Re:He is trying to move the Dem Party Leftwards
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
"You're a hoot!"
And you're a pathetic charlatan.
"Indeed, Chomsky does not have a solution. I think he has accomplished quite a bit already, however. THat would seem to be enough for one person."
The only worthwhile things that Chomsky achieved were in the field of linguistics. Which makes him partially more useful than you and your nonsensical bullshit. You're both establishment scamsters.
I am not surprised that such a lowly person [you] thinks it is quite the accomplishment to just whine and complain, without offering any solutions.
"And, yes, I now see the rich as dangerous and deterimental to our well being, something like a dangerous animal, such as a rattlesnake."
So, essentially, you're a pathetic individual, who is trying to justify his failures by blaiming it on the rich. How convenient. Nevermind the economic FACT that people with money invest in new business ventures, THUS creating new jobs.
This is something that politicians cannot do. All politicians can do is remove wealth and resources, including human labor, from the marketplace and force them into jobs which may or may not produce wanted results. In the marketplace, wanted results have to be produced otherwise the business fails. In government, failure means more money taken directly from people who earned it, you know, like hard working Americans -- not whining pussies like yourself.
[Just a collection of brief thoughts concerning your time in the U.S. Navy:
While I agree with you that life aboard a Naval Submarine is far from romantic or grand, I find your chemical solvent/cancer tumor claims both ignorant and annoying. The Navy takes great steps in making sure that the air aboard submarines is filtered and regenerated. Why the hell would they poison people they spend thousands or millions of dollars in training?
I'm tired of hearing assholes like you, who claim to be sick from chemical solvents, or who burn themselves on the chemicals because you're not careful and you do something stupid... like, oh, I don't know... stick their cut open arms or hands in a vat of bleach for some reason.
Also, Naval submarines are still the future of Naval Warfare. They can hit targets up to 500 miles inland and they can do so impunity -- something which airforce bombers cannot. Plus, you can get a whole submarine for the price of a single B-2 Bomber. Oh, and not to mention, submarines can put far more ordinance on a single target than a fleet of B-2s. There's really no comparison.
It is likely elaborations on these will appear on a website that I will again mention later in this response.]
Hey, guess what. You're still a fucking moron.
"We should act rationally and take measures to limit their power over us, and use them to provide for us."
By creating more government and government agencies who, by very definition, have more power over us? You continue to spout moronic bullshit.
"This America is a partnership, and just like any business partnership (e.g., a law firm), if one partner does a lot of business, he does not get to keep it all; most of it goes into the common fund."
No, America is not a partnership you collectivist piece of shit. It was not founded to be a partnership. It did not become a bastion of freedom by being a partnership.
Your little analogy of America to a business partnership, such as a law firm, is both ignorant and empty. We'll ignore the historical fallaciousness of such a claim for the time being.
Businessmen, and lawyers, obviously voluntarily form a partnership. You do not get a share of the common fund without earning your keep. Law firms, and businesses, are still not about equality -- which you seem to think is actually possible [or you're just another socialist-statist who dreams of having all the power for his own...]. People do not explicitly agree on sharing 'the common fund' in the case of a society-wide partnership. Your entire analogy falls apart in front of a 25 second response.
Re:He is trying to move the Dem Party Leftwards
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1, Troll
It's not much of a secret that those with money want to preserve it. The big issue is when people such as yourself demonize anyone who is successful, as you would apparently be unsatisified unless we were all poor sods.
You know, after you put me on your enemies list, I've taken interest in reading what you post. It has become my opinion that you are a fucking moron. Your website is horrible, as you quote fucking morons, and you post hate-filled, ignorant diatribe.
Instead of insisting you are more informed than the rest of us, how about you become informed. And stop reading Chomsky, unless you're reading his works directly related to linguistics.
Chomsky once said, "There are supposed to be laws of economics. I can't understand them."
Indeed he can't, and neither can you, Cryofan, with all your vociferousness.
Let us discuss what appears to be your hero, Chomsky, for a moment: So let us get it straight; He hates Stalinism, fascism, capitalism, free markets, and American libertarianism. He also denounces Marxism, Keynesianism, protectionism, and most everything else. He spends so much time criticizing, but yet he proposes little. I'm not surprised why. Everything he does advocate falls on its face before it gets out of the starting gates. Chomsky favors a vague and undefined form of collective ownership.
as von Mises said, "Syndaclism is so absurd, that speaking generally, it has not found any advocates who dare to write openly and clearly in its favor."
as Jame Ostrowski said [on Chomsky], "..., he favors a vague and ill-defined form of collective ownership that the workers will figure out as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy."
Chomsky supports a system that CAN exist in a free market society, as long as their not coercing anyone. Of course, they could never compete in a free market (because of their inefficiency and because of the lack of workers to afford major risk), which might lead one to understand why Noam Chomsky, like Marx, supported violence. [A little bit of online resource might reveal where he supported aggression...].
I'm sure your little video documentary, if you were not just spitting bullshit, would be quite successful with alot of the little ignorant tossers here at slashdot, but no respectable individual will give you the time of day.
Oh, and the reason why people mod you down is because you're a moron, not because they are simply right-wing or libertarian. It is not your views, or even Chomsky's views, that causes them to mod you down, it is the fact that you are so caustic with so little substance. For someone who claims to be so much, and to be doing so much in life, you come off as an individual worth very little -- filled with hate and jealousy.
Unfortunately, it seems you have a little bit of a following with all the little 14-15 year old angsty "anti-corporate" types here at slashdot.
I ask you, if I email you for open discussion on the articles on your website, would you be willing to debate me in a less chaotic atmosphere. In other words, would you grant me the opportunity to initiate an email discussion on your website? I wouldn't want to email you a challenge out of the blue for fear of being labelled a "fundie-right-winger" or something... *rolls-eyes*
Oh, I'd be daft to be upset over the call takers not being busy! If they weren't busy, I would take that as a good sign.
What I was merely saying, though I guess I didn't say it clearly enough, is that they have supervisors, and paper pushers who really don't do much. You have three guys doing the work that can be done by any on reasonably competent individual, and they all make more money than the dispatchers. Then you have the director basically trying to make everyone's life miserable because he's not being pushed "up the hill" [into a county political office... as the 911/EMA center is at the bottom of the hill, below the county courthouse and administrative building...].
The interaction between business and government is obviously very harmful to our society. I have to question anyone who merely asserts that it is the fault of politicians, or that it is the fault of businesses or corporations.
Nay, I say. It is the fault of how our government is set up. Let's face it, when you have too much democracy, and law-making and increased regulation becomes all too easy and common, big money is going to use government to deter competition. We were never meant to have a society in which new laws were to be easily created, and I am certainly not just talking about amendments.
We are facing one of the dangers of democracy. Either the majority dominates the minority (tyrany of the majority) or the minority (wealth elite) dominates the majority (tyrany of the minority).
Of course, human beings are not perfect, and I would never suggest that ridding the world of government would create utopia. However, I will say that reducing government and reducing the ability of companies to utilize government in deterring competition (everything from regulations to IP laws) would be a step in the right direction.
You hit the nail right on the head, with this statement: "However, like anything, privatization can be corrupted by people unwilling to play by the rules." You have to watch the means of privatization. People point to post-Soviet Russia as a failure of capitalism, or the failure of "free markets" in Chile. Both arguments are empty, as in both cases, government sold off businesses to friends and major competitions -- the governmental creation of oligopolies (or outright monopolies).
Last summer I worked for the county government (a county Emergency Management Agency to be exact). I never saw so many lazy employees in all my life. We shared the building with the 911 Emergency. At any given time, the 911E side had a dozen or so people working, most of which were not doing anything.
During the day, when EMA was operating, they had 3 old lady secretaries who did nothing but drink coffee and gossip, 1 guy who went around talking to everybody all day, another who read things online with pink frills around his monitor, another lady "doing payroll" (who the hell does payroll every hour of the week?), an assistant director almost always busy, and then the director never to be found except when the cameras were around. They all made damn good money too. Now I'm not familiar enough with the 911E side to say what needs to be done and what can and cannot be done in a given day with x amount of people, but I KNOW that it shouldn't take more than three people to run the E.M.A. side... and they all make damn good money. I hear similar things all over government.
I can definitely relate to you on private vs socialized sector...
"Well this is more or less what I wrote, that the top 10 control 66% of the market."
But 66% is not 100%, thus, there is no decopoly. That is what I was trying to point out.
"No. You missed the fundamental problem of and the fundemental cost of broadband: the lines. The physical lines. They cost a premium and they are worth a fortune. Most of the cost is physical digging, laying out the cables, and fill the holes back, all this on the property of others, or of the municipality. This is a low-tech job."
Ah, now I understand what you are saying.
"This looked strange to me: are you claiming that right now in your home, you have one wire going to ProLog, one wire going to Shen-Heights, and one wire going to Verizon?"
I don't even know how you confused that paragraph so much...
"So I checked, and I saw the reason why there is competition at all is that the governement (the FCC) forced the cable/telco companies to let their competitors use the previous line to the customer."
I'll give you that. Unfortunately, I think I would have put more faith in ISPs beinga ble to strike a deal with the bigger cable/teleco companies. I'm not sure if the big cable/telecom companies would have rejected all offers. If they didn't, which would seem logical in many situations, then my argument concerning the safety net still applies.
