Where did I say that capitalism failed? Central banking and socialism has failed, yet again. What we NEED now is capitalism.
Fannie and Freddie had even higher leverage ratios that that. Freddie ran at 70:1. That wasn't about grabbing as much money, it was about the Government getting a free political ride saying "we're lending so every working American can own a house". Wow, what noble politicians, big hearts. Bad business, as we've seen recently.
Antitrust laws DON'T keep everybody working within a competitive market, that's most naive to assume. Like all government agencies, it starts out as good intentions and ends taken over by special interests. The Fed doesn't get a visit from the Antitrust fellas, and it's a State-chartered banking cartel but Bill Gates gets extorted.
'People with money and power' doesn't really advance our argument. The problem with Capitalism is that too much Socialism has crept in it. The idea that a central bank can set the price for money and maintain 'stability'. The idea that Government can 'regulate' competition to keep the market 'free'. If those ideas and concepts worked in reality, the U.S.S.R. wouldn't have collapsed.
I definitely don't think a 'regulated' economy is a free market, good think you said 'arguably', you're right. It's veeeery arguable.:)
I did not say they weren't. What I did say is that monopoly is not the opposite of a free market. The opposite of a free market is a regulated market.
Saying that 'Monopoly is NOT a free market' is like saying 'Getting all vomited is NOT a night out drinking'. Doesn't make much sense.
What I described was not a 'cartel' taking control of a market. In my example, the 'cartel' or oligopoly was created by the State. Which IS the way classical economists defined a monopoly. A cartel is also unsustainable in a free market, because the profit motive will drive members to 'backstab' each other by undercutting their prices.
While I'm certain that your knowledge of macroeconomics dwarfs my own, you can't simply ignore microeconomic factors. Simply saying 'a monopoly by its very nature is not subject to free market forces' throws out the window how prices can influence demand and direct new enterprising activity. So, monopoly sets predatory prices, it's being benign, nobody is crazy to compete, consumers cheer. Monopoly starts acting Evil(tm) and price-gouges people in the face; now there's a profit incentive to be made and competitors will take that shot. If you have a free market, it is still LEGAL to compete with the monopoly, if not, it's not a free market.
If you still want to laugh at me because I don't think 'free market' and 'monopoly' are antonyms go ahead. You'll be the first.:-)
Monopoly is not something to be categorized alongside free market, they are not opposing concepts. In theory, a monopoly could arise on a free market by absolutely undercutting every competitor on price, quality and everything. Arbitrary controls, laws and regulations not present, there will be more competition the more the established firm drives prices up as consequence of its privileged position.
What we usually have in real life are government interventions to protect consumers - from a theoretical monopoly that could arise maybe, someday - that actually creates and maintains monopolies indefinitely. Public buses here in Rio are an example. There's a cartel with private companies that charge high rates, provide shitty service and any competition they face is essentailly illegal.
So how monopolies get that way _is_ actually really important. Forget about Adam Smith's invisible hand and focus on the real incentive then; profit motive, the high prices signaling demand. That's what entrepreneurs chase, and if the 'invisible hand' metaphor sounds too mystical, just don't use it.
Was he really well paid? I had no idea. I'm adding 'and a hypocrite' to my sig then.:-P
Efficiency is an area where ion rockets excel, but power is where chemical rockets excel. The first stage of the Saturn V actually burned propellent at a rate of about 190,000 MW, which is equivalent to nearly 200 commercial nuclear power plants. However, converting all that power to electricity so it can be effectively used in an ion thruster would be horribly impractical.
Of course, but since the VASIMR is so much more efficient, you would only need a fraction of that power to have a really, really fast space-only drive.
If a 190 GW-rated VASIMR engine could be built and the power plant for it ( antimatter? dilithium crystals? ) was available, then I think.999c would seem like first gear.:-P
I use Linux. So can anybody else. Or MacOS, or *BSD. A monopoly is a monopoly, not a 90% market share.
And c'mon, did the free market create the bailout? Did it set the interest rates that made money practically free? I'm no economist and I know that growth based on credit expansion is unsustainable and always ends with a bust. Keynesian central bankers don't seem to get it, but please don't tag 'free market' on them.
