Slashdot Mirror

If someone else is paying for my healthcare, why should I care what it costs?

For example, when my grandmother was dying of cancer, Medicare and her supplemental picked up 95+% of the tab. Her doctor sent her to a nutritionist at first, as a way of acknowledging the mountain of research that proves nutrition is an important part of health. Grandma later said, "she wanted me to eat 5 servings of vegetables a day. She's CRAZY!" The doctor never mentioned nutrition again, and stuck to the high-tech/high-cost treatments he'd been trained in. She died after six months, after having spent $50k+ of other people's money.

A year ago I started seeing a Doctor of Osteopathy in the Cranial Field for some Osteopathic Manipulation. He works from a home-office, has an answering machine for an assistant, answers all his own messages, and basically does everything himself. He gives me a receipt that I can submit myself for insurance reimbursment, if I so desire. He doesn't accept insurance because a) he'd need an employee to handle the billing b) his practice is full regardless c) many insurances are likely to disallow his kind of therapy, or pay him pennies on the dollar.

In January I decided to see a homeopathic M.D. to see if there was something I could do about my cold hands. After taking an extensive history, he decided that my autonomic nervous system was probably out of balance, and injected me with novocain (same as what dentists use to numb the mouth) in a couple locations. He also gave me a couple of homeopathic remedies, and some fish oil/vitamin E at the next visit. I'm out $400 or $500 for his services, and am totally pleased with the results. He doesn't bill insurance either, also because it's not worth his time.

If I'd gone the conventional route, my insurance would've had to spend $2000 or $5000 on diagnostic tests (an MRI goes for $1000, and CAT scans aren't cheap either), $20,000 on hand surgery/whatever, and I still would've had the problem. As it is, I've spent approx $5,000 with the D.O., and I'm totally satisfied because the treatment program works.

Health Insurance should be carried for accidents, because you never know when you might have a $40,000 medical bill (like me, 8 years ago: a helicopter flight, a plane flight, a cat scan or two, 10 days in the hospital, etc...). But we should all pay our way, for the costs associated with living.

Modern Medicine has evolved with almost univeral insurance coverage, so our doctors have the mindset of "if cost were no object, what would I do?" (this is not a concious thing, but a mindset that gets passed from generation to generation of medical professionals) Which explains why there are so many $60,000 heart bypass surgeries being done, even though some researchers say that bypass surgery belongs in the medical archives, because it is almost universally incompatible with the patient's long-term outcome. I clipped a story from the paper a few weeks back about a guy who died in his 50's, 3 weeks after having a bypass operation. Re-plumbing the heart while ignoring the rest of the vascular system seems like a foolish way to go about attaining health. But it makes the heart surgeon wealthy, so why should he do anything else?

See also:
100 years of Medical Robery
Real Medical Freedom

They want to PROGRAM, not talk to customers all day.

That's why a programmer in a vacuum is useless. All manufacturing laborers (ie, programmers) need additional people to bring their manufacturer product to market. Would a guy who spot welds auto parts be fine by himself?

If you're charging for service, you've actually got a big financial incentive NOT to make your product straightforward and bug-free; the only reason you're even MAKING a product, from a business standpoint, is so that you have something to fix.

This is only true when you have government-granted monopoly powers of various kinds. People who write bad code don't necessarily last long without government favoritism. Those who write good code will find customers to help them implement new features -- no customer has unique needs that can't be marketed to all their competition. In the long run, it is this growth of customer base through positive past references that builds profit competitively.

But is a novelist supposed to give away his books for free (or for the price of distribution)? If so, how is he supposed to make a living? Are we back to the old model of artists finding wealthy patrons and writing sycophantic dedications to them in front of every book?

I published two books (one self, one through a publisher) that I always gave out freely. The books allowed me to do public speaking engagements for a fee, as well as drove people to my print newsletters that I charged for. Also, I was able to charge for autographed versions of the book if people so desired (some did). In the long run, I made more money on a 5000-run book than most authors make on a 50,000-run book published by the publisher's cartels. In fact, there are many authors of 100,000-sale books who never earn their advance. I publish my blogs for free, and since I started in November my billable rate has only gone up due to the customer base that has appeared around it. Why should I charge for what is basically marketing? One of my blogs has afforded me 3 international trips to talk to people who financed the trips -- again, why should I charge for marketing?

The Mises Institute offers almost all their e-books for free, even though you can buy them at Amazon.com. Go to Amazon and look up any of their books. For example, What has Government done to our money is available at Amazon (ranked #8971 yesterday), but you can download it for free at the publisher. Why do people buy it?

But I don't buy the argument that it's a universalizable business model.

Of course it isn't. Some products that are very hard to reverse engineer and get working in a niche market are likely not going to get copied. If I make a program that helps gay chinese midgets track their daily intake of chitin, will you pirate it? Probably not. But the 50 people out there that want the product will buy it. On the other hand, if you make a product that could have 10 million customers, why should you have a monopoly on it? 10 million customers means there is room for all to play competitively by making the best product they can at the best price possible. You balance support with pricing, your competition will also, and both can profit.

They want to PROGRAM, not talk to customers all day.

That's why a programmer in a vacuum is useless. All manufacturing laborers (ie, programmers) need additional people to bring their manufacturer product to market. Would a guy who spot welds auto parts be fine by himself?

If you're charging for service, you've actually got a big financial incentive NOT to make your product straightforward and bug-free; the only reason you're even MAKING a product, from a business standpoint, is so that you have something to fix.

This is only true when you have government-granted monopoly powers of various kinds. People who write bad code don't necessarily last long without government favoritism. Those who write good code will find customers to help them implement new features -- no customer has unique needs that can't be marketed to all their competition. In the long run, it is this growth of customer base through positive past references that builds profit competitively.

But is a novelist supposed to give away his books for free (or for the price of distribution)? If so, how is he supposed to make a living? Are we back to the old model of artists finding wealthy patrons and writing sycophantic dedications to them in front of every book?

I published two books (one self, one through a publisher) that I always gave out freely. The books allowed me to do public speaking engagements for a fee, as well as drove people to my print newsletters that I charged for. Also, I was able to charge for autographed versions of the book if people so desired (some did). In the long run, I made more money on a 5000-run book than most authors make on a 50,000-run book published by the publisher's cartels. In fact, there are many authors of 100,000-sale books who never earn their advance. I publish my blogs for free, and since I started in November my billable rate has only gone up due to the customer base that has appeared around it. Why should I charge for what is basically marketing? One of my blogs has afforded me 3 international trips to talk to people who financed the trips -- again, why should I charge for marketing?

The Mises Institute offers almost all their e-books for free, even though you can buy them at Amazon.com. Go to Amazon and look up any of their books. For example, What has Government done to our money is available at Amazon (ranked #8971 yesterday), but you can download it for free at the publisher. Why do people buy it?

