This isn't helping capitalism any... Open Source is part of capitalism, government is not. When government tries to protect any entity, be it a corporation or a sector, its no longer capitalism, its the American System of Mercantilism has established by Henry Clay (and furthered into the US by Abraham Lincoln).
Remember, Open Source is free market driven as well. The customer may pay nothing, but they also may want to pay for closed software so they receive some sort of guaranteed support or whatever it is they want. Just because software is free doesn't mean that there is no cost to run it.
Government picking closed source over open source really doesn't help capitalism any. In a truly capitalist society (The US is NOT capitalist in any way), open source can compete freely with closed source. Indian programmers can compete with American ones.
I just wanted to mention that I am a business owner, too. Even if you're a one man shop, only having a cell phone makes little business sense. If you move your house to a new city, do you expect to keep your number there? What if you move your office?
If you're in business, I highly recommend getting an answering service if you don't have a central office number. Yes, allowing people to call your cell phone directly makes some semblence of sense (are you charging for their calls?) but to me, it makes more sense to cough up the $150 a month that an answering service charges.
My old answering service would SMS me my messages instantly, and in some cases they'd call me and then transfer the call to me if I was expecting a phone call.
It is odd how people have become acclimated to the belief that they own their phone number. Back in the day (in the 80s) I had lost a phone number when a local business wanted it. The phone company explained clearly in their legal text (which was in the phone book) that you don't own the number, and can lose it at any time.
Do phone numbers really matter all that much? I used to know all my friends' phone numbers by memory. Now, speed dial makes it worthless.
If someone changes their number, they e-mail me, I save it to my contacts list, and when I sync my phone the new phone number is there. I don't think I call more than 1 person a day from my phone without using the contact list. I use over 3000 minutes a month from my cell phone, so that's around 9-10 people a day I call without knowing their number.
For a business, having a cool number that spells something or references the business in a memorable way makes sense only when you need to get people to call you after seeing an advertisement. Once you regularly call someone, you probably won't recall that number, even if its something great like 4-DADA-21.
I know I don't own my phone number. I also know I'll be paying more on my cell phone bill so that others can keep their numbers. I've switched cell phone numbers probably 4 times in 8 years, and never really lost contact with anyone.
If people matter to me, they know more than my phone number. They have my e-mail address, they have my home address, they can contact me through other friends. If I lost my number today, I'd be hampered for maybe 2 days and then it would be business as usual.
I'd rather not pay for this feature so others can "protect their private property."
Tariffs hurt the overall economy by coercing (with the full force of the government's laws) every consumer to pay more for a product or service than they need to. You're overpaying a certain distinguished class of workers more than they're worth on the global scale.
Korea did well because of tariffs? I think not. Korea did well because they marketed their products ("services") cheaper than others did. Korea did nothing. The workers of Korea wanted to raise their standard of living, so they learned new skills and offered them cheaper.
Americans are lucky we have tariffs because we continue to push up our standard of living for dead products (steel workers, auto manufacturers, even computer builders) which are now commodities and no longer high luster high priced items.
As for being an undergrad economist, I'm an Austrian-school economist. I would probably not go to an international trade class where people debate what Marxist/socialist trade theory will help the cronies that got them where they are today.
Free trade and free markets fix everything that government sanctioned monopolies break.
How do you know it won't become obsolete? Is talent even a necessity to succeed financially? I prefer live music over Britney-pop, so I'll continue to support the bands I love, but they'll never make a killing at it. They KNOW their style of music isn't financially viable, they do it out of love for performance. Their choice.
Just because it is art doesn't mean that we as a society have to accept it -- the only things that really move forward are ones that can profit for the producer -- and profit does not have to mean financially. Some musicians profit by making their audience happy or by providing themselves with happiness.
The producers of this particular theater have decided (or gambled or risked) that their customers won't mind a mechanical reproduction. They're taking the risk. The musicians, if they are good and their product is desired by some consumer(s), will find other work. If they can't find work, then they should find a new job or talent -- the public shouldn't be taxed to save what may become a dead product (or may not).
No, ONE customer minds. One customer makes not a profitable business. If this business' owners believe they can make a profit by throwing away live musicians, then they can only do so if their customers are willing to accept it. You may decide to not go to this particular theater, and spend your dollars wisely elsewhere.