Closing on a lighter note, if the fairies ran the free market, it wouldn't be a free market, it would be Socialism. Fairy socialism, but socialism nonetheless.;-)
One who ranks his chance to make a profit higher than his chance to be driven out of business. Predatory pricing cannot be sustained for more than the short-run.
SpaceX is going to launch their midrange launch vehicle later this year. They project to have their heavy LV available in 2010.
So I suppose in five years it is quite likely they'll be selling it, even if they miss the 2010
date by disasters and setbacks which are normal in the unforgiving field of rocketry.
People really ought to think of monopolies in the old Classical economic school way. As in created by the State's coercive power.
In the free market monopolies can only maintain themselves only for as long as they provide the best service for the lower price. Raise prices after dumping the competition and new competition will take you on that bid. As long as the market remains free of hindrances and regulations, including 'anti-trust agencies'.
In my experience it's more JustWorkish than Windows. My ancient Bt878whatever capture card and Chinese junk Bluetooth adapter were both a pain to set on Windows. On Ubuntu I just get a recognized capture device and a nice little BT icon on the tray.:-)
Haven't looked back since. Kudos to Shuttleworth and employees.
My point is merely that gold is no different from the rest of these. It's all just "how much people pay for them". There's nothing magical about gold, even though people talk constantly about its "intrinsic value". It has no such thing. Gold is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it.
Yea you're totally right. I could argue that in the end that's what 'intrinsic value' boils down to. What can you get for it, or how much money.
Let's do the reverse. If paper money is so worthless, why don't you give me enough $100 bills to fill a suitcase and I will give you an ounce of gold in return. I'm sure that the gold will be more than enough to pay for the cotton and ink.
Ohh, I'd be crazy, unless you would take 7 hundreds and a twenty for that ounce.:)
The dollar is not worthless. Yet. But it's purchasing power has gone nowhere but down since the Fed and later the severing of the gold link. Gold serves as a safe store of value because the government cannot steal the value of your gold by magically making more.
If we had God as chairman of the world's central bank, I really wouldn't mind the fiat currency, but in the unlikeliness of that scenario, I'll defend commodity money and free banking as a better system.:P
It's worth exactly your worth as an artist. Don't depreciate your work like that. But I digress... art is really subjective. If there is no artistic value to your sculpture then it has only its intrinsic value - of shit, quite abundant, unfortunately. Had you made your Jimmy Carter out of gold, then it would be worth a lot. Beethoven's 21st piano sonata is probably worth more than all Fort Knox, but I bought the score for all 32 of them for 60 dollars. Now to play them all will cost me a little more. =)
Modern economists talk about _marginal_ utility, so the first breath of air you take in after almost drowning is much more valuable to you than what you're drawing right now. Same thing for buying bread. The first loaf is worth more than the second, and so on.
The price of a good has nothing to do with rationality, but how much people pay for them. Heroin is not cheap. Beer is cheap, but never as cheap as I'd like. Cigarettes, Jesus, I'm just happy I don't live in Europe. Those are not 'rationally useful' products, they are basically ways to die in slow gear, but they are much more expensive than air, which is essential to life, but so abundant as to be free. Wouldn't be so cheap on a space station. Its utility didn't change though, its scarcity did.
Anyway, if gold is as useless as you say it is, then lets just trade. I got 300 new 1 dollar bills. Just get me two gold bars for them and we'll leave it at that.;-)
Well, you're right. Economic activity is dynamic, and is subject to the real world. I'd expect to see a big boom in the agricultural sector if crops start failing all over the world. But that is not a speculative boom created by an expansion of credit, but it's a redirection of resources to an area where a demand has shown to be increased by a rise in prices.
The point I'm trying to make is that the boom and bust cycle, like we're seeing now in which dozens of companies fail at the same time, is caused by central bank meddling with interest rates and causing speculative bubbles and malinvestment that eventually needs liquidating. It makes sense in _that_ context.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did I say that capitalism failed? Central banking and socialism has failed, yet again. What we NEED now is capitalism.
Fannie and Freddie had even higher leverage ratios that that. Freddie ran at 70:1. That wasn't about grabbing as much money, it was about the Government getting a free political ride saying "we're lending so every working American can own a house". Wow, what noble politicians, big hearts. Bad business, as we've seen recently.
Antitrust laws DON'T keep everybody working within a competitive market, that's most naive to assume. Like all government agencies, it starts out as good intentions and ends taken over by special interests. The Fed doesn't get a visit from the Antitrust fellas, and it's a State-chartered banking cartel but Bill Gates gets extorted.
