What did I say was stupid? The artificial attempt at rationing was stupid. The correct thing to do is to raise the prices enough, so that there is no secondary market formed (where somebody else buys the drives and still can sell them for a profit.)
If you need to build a computer right now and you can't wait, because the market is such that your project must be done now, you will pay a premium for this now more scarce resource, but at least you'd be able to BUY the freaking drives.
Well GOOD! This means the market IS doing its job, cutting off those, who do not actually NEED the drives at this time by increasing the prices enough, but at least those who actually do need to continue with their projects can get the drives and that guy CAN WAIT until they restart more production and prices go down again.
This is what markets do, this is what efficiencies are all about - finding the right availability/price ratios to satisfy the market demand in the most efficient manner to create a queue basically, to provide the resources to those who need them most first, etc.etc.
This isn't efficient distribution, this is gouging. There are other factories in the world, the dealers are simply taking advantage of a natural disaster to arbitrarily hike prices.
- is that what they taught you in your classes?
In this story the stores also decided to try and limit purchases by creating artificial rationing (which never works, by the way, just walk out and walk in again, or ask somebody to get another portion for you). So the stores truly were trying to solve a problem (as any price hikes based on more scarcity of resources are) - how do you sell at the optimal price? And this is the only real way to find the best efficiency in the market. There is always a price at which somebody is still willing to buy and then there is a price at which most are not willing to buy, so you have to find the price, that is the most efficient, which means people are still paying for it, but only those who REALLY need it.
Otherwise, if you sell UNDER priced, all you do is create another MARKET, where somebody buys from you and then resells on the corner at a higher price.
Do you ever think beyond your brainwashed state of absurd economic ignorance? You are exactly the person who DOES NOT NEED the hard drives bad enough to pay a higher price, and this is GOOD, because SOMEBODY NEEDS THOSE DRIVES MORE THAN YOU DO.
Somebody truly needs the drives much more than you do, and the raising of the prices allowed to cut you off and make sure that somebody who really needs the drives to get them before you do, because clearly - YOU CAN WAIT.
Somebody can't wait, and they will pay the premium. But if the prices didn't go up, then you would have bought your drives and there wouldn't be enough drives for somebody who REALLY NEEDS THEM, because you'd get your drives for your little project, but there is real actual SCARCITY here, because the plants are not producing enough supply to satisfy the demand at the previous low prices.
So you are giving an example in your very comment why the market works and you are calling it 'gouging', while you are 'gouged' alright. You are blind to the fact that the market did its job and the efficiency was achieved.
this is artificial scarcity that you are talking about, because most of the problems in places like that are government (or whatever passes for a government) created. There are no free markets there, so there is no real price discovery, the places are used for their valuable mining resources most likely and the economies are not allowed to grow and improve because certain power brokers get their hands upon those economies by proxy and endorse various dictators and sell them cheap weapons to hold the people there hostages.
What you have here in your comment, is basic misunderstanding of economics and politics.
Yes, I read that, this simply means they are not raising the prices high enough, but this artificial rationing is stupid, it doesn't work, as you can make more purchases by buying once, buying another time, another time, etc.
This makes a good opportunity for somebody to buy all of those drives and make a profit by selling them at a much higher price if the stores are forced into these worthless tricks with rationing.
Obama is in his reelection mode now, expect all sorts of 'tough stands' and 'right' soundbites and all sorts of promises.
I mean if Ron Paul gets the nomination, all he has to do to put Obama on his knees is just show how this Nobel prize winner in 'peace' has started another few unconstitutional wars and murdered US citizens without due process.
Of-course Ron Paul can also point out how he predicted the economic problems and because he predicted them, he understands the cause of them, which makes him the best person to run the place, especially in this economic situation.
This is a good example of how raising prices works to distribute whatever resources in efficient manner, allowing those, who truly need whatever the resource (HDDs in this case) to come up with the largest bid on it, which means that the resource was most needed for that situation. It definitely beats artificial rationing.
1. I have proofs to all my statements, don't worry, I don't run away from an argument, you can bring up anything you see as a logical fallacy, whatever, or are you just lazy?
2. It's not that I don't BELIEVE that a business wouldn't do something destructive if it was profitable in the short term. I don't believe anything, I only believe that people do things for their benefit. What it is, is that in free market the gov't is not creating the moral hazards like the ones it creates by limiting liability, setting liability caps, giving out free contracts to strip mine mountains to companies who DO NOT PAY THE MARKET PRICE for those lands AND federal gov't obviously doesn't protect private property and doesn't believe in States rights, but zoning laws are a State/municipal/local issue, not a federal one. Federal gov't should not own ANY property, because it cannot. Any property federal gov't 'owns' is property that will be abused, and it is, time after time, and you think that's a logical fallacy. Come on, bring out your so called 'facts'.
You place no value on human life.
- NOT TRUE.
There is clearly a value attached to any human life of any human who participates in the market. Every human is worth something. They are doing something producing something, creating something. If they are not, then they are inconsequential, it is true, they can even be destructive. But most importantly - if somebody isn't creating/producing something, FORCING others to GIVE them stuff is IMMORAL.
BUT other people CAN give them stuff out of charity. Nobody prevents individual charity more than the government taxation system, which takes away people's money at all points, from production to consumption, to simple ownership and even capitation (head count, just because they are there), so there is obviously so little money left for the average person to spend, he won't be doing much charity. It's good if he makes enough to survive and he doesn't need charity himself.
You are absolutely blind to facts, but you are also completely misunderstanding the point. The point is that at any moment that you use a gov't to FORCE somebody to so called 'share' their work to feed people who are themselves unproductive, you are turning those people, who are forced to 'share' into basic slaves. THAT is immoral.
