Anyone else stockpiling money due to the potentially looming gov shutdown?

[matchewed]

I'm saying that there wouldn't even be an iPhone without the government.

I'm sorry, but this all reminds me of the "You didn't build that" Obama quote.

All of the infrastructure exists because of the demand. Government doesn't lay down a superhighway or pave a road into the forest. No, they are made going directly to Wal-Mart and other stores only where there first exists a consumer demand. Which means that just because it has used something that was paid for by a federal grant does not mean it would not have existed, funded and created its own, privately.

So yes, we absolutely would have an iPhone today given the demand for it to be there. Where govt steps in, of course the market will use that to its advantage. That doesn't mean govt gets sole credit for all things existing because it was used in the process.

Yes I think the government can influence demand in a marketplace. Is there more to that than a yes or no question?

I didn't say "influence". I asked if you think a government could create genuine demand in the marketplace? Do you think the govt can somehow make millions of adults voluntarily purchase a product like the iPhone?

I don't care what quote it reminds you of.

You've ignored every single one of my points to call that out. Regardless of whether the demand exists you've been saying (wrongly)

Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there?

and

So did the military proliferate that technology it? No, a genuine free market did.

Whether you believe in it or not, the current success on an iPhone is a pure free market phenomenon.

Nowhere in there were you discussing demand. You were asking do we have any government department or agency to thank for consumer technology? The answer is yes. I gave examples.

Then you're asking about the proliferation of that technology and whether the military specifically (I assume you mean government in general) had anything to do with it as you stated it's a pure free market phenomenon. And the answer was again yes. Also examples.

Now the iPhone is a pure free market phenomenon because why? We've already established that the technology and the infrastructure to make it, sell it, and use it all depended on cooperation with government. You seem to just ignore that and jump straight to the demand. How would we even have an iPhone without government involvement? Can you lay that one out for me?

Yes the government can create demand. Also see the market for things like atomic bombs, fighter jets, bullet proof robotic pack dogs...etc. It may very well be an artificial market but that wasn't part of what you were asking. Do I think the government can make people voluntarily purchase iPhones? No. But I don't see what that has to do with the government actually having a part in what has led to the iPhone even existing. No one sat there going "man I wish I had an iPhone." to Steve Jobs before it was invented either. The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.

[lauren_knows]

[ Moderator Hat On ]

This thread has taken a turn fairly far off the original topic, and is starting to brood some personal attacks.  Everyone simmah don nah. (Or, "Don't be a jerk" as the forum rules state).

[ Moderator Hat off ]


As a government contractor who is looking to get a government job, this whole situation has me uneasy, and congress seems like it has a "take no prisoners" approach to negotiating, which sets a terrible precedent.  Not sure how they move away from this "negotiation".

[brewer12345]

As a government contractor who is looking to get a government job, this whole situation has me uneasy, and congress seems like it has a "take no prisoners" approach to negotiating, which sets a terrible precedent.  Not sure how they move away from this "negotiation".

I think the idiotic wrangling over the budget is a sideshow.  The need to increase the gubmint debt limit is potentially far more impactful to the economy, and coming to a TV screen near you very shortly.  Presumably both these issues will get resolved eventually.

[arebelspy]

MODERATOR NOTE

Looks like everyone has had a chance to say what they'd like, and we're at the point of unproductive.

Locking thread.

As always, feel free to PM thread participants to continue the conversation, or me if you have an issue with the thread locking.

Cheers!

EDIT: I missed Bo Know's mod post two above mine (it was on pg. 2, which I missed).

Thread will remain open for now, please keep it civil and on topic.  Thanks!

[Will]

It doesn't appear to be locked.

Anyway, the question in the title is asking if I'm stockpiling money due to a government shutdown.  Nope, I'm stockpiling money so I can retire early.

[Mazzinator]

For anyone military, Navy Fed and Marine Fed will be covering the Oct 15 deposit for anyone who uses direct deposit.  It's unclear whether that will be base pay or full pay.  USAA will be offering 0% payday loans, though it is something you have to apply for (via "My accounts" on USAA's website) and it is *not* automatic.  The option isn't up yet, but keep checking back if you need it, and get in early if you can because I suspect they'll be swamped. 

I'm not applying as we have plenty of other failsafes we can turn to, but for those who need it, the military banks look to be providing a lot of help.