'People with money and power' doesn't really advance our argument. The problem with Capitalism is that too much Socialism has crept in it. The idea that a central bank can set the price for money and maintain 'stability'. The idea that Government can 'regulate' competition to keep the market 'free'. If those ideas and concepts worked in reality, the U.S.S.R. wouldn't have collapsed.
I definitely don't think a 'regulated' economy is a free market, good think you said 'arguably', you're right. It's veeeery arguable. :)
I did not say they weren't. What I did say is that monopoly is not the opposite of a free market. The opposite of a free market is a regulated market.
Saying that 'Monopoly is NOT a free market' is like saying 'Getting all vomited is NOT a night out drinking'. Doesn't make much sense.
What I described was not a 'cartel' taking control of a market. In my example, the 'cartel' or oligopoly was created by the State. Which IS the way classical economists defined a monopoly. A cartel is also unsustainable in a free market, because the profit motive will drive members to 'backstab' each other by undercutting their prices.
While I'm certain that your knowledge of macroeconomics dwarfs my own, you can't simply ignore microeconomic factors. Simply saying 'a monopoly by its very nature is not subject to free market forces' throws out the window how prices can influence demand and direct new enterprising activity. So, monopoly sets predatory prices, it's being benign, nobody is crazy to compete, consumers cheer. Monopoly starts acting Evil(tm) and price-gouges people in the face; now there's a profit incentive to be made and competitors will take that shot. If you have a free market, it is still LEGAL to compete with the monopoly, if not, it's not a free market.
If you still want to laugh at me because I don't think 'free market' and 'monopoly' are antonyms go ahead. You'll be the first. :-)
Monopoly is not something to be categorized alongside free market, they are not opposing concepts. In theory, a monopoly could arise on a free market by absolutely undercutting every competitor on price, quality and everything. Arbitrary controls, laws and regulations not present, there will be more competition the more the established firm drives prices up as consequence of its privileged position.
What we usually have in real life are government interventions to protect consumers - from a theoretical monopoly that could arise maybe, someday - that actually creates and maintains monopolies indefinitely. Public buses here in Rio are an example. There's a cartel with private companies that charge high rates, provide shitty service and any competition they face is essentailly illegal.
So how monopolies get that way _is_ actually really important. Forget about Adam Smith's invisible hand and focus on the real incentive then; profit motive, the high prices signaling demand. That's what entrepreneurs chase, and if the 'invisible hand' metaphor sounds too mystical, just don't use it.
Was he really well paid? I had no idea. I'm adding 'and a hypocrite' to my sig then. :-P
Clicko probably. :P
Efficiency is an area where ion rockets excel, but power is where chemical rockets excel. The first stage of the Saturn V actually burned propellent at a rate of about 190,000 MW, which is equivalent to nearly 200 commercial nuclear power plants. However, converting all that power to electricity so it can be effectively used in an ion thruster would be horribly impractical.
Of course, but since the VASIMR is so much more efficient, you would only need a fraction of that power to have a really, really fast space-only drive.
If a 190 GW-rated VASIMR engine could be built and the power plant for it ( antimatter? dilithium crystals? ) was available, then I think .999c would seem like first gear. :-P
Yeah. Check out this conceptual video they put up for a possible Mars mission with 3 VASIMR engines.
I use Linux. So can anybody else. Or MacOS, or *BSD. A monopoly is a monopoly, not a 90% market share.
And c'mon, did the free market create the bailout? Did it set the interest rates that made money practically free? I'm no economist and I know that growth based on credit expansion is unsustainable and always ends with a bust. Keynesian central bankers don't seem to get it, but please don't tag 'free market' on them.
Closing on a lighter note, if the fairies ran the free market, it wouldn't be a free market, it would be Socialism. Fairy socialism, but socialism nonetheless. ;-)
Really? On the website it says 'Falcon 9 maiden flight Q4 2008'.
Lucky, lucky on you being able to go and watch. I'm unfortunately some thousands of miles southward. :)
One who ranks his chance to make a profit higher than his chance to be driven out of business. Predatory pricing cannot be sustained for more than the short-run.
SpaceX is going to launch their midrange launch vehicle later this year. They project to have their heavy LV available in 2010.