As to individuals doing charity - that's a basic human trait. People do that because they are people, but they can be stopped by government and they can even turn violent against the idea of charity by gov't forcing them to so called 'share'. We know what this 'sharing' is all about - it's all about making government more powerful and rich and turning individuals into a collective of slaves.
At the age when US president openly murders US citizens on a hunch and starts whatever war he wants, like a Boss (like a King) and the rest of the government doesn't stop him in his tracks.
At the age when US Supreme Court doesn't see anything wrong with the federal government going way beyond its authority on pretty much every issue, every law, every regulation, every tax.
At the age when Congress and Senate bail out banks and companies and vote to increase debt limit without ever considering the consequences.
At the age when Federal Reserve is counterfeiting currency left right and center.
At the age of fascism/corporatism on the top and Marxism/communism on the bottom.
What do you need wikileaks for? Are you blind?
--
Of-course they want the specifics of their secrets to remain secrets, they are now your rulers, not your servants.
If you select only that to talk about - air as public property also doesn't work. Gov't subsidizes the highway system, thus destroying all sorts of forests and promoting subsidized suburban sprawl, air pollution, because the highway system subsidizes car manufacturers and car owners, while the fed actually destroyed a working private rail system and taxed airlines to run those projects and printed a bunch of money crippling the economy further.
There is price attached to owning forests as well as oceans, and that price must include the fact that those forests/oceans are oxygen producers. Separate States can set their zoning laws as well, this is out of federal gov't authority. Without a price attached to all those resources, the gov't ends up giving out licenses and contracts to various private interests who grease the wheel of the politicians' elections, and those resources end up being destroyed FOR FREE - BP oil spill is a good example of how oxygen producing resource - ocean, ends up being destroyed and de-oxygenated, because of gov't moral hazard of liability cap, removal of personal liability via corporate status and absence of actual private owner of that ocean property.
Mountains/forests/valleys end up being destroyed by coal strip miners, who get basically free access to those resources because they don't have to pay MARKET prices for any of them, so they can strip whatever makes them money, destroy the resources and move on. They didn't have to pay market price for any of that and they don't have to get rid of it, so they don't have to bear ANY costs of their activities - this is a giant subsidy and destruction of AIR producing resources given out by gov't because there is no private owner.
Slavery is here right now - you are a slave of your system, which is going to force you to pay back the debts that are owed to the banks who were gambling with counterfeit money because the banks and governments are one and the same.
As to 'earth' not belonging - it certainly doesn't belong to 'government', but it does have value and every part of it needs to be privately owned, otherwise it gets destroyed by the government and it is not treated with respect by anybody.
What do you mean 'you cannot sell lakes or oceans or mountains'? Many people own lakes and oceans and mountains.
Do you know what mountain strip mining is? That's when gov't "owns" a mountain and gives it to a private entity for FREE to strip mine it, where the top of it is blown off and all of that matter is thrown into some valley or a lake or a river and then whatever they are mining (coal) is taken without drilling for it and without bothering with going underground.
So now you end up with a completely wrong situation, where nobody actually PAID for any of this property, but a private company gets to destroy it because gov't 'owns' it and it just gives 'right' (license) to that company to destroy that mountain and that valley/river/lake/forest that it never paid for.
If they are going to strip mine that mountain that should have to pay for it on the market and they definitely should pay for every piece of that valley/river/lake/forest they are going to destroy by dumping millions of tons of rock there.
THAT would have prevented strip mining, because then they couldn't buy/sell this stuff and still be profitable.
The selfish asses are people like you, who have no idea what real value/prices are and that are pro-government, which is just a way to own something in a way that doesn't require real evaluation and payment. This is how you destroy everything around yourself - with "public ownership", which simply means that nobody had to pay for it so they DO NOT GIVE A FUCK.
I watched maybe 2 episodes of Star Treck, it was back in 96 I think. I always thought Ferengi were the smartest in that show, but I may be wrong because I am pretty sure that economic ignorance is just as much a part of that show as it is part of general population.
control the resources that we all depend on for survival. Awesome. So they can charge me for water they get for free every time it rains.
1. You can buy part of that lake if you depend on it for survival! If you can't afford it, you don't deserve a single drop of water from it. If you can't afford it individually, you may form a cooperative business with others who depend on that lake for survival, you can form a business, sell bonds, buy equipment, install and operate it, protect the lake and make sure you have dividends as well as water.
2. Gov't today already 'controls' the resources that you depend on for survival, and where is THAT going exactly? 70 Million dollar liability cap for drilling and what does that kind of moral hazard allow BP to do? All those royalties that are not payed based on political ties, so instead of having REAL ownership and REAL protection and REAL insurance and REAL responsibility, companies are allowed to buy political power because politicians HAVE that power, so companies can then forgo paying the real prices, avoid buying insurance (again, 70 Million dollar cap on deep water drilling while preventing shallow water drilling?)
Corporations are protected by gov't with limited liability from personal responsibility, then they are protected from financial responsibility with these liability caps and then they are given FREE ACCESS to these so called 'PUBLIC' resources so they can take advantage and destroy them (because of the moral hazard and the cheapness of it all, thanks gov't), and with that track record you are for more of that?
I don't suppose you'd be in favor of regulation governing this monopoly?
- I am against all gov't regulations, moral hazards, subsidies, public ownership of property, business/labor regulations, income/payroll/corporate taxes. Just to makes sure that you don't have to ask this again.
