Disqus - Latest Comments for Sam Grove

Re: The Principles of Weisbergian Political Economy

Sam Grove — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:38:22 -0000

We might consider that failure to regulate these 'securities' was willful and part of a bargain to 'encourage' lenders to make 'sub-prime' (read "bad") loans.

It is known that regulatory reform of the mortgage GSEs was proposed and opposed and defeated. Was Barney Frank just ignorant of the potential problems?

Or was he part of the bargain made to allow lenders to find a way to make money off of bad loans to fulfill policy goals?

The fact of the crisis occurring in a regime of extensive regulation tells us that having a regulatory system is no guarantee of effectiveness and further, can manage to coordinate problems into a crisis of GSE proportions.

Proponents of regulated economies like to cite some ideal state where the regulatory regime works in harmony with the market producing optimal results, even after failure after failure. Recall that a large justification for the creation of the FED was to prevent big depressions. The FED was established in 1913, sixteen years before the market crash of 1929.

It seems obvious in citing the mistakes of the FED board and other interventions of government at the time that they did not know what they were doing and thus did not comprehend the nature of markets.

Seventy-nine years later, they still don't.

They're all Keynesians now.

Re: The Principles of Weisbergian Political Economy

Sam Grove — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:31:42 -0000

I think what can be determined from this is that in a regulatory environment, a certain balance is required. If tilted too much one way, the business environment can be stifling, tilted too much the other way, the business environment can get too "exuberant".

This does not address the desirability of a regulatory environment except in the sense that the knowledge to create proper balance can be lacking, giving rise to the constant need for further "adjustment".

A politically/centrally regulated economy is not stable. The feedback loop has to much delay and distortion.

Re: “Privacy” Shouldn’t Be Taken to An Extreme

Sam Grove — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:43:43 -0000

The legal contortions required to create a convoluted balance between rights and power has brought us no shortage of insanity.

The problem lies in the police power of the state and the immunity allocated to it.

The problem might reduced if this immunity were modified.
Policing could be done by contract leaving the contractor to assume a conditional liability.

If a contractor acquires information of criminal activity, it may do whatever is required to expose the crime and take whatever evidence to support it in court.
Evidence of a crime should always be admissible, but if no crime is proved, then the contractor must assume legal liability for any violations it has perpetrated against innocent parties.

Of course, a large part of the problem with all this is the state's insistence creating crimes without victims.

Re: Ethanol Subsidies Ignite Inflation, Walloping Americans with Modest Incomes

Sam Grove — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:55:10 -0000

My local bagel supplier has been commenting on the increasing price of flour. This was also front page news recently.

Re: Freeman Editor on Glenn Beck Tonight!

Sam Grove — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:25:50 -0000

Credit card consumers can do what I do, refuse to apply for cards with high interest and close your account with any agency that raises your rate to unacceptable levels.

Of course, if the inflation rate gets high enough, you won't find any credit at low rates.

Re: Good Thing We Have No Federal Baking System

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

On a government/science related note, a very interesting post (and funny cartoon), over at Reason.

Re: Unwire the Regulators

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Bureaucratic chief to minion: "Go out and find something to regulate."

Re: The Market: The Only Trustworthy Registrar of People’s Preferences

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Perhaps people would vote differently on say, bond issues, if their portion of the cost would be displayed and deducted from their account when they vote for it.

Democracy provides the illusion that government can be had with little personal cost, and redistribution fools people into thinking that someone else will be made to pay the cost.

The cost of government is always borne by those that labor to produce value.

Re: George Selgin on Central Banking

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Hamilton won, the people lost.

Re: George Selgin on Central Banking

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

I wonder what the price of gold would be without the speculative factor.

Perhaps the use of gold as money may be described as indirect barter if the reason someone accepts gold in payment is to be able to exchange it for consumables.

Re: Yes; Let’s Hope the Fed Never Becomes Politicized!… ;-)

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Fiat economics:

The FED is independent because we say it is.

A FED is essential to manage credit because we say it is.

etc.

"Progressive" economics is fiat economics.

Re: Post-Independence Day Reflections on Independence Day

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

human nature will have to be altered before a stateless libertarian society can prosper.

The only aspect of human nature that needs to be modified is ignorance, and fortunately, in many cases, that is rectifiable.

Re: Buy American?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

I'll likely find some science fiction story describing a similar device written still earlier,

Isaac Asimov once wrote a story in which a space suited character consulted his belt mounted computer with glowing red display characters.

Re: Will Pres. Obama’s Health-Care ‘Reform’ Control Costs or Not?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Do you want "Controls" to appear as "Control"?

Re: Will Pres. Obama’s Health-Care ‘Reform’ Control Costs or Not?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

BTW, Don, I just watched the Reason TV episode on trade in which you appear throughout.

There are bikini clad babes, guys, so check it out.

Re: Will Pres. Obama’s Health-Care ‘Reform’ Control Costs or Not?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Methink's Links for information about Singapore's health system:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Re: Walter Williams on the ‘War on Poverty’

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

don't think Dr. Williams was being fair.

Fair?

Dr. Williams has been studying the issue for for over 25 years.

He just may have a bit of insight.

"Voluntary cooperative action" through markets is what has caused the current economic crisis and worsened the conditions of the black urban underclass.

Can you make a cogent argument to back up your assertion?

I'm betting you can't, and quoting others who make similar assertions does not a cogent argument make.

Re: Walter Williams on the ‘War on Poverty’

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Austin's rebuttal to Walter Willisms bears out again

What rebuttal? He merely made some assertions, not any argument at all.

Re: Walter Williams on the ‘War on Poverty’

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

By your thinking there was no poverty until the Guvmint intervened and then poverty was rife. Poor people are poor in a free market because they haven't figured out any way to satisfy any market demand.

That's not it.

Once upon a time, most everyone, by today's standards, was poor. In the U.S., people who, anywhere else, would have been poor, began to realize the rewards of their labors, and so, made themselves wealthier. Some more so than others, but all became better off as technology made human effort more productive and relatively free markets allowed people to multiply the value of their efforts via the coordination made possible by market pricing.

What government interventions have done is to freeze a lot of people in place, particularly the poor, by taking wealth out of the system to grow the federal and state bureaucracies, build and extend an empire, destroy the incentives to save, reward criminal behavior, impede the entry of youth into the market, and so on.

Political systems always cater to the wealthy, that's why the wealthy created them.

Re: Walter Williams on the ‘War on Poverty’

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Some people are not willing, and some are not able, to accept the responsibility for themselves to make productive effort.

I am willing to provides assistance to the unable, but I am not willing to subsidize the unwilling.

Re: Walter Williams on the ‘War on Poverty’

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

You got 60 days for manufacturing amphetimines?!

Damn, I got 1-5 years for possession with intent to deliver marijuana. (The presumption of the law in WV was that if you have it, you intend to deliver it.)

Re: Walter Williams on the ‘War on Poverty’

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

That was 35 years ago.

Re: Men of System Systematically Misunderstand Spontaneous Orders

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

System is their very paradigm for comprehending the world. The fewer (systems) the better.

Re: Men of System Systematically Misunderstand Spontaneous Orders

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

the health care system

The issue is not the word "system", the issue is with the use of "the".

THE health care system.

Singular; gives the impression of a unitary arrangement created and/or managed by a unitary authority.

Re: Men of System Systematically Misunderstand Spontaneous Orders

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

The idea that comprhensive medical care could results from markets forces alone similiar to how apples are sold on the market is absurd.

And you know this how?

Re: Men of System Systematically Misunderstand Spontaneous Orders

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

By spontaneous order, we mean the coordination of the planned and unplanned actions of a multitude of actors via the pricing mechanism.

Libertarians don't object to planning, in fact, I think most libertarians would advise people to plan their lives as they see fit.

The kind of planning we object to is the planning by some of other people's lives.

Re: Moon Struck

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Please, Metre, tell us what you got out of Don's post.

You appear to be making a point irrelevant to the post.

As for your point, we know that anything government does is always more expensive than when done in the private sector and the resources used to send men from the moon where taken from private hands in the first place.

Re: Moon Struck

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

If somebody didn't randomly ask my age last time you wouldn't know it even was "youthful" confidence.

Actually, I could tell long before then. Numerous clues led me to think you were rather youthful, but I didn't think it pertinent to the discussions.

You have a faith in the political process that is more often found in youth than older folk. I think it's about learning from experience.

Re: Caring About the World’s Poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Of course politicians always express sympathy for the: poor, children, seniors, disabled, mentally ill, minorities, jobless, homeless, etc.

Politics is all about gesturing.

Re: Caring About the World’s Poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Sam -

Meyerson is a journalist, not a politician.

He's a politician in the field of journalism.

Re: Who’s Powerful?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

The power was displayed in mustering votes in any election that concerned the auto making industry

Gee, vidyohs, I think you stumbled on the key.

Any extraordinary power exhibited by GM, etc. is usually linked somehow to electoral politics.

Re: Who’s Powerful?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

The more direct way is to simply buy congresscritters and put them in your pocket

One of the reasons congresscritters are buyable is their desire to get re-elected, takes money, that does.

Re: Who’s the Materialist?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Why argue about Capitalism when we can argue about freedom vs control?

Re: Who’s the Materialist?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

They believe if you aren't sufficiently sensitive to the plight of the poor, then you must be excessively concerned about your own well being which is presumed to be at the expense of the poor.

Remember, they think that profits rightfully belong to the laborer, regardless of the value of the laborer's input.

When they accuse you of being materialist, they mean that they think you lack sympathy for the poor. It's all about FEELINGS.

Given their lack of comprehension of the structure and functioning of the market, it makes perfect sense to go straight to redistribution. Any other approach escapes their comprehension.

Re: Who’s the Materialist?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

YASAFI

Re: Why are poor nations poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

The problem of the IMF is that it makes loans to countries, that is, governments, that is, politicians.

This enables those politicians to destroy their subject's productive capacity.

Re: Why are poor nations poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

I don't know how George manages to miss the taint of politics in the scenery.

Maybe his filters are the same color.

Corporations = people with money.

Governments = people with guns.

George thinks guns are nicer than money.

Re: Why are poor nations poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

See my comment above...

Vidyohs,

Were you referring to the preceding sentence, or to a comment that did not actually get posted?

Re: Why are poor nations poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

You curb both corporations and the state by simply enacting real campaign finance reform and lobby reform.

Good luck with that. What I've found with campaign finance reform so far is that incumbency is favored and potential competition is thwarted.

Why should we expect anything different from the incumbent parties?

Any money exchanging in any way from lobbyist to campaigns is bribery of a public official. Politician should basically be require to wear live helmet webcams anytime they are doing publics business except in rare cases of national security.

Good luck with that too.

What politician is going to encumber hizzer activities this way?

Re: Why are poor nations poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

No!!! I co not want more power in the hands of the government. I want the government to answer to and be responsive to the people NOT the corporations.

You may WANT that, but your prescription guarantees the opposite. An examination of history shows that political power is always for sale.

Why?

Because it is a valuable commodity.

The government does not respond to "the people" because there is no "the people".

ALL governments are oligarchical.

All governments function to bring control of resources under the oligarchy.

Only wealthy people have the time, resources, and inclination to play the political game.

Politicians tell voters what they think will get them elected.

Political offices are filled with people who do this well.

If you were to go through the congressional roles, you would find that the overwhelming majority of politicians are either from the wealthy or upper middle classes.

A society governed by a multitude of rules will favor those with access to the best legal talent and those who are willing to cheat.

The multitude of rules that you think will protect the people from the worst types actually produces the opposite results.

OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO THE NEWS FOR THE PAST FEW DECADES.

It would be an extreme error to suppose that there has been anything like a society of minimal rules for the past seven decades.

There are so many rules extant that it would take a very large staff of lawyers to have an inkling of all of them.

So look at the last administration, look at the current administration. Look at all the wealthy people in high office, look at the bailouts, look at the employment history of the FED chief, the Sec of Treasury, etc., and tell yourself that they are looking out for average people.

YASAFI

Re: Why are poor nations poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

How you can look at the world and come to the conclusion you present here is beyond reason.

Re: Why are poor nations poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

C'mon, Professor, you know there are some questionable calls the IMF has made.

Try asking Don if there should be an IMF.

Re: Why are poor nations poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

IOW, the IMF operates on the principles of "mainstream" economics.

The idea is that if you increase the account balance of these countries, they will be better off.

Re: Why are poor nations poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

The problem is bringing the average person up to speed on the facts and getting them out of their stupor.

I agree.

The problem is identifying the facts and what they mean.

You idea of equal access to power boils down to second and third hand power for a multitude of individual expressed through agency with concentrated power, rather than having actual power distributed in the hands of those individuals.

If you insist on ignoring the incentives in the system, you will always get the same results.

Intentions, by themselves, do not produce the desired results.

Concentration of political power in a monopoly agency contains a certain set of incentives.

Ignore them at the risk of your intended results.

Re: Why are poor nations poor

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Giving money/credit to people mostly induces them to spend, not produce.

Re: A Win-Win

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

don't work, or are detrimental to society when in fact, THEY AREN"T if spontaneous order is believed to work.

There is a distinction between spontaneous order and spontaneous chaos.

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

aigh...DK, patience. If it says it was posted, it likely was. Wait a bit and refresh to see.

We did not loose Vietnam because of a lack of power. We lost because of the lack of will in those bureaucrats.

But what would we have won?

Look at Vietnam now.

Seems to me that the communist movement in Vietnam was defeated by its success in the war.

Like so many Really Smart People, he possessed a mindless faith in the ability of analytical genius, backed by government power, to right the world's wrongs.

Notice he did not say "to win wars". Winning wars is rarely the same as "right the world's wrongs".

DK, unlike McNamara, Don is not responsible for raining death on rice farmers, nor is he calling for brutal means against people, but rather is using the means of persuasion in support of his position.

He leaves it to the judgment of others whether they accept his arguments, unlike the means employed by political agencies which override the personal judgment of those subject to government edict.

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

What would have been the point of winning a war in Vietnam?

That is, how would we have known that we won, and what would we have won?

The impetus behind U.S. operations in Vietnam was to prevent the dominoes from falling.

Well, we pulled out and the dominoes did not fall.

Was our hope not fulfilled without bringing military defeat upon the enemy?

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

In the end, it was just another pointless exercise in military mayhem.

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

This was a major sentiment in all anti-communist efforts. To resist such wars you have to be willing to decide that trying to save the lives and souls of millions of non-Americans from a brutal enslaving force is not worth the cost to America. You may be right.

The question is whether we can bring liberty to others by surrendering our own.

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Short term, one hell of a lot less American deaths; and, one hell of a lot less American dollars thrown away on sustained years of piddly-ass combat, bribes, and wasted arsenals of arms.

Which could've been accomplished by not committing there in the first place.

The question actually faced is whether we can use our existing military system to defend a free people from a devastating and pitiful fate.

Which raises the questions of whether I (and many other individuals) can be considered free if we must be dragged along into such collective endeavors against our my own judgment.

Events have shown that a state with the power to wage discretionary war does so at the expense of the liberties of its subjects.

A state that has such disregard for the liberty of its own citizens will not bring liberty to others.

The politicians may pay lip service to our ideals and good intentions, but only for the purpose of manipulating us into giving them our support (resources).

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

And you have a population of people who VERY understandably (and admirably) sympathize with the tragic plight of the victims of communism. Those sympathetic people see the EXISTENCE NOW of the world's most powerful military and wonder if it couldn't be used to save millions of innocent people from an evil that is wholly the antithesis of what freedom loving people stand for.

As if there was a unanimity of well informed support for such action.

I am familiar with the history, but there is little evidence that U.S. interventions in Asia, supposedly in opposition to communism, actually benefited many people in Asia. Though it must be admitted that our military did kill a lot of them.

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Given all that you've said Daniel, let me put it this way: your comment came off as gratuitous.

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

But the decision to enter Vietnam wasn't made in 2009. It was made in the context of a military which had very recently defeated the entire militarized nations of Japan, Germany, and Italy.

I am familiar with the history of our presence in Vietnam. We moved in after the French gave up.

You'll not gain credibility by crafting sophistry to support the false notion that bad policy cannot have good outcomes. Few people believe reality is that simple.

Of course not, but the difficulty is in not letting good outcomes blind us to the bad. Politicians have a propensity for pointing to the good and disregarding the bad. It is altogether too easy for us to forget the suffering of others in foreign lands.

It is also a matter of reality that nothing bolsters the rulers like having a scary enemy to squelch debate and criticism, and winners often write history to their own advantage.

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

If you have not done so, I hope you will pick up a copy of _The Black Book of Communism_.

I'm familiar with it.

The issue I''m having with you here is that I am opposed to being communized, that is having my product being controlled by others in the name of the collective, under the guise of good intentions.

So whenever you use the term "we" in the context you have used it above, I interpret it as that you are willing to accept a certain degree of communism in order to oppose communism.

The result of this "we" kind of thinking is that the U.S., state, and local governments now have communized a very large portion of our product for the "common" good, and is in the process of assuming command of significant portions of our economic relations as well.

You oppose totalitarian communism while I oppose all forms of communism.

If you think we need a military to resist invasion by communist states, then just let me have a gun and ammo, and we'll have a militia able to repel all invaders.

Of course, they have to get here first.

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

I fear it is you who wish to rewrite history to diminish evil to the advantage of your argument.

That would be an erroneous assumption.

I do not wish to rewrite history, but the more I learn of it, the less able I am to view it in such black and white terms as us=good/them=bad.

Very few political actors are worthy of white hats.

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

You should persuade people that it is best to sit back and watch as the corpses pile up by the millions, and people are enslaved by the billions.

No, I'd rather persuade people that we shouldn't create piles of corpses ourselves and that we should not allow ourselves to be enslaved in order to fight slavery.

Sentiments are how political actors manipulate other people in to committing those acts of great evil.

I believe the only way to end the great evils is to persuade people to resist the emotional manipulations of politicians.

We won't be able to help anyone if we ourselves are impoverished and enslaved.

Communism has lost, not because of anything we did, but because markets will not be successfully commanded.

The USSR has demonstrated that, and the U.S. is going to demonstrate it again.

At least, that's how it looks to me.

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

If being principled leads to heavy toll in terms of human casualties, it is not a principle worth adhering to.

IF!

I have not been persuaded that adhering to moral principles leads to a heavy toll in human casualties.

I think it is the abnegation of moral principles that produces such results.

Re: Hubris Universal

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

But at least you are not defending your position by arguing that the evil doesn't really exist.

Nor did I make such an argument.

I think you extended my argument in the wrong direction.

But surely you see the temptation to take within the existing system of an already formed large military and engage it in a task which looks rather minor compared to one's the military just accomplished.

Certainly, politics is full of temptations.

And armed might seems so efficacious.

Re: On America’s Middle Class

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

With my apologies, there were no active threads appropriate to post this off topic but nonetheless excellent lecture by Terence Kealey on science as a public vs private good.

Re: The Psychology of Climate Change and Intervention

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

About that suppressed report.

Re: The Psychology of Climate Change and Intervention

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

As I feel insufficient anxiety about either issue, I must rely on my rational faculty to judge them.

My considered judgment: The AGWCT is bogus as it stands.

Re: The Psychology of Climate Change and Intervention

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

It's a shame about the suppression of that report. It shouldn't happen. It's like Bush administration redux.

It's like politics anytime and anywhere.

Re: The Psychology of Climate Change and Intervention

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

My fellow liberals are in a tizzy over this because it seems more and more that those who claim the Democratic party is no different then the Republicans in their ability to be bought by lobbyist may have a good point. The world is turning into a large corporatacracy that will please neither liberals or conservatives.

I guess you had to witness it for yourself.

As I've explained before, all, ALL governments manifest as oligarchies. Even "democracies" manifest this way.

How many ordinary people do you know who have the time and resources to mount viable campaigns against the political class?

Right.

So that leaves management of the political order to those who are wealthy enough to devote their attention to such matters.

If you find that the regulatory regime is lacking, we might suppose there is a reason it is so.

OTH, a regulatory regime presents onerous obstacles to new competition against the "ins" that have become comfortable in their established markets and relationships with the "official" political class.

Re: Does Fee-for-Service Explain Rising Health-Care Costs?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

"There is a subtle argument here for tackling the problem of people who have vast fortunes that they selfishly hoard and keep all to themselves to societies great detriment."

Apparently the very wealthy have kidnapped large numbers of health care professionals and are holding them on an island somewhere.

Obviously a lot of people don't comprehend what the very wealthy actually own, which are basically numbers in various accounts.

The assumption is that these numbers can be divided up to make everybody else better off.

Re: Does Fee-for-Service Explain Rising Health-Care Costs?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Typical feely type resorting to emotional manipulation rather than attempting to suggest positive solutions.

That's why they think of hammers to even fasten several sheets of paper together.

Government can solve all problems by threatening people with force of arms.

Who needs creative solutions when pointing guns at people seems so efficacious?

Duplicitous thieves from the beginning, they steal labels that they find will sell their program of redistribution.

Re: Does Fee-for-Service Explain Rising Health-Care Costs?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Looks like Mr Grove finally figured out that the only difference between government and organized crime is the number of guns.

I do take issue with the "finally".

Re: Does Fee-for-Service Explain Rising Health-Care Costs?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Insuring every medical expenditure amounts to subscription medical coverage.

Insurance is supposed to provide coverage for the rare and unlikely.

Re: Does Fee-for-Service Explain Rising Health-Care Costs?

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

7. People are living longer. Longer retirement means more people consuming care while not producing. End of life care is also very expensive.

Re: Treason Against Reason

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

There are no climate change deniers.

It is widely understood that the climate changes all the time.

The second deceit of the AGWC proponents was to misrepresent the critique of skeptics as "denial" of global warming, when in fact the skepticism is about the significance of anthropogenic CO2 in climate change reality.

Re: I Don’t Want Those People to Have a Say in How I Live My Life

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Don's post isn't about Michael Jackson at all.

It's about people who bathe in second hand glory.

Re: The Dangers of Regulating Exectutive Pay

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

It's not a big stretch from regulating executive pay to regulating everyone's pay.

Re: The Dangers of Regulating Exectutive Pay

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Αμάτι Nώνυμος

Patience.

Re: Globalization

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Of course people are manipulable.

We are emotive beings, after all.

The commercial sector is not alone in recognizing the utility of emotional manipulation.

"What about the poor/children/etc.?"

I'm sure that rings a bell.

Commercial advertising is about attaching various means to basic human desires, hence hot sports cars are linked to reproductive instincts.

Of course, there is the issue of consumer fatigue. We get used to these manipulatives and begin to tune them out.

So they try harder.

Re: Globalization

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

I am still wondering how I missed the great groundswell of demand for Hannah Montana!

Where did that great groundswell of demand for Barak Obama come from? Are you telling me that was not created by the political market?

There are several factors in play which I think are based in human tribal instincts.

1 Conformity

2 Status seeking

3 Follow the leader

Re: My wife and I celebrate our 20th wedding anniversary today

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:00:00 -0000

Congratulations, Russ!

My wife and I celebrated our 19th in May.

Re: Best Political Cartoon of 2005

Sam Grove — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:10:45 -0000

My fav was the cartoon of Pat Robertson wearing a tee shirt with a picture of Jesus and the caption "Who would Jesus assassinate?"

Re: Gladwell on Nationalized Health-Care Coverage

Sam Grove — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:38:44 -0000

Government subsidies for ANYTHING introduces delays in market pricing feedback.

Proponents of socialized health care labor under the delusion that government actually PAYS for anything. Everything is paid for by someone laboring to produce goods or services, in fact, most costs of production are labor costs. Hence, the function of socialized medicine is to get those with low health care costs to subsidize those with higher health care costs.

It may be supposed that government can make the process of producing goods and services more efficient, but all I can see is that it introduces additional overhead costs.

The productivity of the U.S. economy is simply amazing given that we are not only able to afford a high standard of living, but we are able to post troops in over 100 countries and engage in various simultaneous conflicts as well. If we wish to recude the cost of living, including the costs of health care, there is one obvious solution, but that would impinge on the delusions of collectivists.

Re: A Simple Question

Sam Grove — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:23:02 -0000

There is no ethical basis for protectionism.

Protectionism is based in political pragmatism.

As we all know.

Re: A Simple Question

Sam Grove — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 15:53:24 -0000

There is a natural conflict of interest between consumer and producer. The consumer wants to pay less and the producer wants to charge more. In the marketplace, they tend to work things out, but in the political arena, people are generally more concerned about how much they make than how much they spend, and thus the incentive for influencing the political process is greater for people as producers than as consumers.

Re: The most beautiful toy, yet

Sam Grove — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:53:16 -0000

Because I don't want to carry a $500 electronics device in my pocket.

Re: Feedback, please

Sam Grove — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:03:47 -0000

The dashed lines should be between comments.

The posting info is already distinguished by the bold formatting and the lead: Posted by:

Re: Billboard Jobs

Sam Grove — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:53:35 -0000

My friend spoke in favor of minimum wage laws.

I asked him if I agreed to work for him for $3.50 per hour, who elses business was it?

He replied: "Nobody's".

I rest my case.

Re: And It'll Reduce Honduras's Trade Deficit

Sam Grove — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:13:10 -0000

"then why shouldn't the price of fuel oil drop when it's nationalized"

Well, in the USSR, the government kept the price of everything low. OF course, many things weren't available at those prices in the government stores, so people had to pay black market rates for many things.

Re: Billboard Jobs

Sam Grove — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:39:26 -0000

The purpose of the constitution was/is to define and constrain the federal government.

But safegaurding liberty cannot be left up to a document or to politicians and bureaucrats.

People act according to what they believe is their self-interest, either in or outside of government. It's just that people inside of government may have more power than those outside. Unless you are very wealthy.

Re: And It'll Reduce Honduras's Trade Deficit

Sam Grove — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:40:35 -0000

The market rules, whether you like it or not.

Re: The Downside of Empire

Sam Grove — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:36:50 -0000

The downside of empire, or course, is maintenance.

Re: State, Society, and Unemployment Insurance

Sam Grove — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:59:10 -0000

But isn't insurance more aptly called a "voluntary redistribution scheme"?

Re: Milton on PBS tonight

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:59:56 -0000

I can record in on April 23rd.

Re: I Might Have Added That They Also are Cowards

Sam Grove — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 08:02:28 -0000

As long as the survival instinct rules us, we are but intelligent animals.

Re: I Might Have Added That They Also are Cowards

Sam Grove — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:10:19 -0000

I think we do understand the effects of incentives. That is also why politics will always suck.

Re: Ignoring Political and Economic Science

Sam Grove — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:38:10 -0000

We stayed at the lodge in Yosemite and there was a small sign encouraging us to "SAVE PRICELESS ENERGY" by reusing our towels.

Can you imagine priceless energy?

Re: Russ Roberts on Unions

Sam Grove — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:24:12 -0000

Unions suffer the same fate that many other income gathering organizations have. The need of it's staffers to perpetuate their jobs manifests in an organization that endeavors to perpetuate itsself at the expense of those its income is collected from.

Re: Jousting on global warming

Sam Grove — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:49:51 -0000

Carbon nanotube batteries.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.as...>

Spray on solar cells

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01...>

Solar cell achieves 40% efficiency

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6563/
</p>

Re: More on Foreign Currency Values

Sam Grove — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:48:26 -0000

Beware the fear mongers, their goal is not to alert us to danger, but to manipulate us for their own purposes.

Re: The Economic Meaninglessness of Political Borders

Sam Grove — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:55:27 -0000

"We will never live in such a world."

Never is a very long time.

Re: The Economic Meaninglessness of Political Borders

Sam Grove — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:54:58 -0000

"We will never live in such a world."

Is that a self-fulfilling belief?

Re: Competing with High-Wage Workers

Sam Grove — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:57:48 -0000

A price of collectivist thinking is the relegation of individual humans to the means of policy ends.

Thus humans in other countries are made into "enemies" and fellow citizens must be interfered with to prevent them from engaging in voluntary exchange with other humans.

Thus we see the whole purpose of political government is to manipulate and constrain the market so that some may be benefitted at the expense of others and peaceful behaviors must be restricted or prohibited.

There is no moral justification for such interference, as no one owns the market or any portion thereof outside of each individuals own participation.

Re: Private Property, Personality, and Humanity

Sam Grove — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:33:06 -0000

Limiting individual potential to a lower common denominator.

Re: Letter to Sen. Clinton

Sam Grove — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 11:14:53 -0000

Politicians are always playing to their audience.