Most of us are only looking at some musicians who will be losing this particular job. When you have a career or an ability, you have to gauge your chances of marketing said ability. If I was a horse-shoer or a gaslamp-lighter, I'd probably not find many job opportunities.
It is said that these individuals have lost these particular jobs, but what about what others have gained? The producers of this show will save money, which means they'll have more disposable income to spend on other things they want (meaning new jobs in other areas). Maybe they'll eat out more, or go on more vacations. Or maybe they'll lower the prices of their tickets, which means the customers who buy tickets will have more disposable income to spend money elsewhere.
Like Bastiat's "Broken Window" myth dismissal, this job dismisall is also a bogeyman. So is "offshore job outsourcing." When some people can't do the job at a price the rest of us are willing to pay, then it is time to find new skills or promote other skills they may have.
All tariffs harm the economy, and fighting for jobs for musicians instead of using synthesizers is ludicrous. If the customer doesn't mind the lower quality inhuman music, why should we care?
Thank you for using the proper term here: titans. Disney and Microsoft are surely powerful in their industries (right now, today). But everyone here has the choice to not purchase or support these products. No one is forcing you to buy Disney products, watch ABC television, or wear their licensed gear. No one is forcing you to buy products using MS DRM technology.
Remember that before you suggest that either is a monopoly. Look at things in your life and find out where the real monopolies are.
Can you bow out of Social Security? Are you forced to eat at McDonalds? Do you have to pay into federal unemployment insurance? Did you pick your car insurance company, or was it "granted to you" by the voting majority?
I still don't understand anyone needing court approval to sue someone. If I believe you've wronged me, I should be able to sue you. If I lose, I should have to pay for your defense costs as well as court costs. Enough said there.
We're in a crises in this country. Laws are so convoluted, so full of holes and stops, that no one can understand them. Tort law has been thrown out and instead has been replaced with protections for those well connected. In the past, if you wronged someone, you had to pay for the consequences. Today, private property is all but gone, and the person or group with the most money controls what used to be your property, through the courts.
Sherman Networks should be able to sue a user for abusing its license. When you use software, you agree to the license of the owner of that software. Why is it that slashdotters gripe about Microsoft's crazy license (and yet go on and use the software), but its now fine for SN to use the same protection? Kazaa is their software. You use it under a license, and they can revoke it if you break their rules. It is their property.
This country needs to get out of its American System of Mercantilism as invented by Henry Clay and move towards a system of capitalism where private property protects you from the greed and wealth of others.
Monopolies can only happen when government requires them. Microsoft has competition, the market has chosen Microsoft to be the best seller. When someone better comes along, the market probably will switch. Until then, they're not a monopoly, just a very very popular product.
My consulting business has dealt with third world firms, and their lack of legitimate software has caused some problems in the past. Microsoft's giving away of their software to encourage more business is only a good thing for me, my business, and my employees here. Foreign workers have actually caused our profits to rise, and since all my employees get a good chunk of the profits, I'm able to hire more people here and pay them more.
In my retail business, we give away free rentals of our sports equipment to young kids with parental supervision. 10-20% of those kids either buy the rental equipment outright, or come back for something better to buy. It is a good business initiative to give the item away.
Cigarette companies have sent me free cigarettes to try a new product. Free samples of pain killers have helped my family switch to new brands. I've tried numerous foods in the supermarket that were given away free. I switched health clubs after doing a 2 week free trial. My shampoo I use is even one I picked after trying a profit-loss trial size.
Why is this wrong? Microsoft products help almost 95% of my customers make money by not having to train users on a system they are unfamiliar with. I'm glad to see Microsoft take the initiative and a big risk in giving away the free software. I hope they continue to do so and I know I will reap the benefits in finding more firms to deal with overseas.
It's Time to Abolish NASA. A $16 billion dollar agency costs the average American $72 a year. $300 a year for a family of four. Forget it. How much if it is bureaucratic waste?
Everything you said is very false, unfortunately, but most citizens of most countries believe your story to be the truth.
The realities are that government creates fiat (meaning worthless) currency out of thin air. For more information on how inflation is a government mandated creation, not a free market feature, check out:
As an ancap, I believe this is completely legitimate for the private companies to include this type of anti-counterfeit detection. The day could come when it is enforced by government, which I believe is completely against their Constitutional powers, so I'd prefer to see it done privately. You are free to stop using software or printers that enable this 'feature.'
