On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:15:19 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Horsecrap.

Government is the ultimate impeder of the free market. A free market
needs no government to operate.


Government is involved fundamentally through the creation and
enforcement of property rights, without which what you are calling a
"free market" cannot be achieved.

Nonsense! The free market existed centuries ago, long before such
formalities as "property rights" even existed.


I'm involved in a worldwide project that has as one of its goals the
establishment of a methodology that enables poor people in undeveloped
countries to rebuild their little villages and set up businesses.

Ah! This is good. Bring those poor areas up to our "greedy" capitalist
standards and there will be little incentive to outsource to those
areas. Equalization in living standards is a goal that we should all
push for.


Financial resources are needed to finance these projects, as is some way
to "secure" the real property on which these businesses might be
established. But in some of these countries, the concept of land title
or even ownership is unknown. Right now, I suppose, these folks have a
true free market...they can barter...but they are going nowhere.

What were you just saying about free market not working without the
mighty government putting its hands into everyone's pockets? Thank you
for helping me make my point.


They
need government to help them establish a framework in which they can
developed a real marketplace.

They "need" nothing of the sort, unless you are trying to accelerate
decades of industrial and social progress into a few years. That's not
without inherent risk however.

Dave

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:10:44 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:38:37 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Since politicians are always to
blame, any one who has to raise taxes might as well say good-bye to
his office.

I guess the answer is to eliminate all taxes on businesses. If every
community in this country imposed zero taxes (at the local level) on
businesses, then the playing field would be even, and businesses couldn't
be
bribed to move.


Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Taxes are only one (Usually a
major) factor. Community services, logistical considerations, and
quality of local workforce are also worthy considerations.


I was speaking tongue-in-cheek. All things being equal (workforce,
logistics, taxes, etc), Florida would have the most businesses flocking here
because the weather is nicer.

Actually, if I were to have my druthers, I'd prefer the weather in
southern California (Minus the people, traffic, and cost of living)

Florida is a nice second though.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:15:19 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Horsecrap.

Government is the ultimate impeder of the free market. A free market
needs no government to operate.


Government is involved fundamentally through the creation and
enforcement of property rights, without which what you are calling a
"free market" cannot be achieved.

Nonsense! The free market existed centuries ago, long before such
formalities as "property rights" even existed.

We're not living centuries ago...although you obviously want to be, eh?





I'm involved in a worldwide project that has as one of its goals the
establishment of a methodology that enables poor people in undeveloped
countries to rebuild their little villages and set up businesses.

Ah! This is good. Bring those poor areas up to our "greedy" capitalist
standards and there will be little incentive to outsource to those
areas. Equalization in living standards is a goal that we should all
push for.


Financial resources are needed to finance these projects, as is some way
to "secure" the real property on which these businesses might be
established. But in some of these countries, the concept of land title
or even ownership is unknown. Right now, I suppose, these folks have a
true free market...they can barter...but they are going nowhere.

What were you just saying about free market not working without the
mighty government putting its hands into everyone's pockets? Thank you
for helping me make my point.

Uh, these people are impoverished. The "free market" ain't working for
them. They aren't even at a subsistence level.




They
need government to help them establish a framework in which they can
developed a real marketplace.

They "need" nothing of the sort, unless you are trying to accelerate
decades of industrial and social progress into a few years. That's not
without inherent risk however.

Dave

What the hell would you know about what they need?

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Kerry knew that the supplemental to Senate bill 1689 included things
like
body armor to troops, and pay raises and/or extension of benefits for
veterans. Yet, he voted to kill the entire bill. It's fine to be
against
certain provisions in a bill, but must you kill the entire bill because
of
a
couple of provisions that you don't like? Particularly when those
provisions would save the life of soldiers at a time when they're in
harm's
way? That was a terrible choice on Kerry's part...and no explanation
is
satisfactory to the family of any soldier who could have been killed
because
he didn't have the necessary body armor.



So, you don't know why he voted against it? Are you aware that some slobs
in
Congress tag totally unrelated (and often hideous) riders onto bills?


Yea, and usually those same people are democrats.

Dave

Choking your chicken again? Please post information from a DIRECT
congressional source to prove what you just said. You'll need to read the
actual legislation in order to know what you're talking about. See ya next
week.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:47:01 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:15:19 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Horsecrap.

Government is the ultimate impeder of the free market. A free market
needs no government to operate.


Government is involved fundamentally through the creation and
enforcement of property rights, without which what you are calling a
"free market" cannot be achieved.

Nonsense! The free market existed centuries ago, long before such
formalities as "property rights" even existed.

We're not living centuries ago...although you obviously want to be, eh?

Not at all. I was simply illustrating that a concept such as the free
market was a viable economic model, in days long before we felt the
need to overly complicate the system with governmental controls and
oversight.


I'm involved in a worldwide project that has as one of its goals the
establishment of a methodology that enables poor people in undeveloped
countries to rebuild their little villages and set up businesses.

Ah! This is good. Bring those poor areas up to our "greedy" capitalist
standards and there will be little incentive to outsource to those
areas. Equalization in living standards is a goal that we should all
push for.


Financial resources are needed to finance these projects, as is some way
to "secure" the real property on which these businesses might be
established. But in some of these countries, the concept of land title
or even ownership is unknown. Right now, I suppose, these folks have a
true free market...they can barter...but they are going nowhere.

What were you just saying about free market not working without the
mighty government putting its hands into everyone's pockets? Thank you
for helping me make my point.

Uh, these people are impoverished. The "free market" ain't working for
them. They aren't even at a subsistence level.

By our modern standards they are impoverished. But they survive, as we
did centuries ago. It was a much simpler life. In many ways, we were
better off.


They
need government to help them establish a framework in which they can
developed a real marketplace.

They "need" nothing of the sort, unless you are trying to accelerate
decades of industrial and social progress into a few years. That's not
without inherent risk however.

Dave

What the hell would you know about what they need?

I would not be so arrogant as to presume that they "need" us to
accelerate their social evolution. I'd be willing to bet that these
people didn't seek out assistance. More likely we gently "suggested"
that they'd be better off to "let" us move them into this century.

Dave