Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
My own position is that whether something should be done publicly or privately depends on the circumstances. It's difficult to universally accept that the private sector will always be the better option.
|
This is where it is frustrating. Who takes the position of "always", no one! I have never had a serious discussion with anyone who has ever argued that, ever. I don't do it, I make it clear. So what is the point?
Quote:
|
I think that's a haphazard position to take. There are some things that I think should never be fully privatized.
|
I agree and stated the same several times.
Quote:
|
Some examples include water services, education, health care, military, and police. I admit there are political reasons for this. It's not a question of mere efficiency.
|
On these points my position is clear also. I advocate for a true free market approach or a singular centralized approach - to me the problem is with the murkiness created by hybrid systems. The most nuance from me would be a government system of something like education or health-care that provides for a minimum guaranteed amount or service for all, with individuals given the option to enhance the services in a free market private "supplemental" market.
Quote:
|
If it were all about efficiency, perhaps there would be no such thing as government at all.
|
I clearly don't agree. Government can be more efficient than the private sector in some regards.
Quote:
|
Perhaps we'd all be living under dictatorships.
|
Again, I don't agree. I see no evidence to support the premise.
Quote:
|
Perhaps we'd all be a part of libertarian socialist societies. I think the latter would be the most apt.
|
In history different groups of people/societies have chosen various forms of government for various reasons - and the type of governance is often entrenched in the evolution of the cultures - often not being clear which came first or which was the predominate driver.
Quote:
|
That said, the proportion of Germany's problems handled by government initiatives vs. market capitalism should be based on what they know works and that is, overall, of the best benefit for the most number of Germans. Privatizing the shit out of the nation would be disruptive and would likely lead to widespread protest.
|
Not the issue in question. The issue in the OP was related to wealthy people wanting to increase tax rates, not "privatizing the shit out of the nation". I simple questioned their motives - my belief is that their agenda is not in the best interest of the German people. Is that what you disagree with? When billionaires and millionaires start talking about voluntarily paying more taxes, my BS detector goes off.
Quote:
|
This is a reference to a comment in an other thread. To be fair, people can time the market, and if you return to the thread in question, you will see that I clarified my position on the issue. People partake in market timing, but are taking huge risks when they do so, and it is often a losing game because it is based on predicting behavioural patterns of large groups of people.
|
I am going to assume that you just took a cliche to heart. The risk is not in "market timing", the risk is in the work behind decisions. If a baseball player timed his swings blind folded, where there may have been a 1 in 3 chance of success may go down to close to zero. I assume that is your point regarding "taking huge risks". True investors, do not swing blindfolded.
Second point on this and I will stop, even-though I could continue.
Market timing is a function of the holding period:
If my time frame is 10 years, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling.
If my time frame is 5 years, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling.
If my time frame is 1 years, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling.
If my time frame is 6 months, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling.
If my time frame is 1 day, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling.
If my time frame is 1 second, my timing to buy and sell is based on research and modeling. In this case I may have a computer based trading system, which is becoming pretty common:
Quote:
In electronic financial markets, algorithmic trading or automated trading, also known as algo trading, black-box trading or robo trading, is the use of computer programs for entering trading orders with the computer algorithm deciding on aspects of the order such as the timing, price, or quantity of the order, or in many cases initiating the order without human intervention.
Algorithmic Trading is widely used by pension funds, mutual funds, and other buy side (investor driven) institutional traders, to divide large trades into several smaller trades in order to manage market impact, and risk.[1][2] Sell side traders, such as market makers and some hedge funds, provide liquidity to the market, generating and executing orders automatically.
|
Algorithmic trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
there's 150 years or so of the history of actually existing capitalism that demonstrates pretty clearly, if you actually bother to look into it, that the private sector is rarely any good at either determining socially beneficial outcomes or at fashioning approaches that advance toward them.
|
What government has been responsible for the manner in which we are communicating right now? Please don't say Al Gore or pretend that it was because of a government grant given to a couple of guys in silicon valley!
Quote:
|
but even milty friedmany metaphysics would lead you to this conclusion in the same data-free world you live in, ace---businesses are machines that generate returns for shareholders.
|
What about the benefits to customers?
Benefits to employees?
Benefits to vendors/suppliers?
Benefits to government through taxation?
Benefits to other business, ie the local bar/restaurant/bowling alley?
Benefits to the local charities?
Benefits to the local universities when they have a need for highly educated workers?
why ignore all of that?
I know, it doesn't fit your ideological narrative. Here is the thing, I know you know better. You are making choices, in my view to deceive with misinformation or incomplete information. Or, am I giving you too much credit?