But I don't buy the argument that it's a universalizable business model.

Of course it isn't. Some products that are very hard to reverse engineer and get working in a niche market are likely not going to get copied. If I make a program that helps gay chinese midgets track their daily intake of chitin, will you pirate it? Probably not. But the 50 people out there that want the product will buy it. On the other hand, if you make a product that could have 10 million customers, why should you have a monopoly on it? 10 million customers means there is room for all to play competitively by making the best product they can at the best price possible. You balance support with pricing, your competition will also, and both can profit.

I agree partially but mostly disagree with you.

You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech

Actually, money is time -- you get money when you save someone time in doing a service or providing them a product. The money they give you their time saved -- they received in doing the same thing for someone else. Rothbard's (free e-)book available here offers a simple explanation of what money is.

Because money is my time saved, I should be free to use my time (or time saved) as I want as long as I don't directly use that time to harm someone's person or property. If I want to use my time saved ("money") to promote something, I should be free to.

The difficulty I have with campaign finance laws is that they were written specifically to prevent me from using that time saved in the way I want to. They were written to keep both parties more powerful than the individual, and to also block any third party from using a smaller crowd of individuals to finance their elections.

The biggest problem with government today is that it is too powerful, taking over rights left to the individual. When a government gets powerful, it attracts the time-saved ("money") from powerful individuals. It uses this over-broad power to harm the masses at the profit of the few.

If you want to fix the system, you need to remove the powers they've taken against their Constitutional and ethical limits. Ridding Congress and the Executive Branch of their excessive powers will remove most people's desires to finance the elections in order to get favoritism-treatment (ie, cronyism).

The idea of public funding is bad because there are other laws preventing most people from getting on a ballot. The problem is not the funding, the problem is the power given to the elected.

> the school doesn't NEED your self centered, obnoxious ass around anyway.

Right back at you, there, buddy! School is a business, students are customers, that's why it costs money to attend, and why you don't work for free!!!

The real question is, Will the University Survive? the arrogance of academics, such as yourself, who believe you are immune to the demands of the marketplace.

Every time I see someone post something about FairTax, I'm just reminded of how unfair the proposition is. Please consider the following link, and scroll to the bottom to see the "Problems" listing. Post rebuttals, if you have time and care to. Sorry, "Fair"Tax just irks me a lot.

http://www.mises.org/story/1975

You're right, I don't believe that so-called externalities should be given special consideration. That is a result, not of ignorance of modern economic theory, but rather the fact that the theory of externalities is itself internally inconsistent. To begin with, no additional correction is needed in cases where real, measurable harm results, because such cases are no different than any other violation of property rights; the typical example of pollution comes to mind. Furthermore, in any given situation, either one person is criticized for failing to exert additional effort to help his neighbor, or the latter is criticized for failing to contribute in proportion to the benefit received. You cannot have both. If the former "imbalance" is corrected, then the latter will exist, and visa-versa. Lastly, every single trade creates an external benefit for the rest of society. Do you really intend to compensate both parties involved in every trade throughout the economy? Even if you could do so, the best result that could be hoped for would be the maintainance of the status quo. There could be no net benefit from such a subsidy.

See also: "Collective Goods" and "External Benefits": Two Arguments for Government Activity

Free markets, by your definition, also fail to optimize utility.

How so? The optimization of utility is generally considered a result of the free market system, not part of its definition. I see nothing in that definition which is inconsistent with the optimization of utility. Additionally, the definition I gave is essentially the same as the one used by economist Murray N. Rothbard in Man, Economy, and State, and he certainly appears to claim that adherence to those rules tends to result in the maximization of utility.

Like most other economic systems, the free market does depend on the concept that individuals will attempt to maximize their own utility. Utility is defined by the individual's own choices; any action that the individual expects to lead to a net disutility (with respect to the best known alternative) would not be performed, provided that all actions are voluntary rather than coerced. Therefore, the principle of rational self-interest is a correllary, not an independent rule.

States do not define terms; people do. You hardly need a state to give meaning to the word "property." In a free market, the definition of "property" is logically derived from the rules I listed. The derivation itself is fairly involved and somewhat off-topic, so I chose not to include it in the original comment[1]. Some basic attributes of property are that it must be scarce[2], it must be owned (controlled) by one or more individuals, and that it can be acquired either through voluntary exchange, as a voluntary gift, or by investing labor in previously unowned resources (a.k.a. "homesteading"). These have all been considered aspects of property under common law even in the absence of state regulation, and this is the only definition consistent with the definition of the free market.

Currency is nothing more than a specific kind of property generally agreed upon (by individuals, not governments) as a common medium of indirect exchange. Like property, currency does not depend on the state for its existance, and has existed, and continues to exist, in areas where no state holds jurisduction.[3]

[1] If you're really interested in the derivation, see Man, Economy, and State by economist Murray N. Rothbard.
[2] There would be no conflict over non-scarce resources, and thus no need for ownership.
[3] For a review of the history of indirect exchange, including currency, see chapter 3 of Man, Economy, and State.

States do not define terms; people do. You hardly need a state to give meaning to the word "property." In a free market, the definition of "property" is logically derived from the rules I listed. The derivation itself is fairly involved and somewhat off-topic, so I chose not to include it in the original comment[1]. Some basic attributes of property are that it must be scarce[2], it must be owned (controlled) by one or more individuals, and that it can be acquired either through voluntary exchange, as a voluntary gift, or by investing labor in previously unowned resources (a.k.a. "homesteading"). These have all been considered aspects of property under common law even in the absence of state regulation, and this is the only definition consistent with the definition of the free market.

Currency is nothing more than a specific kind of property generally agreed upon (by individuals, not governments) as a common medium of indirect exchange. Like property, currency does not depend on the state for its existance, and has existed, and continues to exist, in areas where no state holds jurisduction.[3]

[1] If you're really interested in the derivation, see Man, Economy, and State by economist Murray N. Rothbard.
[2] There would be no conflict over non-scarce resources, and thus no need for ownership.
[3] For a review of the history of indirect exchange, including currency, see chapter 3 of Man, Economy, and State.

Uh, no they're not. What's "required" is that consenting adults create a contract with each other agreeing how to go about accomplishing something that they will all benefit from. When I want to build a house, I don't need a monopoly...I need the architect, the various contractors, and the bank to all agree on the same outcome so that the process and result of building a house is beneficial to us all (the architect gets paid for the plans, the contractors get paid for executing the plan, the bank profits by financing the plan, and I benefit by living in the house). This is simple, but nothing changes when dealing with phone numbers, IP addresses, networks, or anything. Businesses and individuals get together realizing that sharing expenses is more beneficial and economical than competing on every level and thus are perfectly capable of creating contracts with each other without government interference.

