(How fitting...the capcha for this submission is "embezzle"...)
Hah!
And people who've been in business don't somehow become more honest with time. Enron had great feedback - until it all fell apart.
Which is why I don't trust stock brokers (not even my friends who broker stocks). Enron had great feedback from the fraudsters selling it. Enron was also backed by many government bodies. I would never put money into a massive corporation like Enron -- in a regulated or a free market. I'd rather invest in local businesses I have some control over (which, by the way, net me MUCH more profit yearly than the stock market ever could).
And how do you deal with companies that are too large or distant to see on your own?
Good question -- I wouldn't. I prefer to see my money stay close to me, and it also helps me by making my community financially stronger. All the businesses I keep my money in are small, but they all offer great profits and very slow capital growth, which offers cash flow stability and very little risk.
So where are you suggesting people invest?
Locally though your bank. Speak to your banker to find good businesses with a positive cash flow, positive equity, and a good market segment. From my experience, the ONLY way you can truly make money is to work -- if you invest in the stock market, you have to work just as hard to earn $10 as you would in your regular job. There is no such thing as a free lunch, no matter what your broker tells you. I watch my investments daily.
It's well known (or at least claimed) that efficient markets require that all knowledge be public.
That's a Keynesian myth. In any market trade, both parties need to hide something. When I buy a Widget, I don't tell the widget seller how much money I have available or how badly I need said widget. The widget salesman doesn't tell me what profit he's making, how many widgets he'll have in the future, or how useful the widget really is to me. We both come to the table with secrets, and we both leave the trade profiting from the transaction -- I'm a widget richer, and he's a few dollars richer. Transparency was never required, and if the widget fails to meet my needs, it was because I didn't research the widget's usefulness enough.
The point is that the investor decides he's making a good enough rate of return by investing in your busine
Except which stocks today pay any return at all? Do you have any stocks that issue a proper dividend? Probably not, the SEC and IRS hurt companies that issue real profits. I only own stocks in local companies that pay an annual dividend of at least 20% on my money. I hate capital expansion if it hurts my profitability. I like to earn back 100% of my investment in 3-5 years, and I usually do. Publicly traded stocks don't make profits, except when they're sold -- one sucker selling a stock to another sucker.
Where should be people be investing? They shouldn't. They should get debt free -- no mortgage, no lease, no loans, no debt. Then they should build from there -- buy more land, buy some gold, invest in local businesses with the guidance of a banker or a real investment advisor. I avoid the stock market like the plague. The best income is one that you earn by doing actual work -- investments are no different.
Funny. I just returned from a 3 week trip to Europe and Asia, to see some of the worst 3rd world countries. What did I see? Millions of people trying to make money outside of government -- so called black money. Capitalism is voluntary cooperation between two parties for the mutual profit of both. This is what I want.
Here in America it is almost impossible to open a business today (I know, I've succeeded and I've failed), mostly due to government at every level. There is so much red tape and so many regulations that there is a constantly declining desire by entrepreneurs to even take the risk. This is why we have Wal*Mart so powerful -- they have enough money to lobby government to bend their rules and relax the regulations.
The American economy has been in decline for almost 15 years, once you factor in personal and corporate debt, real wages, tax burdens and the trade balance. It can not survive much longer like this, and the reason we can't compete on a global scale is because our government doesn't let us.
When corporations "ran the country" decades ago, they did so because they were the government. I'm not saying end all government tomorrow, let's just start with downsizing the federal government about 90% and giving power back to the States, the Cities and the People. Over time, some states will become more capitalist, others will become more socialist. They'll attract the people that want to live in those systems. In today's federal system, we don't have much opportunities to vote with our feet in supposedly the freest country in the world.
My visit to India in my Eurasian tour was mind blowing. I have never seen a more open and aggressive marketplace than I had seen there. We are in deep trouble if we stay on the road we're on.
I write and publish, but I don't accept copyright protections. Why? Because my words increase my worth as one individual to another. This is important.
As for trademarks, I don't see why protections are needed. If a company makes a good product, they need to make individual agreements with other individuals that want to sell their product. In the end, the retailer is the one making sure you get the product you want. Sure, someone could knock off Coca-Cola's logo and product, and some retailers might accept the new product for sale. In reality, though, the companies that offer the consumer the best product for the best price are the ones that would win out, so if Coke can't provide this quality of service, let someone else do it. I do think it is a bit odd that people pay $2 for a bottle of Coke's labeled water, but they do so out of desiring a consistent standard water. Nothing prevents retailers and Coke from entering agreements to sell the right product.
Ending copyright won't stop movies from being made -- instead, movie companies would likely enter into agreements with distribution companies (movie theaters) to protect their investment until the investment was paid off. They might also release proprietary formats to the retail market, or they might offer additional features to make it worth your while to buy the official version. In the long run, art will always survive, and the best content creators will find a way to make money without needed "men with guns" to back up their profit.
Great questions. I don't believe in public property, but I do believe that there is enough desire amongst members of a community to endow a trust to own land that is available to the public. I've been to private land shelters (Vermont, Idaho and Montana) and they are healthier, cleaner and safer than the public parks I've been to. I've been thinking about filming both public and private parks to show the difference, actually.
Pollution is a very difficult situation for me. I'm not sure what the answer is, and it is one of about 3 points that I am still trying to resolve mentally (and financially). I do believe pollution is mostly bad, but I think some pollution activists are a little over the edge. I think that pollution can be better regulated by local communities, but of course you have some pollution that affects people thousands of miles away or decades later.
Not to create a straw man, but I have done the research, and the worst polluter in all of history has been the U.S. government. I'm not sure the worst polluter in history is really the best organization to regulate the pollution of private citizens. I do believe that there ARE free market ways to control pollution. I support www.perc.org because I think they're doing some good things, and they're helping to handle the burden of finding voluntary ways to control pollution.
In the end, pollution can ONLY be controlled through voluntary desire. If people really want to end pollution, they need to be informed by others in who is the worst polluters, and we need to boycott those companies. If no one boycotts, I can only believe that no one cares, in which case the problem needs to get bad enough for the next generation to realize the error of their parents.