"So your quote of a marvellous thousands of ISPs is only due to regulation. Besides that regulation was slashed in 2002, so the hundreds of ISP were poised to disappear (except the deregulation was overruled by some courts, so that's why your ISPs are not here)."
I'll only consent to part of this. It denies ISPs and entrepreneurs being capable of striking a deal with larger cable/telecom comapanies. Even if the major cable/telecom companies did not agree to any deals, other opportunities would remain open, or be created. Wireless LAN, for instance; Satellite Television.
If I have to pay for regulation, including agencies to regulate these matters, I would rather save my money and have fewer choices in the number of ISPs.... Maybe I've just been presenting my argument unclearly, or misleadingly.
"First, I know absolutly no small ISP (say 10,000 customer), who has business in both say, New Delhi, and San Francisco. It makes no sense - it is still possible if there is an economic reason for that. You have to have a pretty good reason to go abroad, and small international companies are the exception. If you are not in the top 10 market leaders going abroad is a question mark."
I wasn't trying to argue that small ISPs are trying to start up businesses across the globe.
"It may make sense to buy an ISP in the town next to yours - because then you can share backbone access. Different businesses have different business logic."
Agree on the first part, but the fundamentals of the marketplace are always alive, including the conditions for survival and development.
"Second, monopolies or oligopolies make more profit than competitive markets."
The argument I offer is that they do not really last, particularly harmful monopolies or oligopolies, especially without government regulation, as government has the habit [perhaps of no coincidence] of building and maintaining monopolies.
Not that naturally occuring monopolies is a bad thing, anyways.
"Are you sure people still want to pay for a dial-up ISP?"
If I didn't, I wouldn't be using it. I wouldn't bother paying more for broadband just to check email and read slashdot.
"Likewise, cybercafés have been disappearing, partly due to the advent of broadband, and of wireless access. An unreliable safety net."
Indeed, they have been disappearing partly due to the advent of broadband and wireless access. Cybercafes still make money in many places, for many different reasons.
It is virtually impossible for one company to dominate the others without government assistance
Actually, I took a market that was not heavily regulated. Heavy regulation drives down investment and deters new competition, which is largely why large companies tend to support and call for regulation, as long as they get to decide what kind it is.
The basic principles behind my initial argument would always ring true, at least to some significant degree, in an area void of heavy regulation.
You can actually avoid the other reply I made, if you would like, since this post essentially deals with the core idea behind my argument.
That's the Top Fifteen according to ISP Planet which cites numerous other sources. Check my math, but my calculations show that to be about 65.5%. ISPs 16-23 account for less than 2% of the market, with the rest of the ISPs in the country accounting for 33% of the market, many of them offering broadband (several of them offer broadband in my area). You can get high quality broadband for a decent price in my area.
"The ISP business is a very specific business for the broadband access. Why? Because it has very high set up costs: the lines themselves, the line equipement. So no, you cannot decide randomly: "hey, this month I will join Cablevision - hey this month I will join Comcast!" - each ISP is limited by geographical area."
It was the same when Dial-Up ISPs were in their infancy. The set up costs were high, and the service and equipment were expensive. Prices go down.
"That's why, right now, you don't have a choice of 1000 ISPs, nor even a great choice about the top 10: in practice, for broadband, at a given place, you have oligopoly or monopoly."
Actually, in my area, I have several choices for ISPs, including [to the best of my knowledge] at least three sources for broadband. ProLog/Service Electric, Shen-Heights, Verizon, all offer broadband. There are several ISPs in the area that offer Dial-Up, and since Dial-Up has new subscribers every day, and is still a significant portion of the market, they still count.
I'm on dial-up right now, out of choice. (Only need it temporarily, as I have a T-Line at school).
"Then, third, because of the geographical property someone who has an ISP somewhere is not interested in buying an ISP at the other end of the US, because it will only create problems (travel expenses, medium range phone calls, little possibility of exchanging employee): at best he would be interested in an ISP in the next town, if not too far."
People regularly buy up businesses across the country, or across the world. Your basic premise seems to be that new businesses are bought out when a particular company is looking to form an oligopoly. Explain then, how businesses, including ISPs, regularly open up shops or buy out businesses far away from their main office, including in other countries? You can't. Businesses try to maximize profits, while extending market shares. It is virtually impossible for one company to dominate the others without government assistance (And I'm not just talking about IP/Copyright laws, either).
Businesses expand operations to form local oligopolies? That running trips coming out of the starting block. To form monopolies? If you understood market forces a little bit better, you would understand the irrationality of this. I tried to explain it to you briefly, but you went off in like ninety different directions at once.
"The only case where he would be really interested is buying a local competitor to set up a smaller oligopoly, or a monopoly."
People buy up other businesses out of interest in more profit, not after seeking oligopoly (oligopoly: not control of markets, but a small group heavily influencing prices) or monopoly (no other choices: Where does this exist today, especially when government isn't involved?). Since nobody is going to purchase more expensive goods, a growing business has to produce better service for less money to grow -- or it has to use government help to squash competitio
When I compare Fascism to Socialism I was comparing the implementation of Fascism to government with the Socialist-State, as in the 2nd/middle stage of Communism. I should hope by the end of this post, you understand what I am saying.
"It doesn't even have an economic aspect to it's ideology. At least not any economic policy we'd recognize as one."
Historic fascism is a socialized economy, where the actual property rights in each industry are held by government throught regulation.
Benito Mussolini: "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."
Want to compare this to some of the prominent Socialists?:-)
"The ideology, forcing communism to happen by force, rather than just letting it evolve from socialist policies, is good, supposedly, but the policial situation in the Soviet Union had too many fascist traits, like the purges and the way popular sentiment had the Ukraine and the other member republics as somehow less fit than Moscow."
Karl Marx promoted violence in ushering in Socialism and 'Communism', like most all of the anarcho-socialists of the time. Hell, Karl Marx supported almost every war and conflict of his time, simply because he saw them as catalysts in bringing about Socialism.
"It goes off in a completely different direction. It deals in things like cultural conflict and war philosophy and pseudo-scientific definitions of "fitness" and other things Americans usually treat as means rather than ends."
Now that I think about it, all three things you mentioned; cultural conflict, war philosophy, pseudo-scientific definitions of "fitness" are all extensions of the class warfare that Marxists embrace. The Marxists pitted worker versus management, wealthy versus poor. The fascists simply added other variations: like the poor Germans versus the wealthy Jews.
(Quite similar to modern Liberals in America who use poor blacks versus wealthy whites).
The very symbol that Mussolini used for Fascism, a bundle of sticks, was symbolically collectivist; you can break all of the sticks individually, but not collectively.
"Yeah, and the top 10 control 66% of the market now (AOL controls 25%). The "AOL-Time Warner" attempt is a prime example of attempt of concentration of power in the hands of corporations."
Yes, uh, a decopoly is such a horrible thing. I thought people complaining about Microsoft's nonMonopoly were bad.
"Yeah, instead of bankrupcy, they sell all their assets for a huge bargain - which is what happens in bankrupcy anyway, so what?"
I don't think it is the same thing as bankruptcy. I think you took a bit of a logical leap there, or you're just attacking another straw man.
"Not true. Most communist countries were totalitarian."
No coincidence, I assure you. If you check the definitions, and read the rhetoric of Soviet apologists, they explicitly proclaim that the Soviet Union became to capitalistic and too 'state capitalistic', or as they say, Fascist.
Have you been in touch with any Communist-apologists, or Soviet apologists, lately? I have. You find them in all sorts of places. pravda's meesageboards. soviet-empire.com. et al. A significant number of these people claim the reason these Communist nations failed was because they became either too Fascist or too Capitalist -- of course, they rely on the twisted definition of Capitalist; that is, they use the term capitalist for Market Socialism and government created oligopoly.
"Fascism and Communism have always been two strong opposite."
Communism, as illustrated in the stage of State-Socialism ala the Soviet Union and China, and Fascism/are/ two sides of the same coin (Socialism: Government ownership and administration of the means and ends of production, to one degree or another) -- I did not say that Fascist and Communist countries got along. Both systems utilize a different ideology of nationalizing or collectively administrating production. Fascism was just more efficient at it. Well, except the Communists of the 20th Century were obviously were more efficient killers.
"In any case, it's no surprise Communist states were totalitarians, in XXth century, most of the countries have evolved in totalitarian, non-communist, dictatorships at one point or another - that includes all European colonies (i.e. most of the world)."
The reason why all those Communist states were totalitarian, is because they followed Marx' theories. The Soviet Union, for example, was almost an identical copy of what Marx described as the second state of Communism, i.e., the Socialist-State. This is indubitably what Marx, Lenin, Stalin, etc wanted.
"No. Never. You need to take basic politics lessons. Urgently."
It's not a matter of basic politic science lessons. It is a matter of history, and more specifically, economic and socio-political history of the time.
Before you ever insist I seek 'basic politics lessons', you should do a little bit of reading in history concerning the era, specifically from various intellectual and academics from all over the world, including the West. If you did, you would be quick to discover many people proclaimed the Nazi regime's implementation of Socialism, i.e., Fascism -- a more open and fluid economic system compared to State Socialism -- to be superior.
Funny how every time a Communist (Socialist Stage) state breaks down, it is automatically labelled a fascist dictatorship.
You know, fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin [socialism]? Furthermore, fascism is the most successful form of communism.
Many people in the East and West were labelling the Nazi regime [before all of the killing] as proof that such a system could work, almost explicitly proclaiming it the success of socialism -- well, we all know where that went...
"I can appreciate the free market in the abstract, but when looked at practically, the power is too concentrated in the hands of corporations, and consumers end up getting screwed."
We'll ignore all the history of the modern corporation, essentially being FDR and Wilson's idea of nationalizing industry (Market Socialism).
What we will concentrate on, is how corporations don't just dominated competitors.
Here's a prime example: In 1996 there were around 600 ISPs. All these hot dog wallstreet types and Liberal theorists were proclaiming that the big dogs were going to buy up all the little ones, and an oligopoly would form. Sure enough, the big dogs started buying up the little ones, but do you know what happened next? A year later, there were some 1100 ISPs.
How did this happen? Well, when 'the big dogs' [major businesses and huge corporations] are buying up the little dogs, they're essentially providing entrepreneurs with a security blanket. If they, themselves, don't make it big, they have the extra safety net of being bought out -- the risks aren't as great.
Your entire first paragraph sounds like so many other empty, and feeble attacks on free markets and libertarian societies.
For starters, if Iraq was a libertarian society, you wouldn't be dominated by a government of your own, and especially not of a foreign government. I'm wondering if you actually believe your rhetoric, or if you're just trying to be clever by taking weak shots at libertarians? [Please, take note of the difference between libertarians and Libertarians: Big 'L' = party affiliated].
Russia never actually made it to a Free Market. Russia did nothing more than create oligopolies by selling industries to the highest bidder, who coincidentally, are either old communists or buddies of old communists. Oh yeah, and then there's that whole thing of not really allowing other businesses to be formed without extensive oversight and everything. The same can be sad about the 'free market disaster' of, now what was it, Chile? You're confusing Market Socialism (how Marx fooled so many, as his definition of capitalism is Market Socialism) with free markets.
"If you're such a proponent of free markets, why complain if the free markets choose against you?"
It might have something to do with the debates and both campaigns being funded by, at least partially, tax payers money. Since Bush and Kerry are not the only two candidates running, this puts them at a clear disadvantage. There's also the whole issue of government-"free market" mixing going on with this 'private debate organizations'. If the unregulated market chose Bush and Kerry, you wouldn't hear any problems. The fact of the matter is, they're doing/everything/ they possibly can to make sure that Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader stay out of the debates.
There are two types of libertarians [if you ignore the "socialist-libertarians"]:
1. Anarcho-libertarians. No formal government. Free markets and 'rational anarchy' ala de la Paz (you know, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?) 2. Minarchist-libertarians. A minarchist state. Minimal government as a "Night Watchman". (Perhaps this is why these types often proclaim themselves "Night Watchman libertarians". They tend to be the most accepted, mostly because they're not as radical.)
You know Marx never really explained how "Communism" would work, probably because he only used it to get the anarcho-socialists on board. What Marx really wanted was the U.S.S.R., as it looked almost exactly like what he said it should. Fortunately for us, Marx didn't understand why, economically, such a system could never last.
The only mention Marx ever gave about the "Communism" stage was that people would be 'educated' [programmed, since such a system views people as parts of a machine] to automagically start getting along during the Socialism stage. All of the anarcho-socialists that wised up to this were killed, imprisoned, or exported.
Modern Marxists and Trotskyists are typically always socialist-authoritarians who don't really care all that much for Communism, but rather seek some sort of Socialist regime in their own right (that or they're just ignorant of economics). These people tend to take the 'good' things from Socialism and the 'good' things from anarcho-Communism and say, "err... We've got it at last! Praise Marx! Eradicate the bourgeois!" In reality, these people are rarely given any say.
Oh yeah, and they're even more vague in their description of economics in such a system as well... like the modern anarcho-syndaclist Noam Chomsky, whom you might have seen our little friend Cryofan vociferously advertising.
"Not true. Even inside a company, costs can (and are computed), despite everything is owned by the company. Same for the State, it can do economic calculation. This is something that libetarian ideologists missed."
You completeld misunderstand, either intentionally or out of your own ignorance, what the former was saying about economic calculation being impossible. States cannot accurately calculate supply and demand, particularly demand. The State can also not efficiently meet those demands overtime, as not only do directly associated factors require payment, but so does the bureaucracy. Even Asimov's "econometrics" system misses this.
"In Stalinist USSR, this incentive was, in some case, "you have to meet the quotas or you will be labeled as a traitor and shot dead" - this may be even more effective than capitalism and free market: people tend to be more efficient when you threaten to kill them, than when they just might want more money to buy a bigger SUV."
Yeah, maybe this is why productivity began to drop significantly after the first few years of the Soviet Union and was only briefly inflamed again when they were successfully able to hype up a growing war with the West.
If you seriously can stand behind the idea that killing or imprisoning people to make them work more is prosperity, then I seriously have to question your mental health... or at the least your morality.
I do ask, in all your erudition, if you would be so kind as you say why the former poster got all of that wrong, instead of saying, "No, wrong", "You're way off the mark" or whatever.
Anonymous cowardous and lack of explanation removes any sort of clout that you might normally have had.
I see where you are coming from now. I completely understand where that post came from then.
We might be agree alot more than you think.
I just think a whole lot of resources that can be spent elsewhere, or simply left be, instead of throwing them at problems that really cannot be cured.
I agree with you that having a strong [and unoppressive] arm makes holding perpetrators accountable makes things easier. I absolutely due. You just have to be careful about what you're trying to regulate -- and whether or not it is worth it.
I hate to sound like some CEO, as I cannot stand the type, but you really have to think of problems with a "Cost-Benefit Analysis". I think this is a fundamental problem with government, as government tends to increase its size and complexity by insisting that more money and more regulations [along with alot of the evils that often go with] will solve the problem. This is mostly never the case. It usually hides the problem, or produces other problems.
Seriously? It's one thing to disagree with me and care to argue your point, it's another thing to use pathetic methods like modding a post you do not like or agree with as 'troll'.
Whether or not I think someone shouldn't be driving is irrelevant. People without liscences drive all the time. This includes 13 year olds who obviously could not have a liscence, to 33 year olds who had theirs stripped due to drunk driving.
No matter how much you tax cigarettes, people are going to smoke. They just might switch to marijuana [apparently happening with teens in Canada...].
No matter how much you regulate alcohol, people are going to make and consume alcohol.
Now I'm not exactly sure of how much regulation and enforcement you're in support of, but it sounds a whole lot like you think throwing money and regulation at it is going to make it go away. There already is alot of regulation and money spent on enforcing everything from speed limit violations to broken tail-lights. Has any of it worked? Not really at all...
I think it was Stanford that did a study showing that humans naturally drive at what speed they are most comfortable with, except for a few people who are going to speed at dangerous speeds regardless. A study by the University of California shows that most accidents occur when there is significant variation between cars on the same road, not higher speed limits. For instance, a road with a 75mph speed limit has no more accidents than a road with a 55mph speed limit. It's pretty much an uncontrollable thing... accidents I mean. They do happen. They can't really be prevented.
You make it sound like without government regulation and enforcement, more people will be doing stupid shit, when it seems to me, with all of the regulation and enforcement we have no, people are still doing dumb shit. Stupidity cannot be regulated.
Gun enforcement doesn't work except in extremely localized areas [you know, everybody who comes into this building has to be stripped searched and x-rayed]. Speed limits do not work except in extremely localized areas [and even still, there are random exceptions].
Regulation and enforcement certainly is a good idea, on paper, but it doesn't work, except, like I said, in a few localized areas.
And seriously... If enough people wanted to be using their seatbelts and airbags, they would have been offered in vehicles without government demanding it to be so.
Fascism and Socialism are opposite sides of the same coin.
Some thoughts on the USSR, Communism, and Socialism.
The Soviet Union was an almost exact and perfect model of what Marx described as the main stage of Communism, that is to say the stage between "capitalism" and Communism. Socialism.
Of course, the USSR is what Marx really wanted. The idea that the state would voluntarily wither away into 'voluntary' communes was pretty much a sucker for the anarchists to get on board. They dominated the socialist movement at that time.
You can now see why it is not so ironic that the leaders of the anarcho-socialists/syndicalists and such were first executed.
Marx never really explained how or why the communes would work. He just basically held that the Socialist monolith state would be able to "educate" people into "voluntarily" forming Communes. Of course, the reason Marx fabricated the end stage of Communism is pretty much to wrestle support away from the likes of Bakunin, Proudhun (Proudhon?), and the anarchists... or maybe, rather, to get some of them on board, since anarchists dominated "socialism" at the time.
The same problems exist in a "libertarian-socialist" or "anarcho-socialist" society. [Thought: What an abhorration of the term 'libertarian'/'liberty'.]
If I take care of an orchard or field of crops while everyone else drinks away their days, leaving me with a whole lot of food for the winter months, they say I have to share with them, or I'm some how morally bankrupt or evil. That's bullshit. I own the land. I work the land. I reap the rewards.
Of course you never would have thought about doing a google search for it, you're too busy asking for cited facts and statistics from someone who has an opposing view from you, than actually taking the initiative to do it yourself. The truth probably is, is that you do not want to be proven wrong.
Dare I say it, you're probably some little poofter who wants the government to create an entire organization to collect taxes, and do google searches for statistics on everything.