Personally, I would have liked to see MANY differnet internet protocals and organizational models compete with each other so that prices, performance, network security, speed and reliablity could have been in competition with each other...but YOU want everyting to be exactly the same so that there is no competition (and thus, no incentive to improve) and no incentive to reduce prices? No thanks. I'll take free market competition over the "neccessary" monopolies any day.

When these monopolies are controlled by profit motivated corporations, or control motivated governments, we all suffer.

Actually, the opposite is true. When a marketplace is saturated by "profit motivated corporations" then we have this thing called "competition." And competition drives down prices and improves quality and or performance. The government on the otherhand, when it issues a monopoly to itself or its pork barrel buddies, has no competition. They can charge whatever the hell they want and they don't even have to be accountable for their inevitable failures. If they fail, they'll just say they didn't tax your enough and needed more money...and they'll say that every year until the end of time because the money will never be enough to satiate their political greed. I'll take profit motivated corporations that have to compete with each other any day of the way, again.

Bottom line: teach yourself some economics, because your current comprehension of how the world actually works is just plain wrong.

The natural result of minimum-wage laws is inevitably unemployment. A worker cannot receive more in wages than that same worker produces for the employer. If the minimum wage exceeds the worker's DMVP (discounted marginal value product, or "productivity"), then that worker will remain unemployed as a direct result of the minimum wage. Furthermore, the real minimum wage -- the total cost to the employer -- is much higher than the "official" minimum (50% higher at least) due to payroll taxes, mandantory employment benefits, and overhead. Of course, those workers who do manage to maintain their employment will be able to demand a higher wage as a result of the restricted supply of employable workers, but their gains will not exceed the detrimental effects of the artificial unemployment.

For a more thorough discussion of the economic effects of price controls (including minimum wage laws), see this analysis by Murray N. Rothbard.

Yet money was not a creation of government, in fact historically money was created by private citizens looking for a medium of exchange, and then over time government has destroyed money in each and every case where they've gotten involved in.

Here's a great book: free, electronic, and a very quick afternoon read: What Has Government Done To Our Money?" by Murray N. Rothbard. Go grab it, print it or send it to your PDA, and read it. It is an amazing book written decades ago that still holds true today.

Money is the most important item in society since it allows us to store the work we've performed for someone else and redeem that work for the work of another. It is only government's intrusion into money that has destroyed wealth, savings and created the class warfare that exists today.

Pay almost twice as much as number two

American health care is so expensive not because of a failure of the free market. In fact, we already have quasi-socialized medicine. This country has more government regulation and restrictions in healthcare than even Cuba does (and Cuba is communist!). Read this; this will explain my viewpoint. The AMA is to the medical industry as the RIAA is to music industry.

We don't need even bigger government controlling our health care. Do you really want your health care to be dealt with in the same way as a DMV line (which is a problem in Canada, long lines for health care services). We need less government involved in medicine so that way the market can do its thing and competition can arise. Monopolistic cartels like the AMA need to be divorced from the government so that way people can choose from a wider range of doctors. People should be able to buy their medicine from foreign countries and not be restricted to whatever the government tells them to buy. This will drive down prices of both medicine and treatment and make health care much more affordable.

We don't need socialized medicine. We already have socialized medicine for the disabled, poor, and elderly, and everybody has to deal with government regulations and restrictions on healthcare. We need free-market medicine.

You're still missing my point. You're still conflating government with society.

Government shouldn't force citizens to pay for socialized health care, nor any other socialist program. Period. No "society" excuses, no "social contract" mess, none of that stuff. Government is not society. Socialized health care hurts free market providers of health care by adding layers of bureaucracy and needless government restrictions on medicine, health care, and doctors. Socialized health care also forces all citizens (or the rich ones) to pay directly to causes for other people. If you want more information, read this; it will explain it much more thoroughly.

Government is not society. Society is not government. Governments don't "look out for the less fortunate" by stealing from the rich. They look out for the less fortunate by leaving people alone. Using government to force people to accept some grand, idealistic, pie-in-the-sky humanitarian social goal doesn't work. Voluntary organizations are much better at helping the poor, disabled, and unhealthy than any government bureaucratic mess does.

Why do you think that the government is so good at solving social problems? And before you criticize my laissez-faire policies, why don't you look back at the history of the world. Governments didn't become socialist until the 20th century. Before then, people relied on the market for just about everything. And (gasp) it worked. Government doesn't solve problems, it just creates problems.

libertarianism is nothing but selfishness with a philosophical bumper sticker stuck on its ass that somehow purports to elevate it to respectability.

Libertarianism, in essence, is classical liberalism. Are you calling John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Hayek, and Milton Friedman supporters of selfishness? Selfishness is the last quality that I would equate with these people. Where and why do people equate libertarianism with selfishness; somebody please tell me before I go off.

the only people who take this shit seriously are earnest but naive college students with too much philosophy classes under their belt and no real life experience, 40-something selfish assholes behind on their alimony payments, and nutjobs who horde guns in the woods and consider themselves to be part of the minutement militia, 2 centuries hence

And what does that make you?

Libetarianism is about civil liberties and free-market economics. The socialism that you are pandering doesn't work in the long run and restricts the freedoms of its citizens. One very fallacious error that leftists make is that they claim that government should be "compassionate" and forcibly take money from the most successful in society and give it to the poor because all rich people are selfish (or some other theme). However, governments cannot be compassionate, because governments are entities of force. You should read this article which further explains my viewpoint.

You need to get some books and read them before you spew all of this ignorant crap about a political philosophy that you do not fully understand.

What you are saying is very close to what many Keynesian economists believe -- the same economists teaching ECON101 and teaching the general public a myth that is now a lie.

I'd highly recommend going and download Rothbard's free and tiny e-book: http://www.mises.org/money.asp

Inflation is directly caused by government printing money out of thin air. Then, they lower interest rates (the Fed policy) to give people easy credit and easy money. If I put $500 into your pocket today, you'd spend it. If I gave $500 to every person in this country that never existed before, they'd all spend it at the same time. All this new money in the system will make sellers raise prices (added demand, lower supply) which is how inflation sneaks in.

Even worse, government uses inflationary creationism to force a hidden tax on you. Every year, your salary goes up but not enough to cover the REAL costs of inflation. This means you slide into higher tax brackets, causing you to pay more taxes on less income.

Taxation is theft, plain and simple. Inflation by the Fed is an even bigger crime.

YOU could do yourself a favour reading some good criticism of macroeconomics nonsense.

You could do your business a favor by reading some basic book on macroeconomics.