Thank you for this info!!!

[Stives]

My main beef with all of this is I know a lot of responsible, middle-classed people that are civilian government workers (I at one time working as a contractor), and they're going to have to pay a huge price for the mistakes and lack of maturity of a bunch of fat cats who are so disconnected from the public opinion and interest that they really don't care what happens to us. We're just a bunch of pawns paying into the debt-induced society that they've created for us. [/cynicism]

Aside from all that, it's a great thing all of us mustachians are more resistant to such naughtiness! With financial independence this kind of stuff can be kind of avoided, at least on a personal/nuclear family level.

[ender]

Does the government waste money? Yes.

Does the private sector waste money? Yes.

Does the government fund research which benefits society? Yes.

Does the private sector fund research which benefits society? Yes.

[kimmarg]

My main beef with all of this is I know a lot of responsible, middle-classed people that are civilian government workers (I at one time working as a contractor), and they're going to have to pay a huge price for the mistakes and lack of maturity of a bunch of fat cats who are so disconnected from the public opinion and interest that they really don't care what happens to us. We're just a bunch of pawns paying into the debt-induced society that they've created for us. [/cynicism]

Aside from all that, it's a great thing all of us mustachians are more resistant to such naughtiness! With financial independence this kind of stuff can be kind of avoided, at least on a personal/nuclear family level.

From one of the middle-class pawns, thanks for the vote of confidence!

I am determined to put a positive spin in all this - not getting paid will be a great kick-in-the-pants for my spending which is not as tight as it could be. Maybe I'll come out with more savings when we finally get paid! Plus this is really driving home why I need to be FI. I can't just walk away from the $$ right now and it stresses me out.  Lemons ---> lemonaid!

[CDP45]

My bad for bringing up markets and getting us off-track here, but it does expose those who believe they have claim to the livelihood, freedom, and hard work of others by way of involuntary force (statists). I hope this is a good reminder to everyone that anything created by the state is by definition unwanted by the voluntary efforts of productive citizens (the market as  I define it in a broad sense). A tax by definition is involuntary and the result of those subject to pay the ransom or be victims of violent confinement (see Wesley Snipes for a recent example of this crime).

It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists, but they are to be found everywhere a govt paycheck is sent, for it is hard to bite the hand that feeds.

Regarding invention of electronics, no the government did not create what we know today because it took entrepreneurs following yes (gasp!) the profit motive and risking capital to bring it to market. Did Nokia invent the iPhone because they made a plastic brick first? No.

[CDP45]

Does the government waste money? Yes.

Does the private sector waste money? Yes.

Does the government fund research which benefits society? Yes.

Does the private sector fund research which benefits society? Yes.

But at least the private money is voluntarily wagered for profit, there is little moral equivalence here to the $3,800,000,000,000 orgy of violence and waste that is the federal government.

[brewer12345]

My bad for bringing up markets and getting us off-track here, but it does expose those who believe they have claim to the livelihood, freedom, and hard work of others by way of involuntary force (statists). I hope this is a good reminder to everyone that anything created by the state is by definition unwanted by the voluntary efforts of productive citizens (the market as  I define it in a broad sense). A tax by definition is involuntary and the result of those subject to pay the ransom or be victims of violent confinement (see Wesley Snipes for a recent example of this crime).

It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists, but they are to be found everywhere a govt paycheck is sent, for it is hard to bite the hand that feeds.

Regarding invention of electronics, no the government did not create what we know today because it took entrepreneurs following yes (gasp!) the profit motive and risking capital to bring it to market. Did Nokia invent the iPhone because they made a plastic brick first? No.

I think we need a politics only subforum where all the blowhards politically interested can post their Ayn Rand garbage, communist fantasies, Republicrat party line, etc. and those of us who aren't interested can avoid it.

[beltim]

My bad for bringing up markets and getting us off-track here, but it does expose those who believe they have claim to the livelihood, freedom, and hard work of others by way of involuntary force (statists). I hope this is a good reminder to everyone that anything created by the state is by definition unwanted by the voluntary efforts of productive citizens (the market as  I define it in a broad sense). A tax by definition is involuntary and the result of those subject to pay the ransom or be victims of violent confinement (see Wesley Snipes for a recent example of this crime).

