Market Efficiency versus Equity

Fundamentals. From a broad sense, this is the core of the debate. You just read it, in the title, right above these words. 

This is the major difference between people who associate themselves with the "left or right" "libertarian vs statist" "liberal or conservative" and last but not least, Democrat or Republican. Even, though that argument is a different story. :)

So, what is this? (keep in mind I’m not perfect).

Insurance and Jobs...

Oregon State Law is making me give my girlfriend's car insurance information to my car insurance company, to omit her as my car's driver, in order for me to charged at a lower rate OR my policy is terminated?

Really?  

Not the insurance companies fault but THE GOVERNMENT'S fault….making it hard to not only run their business because they lose money as a result of this but I am losing my ****ing hair over this red tape ridden crap we call an economy. Pull the sand from your you-know-what's, open your freaking eyes and deregulate this useless crap. Our economy is already over-burdened with useless regulations! Ok, I will give some credit with a FEW parts of Obamacare (pre-existing conditions, for example) but the rest is just ridiculous!

Ask yourself, if not all regulation is good, but has good intentions but ends up not doing what it’s supposed to, then why don’t these policies get booted out?

Oh yeah…I forgot, because each time you create policy and it gets voted in, it creates another opportunity of a government worker to have more work, or to allow another government worker to be created.

I guess Obama really has created jobs, using this example!

Thought of The Day....

Philosophy is refreshing. It's as though the newer, or more ancient, method of articulating your thoughts presses the intellectual reset button. No wonder why the human mind works like a Windows-based computer :)

Regulating has it's uses for....?

     Knowing that more regulations will increase the costs on all consumers in any particular industry, are our policy-makers doing this on purpose? Knowing very well that this increase in regulations will decrease competition between businesses that would otherwise being driving their costs down, to gather more consumers? Doesn't this simply decrease available competition, making it more costly...?
Then what we're seeing now are potential consumers essentially being forced to use the public option instead of the private sector businesses because it costs too much (private health insurance is an excellent example)...
Funny, because the private sector funds the public sector and were making it harder for the private sector to produce goods and services....why?

Senator Joe McCarthy was right....

Interesting fun fact: Senator Joe McCarthy was regarded as one of the worst individuals of the 1950's mainly by his methods of accusing those in the government of being spies, and/or being communists (presumably influencing politics). He desperately tried to prove his points but due to many reasons and other influences (and a lack of belief from his fellow politicians) he was essentially ignored after creating numerous scares. 

He was cast out of the Senate and eventually died with problems associated with depression and alcoholism. Here's the catch: in the mid 1990's the former Soviet Union's KGB and United States FBI together released thousands of documents relating to the infiltration of communists in the American government. They were called the Venona papers. 

Free Market is not Pro Business. Here's why:

   Being pro free-market is different from being pro business because being pro-business would allow that multiple government agencies would support businesses (large, small, corporate, etc;) regardless of profits or losses. 

   This can include bailouts, subsidies and federal business loans, or condoning certain businesses but not others. 

   This takes away from the proper direction the "market" would lead into, in a normal, unfettered way. 

   Being pro free market would mean that the government ensures the playing field is level, and not one business or an industry is inhibited or condoned, in any way, shape or form.        

   This reduces the chances of corporatism/crony capitalism and ensures that businesses will succeed under their own weight and power. Lobbyists, anyone? 

   It is more beneficial to allow a business, regardless of it's size, to maintain it's own profits and losses. 

   If you take away the profit system, you can reduce that motivational drive, or incentives to maintain an actual free market. 

   If you don't allow the losses, then the same thing happens.... there is no incentive to reduce those mistakes that led the business to fail in the first place. 

   The consumers should have the choice...not the businesses.