Re: Private Property, Personality, and Humanity

Sam Grove — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:41:48 -0000

I suggest that thwarting the individual development of individuals inhibits brain development.

Re: Beyond Hypocrisy

Sam Grove — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 16:24:08 -0000

Once we seperate state and government, we might realize a stateless society.

Re: Skeptic of Combating Global Warming

Sam Grove — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:38:21 -0000

Of course, the core of the anti-capitalist sentiment is anti-human, that is, anti-individual.

If billions must die to sate Gaia, then so be it.

Re: Walter Reed and Government-Provided Universal Health Care

Sam Grove — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:47:40 -0000

Personal experience with govenment provided health services.

We have adopted a child through the county's ocial services. Prior to adoption, we fostered, thus she was enrolled in the county hospital system with expenses covered by Medi-Cal.

Typical wait times were at least 45 minutes with occasional waits of several hours. This is with an appointment.

(The child's physician once suggested treating her sinusitis with Airborne. AIRBORNE!)

In contrast, my wait times at Kaiser Permanente, in which I am enrolled, usually max out at about half an hour, and usualy run about 10-15 minutes.

Re: War on Humanity

Sam Grove — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 21:24:58 -0000

Because of the high price of drugs, addicts also tend to neglect nutrition and hygiene. They spend all their money on the drugs.

Re: War on Humanity

Sam Grove — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:15:42 -0000

People are willing to consider a police state as a viable solution to societal problems when they don't actually live under one.

Capone may have been a sociopath, but alcohol prohibition made it possible for him to be a powerful and rich sociopath.

I don't know if you are hard harted Flash, but I would suggest that you are operating on some erroneous premise. Only an _____ would suggest that the multi-billion dollar war on drugs has been effective or efficacious.

The problem with prohibition is that it makes addicts desperate, criminals wealthy, the streets more dangerous, and law enforcement corrupt (either venally or systemically).

Re: War on Humanity

Sam Grove — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 13:56:51 -0000

"But marijuana is NOT a medicine, and the entire legalization movement will only gain credibility when they drop the silly facade."

Then why does the government grow pot for certain medical reasons?

Re: War on Humanity

Sam Grove — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 09:47:11 -0000

Marijuana is not classified as a medicine by the classification bureaucracy, hence it is not a medicine. Same for nicotine.

If the medicine classification bureacracy reclassified marijuana as a medicine, then it would be a medicine.

OTOH

Medicines are drugs that are used medically.

If marijuana, or nicotine, can be used medically, then in such usage, they are mdeicines.

It has long been accepted that opiates can be used medically, but they can also be used recreationally. The fact that they can be, and are used recreationally does not negate their medical uses. The same logic therefore must apply to cannabinoids.

If they can be used medically, as many doctors and researchers have testified, then they are medicines when used in that capacity.

The fact that emotions run high over the issue, leading many into a state of denial, does not alter the reality.

There are various ways to define drug categories. Some believe the political/bureacratic process is the only authentic way to define such things. Others accept the legitimacy of actual usage and the authority of expertise (rather than the expertise of authority).

This point comes up with off-label usage of many drugs.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Sam Grove — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:14:14 -0000

This image is my redrawing of a temperature graph from the paleomap project.

We are still way on the cool side of the median temperature for the last half a billion years.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Sam Grove — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 08:41:28 -0000

Such certainty based on so much conjecture.

What's known for certain:

The planet has been warming for several hundred years.

Humans release CO2 into the atmosphere.

BTW, the portion generated by humans is a small fraction of the CO2 exchanged among the three reservoirs: ocean, atmosphere, and biomass.

Water vapor is the single most significant greenhouse gas...except when it forms clouds.

What is not known:

Cloud cover impact.

Solar impact. The influence of the solar magnetosphere is just beginning to be explored.

Cloud cover averages and cause of same.

And much else.

Re: Who's Irresponsible?

Sam Grove — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:28:28 -0000

You don't understand, these people have a logic flaw in their brains. They always come up with the wrong result, or rather, they always come up with the result they prefer.

Re: Golden Straw Man

Sam Grove — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:32:23 -0000

Whatever will keep the government from counterfeiting value.

Re: Richard Lindzen, Skeptic

Sam Grove — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:37:49 -0000

The human condition can either be explained by evolution or an idiot god.

OAN, this is the second time in two days I've seen the use of "except" where "accept" is the appropriate term. Is this a trend?

Re: Paper Principles

Sam Grove — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:43:27 -0000

So subsidies are only bad if Americans do them?

American subsidies are bad for most Americans, Japanese subsidies are bad for most Japanese, etc.

Subsidies are favors to special interests with the cost socialized among taxpayers.

Re: Boaz on Leonhardt on Doherty

Sam Grove — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 08:26:30 -0000

"Did Friedman or Hayek make names for themselves and the libertarian movement by

making legalized drugs their priority,"

Of course, in the heyday of Hayek, the war on drugs was not the disaster it has become, and Friedman has spoken against the WOD, but his primary focus has always been economics and free markets.

I hadn't noticed the the WOD is the PRIMARY focus, or banner of the libertarian movement, but it is important for the same reason the WOT is important, the expansion of the power of the state and its attack on freedom.

Certainly, as a libretarian since 1980, I've never held the WOD as my prime cause, but rather the size and power (and cost) of the government.

Re: The Division of Labor

Sam Grove — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:50:50 -0000

It may also be that some prefer operating a cafe to hunting, even if they are as good at hunting as others.

Re: Facts Vs. Faith

Sam Grove — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:12:13 -0000

Many people do not realize when they have become a vistim of "the squeeze" which is the point where the cost of doing business AND supporting a government that has increased the cost of doing business results in businesses deciding to cut some fat from their employment roles.

Whenever people start to clamor for government to "cut the fat" politicians threaten to reduce support for libraries, fire fighting, and policing.

Political creatures are quite adept at shifting blame for the ill effects of their policy enactments.

Re: Facts Vs. Faith

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:12:34 -0000

Time will tell.

In fact, time has told us already.

Trade restrictions foment hostility.

Hostility leads to war.

War impoverises everyone.

Re: Local Nonsense

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:19:47 -0000

It is truly amazing how some many apparently intelligent people can engage in such stupid thnking.

I wonder how many opponents of global trade also support direct foreign aid?

The anti-freedom people know not what they seek to do. They do illustrate the emotive nature of the human animal.

Re: Local Nonsense

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:24:12 -0000

I liked the cartoon of two cavemen feasting on large haunches by a fire just inside the opening of their cave. caption:

"It doesn't get any better than this."

Re: Facts Vs. Faith

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:53:19 -0000

"Maybe, I'm more inclined to believe that history shows us that greed or religion foment hostility."

I think it more correct to say that trade restrictions increase hostility. Often trade restrictions are a result of existing hostility.

Re: Facts Vs. Faith

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:32:15 -0000

An observation:

People have the feeling that government doesn't cost them anything and when they do think about the cost of government, they only think it costs them what they pay in taxes.

In fact, most of the cost of government is hidden from those who do not have adequate comprehension of the functioning of the market, and futher, how the successful attempts of various special interests to control the market through the political process distorts the functioning of the market to the detriment of everyone, especially the poor.

You want a government to protect you from market change?

Hah!

Who do you think will be most successful at influencing the political process?

Yourself? Double hah!

Politicians know where the money is and they know how to con you into giving them your support. And you get to pay for the whole mess.

Re: Facts Vs. Faith

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:49:07 -0000

It's sad how the results of political control of economies are interpreted as failure of markets.

Re: Facts Vs. Faith

Sam Grove — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:21:27 -0000

"If we paid a more equitable price for some of our consumption such that those third world countries could invest in good planet husbandry while growing their economy by producing necessities as opposed to trivialities (McDonalds Kids meal toys come to mind)."

Once upon a time, it was Japan that made those trivialities. As Japan developed and grew economically, they became too expensive a source for cheap plastic goods, but it was a means for the to get from then to now. There may be a reason a developing economy has to go through such a phase in the industrial world.

Re: British guns

Sam Grove — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:42:19 -0000

"There were 55 shooting deaths in 1995 and 50 last year in England and Wales. By comparison, there were 137 fatal shootings in the District of Columbia last year."

Despite D.C.'s SEVERE restrictions on handguns.

Re: The Truth of the Rational Scholar

Sam Grove — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:14:24 -0000

Most people vote according to their tribal instincts. In fact, the whole reason for political government is to maintain hierachical power structures in institutional form. The only reason for popular voting is to get the losers to settle for grumbling until the next election.

Whatever the itellectual justifications might be.

Re: The Truth of the Rational Scholar

Sam Grove — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:16:05 -0000

Can someone stick and "n" in there?

Re: The Truth of the Rational Scholar

Sam Grove — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:49:32 -0000

Nobody controls the market, though many try. No company can force you to buy its products, unless it is a legalized (government granted) monopoly.

Corporations are organized according to the strictures of corporate law. Presidents, vice presidents, etc. Sound familiar? And they only govern the way they do business, not whether you have to buy their products. The purpose of corporate law is to create a fictional "individual" and to define its relationship to the law.

The Marxist mindset is so tiring.

Re: The Truth of the Rational Scholar

Sam Grove — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:52:44 -0000

"And in my opinion it's the corporations control or influence that forces you to buy or support or subsidize their product."

There seems to be something missing here...ah, after product, insert: "through politicl influence".

I didn't say you were a Marxist, but your sentiment is straight out of the Marxist mindset. I referred to this indirectly by mentioning "government granted monopoly", likewise, when corporations, or any significant interest influences politicians to steer money their way, it is the government that forces me to pay for it. It is the government that threatens me with property seizure, jail, or even death, if I don't pay the taxes it commands. By granting the government the power to tax and otherwise command, you create an instrument that will be influenced by anyone with the resources and incentive to do so. So if I may put it another way, it is those who support an agency of extortion...the government...who force me to pay for things I'd prefer not to, for it is they who empower government with their consent, support, and advocacy.

"If they don't like the rules then they dont have to incorporate."

Ad hominem comment. Political structures will always be influenced by those with the resources and incentive to do so. Government does not run according to the opinion of people, such as yourself, rather, it operates according to the incentives created by its power to control resources and people, in accord with human nature.

You want a government to control corporations? In due time, you will get a government influenced BY corporations.

It is inevitable.

Re: What's the Relevance of Rodrik's Point?

Sam Grove — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:55:39 -0000

Dammit, no one owns the market and no one should act like they own it or any portion of it.

Re: What's the Relevance of Rodrik's Point?

Sam Grove — Tue, 01 May 2007 20:41:26 -0000

Here and elsewhere (more so elsewhere), the questions are always long the lines of "How will this economic behavior/policy/etc. help or harm Americans (when asked n America, of course), but rarely is the question asked: will this political intervention help more than it hurts or will it hurt more than it helps. It is almost always assumed that most things the government engages in will help more than it hurts.

Why?

It seems to be the premise of many that taxes are transparent in impact on the economy while government spending only does good.

Re: Satel's Kidney

Sam Grove — Wed, 02 May 2007 10:23:35 -0000

Why is there sentiment against compensating people for donating organs?

I'd like someone who feels such sentiment to explain it well.

Re: What's the Relevance of Rodrik's Point?

Sam Grove — Wed, 02 May 2007 10:31:44 -0000

People also sem to conceive of government as some amorphous thing detached from the people who operate it. They are unable to perceive the systemic problems, or, IOW, if only we had the right people in office.

Many want the government to stand in for the underdog but fail to comprehend that politicians have human responses, that is, the necessities of getting elected/re-elected make them susceptable to resourceful influences.

I challenge anyone who can figure a way to make a political system approach the ideal, given the reality of human nature.

Re: Should Americans Worry About Foreign-Government Holdings of Dollar-Denominated Assets?

Sam Grove — Wed, 02 May 2007 10:36:32 -0000

"Is there real reason for Americans to worry about the Chinese government buying and accumulating lots of dollar-denominated assets?"

I certainly don't.

Maybe I should worry about my government's spending.

Sorry, I just don't worry about such things.

Re: Satel's Kidney

Sam Grove — Wed, 02 May 2007 15:11:46 -0000

"Although, I question whether selling an organ would not provide incentives for murder and thins like maybe turning off life support just a tad earlier than you otherwise would."

It is thought that this often occurs already, not to make money, but to SAVE money.

Re: Satel's Kidney

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 May 2007 08:13:09 -0000

It is really quite simple Sam, poor people cannot handle cheap credit. If they were allowed to sell their kidneys, why, they might accidentally sell both!

That's a rationale, but I suspect the root lise s little deeper. I would expect that anyone in need of a kidney, poor as well as rich, would benefit from a greater supply.

And this is only until humans are able to regrow organs.

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Sun, 06 May 2007 10:43:03 -0000

free spirited Miwok Indian who's whole life was one big camping trip and who hunted and fished for a living with no cubicle or time clocks?

That is a romantic version. But what do we know of the children who died in infancy or wives who died during childbirth? what do we know of the relatively common death by infection or lifelong debility due to badly healed broken bones, or of life long pain from arthritis?

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Mon, 07 May 2007 10:26:02 -0000

And civil society is democratic and will likely never allow a so called "free market" because without reasonable regulation power and wealth accumulate amongst a small ruling elite and you're right back to serfdom and the reasons we fought the first civil war.

This is an unsubstantiated assertion which ignores history which shows that political power always falls into (or rather, is siezed by) the hands of a small minority. The "advance" of democracy is actually the expansion of that small minority with some impact from the necessity of manipulating large numbers of people through political strategy and tactics, otherwise known as fear mongering, in the competition between the elite factions that seek power.

The advance of humanity has been made mostly through an evolution of sentiment, technological advance, and trade.

The retention of political power hierarchies is symptomatic of human psychological evolution which has adapted humans to tribal social systems. the main problem I see with democracy as a form of rule is that it is still a form of rule, that is, a system of political power, and as many have observed before, and I observe also, power corrupts. The unappreciated aspect of political power is that the ruled are corrupted as well as the rulers.

All a democracy does for us is give people the illusion that they play a part of any significance in directing the agencies of power.

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Mon, 07 May 2007 17:12:10 -0000

If I was to summarize our positions I might say that I'm more affraid of corruption and dangers of corporate rule and control of society

As well you should. You just need to recognize how such power is/would be effected, through influence on the political process.

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Mon, 07 May 2007 17:32:11 -0000

But the idea of putting Capitalism ahead of democracy as Caplan suggest is really scary to me.

Is that what he was suggesting? Or does he suggest we put freedom ahead of democracy?

Capitalism, as a term, was coined by Marx to describe an economic system characterized by private ownership of the means of production and is used as a pejorative by, um, leftists.

I think it may be helpful to approach it this way: Should individuals be free to create and own tools for producing things of value and to trade with other individuals possessed of the same freedom?

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Mon, 07 May 2007 17:38:43 -0000

Back in Antiquity it was not unheard of for people, at least intellectuals, to live into their seventies and eighties. Surely thats a longer life span than 30?

Obviously you are referring to recorded history which spans 6-7 thousand years. When lifespans are spoken of it this context, there is the average, the median, and the maximum. Of course there were those who lived to ripe old age. Their rarity and ability to live so long is what made them worth noting.

The question is: If we lived in similar circumstances now, most of us would be dead. That would solve the fiscal problems of social security and medicare.

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Mon, 07 May 2007 17:47:06 -0000

Um, ok, when I started, it was going to be a question, but when I got there, it bacame a statement.

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Mon, 07 May 2007 21:59:09 -0000

But should a hatter be allowed to dump his mercury into the local stream contaminating a whole fishery used by both private and public interests?

This may be a problem if the stream is unowned, but when streams are private property, as in Ireland (or is it Scotland?) the owners jealously guard their property from pollution by those upstream. Lawsuits are the favored recourse. In ownership, the incentive to protect one's property is inherent.

Private property rights is the market acknowledgement of human territoriality.

The pattern of water pollution is marked by public ownership of waterways and an absence of private interest in protecting them. Try googling "tragedy of the commons".

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Tue, 08 May 2007 06:26:58 -0000

And really the idea that you'll settle everything with lawsuits is not practical.

The streams are clean.... but a lawsuit needn't be profuse, the threat of civil action will do after some successful lawsuits.

So, are you a climate scientist?

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Tue, 08 May 2007 06:43:21 -0000

I must learn to preview...lawsuits needn't be profuse.

As for the smoker upwind of your home, just what do you want the law to do about it? Make it illegal for him to smoke in his yard?

There's another perverse activity of government. The guy can take care of his addiction easily by obtaining the most damaging form of nicotine infusion. Until very recently, even nicotine gum required a prescription. So the law favored cigarette manufacturers at the expense of nicotine addicts.

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Tue, 08 May 2007 08:45:20 -0000

A climate scientist.

I'm not a climate scientist either, I'm not a scientist of any kind, my specialty was electronics, but I'm now a stay-at-home dad.

Here is some of my commentary on AGWC theory.

Here is some commentary on peer review, consensus, and the current state of government intersected science.

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Tue, 08 May 2007 08:53:22 -0000

BTW, what agency made possible the construction of thousands of miles of highway enabling people to hop in a car and drive as much as they please without much thought for the cost AND drove the railroad companies nearly out of business (propped up with subsidies now)?

In an early pollution civil case, a farmer sued a railroad which was damaging his orchard with soot from passing trains. The judge ruled that we couldn't allow private property rights stand in the way of progress. My take on that is that the RR bribed the judge, but there you have it.

Also, which single agency do you suppose is the worst polluter?

AQ

How much driving do people do in order to pay their taxes?

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Tue, 08 May 2007 20:28:09 -0000

In other words why do you so desperately need anthropogenic global warming to not be true?

Why does skepticism have to be a need for denial? I just haven't been convinced yet that there is a looming catastrophe, that climate scientists have sufficiently identified the anthropogenic component, or the natural component, they haven't accounted for cloud cover, etc. They don't even try to counter skeptics with science, but rather dismiss them with ad hominem and pretend to the public that there is no debate.

IAC, I have my own tendency to greet alarmism with skepticism. Many people engage in alarmism over many different topics to garner support and access to political power. Our borders are sieves, we'll al be speaking Espanol, al quaida is stalking America, New Zealand mussels will clog our water systems, the trade deficit, China, Iran, North Korea, offshoring, peak oil, drugs, and on an on it goes.

One thing I can tell you about anyone who says there is no cause for concern...they are not trying to manipulate people through fear.

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Tue, 08 May 2007 21:32:20 -0000

The pattern is just so familiar.

Re: Still Living at 108

Sam Grove — Tue, 08 May 2007 21:39:35 -0000

Here is a live link as Russ' entry is incomplete.

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:41:29 -0000

That may all be true, and I'll grant that to dispose of that issue as it doesn't address the point.

These large fluctuations throughout the millenia are obviously not anthropogenic...to the best of our knowledge...although life itsself may have had an influence.

If we are in the midst of a natural cycle, and there is evidence of that (including observations of the past temps), then the very worst thing we could do, for our own sake, is to cripple our technological evolution and economic growth, which may give us the tools and wealth to deal with the problems.

There is evidence that warming actually precedes CO2 increase rather than follows.

Until climate science can accurately explain past climate changes, such as the cooling in the last century and Medieval climate optimum, and the little ice age, I think it may be prudent to resist alarmism which is likely to lead to foolish, damaging, and ultimately futile policies by putting our faith, and fate, in the hands of politicians.

Re: Who Wants to Get Back to Nature?

Sam Grove — Wed, 09 May 2007 07:24:47 -0000

OTOH, I can't get too excited about it. Politicians are nothing if not expert at making gestures and giving the impression of accomplishment. Take campaign finance reform, for example.

Re: Free Trade, Unilaterally

Sam Grove — Wed, 09 May 2007 20:39:27 -0000

Try to spot them all.

But then I'd have to wade through his column. I've got plenty else to do.

Re: Free Trade, Unilaterally

Sam Grove — Fri, 11 May 2007 08:11:24 -0000

No one starts a business to create jobs, they do it to make money.

"We" don't benefit from Boeing's creation of jobs, but from Boeing's production of aircraft.

Jobs are the cost of producing things such as aircraft.

If Boeing was able to produce aircraft more cheaply by using a bunch of robots istead of humans, we would benefit from cheaper aircraft, cheaper tickets.

If Airbus managed to get the government to force its citizens to subsidize Airbus to the point that Boeing got out of business, we would still benefit from cheaper aircraft...at the expense of European taxpayers.

Won't happen.

Re: Caplan on Economic Ignorance and Public Choice

Sam Grove — Sat, 12 May 2007 12:04:07 -0000

My neighbor was speaking in defense of a minimum wage. I asked him if I was willing to work for him for $3.25 and hour (well below min. wage) who else's business was it? His reply: "Nobody."

Re: Free Trade, Unilaterally

Sam Grove — Sat, 12 May 2007 12:15:10 -0000

The same could have happened here in the thirties save for the actions of that optimistic liberal (definitely not a libertarian) known as FDR. He saved capitalism from the capitalists, but never received the thanks he deserved from them.

You are well versed in the popular mythology.

As the world is all about perception, we can restate that: FDR took advantage of the misperception that the run on the banks was a failure of capitalism and instituted large dose of socialism into the U.S. economy and gave everyone the perception that he was saving them from the "failure" of capitalism. Unfortunately, his actions and actions of the FED prolonged the depression to a record 8 years, but fortunately (for the FDR legend), misperceptions were saved by our entry into WWII thus bringing another misperception into being, that the federal government could do anything.

The reality is that the run on the banks occurred over a decade after the FED was created, ostensibly to prevent such runs and economic ups and downs. Could the FED have been doing something to set up the stock market crash of '29? Maybe is had something to do with the massive creation of credit by the FED leading traders into a misperceptin that the economy was really going gangbusters.

Inflation fools a lot of people.

Re: Caplan on Economic Ignorance and Public Choice

Sam Grove — Sat, 12 May 2007 16:01:51 -0000

And that's where Libertarianism seems on a Quixotic quest. Short of convincing the majority that their system is the best they have to win in a Democratic system through deception.

How would the public feel about being deceived, and what would they do about it next election?

The answer to getting special interest out of getting special legislation is to make all lobbying illegal and to hold publicly funded elections. Politicians need to be isolated from conflicts of interest in any and every way possible.

Thi seems a quixotic goal. Politicians are human, special interests are humans, elections cost money, ergo, money will flow.

The root of the problem is a government with the capacity and authority to make "special" legislation. The solution is to take from government (politicians and bureaucrats) the power and authority to pass special legislation.

The key to the solution is an informed electorate.

Seems like a dauntless task.

Re: Free Trade, Unilaterally

Sam Grove — Sat, 12 May 2007 18:00:24 -0000

The depression was enhanced by a panic reaction on the part of the FED. There may have been some anti-semitism involved as well. The first bank which suffered a run was Jewish owned, and when the run began, other banks could have stepped in with some reserves to quell the panic, but they did not. Of course, one run led to another.

Humans are emotive creatures.

Re: Free Trade, Unilaterally

Sam Grove — Sat, 12 May 2007 18:06:59 -0000

Many people want wealth without having to earn it. Some people obtain wealth because their parents earned it. Many people earn their wealth. Many people avoid having too much responsibility which is what starting and running a business entails.

Equality of results can only be acheived by making everyone poor, that is, by removing any incentive to produce.

Re: The Improving State of the World

Sam Grove — Sun, 13 May 2007 08:17:52 -0000

There are actually people that hate humanity. They won't volunteer to leave though, they want others to go.

Re: Caplan on Economic Ignorance and Public Choice

Sam Grove — Sun, 13 May 2007 21:09:55 -0000

To illustrate the difference between economic power (the marxist bogeyman)and political power, remember that the USSR basically abolished private ownership of, well, everything, but in particular, business...and profits. Nonetheless, people were even more oppressed than when there was privete ownership.

The reason political power trumps economic power it the same reason a wealthy man hands over his wallet to an armed mugger.

When you get that, you'll have got it.

Re: The Improving State of the World

Sam Grove — Mon, 14 May 2007 11:28:32 -0000

The market functions so well that it can withstand fairly severe predation by theives and similar characters, even politicians. This is dependent, of course, the efficiency of production.

To boil it down, the problem is: how many people can be supported by what fraction of the whole. In a subsistence economy, the ratio can approach 1, that is, productivity is so low that everyone must produce.

If we could completely automate production of all goods and services, then the ratio may approach 0, that is, no one would have to work at producing goods and services.

What the state does, when it exceeds its charge of prohibiting aggression, is to require the productive sector to support the non-productive sector through sanctioned extortion.

A mixed economy succeeds only to the extent that individuals are rewarded for production. Viewed from a utilitarian perspective, it can easily be said that a mixed economy works well enough. But if we look at things from a moral perspective, it's quite a different matter.

Than again, if long term results are valued, the even a utilitarian perspective may recognize that a mixed economy is unstable and tending toward increasing political management to correct the (false) perception that the market isn't functioning well.

It is never the market that malfunctions, but rather, it is attempts by various interests to control the market for their own benefit that distorts market functions.

Re: The use of knowledge

Sam Grove — Mon, 14 May 2007 21:02:15 -0000

Could we describe markets as ordered chaos?..or perhaps chaotic order.

The failure of a command-and-control economy is that markets operate on the fact that individuals have different desires.

Markets operate in any economy. It's the results that vary. In a command economy, a black market will appear. It can be determined how free a market is by how much of it is underground.

Re: Caplan on Economic Ignorance and Public Choice

Sam Grove — Mon, 14 May 2007 21:16:56 -0000

My favorite quote from Will and Ariel Durant

"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but apparently you can fool enough of them to runn a large

country."

Muirgeo, you have to give up the notion that democracy gives the people control over government.

Another quote, from Sy Leon:

"Voting is like going through one of two doors, no matter which one you go through, you end up in the same room."

Of course there's: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Re: Caplan on Economic Ignorance and Public Choice

Sam Grove — Tue, 15 May 2007 10:04:57 -0000

You think that's impossible...I don't.

It's impossible as long as government has the power, authority, and sanction to control resources...superficially, money.

In practice you are right. In theory the founding fathers would be saddened by your pessimism.

Oh, they were pessimistic about democracy, that's why they attempted to establish a constitutuional republic rather than a democracy. That's why the D of I mentions that the people have the right to change their government when it no longer serves them.

Governments always are instituted to serve the elite, and when the elite lose control, government serves itsself. The "people" are sheep to be shorn.

Re: Caplan on Economic Ignorance and Public Choice

Sam Grove — Tue, 15 May 2007 10:10:12 -0000

Muirgeo,

Let me ask you some questions:

1 Why do people create businesses, or what is the purpose and function of business?

2 Why do people go into politics, or, what is the purpose and function of government?

Re: Unintended Consequences

Sam Grove — Tue, 15 May 2007 10:15:32 -0000

Shows the value of intentions alone.

Re: Some Thoughts on Science

Sam Grove — Tue, 15 May 2007 10:21:42 -0000

Economists do have a qualification for addressing climate science, which is ability in statistics. Climate trends are all about statistics. I would venture that economists can match climate scientists in this area.

Re: Caplan on Economic Ignorance and Public Choice

Sam Grove — Tue, 15 May 2007 13:01:33 -0000

2) "..what is the purpose and function of business?"

To improve society.

To make money by providing goods and services to people

3) "Why do people go into politics"

To improve society.

Well, I'm sure this varies, but there are people who go into politics for the ego trip and/or to do "battle' for their tribe.

What seperates those that want to improve society from those that enter for, um, other reasons, is the ability to win the support from various interests in society. IOW, at manipulating perceptions. When I ran for congress in San Francisco, I followed Nancy Pelosi around, and while I could never say that she was "lying", I did notice that what and who she stood for shifted depending on who she was speaking to. I recall that she is from a political dynasty. IAC, the purpose of a politician is to get elected, once elected, the purpose is to get re-elected.

How do people think they will improve society by going into politics?

By creating/supporting legislation that attempts to control/manipulate peoples behaviors.

4)"what is the purpose and function of government?"

To protect its citizens.

That's what citizens are supposed to think about their government. The actual purpose of government is to maintain order...the existing order, by attempting to control/manipulate people's behavior by threat of legal action...sanctioned extortion, and not always such legal action if one thinks the government should be bound by the constitution.

Instead of thinking about society and government in terms of what you think it should be, but by the incentives and disincentives that have been established, always remembering the reality of human nature.

