Slashdot Mirror

The Obama dept of Labor ? and an organization pushing this ?

Or maybe I could take the word of a Nobel Prize winning economist ?

The inverse relationship between quantity demanded and price is the core proposition in economic science, which embodies the presupposition that human choice behavior is sufficiently rational to allow predictions to be made. Just as no physicist would claim that "water runs uphill," no self-respecting economist would claim that increases in the minimum wage increase employment. Such a claim, if seriously advanced, becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimal scientific content in economics, and that, in consequence, economists can do nothing but write as advocates for ideological interests. Fortunately, only a handful of economists are willing to throw over the teaching of two centuries; we have not yet become a bevy of camp-following whores.

https://mises.org/library/econ...

I see you found some of Mr. Buchanan's camp following whores.

> Why, then, are most people so negative on other people selling and buying them?

You can start here with the shenanigans of Imaginary Property:

* Against Intellectual Property
* Against Intellectual Property 2

--
Only Cowards Censor

Years ago, I noticed one thing about economics, and that is that economists didn't get anything right.
-Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Economists tend to think they are much, much smarter than historians, than everybody. And this is a bit too much because at the end of the day, we don't know very much in economics.
-Thomas Piketty

I don't care for a lot of this person's theories, but the following, at least, I can definitely agree with:

Contrary to what professional economists will typically tell you, economics is not a science. All economic theories have underlying political and ethical assumptions, which make it impossible to prove them right or wrong in the way we can with theories in physics or chemistry.
-Ha-Joon Chang

Lastly, I think this lad

That's a great video.

Another great read is What Has Government Done to Our Money?

The US spends about the same percentage of GDP on social welfare as Switzerland and Australia, and significantly more than Canada.

At last some real objective data. This makes for so much more interesting debate than just citing you own conservative propaganda.
So based on your own data, Norway spends more on welfare, and has a higher standard of living than the US, and is socialist. Do you agree or disagree?

In absolute terms, the US spends more on social welfare per capita than any other major country. Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the UK

It's a bit silly to use absolute terms when the US has 3 times more people than all those countries combined.
As above, percentage of GDP gives a better indicator, and if you toggle the down arrow to sort highest to lowest, the US is near the bottom.

all rank higher on economic liberty than the US.

Yes because economic liberty has little to do with socialism. As your own references show, you can be socialist AND have economic freedom.
So again the socialist countries like NZ, Australia, Canada, Iceland seem to be performing better than the US, agree or disagree?

And the US has the highest corporate tax rates among OECD countries.

Interesting. Although where is this money going?Maybe you're blowing it all on Defence and Prisons instead on health and education?
I'm also aware that the US spends a fair bit on health and education but just isn't getting the same results. I wonder why that is?
Also, just paying higher tax isn't a socialist concept, unless that money is going to benefit those at the bottom, which it clearly isn't in the US.

So, the idea that those other countries are "socialist", even in the sense of being a welfare state, while the US is supposedly not is untenable.

So you're seriously going to try and argue the the US is socialist too now? Or that all the other countries aren't?
Actually I might agree somewhat, the US is a little bit socialist, because it does have some social programs, but your original argument is that socialism is evil, and only small government can succeed is clearly flawed. You've clearly demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between socialist policy and quality of living.

In terms of economic factors (housing, jobs, income), the US outranks all other OECD members.

But this argument isn't about who is the richest, it's about quality of life. Would you rather be rich and unhappy, or mostly rich and happy?

If you ranked countries like Sweden and Germany among US states, they would be among the poorest US states.

As above, slightly less rich, but with better services and higher quality of life overall. I would gladly sacrifice a few extra percent of my income to not have some poor soul have to live on the streets - actually I already do. Would you?

Having lived in several of the countries you list, that agrees with my experience. In particular, I rejected emigrating both to Canada and Australia because I consider the economic opportunities and standard of living to be too low in those countries.

Even though the

Good one. So you conveniently pretend Norway, Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany and Ireland aren't there? Or are you man enough to admit that yes, there are a few socialist countries with higher standard of living than the US?

The US spends about the same percentage of GDP on social welfare as Switzerland and Australia, and significantly more than Canada. In absolute terms, the US spends more on social welfare per capita than any other major country. Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the UK all rank higher on economic liberty than the US. And the US has the highest corporate tax rates among OECD countries. So, the idea that those other countries are "socialist", even in the sense of being a welfare state, while the US is supposedly not is untenable.

In terms of economic factors (housing, jobs, income), the US outranks all other OECD members. If you ranked countries like Sweden and Germany among US states, they would be among the poorest US states. Having lived in several of the countries you list, that agrees with my experience. In particular, I rejected emigrating both to Canada and Australia because I consider the economic opportunities and standard of living to be too low in those countries.

And if we take the wealth inequality of the US into account, then for 99% of Americans, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Liechtenstein, Sweden, UK, Iceland etc etc have higher standards of living too?

