Can the market alone fix the economy?

[Gokul43201]

Only the market can heal the economy.

You say that as though you are stating a fact, but you probably mean that's just your personal opinion.

Else, please read the forum rules before posting.

 

[readaynrand]

You say that as though you are stating a fact, but you probably mean that's just your personal opinion.

No, it's a fact. You can't solve a problem that is caused by government involvement with more government involvement.

Besides, government involvement is immoral. It's a danger to my individual liberty.

 

[Evo]

No, it's a fact. You can't solve a problem that is caused by government involvement with more government involvement.

You'll need to post the proof of that since you claim it's a fact.

 

[Al68]

No, it's a fact. You can't solve a problem that is caused by government involvement with more government involvement.

You'll need to post the proof of that since you claim it's a fact.

LOL. I think readaynrand was simply referring to the logical absurdity of proposing more government interference as a solution to a problem caused by government interference.

Even if more government interference mitigates the problem, or its symptoms, it remains unsolved logically, if its cause remains.

 

[Gokul43201]

LOL. I think readaynrand was simply referring to the logical absurdity of proposing more government interference as a solution to a problem caused by government interference.

Many logical errors here.

1. readaynrand said the only solution is B. This is not the same as saying that more of A does not solve the problem, even if B = not(A), nor does it logically follow.

2. And that's even assuming it is true that more of A does not solve the problem. Stating something is a logical absurdity doesn't make it so. (eg: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so a lot of knowledge ought to be an even more dangerous thing?)

3. Nowhere in this is the proof negating the possibility that B might itself come with a separate set of problems.

 

[Al68]

Many logical errors here.

1. readaynrand said the only solution is B. This is not the same as saying that more of A does not solve the problem, even if B = not(A), nor does it logically follow.

2. And that's even assuming it is true that more of A does not solve the problem. Stating something is a logical absurdity doesn't make it so. (eg: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so a lot of knowledge ought to be an even more dangerous thing?)

3. Nowhere in this is the proof negating the possibility that B might itself come with a separate set of problems.

1. There is no solution "B" in the claim by readaynrand I was referring to. The claim was only that more A does not solve the problem. That is the same as saying that more A does not solve the problem. And if "B" = not(A), then the claim I referred to simply didn't claim B as the "only solution" as you say.

2. That assumption is identical to the claim I referred to, rendering the claim automatically true under that assumption.

3. There was no B in the claim I was referring to. The claim mentioned only one proposed solution.

Can you point out my logical errors instead of just claiming they exist, and then listing logical errors I didn't make?

 

[readaynrand]

LOL. I think readaynrand was simply referring to the logical absurdity of proposing more government interference as a solution to a problem caused by government interference.

That's exactly what I did, but I got three warning points for that. Incredible!

Even if more government interference mitigates the problem, or its symptoms, it remains unsolved logically, if its cause remains.

Government interference can postpone the problems, but politicians are not magicians - they cannot deliver services for free, they cannot create capital (only print worthless paper money) and they cannot solve problems by interfering in the free market.

 

[Gokul43201]

1. There is no solution "B" in the claim by readaynrand I was referring to.

Of course there is. I thought it was obvious, but A = government, B = market.

readaynrand's post very explicitly claims that B, and only B, can fix all the problems in the market.

The claim was only that more A does not solve the problem.

That was an attempt at a proof (albeit a flawed one) of the original claim. That original claim was: "Only the market can heal the economy."

Can you point out my logical errors instead of just claiming they exist, and then listing logical errors I didn't make?

I wasn't pointing out logical errors in your statement, but in readaynrand's. After all, your statement was simply stating what you think rar was implying.

 

[Al68]

That's exactly what I did, but I got three warning points for that. Incredible!

It will soon become obvious that only those here on the "left" are free to post their (often delusional and absurd) opinions as absolute facts that are beyond dispute, and do so with impunity. They seem to be perfectly free to spout hateful and delusional nonsense as if they were simply mentioning that the sky was blue.

But mentioning a real equivalent of "the sky is blue", especially for economic issues, elicits never-ending challenges, demands for substantiation many times over, and warnings from moderators.

Just like the one I'm probably about to get.

 

[Al68]

Of course there is. I thought it was obvious, but A = government, B = market.

readaynrand's post very explicitly claims that B, and only B, can fix all the problems in the market.

That was an attempt at a proof (albeit a flawed one) of the original claim. That original claim was: "Only the market can heal the economy."

LOL. Well, there's the problem. That's a different claim than the one I was referring to. I was only referring to the claim I quoted, not the one you mention here.