Individuals ALWAYS act in what they perceive to be their own interest, whether they be in government, or business, or in any situation. It's hardwired.

Re: Caplan on Economic Ignorance and Public Choice

Sam Grove — Tue, 15 May 2007 20:57:45 -0000

I never understand the position of hating and distrusting government, especialy one that we choose, because you believe all people in government are corrupt. Then you trust the free market because it is flawless and all people who work in it are apparently perfect and principaled people.

I'm certain you think that is what I said and meant, but it is not.

I have no thought that the market is perfect, wouldn't even know what that means.

What I do think is that in the market, we do not grant anyone the right, authority, or power to make us pay for anything we do not wish to buy.

The market does not tax us to send soldiers to other countries to kill whoever "the government" has decided must be killed.

You do not comprehend what the market is. It is a venue for people to trade values, for associations, make friends, recreate, create, start a business, get a job, make money, etc. No one is in charge of it. It's similar to an ecological system. It arises from the interactions of people. Everyone particiaptes in some fashion.

As for government, it is commonly thought that government was created (by whom, we might ask) to correct for the flaws of humans. I think that government is more a product of the flaws of humans. We know its origins in conquest, and the transition to what is called "the modern state", but its basic nature remains the same.

It is a tool of coercion.

Think of the incentives.

Re: Caplan on Economic Ignorance and Public Choice

Sam Grove — Tue, 15 May 2007 21:21:48 -0000

George Washington:

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Re: Caplan on Economic Ignorance and Public Choice

Sam Grove — Wed, 16 May 2007 07:02:30 -0000

markets owe their very existence to government

Can you prove this theory?

Lets see the market run with out soldiers and policemen and civil engineers. Lets see the market run with out corporate law, with out patent law and without a judicial system to uphold its contracts.

Well, libertarians, the minarchist one anyhow, concede a role for government in national defense, police, and courts. OTOH, you may have heard of arbitration as a private alternative to courts. Militia as an alternative to government controlled armies. Even private roads, which was the norm once upon a time.

And for the last, you may suppose that the current administration has no ideological basis for its war mongering. And even if we grant that the oil corporations are benefitting, it is the government that forces citizen to pay for it. The oil companies certainly don't want to pay for it. If government had not the power to tax us, would we have troops in a hundred and twenty some countries around the world?

IAC, it is a well known behavior of governments, institutionalixed tribal hierarchies, that its members can be gathered in support of the leadership with the presentation of an external threat. See "The Prince", by Machiavelli for an elucidation of this. Politicians know this and successful politician are people with an instinct for this.

It is interesting how corporations, creatures of government, get sole blame for activities that are enabled only by political government. Notice my use of the word "sole", don't gloss over it.

I'll restate, war is made possible by political systems of governance with its ability to extort from its citizens sufficient resources to carry out the logistics.

Everyone knows that the only way to govern society is with a political hierarchy.

I say: It ain't necessarily so.

Re: Marvelous Arrangement

Sam Grove — Wed, 16 May 2007 07:03:58 -0000

top-down approach requires the flow of impossible amounts of information to the top

Whic must be accurate as well. Another impossibility.

Re: They care so much about me

Sam Grove — Wed, 16 May 2007 07:09:06 -0000

All hail the nanny state, children.

Re: Caplan on Economic Ignorance and Public Choice

Sam Grove — Wed, 16 May 2007 08:09:20 -0000

And to answer the question about which group I would put in position of government: I trust no one that wants power over me.

I wouldn't put 'known to be bad' people in such a position and I wouldn't wish it on decent people.

Political power is a peculiar kind of honey. What kind of flies do you suppose are attracted to it?

Re: The Reality of the Influence of 'The Myth'

Sam Grove — Sun, 27 May 2007 10:46:31 -0000

Air Conditioning. Before its invention, Washington DC was an uninhabitable swamp in the summer, so everyone went home!

Don't they still knock off for the summer?

Perhaps we should use the term "non-rational" instead of irrational. Many do not vote on what they 'know', but on what they feel.

The politics of democracy are about manipulating the perceptions of the voter counting on their emotional reactions to fear issues.

What can we expect from a system that utilizes extortion as its main instrument of affect.

Re: The Reality of the Influence of 'The Myth'

Sam Grove — Sun, 27 May 2007 13:18:37 -0000

No matter how Sam or Suzy votes, or whether Sam or Suzy vote, the outcome of any election will be no different.

What it really means is that the feedback connection between action (voting) and eventual consequences is stretched out of each voters perception. The perceived personal consequnces are nil.

Re: Some Economics of Homeland Security

Sam Grove — Mon, 28 May 2007 07:50:11 -0000

Perhaps web cams could be placed around the multitude of sites that require monitoring and the aoutput made available online for monitorin by anyone and everyone. Post a reward for reporting of unusual developments. Millions of people would only have to spend a few minutes at a time looking at the video coverate. Disabled people might spend more time. Come up with a scheme to make it worth their time.

Re: Mine Your Own Business

Sam Grove — Thu, 31 May 2007 12:53:42 -0000

Is it really "Mine Your Own Business"?

Re: The Reality of the Influence of 'The Myth'

Sam Grove — Thu, 31 May 2007 20:12:44 -0000

I seems like the tragedy of the commons as applied to politics. Given that it's all about perception; through the vote, political power is available to all and you better get yours cause that's what everyone else will do when they get their access.

There is no collective will except the will

of the beast. It is too much to expect that millions of voters can in any way get together and decide what shall be in the collective interest. The best hope on such a scale is that an enlightened elite can foist such on the people. Hence, the constitution.

Unfortunately, even the enlightened tend to underestimate the capacity for corruption of political power.

Re: One of America's Greatest Imports

Sam Grove — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:52:53 -0000

Make that three subjects that shouldn't be raised at social gatherings: poitics, religion, and musical opinions.

Re: Actions Speak Louder than Boos

Sam Grove — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:59:45 -0000

Remember that those booing are still in Mexico.

Re: Actions Speak Louder than Boos

Sam Grove — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 07:17:08 -0000

In other words, they assume that they are poor because we are wealthy.

Re: The Reality Reflected by Prices

Sam Grove — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 07:19:21 -0000

Damn the Marxists for polluting society with anti-profit/anti-business sentiment.

Re: Actions Speak Louder than Boos

Sam Grove — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:56:41 -0000

If, in the name of the principle of liberty, we permit the fee flow of human capital from a largley socialist culture, we may soon lose that liberty altogether.

Another argument against political government.

Re: If A Disdains B's Freedoms, B Will Return the Favor

Sam Grove — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:21:21 -0000

I think it would be very thoughtful of business owning bigots to display their prejudice before I enter their extablishment. That would facilitate my choice to take my business elsewhere.

Re: The Deep Substance of An 'Empty Slogan'

Sam Grove — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 08:45:54 -0000

If people fought to free themselves from the oppressive and arbitrary rule of kings, why would they ask for the same oppressive and arbitrary rule from another government? This has always puzzled me.

Because they haven't acknowledged the systemic flaw of power hierarchy.

It is easy to comprehend the selfish motive of a rotten king, but much more difficult to perceive the complex of selfish motivations in the hypothetical "collective".

So they have rejected the idea of being subjected to the selfish rule of kings, but not the idea of being ruled. Or rather, they believe that others must be ruled to restrain their selfish impulses.

What is the market?

It is the venue where people satisfy their selfish needs and desires by satisfying the selfish needs and desires of others through trade.

...

Re: Imperfect markets, imperfect government

Sam Grove — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:00:46 -0000

The study of public choice, how governments actually behave in practice, suggests that it has little to do with who is elected but rather with the constraints facing those who are elected>

It's even worse than that. What kind of people want to be in positions of power over other people, to be able to dispose of their lives and produce when necessary for the so-called "common good"? And what about their own selfish motivations?

Re: The Deep Substance of An 'Empty Slogan'

Sam Grove — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:23:25 -0000

(child labor, starving old people, etc).

These are problems the market pretty much solved. Child labor only became a perceived problem when people left behind subsistence living and began to improve their lot. Prior to industrialization, most everyone worked dawn to dusk just to survive.

Robin Hood illustrated just who took from the poor.

Re: Imperfect markets, imperfect government

Sam Grove — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:29:24 -0000

Everyone wants to be important to others, often they are satisfied with the perception of importance.

Politicians are masters at this.

Re: The Deep Substance of An 'Empty Slogan'

Sam Grove — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:14:21 -0000

All I was trying to say was that people often talk about markets as if they COULD produce utopia, which they clearly can't.

Of course there is no utopia, even utopia has a fatal flaw...it would be boring.

The question is whether free people operating out of their own self interests are more capable of solving problems than a political system that relies upon extortion to accomplish anything, AND, IN THAT CONTEXT, still is motivated by human self interest.

Why do people think the government is like some kind of magic wish machine?

Just because it is licensed to kill?

There are NO "magical" solutions.

Re: The Deep Substance of An 'Empty Slogan'

Sam Grove — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:12:00 -0000

It may be helpful to think of political systems as part of the market. Hence, anyone looking to government to deal with problems are in fact saying the (political) market can handle it.

What people need to understand is that you can have a market distorted by the exortive process of politics, or you can have a market free of extortion.

The pretense of politics is that extortion is not extortion when the government does it.

Re: The Deep Substance of An 'Empty Slogan'

Sam Grove — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:15:49 -0000

It may not be an EMPTY slogan, but it is a slogan.

I've not been aware of anyone using such a slogan all by itsself to explain anything. Most libertarians I have known are all to eager to go into great detail how the market can solve various problems.

It has solved the most fundamental problem for humankind, the evidence is quite abundant.

Re: Imperfect markets, imperfect government

Sam Grove — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:12:57 -0000

We should give up the notion that 'perfect' has some objective meaning in human affairs.

We should then give up the ideal of perfection. Market(s) is just shorthand for the complex of intereactions among people.

The idea that we need institutions of extortion to make markets function properly is absurd.

The excuse for government intervention to improve markets is just a cover story for interfering in market functioning for the benefit of some at the expense of others.

We must discard theories of noble/idealistic utilization of political power and just observe the results.

Politicians are great at gesturing, this is part of their sales pitch.

Re: Wages in China

Sam Grove — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:09:37 -0000

Look at how many of our home grown intellectuals of the left wing still refuse to embrace free market capitalism. Why would we expect the ChiComs to do so?

They've passed laws protecting private property. They've premitted foreign investment in productive capacity; which means they are accepting the reality of the profit motive.

Re: Don't Be Sari

Sam Grove — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 05:39:46 -0000

People losing jobs makes the news, people getting jobs does not.

Re: Thou Shalt Not Prosper

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:29:12 -0000

..., but the insulating ability of CO2 is well proven.

In the lab, this seems to be the case, but as an atmospheric component, there is no way to be so certain of CO2's impact vis a vis other gases and factors.

Re: Illegal Immigrants

Sam Grove — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:14:12 -0000

Make something illegal when there are willing parties to the exchange; a black market ensues.

Real world.

Re: The myth of the rational voter

Sam Grove — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:19:13 -0000

One of the results of poltical government is interference with feedback feedback mechanisms. By socializing costs, the results of bad policies are difficult to connect to the policy without deeper analysis than a typical voter can devote to the matter. Of course, there is the gesturing and obfuscaton of politicians to further cloud issues.

Re: More on Smoot-Hawley

Sam Grove — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 07:38:57 -0000

Government is collectivized human stupidity in action.

Re: A New Deal for Globalization?

Sam Grove — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:57:09 -0000

Why blame globalization in the first place?

How about the ever increasing cost of an ever growing government and its very expensive, um, actions?

Re: Anti-Antitrust

Sam Grove — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:29:49 -0000

There are many versions of history:

What people believe happened.

What historians say happened.

what many assumed happened.

Then there is what actually happened.

Historical facts often verge on useless in evaluating policy.

That's why we need to understand relationships, incentives, and motivations and assume that human self-interest applies at all levels.

When political power intervenes in the market, it goes on the market.

Re: Anti-Antitrust

Sam Grove — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:33:48 -0000

Methinks

Thank you.

Re: An Anecdote on Health Care

Sam Grove — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:11:26 -0000

The claim that government provided health care is free is a gross misrepresentation.

Everyone pays...and pays.

Even those who make no tax payments are made poorer by any taxpayer supported system.

Any government managed system becomes a jobs program.

Re: An Anecdote on Health Care

Sam Grove — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:28:07 -0000

Muirgeo,

I would, if I could, apologize for the latent hostility some posters have expressed in addressing your posts.

IAC, you seem to have limited yourself in imagining the possibilities for social order. I suggest that your limitation is that you have accepted the premise that some form of institutional extortion is required to make society 'work'.

The premise I operate from is that we have a state because people have been socially indoctrinated to believe in it. This belief is the water we swim in, so to speak.

If you are willing, at least intellectually, to climb out of the water for a bit, and consider other possibilities, you might begin to see where libertarians swim.

Re: Chinese Atrocity

Sam Grove — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:15:01 -0000

It seems that people such as ayn ryan live in perpetual fear of other people unless they are perpetually regulated by state power.

Fear is the greatest corrupter of all.

Absolutely no sense of the evolution of social sensibility.

Re: Unclean Politics Means Unclean Energy

Sam Grove — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 08:02:47 -0000

Well, my experience of muirgeo's participation in the forum is that it has actually gone donwhill.

I still don't think incivility is a useful response as it has failed to get muirgeo to go away...perhaps the most desired outcome.

However, let us give no troll the satisfaction of rising to whatever bait they may dangle around here.

Reaction usually results in reaction.

Muirgeo, like so many people, suffers from a mind-jam packed with collective paradigm as evidenced by statements indicating supreme faith in "democracy", the "will of the people".

IOW, muirgeo gives all the appearance of having been successfully indoctrinated by the political-corporate sponsored educational system. That's what can happen to your brain on collective education. Mythology becomes fact.

When you get down to it, muirgeo is a prime example of partisan political alignment. This often results in bi-lateral thinking, where the worlds is defined by the us v. them dynamic.

Let's face it, such individuals, unless they experience a radicalizing emotional experience, are immune to information that does not support their ideological position.

The problem for proponents of tranformational ideas, is to find those who have not got so caught up in the partisan politic that they have developed this ideological immunity. IOW, fertile ground.

Re: Unclean Politics Means Unclean Energy

Sam Grove — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:25:18 -0000

See, the bi-polar outlook cannot recognize 3+ options. If you are not left or right, in their view, you're nowhere.

It's either democracy or corporate rule. No other possiblity can exist for them. Unthinkable; literally. It's amazing how well our educational system works at intellectual disablement.

Re: Unclean Politics Means Unclean Energy

Sam Grove — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:31:21 -0000

Facts on the ground have no meaning.

AKA, politics as usual.

Re: Unclean Politics Means Unclean Energy

Sam Grove — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:59:25 -0000

Here's how you get the government to serve "the people", that mythical, monolithic block of everyone who has the same values and priorities:

The poltical process caters to monetary influence and votes.

In order to have the government serve the people, that mythical group mentioned above, everyone has to be made equal so that their values and priorities are the same. That way there are no special interests to seek special favors from government.

As it has been demostrated that government is unable to make everyone wealthy, it must therefore make everyone poor, in order to achieve poltical nirvana, the place where everyone has identical political values.

Unfortunately, while there are many who aren't too interested in being rich, very few desire to be poor.

I don't know where to go from there. There doesn't seem to be any way around that fact that different individuals have different values and priorities and if the political process become THE means to achieve goals, then it seems to me that society under political government must be rife with political process. The main advantage of democracy then is this conflict doesn't have to be menifested in great violence...unless there is conflict between governments.

I don't know how the political faithful can resolve these problems unless one side of the great divide manages to somehow get rid of the other side. Then all will be well.

BTW, one thing those partisans from the left/right arena don't get about libertarians, is that many of our rank are refugees from the left/right teams.

Once transitioned fully from left/right/uncertain domain, libertarians should no longer be troubled by the sentiments that cause members of one side to hate the other.

Re: Unclean Politics Means Unclean Energy

Sam Grove — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:01:05 -0000

rife with political process

meant to say 'rife with political conflict'.

Re: Unclean Politics Means Unclean Energy

Sam Grove — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:25:17 -0000

capitalist systems are not always perfect as Boudreaux tries to claim

Straw Man.

Perfect is not an appropriate adjective to use with market, free market, underground market, capitalism, etc. I have never gotten the impression that Coudreaux was attempting to cast market processes or capitalist systems as 'perfect'. So you've built a straw man, in your own mind, no doubt, purely for the pleasure of knocking it down. In regards to markets, I have no idea what the adjective 'perfect' could possibly mean. Perhaps you can tell us.

Don's claim is that market processes are dynamic and that freer markets strongly tend to produce better results (more wealth for more people) than less free markets, because the dyanmism is less constrained.

And the excerpts above is not about comparing U.S markets to soviet, NAZIS, or other non-free markets, but about U.S. markets with and without "incentive management" by politicians.

That incentives exist in less free markets as well as freer markets is undeniable, as humans under any system desire to survive.

Re: What the founders understood

Sam Grove — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:00:19 -0000

Muirgeo will be in Italy for a while.

----------------------------------------

I guess that's one flaw, but the bigger flaw is that it puts political power into the hands of a relatively few people.

Re: What the founders understood

Sam Grove — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:36:10 -0000

Those happy dwellers in the political realm continue to believe that survival trumps moral principle.

I think that, now more than ever, our survival depends upon adherence to moral principles.

Re: Capitalism: The Great Anti-Pollutant

Sam Grove — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 07:59:05 -0000

Where are the A-C trolls?

This just seems like such troll bait.

Re: Why I Don't Fear Predatory Pricing

Sam Grove — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:37:51 -0000

"It seems to me this tactic is used often."

Seems!? SEEMS!?

Seems to me that Rhonda picked up her opinion at the philosophical yard sale.

Re: Tolstoy on Hayek

Sam Grove — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:13:09 -0000

Reality creates the people who create the reality. Social reality, that is.

Re: Tolstoy on Hayek

Sam Grove — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:30:40 -0000

Gee, the world is interactive.

Re: Abundant Social Change

Sam Grove — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 10:52:19 -0000

What has saved is the great leaps in productivity.

We ought to be much wealthier, but the cost, waste, and inhibiting effects of government has cost us dearly.

Re: Abundant Social Change

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:42:43 -0000

What matters is that people keep going to work providing the goods and services that they consume.

Re: Abundant Social Change

Sam Grove — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 10:52:55 -0000

Capitalism can only take credit for prosperity. What people do with that is their own responsibility...or lack thereof.

We can lay a lot of blame for that on the illusion that government protects us from the consequences of our choices. It can, at best, merely delay them.

Re: Abundant Social Change

Sam Grove — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 06:44:08 -0000

Also, during WWII, many women entered the work force, breaking with tradition and fostering greater financial independence in women.

Of course, there are those who think this is all bad, and it is true that there is a downside, some of which is due to the continuing increase in the expense of government prompting many families to pursue two incomes.

Re: The Politics of Prohibition

Sam Grove — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:43:23 -0000

I'm awaiting delivery of my hemp fiber hat.

Re: Like a Virus

Sam Grove — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:58:58 -0000

How old are these researchers?

I bet they are products of our public school system.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Sam Grove — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:31:35 -0000

Muirgeo is simply attempting to use a common source for free market advocates to either counter their stance or discredit their source.

Of course, those of us with actual experience with government health care, such as the Canadians that speak here, could not hope to match their actual experience with muirgeo's assertions for the superiority of bureaucratic health care.

Now, where do the stats for supposed costs of political management of health care come from?

What do they actually measure and are those the only costs associated with government management of health care?

One of the costs we can associate with government provided anything is the rest of the system, for if government can be thought of as our medical savior, it will also be thought of as our nutritional, employment, disaster, external threat, whatever savior. We'll see this when the dems take over when they aspire to have the government provide health care but will also perpetuate U.S. military dominance around the world. You don't get one without the other. They won't be satisfied with control of just one area of our lives, they must manage it all.

Should we ask old people in government managed systems what they think of their system when they are deemed no longer worth the expenditure of public funds?

My friends mother experienced a taste of this under medicare when it was suggested to her that her use of the resources was takingaway from other, younger participants.

Sometimes I begin to wonder if there are moles who come to sites such as this whose purpose is to undermine opposition to the bureaucratic state.

Re: A Lesson from Passport Control

Sam Grove — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:34:00 -0000

Muirgeo threatens the foundations of minarchy. Where do we stop and why stop there?

Let us propose a no income tax state...as before 1913 and let the government be funded from non-specific tariffs.

Let the people, as individuals and in voluntary collective associations, accumulate their rightfully earned wealth, that it not be squandered in maintaining an empire of influence, so that we can control our expenditures on health care, etc., and we can form associations to provide charity hospitals to provide for those who are unable to accumulate the wealth to care for themselves, among other worthy projects we care to contribute to both profitable and charitable.

Chasten those that believe we cannot accomplish worthwhile objectives whithout pointing the collective guns at people.

Re: Regressives

Sam Grove — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:11:46 -0000

Somalia a libertopia?

I call "strawman".

Re: Regressives

Sam Grove — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:22:00 -0000

The Great Depression occurred 16 years after the government created the Federal Reserve Board to prevent...the depression.

Where was this laissez faire economy of which you misleadingly and ignorantly speak?

Re: The virtues of scalping

Sam Grove — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:05:22 -0000

Without the anti-scalping laws, many more scalpers would be in those lines, and fewer "true fans" would be able to see the show, with the same negative effects as in (1) and (2).

And scalpers sell tickets at higher prices to whom? Non-fans?

Re: The virtues of scalping

Sam Grove — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 07:55:46 -0000

Maybe if I had used the word "Rabid fan," it would have been better.

Perhaps "poor" rabid fan would do.

Maybe it's because there is a recording "industry" that poorer fans may be perceived as more valuable than wealthier fans. If artists made most of their moola in live performances, then they would sell their tickets at market rates.

It strikes me those who complain most about scalpers are those who have difficulty affording higher priced tickets.

It also occurs to me that rabid fans are more likely to have seen an artist previously and likely multiple times as well. Perhaps their impact on the demand side has cause an increase in the value of tickets.

Is it fair to expect taxpayers to subsidize their habit by paying for enforcement of anti-scalping laws?

Re: The virtues of scalping

Sam Grove — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:04:08 -0000

But, if your concerts are prices out of the reach of teenagers, they're much less likely to buy your music.

There is another approach, the artist can increase the supply of performances, or serve larger venues.

Re: My Brand of Economics

Sam Grove — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:37:49 -0000

If companies cut corners in product cost, it is because consumers are moving price up the priority list relative to quality.

If there's one thing we should blame for this shift, I suggest laying it on the cost of government spending.

Ask how this is so, and it will be explained.

Re: My Brand of Economics

Sam Grove — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:56:03 -0000

The quality of Lenovo is not explained solely by "competitiveness", you have to remember what they are competing for; the customer's choice.

The reduced quality is how reduced pricing is achieved. Obviously there is a market for such a product.

I build my own computers, and believe I am able to achieve higher quality for the price, however, price is an object and I do not build the best computer 'money can buy'.

There is also a market for higher quality computers (as with many products) and they are manufactured and sold as well.

The thing to note is that not everyone needs, desires , or is willing to pay for the highest quality.

Read my previous post and consider the big picture.

Re: The virtues of scalping

Sam Grove — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 18:03:30 -0000

Artists could even commit acts of charity by handing out tickets to homeless individuals for the express purpose of selling them.

Re: My Brand of Economics

Sam Grove — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 22:28:25 -0000

Was the whole of human history pretty rosy and stories of suffering were mostly mythology?

Hell no. the point being made is that capitalism is not to blame for humankind's miserable lot throughout much of history.

Indeed, it was economic freedom that enabled mankind to rise above the struggle to survive.

Re: My Brand of Economics

Sam Grove — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 05:57:40 -0000

I suggest that one of the big reasons for the recalls is liability -- under the product-liability laws of most states, the manufacturer and retail seller of a product are responsible for defects in that product. The main reason that Mattel is pulling its Thomas-the-Tank-Engine toys is just because it doesn't want to be sued.

Libertarians do hold that companies, just as individuals, should be liable for any harm they may cause to others.

So what's your point?

Re: My Brand of Economics

Sam Grove — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:45:36 -0000

Do you remember his commercial where he smacked a competitors "fresh" chicken on a table. The hard thud revealed that the government allows chicken to be called fresh when chilled down to a temperature most of us would call frozen.

Re: Hot Heads

Sam Grove — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:00:03 -0000

"(In reality I'd argue Lords and serfs were the result of libertarian governance)"

Our most familiar historical example of the lords and serfs scenario is merry olde england. Let's see, oh yes, conquerers came and slaughtered a bunch of people and established themselves as lords over the remainder.

I'm trying to figure where he gets this libertarian stuff from this history.

Oh wait, yes, yes, it's the classic straw man argument.

Re: On Skies and Airports

Sam Grove — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:55:21 -0000

The sheer size of airports would seem to require that eminent domain be exercised.

Where are NEW airports needed?

Why should they be subsidized via eminent domain?

Re: Do Something??

Sam Grove — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:07:27 -0000

The economy of the last 25+ years has been run by the deregulationist and the laissez faire minded.

Where do you get this idea?

Laissez faire minded people don't "run" the economy.

Hasn't anyone explained this idea to you before...again and agian?

Re: Do Something??

Sam Grove — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:25:14 -0000

Note where I tried to explain it a few comments up. It just doesn't register.

It appears to register, but retention seems to be an issue. Muirgeo is not integrating all the information given him in this arena, hence frequent backtracking and reiteration occurs.

I'll state an overview here for Muigeo.

The state is an institution of extortion, it uses fear to implement its policies.

The market rewards actors for producing the goods and services that others need and desire. It is through cooperative effort that wealth is created and it is through competition that wealth is created more efficiently.

When government intervenes in the market, it brings its tool of fear into the arena of the market.

Libertarians may support govenment to the extent that it ensures that market transactions are engaged in voluntarily and that such transactions do not impose involuntary costs on third parties.

Libertarians do not support business or corporations per se, but rather support the right of people to participate in voluntary transactions free from interference by others. Libertarians hold all individuals as equal in this regard.

Libertarians oppose the threat of violence EXCEPT when used to counter the initiation of such threats.

---------

When government seeks to 'regulate' the market will attract the interest of those to be regulated. One way or another, they will endeavor to affect such regulation for their own benefit.

Politicians are aware of the benefits of this relationship. Any legislation proposed to abolish this relationship will have to pass through the hands of those that benefit from this relationship.

The ultimate source of this corrupting affect is the implementation of political power.

Muirgeo: "But, but, but,..."

Democracy is no guarantee of anything and usually is no more than the illusion that citizens have any control over the administration of political policies.

Re: Do Something??

Sam Grove — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:29:48 -0000

From 1871 to 1946 -- as far back as we have data -- the average annual increase in the stock market was 1.7% and the stock market was in a bear market almost 50% of the time. Moreover, the 1930s does not distort these comparisons because they would be almost exactly the same if you end the comparisons at 1925. The data is from the work Robert Shiller did.

If you compare this record with the modern record since 1946 when the government took on a major role you can clearly see that the stock market has done massively better in the modern era.

But you leave out a significan factor: the tremendous gains in productivity due to the industrial revolution.

It is a sad irony that these productivity gains enabled the growth of government.

It certainly is not that case that growth of government enabled gains in productivity.

Re: On Skies and Airports

Sam Grove — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:09:32 -0000

I just don't see how 30-40 square miles of land in a suitable location could be acquired without eminent domain.

With money, of course.

Now comes the "lone holdout for more money" argument.

Obviously, such a property could not be sited in an urban location. What are some other options?

There's a reason we don't have private traffic cops even though that might be more cost effective.

Maybe it's because muninciple governments are responsible for the streets.

Private traffic cops are sometimes found on private property.

Re: Do Something??

Sam Grove — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:22:22 -0000

"We are what we are, and who we are, not because of government but in spite of it."

If I may paraphrase:

Government is what it is, not in spite of who we are, but because of it.

Muirgeo:

Once, when I ran for congress, a newspaper reporter asked me if the government should subsidize oil or coal. Of course, I said "neither", but I bring it up because you hold that we must live with a similar meager offer; Democracy or tyranny.

This springs from your premise that society must be ruled by a hierarchical political administration.

I'm not going to bother trying to describe an alternative to hierarchical rule for you as you are always poised to dismiss even the possiblity of such, but I will suggest that the reason people need a political hierarchy is because that is what they, by and large, believe.

