Slashdot Mirror

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 :)

First, you seem to think inflation only happens as a side effect of non-metallic currencies; this is not the case at all.

A general price increase (i.e. inflation) is the direct result of an increase in the money supply. Metallic currencies do not have this "side effect", because the money supply growth is limited to the small percentage of new metal added to the money supply every year. When the money supply is basically fixed like that, prices naturally fall due to increases in productivity. Prices may also fall when people "hoard" money. Some economists believe that "hoarding" is a bad thing, because it decreases the economy's "velocity". This article does a good job of debunking the concept of "velocity".

Put in a year during the time after WWII and before the US went off the silver standard.

A silver standard? I assume you mean gold standard. From 1945-1968, the world was on the Bretton Woods system, which meant the dollar was no longer redeemable in gold to American citizens; instead, the dollar was redeemable in gold only to foreign governments and their central banks. So, post-WWII, the Federal Reserve continued to create dollars out of thin air (usually not by printing money, but by making an "open market purchase", which means dollar claims electronically increased without a corresponding increase in gold reserves). Whenever the Federal Reserve created new money, the fractional reserve banks then created more money on top of that (i.e. the money multiplier).

In other words, the U.S. was shamelessly inflating the money supply. There was no "gold standard", as in a fixed ratio of dollar claims to gold ounces. Eventually, the European governments wised up and put the gold standard check into use. Gold flowed steadily out of the U.S. for two decades after the early 1950s, until the U.S. gold stock dwindled over this period from over $20 billion to $9 billion. At that point, the U.S. had to make a choice: Stop inflating the money supply, or stop promising to redeem dollars. Guess which one we chose? Thus, it should be no surprise that we have experienced chronic inflation since world war II. For a visual, check out this chart.

The money supply is much more influenced by interest rates, government spending and taxation rates, and even foreign trade balances a long time before the actual printed money has an effect.

Those things affect the amount of money that fractional reserve banks add or remove from the current money supply, but the central bank has the ultimate power to create as much money as it wants. That's why the money supply has continued to increase so much since the Federal Reserve began in 1913. As our next Fed chairman, the fool Bernanke, said: "But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U.S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U.S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation."

Gold has no more intrinsic value than a dollar bill has. Take away that, and the rest of the argument falls apart.

It is true that value is subjective. However, prices are generally set by supply and demand. Therefore, when the government increases the supply of dollars, the price of dollars decreases. In other words, the prices of goods in terms of dollars generally goes up. The advantage of tying the dollar to a number of gold ounces (similar to the way a house deed is "tied" to one house) is not that it gives the dollar value; the advantage is that it prevents the government from easily inflating the money supply.

As an example, consider Argentina in 1990:

"...the "convertibility law," which pegged the peso one-to-one to the dollar, thereby limiting the Argentine government's ability to create money".

"In nearly a single stroke, Argentina's battle with hyperinflation subsided, as the annual figure plunged from 4000% at the advent of the convertibility law to 4% by 1994. Concurrently real GDP growth exceeded 5% per annum each of those years."

Does that mean the dollar had more intrinsic value than the peso? No, they are both fiat currencies. The reason the peg helped was because it prevented the Argentine government from increasing their money supply faster than the supply of dollars. Likewise, pegging the dollar to gold would help us fight our inflation problems.

If you think that the U.S. has its inflation problem under control, keep in mind that home prices were removed from the consumer price index in the 1980's, because the effect home price increases had on the CPI was embarrassing the Reagan administration. Of course, rising home prices still eat away at people's purchasing power; the index has changed, that is all.

I highly recommend

When in the Course of Human Events : Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams. It will make you question a number of beliefs you grew up with about the civil war. His argument is the war was really about federal revenue. Some interesting facts:

Charles Dickens (yes the famous author) wrote that the war was about taxation. The south was paying roughly 90% of the federal govt revenue, and most federal expendatures were in the north. The republicans came to power with a party plank of doubling the import tariff. (effectively doubling the taxes on the south). The tariff was increased shortly after the first republican congress met (from 20% to something silly like 50%).

As for Lincoln:

He
1. suspended habeus corpus,
2 arrested NOTHERN JOURNALISTS against the war
3 Shut down northern newspapers who did not support the war
4 arrested northern citizens who supported a peaceful solution
5 had FEDERAL JUDGES arrested for challenging his stance on habeus corpus
6 signed an arrest warrant for the chief justice of the US supreme court

FWIW I was not born or raised in the south. For a long time I held the view that lincoln was the best president. I now believe he was the worst.

http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?contro l=163

Totalitarian governments like the Chinese government are evil. A government is considered evil when it completely strips away your freedoms. How dare a country restrict its citizens from reading certain books or websites just because it might get a few too many people angry about the current conditions that they live in? In China, much of what I read is (or is probably) banned in China, as well as books of any political philosophy that is considered one step more free than communism (even socialist literature is banned, because of the ideas of democratic socialism and social democracy). Why? These books don't preach of that communism stuff that China claims that they follow (but doesn't practice; they have actually read the last book and adopted free market policies, the only good thing that they done over the past few years), and it promotes freedom of not only the market, but also freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of association, and other individual freedoms. It is in the best interest of the Chinese government to keep its citizens oppressed and suppressed. That is pure evil.

Now, I'm not saying that our (American) way is the right way, just because we are Americans. Our country isn't a bastion of freedom, either. However, I still feel that I am much more free in this country than any other country in the world, both politically and economically. Freedom is very important for a society to survive. Take away all levels of freedom, and you end up with a society of slaves. China has created a society of slaves who have been indoctrinated into their totalitarian philosophy, and has sealed off any access to literature and people who have any ideas of freedom. China knows that once people see the light, then there will be a huge revolution, just like the incident in 1989.

