Slashdot Mirror

"But the purchasing power of wages has been steadily increasing or remaining constant."

No, it hasn't. Not even close. Get yourself a copy of "How Much Is That In Real Money?", by John McClusker. It has hard figures about purchasing power of the dollar over about 300 years. It ends in the late 1990s, but you can easily find figures for more recent years.

Chart that against wages. You will find that in recent decades, ever since the boom after WWII in fact, wages have not kept pace with real inflation.

Keep in mind that many economists will tell you that the government's official numbers for inflation are not realistic.

As far as I am concerned, anybody who takes Krugman seriously hasn't read their history. For years, Krugman has been tossing around economic theory that even very RECENT history (2008) proves wrong. Just one example: historian Thomas Woods easily refutes Krugman's statements from back around 2001.

The fact is that Krugman, over the years, has ended up with egg all over his face time, and time, and time again. If the Times weren't constantly printing him, I doubt many people would take him seriously.

The whole worth of a theory is its ability to predict. The whole worth of a prognosticator is HIS ability to predict. Which means that Keynesian economics and Paul Krugman are both failures.

Postal carriers are not elected in the U.S.. However, when I looked to see if dogcatcher is actually an elected office I found this article, which sums up the point I am trying to make. The fact of the matter is that my questions are not addressed just to you, but to the many people who express the sentiment you did, that there is no point in voting. Changing things takes a lot of time and effort. If you are not willing to put in that effort, don't complain that you can't change things.

"1) Deregulation - that's what allowed banks to create CDO bubble."

True. But are you sure THAT kind of deregulation is what Paul advocates? You would be wrong. Ron Paul actually voted against the bill that tore down Glass-Steagall! Ron Paul has shown quite clearly, from his voting record, that he is not "anti-regulation at all costs". He has opposed what most people now see as insane deregulation. So what are you trying to say here? Or are you just using implication to spread false impressions?

"2) Invisible hand of the market - like the rating agencies grading junk as AAA?"

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" was intended to apply to markets for goods, not money speculation. You are conflating two different things. Again, as I pointed out above, Paul did not support letting the financial market be a free-for-all.

"3) Gold standard and hard currency - the bubble has happened in the shadow banking system that over-leveraged the debt. Nothing in gold standard could have prevented it by itself."

If you think so, then you don't understand how Keynesian money-multiplication and fractional-reserve banking work.

Essentially, those concepts allow financial speculators to create money out of thin air. And Keynesian economics counts fiat currency as real money. But as we have clearly seen, most recently in 2008, such fiat currency can disappear as fast as it is created, or even faster.

Hard currency would indeed solve the problem, because speculators could no longer create nonsense "money" through mere financial transactions, and therefore neither could that money "disappear". It might move around, but somebody still has it. The money supply would be near-constant, and much more resistant to bubbles and crashes.

The state that spawned Lincoln is not to be trusted.

Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind-boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

If I'd live in the US I would vote for Ron Paul (because he's the only sane, yet sorta popular guy)

I find that a lot of Europeans are under the mistaken impression that Ron Paul is sane, largely due to his opposition to the invasion of Iraq and the War On Drugs.

Read what he has to say about economics, federalism and the social safety net. His views are pretty much antithetical to what you are espousing. You know all those people running around screaming "OMG NANNY STATE"? Well, Ron Paul is the guy in front with a bullhorn.

Here's a fun example of him being an idiot:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

I didn't notice libertarians express any disinterest when their corporations got government bailouts, paid for by taxpayers.

Were you looking for it at all?

I've never heard of a libertarian complain that the government interfered in blocking union workers from aggressive strike behavior.

Not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. Randians for example would not mind the government stopping violent thugs.

I've never heard of a libertarian complain that he didn't wish to receive Social Security or Medicare, when eligible.

When a robber offers to return some of what he stole from you it's not immoral to accept it back. Most libertarians believe that the same thing applies to the state and what it taxed from you.

but in my personal opinion, he's just as dirty, and should have been fired, too.

Fired? Cops don't get fired for beating and killing peons like you and me. They get a paid vacation...I mean disciplinary leave.
Cops aren't there to protect us from criminals (and as courts have repeatedly said, they're under no obligation to do so). They're there to protect the government class from its greatest foe: us, and to ensure that the other tax feeders can continue to suck us dry without fear that we'll resist. Once you understand the premise, it makes more sense.
William Grigg writes frequently about the constant abuse of power (and physical abuse of innocents) by the cops.

