was no free market because of the evil government or whatever excuse you can invent.

    By doing that you turn your little toy free market dream in a completely unfalsifiable (thus useless) theory. No possible fact can contradict such a theory, since anything can be explained away (ever read Popper?). Free market fails to provide drugs to the sick, and electricity to the poor citizens of your country? Too bad, it means there was no real need and want there … whatever the result of free market is, that is the best result, by definition! If there’s a bad result it must be because of the evil government. Bingo!

    It’s been fun, but I don’t know if I’ll answer to another reply.

    • Oh my silly little troll,

      You’re the only one who believes what you say about Obama

      I love how you hit me by saying that Obama didn’t say hard work and intelligence don’t matter, when I literally bolded the part where he said that.

      Also, my statement that the private sector isn’t “falsifiable and false.” As shown by other industries creating the infrastructure they needed to bring new ideas to market, it’s very likely that the private sector would have created something if the government infrastructure wasn’t there already. Would it look exactly the same as it does today? Who knows? But pointing to business policies you don’t like from Microsoft and Apple and Oracle misses the point of what I was say–I listed those names not because I thought those companies in particular would create a private internet on their own if there wasn’t one to build on, I pointed those three names out as recognizable names in the technology filed. I said the Gates’s of the world, not Bill Gates, if there was not government structure it probably wouldn’t have been Bill Gates himself to create one, but it would be someone of his intellectual caliber who would see an opportunity and go for it.

      As for Hong Kong. You wanted a modern example of an economy where business prospered without government infrastructure. It’s not valid because it’s “needs are nowhere comparable to those of major countries and with a unique political, historical and geographical situation,” guess what Einstein every country has a “political, historical and geographical situation.” By limiting me to the modern world for an example you have to a small selection as most of the modern industrialized world already had some infrastructure by the 1900. But the fact that you can turn what was little more than a sad town to the equivalent of New York without total government control speaks volume to how government provided infrastructure isn’t absoluetly necessary.

      It’s also convenient for you that you ignored everything I said about private electric companies and the cell phone system, as it proves you wrong on every level.

      But fine let’s go with some other private infrastructure. The entire American West often had infrastructure before formal government moved in. The Red Car system of transportation that served Southern California for nearly 4 decades was a private institution that created its own infrastructure. Or how about the attempts by Disney in the ’90’s to build high speed rail in California and Nevada (which the government prevented over and over again), I think that would have also been private infrastructure if they had been allowed to proceed.

      “Let’s look instead at the largest economies in order: USA, China, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Brazil, Italy, India, Canada, Russia, … they all built their infrastructure with major public investments. Your little theory is historically baseless.” Again you seem to miss my point, yes infrastructure is helpful, and has been built by government (often inefficiently with bridges to nowhere and graft and waste the like of which purely private systems never see) and yes that infrastructure has been advantageous, but success is not DEPENDANT on it. A good entrepreneur can figure out a way around a lack of infrastructure, or even provide a service for the lack of infrastructure in an area.

      Again you really have a reading issue. Let’s look at what Hayek said ” From the elementary tasks of the protection against crime or the prevention of the spreading of contagious diseases and other health services, to the great variety of problems which the large urban agglomerations raise most acutely, the required services can only be provided if the means to defray their costs are raised by taxation.” That’s police, Health services, and welfare. None of which are the roads, bridges and utilities we were talking about. You will recall I have twice said that the laws of capitalism must be enforced by systems of laws and courts (which have the police power implied). Since you troll this site you will know I have also pointed out that both Hayek and Freidman have said that a minimum welfare system (which health services would be a part of) are also required for the successful existence of capitalism. I will even beat you to the punch and admit that Friedman was right when he said we need some police power to extend to environmental policy to prevent the tragedy of the commons…hell I’ll even say that the very useful interstate highway system need a government planning authority for something that massive (which we are past and the highways could be leased to the private sector for greater efficiency) (but you’ll notice the analogous patterns of air traffic control were established under private not public control).

      So your quote of Hayek saying we need the government to provide police and basic welfare does not justify an argument for infrastructure, which is what we’re talking about.

      “By doing that you turn your little toy free market dream in a completely unfalsifiable (thus useless) theory. No possible fact can contradict such a theory, since anything can be explained away (ever read Popper?). Free market fails to provide drugs to the sick, and electricity to the poor citizens of your country? Too bad, it means there was no real need and want there … whatever the result of free market is, that is the best result, by definition! If there’s a bad result it must be because of the evil government. Bingo!”

