Free Market Failures

[Quantum Windbag]

You haven't shown me one that has failed.

ZOMGSTFUNOWAY!

Monopolies never fail. Just ask them, they will tell you!

You still haven't shown me one that has failed. You planning on doing that soon or do you want to get back to me on that?

They have all failed.

 

[Disir]

ZOMGSTFUNOWAY!

Monopolies never fail. Just ask them, they will tell you!

You still haven't shown me one that has failed. You planning on doing that soon or do you want to get back to me on that?

They have all failed.

That isn't going to get it, Windbag.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You haven't shown me one that has failed.

ZOMGSTFUNOWAY!

Monopolies never fail. Just ask them, they will tell you!

You still haven't shown me one that has failed. You planning on doing that soon or do you want to get back to me on that?

Name a federal bureaucracy that has any clearly defined and obtainable criteria for success.

Without such, failure is the default.

I'll wait for you to get back with me on that.

 

[Disir]

ZOMGSTFUNOWAY!

Monopolies never fail. Just ask them, they will tell you!

You still haven't shown me one that has failed. You planning on doing that soon or do you want to get back to me on that?

Name a federal bureaucracy that has clearly defined criteria for success.

Without such, failure is the default.

WRONG. You need to show me one that failed.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You still haven't shown me one that has failed. You planning on doing that soon or do you want to get back to me on that?

Name a federal bureaucracy that has clearly defined criteria for success.

Without such, failure is the default.

WRONG. You need to show me one that failed.

WRONG.

If you have no predetermined and attainable goal to reach, then you have no claim to success. Which, by default, makes you a failure, failure.

 

[Disir]

Name a federal bureaucracy that has clearly defined criteria for success.

Without such, failure is the default.

WRONG. You need to show me one that failed.

WRONG.

If you have no predetermined and attainable goal to reach, then you have no claim to success. Which, by default, makes you a failure, failure.

WRONG. Bring one that failed. Oh, you don't have one. What we have assessed here is that you are unfamiliar with IMF, the World Bank, Free market failures, Freidman, and you can't bring me one that failed.

Nice job. You have nothing.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

WRONG. You need to show me one that failed.

WRONG.

If you have no predetermined and attainable goal to reach, then you have no claim to success. Which, by default, makes you a failure, failure.

WRONG. Bring one that failed. Oh, you don't have one. What we have assessed here is that you are unfamiliar with IMF, the World Bank, Free market failures, Freidman, and you can't bring me one that failed.

Nice job. You have nothing.

Logic dictates that you cannot prove negatives. If you have no criteria for success, then failure is the default. Like it or not, that is how real logic works.

In the case of the IMF, World Bank, so forth and so on, they are banking monopolies.

Claiming that the "free market" fails when it is under the thumb of banking monopoly is a contradiction. There is no free market, when your money belongs to a monopoly issuer.

Sorry that it is too deep for you to grasp, but there it is.

 

[dblack]

Name a federal bureaucracy that has clearly defined criteria for success.

Without such, failure is the default.

WRONG. You need to show me one that failed.

WRONG.

If you have no predetermined and attainable goal to reach, then you have no claim to success. Which, by default, makes you a failure, failure.

If there's no goal defined, there's no success or failure. Since the whole idea of a free market is that individuals should be free to pursue their own goals, it makes the argument moot.

 

[Disir]

WRONG.

If you have no predetermined and attainable goal to reach, then you have no claim to success. Which, by default, makes you a failure, failure.

WRONG. Bring one that failed. Oh, you don't have one. What we have assessed here is that you are unfamiliar with IMF, the World Bank, Free market failures, Freidman, and you can't bring me one that failed.

Nice job. You have nothing.

Logic dictates that you cannot prove negatives. If you have no criteria for success, then failure is the default. Like it or not, that is how real logic works.

In the case of the IMF, World Bank, so forth and so on, they are banking monopolies.

Claiming that the "free market" fails when it is under the thumb of banking monopoly is a contradiction. There is no free market, when your money belongs to a monopoly issuer.

Sorry that it is too deep for you to grasp, but there it is.

It's actually quite shallow and more bumper sticker crap.

You don't even know what the functions are of those federal bureaucracies.
You're doing a macabre dance to avoid even going there and down to repeating rhetoric.


I have provided examples of those failures. I can do privatization failures in the US if you like.

Get an argument and get back to me. Right now...........you have nothing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

WRONG. Bring one that failed. Oh, you don't have one. What we have assessed here is that you are unfamiliar with IMF, the World Bank, Free market failures, Freidman, and you can't bring me one that failed.

Nice job. You have nothing.

