Slashdot Mirror

I suspect the CCP and the single party idea has the same broad support that we have here. Only 26 percent voted for Trump, and this isn't a Trump thing, this is every presidency. Half of people just don't even bother, because it's an obvious scam. I think China must be the same way. The idea that the CCP has broad support is basically a media-created mirage. Most people see this mirage, at least subconsciously, as the scam that it is. But, being practical, they simply work within their cage to try their best to live a life. It's sad really. At least our cage is bigger for now...

Uh, ok, but nothing in my post can be interpreted as making that assertion, not without going to extreme contortions of the written word.

I suspect the CCP and the single party idea has the same broad support that we have here. Only 26 percent voted for Trump, and this isn't a Trump thing, this is every presidency. Half of people just don't even bother, because it's an obvious scam. I think China must be the same way. The idea that the CCP has broad support is basically a media-created mirage. Most people see this mirage, at least subconsciously, as the scam that it is. But, being practical, they simply work within their cage to try their best to live a life. It's sad really. At least our cage is bigger for now...

Learn you some Truth about the Robber Barons.

Besides, why doesn't your mistrust (or even loathing) of a voluntarily grown monopoly extend to government, which is even worse: A violently imposed monopoly? You are proposing that we should rely on a violently imposed monopoly (government) to save us from a voluntarily grown monopoly; such a position is patently absurd.

If you apply your ethics and politics to government, you'll see that government itself needs to be busted up, and thrown away; the future of a free society is law by contracts, not law by decree—the future is agreement between individuals in advance of interaction, not the coercive imposition of some blessed, ordained, religiously-revered authoritarian monopoly over the men with guns.

Here you go. Learn you some history.

Sure, they did some great things and the US wouldn't have been the great industrial power of the 20th century without them, but nothing is one sided: https://prezi.com/qleqtleyvtpi...

Here you go. Learn you some history.

Considering that according to the OECD most of Europe has a standard of living similar to the poorest U.S. States, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

An income of one worker in the U.S. can live in a tiny run-down apartment with their family even easier than they can in Europe. They just choose not to because they have better opportunities here.

Americans consume a lot more than those in Europe but have a similar or lower quality of life

People in the United States are much wealthier than those in Europe in general, with a much higher quality of life. From the OECD Society at a glance figures, Sweden and Germany have about the same average disposable income as Alabama, Kentucky and Montana, not exactly considered economic power houses. Places like Portugal or Poland are at half of Mississippi's level. Most European countries fall within the bottom third of the United States when you compare them to specific States.

As carbon use correlates with wealth, it's obvious that the US will use more than Europe and Europeans will use more than third-world and developing nations, on a per person basis.

The whole oil prices thing is a false premise.
In terms of percent of GDP coming from oil, Venezuela was 8th, with 7-8% of their GDP from oil. The UAE and Kazakhstan are about 14%. Saudi Arabia is 21%. Oman is 25%. Iraq is 28%. Kuwait is 30%. Angola gets about 34% of their GDP from oil production. (Stats from the World Bank and The World Factbook)

None of those other countries even went into a recession when the oil prices dropped, so you can't attribute it to the oil price changes. In fact, oil prices are back up above average, but Venezuela still hasn't been producing and selling more oil.

From 1998 to 2018, oil production in Venezuela is down from 3.5 million barrels per day in December of 1997 vs 2 million in October of 2017.

So what happened in the last 20 years? From Wikipedia:
“After Hugo Chávez officially took office in February 1999, several policy changes involving the country’s oil industry were made to explicitly tie it to the state under his Bolivarian Revolution. Since then, PDVSA has not demonstrated any capability to bring new oil fields on stream since nationalizing heavy oil projects in the Orinoco Petroleum Belt formerly operated by international oil companies ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Total. Chávez’s policies damaged Venezuela’s oil industry due to lack of investment, corruption and cash shortages.”

Probably just a fluke, though, right? I mean, steel production in Venezuela increased from 3400 tons in 1998 to about 4600 tons in 2008. The steel industry was nationalized by the Venezuelan government in 2008 and production declined to under 1600 tons. Huh, definitely a pattern forming. Similar stories of lower production and losses in the other industries after they were taken over: aluminum, cement, gold, iron, farming, transportation, electricity, food production, banking, paper and the media.