Doug Casey on Bitcoin and Currencies

L: Doug-Sama, we’ve had a number of readers ask for your take on this new Bitcoin system. As a person who likes to see the private sector compete in areas that governments try to reserve for themselves, this seems right up your alley – what do you think?

Doug: It’s a sign of the times. Lots of people are actively looking for an alternative to the dollar. I think Bitcoin is a very good thing, in principle. But after the recent disastrous hack, it’s probably a dead duck, at least in version 1.0.

It’s appropriate, however, that we’re talking about Bitcoin – an Internet-driven phenomenon – while you are in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan and I’m in Beirut, Lebanon, and we’re speaking essentially for free over the Internet. Money is increasingly going to be Internet-related. But first we should explain what Bitcoin is.

L: Sure. There’s a Wiki entry, but the basic idea is that Bitcoin is an online (and therefore digital), non-government-backed currency. It’s not backed by anything, actually, but that doesn’t seem to be a problem for many users. The system has been adopted by a growing number of people around the world in just the last two years. People are used to currencies not backed by anything, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am. On the other paw, unlike government currency, the Bitcoin system is based on a decentralized computer system that no single person or entity – including any government – has control over. That’s part of a design to keep the number of Bitcoins in circulation (inflation) strictly in check. So I can see why some people would see Bitcoin as being just like government currency, but better, because it’s supposedly inflation-proof.

That’s the idea, anyway, but in my view, it’s still not money – no more than unbacked government promises are. You can only use them among others willing to pioneer this cyber-frontier, so I really was quite surprised to see them catch on as well as they have. I’ve seen estimates that the market value of Bitcoins in circulation rose to about $130 million before they crashed last weekend.

Doug: Again, it’s quite encouraging to see that so many people are so disgusted with government currencies, and the total lack of privacy in banking. That’s why Bitcoin could catch on at all. But let’s go back to basics, and see if Bitcoin qualifies as money. Money is a medium of exchange and a store of value. Bitcoin may work as a medium of exchange sometimes, but not a very good one, because it’s proving so unstable. It has fluctuated so much in value over its short life that it is totally unsuitable as a store of value. Over 2,300 years ago, Aristotle identified the five essential attributes that are necessary for a good money

L: It has to be durable, divisible, convenient, consistent, and have value in itself. But don’t forget your own addendum of “can’t be created out of thin air infinitely.”

Doug: Right. Let’s see how Bitcoin stacks up. First, is it durable? As nothing more than ones and zeros on a computer network, it might seem that the answer is no – it’s certainly not as substantial as gold. But a Bitcoin is arguably a lot more durable than a piece of government-issued paper than can be lost, burned, or even fall apart in your jeans pocket if you forget to take it out before doing the laundry. Moreover, since the Internet was designed to be multiply redundant, and even able to withstand nuclear attack, it’s arguable the Bits won’t just disappear.

L: We should point out that the recent problem with a bunch of usernames and accounts being exposed was not a failure of the Bitcoin system itself, but apparently of the physical security of an intermediary business that interfaces between the public and Bitcoin. There

Except Hoover didn't do nothing. That's a myth perpetuated by our education system.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard184.html

Ignore the comments about LF capitalism, but the rest of the article is spot on.

Yes, he opposes the Civil Rights Act on principle and offers a harsh judgment on its effects. Here is part of his statement in Congress on the Act's 40th Anniversary:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The full statement can be read here.

This is yet another example of him holding his principles to a fault. In my opinion and experience his critique of the act is about half accurate. Certainly the Federal Government overstepped its bounds by forcing integration, and race quotas have historically been a hindrance to racial harmony. But at the same time, forced integration did a lot to familiarize different people-groups with each other and I suspect that the quotas were a big help to minorities in the beginning. There is of course no way of knowing how race relations would be today if the Act hadn't been put in place. My suspicion is that relations would be much better in some areas and much worse in others. I think the idea of trying to compare a hypothetical 50-year stretch of history to our own and calling one "better" is a folly, so stating that relations have improved "despite, not because of" the Civil Rights Act is weak sauce.

Actually, no:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bryan6.html

What you have in democracy is mob rule, where by simply voting, people's rights are suppressed only because a majority voted for something, no matter if it is fundamentally immoral or not. That is insane.