Logic dictates that you cannot prove negatives. If you have no criteria for success, then failure is the default. Like it or not, that is how real logic works.

In the case of the IMF, World Bank, so forth and so on, they are banking monopolies.

Claiming that the "free market" fails when it is under the thumb of banking monopoly is a contradiction. There is no free market, when your money belongs to a monopoly issuer.

Sorry that it is too deep for you to grasp, but there it is.

It's actually quite shallow and more bumper sticker crap.

You don't even know what the functions are of those federal bureaucracies.
You're doing a macabre dance to avoid even going there and down to repeating rhetoric.


I have provided examples of those failures. I can do privatization failures in the US if you like.

Get an argument and get back to me. Right now...........you have nothing.

And they’ll always have nothing if they continue to adhere blindly to black and white rightwing/libertarian dogma that everything government is ‘bad.’

 

[HelenaHandbag]

WRONG. Bring one that failed. Oh, you don't have one. What we have assessed here is that you are unfamiliar with IMF, the World Bank, Free market failures, Freidman, and you can't bring me one that failed.

Nice job. You have nothing.

Logic dictates that you cannot prove negatives. If you have no criteria for success, then failure is the default. Like it or not, that is how real logic works.

In the case of the IMF, World Bank, so forth and so on, they are banking monopolies.

Claiming that the "free market" fails when it is under the thumb of banking monopoly is a contradiction. There is no free market, when your money belongs to a monopoly issuer.

Sorry that it is too deep for you to grasp, but there it is.

It's actually quite shallow and more bumper sticker crap.

You don't even know what the functions are of those federal bureaucracies.
You're doing a macabre dance to avoid even going there and down to repeating rhetoric.


I have provided examples of those failures. I can do privatization failures in the US if you like.

Get an argument and get back to me. Right now...........you have nothing.

As I said to begin with, free market failures go out of business. Either that or they get bailed out, at which point there is no free market.

With government bureaucracy, there is no failure. You merely move the goalposts and demand more money. After all, you cannot be put out of business for failure to deliver the promised product, especially when your only product is more bureaucracy.

Again, I am sorry that you are too thick to accept that as the fact it is. Yet, there it is.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Logic dictates that you cannot prove negatives. If you have no criteria for success, then failure is the default. Like it or not, that is how real logic works.

In the case of the IMF, World Bank, so forth and so on, they are banking monopolies.

Claiming that the "free market" fails when it is under the thumb of banking monopoly is a contradiction. There is no free market, when your money belongs to a monopoly issuer.

Sorry that it is too deep for you to grasp, but there it is.

It's actually quite shallow and more bumper sticker crap.

You don't even know what the functions are of those federal bureaucracies.
You're doing a macabre dance to avoid even going there and down to repeating rhetoric.


I have provided examples of those failures. I can do privatization failures in the US if you like.

Get an argument and get back to me. Right now...........you have nothing.

And they’ll always have nothing if they continue to adhere blindly to black and white rightwing/libertarian dogma that everything government is ‘bad.’

Pound sand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You still haven't shown me one that has failed. You planning on doing that soon or do you want to get back to me on that?

They have all failed.

That isn't going to get it, Windbag.

All you need is one example to prove me wrong, bring it on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Logic dictates that you cannot prove negatives. If you have no criteria for success, then failure is the default. Like it or not, that is how real logic works.

In the case of the IMF, World Bank, so forth and so on, they are banking monopolies.

Claiming that the "free market" fails when it is under the thumb of banking monopoly is a contradiction. There is no free market, when your money belongs to a monopoly issuer.

Sorry that it is too deep for you to grasp, but there it is.

It's actually quite shallow and more bumper sticker crap.

You don't even know what the functions are of those federal bureaucracies.
You're doing a macabre dance to avoid even going there and down to repeating rhetoric.


I have provided examples of those failures. I can do privatization failures in the US if you like.

Get an argument and get back to me. Right now...........you have nothing.

And they’ll always have nothing if they continue to adhere blindly to black and white rightwing/libertarian dogma that everything government is ‘bad.’

I'll issue you the same challenge, show me a single example of a government bureaucracy that has succeeded. It should be simple, if you ignore the DEA, DoE, VA, and all the other departments that have failed.

 

[Disir]

It's actually quite shallow and more bumper sticker crap.

You don't even know what the functions are of those federal bureaucracies.
You're doing a macabre dance to avoid even going there and down to repeating rhetoric.


I have provided examples of those failures. I can do privatization failures in the US if you like.

Get an argument and get back to me. Right now...........you have nothing.