On the other hand, all governments of the world legally counterfeit money every day. Back when money was real hard currency (whether it was gold or silver or dirt or wood), government didn't have the ability to steal from the citizens. Today, they do it constantly using something known as inflation. They print new fiat currency, which causes costs to rise for everyone. And we allow this. Sure, government blames it on business and the free market, but inflation can only truly occur when someone introduces new currency into the market -- sometimes counterfeiters do but it is rare. Government counterfeits every day, lowering the value of our stocks, our bank accounts, and any currency in our pockets. A silent form of taxation, and one that hurts everyone at every level of wealth.
As long as it is just private employers utilizing technology to minimize employee theft (by having their friends clock them in?), this is fine.
You can quit your job. You can find another, with an employer who doesn't utilize this technology. You can start your own business and recruit the best employees by advertising that you don't use these products.
When government starts to do this, then we have a problem. Employers have no "power" over their employees -- both can end the contract at any time. Government uses the threat of force to coerce you into following the rules.
Heh, Adam Sandler probably IS a mistake of mercantilism;)
In reality, I don't blame much on Henry Clay's American System of mercantilism. American warfare has always come from the desire for empire, no matter what the excuse was at the time for us to enter a war. Henry Clay was a big proponent of empire, as was Lincoln. Read DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" for a good proof of it (he sites all his sources, too).
I don't believe in an anarchocapitalist utopia. I believe that an anarchocapitalist country would mean more hard work, more savings and less spending, and a slower growth to the economy. I believe a lot of people would "suffer" in that they would have to work harder to get what they have "easily" now -- but those who really work hard would reap the benefits that they can't reap now due to high taxes, impossible to defeat regulations, and other restrictions. This would be no utopia.
There are no "failings" of capitalism. The only time capitalism has failed is when government has intervened and enforced a monopoly (see power companies, railroads, and other government funded monopolies). Capitalism can allow some people to gain a lot of wealth, but you have to work very hard to keep that wealth. You have to stay competitive, you have to provide what consumers want, and you have to stay ahead of the competition.
Money should never be stolen by the threat of force (taxes) and given to others. Sure, SOME government programs eventually help others, but at what cost to you?
You pay over 50% of your income to taxes at all levels. What could you have put your money into if you had it back? Your choice should matter, not the choice of some bureaucrat. It is a huge debate, the biggest debate of anarchocapitalists such as myself. I do not want government taking my money to help anyone else. If I want to help them, I will pick the ones I help.
Hungry children are better supported by churches or private charities. Space programs are better supported by companies that have a fiscal interest -- NASA's budget last year was $20 billion or so, or about $70 per living American per year. Not a lot, really, but did we all get something beneficial out of it? $70 in a year could have bought me something I wanted or my family needed.
Benefiting the general population at the expense of others is NOT the job of the Federal government. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments of our Constitution prove that. We need to restrain the Federal government so that we, the people, have more choice, more freedom, and more security against tyranny.
Enron was not capitalist -- Enron was a great example of mercantilism. Enron would have no grown had it not been for government helping them out every step of the way. Do not believe that capitalism causes fiascos like that.
All of your inventions sound great, but its a sliver compared to everything else we use every day that was invented by private funding.
There isn't a lot you can do, unfortunately. Direct democracy destroyed this country. When we had a federal government restrained and bound by the limitations the Constitution placed on it, we had a country where you were free to move to a better State that supported your morals, goals, and desires. After the War between States, Lincoln reduced our republican democracy (with a strong restriction on the size of the federal government) to a direct democracy. Over the next 140 years, more and more of our rights were regulated -- something that our Constitution should have prevented.
Had the South won Lincoln's illegal war, we would have had competitive Constitutions that hopefully held the U.S. in line. Imagine if the U.S. tried mercantilism and corporate welfare when the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbid any government funding of private enterprise. Businesses would have left the North for sure.
What can we do now? Not much. The Free State Project holds some hope, but is it enough?
The American System of Mercantilism as espoused by Henry Clay (a Whig that Lincoln modeled himself after) was about taxing producing states in order to support "internal improvements" or corporate welfare in states that needed money.
