Commodity prices are on the rise. In a weak market with cash-strapped consumers, producers have little flexibility to pass price increases onto their customers. That means shrinking margins, and if the margins get too slim, it means cutting costs.
What did Hostess really have besides some brand recognition to differentiate itself from the dozens of other junk food producers? Seems like unions and management were fighting over their share of a shrinking Twinkie.
The Hostess unions and management went through their negotiations. The workers found the company's terms unacceptable and went on strike. The company couldn't function and decided the best decision was to cease operations and liquidate the company's assets. The union understood that this was a possibility.
What about when government unions strike? Are we going to close down a school, sell off the assets and return the wealth to the taxpayers? It might not be a bad idea, but I can't see it actually happening. Until that outcome is a genuine risk, government unions have way too much leverage over the taxpayer and shouldn't be allowed to exist.
Software is basically just a set of instructions. I don't see how it could be anything but protected speech. How the software is used is something else altogether.
I think the relevant example is the "Hitman" case. A company published an instruction manual for how to commit a murder/ assassination and someone used the info in the book to commit a murder. Obviously murder is a crime. Is the publisher of the instruction manual guilty however?
They got sued by the victims' families. Unfortunately, the publisher's insurance company decided to settle out of court. IMO, this would be the parallel to software.
"... if you yell "fire" in a theater and there is no fire, you will be kicked out."
If you stand up and start reciting the "I Have a Dream" speech in a theater you would probably be kicked out as well.
Justice Hugo Black brilliantly deconstructed this "fire in a theater" nonsense. Sure, there would be consequences, but the consequences stem from the fact that you are violating the rights of the theater owner and the other patrons. It's not a limitation on the freedom of speech. The same reasoning would apply if you broke into my house and started delivering a speech in my kitchen. The prohibition against doing that isn't an infringement on your right to free speech.
If you owned or rented a theater and sold people tickets specifically for the purpose of hearing you speak, you can yell "fire" as many times as you want to.
Far too many people have this idea that our rights (e.g. to free speech) are "granted" by government. The reality is that We, The People granted the government its power. Along with that, we placed certain specific prohibitions on that power. (thank $deity for that)
"Congress shall make NO LAW...."
Same with Citizen's United. It's not about what "rights" organizations have, it's about what powers the government does not have.
"....compared to the mainly private healthcare system used in the USA."
How is the USA healthcare system "mainly private"? Two government programs Medicare & Medicaid account for the bulk of healthcare expenditures in the USA. Government mandates such as EMTALA are pervasive. Government places artificial barriers to competition in healthcare services, insurance and prescription drugs. Insurance policies face further mandates about what they absolutely must cover.
It's a massive government cluster**** that people and businesses in the private sector are forced to deal with.
The USA government's 45 year intervention in the healthcare system has been a complete disaster. Suggesting that MORE government is the way to fix a problem caused by government is ludicrous.
Yes, the USA government should stop doing what it's doing and GET OUT of areas where they never belonged in the first place.
I believe I saw a documentary, maybe a NOVA episode, that was talking about the effort to restore the Parthenon. That part about the tapering of the columns was amazing.
You petition the government to demand that they act in a particular way.
You DON'T petition the federal government to ask them to give you permission to secede, you just do it!
I appreciate the sentiment, but this is just plain silly. By asking the government to give you permission to secede, you're granting them power that they don't really have.
That's what NCLB is all about. Sounds good at face value, but the problem is that the "extra attention" given to under-achievers is depriving the other students of the attention they need to keep moving forward. Just as one example, I have a friend who teaches high school English. She's had classes where a few kids were recent immigrants and therefore had to spend a hugely disproportionate amount of time making sure these children aren't "left behind".
"...you should just admit you have no interest in deomocracy(sic)"
I have no interest in a democracy where the majority can use arbitrary force against the minority. The 99% vote to kill the 1% and divide up their wealth, and the 1% shouldn't complain because they got their chance to vote.
If "most normal people" want to take care of the old, poor, ill, disadvantaged, protect the weak and vulnerable and provide education to others, let them do it. No libertarian would interfere in such a noble effort. What you REALLY mean is that most people want all of these things, but want others(The RIch!) to pay for them.
