Have you ever READ my comments? The collective, the mob is a herd, and you ARE being treated just like a herd.
Individuals are important, mob is not. In this very story about Afghanistan - the collective, the mob was all for that war. In case of Iraq, the collective, the mob, the herd was lead into that war. While the Iraqies and Afghans were slaughtered literally, the Americans and many others were slaughtered figuratively speaking. Their freedoms were taken away, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, all the other nonsense, the economy being crashed by the collective wanting the bread and circuses and being lead by the Federal reserve and Treasury and every politician out there.
By the way, if you find somebody who would like to be a 'handler' given my positions.... please, send me a contact.
My 'handlers'?:) Unlike some of us, whose 'minds are controlled', I don't need anybody to tell me what to think.
As to democracy vs republic, it never gets tired, to look at this herd, that believes it should be able to run policy as a mob, while even believing that it is supposed to be that way in their own system of government.
Oh boy, so if you had a time machine that allowed you to go back to 2006 you'd be just converting your dollars to Yen?
Let's see
USD/JPY (USDJPY=X) 80.8150 Up 0.3890(0.4837%) and back in 2006 for example it was around 120.
At the same time gold started at 530 and ounce and finished at 632 an ounce in 2006. So if you just wanted to keep savings in money, not in investment, you'd be much better off buying gold in 2006, today it's 1650.
Of-course with a time machine that could take you to 2006, you'd be much better served setting a bunch of leveraged positions, options, shorting the entire financial market, you could make any bets with the most ridiculous odds, you'd be a multi billionaire.
Jeez, some people could even waste a time machine if they had it.
While you are correct, that the top CEOs and central bankers and politicos are getting what they want out of this, I am not talking to CEOs and central banker and politicos on this site, am I?
I am talking to the people who are ruled by them, and I am explaining to them what is happening around them. That they may not understand it or accept it for what it is, that's just a testament to the power of the mis-education and propaganda, a good example what can be done to the will of the supposedly 'free' individuals, how their thinking can be twisted against their own self-interests.
Ideally the people would understand the economics and politics and history enough, to make truly educated decisions about their own government, because while the CEOs and the bankers and the politicos are playing this game with the population, the population in reality has the power to get rid of these controls and of this theft, and AFAIC it is much better if government was kept honest and its powers were minimised and individuals powers were maximised, we would have much higher standard of living, much more innovation, inventions, more higher quality products at lower prices, more savings, investment and generally a more equitable environment.
And all of this without destruction of liberty and without tyranny, without wealth redistribution, without government sponsored and enforced theft.
What can I say - I LIKE PROGRESS and we will not have progress with socialism or communism, there will be no progress while people believe that they have rights to certain things without doing much of anything for it. I prefer to live in a society where people are FORCED TO INNOVATE by their environment, but also a society where success is truly not punished, but is rewarded according to its own ability to get the reward. I think we'd have a much more prosperous and peaceful society that way, that's all.
Aren't you for 'democracy', which means rule of the majority or basically mobocracy? If the majority consists of religious fanatics, wouldn't it just mean democracy can be used to give power to Taliban just as well?
As say: democracy does not ensure freedom, it is actually a gateway towards tyranny.
HOWEVER, where does it say even in TFA that it's Taliban that is responsible? Here is what TFA says:
The Afghan government said last year that the Taliban, which has been trying to adopt a more moderate face to advance exploratory peace talks, had dropped its opposition to female education.
AFAIC it could be anybody poisoning those girls, from Taliban, to USA military contractors, who stand to lose a sweet contract if US goes home.
Japan's infrastructure is pretty good actually. They need to devalue their currency because the high price of their exports is hurting them a lot. All those high tech products that the rest of the world laps up have been rising in price since a historic low in 2007.
- yeah, that's what you've been taught over the years. It's complete nonsense.
Look at Switzerland - it had very strong currency up until last year, when they tied it to Euro (idiots), but they had lowest unemployment and plenty of exports.
Again and again I have to repeat the same message, because clearly, it's not getting through: devaluing currency as a way to make exports cheaper is idiotic.
The companies who rely on gov't to devalue currency to make their exports cheaper are simply getting paid less for their exports, that's all. Do you understand that devaluing currency in terms of sales, is exactly the same as LOWERING PRICES?
Do you understand it? Do you get it?
So why should the Japanese people suffer lower purchasing power and lower standard of living just because some companies want to sell more of their product CHEAPER to other nations?
Let the companies, who want to sell their products cheaper lower their prices. As the currency appreciates in value, there will be more and more people coming in with their own savings into Japan, investing there, Japan would finally get out of the hole that they are in if they just allowed their currency to appreciate.
They have all these zombie banks and other companies, that should have gone belly up long ago and debts should have restructured. Instead they are destroying the purchasing power of their own people with this monetary idiocy of a policy, borrowed from USA, and who is getting the benefit?
Well, the companies are still selling the products cheaper, even if it's not in nominal value, it's cheaper in purchasing power. The Japanese are suffering lower standard of living because of this, they can buy less of their own products that they make.
So the only people gaining something are those, who are SUBSIDISED by this: the foreign buyers of these cheaper products and the CEOs of those companies that export, because they can show a NOMINAL increase in sales, while in reality their prices are falling!
The dollar, the yen, whatever, when it's debased it loses purchasing power. The number on the piece of paper means nothing, you can buy less and less with it the more of them are pumped into the economy from the main counterfeiters - the central banks.
A while back I left a comment here explaining that Japan needs to stop devaluing their currency, because they'll be in a hole without so many resources needed to rebuild their broken infrastructure, and it would be much cheaper for them to buy these resources from around the world if the Yen was valued much higher, than what their government allows. Well, guess what, that comment is still completely appropriate today as it was then.
Japan needs a lot of raw materials and energy, so they really need to trade with countries at least for those resources, and stronger currency would help Japan immensely, especially now, that they've been hit with too many natural disasters and they need all sorts of materials and energy to rebuild everything.
Japan needs to rebuild their infrastructure in many places, so they need to allow their currency to appreciate, so that more investments would be put into it, so they could buy more, and they need to stop listening the insane Keynesian charlatans, who really caused their economy to stagnate for 20 years. Nobody should be bailed out and nobody should be protected from rising currency with government intervention. Having currency fall looks good on a quarterly statement due to more sales in devalued currency, but it's terrible for the actual citizens and consumers, who have rising prices because the government destroys the money.
Maybe the Japanese should think about kicking their government in the balls for these 20 years and taking away their ability to print money in the first place and do something smart for a change and switch to saving and trading in gold and let the investments come into the country, because that's what would happen.
They would fix the unemployment in a hurry, with more investments coming in and they would be able to fix their infrastructure with strong money and they wouldn't even need to make these cuts in scientific spending.