As to something being a "monopoly" - there is no such thing in free market. If there is no gov't franchise on these so called 'public' utilities (which shouldn't be monopolies), then there are alternatives, and then again, who is stopping others from participating in ownership of a business opportunity? Free market is only free because it's free from gov't destruction of it, not because gov't regulates it. Any gov't regulation is power, and it's a power that is immediately for sale and it's bought to FORM a monopoly.
You HAVE this monopoly right NOW operating your water table wherever you are right now in USA, that's the irony of this, you are complaining that free market would do this to you? NO - gov't is doing it to you NOW. Wake up. Snap out of this brain washed state you are in.
You can't charge me for the air produced by trees, but you can cut them down and sell the wood. So the world would be better off if we chopped down all the trees, right?
- only in your world a business is there to destroy.
A business wants to continue making money, not to drain some important resource and then move on. THAT is only possible with gov't money, because only gov't doesn't care about a valuable resource and only gov't can counterfeit currency to make possible to drain resources completely without actually producing something of value.
There is always a market price attached to ANYTHING. Anything at all has a price. There are costs associated with any business.
Yes, I am against ALL public ownership oxymoron ideology, but if gov't owns something (and it does now), at least it shouldn't rape it the way it does now and it should ONLY pay for any maintenance by running the thing like a business would (but this is the problem, gov't can't do that - it's the point, it's not a business, it can't be efficient, it can't have real understanding of value and price discovery). If gov't owns it, the costs of it should always be born by those, who use it directly via user fees, not come from any taxes and subsidies, it should be a completely s
It's actually simpler to do right now than you think - the government needs to auction off all of the properties that it owns. Gov't is the biggest 'owner' of property, which is an oxymoron, gov't can't really own it, nobody owns it, anything 'owned' by gov't is really not owned in any meaningful way. It's not protected by a real owner, it's not developed, it's not used as the market wants it to be used.
If somebody buys a lake - obviously they are not buying a piece of dry land. They are buying a piece of water property. If they buy the entire property, then it's theirs! Of-course if there is a way that people use that lake for water, then there is a legitimate INCOME STREAM associated with that lake. So this gets priced into the purchase and it becomes an actual business opportunity.
if you start removing that money from the equation then that is a loss of revenue that you need to take into account.
- sure. You also have to take into account that the moneys is going to be spent by private individuals who are now taxed less (IF this includes tax reductions, but that plan is not yet out).
However in reality this means that government is now going to be spending less, which means it's going to be borrowing less and printing less. Fed is out there, buying out all sorts of US Treasury debt (their plan was very explicit - hold interest rates at 0 for 2 more years at least, this requires active buying on their part, they can't just SAY they are going to keep interest rates low, they have to ACT on that promise, which means monetization of debt.)
ANY new dollars printed by the Fed that end up monetizing US debt is money that destroys value of dollar (and, by the way, it's money that has to be paid back with interest from future tax payers! *if there will be such a thing in USA left with all this insane government spending*)
CBO by the way is garbage. All of the numbers they release are cooked, don't let them being supposedly a 'non-partisan' confuse you into believing that. They are as 'non-partisan' as the Fed is 'non-political'.
When the Fed was established, it actually started out with a STRONGER gold reserve ratio than private banks of the time! It was a stronger currency that they were providing than private currencies of the time! That's the bait and switch they played on people, as 40 years ago the USD was devalued to 0 by Nixon.
The point is that GDP numbers are cooked (never mind that 70% of it is spending, which is done to buy foreign products, that's what the 53Billion USD/month trade deficit is about). The CPI is cooked (it's over 11% in reality, it's been between 11 and 15 percent for almost 2 decades now).
Never mind that the annualized CPI reported a day ago is now almost 4%, which is not counted the way it was counted 40 years ago, but when Nixon saw 4% then, he implemented wage and price controls! Not that it's the right thing to do, it fails, it creates shortages and black markets and unemployment (and it did then too, that's what depression + inflation + unemployment was - stagflation), but that's what people used to think, that 4% inflation was a SERIOUS matter! They don't think so anymore, even though they don't count inflation as honestly as they did back then, they under-report it by near 10%. That's why GDP is also nonsense by the way, the inflation numbers are used as 'deflater' for GDP, so GDP has been shrinking for 20 years now as well, and likely by 10% a year at that!
Also, yes, you are CORRECT. Right now USA doesn't have jobs to hire all those people. But the same thing was said about WWII - in fact the idiots of Keynesian witch craft of the time said that the military shouldn't have been released and bombs should have continued being made, all that, because they didn't understand that when gov't actually shrinks spending, it's private sector that gains ability to spend and invest.
It's absolutely necessary not just to cut government jobs but to cut all of the regulations as well, because if regulations stand there will be NO JOBS IN USA.
Same applies to income and corporate and payroll taxes - these need to be abolished. They should be at least cut as well as regulations at first and gov't workers must be released as regulations are abolished and departments are shut down.
All those departments enforce tons of regulations, and those regulations must stop for the economy to restart.
And yes, there WILL be spike in unemployment first. It's the same exact principle that needed to apply to the failing banks back in 2008. GE, GM, banks, house foreclosures, all of the companies that were bailed out and all of the individuals.
All bail outs must stop and entities must be allowed to fail. Only allowing entities to fail can actually restructure the economy, reallocate the capita
This is just a budget that he released, not his tax plans.
The budget needs to be balanced, for this he is cutting spending. Once the budget is balanced, the government is already shrinking (because that's his plan), only when the government is shrinking and some of the debts are beginning to be paid, the taxes can be realistically cut.
Yep, who the hell needs research on drugs for non-profitable disorders.
- there ARE NO NON-PROFITABLE DISORDERS! There are only INEFFICIENT MARKETS! These inefficient markets are created by the FDA!