The issues in Venezuela are directly a predictable (and predicted by economists) result of nationalizing their industries.

Without the government takeover, even if oil companies were only competent enough to continue production levels and not grow them (as they’ve done previously over time), Venezuela would have almost twice as much hard currency coming in from oil sales.

The number of private companies in Venezuela was 14K in 1998. In 2011 it was 9K. It's lower now, but it's difficult to get accurate stats about exactly how lower in the resulting chaos. Without private companies in the economy, the economy sinks.

So no, their problems aren’t just about oil prices. Their problems, including a big chunk of the oil revenue losses, are a direct result of the socialist government of Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro taking over large portions of the economy. The government bureaucrats don't know what they're doing in business and industry and their priority is pleasing political constituencies, not making the companies run well.

Americans are among the richest people in the world. Why would they think they're being shafted?

Try having to live some place like Sweden or Germany, which are about on par with Kentucky in terms of household income. There are many more even poorer countries out there, even in the EU. Try Poland, with half the median disposable income of the absolute poorest U.S. State. Don't even get me started on most of the rest of the people in the world, living on less than $1K/month.

But it's people like you who want to stop the markets which have created all this wealth and instead drive people into poverty so they can all be equally poor.

The rare cases where deflation has occurred are generally associated with economic depressions.

This is true (in the past hundred and fifty years or so), but there is no good reason to believe that disflation is causing the depressions. If you're interested, here is a nice short article on it.

The difference is that pizzerias aren't a natural monopoly

There is no such thing. "Natural Monopoly" is a myth. In my town, the same pole carrying a FiOS cable to my house carries a Comcast cable to my neighbor's. It could carry 20 more...

Google, for example, would've loved to lay its own fiber nation-wide, but got thwarted by "numerous regulatory challenges.".

you are better off with the government monopoly since there is less of a motive for them to squeeze their customers for more money

?? Why? The incentive is the same, while the means of doing it are more powerful. Haw many have successfully fought an increase of their property taxes?

plus you can vote out the people in charge if they get abusive

The cost of your child's schooling quadrupled since 1960ies (inflation-adjusted) — you didn't even realize this until now, much less voted anyone out over it.

When dealing with a corporate monopoly, you have no choice but to keep paying whatever they ask.

Governments — local governments, like this town's — are the reason many places have such limited choice of ISPs. Allowing the same people to offer their own monopoly just helps them solidify the unfortunate situation.

On what basis?

Property damage.

Who is going to enforce any judgements?

The government. Unlike retirement, healthcare, education, and the like, enforcing law actually is the government's prerogative even according to Libertarians.

But for the Executive to enforce the judgement, the Judiciary would need to first render it. Because separation of powers...

Creation of FCC — pushed by an authoritarian President beloved by contemporary Fascists — was Congress abdicating (some of) its powers to the Executive.

Having an FCC to regulate communications is Fascism

Yes, having government control interactions between private entities is an element of Fascism. Not surprising, the FCC happened, when Fascism was hot, introduced by an authoritarian President beloved by contemporary Fascists.

Sure thing bud

I'm not your "bud" — you should not even dream about any kind of familiar affiliation, or you may be overcome by suicidal disappointment upon waking up...

After it fails, if you are lucky, your country's soft Socialism is rejected — as happened in Scandinavia, even if Sanders' fans don't know it.

If you aren't lucky, it is replaced by the hard Communism...

Under the guise of compassion, UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers.

That's all we are now - consumers. And having to work two jobs and STILL not be able to afford health insurance is a flaw in free market capitalism. Or the fact that housing is affordable to many people. To afford to just have an apartment in my area of Metro-Atlanta, Family Promise says that a person needs to make $18.62 an hour and that's assuming he's getting scheduled 40 hours a week. My sub division is being scooped up by private equity firms. Every time a house goes on sale, they come in and buy it. They then rent it.

Prices are no longer restricted by people's income. It's controlled by capital. And the bridge? Debt. Making us all serfs.

My point is that the negatives they are harping on have already happened without UBI.

Healthcare is the most regulated industry, it is filled with exceedingly complex regulations and prices exploded when the Government really stepped in. Far from being a "free market capitalism" issue, it's essentially the result of Government trying to manage an industry whilst simultaneously being greased (via contributions) by the industry it's seeking to manage. Obamacare was a massive giveaway to insurance companies (guaranteed consumers, restitution payments, guaranteed sales of services not needed - like men paying for OB/GYN and childless adults paying for pediatric), and only made the situation worse.