Meanwhile, entire populations of foreign countries are buried in mass graves, if they're lucky, dissolved in a barrel if they're not.

A factory I work with has a customer in Monterrey, Mexico. They had advised the factory's sales director not to visit the city because the violent crime rate is so out of control. For all intents and purposes, Monterrey is a developed city, and it has gone backward very rapidly largely due to the funds and weapons flowing from the U.S. government. The nation is at war with itself and we feed the fire with our abolitionist laws.

Certainly the death of your brother-in-law is a tragedy in itself, but the fact that it occurred supports the argument that the drug laws don't work. It always has been and still is easier for young people to get illegal drugs than legal ones.

But on the flip side, what about the Iraq veteran who was recently killed by a swat team who thought he was a drug dealer, when in fact he was a working class husband trying to survive? That family is devastated and the kid is going to suffer terribly for the rest of his life. Without a doubt this is a family that would still be together, the father alive, the kid some semblance of normal, if we did not have a 'war on drugs'.

I know we want to believe that passing a law solves a problem, but in this case the drug laws create far more problems than they solve. The violence worldwide, the violence at home. I have a friend who went through college with a guy who ended up becoming a public defender. He tells these terrible stories of people hopelessly addicted to meth (he's in a rural area), with terrible health, no teeth; visibly, clearly in a state of helplessness, sentenced to 1 year or more for possession of a drug. This is solving problems? Making people's lives better? Improving our society? Even Pat Roberston is beginning to see the failure of these policies. Surely you can, too?

Just a bunch of political nazi's trying to control the world any way they can. This is a decent article on the subject. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lowi6.html

have you read it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Opposed to Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Voting_Rights_Act
He felt the federal interference mandated by the bill was costly and unjustified because the situation for minorities voting is much different than when the bill was passed 40 years ago.
The bill also mandated bilingual voting ballots upon request, and in a letter opposing the bill for this reason, 80 members of Congress including Paul objected to the costly implications of requiring bilingual ballots. In one example cited in the letter, the members detailed how Los Angeles spent $2.1 million for the 2004 election to provide ballots in seven different languages and more than 2,000 translators, although one of the requirements of gaining United States citizenship is ability to read in English, and another California district spent $30,000 on translating ballots per election despite receiving only one request for Spanish documents in 16 years.

Opposed to Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion-related_legislation
Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of abortion." However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level." He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

so the man is a hardcore follower of the constitution (a truly rare trait these days) and a supporter of strong property rights - how uncool...

Or do you mean helped like the way the Catholic Church maintained a stance of indifference during the holocaust on grounds of "neutrality"?

You mean how he had to walk a fine line between doing everything possible to condemn atrocities without provoking people who could very easily send a batallion to take out the Vatican? Or how he _personally_ saved the lives of thousands of Jews in Italy and helped support the rescuing of hundreds of thousands more? Or how the Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Christianity after seeing the Pope's example and took the Pope's first name "Eugenio" as his baptismal name?

These links give a pretty good summary:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/vat_hol12.htm
http://www.zenit.org/article-29766?l=english
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods48.html

Read a little history and don't just swallow the leftie and commie propaganda.

This sounds like more zero tolerance police state crap. Have a look at this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead26.1.html

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932134&cid=34740048
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932134&cid=34740098

Also, from:
    http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14401
"Merck spokesperson Amy Rose refused say how many trials Merck contracted to CROs or what percentage of the Gardasil subjects these contractors recruited in the Third World. She also refused to specify how, or even if, the company oversees CROs. Many consumers assume that the FDA carefully monitors CROs. But the agency hobbled by under-funding, politicization, and dependence on industry fees has few resources to assess foreign trials and relies on drug companies. "

On the point in your sig, and maybe a way to get better research by less conflict-of-interest in funding:
    http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/robots-jobs-and-our-assumptions/#comment-392

On keeping people healthy for cheap:
    http://www.amazon.com/Disease-Proof-Your-Child-Feeding-Right/dp/0312338058
    http://lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html
    http://www.iodine4health.com/
    http://www.ravediet.com/preview.html
    http://www.bluezones.com/

But that's the problem -- there are no enormous profits in natural wellness; the only big profits are in palliation and treatment for sickness or random attempts at "magic bullet" wellness through phrama stuff.