Google: Canadians going (coming) to U.S. for health care Google: Hidden Costs of Canada's Health Care
Canada's health care system takes about seven percent of the Canadian GDP. In other words, seven percent of the national wealth, in order to pay for the public health care system in Canada, and that's an amount that's been rising faster than GDP growth. It's rising faster than tax revenues. It's rising faster than all other forms of public spending, so it's really become quite unsustainable, and clearly it's going to get worse.
The fact of the matter is, you vociferous prick, that Canada has a two-tier system. It is well documented all over the internet and in academic, political, and economic journals. I seriously doubt you would ever bother to read them anyways.
The left is naive and misled, the right just knowingly lies? Please. You're such an ignorant cunt it's not even funny. Not only am I not right wing, but I also am not so immature and ignorant to suggest that everyone must be clumped as either right or left wing.
"The failed "communism" of the USSR is about as close to communism as the capitalist economy in the US is to free trade. Close, but not close enough."
Yeah. Um. The Soviet Union was an almost exact and perfect model of what Marx described as the main stage of Communism, that is to say the stage between "capitalism" and Communism. Socialism.
Of course, the USSR is what Marx really wanted. The idea that the state would voluntarily wither away into 'voluntary' communes was pretty much a sucker for the anarchists to get on board. They dominated the socialist movement at that time.
"Communism at its heart requires no central planning. You can have a democratic communism, as well."
Only if the people in those 'voluntary' communes were 'educated' well enough through the Socialist stage of Communism.
Marx never really explained how or why the communes would work. The reason Marx fabricated the end stage of Communism is pretty much to wrestle support away from the likes of Bakunin, Proudhun (Proudhon?), and the anarchists.
"There is nothing wrong in principle; it's in practice that it fails, because as a model it doesn't take into account human nature."
I'd have to say that there is alot wrong in principle, especially considering the detatchment from one's own labor, the denial of one's ownership, and the denial of one's private property.
If you get any of your information about Communism or Marxism from modern Marxists, you're likely not getting any real information about Communism or Marxism. Most of these people, today, are fixated on Trotsky -- who offered nothing of value. Maybe that is why Lenin got rid of him.
Most of the Marxists and Trotskyists today are merely socialist-authoritarians who don't really care too much about that last stage of Communism. They tend to resort to mysticized blurring by taking the "good" things from Socialism, and the "good" things from anarcho-Communism, and molding them together.
"Free market economics suffers from the same drawback. It has several advantages over communism, but that doesn't mean it isn't seriously flawed."
I've already discussed communism enough for one post. To demonstrate how Socialism fails against the Free Market, I outline von Mises' arguments from his book Socialism.
1. It is impossible to predict rates of expansion and costs of industry.
- Anyone who thinks they can argue with this should be ignored. 2. Government is unable to dictate price as efficiently as consumers.
- Same as after 1. 3. Consumers cannot be forced to make unwanted purchases to stimulate growth.
- "The statesman who should attempt to direct people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
4. Penalizing productivity by redistributing income does not create wealth.
- It redistributes wealth, with capital that could be utilized to further create new wealth being lost both in the bureaucracy, as well as wasted on dependencies created.
5. It is impossible to change human nature. - Socialism, requiring a strong State, thus exaggerates the imperfections in human nature by offering a few more power, with less consequences.
"There are limited resources, therefore it *is* a zero sum game. As long as one group of people can control the majority of the resources and lock out the majority from participating in control, there *will* be losers."
If there is a means of prevent a group from gaining/coercive/ control, in other words from becoming a government, then there is no need for limitation.
Paul Pilzer (Plizer?) wrote a book called... Unlimited Wealth... or somethin
"I don't think the grandparent made any such assumption."
He seemed to suggest that there is a definite loser.
"You are talking about only one side. What you are not talking about is what happens when "fail to win" gets transformed into "loses and becomes extinct". Take a look around you and tell me how many hundreds if not thousands of smaller businesses have been bankrupted by bigger and more powerful (money-wise) businesses thru unfair means."
How is this the fault of the free market, or of free market capitalists? It's not. Businesses go out of business all the time, and not all of them due to some larger company or corporation provided services for less of a cost. The people aren't becoming extinct, their businesses are. Are you suggesting we should protect all businesses, so that non ever become extinct? I should hope not...
Also... let's not continue to ignore the distance between a free market and the intermingling between big business and government. That's what I'm trying to get at.
"You must also not deny that lots of people have "advantages" thru inheritance and dishonest means. The first one maintains a strangle-hold on these advantages while the 2nd one rewards the dishonest (the guy who probably makes inferior products."
Surely you can't associate inheritance to dishonest means. You have a right to what you earn, and you have a right to accept gifts.
In a free market society, if an owner of a multimillion dollar, or billion dollar, business died and left it to his son, the son would have to compete by providing a service, honestly and efficiently, otherwise his fortune will dwindle. Are you complaining about someone inheriting wealth now? That sounds like jealousy to me.
"Thanks for dragging in outsourcing into it. I can't miss the irony in your claim when US itself is outsourcing jobs at a rapid rate to places where they are to stay. Thats the way free trade works. Best value for money. And who says it is any fix at all. Corporations are not here to fix the US economy but to take care of their own profits."
Uh. Yeah. Irony, alright.
The U.S. has been oustourcing manufacturing jobs for quite some time now, yet from 1980-2004, the number of manufacturing jobs has doubled.
Oh yeah. The market has already begun to naturally correct outsourcing in some areas, as some IT jobs are beginning to move back.
The modern corporation is here becomes the U.S. government, enjoys protection from the U.S. government [not just talking about political favors, but also IP and patent laws, etc], and therefore justifies me in differentiating between free markets and "capitalism" as you might define in. Do not confuse the two.
The corporation, by design, is a method of maximizing profits. The modern corporation, by design, is a method of nationalizing industry.
You're welcome for my dragging outsourcing into it. When you've become more acclimated to economics and outsourcing, feel free to come talk to me at anytime.
In a system of limited power, with the few powers of the government explicitly written down in a constitution, and backed up by the people, using policial channels to get an edge cannot easily occur. With even the slightest interaction between business and politics, this can occur.
The ideal of communism is great? Maybe the end-dream is great, but communism itself is hardly great. To think that one man, or a small number of men, can central plan an economy efficiently is absurd. The closest thing to efficiency would be an "econometrics" system ala Asimov. Unfortunately, it still would not be efficient. On top of that, it would still be difficult to decide, for instance, whether the shoes a particular group needs should be Nike or Reebok, or whatever. Unless, of course, the greatness of a society is measured by how like one another you can mold people into being.
I don't want to sound like I'm insulting you, but you can definitely tell where your pesimism comes out. You view a free market, and open trade as a zero-sum game. The truth of the matter is, the poor don't have to win, and the wealthier business owners don't have to win, in order for both parties to increase both their own wealth and their own living standards.
Do I think the elite 10% will easily give up their 50%? Of course not. I think you're failing to grasp who has the power to make the rules in a free market society, or in a limited Republic with democratically elected officials. In a socialist or mixed-market society, it is very clear who makes the rules. In the former society, the rules are few and far between, and society is governed almost entirely by the market (the invisible hand, naturally enough).
I don't think that I denied that some people have a distinct and almost-insurmountable advantage. To deny this is to deny human nature. Some people are simply better at doing different things than others. Some people are better athletes, some people are better golfers, some people are better musicians, and some people are better scientists or computer geeks. To paraphrase a quasi-famous economist, who I ironically cannot remember the name of, "No one person is equal to himself on different days."
I would never claim that a free market society is the road to utopia. Humanity is far from perfect, and humans have proven to be unjust on more than one occasion. My stance is that to limit the amount of damage and power one person or small group of people can accumulate, you would either have to evolve into, or form a free market society, or you would have hope that people can some how manage to find a way that allows for the welfare state to be affordable over a long period of time.
The touted socialist-democracies of Europe are finding it harder and harder to keep financing the services that more and more people are using -- and this is with little immigration compared to the United States. The problem? People take advantage of what they perceive as free. Their solution? Temporarily mask or lessen the problems by outsourcing accounts and infrastructure. It is my economic understanding, however, that tells me that with free trade, such a thing cannot be a long term fix.
Logic and history teaches us that government is the key to getting a leg up on the competition, or the only tool to seriously hamper growing competition, yet to remove government is to remove a level playing field?
Removing government from anything, creates a level playing field.
I think that is where your logic fails. You're saying a libertarian view does not work now, because there is no level playing field. Well, yeah, there is no level playing field. The argument is that without government, there would be a level playing field.
Suddenly businessmen and corporations [if their rights were not dissolved] would be forced to compete by offering products for less of a price, with better service, and better quality. In a free market society, only those empathetic and devoted to honest service of their customers succeed. If they manage to win out over the competition without government, then by very definition, they have to be doing good.
Slashdot Mirror
"You're a hoot!"
And you're a pathetic charlatan.
"Indeed, Chomsky does not have a solution. I think he has accomplished quite a bit already, however. THat would seem to be enough for one person."
The only worthwhile things that Chomsky achieved were in the field of linguistics. Which makes him partially more useful than you and your nonsensical bullshit. You're both establishment scamsters.
I am not surprised that such a lowly person [you] thinks it is quite the accomplishment to just whine and complain, without offering any solutions.
