I'm not suggesting government needs to "do" anything in terms of inserting themselves into the decision where people choose to live, which is what the government currently does and which costs taxpayers money and results in deaths and destruction. Rather, I'm saying that, in the absence of government, those high hazard areas would not get so densely populated (if you eliminated all the subsidies, catastrophe bailouts and other government mechanisms that permit people to live in these areas they otherwise couldn't afford to, yes: the areas would depopulate).
My points were really meant to convey two things, in response to yours:
- other entities do have a motivation under a free market to engage in things like geological surveys and early alert systems; and
- the government's current involvement in these things extends to programs which actively encourage people to put themselves in harm's way.
I find it odd that the government should employ scientists to determine a region geologically dangerous, and instead of saying, "we very strongly recommend you do not live here, and if you do, we will not impose upon others to pay for the consequences of that decision", they say, "the market will not permit you to live here, therefore we will subsidize your decision to live here, and if anything goes wrong, we will further get your more prudent neighbors in other parts of the country to pay for any resultant damage".
Really, your second sentence is spot on: is there a compelling reason a federal government should involve itself in any way in terms of where people choose to live?
It isn't "magic", it is the alignment of interests and competitive pressures (read: choice) which in most cases results in more efficiencies. If something is non-profitable, then either efficiencies will be discovered which make it possible to extract a profit, or capital will look elsewhere for opportunity, because the people do not deem the benefits worth the cost.
If something is "unprofitable", it means that the people refuse to pay the cost for something. By suggesting "government" should provide this, you are saying you refuse to pay the cost for that thing unless your neighbors pay some of the costs too, and those neighbors should be given no say in the matter. I've found that many of the same people who argue vociferously against any sort of private monopoly, on the basis that such a monopoly removes choice, efficiencies and freedom, at the same time argue vociferously in favor of "government", which is in all cases a total monopoly, with similar results (except that, in the case of government, they further enjoy coercive powers).
If the government were to produce all computers, do you think those computers would have the same features, at the same price, with the same reliability which your current free market computer has? Do you think it would be even better? If not, ask yourself why not: why wouldn't the government, as sole producer and provider of computers produce the best computer at the best price with the best reliability and with the highest margins? The reasons you come up with should help explain to you the source of the "magic" you refer to in your comment. That same "magic" is what's currently in the process of making space tourism affordable for you and me.
For starters, insurance companies which cover the perils of earthquake, floodings, etc are highly motivated to cultivate this data themselves, and create alert systems. As it is, there are companies who make a very fine return by packaging up government data and selling it to insurance companies, and their returns are subsidized because they are getting their data for "free", where here "free" means that you pay for their input costs via your taxes (companies like RMS who sell earthquake modelling systems to insurance companies). In fact, the entire idea for "fire departments" started with insurance companies, who had their own fire departments and would only respond to those fires affecting or threatening their customers (their customers were given plaques to hang outside their homes to inform the fire department they were covered).
In general, a lot of government policy surrounding catastrophe management actively encourages people to put themselves in harms way. For example, hurricane Katrina could not have done anywhere near the damage to property and lives in the absence of a government flood insurance pool, because no private market participants were willing to offer flood insurance in those regions where there was little doubt a significant flood/hurricane event would occur, and lenders are unwilling to lend to borrowers who cannot obtain insurance to protect the asset against which the loan is being made - the vast majority of people simply would be unable to live in ultra high risk areas. This was seen as a "problem", and "fixed" with a taxpayer funded federal flood insurance pool, which got the lenders lending and the people building houses and living in very dangerous areas. The same things goes on in California with earthquake insurance pools and regulations. And what does the government do when catastrophe strikes and cities are destroyed (as they are predicted to be by that same government's scientists)? They commit to use taxpayer money to rebuild in the very same spot! It is a "bailout", pure and simple.
I guess some people are comfortable with the idea that they (and their neighbors, who may not agree) should be forced to pay for the imprudent decision of another person who chooses to live in a high hazard zone, but it would be far less likely for a person to be able to live in those kinds of areas absent government intervention.
In short, there are a lot of very negative consequences, and more importantly, lives lost, because of government's role here. And while I can appreciate the self-interested appeal of forcing people (because it is not voluntary) by way of government to pay for research you find interesting or useful, it is hard (for me, at least) to describe that as "fair".
Good point, and I suspect most/. readers further realize that you can bypass the paywall by entering the site via google, including via rss feeds of stories in google reader.
I first started using Ubuntu around 5.10 and currently use 10.04 long-term release and won't "upgrade" for a few reasons:
- I haven't tried Unity, but from what I've seen of it, there seems to be a lack of options in customizing the desktop, and my desktop is currently customized to be exactly the way I want it to be. I realize I can spend time removing the things I don't want and then installing the things I do want, and then customizing all that stuff, but really I'm disinclined to expend a lot of effort just for the sake of getting back to the point I'm already at;
- as far as I can tell, the last reliable real-time version of Ubuntu is 10.04 using the 2.6.31rt kernel - I check every now and then if there's been any progress on real-time capability on the newer Ubuntu releases, and all I ever seem to come across are posts about later versions breaking real-time dependent programs (I would love to be proven wrong on this!);
- as someone else pointed out, I'm not really looking for a radical change with each upgrade. I have a release that works very well, that I've invested a lot of time customizing and configuring, and unless there are some advantages, I don't really see the point (ie having the menu bar on the left all of a sudden doesn't strike me as any sort of "improvement"; it just seems different for different's sake).
When I first moved over to Linux, I was very pleased with Ubuntu, but for me it seems to have jumped the shark somewhere around 8.04 or so. I think I'll likely try Mint when support for 10.04 stops.
By pushing upwards gently from the sides, slowly remove the tin foil hat and place on floor, because I think you have it on a little too tightly.
Now that you have it removed, and the logic and reason beams can fully penetrate what is certainly a thick skull, reconsider your arguments:
- your argument, convoluted as it is, seems to be that the government gave some entity $200bn in exchange for some promise, which was later broken. Simultaneously you are upset because you cannot convince a government mandated monopoly to agree to your offer of cash to string a line to your mommy's house. And your proposed solution is to increase government involvement. I realize the foil hat was interfering with the operation of the irony meter I previously suggested you employ, but perhaps now that the hat is removed it will function in its routine fashion. Your problem, in case you still are incapable of understanding it, is that you are constrained by government from operating in a free market. The government put the company in the position whereby they can laugh you off at your offer of $3,500 to string that line, because absent a monopoly, there would likely be companies lined up to take your money, if there was profit in it (which there may or may not be - it could still be the case that you are simply offering them too little, which is too bad for you, but doesn't equate to the free market failing, because the successful operation of the free market is not defined by you getting everything you want at a price you consider "fair").
- to elaborate on that last bit, just because you want, for example, a nice shiny new BMW but the evil BMW people won't sell it to you for $2,000 doesn't mean the market is failing and BMW should be nationalized because you, in your seemingly permanent petulance, don't feel like paying what someone is offering to sell you something for. Of course, in the question at hand, you don't have the choice of going to the used car dealership and buying a cheap alternative, because the government, so beloved to you, has made that impossible, by granting a monopoly.
- who are these "corp masters" you speak of? Who is it you think I answer to (and make sure the foil hat is completely removed before replying, please)? Is anyone who points out the ridiculous contradictions in your postings controlled by "corp masters"? I think you'd be surprised if you knew how wrong you were on this point, too.
- when you say (and note here how I haven't used the caps lock key), "lesser of two evils" you're quite right: a government-mandated monopoly and a government "nationalized" entity certainly are both evil. You are missing the third option: free choice for everyone involved. I certainly realize freedom, and choice, aren't currently favored in the US, but you should explore the consequences of such a system in a more sophisticated, less reactionary, considerably more intelligent fashion, now that the foil hat is removed.
- "Study afer study blah blah blah" is a nice argument in favor of the ends justifying the means, just like bailouts for banks are necessary because the consequences would be worse, according to the propaganda of your beloved government, which you seem to swallow on a wholesale basis. But I would encourage you to explore, in an intellectually honest fashion (ie breathe deeply, keep the foil hat on the ground, let the logic and reason beams penetrate your skull unimpeded) instances whereby government has "nationalized" industries, in your country and many others throughout the world. The outcome will never be as you imagine it, and will differ substantially and materially from your utopian vision.
Now, breathe deeply and try to relax a bit: I'm sure your posts make you feel like a "big man", but your impotent vitriol is actually making you appear rather small and foolish.
I would think that if you have people whose job it is to push keys, the results of those key pushes being missiles firing and possibly killing other humans, one would insist on logging those key strokes:
Officer: "The drone you're operating just launched a missile into a school yard and killed 30 children! What did you do?"
Drone operator: "I dunno. I was pushing some keys and, well, it just kinda happened."
Officer: "Which keys did you push?"
Drone operator: "I'm not sure. I was kinda distracted eating a donut. You know how it is when you're eating a donut: you really want to focus in on it."
Officer: "Hmmm. OK. Back to work. Got any more of those donuts?"
Thanks - I'm enjoying your amusing argument, sincerely: "its just one government granted monopoly after another" is your argument in favor of a single government monopoly ("We should NATIONALIZE THE LINES" he says, eyes blazing, spittle flying from his mouth, heart pounding, caps lock key intermittently activating)?!?
Buy an irony meter and then re-read your posts. Then get some sleep. Maybe drink some coffee. Count to ten. Breathe deeply. And, most importantly: relax, because there are enough people as confused as you that you may just get your wish: government control of all the things which disturb you. If you're curious as to how that turns out, there's plenty of prior experiments with state control of markets, all with poor results for people just like you.
I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to respond anyway.
Virtually all of the "utility" type companies have a business model that is predicated upon the market not being free and being tilted in their favor by the government, with the usual undesirable results for consumers (ie pay more; get less). When the towns decided to do it themselves, it posed a threat to these companies, because it would reveal just how effiently is could be done (though not as efficiently as a private company in a truly free market), to the benefit of customers (which is also a point about accountability: the towns have a base to which they are directly accountable that is smaller than, say, a state or federal government, or a large corporation operating under govenment endorsed beneficial (to the corporation, that is) market constraints). Naturally, the companies prefer to avoid the public discovering just how much they are being gouged by the governmentally instituted oligopolies these companies enjoy, and these same companies get outsized margins they've grown accustomed to in dense areas, while the margins in less dense areas do not compare favorably.
It's still not right for a city to do it, though, because in all instances whereby any government entity undertakes these projects, it is done so with a gun to the people's heads (ie the only choice you have is to pay, by way of taxes, to support such things or go to jail). Neither scenario describes a free market.
So, there was a service available at a price you didn't like, and you want others to pay for it? The fact a price is higher than you may like isn't an indication a free market has failed (although what you seem to be describing sounds more like a government mandated monopoly, the kind you later argue in favor of). You're making my argument. You complain about duopolies and suggest the solution is a monopoly, of the government variety? What you actually seem to be railing against, in a rather convoluted way, is a lack of a free market. And what "natural monopolies" are you referring to?
"Nationalizing" anything is the surest way to get the worst quality at the highest price.
"The capital costs of [insert government pet project of the day] can be prohibitive. The monopoly guarantee [or subsidy or bail out] allows [government chosen favored entity to profit]." FTFY.
This is always a ridiculous argument. Capital takes risk in hopes of reward. What you're actually saying is that no private capital considers the potential reward worth the risk to the capital, therefore it is tay payers who should bear the risk, in the form of government forced monopolies (ie govenment taking away your right to a free choice) in this case. The government in these instances decides to forcibly take a little out of the pocket of everyone to achieve a goal they think is desirable, but which no private investor (or group of investors) considers to be a good idea.
