And you don't think the network stations have a point of view? They're pro-establishment, which is why something like Occupy Wall Street can go on for weeks without media coverage, while a random, small pro-Corporate Tea Party rally gets instant coverage.
I think everybody has a slant. I never said anyone didn't. All I asked what why they had to both report the facts and their opinion. Let them do whichever, but once they start reporting their opinion then we should expect their "facts" to have a certain amount of bias to them. That's all I meant.
As far as the coverage of the Tea Party and Occupy was concerned... I assume you're joking... or high (nothing wrong with that). If you think either "movement" didn't get covered or got covered then your view is completely colored by your politics. Nothing wrong with that, but I guarantee that people who lean a different way see the news coverage exactly opposite to the way you do. In their view Occupy was made out to be some wonderful grassroots campaign made up of people with higher than average intelligence and and optimistic view on life who just want a "fair shake" (someone elses money). But the tea party rallies were made of racist bigots who wanted nothing more than to tear the country apart and starve the children. It was all horse shit. Neither group was as bad or as good as anyone said, but political view points change that... so they should be left out of the news.
The MSNBC talking heads at least stick to facts when presenting their point of view
Wow. Just Wow. Why do they even present both? They should keep their point of view out of it.
Metal detectors detect conductive materals.
Water is a conductor... a pretty good one. I think your explanation is missing something. And you're not allowed to say "ferrous conductors" because, well, then we're back where you guys started.
Incidentally, and strangely on topic, there was an episode of "Bones" where some bad guy rigged up a handheld machine that shot ice pellets as a projectile with enough force to pierce human flesh.
There has never been a society with both a functional government and no government distortions in the market. That's because *any* government action distorts the marketplace.
It almost seems like you think that any adaptation by the market is a distortion by the agent the precipitated the adaptation of the market. But, I assume you don't actually think that way because if you did then you'd also believe that ANY event distorts the market - even by a given individual, not just the government. That is, if I decided I wanted a tree cut down all of a sudden I've somehow distorted the tree removal market by getting involved. Or if I want my ass scratched for me that I've distorted everything because an ass scratcher didn't even exist until I said I wanted to buy one. But so far as I can tell, you're only blaming the government in your distortion discussion so you're obviously not going to subscribe to the idea that ANY event distorts the market... after all... if that were the case there'd be no actual free market because it'd be getting distorted by everyone anytime anyone made any decision.
Did viagra distort the market for get 'er uppers when they came on the scene? Of course not. The drug was only invented because there was a market (known or unknown - talked about or all hush hush - doesn't matter). The market was there even though no one thought about it consciously or talked about it at all. Surely they didn't distort anything by simply giving people a product they wanted. So why are all these other example you mentioned any different? I know why, and I'll say so at the end, but humor me.
If the government has a police force to enforce laws, suddenly there's a demand for cruisers, tasers, nightsticks, pepper-spray, etc that wasn't there before, distorting the market.
This could just as easily have happened if the people of the community got together and decided to create a local security force... like a volunteer police force. Nothing was created by the government in this example that would not be created by a private venture to do the same thing. And guess what, if the government didn't want to do it, and the people wanted protection, I can promise you that someone would step in and do the job. The government didn't create that market... it was there with or without them.
If the government has a fire department (with a very real government interest that its cities don't burn down), there's a demand for hoses, trucks, pumps, hydrants, etc that wasn't there before, distorting the market.
Two issues here. First, the city doesn't belong to the government (possession).
Second, again, no one distorted a market. A market was essentially created... or it could be argued that the market came to visibility. Much like the police item already discussed, the decision to create a fire department whether public or private would cause the market to change. It wasn't the government that created the market... it was the need for service that created the market. There was nothing preventing the cities from having their own fire department or just not having one at all. This happens all the time in rural areas.
If the government builds a road (to ensure that its police and fire departments can get to where they're needed), that distorts the property values around the road (e.g. look at what happens at nearly every exit ramp of major highways).
This is getting old, but citizens can build roads too. And if they're needed bad enough the citizens of an area will do it. Maybe in the case that the road was between two far away places (interstate) you have an arguable point, but that's the best you get, is arguable. I'd say (1) that the government doesn't have to be involved, but since they are (2) the market was obviously there. Unless the government is in the business of building roads to nowhere and for no reason then there was a value in having the road. The market value of the land was already X without a road and Y with a road. That is, there was already the market, there just wasn't a road. The building of the road didn't do anything - no matter who built it.
If the government fights a war, that causes major distortions in the markets for clothing, weapons, ships, fuel, food, and just about everything else.
I'd like to think that you can continue this exercise on your own not, but this one is a little more interesting simply because of its size. After all, we don't ever think of little towns going to war for themselves. But then again, they could (montegue and capulet could certainly happen on larger scale). What about this? I could get into a fight with my neighbor... would that distort the market for bandaids in the local convenience store? If an earthquake occurred would distort the market for batteries and generators and food? If locusts came and ate all the leaves off of all the fruit trees would that distort the market of fruit? I'd say no, the market would adjust - it would not be "distorted". All of these things are events that happen and the market adjusts. The events themselves don't have a will, they don't distort. They are simply PART OF the variables involved in the market.
So here's where your words ring almost true. The governement CAN distort the market. If the government bails out companies (and people) who make bad decisions, then THAT distorts the market. Fairly participating in the market doesn't distort it, but picking winners and losers does distort it. If the government raises taxes on cigarettes to the point that they can no longer be afforded then they've obviously distorted the market. They aren't involved in the market, they're just shaping it. There are infinite example of ways to distort the market and probably every government everywhere has done so at one point or another. But, none of the items you mentioned are distortions... they are simple participations.
The free market is not the answer. The free market may be the efficient decision maker, but it lacks the things we say makes us human. The free market has no empathy, compassion, intelligence, foresight, or shame. Would you ask a person lacking those trait to be your boss?
The free market isn't anyone's boss. That's the beauty of it. It's a system in which people operate, but it's not the boss... so you can't exactly make that jump. But since your brought up those who understand what it is and create / manage things that people need / want will make excellent bosses. They'll make the kind of bosses that can do useful things like, for example, make payroll because they actually produce something that someone else in the market finds valuable. Not only that, but the people who actually understand the free market are those that have all those attributes you mentioned above... because all those attributes play in to how people interact with each other in that market.
An also, since you asked, I'll say this. I can think of a worse boss than the free market that will, atleast, in theory reward those who provide value and ignore / punish those who do not. The free market will stay the hell out of the way and let me get my work done and be judged on my results. But maybe you'd prefer a boss who only has empathy for those who can help them get (re)elected, only has compassion when it suits them politically, has lots of intelligence (but an agenda to go along with it and that agenda only includes you as long as you're "useful" [not profitble... just "useful"]), has foresight in staggering amounts and actually plans problems so that they can manipulate others into reacting rather than actually prevent problems, and who also has no shame.
The fact is that the free market only works if we can get your kind of boss to quit getting involved in the market. If someone is artificially tipping the scales then it's not a free market. That's what user moeinvt was saying, but you completely ignored that point when you responded.
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