If you want to talk housing, house prices in some areas are exploding (SF, NYC, etc) mainly because Government restricts supply. San Francisco's housing shortage has it's own Wikipedia page where we find:

San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area have enacted strict zoning regulations.[6] Among other restrictions, San Francisco does not allow buildings over 40 feet tall in most of the city, and has passed laws making it easier for neighbors to block developments.[7] Partly as a result of these codes, from 2007 to 2014, the Bay Area issued building permits for only half the number of needed houses, based on the area's population growth.

Fill the area with new-found wealth from tech and you have massive bidding wars forcing prices so high only those with 7 figure budgets can even think of living there. Strict regulation has, once again, turned out to be the source of pain for most.

> Copying is stealing someone's time and effort, copying and giving it away is no different.

1. You keep using this word "steal". It doesn't mean what you think it does. The original author STILL has their effort.

2. FTFY: Copying is DUPLICATING someone's effort for almost zero time. Whether it is LEGAL or ILLEGAL depends.

3. /sarcasm Who knew that copying Linux was stealing Linus' time ! Oh wait, you meant "illegal copying", because LEGAL COPYING granted by GPL, BSD, Public Domain, etc. is perfectly fine.

4. Furthermore, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act., one IS allowed to backup their software until the DMCA hijacked that right.

5. /sarcasm Wait till you find out about Project Gutenberg -- one can read over 57,000 books! /sarcasm Look at ALL that IP theft!

> Intellectual property is no different than anything else.

FALSE

Copyright is an ARTIFICIAL monopoly; it was created BY publishers to stop OTHER publishers from profiting.

> The majority of human civilization feels intellectual property does have value.

Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Quantity != Quality.

The majority of human civilization also tolerated slavery, racism, and prohibition at one time. That doesn't imply the majority was right.

e.g. Billions are served at McDonalds; that doesn't imply that McDonalds serves gourmet food. They served cheap, crap food, until recently.

This is the most retarded argument for IP I've seen in a while. You do realize we have ONE concept of imaginary property: delusion thinking. Of course things like language, math and history, that's FIRST private knowledge, then EVENTUALLY becomes public knowledge.

Drug that doesn't have its price gratuitously jacked sky high: The drug in TFS, yesterday and before.

I've never heard of a drug called "TFS", nor would I know anything about its price. That's not a citation.

Examples of loose IP laws allowing pharmaceuticals being manufactured cheaply

"Manufactured" is the key word here. Once the research is done and paid for, actual manufacturing may be cheap. Your very article is about poor countries being allowed to manufacture, what the pharmaceutical companies have researched and created — at high expense. That expense is being borne by the patients in the rich countries.

Example of state-owned pharmaceutical companies working

That link is also about manufacturing. The Chinese — quite telling for a Collectivist to offer China as an example — are particularly infamous intellectual property thieves.

Again, once it is known, mass-producing it may be cheap. Researching the next drug, however, is funded by the profits from the previous ones. Your attempts to tell companies: "No, you can not charge this much" — threatens those profits for them, and the availability of new drugs and treatments for the rest of us.

Keep your grabby Collectivist hands off — what you want, in essence, is price control, a notion far more evil and destructive than anything one CEO ill-trained in the Art of Public Relations could come up with.

Yup! He definitely is. He is gonna protect us from the evil gubmint any time now....I can't wait until you guys get together and start protecting those FREEDOMS!

Well, plenty of people have wanted to protect themselves from the "evil gubmint" in the past. But, hey, it was Democrats then just like it is Democrats now who think that the ability of the government to enslave people trumps all other rights.

Big pharma is only able to overcharge because the FDA creates a virtual monopoly, through its costly and lengthy process at the end of which very few companies are allowed to make a drug. Try to make an Epi-pen and sell it, it only costs like $30 to make. Auto-injectors were created in the 1970's and the patents on it has expired a long time ago. We have no overcharge issues with non-prescription (non-FDA monopoly) drugs.

https://mises.org/wire/lack-ep...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/1...

The three links you display a very low level of understanding. Might I offer another source of thought on just how despicable the National Socialists actually were?

mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

If you can stomach it, please read what Hitler and Goebbels wrote in their own words. They were socialists.