Also while the Japanese have to re-evaluate some of their nuclear power plant safety features, such as not all generators being in one basement together, or whatever else, including extra cabling to connect the plants to the grid, they cannot just rely on buying up oil to run their electrical grid. Oil is going to get more and more expensive and if they keep devaluing the Yen, it will be as expensive for them, nominally, as it is going to be for the Americans, and it's not a good example and a path to follow.
But how do they get the laser there? If it were near the surface, a laser could be used. But deeper in the body, liver, brain, etc., how do you get laser light in there to cause the drug bomb to be dropped?
Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly, by the time it was broken up, there were a bunch of competitors.
In 1870 S.O. supplied only 4% of the market. What was oil used for? It was replacing whale oil, it was mostly used for production of kerosene. They were very innovative, by 1897 their production costs were less than 1/10 (ONE TENTH) of their initial production costs levels of 1869, and S.O. passed the efficiency savings in sharply reduced prices further on, they didn't just 'keep the difference'.
The prices for refined oil were 30cents per gallon in 1869 and then 10 cents in 1874 and then 8 cents in 1885 and 5.9 cents in 1897.
How about THAT for 'GOUGING'? HA, COME ON. GOUGING!
There was no monopoly at all, in 1911 Standard Oil had already 150 competitors, I actually had to look up a number of times. This included Texaco and Gulf.
So saying that Rockefeller used predatory pricing with massive losses over decades without achieving the alleged monopoly payoff is just retarded.
Again and again: 19th century up until 1913 proves you completely, utterly, 100% wrong, as prices were falling, choices were increasing and competition was fierce.
You are also wrong for another reason: plasma screens or mobile phones or anything. What makes more profit? Selling 100 at 100,000USD / piece? Selling 10000 at about 5000USD/piece?
Selling 1000000 at 1000USD/ piece?
No. The most money is made selling 1000,000,000 at 50 bucks a pop.
An economy of scale is not a monopoly, monopoly can prevent others from entering the field not because of the market forces but because its ability to apply government power and modify the barriers of entry. Again: any economy of scale that market gives its money to, is only going to get that money as long as its providing a good product at a good price.
And again and again and again: 19 century - prices FALLING. 20th century - prices RISING.
Difference? Government manipulation and creation of monopolies.
You want to argue on something MEANINGFUL? Argue how is it that with more and more government prices are going up all the time while without government prices were falling all time.
You conveniently ignored the the last part of my statement
- conveniently ignored? What?
This nonsense?
Then, while it regains the monopoly, charge "what the market would bear" (a.k.a gouge).
- again.
WITHOUT GOVERNMENT: prices falling.
WITH GOVERNMENT: prices going up all the time.
Tell me, what is the PURPOSE of government "fighting monopolies" in your mind even given your understanding of what a monopoly is (and really it is a complete misunderstanding, but OK)? To RAISE PRICES?
What is the point of having government 'fight monopolies' so that prices go up after that?
What you don't understand is very simple. Government is not there for you. It's not there to make your life better. It's not there to help you. It's not to allow you to have a good product at a low cost. That's what COMPANIES are there for - real businesses in a free market.
No. Government is there to allow politicians to gain as much power as possible by promising you something for nothing (bread and circuses) while in reality making friends with a number of businesses and helping them to become monopolies (or oligopolies) and prevent any competition with all the regulations, taxes and inflation.
That's what is really happening, and you are talking about 'fighting monopolies'. Do you have a problem with getting lower prices? Do you wait for prices to go up to go shopping? Or do you want lower prices and more choice?
Then you should stop with this nonsense and realise that you will not get lower prices and more choice with bigger government supposedly 'fighting monopolies' for your benefit, it's not what is happening.
You are quoting Wikipedia, that's good, I am going to give you a reference to a comment I just made on the false idea that monopolies and economies of scale are the same thing. Standard Oil, just like any other economy of scale, was providing the market an excellent quality product at a very good price, however the process was improving and eventually other companies entered the market with better ideas, and more competition was created.
The fact that at some point Standard Oil WAS an economy of scale, that provided the best product at the time at the best price at the time does not make it a monopoly.
To be a monopoly, you have to have government on your side, setting barriers of entry that are not market barriers, but instead artificial barriers that cannot be overcome with simply market economics.
Your so-called "economy of scale" can often afford to (and sometimes does) lower prices below cost in order to undercut competitors and force them out. Then, while it regains the monopoly, charge "what the market would bear" (a.k.a gouge).
- I disagree with the premise that it is bad, that economy of scale is forced to lower prices and/or forced to improve quality based on newcomers into the market.
Maybe you are concerned about newcomers into the market too much, I am only worried about my ability to BUY good stuff cheaply. I certainly do not need government to attempt its regulations, we all KNOW what the Fed's mandate of 'price stability' has really caused.
By the way, I only have to point out that in the 100 years over the course of 19th century and up to the time the Fed was created, the prices were on a constant downward path. It was a trend. As US Dollar was gaining value, based on all that productivity, the actual prices were constantly falling, based again, on all that productivity and competition.
THUS without any government at all, over the course of 19th century and up to 1913 the prices in USA were FALLING all the time.
However as government started growing, printing money, setting regulations, taxing income and investment capital etc., what have we observed since then?
In 1913 the nominal price for 1 ounce of gold was about 19 US Federal reserve notes.
Today it's about 1650 or so.
In gold, products prices are falling all the time. So WITH government intervention we are seeing a constant rise in nominal prices of things, while WITHOUT government intervention we saw a constant decline in prices for things.
Do you still maintain that the relatively freer market of 19th century produced all these monopolies that made things more expensive and it was a problem that needed to be solved? Or do you concede that the government had a 'solution' in search of a non-existing problem, which simply allowed the government to amass the power to impose its own idea on who will win and who will lose in the economy (and all this done to accrue more power in the government)?
As to industrial diamonds - they are very cheap, especially now, that there are techniques of making them artificially, which is again, proving my point.
As to DOJ and MS - again, the MS was only a monopoly from POV of the COPYRIGHT, which is government regulation. Apparently it didn't share enough money with some people in power, so they were on a hit list.
In any case, as I said, they were providing a good enough quality product for a low enough price for some time, then there was competition.
That the competition took many different forms, while MS was FIGHTING it in the market - that is good. It created more robust competition, I do not agree that it is place for government to meddle with how businesses are trying to force each other out of the market.
MS simply made the case for Open/Free source software that much stronger.
However I am not certain that you will concede the points, but again, the 19th century freer market was lowering prices for all the goods, while raising their quality.
This is the exact opposite of what happened later on, as government took over and decided to meddle with business and money, and you are not seeing it.