Most comparisons of living standards already look at median incomes or exclude the top 1%, so arguments about "if you take wealth inequality into account" are rooted in a misunderstanding of what that data shows. Furthermore, the levels of inequality in the US are not much higher than other countries; pretax, they are the same or lower than the UK, Spain, Poland, Germany, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Post tax, they are similar to the UK, Canada, Spain, and Australia (0.42 vs. 0.41 and 0.38).

Overall, I agree: the US should be more like Canada, Australia, and Ireland: we should cut back our corporate tax rates to lower levels, and cut back our social welfare spending to the lower levels found in those other countries.

Looks like they contacted the wrong Gordon.

If more guns make you safer, then the US should be the safest country on earth yet last year there were 12,236 deaths and a further 24,755 injuries from shootings(3.53 per 100,000). This casualty toll includes 640 children aged 0-11 killed or injured by guns.

Canada has outstandingly low gun casualty statistics. In 2009, there were 0.5 deaths per 100,000 from gun homicide — only 173 people. Still, the ownership is comparatively high — there are 23.8 firearms per 100 people in the country.

There is no legal right to possess arms in Canada. It takes sixty days to buy a gun there, and there is mandatory licensing for gun owners. Gun owners pursuing a license must have third-party references, take a safety training course and pass a background check with a focus on mental, criminal and addiction histories.

Licensing agents are required to advise an applicant's spouse or next-of-kin prior to granting a license, and licenses are denied to applicants with any past history of domestic violence. Buyers in private sales of weapons must pass official background checks.

Canadian civilians aren't allowed to possess automatic weapons, handguns with a barrel shorter than 10.5 cm or any modified handgun, rifle or shotgun. Most semi-automatic assault weapons are also banned. As a result of exemptions, several kinds of assault weapons are still legal in Canada, although this has been the source of some controversy.

You would think there would be more crime in Canada as almost no one carries a concealed weapon yet the per capita rate of all crimes is much lower than the US

Compare Canada to New Hampshire, USA: the most machine guns per capita in the country, about 10% of the population has a concealed carry license, no paperwork is needed to purchase, posses, or even to open carry a firearm.

Yet somehow, New Hampshire Is Safer Than Canada.

And yet when you compare the figure of 100% of US residents that murder people with guns to the Canadian gun stats, somehow the US stats are much higher. I don't know what it means but some genius should study those figures. We could have a murder-fee society in just a few years. I'm actually going to propose a study that will determine if gun manufacturers are embedding some type of ignorance drug into the metal, wood and plastics that guns are made of recently.

So it's ignorant to recognize that crime rates and laws are not uniform across provinces or across states?

There are parts of Canada with shockingly high violent crime rates, and high overall homicide rates. There are parts of the USA with shockingly high violent crime rates, and high overall homicide rates. It's almost as if homicide isn't a uniform issue in either of these nations, and firearms ownership does not show a strong correlation to homicide rate, which should lead the non-ignorant person to suspect there are other factors driving these problems.

Given that Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire have high firearms ownership (about 10% of residents carry handguns) and lower homicide rates than Canada, maybe we don't need new nationwide laws covering the entire US, maybe we should look at what is different about Maine and it's neighbors to make them safer not only than the USA average, but also safer than the Canadian average?

SJW agitprop masquerading as science.

They don't call it cultural marxism for nothing!

Fucking highways

Read and learn

-jcr

Japan is experiencing deflation in many areas, whereas they should have benefited from lower oil costs. That's why both the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank are into negative interest rates. It's why even the fed is worried and using negative interest rates as one scenario for bank stress tests

> Austrian religion (it's not a "school"), as usual does not make predictions. It doesn't use models so it can't do that.
Austrian approach does not view economics as science, rather as a deductive study. So it cannot make predictions. This is why it clashes with mainstream economics, which attempts to be a science. I will leave open the question whether economics can or cannot be a science, rather I'll point out that I often see ideological assumptions (in particular the belief in central planning) bundled into what purports to be science.

> According to mainstream economy, deflation happens because consumers DO NOT HAVE MONEY to spend. So the producers have to cut prices to sell at least _something_. This in turn leads to wage decreases and layoffs. And this in turn leads to consumers having less money. Rinse, wash, repeat.
You probably wanted to say "recessions happen because customers do not have money". Deflations (in the sense of falling price levels) occur in other situations too (for example increases in productivity that outpace the increase in the money supply) and don't necessarily have the effects associated with recession.

The Austrian approach (see http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Aus... ) to the business cycle is based on three issues: cluster of entrepreneurial errors, capital goods prices fluctuating more than those of consumer goods, and why the cycle tends to happen around changes in the money supply.

Let's take your argument, the customers losing money. Why are there whole sectors of economy that are unable to foresee this? If they foresaw it, they would have adjusted their production structure to the falling price level. But it comes unexpected to whole sectors rather than merely individual businesses. Your proposition does not explain why. The Austrians argue that this is due to faulty price signals caused by the changes in the money supply.