The market was very unstable before 1913 with huge inflation when it grew and bad recessions when it didn't grow.
That's untrue. $1 in 1800 was $1 in 1912. The only time money was inflated was when the Tyrant Lincoln decided to abandon the gold standard and issue paper currency. His money because worthless during the war, so he was forced to return to gold reserves, which brought the dollar back to its previous value and power. Of course some banks decided to cheat and loan out more money than they had gold to back up, causing the runs that bank-rupted those that we recall in history. Since 1913, $1 then is worth $0.04 today. Inflation comes only from one reason: more currency introduced into the system than previously held -- government is great at this. The gold rush DID introduce gold inflation, but it was quickly recovered and the new money was very useful for the industrial revolution.
Most demand side economists hate savings as every dollar in your wallet is not being spent and that means it does not help inflate the economy to grow. However the average american savings is the worst since the great depression and it scares me that we are crediting everything now and paying back later. I think its going to bite us all in the ass. especially with the new bankruptacy laws going into effect.
I disagree with this, though. If I save $1 in my bank, they have the power to loan this money out to businesses with good business plans and assets to back up the loan. Instead of putting it into a sucker's stock market, I'd rather save it and let the bank find the best investments. My favorite place to put my money is into my own businesses, which are generally profitable if you watch your cash flow and manage your time properly.
I agree on debt, though. What I really hate is that our parents are pushing off their lives' mistakes onto us (social security mostly), and we'll be pushing it off to our kids. Our country has over $70 trillion in liabilities to pay, and I guarantee that the piper will want to be paid, some day.
I imagine a near future where the Chinese and Indians who are loaning up money today will be living in our mortgaged mansions, driving our leased cars and watching our financed big screen TVs, while we clean their bathrooms and wash their feet.
Lucky for me I exited the banking and credit system entirely, and have no fear for the future in any way (short of a comet made entirely of gold and silver hitting the earth).
which is to stabilize the relationship between currency and value. This deliberate stabilization is impossible in a gold standard economy (more precisely, there are too many players who can influence the quantity of currency in circulation in a gold standard economy to know who they are, let alone understand their motivations).
Rothbard doesn't really ask for a gold standard, per se, but a deregulated currency system -- which I support. In a gold standard, some players COULD horde all the gold, but this would cause prices to drop to cover this hording. This is a good thing, creating a supply and demand for money that can't be destroyed by government fiat or force. If someone wants to horde gold, they first have to acquire it. As they acquire and hold it, they're losing out in the short run generally as that gold is working for them.
All the gold standard buys you is less control.
Less control in what way? An ounce of gold today buys about the same thing that an ounce of gold did in 1800 and an ounce of gold in 0 AD. Gold tends to be stable, as currency should be, relative to consumer goods. Fiat paper currency always gets destroyed -- in every situation in history, fiat currency has bankrupted. The US dollar has only existed as fiat currency since 1913 (partial reserve banking creation), and was completely taken off of a reserve system in 1971 by Nixon. Our currency in 1800 compared to 1912 was nearly 1:1, from 1913 to now it is 20:1 -- $20 in 1913 is worth $1 today. In the past year the government has devalued our currency almost an additional 10% through excessive printing, how is this stable?
If the available interest rate of savings accounts is above the inflation rate, there is an incentive to save.
Yet the available interest rate is set by the same organization that prints the new paper currency! If interest rates were free market provided for, things might be different. Yet the same government that devalues our currency every week also sets the interest rate too long to instill a good savings rate.
I agree that bank regulation is to blame, but to describe a new set of regulations that provide for banks to make a profit on savings and to offer a competitive interest rate is beyond my limited knowledge of economics and monetary theory.
This is why I am a fan of private 100% reserve banking. Banks are meant to do two things: protect your real money (gold, silver, oxen, whatever), and offer you the chance to invest it safely in businesses they have researched and trust -- usually backed by assets. Today banks offer neither: your money devalues while they hold it, and they don't do a good job of investments (see the housing bubble and the stock market).
I have faith in Rothbard's words, and I live on a personal gold standard myself ( http://dadasays.blogspot.com/ ). My money is stable, and I don't fear stock market fluctuations, war, imperialism or a global loss of faith in the dollar. Is your future safe?
If government has destroyed any reason to save (and I tend to agree with this, mind you), then why do you save so much?
Ahh, good catch there! I'll amend my statement to read "government has destroyed any reason to save federally issued dollars." I save in gold, silver and land -- mostly appreciating assets versus the federally issued currency.:)
Primarily the web, honestly. In the past, I could accept some government oversight as the people had very little interaction with one another outside of their community. But now that we can share information about bad businesses instantly, I think there is less need for the use of force to govern businesses and individuals. Hell, the entire stock market can be taken apart and let shareholding be deregulated -- people can trade and exchange stocks and bonds through the web as well, in an organized chaos that lets everyone decide how they want their money best used.
In the long run, I think anyone who has faith in the current system is just being duped. As the country grows weaker day by day, and the dollar loses value in the global market, a great many people will wish they had listened. The stock market has barely grown 500% in the past 100 years once government's inflation has been taken into account. The banking industry is a wing of the fed, happily accepting new counterfeit dollars and using them to pad the pocketbooks of the bank owners. If you're happy to ignore this collusion and theft, that's fine with me, but I want a way to exit this system.
You offer some very valid advice -- if we were still living in 1910 or 1950 or maybe even 1970.
I think you MIGHT be able to win a debate that government was needed in some way back then, when communication was limited and people were not aware of the world around them. The Internet has replaced much of the need for government oversight, replaced instead with the ability for billions of consumers to oversee each other instantly and in an aggregated fashion.
I'm familiar with some company towns today, such as Bagdad, AZ which has a significantly higher standard of living than the rest of the state, and almost no poverty. That same corporation also owns Morenci, AZ at the other side of the state, with even higher income levels and incredibly low poverty rates. The education of the residents is excellent, I have visited both towns and I am amazed by the residents that live there.
Don't forget Irvine, CA, either, which is a company town to this day. Irvine is considered one of the safest towns in the country, with one of the best public schools as well. This is still a company town!
In my experience, I have visited about 15 company towns around the country, and all of them are amazing examples of corporate governance.
