In principle, I agree. But that only holds true as long as management is correctly evaluating what and who is performing efficiently. Judging from IBM's performance and stock price, management is not doing so hot at making that judgement.

That's also a nice thing about markets. They not only punish inefficiency, they also punish stupid management. It may take a while, but eventually the chickens come home to roost.

While government shouldn't protect the inefficient employees, it shouldn't protect incompetent management, either.

Also, economic efficiency isn't everything. Would you be comfortable offshoring industries our national defense is dependent on, even if economic efficiencies could be obtained by doing so?

Uh, you do know San Francisco is notorious for earthquakes, which severely limits how tall buildings can be safely built, right? See 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

Well, sure. But then, we can assume that Venezuelan democracy isn't so different from our own. Most likely they voted for it not because it was wonderful, but because it was the least bad choice on the ballot. Just because you get to vote, doesn't necessarily mean you get to vote for what you want.

"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in “Metcalfe’s law”–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s."

--Paul Krugman, 1998

When collapse comes, it comes quickly.

"The reason why collapse, especially that caused by socialism, is so utterly complete is that the damage remains hidden for so long. The design margin is used up; savings are depleted; the institutions are hollowed out; public morality becomes perverted and education becomes nothing but a credential — and it all happens out of the public eye. Only when everything is used up, as in Venezuela, when the whole edifice implodes, as if by magic, does the cumulative effect become manifest."

One more argument against democracy.

More likely it would just get you branded as an idiot. You might want to keep in mind, in the 1950's the US was the only game in town. Europe was recovering from 2 world wars, made in Japan was synonymous for cheap junk, Korea was in the midst of a civil war, and China and India were mostly known for mass famines. If you wanted to play in the big leagues, you played in the US.

Try charging those kind of tax rates now, and see if you can count to 10 before a major amount of capital flees to friendlier shores.

Kind of like watching fingers fall off of a leper, isn't it?

Indeed. Democracy is broken.

Yeah, but how do you get out of that situation? If the technology is available, somebody is going to use it. Your only recourse is to pass laws that restrict the use of the technology. But the laws, of course, are enforced by the government. And guess who's even more curious about you, and more likely to abuse that information, than any advertiser?

Well then, how about this: he gets the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nobel Peace Prize, a Presidential pardon, a million dollars and a ticker tape parade... and then we draw and quarter him in Times Square.

has some salient things to say about this book.