"And, yes, I now see the rich as dangerous and deterimental to our well being, something like a dangerous animal, such as a rattlesnake."
So, essentially, you're a pathetic individual, who is trying to justify his failures by blaiming it on the rich. How convenient. Nevermind the economic FACT that people with money invest in new business ventures, THUS creating new jobs.
This is something that politicians cannot do. All politicians can do is remove wealth and resources, including human labor, from the marketplace and force them into jobs which may or may not produce wanted results. In the marketplace, wanted results have to be produced otherwise the business fails. In government, failure means more money taken directly from people who earned it, you know, like hard working Americans -- not whining pussies like yourself.
[Just a collection of brief thoughts concerning your time in the U.S. Navy:
While I agree with you that life aboard a Naval Submarine is far from romantic or grand, I find your chemical solvent/cancer tumor claims both ignorant and annoying. The Navy takes great steps in making sure that the air aboard submarines is filtered and regenerated. Why the hell would they poison people they spend thousands or millions of dollars in training?
I'm tired of hearing assholes like you, who claim to be sick from chemical solvents, or who burn themselves on the chemicals because you're not careful and you do something stupid... like, oh, I don't know... stick their cut open arms or hands in a vat of bleach for some reason.
Also, Naval submarines are still the future of Naval Warfare. They can hit targets up to 500 miles inland and they can do so impunity -- something which airforce bombers cannot. Plus, you can get a whole submarine for the price of a single B-2 Bomber. Oh, and not to mention, submarines can put far more ordinance on a single target than a fleet of B-2s. There's really no comparison.
It is likely elaborations on these will appear on a website that I will again mention later in this response.]
Hey, guess what. You're still a fucking moron.
"We should act rationally and take measures to limit their power over us, and use them to provide for us."
By creating more government and government agencies who, by very definition, have more power over us? You continue to spout moronic bullshit.
"This America is a partnership, and just like any business partnership (e.g., a law firm), if one partner does a lot of business, he does not get to keep it all; most of it goes into the common fund."
No, America is not a partnership you collectivist piece of shit. It was not founded to be a partnership. It did not become a bastion of freedom by being a partnership.
Your little analogy of America to a business partnership, such as a law firm, is both ignorant and empty. We'll ignore the historical fallaciousness of such a claim for the time being.
Businessmen, and lawyers, obviously voluntarily form a partnership. You do not get a share of the common fund without earning your keep. Law firms, and businesses, are still not about equality -- which you seem to think is actually possible [or you're just another socialist-statist who dreams of having all the power for his own...]. People do not explicitly agree on sharing 'the common fund' in the case of a society-wide partnership. Your entire analogy falls apart in front of a 25 second response.
It's not much of a secret that those with money want to preserve it. The big issue is when people such as yourself demonize anyone who is successful, as you would apparently be unsatisified unless we were all poor sods.
You know, after you put me on your enemies list, I've taken interest in reading what you post. It has become my opinion that you are a fucking moron. Your website is horrible, as you quote fucking morons, and you post hate-filled, ignorant diatribe.
Instead of insisting you are more informed than the rest of us, how about you become informed. And stop reading Chomsky, unless you're reading his works directly related to linguistics.
Chomsky once said, "There are supposed to be laws of economics. I can't understand them."
Indeed he can't, and neither can you, Cryofan, with all your vociferousness.
Let us discuss what appears to be your hero, Chomsky, for a moment:
So let us get it straight; He hates Stalinism, fascism, capitalism, free markets, and American libertarianism. He also denounces Marxism, Keynesianism, protectionism, and most everything else. He spends so much time criticizing, but yet he proposes little. I'm not surprised why. Everything he does advocate falls on its face before it gets out of the starting gates. Chomsky favors a vague and undefined form of collective ownership.
as von Mises said, "Syndaclism is so absurd, that speaking generally, it has not found any advocates who dare to write openly and clearly in its favor."
as Jame Ostrowski said [on Chomsky], "..., he favors a vague and ill-defined form of collective ownership that the workers will figure out as they bumble and stumble along towards bankruptcy."
Chomsky supports a system that CAN exist in a free market society, as long as their not coercing anyone. Of course, they could never compete in a free market (because of their inefficiency and because of the lack of workers to afford major risk), which might lead one to understand why Noam Chomsky, like Marx, supported violence.
[A little bit of online resource might reveal where he supported aggression...].
I'm sure your little video documentary, if you were not just spitting bullshit, would be quite successful with alot of the little ignorant tossers here at slashdot, but no respectable individual will give you the time of day.
Oh, and the reason why people mod you down is because you're a moron, not because they are simply right-wing or libertarian. It is not your views, or even Chomsky's views, that causes them to mod you down, it is the fact that you are so caustic with so little substance. For someone who claims to be so much, and to be doing so much in life, you come off as an individual worth very little -- filled with hate and jealousy.
Unfortunately, it seems you have a little bit of a following with all the little 14-15 year old angsty "anti-corporate" types here at slashdot.
I ask you, if I email you for open discussion on the articles on your website, would you be willing to debate me in a less chaotic atmosphere. In other words, would you grant me the opportunity to initiate an email discussion on your website? I wouldn't want to email you a challenge out of the blue for fear of being labelled a "fundie-right-winger" or something... *rolls-eyes*
Oh, I'd be daft to be upset over the call takers not being busy! If they weren't busy, I would take that as a good sign.
What I was merely saying, though I guess I didn't say it clearly enough, is that they have supervisors, and paper pushers who really don't do much. You have three guys doing the work that can be done by any on reasonably competent individual, and they all make more money than the dispatchers.
Then you have the director basically trying to make everyone's life miserable because he's not being pushed "up the hill" [into a county political office... as the 911/EMA center is at the bottom of the hill, below the county courthouse and administrative building...].
"friends and major competitions"
Yeah, I, uh... meant major corporations... or competitors, I guess...
The interaction between business and government is obviously very harmful to our society. I have to question anyone who merely asserts that it is the fault of politicians, or that it is the fault of businesses or corporations.
Nay, I say. It is the fault of how our government is set up. Let's face it, when you have too much democracy, and law-making and increased regulation becomes all too easy and common, big money is going to use government to deter competition. We were never meant to have a society in which new laws were to be easily created, and I am certainly not just talking about amendments.
We are facing one of the dangers of democracy.
Either the majority dominates the minority (tyrany of the majority) or the minority (wealth elite) dominates the majority (tyrany of the minority).
Of course, human beings are not perfect, and I would never suggest that ridding the world of government would create utopia. However, I will say that reducing government and reducing the ability of companies to utilize government in deterring competition (everything from regulations to IP laws) would be a step in the right direction.
You hit the nail right on the head, with this statement: "However, like anything, privatization can be corrupted by people unwilling to play by the rules." You have to watch the means of privatization. People point to post-Soviet Russia as a failure of capitalism, or the failure of "free markets" in Chile. Both arguments are empty, as in both cases, government sold off businesses to friends and major competitions -- the governmental creation of oligopolies (or outright monopolies).
Last summer I worked for the county government (a county Emergency Management Agency to be exact). I never saw so many lazy employees in all my life.
We shared the building with the 911 Emergency.
At any given time, the 911E side had a dozen or so people working, most of which were not doing anything.
During the day, when EMA was operating, they had 3 old lady secretaries who did nothing but drink coffee and gossip, 1 guy who went around talking to everybody all day, another who read things online with pink frills around his monitor, another lady "doing payroll" (who the hell does payroll every hour of the week?), an assistant director almost always busy, and then the director never to be found except when the cameras were around. They all made damn good money too. Now I'm not familiar enough with the 911E side to say what needs to be done and what can and cannot be done in a given day with x amount of people, but I KNOW that it shouldn't take more than three people to run the E.M.A. side... and they all make damn good money. I hear similar things all over government.
I can definitely relate to you on private vs socialized sector...
"Well this is more or less what I wrote, that the top 10 control 66% of the market."
... Maybe I've just been presenting my argument unclearly, or misleadingly.
But 66% is not 100%, thus, there is no decopoly. That is what I was trying to point out.
"No. You missed the fundamental problem of and the fundemental cost of broadband: the lines. The physical lines. They cost a premium and they are worth a fortune. Most of the cost is physical digging, laying out the cables, and fill the holes back, all this on the property of others, or of the municipality. This is a low-tech job."
Ah, now I understand what you are saying.
"This looked strange to me: are you claiming that right now in your home, you have one wire going to ProLog, one wire going to Shen-Heights, and one wire going to Verizon?"
I don't even know how you confused that paragraph so much...
"So I checked, and I saw the reason why there is competition at all is that the governement (the FCC) forced the cable/telco companies to let their competitors use the previous line to the customer."
I'll give you that. Unfortunately, I think I would have put more faith in ISPs beinga ble to strike a deal with the bigger cable/teleco companies. I'm not sure if the big cable/telecom companies would have rejected all offers. If they didn't, which would seem logical in many situations, then my argument concerning the safety net still applies.
"So your quote of a marvellous thousands of ISPs is only due to regulation. Besides that regulation was slashed in 2002, so the hundreds of ISP were poised to disappear (except the deregulation was overruled by some courts, so that's why your ISPs are not here)."
I'll only consent to part of this. It denies ISPs and entrepreneurs being capable of striking a deal with larger cable/telecom comapanies. Even if the major cable/telecom companies did not agree to any deals, other opportunities would remain open, or be created. Wireless LAN, for instance; Satellite Television.