Add in the amazing instant communication abilities of the web, and I think we see fewer and fewer reasons to have federal governments -- I'd rather see us shut down the fed to a BARE minimum (merely to keep the States in line) and let the local communities decide how much taxation and regulation they need or desire, in line with their residents.
I've read about both. The post civil war South was destroyed by Lincoln's cronies. The Civil War (or what I call the War Between States) was created specifically by Lincoln to give his cronies government corporate welfare. It had nothing to do with slavery, and everything to do with the Republican platform of imperialism and corporate welfare.
The copper barons of Montana were not a corporation, they fully controlled the state, too. Henry H. Rogers was a philanthropist who gave money out of his fortunes to nearly 100 schools, and paid for the education of blacks and the poor. He was raised in a poor family, and initially earned his wealth through fair trade and competition. He did more good things than bad, and everything bad that he was alledged to have done was done through the force of government, not the cooperation of the free market.
Don't try to teach me your history, based on lies written by the winners. Try reading the real history of the times, and you'll see your facts are based on those very lies.
Contracts can be enforced in a private market without the force of law. If you sign a contract, you take out contract insurance through a private company. This company issues a "bond" against your signature, guaranteeing the other party that you'll follow through, and also offering you insurance against the other party running off. This happens all the time in the construction industry (I should know, I own a business that gets bonded on each project).
Beyond just getting contract insurance, we can also create new businesses that only work to issue feedback on an individual or a corporation, similar to eBay's feedback system. When you make a transaction with another party, you give them positive or negative feedback. Sure, someone can take their terrible negative feedback and start anew with another company, but would you trust a 30 year old with zero feedback? Neither would I.
The reality to me is that government does a poor job of protecting economies, markets and trade. In every situation I've seen and have experience with, government has done more damage to trade than any situation where they have helped.
People need to know that stock markets are not safe investments. They need to know that they're getting less information than the insiders. They need to understand that their investments are likely making more money for others, and that they should find better places to put their money.
In a free market, interest rates are free to go up and down. Banks that need money can offer better rates than those who have money. Also, in a free market with a fixed money supply (100% reserves) we'd see soft deflation, which is good for the economy -- it gives people reason to save, increasing the money supply to banks for loans to GOOD businesses, not junk ones.
Wow, we are so far apart from each other in beliefs that it would be hard to further the debate.
I've read all the books you use to support your side, would you mind reading just one free tiny e-book that covers mine? http://www.mises.org/money.asp This is Rothbard's basic book regarding money and what government has done to destroy the economy.
I am against big business as well because I believe big business grows out of abusing government's laws. I also believe these laws were written with this abuse in mind.
Government destroyed our currency by getting off of a 100% reserve system in 1913. It has destroyed any reason to save (the best way to create a strong economy is through savings, not public credit), and it has destroyed the ability for us to compete in the world market with our regulations and business controls.
Well we are letting them go wild in deregulation and we are experiencing things like all the telecoms merging back together again. They never learn.
The telecom industry has never been deregulated in any way -- it has only been re-regulated -- some regulations were ended, many more began. Don't believe for a minute that the industry is running in a free market, it is heavily regulated and subsidized.
Supply side economics doesn't work in every situation and we are having problems now due to it. The debt is one and the other is R&D.
BS. Debt has nothing to do with supply side economics -- public debt is a socialist trap created mostly out of fiat currency. Private debt gets worse once the inflationary cycle begins, creating easy money and low savings rates.
This is where more government intervention is needed and if AT&T was not split up the internet would not be here today for the public. Think about that one?
I ran a successful BBS for years. Before I even knew the Internet had existed, we BBS operators were already implemented a large scale network of BBSes using X.25 packet switching networks and other private communications systems. Splitting up the bells had nothing to do with the Internet, and the Internet has exploded specifically because of the lack of regulations covering it. The more it is regulated, the slower it will grow and adapt.
You're a big government supporter, I can accept that, and I even think you have a right to be one. I just want access to opt-out of all the programs. I'll be happy to not rely on medicare, social security, or any of the options government gives me. Send me a bill for my share of the roads and defense (not offense) and I'll happily pay them until I can find a way to replace them with private providers.
Yes, let them go wild. It will teach the average "investor" that there is no such thing as a free lunch. You should NEVER put your money into a business that you don't have faith in or trust. If you make it government's job to make people "tell the truth" you'll get lies covered by legal loopholes.
The problem starts with the Fed (Greenspan, Bernanke and their inflationary cycle) that makes money worthless over time so we seek to invest it to at least break even. The problem is made worse by the same inflationary cycle that makes our salaries go up slower than the inflationary cost of living increases (which go up because of the money printing). It goes downhill from there -- the SEC makes investors believe they're protected, which in a free market is a fallacy. You are only protected through contracts, not through law forcing people to act a certain way. Beyond contracts you protect yourself by doing business with people with a history (see eBay's feedback system).
This is all a mess, made worse by people who have faith in others. I have no faith in others except those who have proven their trustworthiness to me. This is why I only invest in businesses I have direct contact with.
I have absolutely zero dollars in publicly traded companies. I have no faith in the business of others -- in my own businesses I have so much "insider information" that I can't believe everyone else is a big enough sucker to trust these massive companies to tell the truth about everything.
That being said, I hate accountants. The average CPA is part of the problem in this country (CPAs as a group lobby Congress to make the tax code worse every year). Instead of requiring companies to do anything, how about telling people that they really shouldn't put their money anywhere but where they trust? I make between 20% and 50% on my various businesses, annually. Most stocks pay no dividend, so they actually make their owners no profit (except on sale, which is ridiculous as companies should pay profits).
The whole system is a mess, and its a mess because we keep requiring business to perform counter-productive to how a free market performs.
My father told me never write down anything you don't want anyone else to take and use as their own.
I hold to that belief today. Everything useful to me as a trade secret stays in my head.
Patents were intended to protect the desire to invent. The slippery slope of using government to protect anything rears its ugly head here, and it is obvious that patent laws can not work -- they'll always be corrupted, slowly buy surely, over the years. Rather than try to use "men with guns" to protect inventors, how about we level the playing field and require people to actually create items and find a way to market them before they're knocked off?