Yes, there are other countries with completely different values than ours. Many EU nations are big on social democracy, for instance, which is very different than our emphasis on free markets and individualism. However, even though they have different values, they have just as much respect for human rights as we do. However, when those values start restricting the rights of humans to the point that they must answer to the State for everything, then those values are evil. Totalitarianism is evil, simply put.

Read the beginning of http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap16a.asp

One excerpt:
"In many parts of many countries, bandit groups win the passive consent of
the majority in a particular area and establish what amounts to effective
governments, or States, within the area. The difference between a
government and a criminal band, then, is a matter of degree rather than
kind, and the two often shade into each other."

A lot of economists think it's actually the other way around -- i.e., that much of today's inflation is caused by rising commodity prices.

Which is why I don't trust them.

Read Rothbard's (FREE!) e-book: http://www.mises.org/money.asp

Then you can see that economists holding to Keynesian beliefs are the cranks -- and they're the ones teaching in our colleges and running our governments. Yeeesh.

Money is affected by supply and demand just like anything. If you print more money at low interest rates, the money runs into the economy raising prices.

Think about it: If I gave you US$1000 today for no good reason, would you stuff it in your mattress? No, you'd buy something or you'd put it in the stock market. Now look at the US$25 billion we printed last week out of thin air: this money ran into housing markets, stock markets and retail markets -- raising the prices to meet the added supply of money.

You know, the problem is not that the patent system is abused for all kinds of wacky patents, software and hardware, the problem is that there is a patent system. Whenever there is a system of government control, you bet it will be abused. Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect all who seek it. Patents are not morally justified and utalitarian defenses cannot be proven valid.

I say we get rid of this protectionist infringement upon property rights. Governtment should not give company A the power to tell me what I am allowed to manufacture with my property. It's mine, I do whatever I want with it. Including exercising my cat with my laser pointer. In your face, patent system!

Say naturally occurring drough or climate change caused major decreases in food production in the Western US -- how would a gold standard prevent inflation, when production drops while currency remains constant?

I don't necessarily want to see ANY mandated currency standard. I believe we can allow currency to be a free market product (as Rothbard says here). Some banks will hold 100% reserves in gold, others will hold 100% reserves in oil or oxen or prostitute farms. Who knows what will win out (I bet it's gold).

Money is not a fictional product of myth and mandates. Money is merely a storage of your past labor to be used for someone else's future labor. It is a very basic idea. Rothbard's (free) book that I linked to really does a great job cutting out the theories of money that Keynes and Marx and other windbags created. Before shooting the lawyers and the accountants, the economists should go first ;)

Back to your question -- it wouldn't prevent inflation. A gold standard would allow inflation as it should be allowed -- if a product drops in production, inflation should happen temporarily to allow people to put their assets in finding new ways to create that product and overcome the temporary shortage. Today's fiat inflationary currency causes people to invest in stupid investments -- housing and stock market bubbles. Their currency is worthless and continues to devalue, so they rush en masse to whatever is returning money today at the highest value -- which causes those items to jump up in value again. This is due to easy credit and low interests rates caused by easy money.

And how would a gold standard keep that inflation from further reducing production? It's a downward spiral that would eventually result in revolution, IMO.

I'm not sure I agree. With a fairly fixed currency base (sure, gold rushes can temporarily adjust prices but not as bad as fiat currency rushes), we can better set where we put our money for stability and growth. By stabilizing the currency base we give investors a reason to rethink if they want to invest. Free market interest rates (and savings returns) would not be 1-3%. 9-12% is more realistic and who knows what would happen. Plus we wouldn't lose money to the elite by funding wars through inflationary mechanisms, and taxation would be "more fair" as there wouldn't be the hidden tax of inflation.

It is complex because of government's fiat currency, IMHO.

You accept a patently ridiculous story with objectively much less probability of being true than what this guy is positing (at least in terms of the prediction, I'm not to familiar with the underlying Gaia framework), so think twice before you call him out--it kind of sounds silly.

Social security is silly. Christianity is silly. Fine. In one of the two, you force me to accept your beliefs. In the other, I don't force you to accept anything. That's the end of that debate. You force me, I don't force you. Who is more correct in their beliefs?

If you applied it to the current system without redistributing wealth, it would be catastrophic and unfair.

Let's try it on a very small level. Let's allow one state to seceed and back out of the systems. No one wants it because they're afraid they'll actually have to work and be responsible for themselves. Is Somalia as bad as we read in some newspaper? I have 2 friends living there now creating more real wealth than they did when they lived in Israel or in Greece. It isn't as bad as the media reports. Anarcho-capitalism is not a myth, it merely means "no government / volutary cooperation with mutual profit." Are there places that require the use of force? Possibly -- but the only way I'll accept a monopoly on force is after I see how things go with everything else.

But with the former you would be pushing a Social Darwinist ideal, which seems at odds with your Christianity.

Actually, I blog about how I believe the Bible requires followers of Christ to give up support of governments and kings. I do believe that God gave us incredible abilities as humans, the only reason we see suffering is that we put our faith in other men -- government.

That means that "you cannot serve God and wealth" and therefore should give away all your worldly possessions.

Not true. The love of money is evil, but money is not evil. Money is merely a store of wealth -- the ability to save past labor you've performed in order to trade that past labor for someone's future labor. Read Rothbard's (FREE) ebook: http://www.mises.org/money.asp for more information on what money is and what it isn't. Gold is the ultimate store of wealth -- I work (per God's word), I store my word in gold, and I redeem my gold in exchange for someone else's labor.

