4 ms·

> the federal government intervened to stabilize a critical industry They intervened to maintain the status quo. Industries are neither stable or unstable for

> the federal government intervened to stabilize a critical industry They intervened to maintain the status quo. Industries are neither stable or unstable for a long period of time without external influences forcing that outcome. Short term turbulence is to be expected and is beneficial for the market as a whole. They destroy markets and then lie to your face about it. > industries remained solvent. How does an _industry_ become insolvent? Only when it's nearly fully monopolized and when there is no difference between an industry and a single entity. This is where we are currently. > more shares at their current market price to the government in exchange for cash to continue business operations. Couldn't they just offer those shares to _any investor at all_? Why is the government special here? > https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2022/08/23/piece-of-the-acti https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2022/08/23/piece-of-the-acti... Of course. Chicago school thinking. It's infected our country for decades now. Certainly not to the benefit of it's citizens.

stogot 1y ago
Could it be that Chicago school thinking has worked but greed & profiteering elsewhere have stolen benefits from the citizens?
- themafia 1y ago
  Were those vulnerabilities particularly obscure or might they have been obvious from the outset?
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  since some of the criticisms of Chicago style thinking include blindness to greed and profiteering, or actively promoting them, it would seem more reasonable to argue the criticisms of Chicago school thinking were correct, that Chicago school thinking worked as planned, and this is what we got out of it.
- fredrikholm 1y ago
  > Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? … What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. Milton Friedman when asked about combating greed.
  - Teever 1y ago
    Milton Friedman is wrong. The human emotion that drives free market capitalism optimally isn't greed, it's competition. People compete to produce better goods at a lower price to win acclaim and profit. Greedy people mess that all up by amassing wealth and then using that wealth to change the rules of the game so that they can amass more wealth.
    - da_chicken 1y ago
      "Winning profit" is greed. That's how you amass wealth. It's like you're arguing that overeating isn't how you gain weight, it's just having an unbalanced caloric ratio.
      - Teever 1y ago
        Profit seeking through competition isn’t the same as greed. Greed is the impulse to rig the game once you’ve won a little, so you can keep extracting more without competing. And that tendency from some kinds of people corrodes free market capitalism and its ability to drive innovation and reduce prices. Competition only works if players play by the rules. And your food analogy works against you. If we extend your analogy, profit is like eating, greed is like overeating. Saying profit = greed is like saying every person who eats three meals a day is a glutton. Competition rewards healthy eating -- efficiency, balance, discipline. Greed is scarfing down the pantry and locking the fridge so nobody else can eat.
        somenameforme 1y ago
        A typical example here might be something like chess. The primary reason people play it is competition and enjoyment of the game. But there are some who a distorted mentality and simply want to win, even if they're not the one's doing anything, and so you get things like people using computers to cheat. And online chess sites (and increasingly even major over the board events) only work so well by making sure that these sort of people are completely removed from the game. The desire to compete is somehow not really the same as the desire to win. This is overtly apparent in things like body building. 99.9% of body builders will never compete in a body building show, let alone win, but enjoy the journey that's mostly full of years of self inflicted pain, occasional injury, and endless dedication - largely for the sake of competition and of course what it does to your body. And that latter part isn't really about showing off or sex or whatever, but simply about pride in what you've accomplished - much in the same way one might take pride in their ability to play chess well, or manage a healthy business.
- jabl 1y ago
  Sounds a bit like all those no true Scotsman defenses of communism - Communism is awesome! - What about countries X, Y, and Z? - Oh, that wasn't "real" communism!
  - westmeal 1y ago
    I mean it really wasn't. Every time a country has tried communism it's fallen straight down the despotism rabbit hole or had the government taken over by officials who wanted a much bigger piece of the pie at the cost of the constituents if you catch my drift.
    - mcphage 1y ago
      > Every time a country has tried communism At what point do you decide that's an inevitable outcome, rather than an unfortunate unexpected outcome that happens every single time?
      - Filligree 1y ago
        Once a country that isn’t already prone to dictatorships has tried it.
        mcphage 1y ago
        I'm not sure there's very many of those.
        Jensson 1y ago
        Communism gives politicians 100% control over the country instead of roughly half like they have in capitalist democracies, So people wont vote for communism because its autocratic. You never want all power to be in the hands of a single group of people, capitalist democracies separates private from public, so politicians regulating companies are not the same people who are owning those companies. Communism can never work since its an autocratic system with a single player, you need multiple actors. And yes, in some capitalist democracies company leaders are close bedfellows with politicians, we call that corruption, it isn't like that in all countries.
- hopelite 1y ago
  “The purpose of a system is what it does.” If it just weren’t for that darn greed and profiteering that the Chicago school endorses.
stefantalpalaru 1y ago
[dead]
bitmasher9 1y ago
CPU manufacturing without any intervention is likely leading towards a monopoly. Every latest generation fabrication facility costs much more than the previous one. Eventually we’ve reached the point where only three companies (Intel, TSMC, Samsung) are interested in making such a large investment.