Patents are counter-freedom in every way. If you have an idea, make something. Sell that something. If someone finds a better way to make that something, then take their changes and make THOSE better. That's competition.
Some think that these situations are unintended consequences of laws that have "good" effects. Sarbanes-Oxley was intended, from the start, to be the ultimate way for governmentto control any corporation at will.
The law was initially meant to "fix" problems such as the Enron fiasco, but if you rewind just a few years, you see that most of these fiascos came directly out of trying to take advantage of loopholes in previous laws. The SEC colludes with the rest of the all powerful federal government to constantly keep non-preferred companies on their toes, while giving excessive power to the cronies. Sarbanes-Oxley will have the same effect.
The one light in Congress, Dr. Ron Paul, made an excellent note regarding Sarbanes-Oxley and the cost it will pass on to consumers. The Mises Institute also has a ton of great articles and blog posts regarding the horrors of this law.
It is time to realize that government is NOT good at regulating business, except from the point of view of the cronies. Bills like this will rarely be used for their original intent, and the un?-intended consequence in the long run is to see criminals made of innocents that had nothing to do with the law's purpose.
Instead of voting, I think we need to start pitching money in a hat to buy rope for those who violate their oath to uphold the Constitution.
The push for hardware based DRM is being financed by the distribution cartels -- the same people who use the force of copyright to earn a buck.
The push for better independent entertainment online may not be strong enough to topple the future DRM schemes, leading to an Internet where these broadcasts may not happen.
I'm anti-copyright in every situation. I strongly believe that artists can now find new ways to earn a living without the need to use government force to protect fictional property. I'm financing a studio in Chicago called No Copyright Studios ( soon to be at http://www.nocopyrightstudios.com/ ) later this year to try out new ways for musicians, podcasters, and artists in general to make money without copyright.
Playing live online is one of our ideas. We figure you can give away the mastered songs to get people to want to come to live shows. We also figure that bands can do fairly well with live acoustic performances online, or maybe even offering people who buy the band's official album a password to see the band practice in the studio, or record.
Artists like the one mentioned are finding new ways to make a living without forcing people to follow ancient laws. In your job, do you get residual payments for past work? Generally not. Neither should artists. Income to me means work -- repeated work over time. If you're lucky enough to produce something that millions want, you should have the drive to go and perform live for them to make your living. Making a 20 cent CD and thinking that the law protects your right to charge $15 per piece for it is ridiculous -- find new ways to sell that CD for $15 by offering value added services and products with every purchase.
My big fear, though, is that we'll see the Internet become cartel-controlled, making it hard or impossible for indy media to break into the system. Right now we have torrents and various new media websites, but how long will that last if Internet 3.0 is back in the hands of those who have abused the power of copyright for decades and decades?
I've had excellent service with them, including a billing foul up on MY end recently. I use one of their resellers (HostingDude) because I'm cheap. I'm considering setting up my own server though with some other provider, maybe we should look into getting a few slashdot users with "blog" style sites to throw in together...
Great advice about U-Haul. I'd rather buy my own box truck and sell it after a week than deal with those bozos ever again (this is after about 4 bad situations).
I prefer to pay professionals a professional rate for moving. When I moved out of my condo and my broad moved out of her apartment, we hired professionals to hit both our pads as well as both our storage sheds, and move everything to our house. They did an amazing job, but for the thousands I spent I'm assuming most people wouldn't have bothered. I think I saved about 100 hours of packing and unpacking (they did it ALL), so I figure I ended up way ahead and stress free.
Here is a problem for most software companies, and one reason I would never invest in a publicly traded software company. It is also the prime reason that I sold off my portion of a private software company I had owned.
The problem? Obsolescence.
Software seems to be obsolete almost immediately after it is released. If a better product doesn't replace it, the product itself contains bugs that require a new release or at least a patch. The difficulty in pricing software is figuring out what percentage of the sale profit needs to be held back to cover long term support (updates and customer service).
One way developers are recouping the expense of upgrades is by offering yearly support subscriptions, but these are better suited for corporations who desire a fixed budget. For the home user, I'm betting most prefer to buy a program once and desire a lifetime of upgrades. Recently I complained (to myself) about needing to rebuy a program that had been updated -- until I realized I hadn't bought a version from the company for 4 years!
The end result is for the company to find others willing to pay for the upgrades. Users who desire something at a discount should be willing to at least admit that they're also part of the problem -- they tell the developers that they'll buy a product at a certain price, and they give the developers reason for finding ways to pay for that product in the long haul.
In all the software I use (a ton of it between my businesses, my home, my side projects, my church congregation tech junk, and my family needs), very rarely does an upgrade work against me. In fact, I'd say 95% of upgrades I've performed in the past 10 years made me more efficient, even if they incorporated certain things I didn't like.
If software wants to do something you don't want it to do, block it with your firewall. For me, that's the only necessary step.
The final part of the quote: "They're not always better for the consumer" needs to be looked at differently. Updates that allow the developer to continue updating and supporting the software ARE good for the consumer, just maybe not in the "now" but in the long run. The time preference of the developer might be different than the consumer, but they have to be similar or the developer won't last.
Proper optimization of how data is transported in both directions is very important. Analyzing the connection as well as the route to the destination can probably be performed by software or hardware. Once the connection is analyzed, I'm sure there are real time changes that can be performed to better decrease latency and overall lag.
The question is why perform it in hardware rather than software?
Free online storage from a company that can't keep their documents safe from prying eyes -- including the document that eludes to the fact that they're offering free online storage.
I'm not sure it is unwise to ask others for what questions to ask the employer as well as gain some knowledge in the caveats of a move.
From what I can tell, there is actually a decent number of people on slashdot who have been in similar situations and would be happy to share the positives and negatives.
One thing that they might not be to open about (or even aware of) is the cost of living differences. Living on the east coast with the salary you're making might make you feel wealthy. Moving to the west coast with the same salary might put you in the poor house.
Be aware of the cost of living differences between two markets (even within the same metropolis on occasion!).
Slashdot Mirror
(How fitting...the capcha for this submission is "embezzle"...)
