Henry Waxman and "market failure"
Struggling media will need government help: US congressman
The newspaper industry is suffering "market failure" and the government will need to help preserve serious journalism essential to democracy, an influential US congressman said Wednesday.
"The newspapers my generation has taken for granted are facing a structural threat to the business model that has sustained them," said Representative Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California.
...
"We cannot risk the loss of an informed public and all that means because of this market failure," he said.
Be you a libertarian or a minarchist or a voluntarist or whatever, it's important to be well versed in the curious dialect embraced by the modern socialist-authoritarian movement for two key reasons: one, simply for the sake of absorbing a greater breadth of knowledge on this sociological/psychological animal, and two (far more importantly) to spot bullshit quicker than any other known method known to man. Here's what Henry Waxman and the rest of the vermin have taught us about "market failure":
* AIG: Market failure
* Lehman Bros.: Not market failure
* Fannie/Freddie: Market failure
* Bear Stearns: sort of market failure
* Auto industry: Market failure
* Illicit drug industry: Not market failure
* Dangerous drugs slipping past FDA: Market failure
* Countless drugs that will never come to market due to FDA: ???
In other words, nothing. You can't learn squat from it because the concept these two words supposedly encompass does not exist. Calling a subjectively deleterious event or condition a "market failure" would be analogous to Michael Phelps calling a swim loss an "Olympic failure." For whom is this loss the failure, Phelps? Certainly you and your endorsements and sponsors. Questionably certain elements of the population at large such as your family and fan base. Certainly not for your opponents in the race. For whom is this loss the failure, Waxman? Certainly you and your constituents in the wealthiest district of media-driven LA county. Questionably certain elements of the population, although they obviously don't care enough to pay more to offset the lack of interest. Certainly not the paper's competitors who have developed a better concept.
The idea of "market failure" arose for precisely the same reason as our democratically-elected overlords arose: some men feel an innate superiority to and desire for dominion over their fellow man, and will delve the depths of human conscience (and the peaks of human creativity) in order to convince others that they're right. "Market failure" is Waxman projecting his feeling that his and his most important constituents' interests are paramount to everyone else's, no different than the "war on terror" and the previous administration's middle east interests. A government "of the people" is the modern mechanism by which these sinister men bring their fantasies to fruition. The government is the problem. If "democracy" (of any flavor) requires a state to function - a group of overlords, however appointed or anointed - then democracy is broken, empirically, historically, conceptually, morally, ethically, pragmatically, and any other way you care to dice it.
The newspaper industry is suffering "market failure" and the government will need to help preserve serious journalism essential to democracy, an influential US congressman said Wednesday.
"The newspapers my generation has taken for granted are facing a structural threat to the business model that has sustained them," said Representative Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California.
...
"We cannot risk the loss of an informed public and all that means because of this market failure," he said.
Be you a libertarian or a minarchist or a voluntarist or whatever, it's important to be well versed in the curious dialect embraced by the modern socialist-authoritarian movement for two key reasons: one, simply for the sake of absorbing a greater breadth of knowledge on this sociological/psychological animal, and two (far more importantly) to spot bullshit quicker than any other known method known to man. Here's what Henry Waxman and the rest of the vermin have taught us about "market failure":
* AIG: Market failure
* Lehman Bros.: Not market failure
* Fannie/Freddie: Market failure
* Bear Stearns: sort of market failure
* Auto industry: Market failure
* Illicit drug industry: Not market failure
* Dangerous drugs slipping past FDA: Market failure
* Countless drugs that will never come to market due to FDA: ???
In other words, nothing. You can't learn squat from it because the concept these two words supposedly encompass does not exist. Calling a subjectively deleterious event or condition a "market failure" would be analogous to Michael Phelps calling a swim loss an "Olympic failure." For whom is this loss the failure, Phelps? Certainly you and your endorsements and sponsors. Questionably certain elements of the population at large such as your family and fan base. Certainly not for your opponents in the race. For whom is this loss the failure, Waxman? Certainly you and your constituents in the wealthiest district of media-driven LA county. Questionably certain elements of the population, although they obviously don't care enough to pay more to offset the lack of interest. Certainly not the paper's competitors who have developed a better concept.
The idea of "market failure" arose for precisely the same reason as our democratically-elected overlords arose: some men feel an innate superiority to and desire for dominion over their fellow man, and will delve the depths of human conscience (and the peaks of human creativity) in order to convince others that they're right. "Market failure" is Waxman projecting his feeling that his and his most important constituents' interests are paramount to everyone else's, no different than the "war on terror" and the previous administration's middle east interests. A government "of the people" is the modern mechanism by which these sinister men bring their fantasies to fruition. The government is the problem. If "democracy" (of any flavor) requires a state to function - a group of overlords, however appointed or anointed - then democracy is broken, empirically, historically, conceptually, morally, ethically, pragmatically, and any other way you care to dice it.