And they’ll always have nothing if they continue to adhere blindly to black and white rightwing/libertarian dogma that everything government is ‘bad.’

I'll issue you the same challenge, show me a single example of a government bureaucracy that has succeeded. It should be simple, if you ignore the DEA, DoE, VA, and all the other departments that have failed.

First, lost in the current rancor about the VA is the recognition that the VA healthcare system has consistently out-performed the non-VA/private sector in quality of care and patient safety. In response to criticism in the 1990s about its quality of care, the VA initiated a major reengineering effort, whose principal components included better use of information technology, measurement and reporting of performance, and integration of services. In this respect, the VA system was far ahead of a US healthcare system that was yet to embrace information technology and in the nascent stages of performance measurement. By 2000, patients in the VA system were more likely than those treated in the non-VA/private sector to receive better care for a wide range of indicators from cancer screening to diabetes treatment to inpatient care. And this trend has continued. And there is ample evidence that outcomes are at least comparable

Second, the VA healthcare system has been a model for accountability. The issue of wait times exists because the VA decided to measure it. The VA has been an early adopter of electronic records and accountability measurement. It is not proper to evaluate the VA in isolation. For example, with respect to wait times – any idea how that compares to the non-VA/private sector? That is not to say that the VA should not have absolute standards – and seek to improve – but I bet that wait times elsewhere are also often quite long.

And for those decrying the wait times that are the result of the lack of doctor appointments, will more resources be available to the VA to make more appointments available? And would that even improve health? The VA is experiencing a huge influx in Veterans and only a modest increase in staff. David Brooks reported that over the last 3 years the primary care visits went up 50% while the number of primary care doctors increased 9%.

3 Things To Know Before You Judge VA Health System - Forbes

So, you still have nothing I see.

 

[Disir]

Logic dictates that you cannot prove negatives. If you have no criteria for success, then failure is the default. Like it or not, that is how real logic works.

In the case of the IMF, World Bank, so forth and so on, they are banking monopolies.

Claiming that the "free market" fails when it is under the thumb of banking monopoly is a contradiction. There is no free market, when your money belongs to a monopoly issuer.

Sorry that it is too deep for you to grasp, but there it is.

It's actually quite shallow and more bumper sticker crap.

You don't even know what the functions are of those federal bureaucracies.
You're doing a macabre dance to avoid even going there and down to repeating rhetoric.


I have provided examples of those failures. I can do privatization failures in the US if you like.

Get an argument and get back to me. Right now...........you have nothing.

As I said to begin with, free market failures go out of business. Either that or they get bailed out, at which point there is no free market.

With government bureaucracy, there is no failure. You merely move the goalposts and demand more money. After all, you cannot be put out of business for failure to deliver the promised product, especially when your only product is more bureaucracy.

Again, I am sorry that you are too thick to accept that as the fact it is. Yet, there it is.

This has been tried in other countries. It's failed. Hence the thread. You are willfully ignorant.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

It is happening right now in America.

I am sorry that you are too ignorant and blindly partisan to recognize the fact, yet there it is.

 

[Disir]

It is happening right now in America.

I am sorry that you are too ignorant and blindly partisan to recognize the fact, yet there it is.

No, the one that is ignorant here is you. You are merely parroting right wing talking points. That has become painfully obvious. You can't manage to defend your arguments because you don't have one.

 

[sameech]

I'll issue you the same challenge, show me a single example of a government bureaucracy that has succeeded. It should be simple, if you ignore the DEA, DoE, VA, and all the other departments that have failed.

WHO has been successful in eradicating small pox. Whether that organization is governmental or quasi-governmental is debatable though.

 

[Rshermr]

In our state, State Parks are a very well known and basic entity that has been in existence and used by a very large part of the population of our state, and others. for many decades. Over the years those state parks generated little revenue to the state, but did generate a great deal of demand by the populace. And they put people in motion who visited parks and also needed restraunt services, gas station services, and shopped at locations they would not have visited. The private economic activity was substantial, but now mostly gone.
Enter the Republican state congress, who decided that it was time for users to pay for access to the state park. So, they set fees to use the park for any purpose. From short term parking to use of picnic areas to camping to DRIVE THROUGH fees. The net result has been a decline in usage of the parks, especially for short term stays. The person who used to stop buy for a picinic and be on his way has decreased dramatically. Because folks are not interested in forking out $25 to stay for a half hour and use a picnic table. But the demand is high still, just not at the price charged. And the well to do are a much larger percentage of the users, where the less well to do have stopped coming. If this is the result you want, then success has arrived. But most do not like the change, thank you very much. And the local merchants find the changes about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl.