it's free because it operates without being hampered by rules and regulations
the whole law enforcement issue faces all players in a black market equally
also, the government doesn't affect the operation of a black market... money, information, products and services still change hands (otherwise the market wouldn't be able to operate at all)
the government can make operating a black market more difficult, but at the end of the day law enforcement will always be behind as black market operators come up with newer and more clever ways to keep their freedom
just because the government is trying to stop a black market doesn't mean there isn't free flow of information
you use the word "coercion" in a way that seems to imply that a black market is at a disadvantage because they are unable to operate out in the open. i would argue that the government is at a disadvantage as it constantly attempts to keep up with black market operations. governments are being coerced into spending more money in trying to hamper these markets. the markets that are coerced aren't black markets... just because they don't operate in the open doesn't mean they are at any disadvantage or that they have difficulties operating. in fact it is businesses that operate out in the open in accordance with the law that are coerced by government. there will always be risk in capitalist business, either from making no profit because the government takes it all, or making bigger profits than would otherwise be possible but getting caught by the government. black markets may not be as free to advertise their existence, but the only purpose of advertising is to increase customers (otherwise the overhead cost wouldn't be worth it), and black market operators still turn a profit so there are other ways to get customers. they obviously just have to be a little smarter and think outside the box compared to their out in the open business counterparts. running a business has its difficulties regardless of government involvement or not, but running a business without government taking huge chunks of revenue must have its benefits because a lot of people do it (illegal dvd sales for example).
i may have misunderstood your previous comment about coercion; i thought you were talking about capitalism in general. but in any case i don't think black markets are any more coerced by government than legal markets. worse if you want to consider the need to operate out of the government radar as being coercion, its no worse just different. as far as practical operation of a business, i doubt there is much of a difference between a business in the black market and in legal market. in fact quite often black markets operate in the open (such as at physical marketplaces). the "black" aspect is in many cases limited to not disclosing anything about the business to the government, which is probably a lot easier than submitted form after form to satisfy the bureaucrasies.
that does happen (commonly called mafia or the mob) but not often, because businesses who operate like that still need to be seen as avoiding breaking criminal laws that have nothing to do with the free market
trademarks and patents only help big companies become more monopolistic... without them there would be a lot more smaller companies selling similar things and the wealth would be more distributed
government does have a purpose, as stated in the constitution, which is (broadly) mostly in the areas of national defense and preserving order (crime prevention/prosecution) and general welfare (health standards, etc). remember that there are also different levels of government, and most of the problems in the united states are due to the federal government. if a state government decided to meddle in markets, the affected markets would at least have the option to move interstate (but remain in the national economy)... when the federal government meddles in markets, companies and investors have no choice but to go offshore (and they are, in droves).
but capitalism isn't utopia... it happens every day
look at any number of industries where the government plays its smallest role... local small businesses
even smartphones get cheaper as competition swells, despite attempts to corrupt that industry using the government patent office
even in china there is capitalism going on, and many would argue that there is more capitalism in china at the moment than there is in america
capitalism isn't a myth or rocket science.... its just letting business do its thing without the government fucking it up. government can still meddle in capitalism and not affect it too much (if it taxes all businesses the same way for example), but when it offers long term contracts, subsidies and bailouts, that's when capitalism loses out.
there is still capitalism going on in america, but as i implied in my original post it is under threat by ever increasing attempts by government to take control.
Black markets are almost tautologically heavily influenced by the government, given that law enforcement agencies actively try to stop it
law enforcement TRIES to stop it (and almost always fails because when they catch one player another joins in to take its place), and the markets do everything they can to hide, but the aim of any free market is freedom from government intervention and black markets are at the forefront of that. they shouldn't have to hide... the government should just take a hint and fuck off out of the way and let the economy do its thing, but in the absense of government sanity, going underground is the only option... it has nothing to do with being illegal; the government makes anything it can't control illegal regardless of its affect on the nation
you can never have things like free flow of information and freedom from coercion
why don't you take off your tin foil hat and take a look around. people are still running small businesses and making a profit. it is very difficult, but there is currently (however uncertain the future is) opportunity for someone to start a new business selling products or services and making a profit in exchange for their risk... that is basically capitalism in its most basic practical sense.
free markets exist, and they can flourish again. the government wasn't always as big as it is now. the economic powerhouse that the united states has been borrowing against for the last 40 years was built this way. it is the destruction of the value of the currency (over 90% since fiat introduction in '71) and uncontrolled government spending and intervention that is killing the nation and draining the economy, not businesses trying to make a buck and feed the economy.
capitalism that you wave off as utopian is real and achievable, and the communism that all the liberal left wing progressives want is a utopian fallacy that has and never will work in practice
libertarians and small government advocates aren't liked much by the masses because the masses depend on big government for their welfare checks, food stamps and healthcare, and they think if it means giving up freedoms that are enshrined in the constitution then so be it. they either choose to ignore or are completely unaware of how this road ends; in authoritarian regimes. maybe authoritarian regimes aren't all that bad, but if it were me i would personally prefer freedom over dependence-driven slavery anyday.
i live in australia, so i'm watching all this unfold on 'reality tv', and while i'm worried about the ripple effects of america's fall from grace, i'm hopeful that the australian government is learning from these mistakes.
Ah, sure, in true capitalism things would be much better because (insert description of utopian capitalism). And probably no true Scotsman [wikipedia.org] lives in a society that's not truly capitalist.
so you're saying that its unlikely that we'll ever have a free market where the government is able to keep its grubby mitts out... probably true, but not impossible or utopian (just look at black/illegal markets for example)
A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions.
regarding monopolies... without the government tit companies would have a lot of difficulty monopolizing any market, even if a product was a must have other companies would rip it off
smartphones and tablets are two products that seem to have so far avoided government contamination to a large degree, and while there are big companies playing off each other, there is stiff competition (as there should be). again the huge size of these companies has come about because of government intervention, not because of lack of market competition.
another example is linux; even with microsoft monopolization and government intervention, linux has infiltrated and succeeded in the embedded, mobile and server markets.
the free market can be corrupted by a number of influences, but by far the most harmful is big government regulation, bailouts, subsidies and long term contracts. i can understand that there is good intention in some regulatory ideas, but there are often unintended adverse consequences that outweigh any supposed benefits
when markets become too corrupted by government intervention, black markets often flourish as they become more free and competitive
government needs to be there to keep the playing field level
not really. huge companies like microsoft and boeing tend to become monopolistic because they secure access to the government tit. if you look at most of the biggest companies in america, most if not all have big government contracts that keep them going.
consumers are the best judge of value. if the government stopped with the contracts and got out of the way, these big companies would have to compete on a level playing field.
it works to get laws passed that benefit it at the expense of its competitors (or its buyers)
yep, except that's when it starts becoming not so much capitalism
if a company can go to a politician and buy its way into getting legislation passed that benefits it over its competitors, then the government has become too big and corrupt that it has leverage and power to sell... governments should never get big enough to have leverage over markets because that leverage is power and power can always be bought and sold
its not the fault of the company... if government power wasn't available to be bought, there would be no problem
you're not going to entice kids to do anything with maths full stop
any teacher with a knack for making maths more fun is a gem worth keeping
if it involves programming, running around the schoolyard measuring things, or whatever... good on them
many teachers are unappreciated, often underpaid and work their asses off, but there are also too many schools full of teachers just doing their job and not much else
anyone who isn't a teacher or a parent who tries to interfere with how kids learn should just fuck off
let's "quantatively ease" the world population by creating more left wing liberal progressive retards ad infinitum... after all, ignorance is bliss right?
the system that's dying in the united states is not capitalism
because capitalism is where the government stays out of the way and stops fucking the economy up more (an economy supported by government is closer to communism than capitalism)
in the 50's, the top rate was around 90% and the rich did not suffer
no actually it was because NOBODY paid that rate because there were so many loopholes and deductioins back then. nowadays there are apparently less deductions, but the rich will always find them.
Those at the top of the heap hoard the money instead of spending it
i would love to see any justification for this... since the 50's the US dollar has lost more than 90% of its value (relative to the gold-backed dollar prior to '71), so anyone hoarding money over the past 40 years have basically been taxed in a sense 90% of its value due to inflation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar#Value rich people don't hoard, they invest, and in the last 40 years there has been significant investment in tech companies (during the invention and boom of computers and the internet), but also a lot of overseas investment (probably to avoid paying high taxes).