Profit is not ever only good for one party. All transactions are mutually beneficial at the time of the exchange. You exchange money you don't need for a product/service you do need. The other party accepts this money to use for a product/service they'll need in the future. This is mutual profiting for both parties (capitalism).

It takes close to a decade now for our population to double: trouble indeed.

Ridiculous! A population doubling is a Godsend! Think of it: twice as many brilliant inventors to come up with new ways to feed and organize the world. Twice as many people available to clean the air, clean the salty oceans, farm the deserts and build products to feed and clothe others. More people = more wealth = more happiness. Or do you think that doubling the population means doubling the poor? I don't see that happening.

Given a worldwide economic collapse, it's not so hard to imagine the people with oil and guns forming cartels and dominating everyone else, perhaps depending upon a massive migrant worker or slave population to stay on top.

Maybe 100 or 1000 years ago, yes. But now that we can communicate instantly with anyone else all over the world, I don't see this happening. The new warlords are the cartel mercantilists who find that a happy population is a profitable one. Engines of war and domination are on the verge of disappearing -- Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Kennedy needs war to keep the cartel mercantilists in control, but the people are feeling less and less desiring to fight others. Terrorism is the last enemy, and once people see it doesn't really exist, war w

I'm going to refer this one to the excellent economics text Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard. To summarize the counterpoints:

(1) Wages would not drop to zero in an economy unencumbered by minimum wages. This is because labor is a required element in the production process of all consumer goods, and exists in limited supply. The goods that consumers desire cannot be provided without paying wages which make it worthwhile for laborers to work. Most jobs in the US economy, for example, pay a higher rate than minimum wage. The reason for this is that the individuals who fill those position have a productivity above minimum wage; their contribution to the final product justifies their pay. If the standard pay in any given area is too low, then workers will leave that area in search of better employment, which will tend to drive the wages up since the supply of labor has decreased. The system is self-regulating.

(2) There ought to be a word for the fear of rich individuals / big companies. This comes up far too often. First, people generally become rich either by saving their income, or by investing in markets that are undervalued compared to their actual worth to consumers. In the former case, I cannot see how anyone could think that anything unethical or immoral has occurred; they earned an "honest living" and chose to save their earnings. There may be some who did not in fact earn an "honest living", but their error is not in being rich. In the latter case, the investments are actually helpful to the economy because they improve the market's ability to supply consumers with the products that they value most. This is an example of entrepreneurial profit, and is also self-regulating: the market's value will rise as more investments are made in it, and the profits in the market will decrease to match the pure rate of interest.

(3) CEOs typically report to (and are paid by) the companies' shareholders, represented by the companies' boards of directors. It is those shareholders who should be upset about excessive CEO pay raises, since the CEO is ultimately their agent, chosen to be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company. If the lower-paid workers are continuing to work for these companies, then they must believe their wages better those available elsewhere. I do think that the various directors should keep a closer eye on CEO salaries (for their own benefit), and progress is being made in this area.

Contrary to popular belief, economics does not assume that people have perfect information or that everyone acts in a way that they will not later regret. Obviously, people make mistakes, and sometimes the value of what is purchased does not exceed the opportunity cost of purchasing it. I am sure that you would agree, however, that most individuals do try to fulfill those ends which they value most, which is the essence of rational self-interest. This is all that economics assumes: that given the choice, people will choose the good they expect will best fulfill their highest-valued goal(s). How those values are determined can be completely arbitrary, and can only be known by observing the choices the individual makes.

Since this really isn't the place for a complete explanation of practical economics, I'll just refer you to the excellent (free!) e-book Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard, which should answer most of your questions.

just read this comment (indirect reaction on todays article on patents): http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

it states correctly that trade marks should not exist either, but deceiving "consumers" (voters in this case) is punishable.

example: some crappy company A renaming itself and using a name of a well known company B could not be sued by B, since trade mark does not exist if all intellectual property is to be abolished. however, the consumers may feel deceived in this case and thus have a right to sue. it is not trade mark, but misleading that is the matter here.

You have a utilitarian view on intellectual property which is unproven (only taken for granted by stakeholders) and morally unjust. Please have a look at the first reaction to the article, which also points to this excellent refutal of intellectual property on both practical and moral grounds: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Please have a look at the first reaction to the article, which points to http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf. It is quite long but, IMO, is an excellent and very thorrow argumentation against all forms of intellectual property, both for practical reasons and for moral and principle reasons.

Actually, go read the link I provided at http://www.mises.org/money.asp it explains the need for NO currency standard. Money can exist in a non-regulated free market system and would likely lead to not only more wealth for the poor, but more stable wealth for everyone.

I prefer gold as my standard because it has generally held its value over time -- thousands of years actually. The only time gold really spiked and fell was when we saw large manipulations or large discovering. Over time, though, the population growth tends to offset any gold discoveries (which historically are rare). Today gold is valued at over US$500 per ounce but it costs less than US$70 per ounce to extract from a mine -- that's how weak gold discoveries are in regards to the amount of gold in existence.

Gold is not the only store of wealth, it is just harder to manipulate. I blog about the gold manipulations (I used to have a gold bug newsletter up to about 6 months ago and am trying to rebuild my gold readers in blog form) and it is really interesting to see how nothing is sacred, but at least gold is stable.

When you read about fiat currency and the manipulations that happen in that market, you'll definitely want to look at non-US dollar backed investments. I'm the least doomy-and-gloomy of all gold bugs, I think, but I definitely see a call for some caution, especially if all your money is in US currency. Our armies might be the most powerful, but the day will come when they won't have the financing needed to keep them protecting our dollar.

Doh, forgot to hit preview and test the link: http://www.mises.org/money.asp

So you're saying that 600 billion dollars in print in circulation is all we need to query, and it is only those figures that affect consumer price inflation?

I'm not sure I agree.

