Free market/= publicly held corporations. Even if we accept your assumption that no "free market" (as you say none has ever existed) would have created nuclear power, as fossil fuels are depleted the value of such an industry will rise, thus increasing ROI. Is this not obvious?
The same people who worry that someone from the health Education and Welfare will abuse their vast federal powers and take their home schooled kids away, don't worry about what happens when a BATF or DEA agent, who may be armed with a 30 caliber machine gun, abuses his powers to the same extent
This is so true. Another example is that the government's efforts to end racial segregation resulted in corporate personhood. This is how things work out in practice. Government is a tool that can be used for good or bad.
Yes, exactly. Anyone with access to the right equipment can now figure out how to do this, paper published or not. What would be really clever is to change a key aspect in the news reports to lead these bio-terrorists down the wrong path.
The song of a mockingbird is prettier than the song of a cardinal.
Here is how I look at it:
"Most people think the song of mockingbird is prettier than the song of a cardinal". "I think the song of a mockingbird is prettier than the song of a cardinal".
If something is considered more or less pretty, that must be according to someone. The question presupposes the existence of at least one person assessing "prettiness". Whether or not he/she/they find it pretty can be tested.
That said, the most likely answer to be marked correct would be "D. Most bees like big flowers."
Sunflowers with larger petals attract more bees than sunflowers with smaller petals.
That's the only one. "More bees" is objective. "Sweet" and "pretty" and "soft" are subjective. They need human input from the start. "More" is a well defined concept that doesn't have regional or social differences.
1001 bees are observed visiting the large flowers and 1000 bees are observed visiting small flowers. Would you say "more" bees visit large flowers?
Right, but in the context of the test, I figured the most likely explanation for that question was that the person making it thought mushrooms were plants.
I'm at a loss what capitalism means if it doesn't mean either "a system that prioritizes accumulation of capital" or "rule by capitalists" (i.e., the people who control accumulated capital).
Centralized banking is a result of the scale of capitalism. The only way capitalism could function without centralized banking is by regressing to a smaller scale. Aside from the massive amount of destruction that would be required for such a regression, you'd have small capitalists competing to become larger capitalists, which is to say, the same thing all over again, including establishing credit systems.
Hmm, maybe we disagree on the definition of ruler. I don't think there is anything wrong with credit/debt per se. To be sure, it makes no sense to have the government borrow money from a bank. They are borrowing as much as they want anyway, so they may as well print it. The problem is that people are forced to prop up failed industries through taxes. In a "capitalist" society all transactions are voluntary. Of course, then we can argue about what a "transaction" consists of, and the various failure modes by which involuntary transactions can still arise.
The primary difference is that we would stop pretending force can be used legitimately, except in self-defense.
1) "or is this the government that exists in the minds of paranoid schizophrenics, which is out to rape your freedoms in some bad hollywood plot of sinister conspiracies and aliens who hate your freedom.... just because?"
2) "your real enemy, the ones who will gladly rape your freedoms, who BUY your government and have them do things against your freedoms, and will gladly point the guns at you (see pinkertons) and are most clearly not accountable to you"
So... my government is accountable to me and it is paranoid to think they are out to rape my freedoms. The real problem is private enterprise who buy my government and have them do things to rape my freedoms. I see.
so much malice in your own democratic government and so little malice in robber barons representing plutocracy
While this person may exist, most people are under no delusion that corporations are looking out for any interests but their own. The problem is actually far too much trust placed in government agencies.
Look closer at how the government does its accounting and the flow of money. As a scientist you will be disturbed by the way the numbers are played with.
Look up the difference between lab-cultured and wild bacteria growth cycles. One uses up all its nutrients quickly then "collapses" while the other maintains a steady population. The OP is simply speculating that the pending collapse could have been avoided if governments had not interfered in the market to such a huge degree.
I still don't see how that is a distortion. We start running out of energy resources, the market responds by making them very expensive. It is disruptive to the lives of people but not a "market distortion."
Take fuel as an example. A market distortion is when the government intervenes to lower the cost of fuel, thus encouraging people to maintain their current rate of consumption despite reality. In a free market all the people who think this will happen would start buying up and hoarding the fuel so they can sell it for more later, making it more expensive in the meantime. The result would be gradual change rather than a sudden spike when reality can no longer be denied.