They are the only ones who can afford to pay more
that is the dumbest excuse for taxing the rich i've ever heard (and i've heard it before). i don't know what your income is, but i'm pretty sure it would be more than many others get... what would you think if people poorer than you said that you should pay more in taxes than you already do now simply because they don't have enough money? pretty rediculous. 'nuff said.
rich people will only pay a certain amount of tax regardless of what the rate is, because there are always ways to avoid paying. if you don't try taxing the rich into oblivion (by that i mean 90%+ tax rate), how much revenue do you think you're going to get? what will a 3-4% tax hike on the rich get you? basically nothing because the rich will adjust their incomes to suit.
in case you're not aware obama doesn't really want to target the rich because that would be targeting himself so he merely calls whatever scheme he comes up with a "tax hike for the rich" to make it appeal more to the middle class voters, but his schemes really affect the middle class more than the rich (such as the fiscal cliff deal). if obama really wanted to target the rich he would outlaw shifting money through offshore tax havens and close all the loopholes and eliminate deductions. let me assure you that will NEVER happen, so regardless of what the supposed tax rate is, the rich will never pay it, so the end result is indifferent.
the top tax rate didn't matter
you're right, and it still doesn't matter because as long as there are tax havens, loopholes and deductions, the rich will never pay that rate no matter what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
they need to build a vibrator into the adaptor... then they'll sell more of them
their god is dead
ultra hdmi
it's free because it operates without being hampered by rules and regulations
the whole law enforcement issue faces all players in a black market equally
also, the government doesn't affect the operation of a black market... money, information, products and services still change hands (otherwise the market wouldn't be able to operate at all)
the government can make operating a black market more difficult, but at the end of the day law enforcement will always be behind as black market operators come up with newer and more clever ways to keep their freedom
just because the government is trying to stop a black market doesn't mean there isn't free flow of information
you use the word "coercion" in a way that seems to imply that a black market is at a disadvantage because they are unable to operate out in the open. i would argue that the government is at a disadvantage as it constantly attempts to keep up with black market operations. governments are being coerced into spending more money in trying to hamper these markets. the markets that are coerced aren't black markets... just because they don't operate in the open doesn't mean they are at any disadvantage or that they have difficulties operating. in fact it is businesses that operate out in the open in accordance with the law that are coerced by government. there will always be risk in capitalist business, either from making no profit because the government takes it all, or making bigger profits than would otherwise be possible but getting caught by the government. black markets may not be as free to advertise their existence, but the only purpose of advertising is to increase customers (otherwise the overhead cost wouldn't be worth it), and black market operators still turn a profit so there are other ways to get customers. they obviously just have to be a little smarter and think outside the box compared to their out in the open business counterparts. running a business has its difficulties regardless of government involvement or not, but running a business without government taking huge chunks of revenue must have its benefits because a lot of people do it (illegal dvd sales for example).
i may have misunderstood your previous comment about coercion; i thought you were talking about capitalism in general. but in any case i don't think black markets are any more coerced by government than legal markets. worse if you want to consider the need to operate out of the government radar as being coercion, its no worse just different. as far as practical operation of a business, i doubt there is much of a difference between a business in the black market and in legal market. in fact quite often black markets operate in the open (such as at physical marketplaces). the "black" aspect is in many cases limited to not disclosing anything about the business to the government, which is probably a lot easier than submitted form after form to satisfy the bureaucrasies.
that does happen (commonly called mafia or the mob) but not often, because businesses who operate like that still need to be seen as avoiding breaking criminal laws that have nothing to do with the free market
trademarks and patents only help big companies become more monopolistic... without them there would be a lot more smaller companies selling similar things and the wealth would be more distributed
government does have a purpose, as stated in the constitution, which is (broadly) mostly in the areas of national defense and preserving order (crime prevention/prosecution) and general welfare (health standards, etc). remember that there are also different levels of government, and most of the problems in the united states are due to the federal government. if a state government decided to meddle in markets, the affected markets would at least have the option to move interstate (but remain in the national economy)... when the federal government meddles in markets, companies and investors have no choice but to go offshore (and they are, in droves).
you probably won't look for it, so here's something to get you started...