No, he's complaining about the shift in usage of the world itself: liberalism. From an article on the matter:

Liberalism has become one of the most widely misused and abused words in the American political lexicon. It represents, some say, politically “progressive thought,” based on the goal of “social justice” through greater “distributive justice” for all. Others declare it represents moral relativism, political paternalism, governmental license, and just another word for “socialism.” Lost in all of this is that fact that historically “liberalism” originally meant, and continues to mean for some, individual freedom, private property, free enterprise and impartial rule of law under constitutionally limited government.

The US education system, is indeed, garbage, unless you're wealthy. While we're at it, so is health care and many other indicators of quality of life. The US is a really, really awful place to live if you're not wealthy.

Good thing then that most Americans are wealthy by European standards.

We desperately need ISP's to be regulated like our electrical utilities are.

No, we need electrical utilities deregulated like our ISPs are. The case for their de-facto nationalization, based on the mythical "natural monopoly" concept, back then was completely bogus.

Well, if you mean we're not communist, then that's a good thing.
But then your site there thinks a 90% tax rate is a good thing. We only went there temporarily because of WWII, and even then, there were other deductions to offset it that don't apply today.
https://mises.org/library/good...

Try reading something not from the Church of Keynes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://mises.org/library/pric...

Or if those are too dull for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

* There are several studies which show a correlation between increased execution and lower murder rate.

  Here's a chart of homicide rates.

  Here's a chart with executions by year.

* You can get the year by year murder rate and number of executions per year from the government. They used to be easily accessible but are much more difficult to find today for a number of reasons.

* If/when you get the numbers, you can get the correlation coefficient between the murder rate and execution numbers, to see how the murder rate varies with execution, with the Excel "correl" function. This yields Spearman's rho. From 1950 to about 2010 (I'm not on the computer with that data but I recall it was about 60 years worth of data), the correlation coefficient is -0.7. Excel also has a Pearson function to get Pearson's r. It also yields -0.7. The numbers range from 1 (they move in the same direction) to 0 (random movement relative to each other) to -1 (they move in perfectly opposite directions).

The reality is that the death penalty deters. If it doesn't, it's a huge coincidence. But most people accept that lesser punishments deter. So it doesn't make any sense that a harsher punishment would not deter.

Private discrimination includes lynching, which is very definitely not government-mandated

That statement implies that your moral problem with lynchings is that they are discriminatory. Apparently, lynchings would be alright with you if they had been applied equally to poor whites and poor blacks! In fact, the moral problem with lynchings is that they are murder, regardless of the race of the victim.

The Republican "southern strategy" was a deliberate attempt to draw racists into the Republican Party

Oft repeated, but false.

Your claim that unions sought to oppress blacks because they feared competition from cheap black labor doesn't pass the smell test: if they wanted to reduce the competition, they'd have organized the blacks and brought them into unions

That's indeed what Democrats and unions started doing in the 1960's, when they found out that they couldn't use racism to their political advantage anymore and instead started exploiting economic divisions for political gain. Since unions were dominated by Democrats, it's not surprising that they underwent the same kind of shift. But the racist history of unions and minimum wage laws is not debatable; it's historical fact.

From what I've been able to tell, the uneducated and working class are the more racist members of society.

What I said was that "Racism and racist laws in the US (and in most other places) weren't driven by the prejudices of the uneducated or working class (who generally had and have a lot of contact with minorities), they were driven by educated, progressive elites." That is, significant portions of the working class may have been quite racist (after all, lots of them were unionized and Democrats, so a lot of those people were certainly racist), but they didn't drive racist laws or racist public policies; racist policies were the responsibility of educated elites. That's not subject to debate or interpretation, it's documented fact.

Look, I understand where you are coming from. I used to be a progressive myself. I just picked up history books and started reading, and it turns out that a lot of the propaganda used by Democrats and progressives is false.

It's an unfortunate byproduct of being brilliant sadly...

https://mises.org/wire/why-int...

The GP was probably referring to this analysis: If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States.

