XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:15:31 -0800, linuxgal    
   wrote in alt.atheism:   
      
   >Free Lunch wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 07:25:44 -0800, linuxgal   
   >> wrote in alt.atheism:   
   >   
   >> As was noted three-quarters of a century ago in the book "Where are the   
   >> Customers' Yachts", it does not. The market makes money for the   
   >> market-makers, the intermediaries. I actually accept most of the   
   >> implications of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, but that does not mean   
   >> that the market itself is allocating money to needed uses.   
   >   
   >There is no other human-devised mechanism that performs the same task   
   >with the same precision.  It it modeled on natural selection.   
      
   The market is a means to get people to buy stock from other people while   
   the banksters skim a bit off the top. It has nothing to do with the   
   economy we have.   
      
   >Capitalism is evolution, central planning by a politburo is intelligent   
   >design.   
      
   But this isn't about capitalism. Capitalism is the enterprise doing   
   business, competing with others, it is not banks skimming their unearned   
   share from everyone. Wall Street is a tax on business.   
      
   >> We also know that businesses do not allocate new capital, the only   
   >> capital that matters to the economy, efficiently. New industries are   
   >> always oversubscribed initially, whether rail, steel, auto, computers,   
   >> or internet.   
   >   
   >Ah yes, but by what standard do we know they were "oversubscribed"?  In   
   >hindsight, after the market corrects, we look back and see this was so.   
   >  Therefore I counsel patience.   
      
   It's the nature of the beast. I don't know of any reasonable way to stop   
   it from happening, but it has always happened and will continue to.   
      
   >> So you think the rich should be able to take even a larger share of the   
   >> economy and the poor should what? Die?   
   >   
   >There are certain precepts on the left and right that I do not accept,   
   >simply because I don't understand them.  The right has theories that a   
   >man's destiny is determined by the color of his skin, and that wealth is   
   >a barometer of a man's obedience to a god.  The left is contaminated by   
   >covetousness...they look at the boat in the driveway of their neighbor   
   >next door and grow bitter they don't have one.   
      
   So you assume. I consider myself a moderate who strongly supports   
   private enterprise and fair application of the rules. I have no use for   
   most people who call themselves libertarian because they erroneously   
   assume that they will be able to be the next billionaires if only the   
   government got out of the way. The facts show that the billionaires will   
   overwhelmingly continue to be the billionaires and the wannabe's are   
   just benefitting those who are already rich.   
      
   There are no rich people in America who haven't become rich because of   
   the help of government.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)