Richard Barnes

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson

Email: lildog@comcast.net

Entries in free market (1)

Thursday
May242012

SpaceX and the Free Market

I always get a kick out of liberals when discussing the free market.  They are so bent on justifying government solutions and attempting to prove that the free market is bad that they fail to follow logical thought through.

Case in point, SpaceX the private rocket that launched this week toward the international space station.  Our friends over at Blue Hampshire came so close understanding how it proves the free market is better but fell apart right at the end.  You can read their observations HERE.

Free market competition really does do wonderful things. It produces innovation that a low-risk, consensus project - the sort of project we demand of government - cannot.

But the way the free market innovates is, dozens or hundreds of companies - usually start-ups, sometimes blue chips - make bets that the average bear would not make. And most of those bets fail, taking the whole start-up or division with them.

That's a good model for innovation! Evolution works that way, too!

Based on the above you'd think they had it and finally opened their eyes.

Bad ideas fail.  Good ideas thrive.  And when an even better idea comes along it eventually replaces the first good idea or forces that first one to get better.  And so on and so on making everyone better off for it.

But alas Blue Hampshire just doesn't follow their logical train of thought all the way through and concludes with:

But when some damn fool Republican says, that's how we should deliver health care, or education, or retirement security, I just wonder how stupid they really are. That would mean millions of school kids, or patients, or elderly happen to draw the wrong innovator - and end up with broken lives.

When there is no innovation or chance of the "wrong innovator" failing as in the case of government millions DO end up with broken lives and not only that when they realize their only choice isn't working for them they have no other options to pick from either.

I ask our friends at Blue Hampshire to take an honest look at education.  We have several learning styles yet a public school can only teach to one single style.  They are not able to innovate new and creative ways to teach because of the heavy regulations placed on them by state and federal level governments.  There is no growth or evolution because it's stifled and killed off while failing schools are not allowed to fail and be replaced by better ones because government not only continues to prop them up but throws even more money at the failing schools in hopes of improving them, rewarding bad performance.

This model is the complete opposite of the free market our liberals friends just confirmed worked.

The closest they come to this next step in the logic train is in the following comment made to the article:

Not that government is "better" or "worse" than the free market. The two systems are built to solve different problems.

The free market is great for innovate and driving costs for popular goods and services down. But it will refuse to guarantee service to all - whether that is education, or health care, or electricity.

Government will do that, but isn't designed to innovate or drive costs down.

That is a true statement, a free market school for instance will not guarantee service to all... however if there is a market for a service there will be someone willing to provide that service to those left out by another business.  That's another way free market works.

Take cars for instance.

Lamborghini does not "guarantee service to all" because their cars are far outside the price range most people can afford.  Also I'm not aware of any their cars offering more then 2 seats so that excludes anyone with a family.

Jeep makes larger SUVs with plenty of seating which many families want so they take advantage of the segment of the market Lamborghini ignores.  However someone looking for a smaller car for a long commute which gets good gas mileage are excluded by both Jeep and Lamborghini.  There are though several other options that fits every type of individual need.

Even handicapped people are able to find someone willing to fill their needs in the market with custom vans equipped with wheelchair ramps etc.

Of course the car market also shows failure of government.  Chevy Volt comes to mind.  Here's a car that for several reasons should never have been allowed to survive and instead of the free market forcing a company to innovate and improve or fall to the sidelines allowing better companies to step into their place the government artificially propped up a failing product costing tax payers millions of dollars.