This analysis was based on median income (not mean or per capita income or GDP) to address concerns about wealth inequality, and takes into account social services, taxation, and cost-of-living. A glance at the second chart, the one adjusted for regional price parity, shows that adjusted median income in Louisiana—the poorest of the U.S. states—is higher than that in France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, half of the OECD member states of Western Europe (as defined by the CIA), and also higher than the median incomes in Spain and Portugal, the two OECD countries in Southwestern Europe. The exceptions are Belgium (5.1% by population), Luxembourg (0.2%), and the Netherlands (7.6%).

In other words, 87% of the population of the OECD countries of Western and Southwestern Europe live in a country with a lower median income (including tax-funded social services) than the poorest U.S. state, after adjusting for cost-of-living.

Based on the above statistics, I feel that the GP was actually quite generous in comparing the wealth of most Western European countries to Mississippi or Alabama.

I don't quite agree with his figures though. Some 33 US states are at or below the US annual income per household per capita and another 4 are no more than $1000 above the US median and that includes wealthy California. It sounds to me as if Germany, Sweden and California are about on the same level in terms of per capita income and all are competitive high tech modern economies with a highly educated population. Also, if you are comparing Germany with Alabama you are comparing a country of 82 million people that has a fairly high average standard of living with a state that has a population of 4.8 million, that is a net recipient of federal aid money and has some of the worst poverty levels in the US. Comparing Germany and Sweden to California would be a better comparison.

According to him:
EU Average - $35632
Which sounds about right if we are talking about median income per capita per annum.

However, according to this: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/in... I get the following average incomes per household per capita:
US: $29,865.60
Germany: $31,136.72

According to OECD per household per capita:
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...
Sweden: $30,553
Germany: $33 652
OECD average: 30 563

US states (according to the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
The 2016 figures are from here: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/i...

Highs:
1) District of Columbia: $45,877 (2016: $45,545)
2) Connecticut: $39,373 (2016: $41,087)
3) New Jersey: $37,288 (2016: $38,911)

Around median:
15) California $30,441 (2016: $33,389)
16) Illinois $30,417(2016: $32,849)
17) Hawaiii: $29,736 (2016: $32,634)

Absolute lows:
49) West Virginia: $22,714 (2016: $24,769)
50) Mississippi: $21,036 (2016:$22,694 )
*) Puerto Rico: $11,241

The GP was probably referring to this analysis: If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States.

This analysis was based on median income (not mean or per capita income or GDP) to address concerns about wealth inequality, and takes into account social services, taxation, and cost-of-living. A glance at the second chart, the one adjusted for regional price parity, shows that adjusted median income in Louisiana—the poorest of the U.S. states—is higher than that in France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, half of the OECD member states of Western Europe (as defined by the CIA), and also higher than the median incomes in Spain and Portugal, the two OECD countries in Southwestern Europe. The exceptions are Belgium (5.1% by population), Luxembourg (0.2%), and the Netherlands (7.6%).

In other words, 87% of the population of the OECD countries of Western and Southwestern Europe live in a country with a lower median income (including tax-funded social services) than the poorest U.S. state, after adjusting for cost-of-living.

Based on the above statistics, I feel that the GP was actually quite generous in comparing the wealth of most Western European countries to Mississippi or Alabama.

You seem to have misunderstood it. (One of the hazards of TL;DR + TSOTWTSWS*)

If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States

The nationwide median income for the US is in red. To the left of the red column are other OECD countries, and to the right of the red bar are individual US states. These national-level comparisons take into account taxes, and include social benefits (e.g., "welfare" and state-subsidized health care) as income . Purchasing power is adjusted to take differences in the cost of living in different countries into account.

*Throw Stuff On The Wall To See What Sticks. And you got a +5? Impressive

Most European countries are not living up to their defense obligations, relying upon the US to backstop them. That isn't a trivial matter.

Here is an interesting read: If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States

Many European nations are endangering their future with the policy choices they are currently making. In 30 years it is possible that Europe will be almost unrecognizable, including the country you live in. Demographic decline, immigration, the EU is under great strain already and the heavy hand of Eurocrats may push other countries to leave the UE. Russia is resurgent, Eastern Europe is terrified, and Western Europe is intent on suicide it seems.

Be sure to turn off the light before you go.

The government ALSO loses even more money from the lack of workers not earning a wage (which is taxed), compounding the issue.

The kind of labor we're talking about, here (landscapers, burger-cashiers) DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES. Nearly half of the people in the country pay no income taxes, including people who make a lot more than minimum wage.