You are taking definition as written by those who WANT the deficit of mercantilism -- they'll pretty much write it the way it is. Read some of the links I posted, you'll get a better understand of the American System that we currently operate under. Far from a free market or capitalism.
This is NOT the proper description of mercantilism -- it is the description as written by mercantilists. Have you ever read the definition of Communism as written by Communists?
The true definition of mercantilism is as Murray Rothbard defined it: "a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state."
The true meaning of mercantilism is well exampled in the downfall of England. Our founding fathers ran from mercantilist England to America to avoid the horrible effects of mercantilism.
Here is a great article about mercantilism, written by the author of my favorite book, The Real Lincoln. Here is another.
Mercantilism is where the government taxes the population for "internal improvements," ie, corporate welfare. Abe Lincoln started the civil war in order to create a mercantilist country, and he succeeded.
Mercantilism doesn't work -- it only helps those who are closely connected to government. Over the past 140 years, we have become more and more mercantilist, and this is just one more freebie for some company closely tied to government. Competitive bid? I think not. Try bidding yourself on a federal project and see how far you go.
Pretending to protect national security, provide the troops with better gear to fight terrorism, and other great headlines, our government is spending more of your money on projects that will go way over budget and provide little of the original promises.
Unfortunately, this is how our federal government always works. We've lost our capitalist direction in the last 140 years, and are now thoroughly mercantilist. Promises are made, but in reality those promises only lead to friends of the government getting a big wad of cash -- and when they over extend the budget, they just ask for more.
Sure, $3 million doesn't sound like a lot, but when has government ever provided anything at or under budget?
I'm disgusted that the average citizen allows this. There is really no reason to allow more and more of our hard earned income to go into the pockets of those friendly with the powers-that-be. Both the Democrats and Republicans have lied and lied, and neither is going to help us stabilize the economy and put more money in your pocket without increasing the costs to others.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't helping capitalism any... Open Source is part of capitalism, government is not. When government tries to protect any entity, be it a corporation or a sector, its no longer capitalism, its the American System of Mercantilism has established by Henry Clay (and furthered into the US by Abraham Lincoln).
Remember, Open Source is free market driven as well. The customer may pay nothing, but they also may want to pay for closed software so they receive some sort of guaranteed support or whatever it is they want. Just because software is free doesn't mean that there is no cost to run it.
Government picking closed source over open source really doesn't help capitalism any. In a truly capitalist society (The US is NOT capitalist in any way), open source can compete freely with closed source. Indian programmers can compete with American ones.
I just wanted to mention that I am a business owner, too. Even if you're a one man shop, only having a cell phone makes little business sense. If you move your house to a new city, do you expect to keep your number there? What if you move your office?
If you're in business, I highly recommend getting an answering service if you don't have a central office number. Yes, allowing people to call your cell phone directly makes some semblence of sense (are you charging for their calls?) but to me, it makes more sense to cough up the $150 a month that an answering service charges.
My old answering service would SMS me my messages instantly, and in some cases they'd call me and then transfer the call to me if I was expecting a phone call.
Much better for business.
It is odd how people have become acclimated to the belief that they own their phone number. Back in the day (in the 80s) I had lost a phone number when a local business wanted it. The phone company explained clearly in their legal text (which was in the phone book) that you don't own the number, and can lose it at any time.
Do phone numbers really matter all that much? I used to know all my friends' phone numbers by memory. Now, speed dial makes it worthless.
If someone changes their number, they e-mail me, I save it to my contacts list, and when I sync my phone the new phone number is there. I don't think I call more than 1 person a day from my phone without using the contact list. I use over 3000 minutes a month from my cell phone, so that's around 9-10 people a day I call without knowing their number.
For a business, having a cool number that spells something or references the business in a memorable way makes sense only when you need to get people to call you after seeing an advertisement. Once you regularly call someone, you probably won't recall that number, even if its something great like 4-DADA-21.
I know I don't own my phone number. I also know I'll be paying more on my cell phone bill so that others can keep their numbers. I've switched cell phone numbers probably 4 times in 8 years, and never really lost contact with anyone.
If people matter to me, they know more than my phone number. They have my e-mail address, they have my home address, they can contact me through other friends. If I lost my number today, I'd be hampered for maybe 2 days and then it would be business as usual.