Hah!
And people who've been in business don't somehow become more honest with time. Enron had great feedback - until it all fell apart.
Which is why I don't trust stock brokers (not even my friends who broker stocks). Enron had great feedback from the fraudsters selling it. Enron was also backed by many government bodies. I would never put money into a massive corporation like Enron -- in a regulated or a free market. I'd rather invest in local businesses I have some control over (which, by the way, net me MUCH more profit yearly than the stock market ever could).
And how do you deal with companies that are too large or distant to see on your own?
Good question -- I wouldn't. I prefer to see my money stay close to me, and it also helps me by making my community financially stronger. All the businesses I keep my money in are small, but they all offer great profits and very slow capital growth, which offers cash flow stability and very little risk.
So where are you suggesting people invest?
Locally though your bank. Speak to your banker to find good businesses with a positive cash flow, positive equity, and a good market segment. From my experience, the ONLY way you can truly make money is to work -- if you invest in the stock market, you have to work just as hard to earn $10 as you would in your regular job. There is no such thing as a free lunch, no matter what your broker tells you. I watch my investments daily.
It's well known (or at least claimed) that efficient markets require that all knowledge be public.
That's a Keynesian myth. In any market trade, both parties need to hide something. When I buy a Widget, I don't tell the widget seller how much money I have available or how badly I need said widget. The widget salesman doesn't tell me what profit he's making, how many widgets he'll have in the future, or how useful the widget really is to me. We both come to the table with secrets, and we both leave the trade profiting from the transaction -- I'm a widget richer, and he's a few dollars richer. Transparency was never required, and if the widget fails to meet my needs, it was because I didn't research the widget's usefulness enough.
The point is that the investor decides he's making a good enough rate of return by investing in your busine
Except which stocks today pay any return at all? Do you have any stocks that issue a proper dividend? Probably not, the SEC and IRS hurt companies that issue real profits. I only own stocks in local companies that pay an annual dividend of at least 20% on my money. I hate capital expansion if it hurts my profitability. I like to earn back 100% of my investment in 3-5 years, and I usually do. Publicly traded stocks don't make profits, except when they're sold -- one sucker selling a stock to another sucker.
Where should be people be investing? They shouldn't. They should get debt free -- no mortgage, no lease, no loans, no debt. Then they should build from there -- buy more land, buy some gold, invest in local businesses with the guidance of a banker or a real investment advisor. I avoid the stock market like the plague. The best income is one that you earn by doing actual work -- investments are no different.
Funny. I just returned from a 3 week trip to Europe and Asia, to see some of the worst 3rd world countries. What did I see? Millions of people trying to make money outside of government -- so called black money. Capitalism is voluntary cooperation between two parties for the mutual profit of both. This is what I want.
Here in America it is almost impossible to open a business today (I know, I've succeeded and I've failed), mostly due to government at every level. There is so much red tape and so many regulations that there is a constantly declining desire by entrepreneurs to even take the risk. This is why we have Wal*Mart so powerful -- they have enough money to lobby government to bend their rules and relax the regulations.
The American economy has been in decline for almost 15 years, once you factor in personal and corporate debt, real wages, tax burdens and the trade balance. It can not survive much longer like this, and the reason we can't compete on a global scale is because our government doesn't let us.
When corporations "ran the country" decades ago, they did so because they were the government. I'm not saying end all government tomorrow, let's just start with downsizing the federal government about 90% and giving power back to the States, the Cities and the People. Over time, some states will become more capitalist, others will become more socialist. They'll attract the people that want to live in those systems. In today's federal system, we don't have much opportunities to vote with our feet in supposedly the freest country in the world.
My visit to India in my Eurasian tour was mind blowing. I have never seen a more open and aggressive marketplace than I had seen there. We are in deep trouble if we stay on the road we're on.
I write and publish, but I don't accept copyright protections. Why? Because my words increase my worth as one individual to another. This is important.
As for trademarks, I don't see why protections are needed. If a company makes a good product, they need to make individual agreements with other individuals that want to sell their product. In the end, the retailer is the one making sure you get the product you want. Sure, someone could knock off Coca-Cola's logo and product, and some retailers might accept the new product for sale. In reality, though, the companies that offer the consumer the best product for the best price are the ones that would win out, so if Coke can't provide this quality of service, let someone else do it. I do think it is a bit odd that people pay $2 for a bottle of Coke's labeled water, but they do so out of desiring a consistent standard water. Nothing prevents retailers and Coke from entering agreements to sell the right product.
Ending copyright won't stop movies from being made -- instead, movie companies would likely enter into agreements with distribution companies (movie theaters) to protect their investment until the investment was paid off. They might also release proprietary formats to the retail market, or they might offer additional features to make it worth your while to buy the official version. In the long run, art will always survive, and the best content creators will find a way to make money without needed "men with guns" to back up their profit.
Great questions. I don't believe in public property, but I do believe that there is enough desire amongst members of a community to endow a trust to own land that is available to the public. I've been to private land shelters (Vermont, Idaho and Montana) and they are healthier, cleaner and safer than the public parks I've been to. I've been thinking about filming both public and private parks to show the difference, actually.
Pollution is a very difficult situation for me. I'm not sure what the answer is, and it is one of about 3 points that I am still trying to resolve mentally (and financially). I do believe pollution is mostly bad, but I think some pollution activists are a little over the edge. I think that pollution can be better regulated by local communities, but of course you have some pollution that affects people thousands of miles away or decades later.
Not to create a straw man, but I have done the research, and the worst polluter in all of history has been the U.S. government. I'm not sure the worst polluter in history is really the best organization to regulate the pollution of private citizens. I do believe that there ARE free market ways to control pollution. I support www.perc.org because I think they're doing some good things, and they're helping to handle the burden of finding voluntary ways to control pollution.
In the end, pollution can ONLY be controlled through voluntary desire. If people really want to end pollution, they need to be informed by others in who is the worst polluters, and we need to boycott those companies. If no one boycotts, I can only believe that no one cares, in which case the problem needs to get bad enough for the next generation to realize the error of their parents.
The market was very unstable before 1913 with huge inflation when it grew and bad recessions when it didn't grow.