There is no such thing as a non-profitable disorder. The problem that you are not recognizing is that the federal government mandates, FDA, regulations all cost so much money that most of the common things that a small number of individuals could research on their own are out of their reach simply because the federal government makes it prohibitively expensive!
FDA is the reason for the drugs being so expensive and Federal government (including THIS White House) is the reason that there is no competition and the patent terms of huge monopolies, who are the only entities that can PAY for all of the FDA nonsense are extended now by another 7 years. Didn't you know that?
Yep, the interstate system was a tremendous boondoggle, no one made a dime off using it.
- wait, wait, wait a minute. I NEVER said that nobody profited from it!
Of-course many profited from it - those who are using something that is payed by the rest. Various entities profited from it. BUT it doesn't mean that it should have been done! I said it long ago - this stuff is destructive to economy, not constructive.
There should be no subsidies to anybody by federal government, it has no authority and it destroys real markets in process, raises costs and creates moral hazards (like those unmaintainable without subsidies suburbs), it increases pollution, decrease efficiencies, destroys private infrastructure and transport systems.
Of-course everybody loves FREE stuff, but there lies the problem- it's not actually free and it can't go on forever either.
No shit, we need to fish them damn oceans dry before anyone thinks of conservation. If the free market doesn't value it, it has no value.
- you got it backwards.
It's GOVERNMENT that does NOT value so called 'common' property! Government doesn't value it at all! It doesn't care. Only real owners care. Gov't will create all sorts of moral hazards that will end up destroying this so called 'public' property.
Here is what I want to do with my own property: I want either to live on it or I want to use it as an income stream. I can even have a park being an income stream, and I can maintain that park if it makes economic sense and I would benefit from it and I would protect my property from anybody trying to destroy it.
If it's so called 'public' - I don't give a shit. I want to dump my garbage there and I don't want to pay for it.
But there is the problem - if it's 'public' property, then it's not mine. So I definitely can't benefit from it by living there or making an income stream out of it. So there is no such thing as 'public' property. It's nobody's property and thus there is no value there.
It's gov't that can't know the value of something, because the value of it is not based on market demand/supply (bid/ask) and it's not depending on the income stream that can be generated from it. Gov't does not know value of anything and it can't in principle and we can't expect it to.
Damn straight, you should pay to drive anywhere.
- you DO already, and it's not JUST taxes. It's the wrecked economy. It's the polluted environment. It's the moral hazard. It's the unsustainable infrastructure.
Yer right, who needs NSTA keeping them planes from falling out of the sky,
- I am very certain that Wright Brothers didn't need NSTA to create a plane that actually wasn't falling from the sky and that private airlines can hold their planes in the sky just fine.
And that housing bubble should be allowed to occur over and over again
How can States compete at all, if 35% of income is stolen by the federal government and then 'distributed' (stolen further) to all the special interests?
How can States compete in anything with all the federal mandates? All the federal spending? All the federal regulations? All the federal subsidies? All the federal taxes?
There is a huge monopoly and it's seated in the only place in USA where there is still a "housing boom" and where the mean salary is still 121000USD/year - Washington DC.
The point is that the only real entities that actually pay income taxes are those entities, that produce something of value. Government just shuffles money around to make it look like government workers pay income taxes (and this is used just to boost their salaries, due to all the deductions they can make,) but in reality those who do not actually produce something do not pay income taxes, and government workers don't produce anything.
I can explain it very simply if instead of money we look at a simple example of barter economy:
Say a fisherman catches 100 tons of fish in a year. If he pays 'income tax', he must now give up say 35 tons of fish to the government.
Government then takes 35 tons of fish from this fisherman and uses it to pay its workers. Say a government worker gets 200 tons of fish a year for his work. Now he is asked to pay back 70 tons of fish.
Did he actually pay income tax? How did he do it, he didn't catch any fish? Of-course he deducts some of his spending and gives back maybe 30 tons of fish, so now his salary in reality is 170 tons of fish per year.
Government workers don't produce anything legitimate that can be used to pay actual income tax from, because there is no actual income. Government workers do not generate profit (government doesn't generate profit, it's a pure spending item, so every ton of fish is deducted from consumer spending and investment capital in return for non-productive government jobs.)
--
Secondly: I expect Ron Paul to come out with another plan concerning taxes separately from this plan concerning the budget.
He needs to balance the budget first, he needs to reduce the spending for real (not reduction in rate of increase, but actually spend LESS MONEY next year than the year before), so once government is SHRINKING in size and spending, THEN taxes can be cut.
There is no free lunch and there is all this debt, so some of it also has to be paid back. NONE of the potential candidates EXCEPT Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are talking about REDUCTION of government.
There shouldn't be any US gov't financed research and development.
There shouldn't be any public property and so there shouldn't be any public owned 'right of ways'.
There shouldn't be any subsidies to any oil drilling, all of it should be private and all land / sea should be private, so all of this drilling would bear full costs.
There shouldn't be any public infrastructure, including highways and bridges.
There shouldn't BE a public sector outside of border protection, individual liberties/property protection and criminal/contract law.
Except that people ARE paying for it through taxes and inflation and borrowing (future taxes). So where and when was that ever FREE?
It's much more fair NOT to tax everybody just to have SOME benefit from this. In fact it shouldn't be done that all are taxed for benefit of some - this is confiscation of property without just cause and representation.
Slashdot Mirror
What did I say was stupid? The artificial attempt at rationing was stupid. The correct thing to do is to raise the prices enough, so that there is no secondary market formed (where somebody else buys the drives and still can sell them for a profit.)
If you need to build a computer right now and you can't wait, because the market is such that your project must be done now, you will pay a premium for this now more scarce resource, but at least you'd be able to BUY the freaking drives.