You could do your personal financial situation a favor by checking out everything the parent poster has to say on the subject, as well as this book which I know he is going to point you to: http://www.mises.org/money.asp

Of course, when advocating for an end to government regulation on utility monopolies, Liberatarians place all the blame for their existence on the government and offer no concrete ways in which total deregulation will get past the problem of entrenched infrastructure and economies of scale.

I'll counter with a quote from Milton Friedman inside of this Wikipedia article:

Nobel economist Milton Friedman, said that in the case of natural monopoly that "there is only a choice among three evils: private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, and government operation." He said "the least of these evils is private unregulated monopoly where this is tolerable." He reasons that the other alternatives are "exceedingly difficult to reverse," and that the dynamics of the market should be allowed the opportunity to have an effect and are likely to do so (Capitalism and Freedom).

I'd rather deal with an unregulated monopoly than a regulated monopoly (as long as that unregulated monopoly doesn't try to monopolize another commodity). I am firmly against government intervention in the economy. Natural monopolies can still be defeated using market techniques if you really want to defeat the monopoly. Regulated monopolies are government sponsored and can never go away. We don't want nationalized or heavily regulated industries; they hurt the economy and the consumer more than an unfettered natural monopoly does.

[What] "libertarian" state will you point to to show your point? There has never been one...

Somalia -- the world's only free market economy. This is the "paradise" you dream of when you wish to eliminate the government monopoly on deadly force. It's not a happy place, because when there is no monopoly on force, rule of the strong becomes the rule of law.

WRONG. Somalia is not a libertarian state, it resembles an anarchocapitalist state. Learn your definitions. Sorry, kiddo, you lost major points with your argument.

Libertarians recognize that the government has a monopoly on force. Libertarians, however, recognize that there are legitimate usages for using government power (the military and law enforcement are big examples). That is what separates libertarian from anarchocapitalism. When you start bringing up Somalia in an anti-libertarian tirade, you lose major points in your argument. It clearly shows your ignorance of libertarianism.

Poverty is oppression; wealth is freedom and power to take wealth from others. A system with no checks and balances on the wealthy is a system that increases the number of people falling into poverty.

A government that steals money from those who are economically successful is an illiberal, Robin Hood-esque government (and I'm using liberal in the classical sense here). Why pick on the rich? Oh, yeah, silly me, I forgot. (Picks up a red book). This red book here says that rich people are greedy and selfish, so they need to be heavily taxed. Getting back to the topic, redistribution of wealth doesn't help the poor improve their economic situation; it only keeps the poor impoverished, and the poor remain dependent on the "safety net" forever. Poor people are also hurt by lack of capital, lack of property (real estate), and lack of education. Egalitarianism makes everybody equally poor, and egalitarian goals like redistribution of wealth are completely opposite to the goals of liberty. Read this article, and then read another quote by Milton Friedman:

A society that puts equality - in the sense of equality of outcome - ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom. On the other hand, a society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-p

The Libertarian economy: Runaway to Ruin

Please explain how laissez-faire economics lead to ruin. (And please don't use the classic Great Depression argument; the Great Depression was caused by the Fed's mishandling of failing band and worldwide inflation caused by central banks moving away from the gold standard and printing too much money. Google for Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard; they present alternative views to the Great Depression).

Libertarianism is like communism: both look great on paper.

It depends on your definition of libertarianism. If you equate libertarianism to anarchocapitalism, then I will be obliged to agree with you. Anarchocapitalist theories are logical and I do read articles from The Mises Institute every day, but I don't think anarchism of any form works in the long run, and if it did, it isn't the optimal solution. Pure communism is anarchy, but no country has voluntarily adopted a voluntary communist system. Instead, deranged dictators who read all of Marx's books and didn't read any other philosophy and like what they hear gain power and make the state have ultimate, unlimited power, which is contrary to theoretical communism.

However, I believe that minarchism (small government) can and will work. In the United States framework of government, the federal government can take care of the military, interstate highways, money supply (although the Federal Reserve should be replaced with a gold standard), and upholding the Constitution and other liberty-minded laws. Issues such as education, health care, scientific research, housing, social safety nets, and others are best handled by society, states, counties, cities, communities, families, or individuals; the federal government should back out of those issues.

Libertarians never seem to understand that lifting all constraints from powerful organizations ultimately means the end of freedom and democracy. Why can't they see the end game of their simplistic thinking?

I am assuming that you are talking about deregulation of corporations. Now, I am not completely laissez-faire in deregulation; I support anti-trust laws and other regulations that support fair business practices, because they help keep the markets competitive; restrictions of the growth of monopolies is an integral part of having a free market, IMO. I also agree that the laws about corporations being treated as people should be scrapped. However, I believe that too much regulation hampers freedom. We don't need price controls, government inspection of products (a private corporation could do the same), tariffs, 100-year old copyrights, FCC, (insert other regulatory function here).

I believe in environmental regulation, however. However, I am a supporter of free market environmentalism. Free market environmentalism combines taxation of pollution, upkeeping of government- and privately-owned parks and wildlife reserves, and other ideas that combine protecting the environment with free-market ideas.

Libertarianism constitutes the ultimate in linear thought processes.

Well, libertarianism is the most consistent of all of the political ideologies that I studied. However, it isn't illogical.

The central problem (and irony) with big-L Libertarianism is that ultimately, in this linear system of thinking, all liberty is lost. Libertarianism always seems to leave out the concept of the big-power players, who obviously will always exist and will always work to build their power at the expense of the masses. Libertarianism leads to a feudalist society with no liberties. That's why I say Yes to small-l libertarianism for individuals, and No to big-L Libertarianism for corpora

the free market naturally leads to harmful monopolies, "boom and bust" cycles, de-skilling and mechanization, and a lot of other bad things.

Wow. I am impressed. You have listed specific effects of legal restrictions, government control of the money supply, minimum wages, and somehow blamed them on "free" markets. Seriously, I am impressed, I'm not saying that to be sarcastic.

it's a matter of economic fact. Put down that Ayn Rand and start reading the work of some serious economists.

If I post the links, will you bother reading them?

Business Cycle Primer http://www.mises.org/story/606

Murrey Rothbard Monopoly and Competition http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp

A Critique of Neoclassical and Austrian Monopoly Theory http://www.mises.org/story/1800

Politics Causes Unemployment http://www.mises.org/story/1782

Abolish the FDA http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar17.html

the free market naturally leads to harmful monopolies, "boom and bust" cycles, de-skilling and mechanization, and a lot of other bad things.

Wow. I am impressed. You have listed specific effects of legal restrictions, government control of the money supply, minimum wages, and somehow blamed them on "free" markets. Seriously, I am impressed, I'm not saying that to be sarcastic.

it's a matter of economic fact. Put down that Ayn Rand and start reading the work of some serious economists.