This is the same brand of reasoning that supports bailouts for private investors at tax payer expense, whether that's bank bail outs or sovereign bail outs, whereby capital is put at risk, that risk turns out to be realized, and the government argues tay payers should foot the bill because the losses to investors would be "prohibitive". Nonsense, all of it.
At root, the people who live in the sticks want a service but are not prepared to pay what it would cost for that service. The also choose not to move to areas where the service is available at a cost they are willing to pay. So the solution is to forcibly take from the rest of the people so some very small group of people have the services of their choosing at a price below what that services costs because they voluntarily live in areas that don't enjoy the services of their liking? It's this kind of thinking, couched as it usually is in co-opted words liked "fair" and "equal" (which actually are code for "unfair to the vast majority" and "anything but equal"), so mistakenly taken to be accepted wisdom these days, that's at the root of things like a government debts and deficits. These programs can all be summarized as "Some very small group of people want something for nothing and they expect you to pay for it".
I don't think you could burn it more quickly than they're printing it from thin air!:)
Interesting point tho. If I ran a bank, and if the government was giving me money for free by way of an effective zero percent lending rate, I think I'd take as much as I could get, and sit on it (by way of investing in Treasury Bonds) until interest rates went up. I'm of the mind that the interest rate is way too low to stimulate any meaningful economic activity, because a low interest rate stimulates demand for loans (which already exists) while a high interest rate stimulates supply of loans (or, more properly, the spread between borrowing and lending costs, however they're sitting on money which they got for zero effective interest). It doesn't seem to me that the problem is not enough people wishing to borrow - far from it! The problem is not enough people willing to lend. Give them an attractive spread between what they can lend money for versus what they paid for it, and it seems to me it would come back into circulation.
In all cases, though, government, or central banks with obfuscated dealings, shouldn't be the ones manipulating the interest rate - that's something the market can do quite efficiently and with fewer side effects.
Sorry for the delay - getting my car ready for sale...
I haven't had time to dig up the direct stats, but will later today - but it isn't speculation on my part. Here's at least some data: between 2001 and Sept 2007, over $350 billion worth of credit card debt was transferred to home equity loans (which, interestingly, gets the borrower a tax break, because mortgage interest in the US is deductible). That's according to the Rochester Institute of Technology, altho I could only find it quoted, not the direct data yet. Home equity loans rose from $153 billion in 1990 to $317 billion in 1998 http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/812_estimated_home_equity_debt_outstanding_by.html - I'll find data that takes us up to 2011. See too this link: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ALSREACB?cid=100 courtesy the St. Louis Fed, for loans secured by real estate - obviously this doesn't distinguish between mortgages and home equity loans, but it serves to give you a sense of the trending leading up to the economic downturn.
Sorry for not being more thorough - lots on the go at the moment!
The current level of demand is likely to be close to the "new normal", because the level of demand that previously existed was predicated largely upon homeowners withdrawing equity from their homes, which itself was predicated upon house prices always rising, which itself was predicated upon the federal government backstopping mortgages via Fannie and Freddie, for politically-motivated purposes (ie the federal government's odd notion that one of its jobs is to facilitate home ownership, and to particularly dictate that less qualified applicants should have their mortgage applications accepted, with defaults paid by the taxpayer, and both parties are guilty of this).
The current problem is the continuing notion that the demonstrably unsustainable level of demand must be returned to by getting housing prices to rise again via sustained low interest rates. It's dumb luck that the EU is having such problems with Greece et al that currency is fleeing to the US dollar despite the US dollar's inherent devaluation (hidden, as it is, by the influx of capital from the EU).
But taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people (that happen to be more favorable to your view of the world) by way of a massive bureaucracy is particularly inefficient. The current tax revenues exist to support the 1 in 7 people in the US who work directly for government of one level or another (which is higher than Spain, Germany, Italy, France and Portugal, and just behind Greece, which is just above 1 in 5). The fundamental and structural part of the problem is there are too many people working for government (requiring, of course, tax dollars to pay for them) and that number consistently grows faster than inflation or the economy. At some point that number simply becomes unsustainable (which Portugal and Italy are learning and which Greece already has learned). It's like Social Security: when it was established, there were 30 workers paying for each retiree; currently it's 3 workers to each retiree, and getting close to 2 workers to each retiree. It cannot be sustained long term.
The other fundamental and structural problem is that government borrowing is massively crowding out investment in the private sector (which is the sector which, you know, actually creates jobs). When about $16.6 trillion of investment capital goes to US government bonds to prop up the government, that is, of course, $16.6 trillion not going to private sector investment and in turn not creating private sector jobs.
It is going to take quite some time for the amount of demand to pick up to match the supply of labor available, and that equilibrium point isn't going to resemble the prior equilibrium point, the demand portion of which was subsidized by government policy (see above). But if you think taking even more money from one segment of the population to "bail out" another segment of the population will speed things along or be sustainable long-term, you're most certainly mistaken. I can see the populist appeal of the proposition among the economically unsophisticated, but it will not work.
As an aside, other than putting their money under a mattress, it is impossible for the wealthy (or anyone else) to "hoard" money: as soon as their money is placed in a bank, or on a stock market, or purchases bonds, or is used to purchase something, or start a business, it's back in the economy. And also, it is a decidely different thing to tax people less than it is to give them so-called "government money" (there's no such thing as "government money" - there is only that portion of your money, and your neighbors' money, which the government appropriates), although the current debate does not seem to distinguish between the two (ie people continually claim the government needs to "pay for" tax reductions). When you tax people less, you are forcibly taking less from them, you are not redistributing money. When people claim the government needs to "pay for" a tax reduction, what they are saying is government spending exceeds revenue, and the only option is to increase government revenue. That's a false conclusion - there's obviously one other option available.