From what I'm observing, your government is more often protecting and enriching the strong and the ruthless at the expense of the weak and under-privileged.
The pitfall of a central planning paradise is that the planners are inherently corruptible and will always end up serving a minority at the expense of the majority. The more centralized the power, the worse the corruption.
Can you provide an example of where a non-government, for-profit organization forced you to do something with the penalty for refusal being incarceration or violence?
I'd GLADLY accept 19th century capitalism over today's centrally planned, government micro-managed welfare/warfare state and the BS smoke and mirrors economy. Whatever problems the USA had then pale by comparison to the ones it has now.
In the 19th century, the USA grew into an economic super power. The per-capita GDP grew so rapidly that it eclipsed that of any country in Europe. Food production soared, the rail infrastructure saw major expansion, industrial output increased rapidly and the USA was a beacon of opportunity for anyone willing to work. All this with a federal government that spent LESS THAN 5% of GDP!
Today, the USA federal government spends 25% of GDP, has accumulated debt > 100% of GDP and is borrowing an additional 10% of GDP every year. The industrial infrastructure of the USA is a hollow shell. The monetary system is controlled by a secret cartel of central bankers for the benefit of a few wealthy elites. The pseudo-economy exists on government bailouts, handouts, subsidies and personal debt accumulation.
Your government is 5X as large and there is more human misery and wealth inequality in today's "clearly imperfect" system than there was in the "imperfect" 19th century. Even worse, there are far fewer economic opportunities, even for those willing to work.
That's OK however. Soon, the government is going to bankrupt itself and then we'll all be libertarians. Time for you to learn how to peacefully coexist with your neighbors.
Call it "speech" or call it "expression". If someone burns the flag, are they not trying to make a statement?
"The point of free speech is to protect informative discussion and analysis of policy."
No. The point of free speech is to prohibit governments from arbitrarily imposing on the rights of their citizens. For example, trying to prohibit certain types of expression by labeling them as "emotional gestures" and arguing that such gestures are not "useful" and are therefore not free speech.
He didn't make it up. I've read the same thing. The so-called "miracle" at Dunkirk was only possible because Hitler prevented the Luftwaffe from completely slaughtering the retreating troops.
"you can only light it with the magic word "Somalia"."
When you live for decades under an evil galactic empire which is deposed by violent revolution and creates a a power vacuum that dissolves into clan warfare, you can't expect the peace and justice of the Old Republic to spontaneously blossom.
I held out for a long time, but the usefulness of facebook and meetup for organizing events and activities finally overwhelmed my resistance.
It's just a pain when there are one or two people in your circle that don't use social media and someone has to call them or send them a separate e-mail to clue them in.
"The only reason you prefer rationing by ability to pay is because you think rich people deserve special privilege."
It's not just rationing by "ability" to pay, it's also rationing by "willingness" to pay. Someone that wants gas and a generator to run their home entertainment system is less likely to pay a high price, and less likely to stand in a long line than a person who wants to keep their elderly grandparents warm.
Any other method of "rationing" encourages black marketeering (people with $$ still get the goods, but someone else makes the profit), motivates people to buy more than they need and hoard what they have(making scarcity worse) or involves some flawed human being making subjective decisions about who gets fuel (their friends and family first).
None of these methods create an incentive to make more supply available more quickly. They're just feel-good nonsense. The owner should have full discretion about what to do with his/her property.
Artificially lowering the price of a good does not "create access". It's just a different, and completely arbitrary method of allocating a scarce supply.
Your concept of "necessity" is entirely subjective. Interview 500 people waiting in a gas line and EVERYONE can make an argument about why they "need" gas. That does not change the quantity of gas available.
How does setting a price control differentiate between "need" and "desire"? What if the guy at the front of the line wants gas so he can play Nintendo while the person in the back wants it to run their grandmother's respirator? At $25 per gallon, the Nintendo player would be more likely to give up, while the person that really NEEDS the fuel will pay the price.
A market price is better at allocating fuel to the people that need it (vs. those that "desire" it) than a price control and a "first come first served" allocation method.