Re: Do Something??

Sam Grove — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:40:32 -0000

Said the guy who wrote this on the government spawned internet.

Always the assumption that just because something occurred under soem auspice of government that it would never have occurred otherwise.

Re: Do Something??

Sam Grove — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:29:29 -0000

As long as the playing field for income is tilted towards the rich, powerful and connected a progressive tax is a poor but reasonable alternative to give back to the working people what the powwerful steal from them.

Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way. I think it was Walter Williams who revealed in his "The State Against Blacks" that more money is taken from poor communities via taxes than they receive from the government in benefits. Warmaking and international military bases are very expensive, ya know.

Re: Rank Ranking

Sam Grove — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:28:19 -0000

Now all I have to do is convince a stubborn relative of these truths.

She could move to Canada, or France even.

Re: Newsflash: Africans Swamped by Too Many Goods!!!

Sam Grove — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:00:32 -0000

Muirgeo, et al, are very much caught up in the game of 'us v them'.

Perhaps it is not possible for them to make the philosophical transition that libertarians have made.

Re: Another strike against libertarian paternalism

Sam Grove — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:01:23 -0000

muirgeo,

Just what would be different in your Libertarian Society?

Imagine if the question had been asked when those scientists first linked up their computers via telephone: What will the internet look like in 2007?

Who could've answered such a question?

Re: Another strike against libertarian paternalism

Sam Grove — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:55:40 -0000

We had a "libertarian government" as you have said and it was corrupted as it ALWAYS WILL BE if the power is taken away from the people.

Governments were established to take power away from the people. The facade of democracy was established to get them to think they had gotten it back.

Re: Stossel on Moore

Sam Grove — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:05:19 -0000

We're bound to hearing from muirgeo, et al, with this one.

Re: Stossel on Moore

Sam Grove — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:17:11 -0000

When there is private provision of, well, anything, there tend to exist multiple sources of information about these providers and their performance in serving customers. When anything is nationalized, then the source of information about performance is restricted to the sole provider, the government/the bureauracracy, and, being staffed by humans in a monopolistic situation, this source of information can no longer be trusted.

This means that it is impossible obtain truthful assessment of nationalized health care systems for purposes of comparison, hence, citing facts and statistics in this regard is pretty much irrelevant.

Seeing that there are problems with the provision of health care in the U.S. tells us little about why these particular problems exist, but we do have a reasonable confidence that information about these problems is more likely to be accurate than information from sole sources.

We can also assume that proponents of one side or another will tend to magnify the significance of statistics that bolster their position and undervalue those that oppose same.

So, it may be stated that government provision of health care is more efficient, but then we have to ask, says who an how much reliance can we have in their data?

IAC, the purpose of having a health care system is not to 'save money' so much as to save lives, cure disease, etc. Often that means spending money, not saving it.

Also, why do we have to keep pointing out tha health care in the U.S. is over half socialized?

Even the private market is distorted by tax law which promotes the provision of insurance through employment (at the expense of those who purchase insurance individually).

So we see that statistics are politicized which means they are pretty much worthless given how we've seen the performance of government in any other endeavor:

AMTRAK

USPS

HUD

TMIC (the military industrial complex)

DOJ

WOD (war on drugs)

Even a partial list as above should resolve us agaist giving the government any further control over our money and our lives.

Re: Stossel on Moore

Sam Grove — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:54:33 -0000

What's so difficult to get across to, um, anti-libertarians is the big picture and how the subsets of the whole relate to the whole and each other.

It's this way, if you have a political system, then the common people will be ripped off in so many ways. A political system implies war making, weaponry, industrial policy (subsidies), protectionism, and so on.

So you want national health care? Then you must accept all the waste inherent in a system with the power to manage such a beast. You will not get one without all the rest. You have to understand the incentives such a system creates and how human nature responds to those incentives.

Re: Stossel on Moore

Sam Grove — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:11:26 -0000

And, of course, we can differ with Hayek on this point. Givent the nature and history of the state in organizing things, I assert that the state is not the desirable agency for organizing such a thin.

Re: Epstein on zoning and Kelo

Sam Grove — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:57:15 -0000

If the government builds something that makes you property's value go up significantly, is that a "giving" that justifies higher property taxes? Higher than the current property tax rate would cause?

This isn't how it works in the 'private' sector. There is no prohibition on benefiting others, only on causeing them harm.

If a grocery store is built near you and causes your property value to increase, you owe the owners nothing, as it is presumed that they built it for their own reasons for their own benefit. The increase in your property value is not due to the addition of the store, but due to the perception of potential buyers of your property.

Of course, if your property value goes up, that often means your property taxes increase, the reason for the increase of value is irrelevent.

Re: Epstein on zoning and Kelo

Sam Grove — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:37:17 -0000

We can go even further with my example of the grocery store above; The people who built the grocery store expect that the construction costs, maintainence, etc, will eventually be paid for by the people who live around it through the purchases they make. It would be absurd to expect them to pay upfront costs for what they will eventually pay for anyhow.

Re: Robber Barons

Sam Grove — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:41:47 -0000

"never happen" is also a very long time.

Re: The virtues of liberty

Sam Grove — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:46:31 -0000

Satire

But if we don't watch everyone, who knows what might happen?

Re: Cowen (and Manne) on Klein (and Stiglitz)

Sam Grove — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:45:00 -0000

But post after post by the writers at Cafe Hayek often seem to be defending the neoliberalism of the modern economy which seems nothing like what I read in Hayek.

Only if that's how you want to hear it.

If we are going to have a constitutional republic, then the government should be restricted to those activities specified in the constitution.

Libertarians oppose all government subsidies or protection on behalf of any party, including business. When the government bids out contracts, they should always be competitive.

What else do you want to know?

Oh yeah, our beef with Ms Klein.

1. She "hates" capitalism.

2. She's apparently unfamiliar with the term "merchantilism" (which libertarians oppose).

3. She's unqualified to critique what she is criticizing.

4. She lacks critical functioning except for putting words together.

5. She is completely lacking in comprehension of the moral nature of political power and how IT is the source of systemic social corruption.

6. She hates corporations per se, and thus is unable to distinguish good from bad behavior on their part.

What else do you want to know?

Re: Cowen (and Manne) on Klein (and Stiglitz)

Sam Grove — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:24:41 -0000

Markets do not "fail". It is a gross misunderstanding of the market to suppose that it does fail. Market is a coarse term to refer to the economic behavior of humans.

When people make poor choices, the market responds. It's more like "karma".

Markets are not designed mechanisms with a creator's specified purpose which it might fail to achieve.

Re: Cowen (and Manne) on Klein (and Stiglitz)

Sam Grove — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:29:18 -0000

And my statement that Klein is unqualified to critique what she criticizes is based upon my perception that her motives have subjugated any possiblity of objectivety, much as Democrats/liberals and Republicans/conservatives are unqualified to critique each other. They do not criticize, they attack.

Re: Cowen (and Manne) on Klein (and Stiglitz)

Sam Grove — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 23:02:38 -0000

Scott can you say Project for a New American Century. Here are some key signatures on the 1998 letter to President Clinton urging regime change in Iraq.

Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, and Elliott Abram

Exactly! Savor the moment. We're almost on the same page.

Were it not for their positions in 'the government', where would these guys be?

Ah, but then you might say something along the lines of: "if only we had the right people in government".

Then we might say something like: "Christ, you're hopeless."

Re: Cowen (and Manne) on Klein (and Stiglitz)

Sam Grove — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:57:58 -0000

Muirgeo,

You don't seem to adequately comprehend:

1. The tribal nature of humans.

2. The incentives created by political power.

3. The nature of those who are attracted to political power.

4. The incentives given to business when politicians act to 'regulate' business.

5. The incentives politicians have to maintain or gain position in the formalized hierarchical tribal structure we call government.

6. The opportunities available to said politicians to maintain or gain position in that structure.

7. The infeasibility of 'the people' actually acting in concert to control the political structure for general benefit.

8. The inability of collective theories to apply in the real world.

9. The misdirection in thinking of people in a collective sense.

Construction of a model of the real world is full of pitfalls if the diversity of interestes of all the individuals that compose it are not accounted for, that is, referring to 'the people' is useful only in a very limited sense and really breaks down in the manner that you tend to use it. See #7.

You are living in a country with two broadly distinguished groups, 'liberals' and 'conservative' that are often at each others' throats.

Tell us how you plan to unite these opponents to constrain government, to your ends, when their political sentiments are so at odds?

Why are they so attached to their positions?

Until you can resolve these problems, your solution is no solution.

And when you answer that last question, accurately, you'll be unable obtain a resolution to the problem.

Re: Frank Talk

Sam Grove — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:59:17 -0000

Remeber when congress increased the tax on luxury yachts?

Yacht builders had to cut way back on production, firing workers, etc.

Re: The Backlash

Sam Grove — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:36:38 -0000

That's what happens when believers enter the sciences. Every discovery is interpreted as proof of existing belief.

Re: Stop Screening

Sam Grove — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:55:02 -0000

Government I all about gesturing.

The image of competence is what matters when reality is obscured by the pretty words of politicians.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Sam Grove — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:40:51 -0000

At MIT and other bastions of mainstream economics, most economists are to the left of center but to the right of the academic community as a whole. These economists are known for saying, in effect, "Markets fail. Use government."

I think what we are trying to get at here is that, while markets fail, markets also correct. Government also fails,...and can be very difficult to correct.

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Sam Grove — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:46:54 -0000

What has been made clear these last 7 years (arguably 30 years) is that government fails miserable when it is run by people who don't think it can work.

Then why are they running it? It seems that they do think it works as evidenced by the implicit assumption evidenced by attempting to forcefully implant democracy in the middle east. That is, coercion works. It worked to effect regime change, right.

What could coercion possibly fail to accomplish?

I see no evidence that the current administration holds to the idea that 'government doesn't work'. Why else did they pass NCLB, and expand drug prescription benefits?

Re: The Essence of a Masonomist

Sam Grove — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:37:14 -0000

There's nothing particularly magical about government-funded research.

Oh, but there is. Government just waves its magic want and, voila, there is all the money anyone needs to do most anything. Those magic wands used to be sharp pieces of metal on the ends of stick, but nowadays, they are made of mostly metal and contain projectiles propelled by reactive chemical charges.

Re: A Dearth of Taxes?

Sam Grove — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:59:04 -0000

This country’s meager tax take puts its economic prospects at risk and leaves the government ill equipped to face the challenges from globalization.

Must be comparing the U.S. to some European countries.

Re: The Dirtiest of Dirty Jobs

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:45:04 -0000

Either you have to enforce strict conflict of interest laws basically outlawing lobbying and relying on publicly financed elections or you have to admit that a libertarian society is impossible.

It that called the false dichotomy of two choices?

Probably on this issue more then any I want to understand how libertarianism works politically and would appreciate any suggestions on the best reads to explain it.

I don't know. I have been getting the strong impression that your are least likely to get it.

Do you understand the difference between a regulator and a limiter?

Libertarians prefer government as a limiter rather than a regulator.

In the first case, it does nothing unless some limit is exceeded.

In the second case, it is constantly intervening in affairs, leading many economic and social actors to invest their interest and resources (in the end, other people's resources) in the afairs of government. This is the arena of corruption you are so worried about.

Re: If This Is Monopoly In Action, Bring It On

Sam Grove — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:06:31 -0000

When I got my first computer, way back in 1991, I spent $1,800 for a 33 MHz cpu, 4 MB of RAM, and 208 MB hard drive, and a 15" crt monitor. After years of minimal government interference in the computer technology market, my current system consists of a 2.5 GHz dual core cpu, 2G of RAM, two HDs totalling 700G of storage, a video card more powerful than my original computer, and an LCD monitor, all together which cost less than $700.

This enormous reduction in price despite the monopoly government's inflation induced devaluation of the dollar.

It's just amazing to hear people warn about the dangers of business monopoly, calling for our salvation by the one true monopoly, political government.

What a disconnect.

Re: If This Is Monopoly In Action, Bring It On

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:46:39 -0000

think of what a wonderful place the internet would be if AT&T owned all the fiber.

They once did own all the wire, thanks to government fiat.

I won't bother commenting on the other points, as they have been dealt with here a number of times before.

Re: If This Is Monopoly In Action, Bring It On

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:48:24 -0000

I wondered what became of muirgeo.

Reincarnation!

Re: If This Is Monopoly In Action, Bring It On

Sam Grove — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:01:04 -0000

BTW, it is also interesting how the use of collective nouns leads people to hold 'the government' does this or that rather than actual people engaging in a process behind the curtain of 'the government' hence we can drop bombs on far off lands without ever suffering a pang of guilt or, especially, without ever having to be held accountable because 'the government' does, not actual real live people pulling triggers or punching buttons to launch armament against other people.

As far as processors, I would argue that they have become much cheaper when you consider inflation AND computing power.

I purchased my mother board and cpu in a combo deal for $130 dollars.

Let us not forget other chip makers such a Motorola and also that many other chip companies exist that could make processors if they found it profitable. Why would anyone think that only Intel and AMD have processor making capability?

Re: Friedman on "Greed," Markets, and Politics

Sam Grove — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:41:36 -0000

Reader's Digest once published an anecdote from an immigrant from the USSR. They had been shown The Grapes of Wrath to illustrate how bad the situation was for the workers in the U.S.

The author of the anecdote related how the viewers were that these destitute people in the movie actually had a truck(!) with which they could travel elsewhere.

Re: Legalize Organ Sales

Sam Grove — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 08:46:32 -0000

I find the idea of registering as a Republican repulsive, but I am considering doing so in support of RP.

Re: Bonus podcast on health care costs

Sam Grove — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:03:07 -0000

The costs of government funded health care is 'the government' and loss of freedom.

Why anyone would want to turn their health care over to the oligarchy, I don't know.

Re: The change in our standard of living

Sam Grove — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 06:16:40 -0000

I agree that most of us are wealthier in most regards than those that came before.

Now let us consider how wealthy we would be had we not allowed government to divert large portions of our wealth, and investment, into our global empire, the various wars (both foreign and domestic), and other wasteful boondoggles, such as corporate subsidies and extensive bureaucracy.

How wealthy would we be? Wealthy enough that there would be little demand for government provided services?

Have you given much thought to that?

Re: Incentives vs. preaching

Sam Grove — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:01:52 -0000

Worker bees of the world unite!

Re: The change in our standard of living

Sam Grove — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 09:18:34 -0000

I really want to know.

One problem with an improved standard of living through technological innovation and improved productivity is that the perception of being better off than we were distracts us from how well off we could be and diverts our attention from politically enabled (unearned) consumption, which is a polite way of saying that people are unaware of how much wealth political parasitism steals from the productive.

Re: The change in our standard of living

Sam Grove — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:36:29 -0000

I'd rather be a millionaire today, and many more of us would have been but for all the wealth wasted on various government enabled 'projects'.

HELLO! Doesn't anyone else think about this?

Re: Typepad and the "remember personal info" when commenting

Sam Grove — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 06:12:51 -0000

I have also found in Firefox that you can use the up/down arrow keys and the info will appear highlighted, press enter and tab to next.

Re: Clemens vindicated

Sam Grove — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:07:29 -0000

I think too many people care too much about professional sports. Hence, the extent of government meddling and public busybodying.

Why does it matter at all?

Pro sports is entertainment to the enrichment of subsidy eating billionaires.

In what other arena of the entertainment industry would we care about enhancement 'cheating'?

If a singer could improve his/er voice with drugs, would anyone give a damn? Or would we just enjoy the improvement?

Re: Clemens vindicated

Sam Grove — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:06:02 -0000

Certainly that depends on what Bobby did.

Someone else doing a bad thing does not justify anyone doing that same thing.

But is taking steroids really cheating? That is, before rules were made about it.

Re: Clemens vindicated

Sam Grove — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:56:42 -0000

Is an actor/actress cheating when he/she gets plastic surgery to maintain youthful appearance?

Re: Stamping Out Misconceptions

Sam Grove — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:58:02 -0000

"How do you suppose rural locations will be served by a company that is interested solely in the bottom line"?

There is a very effective way of finding out.

Re: Stamping Out Misconceptions

Sam Grove — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:33:36 -0000

the false notion that folks living in rural areas would not be served by private mail deliverers should be stamped out.

You should not “stamp” anything out since you are supposed to argue your way out,

So you are opposed to stamping out false notions?

Re: Regressive Attraction to Abstractions

Sam Grove — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:20:22 -0000

Those who resort to political means to 'coordinate' society have vary little comprehension of the wonderful coordinating powers of the market through voluntary interaction facilitated by prices.

Having found a tool that they can comprehend (threatening people with arms), they exhibit little interest in seeking a better means.

Their attention is so fixed on the visible, they they are often completely unaware of the invisible effects of their chosen means.

Further, political means often produce perverse results, witness the U.S. government's decades long efforts to 'tame' the world through political means. Or the, so called, Department of Justice.

Re: Perspective on Trade

Sam Grove — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:37:26 -0000

Well, obviously then, what we need is total stasis, then no one will be harmed by change.

Of course then, no one will benefit either.

Re: That '70s Show

Sam Grove — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:57:23 -0000

but how much better off would we be had it not been for all of the wealth we produced which has been wasted on maintaining the U.S. empire (bases and soldiers in 130 countries), foreign aid, corporate subsidies, etc.?

Does no one respond to my question simply because they are unable to? Or is this outside the purview of economics?

Hey you, Don and/or Russ. do you think that's a worthwhile question or not?

Re: Please, No Politicians In My Family

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:10:06 -0000

you because we've allowed the electoral system to be overtaken by the greed of the free market.

Strawman.

Muigeo, the more you write the lower my estimation of you.

Why do you come around here?

Re: Strange Case of Dr. K and Mr. K

Sam Grove — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:00:54 -0000

What should the U.S. do about the rising price of oil?

The framing of the question implies a collectivist bent. The "U.S." as in, "the government", should stop dicking around in the economy...this includes corporates subsidy, get out of the way and stay out of the way.

Let oil prices rise and people will adapt.

Re: Naomi vs. Milton

Sam Grove — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:02:27 -0000

I used to have a semblance of patience for muirgeo, but she's essentially clueless, does not comprehend the moral nature of political power, like a lot of people.

Re: Naomi vs. Milton

Sam Grove — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:22:00 -0000

Democracy: oppression of the minority by the majority.

Re: Naomi vs. Milton

Sam Grove — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:44:14 -0000

Substantive, thoughtful, comprehensive discussion bears no fruit with the left any more than substantive exposition of evolution and its many proofs bear fruit with creationists.

I just thought of a new word: cretinists

Re: Naomi vs. Milton

Sam Grove — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:51:05 -0000

No one favors democracy once they get into power. Especially the left.

Re: Naomi vs. Milton

Sam Grove — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:38:58 -0000

They literally had to be forced onto the majority by a minority. Libertarianism can only be forced upon a population by a powerful minority.

I'm tired of explaining this to you. Anything the government does is by a minority upon the majority...speaking collectively. Conversely the imposition is effected upon the true minority, the individual, in the name of the majority upon which all governments base their authority.

Re: Naomi vs. Milton

Sam Grove — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:58:07 -0000

when the majority of people want to form a social compact they should be allowed to. It's not about coercion because everyone lives by the same rules and everyone has a chance to vote for the rules.

Bullshit. You've just left out the wishes of the minority. Perhaps you will just make them into slaves to the majority.

You only believe in democracy when it's your wishes that are in effect. You sing a different tune now that it's someone else's wishes that are in effect. You're blinded by your dreams of perfect democracy, but look at the world around you and remind yourself: 'This is democracy'. You say it's not because it's not YOUR idea of democracy, but it seems that is democratic enough to maintain itself with continued support. You think you can make it better.

Here's your label: democratic socialist.

Left or right, they all use the power of government to maintain their power as best they can. Were you in power, I've little doubt that your tendency would be to the undemocratic.

Re: Naomi vs. Milton

Sam Grove — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:46:02 -0000

It's the same with all power seekers. When out of power they appeal to democracy, for they are the voice of the people, and when they get into power, they move to protect their revolution by quashing democracy.

Re: Tyler's Latest in the Times

Sam Grove — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:57:21 -0000

M. Hodak

Remember to use the sarcasm emoticon.

Re: Stimulus

Sam Grove — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:50:50 -0000

Keynes is a vampire, visiting us from the grave, prodding the government to stimulate the economy that is has dragged down with its spending.

Re: Stimulus

Sam Grove — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:41:01 -0000

The reason for morality isn't to judge any particular situation, although it allows one to do so, but to prevent the cascade that happens when immoral actions are seen as justified/justifiable.

Allowing as how the state is not a moral actor, one may discuss the efficacy or efficiency of this or that policy.

The question of morality is important for the long run effects, the gradual erosion of society that occurs when morality is tossed aside in favor of short term pragmatism.

Thus the problems produced by amoral collective action elicit calls for further amoral actions amidst the recognition that, in the name of the group, very little is off the table as long as sufficient numbers can be persuaded that the morality of an action is irrelevant in the face of collective opinion.

The main characteristic that distinguishes man from animal is not intelligence, but rather the choice to act rationally in accordance with moral principles, rather than to react fearfully to perceived crises.

We can see that the skill of a politician lies in his ability to arouse passion in people rather than to counsel wisdom.

The whole failing of collective action is that morality, which is an individual characteristic, is subsumed to the demands of the collective, and in the end, no one is in control, and the fate of a people is as a house built on sand.

Re: Stimulus

Sam Grove — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:42:58 -0000

Muirgeo, you make an argument equivalent to the one that 'drugs' are bad because they are illegal and therefore they should be illegal because they are bad.

Re: Stimulus

Sam Grove — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:47:47 -0000

IOW, just because the ubiquity of monopoly governments requires that we use its services does not mean that that is the way it should be.

So if we are going to compromise between no government and all government, then I am willing, for pragmatic rather than moral reason, to allow for only those government services that provide for the GENERAL welfare:

1 Defense against foreign invasion.

2 Courts of last resort.

3 Maybe police. Maybe.

If you give me the choice between a government that tries to be all things to all people, or no 'political' government, then I will take the latter.

Re: Stimulus

Sam Grove — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:41:50 -0000

If the money supply is held stable during economic growth, then the prices must fall to accommodate. However, there must be enough money to allow everyone to transact business.

If the growth of the money supply matches the growth of the economy, then prices should remain stable, in general.

Understand that this is gross simplification.

Money has great value as a function, much as chemicals are used in an ant colony to transmit information throughout the colony.

The problem with politicians is that, for the most part, they have little respect for, or comprehension of, this function.

Re: Stimulus

Sam Grove — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:59:48 -0000

"If the money supply is held stable during economic growth, then the prices must fall to accommodate."

- Why is this a problem?

It's not inherently a problem. The problem is popular misconceptions about money and wealth. People who sell stuff aren't to keen to have to lower prices, even though they will be paying less for what they buy.

IOW, psychology plays a great part in all this.

"However, there must be enough money to allow everyone to transact business."

- Agreed. But why is increasing the money supply required for this. Wouldn't breaking down the same amount of money into smaller units accomplish the same thing?

Because someone benefits from the printing of the new money. AND I tend to think so..

Re: Stimulus

Sam Grove — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:14:51 -0000

The market is not one thing either, and it's never "free" in any absolute sense. It's organized by countless forcible proprieties.

Please explain "forcible propriety".

Libertarians see a difference between using force to defend/protect rights, and using force to violate rights. At least this one does.

Re: My Stimulus Plan

Sam Grove — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:55:28 -0000

Sound money and low taxes require less government spending.

Re: Bill Gates Was Creative at Microsoft

Sam Grove — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:24:21 -0000

Capitalism is not a thing, a prescription, a mechanism, etc. It is Marx's label for an environment of freedom whereby individuals are able to pursue their own interests via production and trade. Pre-capitalism, there was little wealth available, except by the whimsy of nobility, to seek and discover the means for improving the lot of humanity and disseminate the benefits widely.

You want to distribute a cure for malaria to the poor?

You have the freedom to accomplish just that in the market of human interaction.

You can't rightfully blame 'capitalism' for not doing so. That is a job for concerned individuals.

Only collectivist thinking would relegate such a task to undefined 'others'.

Re: Extend Commerce and You Extend Peace

Sam Grove — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:19:56 -0000

The world is suffering the heritage of mercantilist economic thinking, in the west, largely due to the apparent success of the Roman empire.

We are in the midst of a shift to different way of thinking. Let's keep pushing.

Re: Extend Commerce and You Extend Peace

Sam Grove — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:39:04 -0000

Libertarians are only anti-socialist in the sense of being anti-state. We don't oppose the market socialism of say, insurance, or credit-unions. We don't even have a problem with voluntary communes. In my family, we practice communism, but we don't really want to support more than our current two parasites.

The problem with most collectivists is that they seem to think it a good idea to use the state to require universal membership in which ever variety of collectivism they espouse.

Re: Extend Commerce and You Extend Peace

Sam Grove — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:40:19 -0000

Some libertarians are anti-collectivism, sometimes, but they're never anti-state.

Define 'state'.

Re: Extend Commerce and You Extend Peace

Sam Grove — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:03:17 -0000

The state is a monopoly of forcible propriety. It systematically decrees some acts "proper" and others "improper", and it forcibly encourages the "proper" while discouraging the "improper".

Do you have something else in mind?

Just wanted to make sure before I disagreed with the previous assertion.

Some libertarians are anti-collectivism, sometimes, but they're never anti-state.

I consider myself libertarian (since 1980) and also anti-state.

I think the state decrees things as lawful or unlawful, and that lawful is not the same as proper, they may be in alignment, but not necessarily.

I consider it possible to have society sans a political apparatus, a 'state', though not at this time.

I oppose forcible monopoly.

Re: Extend Commerce and You Extend Peace

Sam Grove — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:13:19 -0000

The Arab radicals greatly underestimated the response of the US.

I think they tried very hard to get this response. Certainly the PNAC site made it clear that a new 'Pearl Harbor' was needed to justify the U.S. establishing a military footprint in the middle east. Unfortunately for their plans, the original attack on the World Trade Center didn't have dramatic enough results to engender the outrage sufficient to carry out the desired response. Regime change in Iraq came about under the Clinton administration.

Do you really think the al-Qaeda/Islamist strategists were unaware of all this?

They have internet access too.

Re: Extend Commerce and You Extend Peace

Sam Grove — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:19:13 -0000

Except your right to monopolize your house and your car and your bank account and the Treasury notes behind your bank account and on and on.

I oppose market monopolies, that is the restriction of access to the market. Market share is not property.

To distinguish your rights from mine with any assurance, we require a common standard that we both respect. This standard is the law,

I do not grant that a standard is, or has to be, law, that is, legislated by politicians. We have many standards that are not so legislated and are none-the-less universally agreed to and accepted.

I think common law may not require a political apparatus, and instead, may be effected by culture, tradition, and social recognition. I believe non-political, non-monopoly government is feasible.

Specifically, I oppose monopoly, or political, government. My property in my body is not 'proper' because of law, but because of my nature as a being. I think I share this nature with all creatures that have material requirements to survive.

My property in my product is an extension of this nature.

Re: Extend Commerce and You Extend Peace

Sam Grove — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:20:30 -0000

North Korea eats South Korea.

This assertion has little credibility.

Re: Feedback, knowledge and the division of labor

Sam Grove — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 13:43:11 -0000

The pencil factory itself is a command economy with all the employees doing what the management(CEO) tells them to do. The firm that makes the pencils interacts largely with other command economies --firms -- through the market. But the actual production of the pencil is the product of a command economy.

If you include the value of everything that is produced within the large corporations

the US economy is actually more a command economy then you believe.

But the CEO can't afford to be arbitrary. He has to understand and respond to the market. In effect, he is commanded by customers.

Re: American Consumption

Sam Grove — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:01:40 -0000

Is the point only relevant to the public discourse and what to do about.

Let's grant for the sake of argument that most everyone is doing OK.

Now consider all the wealth our government spreads around the world to maintain the empire.

Wouldn't we all be even better off without that expenditure? Not to mention the morality of propping up dictatorships in the name of democracy and the many innocents lost as 'collateral damage'.

I recall that the Peace and Freedom party wanted to legislate a 30 hour work week at the same weekly pay in order to have full employment.

Their 'fiat economy' is just simple-minded (doing my best to be polite), but there is a gem in there, which is that, sans the sheer waste of much of what the government does, we should be able to have our current standard of living with a shorter workweek.