You could well be right, but I don't think so, for a couple of reasons:
- you need a live cow to drink its milk, don't you? That means you're not hungry enough to kill the cow and eat it but are rather patient (and presumably well-fed) enough to keep the cow around and forgo its meat in exchange for the milk;
- if I recall, the subset of humans capable of tolerating lactose only arose around 9,000 years ago, and it's still a relatively uncommon trait (ie more people are lactose intolerant than not).
Using a smurf-scale hex wrench to coax an incorrect number of bolt-like objects into ultra-cheap particle board certainly didn't make me value the finished product more. Instead, it filled me with rage and curiousity about how long the indentation of the smurf-scale hex wrench would last in my thumb and the crook of my index finger (spoiler: 2 days)...
Ya, I've often wondered at what point the first human decided, "Hmmm. There's some white fluid coming out of those penis-looking things under that cow. I ought to get a mouthful of that!" It's left me eating my Lucky Charms magically dry...
Note that I actually wasn't commenting negatively (or otherwise) about the fractional reserve banking system; I was merely pointing out that what is said to have occured at Full Tilt resembles the FRB, in that it seems they appear to maintain an amount of funds less than 100% but large enough to cover any daily withdrawals - it all works (like it does with banks) provided everyone doesn't withdraw their money at once (which, incidentally, the Justice Department's charges may indeed provoke). Of course, given the accusation that the balance disappeared in the owners' pockets, the whole thing was likely destined to collapse at some future date, unless the players ultimately lose an amount equivalent to what's been siphoned off more quickly than they withdraw funds. The same situation would occur with a bank which has a significant percentage of their loans default, except that Full Tilt has the benefit of their depositors, in the aggregate, agreeing to a negative interest rate (ie over time, and in the aggregate, they're guaranteed to lose their deposit just by playing).
How, exactly, do people (wealthy or not) "hoard" money? I'm asking seriously. Because, other than taking cash and putitng it under your mattress, it is impossible to "hoard" money.
Under the fractional reserve banking system, if I have a million dollars and put it in a bank, that million turns into ten million in loans to people wanting to buy homes, businesses wanting to expand, etc. If I put it in the stock market, I am contributing to the supply of capital and helping to raise the value of things like pensions, etc. If I invest it in any way whatsoever I am contributing to the economy.
In short, unless wealthy people withdraw their money entirely from any investments (which the vast, vast majority do not, because they want their money put to work), they are contributing directly to the economy and the growth of jobs to the benefit of the non-wealthy.
It's fun, I suppose, to posit that a "success tax" of the type proposed by Obama et al will "punish" the "haves" to the smug satisfaction of the ostensibly "have nots", but in reality, the "have nots" are entirely shooting themselves in the foot by embracing anti-success measures like this.
Additionally, the "wealthy" pay a disproportionaltely high portion of taxes already. The top 2% of all earners fund more government taxes than the bottom 50%.
Well, here we disagree again, because in my view, the overwhelming cause of "volatilitly" is governmental interference - monetary policy, government involvement in things like backstopping mortgages via Freddie and Fannie, etc. You'll have constant "volatility" in a perfectly free market, of course, and that's a good thing, however you wouldn't have the massive swings you currently get. Besides, I don't think the point of corporate taxes is to reduce volatility - the benefit of a corporate tax, generally speaking and from a politician's point of view, is that it's applied to a non-voting entity and it's generally rather simple to convince a not-insignifant portion of the population that corporations are EVIL and that the people themselves are not paying that tax (when, in fact, they are).
I didn't say it doesn't matter where taxes are placed. I said that corporate taxes are a back-door way of taxing consumers, and that I'd prefer the transparency and accountability of directly taxing those same consumers, rather than hiding it in the form of a "corporate tax", which the consumers pay for anyway. See my point above - the politicians love it because it creates the incorrect impression that "corporations" and not consumers, pay the tax. Corporations ultimately have no money, except what consumers, either directly or indirectly, give them. That's why I'm opposed to corporate taxes - I don't have an "ulterior agenda" - my agenda is simply that taxes be transparent and not be doubly (or triply or more) applied (see my prior post about all the ways the money a corporation has is already taxed). I flat out don't like multiple levels of taxation on the same dollars, because it is dishonest and opaque. Think of this: you earn a salary, and you decide to buy some shares in a company. You buy those shares with after-tax dollars. The company generates a profit and that profit is taxed (to your delight:) and then the corporation pays a dividend and that's taxed too. And then you sell those shares and the capital gain is taxed. And maybe you buy an item that company produces, and that money is taxed multiple times: it's after-tax dollars to you and you likely pay a sales tax at time of purchase. This is all nuts, and horribly inefficient. There are good examples of a simpler, more transparent system in places like Estonia and that entire region (ie simple flat tax) and the concept is spreading throughout much of eastern europe. If you have to have involuntary taxation, then I think that's the fairest, most efficient system possible.
I don't think you're an extremist. But the reason I conclude your ideal situation is unvarying profit levels regardless of performance is because you endorse the idea of penalizing the more profitable and subsidizing the less profitable. Maybe I'm being extreme in suggesting you want all profits to be equal, but really it's just a matter of degrees at that point: you'll always have someone, in your system, deciding what level of profitability is "acceptable". I reject that view completely: let consumers decide that issue via the votes they cast each time they purchase an item. That will always be more equitable than a distant bureaucrat deciding some arbitrary level of profit is "too much" and should be clawed back.
You're right that I argue that, in the long run and in the aggregate, the market will push for equal profit margins across all industries. Of course, there will never come a point in a free market whereby that equilibrium is reached: there will always be innovation and differentiation, etc. But the pressure is always there, and that's a good thing. Note, however, that this differs rather substantially from a government dictating where the equilibrium ought to be.
As for "Sacrificing companies just because they have a bad year" - that's up to the market, and the individual shareholders to decide, not me and not the government. If the capital wants to remain in place and see if it can do better next year, that's the capital holders' option.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, to your second sentence.