      You seem to mistake the free market providing things for you to pay for, with the market should just provide things for free. Sorry nothing is free. Someone always has to pay for it. “Free market fails to provide drugs to the sick” well I’m sorry but health care isn’t a right, the doctors, nurses, drug makers, hospitals, and equipment manufactures all have a right to be paid. What the free market does better than any other system, is make those services and products cheaper than any other system. And, yes I don’t care if the free market doesn’t provide electricity to the rural, electricity isn’t a right. You don’t have a right to things if you don’t pay for them. And the free market isn’t non-falsibialbe, because we can and have seen in history time and time and time again, that fewer services are provided at higher cost with less efficiency the more you deviate from the free market. Whether it meets the standard of falsifiablity of hard science doesn’t matter when it always works and nothing else seems to.

      And also, I think only you seem to think that I’m claiming the government shouldn’t build roads. That is not the case. Government should, but it should be as local as possible and handed off to the private sector as much as possible. You are the only one who thinks I’m saying that infrastructure isn’t useful. It is. But I’m contradicting Obama’s statements that put the cart before the horse.

      “It’s been fun, but I don’t know if I’ll answer to another reply.”
      And darken my doorstep with your drivel no more.

    • I am very confused why you keep coming back – with name changes at that. You will never agree with Cris and you only seem to want to critique him – does that somehow make you feel better about yourself? Anyway I want to discuss something about what you have said. You keep referring back to Cris’ original article which was only about what Obama said and then you say you are not interested in Obama. You cannot discuss an article written while refusing to discuss what the article was written about. Again I am confused. Which I must admit happens often when you jump in to “discuss” blogs.

      So first I will deal with the actual article and what you have to say regarding that.
      In American English when someone says “I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.”, then they are saying that you could not have done it with just your intelligence and hard work. That is exactly what the man is saying.

      I will take exception to this as sure there are lots of smart people (probably not as many as stupid people, but whatever) but none of them had the idea that was successful – and of course there are lots of hardworking people but most were not willing to dedicated their whole life and finances to their idea/dream so yes it was their intelligence and hard work that made them successful. Everyone probably encounters a teacher or great parent/mentor in their life to some degree or another but that does not give them the idea or determination to see their idea/dream to a successful conclusion or track. This is what all people miss and since you are from another country you should stop correcting American English as it is quite clear if you actually saw the video what he was saying, (as he has said many times in his life previously). Semantics’ of language are repugnant and pointless when common sense allows anyone to know what was actually implied by his whole speech.

      As far as the Internet goes – I do not know and don’t wish at this moment to research what CERN did but I do know what our government did versus the private industry. And to my knowledge it was American privatization that started the whole global issue not another country. So rather than my documenting what little I know about this issue I will put this link in for you to see a good synopsis of the internet in America from government to privatization with proof that it was the private industry that brought everything to where it is today, not government. Again amazing that when profits are available production/progress is faster – who would have guessed. http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/07/24/did-government-invent-internet

      To give another example you can look at the space race, NASA. To begin with all the progress was done by private industry contracted by NASA and since it has been more internalized you have not seen much progress in comparison. Then compare America’s space race with other countries that use government science only – enough said. America is still spending money on rebuilding and fixing the space station Russia put up.

      I am also tired of hearing about “public investment” from the government. Where exactly do you think that money comes from – it certainly is not created (printed maybe) by government but are funds taken from it’s citizens by force to redistribute back to those peoples (mostly inefficiently). So In reality there is no public investment it is funds from the citizens directed to provide services for those citizens (or not, depending on how it is spent). So to assume that government does all this good is nonsense as it is the money created by business that provides that resource.

      You can critique any choice Cris makes – I would like to suggest India. As they are progressing currently, but have done hardly nothing for their infrastructure other than that created by businesses to allow them to conduct business and amazingly they seem to be participating in increased education and technology.

      I have to agree with Cris – he has never said that we do not need any infrastructure or any government – in fact I believe we had a previous discussion regarding our constitution and the object of government.

      So I must state that unless you want to actually discuss the blog you are responding to or send him a note that you want to discuss something that is not on a blog with specifics as to your requirements for the conversation it serves no purpose for these antagonistic arguments. And there is no reason to respond to me as I already know that you and Cris are better read than I and I do not wish to debate any subjects.

  5. RSWillf

    So “the free market will always, always, always provide where there is a need and a want.” is compatible with Hayek saying that “there can be no doubt” that “highly desirable” goods that “cannot be provided by the market” “can oly be provided … by taxation”. You’re just behing dishonest there. You cannot possibly fail to see that. I’ve already lowered my expectations of what I can expect from you, but that is too much. so is it “always, always, always” for small values of always? Or try this “free market always works, except when it doesn’t”. Try more hand waiving: look we were talking about “roads” and Hayek didn’t mention “roads” (but he did mention ” the great variety of problems which the large urban agglomerations raise most acutely”). Let’s look at that again: “always provide” vs “cannot be provided”. You see, it’s not that hard.