First, the M3 is by far the easiest way for the Fed to inflate the currency base "secretly" without there being a huge effect in the U.S. retail economy initially. Most of the money will be offshore dollars, eurodollars and institutional money funds -- these initially have zero effect on price inflation but as the money is converted for other means, they can and will have an effect.

The M1/M0 supply is not enough to see what government is doing to our money. If you need a better explanation, Rothbard's book is now available freely online. Go check out http://www.mises.org/money.aspx for more info on how government is destroying our wealth "secretly" and how removing the M3 figures is an even bigger crime against freedom.

In the long run, other central banks in the world that hold our currency are the ones who keep our currency in check. If they disagree with US dollar stability, we'll find ourselves in a hyperinflating economy -- the kind that us gold bugs would love to see.

You might find the discussions over on http://www.mises.org/ to be interesting in this regard, since several of the featured writers on that site, including Murray Rothbard and Stephen Kinsella, argue persuasively that IP laws (copywrite, patent) have turned out to be actively destructive to innovation.

One thing to note is that IP laws are relatively recent developments.

In case you haven't heard the Russian Tax Police is not your average CPA... They wear skimasks and carry machineguns to work!

All this crap happened in the 20's. The US became extremely pro-business and anti-regulation, from the supreme court and president down.

This caused the depression. The depression removed the focus on the rich and corporate entities and returned much of the money they looted from the middle and lower classes, we had quite a few prosperous, happy decades.

Now we get to relearn our lesson I guess. Ready for the next depression? Probably only a decade or so out now?

The Great Depression was not caused by an untamed market, but by the interferance of the government. Murray Rothbard, and other economists, have clearly pointed that fact out.

"America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard.

I've replied to the Standard Oil "monopoly" on slashdot so often, I think I may need to write a standard reply, haha :)

Standard Oil was a "monopoly" by lowering prices so low using techniques that the competition couldn't match. They lowered oil prices from 60 cents to 8 cents per gallon, a boon for consumers and for production and manufacturing. The only ones complaining were their powerful competitors, and this is why government got involved. Before the end of the government investigation, Standard was nearly destroyed by a new competitor: gasoline. Rockefeller knew how to make oil efficiently, and the old producers didn't. Don't call that a monopoly, call it efficient. Isn'y your fear of monopoly from prices goes UP not DOWN?

A few VERY INSIGHTFUL monopoly links:
http://www.mises.org/story/621
http://www.mises.org/story/1371

I've replied to the Standard Oil "monopoly" on slashdot so often, I think I may need to write a standard reply, haha :)

Standard Oil was a "monopoly" by lowering prices so low using techniques that the competition couldn't match. They lowered oil prices from 60 cents to 8 cents per gallon, a boon for consumers and for production and manufacturing. The only ones complaining were their powerful competitors, and this is why government got involved. Before the end of the government investigation, Standard was nearly destroyed by a new competitor: gasoline. Rockefeller knew how to make oil efficiently, and the old producers didn't. Don't call that a monopoly, call it efficient. Isn'y your fear of monopoly from prices goes UP not DOWN?

A few VERY INSIGHTFUL monopoly links:
http://www.mises.org/story/621
http://www.mises.org/story/1371

http://www.mises.org/story/1881 The Evaporation of the FCC by Tim Swanson

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1662 The Spectrum Should Be Private Property: The Economics, History, and Future of Wireless Technology by B.K. Marcus

To do a very short recap of my own experience, I was doing network engineering in 1993 when control of the "routing tables" were released by the NSF and thereby ISPs were first legally allowed to peer directly with each other, as well as having the legal restriction on commercial content on "the Internet" repealed.

De-regulation at its most fundamental, the Fed.Gov simply let go.

The result was that "the Internet" exploded in function, reach and availability. The cost of connecting dropped immediately and has been continuing to drop ever since. The "technical issues" that had been the basis for Al Gore's "Information Superhighway" evaporated as each ISP worked to solve the problems of routing and peering, and engineers like myself found efficiencies that would never have been utilized if the "Information Superhighway" had been mandated by law.

The DMCA and such have been trying to put the genie back in the bottle, to re-regulate the content and use of "the Internet". Evil or stupid? It's hard to tell the difference with politicians and bureaucrats.

Bob-

http://www.mises.org/story/1881 The Evaporation of the FCC by Tim Swanson

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1662 The Spectrum Should Be Private Property: The Economics, History, and Future of Wireless Technology by B.K. Marcus

To do a very short recap of my own experience, I was doing network engineering in 1993 when control of the "routing tables" were released by the NSF and thereby ISPs were first legally allowed to peer directly with each other, as well as having the legal restriction on commercial content on "the Internet" repealed.

De-regulation at its most fundamental, the Fed.Gov simply let go.

The result was that "the Internet" exploded in function, reach and availability. The cost of connecting dropped immediately and has been continuing to drop ever since. The "technical issues" that had been the basis for Al Gore's "Information Superhighway" evaporated as each ISP worked to solve the problems of routing and peering, and engineers like myself found efficiencies that would never have been utilized if the "Information Superhighway" had been mandated by law.

The DMCA and such have been trying to put the genie back in the bottle, to re-regulate the content and use of "the Internet". Evil or stupid? It's hard to tell the difference with politicians and bureaucrats.

Bob-

damn. i hate it when that happens. suffice to say there should have been a /i after "development". sorry. so much for not previewing....

here's a bonus link: http://www.mises.org/story/1881

bob-

Money makes complete sense when you read Rothbard. It is only after government gets involved that money gets "confusing" yet Rothbard even fixes that confusion.

You are completely right, but I think you're missing the point that I can't define money in a few simple lines of text. I linked to Rothbard's (free) book because Rothbard did a great job explaining money.

