Alypius Skinner wrote:
This brings up the larger question of whether the economy experiences
a net
gain or a net loss from constant government tinkering, taxes,
regulation,
bureaucracy, paperwork, and general added complexity. Of course,
some of
this nanny state tinkering will provide a
Wei Dai wrote:
People don't mind competition if it's voluntary, but you can't opt out of
economic competition. I think it's a necessary evil, not something to be
desired for its own sake. Clearly some people do enjoy competition, and
they should certainly be able to participate, but what's
But nobody has challenged you, Wei: do you know anybody admirable who
hates competition? Ghandi comes to mind as a stereo-type, living in
rags,
spinning his own cotton threads, a very unhappy wife ...
Yes, perhaps the stereotype of Ghandi, but not the historical Ghandi. The
real Ghandi lived
Wei Dai wrote:
you can't opt out of economic competition.
Sure you can opt out. Reduce your expectations. Settle for less.
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Since many resources and goods are scarce and rival, in the broadest
economic sense, nobody can opt out of
Alypius Skinner wrote:
PS--When I started to open Gil Guillory's post on this thread,
I got a message saying it had been tampered with in transit.
Is it still safe to open?
It has a crypto-signature that does not match the content; no other
suspicious attachments. It is presumably as safe as
What is all this focus on money? -
why strive for equality only on that parameter and not the
more important ones??
- jacob braestrup
Let me expand on this point a little.
All economists are familiar with the standard declining marginal
utility argument for income redistribution. I'm not sure
--- Ole J. Rogeberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question, as I see it, is whether we wish to defend the de facto
differences in 'welfare' that we see around us as morally right, and if
so, on what basis.
One could argue, as Charles Murray has done, that
incentives are required for society
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 10:57:53AM -0800, Anton Sherwood wrote:
Reminds me of a story in one of the sf magazines - an abnormally
cheerful man was found to have an abnormally high level of endorphins,
and was compelled to take treatment to compensate, because we can't have
people running loose
William Sjostrom wrote:
Does it change the way the world behaves?
A totally different question. Even if you are the pinnacle of moral
knowledge, the world could ignore you. It hardly shows you're wrong.
Suppose, according to some moral code, you are right, but no one pays you
any
