Contribution from a Rightie

[Treestar]

I am now debating this with rightie - let's see what we can come up with.
Moronic Right wing screed

The article basically argues that no organization is needed. Things spontaneously organize themselves! That's why no government "interference" is needed.

[Julie]

I say we encourage that no organization thing to our friends on the right. :-)

[Treestar]

Yes, let their voters spontaneously organize!

[Ikonoklast]

(02-17-2011 09:00 AM)Treestar Wrote:  I am now debating this with rightie - let's see what we can come up with.
Moronic Right wing screed

The article basically argues that no organization is needed. Things spontaneously organize themselves! That's why no government "interference" is needed.

Ask him who organizes his personal finances.

Does he just let the 'free market' take care of it, or does he prefer a 'hands-on' approach to keeping himself solvent?

No planning needed on the macro-economic level, then none would be needed on the micro level, either.

Things would just magically take care of themselves, right?

[Velleity]

(02-17-2011 09:00 AM)Treestar Wrote:  I am now debating this with rightie - let's see what we can come up with.
Moronic Right wing screed

The article basically argues that no organization is needed. Things spontaneously organize themselves! That's why no government "interference" is needed.

The article is a broad-sweeping generalization based exclusively on a bumper sticker slogan.

Actually most skating rinks are highly regulated, starting with highly structured schedules when the rink is in use for hockey practice, hockey games, figure skating lessons, or free skating. Then the participants in the activities are highly regulated. In a game there are all kinds of rules. In practice you do a specific drill or exercise that your coach or teacher tells you to do. In free skating you skate only in the direction you're told to skate in and you have to have a partner during the moonlight skate.

Stossel's metaphor sucks. He has not even begun to think the underlying issue through. He thinks he can substitute folksy wisdom for scholarship, and out think the scholars and academics.

He can't. He is a charlatan, plain and simple. He is way off base on this one, but then he is usually is.

[Treestar]

(02-17-2011 12:23 PM)Velleity Wrote:  

(02-17-2011 09:00 AM)Treestar Wrote:  I am now debating this with rightie - let's see what we can come up with.
Moronic Right wing screed

The article basically argues that no organization is needed. Things spontaneously organize themselves! That's why no government "interference" is needed.

The article is a broad-sweeping generalization based exclusively on a bumper sticker slogan.

Actually most skating rinks are highly regulated, starting with highly structured schedules when the rink is in use for hockey practice, hockey games, figure skating lessons, or free skating. Then the participants in the activities are highly regulated. In a game there are all kinds of rules. In practice you do a specific drill or exercise that your coach or teacher tells you to do. In free skating you skate only in the direction you're told to skate in and you have to have a partner during the moonlight skate.

Stossel's metaphor sucks. He has not even begun to think the underlying issue through. He thinks he can substitute folksy wisdom for scholarship, and out think the scholars and academics.

He can't. He is a charlatan, plain and simple. He is way off base on this one, but then he is usually is.

Another reason the metaphor is a fail is that people can run into each other on the ice, and sometimes do, and get hurt. People fall through the ice. People fall down.

[Velleity]

(02-17-2011 01:16 PM)Treestar Wrote:  Another reason the metaphor is a fail is that people can run into each other on the ice, and sometimes do, and get hurt. People fall through the ice. People fall down.

Yes, of course.

As I said, "conservatives" like Stossel have certain pre-conceived ideological notions. They believe government is bad. They believe their "free market" (and they have no idea what that really is) is good. They have a few other bumper sticker slogans that they view as a priori correct and from there they draw what they deem, in their sole discretion, to be common sense conclusions.

That is unless they're lying about having a school of thought, like "supply side economics."

In any event you will note that Stossel has no empirical evidence to back his conclusion here. He has no math (and economics is a discipline that is heavy on the math). He has nothing except his arrogant tone.

These people make me sick.

[Treestar]

And how clear are these market signals anyway? There can be failed products.

And people have to have the money to spend. Entrepreneurs can think of wonderful things, but they can't make them unless people can buy them.

Furthermore, no one is trying to plan for that at all. The government does not regulate what entrepreneurs can try to do and they are free to do it. The real rightie whines are about the regulations - the market does not spontaneously do things safely, it does them as cheaply as possible.

[Velleity]

(02-17-2011 01:15 PM)Treestar Wrote:  And how clear are these market signals anyway?

Follow the money. It's always clear to the men behind the curtain.

"Free market" is actually code for "freedom to buy the politicians and who make the rules."

[sandnsea]

lol. When a Democrat is President, he by god better organize the economy and CREATE JOBS NOW!!!!! The second the right wing is held responsible, we're back to the free market nobody can or should control the market screed. I am so not surprised.