If I post the links, will you bother reading them?

Business Cycle Primer http://www.mises.org/story/606

Murrey Rothbard Monopoly and Competition http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp

A Critique of Neoclassical and Austrian Monopoly Theory http://www.mises.org/story/1800

Politics Causes Unemployment http://www.mises.org/story/1782

Abolish the FDA http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar17.html

the free market naturally leads to harmful monopolies, "boom and bust" cycles, de-skilling and mechanization, and a lot of other bad things.

Wow. I am impressed. You have listed specific effects of legal restrictions, government control of the money supply, minimum wages, and somehow blamed them on "free" markets. Seriously, I am impressed, I'm not saying that to be sarcastic.

it's a matter of economic fact. Put down that Ayn Rand and start reading the work of some serious economists.

If I post the links, will you bother reading them?

Business Cycle Primer http://www.mises.org/story/606

Murrey Rothbard Monopoly and Competition http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp

A Critique of Neoclassical and Austrian Monopoly Theory http://www.mises.org/story/1800

Politics Causes Unemployment http://www.mises.org/story/1782

Abolish the FDA http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar17.html

the free market naturally leads to harmful monopolies, "boom and bust" cycles, de-skilling and mechanization, and a lot of other bad things.

Wow. I am impressed. You have listed specific effects of legal restrictions, government control of the money supply, minimum wages, and somehow blamed them on "free" markets. Seriously, I am impressed, I'm not saying that to be sarcastic.

it's a matter of economic fact. Put down that Ayn Rand and start reading the work of some serious economists.

If I post the links, will you bother reading them?

Business Cycle Primer http://www.mises.org/story/606

Murrey Rothbard Monopoly and Competition http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp

A Critique of Neoclassical and Austrian Monopoly Theory http://www.mises.org/story/1800

Politics Causes Unemployment http://www.mises.org/story/1782

Abolish the FDA http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar17.html

I'm sure you've read this, so this URL is for the benefit of those who may not be have seen it:

http://www.mises.org/story/1970

would you mind reading just one free tiny e-book that covers mine? http://www.mises.org/money.asp This is Rothbard's basic book regarding money and what government has done to destroy the economy.

I went ahead and read it, and the author makes the same mistake that all advocates of the gold standard make: they fail to understand that currency and value are separate. Further, the author completely misunderstands the role of the central bank (The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank) in a paper money economy: which is to stabilize the relationship between currency and value. This deliberate stabilization is impossible in a gold standard economy (more precisely, there are too many players who can influence the quantity of currency in circulation in a gold standard economy to know who they are, let alone understand their motivations).

I admit, most people don't understand why certain pieces of paper are more valuable than others, but that lack of understanding does not mean that we should revert to the gold standard (which has an equally misunderstood relationship between currency and value). All the gold standard buys you is less control.

Government destroyed our currency by getting off of a 100% reserve system in 1913. It has destroyed any reason to save (the best way to create a strong economy is through savings, not public credit),

This statement presupposes that inflation alone is a disincentive to savings. Which is false.

The incentive to save is based on relative returns. If the available interest rate of savings accounts is above the inflation rate, there is an incentive to save. At the moment, this is not true. After taxes, bank interest rates on savings accounts, most CD's and most money markets are below the inflation rate. But this inversion of returns, and the problematic incentives that provides is a recent (over the last 20 years) event, not stretching back to 1913.

You'll have to come up with another theory. I agree that bank regulation is to blame, but to describe a new set of regulations that provide for banks to make a profit on savings and to offer a competitive interest rate is beyond my limited knowledge of economics and monetary theory.

Regards,
Ross

Wow, we are so far apart from each other in beliefs that it would be hard to further the debate.

I've read all the books you use to support your side, would you mind reading just one free tiny e-book that covers mine? http://www.mises.org/money.asp This is Rothbard's basic book regarding money and what government has done to destroy the economy.

I am against big business as well because I believe big business grows out of abusing government's laws. I also believe these laws were written with this abuse in mind.

Government destroyed our currency by getting off of a 100% reserve system in 1913. It has destroyed any reason to save (the best way to create a strong economy is through savings, not public credit), and it has destroyed the ability for us to compete in the world market with our regulations and business controls.

Its a bigger question than can be answered on slashdot, but here's a good start:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1704

Are you honestly telling me multiple companies are all going to lay sewage pipes so that you can choose which one to hook your toilets up to?

No, because I don't know how to do that. I am also not going to tell you that they won't, which is a judgement that you are making out of hand.

What I will tell you is that there are alternatives to sewage lines. Chemical toilets, composting toilets and the like have been around for a very long time.

The provision of such services through taxation creates a situation of monopoly because there is always a legal restriction placed upon the service at the same time. For example, a San Jose, California, professor at SJSU was doing a course on recycling. The entirety of the "garbage" his household generated was about one pint per trash pickup cycle. He was taking that in to the school to demonstrate to his class what was possible, and thus thought he didn't need to pay for the garbage can provided by the city.

No Such Luck! The city prosecuted him for failure to pay for the trash service he wasn't using.

Do I get to not pay school taxes if I do not send a kid to government school? Do I get to not pay sewage taxes if I use a composting toilet? Do I get to not pay for trash pickup if I generate no trash?

Government granted monopolies create inefficiency not only in the usual "waste, fraud and abuse" that government efforts are always rife with, they also prevent innovation by removing money that might have been spent on replacing that government service with something valued higher by the consumer.

Roads? By Cromm, not that old standby. Have you read none of the arguments already published on that matter? Here, have a couple:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control =202

http://www.mises.org/story/1704

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds164.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory27.html

You can do better than that, can't you? How about prisons? "Justice"? Those, at least, require real thought to refute.

Bob-

Are you honestly telling me multiple companies are all going to lay sewage pipes so that you can choose which one to hook your toilets up to?

No, because I don't know how to do that. I am also not going to tell you that they won't, which is a judgement that you are making out of hand.

What I will tell you is that there are alternatives to sewage lines. Chemical toilets, composting toilets and the like have been around for a very long time.

The provision of such services through taxation creates a situation of monopoly because there is always a legal restriction placed upon the service at the same time. For example, a San Jose, California, professor at SJSU was doing a course on recycling. The entirety of the "garbage" his household generated was about one pint per trash pickup cycle. He was taking that in to the school to demonstrate to his class what was possible, and thus thought he didn't need to pay for the garbage can provided by the city.

No Such Luck! The city prosecuted him for failure to pay for the trash service he wasn't using.

Do I get to not pay school taxes if I do not send a kid to government school? Do I get to not pay sewage taxes if I use a composting toilet? Do I get to not pay for trash pickup if I generate no trash?