You're a better debater than economist/robber baron. Economies of Scale can be used as a barrier to entry in a market,
- wait wait wait, the economies of scale BETTER BE barriers to entry into markets, because economies of scale provide good value for low dollar.
Economy of scale is not just a 'size' of business, it means that the production and/or distribution costs are much lower than they are in a non-economy of scale.
I know what I speak of, I am building and providing ERP/SCM/CRM software systems for businesses, like retail chains for example. A larger retail chain can basically get a bigger discount, or a so called 'retro-bonus' in cases where government actually sets a, get this, MINIMUM PRICE on products! A retro-bonus is just a way to reduce the price, because the input costs of production didn't change, so a minimum price makes a manufacturer/producer/distributor less competitive, this is a way to provide a manner, in which preferred businesses can enter an industry and skim off the top WITHOUT COMPETITION.
So you have to understand and analyse all the ways, in which governments screw the population over, but everything that governments do is aimed at raising costs.
You think setting a MINIMUM PRICE is good for business? You think a minimum wage (same thing) is good for economy? All it does it prevents many people from entering the business (or entering the work force) and it forces prices to an artificially high level.
Of-course businesses have found ways around it, thus so called 'retro-bonuses'.
So an economy of scale IS a barrier to OTHER business, and that's the point. However, it doesn't hurt the consumer, it allows the consumer to get that high value at that low price. OTOH if the economy of scale fails to deliver the lowest price and best quality, then there is an way for a competitor to enter the market.
This is what separates a monopoly from just an economy of scale - government rules. How does it do so? Licenses. Regulations. Taxes.
Regulations, such as 'compliance' stuff, be it for 'security' nonsense, like that Patriot Act - pushed the costs up dramatically, virtually destroyed ability of Americans to see any new competition in banking, finance, investment, even IT.
Taxes - you know, if you are an existing large business, you can lobby for good breaks there, if you are a new one, good luck.
Licenses - yeah, did you do an environmental study? Did you ask your COMPETITION for PERMISSION, did you buy a medallion?
There is a cost of capital for a competitor to be able to establish production facilities at a large enough size that it gains equivalent economies of scale as an established player.
- except this is totally unnecessary.
You do not need to match that competitor in size if there is a way to make profit at all. What I mean is that you have to know WHY you are entering that market. You have to know that you can make profit, which means you have to know that you can do something BETTER.
Either you have a better process or technology or you found a new source of parts that is much cheaper, there has to be a REASON to enter a market.
Just entering a market where there is an economy of scale right now, and thinking that you can be successful there WITHOUT some form of innovation that gives you the edge in terms of either production costs or distribution costs or whatever, well then why should the market care about your efforts?
For all that market cares - go ahead, enter that business and DIE, because you are not good enough, not fit enough to make a CHEAPER or a BETTER product.
Why should market care if you enter that space without any new ideas and without ways of providing a better/cheaper product?
When Jobs came back and Apple was struggling financially, who really thought that t
Then I don't follow your question, I thought I replied already?
The People wrote the Constitution and the People (States) ratified it.
Constitution is a CONTRACT, it's the law that is supposed to govern the government, without that law being followed, it's a lawless society, with a tyrannical government.
You don't like the law that governs the government? Well, get everybody involved in ratifying it to come together and change it. Of-course what happened instead is that people stopped caring about maintaining the law above the government, in fact majority seems to want the government to go above and beyond the limits imposed upon the Federal government by the Constitution.
Eventually the society will crash and it is supposed to, because the contract is broken.
Economies of scale are not monopolies. If they are not gov't maintained, then they are the most efficient distribution channel at the time of their existence - providing most value for lowest price.
If there is space to provide more value for the same price or same value for lower price or better value for lower price, then either the economy of scale will do so and continue dominating the market or there will be a competitor born, and in absence of government protecting that economy of scale there are no barriers to entry but what the market sets, so it's not a monopoly.
By the way, you missed a spot, there is also 'debt monetisation', which is what happens when fake currency is issued by the Federal reserve in exchange for government bonds.
Monetisation literally means turning whatever into money, of-course in case of government this does not need to be real money.
But in this case the Paramount executive is full of it.
Paramount's Worldwide VP of Content Protection and Outreach Al Perry:
Perry opened by noting that one has to articulate a problem before seeking to solve it, and he refers to the problem as âoecontent theft.â He pointed out that copyright law gives creators the right to monetize their creations, and that even if people like Louis C.K. decide not to do so, thatâ(TM)s a choice and not a requirement.
1. What Perry is really talking about is that HE cannot 'monetise' Louis C.K.'s work.
2. Monetising for him is not what it really means. For him 'monetising' means limiting distribution channels based on the monopoly status granted by the threat of government violence because of the copyright law.
Same thing applies to patents of-course.
As long as government is in business of creating and maintaining monopolies, the wider economy will suffer the stifling, and it's funny how often people misunderstand what monopolies are and believe that free market creates monopolies, while in reality, every monopoly is creation of government. Free market in fact creates the most efficient distribution channels, that cannot exist when government monopolization is involved.
Standard Oil was never a monopoly. As I keep repeating: an economy of scale is not a monopoly. Economy of scale can offer the best product at the lowest price, and once it stops doing so, there is no government force with all the licenses, special taxes, special regulations - all these and other barriers to entry into the market.
By the time Standard Oil was broken up, there were at least 6 other competitors on the market.
AT&T was given a government monopoly very specifically as a 'national security concern', by the time they were handed a government monopoly, 3000 other providers existed in the market. They were all destroyed by the monopoly that gov't gave to AT&T. Talk about a bad example on your part.
De Beers is quite successful, the most successful cartel on this planet. Of-course there is plenty COMPETITION to De Beers. You do realise that you do NOT HAVE TO BUY DIAMONDS, do you? Or are you that brainwashed? What, a cubic zirconia ring is not good enough for you? Not all products have to be exactly the same, as I said: there is price and quality ratio, and competition arose to De Beers in form of other types of stones. No gov't required. Of-course De Beers is using plenty of GOVERNMENT connections around the world, what do you think happens with diamond mines in different locations around the world, no government intervention there?
Microsoft used government protection in form of copyrights to create a very high barrier of entry, however it is not a monopoly, there are plenty of competitors, including Free/Libre/Open source competition. I don't US MS products, I haven't bought anything that even has their logo for more than 5 years now. Then again, MS does plenty of 'business' with plenty of governments around the world to stifle competition. You didn't know that?
United Aircraft, and all other cases, like Alcoa Aluminium, all this stuff is government attempts at DESTROYING COMPETITIVE ECONOMIES OF SCALE that are providing markets with high quality, low cost goods.
They destroy a working company - economy of scale in case of the companies I just mentioned, and then they allow their friends to enter this market in a way that raises prices for everybody.