It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists, but they are to be found everywhere a govt paycheck is sent, for it is hard to bite the hand that feeds.

Regarding invention of electronics, no the government did not create what we know today because it took entrepreneurs following yes (gasp!) the profit motive and risking capital to bring it to market. Did Nokia invent the iPhone because they made a plastic brick first? No.

Are you seriously suggesting that government employees – people hired to do a job – believe they "have claim to the livelihood, freedom, and hard work of others by way of involuntary force?"

[msilenus]

I hope this is a good reminder to everyone that anything created by the state is by definition unwanted by the voluntary efforts of productive citizens (the market as  I define it in a broad sense).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmHABUfjYPI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3FUdB86OG0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4boyXQuUIw
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1693/social-security.aspx
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/poll-58-percent-oppose-medicare-cuts-86703.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/07/27/CDC-NASA-FBI-top-approval-poll/UPI-30601248717732/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/10/Sandy-response.jpg
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-21/local/40713461_1_education-policy-school-employees-parents
...

[grantmeaname]

It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists

You are amazed that some people believe that the government should have some measure of power in either social or economic spheres?

[CU Tiger]

The husband and I are both govt subcontractors. If they shut everything down I will be off and unpaid, but much of his work keeps his company's systems running, so he will continue working. They may use the time to work on proposals, etc.

We will be okay even if we have no income, that is what the emergency fund is for.

[MrsPete]

My main beef with all of this is I know a lot of responsible, middle-classed people that are civilian government workers (I at one time working as a contractor), and they're going to have to pay a huge price for the mistakes and lack of maturity of a bunch of fat cats who are so disconnected from the public opinion and interest that they really don't care what happens to us. We're just a bunch of pawns paying into the debt-induced society that they've created for us.

this is my main beef as well.  I don't see anyone in Washington who cares about doing the right thing for us, the common people; nor do I see any way we can affect real, large-scale change for society.

[CDP45]

My main beef with all of this is I know a lot of responsible, middle-classed people that are civilian government workers (I at one time working as a contractor), and they're going to have to pay a huge price for the mistakes and lack of maturity of a bunch of fat cats who are so disconnected from the public opinion and interest that they really don't care what happens to us. We're just a bunch of pawns paying into the debt-induced society that they've created for us.

this is my main beef as well.  I don't see anyone in Washington who cares about doing the right thing for us, the common people; nor do I see any way we can affect real, large-scale change for society.

We can make change by first being the change we want to see, educating ourselves to reduce the harm we cause, don't support statists, don't vote for the expansion of theft and govt prog, vote against all tax measures, inform your family members, and of course live below your means and know that every dollar saved is one day closer to freedom!

[Russ]

It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists, but they are to be found everywhere a govt paycheck is sent, for it is hard to bite the hand that feeds.

There will always be someone who wants less government than you. To that person, you are a statist. How's that for a thinker?

Maybe tossing about labels isn't the best way to persuade others...

[sol]

Maybe tossing about labels isn't the best way to persuade others...

This hasn't been a thread for persuasion since back on page one.  Early page one. This is clearly a thread for venting, and has been since the early derailment.

Which is fine.  One person wants to decry statists.  Another hates federal employees, or congress, or health care, or insurance companies, or a party, or partisanship, or taxes, or scientific research, or whatever else gets your dander up.

If people really wanted to change things, there are better avenues than bitching on relatively anonymous internet forums.  Here, we revel in name calling instead.  Don't take that away from us, Mr. Moderator.

[CDP45]

It's amazing that on this very website trying to aid in the struggle for freedom there are statists, but they are to be found everywhere a govt paycheck is sent, for it is hard to bite the hand that feeds.

There will always be someone who wants less government than you. To that person, you are a statist. How's that for a thinker?

Maybe tossing about labels isn't the best way to persuade others...

Maybe they'll realize they're cheering for the wrong team.

[Mr.Macinstache]

The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.

No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!

I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.

The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Does the government waste money? Yes.

Does the private sector waste money? Yes.

Does the government fund research which benefits society? Yes.

Does the private sector fund research which benefits society? Yes.

Here's the difference though.

The private sector has a true incentive not to waste money, because they directly suffer the loss.

The public sector has no incentive to be frugal since they aren't risking their own capital and don't suffer the consequences of waste and failure.