Re: American Consumption

Sam Grove — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:42:23 -0000

In your world view then why would anyone become a teacher or a nurse.

Strawman aside, because most everyone knows that the best job is one that you enjoy doing...for whatever reason. Monetary income is but a necessary though insufficient reason for a career choice. I could make more money as a dental assistant, but there are mouths that I just wouldn't want to work in.

Re: Nasty dogs?

Sam Grove — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:41:28 -0000

muirgeo,

It would be best if you just ignore "freedom lover", aka Eric Dondero. Please...just do as I say.

Re: Nasty dogs?

Sam Grove — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:56:46 -0000

The railroads lost out to highways, cuz the government built lots of them, then had to bail out railroads when trucks began to transport goods.

Some solar scientists are saying that climate warming will peak soon then begin to cool due to solar cycles. Maybe in ten years the government will encourage CO2 emission.

Re: Nasty dogs?

Sam Grove — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:08:16 -0000

vidyohs

Seeing that you enjoy beating up on, uh, collectivists, tell me: is it purely for personal gratification, retribution, or if you think there is some productive effect?

What do you want to achieve through your efforts?

Re: A Tribute to Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:08:50 -0000

Eric,

I'm hoping for the day when you challenge my expectation by making a thoughtful, productive post.

Re: A Tribute to Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:10:18 -0000

Here's one for Julian Simon, a self converted former 'liberal'.

Re: A Tribute to Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:55:18 -0000

Free humans do not act like animals. The discovery of trade and technology has enabled us to create sufficient wealth that the old motivation to 'have as many children as possible' has given way to 'hey we don't have to work so hard, we don't have to have some many kids, we've got survival taken care of'.

As has been observed when people attain a certain level of wealth, there is a reduction in the birth rate.

So much for muirgeo's Malthusian strawman.

Re: A Tribute to Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:19:25 -0000

That's the problem. They are being exploited by those who benifit from their ever growing ranks and cheap labor to allow further and further degrees of wealth concentration.

The problem for them is, as always, political control of wealth and resources.

This is one of the fatal flaws in socialism.

Re: A Tribute to Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:35:02 -0000

Is anyone here concerned about the singularity?

Re: A Tribute to Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:13:40 -0000

Then you must expose the evil in every particular, so that others may see it. Ad hominem does not enlighten other parties.

IOW, if there's a war, then you want as many on your side as possible. Why is collectivism evil? Not because murigeo is an idiot, but because it destroys the foundations of civilization. But collectivists focus on the short term, 'screw our grandchildren'.

Re: A Tribute to Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:37:07 -0000

And I make a slight correction: collectivism is evil, freedom is good.

Re: A Tribute to Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:32:14 -0000

I don't believe I said that collectivism is evil because muirduck is an idiot, didn't even imply it, sir.

I did not intend to imply that, what I mean is that the ad hominem is superfluous.

Re: A Tribute to Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:19:09 -0000

Dondero, are you regressing? That was really lame, even for you.

Re: A Tribute to Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:23:44 -0000

As to caring whether muirduck and his ilk might ever come over to the good side

I wasn't thinking of them, but of any sincerely inquisitive person who might happen by.

Collectivists go by their feelings which implies that that prefer to operate as merely clever animals. There is no intellectual key to those who feel that intentions are sufficient.

Re: A Tribute to Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:27:35 -0000

Ok, definition. Collectivism, forced participation in a politically managed economic system such as socialism.

So I reject your condition. I have no problem with spontaneous, voluntary collectivism.

I enjoy and participate the spontaneous social and commercial organization that occurs in a free society.

I live in a small commune myself.

Re: Silly Stats

Sam Grove — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:28:21 -0000

Muirgeo is fond of the strawman.

Re: Silly Stats

Sam Grove — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:30:19 -0000

Does refusing to trade with other countries impact their poor starving workers in any positive way?

Show us the stats.

Re: Silly Stats

Sam Grove — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:32:06 -0000

If we don't trade with them, then our government will give them aid.

Ah, that's better...as long as the ruler proclaims for socialism.

Re: Silly Stats

Sam Grove — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:16:03 -0000

Modern liberalism (socialism) is all about gesturing to show your compassion without regard for the real world effects of your gestures.

Thus it is better for slaves to also be poor, than to do anything through trade that might actually improve their lot.

Of course, to a socialist, working for any 'capitalist' is slavery, whether one does so voluntarily or not.

It's not about the object of their pity, but about how they feel about themselves.

Re: Silly Stats

Sam Grove — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 05:33:23 -0000

At least it would get them out of government indoctrination centers.

We keep ours at home, thank you.

Re: Silly Stats

Sam Grove — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:28:50 -0000

It's not the trade deficit per se. It's the strength of the economy vs the printing of money. Other factors being more or less equal, or stable, the trade deficit means little. The trouble, of course, is that other factors are not stable.

Re: Silly Stats

Sam Grove — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:31:03 -0000

IOW, pointing to the trade deficit is misdirection.

Re: Silly Stats

Sam Grove — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:36:06 -0000

This sub-heading at the site linked by muigeo tells it all: Economics for Democratic and Open Societies

IOW, economics for the purpose of 'managing' people. Not unlike economics as practiced in the U.S.

Re: Silly Stats

Sam Grove — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:56:11 -0000

muirgeo,

I hope you are aware that the economics discussed here are not of the mainstream.

Re: Silly Stats

Sam Grove — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:13:45 -0000

But vidyohs, there are no pictures of the suffering households. Suffering the economic collectivists don't see, they don't have to feel guilt about.

That's the advantage of socialized suffering.

For them, the unseen does not exist.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Sam Grove — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:20:06 -0000

It speaks for itself.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Sam Grove — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:38:51 -0000

A budget implies restraint.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Sam Grove — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:11:52 -0000

Discussing the military purely as a budget consideration:

Military contractors know where to feed.

If there's a problem with the military, it's likely because it is run by the government.

Perhaps all military/security intelligence should be placed under military command.

Congress should retain the constitutional prerogative of declaring war.

We should give up on the U.N.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Sam Grove — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:50:53 -0000

That's why we think a free market (not free for all) word best, it permits humans to profit through productive activity via trade with others similarly situated.

Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget

Sam Grove — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:25:49 -0000

"works" best

The constant strawman.

Libertarians define a free market as one in which actors participate in transactions via voluntary agreement and impose no direct cost on non-participants.

Say that for a 'progressive' and they come up with stuff like:

So you think its OK for corporations to exploit the powerless?

So pollution is OK with you?

etc.

Always with the strawman argument.

Re: Low Standards

Sam Grove — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:41:04 -0000

Freedomlover is not interested in serious discussion of foreign policy. He hews to the unsubtle concept that the only way to defeat one's enemies is direct physical attack.

Observing that humans are territorial, we might consider that, were any foreign power to place military bases in within our borders, we would take GREAT issue with that. Considering that Arabs are also territorial humans, it's not a great stretch to suppose that Arabs would also abject to our bases placed in their territory.

This motivation behind Islamic antipathy was well acknowledged pre-9/11 by Cheney and has been asserted also by our intelligence agencies.

Now I suspect that our great leaders are aware of the advice of Niccolò Machiavelli as given in The Prince that an effective means of subduing a populace to one's rule is to provide them with an external enemy.

It is well known that the Arabian peninsula was subjected to foreign rule by the old European Empires, and the the U.S. assumed the mantle of empire with the collapse of the three main mercantilist empires built by England, France, and Spain, all of which have had problems with Islamist attacks.

England, France, and Spain, hmmm, aren't those the three European countries that have suffered Islamic terrorist attacks the most?

This is not to say that Islamic fanaticism is not a concern for the future, but we should considered the Arab mantra 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

Taking Machiavelli's recommendation for uniting people under one rule and the above mantra, we might consider that the Islamist jihad sought to draw the U.S. into military ventures in the Arabian Peninsula in hopes of uniting people, who would otherwise by fighting each other, against the 'infidels'.

We can derive this speculative conclusion from several facts:

1. The PNAC group telegraphed their desire for a 'Pearl Harbor' to justify establishing a military footprint in the middle east via their Website. The PNAC group includes the support of Donald Rumsfeld, among other notables.

2. The jihadists have access to the internet.

3. Regime change in Iraq was established as a policy under Clinton.

These facts suggest that the Islamist's actions were intended, not to defeat our will, but to draw us into a financially draining military venture and simultaneously unite Arab sentiment against the U.S.

Even with all that, it is obvious that uniting the various Arab factions for any length of time is a pipe dream.

A withdrawal of our military from the Arabian Peninsula would leave those Arab factions with each other as the nearest enemies to strike against.

The Islamic Caliphate is an unattainable goal.

Re: Low Standards

Sam Grove — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:22:02 -0000

The rational response to 9/11 was a bit more airport and airliner security, reinforced cockpit doors, rules keeping the doors shut while an airliner is airborne...

Also dropping the Federal policy requiring submission to hijackers demands.

Once everyone found out what had happened, there was no way anyone would be able to hijack an airliner again. Witness what happened to the guy with the shoe bomb.

Re: Low Standards

Sam Grove — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:28:54 -0000

This item indicates why we should abandon the military approach to defeating the Islamists.

A free market is such a winning approach.

Re: Low Standards

Sam Grove — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:15:44 -0000

Sam, I think you've swallowed Ron Paul's fantasy. He seems to think that other people around the world are not independent actors and don't act out of their own motivations and perceived self-interest.

I doubt very much that Ron Paul thinks that other people around the world are not independent actors, etc. I certainly don't think that.

As far as the 'invitation' from the house of Saud, many Arabs think that we prop up the House of Saud, in effect, have bought them.

Perhaps that explains why most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.

Yes, the British were the major colonial power in the middle east, France to the south, and Spain, the Philippines and the new world. There is some problems with Islamic factions in the Philippines, right?

France with Algeria. So yes, you've got is all right.

It's a raid or be raided culture. It still is.

Nomads.

I pin the attacks on Spain to their participation in our Iraqi adventure.

Look, much of the Arab world attacked Israel and were defeated handily in very short order. The Islamists are well aware that they cannot defeat us militarily.

What's the next best thing to weaken us?

Let us drain our wealth in an occupation against guerilla fighters. Afghanistan showed the efficacy of this strategy against the USSR.

The fist attack would have done the job if they had brought the tower down, so provoking us into reaction required a more dramatic display to arouse the populace in effecting the strategy of the PNAC group, which detailed our response to a 'Pearl Harbor' incident ON THE INTERNET.

Our invasion served that purpose plus ridding the area of Saddam Hussein.

I suggest if we withdraw from the region, they will resume attacking each other. Just what they've done for many hundreds of years.

Now, the neocons can't do this because they've staked their claim to fame on the 'We can't back down, they'll think we are weak.' model. So the only way to effect a withdrawal without appearing weak is to boot the neocons out and do it for a much better reason: Iraq posed no immanent threat to the U.S. and it was wrong to invade and occupy it. And make sure that this strategy belongs to the neocons and no one else.

A big benefit of a military withdrawal from the region is that we'll see what the Islamist response is and if we are attacked again, they won't be able to claim, as bin Laden claimed, as Dick Cheney claimed, and as the CIA claimed, because of our military presence in the middle east.

Our government has been so enamored of our military prowess that they have allowed our intelligence agencies to turn into intelligence bureaucracies. We should fold the CIA into the military and charge them with responsibility for keeping apprised of foreign threats.

The promise is that America won't stand and fight because its liberal thinking has lead to less conviction in God and the righteous path and that it's ripe for a Muslim takeover. "God is with us as he has weakened our enemy so that he can't even fight".

They have their propaganda and we have ours.

they know we aren't weak in the military sense, but I bet they are aware of how much we are spending on our empire and this little adventure.

What they have been looking for is 'the straw that will break the camel's back'.

I think they miscalculated that a bit, but given the mercantilist outlook of our government, I think we make see that straw before too long.

Re: Low Standards

Sam Grove — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:20:41 -0000

The promise is that America won't stand and fight...

I think the pounding of the hideouts in Afghanistan was sufficient to disprove this theory.

The invasion of Iraq was the fulfillment of the PNAC policy, not to demonstrate that we will, in fact, 'do something'.

Re: Low Standards

Sam Grove — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:21:26 -0000

edit:

I think we may see that straw before too long.

Re: Low Standards

Sam Grove — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:33:39 -0000

Someone tell me why Islamists attack a country on the other side of the world and why they haven't attacked closer countries, say Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, etc.

If it's not about our long history of meddling in the middle east, including the overthrow of the democratically elected leader in Iraq in 1957, then explain what exactly is the motivation to attack the U.S. and I don't buy the 'They hate our freedoms, etc.' line.

What they use to actually recruit terrorists from among their countrymen is the opposite of what they claim in the media - America's inaction.

That's not a primary motivator, that basically suggests they attacked us because they could get away with it; it does not provide the actual reason for doing it. It's not like they are so bored that they do it for kicks.

Re: Low Standards

Sam Grove — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:53:31 -0000

Freedomlover = thoughtless strawman attacker

and unwitting collectivist.

Re: Anchovy ice cream

Sam Grove — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:30:44 -0000

And yes, to me communism is simply socialism carried to its natural excess.

Marx did assert that socialism was the intermediary phase between capitalism and communism. Then, once everyone saw how well it worked, the state would fade away.

Santa will come every day of the year to deliver the goodies.

All we need are blanket trees and ham bushes.

Re: Anchovy ice cream

Sam Grove — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:34:26 -0000

Actually, the savior types may be the most dangerous, many crimes are exonerated by good intentions.

And the more such a leader believes the fate of a nation depends upon hizzer staying in power, then staying in power becomes the most important goal. And so, the means becomes the end.

Re: Anchovy ice cream

Sam Grove — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:57:09 -0000

If you want to dis-empower people, tax their money away from them thus removing their ability to choose and control how it is spent.

This is the disability of any system in which 'the government' controls the money.

Re: A Review of Globalization

Sam Grove — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:38:49 -0000

Like we'll otherwise be able to tell the difference?

Re: A Review of Globalization

Sam Grove — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:58:33 -0000

And Bush/Cheney were for smaller government.

I don't think anything is guaranteed at all.

If Obama goes too far, the independent vote might swing back to the GOP in two years.

With McCain, I suspect he might give the Dems what they want in exchange for what he wants.

Who knows? I sure don't.

Re: My Physcian Can't Bandage My Cut…. So I'll Trust Him Also to Educate My Son and to Run My Pension And to…..

Sam Grove — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:08:31 -0000

Ah, but if only we can get the 'right' people into office.

Re: My Physcian Can't Bandage My Cut…. So I'll Trust Him Also to Educate My Son and to Run My Pension And to…..

Sam Grove — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:18:26 -0000

To me, this is not evidence of a need for "smaller" Government, but evidence that the entire model here needs to be replaced.

The problem with big government, especially in the U.S., is that it is exceedingly difficult for 'the people' to manage it. No one knows what all it does. Few know what it can do effectively and what it shouldn't do.

The amount of wealth the U.S. government is able to control exceeds comprehension.

The only way government 'by the people' can possibly effected is if it is made small enough to be comprehensible, and weak enough to be unattractive to special influences.

Unfortunately, this goal is not, at this time, attractive to enough citizens to make it happen.

Re: My Physcian Can't Bandage My Cut…. So I'll Trust Him Also to Educate My Son and to Run My Pension And to…..

Sam Grove — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:57:43 -0000

fact the investigation has shown that it was a design flaw - not a lack of maintenance.

Part of maintenance is checking for the manifestations of design flaws. And, you are only referring to one bridge failure as opposed to the thousands of bridges that are in various stages of decay. Not to mention steam pipes under the streets that need upgrading.

Re: My Physcian Can't Bandage My Cut…. So I'll Trust Him Also to Educate My Son and to Run My Pension And to…..

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:44:06 -0000

Money is funny.

Currency doesn't need to have intrinsic value to perform it's function, but intrinsic value minimizes counterfeiting, both legal and illegal.

FRNs are fiat money, value as declared by government.

Re: My Physcian Can't Bandage My Cut…. So I'll Trust Him Also to Educate My Son and to Run My Pension And to…..

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:47:06 -0000

A gold standard fixes the price of gold. That's all.

If gold and silver coin are used as currency, then counterfeiting is very difficult, though there have been efforts to fake it, which is why many coins have ridged edges.

The bank notes we used under a gold standard were also accounting devices with no intrinsic value.

As much value as a piece of paper with printing on it.

Many people entertain the illusion that money is equivalent to wealth, hence muirgeo's complaint about the rich sitting on "piles of wealth".

What really matters from day to day is that people go to work and produce the stuff of consumption. The real collapse comes when people stop doing that.

Re: Spare Me from Collectivism

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:58:29 -0000

These instincts served a sound purpose during our hunter-gatherer past, but are today at odds with the individualism that makes us free and prosperous. Even worse, these atavistic instincts are exploited by silver-tongued and arrogant office-seekers such Barack Obama to gain measures of power that no man or woman should ever be trusted with.

These instinct are actively dangerous in the domain of the state. The NAZIS presented a 'great cause' as did the communists, the eugenicists, etc.

Great causes under the aegis of the state are always cause for concern, for they always involve the exercise of political power and direct extraordinary power to those lacking the scruples to refuse it.

Re: My Physcian Can't Bandage My Cut…. So I'll Trust Him Also to Educate My Son and to Run My Pension And to…..

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:04:17 -0000

When that energy is spent it is gone and the only thing you have to represent it is FRNS, buddy you are screwed.

Even if you have 'real' money, if you have confiscatory taxation, for instance, then, when people see that there is no reward for their efforts, their productive output will drop to the minimal needed to survive...or turn to looting.

An entire economy is feasible with mere accounting, but then you must place a great deal of faith in the accountants.

Re: Spare Me from Collectivism

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:12:39 -0000

The infrastructures of society are not 'great causes', they are functions that people require and develop out of necessity, not to 'be part of something bigger'.

Many of these functions originated or can be developed in the private sphere.

There are private fire companies, there are private water companies, three are private roads, there are private schools, there are private courts, there is private security, etc.

So, please, stop dragging out the strawman.

Re: Spare Me from Collectivism

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:35:09 -0000

muirgeo

If you believe that humans benefit from cooperative endeavor, then you should also accept that humans will recognize that fact and will voluntarily participate in such endeavors without government agents threatening them with guns.

Libertarians do not oppose voluntary social arrangements, indeed, we are all for them as long as the voluntary condition is met.

My problem, as a libertarian/moral agent, with political collectivists is that they think society has to be organized with the threat of violence which is why they want to approach any perceived social problem with force of arms.

The socialist is a disguised dictator (von Mises). You, muirgeo, are a would be dictator.

Libertarians prefer voluntary cooperation.

Now quit bringing out your damned strawman arguments and see if you can comprehend the idea that social cooperation does not require ubiquitous extortion.

Re: My Physcian Can't Bandage My Cut…. So I'll Trust Him Also to Educate My Son and to Run My Pension And to…..

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:51:10 -0000

Well, Gil, I agree with the analysis on the constitutionality of the government issuing of currency, but as to the wisdom of allowing government to monopolize such activity, there can be much discussion.

For instance:

but the actual Federal Reserve Banks are privately held entities that themselves regulate the money supply to member banks as market pressures dictate

This would indicate that the FED is supposed to respond to market pressures, but being quasi-governmental, we must infer that the FED also responds to political pressure and is frequently utilized to pressure the market rather than respond to it.

It is now also known to economists that the FED bears a great deal of responsibility for the great depression, both in its excessive inflation of the money supply before the trigger event, and its clamping down on the money supply thereafter.

I suggest that the theories of ideal responsiveness, maintenance of note value, and fiscal responsibility that are attributed to a government central banking/credit monopoly are removed from reality.

Re: Spare Me from Collectivism

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:35:53 -0000

The current leader could hardly be described as "silver-tongued," but he has launched "us" on a real (not a metaphorical) crusade,

When your tribe is attacked, what's wanted is a cowboy willing to shoot-em-up. Too bad the neocons didn't have sense to avoid an occupation, or, supposing that's what they had planned, didn't field the troop strength needed (and advised by the military) to handle same.

Re: Spare Me from Collectivism

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:39:48 -0000

what the hell do you call democracy

I call it majority rule. I certainly don't call it voluntary cooperation.

Jez grow up and step into reality.

I suspect the Libertarian society doesn't act unless it has 100% agreement amongst all its members.

Jeez, why don't you grow a brain and get a clue?

Tell me how 300,000,000 people make a decision...they don't. Some people make a decision then con the rest into going along with it. Like how we have an army in Iraq.

In fact, most office holders in this here democracy, as you so erroneously call it, are elected by actual minorities.

And you still haven't managed to justify a process by which a majority could make a minority into slaves.

You democracy is a fiction, an illusion. You are clueless.

Re: Spare Me from Collectivism

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:43:10 -0000

You seem to labor under the illusion that our wealth was created by some mysterious democratic process of decision making and the result of some majority vote.

You could not be more mistaken.

Re: Spare Me from Collectivism

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:20:03 -0000

I don't know, some Libertarians are partial to debt slavery.

I can't address that as I don't kow of what you are speaking.

The comprehending the issue lies in understanding the difference between mercantilism and free markets.

Muirgeo, et al (and much of the world), operates on the premises of mercantilism. Granted, muirgeo is in reaction to mercantilism, but nonetheless constructs from the same erroneous (according to me) premises.

Re: Spare Me from Collectivism

Sam Grove — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:58:32 -0000

It refers to when some people accept a debt that in a way they have to work it especially in a way the work is never enough to get out of debt and the descendants inherit the debt and have to work it off too.

Common law holds that for a contract to be valid, the contracting parties must understand the contract and its consequences. I believe that common law also holds that no one can contract to be a slave.

So, it depends upon the circumstances.

I think you may be referring to 'company towns'. I've heard of those, but I'm not familiar with any real world examples.

Re: Stagnation Contest

Sam Grove — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:08:15 -0000

What happens if you add in each family's share of government debt?

Re: Stagnation Contest

Sam Grove — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:59:57 -0000

So what's the point of all this?

Re: Griswold on NAFTA, Manufacturing, and Ohio

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 05:32:47 -0000

The biggest difference between a two party state and a one party state is one party.

A Canadian suggested to me that they were better off because they have more political parties and are not confined in choice to two parties like the U.S.

I replied that he has: "a choice between socialism and......socialism".

The big threat from the national debt is if the government screws up the economy such that future revenues decline and we become unable to support entitlement beneficiaries.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:19:44 -0000

Why can trade populism be forgiven?

Because it works with voters.

Candidates aren't there to educate and lead, they are there to get elected.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:50:56 -0000

I have a question for our esteemed economists.

We are, of course, familiar with historical time lines.

Is there such a time line for economic growth as related to historical events such as enactment of government policies, laws, tariffs, trade agreements, and other economic, uh, manipulations?

Re: More on debt

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:18:58 -0000

No I'm advocating for better regulation not socialism.

Except in the case of medicine and, no doubt, entitlement programs.

If you attack the government for policies that may result in upward re-distributions of wealth you will be attacked in defense of the governments actions by these otherwise government hating Classic Liberal Economic Bloggers.

Another classic straw man from muirgeo.

Most libertarians think we should close the FED (the main engine of the upward redistribution), end corporate subsidies, etc, whereas you think they should be better managed though better government.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:03:51 -0000

What does one mean by free trade and how does that relate to the thousands of pages of legal documents defining our current trade policy?

The only relation between free trade and manage trade is that there is trade under both which is better than to prohibit trade.

Free trade is better than managed trade.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 09:58:34 -0000

$110 billion per year in addition to what we already spend

The cost ALWAYS exceeds the estimates.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:28:51 -0000

But muirgeo,

Will your system not be totalitarian?

It's OK if the great masses want the government to manage their health care, so will they require universal participation?

Why should those 1% stay here if most of their wealth is confiscated?

In fact, why should anyone bother to get wealthy if they can enjoy the same benefits without getting wealthy?

All you'll eventually end up with is masses of people who think that health and medical care is created by legislative fiat and they will wonder why they get cut off when they're too old to contribute to the system.

Re: More on debt

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:36:02 -0000

If we eliminate it, we'll only replace it with something else eventually.

Do you think this function must be a monopoly?

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:34:16 -0000

Health care can cost $10,000 for a family of 4.

Maybe if doctors and nurses weren't taxed so heavily, health care wouldn't cost so much.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:32:08 -0000

Will your system not be totalitarian?"

By which I mean: all are required to participate in gov't health whether they want to or not.

Not the straw man you assumed.

Do you think the Canadians or the Germans feel as if they live under a totalitarian society?

Don't most Americans feel they live in a free society? What does it matter what they feel? What is the fact of the matter?

It is much easier to get into a socialist system than to get out of it.

My German exchange student can't even conceptualize a society that doesn't provide health care.

I knew 'communist' woman who couldn't conceive of the idea of 'capital'.

I knew a woman from Sweden who couldn't imagine how who could've had her baby without the government.

You've proven that a student from Germany can't conceive of medical care without the government providing it. What does that say about his intellect?

Hey, instead of calling it 'universal medical care', we can call it 'totalitarian medical care'.

And you said you weren't socialist. That's intellectually dishonest.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:35:05 -0000

You said somewhere that the masses of people want gov't health care?

So what?

Most people want the impossible, to consume without the effort of production.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:57:29 -0000

I recall when everyone wanted government health care under Bill Clinton. Everyone thought is was great idea until they learned some of the details. Then that campaign went down.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:58:47 -0000

What makes you think the only options are quasi-fascism, communist/socialist, or some point in between?

Because muirgeo operates on the premises of mercantilism.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:00:21 -0000

No doubt he thinks if all the money was taken from all the wealthy people and distributed amongst everyone else, why they could then afford anything they wanted.

BTW, I am not among the wealthy.

Re: More on debt

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:02:08 -0000

What did they do prior to 1913?

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:27:45 -0000

Even if you were wealthy, so what? The wealthy should have just as much freedom to keep their wealth as anyone poorer.

So muirgeo wouldn't waste our time with another straw man that maybe I was worried about my vast fortune in opposing socialism.

Re: Ohio and NAFTA

Sam Grove — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:05:09 -0000

To expect either of them to utter even one politically inconvenient truth is as reasonable as expecting your pet turtle to recite <s>from memory</s> the Magna Carta.

Completely superfluous. I a pet turtle could READ the Magna Carta, I wouldn't doubt it could also memorize the document.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 05:10:40 -0000

They never heard the details Sam.

It went down not because it was a particularly bad idea but because people who make huge profits off of rationing care put some of their billions into preserving their golden egg laying goose by overwhelming the public with a one sided debate and a mass media misinformation campaign.

Many did when Jarret Wollstein debated an administration staff member at the time on Dr. Dean Edell's radio program. Wollstein referred to the many references to restrictions, fines, and punishments which the Clinton staff member attempted to minimize or deny. Each time Wollstein went to the document and recited the actual text.

Typical government approach, treating citizens as so much cattle to be managed and prodded into place.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:08:40 -0000

"The people", "the people", always with "the people". No, he's not socialist, he just talks that way and thinks that way.

Re: We Should Expect No More

Sam Grove — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:54:44 -0000

I understand that, muirgeo. But as long as your are referring to a founding document, look at the 9th and 10th amendments then tell me how the Federal government is authorized under the constitution to take over health care for the people.

Always with 'the people', you think we're a great big hive that can violate reality through sheer mass of wills.

Tell me, who are "the people"?

Will and Arial Durant:

"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but apparently you can fool enough of them to run a large country."

Re: Ohio and NAFTA

Sam Grove — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:30:53 -0000

This data is not conclusive, but it provides significant evidence that something happened after the mid-1990s to cause a sharp slowing in Ohio employment.

One possibility is that unemployment approached a normal minimum.

Re: Ikenson on Obama

Sam Grove — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:39:31 -0000

Well, muirgeo, the iPhone is made in China, transported to the U.S., and a fairly significant portion is smuggled back into China because of demand there and people pay more for them than buyers in the U.S.

So what about it?

Re: The Practicality of Free Trade

Sam Grove — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:10:00 -0000

Waiting...waiting.

When is the next straw man coming?

Re: The Practicality of Free Trade

Sam Grove — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:54:34 -0000

When might the next Supreme Court justice retire?

Re: The Practicality of Free Trade

Sam Grove — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:00:53 -0000

Disillusioned or enlightened?

It's all in how you look at it.