Here is a comment that was just left here as a reply to mine, complaining that this is price gouging, while simultaneously saying that he won't be buying his drives right now BECAUSE the price went up!
Well GOOD! This means the market IS doing its job, cutting off those, who do not actually NEED the drives at this time by increasing the prices enough, but at least those who actually do need to continue with their projects can get the drives and that guy CAN WAIT until they restart more production and prices go down again.
This is what markets do, this is what efficiencies are all about - finding the right availability/price ratios to satisfy the market demand in the most efficient manner to create a queue basically, to provide the resources to those who need them most first, etc.etc.
This isn't efficient distribution, this is gouging. There are other factories in the world, the dealers are simply taking advantage of a natural disaster to arbitrarily hike prices.
- is that what they taught you in your classes?
In this story the stores also decided to try and limit purchases by creating artificial rationing (which never works, by the way, just walk out and walk in again, or ask somebody to get another portion for you). So the stores truly were trying to solve a problem (as any price hikes based on more scarcity of resources are) - how do you sell at the optimal price? And this is the only real way to find the best efficiency in the market. There is always a price at which somebody is still willing to buy and then there is a price at which most are not willing to buy, so you have to find the price, that is the most efficient, which means people are still paying for it, but only those who REALLY need it.
Otherwise, if you sell UNDER priced, all you do is create another MARKET, where somebody buys from you and then resells on the corner at a higher price.
Do you ever think beyond your brainwashed state of absurd economic ignorance? You are exactly the person who DOES NOT NEED the hard drives bad enough to pay a higher price, and this is GOOD, because SOMEBODY NEEDS THOSE DRIVES MORE THAN YOU DO.
Somebody truly needs the drives much more than you do, and the raising of the prices allowed to cut you off and make sure that somebody who really needs the drives to get them before you do, because clearly - YOU CAN WAIT.
Somebody can't wait, and they will pay the premium. But if the prices didn't go up, then you would have bought your drives and there wouldn't be enough drives for somebody who REALLY NEEDS THEM, because you'd get your drives for your little project, but there is real actual SCARCITY here, because the plants are not producing enough supply to satisfy the demand at the previous low prices.
So you are giving an example in your very comment why the market works and you are calling it 'gouging', while you are 'gouged' alright. You are blind to the fact that the market did its job and the efficiency was achieved.
of-course it is. It's the only real and honest arbiter of need, because it's the only true way to discover a price - to bid for it.
this is artificial scarcity that you are talking about, because most of the problems in places like that are government (or whatever passes for a government) created. There are no free markets there, so there is no real price discovery, the places are used for their valuable mining resources most likely and the economies are not allowed to grow and improve because certain power brokers get their hands upon those economies by proxy and endorse various dictators and sell them cheap weapons to hold the people there hostages.
What you have here in your comment, is basic misunderstanding of economics and politics.
Yes, I read that, this simply means they are not raising the prices high enough, but this artificial rationing is stupid, it doesn't work, as you can make more purchases by buying once, buying another time, another time, etc.
This makes a good opportunity for somebody to buy all of those drives and make a profit by selling them at a much higher price if the stores are forced into these worthless tricks with rationing.
Obama is in his reelection mode now, expect all sorts of 'tough stands' and 'right' soundbites and all sorts of promises.
I mean if Ron Paul gets the nomination, all he has to do to put Obama on his knees is just show how this Nobel prize winner in 'peace' has started another few unconstitutional wars and murdered US citizens without due process.
Of-course Ron Paul can also point out how he predicted the economic problems and because he predicted them, he understands the cause of them, which makes him the best person to run the place, especially in this economic situation.
This is just propaganda.
This is a good example of how raising prices works to distribute whatever resources in efficient manner, allowing those, who truly need whatever the resource (HDDs in this case) to come up with the largest bid on it, which means that the resource was most needed for that situation. It definitely beats artificial rationing.
1. I have proofs to all my statements, don't worry, I don't run away from an argument, you can bring up anything you see as a logical fallacy, whatever, or are you just lazy?
2. It's not that I don't BELIEVE that a business wouldn't do something destructive if it was profitable in the short term. I don't believe anything, I only believe that people do things for their benefit. What it is, is that in free market the gov't is not creating the moral hazards like the ones it creates by limiting liability, setting liability caps, giving out free contracts to strip mine mountains to companies who DO NOT PAY THE MARKET PRICE for those lands AND federal gov't obviously doesn't protect private property and doesn't believe in States rights, but zoning laws are a State/municipal/local issue, not a federal one. Federal gov't should not own ANY property, because it cannot. Any property federal gov't 'owns' is property that will be abused, and it is, time after time, and you think that's a logical fallacy. Come on, bring out your so called 'facts'.
You place no value on human life.
- NOT TRUE.
There is clearly a value attached to any human life of any human who participates in the market. Every human is worth something. They are doing something producing something, creating something. If they are not, then they are inconsequential, it is true, they can even be destructive. But most importantly - if somebody isn't creating/producing something, FORCING others to GIVE them stuff is IMMORAL.
BUT other people CAN give them stuff out of charity. Nobody prevents individual charity more than the government taxation system, which takes away people's money at all points, from production to consumption, to simple ownership and even capitation (head count, just because they are there), so there is obviously so little money left for the average person to spend, he won't be doing much charity. It's good if he makes enough to survive and he doesn't need charity himself.
You are absolutely blind to facts, but you are also completely misunderstanding the point. The point is that at any moment that you use a gov't to FORCE somebody to so called 'share' their work to feed people who are themselves unproductive, you are turning those people, who are forced to 'share' into basic slaves. THAT is immoral.