[sol]

The public sector has no incentive to be frugal since they aren't risking their own capital and don't suffer the consequences of waste and failure.

Speaking as a public sector worker, this is laughably inaccurate.  You think I don't have a budget or timelines or deliverables for everything I work on?  Sounds like you think feds have pretty sweet jobs, do whatever, spend whatever, consequence free.  The reality is very different.

[grantmeaname]

Doesn't that confuse the stockholders for the employees, too? Those groups are usually pretty separated in the private sector.

[matchewed]

The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.

No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!

I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.

The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.

But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.

I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.

[Mr.Macinstache]

The public sector has no incentive to be frugal since they aren't risking their own capital and don't suffer the consequences of waste and failure.

Speaking as a public sector worker, this is laughably inaccurate.  You think I don't have a budget or timelines or deliverables for everything I work on?  Sounds like you think feds have pretty sweet jobs, do whatever, spend whatever, consequence free.  The reality is very different.

I'm sure there are plenty of agencies where the low levels are held accountable so the middle and upper management can blow it. There's a reason why SS, medicare, the post office, etc are completely broke, but still funded.

Where do you get your funding sol? What determines it? Is it automatic?

[Mr.Macinstache]

The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.

No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!

I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.

The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.

But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.

I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.

Where there is a govt subsidy, there is a private business to take advantage of that, and a govt to take advantage of the tax revenue it generates. I'm not disputing that fact.

You said the iPhone could not exist without govt. That is your theory, not a fact. My theory is if the demand is so strong for a product or service, if we lived in anarchy, private investment would fund cell phone infrastructure needed to deliver an iPhone into the hands of consumers.

[matchewed]

The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.

No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!

I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.

The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.

But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.

I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.

Where there is a govt subsidy, there is a private business to take advantage of that, and a govt to take advantage of the tax revenue it generates. I'm not disputing that fact.

You said the iPhone could not exist without govt. That is your theory, not a fact. My theory is if the demand is so strong for a product or service, if we lived in anarchy, private investment would fund cell phone infrastructure needed to deliver an iPhone into the hands of consumers.

So when you said -

The free market is only a meaningless concept to someone who supports a top down authoritarian directive.

It does actually exist. Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there? We have more advancements at cheaper prices in all areas of consumer technology. This is a result of direct consumer influence, picking the winners and losers, not government intervention.

You didn't mean it actually exists? You meant theoretical possibilities? That didn't come across that way.

[brewer12345]

The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.

No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!

I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.

The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.

But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.

I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.

Where there is a govt subsidy, there is a private business to take advantage of that, and a govt to take advantage of the tax revenue it generates. I'm not disputing that fact.

You said the iPhone could not exist without govt. That is your theory, not a fact. My theory is if the demand is so strong for a product or service, if we lived in anarchy, private investment would fund cell phone infrastructure needed to deliver an iPhone into the hands of consumers.

So when you said -

The free market is only a meaningless concept to someone who supports a top down authoritarian directive.

It does actually exist. Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there? We have more advancements at cheaper prices in all areas of consumer technology. This is a result of direct consumer influence, picking the winners and losers, not government intervention.

You didn't mean it actually exists? You meant theoretical possibilities? That didn't come across that way.

[ Direct attack on user removed by mod ]

[jrhampt]

"We do it all the time" is not a means that it is just (in my opinion) or accurate. Statistics are misused all the time. "Lies, damn lies and statistics" was his quote. I think the answer to my last question is obvious. If an entity is taking the moral high ground to govern, it should accurately represent, the only way to do that is to sample everyone on a voluntary basis, instead of system run by a handful of officials representing certain interests.

Oh dear Lord.  Yes, statistics are misused all the time, by people who don't understand how they are produced or by people who know how they are produced but take advantage of other people's ignorance.  It is not feasible or cost-effective to survey the ENTIRE population of the US.  That is the point of sampling and survey design.  The point of statistics is that you can make inferences about an entire population by studying a representative sample.  Statistics is a rigorous discipline.  There are a lot of mathematical proofs behind it.  You can't just dismiss the entire field because you don't understand it and this one time someone misrepresented some study results*. 