That said, the "market" has already been so distorted for so long that a sudden change to "free market" policy will likely be disruptive as well.
That sounds needlessly complex. Why not just say the value of everything is subjective? What does that theory explain? (and no I didn't bother reading Wikipedia on it, so ignore me if this is dumb)
Slashdot Mirror
In what way is he "bat-shit crazy"?
Free market /= publicly held corporations. Even if we accept your assumption that no "free market" (as you say none has ever existed) would have created nuclear power, as fossil fuels are depleted the value of such an industry will rise, thus increasing ROI. Is this not obvious?
This is so true. Another example is that the government's efforts to end racial segregation resulted in corporate personhood. This is how things work out in practice. Government is a tool that can be used for good or bad.
derr...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Broad
Robert Mugabe. Perhaps it is too early to abandon the colonialism excuse.
Yes, exactly. Anyone with access to the right equipment can now figure out how to do this, paper published or not. What would be really clever is to change a key aspect in the news reports to lead these bio-terrorists down the wrong path.
What is the immediate result of having some crazy guy flying around your town in his contraption?
Here is how I look at it:
"Most people think the song of mockingbird is prettier than the song of a cardinal".
"I think the song of a mockingbird is prettier than the song of a cardinal".
If something is considered more or less pretty, that must be according to someone. The question presupposes the existence of at least one person assessing "prettiness". Whether or not he/she/they find it pretty can be tested.
That said, the most likely answer to be marked correct would be "D. Most bees like big flowers."
1001 bees are observed visiting the large flowers and 1000 bees are observed visiting small flowers. Would you say "more" bees visit large flowers?
You just ask people to self report... It's not like every red rose petal is going to be softer than every yellow rose petal.
Right, but in the context of the test, I figured the most likely explanation for that question was that the person making it thought mushrooms were plants.
I remember one that was something like this:
Mushroom: Plant as _______: Animal
A: Cat
B: Pizza
C: Rock
D: Table
I guessed the "Correct" answer was A. Really those tests were full of questions like this.
Really you can test subjective qualities like prettiness as well.
They should just have different questions then...
The utility of an object is dependent on context, right?
Hmm, maybe we disagree on the definition of ruler. I don't think there is anything wrong with credit/debt per se. To be sure, it makes no sense to have the government borrow money from a bank. They are borrowing as much as they want anyway, so they may as well print it. The problem is that people are forced to prop up failed industries through taxes. In a "capitalist" society all transactions are voluntary. Of course, then we can argue about what a "transaction" consists of, and the various failure modes by which involuntary transactions can still arise.
The primary difference is that we would stop pretending force can be used legitimately, except in self-defense.
So... my government is accountable to me and it is paranoid to think they are out to rape my freedoms. The real problem is private enterprise who buy my government and have them do things to rape my freedoms. I see.
While this person may exist, most people are under no delusion that corporations are looking out for any interests but their own. The problem is actually far too much trust placed in government agencies.
Look closer at how the government does its accounting and the flow of money. As a scientist you will be disturbed by the way the numbers are played with.
Most journals have been scanned to pdf by now.
Why so many searches back in 2005?
http://www.google.com/trends/?q=housing+bubble
People die, society lives on... Inflation was indeed controlling itself before the fed adopted a policy of constant inflation.
Look up the difference between lab-cultured and wild bacteria growth cycles. One uses up all its nutrients quickly then "collapses" while the other maintains a steady population. The OP is simply speculating that the pending collapse could have been avoided if governments had not interfered in the market to such a huge degree.
I still don't see how that is a distortion. We start running out of energy resources, the market responds by making them very expensive. It is disruptive to the lives of people but not a "market distortion."
Take fuel as an example. A market distortion is when the government intervenes to lower the cost of fuel, thus encouraging people to maintain their current rate of consumption despite reality. In a free market all the people who think this will happen would start buying up and hoarding the fuel so they can sell it for more later, making it more expensive in the meantime. The result would be gradual change rather than a sudden spike when reality can no longer be denied.
That said, the "market" has already been so distorted for so long that a sudden change to "free market" policy will likely be disruptive as well.
How is that a "market distortion"?
That sounds needlessly complex. Why not just say the value of everything is subjective? What does that theory explain? (and no I didn't bother reading Wikipedia on it, so ignore me if this is dumb)