On Aug 1, 12:49*pm, wrote:

Who said," the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out
of other people's money"?

Well, then you should be thankful we don't have socialism---

We do, however, learn from history, that when the wealth and corporate
class, coupled with LESS government, causes major social and economic
disasters.

You are wrong. DEAD WRONG!

On Aug 1, 1:56Â*pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:
On Aug 1, 12:49Â*pm, wrote:



Who said," the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out
of other people's money"?

Well, then you should be thankful we don't have socialism---

We do, however, learn from history, that when the wealth and corporate
class, coupled with LESS government, causes major social and economic
disasters.

You are wrong. Â*DEAD WRONG!

It is a fact that governement officials are influenced by corporate
wealth and thus increase regulations which snuffs out competition for
this wealth.

If unregulated, free-market, laissez-faire capitalism were allowed to
prosper, without any government interference, there would no way, no
how, never be what you describe as "social and economic disasters".
Certainly no where near as disasterous as the result of government
interference.

∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:

If unregulated, free-market, laissez-faire capitalism were allowed to
prosper, without any government interference, there would no way, no
how, never be what you describe as "social and economic disasters".
Certainly no where near as disasterous as the result of government
interference.

So you would have let the banks and insurance companies all fail
September 2008? If so you're with me!

∅baMa∅ Tse Dung wrote:
On Aug 1, 12:49 pm, wrote:

Well, then you should be thankful we don't have socialism---

We do, however, learn from history, that when the wealth and corporate
class, coupled with LESS government, causes major social and economic
disasters.

You are wrong. DEAD WRONG!

Why did we used to have bank runs and panics every few years?

On Aug 1, 5:12*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:56:45 -0700 (PDT), ?baMa? Tse Dung

wrote:
We do, however, learn from history, that when the wealth and corporate
class, coupled with LESS government, causes major social and economic
disasters.

You are wrong. *DEAD WRONG!

Most everyone who can't take the truth---say history is wrong

Don't take my word for it---any competent history book on America will
tell you of the misery, woe, sickness, exploitation of the period from
1850-1930's---.

Or did you think those thousands who marched against our government,
the marches in support of Communism happened because thousands didn't
have anything to do those years?

Or--how about the tens of thousands marching in the South in the 60's,
or the millions that camped out on the Capital Mall calling attention
to massive hunger and homelessness in the early 60's

- Yep, you uneducated idiots are why
- someone like us NEEDS to be around
- to stop your greed, racism, and self-entitlement.

? someone like us ?

So then, why aren't you posting from Cuba
or North Korea . . .

On Aug 1, 7:12*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:56:45 -0700 (PDT), ?baMa? Tse Dung

wrote:
We do, however, learn from history, that when the wealth and corporate
class, coupled with LESS government, causes major social and economic
disasters.

You are wrong. *DEAD WRONG!

Most everyone who can't take the truth---say history is wrong

Don't take my word for it---any competent history book on America will
tell you of the misery, woe, sickness, exploitation of the period from
1850-1930's---.

bwaHAHAHA! AND YOU WERE THERE!
WOW! You are not only DEAD WRONG you are STUPID DEAD WRONG.

Only a Public School Teacher graduate from a Public Scool would claim
their
little Red History text books are anything other than propganda lies.
Man, you are truely a lost brainwashed idiot if you beleive this
shiesse.
All you know is how to parrot LIE, LIES and MORE RED PROPAGANDA LIES!
It has become a comedy. Unfortunately for you it all ends in tragedy.


Or did you think those thousands who marched against our government,
the marches in support of Communism happened because thousands didn't
have anything to do those years?

Here we go. Now the true mind of Red Liberal Fascist is revealed.


Or--how about the tens of thousands marching in the South in the 60's,
or the millions that camped out on the Capital Mall calling attention
to massive hunger and homelessness in the early 60's

Uh huh. Who were the organisers of your ignorant student body of
young soft pliable minds?
WHO WERE THESE COMMUNIST PARTY MEMBERS THAT DESTROYED THE YOUTH?
If you know anything about history YOU KNOW MAO TSE DUNG! His
CULTural Revolution!!
I KNOW YOU DO!!!

Yep, you uneducated idiots are why someone like us NEEDS to be around
to stop your greed, racism, and self-entitlement.

Many of the wonderful-sounding ideas that have been tried as
government policies have failed disastrously. Because so few people
bother to study history, often the same ideas and policies have been
tried again, either in another country or in the same country at a
later time-- and with the same disastrous results.

One of the ideas that has proved to be almost impervious to evidence
is the idea that wise and far-sighted people need to take control and
plan economic and social policies so that there will be a rational and
just order, rather than chaos resulting from things being allowed to
take their own course. It sounds so logical and plausible that
demanding hard evidence would seem almost like nit-picking.

In one form or another, this idea goes back at least as far as the
French Revolution in the 18th century. As J.A. Schumpeter later wrote
of that era, "general well-being ought to have been the consequence,"
but "instead we find misery, shame and, at the end of it all, a stream
of blood."

The same could be said of the Bolshevik Revolution and other
revolutions of the 20th century.

The idea that the wise and knowledgeable few need to take control of
the less wise and less knowledgeable many has taken milder forms-- and
repeatedly with bad results as well.

One of the most easily documented examples has been economic central
planning, which was tried in countries around the world at various
times during the 20th century, among people of differing races and
cultures, and under government ranging from democracies to
dictatorships.

The people who ran central planning agencies usually had more advanced
education than the population at large, and probably higher IQs as
well.

The central planners also had far more statistics and other facts at
their disposal than the average person had. Moreover, there were
usually specialized experts such as economists and statisticians on
the staffs of the central planners, and outside consultants were
available when needed. Finally, the central planners had the power of
government behind them, to enforce the plans they created.

It is hardly surprising that conservatives, such as Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher in Britain and President Ronald Reagan in the United
States, opposed this approach. What is remarkable is that, after a few
decades of experience with central planning in some countries, or a
few generations in others, even communists and socialists began to
repudiate this approach.

As they replaced central planning with more reliance on markets, their
countries' economic growth rate almost invariably increased, often
dramatically. In the largest and most recent examples-- China and
India-- people by the millions have risen above these countries'
official poverty rates, after they freed their economies from many of
their suffocating government controls.

China, where famines have repeatedly ravaged the country, now has a
problem of obesity-- not a good thing in itself, but a big improvement
over famines.

This has implications far beyond economics. Think about it: How was it
even possible that transferring decisions from elites with more
education, intellect, data and power to ordinary people could lead
consistently to demonstrably better results?

One implication is that no one is smart enough to carry out social
engineering, whether in the economy or in other areas where the
results may not always be so easily quantifiable. We learn, not from
our initial brilliance, but from trial and error adjustments to events
as they unfold.

Science tells us that the human brain reaches its maximum potential in
early adulthood. Why then are young adults so seldom capable of doing
what people with more years of experience can do?

Because experience trumps brilliance.

Elites may have more brilliance, but those who make decisions for
society as a whole cannot possibly have as much experience as the
millions of people whose decisions they preempt. The education and
intellects of the elites may lead them to have more sweeping
presumptions, but that just makes them more dangerous to the freedom,
as well as the well-being, of the people as a whole.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...w_smart_are_we
http://www.tsowell.com