Quote:
Originally Posted by United93
Whoa! You really put your foot in it there, my friend  . The sad shape we are in now was not caused by the free market, but by government intervention in the free market. It is this sensless and arbitrary regulation of the free market that causes economic problems, not the free market itself. And now, of course, the same people who got us in this mess pretend to be able to get us out! 
BTW, Hopyard, for some facts and logic addressing population concerns, I suggest you visit the following site: Home |
I don't know if you are old enough to remember what a pleasure it used to be to get on an airplane--when the airline industry was still regulated.
Anyway, there was an airline named Braniff Airlines which lobbied heavily to get the government to deregulate the airline industry. They were in a bit of financial difficulty, and they insisted that if only they were deregulated they would be profitable. "Get the government off our backs" was basically the mantra. Their CEO went on all the Sunday talk shows to argue that if ONLY they would be profitable.
The airline industry was deregulated. Down went Braniff in quick order, followed by Eastern, by Pan Am, United (through reorganization), and other the same.
Everyone, employee, stockholder, and passenger was better off prior to this particular deregulation cycle. And this is just one example of the failure of unregulated markets and industry. There are many others.
Free enterprise can work great, if there is a cop in the board room.
Take the cop out of the picture and you get the mortgage/banking mess we have, brought to you by none other than my former Rep and later Senator, --"deregulatin Phil Gramm."
As for population issues, you and SD assume I am necessarily talking about birth control; and you react as I would expect from folks with your particular view. But population control is much more than what you are thinking. It includes border control as well, and in this aspect we have failed miserably--I think you would agree.
BTW, you don't seriously think I am dumb enough to accept that the site you suggested I look at is in any way unbiased and accurate in its presentation. It only took a few seconds to see who it is behind it and the perspective it wishes to push.
Oh, and the site you suggest as a reliable source on population is rather transparently promoting a far from unbiased viewpoint. One only need look quickly at their own description of who they are to figure that part out.