> Reality is often a little bit messier - wages rarely fall in nominal values, they tend to stick at zero growth. So nominal deflation doesn't appear, instead no-flation (1% inflation) happens. See: "European Union", "Japan".
This does not explain, among other things, why:
1. There are situations where a falling price level does not cause a recession (say in the consumer electronics sector, or the examples from the Atkeson/Kehoe paper I linked)?
2. Whole sectors cannot foresee this and adjust in advance?

The above analysis is completely flawed. For a better understanding of the gold standard, see https://mises.org/money.asp

For the people who actually do care to learn something about the Great Depression that they are not generally taught in schools (normally they are taught nonsensical government version of it).

All economics is supply side or more correctly production economics. Consumptions economics is nonsense, everything that is consumed has to be produced first. Those who don't get it need to get a 1,000,000 dollars and a year vacation on a rock in the middle of an ocean somewhere without any productive land, without anything. Then see how you survive with a million bucks and nothing to buy for them.

1911 - Sherman act is applied to Standard Oil, one of the most successful companies on the planet, producing the richest person in history. Rockefeller started with nothing but was worth over 600,000,000,000 inflation adjusted dollars. Private property rights took a gigantic hit.

1913 - IRS is set up. Income taxes are now collected by the government instead of Constitutional capitation, excise, import, duty taxes. Not only private property rights are destroyed but basically self determination and self ownership is destroyed at this moment in time.

1913 - Federal reserve bank is set up. A supposedly private institution to print US dollar but at the time by law the Fed actually would have a higher reserve of gold per dollar printed than other banks.

1917 - Federal reserve bank is allowed by Congress to monetize USA Treasury debt. This begins the inflation that destroyed the USA economy over the next 100 years.

1920 - a depression happens during Harding, the government didn't participate, didn't create any new policies, didn't create new debt, didn't infuse money into the economy. The depression is over in about a year.

1925 - Federal reserve bank starts monetizing UK debt that USA buys from the French. Over the next 4 years this policy inflates a bubble in agricultural stocks that blows up in 1929.

1929 - The bubble inflated by the Federal reserve bank blows up, this restructures the debts, companies fail, stocks go down. (Hayek, Andreson, Harwood predict this depression, Keynes actually loses money in it.)

1929 - 1939 - a series of gigantic interventionist policies is implemented. Billions of dollars are printed and spent into the economy, even on such amazing feats of government nonsensical Keynesian bullshit like buying productive output from farmers and ploughing it into the ground to prevent prices from going down (trying to prevent the deflation during a recession, when deflation and falling prices are actually super helpful for people who lost their jobs). The nonsensical 'New Deal' is introduced. SS is started, minimum wage is introduced, etc.etc., all the things that governments promise to do to provide something for nothing. This something obviously to be paid for by huge taxes, printing, borrowing.

1945 - the end of WWII, USA lowers its taxes by 30%, lowers spending by 60%. This allows very fast transition from war to post war economy. USA economy booms even though it is faced with competition from other markets with much lower labour costs.

1950s through 1970s - hot wars, cold war, space race, 'war on poverty' and all the other unnecessary and expensive crap that could not be paid for lead to 1971, when Nixon defaults on the gold dollar because of all the outstanding debts that cannot be paid for. The French asked for their gold and were denied, the dollar default coupled with all the impossible and unsustainable programs lead to the stagnation of 1970s. Huge inflation and huge unemployment, something that Keynes wouldn't believe to be possible.

1981 - Paul Volcker takes interest rates to about 20% to stop inflation. This succeeds in stopping the inflation, causes a housing market bubble crash. Government started coming up with ideas on how to under report inflation, under report unemployment and over report GDP.

1982-1987 - the Fed starts

Natural monopoly of utilities is a myth created by a history of inefficient allocation of rights of way. It's possible for government-owned rights of way to remain competitive. All a local government has to do is bury several conduits under a road or sidewalk, with the intent to sell the conduits later to competing utilities.

This entire article is based on the premise we must allow free markets infinite amounts of time to develop properly and must never act to guide markets just because conditions happen to currently be intolerable. It's childish for the author to be so naive.

Natural monopoly of utilities is a myth created by a history of inefficient allocation of rights of way. It's possible for government-owned rights of way to remain competitive. All a local government has to do is bury several conduits under a road or sidewalk, with the intent to sell the conduits later to competing utilities.

Well, if that's your "actual claim", I agree completely: you clearly prefer that. You may also prefer to have your balls ritualistically shaved by Vilma. But, guess what, it's not the job of government to cater to your preferences. If you want Vilma to ritualistically shave your testicles, that's between you and Vilma, and don't come running to government if you don't like Vilma's prices or conditions.

Obviously my claim is not merely that I prefer it, but that it would be better that way (which is why I'd prefer it). But thanks for bringing up this irrelevant technicality, and not answering any of the other points I brought up.