Nobody could COMPETE with Alcoa on aluminium prices and few people could compete with the Boeing, so gov't had to step in, to allow UNCOMPETITIVE businesses to enter the market by destroying what was successful economy of scale.
Of-course now Boeing is one of the preferred gov't supported corporations, talk about irony.
And who writes, interprets and enforces that law? If it's an agency outside of the market, then it's a government even if you call it something else.
- as I said multiple times: the people have agreed on what the law is.
The law that is above the government is the Constitution. As long as this law is enforced, the market will stay free because individuals remain free.
The PEOPLE wrote the law that was put above the government. The people wrote the law and then original States (colonies) voted - ratified it. They did not ratify that contract right away, things were changed.
AFAIC I wouldn't have ratified that contract the way it was, it still didn't enforce one important issue, that all people are equal before the law (the entire fiasco with the blacks), so if any changes to the law were required since then, those needed to be the changes that increased the individual freedoms, didn't decrease it.
It means recognising that all people are equal before the law and that government must not discriminate against people based on them belonging to any group. But this only concerns the government, government was not for example authorised to force regulations upon business, including regulations that are about any groups of people (dividing and conquering the people - first divide them into groups, be it women vs men, blacks vs whites, gay vs straight, whatever).
The law existed, it was created, it was ratified.
Then it was broken. I am only talking about the law above the government.
What Federal government is allowed to do is enumerated, listed, explicitly written out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Almost everything that government does today has nothing to do with what it is authorised to do, the law is government is no longer governed by any laws.
News flash: a free market has no laws. You keep arguing for a free market but you still rely on laws. Laws require some kind of enforcement. Any entity that does the enforcement IS a government.
- as I said in my previous reply, you are completely mixed on the cause and effect.
Free market is not a natural system that arises from anarchy, it is a conscious attempt at keeping power of government at bay, that's why it took so long for true free market to ever be tried - USA had to be formed artificially and the Constitution that is the law above the power of government had to be established.
You believe that free market is anarchy - nothing could be further from truth. Free market is not anarchy, it requires protection of individual freedoms and liberties, and establishing any government must have a goal of protecting individual freedoms and liberties.
Australia has most of those things. It's doing better than the US.
- Australia does not have the Federal reserve system that prints dollars that everybody is hell bent on accepting for no good reason. US dollar being the reserve currency allows the USA to spend itself into oblivion without actually producing anything, and that kind of spending is exactly what grows the government.
Australia has nothing on the size of Federal government of USA. Australia has nothing on the amount of spending that USA is involved in. Be it military or any other type of spending that government is involved in (housing, education, medical, insurance, agriculture, etc.etc.), no country in the world is spending as much as USA, because USA is PRINTING THE RESERVE CURRENCY.
USA has become the richest country in the world in 19 century and by the WWI it was that country, but after the 1913, with the introduction of the Fed and with introduction of income taxes the government started the type of growth that no other country could match (including even the USSR, even there the government apparatus was smaller in nominal and absolute terms than what USA had). At first it was only possible because of the strong free market economic growth, then it became much bigger based on the fake currency and then, once the world was put on USD as 'reserve' the growth became cancerous.
I have never worked a minimum wage job, but I like the fact there is a minimum wage because I don't like workers getting abused with the lowest pay an employer can get away with. I like the fact there is medicare because I don't like that people can die simply because they can't afford treatment.
- the only reason that minimum wage was introduced was that the Fed was printing fake currency and inflation started showing and thus prices started going up.
As I said: 19 century USA had FALLING PRICES once again for you, since you are so daft as not to understand that important point. In falling prices the minimum wage law would have put an artificial bottom upon prices, and so it made no sense at all, but when gov't figured out how to steal peoples money by introducing the stealth tax of inflation (because ppl don't understand inflation and why it happens, what causes it and how it hurts them), then gov't also introduced all these measures that put obligation on companies to HIDE INFLATION.
Minimum wage law is nothing but propaganda pushed by the government thieves.
Without gov't the prices would have kept falling, as gov't created infinite inflation, it forced businesses to hide it and thus the minimum wage laws, and small minded idiots believe today that minimum wage a good thing.
Minimum wage is a terrible thing - it puts a floor, under which nobody is hired. It makes it illegal for millions of people (employees and employers) to come together to a beneficial contract, where some jobs can still be done profitably at lower costs and ppl without too much hope of entering this market could still d
Yes, but you're still missing the basic point: a free market devolves into monopolies
- nonsense. Free Market requires law above government while your example is about power becoming de-facto government and creating its own law.
You are arguing against evolution of government systems it looks like, because we need evolution of government systems. I think we need Darwinian approach towards evolution of government systems, where the 'most fit' is described as the government that allows for the most economic freedom.
Clearly the old government systems that are based on monarchies, tyranny of any political party, dictatorship are not about maximising economic freedoms, they are about maximising power to the government itself.
USA federal government was founded with a conscious attempt to maximise freedom and it created the most prolific environment for the most economic development, people have recognised it and moved to the States from their respective nations / countries / governments. Later other countries have used USA as an example to move away from their more tyrannical systems towards systems that allow much more economic freedom, thus US citizens, businesses have moved plenty of investment capital and manufacturing and productive capacity out of USA into China.
Ironically today China is a much more free market capitalist society than USA. China resembles the US circa 19th century today, and USA resembles a totalitarian regime with little economic freedom, and thus you have what you have - no investment capital, fake money, spending and consumption based on fake money, gambling (because there is no manufacturing and production left), so called 'IP' and 'service' economy, which is all nonsense and will be crashed.
You are wrong on the cause and consequence of what comes first - free market or government.
In FACT in USA the government had to be established first that allowed for the free market to flourish. Without a law abiding government system there could be no free market, free market is not a consequence of anarchy, it is a consequence of a conscious attempt at keeping government away from most power, keeping it limited to a very small number of functions and limiting its resources but allowing it to occupy the space where a different natural form of government could arise - a tyranny of one kind or another.
The free market is a conscious attempt at keeping individual freedoms and it always has to be a conscious attempt, and letting go of the work that is involved in keeping the individual free allows the government to become a tyranny once more.
Government attracts those, who seek power, just like banks attract the robbers because that's where the money is at.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever READ my comments? The collective, the mob is a herd, and you ARE being treated just like a herd.
Individuals are important, mob is not. In this very story about Afghanistan - the collective, the mob was all for that war. In case of Iraq, the collective, the mob, the herd was lead into that war. While the Iraqies and Afghans were slaughtered literally, the Americans and many others were slaughtered figuratively speaking. Their freedoms were taken away, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, all the other nonsense, the economy being crashed by the collective wanting the bread and circuses and being lead by the Federal reserve and Treasury and every politician out there.