If I have to pay for regulation, including agencies to regulate these matters, I would rather save my money and have fewer choices in the number of ISPs.
"First, I know absolutly no small ISP (say 10,000 customer), who has business in both say, New Delhi, and San Francisco. It makes no sense - it is still possible if there is an economic reason for that. You have to have a pretty good reason to go abroad, and small international companies are the exception. If you are not in the top 10 market leaders going abroad is a question mark."
I wasn't trying to argue that small ISPs are trying to start up businesses across the globe.
"It may make sense to buy an ISP in the town next to yours - because then you can share backbone access. Different businesses have different business logic."
Agree on the first part, but the fundamentals of the marketplace are always alive, including the conditions for survival and development.
"Second, monopolies or oligopolies make more profit than competitive markets."
The argument I offer is that they do not really last, particularly harmful monopolies or oligopolies, especially without government regulation, as government has the habit [perhaps of no coincidence] of building and maintaining monopolies.
Not that naturally occuring monopolies is a bad thing, anyways.
"Are you sure people still want to pay for a dial-up ISP?"
If I didn't, I wouldn't be using it. I wouldn't bother paying more for broadband just to check email and read slashdot.
"Likewise, cybercafés have been disappearing, partly due to the advent of broadband, and of wireless access. An unreliable safety net."
Indeed, they have been disappearing partly due to the advent of broadband and wireless access. Cybercafes still make money in many places, for many different reasons.
It is virtually impossible for one company to dominate the others without government assistance
"1) be the first
Actually, I took a market that was not heavily regulated. Heavy regulation drives down investment and deters new competition, which is largely why large companies tend to support and call for regulation, as long as they get to decide what kind it is.
The basic principles behind my initial argument would always ring true, at least to some significant degree, in an area void of heavy regulation.
You can actually avoid the other reply I made, if you would like, since this post essentially deals with the core idea behind my argument.
"First, we went from your marvellous world of thousands of ISP to a decopoly. Wow! And you still aren't convinced?"
.9% .5% .3%
We don't actually live in a decopoly. AOL/Time Warner controls 24.8%.
AOL: 24.8
United Online: 7.2%
Comcast (Cable): 6.4%
EarthLink: 5.5%
SBC (DSL): 4.5%
Road Runner (Cable): 3.8%
Verizon (DSL): 3.1%
Cox (Cable): 2.3%
Charter (Cable, a few DialUp): 1.8%
BellSouth (DSL): 1.8%
Adelphia (Cable): 1.3%
Cablevision (Cable): 1.3%
Qwest (DSL):
Covad (DSL):
Mediacom (Cable):
That's the Top Fifteen according to ISP Planet which cites numerous other sources. Check my math, but my calculations show that to be about 65.5%. ISPs 16-23 account for less than 2% of the market, with the rest of the ISPs in the country accounting for 33% of the market, many of them offering broadband (several of them offer broadband in my area). You can get high quality broadband for a decent price in my area.
"The ISP business is a very specific business for the broadband access. Why? Because it has very high set up costs: the lines themselves, the line equipement. So no, you cannot decide randomly: "hey, this month I will join Cablevision - hey this month I will join Comcast!" - each ISP is limited by geographical area."
It was the same when Dial-Up ISPs were in their infancy. The set up costs were high, and the service and equipment were expensive. Prices go down.
"That's why, right now, you don't have a choice of 1000 ISPs, nor even a great choice about the top 10: in practice, for broadband, at a given place, you have oligopoly or monopoly."
Actually, in my area, I have several choices for ISPs, including [to the best of my knowledge] at least three sources for broadband. ProLog/Service Electric, Shen-Heights, Verizon, all offer broadband. There are several ISPs in the area that offer Dial-Up, and since Dial-Up has new subscribers every day, and is still a significant portion of the market, they still count.
I'm on dial-up right now, out of choice. (Only need it temporarily, as I have a T-Line at school).
"Then, third, because of the geographical property someone who has an ISP somewhere is not interested in buying an ISP at the other end of the US, because it will only create problems (travel expenses, medium range phone calls, little possibility of exchanging employee): at best he would be interested in an ISP in the next town, if not too far."
People regularly buy up businesses across the country, or across the world. Your basic premise seems to be that new businesses are bought out when a particular company is looking to form an oligopoly. Explain then, how businesses, including ISPs, regularly open up shops or buy out businesses far away from their main office, including in other countries? You can't. Businesses try to maximize profits, while extending market shares. It is virtually impossible for one company to dominate the others without government assistance (And I'm not just talking about IP/Copyright laws, either).
Businesses expand operations to form local oligopolies? That running trips coming out of the starting block. To form monopolies? If you understood market forces a little bit better, you would understand the irrationality of this. I tried to explain it to you briefly, but you went off in like ninety different directions at once.
"The only case where he would be really interested is buying a local competitor to set up a smaller oligopoly, or a monopoly."
People buy up other businesses out of interest in more profit, not after seeking oligopoly (oligopoly: not control of markets, but a small group heavily influencing prices) or monopoly (no other choices: Where does this exist today, especially when government isn't involved?).
Since nobody is going to purchase more expensive goods, a growing business has to produce better service for less money to grow -- or it has to use government help to squash competitio
When I compare Fascism to Socialism I was comparing the implementation of Fascism to government with the Socialist-State, as in the 2nd/middle stage of Communism. I should hope by the end of this post, you understand what I am saying.
:-)
"It doesn't even have an economic aspect to it's ideology. At least not any economic policy we'd recognize as one."
Historic fascism is a socialized economy, where the actual property rights in each industry are held by government throught regulation.
Benito Mussolini:
"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State."
Want to compare this to some of the prominent Socialists?
"The ideology, forcing communism to happen by force, rather than just letting it evolve from socialist policies, is good, supposedly, but the policial situation in the Soviet Union had too many fascist traits, like the purges and the way popular sentiment had the Ukraine and the other member republics as somehow less fit than Moscow."
Karl Marx promoted violence in ushering in Socialism and 'Communism', like most all of the anarcho-socialists of the time. Hell, Karl Marx supported almost every war and conflict of his time, simply because he saw them as catalysts in bringing about Socialism.
"It goes off in a completely different direction. It deals in things like cultural conflict and war philosophy and pseudo-scientific definitions of "fitness" and other things Americans usually treat as means rather than ends."
Now that I think about it, all three things you mentioned; cultural conflict, war philosophy, pseudo-scientific definitions of "fitness" are all extensions of the class warfare that Marxists embrace. The Marxists pitted worker versus management, wealthy versus poor. The fascists simply added other variations: like the poor Germans versus the wealthy Jews.
(Quite similar to modern Liberals in America who use poor blacks versus wealthy whites).
The very symbol that Mussolini used for Fascism, a bundle of sticks, was symbolically collectivist; you can break all of the sticks individually, but not collectively.
"Yeah, and the top 10 control 66% of the market now (AOL controls 25%). The "AOL-Time Warner" attempt is a prime example of attempt of concentration of power in the hands of corporations."
Yes, uh, a decopoly is such a horrible thing. I thought people complaining about Microsoft's nonMonopoly were bad.
"Yeah, instead of bankrupcy, they sell all their assets for a huge bargain - which is what happens in bankrupcy anyway, so what?"
I don't think it is the same thing as bankruptcy. I think you took a bit of a logical leap there, or you're just attacking another straw man.
"Not true. Most communist countries were totalitarian."
/are/ two sides of the same coin (Socialism: Government ownership and administration of the means and ends of production, to one degree or another) -- I did not say that Fascist and Communist countries got along. Both systems utilize a different ideology of nationalizing or collectively administrating production. Fascism was just more efficient at it. Well, except the Communists of the 20th Century were obviously were more efficient killers.
No coincidence, I assure you. If you check the definitions, and read the rhetoric of Soviet apologists, they explicitly proclaim that the Soviet Union became to capitalistic and too 'state capitalistic', or as they say, Fascist.
Have you been in touch with any Communist-apologists, or Soviet apologists, lately? I have. You find them in all sorts of places. pravda's meesageboards. soviet-empire.com. et al. A significant number of these people claim the reason these Communist nations failed was because they became either too Fascist or too Capitalist -- of course, they rely on the twisted definition of Capitalist; that is, they use the term capitalist for Market Socialism and government created oligopoly.
"Fascism and Communism have always been two strong opposite."
Communism, as illustrated in the stage of State-Socialism ala the Soviet Union and China, and Fascism
"In any case, it's no surprise Communist states were totalitarians, in XXth century, most of the countries have evolved in totalitarian, non-communist, dictatorships at one point or another - that includes all European colonies (i.e. most of the world)."
The reason why all those Communist states were totalitarian, is because they followed Marx' theories. The Soviet Union, for example, was almost an identical copy of what Marx described as the second state of Communism, i.e., the Socialist-State. This is indubitably what Marx, Lenin, Stalin, etc wanted.
"No. Never. You need to take basic politics lessons. Urgently."
It's not a matter of basic politic science lessons. It is a matter of history, and more specifically, economic and socio-political history of the time.
Before you ever insist I seek 'basic politics lessons', you should do a little bit of reading in history concerning the era, specifically from various intellectual and academics from all over the world, including the West. If you did, you would be quick to discover many people proclaimed the Nazi regime's implementation of Socialism, i.e., Fascism -- a more open and fluid economic system compared to State Socialism -- to be superior.