Better to be disillusioned than 'illusioned'.

Re: The Practicality of Free Trade

Sam Grove — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:40:02 -0000

Behold, the straw man slayer has arrived.

Re: The Practicality of Free Trade

Sam Grove — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:54:14 -0000

Corey,

Vidyohs is a bit of a pontificating crank with whom I, nonetheless, generally agree.

Please, let's not get into who said/meant what.

As I said earlier, disillusionment is merely a negative view of enlightenment.

It's a bit like finding out the truth about Santa Claus. It's not what you learn, but that you had spent so much time believing wrongly that gives one a sense of betrayal.

'They lied to me!'

Re: The Practicality of Free Trade

Sam Grove — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:44:53 -0000

muigeo,

What is the social contract?

After you answer, then we'll ask 9 others to state what they think the social contract is, then see if there is any unanimity.

If the purpose of society is to maximally benefit its members then the best way to decide how to do so is by letting its members decide.

The question is: how do they make the decision?

Collectively, with all forced to go along with the decision, no matter how stupid or unjust, or via market action.

Re: Hooray for America's Trade Deficit

Sam Grove — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 09:20:59 -0000

have some very significant questions on the details of our trade agreements.

Theory of relativity:

It is better to have restricted (NA<s>F</s>TA) trade rather than no trade.

It is best to have FREE trade rather than restricted trade.

Re: The Spitzer Matter: It IS Private

Sam Grove — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:48:53 -0000

We are now seeing a financial meltdown because we specifically allowed deregulation of the banking and finance industry.

Straw man slayer saves the day once again.

The banking and finance industries are unregulated?

Re: Markets and Community

Sam Grove — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:29:07 -0000

Straw man slaying gets a little old, but he is among the best.

No one around here denies that the U.S. economy is greatly distorted, with just disagree with muirgeo as to the why and how.

Muirgeo's cure is the kind of political intervention in the economy that got us to this state. Just doesn't comprehend either the nature of political power or the incentives such intervention creates.

Let's just get the oligarchy to enact the right laws to prevent the oligarchy from exercising power over us. That's the ticket.

Let's give the oligarchy more power to keep the oligarchy from using that power to our detriment. Yeah! Yeah!

Re: Markets and Community

Sam Grove — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:33:35 -0000

sorry, "we just disagree"

Re: Markets and Community

Sam Grove — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:33:33 -0000

Freedom is slavery!

Re: Markets and Community

Sam Grove — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:11:09 -0000

Tone, shmone.

Are you seriously purporting that finance and banking are unregulated?

There are probably hundreds of regulations regarding the generation, distribution, and pricing of electrical power in CA, yet when the politicians CHANGED several rules, the press was ablaze about electric utility DEREGULATION.

NO SUCH THING AS DEREGULATION OCCURRED.

The this sector of the economy had been deregulated, the public utilities commission would have been decommissioned, and they would have repealed those regulations.

That TONE you are talking about is all part of the delusion, the misleading of the public as to what actually goes on.

You persist in missing the point, it's not about 'regulation', it's about power and incentives. You give the government the power to manage the economy, and you create incentives for business to influence the government.

You think the people are managing the government? You think any regulation or law gets passed that isn't acceptable to the oligarchy?

As for whether things were better when, you need to avoid jumping to the typical progressive assumption as to which caused what. Many things were happening that affected economic growth, not the least of which was increasing productivity due to advances in technology, the ending of WWII which allowed all those factories to turn back to domestic production. And they must've done something about the Smoot-Hawley tariff.

You also assume that because you are anti-wealth concentration that we must therefore favor it, but that is not the case, all we've been ding is try to educate you as to why that is the case and why your dream of severing the connection between a big powerful government and the big money people is illusory.

My god man, do you have any idea how many millionaires are in federal office? do you know that there are more Democrat millionaires than Republican millionaires (at least that used to be the case).

Do you recall how the Kennedys got rich?

Look at all the presidential candidates this past election. Where did they go to school?

You think the good cop is on your side? The Democrat party is the good cop, but they ain't on your side. They're on the same side as the GOP, because their interest in getting and staying in power is identical. Both parties get money from the same sources.

Until the citizens of America wake up to the fact of that, they'll continue to be suckers for their respective smooth talking political 'saviors'.

The only way a citizenry can free themselves from this oligarchical enslavement is to stop expecting 'the government' to save them from their fears.

Re: Markets and Community

Sam Grove — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:42:32 -0000

That's an 'interesting' scenario.

It is usually that case that people prefer to have more with less effort. It tends to be the case that countries where most of the denizens are poor are also countries where the government controls much of the wealth.

Ethiopia.

The government once declared that there would be no hoarding of food. Seed stock was seized from farmers. Starvation.

Examples abound.

Re: Markets and Community

Sam Grove — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:43:34 -0000

who all of a sudden get taken over by a high-tech group of people

Taken over how?

Re: Markets and Community

Sam Grove — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:33:11 -0000

That is what happens every time we head towards deregulation.

Excuse me, there has been some changes to regulation in some specific market segments (trucking and air travel), but overall the federal registry is larger than ever and the regulatory burden is greater than ever.

Please, when you talk abut deregulation that has occurred, you must be specific about which deregulation you are referring to, and tie that to the results which you decry.

There is too much loose talk about 'deregulation' giving people the impression that 'deregulation' is behind all sorts of evils. Usually, when some 'deregulation' has occurred, is typically is only in some specific regard and not in any general sense.

I remind you that the deregulation I referred to above was strongly resisted by the industries that were 'deregulated'.

Generally, regulation is anti-competitive, that is, the introduction of regulations are affected by entrenched businesses to the detriment of smaller and potential competitors.

Specific question for muirgeo:

Which interests do you think originally

called for anti-trust legislation?

The main power consumers have against any business is the opportunity to choose from among competitors. The introduction of regulatory burdens are anti-competitive in the manner I mentioned above.

Additionally, the cost of complying with regulation MUST be passed on to consumers; That's where businesses get their money!

In the end the costs of regulation...all the costs...are borne by consumers.

Re: Markets and Community

Sam Grove — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:02:10 -0000

I humbly apologize for my grammatical errors.

Use preview, use preview.

Re: Markets and Community

Sam Grove — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:23:19 -0000

Yes Martin, we knew you would know. But does muirgeo get it?

Re: Markets and Community

Sam Grove — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:55:06 -0000

After all this time you can't possibly believe that he even understands any of your well-written, extremely clear explanations.

I think the progressive oil all over his capacity for perception makes explanations roll off like water off a duck.

Re: Markets and Community

Sam Grove — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:26:28 -0000

The problem is the typical dichotomous nature of debate today.

Progressives, for instance, like to hold themselves as well intentioned. If you take issue with their means, they tend to jump to the assumption that you are not well intentioned.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Sam Grove — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:28:00 -0000

After all, business leaders have been making such claims since the time of anti-trust legislation.

Specific question for muirgeo:

Which interests originally called for anti-trust legislation?

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Sam Grove — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:11:36 -0000

If industry were interested in having a free market, the LP would've won decades ago.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Sam Grove — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:47:57 -0000

John, it's a bit of a joke about libertarians being pro-corporation.

Progressives suppose that these corporate executives are ONLY interested in making money and are not motivated by any ideology.

Re: If I Were A Shill for Industry….

Sam Grove — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:22:12 -0000

Are there not two kinds of economists; those that advise the government how to manage things and those that advise government to lay off?

Re: Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set

Sam Grove — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:21:14 -0000

Ready for those ideological weeds.

Roundup at the ready!

This is a categorical shot at the whole idea of government management of the economy via the FED, industrial policy, managed trade, etc.

Re: Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set

Sam Grove — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:26:51 -0000

FDR presided over the longest depression in US history...the....longest....depression....in....US....history.

Minarchists advocate government in 'national defence' and 'justice' but why would you want Guvmint in the two areas where weaponry are most likely to be concentrated?

Maybe minarchists don't so much 'advocate' it as much as will allow it, as most discussion with people over libertarian/free market policies after everything else is handled, inevitably boil down to those things. Basically, without a state, who will protect us from foreign state.

Personally, I would be OK with militias.

Re: Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set

Sam Grove — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:26:13 -0000

I didn't say the depression began under FDR, but he is now credited with its duration.

BTW, the government entity, which set the policies that fomented the depression, was created in 1913. It's charge was to 'smooth out' the economy and avoid the businesses cycles which had been blamed by the ignorant on capitalism.

Yes,I'm talking about that 'laissez faire' economy, as you put it, which was actually being burdened with increasing government intervention in the form of the FED (among others), chartered by congress in 1913, and was supposed to prevent the depression, instead, brought it on with easy credit. They probably thought they were growing the economy.

Smoot-Hawley was another government intervention during that great 'laissez faire' period...as you put it.

FDR was voted in because he was a consummate politician and had capable speech writers.

He is well remembered for the same reason and also due to a sycophantic press which help write the popular, if erroneous, history as most people today know it.

He also was the man in place during a war, and wartime leaders are always fondly remembered in a militaristic nation. It's part of the national greatness thing.

We already have gone over the prosperous period after the war, which you only want to credit FDR's policies with, apparently no other factors were extant during that period which could account for that prosperity.

Is popular history your forté?

Here are some links for your reading pleasure.

link 1

link 2

link 3

Re: Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set

Sam Grove — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:26:42 -0000

I didn't say the depression began under FDR, but he is now credited with its duration.

Smoot-Hawley was another government intervention during that great 'laissez faire' period...as you put it.

Is popular history your forté?

Here are some links for your reading pleasure.

link 1

link 2

link 3

Re: Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set

Sam Grove — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:32:58 -0000

Sorry, that didn't work out.

Here are the three links:

link 1

link 2

link 3

Re: Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set

Sam Grove — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 08:25:41 -0000

Quoting Hoover: The U.S. "had abandoned the laissez faire of the 18th century" and new emphasis placed on "social and economic justice." "We have learned that the impulse to production can only be maintained at a high pitch if there is a fair division of product...by certain restrictions on the strong and the dominant."

After the depression hit, The Nation wrote of Hoover: "What Mr. hoover is really trying to do, apparently without knowing it, is to create a Supreme Council of the National Economy in the United States, and it will be interesting to see how far he can go in our topsy-turvey capitalist economy. He is right in wanting a planned economy."

In other words, Hoover was a progressive.

All this from Thomas Woods 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask

Re: Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set

Sam Grove — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:08:45 -0000

The FED controls one thing, the issuing of credit via monetary expansion. The FED does not control the economy, but does affect it.

Re: Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set

Sam Grove — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:28:34 -0000

What's new?

Re: Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set

Sam Grove — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:50:03 -0000

I think the ethanol promotion is quite illustrative.

The problem with government 'management of the economy is that it creates incentives other than attainment of the stated goal. Rather than satisfy consumers, producers instead seek to affect the 'management' process in their own behalf.

Watching progressives promote government involvement in ethanol while simultaneously complaining about corporate subsidies should enlighten any impartial observer into the schizophrenic nature of proggresive sentiment.

Re: Our Economy Is Not a Child's Erector Set

Sam Grove — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:14:44 -0000

The seven members of the (FED) board are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.[23] Members are selected to terms of 14 years (unless removed by the President), which are generally limited to one term.

Re: Cowen on money

Sam Grove — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:25:22 -0000

Falling prices under a stable monetary system are a result of increasing productivity. Producers in such a system are encouraged to save rather than go into debt.

Re: Cowen on money

Sam Grove — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:07:00 -0000

It is also absurd to suppose that the FED is immune to political pressure.

What is the M3...isn't that the one the FED stopped reporting?

Re: Cowen on money

Sam Grove — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:30:09 -0000

Martin understands the function of money perfectly well.

Money is a portable, anonymous, fluid accounting system.

Like water, the value of money comes from the flow as it enables the transfer of the value we create without the constraints of commodity barter.

The problem gold advocates are attempting to address is monetary inflation by political agency. How can we deal with that problem?

The problem is that there is no 'real' reference.

Gold advocates are merely wanting to use gold as a reference of value and the main reason it appears to be a useful reference is the 'undisciplined' use of the printing presses by the money monopoly.

Re: Cowen on money

Sam Grove — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:25:23 -0000

Money is a function. Gold (or anything) is money when it is used to perform the function of money.

Money is a floating accounting system.

Re: How Dare She

Sam Grove — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:40:06 -0000

Outraged, but not surprised.

Re: How Dare She

Sam Grove — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:50:43 -0000

In the '80s documentary on Swedish socialism, Promise of Spring (PBS), one of the items noted was that old people were situated in highrise apartments and the government paid high school students to visit them.

Re: The Dark Art

Sam Grove — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:10:39 -0000

I wish to again recommend 'Treason' by Orsen Scott Card, for his illustration of the nature of the political class.

I ran for congress three times and followed no less than Nancy Pelosi around as we spoke to different groups and I can testify to the successfull politician's ability to adapt to the expectations of various groups.

Hey, it works.

Re: Bear Stearns debacle

Sam Grove — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:57:45 -0000

Markets don't fail, they blowback.

Re: Bear Stearns debacle

Sam Grove — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:40:49 -0000

Had our government not had a decades long record of acting as a hammock, liability minded airlines would have prevented 9/11 from ever happening.

Not to mention the official policy of giving in to hijacker demands.

Re: The Dark Art

Sam Grove — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:58:17 -0000

It's presumtive to assume these candidates are making recommendations with some lack of advice from experts.

I say that would depend on the experts. You can find all kinds of 'experts'.

Re: Bear Stearns debacle

Sam Grove — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:09:36 -0000

Couldn't I use the same felonious argument to say why have police? Sure police can be corrupt too but better to have them then not.

Sure you wanna go there?

"Employing FBI "Return A Record Card" data, this study examines the impact of municipal police strikes on reported rates of burglary, robbery, larceny, and auto theft in 11 U.S. cities. Relationships reflecting the view that police presence is essential for crime prevention and social order are examined for variation duration of police strike, city size, and offense category. Overall, analysis yields very limited support for the police presence argument, suggesting that strikes have neither a significant nor a systematic impact on rates of reported crime. Implications of findings for the formulation of police policy are discussed."

link

Re: Bear Stearns debacle

Sam Grove — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:42:26 -0000

Muigeo assumes that the failure of Bear Stearns is an example of market failure.

To us free marketers, this failure is market discipline. A free market is not a guarantee of ideal human behavior or success. A free market must allow people to suffer the consequences of bad or erroneous decisions.

This is a lesson for all people.

A government bailout is subsidized relief for bad decisions and a violation of market functioning.

Re: Bear Stearns debacle

Sam Grove — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:16:20 -0000

So in the free market who will be the first to try the latest drug claimed to cure insomnia when the last one another comopany came up with took 20 deaths to find out it's wasn't such a good idea.

Are you trying to score a point or make one?

Have you any idea how many people die each year because they are unable to have access to drugs, in use in other places, because they have not received FDA approval?

You don't think pharmaceutical companies should bear risks for their decisions?

Why do they bother? They take the risk for the promise of profits. If they aren't sufficiently cautious about the promises they make for their product, then they suffer the cost. This makes them cautious.

There is no evidence of any NET benefit from having an FDA to replace liability.

When people die because of FDA decisions, no one at the FDA has to bear the cost. In fact, when government policy fails it tends to justify more government and greater subsidy. "Oh, it wasn't done right" or, "They didn't have enough funding.", etc.

You make a lot of claims about how things would work in a free market, but these are based on what I consider to be flawed premises. I don't even know how things would work out, specifically, in a free market.

What I do understand is that attempting to 'fix' things or make things work via political agency often produces perverse results, wastes resources, and produces a government so powerful that it enables some people, like the current administration, to use our resources are used in ways to which I have great moral objection.

There is no utopia. I make no claim for utopia. I don't even know what utopia would or should look like. I just operate from my comprehension of human behavior and motivations.

I understand that people are self interested. That's why I do not trust people with political power. Especially those with good intentions. Most especially, those who desire political power.

The idea that government and bureaucracies selflessly serve the common good is entirely lacking in either conceptual construction or historical evidence.

Re: Bear Stearns debacle

Sam Grove — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:52:06 -0000

It has been stated that as many as 100,000 people die each year due to medication errors.

That doesn't stop people from taking medications.

The FDA denies experimental use of drugs to attempt to save the lives of those with a medical death sentence and who are willing to take the chance.

Re: Bear Stearns debacle

Sam Grove — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:57:03 -0000

There's not? Which country has the most innovative approach and successful production of new pharmaceuticals?

Correlation and causation are two distinct things.

Usually, you call for government to protect us from corporate power, now you seem to be calling for government to protect corporations from liability.

Tell us how the FDA was responsible for the successful development of aspirin.

Not to say that aspirin is entirely benign, but if it were to be brought to the market today, a pharm company would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to gain FDA approval, a cost which necessarily must be passed on to consumers.

Tell us why the 'morning after' pill, or even birth control isn't available over the counter.

Re: "Earth Hour" and the Dark Ages

Sam Grove — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:41:28 -0000

Perhaps we can encourage people to look at Earth Hour as a reminder of all the blessings we enjoy as a result of our industry and technological development.

Re: "Earth Hour" and the Dark Ages

Sam Grove — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:02:06 -0000

Comments from the founder of Greenpeace.

Re: "Earth Hour" and the Dark Ages

Sam Grove — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:39:05 -0000

The trouble with a government plan for the future is that such plans are difficult to change when it is discovered that the plan did not take into account future events which render the plan obsolete.

The USSR had lots of plans. Lots and lots of plans.

The one thing they could not plan for is change.

Re: "Earth Hour" and the Dark Ages

Sam Grove — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 09:42:30 -0000

As for the environmental movement, please read this article by the founder of Greenpeace.

Re: "Earth Hour" and the Dark Ages

Sam Grove — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:13:09 -0000

Progressives are elitist.

The use of the label "Progessive" is meant to imply that they are forward looking while others are not, hence their fondness for 'plans' which they wish to impose on the rest of us.

As they are possessed of beneficent intention, they excuse themselves, or more likely, blame others, if their plans cause problems for 'the people' they desire to rule over, as it is obvious to them that good intentions are sufficient to produce desired results.

Re: Making Americans Poorer

Sam Grove — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:51:45 -0000

Any comprehension of economics is not required of politicians.

This is because any comprehension of economics is not required of voters.

Fiat economics produces fiat economic policies.

Re: Making Americans Poorer

Sam Grove — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:33:45 -0000

Too many people are dollar fixated. The focus on trade is always about where the dollars go, not on what we get for them.

And with jobs, it's always about 'creating' jobs, not about expanding the economy. They keep shooting for the secondary effect without realizing the importance of the primary cause.

A growing economy naturally creates more jobs, while progressives exhibit the assumption that meaningful jobs can be created by fiat, by declaration.

Not do they have any idea how many people have been marginalized out of the job market by their 'formalization' of employment.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:52:14 -0000

Muireo consistently ignores the incentives created by a regulatory government and the infallibility of the regulated to seek relief from or modification of regulation for their own benefit.

Please, the justification for 'special' regulation that only applies to certain factors in society as opposed to a universal prohibition against force and fraud.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:21:56 -0000

Registering to vote as a Democrat or Republican does not make one a 'member' of that party.

But we already know the math.

Democrats promise to help people at the expense of other people, to help relieve people of their guilt for being better off than other people, etc.

Republicans promise to oppose new democrat programs while defending old Democrat programs.

Democrats promise to make the government bigger.

Republicans promise to make the government less bigger.

Each election cycle brings renewed propaganda that you must vote for the party, if only to keep/throw the other party out of power.

Your democracy is working so well.

It's all about getting/retaining power.

Democracy in its death throes.

Re: Making Americans Poorer

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:59:33 -0000

Very simply Brotio if we are going to subsidize some aspect of the energy industry doesn't it make sense to subsidize alternatives to what we have.

IOW, you would have government retain the power and authority to subsidize industry and then complain that your recommendations aren't being followed.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:10:58 -0000

You see, muirgeo, that is the fate of democracy, even your 'more democracy'.

Why?

Because the only way 'the people' can be unified enough to manage government rather than the other way around is if government is restricted to those functions that enjoy near universal acceptance.

This is why the founders attempted to establish a republic, a government that is limited, rather than a democracy, which becomes unlimited government, because government ALWAYS becomes oligarchic.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:20:11 -0000

Recognizing the grey in between is the key and then finding the best way for 300 million to make decisions without coming to blows is next of importance.

The way to minimize such conflict is to reduce the number and importance of decisions that are contingent upon the hundred some million voters (unless you want to extend the vote to children, 300 million is too high).

The more decisions that must be addressed collectively, the more likely that there will be conflict among the participants.

The more conflict, the more the outcome will be decided by some minority, especially by those who have any significant interest in the outcome. Then it becomes advantageous to maintain conflict, for it allows the power players to accrue power and manage the process.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:35:09 -0000

Progressives are most representative of the primitive perception that one can bypass reality via declaration.

This is evident in their hope to improve the world via armed might. Their intentions may vary from those of the barbarian conquerers, but their means are the same.

Unfortunately, it is the means and not the intentions that produce the ends.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:38:17 -0000

I'm only here to suggest the classic liberal economist is still using leeches and not washing their hands before surgery.

May we quote you on that, or should we give attribution to someone else?

Sounds like an inferior moment.

Ad hominem from muigeo?

Looks like he's thrown in the towel on being above all that.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:47:34 -0000

I think muirgeo is Marxist at heart and is chagrined that the communist experiments failed so spectacularly.

He has indicated that he thinks the USSR failed because it was totalitarian rather than because it attempted to quash the market. Of course, in order to make that attempt, totalitarian power was required.

It was a great example of market blow back.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:51:02 -0000

Methinks, I know. I forgot the tag.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:55:31 -0000

Dang, won't show with the brackets.

this tag: '/sarcasm'

Re: Falling Housing Prices and Labor Mobility

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:09:33 -0000

I guess it depends on where they are and where the opportunities are.

$50,000 isn't that big a deal on a 30 year mortgage...depending on the prices of homes in an area. The interest rates and monthly payments are the greater concern.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:32:53 -0000

But the world isn't JUST gray. There is a whole spectrum from black to white. To insist that the world is gray is just as 'off' as to insist everything is black and white.

In fact, gray is just a mix of black and white.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:35:39 -0000

Muirgeo, I can't help you with you lack of vision. You sound a bit like the patent office guy in the late 1800's who claimed it should be closed because there was nothing left to invent.

If you go back to the period after the successful war for independence from the British crown, there was a time when government was minimal in the U.S.

All you have to do is subtract slavery, add in technological development and the industrial revolution, then season with the insights of the free market economists. Then you might have a, very crude, mental model you can work with.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:34:06 -0000

You made my point.

Your point seemed to be that everything was gray, was going to be gray, and that there's nothing to do but accept grayness.

My point is that making distinctions implies preference and the implication is that we prefer white to black. Unfortunately, the in between state of gray is not stable, and tends toward increasing black. So if we say gray is OK, then we get even darker gray until all is black.

As you have expressed your concern that our system is headed toward a crisis, if not doom, then I wonder that you are accepting of staying on that slope, which is where we are.

If you want to understand our thinking on WHY we are headed toward a 'crisis', then you have to comprehend our diagnosis (and the premises upon which it is based) from which follows our prescription.

If you are content with YOUR diagnosis, then there is little point in your participation here.

Re: Unintended Lesson

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:48:54 -0000

Possibly the employer was sympathetic to the woman's plight, but was unable to accommodate a larger paycheck. Perhaps fewer hours was the raise he could afford.

Wonder what the job was?

Re: Unintended Lesson

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:47:32 -0000

It bewilders me to think that politicians like HRC actually believe that increasing the minimum wage helps those lower paid workers.

She doesn't have to believe that. She only has to believe it will aid her campaign.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:23:23 -0000

Some of the things people need to understand about government.

1 Government does not create wealth.

2 Printing money does not create wealth.

3 Government cannot stimulate the economy except by reducing its burden.

4 Self interest is a feature of people...even those working in government.

5 A system featuring excessive rules rewards cheaters.

6 The tendency is for government to grow. See #4.

7 Partisanship is usually opposed to the common good.

8 Governments that exceed minimal functions become oligarchical.

9 The power to manage the economy creates incentives to influence that power for the benefit of special interests.

Re: Oops?

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:27:57 -0000

Why 104.5° and 104.3°?

Why not 99.4° and 99.2°?

Greater shock value?

Is that how the politics of 'climate change' works?

The earth is still way on the cool side of the geo-historical median.

Re: Unintended Lesson

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:31:52 -0000

It just seems like clear evidence of the productivity pie being munched by those with little actual added value while working people are not being rewarded proportionately.

So that is how wages are to be determined? By some proportional equation?

Are doctors getting an appropriate proportion?

Re: Unintended Lesson

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:36:33 -0000

I'm wondering if financial services are increasing due to Sarbanes-Oxley.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:31:55 -0000

1. government very often "manages the economy" with far less efficiency that Adam Smith's invisible hand.

That would suppose that government can manage the economy at all.

Re: Oops?

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:41:17 -0000

It's interesting in this forum that many free market advocates are doubters of global warming.

The temperature record 'seems' to indicate fairly recent warming.

However.

Human civilization has existed for a very short time relative to geological history.

The temperature record may not be trustworthy in recent decades due to urbanization and poor maintenance of recording stations.

Doom sayers have given us many reasons to greet their claims with skepticism.

Re: Oops?

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:46:35 -0000

It may be surpassing the warmest period of all of human civilization. That's the period of interest.

MAY be.

When was the warmest period?

The medieval optimum?

How far have we to go to reach that level?

Re: Oops?

Sam Grove — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:48:11 -0000

There are serious, and likely deliberate, distortions in at least one of the two charts you posted.

One of them looks like the infamous hockey stick graph.

Re: Oops?

Sam Grove — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:37:05 -0000

Do you know how best to run the economy? Does anyone?

Is this a hint of a breakthrough? Is muirgeo finally coming to acknowledge what we have been trying to explain to him?

Of course NO ONE knows how to run the economy. NO ONE has the information, or the power, to "run" the economy.

And the only science that is clear to you is the science that you have decided is valid.

Not to mention that your conclusion fits with your conception of mankind as inherently evil and to blame for any bad thing that happens or seems to be happening.

Re: Unintended Lesson

Sam Grove — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:43:44 -0000

And the market didn't correct it was bailed out AGAIN BY THE FEDS ACTIONS IN SAVING Bear Stearns.

Damn those progressives for getting government involved in the economy. This should not be.

Re: McCloskey on capitalism and the virtues

Sam Grove — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:55:15 -0000

So what else is new?

Re: Oops?

Sam Grove — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:58:37 -0000

And Keynes is a poor reference to authority to bring up on this site.

This is an anti-Keynes site.

If you would like an extreme allegory, quoting Keynes here is like venturing into heaven and quoting Satan.

Re: The Pessimistic Bias

Sam Grove — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:24:20 -0000

More efficient bureaucracy?

Are you trying To be funny?

Muirgeo no doubt thinks businesses pay the cost associated with regulation.

BTW, I am composing this on my Nokia 810 at a campsite in Big Sur.

Re: The Market, Not Nature, Is Bountiful

Sam Grove — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:50:24 -0000

There is a science fiction story by Cyril M. Kornbluth.

Re: The Market, Not Nature, Is Bountiful

Sam Grove — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:08:10 -0000

Don's post was not about dams, he was commenting on the quality of Kennedy's argument based on his presumption about the source of prosperity.

Re: The Market, Not Nature, Is Bountiful

Sam Grove — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:33:59 -0000

IT is our technology and market based economy that has allowed us to revert farmland back to nature.

Imagine what would be left of nature without our productive efficiency.

Re: The Market, Not Nature, Is Bountiful

Sam Grove — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:42:08 -0000

Mesa, muirgeo provoked a lot of thinking on my part in attempting to communicate across his ideological boundary. Not that he benefitted much from my efforts, but others may. He made an excellent devil's advocate.

It didn't have to be said.

Re: The Market, Not Nature, Is Bountiful

Sam Grove — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:48:28 -0000

Maybe he needs to digest things for a while.

Re: Optimal Population?

Sam Grove — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:15:07 -0000

It's faux-science and fiat economics.

Re: Optimal Population?

Sam Grove — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:09:03 -0000

No, we won't have another "green revolution" with the high crop yield increases in the 100+% range that bailed humanity of population bomb going off from the last 3 billion increase.

.............