    I don’t know what you studied in your life, but it really looks like basic economics was not there. You wouldn’t have missed the key word that Hayek used: “public goods”. You have this knee jerk reaction where taxes are always some kind of evil wealth redistribution. You just don’t know what public goods are, don’t you? Every basic economy course will teach you that public goods are underprovided in free market because they are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The free rider problem exists for the free market, not the other way around. Even if in principle everybody was willing in principle to pay, they won’t in practice because the marginal utility doesn’t justify it and the market won’t provide (or underprovide) the goods. The best rational stategy with public goods in a free market is to free ride. In this case with taxes there is zero wealth redistribution. Nobody gets anything for free because they are constrained by “agencies which have the power of taxation”.

    I honestly admire your perseverance. You keep this solipsitic blog talking about stuff you know very little about. Ah, and in English (which apparently you teach!) you don’t use the apostrophe to make the names plural and, even worse, you don’t double the “s” at the end as in “Jobss”. You got it wrong every single time for Gates and for Jobs, so it’s not a typo. But yes, this is not my language…

    • My stupid little troll,

      You fail to see that I actually said I don’t have problem with the government building infrastructure at times, I’m saying that if it is absolutely necessary the for a business to expand the free market will provide…thank you for not actually reading but knee jerk responding to something I didn’t say.

      Physical infrastructure can be provided by the free market. A full formed interstate highway system probably wouldn’t have been, but the government was given authority to create such a system under the Constitution (under the clause to establish “post-roads”) so I have no issue with that–but smaller systems of roads and other forms of transportation can be, and have been, provided by the private sector. Your refusal to even acknowledge this point isn’t just dishonest, it’s mentally unstable. It’s also dishonest of you to not distinguish between the some public goods (police, defense, courts) and all public goods. Infrastructure like electricity, water, and roads have less of a free rider problem than police, because if left to the free market you can literally charge everyone for their usage with high efficiency.

      Again back to the original point of this whole point: Obama stated that business would not succeed without government infrastructure. This is not the case. The system we have (you know the one provided by government that’s falling apart because government can do almost nothing well) is beneficial, but it is not the deciding factor in whether or not

      As to the English stuff. First, the rules of grammar are a little lax on the internet, hate to tell you. Now critiquing someone on fine points of grammar when they’re trying to make someone feel inferior by misusing Latin, thus showing them to be an idiot is one thing, but this is just sad even for you. I intentionally chose not to use the apostrophe so it would not be mistaken for the possessive (the rule about using atrophies for plurals isn’t the most well known and I didn’t want someone who wasn’t familiar with the rule to think I was referring to Gates and Jobs specifically…oh wait you made that mistake anyway, I guess I didn’t lower my expectation enough for you)…most people are smart enough to realize what I’m saying (I’m sorry you’re not). The first rule of any language is that the rules of grammar are flexible if you need them to be to convey meaning.

      By the way, I was really looking forward to you not returning as you said you wouldn’t. You clearly know a lot of terms from economics but understand NOTHING about it as a whole and have yet to contribute a single intelligent statement to this blog.

  6. This is getting so silly – Cris has never denied that there is a need for government – he debates redistribution which is not the same as services the government should provide. He also promotes turning over things once built (such as major highways) to private industry as they can maintain for less/better quality and make some money. I think also the problem lies in the differences between governments – as utilities such as electric, natural gas and sometimes water although known as public entities are actually usually private but overseen by the local or state governments (which in actuality have raised costs) and maybe they are only government provided in your country. But again I do not see where the argument is here – Cris has conceded your point of a need for government for certain services.
    To my knowledge I am the only one that has made reference to your not understanding American English, I do not think Cris has ever said that. Never having been in Cris’ classes but having read comments and letters from previous students I believe Cris to be an excellent teacher but know that he often writes so fast or maybe he thinks so fast he can not type his thoughts that fast and is not great at correcting his stuff as he seems to read what he thought he wrote (as most of us do) so it would not be unusual for him to make some errors as are in your writings also but I think that is being pretty petty.
    At this point it appears that you want to just critique Cris and not make any points so it would be good for you to leave. I stated previously that you were not on point regarding his actual blog so if you want to go off you need to state the exact parameters of your quest/discussion and any rules you want followed and then Cris can determine if he wants to play but when you go off track and then want to critique him for not being on the same track it becomes your problem not his. Your comments about Cris’ intelligence are beneath you and demonstrate your need for some attention or acknowledgment and I do not think you will get it here.
    Suffice to say that Cris and you will never agree so live your life to the best of your ability and Cris will do the same.

  7. Pingback: Taxes, Benefits, and Reality… | The Conservative New Ager

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s