I'd rather not pay for this feature so others can "protect their private property."
I never realized that the number spells "DO A GENT"
Hmmm!
Tariffs hurt the overall economy by coercing (with the full force of the government's laws) every consumer to pay more for a product or service than they need to. You're overpaying a certain distinguished class of workers more than they're worth on the global scale.
Korea did well because of tariffs? I think not. Korea did well because they marketed their products ("services") cheaper than others did. Korea did nothing. The workers of Korea wanted to raise their standard of living, so they learned new skills and offered them cheaper.
Americans are lucky we have tariffs because we continue to push up our standard of living for dead products (steel workers, auto manufacturers, even computer builders) which are now commodities and no longer high luster high priced items.
As for being an undergrad economist, I'm an Austrian-school economist. I would probably not go to an international trade class where people debate what Marxist/socialist trade theory will help the cronies that got them where they are today.
Free trade and free markets fix everything that government sanctioned monopolies break.
How do you know it won't become obsolete? Is talent even a necessity to succeed financially? I prefer live music over Britney-pop, so I'll continue to support the bands I love, but they'll never make a killing at it. They KNOW their style of music isn't financially viable, they do it out of love for performance. Their choice.
Just because it is art doesn't mean that we as a society have to accept it -- the only things that really move forward are ones that can profit for the producer -- and profit does not have to mean financially. Some musicians profit by making their audience happy or by providing themselves with happiness.
The producers of this particular theater have decided (or gambled or risked) that their customers won't mind a mechanical reproduction. They're taking the risk. The musicians, if they are good and their product is desired by some consumer(s), will find other work. If they can't find work, then they should find a new job or talent -- the public shouldn't be taxed to save what may become a dead product (or may not).
No, ONE customer minds. One customer makes not a profitable business. If this business' owners believe they can make a profit by throwing away live musicians, then they can only do so if their customers are willing to accept it. You may decide to not go to this particular theater, and spend your dollars wisely elsewhere.
Most of us are only looking at some musicians who will be losing this particular job. When you have a career or an ability, you have to gauge your chances of marketing said ability. If I was a horse-shoer or a gaslamp-lighter, I'd probably not find many job opportunities.
It is said that these individuals have lost these particular jobs, but what about what others have gained? The producers of this show will save money, which means they'll have more disposable income to spend on other things they want (meaning new jobs in other areas). Maybe they'll eat out more, or go on more vacations. Or maybe they'll lower the prices of their tickets, which means the customers who buy tickets will have more disposable income to spend money elsewhere.
Like Bastiat's "Broken Window" myth dismissal, this job dismisall is also a bogeyman. So is "offshore job outsourcing." When some people can't do the job at a price the rest of us are willing to pay, then it is time to find new skills or promote other skills they may have.
All tariffs harm the economy, and fighting for jobs for musicians instead of using synthesizers is ludicrous. If the customer doesn't mind the lower quality inhuman music, why should we care?
Thank you for using the proper term here: titans. Disney and Microsoft are surely powerful in their industries (right now, today). But everyone here has the choice to not purchase or support these products. No one is forcing you to buy Disney products, watch ABC television, or wear their licensed gear. No one is forcing you to buy products using MS DRM technology.
Remember that before you suggest that either is a monopoly. Look at things in your life and find out where the real monopolies are.
Can you bow out of Social Security? Are you forced to eat at McDonalds? Do you have to pay into federal unemployment insurance? Did you pick your car insurance company, or was it "granted to you" by the voting majority?
I still don't understand anyone needing court approval to sue someone. If I believe you've wronged me, I should be able to sue you. If I lose, I should have to pay for your defense costs as well as court costs. Enough said there.
We're in a crises in this country. Laws are so convoluted, so full of holes and stops, that no one can understand them. Tort law has been thrown out and instead has been replaced with protections for those well connected. In the past, if you wronged someone, you had to pay for the consequences. Today, private property is all but gone, and the person or group with the most money controls what used to be your property, through the courts.
Sherman Networks should be able to sue a user for abusing its license. When you use software, you agree to the license of the owner of that software. Why is it that slashdotters gripe about Microsoft's crazy license (and yet go on and use the software), but its now fine for SN to use the same protection? Kazaa is their software. You use it under a license, and they can revoke it if you break their rules. It is their property.