These limits are from thermodynamics and are not easily bypassed without a fundamental redesign of plants that will be way beyond what we can achieve by 2050 or possibly ever -- nature that done more experiments in optimizing photosynthesis that man can even dream of.

First, plants did not evolve with any purpose other than survival and reproduction. I don't know what's possible with the application of biotechnology and directing the purpose of plants to our own utility and neither do you.

No doubt you are informed by the state of the art, but that, too, is a dynamic.

I doubt there is an optimal population, but I also doubt that, sans government interference, population will continue to grow unchecked. As the developing world catches up with the west, they also will find that the need for large families is reduced and we'll hear similar complaints about fertility rates falling below 'optimum'.

Re: Optimal Population?

Sam Grove — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:22:19 -0000

The premises of socialism are mined from the same vein as the premises of mercantilism.

The idea of wealth as a product of the human mind is a notion that escapes those who operate on these unexamined premises.

This is seen in the idea of a socialist paradise, the assumption being that wealth is that stuff dug out of the ground or gown in same. They (economic collectivists) thought that getting rid of 'the wealthy' meant that everybody else would be able to share the ensuing abundance.

Very slowly the idea is working its way into the world that abundance is created by people that are free to do so.

Our problem with muirgeo is that he was unable to release the mercantilist view that wealth is something that is taken from the ground or from other people.

Re: Shughart on Bailouts

Sam Grove — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:02:12 -0000

Jeff,

What are you talking about?

Who lionizes businessmen around here?

Can you cite some examples?

Re: Shughart on Bailouts

Sam Grove — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:53:05 -0000

Do not assume that difficulties in communication are all your own. It takes two to communicate.

I once went through a whole list of points with a young woman. After every point I made, she said: "I agree with that."

After about ten points had been agreed with she said: "I agree with everything you say, but I disagree with you."

I just threw my hands up.

Emotions often get in the way. If someone has an emotional investment in a contrary opinion, then it really doesn't matter much what you say. They will have to make a discovery before they can move off of their 'investment'.

Re: Shughart on Bailouts

Sam Grove — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:13:37 -0000

Is it possible that concepts of "Rule of Law" and "regulation" are conflated?

Maybe, but I think the larger problem is ignorance and sheer hypocrisy.

I remember briefly covering mercantilism in high school, but it was viewed in a historical perspective only. It's a term entirely absent from the lexicon of the left.

Perhaps we should forthrightly present ourselves as opposed to socialism AND mercantilism.

I think we should also reclaim the 'Liberal' label and call those other folk 'Progressive'.

Re: People Harmed by Capitalism or by "Green" Policies?

Sam Grove — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:06:52 -0000

In agricluture higher price will produce more supply. You can count on it.

Only if higher profits are involved.

Re: Dangerous Expansion of the Fed's Power

Sam Grove — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:16:09 -0000

But the real solution is for them to control the value of money in a responsible manner such that inflation remains low and flat.

That's what Milton Friedman advised for a long time till he realized that expecting responsible behavior from 'them' was futile.

I agree with that.

Re: Dangerous Expansion of the Fed's Power

Sam Grove — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:20:30 -0000

It's too obvious for a Nobel Prize (although the Goracle got one for utter BS, so who knows).

They've devalued the Nobel prize.

Re: Dangerous Expansion of the Fed's Power

Sam Grove — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:24:50 -0000

I think 'cheap money' refers to any monies created, by the government obviously, as a substitute for raising taxes such that the money loses value.

Re: Dangerous Expansion of the Fed's Power

Sam Grove — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:06:42 -0000

I'm supposing that's what marcus is talking about in regard to 'cheap money'. In essence, a policy of monetary inflation makes the money 'cheaper'. Money created without a causal link to production.

It used to be that introducing money into the system...back in the precious metal days...took some effort. It had to be prospected, dug up, separated, and coined, a lot of work, and the relative scarcity of precious metals made 'inflation' unheard of.

Paper money is a lot easier and when the politicians find that raising taxes can cost them an election, they simply print some more paper and blame business for the resulting apparent price increases.

Cheap money.

Re: Dangerous Expansion of the Fed's Power

Sam Grove — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:18:56 -0000

Well, see, the finance industry is highly regulated, isn't it? I venture to suggest that Wall Street is an interface between the government and the investment industry.

Re: The Goal Is Consumption

Sam Grove — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:38:22 -0000

Producers exist to satisfy consumers

Producers produce because they are consumers as well, and in the market they produce in order that they may trade for what others produce.

Everyone is a consumer, producers are a subset of that group.

Re: People Harmed by Capitalism or by "Green" Policies?

Sam Grove — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:47:09 -0000

As a leftist environmentalist, about the best thing I can say for ethanol subsidies is that at least that money isn't getting spent on making war.

I doubt that those funds have any impact on the war. They've been printing all they need to cover both.

Re: The Goal Is Consumption

Sam Grove — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:41:47 -0000

Technically if one is able to live completely self sufficiently off the land, make one's own tools, they might not be called a consumer.

Technically, from an economics analysis, but in reality, such a one will direct a large portion of his activity towards providing for his consumptive requirements.

including corporations

But what are corporations if not collections of people?

Re: People Harmed by Capitalism or by "Green" Policies?

Sam Grove — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:48:34 -0000

Can you call daily patrols in Baghdad "war"?.

I think they call it 'asymmetric warfare'.

Re: Manufacturing and Employment

Sam Grove — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:20:31 -0000

The idea of a trade surplus or deficit is a little questionable as the designation is arbitrary and is based in a mercantilist premise that money is wealth.

We could as easily claim that we have a trade surplus because we got stuff and they got paper.

The holder of the debt (paper money) is at risk should the paper be devalued.

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:33:34 -0000

Communism can work, if heavily subsidized.

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:55:42 -0000

which has far more control over our daily lives than governments do

Heh, governments are always oligarchical, particularly if they do anything beyond enforcing prohibitions against force and fraud.

If corporations exert undue 'control' over us, it is via their influence over politics...witness the many wealthy people who participate in the political process...and government.

So, let's minimize government, dissolve corporate charters (they can reorganize any way they wish), and see how much 'control' they can exert over us without the mechanism of control.

I smell progressive.

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:56:17 -0000

You see, we only have two choices available to us: corporate rule or progressive rule.

In another universe where progressives rule (again):

"I think at this point in human history, working for human freedom means limiting the power of the progressive elites, which have far more control over our daily lives than governments do."

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:57:23 -0000

LcJ, check the link.

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:57:55 -0000

Sameer labors under the belief that none of us here are familiar with the history of mercantilism, in the old world and the new, and that we've illusions about some extant free market and pure capitalism vs the real world.

History is available to all, it's the interpretation that matters. I know that corporations and, in particular old wealth, have undue influence in the capitals, it is the nature of the beast, after all. My question is: why do progressives skip over a valuable lesson from the communist experiments?

Do they wish not to see how the total elimination of corporations was not a great boon to the workers.

No, they say, the problem there was a lack of democracy. But they had elections in the USSR.

Sure they were rigged, but as long as government is the key to power, it will never fall into the hands of the masses.

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:52:23 -0000

Sam, why is one either in favour of the status quo or a defender of the soviet union?

Did I suggest that?

Was not my intent.

If folks think that this system is the best we can do,...

I certainly don't.

Just because I hold that opinion does not make me a defender of state coercion

Remains to be seen.

and it certainly doesn't make me a defender of the soviet union.

Didn't mean to imply that you did. I just get the idea from my experience with progressives that they don't apprehend the nature of political power as I do. I attempted to illustrate that by citing the communist experiments in eliminating private corporate power.

So, questions.

How do corporations exert this control?

What is the lynch pin of corporate power?

If the government is to be used to eliminate this corporate power, how much power must the government retain to accomplish it?

How are 'the people' to keep political power from getting out of control...assuming that they are able to get it under control?

Who are 'the people'?

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:39:48 -0000

a) Corporations are hierarchical coercive organizations internally. This is almost so much of a truism as to not need evidence. Plans are set by CEOs and boards and implemented by everyone else. The further down to the ladder you are, the less say you have in any decision. This runs counter to many definitions of democracy.

That may be (and note that corporate structure is defined by corporate law), but this may be a problem for you if you work for a corporation.

That's what you agree to put up with for compensation.

If you don't like it there, then find another job.

If you don't like working for corporate structures, then find a small business that has a different structure.

And if that doesn't satisfy you, then start your own business.

If that doesn't work for you, go stake a claim in some remote wilderness and live off the land.

The thing about corporations is that if you don't work for one, then their power over you (except in the case of 2-b) is what?

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:58:47 -0000

Corporations are accountable to nothing but their own profit, and explicitly so.

Except in the case of 2-b, they do have to account to their customers.

For example, I tried graphics tablets from Aiptek but was not satisfied. I am now happy with my Wacom tablet.

When we bought a new car, we did not buy another Saturn but bought a Toyota instead.

Please tell me what control Saturn corp. or Toyota corp. exert over us other than producing what we wanted.

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:38:08 -0000

The thing about science nerds is that they invent things to prove they can, wherever they happen to be working.

So to claim government produced the internet falls short. The internet, and its origins, was created by people for their own purposes and not to fulfill some government mission.

It was the opportunity for profit making that brought computing and the internet to the rest of us.

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:47:50 -0000

But hey, Sameer doesn't like corporations.

Corporations, like people can be good or bad. Being managed by actual people, their behaviors spring from the same urges.

Obviously would should not trust corporations with political power for the same reason we should not trust people with political power.

I'm wondering if 'progressives' are a manifestation of having had to give up on communism and now are focussed on social democracy. (Well, corporations are useful, but we have to keep them on a tight leash. By god, we can find some optimum balance between 'unfettered' capitalism and outright communism.)

We can keep up the illusion that capitalism = mercantilism, we'll just never discuss the latter and use the former to cover both. In fact, there's no such thing as capitalism, but the word sure is a handy straw man.

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:56:19 -0000

What is/are the desired end(s)?

Re: Capitalism Day

Sam Grove — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:00:10 -0000

What's with the democracy worship?

It seems that for progressives, democracy is the desired end.

As I said on another thread:

"Part of the problem is the belief, promulgated by government and progressives that democracy = freedom.

This leads to the assumption that the slightest fraction of input represented by one's vote is an expression of substantial power over the form of one's serfdom and that THIS is freedom."

Re: "A Clean and Snappy Place!"

Sam Grove — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:07:21 -0000

Where's the debate?

Go ahead, start one.

Re: "A Clean and Snappy Place!"

Sam Grove — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:45:54 -0000

I once found myself in Norfolk, VA. I stopped at a McDonald's.

The the windows and door had protective bars and the toilet tank cover was chained down.

I think this is more reflective of the area than of McDs, same for dirty bathrooms.

Re: There are no prostitutes in Israel

Sam Grove — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:34:58 -0000

At least Democrats are openly, uh, 'progressive' (progressively growing government). Republicans talk one way, walk another.

Where both parties fall down is their pretense of nobility.

Re: Seeing Past the Chicken Littles

Sam Grove — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:36:05 -0000

What we need is stronger headlines.

Re: Seeing Past the Chicken Littles

Sam Grove — Sat, 03 May 2008 06:36:59 -0000

Why are news agencies into the bad news business?

The fear response is a fundamental survival mechanism. When danger threatens, a quick response is called for.

Unfortunately, in our new world, while we have handled survival, we haven't been able to do much about our biological heritage.

Even fictional danger provokes the fear response and proves quite handy in manipulating people for monetary and/or political gain.

Re: On Smuggling and Law

Sam Grove — Sat, 03 May 2008 06:41:36 -0000

Thus the state contributes to its own demise.

Re: Perspective

Sam Grove — Wed, 14 May 2008 06:34:59 -0000

But are there countries that practice complete free trade?

Bell curve.

We can compare those with freer trade policies to places with more restrictive policies.

Re: Why it's none of your business

Sam Grove — Tue, 20 May 2008 12:20:00 -0000

You send your kids to school?

I hope it's not a gov't school.

Re: Why it's none of your business

Sam Grove — Wed, 21 May 2008 05:27:53 -0000

I want to know what you think of the writings of Judith Rich Harris, who points out why parents don't really have much direct affect on their kids outcomes anyway

Because they send their kids to government schools where they are socialized by other kids and teachers of a progressive bent.

Re: House Subcommittee on Televised Posturing

Sam Grove — Mon, 26 May 2008 11:37:11 -0000

He could've said something like: "We set prices as high as the market will bear, same as everybody."

Re: "Every Human Life Counts"

Sam Grove — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 14:04:46 -0000

When the government passed laws against child labor, would you have considered that "coercive"?

Certainly.

If a child of 15 chooses to work as an apprentice to an automobile mechanic, what business is it of anyone else other than that child, the child's guardian, and the mechanic?

I presume that you are operating under the assumption that it was legislation that brought an end to child labor. In fact, such legislation followed the trend, made possible by rising living standards, of parents sending their children to school rather than to work. Further, I think it likely that such legislation was promoted by unions to protect the jobs of their members.

Re: Better

Sam Grove — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:04:03 -0000

I ask because I cannot really see how he can prove based on certain knowledge that there are no pollution dangers in this capitalistic grown thorn-free rose garden of his.

Exactly where does the professor intimate that "there are no pollution dangers..."?

Re: Ideas Matter

Sam Grove — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:42:59 -0000

I decided to comment even though I do not find much reward in arguing semantics with Martin.

Legal standards are not ideas, they are manifestations of ideas.

Re: Ideas Matter

Sam Grove — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:02:49 -0000

I didn't say they were manifestations of all ideas.

Legal standards are codifications laid down in print. They are the products of ideas such as standardization, fairness and justice (we hope), hierarchical organization, etc.

Re: Ideas Matter

Sam Grove — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:04:21 -0000

I concede your prerogative to use words as you please.

Likewise.

******************

The mess of copyrights is the result of the "golden goose" syndrome.

Humans get 'stuck' to their income sources, that is, they don't want to let go of their current means of survival, and with the whole industry that crops up around something lucrative such as harry Potter, many people become 'interested' in using available means to protect that source.

Ah, human nature.

Re: Political Seduction, In Two Hemispheres

Sam Grove — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:52:32 -0000

After the cold war, Clinton decided that the world will live magically in peace for eternity and proceeded to hack and slash military and intelligence spending to the point that there were virtually no speakers of Arabic in the intelligence department.

I would be surprised if Clinton personally decided to cut Arab related intelligence, the only reason for such a move would be to create an opening for an attack or maybe racism (not to mention homophobia) within the intelligence community. (I had read that there were a number of translaters let go because they were homosexual.)

I suspect the big problem with our intelligence community is that they are huge government bureaucracies, jealous of each others, um, subsidy claims, and perhaps a little too independent.

I think all foreign intelligence should be folded into the military with perhaps an independent agency answerable to the White house for the sole purpose of verification/oversight.

Re: Political Seduction, In Two Hemispheres

Sam Grove — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:33:37 -0000

I did finish it. It's horrendous to read how the black market was all that kept the Soviet economy going.

The saddest (or most disgusting) part was how Western "intellectuals" (Marxist morons) admired that system.

I've been around, just haven't had a lot to say.

Re: Smith, Hayek, and Will on Society's Complexity

Sam Grove — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:49:30 -0000

Hence the appeal of Marxism; to reduce the complexity of society to the comprehension of thoughtless idiots.

Re: Lomborg on Dealing with Climate Change

Sam Grove — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:59:37 -0000

I believe that Wikipedia graph is a bit dated. Recent corrections to the data have restored 1938 as the hottest year of the 20th century.

I suspect when surface stations have been upgraded, there may be further corrections to the data.

Re: Smith, Hayek, and Will on Society's Complexity

Sam Grove — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:33:31 -0000

I think I might be blushing slightly.

Re: Lomborg on Dealing with Climate Change

Sam Grove — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 08:39:36 -0000

Ah, so it was 1934, I didn't check.

But why does wiki use data chart from the UK, which has a fraction of the area of the U.S.? ...and it is widely acknowledged that the U.S. data set is the 'gold standard' for climate modeling (as bad as it may be).

Re: Smith, Hayek, and Will on Society's Complexity

Sam Grove — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:04:56 -0000

The bottom line is that we all depend on mutual cooperation to make civilization work. It just works better when it seems voluntary..

That's the market for you, though the part about 'mutual cooperation' might be better thought of as free-form coordination.

Re: Wondering

Sam Grove — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:57:09 -0000

One thing that government is really good at producing is politics, and politics is really good at producing misinformation.

I hope that makes sense.

Re: Why Take these Clowns Seriously?

Sam Grove — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:35:37 -0000

I remember also. The gov't instituted alternate day rationing where if your license tags ended with even, you could buy gas on even dates. There were incidents of individuals pulling a gun to make sure they could fill up unmolested.

Re: Natural Disasters and Capital Replacement

Sam Grove — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:34:37 -0000

Granting the utility of a timepiece, everyone should have rushed out to buy digital watches when they became available, at a price of $1,500, rather than wait until until production efficiency made such devices much more affordable.

Every business will upgrade at about the time the that their accounting tells them it's the right time.

The only thing that makes such disasters financially bearable is either a lot of stored value and/or insurance, which defrays the cost by absorbing value that would have gone to other investments in future production.

Ask such a person if they think they would be better off if they wrecked their car so they would have to buy a newer model.

Re: Compulsory Volunteering

Sam Grove — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:50:38 -0000

Way back when, I was in the boy scouts.

It came to pass that the troop got a new troop leader in the shape of an ex-marine.

At one meeting, they requested volunteers to march in the Memorial Day parade.

I declined to volunteer as it was our family practice to spend the day together.

It was brought up at the next scout meeting that I had been seen watching the parade with my family which was followed by some heated discussion about what to do about those that could've/should've volunteered but didn't.

That was the last meeting I attended.

Re: A Hayekian Lesson

Sam Grove — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:12:53 -0000

"Stupidity and the State"

Isn't that a bit redundant?

Re: Pageant of Ignorance

Sam Grove — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:53:13 -0000

Politicians routinely fall at the bottom of trustworthiness polls, yet somehow they manage to be seen as saviors to the downtrodden.

Again I recommend Orsen Scott Card's book Treason.

Re: Skepticism about prices

Sam Grove — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:17:24 -0000

It is our nature to maximize returns and minimize effort.

Increased prices violate this tendency.

Popular economic conceptions are heavily tainted by Marxist/Populist dialogs. (Profit making as evil)

Politicians, among others, always require perceived evils from which they can rescue us.

Perceived evils must always be in a minority.

Re: Casino Capitalism

Sam Grove — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:40:28 -0000

And failure requires competition, that someone else might succeed.

Re: Regulation by Markets, Not by Bureaucrats

Sam Grove — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:43:36 -0000

Eliminate the monopoly licensing as a condition for the merger.

Re: Inconsistent McCain

Sam Grove — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:32:36 -0000

Politicians can say anything, anytime, about any subject, without any basis in reality.

I just wish this could be explained to 'progressives'.

Re: Infrastructure and the State

Sam Grove — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:35:19 -0000

There's a problem with having a government with the power of eminent domain: you get a government with the power of eminent domain, people by politicians and bureaucrats, purchased as needed by the unscrupulous.

Re: Infrastructure and the State

Sam Grove — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:12:08 -0000

Correction:

There's a problem with having a government with the power of eminent domain: you get a government with the power of eminent domain, staffed by politicians and bureaucrats, purchased as needed by the unscrupulous.

As soon as a way to do something is manifested, the imagination is affected such that other ways of doing that thing become harder to imagine.

That government builds roads becomes evidence that only the government can undertake such projects.

Hence the perpetual turning of the public's eyes to government force of arms to address all sorts of issues.

Re: Infrastructure and the State

Sam Grove — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:39:06 -0000

Therefore, the best way forward is to utilise the Government as a fund raiser through existing taxation, then place those funds in an independent trust that determines projects on purely economic and financial grounds without political interference. These funds should be transparent and run by recognised experts and should aim to get maximum bang for every taxpayers buck.

Count me as dubious.

Re: Inconsistent McCain

Sam Grove — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:15:15 -0000

Due to the fungible nature of oil, I wouldn't think that buying a futures contract on oil would entail much in the way of storage. The contract is likely for future production.

What a buyer is hedging against is price increases and the seller, against price decreases...on future output.

Re: Inconsistent McCain

Sam Grove — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:16:55 -0000

Additionally, one of the things being hedged against is variations in the value of the dollar...how many will be printed in the time between contract and delivery.

Re: Inconsistent McCain

Sam Grove — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:34:01 -0000

Obviously storage costs figure in the price of petro products, even gas stations have to spend money to store gasoline underground. I would suppose that that storage cost are figured as part of production overhead, but producers can't arbitrarily charge more for oil that has entailed the cost of storage compared to product that is delivered straight away to retail consumption.

My supposition is that if you buy a futures contract for 100 month delivery of oil, they aren't going to put that amount in a storage facility marked as 'yours'.

Re: The Cost of Gasoline

Sam Grove — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:42:55 -0000

Many cars today also have better gas mileage than in 1979. Also, we are buying cleaner air with our gasoline purchases today.

Um...when was lead removed from gasoline formulations?

Re: Inconsistent McCain

Sam Grove — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:01:02 -0000

Maybe they won't, but you could, so you won't pay more than the current price plus the cost of storing the oil for 100 months (including insurance against lost of the stored oil and financing the cost of the oil and storage for the period). That's the point.

So if you are storing oil based upon expected future price increases, isn't the cost of storage the same whether you've sold contracts for it or just plan to sell on the market at that time?

IOW, whether you buy oil now, buy a futures contract, or buy it when you need it, the cost of storage is included in the price.

Even if you buy it from the well, likely you will be storing it...which also is part of your cost.

I expect that there are very few people who buy oil in bulk for immediate use.

There must be a buffer supply in storage at all times, the situation would be pretty scary otherwise.

Back to my original point, which perhaps wasn't clearly made, I wouldn't think that storage plays an inordinate role in speculation, but is always a factor in the oil market.

Re: Market Rally

Sam Grove — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 06:17:48 -0000

jpm has tongue in cheek

Re: Inconsistent McCain

Sam Grove — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 06:27:12 -0000

Sellers are always hoping that the sale price will cover all their costs of delivering product, + some profit, in any scenario.

Selling a future in oil requires insurance whether that amount is put in storage now, or whether it is planned to be purchased later.

I don't necessarily pay the supplier of the oil for these services (storage, finance, insurnance)so they aren't accounted as part of the cost of the oil.

Unless the supplier screwed up and is taking a loss, these costs are always included in the price.

Re: Inconsistent McCain

Sam Grove — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:04:35 -0000

Methinks, I don't believe I disagree with you anywhere.

If I may ask a question: What portion of the oil market is not subject to speculation?

Re: Leisure Time Is Valuable

Sam Grove — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:30:27 -0000

Certainly Don's leisure time holds no value for the writer.

Re: Tyler for a Moment

Sam Grove — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:04:47 -0000

Favorite songs?

How do you rank them?

Lately, I've been listening to Supertramp (Breakfast in America) and Pink Floyd (Echos, Best of). Not sure why.

Re: Americans' Standard of Living

Sam Grove — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:16:24 -0000

What about our retirement?

Re: Obamanomics

Sam Grove — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:11:56 -0000

That lovely idea must have come from his progressive economic adviser.

Re: Force Might Protect; It Never Creates

Sam Grove — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:07:28 -0000

Governments define "rights" by definition. Legal rights are not what your personal ideological system and idiosyncratic linguistic usage imply.

Conflation. Governments do not define rights, government defines legality.

Providing we are making the distinction between moral rights and legal rights. And I think we are.

But if you think moral rights don't exist, please say so.

Re: On the Kindle and other gadgets

Sam Grove — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:46:46 -0000

The Kindle will force me to spend more money as I would have the e book as well as the hardcover!

Market opportunity! Bookshelf paper that displays book spines/titles.

Re: Shell-lacked

Sam Grove — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:03:56 -0000

Humans are so reactive, emotive to the core.

Re: Government Brings Out the (Undisciplined) Kid in Us

Sam Grove — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:26:17 -0000

The family is perhaps the one venue where communism has a place, due to the dependent nature of children.

Any parent that doesn't try to wean their children from that dependency would be deemed neurotic.

The reason we try to teach those values to our children is so they grow up to be decent human beings.

Alas, the device of government permits adults to ignore those values at will.

Re: Frankly Confused

Sam Grove — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:48:19 -0000

I don't fear government.

How about the state?

It's absolutely necessary so to me it all comes back to a government truly run by the people. and powerful enough to protect itself from outside influences.

Who are "the people"?

The more powerful the government, the more it exceeds the function of prohibiting aggression and fraud among the people, the more "the people" will be divided over what else the government should do.

The more divided "the people" the more the government will be managed by a relative few.

Re: Government Brings Out the (Undisciplined) Kid in Us

Sam Grove — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:04:03 -0000

This is not mushy leftism, but intellectually honest libertarianism. If you really think there should be NO welfare state, you have to tell us your morally defensible reason for this belief. If your qualm is merely that our current welfare state has run amok and that any more is overkill, then I wholeheartedly agree--our current welfare state is very flawed and I don't wish to expand it.

You might try answering the question: Why has our welfare state run amok?

Could it be that the welfare state contains the seeds of its own eventual destruction?

What incentives are created when welfare becomes an entitlement?

The great thing about private charity is that when a giver sees that an organization that he/her may be giving to is not working properly, he/her may choose to give elsewhere.

With the welfare state, that is not so easily done.

I had a friend (who has passed away in recent years) who volunteered with community services for 'marginal' types observed to me that "as soon as they qualified for SS disability income, they would go downhill.

Why? Because they no longer had to struggle. Once they stopped struggling, they began to atrophy in various ways.

Re: Shell-lacked

Sam Grove — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:47:20 -0000

The liberty to compete in the market is not a guarantee of success.

Nothing has reduced our ability to compete like government interventions into our markets and government spending.

Re: Government Brings Out the (Undisciplined) Kid in Us

Sam Grove — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:50:12 -0000

The 'greatest generation' was succored on the New Deal and produced many that believed the purpose of the government was "to take care of us": quoting my aunt.

Re: Gasoline Prices

Sam Grove — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:11:33 -0000

Reasonable electric cars WERE available in California in the 1990's. They were reclaimed from their protesting leasors and all destroyed.

Reasonable if you call $80,000 a reasonable price. That's why they were being leased.

You can be certain that GM lost money on that deal.

Oh yeah, and the lead acid batteries made up a large part of the vehicle's weight.

Oddly enough, hybrid technology was available at the time, but no, congress had to mandate ALL electric vehicles.

Re: Gasoline Prices

Sam Grove — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:30:47 -0000

Government of, by and for the people is the only answer.

To use your words: No such thing.

Posted by: Methinks

You may be right but I'm not ready to give up on it just yet.

Calling you on your assertion that there can be no libertarian society because there has never been one (to our knowledge).

We libertarians do think the incentives present in a free market would provide for its functioning without the necessity of describing it in every detail.

OTH, we also think the incentives present in political governance preclude having a government of, by, and for 'the people'.

If you desire a government that the people can unite behind, then its function should be restricted to those that can be nearly universally agreed upon.

Prohibition of fraud, aggression, and similar rights violations...likely to garner near universal support.

Organize defense against invasion...likely to garner near universal support.

Provide welfare entitlements...you're going to get a fair amount of dissent.

Likewise for totalitarian medical care.

And empire building.

You can't get what you want because you desire contradictory goals.

A large, powerful government that does all those wonderful things you want it to do, managed by a unified people.

The one precludes the other.

Why?

Because people disagree on what those wonderful things should be and will disagree on many particulars of their provision. And you have us libertarian types who vehemently disagree on having government provide all those wonderful things.

And that's without getting into the economic aspects of it.

Re: Shell-lacked

Sam Grove — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:40:32 -0000

Our biggest problem is a government so big and expensive that funding it is a big problem for producers and consumer regardless of the revenue mechanism.

re tariffs: Any tariff should be uniform without to regard to the nature of a product or its origin.

I don't think tariffs would be much of a deal if the U.S. gov't were, say, one tenth its current cost.

The benefits of an income tax would be in keeping the tax payer involved and interested in what's going on.

Alas, the government is such a juggernaut that few feel able to do much about it.

The situation is serious, and seems hopeless.

Re: Gasoline Prices

Sam Grove — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:44:28 -0000

In at least one city, there was a successful private transit system, though its rates were regulated by the municipal gov't.

Requesting a rate increase to keep up with inflation, the gov't refused the company's request.