As for the nature of roads as "public goods" and the implications, have a look here: https://mises.org/library/publ... [mises.org]

I find it quite ironic that you are trying to direct me to mises.org when I am already a libertarian.

It is not that I think public goods come with no problems. It's that I think the privatizing those goods comes with even worse problems.

You said you think the government is good at fighting wars. I think I would disagree with that given our track record, however I think privatizing our military and foreign policy would be even worse.

So it is not enough to point out the failings of government management of X. You must also show that Y is a better alternative.

Given that it's the cities resources that need to be used (i.e. land, roads, sewers, conduit, etc) to create the broadband infrastructure, I would prefer that the city retain ownership of these assets rather than trying to save a little money by letting the telecoms own this otherwise public good.

That's a non-sequitur.

It's not a non-sequitur (something that doesn;t follow), because it is the actual claim I am making

Well, if that's your "actual claim", I agree completely: you clearly prefer that. You may also prefer to have your balls ritualistically shaved by Vilma. But, guess what, it's not the job of government to cater to your preferences. If you want Vilma to ritualistically shave your testicles, that's between you and Vilma, and don't come running to government if you don't like Vilma's prices or conditions.

As for the nature of roads as "public goods" and the implications, have a look here: https://mises.org/library/publ...

Can we interpret the argument as leadiig to the conclusion that, since the market
will underinvest, given externalities, government action will correct the misallocation
of resources by adding to the mileage of road construction? This will not work
either. On the one hand, the addition of govemment investment in mads may
decrease the amount of private investment,' so that the total amount of road building,
private plus public, may fall below the previously established market level and
thus worsen the so-called original underinvestment in roads. On the other hand,
government, unshackled by any market test of profitability, may so expand the
scope of road building that a resultant overinvestment may ensue. If so, a new
misallocation will emerge, with an overinvestment substituted for an underinvestment.
Further, even if government action results in the correct amount of total
road mileage, government management of its domain may be so inept as to erase
any allocation gains. If any of these eventualities obtains, and there is little reason
to think not, then the argument fails.

In a free market, the solution is to take your business elsewhere. But here, local governments have contributed to the creation of a monopoly. When the city owns its roads and fails to efficiently manage and price rights of way, you have a government problem that the government is responsible for solving. Ideally, a city would bury generic conduits every time it resurfaces the roads and lease them to competing utilities, which can pull lines through those conduits as needed.

Those who think MOAR government is MOAR better (including Comrade Sanders) have another think coming.

I don't know the people you know but some links for references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://mises.org/library/libe...

https://www.lp.org/issues/envi...

To answer your first question, the market sets a price. To answer your second, the price goes up.

You are exactly correct that this market can not function properly. It is simple to see why when you realize that it is neither free market, nor socialist, nor anywhere in between. Instead, it is fascist.

It still is an effective monopoly in the OS on the desktop

What you are saying is just that they have a high market share in a niche market. And it bothers you because the market isn't giving you what you want at the price you want. Well, tough cookies; when 90% of people choose a product you don't like and get the benefit of economies of scale, that's not a monopoly.

The DoJ seems to disagree with you. Seems there was some sort of anti-competitive action on MS's part that forced competitors out of business or something. And no, it wasn't that people chose MS, it was that there was no other choice available due to MS's actions.

The history I am familiar with has Standard Oil being pretty much the only oil refinery company within the US, able to set prices at will.

Even monopolies can't set prices at will, so what you are saying isn't even self-consistent.

Do you have the slightest idea what a monopoly is? They can set prices at will, and extract higher profits than would be possible in a free market. As Standard Oil had stated profits of almost 840M between 1882 and 1906, it seems that they certainly extracted large amounts of profit from a "fading" and "failing business" as you stated earlier. For comparison, the US debt in 1906 was around 1.5 billion, not even double Standard Oil's profit. Now, "set prices at will" has some restrictions, but that's the verbiage used in the definition. You can take any arguments you have with that statement up with those who set the definition of a monopoly.

In any case, you can start by reading the Wikipedia article for some background information, including the monopoly/no-monopoly views, then do more reading, like

https://mises.org/library/100-...

You are not seriously proposing Standard Oil was not a monopoly? Your revisionist side is showing.

Bush came into office in 2001, his policies would take at least a year to have any effect.

We were discussing your claim that liberalized trade leads to job losses, yet throughout 40 years of trade liberalization, the US has gained large numbers of jobs. What happened after 2001 is a red herring.

And I'd say "Free Trade" is an irrelevant and that the technological (computer) revolution that's occurred since about the early 80s has been the major driver of jobs.

Most people use their funds to live off of. Only the top 10% or so do anything else meaningful with it.

We were discussing your claim that trade imbalances are bad. I'm pointing out that foreigners are buying stuff for it, namely shares in US businesses. Your (erroneous) beliefs about which Americans own shares is a red hering.

The discussion is about the American middle class, who's jobs are being shipped out of the country and are having their standard of living lowered. Foreign investment in American businesses only benefits shareholders, and as such is irrelevant to the discussion. It makes that top 1% more wealthy, but doesn't do squat for Joe American, except potentially lower.