I'm not suggesting government needs to "do" anything in terms of inserting themselves into the decision where people choose to live, which is what the government currently does and which costs taxpayers money and results in deaths and destruction. Rather, I'm saying that, in the absence of government, those high hazard areas would not get so densely populated (if you eliminated all the subsidies, catastrophe bailouts and other government mechanisms that permit people to live in these areas they otherwise couldn't afford to, yes: the areas would depopulate).
My points were really meant to convey two things, in response to yours:
- other entities do have a motivation under a free market to engage in things like geological surveys and early alert systems; and
- the government's current involvement in these things extends to programs which actively encourage people to put themselves in harm's way.
I find it odd that the government should employ scientists to determine a region geologically dangerous, and instead of saying, "we very strongly recommend you do not live here, and if you do, we will not impose upon others to pay for the consequences of that decision", they say, "the market will not permit you to live here, therefore we will subsidize your decision to live here, and if anything goes wrong, we will further get your more prudent neighbors in other parts of the country to pay for any resultant damage".
Really, your second sentence is spot on: is there a compelling reason a federal government should involve itself in any way in terms of where people choose to live?
It isn't "magic", it is the alignment of interests and competitive pressures (read: choice) which in most cases results in more efficiencies. If something is non-profitable, then either efficiencies will be discovered which make it possible to extract a profit, or capital will look elsewhere for opportunity, because the people do not deem the benefits worth the cost.
If something is "unprofitable", it means that the people refuse to pay the cost for something. By suggesting "government" should provide this, you are saying you refuse to pay the cost for that thing unless your neighbors pay some of the costs too, and those neighbors should be given no say in the matter. I've found that many of the same people who argue vociferously against any sort of private monopoly, on the basis that such a monopoly removes choice, efficiencies and freedom, at the same time argue vociferously in favor of "government", which is in all cases a total monopoly, with similar results (except that, in the case of government, they further enjoy coercive powers).
If the government were to produce all computers, do you think those computers would have the same features, at the same price, with the same reliability which your current free market computer has? Do you think it would be even better? If not, ask yourself why not: why wouldn't the government, as sole producer and provider of computers produce the best computer at the best price with the best reliability and with the highest margins? The reasons you come up with should help explain to you the source of the "magic" you refer to in your comment. That same "magic" is what's currently in the process of making space tourism affordable for you and me.
For starters, insurance companies which cover the perils of earthquake, floodings, etc are highly motivated to cultivate this data themselves, and create alert systems. As it is, there are companies who make a very fine return by packaging up government data and selling it to insurance companies, and their returns are subsidized because they are getting their data for "free", where here "free" means that you pay for their input costs via your taxes (companies like RMS who sell earthquake modelling systems to insurance companies). In fact, the entire idea for "fire departments" started with insurance companies, who had their own fire departments and would only respond to those fires affecting or threatening their customers (their customers were given plaques to hang outside their homes to inform the fire department they were covered).
In general, a lot of government policy surrounding catastrophe management actively encourages people to put themselves in harms way. For example, hurricane Katrina could not have done anywhere near the damage to property and lives in the absence of a government flood insurance pool, because no private market participants were willing to offer flood insurance in those regions where there was little doubt a significant flood/hurricane event would occur, and lenders are unwilling to lend to borrowers who cannot obtain insurance to protect the asset against which the loan is being made - the vast majority of people simply would be unable to live in ultra high risk areas. This was seen as a "problem", and "fixed" with a taxpayer funded federal flood insurance pool, which got the lenders lending and the people building houses and living in very dangerous areas. The same things goes on in California with earthquake insurance pools and regulations. And what does the government do when catastrophe strikes and cities are destroyed (as they are predicted to be by that same government's scientists)? They commit to use taxpayer money to rebuild in the very same spot! It is a "bailout", pure and simple.
I guess some people are comfortable with the idea that they (and their neighbors, who may not agree) should be forced to pay for the imprudent decision of another person who chooses to live in a high hazard zone, but it would be far less likely for a person to be able to live in those kinds of areas absent government intervention.
In short, there are a lot of very negative consequences, and more importantly, lives lost, because of government's role here. And while I can appreciate the self-interested appeal of forcing people (because it is not voluntary) by way of government to pay for research you find interesting or useful, it is hard (for me, at least) to describe that as "fair".
Good point, and I suspect most /. readers further realize that you can bypass the paywall by entering the site via google, including via rss feeds of stories in google reader.
I first started using Ubuntu around 5.10 and currently use 10.04 long-term release and won't "upgrade" for a few reasons:
- I haven't tried Unity, but from what I've seen of it, there seems to be a lack of options in customizing the desktop, and my desktop is currently customized to be exactly the way I want it to be. I realize I can spend time removing the things I don't want and then installing the things I do want, and then customizing all that stuff, but really I'm disinclined to expend a lot of effort just for the sake of getting back to the point I'm already at;
- as far as I can tell, the last reliable real-time version of Ubuntu is 10.04 using the 2.6.31rt kernel - I check every now and then if there's been any progress on real-time capability on the newer Ubuntu releases, and all I ever seem to come across are posts about later versions breaking real-time dependent programs (I would love to be proven wrong on this!);
- as someone else pointed out, I'm not really looking for a radical change with each upgrade. I have a release that works very well, that I've invested a lot of time customizing and configuring, and unless there are some advantages, I don't really see the point (ie having the menu bar on the left all of a sudden doesn't strike me as any sort of "improvement"; it just seems different for different's sake).
When I first moved over to Linux, I was very pleased with Ubuntu, but for me it seems to have jumped the shark somewhere around 8.04 or so. I think I'll likely try Mint when support for 10.04 stops.
By pushing upwards gently from the sides, slowly remove the tin foil hat and place on floor, because I think you have it on a little too tightly.
