A teeny tiny government with 1 person in it can still mess with investments on a global scale all the same if they are allowed to do so. It 'fixes' nothing.
The size and scope of a government is not what makes bad performers perform badly. It's bad people combined with bad policies. How bad is a different topic (there is no absolute 'badness', but there are definitely differences).
The larger the size and scope, the more opportunity there is for bad actors. More cracks to slip through. More tills to dip into.
It’s not the factor that makes a person corrupt, but the bigger the government, the more room there is for more corrupt people.
As others here have alluded to, our problem is quality, not quantity.
I also want to point out the various dictatorship that have bankrupted countries. Sadam Hussain, various kings and queens over time , etc
So you can't prove that a smaller government would be less corrupt
How would smaller government have helped the FTX situation rather than make things like that much more common and worse?
>The fact that the greatest investor in the US is Nancy Pelosi, AND she actively prevented legislation limiting insider trading by US Congress Members, should tell you that the government is not going to just get better by hoping the right people are voted-in. You need to systemically cut off their power and give that power back to the people.
Restricting Congress members from trading would be big government and more regulations, not small and fewer.
What FTX situation? I have not given a cent to FTX, my kids have not given a cent to FTX, nobody I personally know have lost anything with FTX. More regulation (which in this case I don’t need) will cost me money spent to enable and enforce it.
Now, exactly what regulations we need to prevent companies from spending customers’ money on executive homes? All regulation you need to prevent this is on the books for some hundred years.
"Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another's position." [0]
Empathy is a two-way street. Could you please ask these biggest and “smartest” investors to have some empathy to me, so they would do their homework before allocating huge amounts of capital? Instead of asking for more of my hard-earned dollars to improve… exactly what?
There are so many people in the world more deserving of empathy.
https://gsiexchange.com/a-list-of-investors-whose-money-in-f...
Look at the list of the biggest FTX losers (I’ve just submitted it to the thread). These people have enough resources to police themselves effectively. I would agree to add taxpayers’ (mine) money to the picture no sooner than I see people who are allocating huge amounts of money without any homework going to jail.
When we have leaders living under that kind of microscope, maybe I’ll start trusting them.
In a situation where massive fraud was committed by a corporation because the government inaccurately blocked government oversight, your solution is to decrease the size of the government... presumably meaning the oversight never would have been attempted in the first place.
Crypto is exactly where libertarian advantages should be manifesting - the advocacy of a small government is exactly _more_ situations like FTX.
So for each accident: how bad was in the injury, cost, permanent damage, and recovery time. Then compare that between both groups.
For example it could be that although wearing a helmet increases the risk of an accident by 15% it decreases the risk of serious brain injury or long term damage by 60%. If that were the case then the helmet is beneficial.
It's a paradox for a reason -- it is counterintuitive. Do you have studies or proof that "small government" may be helpful here, or is this a position that you hold from before that you are justifying here?
Is that a legitimate fact? I'm pretty sure Warren Buffet is better than her, maybe he's not the best but the point is you lied then got mad when downvoted