Money is one thing and only one thing: a third party bartering tool. Of course money only has the value that people attribute to it, but to think that fiat money will HOLD value is to miss the mark completely.

Gold is the best form of money due to the fact that it doesn't degrade, it is nearly impossible to counterfeit, it isn't affected by acids or bases, it can be divided easily and it isn't quickly duplicated or lost. Gold's value over 6 thousand years has held fairly consistently, and in that time every currency is gone or depreciated to near worthlessness. The US dollar depreciated over 99% in 100 years.

Gold doesn't have to be the only form of money, but it is the best one, in my opinion. Inflationary fiat currencies always hurt the poor and middle classes and even hurt the wealthy. Only the wealthiest and most powerful elite truly create wealth out of thin air, by the acceptance of worthless paper currency by the masses.

In times of crises gold has been one of the only ways for people to get food, water and services. In every situation where a government-backed currency has failed, people turned to gold and silver jewelry to barter and trade.

Wow, you really need to read about what money is. I can't even believe that you think this way, and I'm sure that 99% of the world does. Why not give the (free) book a try, and see where I'm coming from? Why can't I reference a book that encompasses all I believe about money? I'd just be repeating all that has already been written and debated.

Check it out. It is a simple short read. http://www.mises.org/money.asp

The idea of the "dollar" came from gold. Everything valuable was priced in a certain weight of gold. Notes were issued based on a weight of gold, so you didn't have to carry gold around.

I don't use banks, I only use gold and silver to buy things. I just went to Vegas for a business trip, and the entire trip was paid in gold and silver. I'll be buying a car in a few weeks and I will buy it entirely in gold. I paid for my last house in gold, and I buy my groceries with gold (and silver). I might go to the movies or nice dinner tonight, and I'll use silver to finance it.

My money has value in times of crises and in great times. Your money is only valuable when people have faith in it. I don't have faith in the US dollar, and most of the world is starting to see problems, as well.

The supply of money would set the prices. You don't say "$1 = 1 ounce of gold" you said "We have one million ounce of gold in existance, and this house is worth 20 of those."

The word "Dollar" comes from Thaler. Thaler referred to one of the best gold coin producers. Gold was money, not the other way around. Items were priced at their weight in gold.

Again, money is not complex. Rothbard's (free) book on money is a great read and really clarifies the issue. http://www.mises.org/money.asp

You're telling that to a guy (D.A.H.) who even if he wouldn't have a degree in economics, contributes more to the field of economics than old Keynes ever did.

For more insightful discussion of IP from people who actually understand how the world works - I'd heavily recommend the works of Stephan Kinsella, and more here and here.

You're telling that to a guy (D.A.H.) who even if he wouldn't have a degree in economics, contributes more to the field of economics than old Keynes ever did.

For more insightful discussion of IP from people who actually understand how the world works - I'd heavily recommend the works of Stephan Kinsella, and more here and here.

You're telling that to a guy (D.A.H.) who even if he wouldn't have a degree in economics, contributes more to the field of economics than old Keynes ever did.

For more insightful discussion of IP from people who actually understand how the world works - I'd heavily recommend the works of Stephan Kinsella, and more here and here.

Many slashdot readers are starting to realize what a scam Intellectual Property laws are, and I firmly believe that the only ownership one can have is physical ownership of a good. The power of IP is born from government's monopoly on force, and the majority of IP-owners are corporations, another figment of government's imagination. Isn't the intent of government to make all citizens safe, secure and let no one's freedom to produce be hampered by another?

The U.K. isn't going to make any changes to their laws. In a country with increasing inflation, increasing unemployment and increasing debt, the powers-the-be will more likely collude with megacorps than shun them. There is a mistaken belief that employment is a creation of government fiat and that the market won't provide unless government sets up regulations and restrictions. IP is one of those restrictions. IP also creates unemployment, as companies that could otherwise compete with the IP holder are not allowed entry into the market.

Kinsella wrote a decent article (PDF warning) about Intellectual Property and how anti-freedom/pro-force the idea is. I don't believe we can "fix" the laws, and I don't think we can even roll them back. The slippery slope has shown its ugly face, and the only hope we have is to completely toss the rules and find a better way, maybe a non-government way. Kinsella's 53 page article has more footnotes and links that I could ever place in a slashdot article, but he hits the nail on the head in reaching the same conclusion: don't offer protection for non-physical property.

If you post it, expect it to get copied. If you create it, expect cheap knock-offs to appear. If you don't want either thing to happen, don't put your idea into the public eye. If you want to profit from your creation, you have to add in the cost of knock-offs and copying into the equation, and offer value added options in order to attract customers to your first-to-market creation.

A democracy enforces those regulations upon which its citizens agree,

But I do not agree. That is one reason that democracy sucks so badly, the two wolves get to assert that because the sheep gets a "vote", the sheep is somehow agreeing to be dinner.

the dog-eat-dog environment of natural selection and evolution whose parallel in human society we know as anarchy.

No. That is "chaos", not anarchy. Gynarchy, rule by women. Monarchy, rule by one person. Oligarchy, rule by elders or an entrenched elite. Anarchy, no one in a position of rule.

Chaos can exist under any form of government. Under Lenin, for instance, most of Russia was in a state of chaos as they died in great numbers while left without food, without shelter, because Lenin tried to enforce orthodox Communism. He had to release some power, allow money and some small level of voluntary trade in order for the people to survive. Mao found the same thing.