Now that you have it removed, and the logic and reason beams can fully penetrate what is certainly a thick skull, reconsider your arguments:
- your argument, convoluted as it is, seems to be that the government gave some entity $200bn in exchange for some promise, which was later broken. Simultaneously you are upset because you cannot convince a government mandated monopoly to agree to your offer of cash to string a line to your mommy's house. And your proposed solution is to increase government involvement. I realize the foil hat was interfering with the operation of the irony meter I previously suggested you employ, but perhaps now that the hat is removed it will function in its routine fashion. Your problem, in case you still are incapable of understanding it, is that you are constrained by government from operating in a free market. The government put the company in the position whereby they can laugh you off at your offer of $3,500 to string that line, because absent a monopoly, there would likely be companies lined up to take your money, if there was profit in it (which there may or may not be - it could still be the case that you are simply offering them too little, which is too bad for you, but doesn't equate to the free market failing, because the successful operation of the free market is not defined by you getting everything you want at a price you consider "fair").
- to elaborate on that last bit, just because you want, for example, a nice shiny new BMW but the evil BMW people won't sell it to you for $2,000 doesn't mean the market is failing and BMW should be nationalized because you, in your seemingly permanent petulance, don't feel like paying what someone is offering to sell you something for. Of course, in the question at hand, you don't have the choice of going to the used car dealership and buying a cheap alternative, because the government, so beloved to you, has made that impossible, by granting a monopoly.
- who are these "corp masters" you speak of? Who is it you think I answer to (and make sure the foil hat is completely removed before replying, please)? Is anyone who points out the ridiculous contradictions in your postings controlled by "corp masters"? I think you'd be surprised if you knew how wrong you were on this point, too.
- when you say (and note here how I haven't used the caps lock key), "lesser of two evils" you're quite right: a government-mandated monopoly and a government "nationalized" entity certainly are both evil. You are missing the third option: free choice for everyone involved. I certainly realize freedom, and choice, aren't currently favored in the US, but you should explore the consequences of such a system in a more sophisticated, less reactionary, considerably more intelligent fashion, now that the foil hat is removed.
- "Study afer study blah blah blah" is a nice argument in favor of the ends justifying the means, just like bailouts for banks are necessary because the consequences would be worse, according to the propaganda of your beloved government, which you seem to swallow on a wholesale basis. But I would encourage you to explore, in an intellectually honest fashion (ie breathe deeply, keep the foil hat on the ground, let the logic and reason beams penetrate your skull unimpeded) instances whereby government has "nationalized" industries, in your country and many others throughout the world. The outcome will never be as you imagine it, and will differ substantially and materially from your utopian vision.
Now, breathe deeply and try to relax a bit: I'm sure your posts make you feel like a "big man", but your impotent vitriol is actually making you appear rather small and foolish.
I would think that if you have people whose job it is to push keys, the results of those key pushes being missiles firing and possibly killing other humans, one would insist on logging those key strokes:
Officer: "The drone you're operating just launched a missile into a school yard and killed 30 children! What did you do?"
Drone operator: "I dunno. I was pushing some keys and, well, it just kinda happened."
Officer: "Which keys did you push?"
Drone operator: "I'm not sure. I was kinda distracted eating a donut. You know how it is when you're eating a donut: you really want to focus in on it."
Officer: "Hmmm. OK. Back to work. Got any more of those donuts?"
Thanks - I'm enjoying your amusing argument, sincerely: "its just one government granted monopoly after another" is your argument in favor of a single government monopoly ("We should NATIONALIZE THE LINES" he says, eyes blazing, spittle flying from his mouth, heart pounding, caps lock key intermittently activating)?!?
Buy an irony meter and then re-read your posts. Then get some sleep. Maybe drink some coffee. Count to ten. Breathe deeply. And, most importantly: relax, because there are enough people as confused as you that you may just get your wish: government control of all the things which disturb you. If you're curious as to how that turns out, there's plenty of prior experiments with state control of markets, all with poor results for people just like you.
I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll try to respond anyway.
Virtually all of the "utility" type companies have a business model that is predicated upon the market not being free and being tilted in their favor by the government, with the usual undesirable results for consumers (ie pay more; get less). When the towns decided to do it themselves, it posed a threat to these companies, because it would reveal just how effiently is could be done (though not as efficiently as a private company in a truly free market), to the benefit of customers (which is also a point about accountability: the towns have a base to which they are directly accountable that is smaller than, say, a state or federal government, or a large corporation operating under govenment endorsed beneficial (to the corporation, that is) market constraints). Naturally, the companies prefer to avoid the public discovering just how much they are being gouged by the governmentally instituted oligopolies these companies enjoy, and these same companies get outsized margins they've grown accustomed to in dense areas, while the margins in less dense areas do not compare favorably.
It's still not right for a city to do it, though, because in all instances whereby any government entity undertakes these projects, it is done so with a gun to the people's heads (ie the only choice you have is to pay, by way of taxes, to support such things or go to jail). Neither scenario describes a free market.
So, there was a service available at a price you didn't like, and you want others to pay for it? The fact a price is higher than you may like isn't an indication a free market has failed (although what you seem to be describing sounds more like a government mandated monopoly, the kind you later argue in favor of). You're making my argument. You complain about duopolies and suggest the solution is a monopoly, of the government variety? What you actually seem to be railing against, in a rather convoluted way, is a lack of a free market. And what "natural monopolies" are you referring to?
"Nationalizing" anything is the surest way to get the worst quality at the highest price.
"The capital costs of [insert government pet project of the day] can be prohibitive. The monopoly guarantee [or subsidy or bail out] allows [government chosen favored entity to profit]." FTFY.
This is always a ridiculous argument. Capital takes risk in hopes of reward. What you're actually saying is that no private capital considers the potential reward worth the risk to the capital, therefore it is tay payers who should bear the risk, in the form of government forced monopolies (ie govenment taking away your right to a free choice) in this case. The government in these instances decides to forcibly take a little out of the pocket of everyone to achieve a goal they think is desirable, but which no private investor (or group of investors) considers to be a good idea.
This is the same brand of reasoning that supports bailouts for private investors at tax payer expense, whether that's bank bail outs or sovereign bail outs, whereby capital is put at risk, that risk turns out to be realized, and the government argues tay payers should foot the bill because the losses to investors would be "prohibitive". Nonsense, all of it.