This country needs to get out of its American System of Mercantilism as invented by Henry Clay and move towards a system of capitalism where private property protects you from the greed and wealth of others.
Monopolies can only happen when government requires them. Microsoft has competition, the market has chosen Microsoft to be the best seller. When someone better comes along, the market probably will switch. Until then, they're not a monopoly, just a very very popular product.
My consulting business has dealt with third world firms, and their lack of legitimate software has caused some problems in the past. Microsoft's giving away of their software to encourage more business is only a good thing for me, my business, and my employees here. Foreign workers have actually caused our profits to rise, and since all my employees get a good chunk of the profits, I'm able to hire more people here and pay them more.
In my retail business, we give away free rentals of our sports equipment to young kids with parental supervision. 10-20% of those kids either buy the rental equipment outright, or come back for something better to buy. It is a good business initiative to give the item away.
Cigarette companies have sent me free cigarettes to try a new product. Free samples of pain killers have helped my family switch to new brands. I've tried numerous foods in the supermarket that were given away free. I switched health clubs after doing a 2 week free trial. My shampoo I use is even one I picked after trying a profit-loss trial size.
Why is this wrong? Microsoft products help almost 95% of my customers make money by not having to train users on a system they are unfamiliar with. I'm glad to see Microsoft take the initiative and a big risk in giving away the free software. I hope they continue to do so and I know I will reap the benefits in finding more firms to deal with overseas.
It's Time to Abolish NASA. A $16 billion dollar agency costs the average American $72 a year. $300 a year for a family of four. Forget it. How much if it is bureaucratic waste?
Maybe Bush wants to go to the moon and set up a base as there is no more freedom on this planet.
Lets stop wasting money on Mars and return the money to the taxpayers so we can use it for things we want as individuals.
Everything you said is very false, unfortunately, but most citizens of most countries believe your story to be the truth.
0 5
The realities are that government creates fiat (meaning worthless) currency out of thin air. For more information on how inflation is a government mandated creation, not a free market feature, check out:
http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch20.asp
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=14
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/press.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/hein6.html
As an ancap, I believe this is completely legitimate for the private companies to include this type of anti-counterfeit detection. The day could come when it is enforced by government, which I believe is completely against their Constitutional powers, so I'd prefer to see it done privately. You are free to stop using software or printers that enable this 'feature.'
On the other hand, all governments of the world legally counterfeit money every day. Back when money was real hard currency (whether it was gold or silver or dirt or wood), government didn't have the ability to steal from the citizens. Today, they do it constantly using something known as inflation. They print new fiat currency, which causes costs to rise for everyone. And we allow this. Sure, government blames it on business and the free market, but inflation can only truly occur when someone introduces new currency into the market -- sometimes counterfeiters do but it is rare. Government counterfeits every day, lowering the value of our stocks, our bank accounts, and any currency in our pockets. A silent form of taxation, and one that hurts everyone at every level of wealth.
As long as it is just private employers utilizing technology to minimize employee theft (by having their friends clock them in?), this is fine.
You can quit your job. You can find another, with an employer who doesn't utilize this technology. You can start your own business and recruit the best employees by advertising that you don't use these products.
When government starts to do this, then we have a problem. Employers have no "power" over their employees -- both can end the contract at any time. Government uses the threat of force to coerce you into following the rules.
Heh, Adam Sandler probably IS a mistake of mercantilism ;)
In reality, I don't blame much on Henry Clay's American System of mercantilism. American warfare has always come from the desire for empire, no matter what the excuse was at the time for us to enter a war. Henry Clay was a big proponent of empire, as was Lincoln. Read DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" for a good proof of it (he sites all his sources, too).
I don't believe in an anarchocapitalist utopia. I believe that an anarchocapitalist country would mean more hard work, more savings and less spending, and a slower growth to the economy. I believe a lot of people would "suffer" in that they would have to work harder to get what they have "easily" now -- but those who really work hard would reap the benefits that they can't reap now due to high taxes, impossible to defeat regulations, and other restrictions. This would be no utopia.