The tax code in the US is a good example of chaos. It is so complex, and changes constantly, that no two accountants come up with the same numbers. People dread being audited not because they think they have done something wrong, but because they can never know for sure that they have not.

in those societies in which anarchy more widely prevails (both now - think Nigeria and Pakistan

I suggest that the very strong governments in both Nigeria and Pakistan would disagree with you. Those two countries are in no way anarchic. They are chaotic, certainly. Somalia is pretty close to anarchy, and doing quite well. Last I heard, Mogadishu had three cell-phone companies, while even America continues to have locally mandated monopolies where only one carrier may serve a geographic location. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia http://www.awdaldevelopment.org/Html/resources.htm

I recommend http://www.mises.org/story/1778 http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/bb05/birzer.mp 3 http://www.mises.org/mp3/ASC8/ASCDemo.mp3 as three items that may enlighten you as to what anarchy, as opposed to chaos, is.

I would actually be quite interested in any objections you have to the presentations on anarchy. I know people try to justify coercive force in interesting ways.

Most of the time the Golden Rule translates as 'be nice to others' (probably because that seems to be the only thing people can universally agree upon) and for the most part regulation is an attempt to enforce that behavior.

If you were correct, "government" would be limited to prosecution of force and fraud. None of which has anything to do with regulation. Regulation is how people are allowed to peacefully interact, since violent interaction is (and always has been) illegal.

Human civilization has been built in spite of government, not because of it. The irrational belief that might makes right is the basis of all government. Governments are instituted, as so eloquently written, to secure pre-existing rights to life, liberty and property. Government didn't make any of that possible, its only capacity is to interfere.

Where you and I differ is that I object to that interference, and you agree with it. Under a different government than you have now, it is very likely that one could be found that you object to but that someone else thinks is great.

Again, that is why regulation doesn't work: people disagree. When people are in agreement, no regulation is needed. When they disagree, regulation tramples the rights of those who disagree with it.

A democracy enforces those regulations upon which its citizens agree,

But I do not agree. That is one reason that democracy sucks so badly, the two wolves get to assert that because the sheep gets a "vote", the sheep is somehow agreeing to be dinner.

the dog-eat-dog environment of natural selection and evolution whose parallel in human society we know as anarchy.

No. That is "chaos", not anarchy. Gynarchy, rule by women. Monarchy, rule by one person. Oligarchy, rule by elders or an entrenched elite. Anarchy, no one in a position of rule.

Chaos can exist under any form of government. Under Lenin, for instance, most of Russia was in a state of chaos as they died in great numbers while left without food, without shelter, because Lenin tried to enforce orthodox Communism. He had to release some power, allow money and some small level of voluntary trade in order for the people to survive. Mao found the same thing.

The tax code in the US is a good example of chaos. It is so complex, and changes constantly, that no two accountants come up with the same numbers. People dread being audited not because they think they have done something wrong, but because they can never know for sure that they have not.

in those societies in which anarchy more widely prevails (both now - think Nigeria and Pakistan

I suggest that the very strong governments in both Nigeria and Pakistan would disagree with you. Those two countries are in no way anarchic. They are chaotic, certainly. Somalia is pretty close to anarchy, and doing quite well. Last I heard, Mogadishu had three cell-phone companies, while even America continues to have locally mandated monopolies where only one carrier may serve a geographic location. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia http://www.awdaldevelopment.org/Html/resources.htm

I recommend http://www.mises.org/story/1778 http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/bb05/birzer.mp 3 http://www.mises.org/mp3/ASC8/ASCDemo.mp3 as three items that may enlighten you as to what anarchy, as opposed to chaos, is.

I would actually be quite interested in any objections you have to the presentations on anarchy. I know people try to justify coercive force in interesting ways.

Most of the time the Golden Rule translates as 'be nice to others' (probably because that seems to be the only thing people can universally agree upon) and for the most part regulation is an attempt to enforce that behavior.

If you were correct, "government" would be limited to prosecution of force and fraud. None of which has anything to do with regulation. Regulation is how people are allowed to peacefully interact, since violent interaction is (and always has been) illegal.

Human civilization has been built in spite of government, not because of it. The irrational belief that might makes right is the basis of all government. Governments are instituted, as so eloquently written, to secure pre-existing rights to life, liberty and property. Government didn't make any of that possible, its only capacity is to interfere.

Where you and I differ is that I object to that interference, and you agree with it. Under a different government than you have now, it is very likely that one could be found that you object to but that someone else thinks is great.

Again, that is why regulation doesn't work: people disagree. When people are in agreement, no regulation is needed. When they disagree, regulation tramples the rights of those who disagree with it.

A democracy enforces those regulations upon which its citizens agree,

But I do not agree. That is one reason that democracy sucks so badly, the two wolves get to assert that because the sheep gets a "vote", the sheep is somehow agreeing to be dinner.

the dog-eat-dog environment of natural selection and evolution whose parallel in human society we know as anarchy.

No. That is "chaos", not anarchy. Gynarchy, rule by women. Monarchy, rule by one person. Oligarchy, rule by elders or an entrenched elite. Anarchy, no one in a position of rule.

Chaos can exist under any form of government. Under Lenin, for instance, most of Russia was in a state of chaos as they died in great numbers while left without food, without shelter, because Lenin tried to enforce orthodox Communism. He had to release some power, allow money and some small level of voluntary trade in order for the people to survive. Mao found the same thing.

The tax code in the US is a good example of chaos. It is so complex, and changes constantly, that no two accountants come up with the same numbers. People dread being audited not because they think they have done something wrong, but because they can never know for sure that they have not.

in those societies in which anarchy more widely prevails (both now - think Nigeria and Pakistan

I suggest that the very strong governments in both Nigeria and Pakistan would disagree with you. Those two countries are in no way anarchic. They are chaotic, certainly. Somalia is pretty close to anarchy, and doing quite well. Last I heard, Mogadishu had three cell-phone companies, while even America continues to have locally mandated monopolies where only one carrier may serve a geographic location. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia http://www.awdaldevelopment.org/Html/resources.htm

I recommend http://www.mises.org/story/1778 http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/bb05/birzer.mp 3 http://www.mises.org/mp3/ASC8/ASCDemo.mp3 as three items that may enlighten you as to what anarchy, as opposed to chaos, is.