At root, the people who live in the sticks want a service but are not prepared to pay what it would cost for that service. The also choose not to move to areas where the service is available at a cost they are willing to pay. So the solution is to forcibly take from the rest of the people so some very small group of people have the services of their choosing at a price below what that services costs because they voluntarily live in areas that don't enjoy the services of their liking? It's this kind of thinking, couched as it usually is in co-opted words liked "fair" and "equal" (which actually are code for "unfair to the vast majority" and "anything but equal"), so mistakenly taken to be accepted wisdom these days, that's at the root of things like a government debts and deficits. These programs can all be summarized as "Some very small group of people want something for nothing and they expect you to pay for it".
Just keep your phone in a box. A closed box. A closed box with a "Search Warrant Required" label. In bright colors.
I don't think you could burn it more quickly than they're printing it from thin air! :)
Interesting point tho. If I ran a bank, and if the government was giving me money for free by way of an effective zero percent lending rate, I think I'd take as much as I could get, and sit on it (by way of investing in Treasury Bonds) until interest rates went up. I'm of the mind that the interest rate is way too low to stimulate any meaningful economic activity, because a low interest rate stimulates demand for loans (which already exists) while a high interest rate stimulates supply of loans (or, more properly, the spread between borrowing and lending costs, however they're sitting on money which they got for zero effective interest). It doesn't seem to me that the problem is not enough people wishing to borrow - far from it! The problem is not enough people willing to lend. Give them an attractive spread between what they can lend money for versus what they paid for it, and it seems to me it would come back into circulation.
In all cases, though, government, or central banks with obfuscated dealings, shouldn't be the ones manipulating the interest rate - that's something the market can do quite efficiently and with fewer side effects.
Sorry for the delay - getting my car ready for sale...
I haven't had time to dig up the direct stats, but will later today - but it isn't speculation on my part. Here's at least some data: between 2001 and Sept 2007, over $350 billion worth of credit card debt was transferred to home equity loans (which, interestingly, gets the borrower a tax break, because mortgage interest in the US is deductible). That's according to the Rochester Institute of Technology, altho I could only find it quoted, not the direct data yet. Home equity loans rose from $153 billion in 1990 to $317 billion in 1998 http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/812_estimated_home_equity_debt_outstanding_by.html - I'll find data that takes us up to 2011. See too this link: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ALSREACB?cid=100 courtesy the St. Louis Fed, for loans secured by real estate - obviously this doesn't distinguish between mortgages and home equity loans, but it serves to give you a sense of the trending leading up to the economic downturn.
Sorry for not being more thorough - lots on the go at the moment!
The current level of demand is likely to be close to the "new normal", because the level of demand that previously existed was predicated largely upon homeowners withdrawing equity from their homes, which itself was predicated upon house prices always rising, which itself was predicated upon the federal government backstopping mortgages via Fannie and Freddie, for politically-motivated purposes (ie the federal government's odd notion that one of its jobs is to facilitate home ownership, and to particularly dictate that less qualified applicants should have their mortgage applications accepted, with defaults paid by the taxpayer, and both parties are guilty of this).
The current problem is the continuing notion that the demonstrably unsustainable level of demand must be returned to by getting housing prices to rise again via sustained low interest rates. It's dumb luck that the EU is having such problems with Greece et al that currency is fleeing to the US dollar despite the US dollar's inherent devaluation (hidden, as it is, by the influx of capital from the EU).
But taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people (that happen to be more favorable to your view of the world) by way of a massive bureaucracy is particularly inefficient. The current tax revenues exist to support the 1 in 7 people in the US who work directly for government of one level or another (which is higher than Spain, Germany, Italy, France and Portugal, and just behind Greece, which is just above 1 in 5). The fundamental and structural part of the problem is there are too many people working for government (requiring, of course, tax dollars to pay for them) and that number consistently grows faster than inflation or the economy. At some point that number simply becomes unsustainable (which Portugal and Italy are learning and which Greece already has learned). It's like Social Security: when it was established, there were 30 workers paying for each retiree; currently it's 3 workers to each retiree, and getting close to 2 workers to each retiree. It cannot be sustained long term.
The other fundamental and structural problem is that government borrowing is massively crowding out investment in the private sector (which is the sector which, you know, actually creates jobs). When about $16.6 trillion of investment capital goes to US government bonds to prop up the government, that is, of course, $16.6 trillion not going to private sector investment and in turn not creating private sector jobs.
It is going to take quite some time for the amount of demand to pick up to match the supply of labor available, and that equilibrium point isn't going to resemble the prior equilibrium point, the demand portion of which was subsidized by government policy (see above). But if you think taking even more money from one segment of the population to "bail out" another segment of the population will speed things along or be sustainable long-term, you're most certainly mistaken. I can see the populist appeal of the proposition among the economically unsophisticated, but it will not work.
As an aside, other than putting their money under a mattress, it is impossible for the wealthy (or anyone else) to "hoard" money: as soon as their money is placed in a bank, or on a stock market, or purchases bonds, or is used to purchase something, or start a business, it's back in the economy. And also, it is a decidely different thing to tax people less than it is to give them so-called "government money" (there's no such thing as "government money" - there is only that portion of your money, and your neighbors' money, which the government appropriates), although the current debate does not seem to distinguish between the two (ie people continually claim the government needs to "pay for" tax reductions). When you tax people less, you are forcibly taking less from them, you are not redistributing money. When people claim the government needs to "pay for" a tax reduction, what they are saying is government spending exceeds revenue, and the only option is to increase government revenue. That's a false conclusion - there's obviously one other option available.
You could well be right, but I don't think so, for a couple of reasons:
- you need a live cow to drink its milk, don't you? That means you're not hungry enough to kill the cow and eat it but are rather patient (and presumably well-fed) enough to keep the cow around and forgo its meat in exchange for the milk;
- if I recall, the subset of humans capable of tolerating lactose only arose around 9,000 years ago, and it's still a relatively uncommon trait (ie more people are lactose intolerant than not).
