In response to:

Good Economists

Ike22 Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 8:55 AM
You miss the point of all of the government's interventions into the economy. Local, state and federal governments intervene in the economy to insure that the people who now have the political power and the economic advantage don't lose those powers and advantages. Plain and simple. That's why the fight at election time is always so savage: everything is up for 'grabs' by whoever controls government at its various levels. No? Examine the GOP's presidental nomination race and what was the dominant theme? Electability, not competence, not conservatism, not desire to fix what is broken. Rather, "Can our guy beat the other guy?". Look and listen to how shrill and irrational most - if not all - political stuff is.
wiseone Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 9:11 AM
Yes. And all the things you cite are that many more reasons why government should be small and not powerful.
Roberty Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 9:15 AM
Yeah, but Romney will still interfere instead of backing government out of the situation. That's RomneyCare.
RAY USA Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 9:18 AM
Right on wiseone! Milton Friedman pointed out long ago that the problem with corruption in government is that when they have so much money and power, corruption is attracted to it. If government were small and limited in power, we would have much less corruption.
wiseone Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 9:22 AM
Roberty,

I am no fan of Romney. And adjusting your comment slightly, I agree that government is more likely to get bigger instead of smaller under a President Romney.

But Romney won't reduce our nuclear warhead count from 15,000 to 300, which is what Obama is up to.
hiimterry Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 9:36 AM
I have one sincere question that is not intended to be provacative; How many nuclear warheads would it take to effectively end life on Earth?
wiseone Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 9:41 AM
"How many nuclear warheads would it take to effectively end life on Earth?"

Why don't you look it up smart-@ss?
hiimterry Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 10:06 AM
I guess my caveat that I was being "sincere and not intended to be provocative" didn't come across to you. You're what is wrong with political debate in this country. A sincere question is met with name calling. Great.

Anyway, I looked it up. Taking into account the total affected area, it would only take 283 nuclear bombs to create enough blast damage and fallout to effectively destroy or irrevocably poison every inhabited area on Earth. So, why do we need 15,000 nuclear warheads and all of their expensive upkeep?
wiseone Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 10:17 AM
Your caveat came across. But so did your presumptive arrogance.

Have you ever heard of Reagan? the Cold War? That he won without firing a shot? You know, as in NOBODY GOT HURT? How do you think he managed that? By reducing our stock of nukes?

If you are really sincere get off your lazy @ss and look it up yourself.
hiimterry Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 10:35 AM
Your ignorance is showing. The point, which you fail to grasp, is that 15,000 warheads (which is an incorrect number, by the way) are unnecessary. Also, the Cold War was not won without firing a shot. Ever heard of the Korean and Vietnam wars? Beirut? The Cold War was won by bankrupting the Soviet Union. In case you haven't noticed the United States is now on a fast track to bankruptcy. We don't need to pay to maintain all of those weapons. I promise you that M.A.D. will be just as effective with half as many warheads.
Roberty Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 11:11 AM
Wise, I agree. I amdefinately against Obama's policies, I am just aghast at the choice of the presumptive GOP nominee.
BK22 Wrote: Apr 18, 2012 9:08 AM
Actually...at least Romney has some business background...Obama has no background in anything.
It's difficult to be a good economist and simultaneously be perceived as compassionate. To be a good economist, one has to deal with reality. To appear compassionate, often one has to avoid unpleasant questions, use "caring" terminology and view reality as optional.

Affordable housing and health care costs are terms with considerable emotional appeal that politicians exploit but have absolutely no useful meaning or analytical worth. For example, can anyone tell me in actual dollars and cents the price of an affordable car, house or myomectomy? It's probably more pleasant to pretend that there is universal agreement about what is or is...