As to individuals doing charity - that's a basic human trait. People do that because they are people, but they can be stopped by government and they can even turn violent against the idea of charity by gov't forcing them to so called 'share'. We know what this 'sharing' is all about - it's all about making government more powerful and rich and turning individuals into a collective of slaves.
Read my journal.
At the age when US president openly murders US citizens on a hunch and starts whatever war he wants, like a Boss (like a King) and the rest of the government doesn't stop him in his tracks.
At the age when US Supreme Court doesn't see anything wrong with the federal government going way beyond its authority on pretty much every issue, every law, every regulation, every tax.
At the age when Congress and Senate bail out banks and companies and vote to increase debt limit without ever considering the consequences.
At the age when Federal Reserve is counterfeiting currency left right and center.
At the age of fascism/corporatism on the top and Marxism/communism on the bottom.
What do you need wikileaks for? Are you blind?
--
Of-course they want the specifics of their secrets to remain secrets, they are now your rulers, not your servants.
So are you voting for the right person for this job?
If you select only that to talk about - air as public property also doesn't work. Gov't subsidizes the highway system, thus destroying all sorts of forests and promoting subsidized suburban sprawl, air pollution, because the highway system subsidizes car manufacturers and car owners, while the fed actually destroyed a working private rail system and taxed airlines to run those projects and printed a bunch of money crippling the economy further.
There is price attached to owning forests as well as oceans, and that price must include the fact that those forests/oceans are oxygen producers. Separate States can set their zoning laws as well, this is out of federal gov't authority. Without a price attached to all those resources, the gov't ends up giving out licenses and contracts to various private interests who grease the wheel of the politicians' elections, and those resources end up being destroyed FOR FREE - BP oil spill is a good example of how oxygen producing resource - ocean, ends up being destroyed and de-oxygenated, because of gov't moral hazard of liability cap, removal of personal liability via corporate status and absence of actual private owner of that ocean property.
Mountains/forests/valleys end up being destroyed by coal strip miners, who get basically free access to those resources because they don't have to pay MARKET prices for any of them, so they can strip whatever makes them money, destroy the resources and move on. They didn't have to pay market price for any of that and they don't have to get rid of it, so they don't have to bear ANY costs of their activities - this is a giant subsidy and destruction of AIR producing resources given out by gov't because there is no private owner.
Dwell on that.
Slavery is here right now - you are a slave of your system, which is going to force you to pay back the debts that are owed to the banks who were gambling with counterfeit money because the banks and governments are one and the same.
As to 'earth' not belonging - it certainly doesn't belong to 'government', but it does have value and every part of it needs to be privately owned, otherwise it gets destroyed by the government and it is not treated with respect by anybody.
What do you mean 'you cannot sell lakes or oceans or mountains'? Many people own lakes and oceans and mountains.
Do you know what mountain strip mining is? That's when gov't "owns" a mountain and gives it to a private entity for FREE to strip mine it, where the top of it is blown off and all of that matter is thrown into some valley or a lake or a river and then whatever they are mining (coal) is taken without drilling for it and without bothering with going underground.
So now you end up with a completely wrong situation, where nobody actually PAID for any of this property, but a private company gets to destroy it because gov't 'owns' it and it just gives 'right' (license) to that company to destroy that mountain and that valley/river/lake/forest that it never paid for.
If they are going to strip mine that mountain that should have to pay for it on the market and they definitely should pay for every piece of that valley/river/lake/forest they are going to destroy by dumping millions of tons of rock there.
THAT would have prevented strip mining, because then they couldn't buy/sell this stuff and still be profitable.
The selfish asses are people like you, who have no idea what real value/prices are and that are pro-government, which is just a way to own something in a way that doesn't require real evaluation and payment. This is how you destroy everything around yourself - with "public ownership", which simply means that nobody had to pay for it so they DO NOT GIVE A FUCK.
I am almost sure now that this site is just a mirror of drudge.
I watched maybe 2 episodes of Star Treck, it was back in 96 I think. I always thought Ferengi were the smartest in that show, but I may be wrong because I am pretty sure that economic ignorance is just as much a part of that show as it is part of general population.
I answered this completely, no need to redo in another sub-thread.
control the resources that we all depend on for survival. Awesome. So they can charge me for water they get for free every time it rains.
1. You can buy part of that lake if you depend on it for survival! If you can't afford it, you don't deserve a single drop of water from it. If you can't afford it individually, you may form a cooperative business with others who depend on that lake for survival, you can form a business, sell bonds, buy equipment, install and operate it, protect the lake and make sure you have dividends as well as water.
2. Gov't today already 'controls' the resources that you depend on for survival, and where is THAT going exactly? 70 Million dollar liability cap for drilling and what does that kind of moral hazard allow BP to do? All those royalties that are not payed based on political ties, so instead of having REAL ownership and REAL protection and REAL insurance and REAL responsibility, companies are allowed to buy political power because politicians HAVE that power, so companies can then forgo paying the real prices, avoid buying insurance (again, 70 Million dollar cap on deep water drilling while preventing shallow water drilling?)
Corporations are protected by gov't with limited liability from personal responsibility, then they are protected from financial responsibility with these liability caps and then they are given FREE ACCESS to these so called 'PUBLIC' resources so they can take advantage and destroy them (because of the moral hazard and the cheapness of it all, thanks gov't), and with that track record you are for more of that?
I don't suppose you'd be in favor of regulation governing this monopoly?
- I am against all gov't regulations, moral hazards, subsidies, public ownership of property, business/labor regulations, income/payroll/corporate taxes. Just to makes sure that you don't have to ask this again.
