|
>> Strawman says "You are claiming that the optimal configuration (minimized
>> overall cost) is achieved by less fire trucks - ie that the government got it
>> wrong (again). Hardly a strong argument for government monopoly then, is it?" >> WRONG because, as VOR pointed out, insurance companies have incentives
>> (short-term profitability at the risk of long-term bankruptcy) to underinvest
>> in firefighting. Huh? As a shareholder in an insurance company (which is holding a sizable
chunk of my superannuation) I am very concerned about the long term
viability of my investment - unlike the government which is only looking as far
ahead as the next election. >> Strawman says: "...if people are stupid enough to insure with that kind of
>> insurer - then let them." >> BUT VOR says the aim of an economic system is normally taken as being to
>> maximise wellbeing - Strawman's survival of the fittest attitude belongs with
>> the rest of his arguments - in an earlier millenium. Sigh, it's not about survival of the fittest, it's about not attempting to
legislate against stupidity because you think you are the intellectual elite. I believe my ideas are right - you believe yours are right. That's fine,
but if you really thought my ideas were so bad, and yours were so good, you
would welcome the chance to separate the two so that you (and like minded
people) could implement your own ideas in your own way with your own money and
keep the profits. The reality is that you just want to put your snout into the
trough of money that my taxes fill. >> Strawman says "Very few directors skip to Majorca. This does not mean they
>> always get it right - but they are not high-flying edge-of-the-seat Skase
>> types. They are also generally much more closely regulated than property
>> developers." >> BUT VOR says, firstly, that it's not clear that the thousands of investors
>> "burned" in the process would take much comfort from this. And your point is? I didn't say it to 'comfort the investors' - I said it because it was true.
Do you know the difference between 'political correctness' and 'factual
correctness'? >> And more
>> importantly, when Strawman has to rely on the fact that other directors are,
>> quote, GENERALLY MORE CLOSELY REGULATED THAN PROPERTY DIRECTORS, unquote,
>> Strawman unwittingly recognizes the limits of the "free" market and the need
>> for government regulation. Glad to see that you're a fan of government after
>> all, Strawman - hahahah. I have never advocated the abolition of government, or the abolition of the
rule of law. You are simply making this up. >> Strawman claims that he doesn't know what VOR speaks about when he
says "trains": >> BUT VOR says: Ever heard of British Rail and its private
successors Well, I have to confess to knowing little about it, but looking at the
other idiocies in 'privatization' in Britain I suspect they were as flawed as
the Kennett approach. >> Strawman says he still waiting for VOR to speak with reason. >> VOR suggests that Strawman is getting desperate. VOR has suggested several unrealistic things in his approach so far -
including just making things up. >> VOR- TheVoiceOfReason Sigh, I am beginning to doubt this is coming.
| 