So I suppose in five years it is quite likely they'll be selling it, even if they miss the 2010 date by disasters and setbacks which are normal in the unforgiving field of rocketry.
I'm a confessed fanboi, so I hope they succeed. :)
Exactly.
People really ought to think of monopolies in the old Classical economic school way. As in created by the State's coercive power.
In the free market monopolies can only maintain themselves only for as long as they provide the best service for the lower price. Raise prices after dumping the competition and new competition will take you on that bid. As long as the market remains free of hindrances and regulations, including 'anti-trust agencies'.
Is there a difference between them? :-)
Terrorist.
I didn't know that, sorry. Duper super kudos to you too. :-)
plasmoids are really cool
Man I totally agree. Incinerate and Hypnotize Big Daddy are my favorites, what's yours? :)
In my experience it's more JustWorkish than Windows. My ancient Bt878whatever capture card and Chinese junk Bluetooth adapter were both a pain to set on Windows. On Ubuntu I just get a recognized capture device and a nice little BT icon on the tray. :-)
Haven't looked back since. Kudos to Shuttleworth and employees.
where you choose between total economic meltdown or massive bailout... costing everyone else and me money.
Check your premises. One is false.
But, what would we expect of someone with a Mexican name?
I'm Brazilian, you insensitive clod!
Okie dokie. On the 2008 election there are two communist/socialist candidates: Barack Obama and John McCain.
Hope that helps! ;)
Unfortunately for us, iPhones aren't divisible. ;-)
My point is merely that gold is no different from the rest of these. It's all just "how much people pay for them". There's nothing magical about gold, even though people talk constantly about its "intrinsic value". It has no such thing. Gold is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it.
Yea you're totally right. I could argue that in the end that's what 'intrinsic value' boils down to. What can you get for it, or how much money.
Let's do the reverse. If paper money is so worthless, why don't you give me enough $100 bills to fill a suitcase and I will give you an ounce of gold in return. I'm sure that the gold will be more than enough to pay for the cotton and ink.
Ohh, I'd be crazy, unless you would take 7 hundreds and a twenty for that ounce. :)
The dollar is not worthless. Yet. But it's purchasing power has gone nowhere but down since the Fed and later the severing of the gold link. Gold serves as a safe store of value because the government cannot steal the value of your gold by magically making more.
If we had God as chairman of the world's central bank, I really wouldn't mind the fiat currency, but in the unlikeliness of that scenario, I'll defend commodity money and free banking as a better system. :P
Ok, we'll just agree to disagree then. :D
You must be new here.
:D
It's worth exactly your worth as an artist. Don't depreciate your work like that. But I digress... art is really subjective. If there is no artistic value to your sculpture then it has only its intrinsic value - of shit, quite abundant, unfortunately. Had you made your Jimmy Carter out of gold, then it would be worth a lot. Beethoven's 21st piano sonata is probably worth more than all Fort Knox, but I bought the score for all 32 of them for 60 dollars. Now to play them all will cost me a little more. =)
Modern economists talk about _marginal_ utility, so the first breath of air you take in after almost drowning is much more valuable to you than what you're drawing right now. Same thing for buying bread. The first loaf is worth more than the second, and so on.
The price of a good has nothing to do with rationality, but how much people pay for them. Heroin is not cheap. Beer is cheap, but never as cheap as I'd like. Cigarettes, Jesus, I'm just happy I don't live in Europe. Those are not 'rationally useful' products, they are basically ways to die in slow gear, but they are much more expensive than air, which is essential to life, but so abundant as to be free. Wouldn't be so cheap on a space station. Its utility didn't change though, its scarcity did.
Anyway, if gold is as useless as you say it is, then lets just trade. I got 300 new 1 dollar bills. Just get me two gold bars for them and we'll leave it at that. ;-)
Well, you're right. Economic activity is dynamic, and is subject to the real world. I'd expect to see a big boom in the agricultural sector if crops start failing all over the world. But that is not a speculative boom created by an expansion of credit, but it's a redirection of resources to an area where a demand has shown to be increased by a rise in prices.
The point I'm trying to make is that the boom and bust cycle, like we're seeing now in which dozens of companies fail at the same time, is caused by central bank meddling with interest rates and causing speculative bubbles and malinvestment that eventually needs liquidating. It makes sense in _that_ context.