You have obviously never worked a minimum wage job if you think legally employed landscapers and burger-cashiers do not pay income taxes. While it is true that many low wage earners effectively pay no "federal income tax" directly, they do generate funding of federal programs through the employers' payroll taxes, as well as state and local income taxes and sales taxes, and also Social Security and Medicare taxes (FICA). Lay them off, and that income for all those local, state, and federal social programs drops significantly.

https://mises.org/blog/myth-ha...

Oh, and there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and gun murders.

Yes.

The main feature of capitalism is the Non-aggression Principle. In a free market society, all human interaction is voluntary. Under that rubric, people may own means of production. As long as people agree to join voluntarily and are free to go at any time, hippie communes are actually more capitalistic than Google or Microsoft.

BTW, incorporation is a feature of *socialism* not capitalism, as it is a state granted privilege.

Let this be a lesson.

He's not some old guy who misunderstands technology, and he's not dumb.

This is an act of malevolence.

Congress mandated that the internet be not be regulated. (1996, Telecommunications act)
FCC tries to regulate the internet (2008-ish)
FCC gets shot down by courts, FCC doesn't have authority to regulate internet (2010)
FCC rebrands ISPs under Title II, then asserts right to regulate. (2015)
FCC changes course, in line with Congress's instructions (2017)

It's interesting how much cheating goes on in the political arena. It seems OK to skirt the rules so long as it gets you what you want, most of the time the cheating is bad in the grand scheme of things but hey... that one polarizing issue got fixed, right?

Now your chickens have come home to roost, because that one good idea you had has to be dumped because you got it by cheating. "Cheating" here is when a federal government overreaches their authority, and goes against Congress's clear directions.

That's bad. That's something that you *do not* want to set a precedent for. That's something that really should be killed with fire, or nuked from orbit.

The *right way* is to get regulation through congress.

What - your congresscritter doesn't listen to you? That's not an excuse for cheating.

What - you can't convince enough other people to make this issue important? That's not an excuse for cheating.

Both of those previous statements are reasons for NOT cheating. Cheating inevitably leads to overreach and misapplication. If it's OK to do it in this one instance, then it's OK in all the other instances.

It's the "rule of man" instead of the "rule of law". It *seems* great in the narrow view of this one issue, but on balance it leads to complete and total corruption.

Fix it the right way, don't let this one good idea get lost because you couldn't follow the rules.

You need to turn off your TV. Gun violence is trending down, as the media continues to hype up and emphasize the few cases that are left. If you think that shooting is getting worse, you've fallen for the media's lies.

Example:
We've had a massive decline in gun violance
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Example 2:
FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low
https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-...

To further blow your mind - if you look at the stats, there's a strong correlation between increased numbers of guns and decreased violence. It's quite possible that increasing gun ownership will decrease crime even more.

Ha, so that 'miracle' played itself out quite a bit when the Pilgrims tried building their Communism and then almost died from hunger because that's what Communism (any collectivism actually) does, it removes personal responsibility together with personal ownership and then everybody suffers. It wasn't until the people become selfish that USA succeeded.

some articles on the matter.

President Donald Trump will issue a new directive Monday to supercharge the U.S. government's support for science, tech, engineering and mathematics, including coding education

Whether it is lead by Trump or Obama, government should not — indeed, must not — involve itself in the markets, including the higher education market. Not the government of a free country, anyway...

The Central Planning, that Statists like so much, is both inefficient and opressive.

You should bolster your website with some info about your economic education, experience, and credibility. The ideas you list here are so easily worked around and you don't even address the obvious unintended consequences, so most people who have a background in economics are not going to take you seriously.

Start with how you're solving the Economic Calculation Problem in your economic model (and publish the model too).

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. -Rothbard

The Guild of Candlemakers of France will join you with their petition against windows:

https://mises.org/library/cand...

While you are not explicitly suggesting precious metals, it's worth a look at how they behave as currency.

Aside from the obvious inconveniences, they are also need to be standardized. This makes them subject, in practice, to chaotic manipulation. This transcription of a very libertarian historian's lecture recounts the tale of manipulation and inflation in ancient Roman currencies.

The lecture was intended as a cautionary tale about economic government management, but one important aspect of it is that, despite a currency based on precious metal coinage and an exchange economy based on that coinage and bulk precious metals, Rome still had essentially all the same problems people worry about with fiat currencies.