It's always a pleasure to listen to Dr. Paul...

Does that include when he says something racist? Or anti-science? Or ahistorical and against the separation of church and state?

Ron Paul is a fscking dingbat. That fact that he's right in this issue doesn't change that.

There are a small handful of votes where Ron Paul has voted in a way that would be upsetting to left-liberals (gay adoption in DC comes to mind), but aside from that, I don't think there is anyone in DC more passionately committed to personal freedom than Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is anti-science, anti-choice, anti-separation of church and state, a liar (in that he's given two contradictory stories about the controversial racist statements that appeared in his newsletter), and either a racist or incompetent to run a 'zine.

A great deal of his faux-libertarianism is about removing federal safeguards against state governments and big business fscking you over. Ron Paul wouldn't know personal freedom if it bit him in the ass.

The fact that he still makes more sense than most of the G.O.P. is an indictment of the conservative movement, not an endorsement of Paul.

How's this?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

How's this?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Ron Paul may have some decent ideas about smaller government, but he's a religious loon, creationist who doesn't believe in evolution.

For more of the history of school: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm

A key section is here:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gatto/gatto-uhae-16.html
as part of another archive:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gatto/gatto-arch.html

For more of the history of school: http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm

A key section is here:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gatto/gatto-uhae-16.html
as part of another archive:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gatto/gatto-arch.html

My comment on another article: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1692444&cid=32644166

Basically, many researchers keep looking for a magic bullet they can patent, but overlook the basics they can't patent (like vegetables&fruits&legumes, exercise, sleep, meditation, humor, friendships, dogs, a clean environment, good work, peace of mind, etc.)

Examples:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html
    http://www.alternativeratreatments.com/eat-to-live.html
    http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about
    http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C
    http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC
 

Brilliant. Let's all rely on nuclear energy, which, if it were the primary replacement for fossil fuels, would run out even faster than oil.

It's nice that France uses nuclear, and it is nominally carbon-neutral, but you cannot solve the climate change problem with nuclear power. Nuclear fuel is hard to make, and the raw materials needed to make it won't even last one human lifetime if we use it at the rate we use fossil fuels.

Where did you get that idea? According to this (which took me all of 1 minute with Google), we have 24,000 years reserves using our current inane reactor designs. If we start allowing breeder reactors (which France does, incidentally) the number goes up by a factor of 20 or so.

Socialists and communists are more likely to know where the Lincoln Memorial is anyway. Lincoln is pretty much their hero.

"What a moronic statement."

Oh really? Funny how it always comes back up.

If you outlawed coffee tables, then people who own coffee tables are criminals by definition.

The difference is that a gun - or a sword, or a knife, or any other weapon - is designed to change the balance of power in a fight.

If you outlaw guns (or swords, or knives), then the vast majority of the population becomes UNARMED. This makes it that much easier for an armed criminal - already a scofflaw - to commit crimes. The statistics bear it out; in Britain, police outlawed guns, and outlawed any knife which could possibly be drawable and usable in a fight. The result? Massively increased knife crime. Their low numbers of gun crime are related to a general disdain for guns societally (hunting with guns having been an "elite" occupation), but gun crime is now on the rise there despite the incredibly restrictive laws.

Washington, DC outlawed guns, and during the period when they were outlawed, they spent several years as the gun-crime capital of the US.

Perhaps we should rephrase it for people like you. Does "If you outlaw weapons, you disarm the populace while doing precisely Jack Crap to prevent criminals who don't give a shit about the law from getting weapons" work better for you?

You wrote: "I think I was the only person in Detroit to see it coming. I looked at what japanese cars were out there, the build quality, mileage, price, etc.then looked at the insane detroit horsepower wars with ancient car designs, just throw more pushrod engine at the situation.. I went "these people are all loony tunes crazy" and quit."