stogot 1y ago

Could it be that Chicago school thinking has worked but greed & profiteering elsewhere have stolen benefits from the citizens?

themafia 1y ago
Were those vulnerabilities particularly obscure or might they have been obvious from the outset?
bryanrasmussen 1y ago
since some of the criticisms of Chicago style thinking include blindness to greed and profiteering, or actively promoting them, it would seem more reasonable to argue the criticisms of Chicago school thinking were correct, that Chicago school thinking worked as planned, and this is what we got out of it.
fredrikholm 1y ago
> Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? … What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy. It’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. Milton Friedman when asked about combating greed.
- Teever 1y ago
  Milton Friedman is wrong. The human emotion that drives free market capitalism optimally isn't greed, it's competition. People compete to produce better goods at a lower price to win acclaim and profit. Greedy people mess that all up by amassing wealth and then using that wealth to change the rules of the game so that they can amass more wealth.
  - da_chicken 1y ago
    "Winning profit" is greed. That's how you amass wealth. It's like you're arguing that overeating isn't how you gain weight, it's just having an unbalanced caloric ratio.
    - Teever 1y ago
      Profit seeking through competition isn’t the same as greed. Greed is the impulse to rig the game once you’ve won a little, so you can keep extracting more without competing. And that tendency from some kinds of people corrodes free market capitalism and its ability to drive innovation and reduce prices. Competition only works if players play by the rules. And your food analogy works against you. If we extend your analogy, profit is like eating, greed is like overeating. Saying profit = greed is like saying every person who eats three meals a day is a glutton. Competition rewards healthy eating -- efficiency, balance, discipline. Greed is scarfing down the pantry and locking the fridge so nobody else can eat.
      - somenameforme 1y ago
        A typical example here might be something like chess. The primary reason people play it is competition and enjoyment of the game. But there are some who a distorted mentality and simply want to win, even if they're not the one's doing anything, and so you get things like people using computers to cheat. And online chess sites (and increasingly even major over the board events) only work so well by making sure that these sort of people are completely removed from the game. The desire to compete is somehow not really the same as the desire to win. This is overtly apparent in things like body building. 99.9% of body builders will never compete in a body building show, let alone win, but enjoy the journey that's mostly full of years of self inflicted pain, occasional injury, and endless dedication - largely for the sake of competition and of course what it does to your body. And that latter part isn't really about showing off or sex or whatever, but simply about pride in what you've accomplished - much in the same way one might take pride in their ability to play chess well, or manage a healthy business.
jabl 1y ago
Sounds a bit like all those no true Scotsman defenses of communism - Communism is awesome! - What about countries X, Y, and Z? - Oh, that wasn't "real" communism!
- westmeal 1y ago
  I mean it really wasn't. Every time a country has tried communism it's fallen straight down the despotism rabbit hole or had the government taken over by officials who wanted a much bigger piece of the pie at the cost of the constituents if you catch my drift.
  - mcphage 1y ago
    > Every time a country has tried communism At what point do you decide that's an inevitable outcome, rather than an unfortunate unexpected outcome that happens every single time?
    - Filligree 1y ago
      Once a country that isn’t already prone to dictatorships has tried it.
      - mcphage 1y ago
        I'm not sure there's very many of those.
      - Jensson 1y ago
        Communism gives politicians 100% control over the country instead of roughly half like they have in capitalist democracies, So people wont vote for communism because its autocratic. You never want all power to be in the hands of a single group of people, capitalist democracies separates private from public, so politicians regulating companies are not the same people who are owning those companies. Communism can never work since its an autocratic system with a single player, you need multiple actors. And yes, in some capitalist democracies company leaders are close bedfellows with politicians, we call that corruption, it isn't like that in all countries.
hopelite 1y ago
“The purpose of a system is what it does.” If it just weren’t for that darn greed and profiteering that the Chicago school endorses.

stefantalpalaru 1y ago

[dead]

bitmasher9 1y ago

CPU manufacturing without any intervention is likely leading towards a monopoly. Every latest generation fabrication facility costs much more than the previous one. Eventually we’ve reached the point where only three companies (Intel, TSMC, Samsung) are interested in making such a large investment.