I would actually be quite interested in any objections you have to the presentations on anarchy. I know people try to justify coercive force in interesting ways.

Most of the time the Golden Rule translates as 'be nice to others' (probably because that seems to be the only thing people can universally agree upon) and for the most part regulation is an attempt to enforce that behavior.

If you were correct, "government" would be limited to prosecution of force and fraud. None of which has anything to do with regulation. Regulation is how people are allowed to peacefully interact, since violent interaction is (and always has been) illegal.

Human civilization has been built in spite of government, not because of it. The irrational belief that might makes right is the basis of all government. Governments are instituted, as so eloquently written, to secure pre-existing rights to life, liberty and property. Government didn't make any of that possible, its only capacity is to interfere.

Where you and I differ is that I object to that interference, and you agree with it. Under a different government than you have now, it is very likely that one could be found that you object to but that someone else thinks is great.

Again, that is why regulation doesn't work: people disagree. When people are in agreement, no regulation is needed. When they disagree, regulation tramples the rights of those who disagree with it.

Good sir, the telecom market entry price is has been dropping like a stone, ever since it was "deregulated" to some extent. Those areas, such as local telephone service, where government granted monopolies are still the rule rather than the exception is where little to no innovation exists.

If you're actually interested in why the "free market" functions better than a regulated one, you are welcome to read the materials available on the Ludwig von Mises Institute home page.

http://www.mises.org/

It is in fact a mathematical model, a logically provable statement that a free market will be more efficient than a command-based one.

I do find this statement interesting:

As long as there are people who are willing to fuck over other people for their own good, we need regulation.

Good God Why Would You Trust Such People With The Power Of Government? Or does being in government somehow make people saints? By your own words you state that you are concerned about the evil tendencies of others, yet you put into their hands the power to kill you at will. This is irrational.

Bob-

Out of curiosity, where would the laws come from if there was no voting on them? Is your utopia some kind of autocracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://mises.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/

I see the digital divide as caused by inept social programs, not fixed by them. The anti-poor and anti-minority regulations we have today destroy the access you want. Look at how the minimum wage destroys job opportunities for the poor and for minorities. The tax system we have in this country is even worse (most people pay only a tiny amount in actual IRS income tax but everyone pays a huge amount of their income for all the other taxes) for the poor.

If you want to help the poor and the minorities break this digital divide, you need for them to have opportunities in life that give them reason to learn about the Internet and about information freedom. Our public education system does the absolutely opposite, as it gives the poor a basically free daycare system that offers their offspring the indoctrination in the system that hurt their parents' desire to break free.

The only thing that really helps bring wealth to the poor is work -- hard work. Both my parents came to the U.S. with absolutely nothing, not even good comprehension of the language. Yet they both busted their rears so that my siblings and I would have better lives, and I work hard so that my children will have an even better opportunity.

Don't blame the lack of Internet knowledge on ISPs. I'd rather see privated completely deregulated electrical service as well.

Private monopolies and cartels are some of the most coercive forces on earth, esp. when they are buying political influence in a monetized 'free-market' of governance.

Since the only way a real monopoly can exist is by government force, and cartels are unstable (see OPEC) without that same government force keeping them in line (see Railroads), your argument isn't with "private" efforts at all. You object to interventionist government, just as I do.

A free-market monopoly cannot rest on its laurels. It must continuously innovate, keep prices and costs as low as possible, or face every Tom, James or Nicola who comes up with a better/cheaper widget. That's why Microsoft makes so many political contribution$.

check that their communities aren't in need of levee repairs...

You aren't aware that the levees around New Orleans, in fact all the way up the Mississippi river, are explicitly government built, owned and operated? That's why such a failure can occur and not have anyone held responsible, fired, nor even demoted. Again, your objection is with government, and I agree with you.

Libertarians tilt toward toward a degree of naive single-mindedness reminescent of communism.

Non sequiter. Did you mean "communists"?

But communists have experience at the helm, and you don't.

Interestingly put. The communists failed in each and every effort, Lenin going so far as to reintroduce currency and limited private enterprise in order to keep his entire country from starving out from under him. Pol Pot is an encyclopedia of evil all to himself. Both the English Virginia and Massachusetts colonies nearly starved themselves out of existence because they set themselves up as "commonwealths", an early word for communist, and no one lifted a finger to raise crops. Exactly like Lenin discovered 400 years later. Hmmm.... there's a lesson there.

If you examine the principle of non-initiation of force, you will find that such environments have existed, more or less, throughout history. They mark times and places of remarkable peacefulness and progress. If you are actually interested in the subject, please check out the Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ There are many authors represented, both in print and in audio/video, with historical, sociological, even religious, perspectives. I especially suggest the audio discussion on anarchy, it is often good to take an idea to its logical extreme to examine what it means.

You live as a libertarian every day. You voluntarily shop in places, and for products, that you desire rather than being told to do so. You negotiate with your employer, voluntarily agreeing to work for the offered wage (or not), demonstrating the fundamental Libertarian principle of self ownership and voluntary interaction. It is only thieves and government which must tax others by force for their own existence.

You are welcome to say that a coercion-free society is illogical due to the very real human nature to desire, and acquire by any means, power over others. That is a functional idea shared by many, and the reason that there is such a person as a "min-archist".

It is also the reason that the Colt pistol was named, "The Equalizer".