As to something being a "monopoly" - there is no such thing in free market. If there is no gov't franchise on these so called 'public' utilities (which shouldn't be monopolies), then there are alternatives, and then again, who is stopping others from participating in ownership of a business opportunity? Free market is only free because it's free from gov't destruction of it, not because gov't regulates it. Any gov't regulation is power, and it's a power that is immediately for sale and it's bought to FORM a monopoly.
You HAVE this monopoly right NOW operating your water table wherever you are right now in USA, that's the irony of this, you are complaining that free market would do this to you? NO - gov't is doing it to you NOW. Wake up. Snap out of this brain washed state you are in.
You can't charge me for the air produced by trees, but you can cut them down and sell the wood. So the world would be better off if we chopped down all the trees, right?
- only in your world a business is there to destroy.
A business wants to continue making money, not to drain some important resource and then move on. THAT is only possible with gov't money, because only gov't doesn't care about a valuable resource and only gov't can counterfeit currency to make possible to drain resources completely without actually producing something of value.
There is always a market price attached to ANYTHING. Anything at all has a price. There are costs associated with any business.
Yes, I am against ALL public ownership oxymoron ideology, but if gov't owns something (and it does now), at least it shouldn't rape it the way it does now and it should ONLY pay for any maintenance by running the thing like a business would (but this is the problem, gov't can't do that - it's the point, it's not a business, it can't be efficient, it can't have real understanding of value and price discovery). If gov't owns it, the costs of it should always be born by those, who use it directly via user fees, not come from any taxes and subsidies, it should be a completely s
It's actually simpler to do right now than you think - the government needs to auction off all of the properties that it owns. Gov't is the biggest 'owner' of property, which is an oxymoron, gov't can't really own it, nobody owns it, anything 'owned' by gov't is really not owned in any meaningful way. It's not protected by a real owner, it's not developed, it's not used as the market wants it to be used.
If somebody buys a lake - obviously they are not buying a piece of dry land. They are buying a piece of water property. If they buy the entire property, then it's theirs! Of-course if there is a way that people use that lake for water, then there is a legitimate INCOME STREAM associated with that lake. So this gets priced into the purchase and it becomes an actual business opportunity.
People don't spend money just to waste it.
if you start removing that money from the equation then that is a loss of revenue that you need to take into account.
- sure. You also have to take into account that the moneys is going to be spent by private individuals who are now taxed less (IF this includes tax reductions, but that plan is not yet out).
However in reality this means that government is now going to be spending less, which means it's going to be borrowing less and printing less. Fed is out there, buying out all sorts of US Treasury debt (their plan was very explicit - hold interest rates at 0 for 2 more years at least, this requires active buying on their part, they can't just SAY they are going to keep interest rates low, they have to ACT on that promise, which means monetization of debt.)
ANY new dollars printed by the Fed that end up monetizing US debt is money that destroys value of dollar (and, by the way, it's money that has to be paid back with interest from future tax payers! *if there will be such a thing in USA left with all this insane government spending*)
CBO by the way is garbage. All of the numbers they release are cooked, don't let them being supposedly a 'non-partisan' confuse you into believing that. They are as 'non-partisan' as the Fed is 'non-political'.
When the Fed was established, it actually started out with a STRONGER gold reserve ratio than private banks of the time! It was a stronger currency that they were providing than private currencies of the time! That's the bait and switch they played on people, as 40 years ago the USD was devalued to 0 by Nixon.
The point is that GDP numbers are cooked (never mind that 70% of it is spending, which is done to buy foreign products, that's what the 53Billion USD/month trade deficit is about). The CPI is cooked (it's over 11% in reality, it's been between 11 and 15 percent for almost 2 decades now).
Never mind that the annualized CPI reported a day ago is now almost 4%, which is not counted the way it was counted 40 years ago, but when Nixon saw 4% then, he implemented wage and price controls! Not that it's the right thing to do, it fails, it creates shortages and black markets and unemployment (and it did then too, that's what depression + inflation + unemployment was - stagflation), but that's what people used to think, that 4% inflation was a SERIOUS matter! They don't think so anymore, even though they don't count inflation as honestly as they did back then, they under-report it by near 10%. That's why GDP is also nonsense by the way, the inflation numbers are used as 'deflater' for GDP, so GDP has been shrinking for 20 years now as well, and likely by 10% a year at that!
Also, yes, you are CORRECT. Right now USA doesn't have jobs to hire all those people. But the same thing was said about WWII - in fact the idiots of Keynesian witch craft of the time said that the military shouldn't have been released and bombs should have continued being made, all that, because they didn't understand that when gov't actually shrinks spending, it's private sector that gains ability to spend and invest.
It's absolutely necessary not just to cut government jobs but to cut all of the regulations as well, because if regulations stand there will be NO JOBS IN USA.
Same applies to income and corporate and payroll taxes - these need to be abolished. They should be at least cut as well as regulations at first and gov't workers must be released as regulations are abolished and departments are shut down.
All those departments enforce tons of regulations, and those regulations must stop for the economy to restart.
And yes, there WILL be spike in unemployment first. It's the same exact principle that needed to apply to the failing banks back in 2008. GE, GM, banks, house foreclosures, all of the companies that were bailed out and all of the individuals.
All bail outs must stop and entities must be allowed to fail. Only allowing entities to fail can actually restructure the economy, reallocate the capita
This is just a budget that he released, not his tax plans.
The budget needs to be balanced, for this he is cutting spending. Once the budget is balanced, the government is already shrinking (because that's his plan), only when the government is shrinking and some of the debts are beginning to be paid, the taxes can be realistically cut.
Yep, who the hell needs research on drugs for non-profitable disorders.