Keep bringing on the diatribe, A.C.
Funny how every time a Communist (Socialist Stage) state breaks down, it is automatically labelled a fascist dictatorship.
You know, fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin [socialism]? Furthermore, fascism is the most successful form of communism.
Many people in the East and West were labelling the Nazi regime [before all of the killing] as proof that such a system could work, almost explicitly proclaiming it the success of socialism -- well, we all know where that went...
"I can appreciate the free market in the abstract, but when looked at practically, the power is too concentrated in the hands of corporations, and consumers end up getting screwed."
We'll ignore all the history of the modern corporation, essentially being FDR and Wilson's idea of nationalizing industry (Market Socialism).
What we will concentrate on, is how corporations don't just dominated competitors.
Here's a prime example:
In 1996 there were around 600 ISPs. All these hot dog wallstreet types and Liberal theorists were proclaiming that the big dogs were going to buy up all the little ones, and an oligopoly would form.
Sure enough, the big dogs started buying up the little ones, but do you know what happened next? A year later, there were some 1100 ISPs.
How did this happen? Well, when 'the big dogs' [major businesses and huge corporations] are buying up the little dogs, they're essentially providing entrepreneurs with a security blanket. If they, themselves, don't make it big, they have the extra safety net of being bought out -- the risks aren't as great.
Your entire first paragraph sounds like so many other empty, and feeble attacks on free markets and libertarian societies.
/everything/ they possibly can to make sure that Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader stay out of the debates.
For starters, if Iraq was a libertarian society, you wouldn't be dominated by a government of your own, and especially not of a foreign government. I'm wondering if you actually believe your rhetoric, or if you're just trying to be clever by taking weak shots at libertarians? [Please, take note of the difference between libertarians and Libertarians: Big 'L' = party affiliated].
Russia never actually made it to a Free Market. Russia did nothing more than create oligopolies by selling industries to the highest bidder, who coincidentally, are either old communists or buddies of old communists. Oh yeah, and then there's that whole thing of not really allowing other businesses to be formed without extensive oversight and everything. The same can be sad about the 'free market disaster' of, now what was it, Chile? You're confusing Market Socialism (how Marx fooled so many, as his definition of capitalism is Market Socialism) with free markets.
"If you're such a proponent of free markets, why complain if the free markets choose against you?"
It might have something to do with the debates and both campaigns being funded by, at least partially, tax payers money. Since Bush and Kerry are not the only two candidates running, this puts them at a clear disadvantage. There's also the whole issue of government-"free market" mixing going on with this 'private debate organizations'.
If the unregulated market chose Bush and Kerry, you wouldn't hear any problems. The fact of the matter is, they're doing
There are two types of libertarians [if you ignore the "socialist-libertarians"]:
1. Anarcho-libertarians. No formal government. Free markets and 'rational anarchy' ala de la Paz (you know, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?)
2. Minarchist-libertarians. A minarchist state. Minimal government as a "Night Watchman". (Perhaps this is why these types often proclaim themselves "Night Watchman libertarians". They tend to be the most accepted, mostly because they're not as radical.)
You know Marx never really explained how "Communism" would work, probably because he only used it to get the anarcho-socialists on board. What Marx really wanted was the U.S.S.R., as it looked almost exactly like what he said it should. Fortunately for us, Marx didn't understand why, economically, such a system could never last.
The only mention Marx ever gave about the "Communism" stage was that people would be 'educated' [programmed, since such a system views people as parts of a machine] to automagically start getting along during the Socialism stage. All of the anarcho-socialists that wised up to this were killed, imprisoned, or exported.
Modern Marxists and Trotskyists are typically always socialist-authoritarians who don't really care all that much for Communism, but rather seek some sort of Socialist regime in their own right (that or they're just ignorant of economics). These people tend to take the 'good' things from Socialism and the 'good' things from anarcho-Communism and say, "err... We've got it at last! Praise Marx! Eradicate the bourgeois!" In reality, these people are rarely given any say.
Oh yeah, and they're even more vague in their description of economics in such a system as well... like the modern anarcho-syndaclist Noam Chomsky, whom you might have seen our little friend Cryofan vociferously advertising.
"Not true. Even inside a company, costs can (and are computed), despite everything is owned by the company. Same for the State, it can do economic calculation. This is something that libetarian ideologists missed."
You completeld misunderstand, either intentionally or out of your own ignorance, what the former was saying about economic calculation being impossible. States cannot accurately calculate supply and demand, particularly demand. The State can also not efficiently meet those demands overtime, as not only do directly associated factors require payment, but so does the bureaucracy. Even Asimov's "econometrics" system misses this.
"In Stalinist USSR, this incentive was, in some case, "you have to meet the quotas or you will be labeled as a traitor and shot dead" - this may be even more effective than capitalism and free market: people tend to be more efficient when you threaten to kill them, than when they just might want more money to buy a bigger SUV."
Yeah, maybe this is why productivity began to drop significantly after the first few years of the Soviet Union and was only briefly inflamed again when they were successfully able to hype up a growing war with the West.
If you seriously can stand behind the idea that killing or imprisoning people to make them work more is prosperity, then I seriously have to question your mental health... or at the least your morality.
I do ask, in all your erudition, if you would be so kind as you say why the former poster got all of that wrong, instead of saying, "No, wrong", "You're way off the mark" or whatever.
Anonymous cowardous and lack of explanation removes any sort of clout that you might normally have had.
I see where you are coming from now. I completely understand where that post came from then.
We might be agree alot more than you think.
I just think a whole lot of resources that can be spent elsewhere, or simply left be, instead of throwing them at problems that really cannot be cured.
I agree with you that having a strong [and unoppressive] arm makes holding perpetrators accountable makes things easier. I absolutely due. You just have to be careful about what you're trying to regulate -- and whether or not it is worth it.
I hate to sound like some CEO, as I cannot stand the type, but you really have to think of problems with a "Cost-Benefit Analysis". I think this is a fundamental problem with government, as government tends to increase its size and complexity by insisting that more money and more regulations [along with alot of the evils that often go with] will solve the problem. This is mostly never the case. It usually hides the problem, or produces other problems.
How is this possibly rated a 'troll'?
Seriously? It's one thing to disagree with me and care to argue your point, it's another thing to use pathetic methods like modding a post you do not like or agree with as 'troll'.
That's rediculous...
Whether or not I think someone shouldn't be driving is irrelevant. People without liscences drive all the time. This includes 13 year olds who obviously could not have a liscence, to 33 year olds who had theirs stripped due to drunk driving.
No matter how much you tax cigarettes, people are going to smoke. They just might switch to marijuana [apparently happening with teens in Canada...].
No matter how much you regulate alcohol, people are going to make and consume alcohol.
Now I'm not exactly sure of how much regulation and enforcement you're in support of, but it sounds a whole lot like you think throwing money and regulation at it is going to make it go away. There already is alot of regulation and money spent on enforcing everything from speed limit violations to broken tail-lights. Has any of it worked? Not really at all...
I think it was Stanford that did a study showing that humans naturally drive at what speed they are most comfortable with, except for a few people who are going to speed at dangerous speeds regardless. A study by the University of California shows that most accidents occur when there is significant variation between cars on the same road, not higher speed limits. For instance, a road with a 75mph speed limit has no more accidents than a road with a 55mph speed limit. It's pretty much an uncontrollable thing... accidents I mean. They do happen. They can't really be prevented.
You make it sound like without government regulation and enforcement, more people will be doing stupid shit, when it seems to me, with all of the regulation and enforcement we have no, people are still doing dumb shit. Stupidity cannot be regulated.
Gun enforcement doesn't work except in extremely localized areas [you know, everybody who comes into this building has to be stripped searched and x-rayed].
Speed limits do not work except in extremely localized areas [and even still, there are random exceptions].
Regulation and enforcement certainly is a good idea, on paper, but it doesn't work, except, like I said, in a few localized areas.
And seriously... If enough people wanted to be using their seatbelts and airbags, they would have been offered in vehicles without government demanding it to be so.
Fascism and Socialism are opposite sides of the same coin.
Some thoughts on the USSR, Communism, and Socialism.
The Soviet Union was an almost exact and perfect model of what Marx described as the main stage of Communism, that is to say the stage between "capitalism" and Communism. Socialism.
Of course, the USSR is what Marx really wanted.
The idea that the state would voluntarily wither away into 'voluntary' communes was pretty much a sucker for the anarchists to get on board. They dominated the socialist movement at that time.
You can now see why it is not so ironic that the leaders of the anarcho-socialists/syndicalists and such were first executed.
Marx never really explained how or why the communes would work. He just basically held that the Socialist monolith state would be able to "educate" people into "voluntarily" forming Communes. Of course, the reason Marx fabricated the end stage of Communism is pretty much to wrestle support away from the likes of Bakunin, Proudhun (Proudhon?), and the anarchists... or maybe, rather, to get some of them on board, since anarchists dominated "socialism" at the time.
The same problems exist in a "libertarian-socialist" or "anarcho-socialist" society. [Thought: What an abhorration of the term 'libertarian'/'liberty'.]
If I take care of an orchard or field of crops while everyone else drinks away their days, leaving me with a whole lot of food for the winter months, they say I have to share with them, or I'm some how morally bankrupt or evil. That's bullshit. I own the land. I work the land. I reap the rewards.