Bob-

One of the other posters here is correct, the Virginia colony very likely had a harvest festival before the Plymouth colony did, if for no other reason than they started a dozen years earlier with exactly the same communal-property=starvation results.

However, if we are going to discuss the "why"s and "wherefore"s, it would be educational to remember that William Branford, the first governor of the Plymouth colony, wrote it all up.

Here are some articles with links to the original:

From http://www.mises.org/story/336

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

And from https://www.mises.org/story/1678

The Pilgrims' unhappiness was caused by their system of common property (not adopted, as often asserted, from their religious convictions, but required against their will by the colony's sponsors). The fruits of each person's efforts went to the community, and each received a share from the common wealth. This caused severe strains among the members, as Colony Governor William Bradford recorded:

" . . . the young men . . . did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong . . . had not more in division . . . than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes, etc . . . thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And the men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it."

Or if you really just want the undigested original:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.ht ml

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."

One of the other posters here is correct, the Virginia colony very likely had a harvest festival before the Plymouth colony did, if for no other reason than they started a dozen years earlier with exactly the same communal-property=starvation results.

However, if we are going to discuss the "why"s and "wherefore"s, it would be educational to remember that William Branford, the first governor of the Plymouth colony, wrote it all up.

Here are some articles with links to the original:

From http://www.mises.org/story/336

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

And from https://www.mises.org/story/1678

The Pilgrims' unhappiness was caused by their system of common property (not adopted, as often asserted, from their religious convictions, but required against their will by the colony's sponsors). The fruits of each person's efforts went to the community, and each received a share from the common wealth. This caused severe strains among the members, as Colony Governor William Bradford recorded:

" . . . the young men . . . did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong . . . had not more in division . . . than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes, etc . . . thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And the men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it."

Or if you really just want the undigested original:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.ht ml

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."

IP blah:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

I have no worship of "corporation", a fictional entity created by a grant of limited liability by government. Massive executive bonuses ? Is that envy I see?

I noticed that your list of abuses in your latter sentence are all related to abuse of government power.

So don't go so overboard with your hatred of abuse of power that you don't assign responsibility directly to that entity which is the source of the abuse: interventionist government.

Remove the power to enact such limited liability, and businessmen won't go looking to buy it to make themselves more competitive. Or do you think a product won't find a customer just because you don't like the product?

Now, go read http://www.mises.org/ for some of their excellent daily articles about government abuse of power and the poverty and deprivation that brings on everyone but their select few with "massive executive bonuses".

Who grants the natural right to property?

You do, I do. Do you think the 'state' just pulled the property laws out of there collective ass (ok for some states i'll say yes). Most of Texas current property laws are an extension of 'natural' property laws.

Texas tresspass laws are great. If you tresspass on my property, you have the legal right to leave in a body bag. Not the states force, my own.

Maybe you should read around here a little.

Here's a good article on it:

http://www.mises.org/story/1835

We can't have safe cigarettes. If people had safe cigarettes there wouldn't be any excuse to levy massive taxes on them. Poor minorities generally get a break on taxes, in practice because they don't have much money to take, but in rhetoric because we dislike regressive taxation. However, they also make up the vast bulk of cigarette smokers, and it's okay to demonize cigarette smokers. So under the pretense of discouraging cigarette smoking, politicians can impose a regressive racist tax.

If our government weren't addicted to the $15.7 billion dollars in taxes they collect on an annual basis from cigarettes, we would get safe cigarettes in a heartbeat. Right now, though, too many pet projects depend on cigarettes being dangerous for that to change.

Only problem is that percentage of poor people's income spent on buying goods (necessary goods like food, clothing, etc.) is MUCH higher than rich people's income spent on buying goods (even when you factor in $35 million for Gulf Stream Jet). Why should poor people pay more (in relative scale) than rich?

I suggested two ways to alleviate that situation, one of which was to index all items and charge people by a percentage of what they make. So if a person making $100,000/yr pays $30,000 for a car, then a person making $10,000 would be charged only $3,000 for the same car.

Somehow, you found that to be an argument against taxation and called it idiotic.

You then proceeded to talk about taxation again, and stated:

Do you think the guy who is making the minimum wage and barely making by will be happy to know that he paid exactly same amount of money (as the rich people)...

The second part of my first paragraph was to comment on that position (If all were taxed at a flat rate of, say, 10%, then one making $10,000 would pay $1,000 and one making $100,000 would pay $10,000), and I can see that I could have made the connection clearer.

Perhaps the point you were trying to make in your first posting was that the FairTax would be more burdensome on the poor than the rich since it is levied on purchases. The FairTax supporters claim this will not be the case, for a number of reasons. See http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/sketch.html/ .

Under a rigid flat tax, the poor won't pay as much as the rich. Under our current, highly flawed, system the poor don't pay as much as the rich, but many rich people pay less than most of the middle class. The flat tax could prove to have the same flaws if all the current loopholes were carried over.

I am not yet convinced that the FairTax proposal will work, but as it is written, overall the poor will not pay the same as the rich. For some interesting views against the FairTax, see http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/fairtax. htm/ and http://www.mises.org/story/1814/

No matter what system of taxation or what system of government is established, there will be those who take advantage of the system to the detriment of others. Mankind does not have the moral capacity to govern fairly.

Corporations exist to produce a useful good. Profits represent the difference in value between instant consumption and investment. However the system has been broken by policies that reinvent those relationships. Instead of the question being asked "is it the most efficient way producing a useful good", and coming to the conclusion that if it is not, the investment needs to be placed elsewhere. http://mises.org/quiz.asp 20. B
Insider trading is wrongly maligned because who is better to judge the worth of the stock than those responsible for generating results.

I'm bored, so I'm stopping now.