Government granted monopolies create inefficiency not only in the usual "waste, fraud and abuse" that government efforts are always rife with, they also prevent innovation by removing money that might have been spent on replacing that government service with something valued higher by the consumer.

Roads? By Cromm, not that old standby. Have you read none of the arguments already published on that matter? Here, have a couple:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control =202

http://www.mises.org/story/1704

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds164.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory27.html

You can do better than that, can't you? How about prisons? "Justice"? Those, at least, require real thought to refute.

Bob-

Are you honestly telling me multiple companies are all going to lay sewage pipes so that you can choose which one to hook your toilets up to?

No, because I don't know how to do that. I am also not going to tell you that they won't, which is a judgement that you are making out of hand.

What I will tell you is that there are alternatives to sewage lines. Chemical toilets, composting toilets and the like have been around for a very long time.

The provision of such services through taxation creates a situation of monopoly because there is always a legal restriction placed upon the service at the same time. For example, a San Jose, California, professor at SJSU was doing a course on recycling. The entirety of the "garbage" his household generated was about one pint per trash pickup cycle. He was taking that in to the school to demonstrate to his class what was possible, and thus thought he didn't need to pay for the garbage can provided by the city.

No Such Luck! The city prosecuted him for failure to pay for the trash service he wasn't using.

Do I get to not pay school taxes if I do not send a kid to government school? Do I get to not pay sewage taxes if I use a composting toilet? Do I get to not pay for trash pickup if I generate no trash?

Government granted monopolies create inefficiency not only in the usual "waste, fraud and abuse" that government efforts are always rife with, they also prevent innovation by removing money that might have been spent on replacing that government service with something valued higher by the consumer.

Roads? By Cromm, not that old standby. Have you read none of the arguments already published on that matter? Here, have a couple:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control =202

http://www.mises.org/story/1704

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds164.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory27.html

You can do better than that, can't you? How about prisons? "Justice"? Those, at least, require real thought to refute.

Bob-

Are you honestly telling me multiple companies are all going to lay sewage pipes so that you can choose which one to hook your toilets up to?

No, because I don't know how to do that. I am also not going to tell you that they won't, which is a judgement that you are making out of hand.

What I will tell you is that there are alternatives to sewage lines. Chemical toilets, composting toilets and the like have been around for a very long time.

The provision of such services through taxation creates a situation of monopoly because there is always a legal restriction placed upon the service at the same time. For example, a San Jose, California, professor at SJSU was doing a course on recycling. The entirety of the "garbage" his household generated was about one pint per trash pickup cycle. He was taking that in to the school to demonstrate to his class what was possible, and thus thought he didn't need to pay for the garbage can provided by the city.

No Such Luck! The city prosecuted him for failure to pay for the trash service he wasn't using.

Do I get to not pay school taxes if I do not send a kid to government school? Do I get to not pay sewage taxes if I use a composting toilet? Do I get to not pay for trash pickup if I generate no trash?

Government granted monopolies create inefficiency not only in the usual "waste, fraud and abuse" that government efforts are always rife with, they also prevent innovation by removing money that might have been spent on replacing that government service with something valued higher by the consumer.

Roads? By Cromm, not that old standby. Have you read none of the arguments already published on that matter? Here, have a couple:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control =202

http://www.mises.org/story/1704

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds164.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory27.html

You can do better than that, can't you? How about prisons? "Justice"? Those, at least, require real thought to refute.

Bob-

In anarchy deepened by local warlords, private interests swooped in to provide essentials like water, telephones and electricity, though not in the most efficient ways. The three telephone companies, for instance, operate entirely independently of one another. Having access to all people with phones means having three telephone lines -- one from each company.

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets."

If you want to get an idea of what could happen, look at Japan's recent recession:

The Nikkei stock market index fell more than 60 percent--from a high of 40,000 at the end of 1989 to under 15,000 by 1992. It rose somewhat during the mid-1990s on hopes that the economy would soon recover, but as the economic outlook continued to worsen, share prices again fell. The Nikkei fell below 12,000 by March 2001. Real estate prices also plummeted during the recession--by 80 percent from 1991 to 1998 (Herbener 1999).

The article I linked to explains the Keynesian, Monetarist, and Austrian explanation.

I'm not suggesting that the current U.S. model be the one taught - although it is still the most liberal in the world, it's far from the best thing possible. See:

http://mises.org/liberal.asp ... for details on what I think *should* be taught.

Go read this, then refute the points he makes:

http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp

Building software is only unfeasable due to the sheer number of software producers. If the margins remain as they are, that problem will rectify itself over time. There is an oversupply of software producers because the demand for new software has dropped, as should be expected in a maturing industry predicated on selling "solutions"; eventually all the useful solutions are common-place, and the demand for new ones decreases. There will always remain a non-zero minimum demand, created by first-time customers, unique cases, ports from legacy systems, and the rare "killer app", but there was never any possibility that the software-creation industry would remain as big as is was when computing first became ubiquitous -- when all software was new software and we were still exploring the limits of the new technology.

As for the long-term feasability of "bad" monopolies, anyone interested should have a look at Chapter 10 of Man, Economy, & State by Murray N. Rothbard. To summarize: "bad" (unnatural, anti-competitive) monopolies have several fundamental disadvantages, in that they they have finite resources, unmeasurable costs (no competition to compare to), and a coveted position in the market (resulting in continuous non-revenue-generating expenses to "beat down" the competition). An unnatural monopoly can never sustain itself in the long run in a free market; it will eventually run out of resources if it tries. In the meantime, the ever-present fringe competition acts as a catalyst, forcing the monopoly to meet (or influence) the market's demands rather than risk losing the market to the competition. Either way, consumers benefit.

To address your telecom "case study": the telcos weren't actually operating in a free market, having been subsidized through government taxes, but now that they're (mostly) deregulated and unsubsidized they're facing significant competition on several fronts. For example, even before regulations forced the telcos to share their lines (which we should never have given them in the first place), cable companies were offering residential Internet connections with the capacity to replace phone lines entirely. Currently the telcos and the cable companies are facing competition in some areas from ISPs with WiFi/WiMAX equiptment. Their post-subsidy monopoly was never stable to begin with; it's just going to take some time to deplete the subsidies we gave them.

Sounds pretty optomistic.

Of course, the oil being pumped out of northern Alberta's oil-sands is not nearly as nice as the light-sweet crude you get from the middle east. Alberta's oil tends to be quite sour, thanks to the bitumen. There is some light sweet crude there, but not much.

The oil, which is expensive to mine and process, also isn't easily transported, and is really only suitable for diesel.

And it's not trillians; according to this article, it's more like 175 billion barrels, and potentially 315 barrels with technology improvements.

And according to this article, "There's a lot of sour crude in the world, more than anyone can use. More than anyone wants right now."