The company went out of business, the gov't bought the assets, and promptly raised fares.

In SF, there are/were private jitneys providing service along Mission St.

The gov't didn't allow them to advertise in any way.

Re: Shell-lacked

Sam Grove — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:34:29 -0000

Why should we be so limited by history?

How about a voluntarily funded government?

Plus user fees for specific services such as deed and title registry.

A militia could be something that everyone participates in. Why do we need a government army?

Prisons could be funded by the slave labor of inmates.

...and so on.

Re: Hayek in the Classroom

Sam Grove — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:54:30 -0000

Personal info isn't remembered, but if you hit "Post" without entering your info, your info will appear in the preview screen.

You might view it as a 'forced preview'.

Re: Your Dog Does Not Own Your House

Sam Grove — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:09:06 -0000

I expect that property rights in law are merely codifications of human custom.

Property rights developed around possession.

I suggest that the near universality of support for the state is indicative of support for social order which many mistake for social harmony.

Given that almost everyone desires social order/harmony, then the perceived need for imposition from above is based on the mistaken notion that others do not desire harmony.

Re: Your Dog Does Not Own Your House

Sam Grove — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:29:58 -0000

It is an interpretation of history to claim that 'the state' is the builder and defender of civilization.

Another interpretation is that 'the state' is a parasite on humanity and quite often a destroyer of civilization.

Re: An Open Letter to Sara

Sam Grove — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:12:59 -0000

That we need a government is a fact.

It's a belief, but it is a fact that many hold that belief.

Re: An Open Letter to Sara

Sam Grove — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 09:34:01 -0000

If you do not give the elected authorities in your country the benefit of the doubt, it means you will impose on your country the costs of doubt. If this is only done by a Dear Tenured Professor I guess not much harm is done but what if everyone in the country starts withholding the benefit of the doubt? what would happen? bliss?

As opposed to the costs imposed by giving politicians the benefit of doubt?

The cost of hope with regard to the political process is to sustain the leechery. No, not lechery, leechery.

...you need to give people the benefit of doubt since otherwise life, without hope, would be unbearable.

Hope for what? That political animals will change their stripes?

Re: An Open Letter to Sara

Sam Grove — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:52:39 -0000

I wish people would think before they posted anything that may be wistful or positive about anarchy. It's filled only with violence. The closest thing humans ever came to anarchy was a tribal state. Every tribal state in recorded history provided a level of violence that is truly shocking and disgusting.

Excuse me, but that is a misreading of history.

The level and extent of violence perpetrated by rulers, and those who aspired to rule, exceeds by orders of magnitude, anything ever done by those who desired to live without rulers.

It was apologists for the state who perpetrated the notion that anarchy=chaos, despite the evidence that large scale chaos is induced by the state.

What is the state, but a formalized tribal structure.

Re: Karma

Sam Grove — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:50:17 -0000

Politics is the realm of incompetence.

The other candidate is less incompetent than our candidate.

Re: Karma

Sam Grove — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:16:53 -0000

The fact that this stuff is what sells best in such a system is just one clue to the potential failures of markets.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that most consumers of 'this stuff' were educated in government schools, would it?

Re: Karma

Sam Grove — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:05:28 -0000

I'll gladly give up the FCC, are you willing to give up NPR?

Re: Karma

Sam Grove — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:24:55 -0000

No, I don't listen to NPR, FOX, MSNBC, etc.

They have little to tell us that's worth my time. They may be good on events, but are very poor on prioritization or interpretation.

They are magnifiers of the unusual and perpetrators of unacknowledged bias.

Re: Karma

Sam Grove — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:47:49 -0000

Almost every study done on the subject shows regular NPR listeners are more educated and more informed then their broadcast media cohorts.

Liberals are, by and large, reasonably intelligent and well educated.

This does not mean that they have an accurate view of reality or grasp of economic fundamentals.

While the general, popular media consuming, public may be mostly ignorant of or indifferent to economic realities, I am of the opinion that avid consumers of NPR are mostly in ERROR in their political and economic views.

Re: Karma

Sam Grove — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 06:35:16 -0000

Absolutely amazing the the CFTC chair deregulated the energy market then took a job with Enron.

Except that the energy market in CA was NOT deregulated.

Until you get that, your intellectual honesty is in grave doubt.

Re: Paul Krugman's Correct About Campaigns

Sam Grove — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:16:36 -0000

...but we need to get away from the constant culture wars and anti-intellectualism that have become the hallmarks of Republican rule.

As opposed to the culture wars and pseudo-intellectualism of the Democrats.

Re: Constitution Day

Sam Grove — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:29:45 -0000

Unfortunetly, the fedral govrnment, via New Deal ag policies, has undertaken protection, on a national scale of the ins (vs the outs). Oranges are but one example, peanuts are another (peanut market orders account for some part of the Carter, as in Jimmy, wealth.

Can we sue the govrnment for carrying out these policies?

The electronics/computer industries are a clearer example, as much of that sprang up well after New Deal.

Re: Does Foreign Aid Promote Better Health?

Sam Grove — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:34:26 -0000

Foreign aid is a political development tool.

Re: Markets Anticipate the Future

Sam Grove — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:48:54 -0000

Martin, how do you plan to persuace politicians to relinquish control of revenue to consumers?

You gbonna hold a gun on em?

You are experiening the problem£ ereryone is right and everyone else is wrong.

Re: Markets Anticipate the Future

Sam Grove — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:55:22 -0000

Ths might be an opportunity for a review of the ex-famous line: "like hauling coal to Newcastle".

Re: Markets Anticipate the Future

Sam Grove — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:24:26 -0000

My apologies for the misspellings, I was working on my little Nokia internet tablet screen.

The comment is about attitudes. Typical among humans: I'm right, you're wrong, therefore I see no point in listening to you. This makes it very difficult for those who are right, usually a minority, to be heard.

I agree that perhaps a consumption tax would be better than a production tax, but I also hold that the power to tax, being a one sided power, will always enable those with the power to feed themselves at the expense of others.

Re: Constitution Day

Sam Grove — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:27:03 -0000

why is finance centered so much in New York?

My answer is: because it had a good start there.

Re: Does Foreign Aid Promote Better Health?

Sam Grove — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:38:11 -0000

That's what I meant.

Politicac development: support and assistance rendered to political entities such as dictators, etc.

People in government may may express interest in helping humans, but as they think in the collective, all their activities are directed toward collective programs

Re: On the Current Financial Turmoil

Sam Grove — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:12:42 -0000

The cause of this meltdown is a market failure,

If you are talking about the meltdown, this is what the market is supposed to do.

The government is trying to prevent the market from performing its function...which is how we got here in the first place.

Re: Paul Johnson on Marxism, Freudianism, the Theory of Relativity, and Global Warming

Sam Grove — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:00:15 -0000

The tale of the hockey stick fraud.

Astronomical influences.

Problems with climate models.

Evidence of 1,500 year climate cycle.

Re: Zero Down!

Sam Grove — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:07:41 -0000

Don't miss the second paragraph of the first sentence:

???

Re: Zero Down!

Sam Grove — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:23:19 -0000

Muirgeo keeps blaming economic problems on some 'free market' and others of us are trying to find this 'free market' of which he speaks.

So I'll make these points again.

1. All governments are oligarchies.

2. Membership in the oligarchy is contingent upon influence (usually money, but other factors exist).

3. Government regulation of business will entail business influence on government. (they all participate in the oligarchy)

4. Government is the linchpin of oligarchical control.

To rephrase: POLITICAL POWER, ie, government, is the linchpin of oligarchical control.

5. The only recourse that the rest of us have against the oligarchy is a free market, which, as defined by libertarians, is one which is open to competition and not subject to political power.

This requires a absolutely restricted government, one which is relegated to enforcing individual rights.

To advocate for more regulation is to advocate for greater subjugation of to populace to oligarchical control.

When government controls business, the reverse will be just as true.

Re: Zero Down!

Sam Grove — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:34:56 -0000

correction: "greater subjugation of the populace to oligarchical control."

Re: Calm down

Sam Grove — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:43:45 -0000

I remember catching a bit of video of Murray Rothbard talking about HUD with a video in the background showing buildings being torn down by HUD contractors.

Re: Zero Down!

Sam Grove — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:35:35 -0000

Most people are willing to be socialist as long as they see themselves as the beneficiaries of transfer payments.

Corporatism is socialism for business.

So being opposed to socialism means opposition to corporatism as well.

The problem with welfare socialism is that it requires a government powerful enough to effect corporatism as well.

Re: Julian Simon

Sam Grove — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:39:25 -0000

Simon was referring to the problems of survival, not the problems created by political power. But, then again, information technology may actually enable people to get a handle on the problems of political power.

Re: Calm down

Sam Grove — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:05:32 -0000

But that's not a "market" failure.

It's what we expect from any association between government and business.

The finance industry has and is perhaps the most highly regulated industry...even with several rule changes that are hysterically pointed to as "deregulation".

That's without even getting into the malfeasance of the central bank in all this.

The government has been avoiding bankruptcy and tax increased via credit expansion and currency printing. But the government can't go bankrupt, therefore the ills must spring up in the "private" sector.

Re: Calm down

Sam Grove — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:20:42 -0000

No bright line distinguishes a "public" from a "private" sector,

which is precisely why I put " marks around private.

Re: Principled Libertarians Put Their Money Where Their Mouths Are

Sam Grove — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 07:59:42 -0000

Why does the NYT get credit for Peter Wallison's insight?

Re: Calm down

Sam Grove — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 08:27:13 -0000

However, it is possible to discern philosophical influences in the utterances of people. Lots of people acquire opinions like acquire bacteria, from their surroundings.

Many people express anti-corporate sentiments without awareness of why they hold those sentiments.

Marxism has had a certain impact on the way many people think, including those who are reflexively anti-Marxist.

While I have refrained from calling muirgeo Marxist, I have identified certain Marxist strains in his expressions, such as his reflexively anti-corporate attitude and support for government provided health care (though I tend to think that more "progressive" and modern progressivism seems to have some Marxist seasoning).

Re: Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac

Sam Grove — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:59:21 -0000

but I'm still struck by the willful need to believe that this long series of Wall Street caused problems is somehow the fault of government.

Seems you've never heard of regulatory capture.

When government creates bureaucracy to regulate business, the incentive is created for business to influence that bureaucracy, either directly, or via influence on legislators.

It's not as simple as blaming 'the government' as much as discerning the systemic flaws in regulatory systems.

It's similar to drug prohibition creating profit incentives for drug distributors to corrupt enforcement bureaucracy.

Here's a question: Given the fact of drug prohibition, how do you eliminate drug criminality?

You can't

Given the existence of business regulation, how to you eliminate business's influence on the regulatory system?

You can't.

A system of political power creates an oligarchy. Businesspeople quickly learn that it is better to join the oligarchy than to remain outside of it.

What can we the people do about it?

Keeping government out of business will keep business out of government.

That's the only way...as I see it.

Re: Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac

Sam Grove — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:07:47 -0000

Seems to me, no one here wants to admit the possibility that markets aren't rational and self-correcting in the way Friedman/Hayek told us they were, so they're looking to put the blame elsewhere.

That's not what they claimed. The claim is that markets are self-correcting if they are left alone by political meddling.

The reality is that markets are rarely left alone by political meddling.

Also, see above post.

Re: Who's To Blame?

Sam Grove — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:33:21 -0000

Don is telling us that he thinks that the New York Times is not pimping for Obama.

Read it again very carefully.

Re: Good Thing We Have No 'Steel Policy'

Sam Grove — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:53:10 -0000

Ah, the political world is the world of inversion.

Re: Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac

Sam Grove — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:59:13 -0000

How about if the government prints out enough money, sends it out to taxpayers, and they can send it right back to pay their taxes with?

Re: Genetically Engineered Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Sam Grove — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 06:14:52 -0000

Really muirgeo,

You should carefully read what is written so you may be able to make a relevant comment.

It appears your modern education, in addition to leaving you with weak spelling skills, has also affected your reading comprehension.

"Weather" you admit it or not.

Re: Shameful

Sam Grove — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:58:36 -0000

You can go over to downsizedc.org and send a note to your "representative(s)" that you oppose the bailout and you expect the same of him/her.

Re: Genetically Engineered Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Sam Grove — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:02:05 -0000

And Wall Street left to its own to create instruments to reduce risk and properly allocate capital came up with the most opaque products you could imagine.

Please tell us of this fabulous world where Wall Street is left to its own. Certainly it's not in this world.

Re: Genetically Engineered Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Sam Grove — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:16:46 -0000

There, I've closed the block quote tag.

Re: Genetically Engineered Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Sam Grove — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:17:36 -0000

2 demerits Oil Shock

Re: Who's To Blame?

Sam Grove — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:23:11 -0000

Who's to blame?

The people, for their ignorance.

The politicians, for their venality.

The politico-businessmen, for their narrow focus.

The government, for its systemic flaws.

The progressives, for advocating the busybody state.

Conservatives, for surrendering to the success of the progressives.

Re: Genetically Engineered Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Sam Grove — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:24:55 -0000

Let us not forget the central bank for the false signals created by easy credit.

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 06:59:51 -0000

This points out muirgeo's misapprehension that the financial mess is a market failure, when actually, it's the market performing its function of taking down those who attempt to cheat in the market. The government has attempted to delay this reaction and proposes to delay it even further.

The proposed bailout is not a market function, it's the political system doing what it always does, attempting to thwart the market and reality at the expense of taxpayers.

If you want to keep business out of government, then you must keep government out of business.

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:39:21 -0000

Is there any mechanism to plan for future prosperity?

The market is our "mechanism" for discovering, creating, and choosing the possibilities before us. Any "plan" for the future will restrict the possibilities and our choices.

The people are not of one mind, therefore the imposition of a plan will result in conflict at best and oppression at worst.

For humanity, there is no "plan" that will produce desired results.

Re: Krugman gets the facts wrong

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:53:06 -0000

What deregulatiom?

The finance industry has been, and remains, one of the most regulated industries.

Of course those in any regulated industris seek "changes" for their own benefit.That's what humans do.

The problems have no connection to free markets, since, as you have repeatedly averred, there's no such thing.

Re: Krugman gets the facts wrong

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:58:20 -0000

Have you apprised your representatives of your opposition to any bailouts?

I have done so via downsizedc.org

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:32:32 -0000

An unmolested market provides the most accurate signals to participants regarding the state of flux of the market allowing them to make better informed choices in the balancing act of life.

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:39:41 -0000

A free market...as libertarians define it, provides a venue for the pursuit of billions of plans.

A planned market permits only one plan at a time.

A regulated market perverts plans...and the planners.

Re: Genetically Engineered Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:05:13 -0000

There is a reason for laws against huge monopolies, the banks should be no different.

We do? Can you cite?

Actually, we have laws that create huge monopolies. There used to be one called ATT.

Here in CA, we have PG&E and Pacific Bell.

There are huge monopolies created by law all over the country.

But perhaps you are thinking of the Sherman Anti-trust act, which was created at the whining of extant oil companies when the production efficiencies of Standard Oil threatened their existence.

Re: Talk of the Nation on Greed

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:11:19 -0000

The other commenter, Jim Wallis, made me ill to my stomach.

He is a sublime salesman, that's why.

Re: Genetically Engineered Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:18:50 -0000

You should question everything you think you know about economics

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:24:58 -0000

Will short-term pursuit of self-interest give way to long-term sacrifice if necessary for the survival of a society?

It's called saving and investment. Tens of millions of people do it.

That's why attempts to fix the rate of interest must be opposed. High interest rates encourage saving.

Keynesian policies encourage consumption.

Re: Shameful

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:32:25 -0000

Is he pulling an Alexander Haig?

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:48:43 -0000

Can a society prosper (or even survive) if it doesn't consider long-term needs? If so, is the "invisible hand" up to the task?

Yes and, society is not a thing that considers.

Members of society may, and quite often do, consider the long term.

Anyone who starts a business will eventually find themselves considering the long term.

People who start social organizations usually do so with an eye toward the long term.

The solution to long term needs is found in the endeavors of humans creating means of production, in people saving for retirement and college funds, in gifts to universities, etc.

It is a very good thing not to put all our eggs into a single basket of "a plan" or an agency, for such will eventually fail, and the more people are dependent on it, the more will suffer.

The roman empire collapsed, but there are still Italians.

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:53:48 -0000

Can all the problems that a society faces be measured in dollars; and reduced to, and solved by the individual's pursuit of dollars?

I think all the resource and production problems can be.

Some things can't easily be measured in monetary terms, like the value of a good idea.

It's value can only be realized when implemented and its effect is often immeasurable.

Re: Krugman gets the facts wrong

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:11:51 -0000

muirgeo,

In tenor and intent, you sound just like several Lyndon LaRouche supporters I've had the misfortune to meet over the years.

FDR, ideological torch of the progressive/liberal who maneuvered the U.S. into WWII with blatant disregard for the lives he was willing to dispose of in his quest to further the U.S. empire.

Re: Krugman gets the facts wrong

Sam Grove — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:42:35 -0000

George forgets himself and reveals his inner fascist.

Fascist: one who seeks to use the power of the state to "make" the market work in a certain fashion.

Re: She Earned an F

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:22:12 -0000

When HOLC is finally liquidated in 1948, he said it will show a net profit of some $11,000,000"

Riiiight.

Re: Slipping Down the Slope

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:23:58 -0000

He said: "eventual profits".

I'm smiling.

Re: Talk of the Nation on Greed

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:29:53 -0000

Where or when was there ever a free market?

You have claimed that the free market brought on the great depression.

You can't have it both ways, raising the specter of "free markets" when you want to claim market failure for various debacles then denying that there has never been such a thing.

How do you carry these contradictions in your head, must be very confusing.

Re: Talk of the Nation on Greed

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:43:59 -0000

And greed, by the way, is the desire for unearned wealth. It is a defining characteristic of the political class.

And a defining characteristic of the left as well.

A free market means no rules that apply only to certain actors and not to others.

I need not admire corporations in any regard to observe that your anti-corporate bias is reflexive rather than thoughtful. This renders you incapable of sound judgement in this regard and incapable of creating "good" regulation.

The law against homicide applies to all persons equally...unless the state decides to kill people in other countries, and is therefore not considered regulatory in nature. It's application is not confined to any particular segment of society...except of course government agents (as long as it is done in the course of their duties).

The progressive/liberal bias taints yous rational capacity.

Re: Talk of the Nation on Greed

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:54:31 -0000

Also the contempt for Jim Wallis is pretty sad as well.

It is good that they help people in need, but his dogooderness leads him to support atrocious public policy and he feeds on liberal guilt over natural human self interest.

Greed is a value judgment which has become the default liberal charge against anyone who seeks to profit from their endeavors, particularly when these endeavors are organized into corporate enterprises.

The irony is that such enterprises have relieved far more suffering than any religious organization has ever accomplished.

For their success, you despise them.

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:12:04 -0000

Your philosophy sounds like it will result in the greatest good for the smallest number. Do you have any concern for the survival of a nation, or is it survival of the "individual" only?

A "nation" is an abstract creation. All that actually exists is individuals and their behaviors.

When the Roman empire collapsed, it merely signified the end of a system of rule fed by conquest.

As most individuals worked in agriculture, it is likely that most people made out just fine. The system of rule was not created for their benefit in the first place, but for the benefit of the rulers.

Political governments may be sold as a benefit for the common good, but their actual functioning is to establish and maintain hierarchies of control over wealth, with the greatest benefits accruing towards the top. All governments are actually oligarchies and many aspire to participate in the oligarchy.

Political power hierarchies are manifestations of human adaptation to tribal hierarchy and even the "modern state" is just as primal in nature, relying entirely upon extortion to maintain itself.

Evidence of this can be seen in numerous manifestations, from the obsequious behavior of many toward political celebrities, to the attraction a certain kind of woman has toward the powerful, to the occasionally revealed dalliance of elected officials, etc.

Freedom and the concurrent free market is what is best for all. (whatever muirgeo may say to the contrary)

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:22:16 -0000

libertarianism isn't a faith

The real faith in this world is that government is immune, or can somehow be made immune, to the corruptions we observe and that have been observed in the political venue for all of history.

Libertarians hold that this corruption is a systemic flaw of political hierarchies and thus cannot be removed. The flaw is based on the fact of human nature and political power.

As Lord Acton put it: "Power corrupts."

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 09:24:55 -0000

Thank you Randy, but I was helped by Plac Ebo's sincere and respectful demeanor in asking questions.

Re: Talk of the Nation on Greed

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:45:52 -0000

So Sam do you support corporations and the special privileges they receive?

I do not support special privileges for anyone, but you are aware, are you not, that you too, can incorporate? Corporate law is available to anyone who wants it.

Thanks for pointing out that the structure of corporations is dictated by law. Sans this government interference, productive enterprises would have to be formed by contract.

I hereby dub thee Mr. Assumption.

Re: Talk of the Nation on Greed

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:53:42 -0000

I entertain no profound position regarding corporations. Corporate law was written for the purpose of creating legal entities. For instance, a corporation may be sued in court so that you don't have to sue all the individuals that may be involved.

Tell me what special privileges corporations have that you think are a particular problem.

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:58:43 -0000

Governments wield political power, the power (and the authority) to initiate force to attain goals

Corporations can only wield political power indirectly, through political influence.

Please define 'power cartel' and give an example so I may address the question specifically.

Re: Some bubble

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:09:00 -0000

Bush says that if the proposed plan is not put in place, there will be a deep and long recession.

That may be true, but if so, then it is also true that if the plan is put in place, there will also be a deep and long recession.

Yes Martin, libertarians and others have been pointing out the problems of retirement entitlements for as long as I have been involved (30 years) and no doubt before I paid any attention to the issue. The problem is that most people only pay attention to impending crises.

The government will issue credit and our standard of living will go down...countered only by any increase in productivity.

Politicians will dissemble and voters will continue to vote against the other party.

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 11:28:00 -0000

You have avoided answering if libertarianism is a faith.

What does it matter whether I say if libertarianism is a faith? It is a matter for your judgment.

I haven't asked you to take my word on faith, I only try to answer your questions as best I can.

Libertarians support individual freedom and that all individuals are morally equal in that regard.

Libertarians support a free market as an extension of individual freedom. We have good reason to think that political control of resources does not work due to the Austrian economics observation that prices convey critical information and political management obscures the information.

As biological beings, we require resources in support of our biological existence and comfort. The urge to survive and reproduce is the primary motivation for humans...as with all living creatures.

Political government, as a manifestation of human tribal instincts, enables people to cheat at the task of survival.

Rather than producing and trading, political power enables some to acquire the means for survival without the effort of producing and trading.

Discussion of libertarianism can go in two directions:

1. Morality, individuals own their lives and have the right to maintain and defend their lives and that accruing individuals into groups does not increase the rights that the individuals possess.

2. Economics for individuals to possess the freedom to maintain their lives and pursue goals, they may not be interfered with by any agency so long as their actions cause no harm to other individuals.

I can discuss either aspect at length but if I might suggest, you can access many materials on these subjects.

Re: She Earned an F

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:20:14 -0000

you have to be moral not because of men, but because of god.

Prove it.

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:30:59 -0000

Minimizing or eliminating government and politics will not stop the abuse of power by the rich and powerful. The rich and powerful don't need our government. They can create their own patchwork of pseudo-governments to attain the same ends. It's not solely political power that is to be feared. It's the concentration of any type of power.

You might consider that wealth supports government to protect them from the masses.

The French and communist revolutions are not forgotten.

It takes taxation and/or central banking to raise armies. There is no corporation comparable to any degree, in size and power, to the U.S. government.

As long as the people are armed, they need fear no threat from the merely wealthy.

Political power via the hierarchical state is the crux of all arbitrary power.

I expect you are speaking of so-called economic power.

Three guys wash ashore on a deserted island.

Gus has a gun.

Gerry has a sack of gold.

Frank has a cache of food.

Who ends up with the goods?

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:02:07 -0000

As I hinted at earlier, what Marxism promised the working class was quite different from the results when put into practice.

Marx assumed that man's nature was a product of his surroundings, that if you placed man into a communist system, his motivations would change to work for the common good.

Libertarian philosophy presumes that man has an inherent nature, self interest, and the functionality of an economic system must be based on man's fundamental nature.

Isn't that true of any control of resources?

No. In a free market, such concentrations are limited by competitive forces. It is the competition that discloses the information through pricing.

If you will observe, there are a number of monopolies in the U.S.

In California there is PG&E and PacBell, many water service jurisdictions, garbage collection, etc,. All these monopolies are enforced by law.

History shows that theories of monopoly are faulty and products of the desperate cries of businesses that are being out-competed in the market. Such was how the Sherman anti-trust statutes came into being.

The only case of a near monopoly in the open market that I'm aware of was the case of, gosh, was it Alcola aluminum? The company had a 97% market share, and rather then using it's market share to raise prices, it actually kept lowering them.

Why? The other 3%. (expecting the next question)

Same with Standard oil. Rockefeller introduced numerous production efficiencies which enabled the company to keep lowering the price of oil.

Competitors, unwilling or unable to introduce similar efficiencies, went crying to politicians for relief, claiming that if Standard Oil kept out-competing them, they would go out of business and SO would raise prices.

To this date, I am unaware of any market monopoly that has behaved according to this theory.

What does often happen is companies will secure a monopoly privilege from government to avoid having to compete for our dollars...garbage collection being a good example.

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:25:48 -0000

We all have faith in something. I have faith in my own rational.

Many people have such faith in the claims of others.

Facts are unreliable things. The facts of history that we take for granted are based on faith in the reporting and interpretations of others.

Noting that most of us progressed through government schools, we often come out of same with a certain interpretation of historical event with the tendency toward viewing "the government" as a reliable source of accurate information and an authoritative keeper of history.

Thus many of us go though life believing that the American civil war was "about slavery" and that the government is the 'good guy' always on our side.

The reality is far more complex, and when we realize that the people in government are much like people in business (except that many people in government were lawyers). You have your good and your bad. And then you have systemic problems.

I do think that people are corruptible and that there are different kinds of corruption. And I agree with Lord Acton the power corrupts.

If there is anything government is about, it's about power.

An article of faith is the stories of the robber barons, not to say there there weren't such, but that we are given the impression that these robber barons had some kind of market advantage, when deeper inspection reveals that they were enabled by access to political power...the huge land grants to some, (but not all) railroads, for instance.

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:27:17 -0000

I have faith in my own rational.

Supposed to be: I have faith in my own rational faculty.

Unlike many people, I know exactly what I have faith in.

Re: How they think vs. how I think

Sam Grove — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:59:40 -0000

How can anyone tell if government is making a profit at anything?

Re: How they think vs. how I think

Sam Grove — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:10:30 -0000

Again I say the problem is government, it is the enemy of the people of America.

The real problem is that many people don't get that.

Re: Slipping Down the Slope

Sam Grove — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:44:58 -0000

They've almost all been Keynesians all along.

Re: The Perils of 'Industrial Policy'

Sam Grove — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 06:56:27 -0000

As I claimed earlier, wealth and power will concentrate in a Libertarian system as well as any other.

I think not to the degree we observe now.

The rich and powerful don't need government to flex their muscle, but they will use it if it's available.

BS! Why do you think the rich and powerful all support government?

In fact, many of them are in government, and if not actually in government they make sure they have friends in government.

The government is a device to legitimize rule in the minds of a subject people. Without that psychological device, a people cannot be ruled.

An armed and knowledgeable populace will not tolerate to being ruled General Motors, etc. Would you?

Re: Cliff Witchalls on The Price of Everything

Sam Grove — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:31:47 -0000

Clearly, price-gouging is a very emotive issue, and one that economic models can’t rationalise away.

Rationalizing away passions can be difficult.

What he's saying is that passion often trumps reason. However, this is especially true if no reason is offered.

"Price gouging" is an emotive phrase and people like to bring it up when they find a price too high. They don't consider the alternative.

Re: More on manufactured homes

Sam Grove — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:28:32 -0000

What we are witnessing in the current financial mess and proposed bailouts is the approach to the endpoint of the goal of the past 70-80 years of progressive government, to render virtually nil, the citizens' input on the management of the corporate state.

Through constant control of the message, the blaming of markets for all economic ills, the people are being inexorably into total dependence on the corporate state.

This year it's the finance industry, next up is health care.

Re: Who's Qualified?

Sam Grove — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 08:39:11 -0000

Sarah didn't fare well in her politicians class on dissembling.