By the way, if you find somebody who would like to be a 'handler' given my positions.... please, send me a contact.
My 'handlers'? :) Unlike some of us, whose 'minds are controlled', I don't need anybody to tell me what to think.
As to democracy vs republic, it never gets tired, to look at this herd, that believes it should be able to run policy as a mob, while even believing that it is supposed to be that way in their own system of government.
Oh boy, so if you had a time machine that allowed you to go back to 2006 you'd be just converting your dollars to Yen?
Let's see
USD/JPY (USDJPY=X)
80.8150 Up 0.3890(0.4837%)
and back in 2006 for example it was around 120.
At the same time gold started at 530 and ounce and finished at 632 an ounce in 2006. So if you just wanted to keep savings in money, not in investment, you'd be much better off buying gold in 2006, today it's 1650.
Of-course with a time machine that could take you to 2006, you'd be much better served setting a bunch of leveraged positions, options, shorting the entire financial market, you could make any bets with the most ridiculous odds, you'd be a multi billionaire.
Jeez, some people could even waste a time machine if they had it.
Tyranny of majority is tyranny nevertheless, that's why USA was formed as a Republic, but hey, you'd just do as told anyway, mindcontrolled.
While you are correct, that the top CEOs and central bankers and politicos are getting what they want out of this, I am not talking to CEOs and central banker and politicos on this site, am I?
I am talking to the people who are ruled by them, and I am explaining to them what is happening around them. That they may not understand it or accept it for what it is, that's just a testament to the power of the mis-education and propaganda, a good example what can be done to the will of the supposedly 'free' individuals, how their thinking can be twisted against their own self-interests.
Ideally the people would understand the economics and politics and history enough, to make truly educated decisions about their own government, because while the CEOs and the bankers and the politicos are playing this game with the population, the population in reality has the power to get rid of these controls and of this theft, and AFAIC it is much better if government was kept honest and its powers were minimised and individuals powers were maximised, we would have much higher standard of living, much more innovation, inventions, more higher quality products at lower prices, more savings, investment and generally a more equitable environment.
And all of this without destruction of liberty and without tyranny, without wealth redistribution, without government sponsored and enforced theft.
What can I say - I LIKE PROGRESS and we will not have progress with socialism or communism, there will be no progress while people believe that they have rights to certain things without doing much of anything for it. I prefer to live in a society where people are FORCED TO INNOVATE by their environment, but also a society where success is truly not punished, but is rewarded according to its own ability to get the reward. I think we'd have a much more prosperous and peaceful society that way, that's all.
MAYBE I am wrong, but I don't believe that.
Aren't you for 'democracy', which means rule of the majority or basically mobocracy? If the majority consists of religious fanatics, wouldn't it just mean democracy can be used to give power to Taliban just as well?
As say: democracy does not ensure freedom, it is actually a gateway towards tyranny.
HOWEVER, where does it say even in TFA that it's Taliban that is responsible? Here is what TFA says:
The Afghan government said last year that the Taliban, which has been trying to adopt a more moderate face to advance exploratory peace talks, had dropped its opposition to female education.
AFAIC it could be anybody poisoning those girls, from Taliban, to USA military contractors, who stand to lose a sweet contract if US goes home.
Japan's infrastructure is pretty good actually. They need to devalue their currency because the high price of their exports is hurting them a lot. All those high tech products that the rest of the world laps up have been rising in price since a historic low in 2007.
- yeah, that's what you've been taught over the years. It's complete nonsense.
Look at Switzerland - it had very strong currency up until last year, when they tied it to Euro (idiots), but they had lowest unemployment and plenty of exports.
Again and again I have to repeat the same message, because clearly, it's not getting through: devaluing currency as a way to make exports cheaper is idiotic.
The companies who rely on gov't to devalue currency to make their exports cheaper are simply getting paid less for their exports, that's all. Do you understand that devaluing currency in terms of sales, is exactly the same as LOWERING PRICES?
Do you understand it? Do you get it?
So why should the Japanese people suffer lower purchasing power and lower standard of living just because some companies want to sell more of their product CHEAPER to other nations?
Let the companies, who want to sell their products cheaper lower their prices. As the currency appreciates in value, there will be more and more people coming in with their own savings into Japan, investing there, Japan would finally get out of the hole that they are in if they just allowed their currency to appreciate.
They have all these zombie banks and other companies, that should have gone belly up long ago and debts should have restructured. Instead they are destroying the purchasing power of their own people with this monetary idiocy of a policy, borrowed from USA, and who is getting the benefit?
Well, the companies are still selling the products cheaper, even if it's not in nominal value, it's cheaper in purchasing power. The Japanese are suffering lower standard of living because of this, they can buy less of their own products that they make.
So the only people gaining something are those, who are SUBSIDISED by this: the foreign buyers of these cheaper products and the CEOs of those companies that export, because they can show a NOMINAL increase in sales, while in reality their prices are falling!
The dollar, the yen, whatever, when it's debased it loses purchasing power. The number on the piece of paper means nothing, you can buy less and less with it the more of them are pumped into the economy from the main counterfeiters - the central banks.
A while back I left a comment here explaining that Japan needs to stop devaluing their currency, because they'll be in a hole without so many resources needed to rebuild their broken infrastructure, and it would be much cheaper for them to buy these resources from around the world if the Yen was valued much higher, than what their government allows. Well, guess what, that comment is still completely appropriate today as it was then.
Japan needs a lot of raw materials and energy, so they really need to trade with countries at least for those resources, and stronger currency would help Japan immensely, especially now, that they've been hit with too many natural disasters and they need all sorts of materials and energy to rebuild everything.
Japan needs to rebuild their infrastructure in many places, so they need to allow their currency to appreciate, so that more investments would be put into it, so they could buy more, and they need to stop listening the insane Keynesian charlatans, who really caused their economy to stagnate for 20 years. Nobody should be bailed out and nobody should be protected from rising currency with government intervention. Having currency fall looks good on a quarterly statement due to more sales in devalued currency, but it's terrible for the actual citizens and consumers, who have rising prices because the government destroys the money.
Maybe the Japanese should think about kicking their government in the balls for these 20 years and taking away their ability to print money in the first place and do something smart for a change and switch to saving and trading in gold and let the investments come into the country, because that's what would happen.
They would fix the unemployment in a hurry, with more investments coming in and they would be able to fix their infrastructure with strong money and they wouldn't even need to make these cuts in scientific spending.