That's untrue. $1 in 1800 was $1 in 1912. The only time money was inflated was when the Tyrant Lincoln decided to abandon the gold standard and issue paper currency. His money because worthless during the war, so he was forced to return to gold reserves, which brought the dollar back to its previous value and power. Of course some banks decided to cheat and loan out more money than they had gold to back up, causing the runs that bank-rupted those that we recall in history. Since 1913, $1 then is worth $0.04 today. Inflation comes only from one reason: more currency introduced into the system than previously held -- government is great at this. The gold rush DID introduce gold inflation, but it was quickly recovered and the new money was very useful for the industrial revolution.
Most demand side economists hate savings as every dollar in your wallet is not being spent and that means it does not help inflate the economy to grow. However the average american savings is the worst since the great depression and it scares me that we are crediting everything now and paying back later. I think its going to bite us all in the ass. especially with the new bankruptacy laws going into effect.
I disagree with this, though. If I save $1 in my bank, they have the power to loan this money out to businesses with good business plans and assets to back up the loan. Instead of putting it into a sucker's stock market, I'd rather save it and let the bank find the best investments. My favorite place to put my money is into my own businesses, which are generally profitable if you watch your cash flow and manage your time properly.
I agree on debt, though. What I really hate is that our parents are pushing off their lives' mistakes onto us (social security mostly), and we'll be pushing it off to our kids. Our country has over $70 trillion in liabilities to pay, and I guarantee that the piper will want to be paid, some day.
I imagine a near future where the Chinese and Indians who are loaning up money today will be living in our mortgaged mansions, driving our leased cars and watching our financed big screen TVs, while we clean their bathrooms and wash their feet.
Lucky for me I exited the banking and credit system entirely, and have no fear for the future in any way (short of a comet made entirely of gold and silver hitting the earth).
which is to stabilize the relationship between currency and value. This deliberate stabilization is impossible in a gold standard economy (more precisely, there are too many players who can influence the quantity of currency in circulation in a gold standard economy to know who they are, let alone understand their motivations).
Rothbard doesn't really ask for a gold standard, per se, but a deregulated currency system -- which I support. In a gold standard, some players COULD horde all the gold, but this would cause prices to drop to cover this hording. This is a good thing, creating a supply and demand for money that can't be destroyed by government fiat or force. If someone wants to horde gold, they first have to acquire it. As they acquire and hold it, they're losing out in the short run generally as that gold is working for them.
All the gold standard buys you is less control.
Less control in what way? An ounce of gold today buys about the same thing that an ounce of gold did in 1800 and an ounce of gold in 0 AD. Gold tends to be stable, as currency should be, relative to consumer goods. Fiat paper currency always gets destroyed -- in every situation in history, fiat currency has bankrupted. The US dollar has only existed as fiat currency since 1913 (partial reserve banking creation), and was completely taken off of a reserve system in 1971 by Nixon. Our currency in 1800 compared to 1912 was nearly 1:1, from 1913 to now it is 20:1 -- $20 in 1913 is worth $1 today. In the past year the government has devalued our currency almost an additional 10% through excessive printing, how is this stable?
If the available interest rate of savings accounts is above the inflation rate, there is an incentive to save.
Yet the available interest rate is set by the same organization that prints the new paper currency! If interest rates were free market provided for, things might be different. Yet the same government that devalues our currency every week also sets the interest rate too long to instill a good savings rate.
I agree that bank regulation is to blame, but to describe a new set of regulations that provide for banks to make a profit on savings and to offer a competitive interest rate is beyond my limited knowledge of economics and monetary theory.
This is why I am a fan of private 100% reserve banking. Banks are meant to do two things: protect your real money (gold, silver, oxen, whatever), and offer you the chance to invest it safely in businesses they have researched and trust -- usually backed by assets. Today banks offer neither: your money devalues while they hold it, and they don't do a good job of investments (see the housing bubble and the stock market).
I have faith in Rothbard's words, and I live on a personal gold standard myself ( http://dadasays.blogspot.com/ ). My money is stable, and I don't fear stock market fluctuations, war, imperialism or a global loss of faith in the dollar. Is your future safe?
If government has destroyed any reason to save (and I tend to agree with this, mind you), then why do you save so much?
:)
Ahh, good catch there! I'll amend my statement to read "government has destroyed any reason to save federally issued dollars." I save in gold, silver and land -- mostly appreciating assets versus the federally issued currency.
What makes you think it won't happen again?
Primarily the web, honestly. In the past, I could accept some government oversight as the people had very little interaction with one another outside of their community. But now that we can share information about bad businesses instantly, I think there is less need for the use of force to govern businesses and individuals. Hell, the entire stock market can be taken apart and let shareholding be deregulated -- people can trade and exchange stocks and bonds through the web as well, in an organized chaos that lets everyone decide how they want their money best used.
In the long run, I think anyone who has faith in the current system is just being duped. As the country grows weaker day by day, and the dollar loses value in the global market, a great many people will wish they had listened. The stock market has barely grown 500% in the past 100 years once government's inflation has been taken into account. The banking industry is a wing of the fed, happily accepting new counterfeit dollars and using them to pad the pocketbooks of the bank owners. If you're happy to ignore this collusion and theft, that's fine with me, but I want a way to exit this system.
You offer some very valid advice -- if we were still living in 1910 or 1950 or maybe even 1970.
I think you MIGHT be able to win a debate that government was needed in some way back then, when communication was limited and people were not aware of the world around them. The Internet has replaced much of the need for government oversight, replaced instead with the ability for billions of consumers to oversee each other instantly and in an aggregated fashion.
I'm familiar with some company towns today, such as Bagdad, AZ which has a significantly higher standard of living than the rest of the state, and almost no poverty. That same corporation also owns Morenci, AZ at the other side of the state, with even higher income levels and incredibly low poverty rates. The education of the residents is excellent, I have visited both towns and I am amazed by the residents that live there.
Don't forget Irvine, CA, either, which is a company town to this day. Irvine is considered one of the safest towns in the country, with one of the best public schools as well. This is still a company town!