I guess part of the problem with predictions is where does it leave the individual who believes them when it is so out of step with what everyone else believes? There you felt you needed to quit your job because your accurate beliefs were so far out of touch with the self-delusion (though presumably you moved onto something better, but for many, that may be the end of a profitable career). In the 1970s, Amory Lovins was one of the people who predicted oil shocks and said, all externalities considered (including security costs and pollution), renewables where cheaper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power

For some people, they turn that prediction into money through investments (though it takes money to make money, plus business savvy, luck, connections, etc.). Although sometimes that entails other ethical compromises.
"From Predators to Icons; How to succeed as an entrepreneur : The New Yorker"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse_thread/thread/9b81e569f28d8739

But for most people, there is not much you can do with that knowledge (other than, as you did, on a very local scale). My wife had a related metaphorical idea, of moving above the scene of the world and having a great vision of what was "reality", but then that vision not always being that helpful when you come back to Earth. As I said elsewhere, what good does it do to the fly to know the chemical composition of amber? Still, there may be some use, since people are not flies and have more capacity to act (like you did, to improve your local self sufficiency). A related post by me that touches on some of that:
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/6819187b74f4b7db

Still, as I heard recently, talking about alternative stuff can help create small communities of practice, that are working towards common goals, or at least inspire others to think about stuff going on in that area. For example, Home Power Magazine has long been an inspiration to me.

Also, the trends are not all bad. I predict that between curing vitamin D deficiency (Dr. Cannell) and people eating more whole foods (Dr. Fuhrman) the USA may save upwards of a trillion dollars a year in medical costs. Just one supporting point:
"A Decade Of Vitamin D Supplementation Would Save $4.4 Trillion Over A Decade"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html
So, that's good news to go with the bad. The future is a mix of both. What's really crazy is that, if you realize that, giving health care (including nutritional counseling and access to whole foods) to everyone in the USA is really affordable.
"Eat an Apple (Doctor's Orders)"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/business/13veggies.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=business

So, it is sad to see all the misinformed arguing and all the needless suffering, whether of sick people with preventable disease, accomplished machinists and toolmakers who lose their chance to make lots of useful stuff, or even kids suffering in prison-like schools.
http://www.thewaronkids.com/
One alternative public school is documented here (and AERO lists many alternatives)

And so I should believe Lew Rockwell and the heirs on Ludwig von Mises? The latter pretty much lost me when he claimed in Human Action that there are two social sciences: praxeology, which is (almost?) entirely apriori; and history, which is (almost?) entirely empirical.

As for Mr. Rockwell, he would have more credibility if he did not post the anti-vaccination views of Mike Adams
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/adams-m7.1.1.html . I prefer pharmaceutical companies making windfall profits to having a repeat of the 1918 flu pandemic.

I think it's a little more involved than that. The Federal Reserve drops interest rates to get banks to borrow more. Theoretically, they're supposed to turn around and invest it in loans so they can earn more than it's costing them. Then the greedy businessmen get their nefarious hands on it (probably through doing something unscrupulous like building something people want to buy and then selling it to them) and it winds up getting invested in some hot new stock/commodity/whatever.

Speculators jump on that trend and drive the price artificially higher, until the bubble bursts and we start blowing up another.

The problem isn't really that greed's just part of human nature. It's that the central planners are manipulating the system by injecting more money (aka inflation) at an interest rate so low that people can't resist.

As a side note, we'd probably be in the middle of hyper-inflation right now if the banks were holding up their end of the bargain. They're borrowing like hot cakes at the current ridiculously low interest rates. But then they're just sitting on that cash (i.e. losing money). Most people seem to think that's to bolster their cash reserve for some unfathomable reason. I suspect it's some sort of shady way for the Fed to keep juggling its smoke and mirrors.

Booms and busts have probably always been with us (not that pretty much anyone has ever tried true free market capitalism, so who knows? It might be the silver bullet for them too). They've just gotten much worse since the Federal Reserve kicked in and the Keynsians got prominent.

But I wasn't talking about booms and busts. I was talking about Black Swan Events (wikipedia has a pretty good explanation). The basic idea is that the market is just too complex for central planners to deal with. Sooner or later, something they can't possibly foresee will come along and collapse their house of cards.

Gary North explains Black Swan Events much better than I can.

I never said the financial and banking industry was unregulated. I said they're as close to unregulated as they've been able to manage, and they're usually lobbying to have existing regulations removed.

Actually, you said:

The entire banking fiasco of the last few years is what happens when the financial industry has as close to a free market as they can get.

As close as they can get is not the same as "as close to unregulated as they've been able to manage." The banks have had to manipulate the market (with government assistance for which you blame the bank when it was the SEC that defined it) to continue doing business because they were practically forced (by the government) to give loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back. If the government came up to you and said, "Give money to this person even though you'll probably never see a dime back" how would you react? That's exactly what happened with the housing industry and they are trying to do it again. With all these requirements, people were deceived as well to think that they could extend the equity in their homes to "pay off" debt through a HELOC. This was defined by the SEC as acceptable lending. And I don't know if you know this, but the SEC is a federal agency.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/24103.html

Go back to sleep Slashdot. It's all just a hoax. Your government has everything under control.

