Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4321
    MEMBERS
  • 86026
    MESSAGES
  • 61
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Skating and Rinkonomics   The Curious You: Beliefs and Ideas

Started Jul-15 by WALTER784; 2258 views.
WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Jul-15

Skating and Rinkonomics

by Kerby Anderson

Throughout the years, John Stossel has been trying to find ways to simplify economics and illustrate the benefits of free markets. He has found that Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is often invisible to his viewers. Friedrich Hayek’s “spontaneous order” is clearer but still hard to show.

That is why he began to use some of the ideas found in the article, “Rinkonomics: A Window on Spontaneous Order.” It inspired him to rent a skating rink in order to illustrate some of these key economic principles.

He says, imagine you have never seen a rink and are trying to get a government regulator to approve this new business. You will flood an area, freeze the water, and then charge people to strap sharp blades on their feet and zip around the ice. There will be few rules. Most regulators would resist your bizarre skating idea. They would want stoplights, barriers, and someone on a megaphone directing skaters.

John Stossel decided to do just that. He rented a rink and began to boss people around: “You, turn left; you, slow down.” The skaters hated it. And it didn’t make the skating any safer. Some people responding to him actually lost their balance and fell.

Perhaps you think they needed some experts. Government regulators would say he failed because he is not a skating expert. So he hired an Olympic skater. She did no better with the megaphone.

Actually, for skating to work, you only need a few rules, like skate counterclockwise. And you might need an employee to police reckless skaters. The rest comes from spontaneous order. “Skaters make their own decisions. No regulator knows the wishes, skills and immediate intentions of individual skaters better than the skaters themselves.”

The principle here is simple. Let people make their own choices, and spontaneous order will surface. Skaters find their own path. Buyers and sellers make lots of independent decisions in a market economy. Spontaneous order arises. This is the simple lesson from a skating rink.

https://pointofview.net/viewpoints/skating-and-rinkonomics-3/

FWIW

 

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jul-15

Why let people make their own decisions when you can boss them around and make them do what you want them to do?  Logic!

WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Jul-15

Showtalk said...

Why let people make their own decisions when you can boss them around and make them do what you want them to do?  Logic!

Sounds too gubermental!!! That's the logic of government! Force the people to do as they want... when in fact it should be that we are the ones who should be in control of the government.

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jul-15

Who works for whom?

WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Jul-15

Showtalk said...

Who works for whom?

The government should work for "We the People"... their salaries come from the taxes of "We the People"... therefore, they should work for us!

But just like with any employer... if "We the People" don't get rid of those who don't do their jobs... then they basically go unchecked. Now compound that with over 40, 50 or more years of no oversight... and don't tell me that the government's own oversight is going to really find and fix all the problems... oversight needs to be done by independent (non-governmental) "We the People" types who pay for their salaries!

Government recently has gotten so out of control that we need to take our country back from those leading us down the road of demise!

FWIW

  • Edited July 16, 2021 12:18 am  by  WALTER784
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jul-15

They have jobs for life. Rarely is anyone fired.

WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Jul-15

Showtalk said...

They have jobs for life. Rarely is anyone fired.

That's why we the people need to force them to write a new law for Congress persons to 2 terms ONLY! They are rarely fired, but we have the power to vote them out!

And yes... that means that they would be limiting their own job for life. But that's the way it should be. If they want a job for life, promise them you'll vote them out in the next election if they don't write that law limiting them to 2 terms. (i.e. If they want 2 terms, they need to write that law, if they want jobs for life, ensure them they only get 1 term before you vote them out. Then they'll have to find another job for life!

And the law should be quite simple.

1) Nobody shall serve more than 2 terms in Congress (consecutive or otherwise).

2) To be able to run for Senate, one must have served 1 year in the House of Representatives.

That's it. You cannot get any simpler than that.

What this does is it limits Congress persons to one of the following:

a) They can serve 2 terms in the House of Representatives, but that will end their 2 terms and thus they cannot run for Senate or House of Representatives ever again.

b) They can serve 1 term in the House of Representatives and 1 term in the Senate, but they won't be able to run for any Congressional seat again... ever.

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk

Jul-17

That would never pass.  If it did, we would not have good people running either because it’s too time consuming and stressful to run for only 1-2 terms.  

If people were voted out for not doing their jobs, that would work, but they never are!

Showtalk said:

That would never pass. If it did, we would not have good people running either because it’s too time consuming and stressful to run for only 1-2 terms.

Yeah. i can picture 535 clones of AOC and Omar being replaced with more of them ever couple of years, but then I would wake up screaming covered in sweat.

WALTER784

From: WALTER784

Jul-18

Showtalk said...

That would never pass.  If it did, we would not have good people running either because it’s too time consuming and stressful to run for only 1-2 terms.  

It would stop the career politicians... those who stay in long enough to learn all the ropes and leverage things exactly the way they want them to go. That's the problem with our government today. Too many bad guys and not enough good guys. And the way the checks and balances are done today are just another problem. The checks and balances too are run by those very same people such that they won't catch what they don't want people to see. We need a truly independent group running the checks and balances.

As for being voted out for not doing their jobs. That should be a MUST... that's the way it works in the real corporate world and should also be the same for our politicians!

FWIW

TOP