In my experience, I have visited about 15 company towns around the country, and all of them are amazing examples of corporate governance.
Add in the amazing instant communication abilities of the web, and I think we see fewer and fewer reasons to have federal governments -- I'd rather see us shut down the fed to a BARE minimum (merely to keep the States in line) and let the local communities decide how much taxation and regulation they need or desire, in line with their residents.
I've read about both. The post civil war South was destroyed by Lincoln's cronies. The Civil War (or what I call the War Between States) was created specifically by Lincoln to give his cronies government corporate welfare. It had nothing to do with slavery, and everything to do with the Republican platform of imperialism and corporate welfare.
The copper barons of Montana were not a corporation, they fully controlled the state, too. Henry H. Rogers was a philanthropist who gave money out of his fortunes to nearly 100 schools, and paid for the education of blacks and the poor. He was raised in a poor family, and initially earned his wealth through fair trade and competition. He did more good things than bad, and everything bad that he was alledged to have done was done through the force of government, not the cooperation of the free market.
Don't try to teach me your history, based on lies written by the winners. Try reading the real history of the times, and you'll see your facts are based on those very lies.
Contracts can be enforced in a private market without the force of law. If you sign a contract, you take out contract insurance through a private company. This company issues a "bond" against your signature, guaranteeing the other party that you'll follow through, and also offering you insurance against the other party running off. This happens all the time in the construction industry (I should know, I own a business that gets bonded on each project).
Beyond just getting contract insurance, we can also create new businesses that only work to issue feedback on an individual or a corporation, similar to eBay's feedback system. When you make a transaction with another party, you give them positive or negative feedback. Sure, someone can take their terrible negative feedback and start anew with another company, but would you trust a 30 year old with zero feedback? Neither would I.
The reality to me is that government does a poor job of protecting economies, markets and trade. In every situation I've seen and have experience with, government has done more damage to trade than any situation where they have helped.
People need to know that stock markets are not safe investments. They need to know that they're getting less information than the insiders. They need to understand that their investments are likely making more money for others, and that they should find better places to put their money.
In a free market, interest rates are free to go up and down. Banks that need money can offer better rates than those who have money. Also, in a free market with a fixed money supply (100% reserves) we'd see soft deflation, which is good for the economy -- it gives people reason to save, increasing the money supply to banks for loans to GOOD businesses, not junk ones.
Wow, we are so far apart from each other in beliefs that it would be hard to further the debate.
I've read all the books you use to support your side, would you mind reading just one free tiny e-book that covers mine? http://www.mises.org/money.asp This is Rothbard's basic book regarding money and what government has done to destroy the economy.
I am against big business as well because I believe big business grows out of abusing government's laws. I also believe these laws were written with this abuse in mind.
Government destroyed our currency by getting off of a 100% reserve system in 1913. It has destroyed any reason to save (the best way to create a strong economy is through savings, not public credit), and it has destroyed the ability for us to compete in the world market with our regulations and business controls.
Well we are letting them go wild in deregulation and we are experiencing things like all the telecoms merging back together again. They never learn.
The telecom industry has never been deregulated in any way -- it has only been re-regulated -- some regulations were ended, many more began. Don't believe for a minute that the industry is running in a free market, it is heavily regulated and subsidized.
Supply side economics doesn't work in every situation and we are having problems now due to it. The debt is one and the other is R&D.
BS. Debt has nothing to do with supply side economics -- public debt is a socialist trap created mostly out of fiat currency. Private debt gets worse once the inflationary cycle begins, creating easy money and low savings rates.
This is where more government intervention is needed and if AT&T was not split up the internet would not be here today for the public. Think about that one?
I ran a successful BBS for years. Before I even knew the Internet had existed, we BBS operators were already implemented a large scale network of BBSes using X.25 packet switching networks and other private communications systems. Splitting up the bells had nothing to do with the Internet, and the Internet has exploded specifically because of the lack of regulations covering it. The more it is regulated, the slower it will grow and adapt.
You're a big government supporter, I can accept that, and I even think you have a right to be one. I just want access to opt-out of all the programs. I'll be happy to not rely on medicare, social security, or any of the options government gives me. Send me a bill for my share of the roads and defense (not offense) and I'll happily pay them until I can find a way to replace them with private providers.
Yes, let them go wild. It will teach the average "investor" that there is no such thing as a free lunch. You should NEVER put your money into a business that you don't have faith in or trust. If you make it government's job to make people "tell the truth" you'll get lies covered by legal loopholes.
The problem starts with the Fed (Greenspan, Bernanke and their inflationary cycle) that makes money worthless over time so we seek to invest it to at least break even. The problem is made worse by the same inflationary cycle that makes our salaries go up slower than the inflationary cost of living increases (which go up because of the money printing). It goes downhill from there -- the SEC makes investors believe they're protected, which in a free market is a fallacy. You are only protected through contracts, not through law forcing people to act a certain way. Beyond contracts you protect yourself by doing business with people with a history (see eBay's feedback system).
This is all a mess, made worse by people who have faith in others. I have no faith in others except those who have proven their trustworthiness to me. This is why I only invest in businesses I have direct contact with.
I have absolutely zero dollars in publicly traded companies. I have no faith in the business of others -- in my own businesses I have so much "insider information" that I can't believe everyone else is a big enough sucker to trust these massive companies to tell the truth about everything.
That being said, I hate accountants. The average CPA is part of the problem in this country (CPAs as a group lobby Congress to make the tax code worse every year). Instead of requiring companies to do anything, how about telling people that they really shouldn't put their money anywhere but where they trust? I make between 20% and 50% on my various businesses, annually. Most stocks pay no dividend, so they actually make their owners no profit (except on sale, which is ridiculous as companies should pay profits).
The whole system is a mess, and its a mess because we keep requiring business to perform counter-productive to how a free market performs.
My father told me never write down anything you don't want anyone else to take and use as their own.
I hold to that belief today. Everything useful to me as a trade secret stays in my head.
Patents were intended to protect the desire to invent. The slippery slope of using government to protect anything rears its ugly head here, and it is obvious that patent laws can not work -- they'll always be corrupted, slowly buy surely, over the years. Rather than try to use "men with guns" to protect inventors, how about we level the playing field and require people to actually create items and find a way to market them before they're knocked off?