"...you'll pay folks whatever reasonable wage you can to ride along with you and clear them. Everyone wins: unskilled laborers with hand-saws and wheelbarrows start making $20/hour, the roads get clear"
No! We can't have manual laborers taking advantage of an emergency to engage in price gouging! Cutting up and moving trees is strictly minimum wage activity. They should be forced to work at their normal wages. Utility workers shouldn't get higher wages for going out of state to work on restoring power either. They must work for regular wages because this is an emergency and we can't allow them to take advantage of it when people are desperate to get their power back.
How would YOU propose that we allocate a scarce resource?
1. Government bureaucrats come in, confiscate the goods from the rightful owner and make arbitrary decisions about who gets the goods on the basis of "need"?
2. Government sets price controls and allocates resources on a "first come/first served basis"? Then, people buy as much as possible and sell it for a massive profit on the black market?
3. The owner of the product determines what they want to sell and at what price.
4. ???
Option #3 is the only fair method. When there is scarcity, the increase in the VALUE of the product has already happened! You're just arguing that the owner should not be the one who benefits from this increase in value. What is this "allowed" nonsense? You shouldn't need permission to do whatever you want with your own property! If some random occurrence causes the value of your property to increase, that value is yours and yours alone.
Did you ever buy a stock or mutual fund and see the value go up? If the value went up 50%, should you be forced to sell it at a 5% profit and share the rest of the gain?
Artificially low prices lead to greater demand, thus the long lines we observed. The long wait times encourage everyone to buy more than they normally would, which in turn exacerbates the shortages. Either that or, they buy more to sell on the black market. Or they pay someone to wait for them.
If gas was $25 per gallon in a certain area, the CEO of Exxon/Mobil would be down there delivering fuel in his personal vehicle(or yacht), thus alleviating the supply shortage.
Author Thomas Woods makes a good argument about the idea of state "Nullification". Only laws which are made in "pursuance of The Constitution" are "supreme".
The federal government was created by an agreement among the states. It seems ridiculous that they should be completely subservient to the creature they created. Woods' argument is that the federal monster cannot be the sole arbiter of its own power.
Slashdot Mirror
?
How do you navigate to the music catalog on that site?
Commodity prices are on the rise. In a weak market with cash-strapped consumers, producers have little flexibility to pass price increases onto their customers. That means shrinking margins, and if the margins get too slim, it means cutting costs.
What did Hostess really have besides some brand recognition to differentiate itself from the dozens of other junk food producers? Seems like unions and management were fighting over their share of a shrinking Twinkie.
The Hostess unions and management went through their negotiations. The workers found the company's terms unacceptable and went on strike. The company couldn't function and decided the best decision was to cease operations and liquidate the company's assets. The union understood that this was a possibility.
What about when government unions strike? Are we going to close down a school, sell off the assets and return the wealth to the taxpayers? It might not be a bad idea, but I can't see it actually happening. Until that outcome is a genuine risk, government unions have way too much leverage over the taxpayer and shouldn't be allowed to exist.
I doubt that the people who pulled off the heist stole the machines with the intent to keep them for personal use.
Software is basically just a set of instructions. I don't see how it could be anything but protected speech. How the software is used is something else altogether.
I think the relevant example is the "Hitman" case. A company published an instruction manual for how to commit a murder/ assassination and someone used the info in the book to commit a murder. Obviously murder is a crime. Is the publisher of the instruction manual guilty however?
They got sued by the victims' families. Unfortunately, the publisher's insurance company decided to settle out of court. IMO, this would be the parallel to software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man:_A_Technical_Manual_for_Independent_Contractors
"... if you yell "fire" in a theater and there is no fire, you will be kicked out."
If you stand up and start reciting the "I Have a Dream" speech in a theater you would probably be kicked out as well.
Justice Hugo Black brilliantly deconstructed this "fire in a theater" nonsense. Sure, there would be consequences, but the consequences stem from the fact that you are violating the rights of the theater owner and the other patrons. It's not a limitation on the freedom of speech. The same reasoning would apply if you broke into my house and started delivering a speech in my kitchen. The prohibition against doing that isn't an infringement on your right to free speech.
If you owned or rented a theater and sold people tickets specifically for the purpose of hearing you speak, you can yell "fire" as many times as you want to.
Exactly.