The US is prodigiously wealthy primarily because of large oil and other natural resources, and the fact that we didn't get bombed to the stone age in WWII and got to supply lots of exports to Europe, Asia, and Africa in the late 40s and early 50s.

That is true for many other countries that aren't wealthy. What makes the US different is our reliance on (relatively) free markets and free trade. And as the US is getting more regulated and more protectionist, our fortunes are declining.

http://www.heritage.org/index/...

Our f

It still is an effective monopoly in the OS on the desktop

What you are saying is just that they have a high market share in a niche market. And it bothers you because the market isn't giving you what you want at the price you want. Well, tough cookies; when 90% of people choose a product you don't like and get the benefit of economies of scale, that's not a monopoly. (And I should say, I think Windows is awful.)

See, a lot of economic legislation is about politically powerful minorities trying to impose their preferences on a market and a country that makes different choices. People like fast greasy food, big cars, big houses, Microsoft Windows, sexist video games, mail order books. Wealthy people and intellectuals don't like those things, they are annoyed that the market is giving people what they want while not catering to their refined tastes, so they lobby and get legislation passed.

The history I am familiar with has Standard Oil being pretty much the only oil refinery company within the US, able to set prices at will.

Even monopolies can't set prices at will, so what you are saying isn't even self-consistent.

In any case, you can start by reading the Wikipedia article for some background information, including the monopoly/no-monopoly views, then do more reading, like

https://mises.org/library/100-...

Bush came into office in 2001, his policies would take at least a year to have any effect.

We were discussing your claim that liberalized trade leads to job losses, yet throughout 40 years of trade liberalization, the US has gained large numbers of jobs. What happened after 2001 is a red herring.

Most people use their funds to live off of. Only the top 10% or so do anything else meaningful with it.

We were discussing your claim that trade imbalances are bad. I'm pointing out that foreigners are buying stuff for it, namely shares in US businesses. Your (erroneous) beliefs about which Americans own shares is a red hering.

The US is prodigiously wealthy primarily because of large oil and other natural resources, and the fact that we didn't get bombed to the stone age in WWII and got to supply lots of exports to Europe, Asia, and Africa in the late 40s and early 50s.

That is true for many other countries that aren't wealthy. What makes the US different is our reliance on (relatively) free markets and free trade. And as the US is getting more regulated and more protectionist, our fortunes are declining.

http://www.heritage.org/index/...

While some European and Japanese firms have created factories here to build automobiles mostly, what other factories, specifically by China, have been built in the US?

They do it all the time. They do it by investing in US businesses through the stock market, so that the US can do whatever it is doing best with that money. And those investments show up as a "trade deficit".

> complete disregard for her oath.

She didn't take an oath you stupid Republican liar. She isn't in the military, and she isn't the President yet. Maybe you took one, but that doesn't mean everyone else did. Why do you Republicans constantly project? You think just because your kind is stupid and violent that everyone else must be. Well, we aren't. We are not you. Not. No way. Not in any way. And, stop with that spew of lies about Hillary. It is very telling that she is so innocent that you have to lie to try to attack her.

As usual, Republicans have nothing on her so they make-up ridiculous fantasies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVxLzs4YQPY

This links to footage of Hillary Clinton taking the oath of office as the Secretary of State

https://www.gutenberg.org/
https://mises.org/library/books
https://www.marxists.org/archive/index.htm
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/index.html

Here you go kid. read some books learn something

It is not efficient at all to move the whole fire department over to a house just to watch it burn and make sure it doesn't spread to neighbors.

Why is it not efficient? As long as they don't have to wear much equipment, nor spend much of the chemicals, nor risk lives and limb, the costs of such a move are negligible.

It's also a natural monopoly.

There is no such thing. "Natural monopoly" is a myth created by statists already in government to justify their control of our lives.

It wouldn't be efficient to have two competing fire departments in a small town.

Who said, they must limit themselves to one town? They don't — not any more than KFC does. On the contrary, the current situation, where each little town has its own department is inefficient. Multiple such companies could open shop in multiple places — competing with each other across town- and state-borders.

It's much better to have a larger one with better equipment.

Sure. But it does not have to be government-owned.

Who cares who is spawned from where... the Lawyers of MIT, engineers of Harvard, oil barons from Berkeley, nuclear physicists from Julliard or shoe-makers from Oxford... oh futz, all this bickering is just a proxy war between the Four Horsemen of the Economicalypse. Their cycles reflect the luminance and lunacy of the Moon.

1. The Anarchist/ Free Trade Absolutist (new moon)
2. The Keynesian (waxing)
3. The Oligarchy/Thin Veneer of Government, no link offered for my own protection (full moon)
4. The Austrian (waning)

We are now in a latter phase of waxing gibbous that has gone on for quite awhile. Our politicians are spineless and scripted, vetted faux-choices are the only ones presented, economies have merged and inflated to the degree that a world war is the most likely 'correction' with any historical precedent. The only choice available to us may be Hobson's, because the 'Status Quo' is unraveling in countless tiny (almost holographic) ways.