Wow, aren't you just a clever little cunt.
Of course you never would have thought about doing a google search for it, you're too busy asking for cited facts and statistics from someone who has an opposing view from you, than actually taking the initiative to do it yourself. The truth probably is, is that you do not want to be proven wrong.
Dare I say it, you're probably some little poofter who wants the government to create an entire organization to collect taxes, and do google searches for statistics on everything.
Google: Canadians going (coming) to U.S. for health care
Google: Hidden Costs of Canada's Health Care
Canada's health care system takes about seven percent of the Canadian GDP. In other words, seven percent of the national wealth, in order to pay for the public health care system in Canada, and that's an amount that's been rising faster than GDP growth. It's rising faster than tax revenues. It's rising faster than all other forms of public spending, so it's really become quite unsustainable, and clearly it's going to get worse.
The fact of the matter is, you vociferous prick, that Canada has a two-tier system. It is well documented all over the internet and in academic, political, and economic journals. I seriously doubt you would ever bother to read them anyways.
The left is naive and misled, the right just knowingly lies? Please. You're such an ignorant cunt it's not even funny. Not only am I not right wing, but I also am not so immature and ignorant to suggest that everyone must be clumped as either right or left wing.
"The failed "communism" of the USSR is about as close to communism as the capitalist economy in the US is to free trade. Close, but not close enough."
/coercive/ control, in other words from becoming a government, then there is no need for limitation.
Yeah. Um. The Soviet Union was an almost exact and perfect model of what Marx described as the main stage of Communism, that is to say the stage between "capitalism" and Communism. Socialism.
Of course, the USSR is what Marx really wanted.
The idea that the state would voluntarily wither away into 'voluntary' communes was pretty much a sucker for the anarchists to get on board. They dominated the socialist movement at that time.
"Communism at its heart requires no central planning. You can have a democratic communism, as well."
Only if the people in those 'voluntary' communes were 'educated' well enough through the Socialist stage of Communism.
Marx never really explained how or why the communes would work. The reason Marx fabricated the end stage of Communism is pretty much to wrestle support away from the likes of Bakunin, Proudhun (Proudhon?), and the anarchists.
"There is nothing wrong in principle; it's in practice that it fails, because as a model it doesn't take into account human nature."
I'd have to say that there is alot wrong in principle, especially considering the detatchment from one's own labor, the denial of one's ownership, and the denial of one's private property.
If you get any of your information about Communism or Marxism from modern Marxists, you're likely not getting any real information about Communism or Marxism. Most of these people, today, are fixated on Trotsky -- who offered nothing of value. Maybe that is why Lenin got rid of him.
Most of the Marxists and Trotskyists today are merely socialist-authoritarians who don't really care too much about that last stage of Communism. They tend to resort to mysticized blurring by taking the "good" things from Socialism, and the "good" things from anarcho-Communism, and molding them together.
"Free market economics suffers from the same drawback. It has several advantages over communism, but that doesn't mean it isn't seriously flawed."
I've already discussed communism enough for one post. To demonstrate how Socialism fails against the Free Market, I outline von Mises' arguments from his book Socialism.
1. It is impossible to predict rates of expansion and costs of industry.
- Anyone who thinks they can argue with this should be ignored.
2. Government is unable to dictate price as efficiently as consumers.
- Same as after 1.
3. Consumers cannot be forced to make unwanted purchases to stimulate growth.
- "The statesman who should attempt to direct people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
4. Penalizing productivity by redistributing income does not create wealth.
- It redistributes wealth, with capital that could be utilized to further create new wealth being lost both in the bureaucracy, as well as wasted on dependencies created.
5. It is impossible to change human nature.
- Socialism, requiring a strong State, thus exaggerates the imperfections in human nature by offering a few more power, with less consequences.
"There are limited resources, therefore it *is* a zero sum game. As long as one group of people can control the majority of the resources and lock out the majority from participating in control, there *will* be losers."
If there is a means of prevent a group from gaining
Paul Pilzer (Plizer?) wrote a book called... Unlimited Wealth... or somethin
"I don't think the grandparent made any such assumption."
He seemed to suggest that there is a definite loser.
"You are talking about only one side. What you are not talking about is what happens when "fail to win" gets transformed into "loses and becomes extinct". Take a look around you and tell me how many hundreds if not thousands of smaller businesses have been bankrupted by bigger and more powerful (money-wise) businesses thru unfair means."
How is this the fault of the free market, or of free market capitalists? It's not. Businesses go out of business all the time, and not all of them due to some larger company or corporation provided services for less of a cost. The people aren't becoming extinct, their businesses are. Are you suggesting we should protect all businesses, so that non ever become extinct? I should hope not...
Also... let's not continue to ignore the distance between a free market and the intermingling between big business and government. That's what I'm trying to get at.
"You must also not deny that lots of people have "advantages" thru inheritance and dishonest means. The first one maintains a strangle-hold on these advantages while the 2nd one rewards the dishonest (the guy who probably makes inferior products."
Surely you can't associate inheritance to dishonest means. You have a right to what you earn, and you have a right to accept gifts.
In a free market society, if an owner of a multimillion dollar, or billion dollar, business died and left it to his son, the son would have to compete by providing a service, honestly and efficiently, otherwise his fortune will dwindle. Are you complaining about someone inheriting wealth now? That sounds like jealousy to me.
"Thanks for dragging in outsourcing into it. I can't miss the irony in your claim when US itself is outsourcing jobs at a rapid rate to places where they are to stay. Thats the way free trade works. Best value for money. And who says it is any fix at all. Corporations are not here to fix the US economy but to take care of their own profits."
Uh. Yeah. Irony, alright.
The U.S. has been oustourcing manufacturing jobs for quite some time now, yet from 1980-2004, the number of manufacturing jobs has doubled.
Oh yeah. The market has already begun to naturally correct outsourcing in some areas, as some IT jobs are beginning to move back.
The modern corporation is here becomes the U.S. government, enjoys protection from the U.S. government [not just talking about political favors, but also IP and patent laws, etc], and therefore justifies me in differentiating between free markets and "capitalism" as you might define in. Do not confuse the two.
The corporation, by design, is a method of maximizing profits. The modern corporation, by design, is a method of nationalizing industry.
You're welcome for my dragging outsourcing into it. When you've become more acclimated to economics and outsourcing, feel free to come talk to me at anytime.
In a system of limited power, with the few powers of the government explicitly written down in a constitution, and backed up by the people, using policial channels to get an edge cannot easily occur. With even the slightest interaction between business and politics, this can occur.
The ideal of communism is great? Maybe the end-dream is great, but communism itself is hardly great. To think that one man, or a small number of men, can central plan an economy efficiently is absurd. The closest thing to efficiency would be an "econometrics" system ala Asimov. Unfortunately, it still would not be efficient. On top of that, it would still be difficult to decide, for instance, whether the shoes a particular group needs should be Nike or Reebok, or whatever. Unless, of course, the greatness of a society is measured by how like one another you can mold people into being.
I don't want to sound like I'm insulting you, but you can definitely tell where your pesimism comes out. You view a free market, and open trade as a zero-sum game. The truth of the matter is, the poor don't have to win, and the wealthier business owners don't have to win, in order for both parties to increase both their own wealth and their own living standards.
Do I think the elite 10% will easily give up their 50%? Of course not. I think you're failing to grasp who has the power to make the rules in a free market society, or in a limited Republic with democratically elected officials. In a socialist or mixed-market society, it is very clear who makes the rules. In the former society, the rules are few and far between, and society is governed almost entirely by the market (the invisible hand, naturally enough).
I don't think that I denied that some people have a distinct and almost-insurmountable advantage. To deny this is to deny human nature. Some people are simply better at doing different things than others. Some people are better athletes, some people are better golfers, some people are better musicians, and some people are better scientists or computer geeks. To paraphrase a quasi-famous economist, who I ironically cannot remember the name of, "No one person is equal to himself on different days."
I would never claim that a free market society is the road to utopia. Humanity is far from perfect, and humans have proven to be unjust on more than one occasion. My stance is that to limit the amount of damage and power one person or small group of people can accumulate, you would either have to evolve into, or form a free market society, or you would have hope that people can some how manage to find a way that allows for the welfare state to be affordable over a long period of time.
The touted socialist-democracies of Europe are finding it harder and harder to keep financing the services that more and more people are using -- and this is with little immigration compared to the United States. The problem? People take advantage of what they perceive as free. Their solution? Temporarily mask or lessen the problems by outsourcing accounts and infrastructure.
It is my economic understanding, however, that tells me that with free trade, such a thing cannot be a long term fix.
Wait wait wait...
Logic and history teaches us that government is the key to getting a leg up on the competition, or the only tool to seriously hamper growing competition, yet to remove government is to remove a level playing field?
Removing government from anything, creates a level playing field.
I think that is where your logic fails. You're saying a libertarian view does not work now, because there is no level playing field. Well, yeah, there is no level playing field. The argument is that without government, there would be a level playing field.
Suddenly businessmen and corporations [if their rights were not dissolved] would be forced to compete by offering products for less of a price, with better service, and better quality. In a free market society, only those empathetic and devoted to honest service of their customers succeed. If they manage to win out over the competition without government, then by very definition, they have to be doing good.
You see where I'm coming from?