Far too many people have this idea that our rights (e.g. to free speech) are "granted" by government. The reality is that We, The People granted the government its power. Along with that, we placed certain specific prohibitions on that power. (thank $deity for that)
"Congress shall make NO LAW ...."
Same with Citizen's United. It's not about what "rights" organizations have, it's about what powers the government does not have.
"....compared to the mainly private healthcare system used in the USA."
How is the USA healthcare system "mainly private"? Two government programs Medicare & Medicaid account for the bulk of healthcare expenditures in the USA. Government mandates such as EMTALA are pervasive. Government places artificial barriers to competition in healthcare services, insurance and prescription drugs. Insurance policies face further mandates about what they absolutely must cover.
It's a massive government cluster**** that people and businesses in the private sector are forced to deal with.
The USA government's 45 year intervention in the healthcare system has been a complete disaster. Suggesting that MORE government is the way to fix a problem caused by government is ludicrous.
Yes, the USA government should stop doing what it's doing and GET OUT of areas where they never belonged in the first place.
In terms of physical fitness, the average Spartan (man or woman) would put 95% of Americans to shame.
I believe I saw a documentary, maybe a NOVA episode, that was talking about the effort to restore the Parthenon. That part about the tapering of the columns was amazing.
You petition the government to demand that they act in a particular way.
You DON'T petition the federal government to ask them to give you permission to secede, you just do it!
I appreciate the sentiment, but this is just plain silly. By asking the government to give you permission to secede, you're granting them power that they don't really have.
That's what NCLB is all about. Sounds good at face value, but the problem is that the "extra attention" given to under-achievers is depriving the other students of the attention they need to keep moving forward.
Just as one example, I have a friend who teaches high school English. She's had classes where a few kids were recent immigrants and therefore had to spend a hugely disproportionate amount of time making sure these children aren't "left behind".
"...you should just admit you have no interest in deomocracy(sic)"
I have no interest in a democracy where the majority can use arbitrary force against the minority. The 99% vote to kill the 1% and divide up their wealth, and the 1% shouldn't complain because they got their chance to vote.
If "most normal people" want to take care of the old, poor, ill, disadvantaged, protect the weak and vulnerable and provide education to others, let them do it. No libertarian would interfere in such a noble effort. What you REALLY mean is that most people want all of these things, but want others(The RIch!) to pay for them.
From what I'm observing, your government is more often protecting and enriching the strong and the ruthless at the expense of the weak and under-privileged.
The pitfall of a central planning paradise is that the planners are inherently corruptible and will always end up serving a minority at the expense of the majority. The more centralized the power, the worse the corruption.
Can you provide an example of where a non-government, for-profit organization forced you to do something with the penalty for refusal being incarceration or violence?
I'd GLADLY accept 19th century capitalism over today's centrally planned, government micro-managed welfare/warfare state and the BS smoke and mirrors economy. Whatever problems the USA had then pale by comparison to the ones it has now.
In the 19th century, the USA grew into an economic super power. The per-capita GDP grew so rapidly that it eclipsed that of any country in Europe. Food production soared, the rail infrastructure saw major expansion, industrial output increased rapidly and the USA was a beacon of opportunity for anyone willing to work. All this with a federal government that spent LESS THAN 5% of GDP!
Today, the USA federal government spends 25% of GDP, has accumulated debt > 100% of GDP and is borrowing an additional 10% of GDP every year. The industrial infrastructure of the USA is a hollow shell. The monetary system is controlled by a secret cartel of central bankers for the benefit of a few wealthy elites. The pseudo-economy exists on government bailouts, handouts, subsidies and personal debt accumulation.
Your government is 5X as large and there is more human misery and wealth inequality in today's "clearly imperfect" system than there was in the "imperfect" 19th century. Even worse, there are far fewer economic opportunities, even for those willing to work.
That's OK however. Soon, the government is going to bankrupt itself and then we'll all be libertarians. Time for you to learn how to peacefully coexist with your neighbors.
Call it "speech" or call it "expression". If someone burns the flag, are they not trying to make a statement?
"The point of free speech is to protect informative discussion and analysis of policy."
No. The point of free speech is to prohibit governments from arbitrarily imposing on the rights of their citizens. For example, trying to prohibit certain types of expression by labeling them as "emotional gestures" and arguing that such gestures are not "useful" and are therefore not free speech.