There are no "failings" of capitalism. The only time capitalism has failed is when government has intervened and enforced a monopoly (see power companies, railroads, and other government funded monopolies). Capitalism can allow some people to gain a lot of wealth, but you have to work very hard to keep that wealth. You have to stay competitive, you have to provide what consumers want, and you have to stay ahead of the competition.
Money should never be stolen by the threat of force (taxes) and given to others. Sure, SOME government programs eventually help others, but at what cost to you?
You pay over 50% of your income to taxes at all levels. What could you have put your money into if you had it back? Your choice should matter, not the choice of some bureaucrat. It is a huge debate, the biggest debate of anarchocapitalists such as myself. I do not want government taking my money to help anyone else. If I want to help them, I will pick the ones I help.
Hungry children are better supported by churches or private charities. Space programs are better supported by companies that have a fiscal interest -- NASA's budget last year was $20 billion or so, or about $70 per living American per year. Not a lot, really, but did we all get something beneficial out of it? $70 in a year could have bought me something I wanted or my family needed.
Benefiting the general population at the expense of others is NOT the job of the Federal government. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments of our Constitution prove that. We need to restrain the Federal government so that we, the people, have more choice, more freedom, and more security against tyranny.
I'm not a libertarian.
Enron was not capitalist -- Enron was a great example of mercantilism. Enron would have no grown had it not been for government helping them out every step of the way. Do not believe that capitalism causes fiascos like that.
All of your inventions sound great, but its a sliver compared to everything else we use every day that was invented by private funding.
There isn't a lot you can do, unfortunately. Direct democracy destroyed this country. When we had a federal government restrained and bound by the limitations the Constitution placed on it, we had a country where you were free to move to a better State that supported your morals, goals, and desires. After the War between States, Lincoln reduced our republican democracy (with a strong restriction on the size of the federal government) to a direct democracy. Over the next 140 years, more and more of our rights were regulated -- something that our Constitution should have prevented.
Had the South won Lincoln's illegal war, we would have had competitive Constitutions that hopefully held the U.S. in line. Imagine if the U.S. tried mercantilism and corporate welfare when the Confederate Constitution explicitly forbid any government funding of private enterprise. Businesses would have left the North for sure.
What can we do now? Not much. The Free State Project holds some hope, but is it enough?
The American System of Mercantilism as espoused by Henry Clay (a Whig that Lincoln modeled himself after) was about taxing producing states in order to support "internal improvements" or corporate welfare in states that needed money.
You are taking definition as written by those who WANT the deficit of mercantilism -- they'll pretty much write it the way it is. Read some of the links I posted, you'll get a better understand of the American System that we currently operate under. Far from a free market or capitalism.
This is NOT the proper description of mercantilism -- it is the description as written by mercantilists. Have you ever read the definition of Communism as written by Communists?
The true definition of mercantilism is as Murray Rothbard defined it: "a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state."
The true meaning of mercantilism is well exampled in the downfall of England. Our founding fathers ran from mercantilist England to America to avoid the horrible effects of mercantilism.
Here is a great article about mercantilism, written by the author of my favorite book, The Real Lincoln. Here is another.
Mercantilism is where the government taxes the population for "internal improvements," ie, corporate welfare. Abe Lincoln started the civil war in order to create a mercantilist country, and he succeeded.
Mercantilism doesn't work -- it only helps those who are closely connected to government. Over the past 140 years, we have become more and more mercantilist, and this is just one more freebie for some company closely tied to government. Competitive bid? I think not. Try bidding yourself on a federal project and see how far you go.
Pretending to protect national security, provide the troops with better gear to fight terrorism, and other great headlines, our government is spending more of your money on projects that will go way over budget and provide little of the original promises.
Unfortunately, this is how our federal government always works. We've lost our capitalist direction in the last 140 years, and are now thoroughly mercantilist. Promises are made, but in reality those promises only lead to friends of the government getting a big wad of cash -- and when they over extend the budget, they just ask for more.
Sure, $3 million doesn't sound like a lot, but when has government ever provided anything at or under budget?
I'm disgusted that the average citizen allows this. There is really no reason to allow more and more of our hard earned income to go into the pockets of those friendly with the powers-that-be. Both the Democrats and Republicans have lied and lied, and neither is going to help us stabilize the economy and put more money in your pocket without increasing the costs to others.