I'm Canadian, and while the oil is a huge economic benefit, it's not quite what the media would have us believe.

Solar power, wind power, and water power are the way of the future.

I will look into this as soon as I get some time to do so.

Keynes has one truly fatal flaw to his work: It changes. ... As those premises were demonstrated to be false, because events and data changed, rather than admit he had been wrong he either pretended that he hadn't meant what he said before, or simply ignored data that contradicted him.

He did not exactly impress me either.

Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production. I own what I have, you own what you have, we engage in trade solely because both of us consider what we gain to be greater than what we lose. (I want your apple more than I want my nickel, for example.)

This definition is incomplete, as it would also cover all the previous forms of trade systems like mercantilism for example and so it is not specific to Capitalism. So there has to be some additional considerations, which in my understanding of Smith's premises would be structuring the marketplace in such a way as to aim at the system to become in effect a meritocracy, as trade/private ownership alone are simply a wholly unsatisfying description of societal goals.

Socialism: Collective ownership of the means of production. What I have, earn, can acquire, all defined by central authority. You and I engage in trade not because we want to, but because that is what the plan says we do.

That is of course a caricature of Socialism and in fact pretty much the definition of Communism. My understanding of a Socialist society (or perheaps more accurately called a "Social Conscience" based society) would be where the means of production are private but their macroscopic operation is shaped by a set of social boundaries which prevent their activities to exceed certain globally set limits, beyond which their actions produce more negative then positive effects. The governing rule of such a place is an attempt to follow the premise of meritocracy to its logical ends in the structure of the marketplace and also a premise of a certain base "social contract" understanding between the citizens and the society are taken into consideration. In the case of the meritocracy-based marketplace, you would see things like very steep estate taxes, to prevent kids of rich people to acquire fortunes without the attendant contributions to society, you would see all natural resources (but not their extraction and processing) being nationalized as there is no merit but only a danger of monopolistic gouging to society provided by an idle ownership of a coal deposit, you would see exponentially progressive taxation to prevent runaway market singularities and to forster more uniform distribution of production amongst a large number of competing smaller companies instead of a few massive conglomerates, you will also see very aggressive anti-monopoly actions of the market oversight authorities and a significant effort being made to prevent the government from assisting and inducing monopolistic behaviour (which is doubly checked by the progressive taxation slowing down unlimited growth of individual companies), etc. From the "social contract" side you would see things like Universal Medicare and significant assistance in acquiring education. Note that nowhere there is anything about "collective ownership" of any means of production, with the exception of things not subject to regular rules of competition in the marketplace, as Universal Medicare for example (people do not shop for doctors when in cardiac arrest -- no competition and thus no marketplace here). Also the few "government monopolies" (such as the natural resource ownership and Medicare) are strictly confined to specific areas, constituting a small fraction of the economy.

Note that most of this is consistent with Adam Smith

"I read the essential works of Adam Smith and some of Keynes, Heyek and Friedman..."

Then you really owe it to yourself to try something (most anything) by Murray Rothbard. His _For A New Liberty_, http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp is excellent reading.

Adam Smith came up recently on Mises.org, http://www.mises.org/story/2012 which is a reprinting of a chapter from Rothbard's _Perspective on the history of Economic Thought_ which was, sadly, not finished before his death in 1995.

Keynes has one truly fatal flaw to his work: It changes. What I mean is not that his insights evolved, but that his premises depended upon the events and data available at the time. As those premises were demonstrated to be false, because events and data changed, rather than admit he had been wrong he either pretended that he hadn't meant what he said before, or simply ignored data that contradicted him.

He was wrong, for instance that printing paper money and going into debt increases wealth, but being wrong and being systematically inconsistent are two very different things. I can "agree to disagree" with someone who is wrong, but I loath wafflers.

While I certainly would not presume to invent definitions, these are the working definitions of the Austrian school that, in my opinion, best fit the greatest available data:

Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production. I own what I have, you own what you have, we engage in trade solely because both of us consider what we gain to be greater than what we lose. (I want your apple more than I want my nickel, for example.)

Socialism: Collective ownership of the means of production. What I have, earn, can acquire, all defined by central authority. You and I engage in trade not because we want to, but because that is what the plan says we do.

Fascism: Titular ownership of property by private individuals, but only with the permission of, and under regulation by, a central authority. Driving a car in America is a great example of this.

Please note that merchantilism, "corporate/government alliance", and the other truly nasty causes of the "giant multinational" problem you were highlighting in your earlier postings are aspects not of capitalism at all, but of fascism. Even before coining of the word "fascism" (or "capitalism" for that matter), the British East India Company was a perfect example of a government granted monopoly, the core element of "fascism", a license to do business protected from competition by government fiat.

As I said, I agree with you completely that Gates&Co. are slime, and always have been slime. But if this had been a bastian of real capitalism, they might still have made all their money, but they would have had to do it without being able to rely on government agencies for untold billions in "license fees" stolen from citizens at gunpoint.

"I read the essential works of Adam Smith and some of Keynes, Heyek and Friedman..."

Then you really owe it to yourself to try something (most anything) by Murray Rothbard. His _For A New Liberty_, http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp is excellent reading.

Adam Smith came up recently on Mises.org, http://www.mises.org/story/2012 which is a reprinting of a chapter from Rothbard's _Perspective on the history of Economic Thought_ which was, sadly, not finished before his death in 1995.

Keynes has one truly fatal flaw to his work: It changes. What I mean is not that his insights evolved, but that his premises depended upon the events and data available at the time. As those premises were demonstrated to be false, because events and data changed, rather than admit he had been wrong he either pretended that he hadn't meant what he said before, or simply ignored data that contradicted him.

He was wrong, for instance that printing paper money and going into debt increases wealth, but being wrong and being systematically inconsistent are two very different things. I can "agree to disagree" with someone who is wrong, but I loath wafflers.

While I certainly would not presume to invent definitions, these are the working definitions of the Austrian school that, in my opinion, best fit the greatest available data:

Capitalism: Private ownership of the means of production. I own what I have, you own what you have, we engage in trade solely because both of us consider what we gain to be greater than what we lose. (I want your apple more than I want my nickel, for example.)

Socialism: Collective ownership of the means of production. What I have, earn, can acquire, all defined by central authority. You and I engage in trade not because we want to, but because that is what the plan says we do.

Fascism: Titular ownership of property by private individuals, but only with the permission of, and under regulation by, a central authority. Driving a car in America is a great example of this.

Please note that merchantilism, "corporate/government alliance", and the other truly nasty causes of the "giant multinational" problem you were highlighting in your earlier postings are aspects not of capitalism at all, but of fascism. Even before coining of the word "fascism" (or "capitalism" for that matter), the British East India Company was a perfect example of a government granted monopoly, the core element of "fascism", a license to do business protected from competition by government fiat.