- there ARE NO NON-PROFITABLE DISORDERS! There are only INEFFICIENT MARKETS! These inefficient markets are created by the FDA!
There is no such thing as a non-profitable disorder. The problem that you are not recognizing is that the federal government mandates, FDA, regulations all cost so much money that most of the common things that a small number of individuals could research on their own are out of their reach simply because the federal government makes it prohibitively expensive!
FDA is the reason for the drugs being so expensive and Federal government (including THIS White House) is the reason that there is no competition and the patent terms of huge monopolies, who are the only entities that can PAY for all of the FDA nonsense are extended now by another 7 years. Didn't you know that?
Yep, the interstate system was a tremendous boondoggle, no one made a dime off using it.
- wait, wait, wait a minute. I NEVER said that nobody profited from it!
Of-course many profited from it - those who are using something that is payed by the rest. Various entities profited from it. BUT it doesn't mean that it should have been done! I said it long ago - this stuff is destructive to economy, not constructive.
There should be no subsidies to anybody by federal government, it has no authority and it destroys real markets in process, raises costs and creates moral hazards (like those unmaintainable without subsidies suburbs), it increases pollution, decrease efficiencies, destroys private infrastructure and transport systems.
Of-course everybody loves FREE stuff, but there lies the problem- it's not actually free and it can't go on forever either.
No shit, we need to fish them damn oceans dry before anyone thinks of conservation. If the free market doesn't value it, it has no value.
- you got it backwards.
It's GOVERNMENT that does NOT value so called 'common' property! Government doesn't value it at all! It doesn't care. Only real owners care. Gov't will create all sorts of moral hazards that will end up destroying this so called 'public' property.
Here is what I want to do with my own property: I want either to live on it or I want to use it as an income stream. I can even have a park being an income stream, and I can maintain that park if it makes economic sense and I would benefit from it and I would protect my property from anybody trying to destroy it.
If it's so called 'public' - I don't give a shit. I want to dump my garbage there and I don't want to pay for it.
But there is the problem - if it's 'public' property, then it's not mine. So I definitely can't benefit from it by living there or making an income stream out of it. So there is no such thing as 'public' property. It's nobody's property and thus there is no value there.
It's gov't that can't know the value of something, because the value of it is not based on market demand/supply (bid/ask) and it's not depending on the income stream that can be generated from it. Gov't does not know value of anything and it can't in principle and we can't expect it to.
Damn straight, you should pay to drive anywhere.
- you DO already, and it's not JUST taxes. It's the wrecked economy. It's the polluted environment. It's the moral hazard. It's the unsustainable infrastructure.
Yer right, who needs NSTA keeping them planes from falling out of the sky,
- I am very certain that Wright Brothers didn't need NSTA to create a plane that actually wasn't falling from the sky and that private airlines can hold their planes in the sky just fine.
And that housing bubble should be allowed to occur over and over again
- THIS MADE ME CRINGE.
I
How can States compete at all, if 35% of income is stolen by the federal government and then 'distributed' (stolen further) to all the special interests?
How can States compete in anything with all the federal mandates? All the federal spending? All the federal regulations? All the federal subsidies? All the federal taxes?
There is a huge monopoly and it's seated in the only place in USA where there is still a "housing boom" and where the mean salary is still 121000USD/year - Washington DC.
Serious answer: government workers do not pay taxes.
I actually talked about it some time ago: government workers do not pay income taxes.
The point is that the only real entities that actually pay income taxes are those entities, that produce something of value. Government just shuffles money around to make it look like government workers pay income taxes (and this is used just to boost their salaries, due to all the deductions they can make,) but in reality those who do not actually produce something do not pay income taxes, and government workers don't produce anything.
I can explain it very simply if instead of money we look at a simple example of barter economy:
Say a fisherman catches 100 tons of fish in a year. If he pays 'income tax', he must now give up say 35 tons of fish to the government.
Government then takes 35 tons of fish from this fisherman and uses it to pay its workers. Say a government worker gets 200 tons of fish a year for his work. Now he is asked to pay back 70 tons of fish.
Did he actually pay income tax? How did he do it, he didn't catch any fish? Of-course he deducts some of his spending and gives back maybe 30 tons of fish, so now his salary in reality is 170 tons of fish per year.
Government workers don't produce anything legitimate that can be used to pay actual income tax from, because there is no actual income. Government workers do not generate profit (government doesn't generate profit, it's a pure spending item, so every ton of fish is deducted from consumer spending and investment capital in return for non-productive government jobs.)
--
Secondly: I expect Ron Paul to come out with another plan concerning taxes separately from this plan concerning the budget.
He needs to balance the budget first, he needs to reduce the spending for real (not reduction in rate of increase, but actually spend LESS MONEY next year than the year before), so once government is SHRINKING in size and spending, THEN taxes can be cut.
There is no free lunch and there is all this debt, so some of it also has to be paid back. NONE of the potential candidates EXCEPT Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are talking about REDUCTION of government.
There shouldn't be any US gov't financed research and development.
There shouldn't be any public property and so there shouldn't be any public owned 'right of ways'.
There shouldn't be any subsidies to any oil drilling, all of it should be private and all land / sea should be private, so all of this drilling would bear full costs.
There shouldn't be any public infrastructure, including highways and bridges.
There shouldn't BE a public sector outside of border protection, individual liberties/property protection and criminal/contract law.
Except that people ARE paying for it through taxes and inflation and borrowing (future taxes). So where and when was that ever FREE?
It's much more fair NOT to tax everybody just to have SOME benefit from this. In fact it shouldn't be done that all are taxed for benefit of some - this is confiscation of property without just cause and representation.