(For those unfamiliar with it, Mises is a libertarian think tank, and largely horseshit, but I rather like that lecture. Example of silliness: Road signs and lights that regulate driver behavior at intersections are an abominable menace to society")

While you are not explicitly suggesting precious metals, it's worth a look at how they behave as currency.

Aside from the obvious inconveniences, they are also need to be standardized. This makes them subject, in practice, to chaotic manipulation. This transcription of a very libertarian historian's lecture recounts the tale of manipulation and inflation in ancient Roman currencies.

The lecture was intended as a cautionary tale about economic government management, but one important aspect of it is that, despite a currency based on precious metal coinage and an exchange economy based on that coinage and bulk precious metals, Rome still had essentially all the same problems people worry about with fiat currencies.

(For those unfamiliar with it, Mises is a libertarian think tank, and largely horseshit, but I rather like that lecture. Example of silliness: Road signs and lights that regulate driver behavior at intersections are an abominable menace to society")

While the nominal tax rates were higher during that period (1930s through '70s), the tax code was full of all sorts of loop holes that got closed during the 1980's (as part of the deal to lower the nominal tax rates). The actual tax rates paid by the wealthy hasn't really changed much. Here is an interesting article explaining this. https://mises.org/library/good...

First, you'd think someone whose been here a while would be more grown up than to toss around that bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Second, to your actual point:
https://mises.org/blog/poor-us...

http://www.dailywire.com/news/...

http://www.heritage.org/povert...

"...The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.

"Poor" Americans consume three times as much meat each year and are 40 percent more likely to own a car than the average Japanese. And the average Japanese is 22 times more likely to live without an indoor flush toilet than is a poor American...."

Just like the "guaranteed payout" scheme pioneered by Mr. Carlo Ponzi https://mises.org/library/life... a defined benefit plan requires an ever-increasing contribution base. This may work for a growing startup company, but it dies when you hit major downsizing. Towards the end, just before their bankruptcy, GM had 100,000 contributing employees supporting 1,000,000 retirees and dependants. Let's just say that didn't work out very well.

By the way, I agree, there is very little in the way of having an actual free society somewhere in the world today, that's why we are not a civilized people. We have tried and are still trying here and there. USA was a fine attempt, Singapore is an attempt, Switzerland, hell, China is an attempt. It's an attempt but it is not what I really am talking about.

But I do have some reading material that I recommend, Friedrich Hayek and nearly any of his books, try The Road to Serfdom. You can find it here. Mises.org is a good resource if you are interested in history not as it is officially laid out but something different for a change. Peter Schiff is one of two sons of Irwin Schiff, who died a political prisoner in USA a couple of years back, Irwin provided very well thought out reading material of his own, I mean he even put together a kids book on the subject.

There is plenty to think about, don't assume that what you are seeing around you is what should be or what could be or some finalized version of what will be.

That is a bunch of nonsense, there is nothing to do with the GOP there.

Fascists and Nazis get listed, but those are Left ideologies - socialists, national socialists. Oh sure, they're to the "right" of Communism, but still in the progressive camp. White Supremacists doesn't get you very far away from the Nazis so there is nothing much anywhere close to the GOP. It is actually kind of funny to think that someone is trying to pin "racism" on the party formed to free the slaves, and that fought segregation. Not even the "anti-government" stuff gets close. The GOP is for limited government, fiscal responsibility (at least officially), and personal liberty, not an absence of government.

Misconstruing Mussolini
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt

British Fascists To the Left

More on the BNP’s success at stealing labor votes. Here are some wonderful posts about the BNP by Daniel Hannan. For instance:

Incidentally, any BBC presenters reading this, why do you keep calling the party “far Right”? Weren’t you listening to Nick Griffin’s acceptance speech? He wasn’t going to talk about immigration policy he said, since everyone knew where he stood on the subject. No, his priority was to expose the way in which public assets had been privatised. Look at the BNP’s manifesto: it wants nationalisation, subsidy, higher taxes, protectionism and (sotto voce) the abolition of the monarchy. And look at where its votes came from. The BNP is a symptom of Labour’s collapse.