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-purpose-us-government-per-constitution-283413.html
in a nutshell: defense, freedom, welfare, order
the united states constitution clearly states what the role of the united states federal government is... maybe you should take a look at it
but capitalism isn't utopia... it happens every day
look at any number of industries where the government plays its smallest role... local small businesses
even smartphones get cheaper as competition swells, despite attempts to corrupt that industry using the government patent office
even in china there is capitalism going on, and many would argue that there is more capitalism in china at the moment than there is in america
capitalism isn't a myth or rocket science.... its just letting business do its thing without the government fucking it up. government can still meddle in capitalism and not affect it too much (if it taxes all businesses the same way for example), but when it offers long term contracts, subsidies and bailouts, that's when capitalism loses out.
there is still capitalism going on in america, but as i implied in my original post it is under threat by ever increasing attempts by government to take control.
Black markets are almost tautologically heavily influenced by the government, given that law enforcement agencies actively try to stop it
law enforcement TRIES to stop it (and almost always fails because when they catch one player another joins in to take its place), and the markets do everything they can to hide, but the aim of any free market is freedom from government intervention and black markets are at the forefront of that. they shouldn't have to hide... the government should just take a hint and fuck off out of the way and let the economy do its thing, but in the absense of government sanity, going underground is the only option... it has nothing to do with being illegal; the government makes anything it can't control illegal regardless of its affect on the nation
you can never have things like free flow of information and freedom from coercion
why don't you take off your tin foil hat and take a look around. people are still running small businesses and making a profit. it is very difficult, but there is currently (however uncertain the future is) opportunity for someone to start a new business selling products or services and making a profit in exchange for their risk... that is basically capitalism in its most basic practical sense.
free markets exist, and they can flourish again. the government wasn't always as big as it is now. the economic powerhouse that the united states has been borrowing against for the last 40 years was built this way. it is the destruction of the value of the currency (over 90% since fiat introduction in '71) and uncontrolled government spending and intervention that is killing the nation and draining the economy, not businesses trying to make a buck and feed the economy.
capitalism that you wave off as utopian is real and achievable, and the communism that all the liberal left wing progressives want is a utopian fallacy that has and never will work in practice
libertarians and small government advocates aren't liked much by the masses because the masses depend on big government for their welfare checks, food stamps and healthcare, and they think if it means giving up freedoms that are enshrined in the constitution then so be it. they either choose to ignore or are completely unaware of how this road ends; in authoritarian regimes. maybe authoritarian regimes aren't all that bad, but if it were me i would personally prefer freedom over dependence-driven slavery anyday.
i live in australia, so i'm watching all this unfold on 'reality tv', and while i'm worried about the ripple effects of america's fall from grace, i'm hopeful that the australian government is learning from these mistakes.
...so i tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time.
dit dit dit dah dah dah dit dit
capitalism is a name invented by 19th Century socialists to describe the system they opposed
riiiiiiight.... whatever dude
i didn't imply abolishing the government altogether (that would be anarchy)... government has a role to play, just not in the free market
dunno what you're smoking but it must be some good shit
the free market is slower merely because it pays for itself
government funded R&D can be great, but the bills rack up and eventually everyone pays
are the cool things you mentioned worth the prolonged economic depression that america is rapidly headed towards?
keynesian retards think the fed can keep creating money out of thin air without consequence... they are mistaken
when you are spending china's hard earned wealth, you will eventually pay one way or another
Ah, sure, in true capitalism things would be much better because (insert description of utopian capitalism). And probably no true Scotsman [wikipedia.org] lives in a society that's not truly capitalist.
so you're saying that its unlikely that we'll ever have a free market where the government is able to keep its grubby mitts out... probably true, but not impossible or utopian (just look at black/illegal markets for example)
A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions.
now who's living in utopia?
regarding monopolies... without the government tit companies would have a lot of difficulty monopolizing any market, even if a product was a must have other companies would rip it off
smartphones and tablets are two products that seem to have so far avoided government contamination to a large degree, and while there are big companies playing off each other, there is stiff competition (as there should be). again the huge size of these companies has come about because of government intervention, not because of lack of market competition.
another example is linux; even with microsoft monopolization and government intervention, linux has infiltrated and succeeded in the embedded, mobile and server markets.
the free market can be corrupted by a number of influences, but by far the most harmful is big government regulation, bailouts, subsidies and long term contracts.