You are not people. You're not even animals. You are a CASH MACHINE FOR GOVERNMENT. That is all you are good for. If you go around trying drugs or hard reading or sounds or anything that might have the potential to expand your consciousness, you may become unsuitable. You may become defective. You might wonder why you aren't treated like a person, you might wonder if your work is benefiting you or if it's benefiting systems that are inimical to your interests. Subconsciously, the powers and principalities KNOW what they are doing and why you must, above all, not grow your field of perception.

So believe in Jeebus or believe in Big Bang or believe in anything you want as long as you don't actually THINK about it and keep the money coming.

It's not about drugs or violence or THE CHILDREN or any of the usual excuses. It is about engineering submission that is holy and immaculate and eternal. It is a war, a real war, which extends throughout the Earth and into the supernal and unnamed realms and it is a war which humankind continually invents new ways to lose.

Sheesh, next you'll deny the economic crisis was actually caused by the government forcing poor old mortgage companies to extend loans to money-grubbing poor people!

you're a retard who only sees what he wants. yes there are tea-partiers who are too trusting of their local police. however, most are mistrusting of any government power.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/05/kill-them-all-for-god-will-know-his-own.html

there. a "teabagger" who is extremely skeptical of police power.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/

or there, the most prominent tea-party related blog which is across-the-board skeptical of government power. at least they're consistent.

here's a recent one on police:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58090.html

but noo... only good Democrats are skeptical of police power. Like this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer

give me a break.

you're a retard who only sees what he wants. yes there are tea-partiers who are too trusting of their local police. however, most are mistrusting of any government power.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/05/kill-them-all-for-god-will-know-his-own.html

there. a "teabagger" who is extremely skeptical of police power.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/

or there, the most prominent tea-party related blog which is across-the-board skeptical of government power. at least they're consistent.

here's a recent one on police:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58090.html

but noo... only good Democrats are skeptical of police power. Like this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer

give me a break.

According to this a majority of the Marines (61%) said they would not participate in an illegal order directed against American civilians. Remember that members of the US military swear an oath to uphold the Constitution....

Unfortunately the government kept the hand of the Free market away. Read Curing Cancer: A Patent Impossibility (written in 2007) for the details. Here is an excerpt:

The bad news is that it is a simple, inexpensive chemical long used in medicine, and is not patentable. Thus there is no mechanism for getting the chemical (dichloroacetate, DCA) past the billion-dollar barrier of FDA approval.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).

Oh now that is bullshit.

the only way your argument works is if you are the type of person who ignores any amendments made to the Constitution even though ANY amendment is constitutional so long as it's passed according to the rules setup in the constitution itself.

You can't ignore them just because you personally don't think they are correct.

Oh, really? Are you sure about that? Certainly the Speaker of the House ignores it. Others don't think they are supposed to be the least bit concerned about it. Often the POTUS just signs executive orders to bypass all the rules whenever they want to create new rules

Bachmann: Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority to the treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken.

Geithner: Every action that the treasury and the fed and the FDIC is.been using authority granted by this bodyby the Congress.

Bachmann: And in the Constitution, what could you point to?

Geithner: Under the laws of the land, of course.

Then there are the Constitution-free zones

Napolitano on ignoring the Constitution also, the transcript.

How on earth do they make up laws like "Asset Forfeiture" and still claim to be constrained by the Constitution? They can't

But you don't get to decide that! That's what people such as yourself don't seem to want to understand.

You always throw up completely anecdotal "examples" of your claims of the "vast conspiracy" to ignore the constitution, but you seem to forget the little part in the constitution that says (Article Three Section 2, precisely):

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

That means that the judgement as to whether anything is or is not constitutional is not in the purview of ANYONE other than the Supreme Court of the United States ...that includes anyone playing arm-chair constitutional scholar.

If anyone feels anything is not being done in accordance with the United States Constitution, then you have a SUPREME RESPONSIBILITY to attempt (they would have to agree to hear it) bring the matter before the Supreme Court.