Also while the Japanese have to re-evaluate some of their nuclear power plant safety features, such as not all generators being in one basement together, or whatever else, including extra cabling to connect the plants to the grid, they cannot just rely on buying up oil to run their electrical grid. Oil is going to get more and more expensive and if they keep devaluing the Yen, it will be as expensive for them, nominally, as it is going to be for the Americans, and it's not a good example and a path to follow.
a. No shit, it's only 2.3% for most people. :)
b. Given the point above it makes 1.29 into both categories
But how do they get the laser there? If it were near the surface, a laser could be used. But deeper in the body, liver, brain, etc., how do you get laser light in there to cause the drug bomb to be dropped?
- what do you mean, how? Tiny sharks of-course!
Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly, by the time it was broken up, there were a bunch of competitors.
In 1870 S.O. supplied only 4% of the market. What was oil used for? It was replacing whale oil, it was mostly used for production of kerosene. They were very innovative, by 1897 their production costs were less than 1/10 (ONE TENTH) of their initial production costs levels of 1869, and S.O. passed the efficiency savings in sharply reduced prices further on, they didn't just 'keep the difference'.
The prices for refined oil were 30cents per gallon in 1869 and then 10 cents in 1874 and then 8 cents in 1885 and 5.9 cents in 1897.
How about THAT for 'GOUGING'? HA, COME ON. GOUGING!
There was no monopoly at all, in 1911 Standard Oil had already 150 competitors, I actually had to look up a number of times. This included Texaco and Gulf.
So saying that Rockefeller used predatory pricing with massive losses over decades without achieving the alleged monopoly payoff is just retarded.
Again and again: 19th century up until 1913 proves you completely, utterly, 100% wrong, as prices were falling, choices were increasing and competition was fierce.
You are also wrong for another reason: plasma screens or mobile phones or anything. What makes more profit? Selling 100 at 100,000USD / piece? Selling 10000 at about 5000USD/piece?
Selling 1000000 at 1000USD/ piece?
No. The most money is made selling 1000,000,000 at 50 bucks a pop.
There is no such thing as a 'natural monopoly', it's government created propaganda.
An economy of scale is not a monopoly, monopoly can prevent others from entering the field not because of the market forces but because its ability to apply government power and modify the barriers of entry. Again: any economy of scale that market gives its money to, is only going to get that money as long as its providing a good product at a good price.
And again and again and again: 19 century - prices FALLING.
20th century - prices RISING.
Difference? Government manipulation and creation of monopolies.
You want to argue on something MEANINGFUL? Argue how is it that with more and more government prices are going up all the time while without government prices were falling all time.
You conveniently ignored the the last part of my statement
- conveniently ignored? What?
This nonsense?
Then, while it regains the monopoly, charge "what the market would bear" (a.k.a gouge).
- again.
WITHOUT GOVERNMENT: prices falling.
WITH GOVERNMENT: prices going up all the time.
Tell me, what is the PURPOSE of government "fighting monopolies" in your mind even given your understanding of what a monopoly is (and really it is a complete misunderstanding, but OK)? To RAISE PRICES?
What is the point of having government 'fight monopolies' so that prices go up after that?
What you don't understand is very simple. Government is not there for you. It's not there to make your life better. It's not there to help you. It's not to allow you to have a good product at a low cost. That's what COMPANIES are there for - real businesses in a free market.
No. Government is there to allow politicians to gain as much power as possible by promising you something for nothing (bread and circuses) while in reality making friends with a number of businesses and helping them to become monopolies (or oligopolies) and prevent any competition with all the regulations, taxes and inflation.
That's what is really happening, and you are talking about 'fighting monopolies'. Do you have a problem with getting lower prices? Do you wait for prices to go up to go shopping? Or do you want lower prices and more choice?
Then you should stop with this nonsense and realise that you will not get lower prices and more choice with bigger government supposedly 'fighting monopolies' for your benefit, it's not what is happening.
Wake up.
You are quoting Wikipedia, that's good, I am going to give you a reference to a comment I just made on the false idea that monopolies and economies of scale are the same thing. Standard Oil, just like any other economy of scale, was providing the market an excellent quality product at a very good price, however the process was improving and eventually other companies entered the market with better ideas, and more competition was created.
The fact that at some point Standard Oil WAS an economy of scale, that provided the best product at the time at the best price at the time does not make it a monopoly.
To be a monopoly, you have to have government on your side, setting barriers of entry that are not market barriers, but instead artificial barriers that cannot be overcome with simply market economics.
Your so-called "economy of scale" can often afford to (and sometimes does) lower prices below cost in order to undercut competitors and force them out. Then, while it regains the monopoly, charge "what the market would bear" (a.k.a gouge).
- I disagree with the premise that it is bad, that economy of scale is forced to lower prices and/or forced to improve quality based on newcomers into the market.
Maybe you are concerned about newcomers into the market too much, I am only worried about my ability to BUY good stuff cheaply. I certainly do not need government to attempt its regulations, we all KNOW what the Fed's mandate of 'price stability' has really caused.
By the way, I only have to point out that in the 100 years over the course of 19th century and up to the time the Fed was created, the prices were on a constant downward path. It was a trend. As US Dollar was gaining value, based on all that productivity, the actual prices were constantly falling, based again, on all that productivity and competition.
THUS without any government at all, over the course of 19th century and up to 1913 the prices in USA were FALLING all the time.
However as government started growing, printing money, setting regulations, taxing income and investment capital etc., what have we observed since then?
In 1913 the nominal price for 1 ounce of gold was about 19 US Federal reserve notes.
Today it's about 1650 or so.
In gold, products prices are falling all the time. So WITH government intervention we are seeing a constant rise in nominal prices of things, while WITHOUT government intervention we saw a constant decline in prices for things.
Do you still maintain that the relatively freer market of 19th century produced all these monopolies that made things more expensive and it was a problem that needed to be solved? Or do you concede that the government had a 'solution' in search of a non-existing problem, which simply allowed the government to amass the power to impose its own idea on who will win and who will lose in the economy (and all this done to accrue more power in the government)?
As to industrial diamonds - they are very cheap, especially now, that there are techniques of making them artificially, which is again, proving my point.
As to DOJ and MS - again, the MS was only a monopoly from POV of the COPYRIGHT, which is government regulation. Apparently it didn't share enough money with some people in power, so they were on a hit list.
In any case, as I said, they were providing a good enough quality product for a low enough price for some time, then there was competition.
That the competition took many different forms, while MS was FIGHTING it in the market - that is good. It created more robust competition, I do not agree that it is place for government to meddle with how businesses are trying to force each other out of the market.
MS simply made the case for Open/Free source software that much stronger.
However I am not certain that you will concede the points, but again, the 19th century freer market was lowering prices for all the goods, while raising their quality.
This is the exact opposite of what happened later on, as government took over and decided to meddle with business and money, and you are not seeing it.
The world will not be a better place if any nation, including the US, can first strike with impunity.
- maybe, but then the world would be a much more radioactive place for sure, and radiation is good for you.