And if lesbians are overweight to the point that there's a significant** difference between them and the rest of the population, I think that's an interesting characteristic that might be worth studying.  You aren't even slightly curious as to why that is?  If you were a scientist, you might be.  I have zero problem with scientists studying significant differences that might turn out to be interesting.  I have zero problem paying taxes that go to support this kind of research.

*disclaimer: I am a statistician.
**and by significant, I mean statistically significant

[sol]

Where do you get your funding sol? What determines it? Is it automatic?

Agency-wide, about one third of our funding is from Congressional appropriation, i.e. the federal budget.  The other 2/3 comes from outside sources, partners who pay us to do work on their behalf.  It's an interesting funding model for a government agency, to get so much of it's funding from sources outside the government.

Me personally, I've been 100% funded by non-federal funds for all of my career until this year.  With a new project and job title, I'm suddenly 100% funded by the federal budget.

Which doesn't mean that funding is automatic.  I compete with other research scientists for a finite pool of federal research dollars.  When I compete successfully, I get funded.  When I compete unsuccessfully, I don't get any money.  The pool is automatically funded, at levels set by Congress.  No particular scientist gets funded automatically, though.  If you blow your budget or miss your deadlines, you don't get new funding anymore.  We're all accountable, with a detailed performance rubrik to assign numerical rankings to our productivity.  If there's one thing government is good at, it's record keeping.

 

[Mr.Macinstache]

The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.

No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!

I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.

The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.

But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.

I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.

Where there is a govt subsidy, there is a private business to take advantage of that, and a govt to take advantage of the tax revenue it generates. I'm not disputing that fact.

You said the iPhone could not exist without govt. That is your theory, not a fact. My theory is if the demand is so strong for a product or service, if we lived in anarchy, private investment would fund cell phone infrastructure needed to deliver an iPhone into the hands of consumers.

So when you said -

The free market is only a meaningless concept to someone who supports a top down authoritarian directive.

It does actually exist. Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there? We have more advancements at cheaper prices in all areas of consumer technology. This is a result of direct consumer influence, picking the winners and losers, not government intervention.

You didn't mean it actually exists? You meant theoretical possibilities? That didn't come across that way.

Is that pig singing yet?  Or are you just covered in mud?

[ Direct attack on user removed by mod ]

[Mr.Macinstache]

The demand actually comes after the invention of these things.

No, a market invents and brings them to the market because of demand. The light bulb wasn't invented and then suddenly everyone wanted to read in the dark!

I'm not ignoring any of your points, I just don't agree with the conclusions you're proposing. You've got the idea flipped on its head, especially if you think the concept of free market doesn't exist to you.

The idea that a free society can freely associate, create, invent goods, products and services sans a government directive is totally foreign to you. I have nothing else to say to that.

But it's not conclusions I'm proposing but facts. Governments have been involved in the modern age with our technological discoveries and the development of modern infrastructure. Without those the consumer technology market wouldn't even exist. That's not a conclusion but a fact.

I'm not talking about government directives but that private industry uses the current environment which is generated by both private industry, individual demand, and government to bring and create goods for the market. I'm curious as to how you disagree with that statement and what proof you have to back up any disagreement.

Where there is a govt subsidy, there is a private business to take advantage of that, and a govt to take advantage of the tax revenue it generates. I'm not disputing that fact.

You said the iPhone could not exist without govt. That is your theory, not a fact. My theory is if the demand is so strong for a product or service, if we lived in anarchy, private investment would fund cell phone infrastructure needed to deliver an iPhone into the hands of consumers.

So when you said -

The free market is only a meaningless concept to someone who supports a top down authoritarian directive.

It does actually exist. Look at consumer technology, what government department or agency do we have to thank there? We have more advancements at cheaper prices in all areas of consumer technology. This is a result of direct consumer influence, picking the winners and losers, not government intervention.

You didn't mean it actually exists? You meant theoretical possibilities? That didn't come across that way.

The funding for that infrastructure depends on the free market demand for it. As I've already stated, a government, as inefficient as it is, still does not build roads to nowhere and will not build infrastructure where there is no market demand.

So when you said the iPhone would not exist without government, you are saying that is a fact?

Do you think roads wouldn't be built without a government? Does government build roads where there are no services (demand)?

[lauren_knows]

This thread is now locked.    It resumed with personal attacks, and we just can't have that.