I see trees of green, red roses, too, I see them bloom, for me and you, And I think to myself, What a wonderful world. I see skies of blue, and clouds of white, The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night, And I think to myself, What a wonderful world. The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky, Are also on the faces of people going by. I see friends shaking hands, saying "How do you do?" They're really saying, "I love you." I hear babies cryin'. I watch them grow. They'll learn much more than I'll ever know, And I think to myself, What a wonderful world. Yes, I think to myself, What a wonderful world

Unlike you, I actually understand the economy

As conceited as you are ignorant. How tragic.

if you had at least two brain cells ...and bereft of a logical argument, naturally you resort to being snotty.

The Fed has caused a series of bubbles by fucking with interest rates. Latin American debt, the dot-com bubble, and the most recent real-estate bubble are just three in a series going back to the Fed's inception.

When they interfere with interest rates, they break the crucial information flow. When there's an endless supply of fiat currency, the market signal of the scarcity of capital is destroyed. Read and learn.

-jcr

Your problem is you aren't rich enough to own your own roads and cities too.

Neither is the government. Where do you think the government gets the money to pay for this? they don't have any money. They first confiscate it from you and me, whether we want it or not. Either by straight out taxing it, borrowing it in your name, or printing money which just dilutes the value of your savings. It also makes it impossible for the private sector to enter the road market.

The fact is that the private sector not only could take over making roads, but it would do a much better job at it. It would avoid building bridges to nowhere, and invest more heavily in areas with higher traffic. In fact, the first roads were entirely private. Murray Rothbard wrote a very nice book explaining how this could work (chapter 11).

In other words, you are saying they can tell me how to give a ride because they are already forcing me to pay them to build the roads. "Land of the free" indeed.

step in when the market fails

Except that does not really happen. Pretty much by definition.

Hell the left doesn't let people on it's side so much as talk to people

There's a very good reason for that: periodic internal purges are an essential component of the belief system.

What does that tell you about democracy?

It's a god that failed

I remember before the movies came out, that I wished more people could experience Lord of the Rings. It was just such an awesome book. I dreamed of the day the work would be known to everyone. Oh, don't get me wrong, lots of people knew LOTR back in the day, but it wasn't mainstream. I knew that if my dream were to come true, the real key would be overexposure. Hey, it's either that or stay a cult classic, right?

Of course, today, my dream has been fulfilled. The movies were great. Lots of haters, but you know what? The director kept most of the themes intact, and that's what counts.

The really ugly haters are on the literature side. The "literati" (LOL what a dumb name) are horrified by Tolkien because he shoves in their face the fact that they don't get to decide what literature is. The readers do. He reminds them that they are less and less relevant with each passing year, and they hate that.

Tolkien stands in stark contrast to the socialist-leaning, Modernist, elitist literati that hate him so much. As Mingardi and Stagnaro have demonstrated, Tolkien understood that socialism was unworkable and made little distinction between "left" and "right" socialism. Shippey notes that the literary coterie that "ruled and defined English literature at least for a time, between the wars and after World War II⦠were committed modernists, upper class, often Etonians, often professed Communists, often extremely rich, well-entrenched as editors and reviewers in the literary columns." (p. 316) In another article, Mingardi and Stagnaro show that far from being a statist as so many of the literati were throughout the 20th century, Tolkien identified himself as an anarchist (of the private property sort, not the socialist, bomb-throwing sort).

Furthermore, he commits a cultural/political crime that for our socialist literati is unforgivable. He likes the middle class and writes about them affectionately in the guise of the Hobbits. No sense of alienation! No sense of looking down on the middle class snootily from a lofty vantage point! Unforgivable!

-- Why They Hate Tolkien, by Lew Rockwell

Those who cannot do - sue.

The entire premise of 'anti-trust' coming from a government, ANY government is laughable in every possible way. The only real monopolies that can abuse power are created by governments and it is government power that is abused by them, as for Google and other companies that compete among each other and may become dominant (for some time) in a market - this is due to the choice of the clients, who collectively vote for that company to be in a more dominant position at that time.

I see you got mod bombed by the Fascist Left. If I had the points I would mod you up but since I don't I'll just quote

Those who cannot do - sue.

The entire premise of 'anti-trust' coming from a government, ANY government is laughable in every possible way. The only real monopolies that can abuse power are created by governments and it is government power that is abused by them, as for Google and other companies that compete among each other and may become dominant (for some time) in a market - this is due to the choice of the clients, who collectively vote for that company to be in a more dominant position at that time.

Well if you are going to go around correcting people you might as well get your facts straight first http://mises.org/library/origi... [mises.org]

Wait, a columnist employed by a neoconservative think-tank is a source of facts? Excellent.
Unfortunately, he falls prey to also misusing the word Socialism.