You're a better debater than economist/robber baron. Economies of Scale can be used as a barrier to entry in a market,
- wait wait wait, the economies of scale BETTER BE barriers to entry into markets, because economies of scale provide good value for low dollar.
Economy of scale is not just a 'size' of business, it means that the production and/or distribution costs are much lower than they are in a non-economy of scale.
I know what I speak of, I am building and providing ERP/SCM/CRM software systems for businesses, like retail chains for example. A larger retail chain can basically get a bigger discount, or a so called 'retro-bonus' in cases where government actually sets a, get this, MINIMUM PRICE on products! A retro-bonus is just a way to reduce the price, because the input costs of production didn't change, so a minimum price makes a manufacturer/producer/distributor less competitive, this is a way to provide a manner, in which preferred businesses can enter an industry and skim off the top WITHOUT COMPETITION.
So you have to understand and analyse all the ways, in which governments screw the population over, but everything that governments do is aimed at raising costs.
You think setting a MINIMUM PRICE is good for business? You think a minimum wage (same thing) is good for economy? All it does it prevents many people from entering the business (or entering the work force) and it forces prices to an artificially high level.
Of-course businesses have found ways around it, thus so called 'retro-bonuses'.
So an economy of scale IS a barrier to OTHER business, and that's the point. However, it doesn't hurt the consumer, it allows the consumer to get that high value at that low price. OTOH if the economy of scale fails to deliver the lowest price and best quality, then there is an way for a competitor to enter the market.
This is what separates a monopoly from just an economy of scale - government rules. How does it do so? Licenses. Regulations. Taxes.
Regulations, such as 'compliance' stuff, be it for 'security' nonsense, like that Patriot Act - pushed the costs up dramatically, virtually destroyed ability of Americans to see any new competition in banking, finance, investment, even IT.
Taxes - you know, if you are an existing large business, you can lobby for good breaks there, if you are a new one, good luck.
Licenses - yeah, did you do an environmental study? Did you ask your COMPETITION for PERMISSION, did you buy a medallion?
There is a cost of capital for a competitor to be able to establish production facilities at a large enough size that it gains equivalent economies of scale as an established player.
- except this is totally unnecessary.
You do not need to match that competitor in size if there is a way to make profit at all. What I mean is that you have to know WHY you are entering that market. You have to know that you can make profit, which means you have to know that you can do something BETTER.
Either you have a better process or technology or you found a new source of parts that is much cheaper, there has to be a REASON to enter a market.
Just entering a market where there is an economy of scale right now, and thinking that you can be successful there WITHOUT some form of innovation that gives you the edge in terms of either production costs or distribution costs or whatever, well then why should the market care about your efforts?
For all that market cares - go ahead, enter that business and DIE, because you are not good enough, not fit enough to make a CHEAPER or a BETTER product.
Why should market care if you enter that space without any new ideas and without ways of providing a better/cheaper product?
When Jobs came back and Apple was struggling financially, who really thought that t
Then I don't follow your question, I thought I replied already?
The People wrote the Constitution and the People (States) ratified it.
Constitution is a CONTRACT, it's the law that is supposed to govern the government, without that law being followed, it's a lawless society, with a tyrannical government.
You don't like the law that governs the government? Well, get everybody involved in ratifying it to come together and change it. Of-course what happened instead is that people stopped caring about maintaining the law above the government, in fact majority seems to want the government to go above and beyond the limits imposed upon the Federal government by the Constitution.
Eventually the society will crash and it is supposed to, because the contract is broken.
What if the people agree that the market shouldn't be free?
- then they must rewrite the Constitution and have another process of ratification, because that goes contrary to that document, which is law.
There has to be law, otherwise it's lawless government above you, do you really want to live in tyranny?
Really? Enforcing a law that says that the market shall not be free will cause it to be free?
- I am talking about the Constitution as it is today, you are talking about it's hypothetical antipode, so what's your point?
Economies of scale are not monopolies. If they are not gov't maintained, then they are the most efficient distribution channel at the time of their existence - providing most value for lowest price.
If there is space to provide more value for the same price or same value for lower price or better value for lower price, then either the economy of scale will do so and continue dominating the market or there will be a competitor born, and in absence of government protecting that economy of scale there are no barriers to entry but what the market sets, so it's not a monopoly.
By the way, you missed a spot, there is also 'debt monetisation', which is what happens when fake currency is issued by the Federal reserve in exchange for government bonds.
Monetisation literally means turning whatever into money, of-course in case of government this does not need to be real money.
But in this case the Paramount executive is full of it.
Paramount's Worldwide VP of Content Protection and Outreach Al Perry:
Perry opened by noting that one has to articulate a problem before seeking to solve it, and he refers to the problem as âoecontent theft.â He pointed out that copyright law gives creators the right to monetize their creations, and that even if people like Louis C.K. decide not to do so, thatâ(TM)s a choice and not a requirement.
1. What Perry is really talking about is that HE cannot 'monetise' Louis C.K.'s work.
2. Monetising for him is not what it really means. For him 'monetising' means limiting distribution channels based on the monopoly status granted by the threat of government violence because of the copyright law.
Same thing applies to patents of-course.
As long as government is in business of creating and maintaining monopolies, the wider economy will suffer the stifling, and it's funny how often people misunderstand what monopolies are and believe that free market creates monopolies, while in reality, every monopoly is creation of government. Free market in fact creates the most efficient distribution channels, that cannot exist when government monopolization is involved.
Standard Oil was never a monopoly.
As I keep repeating: an economy of scale is not a monopoly. Economy of scale can offer the best product at the lowest price, and once it stops doing so, there is no government force with all the licenses, special taxes, special regulations - all these and other barriers to entry into the market.
By the time Standard Oil was broken up, there were at least 6 other competitors on the market.
AT&T was given a government monopoly very specifically as a 'national security concern', by the time they were handed a government monopoly, 3000 other providers existed in the market. They were all destroyed by the monopoly that gov't gave to AT&T. Talk about a bad example on your part.
De Beers is quite successful, the most successful cartel on this planet. Of-course there is plenty COMPETITION to De Beers. You do realise that you do NOT HAVE TO BUY DIAMONDS, do you? Or are you that brainwashed? What, a cubic zirconia ring is not good enough for you? Not all products have to be exactly the same, as I said: there is price and quality ratio, and competition arose to De Beers in form of other types of stones. No gov't required. Of-course De Beers is using plenty of GOVERNMENT connections around the world, what do you think happens with diamond mines in different locations around the world, no government intervention there?
Microsoft used government protection in form of copyrights to create a very high barrier of entry, however it is not a monopoly, there are plenty of competitors, including Free/Libre/Open source competition. I don't US MS products, I haven't bought anything that even has their logo for more than 5 years now. Then again, MS does plenty of 'business' with plenty of governments around the world to stifle competition. You didn't know that?