The fact that no one has tells me volumes.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).

Oh now that is bullshit.

the only way your argument works is if you are the type of person who ignores any amendments made to the Constitution even though ANY amendment is constitutional so long as it's passed according to the rules setup in the constitution itself.

You can't ignore them just because you personally don't think they are correct.

Oh, really? Are you sure about that? Certainly the Speaker of the House ignores it. Others don't think they are supposed to be the least bit concerned about it. Often the POTUS just signs executive orders to bypass all the rules whenever they want to create new rules

Bachmann: Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority to the treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken.
Geithner: Every action that the treasury and the fed and the FDIC is.been using authority granted by this bodyby the Congress.
Bachmann: And in the Constitution, what could you point to?
Geithner: Under the laws of the land, of course.

Then there are the Constitution-free zones

Napolitano on ignoring the Constitution also, the transcript.

How on earth do they make up laws like "Asset Forfeiture" and still claim to be constrained by the Constitution? They can't

can only advise you all to read Lew Rockwell's Anti-environment manifesto http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/anti-enviro.html

The carrier battle group is obsolete, the Navy just doesn't wan't to admit it.

Good thing that its posted AC. It's not an original work. But it has also been passed around a lot, minor refinements made, and without attribution since it was authored. The short essay is apparently originally titled I AM AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE SHITHEEL

It's at least as old as September 09, 2009.

Found an older reference at reddit around August 08, 2009.

And somebody attributed that likely the original author posted to the Laissez Faire subforum on Something Awful (Jul 24, 2009) as randomnoise. Some attribution also to a 4chan post (but nothing older than SA post was found)

But seems to be more less plagiarized or inspired (depending on your P.O.V.) by a short rant in July 2004. Also found at michaelmoore.com August 2004, by John Gray, Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican. But, I think the original author is generally unknown.

And then there's the Libertarian response in October 2004 to THAT titled Statist Joe by Gil Gullory, a Halliburton employee.

A basic income would eliminate poverty (and was endorsed by Nobel Prize winners):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
http://www.usbig.net/
http://www.pdfernhout.net/basic-income-from-a-millionaires-perspective.html
The right amount of vitamin D would reduce sick care costs by maybe a third in industrialized countries:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
A good diet, occasional fasting, and moderate exercise would reduce another third or so of sick care expenses by helping people break out of a pleasure trap from supernormal stimuli:
http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Trap-Mastering-Undermines-Happiness/dp/1570671508
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X
Single payer health care in the USA would reduce expenses (for paperwork) by a third as well (these are not all additive, of course):
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer
Reinstating regulation on children's TV might help prevent damage to kids:
http://www.amazon.com/War-Play-Dilemma-Childhood-Education/dp/080774638X
http://www.amazon.com/So-Sexy-Soon-Sexualized-Childhood/dp/0345505077
A more vegetarian diet would also free up three-quarters of agricultural lands in the USA:
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm
Renewable energy has been cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear, when you factor in the externalities, like pollution, defense spending, and risk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil-gas-crude/461
Switching to electric cars would probably reduce our electricity use, and eliminate the need for much oil (since it takes more electricity to refine the oil into gas than it would to run electric cars the same distance as a gallon of gas in an ICE car):
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
We can develop the technology of being able to produce almost anything from commonly found raw materials:
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
We know how to make healthier communities:
http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about
http://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Americas-Depression-Epidemic-Community/dp/1933392711
Nuclear weapons and military robots are ironic because the same technology could produce abundanc

Adequate vitamin D (the sunlight vitamin) helps prevent pneumonia:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pneumonia+vitamin+d

At the end of the winter, Ed Roberts' vitamin D supplies would have been depleted.

The right amount of vitamin D also helps prevent influenza, cancer, heart disease, and a variety of other illnesses:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

All computers should come with a warning label about this, IMHO. :-)
    http://blogs.intel.com/csr/2010/02/with_all_of_the_debate.php

I'd suggest it is possible that vitamin D deficiency is the leading cause of death of computer users including most slashdotters. See also:
    "A Decade Of Vitamin D Supplementation Would Save $4.4 Trillion Over A Decade; Would Save $1346 Per Person Per Annum"
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html

What do you mean? Are you saying that beer and alcohol trigger the same kind of weight gain that HFC does?