You might even try reading the sources you are linking to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]

Good idea. FTS:

"Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–99).[1] According to the simplest left–right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, opposite fascism and conservatism on the right. "

Were the Nazis Socialists, or were they Fascists? Boko Haram fancies themselves Freedom Fighters, yet I'm not sure I'd call an Islamist Theocracy free.

Or at least try looking at the pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]

Ah, yes. I can see how one could try to spin that as authoritative without giving the context in which the picture is placed. Here, I'll go ahead and do that for the audience.

"One alternative spectrum offered by the conservative American Federalist Journal[29] accounts for only the "Degree of Government Control" without consideration for any other social or political variable, and thus places "Fascism" (totalitarianism) at one extreme and "Anarchy" (no government at all) at the other extreme."

That's quite the claim of authority, right there.

Here's bonus points for you, In your own words what is the effective difference between Communism and Nazism ?

Simple. Nazism isn't Communism. Nazism is totalitarian state-controlled capitalism. It makes no attempt at moving toward social ownership of the means of production, unless one wants to twist the Leninist interpretation of Marxism to include Dictator-owned as social ownership. It doesn't make any attempt at eliminating class struggle between bourgeois and proletariat. In fact, there was literally nothing about Nazism that was Socialist. Sure, there were plenty of aspects of the Welfare State within the political ideology, but those existed before hand, and are not aspects of the definition of Socialism.

When you are done stuttering and trying to come up with something you might want to think about apologizing to all the people you have without doubt been a douchebag to.

Hardly. You're still a tool.

Well if you are going to go around correcting people you might as well get your facts straight first

http://mises.org/library/origi...

You might even try reading the sources you are linking to

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

Or at least try looking at the pictures

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

Here's bonus points for you, In your own words what is the effective difference between Communism and Nazism ?

When you are done stuttering and trying to come up with something you might want to think about apologizing to all the people you have without doubt been a douchebag to.

SolarCity claims its GridLogic program can provide electricity to communities and businesses for less than they pay for utility power

For decades we were told over and over, how the utility power is a "natural monopoly" and how, therefor, it can not be subject to competition...

and the facilities can still be connected to their area's utility power grid as an added backup.

This nod does not seem like anything more than a fig-leaf. Because, if I my campus or block or town can connect to a utility's grid, it can also connect to another town's grid — or simply that of a different commercial power-generation provider (solar or otherwise).

Either way, the myth of natural monopoly is crumbling.

10-20 years ago Libertarians were smiled at and politely dismissed with a shrug. These days Statists on /. and elsewhere assault us with their comments, signatures, and mod-points. And Heinlein — whether or not he was a Libertarian himself — did push many people into Libertarianism.

"TANSTAAFL" isn't a popular acronym

It certainly is not popular among the lunch-recipients...

and Heinlein is overrated.

He is right up there with Azimov and Clark with numerous Hugo and other awards to his name (including a Hugo for this novel). But unlike those two, he was "violently" anti-Collectivism (perhaps in atonement for his Socialist youth of the 1930-ies). And he hated the Commies and the USSR with passion — which I, an escapee from the evil empire especially appreciate.

In addition to science fiction, where he extolled virtues of the Individual while dissing the Collective, he also published a number of opinion-pieces mocking the things dear to "progressive" Illiberal minds advocating for strong military (against USSR), mocking schools and colleges, and asking tough questions (along with unpleasant answers) about race-relationships.

Could this be coloring your perspective, AC? Just a little?

The problem is not that "Right-of-way access is limited" as much as that it has been historically allocated very inefficiently. Bury conduit and let multiple providers lease conduit through which to blow their fiber or copper.

That old saw about WWII ending the Depression? Not really very compelling ... there was a lot of debt-financed spending, but it's not a good tradeoff; if anything, WWII may have greatly prolonged the Depression, besides resulting in the death of millions (which is pretty ... depressing).

http://mises.org/library/world...

educate yourself:

Your turn now. "Natural monopoly" is a myth.

i do not respect you. [...] then fucking open your ignorant mouth. until then, SHUT UP. you are, objectively speaking, a moron [...] you simply do not deserve respect

So, you will be yelling names and bona-fide obscenities at me until I agree with you? What a charming and persuasive way to win friends and influence people.

I think, we are done here. Thank you.

Here's a link to Economics in One Lesson. And read chapter 7, "The Curse of Machinery". As to those who claim, completely without evidence, that this time it's different, well a 70 year old argument is more up to date than you are.

> We need a huge shift in how we create and manage money. We need to drastically shrink the parasitic financial sector, wipe out the loans that represent most of our money supply. And replace the money created with credit cards and home loans

Indeed.

What's funny is that there _already_ are solutions to this problem in other sectors, **thousands** of years ago, that we blindly ignore the wisdom off, all in the name of greed.

Ask any farmer if they constantly have their land produce or if they allow it lay fallow one year so it can regenerate.