United Aircraft, and all other cases, like Alcoa Aluminium, all this stuff is government attempts at DESTROYING COMPETITIVE ECONOMIES OF SCALE that are providing markets with high quality, low cost goods.
They destroy a working company - economy of scale in case of the companies I just mentioned, and then they allow their friends to enter this market in a way that raises prices for everybody.
Nobody could COMPETE with Alcoa on aluminium prices and few people could compete with the Boeing, so gov't had to step in, to allow UNCOMPETITIVE businesses to enter the market by destroying what was successful economy of scale.
Of-course now Boeing is one of the preferred gov't supported corporations, talk about irony.
I see your name and... what can I say, you post a lot of comments!
And who writes, interprets and enforces that law? If it's an agency outside of the market, then it's a government even if you call it something else.
- as I said multiple times: the people have agreed on what the law is.
The law that is above the government is the Constitution. As long as this law is enforced, the market will stay free because individuals remain free.
The PEOPLE wrote the law that was put above the government. The people wrote the law and then original States (colonies) voted - ratified it. They did not ratify that contract right away, things were changed.
AFAIC I wouldn't have ratified that contract the way it was, it still didn't enforce one important issue, that all people are equal before the law (the entire fiasco with the blacks), so if any changes to the law were required since then, those needed to be the changes that increased the individual freedoms, didn't decrease it.
It means recognising that all people are equal before the law and that government must not discriminate against people based on them belonging to any group. But this only concerns the government, government was not for example authorised to force regulations upon business, including regulations that are about any groups of people (dividing and conquering the people - first divide them into groups, be it women vs men, blacks vs whites, gay vs straight, whatever).
The law existed, it was created, it was ratified.
Then it was broken. I am only talking about the law above the government.
What Federal government is allowed to do is enumerated, listed, explicitly written out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Almost everything that government does today has nothing to do with what it is authorised to do, the law is government is no longer governed by any laws.
News flash: a free market has no laws. You keep arguing for a free market but you still rely on laws. Laws require some kind of enforcement. Any entity that does the enforcement IS a government.
- as I said in my previous reply, you are completely mixed on the cause and effect.
Free market is not a natural system that arises from anarchy, it is a conscious attempt at keeping power of government at bay, that's why it took so long for true free market to ever be tried - USA had to be formed artificially and the Constitution that is the law above the power of government had to be established.
You believe that free market is anarchy - nothing could be further from truth. Free market is not anarchy, it requires protection of individual freedoms and liberties, and establishing any government must have a goal of protecting individual freedoms and liberties.
Australia has most of those things. It's doing better than the US.
- Australia does not have the Federal reserve system that prints dollars that everybody is hell bent on accepting for no good reason. US dollar being the reserve currency allows the USA to spend itself into oblivion without actually producing anything, and that kind of spending is exactly what grows the government.
Australia has nothing on the size of Federal government of USA. Australia has nothing on the amount of spending that USA is involved in. Be it military or any other type of spending that government is involved in (housing, education, medical, insurance, agriculture, etc.etc.), no country in the world is spending as much as USA, because USA is PRINTING THE RESERVE CURRENCY.
USA has become the richest country in the world in 19 century and by the WWI it was that country, but after the 1913, with the introduction of the Fed and with introduction of income taxes the government started the type of growth that no other country could match (including even the USSR, even there the government apparatus was smaller in nominal and absolute terms than what USA had). At first it was only possible because of the strong free market economic growth, then it became much bigger based on the fake currency and then, once the world was put on USD as 'reserve' the growth became cancerous.
I have never worked a minimum wage job, but I like the fact there is a minimum wage because I don't like workers getting abused with the lowest pay an employer can get away with. I like the fact there is medicare because I don't like that people can die simply because they can't afford treatment.
- the only reason that minimum wage was introduced was that the Fed was printing fake currency and inflation started showing and thus prices started going up.
As I said: 19 century USA had FALLING PRICES once again for you, since you are so daft as not to understand that important point. In falling prices the minimum wage law would have put an artificial bottom upon prices, and so it made no sense at all, but when gov't figured out how to steal peoples money by introducing the stealth tax of inflation (because ppl don't understand inflation and why it happens, what causes it and how it hurts them), then gov't also introduced all these measures that put obligation on companies to HIDE INFLATION.
Minimum wage law is nothing but propaganda pushed by the government thieves.
Without gov't the prices would have kept falling, as gov't created infinite inflation, it forced businesses to hide it and thus the minimum wage laws, and small minded idiots believe today that minimum wage a good thing.
Minimum wage is a terrible thing - it puts a floor, under which nobody is hired. It makes it illegal for millions of people (employees and employers) to come together to a beneficial contract, where some jobs can still be done profitably at lower costs and ppl without too much hope of entering this market could still d
Yes, but you're still missing the basic point: a free market devolves into monopolies
- nonsense. Free Market requires law above government while your example is about power becoming de-facto government and creating its own law.
You are arguing against evolution of government systems it looks like, because we need evolution of government systems. I think we need Darwinian approach towards evolution of government systems, where the 'most fit' is described as the government that allows for the most economic freedom.
Clearly the old government systems that are based on monarchies, tyranny of any political party, dictatorship are not about maximising economic freedoms, they are about maximising power to the government itself.
USA federal government was founded with a conscious attempt to maximise freedom and it created the most prolific environment for the most economic development, people have recognised it and moved to the States from their respective nations / countries / governments. Later other countries have used USA as an example to move away from their more tyrannical systems towards systems that allow much more economic freedom, thus US citizens, businesses have moved plenty of investment capital and manufacturing and productive capacity out of USA into China.
Ironically today China is a much more free market capitalist society than USA. China resembles the US circa 19th century today, and USA resembles a totalitarian regime with little economic freedom, and thus you have what you have - no investment capital, fake money, spending and consumption based on fake money, gambling (because there is no manufacturing and production left), so called 'IP' and 'service' economy, which is all nonsense and will be crashed.
You are wrong on the cause and consequence of what comes first - free market or government.
In FACT in USA the government had to be established first that allowed for the free market to flourish. Without a law abiding government system there could be no free market, free market is not a consequence of anarchy, it is a consequence of a conscious attempt at keeping government away from most power, keeping it limited to a very small number of functions and limiting its resources but allowing it to occupy the space where a different natural form of government could arise - a tyranny of one kind or another.
The free market is a conscious attempt at keeping individual freedoms and it always has to be a conscious attempt, and letting go of the work that is involved in keeping the individual free allows the government to become a tyranny once more.
Government attracts those, who seek power, just like banks attract the robbers because that's where the money is at.