This Common Food Ingredient Can Really Mess Up Your Metabolism

Most cancer can be prevented or sometimes cured with the right amount of vitamin D3 (5000 IU daily as a base for most adults with a few exceptions, but you need a blood test periodically to be sure), a diet of mostly organic natural foods (whole grains, fruits, vegetables), occasional fasting, and moderate exercise -- along with quitting smoking and some other lifestyle changes, and living in a cleaner environment (especially clean water), and some positive emotions, spirituality, and community helps too. These things (especially the right amount of vitamin D) will also sometimes prevent or sometimes cure a good amount of the many other chronic diseases of our modern society as well like heart disease, diabetes, depression, -- and maybe even autism which may result in part from inadequate vitamin D by parents before conception, during pregnancy, and while nursing (as dermatologists have told us all to fear the sun and we also live indoors more at screens). For references to all this, see:
Vitamin D:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/cancerMain.shtml
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/new-harvard-paper-on-autism.shtml
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-october.shtml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html
Fasting and better diet:
http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Trap-Mastering-Undermines-Happiness/dp/1570671508
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X
http://books.google.com/books?id=nRurn6C142YC
Lifestyle and cancer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-schattner/we-are-all-fat-and-have-c_b_506247.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html
Exercise:
http://www.letsmove.gov/
Community infrastructure:
http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about
Positive emotions, community, and spirituality:
http://books.google.com/books?id=RKZreNYKNHQC
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C

Magic bullets like this RNA-loaded nanoparticle stuff are potentially great (if they have no side effects), but how about just encouraging (and making easy) the simple things first?

We don't have to wait for magic bullets to cure most ill health. Why not put a few trillion US dollars into these things? It would be enormously cost effective. One link above suggests curing vitamin D deficiency alone in Western Europe would save US$4.4 trillion dollars in health care expense over a decade (the USA might see a comparable amount in savings). Of course, in our current economic and sick

You see, that's what people think health insurance is: just a way to get others to pay for their problems. Socialism and its "single payer" system will arrive eventually, it will just take a while. First, all the people who have insurance now will stop buying it. Insurance costs $6400/year while the fee for not having it is $700. Furthermore, many states have already passed nullification laws prohibiting the federal government from charging you the above fee, so if you live in, say, Idaho, you will not have to pay a thing. Then, when you get cancer, you can simply go to any insurance company and buy coverage at that point; the company will be forbidden to turn you down for this preexisting condition. Then employers will eventually start doing the same thing. The fee for employers not providing insurance is higher, $3200, but it is still higher than the coverage premiums. So the boss will tell you to just buy insurance when you need it and take an extra $2000/year raise (or not).

The insurance companies will start losing lots of money, since only the sick will be subscribed, and will raise your premiums. If price controls are instituted (and they will be), the insurance companies will start going bankrupt. Then we can have another huge bailout bill for the "too big to fail" ones, which will then end up being mostly owned and financed by the government. They will stay that way because there is no way to turn a profit when you stop being "insurance" and become "entitlement". Then we'll get another health reform bill, where the government will step in, raise everyone's taxes and just pay for health care itself, like most of the other countries do.

Of course, you'll have to contend with various problems that will bring, like long waiting times, care rationing, and "for your own good" legislation. But at least, everyone will finally be equal.

immigration (and how to block it and throw everyone not "belonging" here out),

Ron Paul isn't anti-immigration. On the issues quotes him as saying "Weak economy is source of resentment against immigrants. (Dec 2007)" Then it has him going further explaining his position. He wrote The Immigration Question in 2006. So as far as immigration is concerned Ron Paul is open minded.

minority protection (or avoidance thereof)

Again from On the Issues:
"Inner-city minorities are punished unfairly in war on drugs. (Sep 2007)"
However the NCAAP rates him at 39%, "indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action".

elimination of religion as far as possible (at least every kind that doesn't "belong" here, in short, Islam)

On religion Ron Paul has the position that government and religion should be kept separated. He said "Bush's faith-based initiative is 'a neocon project'".

On the Issues has more on where Ron Paul stands on various issues. Now you say right wing means something different in Europe than it does in the US. Well Ron Paul doesn't meet Europe's definition of right winger either.

Religion is generally not a big deal in EU politics. I haven't heard a politician invoke $deity for whatever reason, actually.

Unless it's Islam. Not everyone is okay with the religion, there are some groups who oppose Muslims.

Falcon