Jordan Mechner in this "How I applied my life to making games" says "Burnout can be a good thing. It allows your creativity to recharge".

> with government fiat currency, given directly to the people.

Fiat currency is exactly part of the problem, not the solution.

**Every** fiat currency has failed. Why do you think "this" time will be any different??

* http://dailyreckoning.com/fiat...
* http://mises.org/sites/default...

The 2 biggest problems with the financial sector is:

* Usury
* No debt forgiveness every X years, where X is 50 or 100 years, etc.

  Wipe out usury and we'll be making a step towards a stable economy, not magically pulling money out of our asses that can never be repaid.

Wifi can be installed on an ad-hok basis where a fixed line is available to get coverage. Broadband requires massive amounts of infrastructure to be put in the ground or up poles.

Yep. So WiFi is (or should be) a lot easier to roll out and maintain — and yet, it did not survive.

There is a reason why electricity, gas and water supplies are heavily regulated.

There is, but it is not, what you have in mind. The utilities have become monopolies because of the myth of natural monopoly. A myth very convenient to the government types, but a myth nonetheless.

You have no choice, there is one one line/pipe going into your home, only one company available to serve you.

Yes, and it sucks. And that little town has just ensured (or tried to), their Internet-service provision will be just as sucky for years to come.

I don't care what most people believe or do not believe, they are wrong. Dangerous monopolies are created by governments, not by the free market, in a free market no monopoly has more power than the market is willing to give it and if the market is willing to give a company monopoly power it is always temporary and it is there as long as that company provides the market with the highest quality, cheapest product.

Cable companies or any companies should be able to merge all they want, governments interfering with any mergers is the problem, not any type of a solution, especially given that governments created monopolies in telecommunications in the first place.

they're de facto natural monopolies.

There is no such thing.

Without that exclusivity, no private company would ever recoup its initial and ongoing costs.

Huh? Why not?

And even if there were alternatives, the discussion has only moved from the ills of a monopoly to the almost exact same ills that exist in an oligopoly.

Any "oligopoly" is much better than monopoly — unless, of course, the private parties conspire to not compete. We've had federal laws against such conspiracies for over a century now — if the US saw fit to block Office Depot from merging with Staples, for fear of the resulting entity becoming a monopoly in the market of freaking office supplies, why do we tolerate the Port Authority's monopoly on bridges and tunnels of NY and NJ?

Honestly, it sounds like your problem is with the Constitution, which gives government the power to collect taxes and establish (post) roads.

My problem here is with the big-government asshole, who — suddenly hearing the jingling of some extra coin in the peasant's pocket — is quick to offer an excuse to tax that coin away. Because the king knows better, how to spend it.

And we all know WHY the USPS is broke. Not because it can't deliver letters, but because it's being forced by Congress to prefund its pension/healthcare/workers comp funds to an absurd extent

All the more reasons to privatize it — thus setting it free from Congress' meddling, is not it?

The point, however, was that nobody is suggesting, the stamp price should go up because fewer people use the service (thanks to e-mail)... And that is the argument the Illiberal in TFA is making: raise the gas-tax because people buy less of it (thanks to improvements in fuel-economy).

Bridges have a natural monopoly over their local environment.

"Natural monopoly" is a myth — perpetuated by government types with vested interest in expanding government's power. It is particularly obvious in case of bridges — building another one next to an existing one is not substantially harder, than building the first one: you don't even need to exercise "eminent domain" for most of the distance (above the river)...

With that in mind, why would a private bridge owner have any incentive to lower prices?

For the same reason, your local pizzeria does not charge you $1000 for a pie — for fear, you'll go elsewhere. The attraction of "free" crossing is balanced against the additional time it would take to make use of it — and attracts people willing to wait instead of spending money. The number of such people is determined largely by the additional delay of the free option. For some people $1 of price-difference is enough, for others it would take $5. But the cost-consideration is there. Once bridges are independently-owned and compete, their owners will have a financial incentive to keep the traffic flowing (and expanding). Some competitors might even undertake to build a new crossing — when they figure, such an investment has a good chance of paying off...

Come on, if New York's toll bridges and tunnels were all owned by the same private corporation, you too would be screaming against their monopoly. But if that monopoly is the government's, then it is Ok with you somehow...

And btw it might be decent in some parts of the country but $30/hr is a shitty wage in NYC.

Yeah, that's nominal wage — add bonuses and "overtime", etc. and it becomes a very-well paying job, which is impossible to get without "connections" (note, how this "help wanted" listing does not even advertise full-time toll-collection opportunities).

Regardless, whether the booth-workers are under- or over-paid, the building and maintenance of bridges and tunnels can be made by competing corporations and thus must not be done by the government...

The BIGGEST issue in this country with internet is, it should be regulated like phone,gas,sewer,water.

It is regulated by local governments — like those "utilities" — and that's why it sucks like them too.

It should be open to competition — along with electricity and sewers. Unfortunately, too many still believe the "natural monopoly" myth, that the governments love to perpetuate...