i can understand that there is good intention in some regulatory ideas, but there are often unintended adverse consequences that outweigh any supposed benefits
when markets become too corrupted by government intervention, black markets often flourish as they become more free and competitive
i personally like the idea of non-profit companies (operated like normal companies)
you need startup capital, but there are ways to raise it other than with stock/shares (loans, vc, grants for example)
with a non-profit you take the shareholder out of the picture, so those who benefit are limited to employees and customers
it doesn't matter whether the companies don't qualify for non-profit tax breaks or not
just my 2 cents
government needs to be there to keep the playing field level
not really. huge companies like microsoft and boeing tend to become monopolistic because they secure access to the government tit. if you look at most of the biggest companies in america, most if not all have big government contracts that keep them going.
consumers are the best judge of value. if the government stopped with the contracts and got out of the way, these big companies would have to compete on a level playing field.
it works to get laws passed that benefit it at the expense of its competitors (or its buyers)
yep, except that's when it starts becoming not so much capitalism
if a company can go to a politician and buy its way into getting legislation passed that benefits it over its competitors, then the government has become too big and corrupt that it has leverage and power to sell... governments should never get big enough to have leverage over markets because that leverage is power and power can always be bought and sold
its not the fault of the company... if government power wasn't available to be bought, there would be no problem
small governments tend to have less power to sell
there are plenty of jobs that don't need any higher learning than that... such as politicians for example
you're not going to entice kids to do anything with maths full stop
any teacher with a knack for making maths more fun is a gem worth keeping
if it involves programming, running around the schoolyard measuring things, or whatever... good on them
many teachers are unappreciated, often underpaid and work their asses off, but there are also too many schools full of teachers just doing their job and not much else
anyone who isn't a teacher or a parent who tries to interfere with how kids learn should just fuck off
There is only one solution: communism!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet
contradiction much?
let's "quantatively ease" the world population by creating more left wing liberal progressive retards ad infinitum... after all, ignorance is bliss right?
the system that's dying in the united states is not capitalism
because capitalism is where the government stays out of the way and stops fucking the economy up more (an economy supported by government is closer to communism than capitalism)
"capitalist state" is an oxymoron
wireless p2p darknets that are completely independent of isps, dns, etc.
So balance is not equal hence imbalance must be equal
that's like saying that light is not bright hence dark must be bright
light can be bright, but it doesn't have to be
balance can be equal, but it doesn't have to be
in the 50's, the top rate was around 90% and the rich did not suffer
no actually it was because NOBODY paid that rate because there were so many loopholes and deductioins back then. nowadays there are apparently less deductions, but the rich will always find them.
Those at the top of the heap hoard the money instead of spending it
i would love to see any justification for this... since the 50's the US dollar has lost more than 90% of its value (relative to the gold-backed dollar prior to '71), so anyone hoarding money over the past 40 years have basically been taxed in a sense 90% of its value due to inflation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar#Value
rich people don't hoard, they invest, and in the last 40 years there has been significant investment in tech companies (during the invention and boom of computers and the internet), but also a lot of overseas investment (probably to avoid paying high taxes).
They are the only ones who can afford to pay more
that is the dumbest excuse for taxing the rich i've ever heard (and i've heard it before). i don't know what your income is, but i'm pretty sure it would be more than many others get... what would you think if people poorer than you said that you should pay more in taxes than you already do now simply because they don't have enough money?
pretty rediculous. 'nuff said.
rich people will only pay a certain amount of tax regardless of what the rate is, because there are always ways to avoid paying. if you don't try taxing the rich into oblivion (by that i mean 90%+ tax rate), how much revenue do you think you're going to get? what will a 3-4% tax hike on the rich get you? basically nothing because the rich will adjust their incomes to suit.
in case you're not aware obama doesn't really want to target the rich because that would be targeting himself so he merely calls whatever scheme he comes up with a "tax hike for the rich" to make it appeal more to the middle class voters, but his schemes really affect the middle class more than the rich (such as the fiscal cliff deal). if obama really wanted to target the rich he would outlaw shifting money through offshore tax havens and close all the loopholes and eliminate deductions. let me assure you that will NEVER happen, so regardless of what the supposed tax rate is, the rich will never pay it, so the end result is indifferent.
the top tax rate didn't matter
you're right, and it still doesn't matter because as long as there are tax havens, loopholes and deductions, the rich will never pay that rate no matter what it is.
With a country trillions in debt, you act like Sim City wasn't modeled after the real world. Things are no different here.
um, i can't tell if you're being funny, but that was kinda the point of my original post (that nj was running out of money)