As I said, I agree with you completely that Gates&Co. are slime, and always have been slime. But if this had been a bastian of real capitalism, they might still have made all their money, but they would have had to do it without being able to rely on government agencies for untold billions in "license fees" stolen from citizens at gunpoint.

The only question of any real importance is "Did the government create this monopoly?"

• Telcos, Federal Reserve: Yes.
• Local cable companies: Maybe. (Depends on the local policies in effect.)
• Microsoft: Maybe. (Enforcing copyright may count as interference.)
• The corner store: No.

There is no way to uniquely define "monopoly prices" or "monopoly behavior" except as a function of interference by someone with more power/authority than the company itself. Monopolies in a free market -- a market without such interference -- only exist in cases where the monopoly is more efficient than competition would be. If they become less efficient, a competitor will eventually arise to capitalize on their "monopoly profits" and choice will be restored. Only in a non-free market can an inefficient monopoly remain prominent.

For a more thorough analysis of this fact, see Chapter 10 of Man, Economy, & State by Murray N. Rothbard.

There is such a thing as real money. We just don't use it anymore.

What Has Government Done to Our Money?

That would be why I suggested a combination of sponsorship (for reputable authors, and cases where people know exactly what they want) and prizes (for new authors or experimental ideas). Furthermore, I was most definately not endorsing government sponsorship. How could They possibly know what kinds of things people want to read? That would be a communistic approach, and I agree that it would fail. The system I was describing was more like the one I described in an earlier post:

The organization would probably set the scope of the content -- the general topic, audience, medium, etc. -- and then hire promising authors, artists, and/or inventors willing to work within those limits. Some groups would, of course, be more free-form than others, but ultimately the parameters of the group would be dictated by its paying members. Members would have numerous advantages over non-members, including contact with the patronees, first-run editions of the resulting works, shareholder rights in the group's decisions, discounted merchandise, etc. The membership fees would fund the production of new stories, movies, and/or inventions.

One addition that I would make to that system would be competitions in which artists could submit their work in exchange for a chance at a monetary prize, as well as recognition, training, and better chances at future employment / sponsorship. That was something I envisioned when I wrote the above text, but neglected to include in the comment.

Given that the ones in control of the selection of rewarded authors would be the paying public (just as is the case today), I do not believe that there would be any additional bias toward formulaic work that is not present in the current system. As for "bad" (unpopular) artists, you wouldn't just hire any random applicant for a long-term position. New artists would compete for the prizes (at their own risk, as with the current system), and then may be hired later on the basis of their past work. In that way it would be no different than, for example, choosing a new employee on the basis of his/her grades in college.

One last point: free markets only turn into monopolies when monopolies are the most efficient form of organization for the market (i.e. natural monopolies). Natural monopolies follow the same rules as any other free-market organization, and they are still subject to competition should they fail to remain the most efficient provider. Only enforced monopolies (i.e. government monopolies) can avoid competition without remaining efficient. Rather than explaining the reasons for this here, I will simply refer you to this excellent economic analysis by Murray N. Rothbard.

"As I already explained, ad nauseum, that in a capitalist society..."

I believe that your position would be greatly enhanced if you did some reading on what capitalism actually is.

I can suggest _How Capitalism Saved America_ by Thomas DiLorenzo, or the daily articles on http://www.mises.org/ and some of the online texts found there.

Your criticisms of Gates&Co. are certainly valid, I agree that scum often float to the top. Those things, however, have nothing what so ever to do with capitalism.

Bob-

Thanks for the link, I'll throw one back at you!

http://www.mises.org/money.asp

This is a (free e-) book written by Murray Rothbard. He discusses why we don't need the Fed and why the boom/bust cycle is tied directly to fiat currency managed by the Fed. It is a simple, easy 1 day read. Check it out :)

From your reply, I can see we're not going to agree -- yet.

Have you read Rothbard's (free e-)book I linked to? Here is another link. It's a simple book, you can read it in one sitting.

Have you read Cheuvreux's report I linked to? Here is another link. It isn't quite as simple, but it offers great insight for an investment house that realizes how much collusion has been involved in the markets -- stock, currency, housing and consumer.

You may feel wealthier than the previous generation, but you aren't. The previous generation owned 70% of their homes by the age of 35, our average homeowner at 35 owns less than 10% -- and with house prices as inflated as they are, that number might actually be negative ownership. The previous generation would put their gold-backed currency in the bank to keep it safe, but they also allowed the bank to loan out a portion of that gold at a nice interest rate to people with real business plans and real plans to pay the bank back. Today, debt is based on nothing, so there is no real reason to pay it back over time (this is why bankruptcies are so high and consumer debt is out of control).

Both the links I provided offer a very strong argument for returning to a free market currency. Let Chase offer gold-backed dollars (100% reserve), let Citibank offer silver-backed dollars, let First Bank of Kansas offer corn-backed dollars. In the end, the market will decide what is the best medium of exchange.

Rothbard in his (free e-) book What Has Government Done to our Money? proves that paper money was a conspiracy for control, definitely.

Money is VERY easy to understand -- it is merely a store of time. You perform some work for someone, instead of bartering for their services or products, they can give you some of their time that they have earned in the form of something valuable, divisible and easy to recognize. This has historically been gold or silver (or wheat or oxen or dirt). Gold and silver have been the best forms of money as they are near impossible to counterfeit or duplicate.

As society evolved, people wanted to be secure with their savings, so they stored it into banks of security. These banks issued receipts for the gold or silver. Banking was private, they all had their own "dollar" bills that were private -- banks competed by offering good rates for secure savings or they helped you invest your gold/silver by loaning it to others.

You could always redeem your receipts (or the receipts of others) for the physical gold/silver if you wanted. This all changed in around 1913 (and a few times before in US history) when the government said gold wasn't valuable and that paper receipts were. Of course, central banks up until the early 1970's still balanced their accounts with gold, and central banks still store gold in reserves. Crazy how the general public loves paper, but governments and central banks loves gold.

American health care sucks because a certain brand of 'healer' successfully lobbied for a monopoly almost a hundred years ago.

100 years of Medical Robery
Real Medical Freedom

I started seeing a gifted Osteopath (a profession whose competitors tried to eradicate, but were successful in lobbying for parity with Medical Doctors) last year, and I happily pay the $175/visit out of pocket. He doesn't take insurance because it's not worth his time to file. He'd need to hire another person to chase after the insurance company, and why bother if he can just give his clients a receipt and let them deal with the headache?

His practice is full regardless. Recently he said that he's thinking about not taking any new patients, until he fixes the ones he's got.

(biodynamic cranial osteopathy is the greatest :)