And it's worth noting by this weak standard, both accidents you mention were regulated. I find it interesting how canned this response is. It reminds me of the blowhards stating within a few days of Fukushima that the accident was due to the incompetence of the operators rather than the obvious magnitude 9 earthquake and its consequences without knowing anything about the situation.

Regulation doesn't magically provide perfect protection against nuclear accidents especially when as in today's world you don't have a lot of experience with nuclear accidents because they don't happen that often. A fundamental lesson of these accidents is that you often have to learn by failure what works and what doesn't work.

I just did. So do you have something to contribute or are you going to keep saying it is "not reasonable"?

I merely made a correct observation. Though I do have to agree that if it can't be written down on paper, it's probably not regulation.

In that the risk is unplanned. Hydroelectric has similar risk, but it's planned.

.

In other words, agility. You can be too responsive though that is less of a problem than you claim.

With other goods of value. Keep in mind the original poster was speaking of using gold and silver as money. How many people buy euros with their euros?

That's incidentally what Japan did in 1991. And now their government owes twice as much as their GDP. So maybe that's not such a good investment.

That's like claiming emergency rooms are responsible for vehicular deaths just because so many people die there. No one goes through a crash bout of austerity because they're doing well just as no one goes to an emergency room unless they have substantial problems.

In other words, Greece fucked around for a couple of decades rather than deal with the above problem. Now they're paying the consequences.

The time to implement austerity and similar measures would have been two decades ago. It's not like the "unequal trade relationship" showed up yesterday.

And austerity does work. The Scandinavian countries successfully practice austerity right now. When you control spending over generations rather than only when your creditors force you to, you can have a much better society.

It's worth noting here that Greece lied about its financial health for a time (and may still be lying, not like I care). So some of that debt was picked up under false pretenses.

There's always liability. And given the current huge burden of regulation, I don't buy that it's making nuclear plants safer, especially when we have nuclear plants operating well past their design lifespan.

Neither which was a failure of regulation, let us note. Fukushima was overwhelmed by a natural disaster for which regulation was inadequate at the time, but would have in around five to ten years (IMHO). Chernobyl was run by the people who regulated it. They deliberately ignored their regulations and took it into a regime where it would fail.

Primarily by curbing the power and reach of government. We don't need a government that spies on us (most of the world). We don't need a government that runs the largest military in the world (the US), runs its own oil companies (Russia, China, and most of OPEC), pampers us by doing things for us that we could, if we really wanted to, do ourselves (social safety nets of most of the world), and runs the largest networks of corruption in human history (everyone either directly or by incentivizing the creation of black markets and smuggling).

And most of this crap doesn't help us create a counterweight to business, religious cults, or other possible rival power centers.

No. There are very substantial differences between the two. The most important is simply that markets can cater to small groups and interests and wants that change day to day. They have a responsive to wants that are simply not present in a government.

Further, this lack of immediate responsiveness in government is by design. There is no democratic government in the world that allows real time modification by its constituents/customers.

I think it's completely foolish to equate the infrequent and very coarse-grained opportunities for control changes of an election to the fluid and fine-grained changes of a modern market.

What does "control" mean here?

I think I've already explained why that isn't so. You seem to have not gotten the point of the orange juice example. There's no analogue to the light weight activity of buying orange juice in a government.

That would be termed an obligation not a right.

So why are you wasting my time? I'm supposedly controlling this mess? That's news to me.

Nice to know that. Here's the problem. Supply and demand is not a myth, but rather a basic observable thing of any market. It doesn't matter who sets the price when I can choose not to buy and the supplier can choose not to supply.

Which I can do should I desire it enough.

The obvious rebuttal is that the loser can win later. There's nothing forcing you to do job X forever on, especially, when you demonstrate that you aren't good enough at job X to make a career of it.

So what? Capitalism is not a system of inspiration, but rather a system for getting shit done. And how are these "disillusioned" people going to do better in any other system? They have behavioral or psychological problems. Those don't magically get better in other systems.

Why is letting people "die off" supposedly better? You do realize that capitalism also licked the overpopulation problem too. Just employ women gainfully. There's no need to kill people off.

No. It's status signalling, like buying a huge yacht.