He didn't make it up. I've read the same thing. The so-called "miracle" at Dunkirk was only possible because Hitler prevented the Luftwaffe from completely slaughtering the retreating troops.
"you can only light it with the magic word "Somalia"."
When you live for decades under an evil galactic empire which is deposed by violent revolution and creates a a power vacuum that dissolves into clan warfare, you can't expect the peace and justice of the Old Republic to spontaneously blossom.
I held out for a long time, but the usefulness of facebook and meetup for organizing events and activities finally overwhelmed my resistance.
It's just a pain when there are one or two people in your circle that don't use social media and someone has to call them or send them a separate e-mail to clue them in.
"The only reason you prefer rationing by ability to pay is because you think rich people deserve special privilege."
It's not just rationing by "ability" to pay, it's also rationing by "willingness" to pay. Someone that wants gas and a generator to run their home entertainment system is less likely to pay a high price, and less likely to stand in a long line than a person who wants to keep their elderly grandparents warm.
Any other method of "rationing" encourages black marketeering (people with $$ still get the goods, but someone else makes the profit), motivates people to buy more than they need and hoard what they have(making scarcity worse) or involves some flawed human being making subjective decisions about who gets fuel (their friends and family first).
None of these methods create an incentive to make more supply available more quickly. They're just feel-good nonsense. The owner should have full discretion about what to do with his/her property.
Artificially lowering the price of a good does not "create access". It's just a different, and completely arbitrary method of allocating a scarce supply.
Your concept of "necessity" is entirely subjective. Interview 500 people waiting in a gas line and EVERYONE can make an argument about why they "need" gas. That does not change the quantity of gas available.
How does setting a price control differentiate between "need" and "desire"? What if the guy at the front of the line wants gas so he can play Nintendo while the person in the back wants it to run their grandmother's respirator? At $25 per gallon, the Nintendo player would be more likely to give up, while the person that really NEEDS the fuel will pay the price.
A market price is better at allocating fuel to the people that need it (vs. those that "desire" it) than a price control and a "first come first served" allocation method.
"...you'll pay folks whatever reasonable wage you can to ride along with you and clear them. Everyone wins: unskilled laborers with hand-saws and wheelbarrows start making $20/hour, the roads get clear"
No! We can't have manual laborers taking advantage of an emergency to engage in price gouging! Cutting up and moving trees is strictly minimum wage activity. They should be forced to work at their normal wages.
Utility workers shouldn't get higher wages for going out of state to work on restoring power either. They must work for regular wages because this is an emergency and we can't allow them to take advantage of it when people are desperate to get their power back.
How would YOU propose that we allocate a scarce resource?
1. Government bureaucrats come in, confiscate the goods from the rightful owner and make arbitrary decisions about who gets the goods on the basis of "need"?
2. Government sets price controls and allocates resources on a "first come/first served basis"? Then, people buy as much as possible and sell it for a massive profit on the black market?
3. The owner of the product determines what they want to sell and at what price.
4. ???
Option #3 is the only fair method. When there is scarcity, the increase in the VALUE of the product has already happened! You're just arguing that the owner should not be the one who benefits from this increase in value.
What is this "allowed" nonsense? You shouldn't need permission to do whatever you want with your own property! If some random occurrence causes the value of your property to increase, that value is yours and yours alone.
Did you ever buy a stock or mutual fund and see the value go up? If the value went up 50%, should you be forced to sell it at a 5% profit and share the rest of the gain?
Spot on.
Artificially low prices lead to greater demand, thus the long lines we observed. The long wait times encourage everyone to buy more than they normally would, which in turn exacerbates the shortages. Either that or, they buy more to sell on the black market. Or they pay someone to wait for them.
If gas was $25 per gallon in a certain area, the CEO of Exxon/Mobil would be down there delivering fuel in his personal vehicle(or yacht), thus alleviating the supply shortage.
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/objections
Author Thomas Woods makes a good argument about the idea of state "Nullification". Only laws which are made in "pursuance of The Constitution" are "supreme".
The federal government was created by an agreement among the states. It seems ridiculous that they should be completely subservient to the creature they created. Woods' argument is that the federal monster cannot be the sole arbiter of its own power.