Patents are counter-freedom in every way. If you have an idea, make something. Sell that something. If someone finds a better way to make that something, then take their changes and make THOSE better. That's competition.
Some think that these situations are unintended consequences of laws that have "good" effects. Sarbanes-Oxley was intended, from the start, to be the ultimate way for governmentto control any corporation at will.
The law was initially meant to "fix" problems such as the Enron fiasco, but if you rewind just a few years, you see that most of these fiascos came directly out of trying to take advantage of loopholes in previous laws. The SEC colludes with the rest of the all powerful federal government to constantly keep non-preferred companies on their toes, while giving excessive power to the cronies. Sarbanes-Oxley will have the same effect.
The one light in Congress, Dr. Ron Paul, made an excellent note regarding Sarbanes-Oxley and the cost it will pass on to consumers. The Mises Institute also has a ton of great articles and blog posts regarding the horrors of this law.
It is time to realize that government is NOT good at regulating business, except from the point of view of the cronies. Bills like this will rarely be used for their original intent, and the un?-intended consequence in the long run is to see criminals made of innocents that had nothing to do with the law's purpose.
Instead of voting, I think we need to start pitching money in a hat to buy rope for those who violate their oath to uphold the Constitution.
The push for hardware based DRM is being financed by the distribution cartels -- the same people who use the force of copyright to earn a buck.
The push for better independent entertainment online may not be strong enough to topple the future DRM schemes, leading to an Internet where these broadcasts may not happen.
I'm anti-copyright in every situation. I strongly believe that artists can now find new ways to earn a living without the need to use government force to protect fictional property. I'm financing a studio in Chicago called No Copyright Studios ( soon to be at http://www.nocopyrightstudios.com/ ) later this year to try out new ways for musicians, podcasters, and artists in general to make money without copyright.
Playing live online is one of our ideas. We figure you can give away the mastered songs to get people to want to come to live shows. We also figure that bands can do fairly well with live acoustic performances online, or maybe even offering people who buy the band's official album a password to see the band practice in the studio, or record.
Artists like the one mentioned are finding new ways to make a living without forcing people to follow ancient laws. In your job, do you get residual payments for past work? Generally not. Neither should artists. Income to me means work -- repeated work over time. If you're lucky enough to produce something that millions want, you should have the drive to go and perform live for them to make your living. Making a 20 cent CD and thinking that the law protects your right to charge $15 per piece for it is ridiculous -- find new ways to sell that CD for $15 by offering value added services and products with every purchase.
My big fear, though, is that we'll see the Internet become cartel-controlled, making it hard or impossible for indy media to break into the system. Right now we have torrents and various new media websites, but how long will that last if Internet 3.0 is back in the hands of those who have abused the power of copyright for decades and decades?
I've had excellent service with them, including a billing foul up on MY end recently. I use one of their resellers (HostingDude) because I'm cheap. I'm considering setting up my own server though with some other provider, maybe we should look into getting a few slashdot users with "blog" style sites to throw in together...
Great advice about U-Haul. I'd rather buy my own box truck and sell it after a week than deal with those bozos ever again (this is after about 4 bad situations).
I prefer to pay professionals a professional rate for moving. When I moved out of my condo and my broad moved out of her apartment, we hired professionals to hit both our pads as well as both our storage sheds, and move everything to our house. They did an amazing job, but for the thousands I spent I'm assuming most people wouldn't have bothered. I think I saved about 100 hours of packing and unpacking (they did it ALL), so I figure I ended up way ahead and stress free.
FYI, your website doesn't work. Parked?
Here is a problem for most software companies, and one reason I would never invest in a publicly traded software company. It is also the prime reason that I sold off my portion of a private software company I had owned.
The problem? Obsolescence.
Software seems to be obsolete almost immediately after it is released. If a better product doesn't replace it, the product itself contains bugs that require a new release or at least a patch. The difficulty in pricing software is figuring out what percentage of the sale profit needs to be held back to cover long term support (updates and customer service).
One way developers are recouping the expense of upgrades is by offering yearly support subscriptions, but these are better suited for corporations who desire a fixed budget. For the home user, I'm betting most prefer to buy a program once and desire a lifetime of upgrades. Recently I complained (to myself) about needing to rebuy a program that had been updated -- until I realized I hadn't bought a version from the company for 4 years!
The end result is for the company to find others willing to pay for the upgrades. Users who desire something at a discount should be willing to at least admit that they're also part of the problem -- they tell the developers that they'll buy a product at a certain price, and they give the developers reason for finding ways to pay for that product in the long haul.
In all the software I use (a ton of it between my businesses, my home, my side projects, my church congregation tech junk, and my family needs), very rarely does an upgrade work against me. In fact, I'd say 95% of upgrades I've performed in the past 10 years made me more efficient, even if they incorporated certain things I didn't like.
If software wants to do something you don't want it to do, block it with your firewall. For me, that's the only necessary step.
The final part of the quote: "They're not always better for the consumer" needs to be looked at differently. Updates that allow the developer to continue updating and supporting the software ARE good for the consumer, just maybe not in the "now" but in the long run. The time preference of the developer might be different than the consumer, but they have to be similar or the developer won't last.
Proper optimization of how data is transported in both directions is very important. Analyzing the connection as well as the route to the destination can probably be performed by software or hardware. Once the connection is analyzed, I'm sure there are real time changes that can be performed to better decrease latency and overall lag.
The question is why perform it in hardware rather than software?
Free online storage from a company that can't keep their documents safe from prying eyes -- including the document that eludes to the fact that they're offering free online storage.
Whoops.
I'm not sure it is unwise to ask others for what questions to ask the employer as well as gain some knowledge in the caveats of a move.
From what I can tell, there is actually a decent number of people on slashdot who have been in similar situations and would be happy to share the positives and negatives.
One thing that they might not be to open about (or even aware of) is the cost of living differences. Living on the east coast with the salary you're making might make you feel wealthy. Moving to the west coast with the same salary might put you in the poor house.
Be aware of the cost of living differences between two markets (even within the same metropolis on occasion!).