Using a smurf-scale hex wrench to coax an incorrect number of bolt-like objects into ultra-cheap particle board certainly didn't make me value the finished product more. Instead, it filled me with rage and curiousity about how long the indentation of the smurf-scale hex wrench would last in my thumb and the crook of my index finger (spoiler: 2 days)...
Ya, I've often wondered at what point the first human decided, "Hmmm. There's some white fluid coming out of those penis-looking things under that cow. I ought to get a mouthful of that!" It's left me eating my Lucky Charms magically dry...
Lol - I'd give you +1 Candid if I could! :)
Great points.
Note that I actually wasn't commenting negatively (or otherwise) about the fractional reserve banking system; I was merely pointing out that what is said to have occured at Full Tilt resembles the FRB, in that it seems they appear to maintain an amount of funds less than 100% but large enough to cover any daily withdrawals - it all works (like it does with banks) provided everyone doesn't withdraw their money at once (which, incidentally, the Justice Department's charges may indeed provoke). Of course, given the accusation that the balance disappeared in the owners' pockets, the whole thing was likely destined to collapse at some future date, unless the players ultimately lose an amount equivalent to what's been siphoned off more quickly than they withdraw funds. The same situation would occur with a bank which has a significant percentage of their loans default, except that Full Tilt has the benefit of their depositors, in the aggregate, agreeing to a negative interest rate (ie over time, and in the aggregate, they're guaranteed to lose their deposit just by playing).
"...and they may eventually be repaid." FTFY
Sounds just like the fractional reserve banking system...
How, exactly, do people (wealthy or not) "hoard" money? I'm asking seriously. Because, other than taking cash and putitng it under your mattress, it is impossible to "hoard" money.
Under the fractional reserve banking system, if I have a million dollars and put it in a bank, that million turns into ten million in loans to people wanting to buy homes, businesses wanting to expand, etc. If I put it in the stock market, I am contributing to the supply of capital and helping to raise the value of things like pensions, etc. If I invest it in any way whatsoever I am contributing to the economy.
In short, unless wealthy people withdraw their money entirely from any investments (which the vast, vast majority do not, because they want their money put to work), they are contributing directly to the economy and the growth of jobs to the benefit of the non-wealthy.
It's fun, I suppose, to posit that a "success tax" of the type proposed by Obama et al will "punish" the "haves" to the smug satisfaction of the ostensibly "have nots", but in reality, the "have nots" are entirely shooting themselves in the foot by embracing anti-success measures like this.
Additionally, the "wealthy" pay a disproportionaltely high portion of taxes already. The top 2% of all earners fund more government taxes than the bottom 50%.
Didn't RTFA - is this WUPHF, finally realized?!? Man, I've been waiting forever for WUPHF!
Well, here we disagree again, because in my view, the overwhelming cause of "volatilitly" is governmental interference - monetary policy, government involvement in things like backstopping mortgages via Freddie and Fannie, etc. You'll have constant "volatility" in a perfectly free market, of course, and that's a good thing, however you wouldn't have the massive swings you currently get. Besides, I don't think the point of corporate taxes is to reduce volatility - the benefit of a corporate tax, generally speaking and from a politician's point of view, is that it's applied to a non-voting entity and it's generally rather simple to convince a not-insignifant portion of the population that corporations are EVIL and that the people themselves are not paying that tax (when, in fact, they are).
:) and then the corporation pays a dividend and that's taxed too. And then you sell those shares and the capital gain is taxed. And maybe you buy an item that company produces, and that money is taxed multiple times: it's after-tax dollars to you and you likely pay a sales tax at time of purchase. This is all nuts, and horribly inefficient. There are good examples of a simpler, more transparent system in places like Estonia and that entire region (ie simple flat tax) and the concept is spreading throughout much of eastern europe. If you have to have involuntary taxation, then I think that's the fairest, most efficient system possible.
I didn't say it doesn't matter where taxes are placed. I said that corporate taxes are a back-door way of taxing consumers, and that I'd prefer the transparency and accountability of directly taxing those same consumers, rather than hiding it in the form of a "corporate tax", which the consumers pay for anyway. See my point above - the politicians love it because it creates the incorrect impression that "corporations" and not consumers, pay the tax. Corporations ultimately have no money, except what consumers, either directly or indirectly, give them. That's why I'm opposed to corporate taxes - I don't have an "ulterior agenda" - my agenda is simply that taxes be transparent and not be doubly (or triply or more) applied (see my prior post about all the ways the money a corporation has is already taxed). I flat out don't like multiple levels of taxation on the same dollars, because it is dishonest and opaque. Think of this: you earn a salary, and you decide to buy some shares in a company. You buy those shares with after-tax dollars. The company generates a profit and that profit is taxed (to your delight
I don't think you're an extremist. But the reason I conclude your ideal situation is unvarying profit levels regardless of performance is because you endorse the idea of penalizing the more profitable and subsidizing the less profitable. Maybe I'm being extreme in suggesting you want all profits to be equal, but really it's just a matter of degrees at that point: you'll always have someone, in your system, deciding what level of profitability is "acceptable". I reject that view completely: let consumers decide that issue via the votes they cast each time they purchase an item. That will always be more equitable than a distant bureaucrat deciding some arbitrary level of profit is "too much" and should be clawed back.
You're right that I argue that, in the long run and in the aggregate, the market will push for equal profit margins across all industries. Of course, there will never come a point in a free market whereby that equilibrium is reached: there will always be innovation and differentiation, etc. But the pressure is always there, and that's a good thing. Note, however, that this differs rather substantially from a government dictating where the equilibrium ought to be.
As for "Sacrificing companies just because they have a bad year" - that's up to the market, and the individual shareholders to decide, not me and not the government. If the capital wants to remain in place and see if it can do better next year, that's the capital holders' option.