BRAWO - dwa zespoły w I lidze . Kielce NAJLEPSZE !!! i zostaną mistrzami !!!!!!!

I think this makes a correct point in the acasrtbt. However, it doesn't look much like the way we solve problems in practice. In any given case, the typical problem-solving procedure is to identify a problem, study it to determine the cause of the problem, formulate potential solutions to the problem, analyze the pros and cons of various solutions, and choose one that presents the best projected benefit, at the lowest possible cost. At least that's how it should work in a given case. Certainly, the government pays lip service to that in practice the SEC is required to demonstrate a cost-benefit analysis for every rule it puts into place, and Justice Scalia's son has made a cottage industry out of suing the SEC in Court on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and other interest groups. Now, in reality, we all have certain biases. Some people believe more in government's ability to make good policy than others. Some believe more in government's ability to implement policy than others. But I find that, on the whole, the right is much more reflexive in its judgments in our system. If there's a problem, the problem MUST be government. If there's a solution, the solution MUST involve less government. That attitude has come starkly into focus in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The crisis was an obvious failure it's been almost 3.5 years since Lehman Brothers collapsed, and unemployment is still well over 8%. Those who looked at the data saw that the crisis was a very obvious market failure regulations in place were insufficient, and regulators charged with overseeing the markets were asleep at the wheel, or were ideologically opposed to any market regulation (Alan Greenspan being the prime example). Nevertheless, in a case of either mass cognitive dissonance or outright dishonesty, there's been a massive effort to recast the market failure as a result of too much government and too much regulation rather than too little. Fannie and Freddie must have been the problem, they assert, ignoring the fact that mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie substantially outperformed private label mortgages. Barring that, the Community Reinvestment Act must have been at fault (ignoring the absurdity of blaming a housing bubble that began inflating in the early 2000s on a statute passed a quarter century earlier that didn't cover the vast majority of institutions churning out messy mortgages). Point out those problems, and you'll hear a diatribe about how awful government is. That's not to say that Fannie and Freddie were blameless, upstanding institutions their very existence in the form they took was a disaster, and they certainly will need to be re-examined and refocused in a significant way going forward. But there's nothing inconsistent about acknowledging both that Fannie and Freddie were poorly constructed institutions prone to crony politics and poor incentives, and acknowledging the simple truth that their existence was neither necessary nor sufficient for the financial crisis. That's not to say that more government is unabashedly good, or that it's the solution to every problem, or even most problems. Rather, government is one of many tools for solving various problems. There are cases where it's useful for government to play a direct role in putting together a military, building roads, and providing education and law enforcement. There are cases where government can play a valuable supporting role in making markets more efficient by demanding disclosure of financial information for public companies, ensuring transparency in financial markets, and protecting parties from being taken advantage of by those with more information, and pricing externalities such as pollution and gridlock on roads through targeted minor interventions. There are also cases where government has certainly overreached deregulating the airlines in the 1970s has contributed to cheaper air travel by a factor of about 3; New Deal financial regulation likely went too far in a number of key areas; and the welfare system had become ineffective and lacked focus by the 1990s. The point, I think, is that finding solutions requires an honest assessment of problems. That can mean action by government, it can mean government taking a different approach than it had been taking, or it could mean acknowledging that government involvement is counterproductive. For a time, government was likely too involved in the economy and needed to step back. Over the last thirty years, the trend has gone too far the other way the knee-jerk reaction is that government must be the problem and less government must be the solution. I think today's problem is the belief, without regard to evidence, that every problem must involve too much government, and every solution must involve deregulation and less government.