Plus readers might remember his interview with Vox Day:

VD:One thing that tends to confuse Americans is that the British National Party is not very popular despite holding what appear to be populist views on immigration and the European Union. Why do they enjoy so little support compared to the three major parties?

DH:Because they are, contrary to the way they are described in the BBC, a party of the far left. They’re in favor of nationalization, they’re in favor of protectionism, they want workers’ councils to run industry, they want a massive state program of rebuilding manufacture. Like Hayek said about the socialist roots of Nazism, they are a national socialist party and the socialist bit is very important to them. Plus, there is a line, a very important line in politics, between being anti-immigration and anti-immigrant. And they’ve crossed that line.

VD: In a certain respect, they really are fascists, but in the Italian Fascist sense.

DH: Yeah. I think most of these so-called “far right” parties are on the left by any normal definition. It’s a brilliant media trick in Europe to always refer to them as “the far right”. The target of that is the mainstream right. Every time you read about the BNP in the press, it’s always prefaced with “the far right BNP”, as though they were like us, but more so, which is the opposite of the case. When somebody reads that, it doesn’t make them think any worse of the BNP, it makes them think worse of the right. Which, of course, is why they do it.

Communism and fascism/National Socialism are both "progressive" left wing ideologies. National Socialism may be to the right of communism but it is still a left-wing socialist ideology.

Misconstruing Mussolini
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt

British Fascists To the Left

More on the BNP’s success at stealing labor votes. Here are some wonderful posts about the BNP by Daniel Hannan. For instance:

Incidentally, any BBC presenters reading this, why do you keep calling the party “far Right”? Weren’t you listening to Nick Griffin’s acceptance speech? He wasn’t going to talk about immigration policy he said, since everyone knew where he stood on the subject. No, his priority was to expose the way in which public assets had been privatised. Look at the BNP’s manifesto: it wants nationalisation, subsidy, higher taxes, protectionism and (sotto voce) the abolition of the monarchy. And look at where its votes came from. The BNP is a symptom of Labour’s collapse.

Plus readers might remember his interview with Vox Day:

VD:One thing that tends to confuse Americans is that the British National Party is not very popular despite holding what appear to be populist views on immigration and the European Union. Why do they enjoy so little support compared to the three major parties?

DH:Because they are, contrary to the way they are described in the BBC, a party of the far left. They’re in favor of nationalization, they’re in favor of protectionism, they want workers’ councils to run industry, they want a massive state program of rebuilding manufacture. Like Hayek said about the socialist roots of Nazism, they are a national socialist party and the socialist bit is very important to them. Plus, there is a line, a very important line in politics, between being anti-immigration and anti-immigrant. And they’ve crossed that line.

VD: In a certain respect, they really are fascists, but in the Italian Fascist sense.

DH: Yeah. I think most of these so-called “far right” parties are on the left by any normal definition. It’s a brilliant media trick in Europe to always refer to them as “the far right”. The target of that is the mainstream right. Every time you read about the BNP in the press, it’s always prefaced with “the far right BNP”, as though they were like us, but more so, which is the opposite of the case. When somebody reads that, it doesn’t make them think any worse of the BNP, it makes them think worse of the right. Which, of course, is why they do it.

.

There is plenty more.

Again - not one free market advocate. Not Menger, not von Mises, not Rothbard, not Friedman is for anarchy.

Friedman and von Mises certainly weren't anarchists, but I'd thank you not to slander Rothbard, who actually was consistent in his opposition to the use of "political means" (i.e. government). Of course Rothbard never advocated for the popular misconception of anarchy as a chaotic free-for-all without rules of any kind—just the absence of rulers empowered to act without regard for the universal rules grounded in reciprocation which apply to everyone else.

But don't take my word for it. Just read what Rothbard had to say about government in The Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

Unfortunately von Mises was only a minarchist, which is to say that his positions on government were inconsistent at best. No doubt the contradiction inherent in relying on an institution empowered to employ the violence denied to everyone else was not lost on him, but unlike Rothbard he was simply unable to conceive of a better way. At least he did consistently argue against any form of intervention in the market itself, and limited the role of government to pure defense from violent criminals and external attackers. If that were all it did there would be no issue, of course, but he then proceeded to contradict himself by arguing first that the institution of government should have a monopoly on providing said defense, and also that it should have the power to impose what he considered "necessary" taxation—which makes the government no different from those criminals it is charged to defend against.